Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

on what science are you basing your predictions on?
i wonder why governments don't want to increase CO² output when AGW is so benefical.

Which prediction? AR4 discusses the net increase in arable land as the global average temperature rises. As far as I know that's a simple matter of geography. As far as arable goes it's simply a matter of knowing frost and not heat is the limiting factor.
Who says they don't want to? They seemingly are, according to posters in this thread. In my opinion willfully increasing emissions isn't sustainable. Eventually by necessity the planet will go carbon neutral but the protracted change through reducing emissions is beneficial. Make no mistake, by the time the planet goes carbon neutral coal will be more rare than diamonds.

 

[Furcifer]

Whoopie-do. Mexico city lies in a valley that ranges from a minimum of 2200m up to 5000m. Even assuming the minimum figure that's still 9.81 x 2200 = 21.6kJ per litre of water just to lift it at 100% efficiency. Then there is the minor detail of shifting it 300+ km from the coast, I haven't found a source for this cost yet, but don't assume it to be small. Then the desalination costs. Even if I assume 50% sourced (3 litres per day per person) from run-off from the hills, that's still 0.5 x 15e6 x 3 x 21.6e3 = 470GJ per day, just to lift the water for the population for just one day. Totally ignoring translation and desalination costs. Pretty damned poor.

What's the solution? Accepting that the US, and Canada primarily, and the Southern American countries are likely to gain probably 20-50 million extra refugeesin the next 50 years. Those refugees are going to have to be fed, watered, supported, medically treated, educated, and employed. Good luck, given the US is more than a trillion dollars in debt already.

So , given that populations are bound to rise, what's the impications, the bordering states already have similar problems. Lake Mead is dropping precipitously. Texas is in yet another serious, unprecedented, drought, the Oghala and High Plains aquifiers are already in crisis.

Way to go, taking after an ostrich...

So your solution, which is easier than desalinating ocean water is to abandon a city of some 20 million

I'm quite sure it's easier to desalinate water, even if you pipe it to the highest point in the entire country, than move it North. Time will tell.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/76679.html

Elevation 2238m at the airport.

So desalination isn't a practical way of getting fresh water, but a 50$ tax on fuel is? Carbon credits? Reducing emissions in the United States and Canada is the practical way of getting fresh water to Mexico?

It's not a 50$ ( or whatever value it is) tax on all energy, only on hydrocarbon based energy.

You're saying Mexico City is going to run out of fresh water, fine. What's the solution?

I didn't say there was one.

 

[Furcifer]

Funny thing, but nobody has ever lived in Antarctica.

It's not funny, it's just too cold. Cold is ultimately the limiting factor on where things can or can't live on this planet.

Not true of the rest of the significant land masses on this planet. Billions will without a doubt suffer premature death because of changes we are making to the environment.

If that's a bet it's one I'd like to take.

Even if billions do die from changes to the environment, what we've done as a species will still have a net beneficial effect on humanity. Burning fossil fuels has been good to us.

 

[BenBurch]

They're under the impression the crops did survive, but it costs too much to send them so we're burning them instead.

They said thanks for the clean air in the future, but they need food right now.

Trivializing the starvation of real people isn't seemly, unfortunately your whole line of argument that AGW is a Good Thing is exactly that.

 

[Furcifer]

We don't need to heat homes or cook with natural gas. There are lots of ways to provide heating and electricity that don't involve the use of fossil fuels.

Good luck with that.The number of homes that cook with natural gas and the offset during HVAC heating days make it inconsequential.

Heating homes, businesses and institutions with natural gas is a whole other matter. I'm just speculating, but given the recent progress made towards high efficiency natural gas heating we're 25 years away from even beginning to look elsewhere for an alternative.

You're welcome to try though. I'd pay money to see someone explain to the average home owner in Canada how their natural gas furnace is ruining the planet.

 

[DC]

Which prediction? AR4 discusses the net increase in arable land as the global average temperature rises. As far as I know that's a simple matter of geography. As far as arable goes it's simply a matter of knowing frost and not heat is the limiting factor.
Who says they don't want to? They seemingly are, according to posters in this thread. In my opinion willfully increasing emissions isn't sustainable. Eventually by necessity the planet will go carbon neutral but the protracted change through reducing emissions is beneficial. Make no mistake, by the time the planet goes carbon neutral coal will be more rare than diamonds.

ah i see it is based on cherry picking a few things ignoring important other things and make up the rest as you go along.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not a 50$ ( or whatever value it is) tax on all energy, only on hydrocarbon based energy.
I didn't say there was one.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

If 20 million people need water desalinated and piped in 300 km it's a relatively easy task to accomplish. Natural gas and petroleum get piped considerably longer distances without a second thought. Why would piping water be prohibitive?

