Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

Desalination.

Already dealt with this silliness, great if you have the power to pump 50+ million litres of water 300km, raise it 4400m and desalinate it. Unfortunately they don't.

It's already an issue.

Just because it's an existing issue doesn't preclude it getting worse, which it is.

This is just more hypocrisy. On one hand you want to believe the world can't feed people but you can believe the world can work towards reducing emissions? If you're going to be defeatist try to be consistent.

Why are the two tracks exclusive? Increasing emissions are making the job of feeding the population increasingly difficult to the point where we are looking at major problems. Minimising emmissions is one track toward reducing the issues for our future generations. One is a near to mid-term problem, the other is a long-term mitigation method.

Thankfully bugs and plants can't read a calendar, if they're tricked into things happening a little earlier or a little later it's across the board. [/qoute]Unfortunately they do try to live by one. So if a plant depends on an insect for pollination, but the population of the insects haven't recover ed sufficiently then the plants don't get pollinated. Many plants have evolved to exist with particular insects. So, unfortunately it's not 'across the board', every region has it's own problems, unfortunately evolution can't react with the rate of change.

Correct. If climate change is that extensive it will probably lead to changes in eating habits. Most notably a more vegetarian diet. Having been a vegetarian for 7 years myself I can assure you it's not that bad.

For you, maybe. Maybe not everybody is so enlightened.

 

[BenBurch]

It's traditional for alarmists to overlook the fact that those 4C degrees have made the planet considerably more hospitable with much more arable land and relatively easy living for all of the world inhabitants and that 4C more will most likely have the same beneficial effect. Cold is much more prohibitive than heat on this planet.

Have you ever been in the Mohave at about 2 in the afternoon on a summer day?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

Sea water. They have pipe in Mexico and Mexico City is only 2200 meters above sea level. Just to make is seem more complicated you doubled the elevation. Why?

According to Wikipedia

Highest elevation[7] 3,930 m (12,894 ft)

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

Even if 2200 meters is correct, desalination is not practicable.

 

[Mikemcc]

I think a citation is in order there (though I think one is also in order for the 4 deg C figure!). My understanding is that climate change (and bad land use and farming practices) is causing a LOSS of arable land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/third-of-worlds-arable-land-lost-to-soil-erosion-1574549.html

http://www.newsgd.com/SPECIALS/NPC&CPPCC 2006/NPCCPPCCSessionsNews/200603080056.htm

My apologies, I've just seen the citation for the 4 deg C figure.

 

[lomiller]

And i said the obvious solution to growing on rock if it ever came to that would be green houses. It's possible they could be engineered to grow where they do now but in a new region, but highly unlikely to come to that because of other strategies..

The notion that greenhouses are practical is foolish.

Just because the question was repeated it didn't make it any less ridiculous.

A question regarding the things *you* have said isn’t ridiculous just because you don’t have an answer.
I asked you if you though crops would move northward with their climate or remain in place and be grown in the new climate. Clearly it has to be one or the other and there are cases where neither is possible, crops can’t will not be able to move north into the Canadian shield nor can they continue to be grown in the central planes as the southern desert expands into them.
Clearly it’s a no win scenario, but it’s a scenario you painted for yourself I just highlighted the problems with it. Your proposal to use genetic engineering and other forms of mitigation to address this issue will not work.

Asking how to grow corn on rock was easily debunked.

Certainly your answers were easily debunked, but perhaps you should have thought of this before proposing “solutions” that require growing crops in unsuitable terrain.

You're entire argument from the initial question has been a string of strawmen.

All along I have encouraged you to expand on what you were trying to say, but you declined. In such cases dealing with what you have posted is all I can do. Presumably you mean something like this:

It's ridiculously simple for crops to follow the region is and when it changes. Saying otherwise would be ludicrous.

But again it’s not even remotely clear what you are trying to say. To a first approximation the climate zones are moving northward. Are you saying the crops follow this movement or stay where they are? Logically it needs to be one or the other, but again if you hold some different view feel free to explain exactly what you mean.

 

[lomiller]

It's traditional for alarmists to overlook the fact that those 4C degrees have made the planet considerably more hospitable with much more arable land and relatively easy living for all of the world inhabitants and that 4C more will most likely have the same beneficial effect. Cold is much more prohibitive than heat on this planet.

Cold is much more prohibitive than heat on this planet.

Actually the determining factor is almost always the availability of liquid water. To be sure there are a few places that will get more water but in many cases the natural drainage will not have developed to handle that extra water causing floods. There are also other cases higher temperatures and more evaporation reduce the amount of water.

