Canadian Political Events

Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: MH on November 26, 2017, 07:42:22 am

Title: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: MH on November 26, 2017, 07:42:22 am
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

You need 100 million of these units described here to keep up with CO2 emissions...
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: bcsapper on November 26, 2017, 10:58:38 am
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

You need 100 million of these units described here to keep up with CO2 emissions...

They're the size of a semi trailer. I thought it was the little plastic sphere in the picture!  I thought, great, I'll get a couple of those myself.  Anything to help out, and all that.

It starts well.  Bill Gates always gives me confidence.  But the most telling paragraphs are at the end.  Words like “unrealistic.”, “high-stakes gamble” and “moral hazard par excellence.” rear their ugly heads.  I should make it clear I'd be happy to go with it anyway, if we are still so queasy about forced sterilization that we are willing to die instead, but I bet you won't get everyone else to sign on.

I loved the following:

"One of the peculiarities of climate discussions is that the strongest argument for any given strategy is usually based on the hopelessness of the alternatives: this approach must work, because clearly the others aren’t going to. This sort of reasoning rests on a fragile premise—what might be called solution bias. There has to be an answer out there somewhere, since the contrary is too horrible to contemplate."
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 26, 2017, 02:38:05 pm
You need 100 million of these units described here to keep up with CO2 emissions...
And that presumes the incremental benefit of deploying such devices is the best use of resources. It is likely that cost-benefit analysis would establish that directing resources to adaptation makes more economic sense than spending various technical hail marys that will most likely never accomplish their stated goals.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2017, 02:53:18 pm
And that presumes the incremental benefit of deploying such devices is the best use of resources. It is likely that cost-benefit analysis would establish that directing resources to adaptation makes more economic sense than spending various technical hail marys that will most likely never accomplish their stated goals.

Can you then explain how that adaptation process would work effectively, and how it would be more cost effective?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 26, 2017, 05:34:28 pm
Can you then explain how that adaptation process would work effectively, and how it would be more cost effective?

you'll be waiting a long time for member TimG to respond. In the adapt-R-us-Only world of TimG, current levels of atmospheric CO2 and continuing increases in atmospheric CO2 to the tune of a billion tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every 10 days... those levels are just so inconsequential! He perpetually just throws out this nebulous buzzword like reference to "adaptation" while castigating anyone who presumes to align with a combined mitigation/adaptation/prevention approach. To TimG encroaching on the sancity of the status-quo fossil-fuel usage is blasphemy to his BigOil allegiance... discussing pie-in-the sky type Geo-engineering solutions to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is just outright heresy!

(https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md0z8hzOm51qc0cxpo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2017, 05:44:59 pm
Well at least there is consistency. :D
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: MH on November 26, 2017, 06:08:58 pm
I have to say it would have been nice if we were able to have an actual democratic discussion about adaption vs prevention, but we are (at) so far several decades where the discussion is jammed by people who have spread abject lies (ie. ice age) and so this rather high-risk decision has been made by default.

In an unrelated (or possibly completely related note) democracy doesn't work well in a fog of mass hysteria.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: bcsapper on November 26, 2017, 09:38:12 pm
I have to say it would have been nice if we were able to have an actual democratic discussion about adaption vs prevention, but we are (at) so far several decades where the discussion is jammed by people who have spread abject lies (ie. ice age) and so this rather high-risk decision has been made by default.

In an unrelated (or possibly completely related note) democracy doesn't work well in a fog of mass hysteria.

Democratically speaking, which bits of the article you posted do you think are actually going to come to fruition?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2017, 02:04:52 am
I have to say it would have been nice if we were able to have an actual democratic discussion about adaption vs prevention, but we are (at) so far several decades where the discussion is jammed by people who have spread abject lies (ie. ice age) and so this rather high-risk decision has been made by default.
The trouble with any rational cost-benefit analysis is it depends on so many economic and technological assumptions and outright guesses that they are meaningless. So when someone says it is more cost effective to spend a trillions reducing the increase CO2 emissions by 5% than it would be to to pay for various measures needed to adaptation I can say with confidence that they are basing their claim on nothing but guesses and if these guesses were made by someone with an agenda then those guesses are nothing but ideological propaganda.

