Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Climate Change Alarmists Increase GHG

Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:16:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.

Seeing as you depict professional scientists as alarmist I take it you are of the lunatic denial faction.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 11:58:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:16:05 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.

Seeing as you depict professional scientists as alarmist I take it you are of the lunatic denial faction.

No. I'm not commenting on whether climate change is real or not, or if CO2 is even the main cause, but if it is, the professional scientists you are referring to are ironically exacerbating the problem by forcing oil to be transported on very unsafe, uneconomical, carbon intense transportation methods. Pipelines with electric pumps don't directly emit CO2....but all other transportation methods do (not to mention the lives they take by train and vehicular accidents). There is a global demand for oil and gas and like it or not our very lives depend on it. There is a huge supply in North America. It will get to market one way or the other so why don't the professional scientists pick the most responsible transportation method and turn their efforts on reducing demand. If no one wants it or everyone refuses to use it it will go away. But that is way harder than trying to stop a truck or a train or a pipeline.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.

If one were to be in opposition of the pipeline it would be to drive up the price of oil, which in turn give economic benefit to researching, developing, and using renewable resources. The argument is that the short term CO2 increase is worth the benefit of moving faster to renewable.

As part of the above keep in mind the CO2 generated in transportation of the tar sands oil is minuscule to the amount that arises from burning the tar sand oil.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 7:30:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:28:14 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.


If one were to be in opposition of the pipeline it would be to drive up the price of oil, which in turn give economic benefit to researching, developing, and using renewable resources. The argument is that the short term CO2 increase is worth the benefit of moving faster to renewable.

As part of the above keep in mind the CO2 generated in transportation of the tar sands oil is minuscule to the amount that arises from burning the tar sand oil.

Good points. I agree we need to move toward renewable and we inevitably will. I just hope we find the most responsible way to do it. For an example of an irresponsible way, look at Germany. They went all out! They have spent tens of billions in renewable sources of energy only to find out their emissions are higher than ever. I hope we think things through a bit more thoroughly. If you are from North America you can probably agree we have it pretty good here, all said. There are billions of people in developing countries India, China that want just a little of what we have. They won't get it without copious amounts of energy.......and only oil and gas can provide an affordable volume. They want..... Someone will supply.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 11:58:28 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:16:05 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.

Seeing as you depict professional scientists as alarmist I take it you are of the lunatic denial faction.

No. I'm not commenting on whether climate change is real or not,

The only question is whether climate change is man-made or not, there is no question that it is happening.

or if CO2 is even the main cause, but if it is, the professional scientists you are referring to are ironically exacerbating the problem by forcing oil to be transported on very unsafe, uneconomical, carbon intense transportation methods. Pipelines with electric pumps don't directly emit CO2....but all other transportation methods do (not to mention the lives they take by train and vehicular accidents). There is a global demand for oil and gas and like it or not our very lives depend on it. There is a huge supply in North America. It will get to market one way or the other so why don't the professional scientists pick the most responsible transportation method and turn their efforts on reducing demand. If no one wants it or everyone refuses to use it it will go away. But that is way harder than trying to stop a truck or a train or a pipeline.

I believe you are talking about the protests against the expansion of the Alberta oil sands. From what I can find on the internet this is just a local protest by anti-fracking groups and is not part of any globally ratified approach to reducing climate change.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 6:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 4:50:27 PM, chui wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:58:28 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:16:05 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation. Successfully delaying pipeline projects is ironically exacerbating GHG emissions. They are forcing the use of trains, transport trucks, barges. Clearly, pipelines are the best choice but they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing pipelines in hopes that further development of the Alberta oil sands will be retarded. If they really want to change things.....get people and countries who have nothing to believe that having nothing is good. Then demand should diminish. Until then......just think about the consequences of your protests because you're doing more harm than good in this case.

Seeing as you depict professional scientists as alarmist I take it you are of the lunatic denial faction.

No. I'm not commenting on whether climate change is real or not,

The only question is whether climate change is man-made or not, there is no question that it is happening.

or if CO2 is even the main cause, but if it is, the professional scientists you are referring to are ironically exacerbating the problem by forcing oil to be transported on very unsafe, uneconomical, carbon intense transportation methods. Pipelines with electric pumps don't directly emit CO2....but all other transportation methods do (not to mention the lives they take by train and vehicular accidents). There is a global demand for oil and gas and like it or not our very lives depend on it. There is a huge supply in North America. It will get to market one way or the other so why don't the professional scientists pick the most responsible transportation method and turn their efforts on reducing demand. If no one wants it or everyone refuses to use it it will go away. But that is way harder than trying to stop a truck or a train or a pipeline.

I believe you are talking about the protests against the expansion of the Alberta oil sands. From what I can find on the internet this is just a local protest by anti-fracking groups and is not part of any globally ratified approach to reducing climate change.

Over the past 17 years CO2 has gone up 54% but the climate has remained the same...even showing signs of cooling. This suggests that there must be other things happening to moderate temperature. The only thing that never changes is change itself. Why do humans think they can control everything....extremely arrogant. Remember acid rain? Zebra mussels? Phosphate? The ozon layer? All "end of days" type stuff when they hit the media......now? All fixed!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 1:51:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation.

