The Coming Climate Change

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna .....I don't think we had a major melting of the ice caps 6,000 years ago during the Climatic Optimum that Geof referred to. I just allowed his assumptions for the sake of argument. Sure, we've had these cycles before, but the earth was a lot less populous then. If we go into a sustained warming trend now a lot of people are going to die. The CSP (concentrated solar power) technology that I told Geof about is competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Where is the downside? I can think of much better uses for oil than sticking it into the atmosphere. Donna

How big of you "I just allowed his assumptions". I wasn't really aware I made any, I referred to evidence that does exist showing that the Optimum did occur and did not coincide with any evidence of mass extinctions. You are quite correct major ice caps did not melt (and here is an assumption just to warn you) probably because the time span was too short. However, Arctic ice cover in Northern Canada did melt back dramatically allowing plant growth that subsequently was buried beneath snow and did not re-emerge until the 1950's or 60's (I think, I have a book but it is a while ago since I read it). Here is another assumption for you; probably Alpine snow melted away significantly...that is in the Austrian/Italian Alps. Sufficient for there to be passes that were open to foot traffic in the snow season. Otzi is the evidence for that.

On the CSP front. Yes IF notice the word IF!!!! 0.5% of the world's deserts wer covered. Where are the world's deserts located? Where is most of the energy consumed? Where are the high valleys for the pumped storage to carry through the night. I am sorry to say it but you are displaying the same fuzzy brained thinking as most of the Global Warming Doomsayers who prattle on about "Oh it is easy to cut Carbon Emissions" but do not have clue about what it really entails and how dependent our society is on abundant low cost energy. But you are correct on one aspect there are a lot more people around to die now.

I am dissapointed I thought you might have been capable of intelligent informed discussion but now I see your comment about repartee is apropo.

[jhowelb]

A few new terms to enlighten the subject!

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.


Dopeler effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.


Ignoranus (n): A person who's both stupid and an a--hole.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by jhowelb Dopeler effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

I thought the Dopelar effect was defined as:

The tendency for ideas to seem smart when they are moving away from you, but to seem stupid when they are moving towards you.

[jhowelb]

Originally Posted by dynosor I thought the Dopelar effect was defined as: The tendency for ideas to seem smart when they are moving away from you, but to seem stupid when they are moving towards you.

Only when you are on a one way street, the rules change according to the advantage held by the opposition!! ROFLMAO

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof How big of you "I just allowed his assumptions". I wasn't really aware I made any, I referred to evidence that does exist showing that the Optimum did occur and did not coincide with any evidence of mass extinctions. You are quite correct major ice caps did not melt (and here is an assumption just to warn you) probably because the time span was too short. However, Arctic ice cover in Northern Canada did melt back dramatically allowing plant growth that subsequently was buried beneath snow and did not re-emerge until the 1950's or 60's (I think, I have a book but it is a while ago since I read it). Here is another assumption for you; probably Alpine snow melted away significantly...that is in the Austrian/Italian Alps. Sufficient for there to be passes that were open to foot traffic in the snow season. Otzi is the evidence for that. On the CSP front. Yes IF notice the word IF!!!! 0.5% of the world's deserts wer covered. Where are the world's deserts located? Where is most of the energy consumed? Where are the high valleys for the pumped storage to carry through the night. I am sorry to say it but you are displaying the same fuzzy brained thinking as most of the Global Warming Doomsayers who prattle on about "Oh it is easy to cut Carbon Emissions" but do not have clue about what it really entails and how dependent our society is on abundant low cost energy. But you are correct on one aspect there are a lot more people around to die now. I am dissapointed I thought you might have been capable of intelligent informed discussion but now I see your comment about repartee is apropo.

Hi Geof,
First an apology, looking back at my post I did come off as somewhat condescending. That was not my intent. Secondly I misstated, I used assumptions in the plural, I should have used the singular "assumption". That is what I thought you were doing when you stated that the Optimum was more widespread, not just limited to the northern hemisphere. I ceded the point in deference to your greater knowledge on things climate. I'm not at all an expert on climatology, I debate to learn. I felt that I could stay in the discussion even if what you said was true. I didn't know if it was or not I just accepted your word for it and proceeded with the debate.
Abundant, cheap energy, oil? Have you seen the price of a barrel of oil lately? CSP becomes viable when oil is $60 a barrel, it's over ninety now. It would only provide a part of the solution and there would have to be other ways of storing and transporting the power around. Water on top of mountains wouldn't work everywhere. Got to go now, meeting spouse for dinner, will get back at you later tonight.
Donna

[martinw]

Originally Posted by Geof The only practical large scale alternate energy sources are Hydro and Nuclear Fission and if they are to fill the hole left by not using fossil fuels it will be necessary to build three times as many dams and three times as many Nuclear facilities as currently exist. .

Dear Geoff,

Leaving aside nuclear fission, perhaps Hydro could be the way forward...

