Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I taught in West Africa. I have first hand knowledge of life in poverty stricken countries.

The thought that other countries have to take the same path to development as the Europe and North America is simplistic thinking. The fossil fuel path we took is simply unsustainable.

I happen to favour nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric energy for large scale power sources.

So what type of energy source was used to keep the lights on in W. Africa where you taught? Certainly nuclear wouldn't be an option in much of the developing world for obvious reasons (except Iran for peaceful purposes only), and geothermal & hydroelectric sound capital intensive and location specific. Solar & wind are expensive & inefficient, may continue to improve incrementally, but also may never get there except for those in wealthier parts of the developed world. Thanks to developments in fracking technology, natural gas seems like the cleanest and least costly of all the fossil fuels, but is difficult to transport without significant pipeline infrastructure.

So now we're back to JT's point posted above. Where is the morality in denying those struggling economically in the developing world the lifestyle and economic freedom we have so benefitted from by the last 150 years or so of fossil fuel technology?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, reposting, this seems appropriate reponse:



... what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

L-E, posting this answers your previous question better than I ever could as to why there is a anti-greenie backlash.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Certainly nuclear wouldn't be an option in much of the developing world for obvious reasons

And those obvious reasons are?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Why, "people" are proposing policies that result in unicorns and rainbows and dancing in alpine meadows, of course!! Just look at the cartoon! Who could be against that?

You're right. Why should I be skeptical of policies proposed by the organization that had the wisdom to elect Iran, Cuba and Sudan to its human rights committees, including Iran to a four year membership on the Committee on the Status of Women?

What could possibly go wrong?

WHAT policies? List'em. Good, freedom-loving benevolent countries do collossally stupid things too, from time to time.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

L-E, posting this answers your previous question better than I ever could as to why there is a anti-greenie backlash.

Ok, imagine I left off the cartoon and asked simply, what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

And with it, planetary albedo.

So let's look at the worst case scenario in terms of sea level rise: the melting of the West Antarctic Ice sheet. This from a discussion on the subject including the latest findings and projections, from SCIENCE, on 2 Nov, 2015:

" What they found was that local destabilization of the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica ultimately causes the entire ice sheet to fall into the ocean over several centuries to several thousands of years, gradually adding 3 meters to global sea levels, they report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The model shows that “there’s no holding back,” Levermann says: Just a few decades of melting leads to “thousands of years of ice motion.” More than 150 million people globally live within just 1 meter of the sea; in the United States, a sea level rise of 3 meters would inundate many of the East Coast’s largest cities, including New York and Miami.
…

“This paper does confirm what we hypothesized, that knocking out the Pine Island Glacier and Thwaites takes down the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” says Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-authored last year’s Science paper. He adds, however, that the model’s weakness is its resolution; it shows the destabilization of the glaciers occurring roughly 60 years from now, whereas present observations suggest that collapse is already underway. As a result, Joughin says, the model’s time scale for the collapse is probably too long. “It’s more likely measured in centuries rather than millennia.”

Indeed, “the jury is still out” on whether Feldmann and Levermann’s study got the time scale right, Rignot says. The long-term evolution of an ice sheet “is a very complex modeling problem. Some of the variables controlling the models are not all that well known,” he adds, including forces such as winds, ocean circulation, and how icebergs calve. “There is not a model out there that is getting it right, because they all have caveats. I think the discussion is ongoing, and is only going to be more interesting with time.”

So… if you notice the worst case scenario with this projection is that sea level rise will be approximately 3 meters, over either a few centuries, or a few millennia. And yet they dramatise this by suggesting that this would "inundate" Miami and New York. Interesting choices of city for example, given that the entire history of either city from foundation with a little wood village to the present is somewhere in the vicinity of the timescale of the raciest predictions for the melting of this ice sheet. A good friend of mine runs a fossil business in the UK. He continually sells pieces of mammoth, rhino and even human artefacts dredged up by North Sea trawlers. At the more conservative end of the scenarios of this 3 meter rise, we can look back and see how this "dramatic" rise compares to what was. So, say this rise takes, in fact, 8,000 years to occur. Well, 8,000 years ago you could walk from Norwich to Denmark through the woods and hills of Doggerland, if the neolithic inhabitants and megafauna let you, that is.

Meanwhile, our wholesale burning of the rainforests to plant the likes of palm oil and hoovering up of the biomass of the world's oceans to provide varied menus in cities far from any coastline continues at an ever increasing pace…

So, while the unaccountably newly static, passive, and paralysed populations of New York and Los Angeles wait like statues for the gradual rise of the sea to dampen their basements over the next few hundred (!) to few thousand years, this is what has occurred to Borneo since 1950:

Points well taken, Muckle. It seems to me that we heard much more publicity generally, certainly in the mainstream media, about deforestation, over-fishing, localized pollution, regional coral reef destruction, and other destructive blights to the planet before the CC agenda became so politicized and dogmatic. There's only so much oxygen available at any given time to be sucked out of the room.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And those obvious reasons are?

