Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[steenkh]

What are the current prospects of geo-engineering like, for instance, emitting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere?

 

[Furcifer]

Desperation is trying to claim that there isn't a scientific consensus that AGW is real, and has been for 25 years. Not 50, but nobody really talked about climate change in those days - it's not a common experience in historical times.

The notion that a poll of American climate scientists agreeing that in the last 150 years it has warmed a bit due to CO2 emissions is somehow scientific consensus is absurd. It's quite clear from the very same poll there isn't consensus on anything else.

The same desperation showed up when alarmists claimed all the scientists involved with AR4 "agreed". That was quickly shot down as well. People, desperate people, lie about climate change and the science.

Fifty years ago some scientists were aware of the issue and found that the numbers looked a little alarming. They asked other scientists to run the numbers as well, and much the same results obtained. Gradually the subject spread through the scientific community as scientists asked their friends "can you find me an error in this?", eventually leaking into political ears and from there onto the world stage - famously, via Margaret Thatcher (not via some US American senator and vice-president), who has a science degree herself. She had some very powerful things to say about stewardship and other Tory ideals.

Of course they needed a political front man with absolutely no understanding of physics; Al Gore. You forgot that

Why is that? Because prior to politicians getting involved the science was the science and there was no one misrepresenting that.

 

[Furcifer]

Where do you listen out? I thought I'd heard most of the nonsense out there, but this is new to me.

The major determinant of the Lower Nile Basin has long been the Aswan Dam. The Upper Nile basins (also known as the Nile's sources) are currently suffering rather nasty droughts.

Egypt was a very fertile place before and after Biblical times, but very narrowly, between a hot barren desert on one side and the same on the other, until it gets down to the Delta. Mark Anthony was very aware of this, being of a practical mind.

Not surprising, the beneficial effects of Global Warming and underplayed or outright ignored by alarmists. The actual amount of rainfall in an warming world will increase as warmer air holds more moisture. Not all areas will see a decrease in annual rainfall. Some are seeing an increase already. It's not all doom and gloom.

Could you kick things off by telling us what evolutonary impact you expect from AGW?

None, the timespan is too short.

How do you think our successor species will differ from us?

None. You're probably unaware that the evolution of a species takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, not centuries. Only creationists would think that global warming would lead to new species, it fits their perverted version of the world.

A bit smarter, so they don't do it again? A bit smugger, so they do do it again, in a different manner? A bit more nervous of any change?

Again no new species will emerge in the next 100 years. The notion is absurd.

Eugenics is a dirty word these days, but the idea of a random challenge gets around many of the problems while still suggesting an improvement in the gene-pool. I don't mean to suggest that you've thought things through that deeply, but you might want to now.

The idea is so absurd I'm sure you have exclusive rights to thinking it through.

No doubt you're replete with examples of which I'm unaware, but history teaches us that those who deny there's even a problem do not come out well, while those who recognise and cope with the problem go on to glory. Which is to say, write the subsequent history.

Thankfully no one is ignoring Global Warming.

 

[Trakar]

Steam locomotives between cities, and electric trams within them.

Steam?

How about Fuel-Cells? they even become practical with trucking and busses, so I'm pretty sure they'd function as a railway power source. There are a lot of potential methods to power trains sustainably, the most difficult transportation issue to address sustainably is probably air transport (mass transit/cargo and military). Given the issues, I'd almost prefer a designer synfuel to trying to adapt planes and engines to sustainable more "naturally" -derived fuels. Alternatively we can get to liquid methane by concentrating and then reacting atmospherically derived CO2 with H2 but the energy density (while much better than H2) is abysmal. For flight, especially jet-engined flight, we may be stuck with hydrocarbon derived fuels for quite a while, though I'd prefer the natural gas and biofeedstock FT synfuels (Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel) to coal and oil feedstock fuels.

 

[lomiller]

There's a true strawman. Nobody suggested that.

Actuly you did, here is the exchange

So you plan to bio-engineer wheat to grow in deserts or on bare shield rock? that should be interesting...

Right, because before there was Global Warming that's where we grew everything.