After all, with all those melting glaciers , due to "GW", that gushing water is going to be a swelling source of energy. (Ultimately solar, like all the other alternatives).

All we have to do is build a few lower mountain ranges, with suitably shaped Venturi valleys.

Just a thought...

Best wishes,

Martin

[Geof]

Originally Posted by martinw ....All we have to do is build a few lower mountain ranges, with suitably shaped Venturi valleys.... Martin

I have a suspicion that you are not entirely serious however, I think this suggestion is only a bit less likely to be successful than the idea of tripling the World's supply of Nuclear Power stations in the next twenty years. Especially since I found this snippet of information in the most recent issue of 'New Scientist';


A report commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030 and 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them. ....The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been undereway for 20 years or more. ...The idea that nuclear power is about to experience major growth is "pure fantasy", says the report's author, Mycle Schneider.

I know I am at risk of being viewed as an incurable pessimist when I point out the impossibility of developing alternate energy sources that could replace fossil fuels but obviously I am not the only one.

Oh, by the way Donna, the abundant cheap energy is primarily coal although oil is still pretty cheap even at $100 compared to other sources. Your deserts fractionally full of CSP installations notwithstanding.

[martinw]

Originally Posted by Geof I have a suspicion that you are not entirely serious .

Dear Geof,

No , I was not.

As regards "New Scientist", I have read reports that they take a general editorial attitude that is less than sympathetic to GW/CC doubters. No source for that assertion available at present.

Best wishes,

Martin

[Geof]

Originally Posted by martinw Dear Geof, No , I was not. As regards "New Scientist", I have read reports that they take a general editorial attitude that is less than sympathetic to GW/CC doubters. No source for that assertion available at present. Best wishes, Martin

I could be your source . I have been subscribing to New Scientist for the last eight years or so after a hiatus of about 20 years. When I initially re-started the subscription I was intrigued how the version 8 years ago seemed to have slipped in rigour compared to what I recalled from my university days. But I thought maybe it was my ancient brain putting a rosy colour on memories. However, about two (three? I think closer to two) years ago there was a distinct editorial change from being more or less neutral on the AGW issue to being decidely in favour of the anthropogenic aspect; "they have identified the culprit and he is us". At the same time they drifted toward more of a 'golly gee whiz' attitude toward a lot of science and started feature articles on totally far out issues in quantum mechanics treating them almost as if it was applicable to everyday life. Sad really but not much different to a lot of science these days which seems to spend a lot of time rediscovering the wheel, as it where, with less rigour than I recall.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Oh, by the way Donna, the abundant cheap energy is primarily coal although oil is still pretty cheap even at $100 compared to other sources. Your deserts fractionally full of CSP installations notwithstanding.

Hi Geof,
Yes, but you're burning carbon. We don't know what that is doing. What I'm trying to say is if a green technology is cheaper, why not use it. Why continue to pour money into carbon energy when the other stuff is safer, cheaper and easier. Is it laziness, we just don't want to learn how to do the new stuff, the old ways are more comfortable?
That isn't just dumb, that's proactive stupidity!
Donna

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Geof, Yes, but you're burning carbon. ....

Yes, I do know what coal is. No Green technology is cheaper and no Green technology exists in the same reserves. What I am getting at is the the entire world economy, and indeed the very survival of billions of people, is crucially dependent on abundant cheap energy; fossil fuels. Coal and oil provide about equal amounts of energy and combined they provide many times the energy currently obtained from Green sources even when you include Hydro and Nuclear as being Green. To replace only half of the energy currently obtained from coal it would be necessary to at least double both the number of current Hydro installations and the number of current Nuclear installation. Designing and building both Hydro dams and Nuclear facilities takes multpile decades even if sufficient locations are found to place them. It is not going to happen quickly enough to obtain the pontificated CO2 emission reductions said to be essential within 20 or 50 years to avoid catastrophe. Never mind that it is not going to happen; if by some strange fluke the needed dams and reactors could be built they would result in an enormous surge in CO2 emission due to their construction. The production of cement for concret generates huge amounts of CO2, you can probably Google and find out the number; dams and reactor buildings use enormous amounts of concrete.

The bottom line is that alternate sources of CO2 free energy are simply not available. We cannot wave a magic wand, stop using fossil fuels and blythely continue with our energy intensive society. And we cannot suddenly cut energy use in half because that will create even greater social catastrophe in the form of mass starvation. Cheap abundant energy is essential for cheap abundant food promptly distributed from its source to where it is needed.

There is no avoiding continued, and increased CO2 emissions for a long time into the future. If this is going to cause worldwide climate and weather upheavals (most of which I think are nonsensical predictions) we are going to have to adapt to them. It could be easier than adapting to having a good portion of the world's population starve to death over a few years.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Kind of disappointed with post #190. An ill-constructed question followed by a facile and pedestrian answer to a self-serving setup question, all in the same post no less. Something dumb from someone I expected better of. In a word, sophomoric.

What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea. Does anyone know what eventually came of it?

Mariss