Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[DC]

I don't have a problem with that. My question was related to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the gross sources. How would the US reducing its output of CO2 reflect the total. Providing the CO2 per capita values suits some studies but doesn't indicate totals. If you'd like, you could add in the exhalations of the populace.

what does it matter? we all have to reduce our co2 per capita as far as possible and many are already doing so. Even the US is already slowly folliwing the rest of the world and also starts trying reducing their CO2 per capita. but in the US you got a relatively loud movement of people that are in denial of the problem and try their best to hinder solutions being implemented.

 

[The Don]

According to this:

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

The US accounts for 18.27% of world CO₂ emissions.

If US per capita emissions (17.6 tonnes per person per year) were at UK levels (7.9 tonnes per person per year) then world CO₂ emissions. would be around 10% lower.

 

[uke2se]

Your responses are typical of those who can only point out the obvious and claim that they have done their part.
"Everything and anything that doesn't make things worse." Pure genius.

What do you expect? Did you expect me to solve an issue here on these forums that the best and brightest of earth's scientists are struggling with?

"What's your point? We increase food production, or people starve. Quite easy to understand." What if our present population is unsustainable with your new world order? If you grow more food, the population will grow to use it. How do you peacefully taper the population down to a survivable size or do you just let Darwin work his magic?

We have a food shortage. People will die if we don't grow more. It seems you don't care.

I feel much better knowing that the human specie will not become extinct and know you are basing this on complete lack of extinction events during the history of the earth.

Are you just trolling? Because it seems you are.

What political order would you suggest for combating climate change? Some sort of determinism? A dictatorship? This last is most common among those who desire to run the show and they often believe that they are most suited due to special knowledge or skills.

I'm not suggesting any alternative. I'm suggesting capitalism brought us to this edifice. Perhaps you have a suggestion?

 

[pteridine]

once again it seems you are very late to the party. all of this is already being done in many countries. except for the irrational Nuklear fear, that is a holdback indeed, but most are aware of that and it is merely one other problem we have to deal with many believe they can do it without nuklear, most here would disagree with that.

so what is your pont? while you are asking thers for solutions, all the points you bring up are already implemented in many parts of the world.
where have you been the last decade?

The point is that many of the same people complaining about CO2 and how we need solutions are the same ones preventing the solutions from being implemented. Japan is likely done with PWR's. What will they use for power? Maybe HTGR's which are passively safe. The US is paralyzed by the Sierra club and other such lawsuits. This group touted natural gas as a transition away from coal but now has their collective panties in a twist about it.
The irrational and sometimes rational fear of Nukes is the major stumbling block to mitigating the problem.

 

[pteridine]

I'm not suggesting any alternative. I'm suggesting capitalism brought us to this edifice. Perhaps you have a suggestion?

Perhaps you could explain how capitalism brought us to this edifice. Knowing how it happened may provide answers.

 

[lomiller]

Comparatively recent research based on density (as opposed to width) of tree rings has indicated that the Roman climate was warmer than previously thought.

Original abstract : http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html

New Scientist Article: http://www.newscientist.com/article...gest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought.html

Register article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

Quote from the Register article:



edited to add......

I'm not in a position to say whether the Register article draws conclusions that aren't really supported by the original research. I'm also not saying that the research is correct or the conclusions drawn from it are correct, just that the research exists.

A couple things to keep in mind about this paper is that it’s specific to summer temperatures and that it’s regional to Scandinavia. While the total insolation of the earth doesn’t change much, high northern latitudes did receive considerably more insolation than they do today


Realclimate discusses the Esper paper here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

 

[pteridine]

According to this:

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

The US accounts for 18.27% of world CO₂ emissions.

If US per capita emissions (17.6 tonnes per person per year) were at UK levels (7.9 tonnes per person per year) then world CO₂ emissions. would be around 10% lower.

Thank you. The question was "Given the population of the US, if the US were to emit what other countries are emitting per capita, how would that affect the global CO2 concentration?"

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps you could explain how capitalism brought us to this edifice. Knowing how it happened may provide answers.