If and when it becomes necessary it can and will be done. Unless there's a cheaper more effective way of doing it.

I seriously don't see the problem.

 

[Trakar]

They're under the impression the crops did survive, but it costs too much to send them so we're burning them instead.

They said thanks for the clean air in the future, but they need food right now.

"They" are apparently misinformed, do you have a reference as to who these people are and what exactly it is that they believe? While shipping is expensive and will shortly be much more so, as we learn to do full cost accounting so that the industries and individuals who are actually responsible bear more of the burden of their actions and such is not placed solely on the shoulders of taxpayers. Why should an industry reap record profits while forcing me to pay extra taxes to clean up their mess?

 

[lomiller]

Which prediction? AR4 discusses the net increase in arable land as the global average temperature rises. As far as I know that's a simple matter of geography. As far as arable goes it's simply a matter of knowing frost and not heat is the limiting factor.

Soil and water are the limiting factors, not heat or frost.

 

[Trakar]

Good luck with that.The number of homes that cook with natural gas and the offset during HVAC heating days make it inconsequential.

Heating homes, businesses and institutions with natural gas is a whole other matter. I'm just speculating, but given the recent progress made towards high efficiency natural gas heating we're 25 years away from even beginning to look elsewhere for an alternative.

You're welcome to try though. I'd pay money to see someone explain to the average home owner in Canada how their natural gas furnace is ruining the planet.

We could pre-emptively invade and institute regime change.

 

[macdoc]

Human health and crops at risk as this continues with 141 million people under an extreme heat advisory

Hot Nights and High Humidity Set This Heat Wave Apart

• Published: July 20th, 2011 in Impacts, Projections, Climate, Extremes, Heat, Energy, Weather, Extreme Weather, United States, US National, Midwest, Extreme Planet

ShareThis


By Andrew Freedman

My colleague Heidi Cullen has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today on the current heat wave, and the shifting notion of what constitutes a "normal climate" as average global temperatures continue to warm.
She didn't have room for details on the heat wave in that story, but it's worth doing so here given its important lessons for climate change adaptation efforts, particularly concerning public health and infrastructure.

The heat wave that is currently roasting much of the United States stands out from typical summertime heat events that we expect to occur during July and August. First of all, the hot weather, which is associated with a sprawling area of high pressure, covers a huge expanse. Today, for example, at least 141 million people under heat advisories or warnings, according to a tweet from NOAA spokesman Justin Kenney (see video below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Wt-xByyMo&feature=player_embedded

A NOAA visualization showing the spread of the heat wave across the US this week.
Second, the heat wave has featured an extraordinary combination of high temperatures and humidity. In combination, these are known as the heat index, and during this heat wave the heat indices have shot up to levels more commonly seen in the brutally hot and humid region near the Red Sea, rather than in Minnesota and South Dakota. As meteorologist Paul Douglas reported on his Minneapolies Star Tribune blog, the heat index in Moorhead, Minn. hit a whopping 134°F yesterday, likely setting a new record for the highest heat index ever reported in Minnesota. The Twin Cities also tied its all-time heat index record, at 119°F.

These extreme heat indices constitute a human health risk, since these conditions make it extremely difficult for the body to cool itself through sweat and evaporation. The extra humidity makes evaporation more difficult, which effectively shuts down our main cooling mechanism. The dew point (another measure of how much water is in the air) has reached the 80s across many parts of the Midwest, which is a level more commonly seen near the Gulf of Mexico during the summertime. For example, Douglas reported that Minneapolis experienced three days in a row with 80°F or higher dew points. According to him, that is unprecedented since the beginning of instrument records there in the late 19th century. In Moorhead, Minn., where the record heat index was observed, the dew point reached 88°F, a new state record.

continues

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/hot-nights-and-high-humidity-set-this-heat-wave-apart/

 

[Furcifer]

Soil and water are the limiting factors, not heat or frost.

No. Soil and water can be easily manipulated by the grower. Frost free days are the limiting factor. The only crop I've personally ever seen manage frost is grapes, but that's to manipulate sugars and not really part of the cultivation process.

 

[Trakar]

Good luck with that.The number of homes that cook with natural gas and the offset during HVAC heating days make it inconsequential.

