Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

... MY CLAIM WAS THAT BIOENGINEERING WAS PROBABLY THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON CIVILIZATION CAN DODGE THIS BULLET.
...
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!
...
Yes, in greenhouses if need be. Not magic bio-engineered rock corn like you're talking about.
...QUOTE]
Can you provide any data to back up those claims. I can find links that GM corn, wheat and soybean exists that are resistant to herbicides, not for work to grow them in more arid regions. There are versions of rice cultivated with less water than before. Just because a technique works with rice doesn't necessarily imply that it will work with corn, wheat and soybean.

Part of the problem is the pattern of the weather appears to be changing (consistant with higher precipitation predictions). In the EU a dry spring and a wet summer has led to poor crops of weat, corn and barley. Increased mould, more energy required for drying after harvest, etc. Source - Bloomberg 01 Jul 11

Availability of water is a concern in other areas, many aquifiers are in decline (The High Plains, a global analysis)

Then there's the issue of peak phosphorous...

How big an area do you think might be needed to be put under glass? Is there sufficient glass making capacity?

 

[DC]

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.



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.

very true, and that is why it is not based on some songle poll among a few scientists but on several polls, studies looking into published papers, staements of several important institutions on the field.
and it is not only about the US it is Global. so is the scientific concencus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[Furcifer]

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"?

That would suck, good luck getting 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?

That would be prudent.

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?

Sounds about right.

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?

Thankfully it has been started.

 

[lomiller]

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

Yes, you claimed bio-engineering could deal with the effects of global warming. Global warming will cause climate zones to move northward and you refuse to say how you expect bio-engineering to solve this issue.

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

So now you are saying greenhouses are the answer, when just a few posts back you were having a fit because I asked you if that was really what you were proposing. Greenhouses are simply not a solution, end of story.

Not magic bio-engineered rock corn like you're talking about.

Clearly you are getting desperate. Obviously I made no claims about growing corn on rock I simply pointed out how absurd your claims were because they required growing crops on rock.

After 2 pages of asking you to justify this you are now turning to blatant lies and saying I was the one who made your clearly questionable claim. Do you think people here are to stupid to read what you posted?

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.

What doesn’t make sense to you? You said bio-engineering could deal with the effects of global warming and I asked you for evidence. It’s pretty simply, you made a claim you should provide evidence for it.

 

[Trakar]

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

Then why electric trams and horses?

 

[BenBurch]

Anybody who thinks we can even in principle build enough greenhouses to feed the planet has not ever computed the first costs, materials availability, or ongoing maintenance for the structures.

 

[Trakar]

So do meteors.

Do we know of a significant impactor headed this way that will most probably cause the level of damages and destruction we are facing from AGW within the next few centuries?

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.

Current most likely estimates are for around a 3K increase in globally averaged surface temperature by 2050. Based on this scale what is your level of concern?

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.

Agreed, but incomplete does not mean that it does not provide enough valid and verifiable information to begin acting upon. By analogy, accumulating water in the hold of a ship does not mean that the ship will sink before it reaches port, but this doesn't mean that this information is insufficient to allow the crew to make a decision to turn on the bilge pumps and begin looking for leaks or open ports and hatches that need to be repaired or sealed.

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.

The problem with coal is that it is not priced to reflect its true societal costs. Carbon taxes will go a long way toward addressing this issue.

 

[Trakar]

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

Your "figure of speech" is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

...an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change,...

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Two primary questions asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

...In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50%of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2...

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

 

[Trakar]

Anybody who thinks we can even in principle build enough greenhouses to feed the planet has not ever computed the first costs, materials availability, or ongoing maintenance for the structures.

Well,...technically planets don't require much food so...

Humanity on the otherhand is still rapidly headed toward a projected maximum of around 9 Billion, but the way things are going I don't think we'll reach that, and if we do, we certainly won't maintain it for long. Factories that convert algae into soylen...er, food products may well be possible. Not the types of food we've grown accustomed to but we should be able to make such cheaply and abundantly,...eventually.

 

[Reality Check]

Furcifer, I think we realy need to go back to basics on this bioengenering assertion by you: Can you cite the source for your assertion that

MY CLAIM WAS THAT BIOENGINEERING WAS PROBABLY THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON CIVILIZATION CAN DODGE THIS BULLET.

If this is just a personal opinion, e.g. your hopes that bioengineering will fix the problem of changing climate affecting food production, then we can ignore it and move on.
If you have some scientific basis for this then we can have some useful discussion on the topic, e.g. the costs & benefits of bioengineering versus the costs & benefits of CO2 emission control.

Meanwhile ...
Interesting support for the arguments that CO2 limitations are good for the economy at Skeptical Science, a study run by Google: Clean Energy Innovation.
Basically the different scenarios have the US GDP decreasing to a level of ~0.004% below the business as usual scenario, rising to match it by the mid 2020's and then increasing to 0.013% above that scenario by the 2040's.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, you claimed bio-engineering could deal with the effects of global warming.