I'm not sure your point is clear. Refusing to allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built has not prevented any oil exploration, development, or delivery. What it has meant is that the oil is shipped by train rather being piped. Hillary Clinton's State Department officially reported that this increases CO2 emissions because trains are less efficient than pipelines. There have also been serious accidents with the trains, blowing up a small town and such. Using trains raises the price of the oil by about $10 per barrel.

The reason the pipeline has not been approved is that Texas billionaire Tom Steyer says he will withhold $100 million in campaign contributions to Democrats if the pipeline is approved. Warren Buffett, another billionaire supporter of Democrats, owns the railroad that is shipping the oil. And, of course, not building the pipeline solidifies eco-idiots behind the Democrats. It's a happy place all around.

So why don't the eco-idiots demand that the pipeline be build so that CO2 would be reduced. It's because CO2 opposition is fundamentally religious, not rational. Anything that would please big oil is viewed as consorting with the devil, period. They oppose to preserve their moral purity, not because it makes any sense.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 5:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 1:51:13 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation.

I'm not sure your point is clear. Refusing to allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built has not prevented any oil exploration, development, or delivery. What it has meant is that the oil is shipped by train rather being piped. Hillary Clinton's State Department officially reported that this increases CO2 emissions because trains are less efficient than pipelines. There have also been serious accidents with the trains, blowing up a small town and such. Using trains raises the price of the oil by about $10 per barrel.

The reason the pipeline has not been approved is that Texas billionaire Tom Steyer says he will withhold $100 million in campaign contributions to Democrats if the pipeline is approved. Warren Buffett, another billionaire supporter of Democrats, owns the railroad that is shipping the oil. And, of course, not building the pipeline solidifies eco-idiots behind the Democrats. It's a happy place all around.

So why don't the eco-idiots demand that the pipeline be build so that CO2 would be reduced. It's because CO2 opposition is fundamentally religious, not rational. Anything that would please big oil is viewed as consorting with the devil, period. They oppose to preserve their moral purity, not because it makes any sense.

We'll said! I agree 100%! Since Keystone was applied for there have been 10,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines built in the US. When the gulf coast section of the Keystone pipeline was kicking off, Obama showed up and grandstanded saying "I approve this pipeline". Thing is....it didn't even need his approval at all......brutal!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 6:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 1:51:13 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/18/2014 1:40:41 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Environmentalists against the use of fossil fuels are focusing on the wrong targets. There is a clear supply and demand dynamic here that they can't control so they apparently choose the easy target... transportation.

I'm not sure your point is clear. Refusing to allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built has not prevented any oil exploration, development, or delivery. What it has meant is that the oil is shipped by train rather being piped. Hillary Clinton's State Department officially reported that this increases CO2 emissions because trains are less efficient than pipelines. There have also been serious accidents with the trains, blowing up a small town and such. Using trains raises the price of the oil by about $10 per barrel.

The reason the pipeline has not been approved is that Texas billionaire Tom Steyer says he will withhold $100 million in campaign contributions to Democrats if the pipeline is approved. Warren Buffett, another billionaire supporter of Democrats, owns the railroad that is shipping the oil. And, of course, not building the pipeline solidifies eco-idiots behind the Democrats. It's a happy place all around.

So why don't the eco-idiots demand that the pipeline be build so that CO2 would be reduced. It's because CO2 opposition is fundamentally religious, not rational. Anything that would please big oil is viewed as consorting with the devil, period. They oppose to preserve their moral purity, not because it makes any sense.

Wait....Big Oil buys Democrats too???
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 8:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 7:30:22 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
For an example of an irresponsible way, look at Germany. They went all out! They have spent tens of billions in renewable sources of energy only to find out their emissions are higher than ever.

Germany's emissions are not higher than ever; they have dropped have dropped nearly 25% since 1990 (1248 million tonnes in 1990, compared to 951 million tonnes in 2013) which can largely be attributed to Germany's renewable energy policies. Germany's emissions are higher than 2012, but not because (as your statement seems to imply) of their alleged "irresponsible" shift to renewable energy. Germany has also been moving away from nuclear power, which was accelerated by the Fukushima crisis in 2011 leading to increased energy production from cheap coal resulting in an increase in recent greenhouse gas emissions. Germany's widespread use of renewables minimised the increase in emissions due to the shift away from nuclear power.

If you want to criticise Germany's energy policies, focusing on the cost of subsidies for renewable energy production or on the effects of moving away from nuclear power would be more accurate. Criticising Germany's shift to green energy on the basis that it has increased emissions is factually incorrect.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 8:37:13 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/19/2014 7:30:22 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
For an example of an irresponsible way, look at Germany. They went all out! They have spent tens of billions in renewable sources of energy only to find out their emissions are higher than ever.

