Global Warming - Can someone find a flaw in the following argument?

Question

In this question, I am assuming that the "greenhouse effect" does actually exist and is caused by carbon dioxide.

The EU recently announced that it would like to cut carbon emissions by 50%. Countries/people are criticising each other for using cars with high fuel consumption, using lots of fossil fuels, etc.

However, fossil fuel supplies are low. There is only enough fossil fuel left to last us about 100 years (forgive me if I'm wrong; the number here doesn't affect the argument.)

Therefore, whether we do all actually manage to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide significantly or not, the same amount of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere (and this will be proportional to the amount of fossil fuel remaining at the moment), the only thing affected by cutting emissions will be the amount of time taken for this to happen.

Therefore cutting our carbon emissions will make no difference and we're all screwed no matter what.

Now please tell me where I am wrong.

Answer 1

You're wrong because you're not considering the effects of natural carbon sinks.

Currently we emit about 27 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year due to the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

But CO2 is rising in the atmosphere at a rate of roughly 2 ppmv every year -- which is equivalent to about 16 gigatons of CO2.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

So what happened to the other 11 gigatons? It is absorbed by natural carbon sinks in the environment, principally the ocean. If we could reduce our total CO2 emissions to somewhere in the range of 11 gigatons per year, it's likely that most of our CO2 production could be absorbed this way -- meaning the heat would be off.

One of the big problems we have now is that the oceans are becoming saturated with CO2 to the point where they won't be able to hold much more. This is made worse because the oceans are warming, and warm water holds less CO2. So every year the oceans absorb a little less, and it won't be long until the oceans reach the saturation point. When that happens, as the earth continues to warm the oceans will turn from a carbon sink into a carbon source, as they release some of that CO2 that they've absorbed in the 20th century.

This switchover is currently predicted to occur sometime around 2050. If we don't have a handle on our CO2 production by that time, we're all screwed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11089968&dopt=Citation

Answer 2

Actually, you make a few more assumptions:

1. The greenhouse effect is producing elevated warming (and not the other way around)

2. That increased anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver in this "enhanced" greenhouse effect.

If so, then yes and yes, it's only a matter of time.

If not, then everything is still on the table. Alarmists argue that "nature" is unable to cope with the increase in "unnatural" carbon; however, there is not much we can do to change that ability. Increasing biota (eg, planting trees) is STILL only a temporary storage. The only way to restore balance or reach equilibrium would be to "permanently" store carbon - something like fossil fuels which is effectively permanent relative to our species.

What has been dismissed by alarmists is the interplay between organic and inorganic carbon "sinks" and temperature. Hands down, the largest is the oceanic sink. It holds four times the total carbon as the rest of the world combined, including every bit of unburned fossil fuel - even those we can't currently get to. So where is the change in oceanic flux? If the ocean is getting warmer than there has to be a change in the flux. What is it - what is the calculated amount of CO2 increase from the oceans during the last 30 years? Why, if there has been an increase, do we not have a neat little wiki graph showing the rate of increase of CO2 emissions from the oceans? If it has stayed the same or decreased, what is the explanation for the paradox with the expected increase in oceanic emissions under warming conditions?

Similarly, what is the change in flux for the decomposition of organic material, ALSO increased by a global warming trend? Where's our quantified representation over the last 30 years?

If it is not readily apparent by now, the gaps in our knowledge of the carbon cycle are downplayed for the sake of political expediency. Do we even need to mention water vapor?

If there has been a global temperature increase, then there would have to be a change in the absolute humidity, the overall water content of the atmosphere. And no, this is not affected by rain. As long as the temperature of the evaporative source is the same or heating, and the atmosphere is doing likewise, then there will be a quantifiable increase in water vapor concentration. In simpler terms, you can't have a net increase in temperature without a net increase in water vapor concentration.

Answer 3

You are wrong when you assume that releasing all of the carbon from all remaining fossil fuels will have the same effect as releasing it over a prolonged period. Plants on land, and principally the ocean, absorb CO2 to survive. However, they will only absorb a set amount per year. If more CO2 is released than the plant life can absorb, it raises the total Co2 in our atmosphere, creating a greater greenhouse effect. However, if we cut down on the amount of CO2 released so that it balances with the amount used by the plant life, then no excess CO2 will remain in our atmosphere. Therefore, prolonging the time it takes to use the remaining amounts of fossil fuels would be benificial.

