Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

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.

Yes on scale with what the scientific community knows and what the economy can support without the accountability we need.

Face it, you don't don't know what's being done to what effect or how it's addressing the problem.

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.

So if we banned the burning of coal today in the name of Global Warming what would happen?
Better yet, let's say we phase it out over the next 10 years, since we know banning it would send us into a state of anarchy.

 

[CapelDodger]

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"? 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? 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?

What about if the governments of the world's nations heard about the metor from their scientists and responded by calling a conference? And at that conference agreed to set up a committee to look into the matter and report in the next electoral cycle? And when it produced that report they instituted it as a standing committee which would provide periodic reports while "more research" was done? What if the only action ever taken was to set a target of 100% not being hit by the meteor? What if more conferences were held to discuss what might be done to hit that target (itself not set in stone, so to speak) and who would pay for it?

Does all that sound familiar?

It does to me.

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?

Oh, they will. It's just not possible now, you see, what with the economy and food-prices and the situation in the Middle East. And the electoral cycle.

But once those are out of the way they'll be right on it.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

I couldn't help noticing that myself. Something else I've noticed is that drought and aridity are impacting subtropical agriculture while the postulated spread of temperate agriculture to compensate is nowhere in evidence. Something they never even grasped is that higher latitudes contain less area than lower - it's in the nature of a globe.

(Every classroom should contain a globe. The Mercator projection has its place, but without a globe to put it in context it does more harm than good, IMO.)

Something which deniers miss is that AGW is no longer about what may happen, it's now also about what is happening. When they bleat on about human society coping with climate change in the past they're ignoring the obvious fact that we aren't coping with it now.

 

[Mikemcc]

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

And we asked to cite what work is being done to corn or wheat to do just that. The only GM crop to significantly increase in yield has been soybean. The work on corn and wheat has been to make it more herbicide resistant.

...
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.
...

Good for Canada, now what about India, China and the US where agricultural land is being lost? The reason for that loss is lack of water supply.

...
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.
...

Yes you have, please cite soume of this groundbreaking GM research

...
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.

Please cite the research on increasing yield beyond making crops herbicide resistant. Please expand on your last statement. In sure EU farmers can do with the benefit of your knowledge to try and help with their decrease wheat and corn crops, or the Russians last year.

 

[Trakar]

Yes on scale with what the scientific community knows and what the economy can support without the accountability we need.

Face it, you don't don't know what's being done to what effect or how it's addressing the problem.

I agree, I don't don't know. Now if more people would simply not not acknowledge the facts we could move on to not not doing something about the problem.

So if we banned the burning of coal today in the name of Global Warming what would happen?
Better yet, let's say we phase it out over the next 10 years, since we know banning it would send us into a state of anarchy.

Instead of the strawmen, how about we simply implement a escalating carbon tax that starts a $30/ton on coal and gradually rises to $100/ton over the next 20years. Make the tax largely revenue neutral with the bulk of the proceeds going to low income households to offset their basic energy requirements, energy efficiency improvement rebates/refunds in home/office and transportation, and regulatory administration.

 

[Trakar]

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

How do you see the precision of the science affecting the accountability of given measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2/ghg emissions?

 

[lomiller]

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


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

You certainly offered and continue to offer bio-engineering as a solution to the problems of global warming. To claim otherwise can only be called a lie…

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

See, you continue to offer bio-engineering as a solution to the problems of global warming. Do you not speak English or are you somehow accustomed to simply having blatant lies accepted at face value?

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.

And no back to saying it’s not, pick one already.

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.

I grew up farming, when the pries grew mostly wheat. Over the last few years significant parts of the prairies, (mostly Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan) have grown as much corn as wheat. Last year Manitoba grew more corn then wheat.

The notion that the Great Lakes region, where the corn is grown, becoming a desert like you're claiming is absurd.

The great lakes region isn’t exactly noted for growing corn. The central Plaines of the US on the other hand…

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.

Climate zones for croplands moving. If you had a solution I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have been dodging the subject for the last 2 pages…

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

And back to saying bio-engineering is the answer…

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.

Now you are saying greenhouses and moving crops North into the Canadian shield is the answer after all. Seriously, at least try to stay consistent within the same post.

This is alarmism. The sole purpose of which is to create confusion and panic.

Well trying to propose a solution to it certainly has you confused, you can’t even keep your story straight in a single post.

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.

Yet just a few lines back you proposed growing crops farther north. You do know that if you try to move crops north you end up trying to grow them on bare rock right?

I haven't dodged any questions. I've been dealing with a rather unusual use of goal post shifting.

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.

I absolutely know that bio-engineering won’t allow crops to be grown any farther north then they already grow. This is why I challenged you on your claim that bio-engineering would solve these problems.

I realize you wanted to offer a vague solution and hand wave away the fact your “solution” is complete nonsense so I challenged you on the specific implications of what you were claiming and you failed to deliver any form of defense for your claim.

Bioengineer the corn to grow where it is, in fields not on rocks.

First of all I never specified corn I said crops. Much of where we grow crops now is likely to become desert. In fact I specifically asked you how you planned to bio-engineer crops to grow where it is now (which will become desert) or bioengineer it to move northward (which means growing on rock or other unsuitable land) You have yet to explain how either of these things could be accomplished.

 

[Furcifer]

I agree, I don't don't know. Now if more people would simply not not acknowledge the facts we could move on to not not doing something about the problem.

We can't "do something", we have to do what's necessary to mitigate the problem. That means knowing what effect our efforts have.

Instead of the strawmen, how about we simply implement a escalating carbon tax that starts a $30/ton on coal and gradually rises to $100/ton over the next 20years. Make the tax largely revenue neutral with the bulk of the proceeds going to low income households to offset their basic energy requirements, energy efficiency improvement rebates/refunds in home/office and transportation, and regulatory administration.

Sounds good, let's see some numbers.

It's great we have these complex models trying to forecast future climate, but what we need in conjunction is economic models that track things like carbon credits and the like. What happens when we tax coal in NA? Is there any offset in CO2 or does it just get picked up in Mexico? 5 years down the road does Taiwan triple the construction of coal plants attempting to take advantage of the surplus created by reducing demand in the West?

If I give you 10 Trillion dollars over the next 5 years, what does that buy me? +2K in 2050?

 

[Furcifer]

You certainly offered and continue to offer bio-engineering as a solution to the problems of global warming. To claim otherwise can only be called a lie…

Yes, bioengineering will solve "the problems" of global warming. Underwater lettuce in Florida, Hurricane proof turnips in the Midwest and my favorite rock corn

See, you continue to offer bio-engineering as a solution to the problems of global warming. Do you not speak English or are you somehow accustomed to simply having blatant lies accepted at face value?

Yes, bioengineering will solve ALL he problems of Global Warming, because that's exactly what I said.

I grew up farming, when the pries grew mostly wheat. Over the last few years significant parts of the prairies, (mostly Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan) have grown as much corn as wheat. Last year Manitoba grew more corn then wheat.

So, it's still insignificant. Corn is primarily grown east of the Great Lakes, wheat west. Hyphenating wheat/corn clearly indicates you don't know what's grown where.

The great lakes region isn’t exactly noted for growing corn. The central Plaines of the US on the other hand…

lol, yah a lot of Shield rock there

Climate zones for croplands moving. If you had a solution I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have been dodging the subject for the last 2 pages…

Move the crops (I said that pages ago)

And back to saying bio-engineering is the answer…

No let's throw money at carbon credits and solar panels instead.

Now you are saying greenhouses and moving crops North into the Canadian shield is the answer after all. Seriously, at least try to stay consistent within the same post.

Try not moving the goal posts. I'm new to the idea of growing corn on rock.

Well trying to propose a solution to it certainly has you confused, you can’t even keep your story straight in a single post.

The problem is you think there is "a solution"? There isn't. There are many.

Yet just a few lines back you proposed growing crops farther north. You do know that if you try to move crops north you end up trying to grow them on bare rock right?

You do know the bulk of corn is grown in the US, there's still much of Canada before you hit rock? (Canada is north of the US geographically)

I absolutely know that bio-engineering won’t allow crops to be grown any farther north then they already grow. This is why I challenged you on your claim that bio-engineering would solve these problems.

That's incorrect, the bulk of corn is grown south of Canada, so it's a matter of moving it north. As I have said you don't have to bioengineer it. You're simply trying to apply a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I realize you wanted to offer a vague solution and hand wave away the fact your “solution” is complete nonsense so I challenged you on the specific implications of what you were claiming and you failed to deliver any form of defense for your claim.

All you've challenged is your imagination. You've created problems in your mind like growing corn on rock. That problem doesn't exist and most likely never will. (although it's ridiculously simple to mitigate)

This is typical however, the majority of problems are in peoples minds. They create fantastic scenarios, making mountains out of mole hills. Then they like to worry themselves about it. It's a distinct human trait.

First of all I never specified corn I said crops. Much of where we grow crops now is likely to become desert.

No, that isn't true. It's obvious you've concocted a scenario in your mind and you're just seeing it through.

In fact I specifically asked you how you planned to bio-engineer crops to grow where it is now (which will become desert) or bioengineer it to move northward (which means growing on rock or other unsuitable land) You have yet to explain how either of these things could be accomplished.

This is nonsense. You don't have to bioengineer corn to grow in a warmer climate in Canada, it already grows in Mexico. The climate in Mexico is considerably warmer than here in Canada, warmer than anything global warming represents.

It sadden me to see people confusing climate change scenarios with reality. They don't realize the models are completely absent mitigation. Yes, you will drown if you're sitting there when the tide comes in. All you have to do is get up and move. It's as simple as that.

 

[Furcifer]

How do you see the precision of the science affecting the accountability of given measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2/ghg emissions?

Hopefully the precision in the science will make it so we can develop viable economic models to properly address the problem.

They have to go hand in hand. It's going to take money to fix the problem, not complaining and not wishful thinking either.

 

[macdoc]

It's going to take money to fix the problem,

So you acknowledge there is problem despite continuous down playing and now devolve to a "its economics".

Meanwhile every single study has said that the cost of reducing CO2 output rapidly is far less than dealing with the costs of consequences on the high side of the MIT scale....ie BAU.

and you "wishful think" about moving crops north and bio-engineering when countries like Sweden have moved towards a low carbon industrial economy by reducing their carbon footprint incrementally with a goal of carbon neutral by 2050 or earlier.

They aren't wishful thinking and their economies are hardly hurting - Norway and Sweden have had $50 a barrel carbon taxes since the 90s.

Why don't you cease the obfuscation and get behind the solutions that are clear and in use in other nations instead of this "denier" nonsense you keep presenting.
Getting very wearisome.

There is a problem.....that you acknowledge.
It will cost money to move to carbon neutral....that you acknowledge.

How about taking the next steps and recognize the problem resides in the nuclear first world nations and they have the wealth and the technology ....as with Sweden ....to incrementally move towards carbon neutral.
A key step in that to fund the transition and put costing on a level basis is a carbon tax that stop fossil fuel companies from using the atmosphere as a free sewer.

That is your funding source for the change. Coal and oil and gas are making massive profits while the denier industry of which you are a willing foot soldier protects them from the obvious....

tax the polluters and use the funds to move to carbon neutral.

 

[Reality Check]

It's great we have these complex models trying to forecast future climate, but what we need in conjunction is economic models that track things like carbon credits and the like.

There are such models (but they may not 'track things like carbon credits and the like').

Skeptical Science has a post on a recent study (by Google!), Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy, which mentions one:

"This analysis was prepared by Google.org using McKinsey & Company's US Low Carbon Economics Tool, which is a neutral, analytic set of interlinked models that estimates potential economic implications of various policies using assumptions defined by Google.org"

There is plenty of research available, see The economic impacts of carbon pricing in teh same blog.

P.S. See my last post for an outstanding question about the evidence for your assertion that bioengineering can mitigate the effect of global warming on crops.

 

[Trakar]

Hopefully the precision in the science will make it so we can develop viable economic models to properly address the problem.

They have to go hand in hand. It's going to take money to fix the problem, not complaining and not wishful thinking either.

Unfortunately, we'll probably need much more accurate and precise economic models before any such integrated approach would have a shot at the types of resolution you seem to be postulating. Economic modelling and understandings are much more primitive and imprecise than today's climate modelling and climate science understandings.

For the most part, early addressments don't really involve issues of finding funding, most of the proposals currently on the table don't require the generation of new funds, merely the redirection of existing funds. Of course, this means that the people who are currently benefitting from where the current funds are being spent are no longer going to benefit in the same manner that they have been, but for the most part the addressments are revenue neutral in the overall picture.

Eventually, some substantive investments will be required, but the sooner the initial adjustments are made, the lower the required later investments will be. The primary cost is going to be in dealing with the damages and increased costs as the changes already in the pipeline and unavoidable are realized, but again the sooner the initial adjustments are made the fewer additional unavoidables get added to the pipeline/costs.

 

[Trakar]

We can't "do something", we have to do what's necessary to mitigate the problem. That means knowing what effect our efforts have.

Agreed, especially with the bolded portion. The issue at hand is that systems like this don't change course quickly or easily. We aren't even close to full equilibration of effects from CO2 emitted 50 years ago, yet alone the CO2 emitted over the last 50 years, and our rates of emissions are still accelerating!

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Instead of the strawmen, how about we simply implement a escalating carbon tax that starts a $30/ton on coal and gradually rises to $100/ton over the next 20years. Make the tax largely revenue neutral with the bulk of the proceeds going to low income households to offset their basic energy requirements, energy efficiency improvement rebates/refunds in home/office and transportation, and regulatory administration.

Sounds good, let's see some numbers.

For a range of informed considerations we might do well to look at a few references:

The architecture of climate economics: Designing a global agreement on global warming - http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/001/501275.pdf

...It is important to emphasize how difficult it is to design durable and effective international economic systems. They are complex ecosystems, full of hidden prey and predators, with many unforeseen results. History is littered with failed institutions, from cholera conventions in the nineteenth century to disarmament pacts in the twentieth century to international currency regimes stretching back for many decades. One need only look today at the fragile international financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design...

EMBODIED CARBON TARIFFS - http://www.jaredcarbone.org/econ_677/bcr_embodied_carbon.pdf

...The tariffs are a clear winner from the perspective of those countries implementing them and quite damaging to many of the countries subject to them. Most major coalition members experience net gains from implementing climate policy when tariffs are used. The tariffs are a very effective means of shifting the terms of trade in favor of these countries at the expense of non-coalition trade partners. Based on this, the tariffs may more effective as a political tool in the drive to commit intransigent countries to emission reductions than they are as a direct source of abatement. They have the advantage of (i) being a credible threat, since coalition members benefit from their use (ii) being very damaging to those countries subject to them, and (iii) carrying a certain moral stamp of approval because they are being used in the name of environmental policy...

Innovation and the Dynamics of Global Warming - http://www.cbe.anu.edu.au/schools/eco/seminars/documents/Winter.pdf

...This paper has explored a consequence of clean-energy innovation that has received too little attention in climate change policy literature: without carbon pricing, innovation can easily make the global problem worse, through its impact on market prices of fossil fuels...Hotelling rents are high in crude oil markets, with a price in the range of 100 dollars per barrel, and extraction costs of conventional crude less than 30 dollars. The International Energy Agency estimated recently that more than 4 trillion barrels of oil are available at extraction costs of 60 dollars per barrel or less (about 1 trillion have been extracted to date). In other words, the stock of oil that would be consumed more rapidly and earlier in the event of even a strong innovation in clean energy (enough to yield a perfect substitute with a cost-equivalent of 60 dollars per barrel) is large and will last many decades; and the displacement of high-extraction-cost crude is in the distant future...A responsive tax would be one that magnifed the cost advantage of any newly developed clean-energy technology by raising carbon prices; in other words, when there is a clean-energy breakthrough, the carbon price should increase. The political challenges with the implementation of a policy that magni…es the negative impact on oil and gas industry pro…ts of success in competing technologies is obvious. But the message of this paper is that while the route of subsidies may be politically easier than carbon pricing, it is not the best solution to the problem of global warming and may make the problem worse...

(many more available to help fill in amongst the scattershot range of issues to consider)

If I give you 10 Trillion dollars over the next 5 years, what does that buy me? +2K in 2050?

Doubtful, as the 3K for 2050, is just part of what is already in the pipeline from more than 50 years ago. Most of what we do from here on out primarily affects what happens 100-200+ years on out. As has been stated before, even if we could wave a magic wand and immediately bring all human emissions to zero, and keep any major positive feedbacks from engaging (calthrates, permafrost, soil and ocean outgassing etc.,) the warming from the CO2 already in the environment would continue to increase for another century or two.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Of course there's no scientific evidence for what will happen in the future.

The question posed was what will allow us to "dodge the bullet" of GW. The biggest "bullet" is probably the combination of changes in precipitation and growing regions affecting growing conditions. This isn't entirely new to agriculture, as we've already begun to engineer crops to grow in less hospitable regions. In fact the regions we're trying to grow in such as Africa are already less hospitable than what GW is alleged to do in the regions we currently grow in.

 

[Furcifer]

So you acknowledge there is problem despite continuous down playing and now devolve to a "its economics".

Of course, there's 150 years of CO2 from fossil fuels building up in the atmosphere, eventually that's going to have to be removed.

They aren't wishful thinking and their economies are hardly hurting - Norway and Sweden have had $50 a barrel carbon taxes since the 90s.

Which is perfectly fine for a countries half the size of a province or state here in North America. The cost of doing business here would be astronomical if the price of fuel was $5/ litre.

Why don't you cease the obfuscation and get behind the solutions that are clear and in use in other nations instead of this "denier" nonsense you keep presenting.
Getting very wearisome.

None of the proposed solutions are in any way feasible. The current progress towards carbon neutrality is sufficient.

A key step in that to fund the transition and put costing on a level basis is a carbon tax that stop fossil fuel companies from using the atmosphere as a free sewer.

Canada represents an insignificant portion of CO2 worldwide, the issue isn't ours to bear at this time.

That is your funding source for the change. Coal and oil and gas are making massive profits while the denier industry of which you are a willing foot soldier protects them from the obvious....

tax the polluters and use the funds to move to carbon neutral.

The solution is a strong economy, not one debilitated by unnecessary taxes which have no measurable effect.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course there's no scientific evidence for what will happen in the future.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for what will happen in the future. That is a major purpose of scientific predictions !

What I am looking for is citations to the sceintific evidence that convinced you that bioengineering will can fix the problem of changing climate affecting food production.

The question posed was what will allow us to "dodge the bullet" of GW. The biggest "bullet" is probably the combination of changes in precipitation and growing regions affecting growing conditions. This isn't entirely new to agriculture, as we've already begun to engineer crops to grow in less hospitable regions. In fact the regions we're trying to grow in such as Africa are already less hospitable than what GW is alleged to do in the regions we currently grow in.

Where in this post is your evidence that bioengineering can fix the problem of changing climate affecting food production?

So far it looks like wishful thinking on your part.

 

[CapelDodger]

The solution is a strong economy, not one debilitated by unnecessary taxes which have no measurable effect.

Measurable on what timescale and deemed unnecessary when?

I think I know what you mean by "strong economy" - one with an expanding GDP year-on-year (it's called growth) and rising house-prices - which sets that timescale. If I'm wrong, please enlighten.

A truly strong economy is one which is sustainable, which requires a continuing degree of investment (deferred consumption). The surplus required is limited and has to serve other, more variable purposes - wars, disasters, financial frenzies, stuff like that. A degree of central planning and foresight are crucial in managing the surplus.

You seem to ignore the disasters which will resullt from the plan of doing nothing. The exact nature and cost of those disasters are not quantifiable to anything like your exacting demands. The cost of this year's Mississipi floods and Texan drought won't emerge for years, and then not with great precision.

We'll see which economies are strong by the way they perform.

 

[Trakar]

Measurable on what timescale and deemed unnecessary when?

I think I know what you mean by "strong economy" - one with an expanding GDP year-on-year (it's called growth) and rising house-prices - which sets that timescale. If I'm wrong, please enlighten.

A truly strong economy is one which is sustainable, which requires a continuing degree of investment (deferred consumption). The surplus required is limited and has to serve other, more variable purposes - wars, disasters, financial frenzies, stuff like that. A degree of central planning and foresight are crucial in managing the surplus.

You seem to ignore the disasters which will resullt from the plan of doing nothing. The exact nature and cost of those disasters are not quantifiable to anything like your exacting demands. The cost of this year's Mississipi floods and Texan drought won't emerge for years, and then not with great precision.

We'll see which economies are strong by the way they perform.

But,...but,....
http://www.seppo.net/cartoons/displayimage.php?pos=-879

 

[CapelDodger]

But,...but,....
http://www.seppo.net/cartoons/displayimage.php?pos=-879