CDZ What do the "Warmers" really want?

[hauke]

1. "Warmers" want to prevent a global catastrophe.
2. to do so they want to replace a Fossil fuel based economy which by its nature isn t sustainable anyway,theres only a limited amount of fossile fuels, with a sustainable economy.
3. the usual way to do this is by building powerplants that use replacable energy sources : Solar Power, Wind Energy, Hydropower, Wavepower, Fusionpower.
and use energy efficent machines.

so nobody wants to go back into a cave.

but yes you won t have internal combustion machines in your pickup anymore, if you want that bass engine sound or the scream, you need to have a big soundsystem.

 

[oldsoul]

1. "Warmers" want to prevent a global catastrophe.
2. to do so they want to replace a Fossil fuel based economy which by its nature isn t sustainable anyway,theres only a limited amount of fossile fuels, with a sustainable economy.
3. the usual way to do this is by building powerplants that use replacable energy sources : Solar Power, Wind Energy, Hydropower, Wavepower, Fusionpower.
and use energy efficent machines.

so nobody wants to go back into a cave.

but yes you won t have internal combustion machines in your pickup anymore, if you want that bass engine sound or the scream, you need to have a big soundsystem.

Are you suggesting,then, that we should all be driving either electric vehicles or nuclear fusion vehicles?
What do you think that would do to the price of say transporting goods? You do realize it would take a HUGE investment for the transportation industry to convert right?
Solar and Wind are, by their nature, unreliable. So that leaves Hydro, which isn't feasible everywhere, Wave, again not feasible everywhere, or nuclear, which has a BIG disposal issue.
So, we choose between:

1. reliability issues
2. feasibility issues
3. waste issues

Or, we can find other ways to "fix" the problem. I, for one, have faith that a good solution will present it's self once the price of current tech becomes, naturally, sufficiently high. Artificially inflating prices will not work long term, simply because it is a political move that can be just as easily undone.
So, in conclusion:

• Is there a problem? Yes, a supply problem
• Is there a good solution? No, not yet.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Since you have been so polite and pertinent, would you perchance also have information about the process in which O2 becomes CO2?

Either biologically processes, such as breathing or decay, or combustion of carbon-containing fuels. Forexample, combustion of methane (natural gas) would be

CH4 + 3 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O

If the CO2 levels are rising above normality standards in respect to a clean and habitable environment, as some debaters propose or perhaps even so more accurately inform, how and why, if so, is atmospheric CO2 bound and restricted in continued accumulation by contrast of a regular molecular cycle of O2 (in the scale of less than millions of years)?

Before wide-scale industrialization, CO2 was roughly balanced. CO2 absorbed by growing plants was roughly equal to CO2 emitted by decay and breathing animals and volcanoes. So, the CO2 levels stayed roughly the same.

Enter industrialization. Humans now emit about 3% as much CO2 as nature does. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it tips the balance. Year after year, that extra CO2 slowly accumulates, so concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

The sort of good news is that as CO2 levels go up, the rate of absorption by the biosphere goes up. Plants grow a little faster, the ocean absorbs more. So we don't need to get human CO2 emissions down to zero. The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%, which would allow things to stabilize. With advances in renewable energy, that's a realistic goal, one that can be accomplished without reducing standards of living.

I acknowledge the continued processes in which CO2 is bound: the waste products of factories, and of other smaller but wide-spread mechanical processes. Is there, however, no process, either natural or artificial, through which that excess of CO2 is and can be converted again into clean O2, without any further atmospheric or environmental disturbance, as the atmosphere and the environment may continue to provide for enduring livable habitats?

In the short term, reforestation can pull some CO2 out of the atmosphere, as plants grab the "C" and release the "O2". However, that can only go so far, as there's only so much room for forests. In the longer term, the oceans have to serve as the sinks. Organic matter of all types, which contains the carbon, falls to the bottom of the ocean, which takes it out of the atmospheric cycle, and there it slowly turns into carbonate rocks like limestone, or oil.

The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%, which would allow things to stabilize.

75% are you off your rocker? I knew it all along the AGW cult really wants us to go into another ice age.

 

[oldsoul]

It's right there for you. What, specifically, do the "Warmers" want? In a previous thread, I asked a similar question, and got the response (in part) 200PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. (I may be slightly incorrect on the number)

So, lets look at that. When was the last time we had ~200-300 PPM of CO2?

Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

From the article, "During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph)."

Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

What will that take? What would our world look like?

It would look like pre industrial society....for everyone but the politically powerful.....

If everyone had your attitude there would never have been an Industrial Revolution.

"Everything's fine the way it is! Don't change my safe, familiar world! Now, excuse me...I have to unhitch the horses..."

Untrue, there most certainly would have been an industrial revolution. It is BECAUSE of people who think like me that there was. People who saw a real problem (i.e. "doing this by hand takes a lot of time."), and worked to find a solution ("How can I get a machine to help me do it faster?").

