Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

Earth Releasing More CO2 Than Originally Thought 318

Posted by CowboyNeal from the heavy-breathing dept.
grqb writes "A new study out of the UK suggests that terrestrial sinks across the planet are mopping up much less carbon than predicted, on balance, and so the planet may warm at an even faster rate than expected. The study focused on the carbon content in soil at 6000 sites in the UK between 1978 and 2003 and found that the soil released the equivalent of 8% of the UK's total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions are more than the entire reduction in emissions the UK has achieved between 1990 and 2002 as part of its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. This would effectively cancel out the UK's recent successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and would have wider global implications as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth Releasing More CO2 Than Originally Thought More

Earth Releasing More CO2 Than Originally Thought

Comments Filter:

  • "Earth" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 42Penguins ( 861511 )
    Anyone else puzzled at first at how "Earth" is releasing CO2 into space?

    • Re:"Earth" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Freexe ( 717562 ) <serrkr@tznvy.pbz> on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:40PM (#13526422) Homepage
      Earth as in soil, not our planet.

    • Re:"Earth" (Score:5, Informative)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:55PM (#13526484)
      No. It's called The Carbon Cycle. "Soil" (as opposed to "dirt") is composed of decaying plant matter, decaying because it is being metabolised my microoganisms, a process that releases the CO2 the plant bound in itself over its life.

      If the total biomass remains roughly constant, a plant grows for a plant that dies, the system remains roughly in balance, as the new plants absorb the CO2 released by the dead plants.

      If, however, the bio mass is declining. . .

      KFG

      • Re:"Earth" (Score:2, Informative)

        by FooGoo ( 98336 )
        This doesn't only apply if the bio mass is declining. It also applies if the bio mass changes. Such as the introduction of plants with shorted lifecycles such as crops in the industrialized world.

  • That's it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:38PM (#13526415)
    I'm buying land in warm, sunny Alaska.

    Well... it'll be sunny and warm by the time I retire.

  • "Cancel Out"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sH4RD ( 749216 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:40PM (#13526426) Homepage
    This would effectively cancel out the UK's recent successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and would have wider global implications as well.

    In this case we have the earth releasing CO2 into the air, something we really don't have the means to stop. Although the net effect might mean the same emissions as before, at least the man made emissions are being reduced, that's what un-natural. If the earth is going to release some CO2, that's something that would have happened anyway. So that's not exactly "cancelling out" the effect.
    • In this case we have the earth releasing CO2 into the air, something we really don't have the means to stop.

      Not true! This man [christojeanneclaude.net] has the solution.
    • What they're worried about is that since the earth is warming up, it can retain less CO2 - in effect magnifying the greenhouse effect.
      • There are two ways of looking at this:

        1) We might as well pollute because the earth does it naturally, undoing whatever we do.

        2) We need reduce emissions more than we thought, because our emissions cause warming which increases the Earth's emissions, compounding our effect.

        I think the point of your parent post (curiously moderated 'troll') was to argue for interpretation #2.

    • Re:"Cancel Out"? (Score:2, Informative)

      by aztennenbaum ( 796389 )
      From TFA:
      'Up to one-tenth of the missing carbon may have leached into ground water, but Kirk says the majority is likely to have been lost as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is likely to be due to plant matter and organic material decomposing at a faster rate as temperatures rise.

      More worryingly, soil sinks are predicted to release their carbon at an even faster rate as temperatures increase, giving rise to a feedback loop.'

      So, the earth is releasing CO2 on its own, but it is because of a feedback

  • Cant WE mop up some of the CO2? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:41PM (#13526428) Journal
    Please dont flame me, I am not a chemist or a physicist or any sort of scientist.
    But if the alternative is to have most of the world's coastal cities suffer the same fate as New Orleans, why can't we put some thought and money into actively extracting CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere instead of merely cutting down emissions?
    I know that it would take a lot of energy and currently most energy sources add to the pollution problem, but still, is it even possible to somehow filter the crap from the atmosphere? What would it entail?

