Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[a_unique_person]

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.

Welfare recipients is 100% correct. When state governments court new businesses, they often offer subsidised benefits such as cheap power. One of the biggest users of the lignite generate power in Australia is the aluminium industry. They pay nothing like the real cost of the power they use, it is subsidised by us, the tax payer, and written into long term contracts that would cost a fortune to break.

 

[Furcifer]

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

We're talking about Canada

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.

What new source? We have almost 80% of our electricity carbon neutral!

This is the problem with environmentalists these days, they read something in popular mechanics about a technology and then they just expect everyone to switch to this experimental concept overnight. The reality is much different. In reality the costs are extremely prohibitive. But even if the costs aren't outrageous some things just aren't practical. Heat pumps are great as long as you don't live on granite and have sufficient temperature differential. Solar panels are great if you live in a typically hot and sunny place free of hail. You get the point.

I don't see where anything that can be done isn't being done. Tax rebates for efficiency improvements, coal plants scheduled to close or experimenting with biomass, new nuclear plants, new emissions standards,wind farms, solar farms, the list goes on and on.

It's pretty obvious the expectations that are being set aren't realistic. It's also pretty obvious the current system of evaluating emissions and setting those standards isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Unfortunately, that is an all too frequent situation. I'm led to the understanding that here are always alternatives, though each comes with its own set of drawbacks and consequences, and sometimes it takes combinations of systems to adequately replace what was previously handled by a single source. Hopefully, within the next few years we can all focus much more intensively on solutions and resolutions for individual problems and situations, and much less time on trying to defend and explain the basic science from those who seem determined to confuse and conflate for perceptions of personal, political and/or ideological gain.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Yah, when I turn on my electric heaters I used nuclear generated electricity, not NG.

Just think about this for a second.

"Running your fridge off of natural gas is stupid"
"My fridge doesn't run on natural gas"
"Well the electricity comes from natural gas"

Nobody runs electric heaters off of natural gas, they run off electricity. Splitting hairs like this is pointless and intellectually dishonest.

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

Utter nonsense generated by alarmists. You have to get rid of every single coal plant on the planet before you could put a ding in natural gas electricity generation. We're at least 50 if not 100 years away from that.

All you're presenting is fantasy. It's great, it's fun to do, and it's good to have a healthy imagination, but we're talking science not science fiction.

 

[Trakar]

We're talking about Canada

Actually, "you" seem to be focussed on Canada. Most of us are talking about the global situation, with application and side reference to, individual nation situations.

What new source? We have almost 80% of our electricity carbon neutral!

Hydro-power isn't carbon neutral. It is much preferrable to fossil fuels in most cases.

"Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html

"Hydroelectric Reservoirs - the Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions of a “Carbon Free” Energy Source"
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf

This is the problem with environmentalists these days, they read something in popular mechanics about a technology and then they just expect everyone to switch to this experimental concept overnight. The reality is much different. In reality the costs are extremely prohibitive. But even if the costs aren't outrageous some things just aren't practical. Heat pumps are great as long as you don't live on granite and have sufficient temperature differential. Solar panels are great if you live in a typically hot and sunny place free of hail. You get the point...

Argument by strawman seems to be the point you are making. Please present evidence that anyone here has made the arguments you are asserting. If you have evidence that the costs of changing to alternative energy sources if more cost prohibitive than the costs of dealing with the emissions and other issues involved with current energy sources, please present your evidences, or quit making unsupported arguments that are contradicted by the best available evidences.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually, "you" seem to be focussed on Canada. Most of us are talking about the global situation, with application and side reference to, individual nation situations.

That's incorrect, this arose out of a comparison to Sweden and Norway. You're just moving the goal posts again. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in how emissions are evaluated and standards set.

Hydro-power isn't carbon neutral. It is much preferrable to fossil fuels in most cases.

