Comments on: A Piece of the Action http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1622 Mark Bahner Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:53:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1622 I'm too lazy to look up the actual numbers, but current human industrial emissions are approximately 7 gigatons as carbon, with land use changes adding another 1 gigaton or so. But the change in CO2 concentration is equivalent to about 3-4 gigatons as carbon. In other words, in order to get the CO2 concentration to stop increasing, either: a) emissions need to be cut by about 50%, or b) an additional sink of about 50% needs to be found. Given those two facts, it's unlikely that a) or b) will occur. My estimate is a probability of less than 1 in 20. As for c), the main questions are: 1) will renewable energy technologies or nuclear fusion come into being in a big way in the next 50-80 years, or 2) will a technology to remove ~4-8 billion tons per year (e.g. ocean iron fertilization) be developed in the next 50-80 years? Even if the answer to 1) or 2) is "yes," we'd still go above 400 ppm (which we should do in the next 10-15 years), and probably above 450 ppm (should happen circa 2040. I'd say there's a better-than-50/50 chance of 1) or 2) happening before concentrations hit 550 ppm (absent 1 or 2, 550 ppm won't be hit until 2080+). So a) no, b) no, c) no for 400 ppm, no for 450 ppm, 50/50 chance of yes for 550 ppm. I’m too lazy to look up the actual numbers, but current human industrial emissions are approximately 7 gigatons as carbon, with land use changes adding another 1 gigaton or so. But the change in CO2 concentration is equivalent to about 3-4 gigatons as carbon.

In other words, in order to get the CO2 concentration to stop increasing, either: a) emissions need to be cut by about 50%, or b) an additional sink of about 50% needs to be found.

Given those two facts, it’s unlikely that a) or b) will occur. My estimate is a probability of less than 1 in 20.

As for c), the main questions are: 1) will renewable energy technologies or nuclear fusion come into being in a big way in the next 50-80 years, or 2) will a technology to remove ~4-8 billion tons per year (e.g. ocean iron fertilization) be developed in the next 50-80 years?

Even if the answer to 1) or 2) is “yes,” we’d still go above 400 ppm (which we should do in the next 10-15 years), and probably above 450 ppm (should happen circa 2040. I’d say there’s a better-than-50/50 chance of 1) or 2) happening before concentrations hit 550 ppm (absent 1 or 2, 550 ppm won’t be hit until 2080+).

So a) no, b) no, c) no for 400 ppm, no for 450 ppm, 50/50 chance of yes for 550 ppm.

]]> By: Dan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1621 Dan Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:53:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1621 Why do you always break your posts up with a jump? It adds nothing to the post and just makes one more hurdle for the reader to jump through. When your server is slow (often) I usually don't even bother with the jump. What's the problem with simply presenting a post whole??? Why do you always break your posts up with a jump? It adds nothing to the post and just makes one more hurdle for the reader to jump through. When your server is slow (often) I usually don’t even bother with the jump. What’s the problem with simply presenting a post whole???

]]> By: Harold Brooks http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1620 Harold Brooks Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:00:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1620 On a different time scale, you can now trade futures on Atlantic hurricane landfalls at http://hurricanefutures.miami.edu. A friend made $5 on his $100 investment on the I storm not making landfall. I don't know what he did on Katrina. On a different time scale, you can now trade futures on Atlantic hurricane landfalls at http://hurricanefutures.miami.edu. A friend made $5 on his $100 investment on the I storm not making landfall. I don’t know what he did on Katrina.

]]> By: William http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1619 William Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:54:32 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1619 I doubt you'll get anyone to take you on (a), a better idea would be spread-betting over some plausible trend. Note that James scooped you on the oil-futures idea (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-not-to-bet-on-future.html by a few hours). If its so obvious to several (non-energy-experts) you have to wonder why it wasn't obvious to a "consultant", or even to the NYT! I doubt you’ll get anyone to take you on (a), a better idea would be spread-betting over some plausible trend.

Note that James scooped you on the oil-futures idea (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-not-to-bet-on-future.html by a few hours). If its so obvious to several (non-energy-experts) you have to wonder why it wasn’t obvious to a “consultant”, or even to the NYT!

]]> By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1618 James Annan Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:51:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1618 It may be a "political stunt" to you, Roger, but it's $10,000 to me :-) I agree that a wider market would be interesting. a is false with high confidence If by b you mean actually decreasing atmospheric CO2, it's also false with high confidence. The more interesting question IMO is whether the rate of increase will drop (maybe this is what you meant?), and over 3 year intervals, that happens already due to interannual variability (in fact 2002-2004 is one example of a large rise followed by a smaller one, that might well continue downwards in 2005). It may be a “political stunt” to you, Roger, but it’s $10,000 to me :-) I agree that a wider market would be interesting.

a is false with high confidence
If by b you mean actually decreasing atmospheric CO2, it’s also false with high confidence. The more interesting question IMO is whether the rate of increase will drop (maybe this is what you meant?), and over 3 year intervals, that happens already due to interannual variability (in fact 2002-2004 is one example of a large rise followed by a smaller one, that might well continue downwards in 2005).

]]> By: Dylan Otto Krider http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1617 Dylan Otto Krider Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:19:08 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1617 My own inexpert view would be: a) Thirty years is a LONG time, but no. b) Still no. c) I'm in no position to make any kind of educated guess whatsoever, but no. My own inexpert view would be:

a) Thirty years is a LONG time, but no.

b) Still no.

c) I’m in no position to make any kind of educated guess whatsoever, but no.

]]> By: John Fleck http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3569&cpage=1#comment-1616 John Fleck Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:37:07 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3569#comment-1616 I think the answer to all three is "no," and the only reason I might be wrong has far more to do with Hubbert than Kyoto. I think the answer to all three is “no,” and the only reason I might be wrong has far more to do with Hubbert than Kyoto.

]]>