Pruitt put forth a similar argument while speaking with the New York Times last week, leading to a rebuke by journalists including Emily Atkin, science and environmental reporter for the New Republic. The thing is, our "arrogant" ideas about climate change don't actually come from "arrogance.
There is a climate response function that represents the atmospheric temperature time delay after carbon is inserted into the atmosphere. The function is The two-hyperbolic-tangent fit is good because the data errors are large.
The function is A better fit could be obtained with three hyperbolic tangents, but the errors on the data do not justify it. Predicted Earth Temperature I use a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees celsius for CO2 concentration doubling to calculate the approximate temperature change relative to yeardT in Celsius degreesdue to a change in CO2 concentration, Ci in ppmv.
The s factor is the climate sensitivity assumed equal to 3 in the calculations done here that makes the climate sensitivity factor be for doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as it is defined. Climate sensitivity is supposed to include the effects of fast feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, in other variables caused by changing the CO2 concentration.
To account for the climate response time, the equation must be altered as follows: The resulting temperature change relative to due to fossil-fuels burning and non-fossil-fuels emissions is: The upper curve is without taking account of climate response time and the lower curve takes it into account.
The lower curve agrees well with measurements. An unknown amount of global dimming should be subtracted from this curve; it is probably only a few tenths of a degree or smaller and quite variable with time. The peak would be higher if it were not for the time delay between carbon emission and the atmospheric temperature.
The asymptotic temperature is the same for both calculations, even though the ocean keeps some of the energy, because the climate sensitivity accounts for that.
Temperature with CO2 Concentration Feedback It may be that the amount of CO2 that can be taken out of the atmosphere by vegetation and the oceans is a decreasing function of the CO2 concentration.
I did a calculation assuming that the 0. The resulting CO2 concentrations and temperatures are: So, if the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increased by not being absorbed by vegetation and the oceans, the Earth average temperature could be considerably higher than the constant 0.
The result of this calculation came as a very big surprise to me, because I had been assuming in my talks and web pages about global warming that the temperature would continue to rise to large values from the present temperature due to burning fossil fuels.
Although I had done much work about fossil-fuels depletionI had not applied that work to global warming until I did the work for this article. So, this reasonable calculation indicates that global temperature will not rise to high values due to fossil-fuels burning, non-fossil-fuels emissions and, represented in the climate sensitivity, fast-feedback mechanisms.
And some surprises, such as massive releases of methane from permafrost thawingcould drastically change earth temperature in the future. Appendix 3 gives a worst-case approximate calculation of temperature rise due to carbon release from permafrost melting.
There may be a competition between peak oil and global warming as to which one causes the greatest destabilization of world civilization. It appears that peak oil destabilization might occur first and then plentiful oil will not be available to ameliorate the disastrous effects of global warming.
Go to top of this page. Coal Carbon Sequestration or Coal-Burning Moratorium Suppose that we learn how to sequester some of the carbon from coal before or after we burn it or we institute a gradual moratorium on burning coal.
For purposes of doing an approximate calculation, assume that the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere by burning coal is modified as a function of time by the factor shown here: This corresponds to about a hundred-year time interval to achieve full carbon sequestration or to completely stop burning coal.
The results of the calculation are: The coal peak is slightly higher than and at about the same time as the crude-oil peak The coal peak occurs at about instead of The peak is about ppmv but then the ppmv reduces to an asymptote at about ppmv.
Compare to about a ppmv asymptote without coal carbon sequestration or a coal moratorium. That is, it is already too late to begin to greatly reduce the peak or the asymptote by very much by carbon sequestration or a moratorium on burning coal. The temperature-change peak is about 1.
So, the temperature peak is reduced about 0. Case for Double Coal Extraction Suppose by some miracle that twice as much coal 3 x tons is able to be extracted from the earth than assumed in the fit to coal-extraction data used above 1.
The temperature-change since year does not peak; it just climbs for hundreds of years. Case for Double Crude-Oil Extraction Suppose by some miracle that twice as much crude oil 4 x barrels is able to be extracted from the earth than assumed in the fit to crude-oil-extraction data used above 2 x barrels.
Case for Double Natural-Gas Extraction Suppose by some miracle that twice as much natural gas 30 x tcf is able to be extracted from the earth than assumed in the fit to natural-gas-extraction data used above 15 x tcf.
Worst Case Global Warming Putting together the most likely fossil-fuels depletion, the CO2 feedback and the possibility of carbon release by Arctic tundra melting, the following results are obtained: The dashed curve is for a gradual climate sensitivity change from 3 to 4.One of the main by-products of fossil fuel combustion is carbon dioxide (CO 2).
The ever-increasing use of fossil fuels in industry, transportation, and construction has added large amounts of CO 2 .
Learn more about Fossil Fuels. Outlook on Unconventional Petroleum Resources. D. Pimentel, M. Burgess, in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Future Fossil Energy Supplies. All fossil fuels are considered finite and nonrenewable energy resources.
The world oil supply has been projected to last about . Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global warming, and other .
Fossil fuels are sources of energy that have developed within the earth over millions of years. Because fossil fuels - oil, natural gas, and coal - take so long to form, they are considered. Quiz *Theme/Title: Fossil Fuels * Description/Instructions ; A fossil fuel is a combustible material derived from decayed organic (once living) matter.
Apr 12, · The burning of fossil fuels generates pollution, since these carbon-based fuel sources contain a lot more than just carbon and hydrogen in their chemical makeup, and burning them (to .