Oh please, more pedantry. Nothing is carbon neutral then and there's no point in talking about it. Nuclear takes cement, lots of it, plus the mining of uranium, all the cars the workers drive, oh hey might as well include the workers themselves, they're carbon

Argument by strawman seems to be the point you are making. Please present evidence that anyone here has made the arguments you are asserting. If you have evidence that the costs of changing to alternative energy sources if more cost prohibitive than the costs of dealing with the emissions and other issues involved with current energy sources, please present your evidences, or quit making unsupported arguments that are contradicted by the best available evidences.

My only purpose it to point out how ridiculous the alarmist agenda is. It has nothing to do with AGW, it's simply fear mongering and naysaying.

Until there are definitive answers based in scientific fact that are backed by experts AGW will remain an amusing exercise in goal post shifting.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm led to the understanding that here are always alternatives, though each comes with its own set of drawbacks and consequences, and sometimes it takes combinations of systems to adequately replace what was previously handled by a single source.

You've been mislead.

Hopefully, within the next few years we can all focus much more intensively on solutions and resolutions for individual problems and situations, and much less time on trying to defend and explain the basic science from those who seem determined to confuse and conflate for perceptions of personal, political and/or ideological gain.

Doubtful. You've demonstrated exactly why it won't be possible to do so until the science it more exacting. Everyone's got their own agenda and nobody wants to back a losing trillion dollar pony.
Prepare for emissions to continue to rise until there's a Gen IV reactor operating in every country in every province in every state around the world. That's including the Arctic

 

[Trakar]

Yah, when I turn on my electric heaters I used nuclear generated electricity, not NG.

Just think about this for a second.

"Running your fridge off of natural gas is stupid"
"My fridge doesn't run on natural gas"
"Well the electricity comes from natural gas"

Nobody runs electric heaters off of natural gas, they run off electricity. Splitting hairs like this is pointless and intellectually dishonest.

Hmmm...

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.

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

That's why no one on the planet does.

but they do

23% of US electrical power is produced by natural gas, roughly in line with general global electrical production via gas...

We're talking about Canada

fallacious attempt to split hair

...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

further intellectually dishonest -according to your definition - attempt to split a demonstrated false hair

Yah, when I turn on my electric heaters I used nuclear generated electricity, not NG.

The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/The dragons of inaction Robert Gifford.pdf

Most people think climate change and sustainability are important problems, but too few global citizens engaged in high-greenhouse-gas-emitting behavior are engaged in enough mitigating behavior to stem the increasing flow of greenhouse gases and other environmental problems. Why is that? Structural barriers such as a climate-averse infrastructure are part of the answer, but psychological barriers also impede behavioral choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability. Although many individuals are engaged in some ameliorative action, most could do more, but they are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, or “dragons of inaction”: limited cognition about the problem, ideological worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes
and behavior, comparisons with key other people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change. Structural barriers
must be removed wherever possible, but this is unlikely to be sufficient. Psychologists must work with other scientists, technical experts, and policymakers to help citizens overcome these psychological barriers.

(full paper available at above link)

 

[Trakar]

That's incorrect, this arose out of a comparison to Sweden and Norway. You're just moving the goal posts again. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in how emissions are evaluated and standards set.

Incorrect, this entire thread is about "Global" warming science, impacts and the possible addressments of those impacts. The Sweden/Norway, Japan, Europe, China and Canada comparisons and discussions are "application and side reference to, individual nation situations."

Oh please, more pedantry.

No, thank-you. Though you are free to continue such, I prefer to stick to reasoned and rational discussion of the thread topic.

Nothing is carbon neutral then and there's no point in talking about it.

false dichotomy

My only purpose it to point out how ridiculous the alarmist agenda is. It has nothing to do with AGW, it's simply fear mongering and naysaying.

Thus far you have yet to demonstrate a single example of an "alarmist" or substantively support assertions of "alarmism."

Alarmism - needless warnings

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(alarmist) a person who alarms others needlessly

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Until there are definitive answers based in scientific fact that are backed by experts AGW will remain an amusing exercise in goal post shifting.

You seem to be the only one engaged in constantly shifting goalposts, I guess it is good to have a hobby you enjoy, but it is largely uncontributory to this threads discussions or issues.