    • Re:Cant WE mop up some of the CO2? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rakshasa Taisab ( 244699 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:53PM (#13526476) Homepage
      1) Plant a tree.
      2) ...
      3) Profit.

      This ofcourse assumes you don't burn them later on.
    • is it even possible to somehow filter the crap from the atmosphere? What would it entail?

      I'd guess starting to plant more rain forrest insted of cutting it down would help some.
    • The question really is "should we start mopping up CO2?". We invented CO2 scubbers a long time ago; the moon modules had to have extensive scrubbers to keep the atmosphere breatheable for the astronauts.

      Putting this kind of scrubber in play on earth would be possible, but very, very expensive. And with expense, comes corporate questioning: is the gas really bad enough to warrant installing scrubbers to clean up the atmosphere? Or should we just spend the money on putting scrubbers on our houses, cars, an
    • Well, the earth is huge. Sure, humans have a huge impact on the earth, but the area we occupy is a small percentage. Volcanos put out large amounts of CO2. The believe that when earth was a complete snowball (entirely covered with ice) it was the volcanos putting CO2 into the atmosphere which warmed the earth again (despite the high reflectivity of the snow/ice).

      One of the approaches I've read about which would be high-impact for low effort would be to seed the shallow seas with powdered iron. From what

      • The believe that when earth was a complete snowball (entirely covered with ice) it was the volcanos putting CO2 into the atmosphere which warmed the earth again (despite the high reflectivity of the snow/ice).

        Um, when was that ? I've never heard about Earth haven frozen solid before...

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth [wikipedia.org]

          Basically a runaway iceage starts because the albedo of ice is much higher than that of dry land. Sunlight reaching the earth simply reflects into space, not warming the earth, and the earth cools down in a positive feedback loop. It has been shown that the icecaps have extended all the way to the equator, and been theorized that the ice even covered the oceans (similar to how the north pole is covered in floating ice.)

          However, oceans are a very good sink
      • If you did a bit of research you'd know that volcanos put out only a tiny fraction of the CO2 as human activity puts out. I hate it when people keep trying to say that humans occupy such a small area and try and say we have little impact because that just is not true. We may occupy a small area, but our impact is spread over large areas. Look at the United States, for example. Vast tracts of land are used for farming. Vast amounts of coal are extracted from the ground and burned. And wherever oil is t
      • "Sure, humans have a huge impact on the earth, but the area we occupy is a small percentage."

        What about the percentage of the area over which we cut down the trees ?

        What about the rapidly-declining numbers of elephants, lions, tigers and all the rest ?

        What about the declining areas of rain-forest ? How much rain-forest is there left in asia now ?

        Take your hand from in front of your eyes. Humans have had, and continue to have, a HUGE impact on the whole planet.
    • I know that it would take a lot of energy and currently most energy sources add to the pollution problem, but still, is it even possible to somehow filter the crap from the atmosphere?

      It's not "crap", it's CO2. It's not pollution, it's a natural and necessary component of our atmosphere. The issue is about the balance.

      What would it entail?

      More plants. Probably the most efficient way, as they do it without being plugged into a generator.

      • More plants. Probably the most efficient way, as they do it without being plugged into a generator.

        No, instead they require a direct line-of-sight to a nuclear fusion reactor. One that uses 4 million tons of fuel per second. Do you call that efficient ?!?

        Just because you don't have to foot the energy bill doesn't mean that someone doesn't have to - but I'm sure that in your socialist utopia Sun would be no one's private property and sunlight free to all...

    • The entire argument is bogus. Katrina is NOT caused by global warming. You have been brainwashed by the stupid political activists. There were more destructive CAT 3-5 Hurricanes in the 1920-1940 period than there have been any time since then, including this decade, so I guess we had a ton of global warming during 1920-1940? NO. Katrina is a natural part of normal storm cycles. The sky is not falling. You may resume normal activities now.

