Fossil fuels and CO2?

Question

As I understand it, coal, oil, etc. were formed from the remains of organic life millionsof years ago. During that time carbon was sequestered in these deposits and thus must have reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Putting this back into circulation by burning fossil fuels merely restores matters to what they were previously. The Earth did not fry then, so why should it now? The only relevant factor I can think of is the sun. Its output is supposed to have increased 30% over geological time.

Answer 1

My answer is your annalists spot on. 100 years a go people said oil wouldn't last 50 years today a 100 year later they say it won't last 100 years we will one day run out but no one can say when. The #1 reason to conserve, to buy cars that get better fuel economy is economic. You get to keep more of your money in you pocket.

Danni

Answer 2

We're putting them back too rapidly. The Earth can't cope. Picture:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

The Sun's output used to be very important in controlling climate. About 40 years ago, our production of greenhouse gases became more important. They're now 80-90% of the problem. Picture:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Man has taken control of climate away from nature. We need to give it back.

Answer 3

Firstly most of the oil was created in a very short space of time. Much of the oil we use today was formed in a short space of time and it’s believed that it’s from a mass plankton kill in the oceans. The plankton settled out in a layer on the bottom of the ocean over a few thousand years and this was the formation of what today is oil (one theory). Observations of rock show a dark line over this period of time in various locations all over the world. The rest of this carbon settled out in the oceans over millions of years so to suggest that releasing millions of years worth of carbon released over a period of a couple of hundred years would not matter in ludicrous.

Your cosmic rays (sun intensity) theory is flawed given the fact that the sun has actually changed both positively and negatively over time not due to intensity but due to the distance from the earth to the sun which changes slowly (both closer and further). These changes are slow and have been linked to the formation of ice ages and melts previously. But recent data shows that the relative sun intensity has reduced over the last 25 years whilst the temperature has rapidly increased. Yes this sun intensity temperature phenomenon has been observed to be positively correlated in the past but the recent data shows a change. The theory of cosmic rays was blown apart after the swindle doco was found to be flawed.

Ice ages and melts usually occur over thousands of years not hundreds and temperature increases usually lead carbon increases but not this time. Just read all the comments on the website and none back up the alternative theories suggested by you and the swindle doco

Answer 4

You're right!! The earth won't fry. The problem of global warming is not a problem for the earth. It's neither a problem for life on earth. It's a problem for humans. It's the houses of humans that are gonna get under water. It's us humans that have cope with stronger hurricanes, drought etc. That's why fossils fuels are hazardous. It's because of the consequences this has for humans!

Answer 5

You do have some good points. But, at that time, the earth was indeed warmer. Much of the ice at the poles had melted. Oceans and seas covered a much larger percent of the world than today.

Answer 6

Agreed, however, Actually we can only reach 10%-20% of the total fossil fuel, its that our scanner technology and drilling technology puts us at a disadvantage.

Answer 7

THe amount of damage is greatly exagerated. It would do damage though. Our society is built around the current environment we live in. If we change the environment by adding large amount of CO2, It would cause hardships. Some area would turn into deserts, while others would be flooded.

Answer 8

Once again the veil of global warming causes someone to miss the point. We should cut back on fossil fuels because we are running out of them not because some crackpot says they're causing global warming.