So you are proposing the construction of nuclear power plants in places such as W. Africa? Where is the money & expertise going to come from? We have yet to figure out nuclear waste disposal issues in our own, highly advanced countries. What about political stability? Do we want to make it even easier for warring factions to obtain materials for dirty bombs, or worse? Has civilian nuclear power plant technology progressed to the point where such downsides can be realistically prevented or contained? Remember N. Korea? We helped them build a nuclear power industry in the 90's in exchange for them "promising" not to convert it for weapons productions. How'd that one work out? And now the same people who foisted that one on the world have just done the same for Iran.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

Even if 100% of the fuel burned today was stopped 100% we have a larger problem.

While a tiny amount of new ice has formed around the South Pole, so much snow and ice has been lost in other areas that the earth is absorbing far more solar radiation.

The amount of extra solar radiation being absorbed is greater than the heat generated by all the fuel we currently burn.

Further, the extra temperature has caused a decrease in the amount of cloud cover over areas where there is usually no ice and snow. That decrease in cloud cover also adds to the earth warming.

Gosh. You seem very certain of this. More certain, by a long chalk, than NASA is, for example:

ISCCP: Cloud Climatology

Especially interesting is the following passage:


"...Yet in spite of the need to forecast climatic changes accurately, current understanding of how the climate works is not detailed enough for climatologists to predict exactly when, where, or to what extent changes will take place, only to say that there will be a certain amount of warming and that other things will likely change. The global climate is such a complex system that no one knows how even a small increase in temperature will alter other aspects of climate or how such alterations will influence the rate of warming. Moreover, changes in any of these climatic features may also affect the distribution and properties of clouds , but the understanding of clouds is so rudimentary that no one knows whether climate feedbacks involving clouds will dampen or amplify a warming trend."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you are proposing the construction of nuclear power plants in places such as W. Africa? Where is the money & expertise going to come from? We have yet to figure out nuclear waste disposal issues in our own, highly advanced countries. What about political stability? Do we want to make it even easier for warring factions to obtain materials for dirty bombs, or worse? Has civilian nuclear power plant technology progressed to the point where such downsides can be realistically prevented or contained? Remember N. Korea? We helped them build a nuclear power industry in the 90's in exchange for them "promising" not to convert it for weapons productions. How'd that one work out? And now the same people who foisted that one on the world have just done the same for Iran.

Canada has the expertise - CANDU reactors provide 15% of our energy.

CANDU Reactors Worldwide | Teach Nuclear

So for paranoid reasons you will prevent clean energy sources?

[Kenomac]

I honestly don't know where some of the solar advocates Extract some of their facts and figures.... Possibly their bums?

We happen to own a 46 panel solar array which was supposedly designed by a highly rated national contractor to power 85 percent of our electrical needs 9 years ago. The total cost $78,000 split between us $38,000 and the People's Republic of Massachusetts $40,000. We were also promised regular checks from some sort of "green scam" organization.

Well... After all the green crony middle men and women get their cuts, last year our annual check totaled a whopping $140. The system produces an average of $300 in electrical savings per month, but even after recently converting the entire home and business over to LED from fluorescent lighting, we still have an average monthly electrical bill of $150. My guess it that on average, our bill would normally be somewhere around $450-$500 even with the LED lighting.

At night and on snowy, rainy or overcast days, the system produces zero or close to zero electricity. Over the past 9.5 years, it has produced a total of 71,000kw hours.

Solar power is a net loser, I would never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone. It doesn't deliver what's promised, there're too many greenies with their hands in your pockets, and the financial recovery is way past the system obsolescence and probable expiration date.

When anyone really looks into the mess, you'll find that the biggest advocates rarely own a system themselves... They want others to do it so they can somehow put themselves in the middle financially. This from a real world, ten year experience.

Ken

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

WHAT policies? List'em. Good, freedom-loving benevolent countries do collossally stupid things too, from time to time.

The goals listed on your cartoon are a good place to start this discussion since you seem to think they are worthy of posting here and are the goals of policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

- Energy independence? What does this mean? The term in common use generally refers to US ability to provide its own fossil fuel needs, without reliance on other countries for fossil fuels. We've reached that goal.

But green groups, contrary to what your cartoon suggests, seem to be dismayed that markets and technology have allowed us to reach this point.

From earthshare.org:

A motorist waiting in long lines for a chance to fill up during the 1970s oil crises might be surprised to learn that the US would one day export half its gasoline to other countries.

In 2014, that’s the situation we find ourselves in. But it’s not just gasoline. Despite rising energy consumption and population, the US is awash in fossil fuels, and energy companies are increasingly looking to sell coal, (refined) oil, and gas to other countries.