To be clear, the meaningless of cost benefit analyses also applies to analyses that say adaptation is a better option. I prefer adaption because:

1) Adaptation is local - no global agreements required and no problem with freeloaders/cheaters;
2) Adaptation only requires deployment of tech that we already use to protect against the vagaries of weather - so it is lower risk;
3) Adaptation is incremental. Every little bit helps. CO2 mitigation is all or nothing - i.e. if we don't cut CO2 by enough we will still need to spend on adaption.
4) Many specific examples of CO2 mitigation are virtue signalling exercises that have no chance of achieving their stated goal - this means I have little confidence that governments are capable providing incentives that actually reduce *global* CO2 emissions.

Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: MH on November 27, 2017, 05:49:10 am
I can say with confidence that they are basing their claim on nothing but guesses and if these guesses were made by someone with an agenda then those guesses are nothing but ideological propaganda.

 

Sure... but the other side didn't get a chance, thanks to communication jamming. 
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2017, 07:31:36 am
Sure... but the other side didn't get a chance, thanks to communication jamming.
Did you read the next line:

Quote
To be clear, the meaninglessness of cost benefit analyses also applies to analyses that say adaptation is a better option.
What I said is it is impossible to quantify future damages from climate change which makes any cost benefit analysis based on future damages an exercise in ideology - something that is true no matter what the opinion produced by said analyses.

I also went on to provide reasons for preferring adaptation as a strategy that does not require a cost benefit analysis.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 27, 2017, 08:29:05 am
The trouble with any rational cost-benefit analysis is it depends on so many economic and technological assumptions and outright guesses that they are meaningless. So when someone says it is more cost effective to spend a trillions reducing the increase CO2 emissions by 5% than it would be to to pay for various measures needed to adaptation I can say with confidence that they are basing their claim on nothing but guesses and if these guesses were made by someone with an agenda then those guesses are nothing but ideological propaganda.

To be clear, the meaningless of cost benefit analyses also applies to analyses that say adaptation is a better option. [waldo: which paints your aforementioned, "stating with confidence", as nothing more than an attachment to your personal predilections... i.e., as meaningless as your interpretation. And the irony is thick in this thread, as the OP's silver bullet geo-engineering concept is, in itself, an adaptation approach... ]

I prefer adaption because:

1) Adaptation is local - no global agreements required and no problem with freeloaders/cheaters; [waldo: this is an incredibly naive statement, notwithstanding its isolated focus on effect, rather than cause. The environment is not local, oceans are not local, the atmosphere is not local, etc.. It's also predicated on an acceptance that developing/smaller nations will not be able to adapt given the absence of global assistance; developing/smaller nations where adaptation capacity is often the lowest and needs are the highest - too bad, so sad for them! And, of course, you play out one of your favourite go-to's: freeloaders/cheaters! Of course you do, in spite of repeatedly being shown the stringent auditing approaches integrated into global agreements.]

2) Adaptation only requires deployment of tech that we already use to protect against the vagaries of weather - so it is lower risk; [waldo: outside of being such an ignorant comment, your accommodation to the "vagaries of weather" is a real testament to the heights of your hypocrisy... you're the guy who steadfastly refuses to accept changing weather ties to climate change - oh my! That you would imply there are no technology gaps associated with adaptation is a true reflection on your blow-hardiness, on your know-nothingness!]

3) Adaptation is incremental. Every little bit helps. CO2 mitigation is all or nothing - i.e. if we don't cut CO2 by enough we will still need to spend on adaption. [waldo: riddle me this: in the face of limited funding scenarios, as adaptation costs are emissions dependent, how do you reconcile an iterative adaptation only approach to ever increasing global temperatures? How many iterations, how many... increments in your view to target effects only in the absence of causal mitigation? Those with any understanding don't propose, as you imply, a mitigation only strategy; rather, what is needed quite obviously is a 3-pronged strategy of prevention, adaptation and mitigation.]

