Can someone show me where the flaw in this logic is?

Question

I would like people to actually engage my points (I am perfectly willing to accept any logical criticisms) rather that just spew c**p at me.

The following postulates are put forth by the pro-global warming crowd, generally (although not always):

1. Global warming is caused chiefly by carbon dioxide output from human burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal to meet our energy needs.

2. Our fossil fuel supplies (specifically oil) are in rapidly dwindling supply and are only expected to last another 50 years or so.

Now, the conclusion that pro-AGW persons tend to arrive at here is the following:

We must stop burning oil to meet our energy needs.

If postulate #2 is correct, doesn't that mean we are going to stop burning oil anyway? I mean, if it really IS running out, shouldn't we be unable to use it whether we want to or not?

I personally am pretty sure that postulate #2 is grossly incorrect and people should stop citing this as a reason to stop using oil.

Answer 1

1.  No it is not.  The earth warms and cools on its own through cycles.  The earth warmed after the last big ice age without carbon dioxide emissions from humans.  Mars is warming without humans.  Both prove that the warming trend (which some believe, including myself, is ending) natural.

2.  They've discovered trillions of dollars in oil reserves not tapped.  They are inaccessible due to environmentalists, (which I think is foolish, our footprint would be minimal and our dependency on foreign oil would be gone).

There, those are my views.

Answer 2

I agree with you on a general basis that CO2 is an issue and that oil consumption will gradually decline as supplies decline adn prices increase, but I'd add a few important points to your anaysis.

1. Carbon dioxide is the largest single contributor and it has the fastest growth rate, making it the most urgent to control.  However, CO2 is not necessarily responsible for even as much as half of the total warming.  Methane is far more powerful and could contribute as much as half of the effect that CO2 contributes.  Black soot may also be responsible for as much as half of the forcing that CO2 drives.  So those two factors together contribute as much to the warming as CO2.  Then there are all of the more minor greenhouse gasses.  For simplicity's sake though, yes, CO2 is a useful thing to focus on first.

2. Oil will become expensive over the coming decades, but a comprehensive State of the Carbon Cycle report concluded that transportation (autos, airlines, etc) contribute only 30% of emissions.  

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...

The largest contributor is power generation, primarily from coal-fired electrical plants.  So depleting oil reserves won't slow down global warming much, even if we simply walked and food could magically transport itself to our stores and tables.  Instead though, all of that oil energy will simply be replaced by other sources such as coal-fired electricity (electric cars, delivery trucks, etc).  Carbon-based fossil fuel will still be burned to produce the energy, so no net reduction in emissions.

The second issue is that the scenario you propose is for 2050.

A careful examination of a large number of species in numerous parts of the planet projects that a stunning portion of them will be "committed to extinction" in just 50 years, with only modest global warming (Thomas, 2004).

http://www.killerinourmidst.com/methane%...

The range was up to 58% of all life on the planet, a level of ecological disruption that would seriously threaten human food supplies.

The other problem is simply one of climate momentum.  A non-negligible percentage of current carbon emissions continue to remain in the atmosphere and exert a warming influence for 100+ years.  The coal burning in the 1800s still has another 900+ years before we know the full effect.  

Because of this, a recent study that looked at the longer term outlook concluded that global and regional warming could quadruple after 2100, and sea levels could still rising after the year 3000.

“…our relatively conservative assumptions... still produce the result that only by starting to reduce CO2 emissions in the very near future, and continuing to reduce them such that they are zero by year 2200, can we avoid dangerous climate change on the millennial timescale.”

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme1...

China is building approximately two new coal fired power plants per week.  The Chinese have recently stated that they are morally entitled to increase their emissions up to the level of the United States on a per capita basis, so they could single-handedly nearly double global emissions (apparently they consider it moral to potentially commit the human species to extinction).

So oil is a small portion of the larger problem.  We can't afford to until 2050 to begin reductions and to convince the largest emitters such as China to go along, before we're seriously screwed.

---

I find the peak oil discussion interesting.  If oil is in such great supply, why all the secrecy and fudging about global reserves?

There are some interesting comments on global oil supply and graphs projecting oil prices on this page:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/Evora...

The interesting thing is that when they were constructed in 2006 or so, the challenge was to project where oil prices might go from the current level of $25/barrel or so.  It had passed $116/barrel the last time I checked.

Wheat prices have always tracked oil prices closely, but grain prices have not come close to following oil's recent rises, so there's a lot more cost that has yet to hit our gasoline prices, let alone grains, then all of our other foods (which rely on a complicated shipping network, all built on the assumption of cheap oil).  Rice is similarly impacted.  Some countries have issued export bans.

