Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
- Aleklett's Energy Mix Global Energy Systems, Peak Oil, etc
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
Your analysis makes the assumption that climate response will be linear and proportional to the quantity of CO2.
Hansen has said that this linear response cannot be assumed and that a non-linear, abrupt sequence of climate change is much more likely.
The fairly recent discovery of accelerating glacial ablation is evidence for a non-linear response.
If we follow your logic we are placing a bet that climate response to CO2 is linear and we therefore can go ahead and burn all the CC and NG available to us.
This is not science; it is betting. The stakes are very high. You may wish to ask your children if they wish to assume the risks to which you appear willing to subject them.
I agree that the uncertainties arund climate change are an excellent justification for reducing emissions sooner rather than later. I did just want to point out that the growth rate in emissions is part of reason climate change is accelerating. Emissions from fossil fuels grew from 6.5 GtC/y in 1999 to 7.2 GtC in 2005.
Key point. In fact the two are related by various feedback mechanisms, some negative, some positive, appears to be net positive (oceans, permafrost ...). At least historically T leads CO2 out of recent ice ages, though CO2 probably leads T out of massive glaciations.
Also, that 90 Gt C in NG is only true for economically recoverable sources. If we decide to tap methane hydrates (or otherwise release them, by say, warming at least the shallow water reserves) the whole game changes.