Germany's emissions are not higher than ever; they have dropped have dropped nearly 25% since 1990 (1248 million tonnes in 1990, compared to 951 million tonnes in 2013) which can largely be attributed to Germany's renewable energy policies. Germany's emissions are higher than 2012, but not because (as your statement seems to imply) of their alleged "irresponsible" shift to renewable energy. Germany has also been moving away from nuclear power, which was accelerated by the Fukushima crisis in 2011 leading to increased energy production from cheap coal resulting in an increase in recent greenhouse gas emissions. Germany's widespread use of renewables minimised the increase in emissions due to the shift away from nuclear power.

If you want to criticise Germany's energy policies, focusing on the cost of subsidies for renewable energy production or on the effects of moving away from nuclear power would be more accurate. Criticising Germany's shift to green energy on the basis that it has increased emissions is factually incorrect.

Indeed, Germany's emissions have dropped from 1990. The cost of green energy has all but devastated the Germany economy. A cabinet minister calls it the deindustrialization of Germany. There is an enormous tsunami threat to the Germany nuclear plants, I guess, so nuclear is being shut down. Where will they turn for energy? Natural gas comes from Russia, and the Russians can raise prices or cut off supplies whenever they wish. So the answer is: coal. The first of eight new coal plants has just come on line. http://www.powerengineeringint.com...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:33:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 6:05:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Wait....Big Oil buys Democrats too???

Neither Steyer nor Buffett are big oil. Oil is the most heavily taxed industry in the US, up around 40%. High tech, like Apple, buys Democrats. Apple is among the least taxed.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 4:23:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:26:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Indeed, Germany's emissions have dropped from 1990. The cost of green energy has all but devastated the Germany economy. A cabinet minister calls it the deindustrialization of Germany. There is an enormous tsunami threat to the Germany nuclear plants, I guess, so nuclear is being shut down. Where will they turn for energy? Natural gas comes from Russia, and the Russians can raise prices or cut off supplies whenever they wish. So the answer is: coal. The first of eight new coal plants has just come on line. http://www.powerengineeringint.com...

It's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that the German economy is anywhere close to "devastated", or that this alleged devastation is the result of Germany's green energy initiatives. Most current uncertainty in the Germany economy is a result of the Ukraine crisis, but despite this Germany isn't expected to experience economic decline (or disaster) in the near future.

The planned initiative to denuclearise German electricity actually has origins around 1998-2000, which pre-dates Fukushima by over a decade. The Fukushima disaster was used opportunistically to retract on a planned delay of denuclearisation plans and to accelerate the dismantling of nuclear power largely in response to public opinion, but it's not the origin of anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany nor a cause of denuclearisation as part of German energy policy.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 10:26:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/21/2014 8:37:13 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/19/2014 7:30:22 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
For an example of an irresponsible way, look at Germany. They went all out! They have spent tens of billions in renewable sources of energy only to find out their emissions are higher than ever.

Germany's emissions are not higher than ever; they have dropped have dropped nearly 25% since 1990 (1248 million tonnes in 1990, compared to 951 million tonnes in 2013) which can largely be attributed to Germany's renewable energy policies. Germany's emissions are higher than 2012, but not because (as your statement seems to imply) of their alleged "irresponsible" shift to renewable energy. Germany has also been moving away from nuclear power, which was accelerated by the Fukushima crisis in 2011 leading to increased energy production from cheap coal resulting in an increase in recent greenhouse gas emissions. Germany's widespread use of renewables minimised the increase in emissions due to the shift away from nuclear power.

If you want to criticise Germany's energy policies, focusing on the cost of subsidies for renewable energy production or on the effects of moving away from nuclear power would be more accurate. Criticising Germany's shift to green energy on the basis that it has increased emissions is factually incorrect.

Indeed, Germany's emissions have dropped from 1990. The cost of green energy has all but devastated the Germany economy. A cabinet minister calls it the deindustrialization of Germany. There is an enormous tsunami threat to the Germany nuclear plants, I guess, so nuclear is being shut down. Where will they turn for energy? Natural gas comes from Russia, and the Russians can raise prices or cut off supplies whenever they wish. So the answer is: coal. The first of eight new coal plants has just come on line. http://www.powerengineeringint.com...

Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?

You'd need to be completely ignorant of present German energy policy to claim that it is "coming full circle" ( as if claiming "German emissions are higher than ever" isn't enough evidence for that already).
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 12:44:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 8:16:09 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?

You'd need to be completely ignorant of present German energy policy to claim that it is "coming full circle" ( as if claiming "German emissions are higher than ever" isn't enough evidence for that already).

Having to build new coal fired energy plants because the costs to generate green energy is more expensive than what they can sell it for even after the ridiculous government subsidies......and their emissions on the rise prompting even more government back loading regulations and struggles. I'd call that full circle, no?......or maybe I meant just running around in circles? We can learn a lot from their experiments though.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 8:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 12:44:29 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:16:09 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?

You'd need to be completely ignorant of present German energy policy to claim that it is "coming full circle" ( as if claiming "German emissions are higher than ever" isn't enough evidence for that already).

Having to build new coal fired energy plants because the costs to generate green energy is more expensive than what they can sell it for even after the ridiculous government subsidies......and their emissions on the rise prompting even more government back loading regulations and struggles. I'd call that full circle, no?......or maybe I meant just running around in circles? We can learn a lot from their experiments though.

