Electoral Member
Posts: 686 
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 21st, 2007, 09:21 PM
China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world and is increasing emissions at an exponential rate. That's help???
Quoting typingrandomstuff
Oh please!!!
China is helping, [...]
China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world and is increasing emissions at an exponential rate. That's help???
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 21st, 2007, 09:26 PM
Come on all you doomsayers, it's been well over a month. You must have had enough time to collect your thoughts enough to tell us all how to save the world from the approaching CO2 calamity you all want to take action against.
I'm eager to get started doing my part. Just tell me your master plan that will actually work, and I'll jump on board.
Waiting patiently.....
Come on all you doomsayers, it's been well over a month. You must have had enough time to collect your thoughts enough to tell us all how to save the world from the approaching CO2 calamity you all want to take action against.
I'm eager to get started doing my part. Just tell me your master plan that will actually work, and I'll jump on board.
Waiting patiently.....
October 21st, 2007, 10:03 PM
You're delusional if you think our soil use is sustainable.
Quoting Extrafire
Hopefully we will, that may take a while though.
Why yes, I do know that. But since the theory says temps have been rising since the 18th century, then obviously that has to be the limit, and we must return to those levels or else.
Quoting Extrafire
Of course it's impossible. No one asked for it to happen overnight. All the time that was spent debating whether it was happening, whether it was a problem, and whether we can do anything, was all delaying tactics. Steady reductions could have been made. Industry lobbyists did their darnedest to conflate the issue, quite successfully. The tides are changing now.
Well, you know that that's the only salvation if the theory is correct, and damned little time available to do it too, but none of the serious players (or fear mongers) are saying that because they know it's impossible and they'll lose all public support if they do. Or (more likely) they know it's all a crock and they're just being political.
Quoting Extrafire
The globe will continue to increase in temperature, even after we stop. That's how feedback loops work, and why temperature rise in the proxies always leads carbon dioxide. We have to claw back emissions before the warming stops. Those feedbacks are the tipping points.
Hmm...now isn't that what we're supposed to be avoiding, those drastic consequences that are inevitable if we don't stop global warming?
Quoting Extrafire
We already switched to farming.
Hunting not sustainable either. 'Bout time we switched to farming.
Quoting Extrafire
Because I'm a good model for the 6.5 billion humans....
Some isn't, most is, and getting better. Run out of food lately?
You're delusional if you think our soil use is sustainable. Quoting Extrafire
There's that faulty logic, we're so advanced we can overcome anything nature throws at us. The stored water above ground, what many cities rely on, runs dry. Check out what the situation in Georgia is like. Not to mention polluted water bodies...
Yes it is, it falls from the sky, never stops cycling. Some over use of aquifers isn't sustainable, but we'll adapt, we always have.
Quoting Extrafire
A snotty retort.
Snot???
Oh, that's a typo. Made me look twice. Yeah that's what sustainable means.
Oh, that's a typo. Made me look twice. Yeah that's what sustainable means.
Quoting Extrafire
Nope. Not at all what I figure. You keep responding like I think corporations are bad. Like I think everything humans touch turns to crap. Like I have some vendetta against civilization. All I said was that if we were sustainable, we wouldn't need those things. Our population can only grow so much, there is a carrying capacity, and we will go past, and then crash below. No organism can outstrip the resources.
Sounds like you figure to be sustainable means we revert to pre-industrial agriculture. Then there would be a disaster, because we couldn't produce enough to feed the world that way. Don't need water treatment? That would be pre-agricultural.
Quoting Extrafire
Most of the world is committed to solving the problem. There are a few standouts. Those standouts are sitting at the edge of the pool, waiting for someone else to jmup in first. Test the waters if you will.
But just how would you get the rest of the world to come on board when they've said they have no intention of doing so?
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 24th, 2007, 10:43 PM
And you still haven't told me how you're going to "bring in" the rest of the world, who have already stated that they have no intention of making the sacrifices they (and you) require of us.
Quoting Tonington
Unless there's some imminent breakthrough, like cold fusion, in the near future, it will take centuries.
Hopefully we will, that may take a while though.
Quoting Tonington
No-one on your side of the debate has ever admitted that that's the only way to"save the planet", and they still won't.
Of course it's impossible. No one asked for it to happen overnight.
Quoting Tonington
"Delaying tactics" implies that everyone knew that the supposed approaching global warming catastrophe is real. That's not so. The debate had nothing to do with delaying. It was a demand for truth and science by the "denier" side.
All the time that was spent debating whether it was happening, whether it was a problem, and whether we can do anything, was all delaying tactics.
Quoting Tonington
With great sacrifice and absolutely no effect on climate.
Steady reductions could have been made.
Quoting Tonington
Honest scientists did their darndest to expose the truth of the matter, to little effect.
Industry lobbyists did their darnedest to conflate the issue, quite successfully.
Quoting Tonington
Yes, politicians are realizing that the public has been brainwashed and they have no choice but to make token efforts. The public wouldn't stand for anything that would be effective (total elimination of emissions).
The tides are changing now.
Quoting Tonington
The warming has already stopped. Which way it will head next is still unknown, but scientists who study the sun say we're in for a long cooling.
The globe will continue to increase in temperature, even after we stop. That's how feedback loops work, and why temperature rise in the proxies always leads carbon dioxide. We have to claw back emissions before the warming stops. Those feedbacks are the tipping points.
Quoting Tonington
I've been hearing predictions of immediate soil doomsday for 40 years now and it still isn't imminent. Personally I prefer organics, but the world can't be fed that way. I love gardening with rich organic soil, and I believe that bolstering organic content in soil would be beneficial to agriculture. But I'm no longer all that concerned by the way it's done. I'm much more concerned by the corporate concentration of farms (agribusiness) in such giants as Cargil and Monsanto.
Because I'm a good model for the 6.5 billion humans.... You're delusional if you think our soil use is sustainable.
You're delusional if you think our soil use is sustainable.
Quoting Tonington
You think so? I certainly don't. Nature triumphs in the end. But we'll adapt, we always have and always will, unless there's another asteroid aimed at us.....
There's that faulty logic, we're so advanced we can overcome anything nature throws at us.
Quoting Tonington
Droughts have always occurred, always will. Remember hearing about the dirty thirties? We haven't experienced anything like that since. Yet that was nothing compared to the 70 year drought on the prairies back in the 17th century. And we have a bad record for polluting water, but also an improving record for un-polluting it. Check out what they've done with the Thames. We'll manage.
The stored water above ground, what many cities rely on, runs dry. Check out what the situation in Georgia is like. Not to mention polluted water bodies...
Quoting Tonington
Not quite what I was trying to convey (although I have met people who do think exactly like that). I was saying that it sounds like your idea of sustainable means no human enhancement or intervention.
Nope. Not at all what I figure. You keep responding like I think corporations are bad. Like I think everything humans touch turns to crap. Like I have some vendetta against civilization.
