[Terrapreta] expansion

[Kevin Chisholm]

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>  
> I think you read perhaps more into what I said than what I intended.  
> That might be my fault.  *If 1000 ppm occurs*, I think the 
> ramifications will be as I proposed.  Make sure to note the word IF, 
> please.  I said IF!   I think 2000 ppm by 2100 is high.  My guess 
> would be 700-800 ppm by 2100.  This by just extrapolating current 
> trends (+ ~4ppm/yr) and a presumption that this world will do nothing 
> to stop this trend.

If you assume an increase in energy demand of 1% per year, CO2 additions 
would be about 2.498 times as much per year by 2100... say 10 ppm per 
year. There is enormous pent up demand in China, India, Brazil, and the 
under developed countries. The per capita consumption will increase, and 
in addition, the capitas will increase. With both these factors 
compounded, one could perhaps support a 3% compounded growth in energy 
demand and increase in atmospheric CO2. Assuming that nothing else 
changes, and the energy is there, then the CO2 in 2100 would be 380 x 
(1.03)^92 = 5,765 ppm
>  
> Again, you find my response hysterical.  So says you? ....

It is like watching clouds... you can see anything you want if you wait 
long enough, and if you make assumptions that will give you the answers 
you want.

If we start with wrong data, a wrong model, and make non-credible 
assumptions, then we will get wrong answers that are not credible. 
Simple, eh?
>  
> I have a question for you .... Which US currency dollars are worth 
> more, 2008 dollars or 2108 dollars?

And I have a question for you: Do you think there will be a US Dollar in 
2108? There is talk about folding it into the Amero.

Kevin
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Kurt Treutlein <mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au>
>     *To:* Undisclosed-recipients: <mailto:Undisclosed-recipients:>
>     *Cc:* Terra Preta <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2008 9:37 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] expansion
>
>     Sean K. Barry wrote:
>     >
>     >  Greg and April wrote:
>     > > And this is based on what hard data?
>     > >
>     and I wrote:
>     >
>     >  Seems to me there was none. Just a quick opinion.
>     >
>     >  Neither was the hysterical response here.
>     >
>     >
>     >  Kurt
>
>     So, what data did the Nobel Laureate present as a basis of his
>     opinion?
>
>     What hard data did you have, supporting your hysterical response,
>     aside
>     from an aside opinion uttered by the gentleman?
>
>     I have no argument with your calculations as to likely temperature
>     effects of 1000ppm CO2, just the fact that you accepted his figure
>     without any hard data to support it.
>
>     Let me make a prediction: In my opinion by 2100 the CO2
>     concentration in
>     the atmosphere will have reached 2000 ppm.
>
>     What do you say to that?
>
>     Kurt
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to discover unbeatable cruise deals. 
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3nL6X8EuHCC2ekHJC4uOZqcCJZgNXc1DfKul8Vu9Jst2jqBp/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org