They are have to build new coal plants because they made a law that all nuke plants have to be shut down by 2020. Since nuke energy is 25% of their energy, it is obvious that coal is the cheapest to fill that gap. Of course their emissions are going to go up, but this is more from conversion from nuke to coal not because they are flawed with what they did for renewable energy. Could you imagine if they converted all their solar and wind to coal? Even larger bump on emissions.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 8:15:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 8:06:06 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 12:44:29 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:16:09 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?

You'd need to be completely ignorant of present German energy policy to claim that it is "coming full circle" ( as if claiming "German emissions are higher than ever" isn't enough evidence for that already).

Having to build new coal fired energy plants because the costs to generate green energy is more expensive than what they can sell it for even after the ridiculous government subsidies......and their emissions on the rise prompting even more government back loading regulations and struggles. I'd call that full circle, no?......or maybe I meant just running around in circles? We can learn a lot from their experiments though.

They are have to build new coal plants because they made a law that all nuke plants have to be shut down by 2020. Since nuke energy is 25% of their energy, it is obvious that coal is the cheapest to fill that gap. Of course their emissions are going to go up, but this is more from conversion from nuke to coal not because they are flawed with what they did for renewable energy. Could you imagine if they converted all their solar and wind to coal? Even larger bump on emissions.

Thanks! It's good they're trying everything. I just hope whenever North America gets their energy policies in order they will think things through a bit more and learn from others mistakes. Transition responsibly.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 8:16:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 8:15:01 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/23/2014 8:06:06 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 12:44:29 AM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:16:09 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/22/2014 6:59:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Comical......coming full circle. Valiant effort I suppose?

You'd need to be completely ignorant of present German energy policy to claim that it is "coming full circle" ( as if claiming "German emissions are higher than ever" isn't enough evidence for that already).

Having to build new coal fired energy plants because the costs to generate green energy is more expensive than what they can sell it for even after the ridiculous government subsidies......and their emissions on the rise prompting even more government back loading regulations and struggles. I'd call that full circle, no?......or maybe I meant just running around in circles? We can learn a lot from their experiments though.

They are have to build new coal plants because they made a law that all nuke plants have to be shut down by 2020. Since nuke energy is 25% of their energy, it is obvious that coal is the cheapest to fill that gap. Of course their emissions are going to go up, but this is more from conversion from nuke to coal not because they are flawed with what they did for renewable energy. Could you imagine if they converted all their solar and wind to coal? Even larger bump on emissions.

Thanks! It's good they're trying everything. I just hope whenever North America gets their energy policies in order they will think things through a bit more and learn from others mistakes. Transition responsibly.

You think that moving away from nuclear energy is a mistake?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:36:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 6:43:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:


Over the past 17 years CO2 has gone up 54% but the climate has remained the same...even showing signs of cooling.

The natural variation in global temperature can mask an underlying increase, so looking at temperatures over the last decade or two is misleading. Over the last 150 years there has been a clear trend of increasing temperature. CO2 levels have only increased by 11% in the last 17 years not 54%.

http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org...

This suggests that there must be other things happening to moderate temperature.

While atmospheric temperature has shown little definite increase recently other measures of climate change are hitting new records. For example the glaciers continue to retreat to all time lows, arctic sea-ice is retreating while antarctic sea-ice hits record highs, sea levels are rising, CO2 in the oceans continues to increase acidity, ocean temperature is rising meaning that total thermal energy is increasing. These changes are thought to be responsible for more extreme weather causing flooding and other natural disasters. The WHO are already concerned that climate change will lead to higher deaths tolls in the near future http://www.who.int...

The only thing that never changes is change itself. Why do humans think they can control everything....extremely arrogant.

We cannot control everything and nobody is thinking that, all that is being proposed is that we control our own actions.

Remember acid rain? Zebra mussels? Phosphate? The ozon layer? All "end of days" type stuff when they hit the media......now? All fixed!

Acid rain has reduced thanks to effective legislation that reduced SO2 emissions by 70% in USA and western Europe. China and eastern Europe are still suffering the effects of acid rain due to rapid expansion of coal burning power stations. The ozone layer is just starting to show signs of recovery, but the antarctic hole still remains. Zebra mussels cost the US an estimated $200 million per year (there is wide variation on this estimate) and they continue to spread. Not sure what you are referring to when you say phoshate... eutrophication perhaps? If so around 48% of US lakes are still having problems. So in summary not fixed but action is being taken that is effective.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 1:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 10:36:17 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/20/2014 6:43:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:


Over the past 17 years CO2 has gone up 54% but the climate has remained the same...even showing signs of cooling.

The natural variation in global temperature can mask an underlying increase, so looking at temperatures over the last decade or two is misleading. Over the last 150 years there has been a clear trend of increasing temperature. CO2 levels have only increased by 11% in the last 17 years not 54%.

So unknown natural variations in climate are large enough to mask CO2 effects. The global warming crisis was because temperatures rose sharply from about 1983 to 1997, and top scientists were certain that nothing in the natural environment caused the rise. Once you admit that unknown natural factors are large enough to mask CO2, you have to admit that the original rise could also be due to unknown natural factors.

