Crude
by Lloyd GordonJune 2nd, 2007 at 06:18:52
There is 90 minute television program, shown by ABC only in Australia, that could give you a remarkably complete education on peak oil and climate change. I’ve seen it. I thought I knew quite a bit about those things but I’ve been humbled. Paleontologists and biologists and oceanographers did it. But my geologist heroes were there – Ken Deffeyes and Colin Campbell.
By implication the program explains the annual oceanic dead zone occurring off the Oregon coast near Newport. Would you like to see it?
www.abc.net.au/science/crude/ will show it to you. You’ll be watching a show telecast on Friday, May 25. (Note: For unknown reason the provided linkage didn’t take. Type it in or control-c/control-v to paste it on the address line. That still works.)
Toward the end of the third half-hour segment, they give a carbon dioxide concentration scientists calculate could replicate the conditions that caused the extinction of most species millions of years ago. (They’ve already given you graphically explicit information on what it was like..) The specifications are given in parts per million concentrations. They say that their calculations show a carbon dioxide concentration five times greater than our pre-industrial atmospheric carbon levels will recreate those conditions, and they’ve shown the science that establishes that number.
For drill, I checked doubling times at various percentages. At 1 percent, doubling occurs in 70 years, compounded annually. (The compounding would actually occur more quickly than that – every time another truck hits the highway, every time a new power plant fires up.)
At 1 percent 70 years
2 percent 37 years
3 percent 24 years
4 percent 18 years
5 percent 15 years
Carbon emissions increased by one percent in 1990, three percent in 2006 (numbers reported in the Christian Science Monitor by Peter Spotts on 5/22/07, drawn from the published reports of the Global Carbon Project, an international agency under the U.N. – they’re on the ‘net.) Double pre-industrial levels a couple of times and human life becomes questionable. Yet another doubling leaves no chance for survival. We’re approaching the first doubling. With a doubling time of 24 years at the present rate and no relief in sight how much time do have left to turn it around? With a headlong rush toward producing liquid fuel from coal and kerogen are we likely to shorten the doubling time even more? The President’s recent discovery of climate change does not imply actually doing anything to actually slow the process, and China won’t be listening to him anyway.
Note: To reduce atmospheric carbon by half would require at least a century. That’s zero fossil fuel emissions and no further increase in emissions from renewable sources anywhere in the world. No fossil fuel anywhere, ever. No volcanic eruptions. Zero emissions from geological sources at any time. Any emissions at all would delay the time, enough would set a course toward suicide once again.
This whole piece leaves me feeling as though I should apologize for sounding like a fool, like a guy on the corner yelling about the end of the world. But friend, I didn’t make up those numbers. I’ve told you where they came from. My only contribution was gluing the two numbers together and looking at what it means. . There is a comment box below. I would like to hear from you.
I have a grand daughter that became ten years old last month. She’s my only grand child and all there will ever be. I had hoped for a better life for her.
My next submission will discuss mitigation measures necessary to avoid the adventure we are perhaps fatally embarked upon.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 am
For some reason Mr. Gordon the link to ABC did not connect, could you please forward to me, thank you.
Have A Green Day
Roy A. Mohr
Bio-Gem Services Inc.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 am
The 5% Solution appears to be the only hope for a sufficient response: that is, a commitment to REDUCE emissions by 5% per year, starting now. If we keep that up through 2050, we’ll be down to about 13% of current emissions and may be able to stabilize the climate at 450-550 ppm CO2 and avoid the worst.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
I’d like to see that presentation, but I should point out that even with the best credentials and intentions, it goes back to modeling the climate, which at this stage has questionable accuracy. But I don’t doubt the overall scenario. I pasted the following text from an article I did for The Royal Forum, about solutions to global warming. It contains comparisons to Mars, and the effects of Earth’s own magnetic field, which is weakening and preparing to change polarity. This will also have a dramatic effect on climate.
I’m looking forward to see some specific suggestions in your next blog. The following was written several years ago with a global perspective.
