Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
macdoc said:
You are being disingenuous in the extreme to to suggest we cannot prevent the worst case scenario of rapid depletion of coal for instance.
Click to expand...

You can't, not without a cheaper source made accessible to the entire world.
 
Furcifer said:
Even fewer live near the poles. I suggest you look at a map again if you think the population is distributed towards the poles.
Click to expand...

Populations are concentrated in the great river valleys, and not "towards the equator" as you stated.

There's no river valleys up north and down south, they're frozen.
Click to expand...

Your point being?

You can't move them any closer towards the poles, it's too cold :D
Click to expand...

The poles are warming faster than the tropics and temperate regions. This really doesn't matter in the context, because the great river valleys aren't going to move. They will simply become hotter, and their rivers will become less dependable.

I don't think you understand just how much energy it takes to survive in colder climates or the fact that nothing grows in colder ones.
Click to expand...

I don't think you get the point. Heating bills are not a globally significant issue. They may be important to you personally, but to the vast majority of people they aren't. You are vastly inflating the "benefit" gained this way from AGW.
 
a_unique_person said:
Perhaps that's why you think energy is only involved in keeping things moving in cold climates. In hot and humid tropical areas, there is air con everywhere, very energy intensive. The hotter it gets, the more air con is used.
Click to expand...

No, it's simple physics (thermodynamics to be precise) and should be rather obvious.

A simple question, is the hot hotter than the cold is colder? The answer is obviously no.

In order for human to be "comfortable" we require about 67F and a relative humidity of 50%.

Everyone knows it takes more energy in the winter to get up to 67F than it does in the summer to get down to 67. Why? Because the cold is much colder than the hot is hotter. ;)

Science.

I thought you would have been able to see from my example it takes more electricity (the money) in the winter to heat than in the summer to cool.
 
lomiller said:
Unless your electricity is produced by Nuclear or renewables, using natural gas directly in cooking actually has the lowest CO2 footprint and is the preferred solution.
Click to expand...

At best, NG is a short term transition alternative, much better than coal, but it is still a "fossil"/sequestered carbon fuel that emits one mol of CO2 for every mol of CH4 burned. As an emergency fuel it is tolerable, as a long-term, alternative, it is unacceptable and a part of the problem not a potential solution.
 
Furcifer said:
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The mining industry creates about 2 times the GHG's the petroleum industry creates.
Click to expand...

Considering that the majority of Canada's petroleum industry revolves around mining tar sands, this is probably disingenuous, at best.
 
Furcifer said:
It's actually the FAO that speaks on behalf of the UN for these people.
Click to expand...

I must assume that this is your way of saying "I believe this, but do not know it to be true, and cannot support my assertions."
 
a_unique_person said:
That and heat.
Click to expand...

And water,...and trace minerals, and,...well, all the normal concerns of food production.

I didn't have the experience of far northern hemisphere farming, but I did spend most of my youth on family farms in central Indiana and central Oklahoma (drastically different biomes, nearly identical concerns and worries).

As should be expected, those who know the land, the farmers, hunters, fishermen, those who make spending thier lives out in, and on the land, understand the science intuitively, they live it, see it and understand the balances that are drastically off. The changes and the consequences of those changes, I just don't know how to get those who gain their perspective of the world through the filters and lenses of politics and ideological abstractions to understand the problems we are causing and facing.
 
CapelDodger said:
Populations are concentrated in the great river valleys, and not "towards the equator" as you stated.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. It's almost uninhabitable at the poles, unlike the equator, because of the cold. Heat is an inconvenience, cold is a killer.

CapelDodger said:
The poles are warming faster than the tropics and temperate regions. This really doesn't matter in the context, because the great river valleys aren't going to move. They will simply become hotter, and their rivers will become less dependable.
Click to expand...

Too bad they won't warm sufficiently to make them more inhabitable.

CapelDodger said:
I don't think you get the point. Heating bills are not a globally significant issue. They may be important to you personally, but to the vast majority of people they aren't. You are vastly inflating the "benefit" gained this way from AGW.
Click to expand...

It's just one of many benefits that global warming will present in the coming years.
 
a_unique_person said:
Using electricity for heating is a waste of the most potent form of energy we have.
Click to expand...

Much depends upon how the electricty is generated, and how it is converted to heat,...and perhaps most importantly, how that heat is handled after it is created.
 
Furcifer said:
You can't, not without a cheaper source made accessible to the entire world.
Click to expand...

