Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Of course the comments are silly, they're in response to a silly statement.

What is silly about moving closer to where you work and/or seeking mass transit solutions to increases in the costs of more individualized transportation reliant upon expensive and hazardous petroleum derived fuels?

It depends. You can't deliver to stores by rail, they have to go by truck anyways.

If the railheads are so few and far between that electric trucking systems can't efficiently bridge the gap between railhead and final destination, then to obvious solution would be to invest in a few more railheads.

It's one of the many industries that are energy intensive and not easily relocated.

Not easily relocated to an area without the requisite energy supplies, but rather trivially moved, in a healthy industry, from any area where its requisites no longer exist (closed coal and oil power plants) to areas where cheap and abundant power exists (desert regions that can bank solar power systems or coastal regions that generally are capable of supplying abundant wave, tidal and wind power) and with sufficient transportation means to import raw materials and export finished products (railheads or shipping ports). In the US, this probably means a major geographical shift of many heavy industries out of the NE and toward the SW, which makes sense anyway as most of the emerging major markets are in asia as opposed to europe.

Trucks haven't, they're still the same size. Although fuel efficiency is much better. But they have to service a growing population, so their numbers have increased. No net gain. No net gain in 4/5th of the sector means the gains in the other 1/5th have to be substantial in order to even be noticed.

hybrid and pure electric vehicle power systems have the largest potential near term growth in the heavy equipment (construction, mining, etc.,) and heavy land cargo transport (trucking) equipment industries. Initially, we're probably looking at "plug and play" battery power packs that can be swapped out within 10 minutes, are good for @300 miles (~4/5 hours normal load operation) per charge and don't cost more than $100 to swap out a drained cell for a full cell.

 

[Trakar]

Can I have a pair of those rose tinted specs?

I am extremely dubious about any of the GM crop / Geo-engineering solutions. They are untried and I do believe in the Law of Unintended Consequences. The first trial of using iron filings to stimulate plankton growth failed. The Monsanto presentation is dubious. It's good that they are looking at the field, I didn't think they were, I believe that the quote figures are extremely over-rated, it's an internal sales presentation. I've seen plenty in the industry that I work in (automation for drug discovery), some of it from the company I work for. It always over-emphasises good results, and downplays the costs and problems involved.

While I generally agree with your assessment, I do believe this was a dual-purpose presentation, simply because it was prepared for a predominantly scientific conference on the impacts and problems facing us as a result of climate change over the next 4-5 decades, and what we are doing to try and find some solutions to those problems. I think that GM crops and perhaps even broader GM landscaping and naturescaping will probably have important roles to play in such efforts over the coming centuries, but I don't see any signs that they will be capable of keeping up with, yet alone fully addressing the issues and problems human instigated climate change will wreak upon both man and nature over the coming centuries.

 

[Furcifer]

Thus far they haven't even produced crops capable of providing normal yeilds in instances of drought or arid conditions,

Nope, and they cant grow in the dark either. What's your point exactly?

what makes you think that they will be more successful in matching or exceeding today's "normal" condition yeilds in the much more arid and drought typical conditions expected throughout the current growth regions four decades from now?

This is nonsense. As was noted in the .pdf, the increase in yields and tolerance to drought will continue to improve along the same lines as it has for decades, and that's through genetics. bioengineering is simply more untapped potential.

Likewise it is either simply silly or disingenuously exclusionary to propose that there is no utility or need for drought resistant and arid condition cereal crops today.

Only because of politics. You should read up on methanol. The you'll understand why some countries are burning cereal crops while others starve.

Cereal crops that could be grown in arid conditions and produce yeilds equivilant to prime Nebraska (Iowa, Indianna, Illinois, etc.,) tillage, is both needed and would be highly profittable glabally, if such existed.

So would a steak tree!

Seriously, you need to see what the green wackos did and how the UN has had to step in to keep North Americans from burning corn. The real problem is environmentalists placing more value on CO2 than human life. Real human life, not theoretical future people.