The exploration of Mars may have a profound impact on Earth’s ecology. Of concern is the sequence of events leading up to Mars present barren condition. For example, such knowledge could help scientists normalize the Earth’s greenhouse effect, the process by which certain atmospheric gases absorb and re-radiate energy as it leaves the Earth’s surface. The important greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. These gases are responsible for the moderate temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere. Human activities since the 1800′s have slowly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, accelerating the greenhouse effect. Manmade ozone-killing chlorofluorocarbons complicated the problem, and are now under international control. Many scientists believe that a runaway condition is possible, with the temperature eventually rising to the point that the oceans boil off into the atmosphere. This is the prevalent theory explaining the hot, inhospitable atmosphere of Venus, which is similar in size to Earth. More research needs to be done on the many factors that may be responsible for the conditions on Mars, if it is a natural consequence of the planets smaller mass, or as some believe, related to magnetic effects.
A theory gaining credibility is that Mars lack of an atmosphere is at least partially due to its weak magnetic field. Evidence suggests that in the past Mars magnetic field was much stronger than it is now. Experiments are being conducted on the theory that the iron core of a planet can produce an ongoing magnetic field through a positive feedback loop of internal current and magnetic effects. This can only take place when sufficient heat is present, such as in Earth’s molten core. The interior of Mars may have cooled enough to stop the magnetic engine, thereby eliminating the shielding effect that the field would have. Without the enveloping magnetic field, charged particles from the Sun and elsewhere in the galaxy would gradually strip away the atmosphere and any water on the surface. This is of great importance to Earth’s future because scientists have discovered the magnetic field of Earth is rapidly decreasing. Scientists theorize that is due to an impending switch of the polarity of the Earth’s magnetic field. Computer simulations have verified that the polarity of Earth’s magnetic field switches every 100,000 years or so. Before doing so, the magnetic field weakens due to magnetic anomalies that disrupt the normally uniform makeup of the field. The study of Mars will hold important keys to Earth’s future, and a greater understanding of runaway planetary conditions.
Technology is available now for scientists to normalize the greenhouse effect, but international cooperation will be necessary. Political and economic barriers would therefore stand in the way. At some point, the severity of the problem may dictate the threat of military intervention in some countries by the United Nations. The scale and time frame involved would also make the project challenging, for a global commitment over several generations will be necessary. For such a task to span the tenure of regimes in impoverished or hostile countries will require constant vigilance. The responsibility will fall on the United States and its allies in this struggle against the corruption of our atmosphere. It will be a war that overshadows anything in history, for defeat will mean the eventual end of life on planet Earth.
In its basic form, the plan for saving our atmosphere will consist of engineering a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could be accomplished through bioengineering. Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere. A minimum percentage of the Earth’s surface would need to be green space, with plant species performing the transformation of atmospheric gases through their biological processes. We must look upon the practices of clear-cutting and paving over of natural areas with a new light of understanding. The cutting of South American rain forests should be challenged because of the environmental consequences of losing areas of high biomass. These places transform oxygen and carbon dioxide in large volumes. All countries have a part to play in this and a stake in the final outcome. Seeding the oceans with plankton, which would contribute to the atmospheric composition by virtue of the large surface area involved, could make major improvements.
Restoring the atmosphere involves healing the Earth and restoring the balance that man has tampered with. It would seem that a reversal of trends that have been a part of the progression of technology are in order. These would include the reduction of emissions associated with transportation and industry. The same knowledge and technology that created these problems must now be called upon to add another level of sophistication. As always, the motivation of economics will become a compelling factor. In viewing the big picture, it will eventually be cheaper to design green and clean.
A hardware approach might also be possible by the widespread application of a neutralizing agent or filter to the Earth’s atmosphere to improve its composition in respect to the profile of greenhouse gases that would be beneficial. This method would be efficient if performed close to the large cities that produce the most smog and CO2. A variety of techniques might prove effective as long as it was a coordinated effort.