Answer 4

That's an interesting thought. You're correct that assuming we eventually burn all of our fossil fuels, the same amount of CO2 will eventually be released into the atmosphere. However, there are reasons to delay and prolong the release.

For starters, we want to make our fossil fuel supply last as long as possible, just from a practical and economical standpoint.

Also the longer we take to burn the fossil fuels, the more gradual climate change will be, and the more time we'll have to adapt to it.

Perhaps sometime in the future we'll develop a technology to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. We're already developing and implementing technology to sequester CO2 emissions from coal burning power plants.

Or maybe we'll make changes such that we never fully use our complete reserves of fossil fuels. At the very least we can avoid using the shale and tar sands mentioned by Mt. Zion below. And we can certainly avoid using our entire coal supply.

So there are reasons to minimize our fossil fuel consumption, and we won't necessarily be screwed.

Answer 5

The supply of oil is indeed finite, might not even last 100 years. But we do have thousands of years of coal left, but it is a filthy thing and pollutes the air when burned to make electricity or heat.

If cutting carbon emissions makes any sense at all, the western world should be constructing nuclear power plants at record speed (hmm, most of the westen world, from Europe, inc Switzerland, and Japan, already have them. Only the United States has been a fool) Also, cars should all run on batteries and have electrical engines.

Answer 6

Your wrong because the atmosphere is in equilibrium which it has acquired over billions of years. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a fact, this is not disputed. Greenhouse gases are not disputed with H2O and CO2 being the largest contributors to the greenhouse effect. The only thing disputed is if our minor co2 output is really having a major effect.

The amount of time is critical, because of the carbon cycle. If very little co2 is released by human activity nature can adjust by increasing the amount of plants slowly. Nature cannot adjust to massive amounts of co2 being released. It cannot reach equilibrium fast enough.

95% of annual CO2 emissions come from nature, and nature basically takes this amount of CO2 back. What is left over is the amount we produce, and every year this amount, which nature does not take back, builds up. This traps more heat, creating more water through melting ice, which leads to more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. When the oceans heat they begin releasing CO2 as well because the solubility of co2 in water decreases with increasing temperature. Sort of a domino effect.

Remember that everything in nature exists in equilibrium, the chemicals in your body exist at an equilibrium determined by enzymatic pathways, when the equilibrium is upset, you either get sick then return to equilibrium, or you get sick and die.

Answer 7

You are correct. Of course you are assuming that we will eventually burn all the coal and oil we can find. That is exactly the thing that the environmentalists are trying to prevent. No matter how much we conserve, they will demand more cuts. 500MPG cars, if we had them, would be vilified as a plot by greedy oil companies to keep the 1,000 MPG car off the market. The ultimate goal of the environmentalists is to make the coal and oil industry go the same way as the slave trade. And before the coal and oil runs out.

I say, global warming will not get bad enough to cause real problems before the coal and oil runs out. Then the world will be slightly warmer, sea level a little higher, but no catastrophic problems. The lack of coal and oil will be the catastrophic problem. So for that reason, I support all alternative energy projects. Because some day, alternative energy will be the only energy left in the world. I would rather run out of coal and oil AFTER we figure out how to live well without it rather than before.

Answer 8

As time goes on our projected oil reserves go up and the time where we run out of the stuff gets pushed further and further into the future. We have shale deposits, tar sands deposits and undersea oil we haven't found yet.

All of this oil is outweighed by the most abundant fossil fuel of all, coal.

We will be burning more and more of this (fossil fuel) for the next 200 years at least.

All of the additional CO2 this will produce will not really make a dent in the total amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and won't affect the climate. Efforts shoud be made to develop these fuels in environmentally sound ways and burn them cleanly and efficiently. Running around screaming about global warming will have no beneficial effects at all.

Answer 9

Then, of course, there are methane hydrates all over the ocean floor. It won't take long for technologists to figure out how to mine and use this vastly greater source of fuel and the CO2 and water vapour emissions from burning methane (not to mention the methane itself) will continue to be released into the atmosphere. The only real stopper on this whole charade will be the extinction of our (petrochemical) civilisation. Or the extinction of the human species altogether.

Answer 10

You're looking at the total emissions over time, and ignoring kinetics, the rate at which things happen.

The Earth can deal with burning of fossil fuels if the rate is low enough. It did so until the beginning of this century, Things didn't start to get noticeable until about 40 years ago and not bad until pretty recently.