Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Eight-fold increase in fossil fuel use

Expand Messages
  • Robert et Micheline Bériault
    I have a question to ask the group. Since 1950 our worldwide consumption of fossil fuels has increased 800%, consequently producing a 50% increase in
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a question to ask the group.

      Since 1950 our worldwide consumption of fossil fuels has increased 800%, consequently producing a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2. The Kyoto accord would have us reduce our GHG production, which parallels our fossil fuel use, by about 30%.

      My question to the technical minds amongst this group is how would such a small reduction in fossil fuel use have anything but an insignificant effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere? In order to "reduce" the amount of greenhouse gasses, would it not be necessary to return to pre-industrial levels of fossil fuel use?

      Robert Bériault

      www.peakoilandhumanity.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Mueller
      Dear Robert, Congratulations on doing your arithmetic so well! R. F. Mueller ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Robert,
        Congratulations on doing your arithmetic so
        well!
        R. F. Mueller

        --- Robert et Micheline Bériault
        <michrob@...> wrote:

        > I have a question to ask the group.
        >
        > Since 1950 our worldwide consumption of fossil fuels
        > has increased 800%, consequently producing a 50%
        > increase in atmospheric CO2. The Kyoto accord would
        > have us reduce our GHG production, which parallels
        > our fossil fuel use, by about 30%.
        >
        > My question to the technical minds amongst this
        > group is how would such a small reduction in fossil
        > fuel use have anything but an insignificant effect
        > on the CO2 in the atmosphere? In order to "reduce"
        > the amount of greenhouse gasses, would it not be
        > necessary to return to pre-industrial levels of
        > fossil fuel use?
        >
        > Robert Bériault
        >
        > www.peakoilandhumanity.com
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > removed]
        >
        >
        >




        __________________________________________________________________________________________
        Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
        (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta)
      • joedoves
        My question to the technical minds amongst this group is how would such a small reduction in fossil fuel use have anything but an insignificant effect on the
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          My question to the technical minds amongst this group is how would
          such a small reduction in fossil fuel use have anything but an
          insignificant effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere? In order
          to "reduce" the amount of greenhouse gasses, would it not be
          necessary to return to pre-industrial levels of fossil fuel use?-rb

          Kyoto is old news.

          Now they are talking about a 60% reduction in CO2 production by
          2050. Here's the news from October 30,2006.

          Hmm..the estimate went up, therefore recent data must be even worse!
          Now who'da guessed that things would even get worse?

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6056620.stm

          Also, here's another presentation from Hansen. Apparently, he's no
          longer 'self-censoring'.

          http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf
        • Frith, Denis
          Robert In my understanding of the situation, the Kyoto Protocol was only a first step. There are now calls to reduce emissions by a large amount but that will,
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Robert
            In my understanding of the situation, the Kyoto Protocol was only a first step. There are now calls to reduce emissions by a large amount but that will, at best slow down the increase in CO2 level. It is currently 380 ppmv and increasing about 2 ppmv each year. At that rate it will be 400 ppmv in 2016. If there are major reductions globally in the next few years, the level may only go to 395 ppmv or there abouts. The whole point is that the level is already high enough to have instigated appreciable climate change and there is now very little that can be done about that, despite all the rhetoric.

            Denis Frith
            Melbourne
            Australia


            Robert et Micheline Bériault <michrob@...> wrote:
            I have a question to ask the group.

            Since 1950 our worldwide consumption of fossil fuels has increased 800%, consequently producing a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2. The Kyoto accord would have us reduce our GHG production, which parallels our fossil fuel use, by about 30%.

            My question to the technical minds amongst this group is how would such a small reduction in fossil fuel use have anything but an insignificant effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere? In order to "reduce" the amount of greenhouse gasses, would it not be necessary to return to pre-industrial levels of fossil fuel use?

            Robert Bériault

            www.peakoilandhumanity.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tim Jones
            ... Your last point is too true considering the lag time between the introduction of the forcing and the results. As for the rate, considering all the
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              At 8:28 AM +1100 11/2/06, Frith, Denis wrote:
              >Robert
              > In my understanding of the situation, the Kyoto Protocol
              >was only a first step. There are now calls to reduce emissions by a
              >large amount but that will, at best slow down the increase in CO2
              >level. It is currently 380 ppmv and increasing about 2 ppmv each
              >year. At that rate it will be 400 ppmv in 2016. If there are major
              >reductions globally in the next few years, the level may only go to
              >395 ppmv or there abouts. The whole point is that the level is
              >already high enough to have instigated appreciable climate change
              >and there is now very little that can be done about that, despite
              >all the rhetoric.
              >
              > Denis Frith
              > Melbourne
              > Australia

              Your last point is too true considering the lag time between the
              introduction of the forcing and the results. As for the rate,
              considering all the proposed new coal fired power plants and all the
              oil available from Iraq and the Caspian Basin as well
              as India and China expanding industrialization I suspect it will go
              up before it goes down.

              I think the idea in reducing emissions has to do with attenuating
              future dangerous climate change. The continued aggravation of
              positive climate feedbacks may result in some real disasters.

              In my opinion, if the world doesn't strive to alter base load
              electrical generation with every means it has at hand, including
              energy conservation forced through pricing structures, as well as
              abandon carbon based transportation fuels, at some point we'll be
              regretting the stalling around.

              Tim
              AustinTex
              --
              <http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>
            • Frith, Denis
              Tim I agree with your views except that I suspect that there are quite a few knowledgeable people, not in politics or business, who already regret the stalling
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Tim
                I agree with your views except that I suspect that there are quite a few knowledgeable people, not in politics or business, who already regret the stalling around.

                Denis Frith


                Tim Jones <deforest@...> wrote:
                At 8:28 AM +1100 11/2/06, Frith, Denis wrote:
                >Robert
                > In my understanding of the situation, the Kyoto Protocol
                >was only a first step. There are now calls to reduce emissions by a
                >large amount but that will, at best slow down the increase in CO2
                >level. It is currently 380 ppmv and increasing about 2 ppmv each
                >year. At that rate it will be 400 ppmv in 2016. If there are major
                >reductions globally in the next few years, the level may only go to
                >395 ppmv or there abouts. The whole point is that the level is
                >already high enough to have instigated appreciable climate change
                >and there is now very little that can be done about that, despite
                >all the rhetoric.
                >
                > Denis Frith
                > Melbourne
                > Australia

                Your last point is too true considering the lag time between the
                introduction of the forcing and the results. As for the rate,
                considering all the proposed new coal fired power plants and all the
                oil available from Iraq and the Caspian Basin as well
                as India and China expanding industrialization I suspect it will go
                up before it goes down.

                I think the idea in reducing emissions has to do with attenuating
                future dangerous climate change. The continued aggravation of
                positive climate feedbacks may result in some real disasters.

                In my opinion, if the world doesn't strive to alter base load
                electrical generation with every means it has at hand, including
                energy conservation forced through pricing structures, as well as
                abandon carbon based transportation fuels, at some point we'll be
                regretting the stalling around.

                Tim
                AustinTex
                --
                <http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>





                Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.