      -David
      • Thank you! Yes, there are nasty storms from time to time. Always have been, always will be. The difference is that we have more and more people and structures in harm's way as time goes on. That's the reason storms seem to be getting more destructive.

    • Re:Cant WE mop up some of the CO2? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I Am a Physicist. In fact I'm a Solar Physicists.

      Globe Warming is based so much more on the sun cycle than the green house effect that it's funny how much work is being done on that part.

      The sun and earth have cycles. In the mid 1600's we had a rather low point in solar activity, the number of sun spots was quite low indicating a lower solar temperature. Since then it's gone in phases. Around 1800 there was another relative min in what's know in the little ice age. The Rhine froze over then.

      Look, I'm

  • Cancelling out? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yar ( 170650 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:42PM (#13526433)
    How is that cancelling out the emissions reductions? Aren't there less CO2 emissions overall because of those reductions? Aren't there fewer man-made emissions?
    • It cancels the reductions out as far as meeting a particular target for overall emissions is concerned. Obviously overall emissions would have been worse if those reductions had not happened.

  • No it would not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Da Fokka ( 94074 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:42PM (#13526435) Homepage

    This would effectively cancel out the UK's recent successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and would have wider global implications as well.

    This would only be true if the soil would not be releasing CO2 prior to the recent reductions in greenhouse emissions.

    Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty concerning the mechanics of CO2 emissions. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to reduce them each time we find out that we are not the only source of CO2 emissions.

  • ... but I'm not going to hold my breath to save it!

  • Maybe (Score:2, Funny)

    by Saiyaman ( 859809 )
    Maybe the Earth wants CO2 to be released, so it is upping the CO2 in soil. Or the Earth wants to kill us by ridding us of precious O2.

    • Maybe the Earth wants CO2 to be released, so it is upping the CO2 in soil. Or the Earth wants to kill us by ridding us of precious O2.

      Well, since higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to higher level of plant growth, and plants release O2 to the atmosphere, I'd say that your theory about Earth's supposed genocidal tendencies is unlikely to be true.

      However, I do remember reading once that we are doing nature a favor by digging up coal and oil - remember, coal and oil are essentially CO2 that's be

  • cancel this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by atw ( 9209 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:49PM (#13526465) Homepage
    This would effectively cancel out the UK's recent successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and would have wider global implications as well."


    Cancel out? Its not like by trying to reduce CO2 in area X, another area Y produced more CO2 in response to reduction in X -- this is not the case, and while knowledge of what produces CO2 is not complete, it is just plain silly to imply that there was no point to even try reducing it!

    If it had not been reduced then there would have been MORE of it, not less.

  • Source or Sink can depend on usage of the land (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:57PM (#13526488) Homepage Journal
    An article from earlier in the year attests to how land use can affect if it will act as a sink or source. http://www.physorg.com/news3857.html [physorg.com]

    Another article from the same site shows how studies of the Amazon river basin reveal that carbon emissions from the Amazon river are younger than previous thought http://www.physorg.com/news5471.html [physorg.com]

    Really what comes about from these articles and others is that we still don't have a complete picture. While it is great press to claim we can simulate the earth and predict things like global warming and cooling we still run into the fact we don't know all the variables. Yes man contributes but how much? Indirect methods are revealed by how land use affected CO2 emissions and absorption.

    I do think that what the Earth is doing on its own in regards to CO2 emissions should not be weighed against how well we reduce our own emissions. Granted the changes in the planet may seemingly undo what we accomplish we still improve our ecosystem by reducing OUR effect on it.

  • "Science" (Score:3, Funny)

    by dirtstar ( 32539 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:58PM (#13526493)
    As part of the Bush administration, I don't believe in this "Science" you speak of.

    Obviously the climate change is due to God's anger with various countries allowing gay marriages.

    I firmly believe this can be stopped by giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

    • Although your theory deserves attention, I'd like to suggest that equal consideration be given to Pastafarianism.