Quoting Tonington
No soil enhancement? What's unsustainable with that? I enhance the soil of my garden every year with organic matter.
All I said was that if we were sustainable, we wouldn't need those things.
Quoting Tonington
Modern societies are in demographic collapse. Replacement birthrate is 2.1 children per woman. Canada sits at 1.5, Italy at 1.25. Unless that trend is reversed very soon, the Italian people will likely go extinct before the Vancouver Island Marmot. They are an endangered species, so to speak. Canada only increases its population by immigration. China, with its one child policy, is about to encounter its own demographic implosion.In the developing world, the birthrate is less than half what is was and falling. The recent world population explosion isn't a result of us breeding like rabits, it's just that with modern medicines, refrigeration and all the good things that come with energy, we stopped dying like flies. The population will level out long before we reach the limits of growth.
Our population can only grow so much, there is a carrying capacity, and we will go past, and then crash below. No organism can outstrip the resources.
Quoting Tonington
Absolute rubbish. (but at least we're back on topic - how to save the planet) Most of the world isn't even required to do anything under Kyoto, and they like it that way. Their "commitment" extends only to governments "taking action" just so long as they personally don't have to give up anything. Just as Al Gore what he's willing to sacrifice.
Most of the world is committed to solving the problem. There are a few standouts. Those standouts are sitting at the edge of the pool, waiting for someone else to jmup in first. Test the waters if you will.
And you still haven't told me how you're going to "bring in" the rest of the world, who have already stated that they have no intention of making the sacrifices they (and you) require of us.
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 24th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Oops! Maybe it isn't so easy to do after all.
Tell me again how to "save the planet"......
Oops! Maybe it isn't so easy to do after all.
Quote:
Does this sound like a part of the world that's committed?
Ministers are planning a U-turn on Britain's pledges to combat climate change that "effectively abolishes" its targets to rapidly expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Gordon Brown will be advised today that the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20% of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties".
According to the papers, John Hutton, the secretary of state for business, will tell Mr Brown that Britain should work with Poland and other governments sceptical about climate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to set lower renewable targets, before binding commitments are framed in December.
It admits that allowing member states to fall short of their renewable targets will be "very hard to negotiate ... and will be very controversial". "The commission, some member states and the European parliament will not want the target to be diluted, though others may be allies for a change," says a draft copy of Mr Hutton's Energy Policy Presentation to the Prime Minister, marked "restricted - policy".
[...]
They also reveal different priorities across government departments about how to get renewables to 20% of the electricity mix. Although Germany has increased its renewable energy share to 9% in six years, Britain's share is only 2%, with its greenhouse gas emissions rising. Link
Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Gordon Brown will be advised today that the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20% of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties".
According to the papers, John Hutton, the secretary of state for business, will tell Mr Brown that Britain should work with Poland and other governments sceptical about climate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to set lower renewable targets, before binding commitments are framed in December.
It admits that allowing member states to fall short of their renewable targets will be "very hard to negotiate ... and will be very controversial". "The commission, some member states and the European parliament will not want the target to be diluted, though others may be allies for a change," says a draft copy of Mr Hutton's Energy Policy Presentation to the Prime Minister, marked "restricted - policy".
[...]
They also reveal different priorities across government departments about how to get renewables to 20% of the electricity mix. Although Germany has increased its renewable energy share to 9% in six years, Britain's share is only 2%, with its greenhouse gas emissions rising. Link
Tell me again how to "save the planet"......
October 25th, 2007, 09:28 AM
Do you remember I once talked about grain grown in the prairies and shipped to hog farms in Quebec? Not sustainable. The total energy used to even get that manure back would be a net loss. That is why they have to use petrochemicals. Then you end up with a pile of crap building up, becoming waste rather than using it as it should be, nutrients.
Most are not required. But they have committed to a course of action. That will change in the coming years. I have told you already, the way to do so is to lead. If a country leads, say like Germany, who is by far the leader in pV technology, they can export that technology. A world leader will also spend a portion of GDP on aid. This is no different. Increases in efficiency and foreign aid can be exported. If we drag our feet, and remain uncompetetive, there is very little we can do. I personally would like to see more green collar jobs created. That can help fill the loss of manufacturing jobs, which the federal government has dropped the ball on. They aren't seeing the big picture. They rarely do.
That is why I brought up the State renewable energy program. By demanding that energy providers increases the share of renewables in their generating portfolio, that creates jobs. Texas has done quite well. There is no reason that this cannot be done here in Canada.
Quoting Extrafire
Imminent breakthrough is not at all something to count on. Look at how long it's been since the hydrogen fuel cell was first invented. Whether or not it can be done is not a question of technological breakthrough's, it is political will. I'm assuming you still haven't found the stabilization wedges? Maybe I'll post them after this.
Unless there's some imminent breakthrough, like cold fusion, in the near future, it will take centuries.
Quoting Extrafire
Of course they haven't. The precise tipping point is not even known, how could they even claim tht is the only way. Theres a plethora of opinions out there, as varied as the opinions for/against AGW.
No-one on your side of the debate has ever admitted that that's the only way to"save the planet", and they still won't.
Quoting Extrafire
I said delaying is what it has turned into. Yes, originally it was as you said, debating the supporting science. Now the tune has changed from that to a delaying. Technology is the new buzz word, and you proved that when you bring up imminent technological breakthroughs. That is not likely at all. It's flawed, we have technology right now that can be deployed. Again, do we have the political will, that is the question.
"Delaying tactics" implies that everyone knew that the supposed approaching global warming catastrophe is real. That's not so. The debate had nothing to do with delaying. It was a demand for truth and science by the "denier" side. With great sacrifice and absolutely no effect on climate.Honest scientists did their darndest to expose the truth of the matter, to little effect.Yes, politicians are realizing that the public has been brainwashed and they have no choice but to make token efforts. The public wouldn't stand for anything that would be effective (total elimination of emissions).
Quoting Extrafire
Based on what cycle? The same cycles that had to be mathematically manipulated to falsely show they matched the warming? Hah.
The warming has already stopped. Which way it will head next is still unknown, but scientists who study the sun say we're in for a long cooling.
Quoting Extrafire
I said nothing of doomsday. I'm not arguing someone else's words here. I said our soil use is not sustainable. Do you know what the definition of sustainable is? Organic wouldn't work because the soil needs amendments to be productive. Organic amendments are not enough to mitigate the nutrient losses from intensive farming. That is why we rely on petrochemical fertilizers. Interestingly it's those evil companies that have found ways to remain productive in sub-optimal growing conditions.
I've been hearing predictions of immediate soil doomsday for 40 years now and it still isn't imminent. Personally I prefer organics, but the world can't be fed that way. I love gardening with rich organic soil, and I believe that bolstering organic content in soil would be beneficial to agriculture. But I'm no longer all that concerned by the way it's done. I'm much more concerned by the corporate concentration of farms (agribusiness) in such giants as Cargil and Monsanto.