Markets rule in a capitalist society. Fossil fuels are the most cost-efficient fuel source around. As the energy and transportation sectors are among the largest economic sectors, fossil fuels soon rules the markets.

Too complicated for you?

 

[uke2se]

Thank you. The question was "Given the population of the US, if the US were to emit what other countries are emitting per capita, how would that affect the global CO2 concentration?"

Would you say 10% is a lot or a little in this context?

 

[lomiller]

Given the population of the US, if the US were to emit what other countries are emitting per capita, how would that affect the global CO2 concentration?

Since the oceans are still absorbing more than half the CO2 humans emit if the short term cuts of about 45% would stop the rise in CO2 concentrations for a time. Eventually the oceans would saturate and stop absorbing CO2 causing all sorts of other problems, but as a stop gap 45% is a good number.

If the US cut it’s emissions in half it would cut global CO2 emission by ~10% - 15% and getting us 1/3 of the way to that number. Europe, the US, Japan, Canada and Australia were to reduce their per capita CO2 emissions to the levels of France and China it would get us most of the way to that 45%.

Note that China and India are increasing their emissions and likely will for some time.

Why do you think people in the developing world shouldn’t be allowed to emit as much CO2 as a person in the US? We have an idea of how much CO2 can be emitted globally, why would someone in the US deserver a larger share?

 

[lomiller]

If we consider that nuclear plants would solve our problems with CO2 and simultaneously permit production of transportation fuels, we must ask why we aren't building them.

Current nuclear technologies, or technologies on the near term roadmap cannot can’t scale up enough. Experiential technologies involving thorium and breeder reactors offer more hope, but may be less cost competitive.

Currently the biggest obstacle Nuclear, Wind and Solar face is the direct and indirect subsidies given to fossil fuels. Cost wise Nuclear is comparable to Wind and a little cheaper than Solar, but Nuclear also requires large scale government intervention for capital availability, underwriting and R&D. IMO this will mean it loose out to renewable in more market based systems but should do better in government run systems.

There is a mountain that is designated as a safe storage area for wastes, but we aren't using it.

To replace fossil sources with Nuclear you would need to use technologies than made use of 95% + of the fuel. Waste is mainly a problem because current technologies use only a small percentage of fuel and treat the rest as “waste”. France currently does some reprocessing to recapture some of this fuel but what you really want is to be able to use the material that is “nearly fuel” I.E. it won’t sustain a reaction in it’s current state but can be changed into something more fissionable on the fly to fuel the reactor.

 

[lomiller]

Would you say 10% is a lot or a little in this context?

More than it sounds. The uptake of CO2 by the oceans is based in part on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and at current concentrations it’s absorbing around 55% of the CO2 we emit. If the rate at which the oceans absorb CO2 didn’t change we could hold atmospheric concentrations roughly in place with a 45% reduction in emissions.

This would still leave us with problems from ocean acidification and the rate at which the oceans absorbed CO2 would slow down over time but it would at least give us more time to deal with the problem. This assumes that ocean acidification isn’t as big or bigger a problem than warming, which we can’t assume to be the case

 

[uke2se]

More than it sounds. The uptake of CO2 by the oceans is based in part on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and at current concentrations it’s absorbing around 55% of the CO2 we emit. If the rate at which the oceans absorb CO2 didn’t change we could hold atmospheric concentrations roughly in place with a 45% reduction in emissions.

This would still leave us with problems from ocean acidification and the rate at which the oceans absorbed CO2 would slow down over time but it would at least give us more time to deal with the problem. This assumes that ocean acidification isn’t as big or bigger a problem than warming, which we can’t assume to be the case

Thanks for the explanation, lomiller, but I was asking the denier.

 

[Buckaroo]

Maybe it is the many environmentalists who want what they want or those like you who are so demonstrably defocused as to be unable to come up with specific solutions that must accept some of the blame.

"Defocused?" I just gave you several examples of specific solutions, which you explicitly accepted:

Yes, there are a lot of mitigation strategies and your standard answer will certainly reduce atmospheric CO2, for the most part.