The long term rise in temperatures began after the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, before CO2 was a factor. The long term trend is so slow as to pose no serious threat. I made the mistake of once quoting a source that said 54% for the recent CO2. Nonetheless, CO2 has been increasing exactly as everyone foresaw, and CO2 theory predicted that much would soon bring disaster. CO2 disaster requires a large magnification of the effects beyond what simple physics predicts. There probably a CO2 effect somewhat less than what straight physics predicts, perhaps 0.8 degree for the next century.

Some point out that UFO sightings correlate far more closely with global temperature than CO2. UFO sightings rose until 2000, then leveled off. Global temperature follows solar magnetic activity with much greater correlation, accounting for the peak in the 30s and cold 70s as well as the general upward trend. It also corresponds to the 17 year pause. There is no account for solar magnetic activity in the climate models. They include radiance, which doesn't change significantly.


While atmospheric temperature has shown little definite increase recently other measures of climate change are hitting new records. For example the glaciers continue to retreat to all time lows, arctic sea-ice is retreating while antarctic sea-ice hits record highs, sea levels are rising, CO2 in the oceans continues to increase acidity, ocean temperature is rising meaning that total thermal energy is increasing. These changes are thought to be responsible for more extreme weather causing flooding and other natural disasters. The WHO are already concerned that climate change will lead to higher deaths tolls in the near future http://www.who.int...

Total sea ice has remained about the same for decades. As the Arctic melts the Antarctic grows. When global air temperature stop rising, it takes quite a while for ocean temperatures and glacial activity to reach equilibrium. It's phase lag. The hottest day of the year in terms of received heat from the sun is the first day of summer. But August is the hottest month. That's so even though the sun input has actually dropped since June. In any case, the CO2 models have been completely wrong in predicting air temperature, water temperature, and sea ice cover. Scientist who supported CO2 theory now admit the models are not working. Von Storch, for example, led the charge against CO2 and has recently published a paper proving the models cannot be tweaked to track what has happened.

The only thing that never changes is change itself. Why do humans think they can control everything....extremely arrogant.

We cannot control everything and nobody is thinking that, all that is being proposed is that we control our own actions.

I think the obvious thing to do is to increase research on climate engineering. Climate engineering has the potential for offsetting global warming (or cooling) whether the cause is natural or man-caused. CO2 advocates say, simulataneously, that we understand climate perfectly, so we can predict future climate, but we cannot think about climate engineering because we can't predict what would happen. In truth, they have a religious belief that man should be punished for the sin of carbon. Some aspects of climate are understood extremely well, like the effect of irradiance. Duplicating the effects of volcanoes would not have significant risk and would work. It ought to be obvious that India and China, who now produce more CO2 than Europe and America combined, are not going to accept economic devastation. So develop climate engineering methods.

If solar magnetic activity in fact dominates climate, we'll have cooling until mid century and then a return to slow warming.
Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 9:22:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 1:19:35 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/23/2014 10:36:17 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/20/2014 6:43:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:


Over the past 17 years CO2 has gone up 54% but the climate has remained the same...even showing signs of cooling.

The natural variation in global temperature can mask an underlying increase, so looking at temperatures over the last decade or two is misleading. Over the last 150 years there has been a clear trend of increasing temperature. CO2 levels have only increased by 11% in the last 17 years not 54%.

So unknown natural variations in climate are large enough to mask CO2 effects. The global warming crisis was because temperatures rose sharply from about 1983 to 1997, and top scientists were certain that nothing in the natural environment caused the rise. Once you admit that unknown natural factors are large enough to mask CO2, you have to admit that the original rise could also be due to unknown natural factors.

The long term rise in temperatures began after the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, before CO2 was a factor. The long term trend is so slow as to pose no serious threat. I made the mistake of once quoting a source that said 54% for the recent CO2. Nonetheless, CO2 has been increasing exactly as everyone foresaw, and CO2 theory predicted that much would soon bring disaster. CO2 disaster requires a large magnification of the effects beyond what simple physics predicts. There probably a CO2 effect somewhat less than what straight physics predicts, perhaps 0.8 degree for the next century.

Some point out that UFO sightings correlate far more closely with global temperature than CO2. UFO sightings rose until 2000, then leveled off. Global temperature follows solar magnetic activity with much greater correlation, accounting for the peak in the 30s and cold 70s as well as the general upward trend. It also corresponds to the 17 year pause. There is no account for solar magnetic activity in the climate models. They include radiance, which doesn't change significantly.


While atmospheric temperature has shown little definite increase recently other measures of climate change are hitting new records. For example the glaciers continue to retreat to all time lows, arctic sea-ice is retreating while antarctic sea-ice hits record highs, sea levels are rising, CO2 in the oceans continues to increase acidity, ocean temperature is rising meaning that total thermal energy is increasing. These changes are thought to be responsible for more extreme weather causing flooding and other natural disasters. The WHO are already concerned that climate change will lead to higher deaths tolls in the near future http://www.who.int...