Quoting Extrafire
I certainly don't think so either. How do you propose we will adapt? Technology perhaps? I don't think we should rely on technology always being there to save our butt. It's much better to be proactive than it is to await a cure. Again, why don't you look at the records set in the southeastern US.
You think so? I certainly don't. Nature triumphs in the end. But we'll adapt, we always have and always will, unless there's another asteroid aimed at us..... Droughts have always occurred, always will. Remember hearing about the dirty thirties? We haven't experienced anything like that since.
Quoting Extrafire
That is the definition of sustainable. It means that we don't take out more than the ecosystem can put back. That is what has contributed to ecosystem degradation. Including pollutants. Water courses can deal with certain levels of nutrients, beyond that, they're toxic. Sustainability does not include replacing natural systems with man made management. Sustainability can include cycling nutrients on a farm, such as mixed farm operations. Use that manure, it's the same nutrients being cycled.
Not quite what I was trying to convey (although I have met people who do think exactly like that). I was saying that it sounds like your idea of sustainable means no human enhancement or intervention.
Do you remember I once talked about grain grown in the prairies and shipped to hog farms in Quebec? Not sustainable. The total energy used to even get that manure back would be a net loss. That is why they have to use petrochemicals. Then you end up with a pile of crap building up, becoming waste rather than using it as it should be, nutrients.
Quoting Extrafire
But you aren't the standard model are you?
No soil enhancement? What's unsustainable with that? I enhance the soil of my garden every year with organic matter.
Quoting Extrafire
We already use more than 30% of what natural systems can provide. By mid century, the projected growth will put us at 9 Billion, about 50% more than we have right now. Population may indeed level out, we're about due for a pandemic.
Modern societies are in demographic collapse. Replacement birthrate is 2.1 children per woman. Canada sits at 1.5, Italy at 1.25. Unless that trend is reversed very soon, the Italian people will likely go extinct before the Vancouver Island Marmot. They are an endangered species, so to speak. Canada only increases its population by immigration. China, with its one child policy, is about to encounter its own demographic implosion.In the developing world, the birthrate is less than half what is was and falling. The recent world population explosion isn't a result of us breeding like rabits, it's just that with modern medicines, refrigeration and all the good things that come with energy, we stopped dying like flies. The population will level out long before we reach the limits of growth.
Quoting Extrafire
But they are signatories, the next phase is around the corner. While federal governments might be dragging their feet, I'm more impressed by local leadership.
Most of the world isn't even required to do anything under Kyoto, and they like it that way. Their "commitment" extends only to governments "taking action" just so long as they personally don't have to give up anything. Just as Al Gore what he's willing to sacrifice.
Quoting Extrafire
I didn't realize that was my obligation. I'm not in the diplomats office yet
And you still haven't told me how you're going to "bring in" the rest of the world, who have already stated that they have no intention of making the sacrifices they (and you) require of us.
Most are not required. But they have committed to a course of action. That will change in the coming years. I have told you already, the way to do so is to lead. If a country leads, say like Germany, who is by far the leader in pV technology, they can export that technology. A world leader will also spend a portion of GDP on aid. This is no different. Increases in efficiency and foreign aid can be exported. If we drag our feet, and remain uncompetetive, there is very little we can do. I personally would like to see more green collar jobs created. That can help fill the loss of manufacturing jobs, which the federal government has dropped the ball on. They aren't seeing the big picture. They rarely do.
That is why I brought up the State renewable energy program. By demanding that energy providers increases the share of renewables in their generating portfolio, that creates jobs. Texas has done quite well. There is no reason that this cannot be done here in Canada.
October 25th, 2007, 10:27 AM
So, I'll breakdown the stabilization wedges. Soccolow and Pacala describe 15 wedges. Each wedge corresponds to a reduction of 1 Billion metric tonnes of CO2 reduction. I should state immediately, that some of the wedges I do not endorse. Specifically, the biofuel wedge.
Efficiency and Conservation
1. Improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the road by 2057 to 60 mpg, from 30 mpg. There is technology in the pipeline that can achieve this. GM and VW are developing a new combustion engine. GM says they can currently improve fuel economy by 15% by computer control. At selected speeds, the computer shuts down the spark plugs, and uses compression to burn the fuel, much like a diesel engine. It's called the HCCI engine- Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
2. Reduce miles travelled per car from 10000 to 5000 miles annually. For what this system might look like, we can look at the examples of two cities, Portland, Ore. and Coppenhagen, Denmark. While miles travelled has been growing in nearly every North American city, the miles travelled is going down in Portland. Coppenhagen is the ideal model in this case.
http://www.sightline.org/research/sp...en_reduced.pdf
3. Increase efficiency in heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances by 25%. This is an obvious case for rebate programs.
4. Improve coal-fired power plant from 40% efficiency to 60%.
Carbon capture and storage
5. Introduce systems to capture CO2 and store it underground at 800 large coal-fired plants, or 1600 natural gas-fired plants.
6. Use capture systems at coal derived hydrogen plants to produce fuel for 1 billion cars.
7. Use capture systems in coal derived synthetic fuel plants producing 30 million barrels a day.
Low Carbon Fuels
8. Replace 1400 coal-fired power plants with natural-gas-fired plants.
9. Displace coal by increasing production of nuclear power to three times current capacity.
Renewables and Bio-storage
10. Increase wind-generated capacity to 25 times current capacity.
11. Increase solar power to 700 times current capacity.
12. Increase wind power to 50 times current capacity to make hydrogen for fuel cell cars.
13. The option I dislike the most. Increase ethanol biofuel production to 50 times current capacity. This is about 1/6 of current world cropland. And kinda conflicts with the next wedge.
14. Stop all deforestation.
15. Expand conservation tillage to all cropland. Normal plowing releases more carbon dioxide by speeding decomposition of organic matter.
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers...ag-Aug2004.pdf
So, I'll breakdown the stabilization wedges. Soccolow and Pacala describe 15 wedges. Each wedge corresponds to a reduction of 1 Billion metric tonnes of CO2 reduction. I should state immediately, that some of the wedges I do not endorse. Specifically, the biofuel wedge.
Efficiency and Conservation
1. Improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the road by 2057 to 60 mpg, from 30 mpg. There is technology in the pipeline that can achieve this. GM and VW are developing a new combustion engine. GM says they can currently improve fuel economy by 15% by computer control. At selected speeds, the computer shuts down the spark plugs, and uses compression to burn the fuel, much like a diesel engine. It's called the HCCI engine- Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
2. Reduce miles travelled per car from 10000 to 5000 miles annually. For what this system might look like, we can look at the examples of two cities, Portland, Ore. and Coppenhagen, Denmark. While miles travelled has been growing in nearly every North American city, the miles travelled is going down in Portland. Coppenhagen is the ideal model in this case.
http://www.sightline.org/research/sp...en_reduced.pdf
3. Increase efficiency in heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances by 25%. This is an obvious case for rebate programs.
