[Terrapreta] expansion

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Duane

You missed the point in this ridiculous exchange. Your big mistake was 
in being reasonable and sensible. :-)

Someone posted a site for an interview with a "noted Nobel Laureate" or 
something like that. The poor fellow was involved in a serious 
conference, and a Reporter buttonholed him as follows

"During a break, I asked Dr. Rowland two quick questions. The first: 
Given the nature of the climate and energy challenges, what is his best 
guess for the peak concentration of carbon dioxide?

His answer? “1,000 parts per million,” he said.

My second question was, what will that look like?

“I have no idea,” Dr. Rowland said. He was not smiling."

Now, if someone that was interested in a shocking answer nailed me when 
I was trying to take a break and asked me

"How much rain are we going to get?

I would tell them "3 meters"

When he asked "When are we going to get it?"

I'd say "I don't know." And I wouldn't smile either. I would be annoyed 
at the interruption. I would hope he would go away.

Someone else then takes the 1000 PPM estimate, and runs with it to a 
degree where "hysterical" was the word that came to the minds of others.

Kurt then posed a challenge ...:

"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's point was that anyone can have an opinion about anything and it 
is meaningless unless the circumstances supporting the opinion are 
known. My posting where I mentioned 5,765 ppm showed one way where 
Kurt's "estimate" could be exceeded 2.5 times. However, to make generate 
the number I took the position of "

"Assuming that nothing else 
changes, and the energy is there,..."

and you very correctly questioned my assumption about adequate energy 
being there. Why didn't the original poster question the 1,000 ppm "off 
the cuff and out of context" estimate by an uncooperative harried speaker?

The present CO2 Level is about 380 ppm. We are told by Experts "the sky 
will fall" if it gets to 500 PPM yet when an irresponsible journalist 
catches a tired man at a coffee break and writes an article that is 90% 
fill and only about 10% supporting the headline, we are supposed to 
accept it? That to me is irresponsible journalism at its finest.

If the "Experts" are worried about 500 ppm as being a tipping point, I'd 
be very surprised if the CO2 ever got to 580 ppm. 750 ppm would be a big 
stretch, 2,000 is beyond practical imagination, 5,760 is downright silly.

Why is this discussion continuing? There is no rational basis for 
entertaining a level or 1,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather than 
posting alarmist stuff, wouldn't it be nice to post realistic stuff that 
related to Terra Preta and the circumstances where carbon additions to 
the soil would be beneficial to plant growth?

Thanks for raising the question that brings this thread back to reality.

Kevin




Duane Pendergast wrote:
> Kevin! Sean! I think that estimate of 5765 PPM atmospheric CO2 came from
> you.  I suspect that if you compare this with typical estimates of fossil
> fuel availability on carbon cycle charts you will find the fuel is long gone
> well before the atmosphere reaches that level. Of course those estimates of
> fossil fuel supplies are just that - estimates too!
>
> Still, total supplies of fossil fuel should be taken into consideration when
> estimating what levels of atmospheric CO2 might be reached. 
>
> Duane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
> Sent: June 3, 2008 2:17 PM
> To: Sean K. Barry
> Cc: Terra Preta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] expansion
>
> 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
>
>
>
>