Making coal as expensive as the costs of dealing with its emissions, will make a lot of sources of energy cheaper than coal.
 
Interesting studies for the interested:

"Going beyond the IPCC ‘worst case’ "
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46447

...“Relative to the A1FI scenario, our highest scenario results in an additional 2°C (3.6F) of global mean warming above A1FI levels by 2100, a complete loss of Arctic summer sea ice by 2070 and an additional 43% sea level rise due to thermal expansion above A1FI levels by 2100,”...
Click to expand...

Their worst sounds rather mild, but considering that they limited their considerations, not too surprising.

...The conclusion of the modelling work was that although the simulations reveal no significant nonlinearities in global climate feedbacks, significant additional climate changes would occur in a hypothetical future without any form of climate mitigation or restriction on fossil fuel availability. Sanderson also points out that the results are dependent on a single model that is not capable of simulating feedbacks involving the Earth’s carbon cycle (one candidate for large nonlinearities in response to increasing emissions). He therefore believes that the next logical step is to repeat experiments of this type using a range of next-generation models with a fully interactive carbon cycle...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
AGW compared to previous natural episodes of global warming

"The Last Great Global Warming"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming

...Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum , or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down...
...The scenario that best fit the physical evidence required the addition of between 3,000 and 10,000 petagrams of carbon into the atmosphere and ocean, more than the volcanoes or methane hydrates could provide; permafrost or peat and coal must have been involved. This estimate falls on the high side of those made previously based on isotope signatures from other cores and computer models. But what surprised us most was that this gas release was spread out over approximately 20,000 years—a time span between twice and 20 times as long as anyone has projected previously. That lengthy duration implies that the rate of injection during the PETM was less than two petagrams a year—a mere fraction of the rate at which the burning of fossil fuels is delivering greenhouse gases into the air today. Indeed, CO2 concentrations are rising probably 10 times faster now than they did during the PETM...
For years scientists considered the PETM to be the supreme example of the opposite extreme: the fastest climate shift ever known, rivaling the gloomiest projections for the future...
Click to expand...

Now,...we know better.
 
Global Warming Solutions Reports
"Getting Off Oil: A 50 State Roadmap for Curbing our Dependence on Petroleum"
http://www.environmentamerica.org/h...admap-for-curbing-our-dependence-on-petroleum

http://www.environmentamerica.org/u...cff/Getting-Off-Oil---Environment-America.pdf

...
The benefits of an oil reduction strategy would accrue to all sectors of the economy and every region of the United States.
Oil consumption would be reduced by 35 percent in the transportation sector, 31 percent in homes, 39 percent in businesses, and by 9 percent in the industrial sector relative to 2008 levels.
Each of the 50 states would experience significant reductions in oil consumption, ranging from a 3 percent decline in fast-growing Nevada to a 45 percent drop in Michigan.
The policy steps that are needed to achieve these reductions in oil consumption include:
Fuel economy improvements in light-duty vehicles consistent with achievement of a 62 miles per gallon fuel economy/global warming pollution standard by 2025.
Aggressive efforts to put millions of plug-in electric vehicles on the road through light-duty vehicle global warming pollution standards and other strategies.
Requiring the sale of energy-efficient replacement tires for cars and light trucks.
Encouraging the development of vibrant communities with a range of available transportation options, including transit, biking and walking.
Requiring large employers to work with their employees to reduce the number of single-passenger automobile commutes to workplaces.
Transitioning to a system in which automobile drivers pay for insurance by the mile instead of at a flat rate – providing a financial incentive for reducing driving.
Doubling transit ridership over the next 20 years through expansion of public transportation systems, while further increasing ridership through efforts to make transit service more efficient, more reliable and more comfortable.
Establishing a clean fuel standard that reduces life-cycle global warming pollution from transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020 – encouraging a shift away from oil as a transportation fuel.
Promoting bicycling through investments in bike lanes and other facilities for bicyclists.
Building high-speed rail lines in 11 federally designated corridors, providing an alternative to air and car travel.
Improving the fuel economy of heavy-duty trucks, airplanes and trains.
Retrofitting existing homes and businesses to save energy, and adopting strong building energy codes to ensure that new homes are as energy efficient as possible.
Setting strong standards and creating strong incentives for the replacement of inefficient industrial boilers and process heat systems with high-efficiency models.
Curbing oil use in the federal government through improved energy efficiency and a shift to cleaner fuels.

...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom