[Terrapreta] expansion

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kevin,

The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 387 ppm, not 380 ppm.  It has gone up 4 ppm in the past year (that would be 2007 for us mere mortals).  This is not the same thing as saying CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are approximately ~380 ppm.   No one argued with the point I was making that an increase 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be commensurate be a 9.14 degree C increase in annual global temperature average.  4 ppm in a year is a precipitous rise.  It looks like it will continue to rise at at least that level of increase per year for some time.

Which is going up faster? ... the price of gasoline? ... or the the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Most think (like you do) that only the rise in the price of gasoline matters.  I think the rise in CO2 concentrations matters.  So we think differently, again, on an issue.  Now what?  So what?  You make spurious exaggerated arguments without reference to any vetted sources.  

I am not hysterical.  I do not need to defend myself against YOUR  exaggerations.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 
  Cc: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Terra Preta'<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] expansion


  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>
  > [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
  >
  >
  >
  >   



____________________________________________________________
Click here to choose from a huge selection of shipping supplies!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3n4Vi0T8VPMajQT8x5EYsH38PF4hqeNetckC6DgFSTUdjN11/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080603/f9d4a62e/attachment.html