Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

You're the one pretending that bio-engineering of crops is a panacea for global warming.

No, I said it was one of many technologies that will help mitigate the small changes caused by climate change.

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).

So? Why do they have to? It's just something you've made up in your mind to be some requirement that you think can't be met. Most improvements don't happen incrementally year to year, they happen in spurts. So does climate change for that matter.

Now if you don't think bioengineering is 'in any way relevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?

I said it wasn't a relevant technology for reducing atmospheric CO2 over the next 200 hundred maybe 1000 years. I'm demonstrating how you the goal posts get shifted.

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?

How do you know it's not? Magic crystal ball?

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.

Climate change is in its infancy as well. There's plenty of time for things to mature. You never specified that technology had to already be mature for it to be effective? Why didn't you? Probably because it's a ridiculous notion.

 

[DC]

the small changes caused by climate change

and what to do about the big changes?

 

[Trakar]

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.

An "observation" seems to indicate something that you could point to in support of your conclusion. Please cite and reference this "observation."

Gas combustion as a portion of GHG emissions in the production of energy
(first link, Total GHG Emissions Including Electricity (Mt of CO2e)): Natural gas 2008 - 110.9Mt CO2e
(second link, GHG Emissions by Energy Source (Mt of CO2e)): Natural gas 2008 - 110.87Mt CO2e
(fourth link carries through to Canada—National Inventory Report 1990–2008 where emissions are broken done in a large variety of manners by source, industry and application categories)

Almost all natural gas combustion is perforce "open-cycle" (it takes in atmospheric oxygen, and exhausts the products of combustion back into the atmosphere), the only exception I can think of are some forms of fuel cells, and then I'm not sure that "combustion" takes place so the qualification still holds.

 

[Trakar]

...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.

Coal combustion is and has been a relatively minor source of GHGs for Canada. If you look at the table footnotes in your proffered source of reference, you see that the “Other” category includes coal, coke, coke oven gas, LPG/NGL, steam and waste fuels from the cement industry.

 

[Trakar]

No, I said it was one of many technologies that will help mitigate the small changes caused by climate change.

Ahhh, there is perhaps the greatest source of your misunderstandings, there is nothing "small" about the changes occurring in response to climate change.

...You never specified that technology had to already be mature for it to be effective? Why didn't you? Probably because it's a ridiculous notion.

And so, tell me once again why battery or alternatively fuelled/powered trucks, mining, forestry and farming equipment cannot make a significant impact on Canada's GHG emissions?

 

[Furcifer]

Coal combustion is and has been a relatively minor source of GHGs for Canada. If you look at the table footnotes in your proffered source of reference, you see that the “Other” category includes coal, coke, coke oven gas, LPG/NGL, steam and waste fuels from the cement industry.

By that rationale so would natural gas. Coal produces 96 Mt and NG 110 Mt.

 

[Furcifer]

Almost all natural gas combustion is perforce "open-cycle" (it takes in atmospheric oxygen, and exhausts the products of combustion back into the atmosphere), the only exception I can think of are some forms of fuel cells, and then I'm not sure that "combustion" takes place so the qualification still holds.

No that's incorrect. The majority of emissions come from combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT).

 

[Furcifer]

and what to do about the big changes?

There are none. It's incremental responses to incremental changes. That's what's being done.

 

[Furcifer]

Coal combustion is and has been a relatively minor source of GHGs for Canada. If you look at the table footnotes in your proffered source of reference, you see that the “Other” category includes coal, coke, coke oven gas, LPG/NGL, steam and waste fuels from the cement industry.

Found the link
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/egen_00_2_e_4.cfm?attr=0

96Mt from coal to produce electricity, but it actually only says 16.8 Mt for Natural Gas. I must have mistakenly lumped in emissions from NG used for heating (I believe "heating energy" and "electricity energy" get overlapped in the figures you were citing)

 

[Furcifer]

Almost all natural gas combustion is perforce "open-cycle" (it takes in atmospheric oxygen, and exhausts the products of combustion back into the atmosphere), the only exception I can think of are some forms of fuel cells, and then I'm not sure that "combustion" takes place so the qualification still holds.

Sorry, the moderated status makes it difficult to make changes to posts.

Yes, you are correct, most natural gas combustion is open cycle, getting burned in homes all over Canada at extremely high efficiencies. (I was thinking for electricity energy generation and not heating energy)

I can't believe you could be suggesting that this could be eliminated though.

 

[DC]

There are none. It's incremental responses to incremental changes. That's what's being done.

well i regard the people that will have to move to new areas as rather big problems. you not?

 

[Furcifer]

well i regard the people that will have to move to new areas as rather big problems. you not?

No. People move to new areas all the time. U-Haul does good business based entirely on people relocating. People moving to new areas is a hallmark of human behaviour. It's not even a problem, let alone a big one.

 

[a_unique_person]

There are none. It's incremental responses to incremental changes. That's what's being done.

That is where you are wrong. In biological and geological terms, these changes are happening in the blink of an eye. You are looking at things in a very, very narrow perspective. Species don't evolve so quickly, the ice is disappearing, and polar bears will not be able to adapt. They are adapted for ice and eating seals, at the same time the bears that are optimized for warmer conditions will be moving north. The polar bears will be caught in the middle, with no way out. That is only ONE example of what will be millions of species being caught out due to what looks to you like incremental change.