Heating homes, businesses and institutions with natural gas is a whole other matter. I'm just speculating, but given the recent progress made towards high efficiency natural gas heating we're 25 years away from even beginning to look elsewhere for an alternative.

You're welcome to try though. I'd pay money to see someone explain to the average home owner in Canada how their natural gas furnace is ruining the planet.

Actually,...you'll pay money if someone doesn't explain it to them in a way they can understand , and so will they, because sooner or later, carbon taxes and the costs of remediating the damages and changes that occur are going to neccessitate government action and that costs tax dollars. The longer we wait and the more CO2e emissions accumulate in the atmosphere between now and when those actions are taken, the more expense those actions are going to be. Its really quite simple, we can adjust our lifestyles and technologies incrementally now at relatively low cost, or we can wait until the costs are much much greater and the task much more difficult.

Even NG has it's biosubstitutes. If we redesign our sewage and waste systems, we can generate more than enough bio-gas for cooking, with enough left over to power the production and treatment plant. Building codes to handle efficient residential and commercial insulation and power usage. Geothermal, solar, wind tidal and hydro, can fill a lot of the gaps where needed, and a nuclear baseload backbone to handle deficiencies and industrial requirements.

 

[Furcifer]

"They" are apparently misinformed, do you have a reference as to who these people are and what exactly it is that they believe?

"They" are the people represented by the UN.

While shipping is expensive and will shortly be much more so, as we learn to do full cost accounting so that the industries and individuals who are actually responsible bear more of the burden of their actions and such is not placed solely on the shoulders of taxpayers. Why should an industry reap record profits while forcing me to pay extra taxes to clean up their mess?

Sounds good. I don't think it's possible, but if it can be done it should be done.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually,...you'll pay money if someone doesn't explain it to them in a way they can understand , and so will they, because sooner or later, carbon taxes and the costs of remediating the damages and changes that occur are going to neccessitate government action and that costs tax dollars. The longer we wait and the more CO2e emissions accumulate in the atmosphere between now and when those actions are taken, the more expense those actions are going to be. Its really quite simple, we can adjust our lifestyles and technologies incrementally now at relatively low cost, or we can wait until the costs are much much greater and the task much more difficult.

Even NG has it's biosubstitutes. If we redesign our sewage and waste systems, we can generate more than enough bio-gas for cooking, with enough left over to power the production and treatment plant. Building codes to handle efficient residential and commercial insulation and power usage. Geothermal, solar, wind tidal and hydro, can fill a lot of the gaps where needed, and a nuclear baseload backbone to handle deficiencies and industrial requirements.

And that's exactly what's being done. Efficiency and conservation programs have been implemented, subsidized renewables, more nuclear, less coal. It's all happening without manipulating the energy market and there's no reason to begin doing so.

 

[a_unique_person]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

If 20 million people need water desalinated and piped in 300 km it's a relatively easy task to accomplish. Natural gas and petroleum get piped considerably longer distances without a second thought. Why would piping water be prohibitive?

If and when it becomes necessary it can and will be done. Unless there's a cheaper more effective way of doing it.

I seriously don't see the problem.

Have you compared the price of tap water to petroleum?

 

[Mikemcc]

No. Soil and water can be easily manipulated by the grower. Frost free days are the limiting factor. The only crop I've personally ever seen manage frost is grapes, but that's to manipulate sugars and not really part of the cultivation process.

Only if water and cheap fertilizers are available to the farmer. Neither of which are certainties.

 

[Mikemcc]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

If 20 million people need water desalinated and piped in 300 km it's a relatively easy task to accomplish. Natural gas and petroleum get piped considerably longer distances without a second thought. Why would piping water be prohibitive?

If and when it becomes necessary it can and will be done. Unless there's a cheaper more effective way of doing it.

I seriously don't see the problem.

The volumes pumped are hugely different. In addition, water is much more massive than gas, slightly more so than oil. Also, it has a fraction of the financial return to the companies that sell it. Yes, the cost to the nation of building the infrastructure is relatively insignificant, the continued running costs are prohibitive but likely to be necessary, otherwise they are not going to cope.

 

[DC]

No. Soil and water can be easily manipulated by the grower. Frost free days are the limiting factor. The only crop I've personally ever seen manage frost is grapes, but that's to manipulate sugars and not really part of the cultivation process.

depends where you are, how much technology and money you have avaible.
this is especially hard for people not living in the fine first world.