What is happening with "global warming" (aka global climate change) is people are manufacturing a problem that has yet to present it's self and are attempting to change society to fix it. That would be akin to attempting to change society to cope with the space age in 1900. It simply does not make sense. Is there a coming problem? Maybe, I'm not convinced either way. Does this problem need a solution? It sure does, IF it presents it's self as a problem. Until then, why try to change society in dramatic ways for a problem that does not, as of yet, exist?

The argument could be made that it is an attempt to prevent the problem. Ok, show me indisputable evidence that it WILL be a problem, and I'll consider it. As far as I know there is not. It is still no more than theoretical.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. "Warmers" want to prevent a global catastrophe.
2. to do so they want to replace a Fossil fuel based economy which by its nature isn t sustainable anyway,theres only a limited amount of fossile fuels, with a sustainable economy.
3. the usual way to do this is by building powerplants that use replacable energy sources : Solar Power, Wind Energy, Hydropower, Wavepower, Fusionpower.
and use energy efficent machines.

so nobody wants to go back into a cave.

but yes you won t have internal combustion machines in your pickup anymore, if you want that bass engine sound or the scream, you need to have a big soundsystem.

so nobody wants to go back into a cave.


Why would any natural climate realist, think we would go back in a cave by using fossil fuel? You got it the opposite AGW cult wants to give up our phones, give up our computers , give up our clothes and any oil based product...run around have naked, live in mudhuts and hunt buffalo.

 

[oldsoul]

The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%,

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%,

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

Exactly, most world banks refuse to fiance fossil fuel plants in developing country's, so they continue to deforest for land clearing and fuel, they die by the millions a year from smoke inhaltion and that's where most of the C02 is coming from.

 

[mamooth]

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

Wind, solar, biomass, hydro, nuclear ...

If renewable power is cheaper than fossil fuel plants, which is becoming the case, it's a benefit to developing nations.

 

[yiostheoy]

It's right there for you. What, specifically, do the "Warmers" want? In a previous thread, I asked a similar question, and got the response (in part) 200PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. (I may be slightly incorrect on the number)

So, lets look at that. When was the last time we had ~200-300 PPM of CO2?

Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

From the article, "During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph)."

Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

What will that take? What would our world look like?

Maybe the dinosaurs will return?!

 

[yiostheoy]

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

Wind, solar, biomass, hydro, nuclear ...

If renewable power is cheaper than fossil fuel plants, which is becoming the case, it's a benefit to developing nations.

We (the world, especially the USSA and Russia) have plenty of coal to go back to the Coal Age.

Still a lot cheaper than renewable.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Maybe the dinosaurs will return?!

I hope so. I really miss them. I had a neighbor, T Rexx, what a good neighbor he was.

 

[320 Years of History]

When was the last time we had ~200-300 PPM of CO2? .... Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

Dear God! Can you understand the temporal quality and extent of the matter just a tiny bit more? LOL Pre-industrial? What the chart you provided shows is that current CO2 volumes are just shy of double their height since hundreds of thousands of years before the dawn of modern human existence, well before recorded history began, and aeonically before the industrial age!

Big typo in my post above. "Understand" should have been "understate."

Genuine apologies to all and any whom I confused.

oldsoul, I especially owe you an apology for the opening sentence suggests something I didn't at all intend or think, now as well as when I wrote the post. I'm sorry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does the lab work show regarding the correlation of CO2 to temperature?

If the 120ppm increase raises temperature .5F, will a 60ppm decrease drop temperature by .25F.

Can someone post the lab work?

 

[Holos]

Since you have been so polite and pertinent, would you perchance also have information about the process in which O2 becomes CO2?

Either biologically processes, such as breathing or decay, or combustion of carbon-containing fuels. Forexample, combustion of methane (natural gas) would be

CH4 + 3 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O

If the CO2 levels are rising above normality standards in respect to a clean and habitable environment, as some debaters propose or perhaps even so more accurately inform, how and why, if so, is atmospheric CO2 bound and restricted in continued accumulation by contrast of a regular molecular cycle of O2 (in the scale of less than millions of years)?

Before wide-scale industrialization, CO2 was roughly balanced. CO2 absorbed by growing plants was roughly equal to CO2 emitted by decay and breathing animals and volcanoes. So, the CO2 levels stayed roughly the same.

Enter industrialization. Humans now emit about 3% as much CO2 as nature does. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it tips the balance. Year after year, that extra CO2 slowly accumulates, so concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

The sort of good news is that as CO2 levels go up, the rate of absorption by the biosphere goes up. Plants grow a little faster, the ocean absorbs more. So we don't need to get human CO2 emissions down to zero. The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%, which would allow things to stabilize. With advances in renewable energy, that's a realistic goal, one that can be accomplished without reducing standards of living.