4. Improve coal-fired power plant from 40% efficiency to 60%.
Carbon capture and storage
5. Introduce systems to capture CO2 and store it underground at 800 large coal-fired plants, or 1600 natural gas-fired plants.
6. Use capture systems at coal derived hydrogen plants to produce fuel for 1 billion cars.
7. Use capture systems in coal derived synthetic fuel plants producing 30 million barrels a day.
Low Carbon Fuels
8. Replace 1400 coal-fired power plants with natural-gas-fired plants.
9. Displace coal by increasing production of nuclear power to three times current capacity.
Renewables and Bio-storage
10. Increase wind-generated capacity to 25 times current capacity.
11. Increase solar power to 700 times current capacity.
12. Increase wind power to 50 times current capacity to make hydrogen for fuel cell cars.
13. The option I dislike the most. Increase ethanol biofuel production to 50 times current capacity. This is about 1/6 of current world cropland. And kinda conflicts with the next wedge.
14. Stop all deforestation.
15. Expand conservation tillage to all cropland. Normal plowing releases more carbon dioxide by speeding decomposition of organic matter.
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers...ag-Aug2004.pdf
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 28th, 2007, 10:39 PM
And yes we have technology now that can be deployed, and is being deployed. But even with an all out effort around the world, it isn't enough. There simply is no near-term, large scale alternative to fossil fuels. Deal with it.
They committed to a course of action, basically saying they'll talk about what to do on the next round. Now some of them are saying they have no intention of even doing Kyoto style reductions, in fact they intend to keep increasing emissions. There are words to describe people who just blindly charge ahead like that. Leader isn't one of them. Think fool, or sucker, or mark, or pigeon.
(By the way, I have salvage rights to this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying)
Quoting Tonington
I said nothing about imminent breakthrough, other than that's the only alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption for saving the planet from certain calamity that the doomsayers claim is upon us. I am not suggesting sitting back and waiting for some miraculous invention to pop onto the scene. I'm just asking for solutions to the problem spelled out so graphically by the alarmists.
Imminent breakthrough is not at all something to count on. Look at how long it's been since the hydrogen fuel cell was first invented. Whether or not it can be done is not a question of technological breakthrough's, it is political will. I'm assuming you still haven't found the stabilization wedges? Maybe I'll post them after this.
Quoting Tonington
Oops! Sounds like backpedaling. Guess it isn't such a serious problem after all!
Of course they haven't. The precise tipping point is not even known, how could they even claim tht is the only way. Theres a plethora of opinions out there, as varied as the opinions for/against AGW.
Quoting Tonington
I didn't suggest waiting for some mythical imminent technological breakthrough. I only mentioned that that happens to be the only (highly unlikely) alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. Don't try to make your own position sound better by misrepresenting mine. The "deniers" are saying the same thing I am, which is that eventually technology will lead to new sources of energy thus solving the (mythological) problem, and all other efforts are doomed to failure.
I said delaying is what it has turned into. Yes, originally it was as you said, debating the supporting science. Now the tune has changed from that to a delaying. Technology is the new buzz word, and you proved that when you bring up imminent technological breakthroughs. That is not likely at all. It's flawed, we have technology right now that can be deployed. Again, do we have the political will, that is the question.
And yes we have technology now that can be deployed, and is being deployed. But even with an all out effort around the world, it isn't enough. There simply is no near-term, large scale alternative to fossil fuels. Deal with it.
Quoting Tonington
According to scientists who study the sun. I posted that info quite some time ago. Remember this?
Based on what cycle? The same cycles that had to be mathematically manipulated to falsely show they matched the warming? Hah.
Quote:
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, January 26, 2007
Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.
NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.
Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.
Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.
With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.
"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."
Published: Friday, January 26, 2007
Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.
NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.
Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.
Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.
With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.
"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."
Quoting Tonington
No, you didn't use the word. But if it isn't sustainable, that's the eventual result. But enough on soil. The question was how to save the planet from climate change catastrophe. Let's get back on topic.
I said nothing of doomsday. I'm not arguing someone else's words here. I said our soil use is not sustainable. Do you know what the definition of sustainable is? Organic wouldn't work because the soil needs amendments to be productive. Organic amendments are not enough to mitigate the nutrient losses from intensive farming. That is why we rely on petrochemical fertilizers. Interestingly it's those evil companies that have found ways to remain productive in sub-optimal growing conditions.
Quoting Tonington
Read "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer and you'll get an idea how we'll adapt. Proactive how? That's the question I'm asking on this thread. At least you've made some effort to answer, unlike all the other doomsayers here. And as far as records are concerned, about the time we started keeping them was the beginning of the industrial revolution, the coldest period in the last 8000 years. They're only records for the short time we've been keeping track.
I certainly don't think so either. How do you propose we will adapt? Technology perhaps? I don't think we should rely on technology always being there to save our butt. It's much better to be proactive than it is to await a cure. Again, why don't you look at the records set in the southeastern US.
Quoting Tonington
Yeah, I recall that conversation. Seems I agreed with you on that point. But your definition of sustainable is a new on for me. Almost sounds like stone age.
That is the definition of sustainable. It means that we don't take out more than the ecosystem can put back. That is what has contributed to ecosystem degradation. Including pollutants. Water courses can deal with certain levels of nutrients, beyond that, they're toxic. Sustainability does not include replacing natural systems with man made management. Sustainability can include cycling nutrients on a farm, such as mixed farm operations. Use that manure, it's the same nutrients being cycled.
Do you remember I once talked about grain grown in the prairies and shipped to hog farms in Quebec? Not sustainable. The total energy used to even get that manure back would be a net loss. That is why they have to use petrochemicals. Then you end up with a pile of crap building up, becoming waste rather than using it as it should be, nutrients.
Do you remember I once talked about grain grown in the prairies and shipped to hog farms in Quebec? Not sustainable. The total energy used to even get that manure back would be a net loss. That is why they have to use petrochemicals. Then you end up with a pile of crap building up, becoming waste rather than using it as it should be, nutrients.
Quoting Tonington
Population is expected to level out at 9 billion, and that figure keeps dropping as more and more nations become modernized (with energy use) and the demographics go into reverse.
We already use more than 30% of what natural systems can provide. By mid century, the projected growth will put us at 9 Billion, about 50% more than we have right now. Population may indeed level out, we're about due for a pandemic.
Quoting Tonington
Yeah, they signed on. Easy to do when you don't have to reduce, you can increase all you want and the wealth gets transfered to you. They're committed as long as we do all the cutbacks while they reap the benefits. Everyone knows that Kyoto is a dead end, even the European cheerleaders who won't meet their own targets. They're just not quite willing to admit it yet. The next phase will never happen.
But they are signatories, the next phase is around the corner. While federal governments might be dragging their feet, I'm more impressed by local leadership.
Quoting Tonington
Not your obligation, but I was asking how you suggest it can be done. After all, the salvation of the world depends on this. Germany is a leader that still won't meet its own Kyoto targets, even with the head start they had.
