Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

Not with passive CO2 sequestration. There's no expenditure. ...

Yes there is. It takes energy to bury the biomass to sequester it. Because a forest is not a carbon sink. It is part of the carbon flow. To make a sink out of it you need to clear it and bury it so deep that it cannot quickly return to the system. Just planting trees will not do. (And there are numbers to back this up - it's been studied to death.)

And solar... Have you any concept of how many acres of solar panel you would need to drive the capture equipment to get carbon back to pre-industrial levels in a reasonable number of decades? Or what that would cost?

Go do the numbers, and come back and we can discuss it.

 

[Furcifer]

If you wanted a round number then why not 200 years or a 1000?

Mostly because of petroleum and natural gas reserves. It may well be 200 years if consumption starts to drop in the next 50, but certainly not 1000.

The point is not the adaption. It is the cost in money and lives to adapt that is the point.

And why we would pay to adapt back to pre-industrial or even 1990 levels in 100 years? That doesn't make sense.

That means that we have to go carbon neutral as soon as practicable to stop the increase in CO2 and and minimize the cost in money and lives.

Correct, and that's in about 100 years world wide.

Returning to a 1980's level of CO2 (not pre-industral in your alarmist suggestion above) would be good. Like you however I suspect that having spent all that money adapting to the new conditions, there will be no incentive to reduce CO2 and have to adapt again.

Why 1980?

And yes, carbon pricing schemes:

• are schemes!
• actually generate income and jobs in real life (at least in the USA):

Nonsense. They cost jobs and simply shuffle large amounts of money while doing nothing for the environment. They've been nothing but a spectacular fail.

THE EXPENSIVE FAILURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

From its introduction to the end of 2008, we estimate that the scheme has cost consumers across Europe between €46 billion (£33 billion) and €116 billion
(£83 billion)

Ouch.

 

[lomiller]

There go the goal posts. First you said "the entire scientific community" now "scientific community actively researching the subject"

no the goalpost all along has been what the scientific community says and that you are calling it alarmist. The goalpost has not moved until...

You went from 100% of scientists to perhaps 1% of scientists. Pure hyperbole as usual.

I've never said 100% I've said overwhelming, not the same thing.

Oh and you seem to imply that only 1% of climate scientists think humans are causing the planet to warm at a pace similar to what you encounter during a deglaciation. On this you are simply wrong, this point is nearly universally agreed on by active climate scientists.

 

[Mikemcc]

Not with passive CO2 sequestration. There's no expenditure.



Nonsense. To put this into perspective, an estimated 700000 terawatt hours of energy in the form of sunlight falls on the deserts of North Africa, Europe uses 4000 terawatt hours per year.

That's right, they consume about one half of 1%. And that's just solar.


It's not even a matter of energy, it's a matter of how fast do we want to do this and how long do we want to put up with the inconvenience.

Sorry? What is 'passive sequestration'? Relying on natural sinks to deal with it? That certainly won't return us to the level of even the 1980s for hundreds of years.

You are right that there is a huge resource in North Africa. But there are a number of (expensive) hurdles to utilising it. Stored CSP is still an infant technology, long term issues of corrosion from the salt solutions, the effects of dust on the mirrors, etc. Then there is the issue of installing high capacity HVDC spines to the national grids to transfer that energy (see Desertec.org for more details). I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, it most certainly should, just that it can't be seen as a cheap option.

The cost in delaying the start of mitigation and adaption strategies is sever and is covered in this article that updates on a 2004 paper by the same author:

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/wedges-reaffirmed

 

[Trakar]

I've never said 100% I've said overwhelming, not the same thing.

Oh and you seem to imply that only 1% of climate scientists think humans are causing the planet to warm at a pace similar to what you encounter during a deglaciation. On this you are simply wrong, this point is nearly universally agreed on by active climate scientists.

And is overwhelmingly agreed upon by all scientists in any field that is even tangentally relevent to climate studies (ie., physics, geology, chemistry, etc.). In fact, looking at the various polls, it seems like a high majority of all who have any form of physical science degree, and at the least a strong majority of those with any higher education degree at all accept and support the mainstream climate science positions on AGW.

 

[steenkh]

no the goalpost all along has been what the scientific community says and that you are calling it alarmist. The goalpost has not moved until...

He tried to make it look as if you moved the goalposts from "all scientists" to "climate scientists only". You, of course, were always talking only about climate scientists when speaking about the scientific community.

 

[Trakar]

And why we would pay to adapt back to pre-industrial or even 1990 levels in 100 years? That doesn't make sense.

LOL, when you stop walking do you have to adapt back to not walking? What pure adaptations to climate change over the next fifty years do you see that we would have to drastically change by going back to ~350ppm CO2e?

Why 1980?

We were at ~340ppm CO2 in 1980, ~350ppm by the mid-late '80s.

Nonsense. They cost jobs and simply shuffle large amounts of money while doing nothing for the environment. They've been nothing but a spectacular fail.