I acknowledge the continued processes in which CO2 is bound: the waste products of factories, and of other smaller but wide-spread mechanical processes. Is there, however, no process, either natural or artificial, through which that excess of CO2 is and can be converted again into clean O2, without any further atmospheric or environmental disturbance, as the atmosphere and the environment may continue to provide for enduring livable habitats?

In the short term, reforestation can pull some CO2 out of the atmosphere, as plants grab the "C" and release the "O2". However, that can only go so far, as there's only so much room for forests. In the longer term, the oceans have to serve as the sinks. Organic matter of all types, which contains the carbon, falls to the bottom of the ocean, which takes it out of the atmospheric cycle, and there it slowly turns into carbonate rocks like limestone, or oil.

The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%, which would allow things to stabilize.

75% are you off your rocker? I knew it all along the AGW cult really wants us to go into another ice age.

I believe mamooth mentioned 75% of the artificially exceeding amount, and not 75% of the total atmospheric CO2.

 

[Holos]

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

Wind, solar, biomass, hydro, nuclear ...

If renewable power is cheaper than fossil fuel plants, which is becoming the case, it's a benefit to developing nations.

We (the world, especially the USSA and Russia) have plenty of coal to go back to the Coal Age.

Still a lot cheaper than renewable.

Do you have stats on your claim from a reliable source?

Let's take the U.S. Energy Information Administration website:

Coal - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Take the recent-most data chart there presented and proceed to the sourced link:

Coal Markets

Now, besides the data presented of virtually no change in coal prices over the last month, let's read some of their associated disclaimers.

About the Coal Markets Report
The "Coal Markets Report" summarizes average weekly coal commodity spot prices by coal regions in the United States. The historical data for coal commodity spot market prices are proprietary and not available for public release.

Okay.

Does "historical data of proprietary commodity market unavailable for public release" tell you anything, considering the economic knowledge you are bragging to have about how "coal is cheaper than renewable" (which is actually both an out-ranging, and maimed comprehension of technology in the 21st century)?

Let's get yet a little more detailed before aggregating all this information correctly:

Weekly Coal Production by State

At the above link informing about coal production a considerable decline is explicit, in two different graphics from last year to this year.

Time to put it all together.

1. Virtually no price changes from a month to another. A healthy, abundant and prospecting market is a surely but slowly fluctuating market, with at least a minimum of a bond return from stocks each assessment round (in days, weeks, or months). We do not observe any of that in what the USEIA presented.

2. Market information unavailable for public release. Consider the public sample information of unchanging prices there to be accurate for providing the disclaimer's credibility in attracting potential private investors. One more time, is that evidence of a prospective or prospecting stock market? In fact, it is evidence of the very opposite, of a market that has no more valid contention because of its obsolescence, of its deficiency in providing any short term or long term profit at the pace standard of national and international exchange. Confidential exchange doesn't promote economic interest or economic competition.

3. Considering the expendable nature of coal as fossil fuel, the only agreeable profit thereof possibly produced would be to assure its extraction at a maximum load rate and at a minimum time frame. The extracting producers, knowing of the limited resource capacity for extraction at each owned site, would have to generate an artificial and inflated market value only to gain some temporary value access to a greater enduring market exchange, as any prudent stock holder would envision to do in establishing continuously greater returns, no matter where their interests were invested in. That, of course, would bring an exponential increase in production to be exchanged, but only so briefly, while an amount meant to be untouched so that the balancing check could be matched as the stock holders changed their investments from a short-term spiking instability to a then more accessible long-term continuity through another commodity or product. Cars, for example, never used coal as fuel, and they were already largely manufactured by the 1920s and further unto the 21st century to share a place in many other thriving markets. That's a good indication mark that coal never really made it successfully past the 1900s, but dragged itself out in a plan of known decline to otherwise eventually compensate for its inability to be integrated into a truly stable market exempt from risk and from artificial demands gauged by unrealistic supplies.

 

[oldsoul]

How would this be done? Simply higher fuel economy requirements will not do it. How will this be done in developing nations that lack the resources?

Wind, solar, biomass, hydro, nuclear ...

If renewable power is cheaper than fossil fuel plants, which is becoming the case, it's a benefit to developing nations.

Really? this is your answer?
A couple problems:

1. wind: expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, unreliable
2. solar: expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, unreliable
3. hydro: expensive to buy, not feasible in many areas
4. nuclear: hugely expensive to buy, hugely expensive to maintain, huge disposal issues

So, that leaves us with biomass. Is biomass really all that much better than fossil fuels? Sure it's "renewable" but is it better overall? Let's se what the "experts" have to say:
"... biomass from plants and vegetation are considered low-carbon or carbon-neutral." Viaspace : Biomass Versus Fossil Fuels, Solar and Wind

" It’s often claimed that biomass is a “low carbon” or “carbon neutral” fuel, meaning that carbon emitted by biomass burning won’t contribute to climate change. But in fact, biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced." Carbon emissions | Partnership for Policy Integrity

Hardly conclusive or "decided" science I guess.