I didn't realize that was my obligation. I'm not in the diplomats office yet
Most are not required. But they have committed to a course of action. That will change in the coming years. I have told you already, the way to do so is to lead. If a country leads, say like Germany, who is by far the leader in pV technology, they can export that technology. A world leader will also spend a portion of GDP on aid. This is no different. Increases in efficiency and foreign aid can be exported. If we drag our feet, and remain uncompetetive, there is very little we can do. I personally would like to see more green collar jobs created. That can help fill the loss of manufacturing jobs, which the federal government has dropped the ball on. They aren't seeing the big picture. They rarely do.
That is why I brought up the State renewable energy program. By demanding that energy providers increases the share of renewables in their generating portfolio, that creates jobs. Texas has done quite well. There is no reason that this cannot be done here in Canada.
Most are not required. But they have committed to a course of action. That will change in the coming years. I have told you already, the way to do so is to lead. If a country leads, say like Germany, who is by far the leader in pV technology, they can export that technology. A world leader will also spend a portion of GDP on aid. This is no different. Increases in efficiency and foreign aid can be exported. If we drag our feet, and remain uncompetetive, there is very little we can do. I personally would like to see more green collar jobs created. That can help fill the loss of manufacturing jobs, which the federal government has dropped the ball on. They aren't seeing the big picture. They rarely do.
That is why I brought up the State renewable energy program. By demanding that energy providers increases the share of renewables in their generating portfolio, that creates jobs. Texas has done quite well. There is no reason that this cannot be done here in Canada.
They committed to a course of action, basically saying they'll talk about what to do on the next round. Now some of them are saying they have no intention of even doing Kyoto style reductions, in fact they intend to keep increasing emissions. There are words to describe people who just blindly charge ahead like that. Leader isn't one of them. Think fool, or sucker, or mark, or pigeon.
(By the way, I have salvage rights to this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying)
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 28th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Well, you know already that I like anything that reduces the use of fossil fuels because mid-east oil dependency is and economic disaster waiting to happen, and I don't care for air pollution. But these measures are not enough to "save the planet", appealing though they are.
I like nuclear, but most environmentalists don't. Good luck getting that through.
But as I said at the outset, it's still not enough to save the planet.
Well, you know already that I like anything that reduces the use of fossil fuels because mid-east oil dependency is and economic disaster waiting to happen, and I don't care for air pollution. But these measures are not enough to "save the planet", appealing though they are.
Quoting Tonington
I like that.
So, I'll breakdown the stabilization wedges. Soccolow and Pacala describe 15 wedges. Each wedge corresponds to a reduction of 1 Billion metric tonnes of CO2 reduction. I should state immediately, that some of the wedges I do not endorse. Specifically, the biofuel wedge.
Efficiency and Conservation
1. Improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the road by 2057 to 60 mpg, from 30 mpg. There is technology in the pipeline that can achieve this. GM and VW are developing a new combustion engine. GM says they can currently improve fuel economy by 15% by computer control. At selected speeds, the computer shuts down the spark plugs, and uses compression to burn the fuel, much like a diesel engine. It's called the HCCI engine- Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
Efficiency and Conservation
1. Improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the road by 2057 to 60 mpg, from 30 mpg. There is technology in the pipeline that can achieve this. GM and VW are developing a new combustion engine. GM says they can currently improve fuel economy by 15% by computer control. At selected speeds, the computer shuts down the spark plugs, and uses compression to burn the fuel, much like a diesel engine. It's called the HCCI engine- Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
Quoting Tonington
If I lived in a large metro area I would use public transport as much as possible because I detest the traffic and parking problems. However, such a reduction would not be popular in many other scenarios, including the one I do happen to live in, where I drive very little.
2. Reduce miles travelled per car from 10000 to 5000 miles annually. For what this system might look like, we can look at the examples of two cities, Portland, Ore. and Coppenhagen, Denmark. While miles travelled has been growing in nearly every North American city, the miles travelled is going down in Portland. Coppenhagen is the ideal model in this case.
http://www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/Livable_Copenhagen_reduced.pdf[
http://www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/Livable_Copenhagen_reduced.pdf[
Quoting Tonington
I like that too. It's being worked on, but it takes decades for the technology to filter through the whole society.
3. Increase efficiency in heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances by 25%. This is an obvious case for rebate programs.
Quoting Tonington
For sure. A no-brainer.
4. Improve coal-fired power plant from 40% efficiency to 60%.
Quoting Tonington
For "saving the planet" CO2 capture might be good, but from my point of view it's unnecessary. The others are good ideas. Carbon capture and storage
5. Introduce systems to capture CO2 and store it underground at 800 large coal-fired plants, or 1600 natural gas-fired plants.
6. Use capture systems at coal derived hydrogen plants to produce fuel for 1 billion cars.
7. Use capture systems in coal derived synthetic fuel plants producing 30 million barrels a day.
5. Introduce systems to capture CO2 and store it underground at 800 large coal-fired plants, or 1600 natural gas-fired plants.
6. Use capture systems at coal derived hydrogen plants to produce fuel for 1 billion cars.
7. Use capture systems in coal derived synthetic fuel plants producing 30 million barrels a day.
Quoting Tonington
If you're already capturing the carbon from the coal fired plants, what's the point of switching to natural gas? And there's 500 years worth of coal. I don't believe there's that much natural gas. Low Carbon Fuels
8. Replace 1400 coal-fired power plants with natural-gas-fired plants.
9. Displace coal by increasing production of nuclear power to three times current capacity.
8. Replace 1400 coal-fired power plants with natural-gas-fired plants.
9. Displace coal by increasing production of nuclear power to three times current capacity.
I like nuclear, but most environmentalists don't. Good luck getting that through.
Quoting Tonington
They didn't think that one through. Biofuel takes more energy to produce than it delivers. The net effect is more CO2. I like the others. Renewables and Bio-storage
10. Increase wind-generated capacity to 25 times current capacity.
11. Increase solar power to 700 times current capacity.
12. Increase wind power to 50 times current capacity to make hydrogen for fuel cell cars.
13. The option I dislike the most. Increase ethanol biofuel production to 50 times current capacity. This is about 1/6 of current world cropland. And kinda conflicts with the next wedge.
10. Increase wind-generated capacity to 25 times current capacity.
11. Increase solar power to 700 times current capacity.
12. Increase wind power to 50 times current capacity to make hydrogen for fuel cell cars.
13. The option I dislike the most. Increase ethanol biofuel production to 50 times current capacity. This is about 1/6 of current world cropland. And kinda conflicts with the next wedge.
Quoting Tonington
Right. Deforestation is now being done mostly for bio-fuels.
14. Stop all deforestation.
Quoting Tonington
Yup, that sounds good too.
15. Expand conservation tillage to all cropland. Normal plowing releases more carbon dioxide by speeding decomposition of organic matter.