If your assessment is accurate, why do you seek to support it with a far right-wing fringe blog site rant affiliated with CEI a primarily political organization with strong connections to the American political party you just a page or so back compared to a bizarre fringe religious group?

I (and many others who have looked at the issue) have disapproved of carbon trading for the very reason that there was a high potential for dishonest players to subvert the system and corrupt its efficacy. There have definitely been problems with the European system. This doesn't mean that an effective system could not function, but it does mean that such systems need to be carefully designed and strongly regulated in order to have a hope of producing the desired end result. Carbon taxes are much more straight forward and a much better approach but even they have to be carefully considered and crafted to be both efficent and effective at assisting in the accomplishment of CO2 reduction and elimination.

 

[Furcifer]

I've never said 100% I've said overwhelming, not the same thing.

That's incorrect. Here's what you said:

When you denounce the entire scientific community as wrong [snip]

"entire" does not mean overwhelming, it means 100%.

 

[Furcifer]

Sorry? What is 'passive sequestration'?

Polymer membranes are selectively permeable plastics that allow CO2 to be separated from the air. Nanometric membranes already developed allow CO2 to permeate at room temperature with high selectivity.
Projects in Europe using thin film membranes are capturing CO2 at a cost of 30 euro per ton.

 

[lomiller]

Mostly because of petroleum and natural gas reserves. It may well be 200 years if consumption starts to drop in the next 50, but certainly not 1000.

There is enough coal to keep CO2 emissions near current elves for ~500 years.

THE EXPENSIVE FAILURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

From its introduction to the end of 2008, we estimate that the scheme has cost consumers across Europe between €46 billion (£33 billion) and €116 billion

This paper (and the group that produced it) has a fundamentally flawed view of how a free market works. What they are calling a “cost” is billing industry for the cost of their pollution and CO2 emissions rather than having those costs socialized and paid for by the government and/or its citizens.

They are quite correct that when industry is billed for their pollution/CO2 emissions they pass it onto consumers, but that’s exactly what’s supposed to happen in a free market. What is not supposed to happen in a free market is for that industry to be able to emit CO2 for free, pass no costs along to it’s customers and then have the costs to fix the problem picked up by government. This functions as a market distorting subsidy for that activity.

 

[Reality Check]

And why we would pay to adapt back to pre-industrial or even 1990 levels in 100 years? That doesn't make sense.
[/quotre
Like I said - I agree. It is probalable that once we have absorbled all of the cists inn money and lives in adapting to the new condistions, that there will be no point in returning to 1980's levels.

Why 1980?

Not 1980 - 1980's (350 ppmv of CO2 would be ~1987).
Because that is the level that the IPCC use. Ask them.

Nonsense. They cost jobs and simply shuffle large amounts of money while doing nothing for the environment. They've been nothing but a spectacular fail.

THE EXPENSIVE FAILURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

Nonsense.
They cost jobs and money while doing something for the environment. No one is denying this.
What you and this study are ignoring is that they create jobs and simply create large amounts of money while doing something for the environment (reducing CO2 emissions). They've been nothing but a spectacular success in generating income and jobs (at least in the USA): A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs.

For a wider discussion read:
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

And as lomiller stated:

This paper (and the group that produced it) has a fundamentally flawed view of how a free market works. What they are calling a “cost” is billing industry for the cost of their pollution and CO2 emissions rather than having those costs socialized and paid for by the government and/or its citizens.

The fatal flaw about this paper is that it is only about the costs of the EU scheme. It ignores any generated jobs or income. A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs is about the benefits and the costs.

 

[Mikemcc]

Polymer membranes are selectively permeable plastics that allow CO2 to be separated from the air. Nanometric membranes already developed allow CO2 to permeate at room temperature with high selectivity.
Projects in Europe using thin film membranes are capturing CO2 at a cost of 30 euro per ton.

Again, it's an embryonic(though promising) technology. From the link that you posted:

But the regeneration step — to remove the gas from the solutions — requires high temperatures and sucks up a great deal of the plant’s energy output.

 

[Mikemcc]

That's incorrect. Here's what you said:

"entire" does not mean overwhelming, it means 100%.

Your rather mobile goalposts yet again!

Given that there is no national scientific or technological institution than finds in your favour, I would say that there is overwhelming support in the 'scientific community' for the presence of AGW.

 

[lomiller]

"entire" does not mean overwhelming, it means 100%.

LOL
Falling back into pedantry the way you are attempting to do is using a pretty good indication someone is out of their depth on the facts. Even though others were quite clear on my point, let’s assume for a second that I was saying that there isn’t even one person who disagrees. Furthermore let’s say I “concede” only 98%, how does this change the discussion?

Do you seriously think that if you can find 1 person who agrees with you that it changes the consensus view in any way?