There's no need to build greenhouses on shield rock at the moment because there's more than enough fertile land. When and if it becomes cost effective to do so it it's just as easy to glass shield rock as it is the farm land we currently cover over.

In any case I see you still haven’t bothered to address the issue, so I’ll ask you again. How do you expect to bio-engineer crops to grow on the bare rock of the Canadian shield when climate zones move northward? How do you plan to bio-engineer corn to grow in the desert as those climate zones move northward?

Edited for moderated thread. Stop trying to insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

150 years ago there were no crops "where crops grow now".

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that 150 years ago crops required different climate conditions then they do today or are you trying to say the fields of today were bare rock or desert? In either case you are completely wrong, obviously…

You said you wanted to grow stuff on the Canadian Shield for some reason.

You claimed that you could bio-engineer crops like wheat to deal with its climate zone moving northward to the Canadian Shield; I asked you how you planned to do it. You have yet to answer and are now trying to change the subject.

Trying to say the Egyptian empire collapsed due to climate change when it's well documented that the Romans invading was the reason is ridiculous.

Learn some history. Egypt arose, fell apart and arose again multiple times before Rome ever existed.

. Like people just walked up and dropped a seed in the ground and poof, 300 acres of wheat. It took hundreds of years in some places to drain off swamps and dig out trees, heck they're still pulling rocks out of fields that have been growing for 100 years.

Don’t be absurd. When European settlers immigrated to North America they had crops within 1-2 years it didn’t take them hundreds of years like you claim.

ol, yes John Deere. There's your answer, that's why climate change today won't be anything like it was in the past.

Do you have an answer that is at least plausible? A new tractor won’t help wheat grow on shield rock or corn grow in a desert.

You realize if not true it means we'd still be monkeys? If as proto-humans we didn't have the common sense to get up and move or adapt or learn to cultivate land we'd still be monkeys?

That’s fine for us but the hominids that went extinct in the process it’s not so good. If we follow your logic and climate change causes evolution we are the ones who go extinct and “it’s evolution so it’s all good” doesn’t exactly make that good news.

Come on, even you have to find it funny that the ones that sat around screaming about climate change and throwing poop didn't evolve.

Well you are onto at least something of interest here, even if it’s not quite what you intended. Clearly the ones to survive were the ones who recognized a problem and took action, while the ones who sat back and said “I’m sure it will all work out” didn’t do so well…

 

[BenBurch]

Steam?

How about Fuel-Cells? they even become practical with trucking and busses, so I'm pretty sure they'd function as a railway power source. There are a lot of potential methods to power trains sustainably, the most difficult transportation issue to address sustainably is probably air transport (mass transit/cargo and military). Given the issues, I'd almost prefer a designer synfuel to trying to adapt planes and engines to sustainable more "naturally" -derived fuels. Alternatively we can get to liquid methane by concentrating and then reacting atmospherically derived CO2 with H2 but the energy density (while much better than H2) is abysmal. For flight, especially jet-engined flight, we may be stuck with hydrocarbon derived fuels for quite a while, though I'd prefer the natural gas and biofeedstock FT synfuels (Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel) to coal and oil feedstock fuels.

Sold fuel burned directly is more efficient. And remember this is a zero mitigation scenario; Cheaper will rule.

 

[Trakar]

What are the current prospects of geo-engineering like, for instance, emitting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere?

It adds problems like enanced acidic rain to the problems already associated with increasing amounts of CO2, accelerating ocean acidification, multiplying health issues, and would be increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain as economies suffer more and more from the other impacts associated with ACC. ultimately as CO2 levels continue to rise the "fix" begins to become as bad as the problem. If/when sulfur infusions stop, it tends to fall out of the atmosphere rapidly, within a few years, and CO2 impacts accelerate to their appropriate level,

 

[Furcifer]

Actuly you did, here is the exchange

No I made that clear that if you wanted to grow on shield rock you'd need greenhouses. Since everything isn't shield rock you wouldn't need to grow everything in greenhouses.
I don't think you're being serious, nobody is foolish enough to suggest or think everything would be grown in greenhouses. There's no need for it.

In any case I see you still haven’t bothered to address the issue, so I’ll ask you again. How do you expect to bio-engineer crops to grow on the bare rock of the Canadian shield when climate zones move northward?