 

[Reality Check]

Really, OK, what does science say the 2015 GM line-up will be? What scientific evidence is there for the Tigers in the 2020 World Series?

I haven't the faintest idea - what has your extensive research shown the scentific predictions to be ?

There's no "scientific evidence". I think you're confusing educated guesses with scientific evidence. I believe what I saw was on Frontline, but I can't recall. The article linked in the previous post discusses bioengineering, perhaps that's what you're looking for. It's certainly not scientific evidence.

So you are relying on your memory of a TV documentary?

If there is no sceintific evidence about GE crops allowing crops to be grown in their current areas then whatever you are saying about the topic is a result of your wishful thinking.

IMO, (and it is a personal opinion) it is unlikely that GE will be able to do this economically and in time. We are not just talking about making crops drought resistant. We are talking about making crops grow in a greatly changed ecosystem with for example different pests. This is complex. GE would be expensive and take time.

On the other hand there is scientific evidence that carbon limits will not only halt climate change but are also good for the economy in the long run. The big question is whether they can be inplemented in time.

 

[Reality Check]

You, and several others
...

You need to read what you quoted - these are all about the rate of emissions.
Your claim seems that the rate of emissions shoud be immediately reflected in the actual CO2 measurements. This is wrong. All you need to so is compare the estimates of emissions to the data to see that this does not happen. The 2009 dip and then steep rise in CO2 emissions (IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News) is not reflected in the current CO2 measurement data.

 

[BenBurch]

This only makes sense if you're totally ignorant of the rail lines that have existed for more than a century here in Canada.

Um...

Railroads are one thing I do know; Not much in the way of coverage up there. You need a lot more than this to cover grain service. In the American breadbasket, there are rail lines that sit almost totally idle between harvests, and yes the short lines that own them struggle to stay in business.

 

[lomiller]

Yes.

If you harvest some wood in Sweden...

The questio0n had nothing to do with harvesting wood in Sweden. Here is the question again, and feel free to read the question as many times as it takes for you to understand it. Do you think the wood used in Europe is shipped shorter distances then wood used in North America?

You

Yes.


What does this have to do with anything?

You claimed products used in Europe are shipped shorter distances the n the ones used in North America. I'm pushing you to support your claims beyond vague hand-waving.

Just like your previous claims it's pretty obvious you won't be able to back them up and will resort to hiding from your claim until you want to make it again (often in the same post you insist you are not making that claim!)

You aren't seriously comparing finished electronics products to wood and steel?

I'm puzzled about what you are trying to say. You claimed products in Europe were shipped shorter distances. Why should that that exclude consumer products which make up most of the products that are actually shipped?

 

[lomiller]

This only makes sense if you're totally ignorant of the rail lines that have existed for more than a century here in Canada.

Par for the course for your posting, you have once again tried to resort to adhoms to cover up your own nonsensical posts.

To review: you claimed truck was superior to rail because rail couldn't go right to the store (seems you are more then willing to talk about consumer products again...)

I pointed out that you don't ship to individual stores across whole countries. There is anything in your post that remotely makes sense in this discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

So you are relying on your memory of a TV documentary?

For what? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here?

If there is no sceintific evidence about GE crops allowing crops to be grown in their current areas then whatever you are saying about the topic is a result of your wishful thinking.

What do you mean by scientific evidence?

IMO, (and it is a personal opinion) it is unlikely that GE will be able to do this economically and in time. We are not just talking about making crops drought resistant. We are talking about making crops grow in a greatly changed ecosystem with for example different pests. This is complex. GE would be expensive and take time.

I'm afraid a farmers field is already a "greatly changed ecosystem". The "ecosystem" in Brazil is different than the "ecosystem" in Texas, and yet they still manage to grow crops. I don't know what you mean by "ecosystem" but it doesn't seem relevant to growing crops. Sunlight, soil, water, fertilizer, that's what you need.

On the other hand there is scientific evidence that carbon limits will not only halt climate change but are also good for the economy in the long run. The big question is whether they can be inplemented in time.