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster faith [venganza.org] teaches us us directly about the causes of global warming, and how they are directly related to shrinking numbers of pirates in the world.

      We can argue about CO2 reduction all day; increasing piracy, however, is something that we can all start immediately. Give pirates a chance!

  • not the only problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chasingporsches ( 659844 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:59PM (#13526503)
    indonesia peat burning emits 1/7th of global CO2 [treehugger.com]

    i'm surprised this wasn't mentioned as well.
    • When will it stop!
    • Not to mention the thawing of the Russian permafrost, and subsequent decomposition of the underlying peat into methane and CO2 over millions of square kilometers [newscientist.com].

      We have likely passed a trigger point beyond which global warming would continue even if all human releases of greenhouse gases fell immediately to zero, due to lags in the system.

      The good news is that this is not the first time this has happened over geologic time, and whatever mechanism turns it off and into another Ice Age will eventually kick i

    • Re:not the only problem (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I might be able to buy this if the claim were 1/7 of global man-made CO2, which is something less than 5% of global CO2. The greatest sources of CO2 remain rotting vegetation, termites (yes, the little bugs) and volcanos. The first human activities occur farther down the list, below even several mammals' herbivorous digestive tracts.

      But saying that buying Ikea furniture contributes to more CO2 than most natural events is just silly.

    • Re:not the only problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gadgetfreak ( 97865 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @02:26PM (#13526945)
      The Earth emits more CO2 than most people are largely aware of. It's easy to figure out what humans create (buth by technology and breathing... 6 billion people can't be having only a negligible effect)

      Other things, both natural and man made, include coal mine fires [wikipedia.org], Volcanos [wikipedia.org] that on average release 145 million to 255 million short tons of CO2 annually, not to mention an equally immense amount of SO2. Check out Mammoth Mountain [wikipedia.org] in California's Sierra Nevada range. The National Park Service has closed it to camping because it emits so much CO2 up through the soil that it can kill humans who stay in the area too long. It killed a lot of trees, too. Estimates state that Mammoth Mountain emits 50-150 tons of CO2 per DAY, which might cast doubt on the earlier estimate of how much volcanos produce.

      I'm not going to suggest that we don't care about man-made emissions, but I think more study will find that it pales in comparison to nature. And what do we do if we find that the earth is warming up with or without our effort? Do we try to cool it down?? Might be something to think about, if in the next few thousand years Mankind eliminates "harmful" emissions to only find that the planet's trying to kill us anyways...

    • No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, 2005 @03:16PM (#13527207)
      Shhhh... don't mention any sources of global warming (or cooling) that can't be blamed on the following:

      1) The United States, generally
      2) George W. Bush, personally
      3) White males
      4) Hummers (the vehicles, not the ... you know)
      5) Animal testing
      6) Microsoft
      7) Republicans
      8) Amazon.com's patent portfolio

      Good! Now, repeat after me: "All Hail Slashdot Groupthink! Flamebait == My Politics Differ! Troll = Possibly correct, but goes against my preconceived notions!"
  • when we'll finally have Florida weather in Canada during wintertime?
    • I'm from Toronto and I just took a trip to the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, and Bryce Canyon, amongst other places in Utah and Arizona. I know that Arizona is pretty warm, but the smog and humidity in Toronto made the GC 120F temperature in some parts "Not that bad". So, Canada is warm, very warm (at least in the summer). But yeah, the winters are still cold. :P

  • Global warming is a natural cycle... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashname3 ( 739398 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:28PM (#13526608)
    When are people going to accept the fact that the Earth goes in cycles? There have been and will be ice ages and warming cycles regardless of what humans do. Here is a report showing that the Earth is giving off more CO^2 that previously expected. So we change the models and get a new estimate on when things will become really dicey. Hopefully by that time we will have established self sustaining colonies in space and on the Moon and other planets. Only by getting humans off the planet will survival be better assured.