Again suggesting you grow something on bare rock seems foolish and naive. You can't grow things on rocks, except possibly lichens.

How do you plan to bio-engineer corn to grow in the desert as those climate zones move northward?

Move the corn northward

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that 150 years ago crops required different climate conditions then they do today or are you trying to say the fields of today were bare rock or desert? In either case you are completely wrong, obviously…

I thought you understood what arable means. The land wasn't always arable, we changed it to make it arable. That's what we've done, that's what we do, that's what we will do in the foreseeable future.

You claimed that you could bio-engineer crops like wheat to deal with its climate zone moving northward to the Canadian Shield; I asked you how you planned to do it. You have yet to answer and are now trying to change the subject.

Because it's a ridiculous premise growing on rock. If you want to do that you'd use a greenhouse. Or you cover the rock with soil and then plant.

It's obvious from your questions you don't understand farming.

 

[macdoc]

Furcifer

Alarmists have some absurd notion that farmland is some god given miracle. Like people just walked up and dropped a seed in the ground and poof, 300 acres of wheat. It took hundreds of years in some places to drain off swamps and dig out trees, heck they're still pulling rocks out of fields that have been growing for 100 years.

I begin to wonder if you have actually been in the Canadian north or understand the history of glaciation and the profiles of soils.
The great plains are incredibily fertile as a result of glacial deposits and the river run off from the glaciers..
THERE IS NONE on the shield with the exception of few river bottoms. It was scraped clean and the debris became the fertile belt to the south.
I just returned from the James Bay Road and if you think we can just move agriculture north you are living entirely in a fantasy land.

You just lost any smidgeon of credibility even suggesting the taiga and tundra and shield are fertile.

Already we cannot keep mining the soil we have.....
I suggest you inform yourself about soils and regions

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soil/geosoil.htm

snip

Soil and top soil are produced naturally at a rate of 1mm in 200-400 years, averaging at about 1 ton/ha/y. A full soil profile develops in 2,000 - 10,000 years, a period which is long for humans but short for the planet. World-wide, agricultural soil is lost at a rate 10-40 times faster than its natural replacement. The USA lost 80mm since farming began, 200 years ago. This amounts to some 18 t/ha/y. China appears to lose 40 t/ha/y. World-wide loss of agricultural land is 6 million ha per year, from a world-wide total of 1200 million ha (0.5%/y). These are compelling reasons for improving the way humans manage their soils.

India and others in the fertile band in Asia face a different challenge and that's the Himalaya's.

First a technology miracle to "solve" CO2 warming, and now the miracle of making the tundra fertile??!!
Sorry but this is a science forum.......you made a claim the tundra/taiga can be fertile - prove it.

 

[Furcifer]

The warming trend for the last 25 and 50 years is well into statistical significance, obviously you can't get a statistically significant result over 5 years, but all this tells us is that there is no evidence the pre-existing trend changed.

IOW you have it precisely backwards and but I have to wonder if it's because you simply didn't do your homework whether you though you would get away with just making stuff up...

Statistical significance isn't scientific consensus. I don't understand how you can confuse the two but you obviously have.

 

[CapelDodger]

The notion that a poll of American climate scientists agreeing that in the last 150 years it has warmed a bit due to CO2 emissions is somehow scientific consensus is absurd. It's quite clear from the very same poll there isn't consensus on anything else.

The obvious existence of scientific concensus does not depend on a single US American poll. Every national science academy in the world expresses the same opinion - AGW is a real phaenomenon and poses a genuine threat to human society.

The same desperation showed up when alarmists claimed all the scientists involved with AR4 "agreed". That was quickly shot down as well. People, desperate people, lie about climate change and the science.

The scientists involved agree about many things, and disagree about others. The things they agree on are those which matter most, the ones they disagree on are at the margins - how much the climate will change, how this will manifest on the ground, and how quickly it will happen.

Lies about climate change are what you'll find at the Heatland Conference, not in the AR4. You'll also find support for the lie that there isn't a scientific consensus if not everybody agrees exactly about everything. (That's a comforting lie for deniers, since the likes of Singer and Soon can be paid to deny anything at all.)