No I didn't. I suggest you look at the claim again.

Global warming will cause climate zones to move northward and you refuse to say how you expect bio-engineering to solve this issue.

I don't expect it to.

So now you are saying greenhouses are the answer, when just a few posts back you were having a fit because I asked you if that was really what you were proposing. Greenhouses are simply not a solution, end of story.

To growing on rock they are.

Clearly you are getting desperate. Obviously I made no claims about growing corn on rock I simply pointed out how absurd your claims were because they required growing crops on rock.

You brought up growing corn on shield rock, I was shocked but there it is plain as day.

Do you think people here are to stupid to read what you posted?

That's a loaded question.

What doesn’t make sense to you? You said bio-engineering could deal with the effects of global warming and I asked you for evidence. It’s pretty simply, you made a claim you should provide evidence for it.

No I did not.

I would appear you're not paying attention to what you ask let alone the answers.

 

[Furcifer]

Do we know of a significant impactor headed this way that will most probably cause the level of damages and destruction we are facing from AGW within the next few centuries?

As a result of research we can accurately track and predict the path of a meteor so as to not create needless panic.

Current most likely estimates are for around a 3K increase in globally averaged surface temperature by 2050. Based on this scale what is your level of concern?

I don't know offhand, I'd have to look at research.

Agreed, but incomplete does not mean that it does not provide enough valid and verifiable information to begin acting upon. By analogy, accumulating water in the hold of a ship does not mean that the ship will sink before it reaches port, but this doesn't mean that this information is insufficient to allow the crew to make a decision to turn on the bilge pumps and begin looking for leaks or open ports and hatches that need to be repaired or sealed.

But things are being done and it appears to be on scale with what we know.

The problem with coal is that it is not priced to reflect its true societal costs. Carbon taxes will go a long way toward addressing this issue.

On the contrary, it's not priced to reflect its benefits. Perspective.

 

[Travis]

That would suck, good luck getting control of the economy.



That would be prudent.

The damage range is from destroying a city to destroying the global climate. I'm sure that the people in the city that would for sure be destroyed will be slightly annoyed the rest of the world is doing nothing until they know just how much else will go down with it.

 

[steenkh]

It is a sad fact that if we found a meteor heading for us, and actually capable of destroying our civilization, there would still be no action, because there would always be deniers who would want better models, and more research before any huge undertaking influencing the economy of us all is embarked on.

 

[lomiller]

I don't expect it to.

Then why did you bring it up? You are in a thread on global warming, answering a post on global warming, did you just decided to make random Non sequitur statements about bio-engineering? All I’m doing is trying to get at the specifics of what you think bio-engineering can do to mitigate global warming.

If you would tell us what you meant and what you think they mean for global warming then we could discuss that instead, but you won’t do that, so all we can do is show how the main problems of climate change are not really addressed by bio-engineering.

You brought up growing corn on shield rock, I was shocked but there it is plain as day.

You claimed bio-engineering would deal with the problems arising from global warming so you need to be prepared to discuss the specific problems global warming will cause. I asked you how bio-engineering would deal with effects of global warming, specifically the northward movement of climate zones. This means deserts where much of the current wheat/corn are gown and the favourable climate zones moving to places where there is no soil.

Clearly I do not think these are problems that can be addressed easily, or possibly at all. You are the one saying the effects of global warming are going to be easy to deal with yet time and time again you refuse to tell us what you think can be done about these problems but won’t drop your claim that they are easy to deal with.

The fact is, you continue to dodge these questions and apparently think that if you make a claim vague enough you don’t have to defend it.

 

[Trakar]

The damage range is from destroying a city to destroying the global climate. I'm sure that the people in the city that would for sure be destroyed will be slightly annoyed the rest of the world is doing nothing until they know just how much else will go down with it.

"Some of the people in the city," just as now, many of the people destined to impacted by the change (hehe), would be the very ones dragging their feet with regards to taking action.

 

[Furcifer]

It is a sad fact that if we found a meteor heading for us, and actually capable of destroying our civilization, there would still be no action, because there would always be deniers who would want better models, and more research before any huge undertaking influencing the economy of us all is embarked on.

To borrow this analogy, if you're in the impact area no amount of concrete or tunnels or is going to save you. The right course of action would be to move.

I don't disagree that we aren't doing enough to curb emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2. What I disagree with is throwing money at schemes to reduce CO2 that have no measurable effect.

If you want to triple the price of electricity under the premise of global warming that's fine, but I want to know what effect that will have on global warming.

Until the science is better I don't see how there is or will be any accountability for the measures being taken.

 

[Trakar]

As a result of research we can accurately track and predict the path of a meteor so as to not create needless panic.