What do you mean by scientific evidence? If you mean less CO2 means less global warming then of course there is scientific evidence. However I'd like to see "scientific evidence" that carbon limits will "be good for the economy". I don't think you're using the term properly, especially when it comes to economic forecasting.

 

[Halsu]

You don't? Well let's say you're a contractor in New York City. You have a possible 8 million customers in a 790 km² area. In Canada if you were in the GTA you might have access to 5.5 million customers, but you'd have to cover 7125 km².

So you have 10 times the area to cover for a little over half of the customers.

Okay, so you're not really arguing about the size of the country but rather about population density.

Both Sweden and Norway have a very low population density: Sweden is 450,295 km² with about 9,4 million people, and Norway is 385,252 km², with 4,9 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

So, your argument is even more deeply flawed than i thought it was ;-)

 

[Furcifer]

Okay, so you're not really arguing about the size of the country but rather about population density.

Both Sweden and Norway have a very low population density: Sweden is 450,295 km² with about 9,4 million people, and Norway is 385,252 km², with 4,9 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

So, your argument is even more deeply flawed than i thought it was ;-)

Since math isn't your strong suit I'll do it for you
Canada has 3.6 people /km²Sweden has 20 people /km²Norway has 12 people /km²
20 is much higher than 12 which is much higher than 3.6. (you can look this up here )

Even if we include the US, it still isn't a pretty picture, the population density in North America is 32 people per square mile, in Europe is 135. (because 135 is much higher than 32)

 

[Reality Check]

For what? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here?

It is obvious - you are depending on unreliable memory rather than performing any kind of research on the topic.

What do you mean by scientific evidence?

E.g. published papers.

I don't know what you mean by "ecosystem" but it doesn't seem relevant to growing crops. Sunlight, soil, water, fertilizer, that's what you need.

Ecosystem - extremely relevent to growing crops.
You also need the right kinds of beneficial insects (e.g. pollinators and soil bacteria).
You also need to prevent pests from eating your crops so the GM will have to fight off the new pests that migrate there because of climate change.
You also need prevent diseases from destroying your crops (also affected by climate change).

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Furcifer]

You need to read what you quoted - these are all about the rate of emissions.
Your claim seems that the rate of emissions shoud be immediately reflected in the actual CO2 measurements. This is wrong. All you need to so is compare the estimates of emissions to the data to see that this does not happen. The 2009 dip and then steep rise in CO2 emissions (IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News) is not reflected in the current CO2 measurement data.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. It's business as usual, the rate of emissions is increasing, nothing is working until some pet carbon scheme is brought up and then it's "Oh it's working,absolutely".

 

[Furcifer]

The questio0n had nothing to do with harvesting wood in Sweden. Here is the question again, and feel free to read the question as many times as it takes for you to understand it. Do you think the wood used in Europe is shipped shorter distances then wood used in North America?

Yes, of course.

You claimed products used in Europe are shipped shorter distances the n the ones used in North America. I'm pushing you to support your claims beyond vague hand-waving.

What's difficult to understand here? If you harvest wood in Sweden you have 800 million customers within a 1500 km radius (approx.) If you harvest wood in British Columbia you have what, maybe 200 million people within the same radius. (estimated, it's considerably less)
There's considerably more transportation required in a country considerably bigger and lower population density.

Just like your previous claims it's pretty obvious you won't be able to back them up and will resort to hiding from your claim until you want to make it again (often in the same post you insist you are not making that claim!)

It's a very simple concept, but obviously it eludes people.

I'm puzzled about what you are trying to say. You claimed products in Europe were shipped shorter distances. Why should that that exclude consumer products which make up most of the products that are actually shipped?