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers...ag-Aug2004.pdf
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers...ag-Aug2004.pdf
But as I said at the outset, it's still not enough to save the planet.
October 29th, 2007, 09:09 AM
It's ecology, and the concept is not new.
How does $0.02 sound? You can pick it up in the Via Rail station in Vancouver, locker 101. Combos 06-08-02, I'll double the price if you figure out the combos relevance
Quoting Extrafire
The solution is to wean off our current diet of hydrocarbons. A steady weaning. No new technology is needed to start that process, only to implement the various technologies we already have, and continue to work at improving their efficiency.
I said nothing about imminent breakthrough, other than that's the only alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption for saving the planet from certain calamity that the doomsayers claim is upon us. I am not suggesting sitting back and waiting for some miraculous invention to pop onto the scene. I'm just asking for solutions to the problem spelled out so graphically by the alarmists.
Quoting Extrafire
What back peddling, you're assuming that that there is one way to "save the planet." There are many different views, but what you keep hoisting is not what "my side" says or wants or believes. It's not feasible to do. I agree. You have to start somewhere Extra, and it's certainly not going to be an immediate stop. That's foolish. Don't try to make your own position sound better by misrepresenting mine.
Oops! Sounds like backpedaling. Guess it isn't such a serious problem after all!
Quoting Extrafire
That is not the only alternative, which is a mainstay of the delayers I mentioned. Again, no one is looking for an immediate cessation, it's not feasible. It seems delayers are the ones using this approach, which is why I brought it up. Though I would firmly place you in the denial camp, no question there.
I didn't suggest waiting for some mythical imminent technological breakthrough. I only mentioned that that happens to be the only (highly unlikely) alternative to immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. Don't try to make your own position sound better by misrepresenting mine. The "deniers" are saying the same thing I am, which is that eventually technology will lead to new sources of energy thus solving the (mythological) problem, and all other efforts are doomed to failure.
Quoting Extrafire
Did I say that? Of course there is no SINGLE large scale alternative. I never said there is, or that there likely would be. Instead a mix of MANY alternatives. Yet again, similarities to a delayer argument...
And yes we have technology now that can be deployed, and is being deployed. But even with an all out effort around the world, it isn't enough. There simply is no near-term, large scale alternative to fossil fuels. Deal with it.
Quoting Extrafire
And yet, no one has solved the randomness of the solar variability. Sure there is an eleven year cycle, but the maxima and minima are not well defined. The only tools the scientists have are statistical inferences, no trends to model, only likely probabilities, and on that, there is no definitive answer to whether or not we are entering an equivalent minimum. There simply isn't enough information right now to make a detailed and solid statement about the amplitude of the upcoming cycles. This would be much easier to do, if NASA had not scrapped the DSCOVR satellite.
According to scientists who study the sun. I posted that info quite some time ago. Remember this?
Quoting Extrafire
Humans rely on natural systems for the necessities. we are placing greater and greatere demands on those systems. Some are no longer natural at all. The flow of energy is shifted to an unfavourable state of "relative stability." A manmade system does not have the capability to buffer against large scale changes. eg. drought, disease, nutrient shortage or abundance
Yeah, I recall that conversation. Seems I agreed with you on that point. But your definition of sustainable is a new on for me. Almost sounds like stone age.
It's ecology, and the concept is not new.
Quoting Extrafire
I doubt that many will meet the Kyoto requirements. It barely got ratified. Public support is only building steam now. It's taken a lot of time, and a lot of effort to frame the issue, and overcome the opposition. Kyoto based on the outcomes will be a failure. Kyoto as a first step is just that. I'm no fan of Kyoto, it lacks enforcement, and was settled on before the public support was there. Hard for governments to make any kind of concerted effort without the support of it's electorate.
Not your obligation, but I was asking how you suggest it can be done. After all, the salvation of the world depends on this. Germany is a leader that still won't meet its own Kyoto targets, even with the head start they had.
Quoting Extrafire
(By the way, I have salvage rights to this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying)
How does $0.02 sound? You can pick it up in the Via Rail station in Vancouver, locker 101. Combos 06-08-02, I'll double the price if you figure out the combos relevance October 29th, 2007, 10:28 AM
Something else that seems interesting is the tax shift proposed by some. Reduce personal income tax, and shift it to carbon intensive products. You should have a better idea of what I'm talking about. I have some reservations, but I'll wait to hear your take.
Quoting Extrafire
The majority of Canadians live in Urban, sub-urban settings. That is where the majority of our contribution will come from. This plan obviously would not apply to more rural areas of the globe.
If I lived in a large metro area I would use public transport as much as possible because I detest the traffic and parking problems. However, such a reduction would not be popular in many other scenarios, including the one I do happen to live in, where I drive very little.
Quoting Extrafire
Depends what products you're talking about. Mandates in energy efficiency have kept Californians from moving along with the rest of the country. They now use 1/3 of the average American in emissions. But you are right, it does take time. Consider the development and deployment of nickel metal-hydride battery. All the more reason to get started with the things we do have and can do.
I like that too. It's being worked on, but it takes decades for the technology to filter through the whole society.
Quoting Extrafire
Well, first off, saving the planet is a horrible way to frame the issue. I'm not a fan of carbon capture either, for the same reason as above. The technology is currently not feasible, and theres no indication it will be anytime soon. So instead of energy programs spending so much on this R&D, I think it would be more appropriate to spend it on deploying the current technology that emits zero carbon.
For "saving the planet" CO2 capture might be good, but from my point of view it's unnecessary. The others are good ideas.
Quoting Extrafire
This wedge idea is not a blue print for nations, it simply shows what kind of things can be done to reduce global emissions by 1 billion tonnes. I've said from the get-go there is no one size fits all plan. It has to be site specific.
If you're already capturing the carbon from the coal fired plants, what's the point of switching to natural gas? And there's 500 years worth of coal. I don't believe there's that much natural gas.
Quoting Extrafire
Well, there will be lots of compromise. Environmentalists are not a homogeneous group of people. Some are downright nutty.
I like nuclear, but most environmentalists don't. Good luck getting that through.
Quoting Extrafire
Some biofuels are better than others, but you're right. I don't like them one bit, and a prime example of corporate welfare.
They didn't think that one through. Biofuel takes more energy to produce than it delivers. The net effect is more CO2. I like the others.
Something else that seems interesting is the tax shift proposed by some. Reduce personal income tax, and shift it to carbon intensive products. You should have a better idea of what I'm talking about. I have some reservations, but I'll wait to hear your take.
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 29th, 2007, 10:11 PM
I'm not assuming, I'm just going along with the alarmism, and asking for a solution to the problem as expressed by the alarmists. So far I haven't heard any solution that will solve the supposed problem other that the cessation of fossil fuel use (and that sea salt one). Anything less would indicate that the problem isn't very serious after all, which would then require some backpeddling. The problem with starting somewhere, as all the alarmists are certain we must, is that you need more than just an ineffectual start. You need to have a viable solution to implement. Otherwise you might as well not bother. (Unless your real purpose is just wealth transfer)
Quoting Tonington
Weaning is fine, and I'm all for it, but not because of climate change worries. Problem is, we're already doing that, but the overall use of energy is increasing and that means hydrocarbon use is increasing too. And we can only wean as long as there's something to replace it, and as yet, there isn't.