The rest of us will keep discussing the definitive answers, based in scientific fact, and backed by a broad spectrum of scientific and economic experts and their considerations of the impacts and remediations for the problems AGW presents.

 

[Trakar]

You've been mislead.

Citation and supportive reference?

 

[BenBurch]

Natural gas refrigerators exist, actually; http://www.bensdiscountsupply.com/propane-refrigerator.aspx

I don't know why people are worried that expensive things will be done to save the planet if the reality of AGW becomes known to everybody; Nothing will be done at all because it still seems like the consequences are too far in the future, and once the consequences are becoming painful we will realize that we can't even begin to ameliorate the problem, so we won't try. We'll be too busy warring over the last of the resources, anyway.

 

[Trakar]

Natural gas refrigerators exist, actually; http://www.bensdiscountsupply.com/propane-refrigerator.aspx

I don't know why people are worried that expensive things will be done to save the planet if the reality of AGW becomes known to everybody; Nothing will be done at all because it still seems like the consequences are too far in the future, and once the consequences are becoming painful we will realize that we can't even begin to ameliorate the problem, so we won't try. We'll be too busy warring over the last of the resources, anyway.

I, personally,...unfortunately, agree. But these are feelings and beliefs, not demonstrable fact, therefore I am bound to try and minimize those impacts.

 

[Furcifer]

Hmmm...

That's the equivalent of saying they use natural gas to kill people. Yes they have electric chairs but they don't use natural gas to produce the electricity for them.

It's a total non sequitur.

(By way of this logic the nuclear industry is responsible for millions of electrocutions each year, so much for that spotless safety record )

 

[Furcifer]

Incorrect, this entire thread is about "Global" warming science, impacts and the possible addressments of those impacts.

No you're simply mistaken or being disingenuous. This arose from my explaining how some countries (Canada specifically) have more energy intensive industries. Most recently, I reiterated what the government has studied and acknowledged, heating here in Canada produces much of our CO2 emissions. It's completely unfair to expect Canada to heat everyone and produce the same emissions as Mexico does cooling everyone. It's a thermodynamic fact, I'm surprised you're having trouble understanding this.

Thus far you have yet to demonstrate a single example of an "alarmist" or substantively support assertions of "alarmism."

I'm confident it's quite evident.

You seem to be the only one engaged in constantly shifting goalposts, I guess it is good to have a hobby you enjoy, but it is largely uncontributory to this threads discussions or issues.

That's just the relativistic effect of your moving frame of reference.

The rest of us will keep discussing the definitive answers, based in scientific fact, and backed by a broad spectrum of scientific and economic experts and their considerations of the impacts and remediations for the problems AGW presents.

Doubtful. I'm willing to bet this thread is about 95% fear mongering and naysaying and 5% "solutions".

 

[a_unique_person]

Yah, when I turn on my electric heaters I used nuclear generated electricity, not NG.

Just think about this for a second.

"Running your fridge off of natural gas is stupid"
"My fridge doesn't run on natural gas"
"Well the electricity comes from natural gas"

Nobody runs electric heaters off of natural gas, they run off electricity. Splitting hairs like this is pointless and intellectually dishonest.

When you run an electric heater from the power grid, it is using the power that is being used to generate that electricity. If that electric power is gas, coal or nuclear, that is what is effectively being used to heat your house, it's not splitting hairs nor dishonest. It's telling you what's really happening. To say that your understanding of where your power comes from is that you just flick a switch on a wall is pointless.

You keep saying it's easy to cope with warming, but you are the one living in Canada. This is global warming, not the warming on your front porch. Most people won't experience warming as Canada does. Even then, you seem to underestimate what it means for Canada.

 

[Furcifer]

Citation and supportive reference?

That there aren't always alternatives? None needed, it's basic logic. All you need to do is sufficiently restrict the variables until there is only a single answer or option.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't know why people are worried that expensive things will be done to save the planet if the reality of AGW becomes known to everybody; Nothing will be done at all because it still seems like the consequences are too far in the future, and once the consequences are becoming painful we will realize that we can't even begin to ameliorate the problem, so we won't try. We'll be too busy warring over the last of the resources, anyway.