So what are you on about? Blaming some disorganized "environmentalists" for the lack of progress towards climate change mitigation, when the concerted, well-organized and well-funded (and largely successful, until recently) efforts of industry to convince the voting public that AGW doesn't even exist has been meticulously documented?

My "type" that has earned your contempt may not be what you assume it to be and may not have much to do with a "50 year delay."

If I was wrong about your stance regarding the reality of AGW, then my apologies. But you do yourself no favors by blundering into the thread spouting soundly-discredited denier propaganda that we've seen again and again. I am willing to alter my assessment of your type should evidence warrant it, but I see little reason to as yet.

 

[Megalodon]

This would still leave us with problems from ocean acidification and the rate at which the oceans absorbed CO2 would slow down over time but it would at least give us more time to deal with the problem. This assumes that ocean acidification isn’t as big or bigger a problem than warming, which we can’t assume to be the case

Although OA is a biggie, it's considerably smaller than OA+AGW.

We need all the time we can get.

 

[pteridine]

Markets rule in a capitalist society. Fossil fuels are the most cost-efficient fuel source around. As the energy and transportation sectors are among the largest economic sectors, fossil fuels soon rules the markets.

Too complicated for you?

Too simplistic. As you said "Fossil fuels are the most cost-efficient fuel source around." Why would any political system choose something different unless it had the excess wealth and resources to do so. Developing countries do not have the luxury of not using the least expensive energy sources. Rather than political system, maybe the measure should be level of development.

 

[lomiller]

Too simplistic. As you said "Fossil fuels are the most cost-efficient fuel source around." Why would any political system choose something different unless it had the excess wealth and resources to do so. Developing countries do not have the luxury of not using the least expensive energy sources. Rather than political system, maybe the measure should be level of development.

Fossil fuels are only cheaper if you ignore externalities. What that means is that they are cheaper because a significant portion of their cost isn’t paid by the people selling or using them.

Politically, fossil fuels are popular because the people who will pay these additional costs are not currently voters or not aware they are being saddled with these costs while the people who get the discounts are current voters.

 

[uke2se]

Too simplistic. As you said "Fossil fuels are the most cost-efficient fuel source around." Why would any political system choose something different unless it had the excess wealth and resources to do so. Developing countries do not have the luxury of not using the least expensive energy sources. Rather than political system, maybe the measure should be level of development.

Because this hypothetical society doesn't value money above all else.

 

[uke2se]

Fossil fuels are only cheaper if you ignore externalities. What that means is that they are cheaper because a significant portion of their cost isn’t paid by the people selling or using them.

Politically, fossil fuels are popular because the people who will pay these additional costs are not currently voters or not aware they are being saddled with these costs while the people who get the discounts are current voters.

And there's this. The society we might be forced towards would see the entire cost of a product, as opposed to the listed price at the gas-station/store.

 

[Reality Check]

Of what the many others are doing, how have their great sacrifices affected them economically and how have they significantly affected CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

pteridine, What does "significantly affected" mean - give some numbers.
For example I could (but would not) say that a taxi company in my home town converting to hybrid cars has significantly affected CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that there are "great sacrifices" in reducing CO2 emissions. It is in fact the reverse - there are great economic benefits from CO2 emission schemes:
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

or the intermediate version:

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.

If you want to see how things happen in the real world: Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI

One tricky aspect in evaluating the economic impact of the RGGI system is that it was implemented right at the start of the current major economic recession, in 2008-2009. Thus GSP has fallen and unemployment has indeed risen in the RGGI states, but it has also risen all across the United States. The easiest way to try and take the effects of the economic recession into account is to compare the average GSP and unemployment changes in the RGGI states vs. the average changes nationwide.
Table 1 examines unemployment data, Table 2 examines GSP, and Table 3 examines electricity rates for the RGGI states vs. the national average
...
As Tables 1 and 2 show, the RGGI states on average have weathered and begun recovering from the economic recession better and faster than the national average in terms of both GSP and unemployment.