The sobering part is that's all due to the world's inability to produce enough oil to meet rising demand.  The increased crop damage due to global warming is just barely starting to enter the equation, but all indications, such as glacial and polar ice cap melt rates, are that it may accelerate rapidly.

Thanks for posting an interesting and coherent question to discuss.

Answer 3

I say just use it all up and while on the way just find a better source of fual. See so we solve the problem by using it up but at the same time we slowy bring in our new source of fual. See everyone wins.

Answer 4

your logic is fine, your postulates are bogus,

global warming is caused by fossil fuels because of the rate at which they are used, the amount of time it would take to run out of fossil fuels, would be too long to stop global warming

ps- some say hydrogen is the answer.

question... what happens when all the water vapor rises into the air?

Answer 5

1. The greenhouse gas theory is seriously flawed but that is all the science had to offer. Did you know that all of the sciences taught in academia consider temperature in calculators with the greatest of theoretical accuracy.

We develop everything on the surface of the planet with the idea of blending from a temperature perspective. We do not want to impose on atmospheric temperatures because it changes the weather formula.

That leaves us with trying to figure out where the man made sources of heat would come from. In order for anything to warm, there has to be a source of heat. Meteorologists and Environmental Sciences all assume all the other professionals did their job. They did in the calculator.

Did you know the entire building industry is signed off as compliant in calculators and then insured? Buildings are designed and insulated for local temperatures so we can determine energy consumption as well as emissions.

Go to the following link to see advanced temperature imaging of building development and solar radiation interaction with absorbent building exteriors. The link will show we are reacting to the symptoms with fossil fuel waste and emissions. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h...

Here is a letter sent to the Western Governors and Provinces regarding solar impact that couldn't be seen before. http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Western_Cl...

2. We are wasting non renewable resources addressing heat symptoms, depleting the ozone, producing mercury emissions and other toxins, producing acid rain with coal generated electrical treating the symptoms. California and others are being knocked off the electrical grid treating a symptom.

Everything we produce and do on the surface of the planet comes back at us and through us. How do babies that have never taken a breath get banned pesticides, mercury, incinerated garbage, etc inside them?

The emissions end up in our food, water and bodies. We want to save resources and not kill ourselves in the process. Why isn't it good to stay in a closed area with a vehicle running? It kills you.

The environment is our big garage and we need to breath. People talk as if oil or resources are just in the ground for the taking. That eco system we are messing with allows us to live.

We are not using our resources wisely and the results will come back at us.

Answer 6

http://images.larslarson.com/images/book...

Check this link to read a letter concerning this issue.  I tend to believe our beef industry is worse as far as contributing methane gas to the environment than our fossil fuel pollution from vehicles etc.

Answer 7

1. May be oversimplified but yes, burning of fossil fuel causes a permanent increase in CO2 which adds to global warming. However the effects of Global Warming are not nearly as dramatic as the media tries to tell us it is and does not mean we have to stop using fossil fuel.

2. We are running out of oil! It is estimated that we have peaked out on oil production. We may run out in as little as 100 years. most of the oil fields in the world have been discovered and the super oil fields are already in decline. Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia is the largest, they already have to force huge amounts of salt water into this reservoir to keep up oil production. the oil sands of Canada which were are hard to produce oil from are now economically viable and the US is using much of this oil. Many growing countries are increasing their need for Oil. A resent study of Middle Eastern countries found that they were lying about how much oil reserve they have and it was discovered that there is far less oil in the Middle East than was once believed. Yes we have to find ways to ween ourselves off Oil, but this should happen automatically as it becomes more and more expensive.

Answer 8

Postulate number one is still only an opinion.

An opinion expressed as fact is nothing but excrescence.

More likely that it is impossible for the earth to maintain a steady state and is constantly either cooling or warming.

Glaciers once came as far south as Toronto. No one noticed the glaciers are receding until now. Lots of evidence to show that the glaciers are poised to advance again soon.

Postulate 2 is a problem. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels on the planet. Its got to run out sooner or later. Until we get into space where energy is limitless we will remain reliant on fossil fuels. We can't stop burning fossil fuels until alternative sources are found and exploited.

Answer 9

There are two flaws in this argument.

Flaw #1: Coal-burning power plants (and factories) have contributed more to global warming than transportation. We currently have several hundreds of years of proven coal reserves.