Finally of course there are places where there is little liquid water now because it’s mostly frozen. When this ice thaws, eventually you may get a lot of new life, but in the short term there will be no soil.

 

[BenBurch]

...

What crops are pollinated by birds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophily#Bird_pollination

http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.p...n/872/plant_features_used_by_pollinators/6729

 

[Trakar]

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

Where are you getting this figure for the coal only breakdown? According to the source you provided earlier, and from which I was pulling these numbers, the entire "other" category (which includes coal burnt for power generation) only hits between 25% and 35% (2008-2010) of NG's contributions of CO2e.

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

 

[Furcifer]

According to Wikipedia



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

Even if 2200 meters is correct, desalination is not practicable.

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/76679.html

Elevation 2238m at the airport.

So desalination isn't a practical way of getting fresh water, but a 50$ tax on fuel is? Carbon credits? Reducing emissions in the United States and Canada is the practical way of getting fresh water to Mexico?

You're saying Mexico City is going to run out of fresh water, fine. What's the solution?

 

[Furcifer]

Already dealt with this silliness, great if you have the power to pump 50+ million litres of water 300km, raise it 4400m and desalinate it.

Of course Mexico City isn't at 4400m. You're just creating problems that don't exist through hyperbole. Why?

Since you seem to believe this, I'd love to hear your solution. Mexico City has run out of fresh water, what do you do?

Increasing emissions are making the job of feeding the population increasingly difficult to the point where we are looking at major problems.

Not really. The real problem is waste.

Minimising emmissions is one track toward reducing the issues for our future generations. One is a near to mid-term problem, the other is a long-term mitigation method.

And that's exactly what's being done.

Unfortunately they do try to live by one. So if a plant depends on an insect for pollination, but the population of the insects haven't recover ed sufficiently then the plants don't get pollinated. Many plants have evolved to exist with particular insects. So, unfortunately it's not 'across the board', every region has it's own problems, unfortunately evolution can't react with the rate of change.
For you, maybe. Maybe not everybody is so enlightened.

Indeed it's concern. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying people are faking a sudden interest in the situation so they can push their political agenda.

As I said before, if you drive a car, eat meat and have a front lawn but worry about how the world isn't doing the right thing to curb emissions you're a hypocrite.

 

[Trakar]

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

Which takes atmospheric oxygen in for combustion and vents its exhaust back into the atmosphere - "open cycle" combustion.

The confusion comes from whether you are focussed on the power generation scheme, or the source of the oxygen and ultimate venting of the exhaust.

CCGT refers to the process of using the exhaust gases to heat a working fluid (generally water) to gain more energy out of the system but it still vents the exhaust CO2 back into the atmosphere after it has dumped most of its heat energy into the working fluid.

My reference to open cycle combustion refers only to the fact that atmospheric oxygen is used for combustion and that the products of combustion are then vented back into the atmosphere. Closed cycle combustion involves the use of bottled or chemically generated oxygen and capture/containment of exhaust products. There are also mixed cycle combustion systems. The primary thing is to understand what the focus of consideration is (the power system, the combustion cycle, etc.).

 

[Furcifer]

Have you ever been in the Mohave at about 2 in the afternoon on a summer day?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

No. Have you ever been to Antarctica?

The World's population is distributed towards the equator for a reason. It's actually less energy intensive to operate in a warmer climate. The net benefit of Global Warming is more warmer arable land. You can spin that any way you want I suppose, but it's an advantage as long as it's taken for the opportunity it is. And there's very little doubt that it will.

 

[Trakar]

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)

I believe your source (NRCAN) is the problem:

Compare the two tables:

Electricity Generation GHG Emissions by Energy Source
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/egen_00_2_e_4.cfm?attr=0

and

Total GHG Emissions Including Electricity (Mt of CO2e)
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/aaa_ca_1_e_8.cfm?attr=0

based upon such discrepancies I see no reason for confidence in any of the (NRCAN OEE) figures and suggest that the international accounting systems which seem both internally consistent and only disagree with each other in fractions of percent are perhaps the only way to appropriately have such discussions in any meaningful fashion.

 

[Trakar]

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

We don't need to heat homes or cook with natural gas. There are lots of ways to provide heating and electricity that don't involve the use of fossil fuels.

 

[Furcifer]

No I'm not, post #2704 (just to give the full context of quote):

You are, I clearly indicated bioengineering is one of the thousands of technologies that will assist in mitigation.

You still don't yet understand that bio-engineering suffers from diminishing consequences. You can't endlessly improve the product. Some parallel to Moore's Law does not apply to living organisms.