But this abundance has exacted a steep price on our health and environment. Extracting and transporting fossil fuels is a notoriously dirty and poorly regulated process. And The Carbon Tracker Initiative found that 80% of the fossil fuels currently in reserve can’t be burned if the planet is to remain below a 2C degree rise in temperature.

That’s why environmental groups are working to stop these exports. From proposed coal terminals in Washington to gas terminals on the Gulf Coast, communities are beginning to hold energy companies accountable for putting people at risk.

- Preserve rain forests. Straw man. Nothing to do with carbon emissions unless the forests are being burned. The palm oil argument is hollow unless you're burning it to power your engine.

- Sustainability. A buzzword. Means nothing.

- Livable cities. WTF does that mean? The best thing you could do for unlivable cities in the US is replace their leadership. Those that have had Democrat leadership for decades are the worst pockets of poverty and squalor in the country.

- Renewables. Like corn oil? Net energy loss in the production of ethanol. Hardly sustainable, huh?

- Clean water, air. Nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 is only a "pollutant" because the EPA designated it as such. What about the existing CO2 in the air? Ludicrous. It's analogous to declaring well water a pollutant if it's dumped into a creek. The inference is that AGW skeptics want dirty water and air. BS.

- Healthy children. Bwaa-ha-haaaa...again, inference is that those skeptics are meanies...and women and children will be hit hardest...

-etc, etc. There must be no end to the positive things that will happen if the "deniers" can be suppressed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, imagine I left off the cartoon and asked simply, what do you think people are proposing in response to AGW, that you see as a harm?

Seems to me that the most recent thread discussion this morn is answering some of that, L-E. But closer to home, who do you think will be paying for $1.7B worth of wind turbines in Alberta that might, in the best case scenario, offset 9% of fossil fuel emissions produced by the province? And what about the citizens of B.C. who have no choice but to drive their cars to make a living, get their kids to school, take care of their households, get to the doctor's office, buy groceries, heat their homes? I'm sure the carbon tax in B.C. cuts down on more discretionary driving, but as essentially a non-progressive flat tax it makes the cost of living disproportionately higher for those who are less able to afford it. Yes, yes I know, they will get their "green checks" in the mail. But who pays for that? Yup, these very same people in the form of higher utility rates.

I'm not trying to say that what Alberta & B.C. have done to reduce carbon emissions isn't necessarily worth it, but it's ridiculous to suggest -- as your cartoon & questions obviously do -- that there's no downside to your naively utopian "healthier planet." As a society, we may ultimately decide that cleaning up the armosphere is worth the cost, but there is always a cost, and no free lunch.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I taught in West Africa. I have first hand knowledge of life in poverty stricken countries.

The thought that other countries have to take the same path to development as the Europe and North America is simplistic thinking. The fossil fuel path we took is simply unsustainable.

I happen to favour nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric energy for large scale power sources.

Actually, it IS sustainable for the forseeable future or do you want to have the "peak oil" argument all over again?

I'm a fan of nuclear power too, it's the only realistic option to fossil fuels to provide for the bulk of our energy needs, but in the US, the same people who are so concerned about AGW and CO2 are also the ones who have prevented us from embracing nuclear energy. Also, you and I may agree that these developing countries you taught in would be better off using nuclear instead of fossil fuels, but the reality is that's not the path they've chosen or has been chosen for them. Get them to build nuclear plants and shut down their coal plants and THEN, we might be able to slightly reduce the amount of CO2 being introduced into our atmosphere, though I'm not convinced that's even desirable. But we'd look pretty silly trying to persuade them to choose that path as long as we aren't even building nuclear plants here in the US.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you are proposing the construction of nuclear power plants in places such as W. Africa? Where is the money & expertise going to come from? We have yet to figure out nuclear waste disposal issues in our own, highly advanced countries. What about political stability? Do we want to make it even easier for warring factions to obtain materials for dirty bombs, or worse? Has civilian nuclear power plant technology progressed to the point where such downsides can be realistically prevented or contained? Remember N. Korea? We helped them build a nuclear power industry in the 90's in exchange for them "promising" not to convert it for weapons productions. How'd that one work out? .

Exile,

Some people live in "Fantasyland." We can't even get a single reactor built here in the states, how's it supposed to happen in someplace like Sierra Leone, Guinea, the Congo as some suggest? What... They're going to stop killing each other for a few years to come together and sing "Kumbaya" whilst building a nuclear reactor?

Yeah right, that'll work.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Canada has the expertise - CANDU reactors provide 15% of our energy.

CANDU Reactors Worldwide | Teach Nuclear

So for paranoid reasons you will prevent clean energy sources?

The discussion was about nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels in places such as W. Africa and other parts of the developing world. That's what the recent back & forth was focused on, as a follow-up to JT's well-reasoned post. I am absolutely in favor of building more nuclear power plants in Canada, the US, and other technologically advanced and politically stable parts of the developed world, and thought I made that clear a long time ago.