71 comments on Mission Earth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
71 comments on Mission Earth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- 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
I'm glad to hear about this conference given how much disconnect there seems to be between the Peak Oil and climate change communities.
Ugo, can you tell me to what extent these world models try to forecast positive feedback climate effects? That's one of the main reasons the IPCC FAR is widely considered too conservative - it does not try to model feedbacks.
But many scientists such as Joe Romm believe the 600ppm figure mentioned above would be enough to cause a massive permafrost thaw which would send enough carbon into the atmosphere to send us soaring toward 1000ppm.
So if that's true, and the modelled 600 doesn't include this feedback possiblity, then it still would be reckless to assume Peak Oil will automatically cap carbon concentrations at a non-catastrophic level.
(This is something I think about alot, since I'm very concerned about climate change, and I'd love to believe that Peak Oil means in effect I don't need to worry about it anymore, but so far that just looks like speculation without much model data behind it.)
I asked exactly the same question to climate modelers at the seminar. The answer I got is that some of the feedback effects are taken into account, but not all of them - not all the time at least. But it is a huge field and I can't speak for the real experts. My impression is - anyway - that standard climate models could neglect some important feedback - from methane hydrates for instance.
What about (?)sulfuric florides(?)? I've never heard of them until recently; they are supposedly used as incesticides (against termites) in enclosed structures.
I find it hard to believe, but the claim is that these chemicals have (?)4,000(?) times more greenhouse effect than CO2 does... and last about 40 years in the atmosphere.
The comment that some Climate Change models include some feedbacks is correct, but not any of those used in the IPCC report, according to one of the principal authors, Dr. David Karoly, formerly of the University of Oklahoma but now back in his home country of Australia, because the feedbacks could not be replicated in modelling. Some of the models were subsequently tweaked to include anticipated feedbacks, but not included in the IPCC report, and have not been publicized, and are not considered to be as reliable as the models which replicated actual climate given the influencing variables which were considered. BTW, Dr. Karoly was not at all optimistic in the two presentations I saw.
Per kg, yes. But those gases are millions of times less abundant than CO2, so their net effect is minor.