Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 02:00 PM Nov 2012

Carbon, carbon everywhere.

In addition to our consumption of fossil fuels, we also release a certain amount of carbon that is not related to fossil fuels, but is population-coupled. It comes from things like soil disturbances from housing, farming, urbanization etc. This seems to be fairly constant at about 1 tonne of carbon per person per year.

By my count, at the end of the century we will probably have emitted:

900 GtC from fossil fuels;
700 GtC from population-related factors;
75 GtC from hydrates (an average of just under 1 GtC/year);
75 GtC from melting permafrost.

That gives a total of 1750 GtC. About half will stay in the atmosphere, to raise CO2 concentrations by 1 ppm for every 2.12 GtC.

If we hit that scenario, we'll have a CO2 level just over 800 ppm by 2100. Urk.

That would give us a temperature rise of around +5.7C by 2100. That assumes the visible effect of forcing by the end of the century is +2C per doubling, similar to we've seen so far. There would be a further rise of 2.8C still in the pipeline, leading to a temperature rise of +8.5C by 2200 or so.

I don't see any way we won't burn 900 GtC of fossil fuels in the next 88 years. We would do that even if we didn't increase our consumption much beyond today's rate of 9.5 GtC/year. And capping FF consumption eliminates any possibility of future economic growth - an idea that's utterly unacceptable to politicians and citizens alike.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

drm604

(16,230 posts)
3. Sometimes it strikes me that the only real solution is to find some way
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:03 PM
Nov 2012

to remove and SAFELY sequester carbon from the atmosphere on an industrial scale. That would require a large amount of energy, which would have to come from renewable carbon neutral sources.

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
4. So its not a real solution, since the carbon free energy sources have to be created first
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:30 PM
Nov 2012

With oil.

There's no success like failure, and that failure's no success at all

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
6. Yes, that's pretty much the size of it.
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:18 PM
Nov 2012

And the size is enormous. We'd need to take out 200 gigatonnes of carbon to get back down to the level of 1800 or so.

"Laugh about it, shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it you lose."

pscot

(21,023 posts)
7. The Northwest coal ports, if developed as planned
Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:26 PM
Nov 2012

will send 130Gt of Powder River Basin coal to China, probably in the next 25 to 30 years. Urrk indeed.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Carbon, carbon everywhere...