Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Flip]

Sigs Guy,
The simple reason for what was accomplished in the last hundred years or so
was the cheap and abundant energy provided by fossil fuels.

Take away the fuel = Take away the progress.

Yrys,
Sure - conserve - never the wrong answer.
But we can't conserve our way to zero.

Even in the contemporary world, the Chinese and Indians are satisfying a very different set of priorities, so there are no "universal" answers, just a range of responses.

We can take a vow of poverty for the sake of the planet.
Then what? The Chinese and Indians will take our place - and then some.
In the developed world we have pollution controls.
In the developing world - not so much.

If we could find a replacement with the same energy density
everything would be fine.  Cold fusion was a beautiful dream.

Kirkhill points out something though..............
Greenhouse owners know that CO2 concentrations can be increased to
greatly increase production.  A little CO2 goes a long way in making
greenhouse crops grow faster and healthier.

Makes me think........Hmmmm

 

[canadianblue]

The simple reason for what was accomplished in the last hundred years or so
was the cheap and abundant energy provided by fossil fuels.

Take away the fuel = Take away the progress.

What happens if we can no longer find that fuel, and if it is mainly in places which are "troubled spots" in the world?

As well if a society is only dependant on a non-renewable resource isn't it also possible that if that resource runs out, that progress will no longer come about.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But isn't becoming more sustainable, reducing dependance on non-renewable resources, and becoming more environmentally friendly a benefit for society.

Yes, but not at any cost.

 

[Flip]

What happens if we can no longer find that fuel, and if it is mainly in places which are "troubled spots" in the world?

Conservation is a good thing! I agree.  But let's not shut off the economy while we find
a new source of energy.  BTW - I live in Alberta.  Is "Alberta a troubled spot"?

As well if a society is only dependant on a non-renewable resource isn't it also possible that if that resource runs out, that progress will no longer come about.

Yes, exactly right, civilizations rise and fall on their resources.
Why pull the plug on this one?

 

[a_majoor]

The answers to many of the questions about how viable "renewable" resources are (as well as many discussions about non renewables) is in the "A Scary strategic problem-No oil" thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html

A quick summary for those of you who don't want to jump into 14 pages of information:

Renewable resources are niche products, being intermittent and having low energy density.

Modern civilization needs power that is reliable 24/7, and available on demand.

Thermal power generation (via burning hydrocarbons or nuclear fission) is the only viable solution with today's technology.

Hydrocarbons, because they are liquid or solid at sensible temperatures and have high energy density, are the only viable form of portable energy with present or projected technologies.

Much energy goes to thermodynamic losses. The laws of physics are very clear, and constantly enforced.

Some products and technologies are on the horizon, but the installed capital base will take decades to be replaced

Read on

 

[GAP]

From Wales, a box to make biofuel from car fumes
Michael Szabo, Reuters
Article Link

QUEENSFERRY (Reuters) - The world's richest corporations and finest minds spend billions trying to solve the problem of carbon emissions, but three fishing buddies in North Wales believe they have cracked it.

They have developed a box which they say can be fixed underneath a car in place of the exhaust to trap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming -- including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide -- and emit mostly water vapor.

The captured gases can be processed to create a biofuel using genetically modified algae.

Dubbed "Greenbox," the technology developed by organic chemist Derek Palmer and engineers Ian Houston and John Jones could, they say, be used for cars, buses, lorries and eventually buildings and heavy industry, including power plants.

"We've managed to develop a way to successfully capture a majority of the emissions from the dirtiest motor we could find," Palmer, who has consulted for organizations including the World Health Organisation and GlaxoSmithKline, told Reuters.

The three, who stumbled across the idea while experimenting with carbon dioxide to help boost algae growth for fish farming, have set up a company called Maes Anturio Limited, which translates from Welsh as Field Adventure.

With the backing of their local member of parliament they are now seeking extra risk capital either from government or industry: the only emissions they are not sure their box can handle are those from aviation

More on link

 

[canadianblue]

Conservation is a good thing! I agree.  But let's not shut off the economy while we find
a new source of energy.  BTW - I live in Alberta.  Is "Alberta a troubled spot"?

Venezuela, the Middle East, etc.

The oil isn't going to be around forever.

Yes, exactly right, civilizations rise and fall on their resources.
Why pull the plug on this one?

Because failure to adapt to change usually results in a fall.

 

[a_majoor]

If you take the time to read this and the related thread you will see that there are many alternatives under consideration, ranging from extracting oil from more difficult and expensive sources to developing synthetic hydrocarbons to switching to non hydrocarbon alternatives.

The primary sticking point is economics, for the forseeable future the producers of cheap oil can undercut any of these alternatives. Some of these alternatives are not viable at all; Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) can use fuels that are not normally considered (high-sulfur coal, heavy petroleum residues and biomass), but at a capital cost of $3,593/kW. There are few situations where a viable market could be found for this system.

However, history and economics shows us alternatives are always developed. Tudor England suffered an energy crisis in the 1500's when they reached the "peak forest" point, and there was no longer cheap wood to turn into charcoal. Coal was available at a sensible price. In the mid 1800's, whale oil became scarce and expensive, but civilization rode out the "peak whale" point and switched to petrolium as the most cost effective alternative. What we will switch to after "peak oil" isn't clear at this time (I'm sure Elizabeth I or the Congress of the 1850's would not have been able to tell you the solutions to the "peak forest" or "peak whale" energy crisis either), but it will have to be high density, portable and storable for long periods of time at sensible temperatures in order to be acceptable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill points out something though..............
Greenhouse owners know that CO2 concentrations can be increased to
greatly increase production.  A little CO2 goes a long way in making
greenhouse crops grow faster and healthier.