    The huge volcanoe that will erupt in Utah shortly along with a few other disasters will push us into another ice age quicker than most think.

    A concerted effort to achieve relatively cheap routine access to space needs to be initiated. Hopefully the private sector will do what NASA has been unable to do.
    • When are people going to accept the fact that the Earth goes in cycles?


      As soon as there's even an ounce of scientific evidence for it that isn't sponsored by right-wing industry-aligned think tanks.

      On the other hand, lots of people "accept" what you're claiming anyway. And a few of them probably even finished high school. But not many.
      • If you had put a :) on that I would think you were just trying to be funny. As is I think you actually think that there have not been ice ages in the past. Such ice ages have been shown to have happened. Obviously you have graduated from a school that teaches ID as part of science class. Shame you were not taught better.

      • So what you're trying to say is the science of paleoclimatology is a hoax?

        What about the use of fossils and ice core samples to get information about past climates and the composition of the atmosphere in the Earth's past? Is that all a right-wing hoax, too?

  • Bad science... writing (Score:5, Informative)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:31PM (#13526621)
    The rate of increase of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is easily and accurately measured. We KNOW how fast greenhouse gasses are going into the atmosphere. So the premise that "soils are absorbing less than we thought, so warming will occur faster than we thought" is fatally flawed.

    Until 2000 I worked in a climate research lab - not as a scientist; I was a tech. Here's what the actual research (that the article twists) probably found. It is well known that atmospheric CO2 is increasing less rapidly than our models predict, because we don't know what's providing the sink for about half of what we're generating. So it's likely that some British scientists had speculated these soils were part of this "missing sink" (bad pun intended). However now they know they aren't as much of a factor - so the search will go on.

  • Ok where are you now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ifwm ( 687373 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:42PM (#13526685) Journal
    When the discussion began about modeling the earth's atmosphere, I politley suggested that using models to decide policy was a bad idea. Particularly because of unknowns such as this one.

    What I would like to know is where are all the people who were accusing me of being a toady for Bush?

    Why won't you people admit that flawed inputs means flawed models and as a result the predictions are likely inaccurate.

    Stop trying to change the world until you know how and what should be changed. And yes, that may mean it gets much worse before it gets better.

    • Re:Ok where are you now? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by van der Rohe ( 460708 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:45PM (#13526706)
      "using models to decide policy was a bad idea"

      Is it a worse idea than using religion? How about public opinion polls? Corporate donations?

      Models may be flawed, but at least they're something with a basis in science. The alternatives...?

  • It's working! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:48PM (#13526728) Journal
    Dear Dendrian,

    Our secret plan to trick humans into releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere is working. Now us green plants can breath easier and grow larger, eventually displacing those ugly pink and brown humans. Green Power!

    Your Friend, Piney Tree
     

  • In other news (Score:3, Funny)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:50PM (#13526744)
    Slashdottings contribute to .023% increase in CO2 emmissions due to increased power consumption.

    However, the sedentary nature of its readers cancels out this effect.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:51PM (#13526753) Homepage Journal
    The UK business market continues to decline as burdens from Kyoto compliance make UK's unionized labor even less efficient on a global scale.

    More lives will be lost and more suffering will be created than any CO2 emissions can create.

    Exactly what Kyoto supporters want. Bring the middle class into the lower class through regulations and taxes rather than uplifting the lower class through opportunity and expansion of the industry base.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)

      by kraut ( 2788 )
      >The UK business market continues to decline
      Gosh, that statement is so vague as to be almost immune to attack. But a couple of broadsides:

      Stocks are going up http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EFTSE&t=my [yahoo.com]

      The economy is growing, despite a dangerous asset bubble in the housing market. I'm sure you'd like to pin that on Kyoto as well - it'll be fun to watch.

      But anyway, while the UK economy is far from perfect, it's hard to see how it's declining.