Total sea ice has remained about the same for decades. As the Arctic melts the Antarctic grows. When global air temperature stop rising, it takes quite a while for ocean temperatures and glacial activity to reach equilibrium. It's phase lag. The hottest day of the year in terms of received heat from the sun is the first day of summer. But August is the hottest month. That's so even though the sun input has actually dropped since June. In any case, the CO2 models have been completely wrong in predicting air temperature, water temperature, and sea ice cover. Scientist who supported CO2 theory now admit the models are not working. Von Storch, for example, led the charge against CO2 and has recently published a paper proving the models cannot be tweaked to track what has happened.

The only thing that never changes is change itself. Why do humans think they can control everything....extremely arrogant.

We cannot control everything and nobody is thinking that, all that is being proposed is that we control our own actions.

I think the obvious thing to do is to increase research on climate engineering. Climate engineering has the potential for offsetting global warming (or cooling) whether the cause is natural or man-caused. CO2 advocates say, simulataneously, that we understand climate perfectly, so we can predict future climate, but we cannot think about climate engineering because we can't predict what would happen. In truth, they have a religious belief that man should be punished for the sin of carbon. Some aspects of climate are understood extremely well, like the effect of irradiance. Duplicating the effects of volcanoes would not have significant risk and would work. It ought to be obvious that India and China, who now produce more CO2 than Europe and America combined, are not going to accept economic devastation. So develop climate engineering methods.

If solar magnetic activity in fact dominates climate, we'll have cooling until mid century and then a return to slow warming.:

Religion? Amen! The Lord says be fruitful and multiply. Well, we've certainly done that! He knew we couldn't do it without a whack of energy (we would need to eat after all) so he provided us with and allowed us to use fossil fuels. I jest.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 4:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 1:19:35 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I think the obvious thing to do is to increase research on climate engineering. Climate engineering has the potential for offsetting global warming (or cooling) whether the cause is natural or man-caused. CO2 advocates say, simulataneously, that we understand climate perfectly, so we can predict future climate, but we cannot think about climate engineering because we can't predict what would happen. In truth, they have a religious belief that man should be punished for the sin of carbon. Some aspects of climate are understood extremely well, like the effect of irradiance. Duplicating the effects of volcanoes would not have significant risk and would work. It ought to be obvious that India and China, who now produce more CO2 than Europe and America combined, are not going to accept economic devastation. So develop climate engineering methods.

This is the part I really cannot understand. Ever since the first human dug a cave to get out of the rain or set aside some soil to plant his first crop, we as a species have, without question, in total understanding that the earth is a crappy place sometimes and nature can be a bitch, terraformed this planet to make it more habitable for humans at the expense of other plants and animals. If you don't believe that, look at all the insects killed by our pesticides. All the land humans use animals cannot. Why all of a sudden, is it sacrilege to research climate engineering? It seems like the same old argument against technologies like GMOs... "you shouldn't monkey with nature" (seems like a religious argument), but nature isn't inherently designed for human life. We now have the technology to break free of that master. Is this some Global Stockholm syndrome where we feel a primordial need to worship this Gaia who has forced humans to evolve to HER whims up until now where we have the technology to develop ourselves?

If we do not use the technology we have developed to set our destiny, then we have not evolved at all. We will remain slaves to a planet that really doesn't give a crap about our survival or progress.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 12:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 4:22:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 1:19:35 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I think the obvious thing to do is to increase research on climate engineering. ...

This is the part I really cannot understand. ... Why all of a sudden, is it sacrilege to research climate engineering? It seems like the same old argument against technologies like GMOs... "you shouldn't monkey with nature"

It's particularly odd given that a premise behind the theory of CO2 crisis is that every detail of climate is understood with such unerring perfection that the predictions can be trusted. You mentioned "Gaia worship" and I think that is at the heart of it. It's along the lines of "Man sinned by consorting with CO2, and now only punishment through prolonged deprivation can accomplish ablution. It sounds silly, but I don't see any other explanation of the opposition.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 6:21:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 1:19:35 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/23/2014 10:36:17 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/20/2014 6:43:50 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:


Over the past 17 years CO2 has gone up 54% but the climate has remained the same...even showing signs of cooling.

The natural variation in global temperature can mask an underlying increase, so looking at temperatures over the last decade or two is misleading. Over the last 150 years there has been a clear trend of increasing temperature. CO2 levels have only increased by 11% in the last 17 years not 54%.

So unknown natural variations in climate are large enough to mask CO2 effects. The global warming crisis was because temperatures rose sharply from about 1983 to 1997, and top scientists were certain that nothing in the natural environment caused the rise. Once you admit that unknown natural factors are large enough to mask CO2, you have to admit that the original rise could also be due to unknown natural factors.

I will accept that small short term changes due to CO2 can be masked by other short term factors, but I feel this still leaves the possibility that CO2 might have larger long term effects which the other factors could not compensate for.

The long term rise in temperatures began after the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, before CO2 was a factor.

In the early 1800's CO2 had hit a high of about 280ppm, it has a tendancy to oscillate between 280 and 150 over the last 600,000yrs according to records obtained through ice cores.

The long term trend is so slow as to pose no serious threat. I made the mistake of once quoting a source that said 54% for the recent CO2. Nonetheless, CO2 has been increasing exactly as everyone foresaw, and CO2 theory predicted that much would soon bring disaster. CO2 disaster requires a large magnification of the effects beyond what simple physics predicts.