Of course they needed a political front man with absolutely no understanding of physics; Al Gore. You forgot that

You were perhaps never aware that Margaret Thatcher needed no political front-people, least of all men. I realise that Al Gore cuts a Titanic figure in the weird world of the US American right, but Thatcher really was a world figure.

Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the IPCC. He was a mere US Senator at the time, which is a far from global role. He was involved in Kyoto, where he was Clinton's bagman screwing the targets down as far as possible, but again, you probably never knew that.

Why is that? Because prior to politicians getting involved the science was the science and there was no one misrepresenting that.

As I explained earlier, the science impressed itself on the politicians. AGW is the last thing they want; governing is a difficult business already. That's why their first response was to set up a committee. This is a traditional method of making a problem go away, which they hoped it would. Sadly, real problems don't just go away, and AGW is one.

 

[Furcifer]

The obvious existence of scientific concensus does not depend on a single US American poll. Every national science academy in the world expresses the same opinion - AGW is a real phaenomenon and poses a genuine threat to human society.

So do meteors.

The scientists involved agree about many things, and disagree about others. The things they agree on are those which matter most, the ones they disagree on are at the margins - how much the climate will change, how this will manifest on the ground, and how quickly it will happen.

No, consensus is about the margins as well. 0.1C over the next 25 years isn't worth getting out of bed for, 10C over the next 50 is. I'm sorry but the devil is in the details here.

Lies about climate change are what you'll find at the Heatland Conference, not in the AR4. You'll also find support for the lie that there isn't a scientific consensus if not everybody agrees exactly about everything. (That's a comforting lie for deniers, since the likes of Singer and Soon can be paid to deny anything at all.)

I actually agree, I don't think there are any lies in AR4. It's just incomplete and inconclusive given the current level of understanding.

You were perhaps never aware that Margaret Thatcher needed no political front-people, least of all men. I realise that Al Gore cuts a Titanic figure in the weird world of the US American right, but Thatcher really was a world figure.

Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the IPCC. He was a mere US Senator at the time, which is a far from global role. He was involved in Kyoto, where he was Clinton's bagman screwing the targets down as far as possible, but again, you probably never knew that.

You're right, don't know and don't care about politicians. This is the science forum.

As I explained earlier, the science impressed itself on the politicians. AGW is the last thing they want; governing is a difficult business already. That's why their first response was to set up a committee. This is a traditional method of making a problem go away, which they hoped it would. Sadly, real problems don't just go away, and AGW is one.

You may as well save your money. The cheap coal is going to be burned, if not here than there. Carbon offsets? You may as well throw your money in a wishing fountain. Global Warming is just creating a hotbed for scam artists, and not little ones, Madoff size scam artists.
It reminds me of when electricity was introduced to the public. Not knowing very much about it scam artists came up with all kinds of crazy contraptions making all kinds of crazy claims about what they could do with electricity. Sufficed to say, without a solid understanding of the science a lot of people got burned. Literally.

 

[lomiller]

No I made that clear that if you wanted to grow on shield rock you'd need greenhouses. Since everything isn't shield rock you wouldn't need to grow everything in greenhouses.

Ok, but how is that supposed to support you claim that bio-engineering would allow use to deal with wheat growing climates moving northward to the Canadian shield? That is the claim we are discussing after all, but if that’s really what you were trying to say it would seem you are attempting to refute your own claim rather then support it…

I don't think you're being serious, nobody is foolish enough to suggest or think everything would be grown in greenhouses. There's no need for it.

I also allowed for the possibility you meant you could bio-engineer crops to grow in the deserts that would exist where they are currently grown.

Now if you would just go ahead and tell up exactly what you think bio-engineering is going to accomplish I wouldn’t need to speculate, but given that you refuse to tell us what you meant all I can do is cover the obvious bases.

Move the corn northward

Corn has already moved northward, in many cases right up to the Canadian shield, so are you saying it should keep moving north into the Canadian shield or not?

I thought you understood what arable means. The land wasn't always arable, we changed it to make it arable. That's what we've done, that's what we do, that's what we will do in the foreseeable future.