The solution is to wean off our current diet of hydrocarbons. A steady weaning. No new technology is needed to start that process, only to implement the various technologies we already have, and continue to work at improving their efficiency.
Quoting Tonington
You're not backpeddlling? Sorry, I though you considered global warming to be a serious problem. Guess I mis-read you.
What back peddling, you're assuming that that there is one way to "save the planet." There are many different views, but what you keep hoisting is not what "my side" says or wants or believes. It's not feasible to do. I agree. You have to start somewhere Extra, and it's certainly not going to be an immediate stop. That's foolish. Don't try to make your own position sound better by misrepresenting mine.
I'm not assuming, I'm just going along with the alarmism, and asking for a solution to the problem as expressed by the alarmists. So far I haven't heard any solution that will solve the supposed problem other that the cessation of fossil fuel use (and that sea salt one). Anything less would indicate that the problem isn't very serious after all, which would then require some backpeddling. The problem with starting somewhere, as all the alarmists are certain we must, is that you need more than just an ineffectual start. You need to have a viable solution to implement. Otherwise you might as well not bother. (Unless your real purpose is just wealth transfer)
Quoting Tonington
I guess you figure if you label them, that's what they are. They are not delayers, they are trying to prevent the implementation of ineffectual measures against a fictional problem. While trying to impart the truth to the public they also happen to mention that in time we will eventually get beyond the extensive use of fossil fuels. That's not delay attempts, that's merely facing the truth.
That is not the only alternative, which is a mainstay of the delayers I mentioned. Again, no one is looking for an immediate cessation, it's not feasible. It seems delayers are the ones using this approach, which is why I brought it up. Though I would firmly place you in the denial camp, no question there.
Quoting Tonington
Don't recall that you said exactly that. But there is no alternative to large scale use of fossil fuels, even if you combine all the alternatives and use them to the max. Won't come close. Once again, facing the facts, accepting the truth. Call it a delayer argument if you will, but that would just be avoiding reality.
Did I say that? Of course there is no SINGLE large scale alternative. I never said there is, or that there likely would be. Instead a mix of MANY alternatives. Yet again, similarities to a delayer argument...
Quoting Tonington
Just reporting what the scientists said, and I trust them a whole lot more than the alarmists. You'll have noticed, I'm sure, that I don't consider the cooling to be a given, I use the word "if".
And yet, no one has solved the randomness of the solar variability. Sure there is an eleven year cycle, but the maxima and minima are not well defined. The only tools the scientists have are statistical inferences, no trends to model, only likely probabilities, and on that, there is no definitive answer to whether or not we are entering an equivalent minimum. There simply isn't enough information right now to make a detailed and solid statement about the amplitude of the upcoming cycles. This would be much easier to do, if NASA had not scrapped the DSCOVR satellite.
Quoting Tonington
Mankind can buffer against those changes a whole lot better than just sitting around and letting nature buffer against itself. The concept of ecology is not new, but your concept of sustainable sure is new to me.
Humans rely on natural systems for the necessities. we are placing greater and greatere demands on those systems. Some are no longer natural at all. The flow of energy is shifted to an unfavourable state of "relative stability." A manmade system does not have the capability to buffer against large scale changes. eg. drought, disease, nutrient shortage or abundance
It's ecology, and the concept is not new.
It's ecology, and the concept is not new.
Quoting Tonington
Public support is building because of concerted efforts by activists and politicians who see advantages to themselves. Most of the public seem to think that if Kyoto targets were met world wide, the problem would be solved, when in reality, it would have no effect. As a first step it is minuscule, considering what would be required for real effect. But none of the activists or politicians will tell them what would really be required to solve the "problem" because the public wouldn't stand for it. As I said, they'll support it as long as somebody else (government, oil industry etc) has to do what it takes and they don't have to make more than token changes to their lifestyles. If that weren't the case, they'd already be doing it on their own.
I doubt that many will meet the Kyoto requirements. It barely got ratified. Public support is only building steam now. It's taken a lot of time, and a lot of effort to frame the issue, and overcome the opposition. Kyoto based on the outcomes will be a failure. Kyoto as a first step is just that. I'm no fan of Kyoto, it lacks enforcement, and was settled on before the public support was there. Hard for governments to make any kind of concerted effort without the support of it's electorate.
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 29th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Quoting Tonington
Let's use appliances for an example. 22 years ago I bought a washer and dryer set that was more efficient than the old worn out ones. 5 years ago I replaced them with new Maytags (which last even longer). 4 years ago we replaced our 35 year old fridge with a much more efficient one. Both those appliances are not as efficient as new ones today, but I'm not about to replace any of them until they wear out. The average car in Canada is 9 years old (mine is a 14 yr old SUV). I/we don't drive old cars because we like them (except for the rich folk who like real old cars) and we'd all love to have new ones. But if newer efficient models come on the market, it may take 20 to 30 years to phase out all the old ones.
Depends what products you're talking about. Mandates in energy efficiency have kept Californians from moving along with the rest of the country. They now use 1/3 of the average American in emissions. But you are right, it does take time. Consider the development and deployment of nickel metal-hydride battery. All the more reason to get started with the things we do have and can do.
Quoting Tonington
'Well saving the planet is what my question was about. And we're already using carbon capture and sequestration. Zero emission tech is nice, but not feasible to replace much fossil fuel.
Well, first off, saving the planet is a horrible way to frame the issue. I'm not a fan of carbon capture either, for the same reason as above. The technology is currently not feasible, and theres no indication it will be anytime soon. So instead of energy programs spending so much on this R&D, I think it would be more appropriate to spend it on deploying the current technology that emits zero carbon.
Quoting Tonington
And most others are using environmentalism to play politics.
Well, there will be lots of compromise. Environmentalists are not a homogeneous group of people. Some are downright nutty.
Quoting Tonington
Depends how it's done. First it would have to be revenue neutral, no extra overall tax burden. It would benefit me personally because I don't use as much energy as most. But it would have to apply to personal taxes and consumption only, because it would devastate industry and agriculture. Farmers frequently lose money while using large volumes of fuel, and industry go for years without making a profit, and thus paying no taxes. I personally owned a company that lost money for two very bad years in a row, and then went 4 years making profits while paying no income tax because I had all those previous losses to write off. A carbon tax would have put me under. It would have to be just for individuals. Which wouldn't go over with the public at all.