Again this is basic economics. It's considerably cheaper to ship finished goods rather than commodities like wood and ore. Here's a very simple example you should be able to get a better understanding from.
If your business is something like wheat and you fill up a tractor trailer full to be delivered to your customer, the cost of shipping will run you about the same as it would me to fill up a tractor trailer full of iPods.
However, and here's the tricky part, a tractor trailer full of iPods is worth considerably more than a tractor trailer full of wheat! In fact a tractor trailer full of iPods may be worth millions while a tractor trailer full of wheat worth a couple thousand!
Now if you were a country like Canada shipping your wheat or maybe ore to Europe and I was shipping my iPods from China, you would have to send thousands of ships for every 1 of mine in order to make the same profit. Your overhead as we like to call it, includes a considerable amount of fuel. This fuel gets burned and produces CO2.
So you see when your economy heavily invested in commodities like wood and wheat and ore your economy relies heavily on fuel and producing CO2 that other countries don't have to rely on.
And, if your customers live further away from your source or your population density is lower, it takes even more fuel to get the goods to the people so they can buy it.

 

[Furcifer]

I see some people are having trouble understanding the effect of population density on energy use, especially when you're dealing a raw goods and not finished products. I think a simple example may clear this up.

I lived in the country, not exactly rural but not the city either. For several years I had a paper route. I think, at least I hope, this is something most people can relate to.

Unfortunately where I lived there weren't many houses and they were very far apart. You can think of this as population density. It was low.

In the city however houses are closer together. In order to have a route you are required to have a minimum of 50 customers.

In the country that meant I had to walk about 5 km round trip. The same route in the city however would typically require less than 2 km as a typical city block has around 50 customers.

It should be easy to see from this how population density can affect energy usage. It takes more energy to walk 5km than it does 2km and still have the same number of customers and make the same money.

Saturdays were a pain because the Saturday paper was much heavier than Monday or Tuesday. Because they were heavier it required more energy to transport them.

You can imagine if I was delivering wood instead of papers it would have been considerably more energy intensive!

I hope this example demonstrates how unrealistic it is to expect some economies reduce their energy usage and emissions in this world economy.

 

[Furcifer]

Par for the course for your posting, you have once again tried to resort to adhoms to cover up your own nonsensical posts.

Nonsensical questions nonsensical answers.

To review: you claimed truck was superior to rail because rail couldn't go right to the store (seems you are more then willing to talk about consumer products again...)

No this is a lie. I never made any qualitative comparison, I said because trains cannot deliver to stores there will always be trucks.

I pointed out that you don't ship to individual stores across whole countries.

This would be wrong. You ship to individual stores across the whole country, that's how individual stores get merchandise.

 

[Furcifer]

It is obvious - you are depending on unreliable memory rather than performing any kind of research on the topic.

Bioengineering exists, it's developing plants to deal with the effects of global warming and it has been for years. I've got a great memory.

Ecosystem - extremely relevent to growing crops.

And crops grow everywhere. So it's irrelevant.

You also need the right kinds of beneficial insects (e.g. pollinators and soil bacteria).

And they grow crops everywhere, so it's irrelevant.

You also need to prevent pests from eating your crops so the GM will have to fight off the new pests that migrate there because of climate change.

They already have to deal with bugs eating crops so it's irrelevant.

You also need prevent diseases from destroying your crops (also affected by climate change).

They already do that so it's irrelevant.

Global Warming just means change, regions will move north for the most part. That's it.
In fact if we take advantage of this more regions in the North will be able to sustain crops that currently don't. And that's a good thing.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. It's business as usual, the rate of emissions is increasing, nothing is working until some pet carbon scheme is brought up and then it's "Oh it's working,absolutely".

It is obvious that the current schemes work for the simple reason that reducing CO2 emissions .... reduces CO2 ermisions! For example, any technology implemented that reduces CO2 emissions from power stations will reduce the CO2 emissions.

The big problem is that the rate of CO2 emissions is driven largely by how well economies are doing. The recent recession drove emissions down. The current recovery has driven emissions back to greater than the previous rate of increase. See IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News

However, despite the slow global economic recovery, 2010 saw the largest single year increase in global human CO2 emissions from energy (fossil fuels), growing a whopping 1.6 Gt from 2009, to 30.6 Gt (the previous record annual increase was 1.2 Gt from 2003 to 2004). As illustrated in Figure 1, in 2009 we had dropped into the middle of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios, but the 2010 increase has pushed us back up toward the worst case scenarios once again.