Exactly. We didn’t need to terraform anything to get farmland so your claim that our farmland is the result of centuries of human manipulation is clearly BS…

Because it's a ridiculous premise growing on rock.

Yes it is. It was you are the one who claimed bio-engineering could deal with northward movement of climate zones. In this very thread you claimed we could just keep growing corn farther north. What I asked you do is provide evidence for these claims. You now say these “solutions” you offered are absurd, which we knew to begin with but you still haven’t dropped them.

 

[lomiller]

Statistical significance isn't scientific consensus. I don't understand how you can confuse the two but you obviously have.

We’ve measured temperatures over this period. It would be a poor scientist who rejected statistically significant evidence, and as it turns out no one who publishes anything on climate science does. Your claim that there is no consensus on the warming over the past 50 years is absurd.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not surprising, the beneficial effects of Global Warming and underplayed or outright ignored by alarmists. The actual amount of rainfall in an warming world will increase as warmer air holds more moisture. Not all areas will see a decrease in annual rainfall. Some are seeing an increase already. It's not all doom and gloom.

You should tell the people affected by Mississipi floods and Texan drought that the two compensate for each other, but be circumspect. They carry guns down there.

None, the timespan is too short.

So why bring the subject up?

None. You're probably unaware that the evolution of a species takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, not centuries.

If you think about it, it's not at all probable that I'm so ignorant. I'm clearly educated and interested in science, while even the average citizen knows that much about evolution. You brought the subject up, though, so I tried to get a conversation going. If you've so quickly lost interest in it, fair enough.

Only creationists would think that global warming would lead to new species, it fits their perverted version of the world.

Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that AGW will have any evolutionary impact on HomSap. It's not immediately obvious why you introduced the subject so I'm havng to cast about a bit to find out.

Again no new species will emerge in the next 100 years. The notion is absurd.

There will be adaptations in some creatures (insects, for instance) but probably not enough to constitute speciation.

The idea is so absurd I'm sure you have exclusive rights to thinking it through.

I'll take it that eugenics is not why you brought up evolution then.

Thankfully no one is ignoring Global Warming.

Many people are, and quite a number of others are working very hard to deny it, or minimize it, and definitely to prevent any action being taken to mitigate it. Check out the Heatland Conference, you can see it all there. Those weirdos are not ignoring AGW at all, in fact they're obsessed with the subject.

 

[Furcifer]

We’ve measured temperatures over this period. It would be a poor scientist who rejected statistically significant evidence, and as it turns out no one who publishes anything on climate science does. Your claim that there is no consensus on the warming over the past 50 years is absurd.

There isn't. You couldn't get 2 scientists ^*to agree how much it's warmed in the last 50 years and how much is due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

It's a constant string of misrepresentation of the fact like this that's made people wise up to claims by alarmists that global warming is the problem that it is. It's having a detrimental effect, probably more detrimental than anything Exxon can get people to say

*figure of speech

 

[CapelDodger]

So do meteors.

Your point being?

No, consensus is about the margins as well. 0.1C over the next 25 years isn't worth getting out of bed for, 10C over the next 50 is. I'm sorry but the devil is in the details here.

0.2C or 10C over 50 years you call a "detail". Only Lindzen, Spencer and Christy are arguing for anything like the first, and nobody at all for the second. The scientific discussion varies around 0.2C per decade, with the rate increasing slowly. All depending on emissions, of course. That's quite enough to be a concern to those who care about the future.

I actually agree, I don't think there are any lies in AR4. It's just incomplete and inconclusive given the current level of understanding.

It is a complete summation of the understanding as of 2005. It's a very good understanding, and things have moved on since then. They'd moved on when the AR4 came out.

You're right, don't know and don't care about politicians. This is the science forum.

And yet you brought up Al Gore. I find you hard to fathom.

You may as well save your money. The cheap coal is going to be burned, if not here than there. Carbon offsets? You may as well throw your money in a wishing fountain. Global Warming is just creating a hotbed for scam artists, and not little ones, Madoff size scam artists.

And the smart money is getting in on it.

It reminds me of when electricity was introduced to the public. Not knowing very much about it scam artists came up with all kinds of crazy contraptions making all kinds of crazy claims about what they could do with electricity. Sufficed to say, without a solid understanding of the science a lot of people got burned. Literally.

