Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

...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.

Surely you jest?

The primary issue is to first concentrate on building codes to insure properly constructed and insulated homes, and then to look at the heating and cooling systems that one is using to produce heating or cooling. And then finally we compare the times when environmental conditions require heating or cooling.

On a per unit of energy basis and looking simply at the cooling or heating of one degree, the energy that must be moved is the same whether we are warming or cooling. Additionally, there are personal "comfort" differences.

(Most that I know, don't turn air-conditioning on til the inside temps exceed 80F/27C, and usually set the thermostat at 77F/25C. In the winter, Heating generally isn't activated until inside temps drop into the mid-low 50sF/10-13C and thermostat is generally set at 65F/18C. For my part of the planet, this means that our heating and cooling periods are roughly equal at about 2 -2.5 months for each out of the year.)

The biggest difference comes in the equipment used to generate heating or cooling, and how well insulated and designed the structure being heated or cooled is.

Average U.S. temperature increases by 0.5 degrees F
New 1981-2010 'normals' to be released this week
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html

Trading heating for cooling is rarely an even trade and I've never seen a situation where on a per unit basis, it was cheaper and easier to cool from a given temperature than to heat by the same increment, mainly because there are relatively cheap means of heating, but cooling tends to expensive and much more complicated.

 

[Trakar]

...It's just one of many benefits that global warming will present in the coming years.

Please list and detail the "benefits" you perceive and provide supporting references for considerations.

On the negative side of AGW some of the problems facing us are:

Shrinking fresh water supplies and expanding deserts
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html

Warmer nights, decreasing rice yeilds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192307002535

Increasing wildfire seasons
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5789/940.pdf

Rising numbers of deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps
http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short

Increased heat stress
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...ract?sid=511111d6-a7df-4e55-843d-a751fb821c5a

Increased range and seasonal survivability of mosquitoes and ticks and the diseases they carry
http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf

Less compacted ice, hazardous floes and more mobile icebergs posing increased risk to shipping
http://nsidc.org/noaa/iicwg/IICWG_2009/IICWG_X_NEWS_RELEASE-2009-10-16.pdf

Melting of Arctic region and the methane bubbling that accompanies such
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/633

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf

http://sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2009-Westbrook et al JR211 plumes GRL.pdf

Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146663

Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo420.html

Decline in global phytoplankton
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html

Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5994/940

Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x/pdf

Threat to fish populations
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12930

Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/328/5984/1382

Contribution to rising sea levels
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf+html

Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/JuneICICLE.pdf

Increased risk of conflict
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full

This is just a handful from among the broad range and multitudinous impacts we are already seeing.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, it does. I grow all kinds of things on my porch, there's no soil and the drainage is terrible. Despite this I can grow just about anything, as long as there's no frost...

I dare say you don't provide for all of your own food from your porch, yet alone produce porch crops to produce more than a fractional supplement to your diet. While occassionally cheaper than specialty store prices, most porch vegetables and fruits are actually more expensive to raise (including all of the equipment, time and effort) than the same produce purchased at local farmer's markets.

What a person can produce in a pot on the balcony does not translate to producing crops on tens of thousands+ hectares, and to even offhandedly insinuate such does not seem reasonable. As always, I am open to the review of any compelling supportive evidences you care to offer for your assertions.

 

[Furcifer]

Considering that the majority of Canada's petroleum industry revolves around mining tar sands, this is probably disingenuous, at best.

Feel free to substantiate this claim if you can. The tar sands aren't a typical mining operation but may be included in the figures sited. Since the numbers (emissions) haven't risen as macdoc's unsubstantiated claim would have you believe I don't believe this is true.

 

[Furcifer]

What, in your consideration, limits the ability to drastically cut emissions?

Ultimately time.

 

[Furcifer]

What a person can produce in a pot on the balcony does not translate to producing crops on tens of thousands+ hectares, and to even offhandedly insinuate such does not seem reasonable. As always, I am open to the review of any compelling supportive evidences you care to offer for your assertions.

Another strawman. I said the limiting factor on my porch and in a field is the same; frost free days. This is the defining factor in determining the hardiness zones, which is what we were talking about "moving" under climate change.

It should be obvious in a warming climate the number of frost free days will change and move regions further north (or south).

 

[Furcifer]

Surely you jest?

No, it's a scientific fact.

Trading heating for cooling is rarely an even trade and I've never seen a situation where on a per unit basis, it was cheaper and easier to cool from a given temperature than to heat by the same increment, mainly because there are relatively cheap means of heating, but cooling tends to expensive and much more complicated.

All your handwaving aside, I live in Canada. It costs me 3-5 times as much to heat in the Winter as it does to cool in the summer (using electricity).

It's scientific fact, it costs more and uses more energy to heat in the Winter than it does to cool in the summer. Full stop period.

There's no way you're going to get people to get rid of natural gas anytime soon. Heating by natural gas can run $300-400 a month, by electric that can run $1000. And electricity is going up, that's a fact.

That's why I say it's sheer nonsense to expect what you've call open cycling natural gas combustion to end anytime soon. Especially given the efficiency of NG furnaces.