We are only one species, and we are able to cope to a degree, but there are a lot more species on this planet, and they have no way of adapting as we can. As for how we can cope with this change, I think you underestimate what we face as well.

 

[CapelDodger]

No. People move to new areas all the time. U-Haul does good business based entirely on people relocating.

Hundreds of millions of people will be moving, and you bring up U-Haul. Shallow thinking is a hallmark of human behaviour.

People moving to new areas is a hallmark of human behaviour.

As are the wars that go with it.

It's not even a problem, let alone a big one.

People in the New World can easily not know what mass population movements generally result in (although you could consider the native American experience). The Old World has been full for a long time. There are no new unclaimed frontiers, and even in the US immigration is already a hot political issue.

Canada welcomed many Hong Kong Chinese so perhaps it can take in hordes of impoverished displaced people. Of course the Hong Kong Chinese weren't impoverished, but that may not have been a factor.

 

[DC]

No. People move to new areas all the time. U-Haul does good business based entirely on people relocating. People moving to new areas is a hallmark of human behaviour. It's not even a problem, let alone a big one.

where we ever so many as we are today or in near future?
sofar as it only was some 10 000 people it was pretty easy to find a place for them and they are welcome in New Zealand. But what when larger areas are hit? People here are already yelling we are full we don't want more people coming here. i think it might turn out to become a mayor problem.

 

[Furcifer]

That is where you are wrong. In biological and geological terms, these changes are happening in the blink of an eye. You are looking at things in a very, very narrow perspective. Species don't evolve so quickly, the ice is disappearing, and polar bears will not be able to adapt. They are adapted for ice and eating seals, at the same time the bears that are optimized for warmer conditions will be moving north. The polar bears will be caught in the middle, with no way out. That is only ONE example of what will be millions of species being caught out due to what looks to you like incremental change.

We are only one species, and we are able to cope to a degree, but there are a lot more species on this planet, and they have no way of adapting as we can. As for how we can cope with this change, I think you underestimate what we face as well.

You're acting like this is something new. Human expansion has always resulted in species becoming displaced or even extinct. The Bison didn't do very well when humans arrived in the Mid West. There's quite a few species of plants and animals that suffered the same fate when humans from Europe colonized North America.
We've already accepted these losses as part of our existence on this planet. Your appeal to emotion is noted and rejected.

 

[Furcifer]

Hundreds of millions of people will be moving, and you bring up U-Haul. Shallow thinking is a hallmark of human behaviour.

U-Haul has helped move hundreds of millions of people. Blowing things out of proportion is also a typically human trait.

Unless those hundreds of millions of people all need to move on Labour Day 2050 there should be no problem.

 

[Reality Check]

And crops grow everywhere. So it's irrelevant.

Specific crops grow in specific ecosystems. So it is relevant when that ecosystem changes due to climate change.

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

Specific crops grow in specific ecosystems. So it is relevant when that ecosystem changes due to climate change.

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

They would have to GM for different bugs. The time & cost of doing this is relevant.

They already do that so it's irrelevant.

They would have to GM for different diseases so the time and cost to do so is relevant.

 

[Reality Check]

So you acknowledge reduced emissions in a slowed economy, but you think you can reduce emissions without slowing the economy.

I acknowldege that a slowed economy resulted in less carbon emissions.

Reducing emissions will of course temporarily slow the economy but lead to a better economy in the next couple of decades: The economic impacts of carbon pricing).

Existing carbon cap and trade schemes have lead to better economies already:

The study found that by investing carbon funds in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the states achieved $3–4 savings for every dollar invested. The program also created thousands of jobs (18,000 job years – that is, the equivalent of 18,000 full-time jobs that last one year), and individuals and businesses who took advantage of the energy efficiency programs funded by the carbon pricing system actually saw their energy bills drop. RGGI provides us with a real-world example of carbon pricing benefits exceeding the costs several times over.

And emissions are continuing to rise but carbon taxes are lowering emissions. Even though you just said the economy slowed and that's what lowered the emissions.

That is right: The economy slowed and carbon emissions slowed. The economy rose and carbon emission rose. So?

I have trouble believing intelligent people can't immediately spot the problem caused by the lack of good science and empirical evidence when it comes to global warming.

There is plenty of good science and empirical evidence when it comes to global warming. Just read the empirical evidence above: real-world example of carbon pricing benefits exceeding the costs .
What could be more empirical than people actually generating money and jobs from carbon pricing?

 

[Furcifer]

Specific crops grow in specific ecosystems. So it is relevant when that ecosystem changes due to climate change.

No it isn't, not unless you're claiming this new "ecosystem" is alien to this planet. There are plenty of ecosystems and climate change just means changes to those ecosystems.

Specific crops grow in specific ecosystems. So it is relevant when that ecosystem changes due to climate change.

Again, no it just isn't.

They would have to GM for different bugs. The time & cost of doing this is relevant.

Nope. Same bugs, nothing new in that department.

They would have to GM for different diseases so the time and cost to do so is relevant.

Nope, same diseases. No new diseases.

It's just change, we're not recreating the Earth here.