Indeed. What's your point?

People without a solid understanding of the science (well, of anything, really) might get taken in by your "we don't really know, it's probably all good anyway, let's wait and see" cut-price sophistry, but how are you going to make money out of it? What's your business plan? There's a world full of suckers out there (check out the Heatland Conference) and there are people who'll pay you to fool them (check out the Heatland Conference). You just need a Unique Selling Point.

Given the average age of the denier bench, simply being able to muster a heartbeat will be a USP soon.

 

[CapelDodger]

What are the current prospects of geo-engineering like, for instance, emitting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere?

Not good. Nobody's lining up to do it. There are people claiming they could do it, but they're trying to float schemes, not intending to do it for its own sake. The legal ramifications of any scheme are horrendous, as are the diplomatic consequences if (for instance) one country starts dumping acid rain on others. If it has to get past lawyers and diplomats even after finding someone to pay for it ... well, let's not hold our breaths.

I'm sure we'll hear more about geo-engineering as panic sets in but I doubt we'll see anything other than scams and tiny proof-of-concept projects.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, but how is that supposed to support you claim that bio-engineering would allow use to deal with wheat growing climates moving northward to the Canadian shield? That is the claim we are discussing after all, but if that’s really what you were trying to say it would seem you are attempting to refute your own claim rather then support it…

Nice goal post shifting. There was no such claim you're lying. Here's the question you asked:
So despite all the civilizations that have been killed off by climate change, you doubt it will happen this time? Is there any particular reason you think our civilization can dodge this bullet?

To which I responded bio-engineering. MY CLAIM WAS THAT BIOENGINEERING WAS PROBABLY THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON CIVILIZATION CAN DODGE THIS BULLET.

Everything else has been you moving the goal posts by saying bioengineering would somehow grow corn on rocks in the shield.

I also allowed for the possibility you meant you could bio-engineer crops to grow in the deserts that would exist where they are currently grown.

Actually corn and wheat have been bioengineered to grow in more arid regions. I think however the most realistic approach is irrigation. Or greenhouses. It depends on the conditions at the time. Suffice to say there isn't really anywhere on the planet we can't grow stuff if we want to. We've grown stuff in space!

Now if you would just go ahead and tell up exactly what you think bio-engineering is going to accomplish I wouldn’t need to speculate, but given that you refuse to tell us what you meant all I can do is cover the obvious bases.

This is another blatant lie, I told you in post #2710 - "Increased yields and more resistant crops."

Corn has already moved northward, in many cases right up to the Canadian shield, so are you saying it should keep moving north into the Canadian shield or not?

Not as long as it's cheaper to buy it from the US, like we already do.

Exactly. We didn’t need to terraform anything to get farmland so your claim that our farmland is the result of centuries of human manipulation is clearly BS…

Nonsense, the most fertile growing areas here in Canada were forests.

Yes it is. It was you are the one who claimed bio-engineering could deal with northward movement of climate zones.

No I didn't that's a lie.

In this very thread you claimed we could just keep growing corn farther north.

Yes, in greenhouses if need be. Not magic bio-engineered rock corn like you're talking about.

What I asked you do is provide evidence for these claims. You now say these “solutions” you offered are absurd, which we knew to begin with but you still haven’t dropped them.

Evidence for the claims you made up? You're not making sense, I suggest you go back and read the thread and actually try to read for comprehension.

 

[Travis]

So do meteors.

Interesting analogy. What if there was a meteor heading for Earth but a select few people were blocking the government from doing anything about it because they had unfounded suspicions that the whole thing was just a hoax to "get control of the economy"? And what if still others were saying the government shouldn't do anything about it until we knew exactly what the damage results from the meteor striking would be? And still others that say their country shouldn't help in deflecting the meteor if the meteor will strike some entirely different country? And others that say we should wait until the last second and hope that some sort of technological miracle can come about to save us all with a minimal of effort?


Does all that sound familiar?

Good. So then if another phenomenon (the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide) is so well known and the amount of time and energy needed to combat it is so huge why not get started on it as soon as possible?