How can you be sure?

There probably a CO2 effect somewhat less than what straight physics predicts, perhaps 0.8 degree for the next century.

Some point out that UFO sightings correlate far more closely with global temperature than CO2. UFO sightings rose until 2000, then leveled off. Global temperature follows solar magnetic activity with much greater correlation, accounting for the peak in the 30s and cold 70s as well as the general upward trend. It also corresponds to the 17 year pause. There is no account for solar magnetic activity in the climate models. They include radiance, which doesn't change significantly.

Solar magnetic activity does not fully account for global temperature variation over the long term. Global temperatures have a natural periodicity of about 100,000 years. Solar activity has an 11 years cycle I thought?


While atmospheric temperature has shown little definite increase recently other measures of climate change are hitting new records. For example the glaciers continue to retreat to all time lows, arctic sea-ice is retreating while antarctic sea-ice hits record highs, sea levels are rising, CO2 in the oceans continues to increase acidity, ocean temperature is rising meaning that total thermal energy is increasing. These changes are thought to be responsible for more extreme weather causing flooding and other natural disasters. The WHO are already concerned that climate change will lead to higher deaths tolls in the near future http://www.who.int...

Total sea ice has remained about the same for decades. As the Arctic melts the Antarctic grows. When global air temperature stop rising, it takes quite a while for ocean temperatures and glacial activity to reach equilibrium. It's phase lag. The hottest day of the year in terms of received heat from the sun is the first day of summer.

North or South hemisphere?

But August is the hottest month.

Globally I would expect February to be the hottest in terms of total heat uptake, this is when we are closest to the Sun I thought.

That's so even though the sun input has actually dropped since June. In any case, the CO2 models have been completely wrong in predicting air temperature, water temperature, and sea ice cover. Scientist who supported CO2 theory now admit the models are not working. Von Storch, for example, led the charge against CO2 and has recently published a paper proving the models cannot be tweaked to track what has happened.

The only thing that never changes is change itself. Why do humans think they can control everything....extremely arrogant.

We cannot control everything and nobody is thinking that, all that is being proposed is that we control our own actions.

I think the obvious thing to do is to increase research on climate engineering. Climate engineering has the potential for offsetting global warming (or cooling) whether the cause is natural or man-caused. CO2 advocates say, simultaneously, that we understand climate perfectly, so we can predict future climate, but we cannot think about climate engineering because we can't predict what would happen. In truth, they have a religious belief that man should be punished for the sin of carbon. Some aspects of climate are understood extremely well, like the effect of irradiance. Duplicating the effects of volcanoes would not have significant risk and would work. It ought to be obvious that India and China, who now produce more CO2 than Europe and America combined, are not going to accept economic devastation. So develop climate engineering methods.

If solar magnetic activity in fact dominates climate, we'll have cooling until mid century and then a return to slow warming.

The rapid temperature change of the last 100 years may in truth be entirely 'natural' so can be discounted as noise. However the risk the remains that CO2 is having an effect and since CO2 is at unprecedented levels it is a genuine concern. To ignore it and do nothing and find that we are wrong is a disaster. To act on it and do something may risk damaging some economys, primarily that of the most developed, which causes the US and others to complain of unfairness, perhaps they have a case. But then again the country that leads a crusade for freedom and justice perhaps ought to be setting an example against possibly the biggest threat to global security. CO2 advocates do not claim that they understand the climate exactly but the rising CO2 levels recently have preceded rising global temperature. Climate engineering is a last resort. I hope it is not needed since it is not a zero risk strategy nor should it be used as a safety net.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:38:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 6:21:14 AM, chui wrote:
CO2 disaster requires a large magnification of the effects beyond what simple physics predicts.

How can you be sure?

It's because the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are measured in the laboratory. As far as I know, every scientist agrees what those properties are. Every time CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, the physics requires that there wlll be about a one degree increase in global temperature. CO2 crisis theory is based upon the warming from CO2 increasing the amount of water vapor i the atmosphere. Water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, so the warming from the water vapor dominates. However, clouds are a very important factor in cooling. All the warming we have seen to date coul have been caused by a 3% reduction in cloud cover. Cloud cover is difficult to measure even with satellite imagery because high, middle, and low altitude clouds have different effects.

Solar magnetic activity does not fully account for global temperature variation over the long term. Global temperatures have a natural periodicity of about 100,000 years. Solar activity has an 11 years cycle I thought?

The 100,000 year cycle is probably due to to variations in the earths orbit. However, there are three different solar cycles. The the short term cycle is 11 years, but there are longer cycles with periods of roughly 200 and 1500 years. To further complicate the picture, the sun's heat output is measured by irradiance while solar magnetic effects are different. The heat output varies very little, so CO2 theorists dismiss solar variations. However, solar magnetic activity varies a great deal. Solar magnetic activity changes the cosmic rays flux. The part that is controversial is whether cosmic rays affect climate by changing cloud cover through cloud seeding. A blog post argues the controversy here http://wattsupwiththat.com... The long term solar cycles are discussed in books like Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," and Archibald's recent "Twilight of Abundance." Note it is the length of the approximately 11 year cyccles rather than the sunspot counts that correlate with global temperature rather than the sunspot counts. The correlation is good throughout the 20th century, to the present.