4) Many specific examples of CO2 mitigation are virtue signalling exercises that have no chance of achieving their stated goal - this means I have little confidence that governments are capable providing incentives that actually reduce *global* CO2 emissions. [waldo: you've repeatedly been shown how various policy approaches have acted to reduce country/localized specific emissions - you simply choose to ignore them, over and over again. And yet you have all the confidence in governments capability to manage incremental/iterative adaptation in the face of completely ignoring rising global emissions and rising global temperatures - how self-serving and selective to your fossil-fuel BigOil allegiance - yes?]
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 27, 2017, 08:30:07 am
You've got how many gazillions of cars & power plants on the planet pumping out CO2 constantly for the last century.  How many of these CO2 removal devices would be needed??
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 27, 2017, 08:37:15 am
And that presumes the incremental benefit of deploying such devices is the best use of resources. It is likely that cost-benefit analysis would establish that directing resources to adaptation makes more economic sense than spending various technical hail marys that will most likely never accomplish their stated goals.

What's the cost efficiency of however many species going extinct because of climate change?

At this point I think it's fine if the next few generations of humans have to see hundreds of millions of people die or see reduced standard of living or shortened lives due to reduced standard of living in order to now screw up the planet royally.  It's pretty selfish of our generations of people to harm the planet so badly for our own wants & needs.  You can't replace species & habitats, without going all Jurassic Park.  The earth could use a good human culling anyways.   :-\
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: kimmy on November 27, 2017, 09:16:42 am
What's the cost efficiency of however many species going extinct because of climate change?

Cost efficiency: what would be the benefits of spending say $1 billion on this kind of technology, vs the benefits of spending $1 billion on replacing outdated coal-burning equipment with new facilities based on cleaner power sources. The founder of this company himself says right now the more effective use of resources would be to deal with existing sources of emissions:

Quote
“You might say it’s against my self-interest to say it, but I think that, in the near term, talking about carbon removal is silly,” David Keith, the founder of Carbon Engineering, who teaches energy and public policy at Harvard, told me. “Because it almost certainly is cheaper to cut emissions now than to do large-scale carbon removal.”

So this is certainly an interesting technology and in the future it could be important.  But for the time being if the goal is reducing net emissions then the best cost/benefit ratio would come from cleaning up existing sources.

 -k
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2017, 09:30:22 am
You've got how many gazillions of cars & power plants on the planet pumping out CO2 constantly for the last century.  How many of these CO2 removal devices would be needed??

100 million, apparently.  Each the size of a semi trailer.

Can we use your yard?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2017, 02:54:52 pm
So this is certainly an interesting technology and in the future it could be important.  But for the time being if the goal is reducing net emissions then the best cost/benefit ratio would come from cleaning up existing sources.
Or not spending it at all because the problem will be addressed through normal human responses to change. All of the heated rhetoric over climate change mirrors the rhetoric over 'overpopulation/resource exhaustion' in the past. It disappeared as an issue because no one predicted how human populations would react to increases in wealth. I suspect something similar will happen with adaptation as populations adjust.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2017, 03:25:35 pm
in spite of repeatedly being shown the stringent auditing approaches integrated into global agreement
Global agreements like Paris are meaningless virtue signaling exercises because they presume various regimes that are already rife with corruption and unable to enforce their existing laws will suddenly be able do because they signed an "agreement". This is in a world where the CO2 obsessed EU regulators turned a blind eye while their own carmakers evaded the spirit of the regulations. The only one who naive is you because you seem to think that such a global monitoring effort is remotely plausible given the governments that exist in the real world.

the "vagaries of weather" is a real testament to the heights of your hypocrisy
The only issue here is your inability to understand logic. Asserting that there is no evidence that climate change is having a measureable effect on the weather today does not contradict the assertion that climate change effects in the future will largely be weather related. The lack of any credible link today is one of the reasons why adaptation makes more sense.

how do you reconcile an iterative adaptation only approach to ever increasing global temperatures?
Mitigation when it focuses on cost effective technologies that can actually meet the needs of human populations can still be pursued. What has to go are arbitrary targets that everyone knows will not be met and only serve and an excuse for various rent seekers looking to profit from dumb government decisions made because of the false belief that CO2 reduction targets are a priority.

you've repeatedly been shown how various policy approaches have acted to reduce country/localized specific emissions
But *local* emission reductions are largely pointless exercises. The atmosphere does not care if the UK or Canada reduces emissions by 20% if the emissions from China and India increase by 10x that amount in absolute terms. That is why I said that emissions reductions are all or nothing. Either everyone reduces emission or anyone who does reduce emissions make sacrifices for nothing. With adaptation societies look after themselves. That is the way it always has been and always should be.