Flaw #2: It's true that we have (probably) reached peak oil production. But it took us a hundred years to get to this point, and it will take us a lot longer than that for production to dwindle to zero, certainly much, much longer than 50 years. Why? It's the economics of the situation. As oil production peaks, oil prices rise, which lowers demand. Demand must ALWAYS balance supply, and if it doesn't, the price will rise (or fall) until that condition is met.

That means that, absent real action to fight global warming, we will see oil production fall, oil demand fall to match supply, and oil prices rise as a result -- but oil will continue to be pumped, refined, and burned.

Answer 10

I believe that what the majority of research has pointed to, in terms of your two postulates, is as follows.

If we continue burning fuel at present rates, it will run out in 50 years (Or at least hit peak oil before then, which is almost as bad)

If we continue to burn fuel at present levels and releasing the same amount of emissions, in 50 year the climate will be a lot different and difficult if not impossible to deal with and get under control.

So you would be faced with a situation with an out of control climate, and no large energy source to power the changes needed to combat it.

It would be like knowing you've only got enough fuel left in your battleship to make a 100 mile voyage. If you're 100 miles from harbor and 100 miles from an enemy ship, but you decide to press on with your present course, you're going to run out of fuel right at the precise moment you need it the most to deal with something that's about to kill you. What you should have done, is changed course, returned to harbor, figured out a new fuel source, and made better plans to carry out the attack on the other ship.

We need to change course.

Answer 11

"If postulate #2 is correct, doesn't that mean we are going to stop burning oil anyway?"

Yes, eventually.  However, scientists are telling us that we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Simply waiting for our oil reserves to run out (and there will still be plenty of coal reserves) is not going to solve the problem.

Answer 12

I am certainly not an environmentalist, nor a scientist.  However, as a mathematician, I can at least address the logic of your postulates.

If Postulate 1 is correct (let's assume that it is for the moment, just for the sake of argument), then the damage caused by the combustible engine - the most destructive device accoring to Al Gore - has been around for 100 years, more or less.  If the damage caused by 100 years of burning oil has resulted in this much damage to the ozone, then imagine the damage caused by another 50 years.  It's going to be MORE than a 50% increase, since I'm willing to guess that the amount of oil consumed worldwide in 2008 will be greater than the amount consumed in 1908.

As I said, I do not necessarily accept both of the postulates as true, therefore any conclusion reached from a false postulate is not reliable.

Answer 13

I agree with you that #2 is incorrect and  where most of the issues are.  The science of #1 is older than I am.  If you did accept #2 as gospel, doesn't it make a better argument for the skeptics?    Anyway, on to #2...

I'll just start listing in no particular order.  This is the heart of the matter for many people.

50 years sounds arbitrary.  It all depends on what we do during those 50 years.  If we cut our use by 1/2 it could end up being 100 years.  On the other hand, the two wars the USA is involved in have increased petroleum consumption enormously.  My ex-wife worked for an oil and gas pipeline during the 1980's.  Estimates for public consumption back then were at least 500 years.  She said the insider estimates was more like 100 years, or less.  Those estimates certainly didn't take into account the wars since then, the entrance of numerous new major consumers, like China, or changes in auto technology.

Gasoline is not the only fossil fuel.  Coal is used for 60% of the commercial and residential needs in the USA, and can be pretty polluting, dependent on the grade of the coal.  "Fuel Oil" is still widely used in some areas, although the price has skyrocketed.  Wood still does its share of polluting in parts of the world.  These and similar things affect #1, regardless of what we do with #2.  We know we have 500 years or more  worth of coal just within the United States lower 48.

There is about a 10 year time lag between anything we do involving the atmosphere.  Dana, Bob, or one of the other climate experts could tell you why.  I just know it's true.  The delays we've seen in the response of the ozone hole to our actions relate to this delay.

Because of the time lag, if people want to say we can go on polluting for another 50 years just because we'll still have gasoline, I don't find that logical.  What we're seeing today reflects everything we were doing 10 years ago, not just the oil.  Look how much industrial expansion has taken place in those 10 years.  How can anyone know we're not  2 years from the "point of no return", or 10, or none, or whatever?  

If you accept #1, we have raised the global temperature 1 degree in 100 years.  Yet industrialization didn't really start to take hold for most of the world until the 1970's.  CO2 output going into that decade wasn't all that different from what it was in 1930.  So I don't expect the next century will bring us 1 degree.  It would probably be more.  We may never see another 100 years, because we know 4 is enough to finish us, and we have no idea how soon we'll see that.  We do know that it would be less than 300 years IF we continued polluting NO MORE than what we were in 1969. We also know that in fact we're polluting much more than we were then.

