Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

But you can improve power generation and distribution; HVDC grid spines, more local generation using more diverse fuels (that can be locally sourced). You can improve efficiencies in many areas, especially by exchanging old fixed AC drives for variable speed drives to lower the load. In fact you will be more likely to get year-on-year improvements from this approach, rather than fanciful magic bio-engineering hopes.

Bioengineering may appear to be magic to the uninitiated, but it's science none the less.
Your post is a bit of a non sequitur. The reason we may "dodge the imaginary global warming bullet" doesn't have to be the "most improved' technology. What ends up saving us from the apocalypse could be something as mundane as a really big volcano eruption. It's really "Dealer's Choice".

 

[Furcifer]

you mean like 12 year out of date stats that you chose to be purposefully misleading to try and prove an opinion that is not supportable.

The oil sands have grown hugely in those 12 years and even since the 2008 statistics. Seems hiding the reality is a fav trick of the denier crowd......right up to Harper...

Office of Energy Efficiency
1990- Industrial- 136.0 Transportation-131.6
2008 Industrial- 154 Transportation - 179.4
You are incorrect. You are being misleading, I am being honest. It depends on what graph you look at as there is some overlap. It's not about the oil sands and has nothing to do with Harper or politics.

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/01/canada-tar-sands-carbon-emissions

I don't get my information about Canada from a UK blog. Sorry.

 

[Furcifer]

So it's not mining, now, it's the refining?

Nope, you can't move mines into the city or make them any less deep either. I'm afraid it's mining as well, it's very energy intensive and nothing is going to change that.

 

[Furcifer]

It made perfect sense. It's possible, just not widely deployed.

No it isn't. Unless you're using "possible" in the future tense as in "It will be possible, it's just not currently deployed".

Here's Nick's take on it: http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-farm-equipment-especially-large.html

I think he's done some interesting math. I particularly like the cable idea instead of batteries, trolly tractors. It's just not "possible" as the infrastructure doesn't exist. I don't see how slapping a tax on fuel is going to change any of this. It has to come about naturally.

I think the important point he makes and I agree with is people need to start paying for food! Not gas, food! In my opinion that's a better way to get people's attention and respect for the issue. But I digress.

 

[Furcifer]

That sounds like wise advice indeed! Which most people commenting here seem to follow rather rigorously. MacDoc in particular seems to be pretty good about providing multiple supports for statements and considerations shared, they may span several posts instead of being in one response, but I'm sure if there are ever any questions about MacDoc would be happy to expand and list additional supporting references, if you but asked.

No need, as you can see from post #2922 I have the actual figures from the government body responsible for tracking and reporting GHG emissions. He is of course incorrect. I take my science for scientific bodies and not politically motivated newspapers and blogs.
Of course I'm willing to understand how someone could be mistaken or mislead. I'm not really here to point out right or wrong, I'm here to exchange information in a friendly and lively manner.

 

[Furcifer]

Please cite and reference where I have stated, or clearly implied, that "cavalier attitudes towards carbon emissions," is involved, yet alone a primary problem, in increasing GHG emissions problems.

You're suggesting it's "not difficult or complicated" it's just that they haven't "created the market". That's clearly a suggestion that they have a dismissive attitude towards lowering emissions by implementing electrics. That's the very definition of cavalier.
(you didn't say it was a primary problem, nor did I imply you did. it seems to be a strawman tacked on to the end of your question)

 

[Trakar]

Office of Energy Efficiency
1990- Industrial- 136.0 Transportation-131.6
2008 Industrial- 154 Transportation - 179.4

In looking at many different (purportedly reputable) sources of information on Canadian GHG emissions (Environment Canada, World Resources Institute and the International Energy Agency), it is curious that there is around a 50% range difference from the low end accounting to the high end accounting and a rather broad range in each category's breakdown.

Regardless, in your source, GHGs in 2008, from electricity generation were 106.7 Mt CO2e, or ~22% of Canada's total GHG emissions. In 2010, it looks like this bumps up to around 131 Mt CO2e, or ~24% of Canada's total GHG emissions (roughly a quarter), come from fossil-fuel combustion power plants. A slightly larger amount (roughly 27%) comes from the open cycle combustion of natural gas, most of which could be replaced with other non-fossil fuel sources and processes. Together these two areas account for approximately half of Canada's GHG emissions. If we throw in home heating oil we are getting real close to 3/5 of all Canada's GHG emissions and we haven't even looked at transportation fuels or many industrial considerations (though I'm sure that total electricity and gas probably covers many of the industrial considerations).

 

[Trakar]

Nope, you can't move mines into the city or make them any less deep either. I'm afraid it's mining as well, it's very energy intensive and nothing is going to change that.

Who said anything about moving the mines to the cities,...besides you?

Everything that a mine does by burning fossil fuels, it would do better, without burning fossil fuels.

 

[Mikemcc]

Bioengineering may appear to be magic to the uninitiated, but it's science none the less.
Your post is a bit of a non sequitur. The reason we may "dodge the imaginary global warming bullet" doesn't have to be the "most improved' technology. What ends up saving us from the apocalypse could be something as mundane as a really big volcano eruption. It's really "Dealer's Choice".