That's a strawman, nobody suggested exponential increases from bioengineering. Just the slow steady improvement we've seen for the last 100 years or more. The power point I linked outlines it very well. There's no mention of Moore's Law, that's your own construct.

Unfortunately your belief doesn't feed the worl, it does make companies like Monsanto rather wealthy though.

Right, because Monsanto get's something for nothing.
Talk to farmers, they're more than happy to tell you about the amazing advancements in bioengineering over the last 50 years.

You do realise that many GM crops revert back to their non-GM varieties within a generation or two, don't you.

Bioengineered ones don't I fail to see your point.

That's why farmers have to keep buying seed from companies like Monsanto rather than retain a portion of the harvest to reseed.

And they enjoy the benefits and profits of increased yields.

Oh rly? 'Completed'? So there's absolutely no room for improvement? What a perfect little world you live in.

It's not perfect really, some people were unable to come up with the money to do the improvements before the program was completed. However, I think there's been another extension.

And you still insist on saying it despite being shown that it has limited use and, while helpful it is certainly not a key technology to combat climate change.

I tend to rely on the opinion of experts studying in the field of bioengineering and not cranks on the internet.
I've already made it quite clear the "key" technology to combating climate change probably hasn't been developed just yet. I think if it had we'd be well into development and field testing by now.

It's interesting that one could also argue that bioengineering, or the agricultural revolution is the reason were in this position to begin with. Had we stayed a hunter gather society we'd probably never advanced technologically as fast as we have. Perhaps not at all.

 

[BenBurch]

These people would love to know about these crops that can survive drought and terrible soil;

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138540768/somalis-face-famine-overcrowded-refugee-camps?ft=1&f=1001

 

[DC]

No. Have you ever been to Antarctica?

The World's population is distributed towards the equator for a reason. It's actually less energy intensive to operate in a warmer climate. The net benefit of Global Warming is more warmer arable land. You can spin that any way you want I suppose, but it's an advantage as long as it's taken for the opportunity it is. And there's very little doubt that it will.

on what science are you basing your predictions on?
i wonder why governments don't want to increase CO² output when AGW is so benefical.

 

[BenBurch]

No. Have you ever been to Antarctica?

The World's population is distributed towards the equator for a reason. It's actually less energy intensive to operate in a warmer climate. The net benefit of Global Warming is more warmer arable land. You can spin that any way you want I suppose, but it's an advantage as long as it's taken for the opportunity it is. And there's very little doubt that it will.

Funny thing, but nobody has ever lived in Antarctica. Not true of the rest of the significant land masses on this planet. Billions will without a doubt suffer premature death because of changes we are making to the environment.

 

[Furcifer]

These people would love to know about these crops that can survive drought and terrible soil;

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138540768/somalis-face-famine-overcrowded-refugee-camps?ft=1&f=1001

They're under the impression the crops did survive, but it costs too much to send them so we're burning them instead.

They said thanks for the clean air in the future, but they need food right now.

 

[Mikemcc]

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/76679.html

Elevation 2238m at the airport.

So desalination isn't a practical way of getting fresh water, but a 50$ tax on fuel is? Carbon credits? Reducing emissions in the United States and Canada is the practical way of getting fresh water to Mexico?

You're saying Mexico City is going to run out of fresh water, fine. What's the solution?

Whoopie-do. Mexico city lies in a valley that ranges from a minimum of 2200m up to 5000m. Even assuming the minimum figure that's still 9.81 x 2200 = 21.6kJ per litre of water just to lift it at 100% efficiency. Then there is the minor detail of shifting it 300+ km from the coast, I haven't found a source for this cost yet, but don't assume it to be small. Then the desalination costs. Even if I assume 50% sourced (3 litres per day per person) from run-off from the hills, that's still 0.5 x 15e6 x 3 x 21.6e3 = 470GJ per day, just to lift the water for the population for just one day. Totally ignoring translation and desalination costs. Pretty damned poor.

What's the solution? Accepting that the US, and Canada primarily, and the Southern American countries are likely to gain probably 20-50 million extra refugeesin the next 50 years. Those refugees are going to have to be fed, watered, supported, medically treated, educated, and employed. Good luck, given the US is more than a trillion dollars in debt already.

So , given that populations are bound to rise, what's the impications, the bordering states already have similar problems. Lake Mead is dropping precipitously. Texas is in yet another serious, unprecedented, drought, the Oghala and High Plains aquifiers are already in crisis.

Way to go, taking after an ostrich...