While atmospheric temperature has shown little definite increase recently other measures of climate change are hitting new records. For example the glaciers continue to retreat to all time lows, arctic sea-ice is retreating while antarctic sea-ice hits record highs, sea levels are rising, CO2 in the oceans continues to increase acidity, ocean temperature is rising meaning that total thermal energy is increasing. These changes are thought to be responsible for more extreme weather causing flooding and other natural disasters. The WHO are already concerned that climate change will lead to higher deaths tolls in the near future http://www.who.int...

Suppose global temperature increases by one degree and then stops increasing. What will happen to glaciers and sea temperature? Eventually everything will reach equilibrium at the new higher temperature. It will take many decades. It is not proof additional warming. The claim of more severe weather is simply bogus. There are hurricane cycles associated with ocean cycles.

Total sea ice has remained about the same for decades. As the Arctic melts the Antarctic grows. When global air temperature stop rising, it takes quite a while for ocean temperatures and glacial activity to reach equilibrium. It's phase lag. The hottest day of the year in terms of received heat from the sun is the first day of summer.

North or South hemisphere?

June and August show the phase lag for the Northern Hemisphere. The longest day and hottest month are December and February in the Southern Hemisphere. Same principle.

But August is the hottest month.

We cannot control everything and nobody is thinking that, all that is being proposed is that we control our own actions.

If solar effects dominate climate, then according to Archibald op cit we need to pump out a lot of CO2 to increase crop production. Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher, so they respond favorably to having higher CO2 levels. If the sun dominates climate, we are up for a period of global cooling, so CO2 is needed to maintain food supplies. I'm not sure Archibald is right, but it makes the point that cutting CO2 output is not necessarily the safe thing to do in the face of climate uncertainty. There is no substitute for understanding what is really going on.

CO2 is not at unprecedented levels. It was at least twelve times higher millions of years ago when plants evolved. CO2 levels have been dropping at plankton have been converting CO2 into carbonates that lock up the carbon in rock.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:36:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 6:21:14 AM, chui wrote:
The rapid temperature change of the last 100 years may in truth be entirely 'natural' so can be discounted as noise. However the risk the remains that CO2 is having an effect and since CO2 is at unprecedented levels it is a genuine concern. To ignore it and do nothing and find that we are wrong is a disaster. To act on it and do something may risk damaging some economys, primarily that of the most developed, which causes the US and others to complain of unfairness, perhaps they have a case. But then again the country that leads a crusade for freedom and justice perhaps ought to be setting an example against possibly the biggest threat to global security. CO2 advocates do not claim that they understand the climate exactly but the rising CO2 levels recently have preceded rising global temperature. Climate engineering is a last resort. I hope it is not needed since it is not a zero risk strategy nor should it be used as a safety net.

Why is Climate engineering a last resort? Reducing emissions is only a very small part of Co2 generation. Nature is very far from zero risk.

Increasing human population levels will have an extremely significant impact on Co2 in the future, no matter how many coal plants you shut down. We need this safety net now, not shelved in the closet of pseudo-pragmatics.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:38:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 11:36:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/26/2014 6:21:14 AM, chui wrote:
The rapid temperature change of the last 100 years may in truth be entirely 'natural' so can be discounted as noise. However the risk the remains that CO2 is having an effect and since CO2 is at unprecedented levels it is a genuine concern. To ignore it and do nothing and find that we are wrong is a disaster. To act on it and do something may risk damaging some economys, primarily that of the most developed, which causes the US and others to complain of unfairness, perhaps they have a case. But then again the country that leads a crusade for freedom and justice perhaps ought to be setting an example against possibly the biggest threat to global security. CO2 advocates do not claim that they understand the climate exactly but the rising CO2 levels recently have preceded rising global temperature. Climate engineering is a last resort. I hope it is not needed since it is not a zero risk strategy nor should it be used as a safety net.

Why is Climate engineering a last resort? Reducing emissions is only a very small part of Co2 generation. Nature is very far from zero risk.

Increasing human population levels will have an extremely significant impact on Co2 in the future, no matter how many coal plants you shut down. We need this safety net now, not shelved in the closet of pseudo-pragmatics.

My reasoning is that the lowest risk strategy with regard to the climate is to try to return it to its natural state, by which I mean the state it was in pre-1850. Deliberately causing further alteration to the atmosphere by for example changes to planetary albedo may have unforeseen consequences or we might find that it was an unnecessary change or the change was in the wrong direction. We then need to undo this change with further changes and so on ad infinitum. Also the possibility of climate engineering may lead to some organisations and countries then feeling that they need not reform their damaging behaviour and relying on some else paying for the clean up.

The action of one country can significantly damage another and currently very little in the way of compensation is offered. If the climate change predictions are correct, even the most optimistic ones, then the current 'terrorist threat' is by comparison unimportant. Vast amounts of money has been used to counter terrorism, why is the same level of resources not being used to counter a potentially bigger threat?