 

[Furcifer]

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

Artificially inflating the price of an essential commodity isn't going to solve anything. Not on a world wide scale.

 

[a_unique_person]

Indeed, that's why I was surprised at tshaitanku's the suggestion to abandon using Natural Gas.

Using Natural Gas to produce electricity to heat a house is incredibly inefficient, and expensive. Don't use the gas to produce electricty, use it to heat the house directly. Insulate the house and use it's sighting and architecture to take the most advantage of natural heating and cooling effects of the sun.

 

[a_unique_person]

Trading heating for cooling is rarely an even trade and I've never seen a situation where on a per unit basis, it was cheaper and easier to cool from a given temperature than to heat by the same increment, mainly because there are relatively cheap means of heating, but cooling tends to expensive and much more complicated.

Cooling means fighting thermodynamics. We have to create heat to create the cooling effect.

 

[Furcifer]

Using Natural Gas to produce electricity to heat a house is incredibly inefficient, and expensive.

That's why no one on the planet does.

 

[a_unique_person]

That's why no one on the planet does.

Gas fired power stations running electrical heaters. A huge waste.

I asked before, but you might have missed it. Why does a non carbon based replacement for coal power have to be cheaper than coal power?

 

[Trakar]

Artificially inflating the price of an essential commodity isn't going to solve anything. Not on a world wide scale.

Red herring, no one, especially me, said anything about "artificially inflating the price," what was said and meant was: "when full/true costs are considered, most sources are cheaper." This full/true costing is accomplished by "making coal as expensive as the costs of dealing with its emissions." And this is true for all "fossil" fuels. When you allow some businesses to discount the majority cost of their product and pass it to the citizenry to pay in the form of increased tax burdens/less services for their taxes, especially when you also give these same corporations massive tax credits and breaks and they are recording record profits, then you are creating a corporate nanny state full of welfare queen businesses,...not something most people would or do agree with, when they actually understand what is happening.

 

[Trakar]

No, it's a scientific fact.

Cite or reference?

I live in Canada. It costs me 3-5 times as much to heat in the Winter as it does to cool in the summer (using electricity).

Accept the burdens of your choices or move, don't expect the rest of the world to pay for the results of your choices.

 

[Trakar]

Another strawman. I said the limiting factor on my porch and in a field is the same; frost free days. This is the defining factor in determining the hardiness zones, which is what we were talking about "moving" under climate change.

No, that is what you are asserting without supporting reference or citation.

What most of the rest of us are talking about are total shifting climate patterns and trends, which depend upon a great number of factors beyond merely the number of frost free days. Climate envelope changes/shifts include changes in flowering times, changes in hardiness zones, changes in growing season, changes in precipitation patterns, changes in soild character, etc.,.

 

[Trakar]

Feel free to substantiate this claim if you can. The tar sands aren't a typical mining operation but may be included in the figures sited. Since the numbers (emissions) haven't risen as macdoc's unsubstantiated claim would have you believe I don't believe this is true.

Since you have yet to offer any reputable empiric support or substantiation for your beliefs, I see no reason to consider them as valid or worthy of consideration in the scientific discussion of these issues.

 

[Trakar]

Using Natural Gas to produce electricity to heat a house is incredibly inefficient, and expensive. Don't use the gas to produce electricty, use it to heat the house directly. Insulate the house and use it's sighting and architecture to take the most advantage of natural heating and cooling effects of the sun.

I would prefer gas to coal or oil (direct or to produce electricity for heating), but, at best, gas must be viewed as a transition fuel, even in the direct heating role. Biogas is a carbon neutral alternative. With proper design and insulation, solar, wind, geothermal, and any number of alternatives can easily provide required heating (and cooling) energies.

 

[Trakar]

That's why no one on the planet does.

23% of US electrical power is produced by natural gas, roughly in line with general global electrical production via gas. But, as always, if you can provide compelling empiric evidences to support your assertion, I will gladly consider it and modify my statement and considerations in accord with such evidences.

Some ~9,000 gigalitres of NG were used to produce electricity in 2008 in Canada according to:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-003-x/57-003-x2008000-eng.pdf

"Natural gas: Cheap, cleaner than coal, but still a pollution concern"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/17/f-power-2020-natural-gas-generation.html

 

[a_unique_person]

No, it's a scientific fact.




All your handwaving aside, I live in Canada. It costs me 3-5 times as much to heat in the Winter as it does to cool in the summer (using electricity).

It's scientific fact, it costs more and uses more energy to heat in the Winter than it does to cool in the summer. Full stop period.

That's because you need heating more than cooling. There are plenty of places on the earth where houses have no heating at all.

There's no way you're going to get people to get rid of natural gas anytime soon. Heating by natural gas can run $300-400 a month, by electric that can run $1000. And electricity is going up, that's a fact.

It is, maybe that's a good reason to get new sources of energy going sooner rather than later, and cut the production of CO2.

 

[a_unique_person]

I would prefer gas to coal or oil (direct or to produce electricity for heating), but, at best, gas must be viewed as a transition fuel, even in the direct heating role.

At the moment, I don't think we have an alternative. Where I live we use lignite for fuel, which is about the most inefficient way to produce power but highly efficient at producing CO2.