The last point does not mean charity should not be offered to countries lacking the resources to deal with the effects on their own, however, it will be necessary to guard against opportunists who claim spurious connections to climate change in order access money that would not be offered otherwise.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 27, 2017, 04:45:03 pm
Or not spending it at all because the problem will be addressed through normal human responses to change. All of the heated rhetoric over climate change mirrors the rhetoric over 'overpopulation/resource exhaustion' in the past. It disappeared as an issue because no one predicted how human populations would react to increases in wealth. I suspect something similar will happen with adaptation as populations adjust.

I have a lot of faith that humans can adjust to CC, but at what cost? Not talking about money cost here, but irreversible environmental change & destruction.  We've not seen an extinction rate like this for a very long time, humans can adapt but many other species can't.  Leveling massive acres of grassland habitats for mono-crop farming or suburban subdivisions is one thing, but altering the virtual entirety of the earth's climates & causing a significant # of extinction is quite another.

It's a purely subjective philosophical question, but at what point does humans species' standard of living became less/more important than the very existence of so many other species?  We've already done quite a number of quite a few amazing species, through cutting down rainforest yada yada.  What makes us so damn special to give us this right?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2017, 04:46:48 pm
I have a lot of faith that humans can adjust to CC, but at what cost? Not talking about money cost here, but irreversible environmental change & destruction.  We've not seen an extinction rate like this for a very long time, humans can adapt but many other species can't.  Leveling massive acres of grassland habitats for mono-crop farming or suburban subdivisions is one thing, but altering the virtual entirety of the earth's climates & causing a significant # of extinction is quite another.

It's a purely subjective philosophical question, but at what point does humans species' standard of living became less/more important than the very existence of so many other species?  We've already done quite a number of quite a few amazing species, through cutting down rainforest yada yada.  What makes us so damn special to give us this right?

There are a lot of species who will survive us if we don't get our shit together on this issue. They will probably haappy to see us gone.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 27, 2017, 04:50:08 pm
There are a lot of species who will survive us if we don't get our shit together on this issue. They will probably haappy to see us gone.

I think human extinction from CC is a massive over-exaggeration.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2017, 04:55:13 pm
Or not spending it at all because the problem will be addressed through normal human responses to change. All of the heated rhetoric over climate change mirrors the rhetoric over 'overpopulation/resource exhaustion' in the past. It disappeared as an issue because no one predicted how human populations would react to increases in wealth. I suspect something similar will happen with adaptation as populations adjust.

Hopefully the human response that is now underway in response to the relatively recent change of having a billion cars driving around each day spewing lots of dangerous emissions, as well as that idiot south of the border who thinks re-opening coal mines is a smart thing to do, will continue. Luckily, even though Trump walked away from Paris, putting the US in the company of Syria and Nicaragua, many of the higher powered business people have said they will adopt the main principles of the accord regardless.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: guest4 on November 27, 2017, 05:26:01 pm
I think human extinction from CC is a massive over-exaggeration.

I don't think we would be entirely wiped out but could be reduced by aboit 70%.   I think innovation and mitigation will come, but not in time to save everyone.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 28, 2017, 07:12:15 am
I don't think we would be entirely wiped out but could be reduced by aboit 70%.   I think innovation and mitigation will come, but not in time to save everyone.
Come on. Even alarmist economists estimate the *devastating* effects of climate change will be 5% of GDP in 2100 which translates into trillions of dollars if you don't use a reasonable discount rate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review). The idea that climate change will reduce population by 70% is ridiculous. Unfounded statements like that is why many people think it is all a big scam.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2017, 10:08:02 am
oh my! I'm shocked you cherry-picked what parts of my reply you'd actually respond to... shocked I tells ya! I guess everything else was just a tad too inconvenient for you.