It's obvious from your posts that you believe in the 'magic'. Many of the rest of us, especially those working in the biotech industries are more aware of the limitations.

You've obviously missed the science lesson which explains that volcanic aerosols have a limited lifetime in the atmosphere. Even Pinatubo only reduced global temperatures for about one year. If the eruptions were large enough to have long term effects or significantly obvious effects on the climate we'll have many more problems to worry about

 

[r-j]

Would a series of really large volcanoes change the climate? If they kept going off for years, and put a very large amount of material up high? I remember talk about a nuclear winter.

 

[Mikemcc]

Would a series of really large volcanoes change the climate? If they kept going off for years, and put a very large amount of material up high? I remember talk about a nuclear winter.

Even Mount Toba 'only' caused at most 10 years of cooling! 15cm of ash on average across south asia as far as Arabia. No sign of anything even remotely like this in the near future though.

 

[Furcifer]

In looking at many different (purportedly reputable) sources of information on Canadian GHG emissions (Environment Canada, World Resources Institute and the International Energy Agency), it is curious that there is around a 50% range difference from the low end accounting to the high end accounting and a rather broad range in each category's breakdown.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Muddles things up a bit. The fact remains transportation plays a large role because the country is so big. There are many remote locations that use lots of energy.

Regardless, in your source, GHGs in 2008, from electricity generation were 106.7 Mt CO2e, or ~22% of Canada's total GHG emissions. In 2010, it looks like this bumps up to around 131 Mt CO2e, or ~24% of Canada's total GHG emissions (roughly a quarter), come from fossil-fuel combustion power plants.

Where did you get this? I've got 16.8 Mt from Natural Gas, 95 Mt from coal and then others less than 4 Mt.

A slightly larger amount (roughly 27%) comes from the open cycle combustion of natural gas, most of which could be replaced with other non-fossil fuel sources and processes.

No. I'd have to see the list but these are most likely natural gas turbines in remote locations. Some of this might be able to get picked up by wind turbines in Northern areas, but where mobility and MW are needed in remote locations you can't replace GT's.

Together these two areas account for approximately half of Canada's GHG emissions. If we throw in home heating oil we are getting real close to 3/5 of all Canada's GHG emissions and we haven't even looked at transportation fuels or many industrial considerations (though I'm sure that total electricity and gas probably covers many of the industrial considerations).

Your numbers don't add up right (or I'm obviously not seeing something). There's a sizable chunk of coal produced emissions missing. That's getting phased out but I'm not sure to what extent and when.

 

[r-j]

The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000-year cooling episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Wouldn't that time period already be in the midst of a glaciation period?

 

[BenBurch]

Would a series of really large volcanoes change the climate? If they kept going off for years, and put a very large amount of material up high? I remember talk about a nuclear winter.

Yes, very much so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

 

[Trakar]

Where did you get this? I've got 16.8 Mt from Natural Gas, 95 Mt from coal and then others less than 4 Mt.

they are primarily from:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/aaa_ca_1_e_8.cfm?attr=0

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tablesanalysis2/aaa_00_1_e_4.cfm?attr=0

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/evaluation/reprap/2010/e20100915-eng.php

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/onlined...d=&c_local=P&prov=11&city=169&postal=&naics=A

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/st...tables/index.cfm?fuseaction=Selector.showTree

I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these numbers, like I said, the international monitoring organizations seem to generally have much higher numbers.

 

[Trakar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Wouldn't that time period already be in the midst of a glaciation period?

Probably more accurate to say that there was already a glaciation trend in evidence, and this (Toba Eruption) certainly nudged the balance more firmly in that direction. Of course, minus AGW, much the same (to a lessor extent) might have been said about our own modern era. The Toba era climate was headed back into peak glaciation within another 5-10ky, 1800s were looking at a slower decay to peak glaciation in 20-50ky (differences in Milankovitch cycles, surface features and circulation patterns). The Wisconsin glaciation was already well on the way towards its peak (though probably wasn't extremely apparent in Indonesia - aside from dropping sea levels) at the time Toba shot its load of pent up urgency into the stratosphere.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, very much so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

Trap or balsaltic flow eruptions are much different than either of the explosive types of eruptions characterized by super-volcano calderas or the big stratovolcanoes. (I know you understand this Ben, sorry for hi-jacking your post)

With the Trap eruptions, we generally have much gentler seismic events spread over larger geography and time (a lot more CO2 emissions and a lot less dust, ash and aerosols blown high into the atmosphere). Trap eruptions can span 100s-1000s of centuries, whereas the supervolcanoes and the stratovolcanoes to expend themselves in a single major event and a few weeks to months of heightened activity. The primary climate impact of Trap events are the GHG emissions, the primary shortterm climactic effect of explosive eruptions is their ability to push a lot of aerosols up into the stratosphere.