Americans are most of the world's drivers, and our cars get terrible milage.  We are around 26, Japan is more like 48.  We're actually worse on this than we were a few years ago.  Besides designing our cars to require as much gasoline as possible, we have the large scale expansion of the use of SUV's and pickup trucks.  Much of this is due to the higher tax rates applied to the traditional passenger car compared to these type vehicle.  When SUV's were first being introduced the combined tax incentives and purchase incentives exceeded the price of the vehicle in some states.  Altering the tax structure to favor, rather than punish high mileage vehicles would affect #2.

Demographic studies by the car companies in the USA have repeatedly shown that 80% of American auto drivers needs don't include a car that will go 100 miles per hour, carry hundreds or thousands of pounds of cargo, go 3-400 miles without refueling, and operate off the road.  The USA alone makes and preferentially markets vehicles meeting those specifications, including to that 80% demographic.  This is another feature intended to maximize petroleum consumption.  It would affect #2 if it were changed.

The car market for the individual consumer is just now opening up in much of Asia.  In China alone, if car ownership followed the American model this would result in an additional 820,000 vehicles on the road.  This, or following a less petroleum intensive model  affect #2.

All of the American Hybrids and some of the European ones are worthless.  Their mileage is comparable to non-hybrid gas burners.  Japan's is the best, but still a disappointment.  The weakness is the battery, as is the case with the electric cars.  There is a substantially better battery.  GM and Chevron bought the patents and the company when it was introduced in the 1990's, and have kept it off the market.  Availabilty of this battery (the NiMH) would render all the hybrids and EV's viable.  This affects #2.

I could go on all day, but I think this makes my points.  The amount of gas we have left has many variables, most of them man made and intentional.  The idea that we can pollute like gangbusters until the oil runs out is specious.

Oh, and great question!  Best one in a long time!

Answer 14

1. Proven fact, in spite of loud emotional protests to the contrary.

2. Very likely true, in spite of your personal convictions.  Even the coal will run out in a few hundred years.

What was left out of your analysis -

If we convert all the terrestrial carbon into atmospheric carbon we will likely make this planet uninhabitable.  Very likely true and also not subject to personal convictions.

Therefore, logically, we should stop using fossil fuels immediately for several reasons.  

1. They pollute vastly and unnecessarily (we now have the technology to obtain our energy from renewable non-polluting sources.  

2. we are going to run out eventually anyway, so the sooner we start the less painful it will be.

3. we should save the hydrocarbons for things we have no substitute for.

Even if energy was free and non-polluting it still doesn't solve our problem.  We can't develop every square inch of the planet and fill it with people.

Answer 15

Without meaning to insult anyone intelligence, it would seem that many people believe what feels right.

I think some people start from the postulate that humans are greedy and wantonly consuming beyond all sustainable and resposible levels.  

From this premise, it can be proved that global warming is real and mainly caused by us and we are approaching peak oil  Since peak oil tends to reduce CO2 emissions, the first premise tends to also prove that peak oil won't be soon enough to prevent apocolyptic climate change.

Answer 16

As a geologist, I concur with your conclusion that #2 is wrong though if we listen to alarmists it might as well be running out.  We cannot keep meeting our energy needs and not exploit (is that a dirty word) our new resources found in Alaska, North Dakota, off shore, etc.  Clearly if we are running out of fossil fuels, it is not a significant threat to future warming.  

I think that fossil fuels may be replaced within a hundred years or so with cleaner energy so it really is not a significant threat.

Answer 17

Hi nice lady,

I like the fact that you don't seem to be bothered about aggravating our two 'TOP CONTRIBUTOR'S', and I like your question.

Both postulations are false.

Postulation #1 has nothing to do with real science to begin with. Carbon dioxide could never be considered a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas'( especially in the minute concentrations that exist).

Postulation #2 I agree is not only false, but as you said, if it were to be correct, then we would no longer have those resources at our disposal.

I will however say that I would like us to find ways to use less fossil fuels for many reasons.

This is not to save our planet(I am neither that stupid, arrogant, or gullible), but to save what resources we have, and more importantly, to remove our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and be more self sufficient!

Answer 18

1.  Wrong.  Carbon dioxide is the least significant of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and man-made CO2 is a very small fraction of the total.  The most potent and most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour.  Greenhouse gases play a relatively insignificant role in climate because there is little variance in greenhouse gas levels; the most significant driver of climate change is variations in the output of the sun.

2.  Wrong.  Proven oil reserves are estimated to last at least 100 years and coal reserves are good for several centuries.