the idea that once a fossil fuel is burned that carbon stays in the atmosphere forever is just plain wrong. the oceans absorb the carbon and put it right back where it was - how do you think the oil formed in the first place? then they add fear mongering about 'run away global warming' as if we'd become venus, which is not possible with fossil fuels. earth has had MUCH higher carbon %s in the atmosphere and ... here we are.

While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in timescales.

By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. The biosphere can rapidly take in a finite amount of CO2, but it's not a very large amount.

The main way (on geologic timescales) that it's taken back out of the atmosphere/hydrosphere and put into the lithosphere is by carbonate deposition (i.e. limestones). On human timescales, that may as well be forever.

creatures are made of carbon, lots of it. they absorb it, die, fall the the bottom of the ocean. it happens quite fast, and the more carbon the more they have to absorb the faster it happens.

if we were in such dire straits environmentally, Obama - being a liberal, and having access to all the numbers and advisors, would have made that priority #1.

What was his priority #1? forcing people to purchase health care. but wait, was it priority #2? not even, immigration among other things seemed more important.

Yes, the biosphere can rapidly remove carbon.

However, the total amount it can remove and store on geologic timescales is very small.

The total amount of biomass on the planet is not that large compared to what we're talking about. Furthermore, most organic matter decomposes and releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. On geologic timescales, the biosphere is not a major player in the carbon cycle.

I don't understand how politcs factors into this. This is basic science.

He's calling the higher authority argument (Obama) by using the fact Obama didn't act on this so he's right. That's funny because he dismisses that same authority figure in the next sentence.

Yes well, it will just take forever from our perspective to put it back in the ground.

"right back" is rather misleading. When you burn up fossil fuel over a few centuries that it took many millions of years to produce, the ocean does not put it "right back" there.

compounding on the other responses, the increased emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere are also changing the ocean's chemical properties (acidification).. and this has a huge impact on the environmental equilibrium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Correct. I find the image, that there is a max amount of oil we can use up without making the earth uninhabitable for humans, much more tangible.

That separates the actual existance of oil fields from their extraction and offers a direct point of blame, something which we seem to need.

The person/organisation that draws the drop that kills earth will be the one we should focus and prosecute, and we should announce that beforehand, so that nobody wants to be that person.

The carrying capacity for humans on Earth pre-fossil fuels was roughly 1 billion.

We're up to 7 billion now. And we're comfortable enough to actually notice the environment in a way people even 60 years ago were not.

I think this is causal - fossil fuels made 6/7ths of us possible.

It's absolutely true. Daniel Yergin wrote what is largely considered to be the definitive history of oil and makes the compelling case that modern humanity is only possible because of our 20th century transformation into Hydrocarbon Man. Kerosene lengthened the working day, oil created the post-war society we currently enjoy and made possible the amazing increase in agricultural productivity over the past several decades.

For all its ills and drawbacks, oil made modern civilization possible.

Phenomenal book. Hugely recommended.

And that's despite disagreeing strongly with Yergin's petro-optimism.

He absolutely knows his subject.

Yergin's book is a classic.

Just like slavery helped us build civilizations in the past. That's not an argument for continued use once the problems are recognized.

A currently large population means nothing if it's not sustainable.

What exactly do you think replaced slavery?