Like TShaitanaku, I broadly agree. I expect short-term expedients to be adopted to cope during the process of climate change (such as building higher levees and digging deeper wells) but the costs of those and the losses they'll be a response to will leave less and less to spend on preventing matters from getting worse. (I think there's a telling example of the latter in Australia, where funds to help repair the damage done by the Queensland floods were taken from renewable energy programs. Ironically, this included the costs of pumping out coalmines and repairing infrastructure to get coal to the ports.)

This will leave the Furcifers of the world saying "things would have been worse if we'd done anything earlier", since that would remain a hypothetical. Any actual solution would be greeted with cries of "See! There never was a problem!", just as in the case of acid rain. But that's the least of our problems.

More is likely to be achieved by a US default (courtesy of "a few right-wing nutters") and the consequent global economic depression.

 

[Furcifer]

When you run an electric heater from the power grid, it is using the power that is being used to generate that electricity. If that electric power is gas, coal or nuclear, that is what is effectively being used to heat your house, it's not splitting hairs nor dishonest. It's telling you what's really happening. To say that your understanding of where your power comes from is that you just flick a switch on a wall is pointless.

You keep saying it's easy to cope with warming, but you are the one living in Canada. This is global warming, not the warming on your front porch. Most people won't experience warming as Canada does. Even then, you seem to underestimate what it means for Canada.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with saying "Using Natural Gas to produce electricity to heat a house is incredibly inefficient, and expensive."

Don't you just mean electric heaters are inefficient compared to natural gas furnaces? In which case you're correct and that's why tshaitanaku's rant about open cycle natural gas combustion doesn't make sense, the "alternative" as he puts it is much worse. He's not evaluating the situation properly and coming to the logical conclusion, he's just towing the party line so to speak and saying "we have to reduce emissions".

And that's my point. A lot of people just don't really understand what's going on in the real world and instead live in this fantasy world where everything runs on air and water and it's all good. They have an idea of where they want things to be they just don't truly understand how to get there from here.

Very few people have electric heaters in their homes, almost all have switched to natural gas. There is no other alternative to it that can meet the needs of a country that has this many HVAC heating days a year. I'm sure in Mexico they don't use nearly as much natural gas even if they have the same number of HVAC cooling days per year.

Hope this helps.

 

[Furcifer]

Like TShaitanaku, I broadly agree. I expect short-term expedients to be adopted to cope during the process of climate change (such as building higher levees and digging deeper wells) but the costs of those and the losses they'll be a response to will leave less and less to spend on preventing matters from getting worse. (I think there's a telling example of the latter in Australia, where funds to help repair the damage done by the Queensland floods were taken from renewable energy programs. Ironically, this included the costs of pumping out coalmines and repairing infrastructure to get coal to the ports.)

This will leave the Furcifers of the world saying "things would have been worse if we'd done anything earlier", since that would remain a hypothetical. Any actual solution would be greeted with cries of "See! There never was a problem!", just as in the case of acid rain. But that's the least of our problems.

More is likely to be achieved by a US default (courtesy of "a few right-wing nutters") and the consequent global economic depression.

In USA Today last Tuesday they spoke about rising gas pries slowing the economy and hindering the recovery. Despite this there are enviromentals calling for additional taxes and fees to be levied on fossil fuels?

It makes absolutely no sense. Without the strong economy there's no money for renewable energy projects that are, despite the complaints to the contrary, currently underway.

Manipulating the price of fossil fuels will only delay progress. That's a well established fact.

 

[falkowsi]

In USA Today last Tuesday they spoke about rising gas pries slowing the economy and hindering the recovery. Despite this there are enviromentals calling for additional taxes and fees to be levied on fossil fuels?

A simple solution is to raise taxes on gas, and lower taxes on other items by the same amount, such that the average consumer isn't paying any more.