      > as burdens from Kyoto compliance
      What burdens, preci

  • Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @02:16PM (#13526863)
    "These emissions are more than the entire reduction in emissions the UK has achieved between 1990 and 2002 as part of its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol."

    I didn't realize the UK had ratified and began working on their commitments to Kyoto back in 1990, 15 years before it went into force and 7 years before it was written.

    Now that I think about it, it would probably make more sense to ratify it before it was written. After all, the only potential effect it could have would be to destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to respond to climate change using technological means.

  • If you haven't read "Mad Cowboy" I suggest you do. It highlights the dangers of not only eating cows, but of raising them as well. They are a major contributor of methane directly and once you add in the exhaust from hauling their food (16lbs of food per 1lb of cow), the exhaust from hauling them, and the extra emissions from the need to constantly refrigerate beef, you start to understand how inefficient eating beef really is. Instead, the bulk of the pollution controls fall on the consumer in the form of

  • The whole Earth? or just the UK? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SidV ( 800332 ) <slash@sidv-dot-org> on Saturday September 10, 2005 @02:48PM (#13527061)
    Well according to the article, it's only happening in the UK correct.

    Good thing North America is a Net Carbon Sink
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9774264&dopt=Abstract [nih.gov]

    http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.pd f [climatechangedebate.org]

    And before someone says it's warmer since 1998, no it's not. Thanks the El Nino of 1998 we saw a tremendous spike, and tempreatures are cooler today than then.
  • So....the Earth is to blame. Take off. Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Cut Carbon fuel use and support the death penalty? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @03:52PM (#13527396)
    CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 275ppm to about 375ppm since measurements of that gas began more than 100 years ago. Everyone assumes it is due to burning of fossil fuels, but that assumption cannot be proven because Carbon atoms from various sources have not been tagged and followed by any global experiment that I am aware of. All assignments have been based on statistics, and with that science you can prove anything.

    At the equator water vapor is present in the atmosphere at 2,169 times the concentration of CO2 and water vapor has 7 TIMES the greenhouse power that CO2 has. That makes water, effectively, 15,000 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. Most people assume that CO2 is the culprit because of an unproven theory that water vapor amplifies the effects of CO2. Or, maybe it's the other way around. Unproven theories tend to be dynamic.

    Other sources of CO2 have increased: the human population has risen from 1 BILLION to 6 BILLION in the last 100 years, and humans exhale CO2 24/7, unlike combustion engines. Most humans on this planet do not own a combustion engine or use one.

    The ratio of CO2 produced / O2 consumed is called respiratory quotient (RQ), which depends on type of nutrients being used for energy. According to a study by the USDA [1], an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day, or about 5.4 Billion tons per day, or 1,971 Billion tons per year. That's about 538 Billion tons of Carbon. By comparison, the USA produces about a little more than 1 Billion tons of coal per year. The World demand for oil last year was 82 Million barrels per day, or around 9.3 Billion tons of oil per year. If I've made a mistake I'm sure someone will correct me, if they use the same source of information: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu .html [doe.gov]
    Please do.

    If my figures are correct human breath contributes more C02 to the atmosphere than machines do, probably because CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere by plants used as food, as they grow, is more than that created by farmers producing the food plants.

    Dr. Alfred Bartlett was the first to state that "Farming is just a way of using land to convert oil into food." It's takes approximately 7 times more energy to put a slice of bread in your mouth than you get by metabolising it.

    If CO2 is the cause of gloabl warming, humans appear to be the major source and the Carbon fuels used to feed them the minor source. If we cut back on the use of fossil fuel we condem a BILLION or more people to a death sentence by starvation, and the starving will continue until we replace Carbon with another energy source of equal or better density, or until the final population level can be supported by the new energy source.

    Personally, I believe the evidence shows, and long before the "Carbon Tax" became the newest wealth redistribution scheme, that the Sun is responsible for the Earth's mean temperature, even with 6 BILLION people calling Earth home.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close