4 ms·

I suspect that he is referring to the dreaded AGW (I have no idea whether burning oil contributes more to carbon levels than deforestation or burning coal. In

by jibiki 17y ago

I suspect that he is referring to the dreaded AGW (I have no idea whether burning oil contributes more to carbon levels than deforestation or burning coal. In the long run, I think coal reserves contain similar carbon mass to oil reserves, but it always seems like the data is changing.)

TriinT 17y ago
But isn't oil carbon neutral? ;-) It's widely accepted that oil has a biological origin (some people dispute that). The carbon absorbed by plants millions of years ago had to come from somewhere, and that is the CO2 in the atmosphere. If oil is derived from those plants, then burning oil simply releases the CO2 that was sequestered underground for millions of years. If there was life before, I think there will be life despite AGW. The number of humans may drop dramatically, of course.
- enomar 17y ago
  The world's coal and oil supplies represent millions of years of carbon absorption. If we burn through it in a thousand years, we've likely put more carbon into the atmosphere than has ever been there before (at one time).
  - jibiki 17y ago
    Doing the calculations is a major pain, but I really don't think that's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Earliest_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Earliest_atmos... Wikipedia says that the earth's earliest atmosphere was a stunning 10% C02. Total coal reserves are 930 billion (non-metric?) tons: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html But the earth's atmosphere is 5 quadrillion metric tons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and... So getting to 10% is impossible. Adding in oil, bitumen, and natural gas probably won't get you past 1% (which is still pretty bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity .)
- joeyo 17y ago
  > But isn't oil carbon neutral? ;-) Heh. The area under the curve may add up to 1, but it's coming out a lot faster than it went in! I used to be somewhat worried that when oil starts to run out it will leave the developing countries "in the lurch" so to speak. That is, they will not be able to develop beyond a certain point because energy will simply become too expensive. Then I realized that there is an enormous amount of coal still available. So there is a chance that the future may yet be steampunk. For a little while, at least.

by jibiki 17y ago

TriinT 17y ago

But isn't oil carbon neutral? ;-) It's widely accepted that oil has a biological origin (some people dispute that). The carbon absorbed by plants millions of years ago had to come from somewhere, and that is the CO2 in the atmosphere. If oil is derived from those plants, then burning oil simply releases the CO2 that was sequestered underground for millions of years. If there was life before, I think there will be life despite AGW. The number of humans may drop dramatically, of course.

enomar 17y ago
The world's coal and oil supplies represent millions of years of carbon absorption. If we burn through it in a thousand years, we've likely put more carbon into the atmosphere than has ever been there before (at one time).
- jibiki 17y ago
  Doing the calculations is a major pain, but I really don't think that's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Earliest_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Earliest_atmos... Wikipedia says that the earth's earliest atmosphere was a stunning 10% C02. Total coal reserves are 930 billion (non-metric?) tons: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html But the earth's atmosphere is 5 quadrillion metric tons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and... So getting to 10% is impossible. Adding in oil, bitumen, and natural gas probably won't get you past 1% (which is still pretty bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity .)
joeyo 17y ago
> But isn't oil carbon neutral? ;-) Heh. The area under the curve may add up to 1, but it's coming out a lot faster than it went in! I used to be somewhat worried that when oil starts to run out it will leave the developing countries "in the lurch" so to speak. That is, they will not be able to develop beyond a certain point because energy will simply become too expensive. Then I realized that there is an enormous amount of coal still available. So there is a chance that the future may yet be steampunk. For a little while, at least.