Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?



Hi all-
Part of this discussion is misdirected by an unfortunate choice of terms - carbon - and, I think, "elemental carbon" has been mentioned. Carbon is not, except in rare instances, a fuel. The fuels we use are hydrocarbons. These burn readily, giving of CO2 and H20, and, because the hydrocarbons often are mixed with other compounds, a variety of other gases and other wastes. Carbon does not exist as a green-huse gas.
So it is a little misleading to think in terms of a "carbon budget".
It would be closer to the real issue oc concern to think in terms of a "hydrocarbon budget".
Regards,
Jack

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, kyle forinash wrote:

Robert;

I think you have hit on exactly what worries me more about the climate
issue, regardless of the question of whether temperatures are changing
or not.

The amount of CO2 in the air is 30% higher than it has been in the past
800,000 years (150% for methane). This extra amount can be accounted for
(approximately) by adding up what has been released by carbon fuel
burning (all types) by humans since the industrial revolution (total
energy consumption has increased by about 100x). The current atmosphere
is not 'natural' if compared to the last 800,000 years and humans are to
blame.

Biological life has affected the atmospheric makeup before- plants are
responsible for changing the percentage of O2 in a significant way (to
the advantage of terrestrial life). So on a long time scale (and with no
concern for the species of life which exists) you are correct; the total
carbon content in the world doesn't change. However the percent found in
the atmosphere appears to be very different now than in the last 800,000
years.

kyle



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Carlson <rcarlson@physicstoolkit.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
"Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>
Message-ID: <744066.81763.qm@web604.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


My point is that coal and petroleum, being biofuels, were once part of Earth's biosystem. The carbon in them has been removed from the biosystem and is no longer available to the biosystem as a renewable energy source. So, perhaps they should be burned and returned to the biosystem.

Now, I do understand the concern that we might be burning fossil fuels too quickly and putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at once, at a rate greater than can be absorbed by plant life. But, since fossil fuels were once part of the Earth's biosystem, and life seemed to flourish then, I see no reason that they cannot again be a part of it.


--- On Wed, 3/11/09, Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu> wrote:

From: Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>
Subject: RE: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
To: rcarlson@physicstoolkit.com, "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 10:45 AM
So, can we agree that coal and oil are biofuels?
Could you please make your point, and skip further
rhetorical questions?

"If coal & oil ARE biofuels then .... If they are
NOT biofuels, then
instead ...."

This would help us all know what you are getting at and why
this
question is so important to you. The general consensus
here seems to be
that they ARE biofuels, but what does it matter for climate
change (or
energy policy for that matter)?


Tim F


------------------------------



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley