Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

They are discussing climate change not military secrets... what is there to hide?
They should concentrate on being open and honest instead of whispering to each other in private. It is exactly this sort of thing that leaves them open to accusations of dishonesty (and not without good reason).
Your excuse for their behaviour is not valid.

What is to hide? If you were going to make decisions that were going to destroy the fortunes of MAJOR Republican campaign donors (like Massey Energy,) you would not want it known until it was too late to do anything about it.

 

[lomiller]

Manitoba is already hydroelectric, so the only place for them to "go" is nuclear. There are talks about nuclear, so I fail to see what your point is. If there is a mass migration of people to Canada over the next 100 years, it's likely Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be the destination. And it's likely they will get any additional needs from nuclear. The 2 facilities on the Nelson are in the works despite any sizable increases in population, after that it's nuclear.

There is identified sites on the Nelson to nearly triple Manitoba’s Hydro electric output and that’s already been scaled down to use “river run” stations with no local reservoir or flooding. The actual potential is considerably higher but in practice there will likely never be a market for all of it. For obvious reasons there is absolutely no interest or discussion about Nuclear in Manitoba.

 

[Furcifer]

Ludicrous argument - try and take that argument to the farmers in the south west who are rapidly depleting there Ogallala aquifer and will soon not have the same snow pack reservoirs to call on. The Colorado is just about done and you want to INCREASE irrigation.

This is just feeding the Western sense of entitlement. Put a seed in the ground and if it doesn't grow just petition the government for a subsidy. Build my house on a fault line, collect insurance money after the earth quake.

If it's not feasible to grow right now then they can't continue to farm. There are more than enough farms in Canada in the US that can't make a living because the prices are so low. And there's more than enough capacity. This protectionism you're supporting hurts more people than it helps.

(BTW there is simply not much arable land in the north - the glaciers shoved the good soil south - last time I checked muskeg was not very tillable )

What it took the glacier 1000 years to shove forward 1m takes a bulldozer 5 seconds. A couple dump trucks can move in a day what took them 100 000 years. If you want to move soil glaciers are not the best means of doing so anymore.

It also does not address the vast expanse of wheat farms where in 30 years or sooner it will be too warm for wheat at all and the same applies to India.
SOME genetic engineering can help but only to a point - and you going to start irrigating the prairies!!!!????.....

No, grow the same things that the grow in similar climates today. It isn't going to be any worse than Arizona or Mexico, and they do just fine. The plants are already adapted to the climate. Irrigation is a last resort.

What is at the heart of your "argument" is a disregard for the warming caused by the energy industry you are part of.
You bring no neutrality to it....just a defensive stance....."oh it's not too bad.....take an aspirin" and calling those who are rightly concerned alarmists.

We already deal with climates harsher than the ones proposed by the models. Some people don't find that alarming.

That whole nonsense is now so stale and undermined but you haul it out ad nauseum to defend those industries that should be in the forefront of shifting the world's energy supply to carbon neutral instead of denying the reality and reaping immense profits - which unlike Sweden and Norway - our idjits like Harper just turn a blind eye to the damage and consequences.

Sweden and Norway aren't any basis for comparison to the US and Canada. It's no wonder Harper and the others just shake their heads when they hear people trying to relate them to us.

When more and more extreme hydrological events like Australia's and more and more extreme weather events of all sorts continue to increase in frequency the howl for remuneration from the primary cause - fossil fuel suppliers - will be very loud.

lol, shut off the flow of hydrocarbons for a day, then see how much support their is for remuneration from the people and the governments. I'd say the longest a strike could last is about 3 days before this little fantasy would come to a screeching halt.

 

[macdoc]

Now if we could the same fast response to the climate change deniers copious errors.....oh yeah no science there.....silly me

A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-climate-significant-error-experts.html

 

[Trakar]

If you shop at a grocery store you're contributing to the loss of species and destruction of habitat. Or Wal-Mart. No meat, no furniture, no nothing if you want to claim you don't contribute to the loss of biodiversity on this planet.

We might be able to cut you some slack if you're a Mennonite

In general, I shop at local farmer's markets and most of the meats I consume come from my own backyard or local farmers/ranchers that I personally know. There are some products that I buy which are trucked-in because we don't have a local producer, but such issues are a concern and consideration in every purchase I make. Technology is not the antithesis of ecologically sound practices, waste and inefficiencies are. No one that I know of is trying to be rid of modern advances. Taxes which help to account for the actual costs of waste and the damages that waste causes to all, is one of the best means of getting people to look at their practices and find less wasteful means to fulfill their daily wants and needs. Of course, such understandings require both a proper sense of social responsibility and at least a modicum of reasoned intelligence, and while those who lack these characteristics are often, understandably, cut some slack in the discussions of such, carbon taxation insures that the burdens of dealing with these issues is evenly spread among everyone who generates and benefits from the waste.

The main problem with carbon and behavior taxes isn't in the levying or collecting of such taxes, but rather in how the monies such taxes generate are to be dealt with. Personally, I tend toward making such taxes mostly revenue neutral and progressive, in that most of the collected funds need to be redistributed to the lower income brackets who are most impacted by any increases in the costs of fuels/energy. But there are also a lot of basic energy/transportation infrastructure repair/replacement that would also greatly benefit from additional government investment, so I am undecided on the best approach at this time.

 

[Trakar]

The desert belts lie at the poleward edges of the tropics, where cold, dessicated air falls before flowing back towards the equator (as I understand it, according to a simle view of the Hadley Cells). This expansion is, for instance, bringing North Saharan conditions to Southern Europe and Mexican desert conditions to the Southern US. 3bodyproblem won't have so far to go to find a tropical holiday destination in future, which is splendid news. Sure, the food will be more expensive when he gets there, but it'll be more expensive at home anyway.

The Ferrell cell is also expanding, and more in latitude (I suspect there's a sine function involved . The area affected is a different question, one I won't attempt off the top of my head. The feedback impact on climate (rather than on food-supply or fresh water) will be greater, of course.

3bodyproblem can probably see the bright side of that as well. One has to admire his talents in that direction.

Yes, I was mainly referring to temp levels, whereas desertification is more a factor of rainfall, the words were awkwardly put and sans the ability to correct them once posted, I was left with what I had rushed off. The problem of the tropics is that the rain patterns are shifting and the character of the soils is such that they tend toward becoming prairies and then deserts as the tropical rains diminish and the temps continue to climb. It is more an issue of expanding deserts, with warmer temps and rains being shifted more northernly.

If 3bodyproblem prefers cold swamplands to frozen tundra that's an individual choice he's welcome to. Personally, I see no great gain or benefit to the switchover, and I am pretty sure that those mining the diamonds and oilsands in those regions aren't likely to appreciate the change either.

Though you are probably right

 

[Trakar]

I highly doubt this. I suspect disproportionate number of the climate change fanatics own betamax and HDVD players

I see that the suspicions of those who deny mainstream science and the reality it reflects are still as valid and useful as bicycles for fish.

 

[Trakar]

Going back 80 years, it has all the momentum of a sloth:

From 2000-2010, there's been 1/10 of a degree of warming.
1990-2010, there's been 1/10 of a degree of warming.
1980-2010, 3/10 of a degree
1970-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1960-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1950-2010, 8/10 of a degree
1940-2010, 4/10 of a degree
1930-2010, 6/10 of a degree
http://www.woodfortrees.org (Hadcrut3 variance adjusted global mean).

What is everyone freaking out about? ONE degree of warming in the next hundred years?

Actually ~6ºC in the next century,...if we are lucky, much more if we are not.

and again that is approximately the difference between current temps and the temps which gave rise to the PETM extinction events (except in the PETM event the rise took 20,000 years, this will occur in a single century and continue to rise beyond that).

 

[Trakar]

Quite the opposite given the premise. Canada only produces less than 4% of the current GH emissions. I'm suggesting we would open our doors to those displaced by the over consumption by Americans and the Chinese.

From what I can see, Canada is the world's fifth largest energy exporter in the world. Mining, selling and profitting from this makes Canada just as culpable as any one else.

The crack dealer is just as much of a criminal as the crack head.

 

[Trakar]

No idea, the figures aren't given by a practical metric. The way they measure carbon emissions is in need of a serious overhaul. Subtract all the carbon Canadian trees absorb, add the carbon from exported oil, subtract all the goods manufactured and exported for use in other countries, add the imports etc.and then you'll get an idea of what we actually contribute to the problem. This needs to be done before superlative action is taken to mitigate GW.

Unless you are going to cut down all those trees each year and bury them under a layer of clay, they aren't going to offset anything. I tree simply recycles carbon in the active carbon cycel it doesn't remove carbon from the equation.

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
And how much energy is required to harvest, refine and distribute ocean fertilizer? Is this energy non-carbon sourced?

Manitoba is in the process of going nuclear. I haven't kept up to date on this, I'm sure SOT might know, but by the dates we are talking about it's highly likely to be nuke.

Personally, I'm a big fan of nuclear, but it still isn't free energy, so how much in electricity is it going to cost to convert sea-water into comparable high grade fertilizer?

 

[Trakar]

I'd best clarify my position here before I respond to this.

I'm not a climate change denier.

Right, that out of the way. I doubt anyone can deny that the climate is changing nor that it has constantly changed since the formation of the planet billions of years ago.

The question was roughly: How do we handle it?
Is the answer to tax people more and if so, how does this help?

To say 'regardless of what is causing it' may well be the problem here.
Whilst accepting that human's have had a massive impact on our planet and accepting that they may be responsible for some climate change, to think that climate change will stop if we stop living our carbon wasteful lives is short sighted and plain wrong.

Instead of apparently putting all this effort into the present (politically motivated) tax raising and chasing our carbon footprints. There should also be an equal amount of resources put into figuring out ways of living with the natural climate change mechanisms that we can not control.
...

You know nothing about me. I am a keen follower/supporter of science (though not a scientist) and I fully accept AGW as a reality...

These two statements are incompatible

If it is simply a matter of not knowing enough to clearly distinguish and properly clarify your position then there are indeed some issues which you need to more carefully consider and account for.

Here are a few links which may help you to express yourself in a less seemingly contradictory manner:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

But please don't limit yourself to these links or this site, but it is handy.

 

[Trakar]

Now if we could the same fast response to the climate change deniers copious errors.....oh yeah no science there.....silly me



http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-climate-significant-error-experts.html

Speaking of fast responses:

http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/


Actually allows for quick accurate responses (even on weekends and holidays by some accounts). I haven't had occassion to utilize the service, but it sounds interesting.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually ~6ºC in the next century,...if we are lucky, much more if we are not.

and again that is approximately the difference between current temps and the temps which gave rise to the PETM extinction events (except in the PETM event the rise took 20,000 years, this will occur in a single century and continue to rise beyond that).

~12 C is not out of the question, though it is an outlier result in simulations.

 

[Trakar]

What climate science is saying from the researchers actually committing the effort to study what is occurring:

"What science is telling us about climate change" National Science Foundation video segments - http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/

it is broken up by topic into a set of short videos, I recommend them all.

 

[Trakar]

"Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.

(full paper at above link)

 

[Furcifer]

In general, I shop at local farmer's markets and most of the meats I consume come from my own backyard or local farmers/ranchers that I personally know. There are some products that I buy which are trucked-in because we don't have a local producer, but such issues are a concern and consideration in every purchase I make. Technology is not the antithesis of ecologically sound practices, waste and inefficiencies are.

Beyond roadside stands during the peak season, buying locally just adds to the problem. At least it would on a large enough scale to have any impact on Global Warming, and then it would be negative. But I agree waste is a problem. The average Subway shop probably discards enough bread every week to equal the wheat produced on an acre of land. I think subsidies have done us a disservice by stabilizing the market and insulating us from fluctuations that would teach us to conserve. If not conserve at least appreciate.

The main problem with carbon and behavior taxes isn't in the levying or collecting of such taxes, but rather in how the monies such taxes generate are to be dealt with. Personally, I tend toward making such taxes mostly revenue neutral and progressive, in that most of the collected funds need to be redistributed to the lower income brackets who are most impacted by any increases in the costs of fuels/energy. But there are also a lot of basic energy/transportation infrastructure repair/replacement that would also greatly benefit from additional government investment, so I am undecided on the best approach at this time.

I don't know either. I'm leaning towards privatization for services not directly related to a person's survival, ie. medical, employment insurance, welfare. Essential vs. necessary.

 

[Furcifer]

Personally, I'm a big fan of nuclear, but it still isn't free energy, so how much in electricity is it going to cost to convert sea-water into comparable high grade fertilizer?

The going market rate at that time.

 

[Stray Cat]

These two statements are incompatible

Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them wrong.

I'm not disputing anything about climate change science. I'm disputing the honesty of politicians in how they are handling it.

Get your head round that before offering me a reading list thanks.

 

[Stray Cat]

What is to hide? If you were going to make decisions that were going to destroy the fortunes of MAJOR Republican campaign donors (like Massey Energy,) you would not want it known until it was too late to do anything about it.

Yes, dishonest politicians all round.

And while they are stuck in the power games and profiteering, the world can burn right?

 

[Furcifer]

Here's a good article on the cloud of uncertainty surrounding GCM's:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

"The average energy impact of clouds on Earth climate is worth about -27.6 W/m2. 27 That means ±10.1% error produces a ±2.8 W/m2 uncertainty in GCM climate projections. This uncertainty equals about ±100 % of the current excess forcing produced by all the human-generated greenhouse gasses presently in the atmosphere."

There's nothing to support claims of changed rainfall patterns 50 years out. Alarmists don't mention that, instead they talk about them as certainties, much like we've seen in this thread. All we really know is that if it warms, more water will evaporate and there will be more rainfall and more cloud cover. That's the fact, the rest is just conjecture based on models that don't have the resolution to make meaningful predictions.