There are other problems, e.g. the large number of coal-fired power stations that are in the pipeline.

So the simple fact is that no one expects that the current carbon schemes will have an immediate measurable effect on emissions. The scenerios generally have measurable effects starting around 2030.

 

[Trakar]

Thus far they haven't even produced crops capable of providing normal yeilds in instances of drought or arid conditions, what makes you think that they will be more successful in matching or exceeding today's "normal" condition yeilds in the much more arid and drought typical conditions expected throughout the current growth regions four decades from now?

Nope, and they cant grow in the dark either. What's your point exactly?

I think my point is pretty clear, what don't you understand?

This is nonsense. As was noted in the .pdf, the increase in yields and tolerance to drought will continue to improve along the same lines as it has for decades, and that's through genetics. bioengineering is simply more untapped potential.

I agree with you, ^^this^^ is "nonsense," as explained in the statement you are obstensibly responding to.
(BTW - exactly what distinction, in your understanding, is there between "genetics" and "bioengineering"?)

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Likewise it is either simply silly or disingenuously exclusionary to propose that there is no utility or need for drought resistant and arid condition cereal crops today.

Only because of politics. You should read up on methanol. The you'll understand why some countries are burning cereal crops while others starve.

Did you mean "ethanol?"
personally, while I'm believe in the conversion of corn to ethanol for the purposes of embibement (medicinal doncha know), I'm not a big fan of turning food into fuel (or disposable cups and plates, or fertilizer, insecticides, floor finishes or even into feed for other food) but rather than slip into a derail on a subject where the evidence doesn't seem to support your opinions¹,...again, how about we clarify and first deal with the issue of the miracle grains you seem to be praying for to make everything better.

If you wish to go into this in more detail, I'd be happy to enjoin that discussion, but let's give it an individual sub-thread.

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Cereal crops that could be grown in arid conditions and produce yeilds equivilant to prime Nebraska (Iowa, Indianna, Illinois, etc.,) tillage, is both needed and would be highly profittable glabally, if such existed.

So would a steak tree!

personally, I'd go more for a good ham-tuber, but to each their own.

...The real problem is environmentalists placing more value on CO2 than human life. Real human life, not theoretical future people.

Sounds like unsubstantiated extremist rhetoric more than reasoned and factually supported consideration,...got reference?



1.
"Agriculture: Beyond food versus fuel" - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352_supp/full/474S06a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110623

"Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?" - http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/WRS/2010s/2011/WRS-06-28-2011_Special_Report.pdf

"The Economics of Grain Price Volatility" - http://agriskmanagementforum.org/fa...conomics of Grain Price Volatility Wright.pdf

 

[DC]

I see some people are having trouble understanding the effect of population density on energy use, especially when you're dealing a raw goods and not finished products. I think a simple example may clear this up.

I lived in the country, not exactly rural but not the city either. For several years I had a paper route. I think, at least I hope, this is something most people can relate to.

Unfortunately where I lived there weren't many houses and they were very far apart. You can think of this as population density. It was low.

In the city however houses are closer together. In order to have a route you are required to have a minimum of 50 customers.

In the country that meant I had to walk about 5 km round trip. The same route in the city however would typically require less than 2 km as a typical city block has around 50 customers.

It should be easy to see from this how population density can affect energy usage. It takes more energy to walk 5km than it does 2km and still have the same number of customers and make the same money.

Saturdays were a pain because the Saturday paper was much heavier than Monday or Tuesday. Because they were heavier it required more energy to transport them.

You can imagine if I was delivering wood instead of papers it would have been considerably more energy intensive!

I hope this example demonstrates how unrealistic it is to expect some economies reduce their energy usage and emissions in this world economy.

for example? virtueally every industry is able to save energy by more efficiency for example.