 

[Furcifer]

LOL
Falling back into pedantry the way you are attempting to do is using a pretty good indication someone is out of their depth on the facts. Even though others were quite clear on my point, let’s assume for a second that I was saying that there isn’t even one person who disagrees. Furthermore let’s say I “concede” only 98%, how does this change the discussion?

Do you seriously think that if you can find 1 person who agrees with you that it changes the consensus view in any way?

No I think it's a lie to say the "entire scientific community" when you actually mean "97% of the actively publishing scientists in field of climate science".

More to the point, you're talking about a couple thousand American scientists. There are millions of scientists. Your "entire scientific community" is probably less than 1% of the actual scientific community.

Pointing out a deliberate misrepresentation of facts this egregious is hardly pedantic.

 

[Furcifer]

Your rather mobile goalposts yet again!

Given that there is no national scientific or technological institution than finds in your favour, I would say that there is overwhelming support in the 'scientific community' for the presence of AGW.

In what favour?

What you say and what you can prove are two different things. Who exactly is "refuting" the national scientific institutions?

Nobody of course, this is just more made up hyperbole.

 

[Furcifer]

Again, it's an embryonic(though promising) technology. From the link that you posted:

*sigh

Try reading for comprehension, this quote:

But the regeneration step — to remove the gas from the solutions — requires high temperatures and sucks up a great deal of the plant’s energy output.

Is in regards to using aqueous solutions of amines, not micro/nano porous polymers. It's totally different technology. One is a liquid (that's what aqueous means) chemical solution that reacts with CO2, the other is a plastic membrane.

 

[Furcifer]

Nonsense.
They cost jobs and money while doing something for the environment. No one is denying this.
What you and this study are ignoring is that they create jobs and simply create large amounts of money while doing something for the environment (reducing CO2 emissions). They've been nothing but a spectacular success in generating income and jobs (at least in the USA):
And as lomiller stated:
The fatal flaw about this paper is that it is only about the costs of the EU scheme. It ignores any generated jobs or income. A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs[/COLOR][/URL] is about the benefits and the costs.

There is little to no generated income except in the bureaucracy it creates. It's rife with fraud and has been abandoned for the scheme it is. You're presenting more disinformation from the pseudoscience sites pseudoskeptical.com and realcrapclimate.com.

Fortunately the savings and loans scam dwarfed this fiasco and it's gone all but unnoticed.

 

[Reality Check]

There is little to no generated income except in the bureaucracy it creates.
...snipped personal opinion stuff....

I would expect that "the bureaucracy it creates" would be a cost not a benefit.
Carbon pricing does generate income which is greater than the costs to create a net benefit.
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs

The RGGI study provides us with a real-world example which busts the three main myths associated with carbon pricing; that it will (i) cripple the economy, (ii) kill jobs, and (iii) cause energy bills to skyrocket. The study found that in reality, investing the carbon funds in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs resulted in a net benefit to the states' economies:

"Evaluations of several energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the RGGI participating states indicate that these programs provide $3-$4 in savings for every dollar invested. When macroeconomic benefits are considered, the benefits are even greater."
​

This is also seen on other schemes, read The economic impacts of carbon pricing which points something that you seem to not know since you emphasis the costs:

The reason the Heritage estimate was so high is that it evaluated the costs of a carbon cap, and then ignored the distribution of those funds. When a price is put on carbon emissions, it creates a revenue stream. The funds which are generated from the carbon price can be distributed in any number of ways – usually through reductions in other taxes, investment in research and development of 'green' technologies, funding of energy efficiency programs, etc.

Studies on USA carbon pricing proposals and their impact of the USA GDP tend to cluster around a 1% increase with a couple of outliers (the article has what look like valid reasons for those studies being outliers):

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyzed this bill using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyzed the bill as well.
...
It was analyzed by the EPA using results from two economic forecasting models: the ADAGE model developed at Research Triangle Institute (RTI) in North Carolina; and the IGEM model run by a consulting firm founded by Dale Jorgenson, a professor at Harvard. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) analyzed this bill using their Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, and the EIA and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also analyzed the bill.
...
It was analyzed by the CBO, EPA, EIA, and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
...
It was analyzed by the Peterson Institute, EPA, EIA.
...

and then there is the Google analysis

An analysis done by Google.org using McKinsey & Company's US Low Carbon Economics Tool evaluated the economic impact of various scenarios involving strong investment in green technologies, 'clean policy', and/or a price on carbon emissions from the power sector of $30 per ton.
...
The Google.org analysis found that investment in green tech and carbon pricing would actually dramatically increase GDP. In fact, the study found that delaying significant investment in green tech by 5 years could cost the USA $2.3 to $3.2 trillion in GDP (Figure 2).

(my emphasis added)

 

[lomiller]

More to the point, you're talking about a couple thousand American scientists. There are millions of scientists.

Skeptical thought 101

We get our science from the scientists who work in the field under discussion, not from random people even random people who happen to have have enough higher education to call themselves "scientists".