Heightened volcanism resulting in 2-3+ major stratovolcano eruptions a decade for several decades, would strongly mask AGW for those decades, of course, as the heightened volcanism dissipated AGW would reassert itself witha vengance as the CO2 levels would have continued to climb over those decades and as the aerosols clear AGW's impacts would be at the higher level of CO2 concentrations not at the lower levels prior to the enhanced volcanism. It isn't like the volcanoes would hit a "reset" button, they just temporarily mask some effects.

 

[Furcifer]

they are primarily from:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/aaa_ca_1_e_8.cfm?attr=0

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tablesanalysis2/aaa_00_1_e_4.cfm?attr=0

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/evaluation/reprap/2010/e20100915-eng.php

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/onlined...d=&c_local=P&prov=11&city=169&postal=&naics=A

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/st...tables/index.cfm?fuseaction=Selector.showTree

I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these numbers, like I said, the international monitoring organizations seem to generally have much higher numbers.

I still can't find that partuclar breakdown, namely about open cycle natural gas combustion.I think it's interesting because it's an important part of identifying areas that can be realistically improved and those that can't. At least not immediately or in the near future.

I can't vouche for the numbers either, but I tend to trust the people paid to do a job to do it. Monitoring organizations tend to present an incomplete picture. In fact, I think some of the confusion, the overlap we've seen in some of these graphs, comes from monitoring organizations that improperly convert energy usage to CO2 emissions and vice versa. That's just my observation.

 

[Furcifer]

It's obvious from your posts that you believe in the 'magic'.

No I don't believe in magic. It's obvious from my saying I don't I don't. I don't think magic has anything to do with what's being discussed and bringing it up is a nonsensical diversion.
I find it particularly odd to bring up magic when we're talking about long range predictions on technology. On one hand you believe in climate science being able to predict future climate accurately, but say it's magic to try and make accurate predictions about where technology is headed?
It's quite clear when you think it supports your views it's science, but when it doesn't it's magic. It's just more hypocrisy.

Many of the rest of us, especially those working in the biotech industries are more aware of the limitations.

Specifically what limitations are you talking about? I doubt you have the credentials to identify and predict the limitations specific to bioengineering crops.

You've obviously missed the science lesson which explains that volcanic aerosols have a limited lifetime in the atmosphere.

No in fact I'm quite aware of this. What I'm unaware of is why you think this is relevant?

Even Pinatubo only reduced global temperatures for about one year.

So?

If the eruptions were large enough to have long term effects or significantly obvious effects on the climate we'll have many more problems to worry about

Who says you need long term effects to "dodge a bullet"? Bullets move very fast, dodging them takes an extremely small amount of time. It's easy to see just from the way the question is phrased time or duration wasn't to be a serious consideration.
If you want to talk about technology or reasons CO2 won't be an issue in the long term I don't think "bioengineering" is in any way relevant. In the long term carbon sequestering will probably tackle that issue, if it's an issue at all. Society may find by the time CO2 emissions are curbed and mitigated it might not be worth the time and energy to remove what's already present.

 

[Mikemcc]

No I don't believe in magic. It's obvious from my saying I don't I don't. I don't think magic has anything to do with what's being discussed and bringing it up is a nonsensical diversion.
I find it particularly odd to bring up magic when we're talking about long range predictions on technology. On one hand you believe in climate science being able to predict future climate accurately, but say it's magic to try and make accurate predictions about where technology is headed?
It's quite clear when you think it supports your views it's science, but when it doesn't it's magic. It's just more hypocrisy.



Specifically what limitations are you talking about? I doubt you have the credentials to identify and predict the limitations specific to bioengineering crops.


No in fact I'm quite aware of this. What I'm unaware of is why you think this is relevant?



So?



Who says you need long term effects to "dodge a bullet"? Bullets move very fast, dodging them takes an extremely small amount of time. It's easy to see just from the way the question is phrased time or duration wasn't to be a serious consideration.
If you want to talk about technology or reasons CO2 won't be an issue in the long term I don't think "bioengineering" is in any way relevant. In the long term carbon sequestering will probably tackle that issue, if it's an issue at all. Society may find by the time CO2 emissions are curbed and mitigated it might not be worth the time and energy to remove what's already present.

You're the one pretending that bio-engineering of crops is a panacea for global warming. Yet GM crps cannot sustain a year on year growth in yield (disregarding the time delay involved in the research cycles given that there are relatively few players in this field). Now if you don't think bioengineering is 'in any way relevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?

My comment was relevant to show that you have raised a point that is, in itself, irrelevant. If you understood the volcanic factors concerning climate change, why post up that it could be a determining factor?

So now you are onto another technological marvel, CCS, which is still in it's infancy. You are the first to criticise when others mention developing technologies but now you are clinging to them yourself. There are relatively few areas where major pollutants (such as power stations) are sited close enough to allow for the piping of CO2 into reserviors. The UK is lucky in that regard in that we have a number of largely depleted oil and gas fields. Other CCS technologies are even more untested. Undoubtably it will be a factor in the future, the technology will develop as it will in a whole range of fields that will help mitigate the problems that we face.

At the rate the politicians are moving we won't even be seriously starting to mitigate the problem.