Global agreements like Paris are meaningless virtue signaling exercises because they presume various regimes that are already rife with corruption and unable to enforce their existing laws will suddenly be able do because they signed an "agreement". This is in a world where the CO2 obsessed EU regulators turned a blind eye while their own carmakers evaded the spirit of the regulations. The only one who naive is you because you seem to think that such a global monitoring effort is remotely plausible given the governments that exist in the real world.

are you categorically stating that there are no independent means to monitor country specific emissions output... that there are no existing countries/group of countries doing exactly that today? Care to highlight where there are gaps in this current deployed technology monitoring/verification undertaking and which countries, in particular, which specific key country lags in its participation. C'mon, step out from behind your agenda and speak to reality - this is a defined "Technical Solutions" thread after all, hey!

The only issue here is your inability to understand logic. Asserting that there is no evidence that climate change is having a measureable effect on the weather today does not contradict the assertion that climate change effects in the future will largely be weather related. The lack of any credible link today is one of the reasons why adaptation makes more sense.
 
no - there are measurable effects today - simply because you don't accept them, doesn't allow you to ignore/negate them. But your reply here is rich, even coming from you! You are a flat-out denier in refusing to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/'climate-change'; here in this reply of yours, this is simply you slipping into that somewhat stealthy-denying strategy of "do nothing/delay today" while fronting your adaptation only hobby-horse! You presume to pronounce adaptation as incremental... yet you posit "some future" need for adaptation based on the, as you state, "vagaries of weather" and that "somewhere, at some future time", adaptation will be required. You really should tie-off your summary paragraphs with a Trumpian, "believe me"!

Mitigation when it focuses on cost effective technologies that can actually meet the needs of human populations can still be pursued. What has to go are arbitrary targets that everyone knows will not be met and only serve and an excuse for various rent seekers looking to profit from dumb government decisions made because of the false belief that CO2 reduction targets are a priority.
 
WTF! You were asked, "as adaptation costs are emissions dependent, how do you reconcile an iterative adaptation only approach to ever increasing global temperatures? How many iterations, how many... increments in your view to target effects only in the absence of causal mitigation?" - you even quoted it in your reply! So why when asked about your statements on adaptation do you revert to this reply of yours speaking to mitigation? Again, WTF! Notwithstanding your continued BS harping on "rent seekers" and false/arbitrary emission reduction targets...

But *local* emission reductions are largely pointless exercises. The atmosphere does not care if the UK or Canada reduces emissions by 20% if the emissions from China and India increase by 10x that amount in absolute terms. That is why I said that emissions reductions are all or nothing. Either everyone reduces emission or anyone who does reduce emissions make sacrifices for nothing. With adaptation societies look after themselves. That is the way it always has been and always should be.

The last point does not mean charity should not be offered to countries lacking the resources to deal with the effects on their own, however, it will be necessary to guard against opportunists who claim spurious connections to climate change in order access money that would not be offered otherwise.
 
no - although you typically go mute when shown the results of successful deployed policy/programs that can and have shown reduced emissions, they're typically provided to you simply because you repeatedly spout off that, "it just can't be done"! At least here in your declaring them as "pointless exercises", you're finally acknowledging them! You have the gall to posture over the absence of an implemented global agreement while at the same time perpetually declaring they're all "useless and arbitrary undertakings" - of course you do! And again, you're either completely blindingly naive or purposely disingenuous in not recognizing the global impacts of climate change on your presumed, "in isolation, every individual country looks after its own adaptation requirements to climate change".
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: guest4 on November 28, 2017, 03:33:37 pm
Come on. Even alarmist economists estimate the *devastating* effects of climate change will be 5% of GDP in 2100 which translates into trillions of dollars if you don't use a reasonable discount rate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review). The idea that climate change will reduce population by 70% is ridiculous. Unfounded statements like that is why many people think it is all a big scam.

What does GDP have to do with people dying from extreme weather, food scarcity and resultinf conflict and diseases?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/heatwaves-climate-change-global-warming/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deaths-year-climate-change-global-warming-extreme-weather-events-2100-150000-a7877461.html

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/conflict-and-climate-change-lead-to-a-rise-in-global-hunger/87135

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

I understand you'll reject all of this as alarmist nonsense, which may be true; I hope so.   

But what if the band of disbeliebers represented through your arguments are the ones that are wrong?  What if we could have "made it" starting with innovation that is occurring now but because disbelievers such as yourself and Trump keep rejecting it, we don't and that 70% of humanity does die off?  What good is GDP or stamdard.of living then?  Does that ever cross your mind as a possibilty?  Or are you so utterly certain that you are right, despite the experts predicting decades ago what is now happening?