Something else that seems interesting is the tax shift proposed by some. Reduce personal income tax, and shift it to carbon intensive products. You should have a better idea of what I'm talking about. I have some reservations, but I'll wait to hear your take.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 30th, 2007, 08:32 AM
The problem is that you are attempting to shape the framework in which this debate takes place, and in so doing you prevent a solution from forming based on the assumptions that you force onto the dabate. Kyoto is a system that would work were people willing to commit to it. Why is Kyoto failing? Because people like Canada bail on it. How do we deal with India and China? By being a model global citizen, which we aren't now, and using our influence to rally them to Kyoto and its future protocols.
Quoting Extrafire
There, you have answered your own question. In your mind the only way to solve a problem which you do not seem to believe exists is to eliminate all industrial emissions, or at least revert to 1700's levels. Anything short of this plan you reject based on misunderstanding of climate science. Then you posit that social inertia will prevent this plan from being implemented and therefore not a real solution. So the only solution that you will admit that works you claim cannot be implemented and is therefore not a solution.
In six years??? more like 60, if the environmentalists would let you. which is still just reductions, not elimination. It's not quite as drastic as eliminating all emissions, but the people still wouldn't stand for it. Nobody is willing to give up much of their lifestyle, let alone do what is necessary to return to 18th century levels. And remember, the question is how to save the planet, not just restricted to Canada. How would you suggest we deal with India and China?
The problem is that you are attempting to shape the framework in which this debate takes place, and in so doing you prevent a solution from forming based on the assumptions that you force onto the dabate. Kyoto is a system that would work were people willing to commit to it. Why is Kyoto failing? Because people like Canada bail on it. How do we deal with India and China? By being a model global citizen, which we aren't now, and using our influence to rally them to Kyoto and its future protocols.
October 30th, 2007, 09:51 AM
Quoting Extrafire
There most certainly are replacements.
Weaning is fine, and I'm all for it, but not because of climate change worries. Problem is, we're already doing that, but the overall use of energy is increasing and that means hydrocarbon use is increasing too. And we can only wean as long as there's something to replace it, and as yet, there isn't.
Quoting Extrafire
I do consider it a serious problem. I don't consider your position informed on this issue at all. I suspected from the start that this would be an exercise in futility. Read Niflmir's response as to why.
You're not backpeddlling? Sorry, I though you considered global warming to be a serious problem. Guess I mis-read you.
Quoting Extrafire
I doubt it's possible that anyone here could give you what you want. You don't believe there is a problem, so the solution will fall on deaf ears anyways. Those wedges represent a portion of what the solution looks like. Other options involve financial reforms, and regulation.
I'm not assuming, I'm just going along with the alarmism, and asking for a solution to the problem as expressed by the alarmists. So far I haven't heard any solution that will solve the supposed problem other that the cessation of fossil fuel use (and that sea salt one).
Quoting Extrafire
There are viable options to implement. For instance, the direction California and Florida are moving in, and state renewable energy programs. The problem is so complex, there is a substantial inertia to overcome before the solution can make any meaningful changes.
Anything less would indicate that the problem isn't very serious after all, which would then require some backpeddling. The problem with starting somewhere, as all the alarmists are certain we must, is that you need more than just an ineffectual start. You need to have a viable solution to implement. Otherwise you might as well not bother. (Unless your real purpose is just wealth transfer)
Quoting Extrafire
Again, it is not ineffectual. California residents use 1/3 of the national average, due to state regulations.
I guess you figure if you label them, that's what they are. They are not delayers, they are trying to prevent the implementation of ineffectual measures against a fictional problem. While trying to impart the truth to the public they also happen to mention that in time we will eventually get beyond the extensive use of fossil fuels. That's not delay attempts, that's merely facing the truth.
Quoting Extrafire
You keep saying that, but while I have given you some results of study, you keep repeating your mantra. How about some citations for what you say? Otherwise, I'm gonna stop talking to this wall between us.
Don't recall that you said exactly that. But there is no alternative to large scale use of fossil fuels, even if you combine all the alternatives and use them to the max. Won't come close. Once again, facing the facts, accepting the truth. Call it a delayer argument if you will, but that would just be avoiding reality.
Quoting Extrafire
No, you trust the scientists which support your view. There's a big difference.
Just reporting what the scientists said, and I trust them a whole lot more than the alarmists. You'll have noticed, I'm sure, that I don't consider the cooling to be a given, I use the word "if".
Quoting Extrafire
Read an ecology textbook. Quite simply, a system managed by humans, has far less diversity than a natural system and has far more instability than a natural system. Biodiversity has a direct relationship with specialized ecological function. The lower the biodiversity, the lower the ability of that ecosystem to cope with anomalous conditions. Humans cannot buffer better than the natural systems, that's patently false.
Mankind can buffer against those changes a whole lot better than just sitting around and letting nature buffer against itself. The concept of ecology is not new, but your concept of sustainable sure is new to me.
Quoting Extrafire
You still can't see the forest for the trees. While the immediate problem is rising emissions, the whole point to reducing the growth, and eventually decreasing our emissions year to year is to avoid destabilizing feedbacks. Specifically, the tails of the climate sensitivity are larger on the high end, than they are on the low end. That makes the extreme estimates more likely than the conservative estimates.
Public support is building because of concerted efforts by activists and politicians who see advantages to themselves. Most of the public seem to think that if Kyoto targets were met world wide, the problem would be solved, when in reality, it would have no effect.
Electoral Member
Posts: 686
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
October 30th, 2007, 10:33 PM
In my mind there are two solutions (you seem to have ignored the other one, that is affordable and would likely w
Quoting Niflmir
I asked the question repeatedly for a month with no response, and then stated that there are only two solutions that I know of, and that I would put them forward. Which I did. I freely admit that I don't believe the problem exists, but in posing the question I stated that I would not dispute that point, I would assume you-all were correct and was asking for solutions to the problem you're all so concerned about. Arguing against your position is something I reserved for other threads.
There, you have answered your own question. In your mind the only way to solve a problem which you do not seem to believe exists is to eliminate all industrial emissions, or at least revert to 1700's levels. Anything short of this plan you reject based on misunderstanding of climate science. Then you posit that social inertia will prevent this plan from being implemented and therefore not a real solution. So the only solution that you will admit that works you claim cannot be implemented and is therefore not a solution.
The problem is that you are attempting to shape the framework in which this debate takes place, and in so doing you prevent a solution from forming based on the assumptions that you force onto the dabate. Kyoto is a system that would work were people willing to commit to it. Why is Kyoto failing? Because people like Canada bail on it. How do we deal with India and China? By being a model global citizen, which we aren't now, and using our influence to rally them to Kyoto and its future protocols.
The problem is that you are attempting to shape the framework in which this debate takes place, and in so doing you prevent a solution from forming based on the assumptions that you force onto the dabate. Kyoto is a system that would work were people willing to commit to it. Why is Kyoto failing? Because people like Canada bail on it. How do we deal with India and China? By being a model global citizen, which we aren't now, and using our influence to rally them to Kyoto and its future protocols.
In my mind there are two solutions (you seem to have ignored the other one, that is affordable and would likely w