Scientific evidences, as demonstrated, do not sway those with an agenda to follow. We are currently tracking and following the progress of Climate change. The course and progress become more clearly defined and resolved with each passing day,...and yet, there are still those who refuse to accept and acknowledge the evidences.

I don't know offhand, I'd have to look at research.

Please do and get back to us with your findings.

But things are being done and it appears to be on scale with what we know.

On scale with what who knows? Certainly not on a scale commensurate with the problem the science indicates. So far nothing, no actions being taken are even slowing the growth of the problem, yet alone substantively addressing the problem.

On the contrary, it's not priced to reflect its benefits. Perspective.

Pricing, from a business perspective is designed around two principal factors "costs" and "profits." If you really wish to discuss economic externalities of fossil fuels, I am more than comfortable doing so.

 

[lomiller]

If you want to triple the price of electricity under the premise of global warming that's fine, but I want to know what effect that will have on global warming.

You have it backwards. What you do is limit CO2 emissions to the desired levels, and let the free market decide how much those CO2 emissions are worth. Electricity prices follow from this. This only raises the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas, but it does so by removing the indirect subsidy these currently receive by allowing he externalization of the cost of emitting CO2. I.E. you get less skewed, more efficient free market then you currently have.

Until the science is better I don't see how there is or will be any accountability for the measures being taken.

For some people the science is never good enough. In your case you’ve already shown you dispute things for which there is very strong consensus among scientists so I find it very doubtful any amount of science would every convince you.

 

[Furcifer]

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't, you did as part of the process of moving the goal posts.

You are in a thread on global warming, answering a post on global warming, did you just decided to make random Non sequitur statements about bio-engineering?

What exactly do you find non sequitur about bioengineering being the biggest reason we dodge the global warming bullet as you put it?

You made it non sequitur by suggesting bioengineering might grow corn on rocks.

All I’m doing is trying to get at the specifics of what you think bio-engineering can do to mitigate global warming.

And I said by increasing yields and resistance to drought etc.

If you would tell us what you meant and what you think they mean for global warming then we could discuss that instead, but you won’t do that, so all we can do is show how the main problems of climate change are not really addressed by bio-engineering.

I never said the main problems presented by global warming would be fixed by bioengineering. That's simply a result of you not reading for comprehension.

Why don't you tell me in what you fear is the biggest problem presented by global warming and when it will manifest itself. Then I'll tell you what I think the solution is.

You claimed bio-engineering would deal with the problems arising from global warming so you need to be prepared to discuss the specific problems global warming will cause.

Nope that's incorrect. Again I said I thought it would be one of biggest reasons we dodge your hypothetical bullet.

I asked you how bio-engineering would deal with effects of global warming, specifically the northward movement of climate zones.

And I said I doubt it would. That can be more easily solved by moving crops northward or building greenhouses to grow on land that isn't currently arable.

This means deserts where much of the current wheat/corn are gown and the favourable climate zones moving to places where there is no soil.

The bulk of your misunderstanding is not knowing where wheat and corn are grown. They aren't grown in the same areas, the bulk of wheat is grown in Alberta the bulk of corn is grown here in Ontario along the 401 corridor. The notion that the Great Lakes region, where the corn is grown, becoming a desert like you're claiming is absurd.

Clearly I do not think these are problems that can be addressed easily, or possibly at all.

This is alarmism. The sole purpose of which is to create confusion and panic. It has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with human nature.

You are the one saying the effects of global warming are going to be easy to deal with yet time and time again you refuse to tell us what you think can be done about these problems but won’t drop your claim that they are easy to deal with.

They aren't "easy" to deal with. Nothing in life is easy.

However you keep presenting ridiculous scenarios, like suddenly wanting to grow corn on rock. The solution is equally ridiculous in its simplicity, you build a greenhouse if that's what you want to do. I doubt anyone will want to grow corn on shield rock. Ever.

The fact is, you continue to dodge these questions and apparently think that if you make a claim vague enough you don’t have to defend it.

I haven't dodged any questions. I've been dealing with a rather unusual use of goal post shifting. You ask a question and then apply the answer to another problem altogether.

Case in point bioengineering. If I've got this straight, you think global warming will mean making a shift northwards and then bioengineering corn to grow in the north.

That's wrong.

Bioengineer the corn to grow where it is, in fields not on rocks. This is being done right now, as varieties are being designed to grow in more arid regions. Bioengineer the corn for greater yields so that if the amount or arable land is decreased the yields are higher and the net result is still the same. This too is currently being done.

If corn can't grow for some reason (which I doubt, corn grows from Mexico to Canada, the shift in regions due to climate change isn't that great), then it might mean making a change to wheat. Our diet might have to change if the cost of corn gets too high. Since a lot of the corn is silage it might mean a more vegetarian diet for our children's children. I hear it's better for you anyways.

There's dozens of ways to mitigate any change in growing regions due to climate change. Especially corn.