Makes me think........Hmmmm

Just to be clear - I believe it was your information on Greenhouses that originally sparked my following that path Flip. 

56k Dialup......less to follow.

Cheers.

 

[Kalatzi]

Interesting Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&eurl
Doesnt focus on rows - did we or did we not cause climate change
But on columns - what do we do or not do

I thought the logic was sound
Col A

 

[Flip]

Kalatzi,
Yup saw the video.

It's a specious argument called the "precautionary principal".
-not quite as rational as it purports to be.

3 assumptions exist on his chart of 4 sections.

1, We take significant action that we didn't need to-
is not as benign as suggested - unintended consequences
some of them environmental.

2, We take significant action that we need to-
assumes our actions will actually have some effect.
Considering China and India - they won't.
We could shut off the taps tommorrow and
Asia will consume every drop of oil that we don't.

3, We take no significant action and should have-
assumes that life on earth as we know it is over.
This has been overhyped and twisted for a long
long time.  To the point of absurdity, I would say.
This also overlooks potential benefits of climate change.

No - the video doesn't sell me on anything.

Don't get me wrong........
I'm all for precautionary measures that  DO NO HARM .
I would love to use Geothermal heat for my home and business.
More insulation is a good thing.
Better mileage in the car - yay!
I'm a huge fan of new technology. I'm in a technology business.

But let's not pretend those twisty light bulbs will save the planet.
And some ghastly new tax will make polar bears happy. :



 

 

[eerickso]

But let's not pretend those twisty light bulbs will save the planet.

Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yeah, but you can

Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?

.............but you can't get people to recycle them so all that mercury vapour ends up in landfills. How signifigant is that? As long as the energy freaks get their way, I guess the rest of the enviromental problems can suck a hind tit eh? Cherry picking greens. Gimme a break.

 

[Flip]

eerickso!

Nice to hear from you!

Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?

No, it's not.

That extra 45 watts was busy heating my house when it's -40 outside and
the Gas company (whom I won't name) have figured out that I didn't mail them
my first born.

Also, the QUALITY of light isn't the same.
You can't cut diamonds under that nasty little thing.

Besides - do the math - cutting my carbon footprint by 15 or 20%
amounts to sweet Fanny Adams singing the blues in the big picture.

Manadatory birth control would have more impact.

 

[a_majoor]

From the Blogging Tories:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-renewable-energy-harm-planet.html&TITLE=Does%20renewable%20energy%20harm%20the%20planet???

Thursday, July 26, 2007
Does renewable energy harm the planet???

Let's be honest - renewable energy have a huge footprint...

    Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead. So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.

    Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.

    Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."

    Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."


posted by GayandRight @ 10:02 AM 

 

[eerickso]

Sure, I don't like heavy metals. It would be nice to mange this waste. I never put my dead batteries in the landfills. I think doing this make much more sense than driving around a huge truck to pick up a 1000 lbs of plastic bottles.

I care about my wallet like most people. I don't use electrical heating because everywhere except BC, it costs much more.

So what do you people think about LEDs?

 

[Flip]

Emerging LED technology is an excellent choice because
the devices will last much much longer.
When disposed of, the metals are sealed in plastic.
In time, they will be extremely efficient.

They, are not however innocent on the manufacturing footprint side.
Mining and processing the exotic materials into working semiconductor
is a huge undertaking.  Gallium is not as common as say tungsten.
Indium is a waste product of other industry and quite rare.
Putting all of this into a product uses materials
(mostly in gaseous form) that make phosgene look like breathable atmosphere.

To be fair the amounts of material are quite small.
Needless to say, the environmental controls on such an undertaking need to be strict.
There is THE problem with LEDs .

I'm being a bit alarmist on this simply because I don't trust asian governments
in the regulation regard.

I have a semiconductor fabrication facility less than two miles from my home and
that doesn't don't bother me a bit. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Note to Suzuki, Gore, et.al.: global warming is calculation error, not a 'fact' http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878 ...  the new results here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880

A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open
By Steve McIntyre

There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

A little unexpectedly, 1998 had a late bogey and 1934 had a late birdie. (I thought that they were both in the clubhouse since the turmoil seemed to be in the 2000s.) In any event, the new leader atop the U.S. Open is 1934.

2006 had a couple of late bogeys and fell to 4th place, behind even 1921. I think that there’s a little air in the 2006 numbers even within GISS procedures as the other post-2000 lost about 0.15 strokes through late bogeys, while it lost only 0.10 strokes. It is faltering and it might yet fall behind 1931 into 5th place.

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings are calculated separately.) Note: For the new leaderboard see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. The old data has been erased; by sheer chance, I had the old data active in my R-session but I can’t give a link to it.)

GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old leaderboard.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

(and that's using data collection techniques that we already know are fatally flawed, eg: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1850#more-1850 )

 

[Strike]

Although I am not all doom and gloom about the situation, I do try and keep my energy consumption limited.  Which is why the big hubbub about putting windmills on Wolfe Island, ON just makes me shake my head.  There's also a big issue in ON right now about certain subdivisions that do not allow clothes lines because they are considered unseemly.  Well, I plan on putting one up at my new house and, if there is some such bylaw and a complaint comes in, I'll go over to the person who made that complaint the next time I do laundry and use their dryer.  Forget the whole thing about energy consumption.  I'm just trying to save a few bucks!

 

[Haletown]

and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!


a good summary of the implications of this news . . 

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/


Steve McIntyre  is a great Canadian. . . exposing the scientific errors and fraud done by the Faith Based Scientists "proving"  AGW  - but refusing to releaase their data, their methods or their funding sources. 

Just "trust us"  . . .  we wouldn't lie to you.