In 2006 the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" talked about the flooding of New York right up to the site of the Twin Towers due to sea level rise.  People scoffed.  But in 2012 it happened.   That is just one example of how the predicted effects of climate change are happening now. 

I guess it baffles me how one can literally watch as the experts predictions come true while saying "It's not happening/not going to be nearly as bad as predicted and we have no choice but to maintain our fossil fuel based economy." 
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2017, 07:29:11 am
What does GDP have to do with people dying from extreme weather, food scarcity and resultinf conflict and diseases?
GDP measures those things. Large population drops will result in large GDP drops.

But what if the band of disbeliebers represented through your arguments are the ones that are wrong?
Fair question. And for what it is worth I ask myself the same question. The way to deal with this uncertainty is try to find approaches that make sense no matter what the future will be. For example, EV cars make a lot of sense if they can be made technically viable so encouraging the use of EVs is a useful government policy despite the fact that I believe the technology is not ready yet and may never be ready. However, messing up our power grid by effectively outlawing the construction of new baseload (coal, hydro, gas or nuclear) is extremely harmful and should be rejected. Arbitrary CO2 reduction targets are also harmful policies because they encourage governments to waste resources pretending to meet targets rather than focusing on actual improvments.

What if we could have "made it" starting with innovation that is occurring now
2 can play at that game: what I am and right and aggressive policies don't work AND drive the global economy into a deep recession which results in much greater harm than would have occurred if those resources had been focused on adaptation rather than mitigation?

In 2006 the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" talked about the flooding of New York right up to the site of the Twin Towers due to sea level rise.  People scoffed.  But in 2012 it happened.   That is just one example of how the predicted effects of climate change are happening now.
Sandy was a storm that happened before and will happen again. It is delusional to suggest that the damage was materially different because of some unmeasurable influence from the slight warming to date. People who claim that very bad weather event is "caused by climate change" are intellectually no different from the people in the past claiming their cow died because the unmarried old woman (a.k.a. witch) cast a spell. IOW - it is scapegoating.

I guess it baffles me how one can literally watch as the experts predictions come true
Because they are not coming true. You suffer from confirmation bias where you think a media article that tells you what you want to hear is the only valid opinion on a topic. Lets look at Sandy again to better understand how complex the entire attribution problem is. Let's start with a link to a source you should fine reasonably credible:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/repository/entry/show/PSD+Climate+Data+Repository/Public/Interpreting+Climate+Conditions+-+Case+Studies/Climate+Change+and+Hurricane+Sandy?entryid=98c8065f-d639-496a-a684-fe4762e1d1be

Now the NOAA says two important things:

1) They affirm my statements that there is no evidence that climate climate change has not increased the number of hurricanes nor will they necessarily increase in the future.

2) They note that SLR is the only factor that might have influenced the damage done by Sandy but they also note that a portion of the SLR has nothing to do with AWG.

The NOAA does not state (but they should have) is the SLR is less than the daily tide and the storm surge happened to coincide with an abnormally high tide so was the surge caused by climate change or the non-AGW portion of the SLR or the high tide? Take any one of those away and the damage would have been a lot less.

To muddy the waters further there is evidence that similar surges occurred in the past (e.g. 1821):
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07366

Now it goes without saying that waldo will likely respond with a bunch of verbiage claiming that there is no uncertainty but actual scientists like the ones at NOAA do not share the faux certainty of the alarmists.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2017, 04:23:40 am
oh my! I'm shocked you cherry-picked what parts of my reply you'd actually respond to... shocked I tells ya! I guess everything else was just a tad too inconvenient for you.

hey TimG... apparently... my last post is also a tad too inconvenient for you to respond to, hey! Runway, runaway...
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2017, 04:26:42 am
Now it goes without saying that waldo will likely respond with a bunch of verbiage claiming that there is no uncertainty but actual scientists like the ones at NOAA do not share the faux certainty of the alarmists.

the waldo takes no solace in realizing just how much he is in your head... how much he rustles your jimmies!  ;D

Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2017, 04:32:19 am
However, messing up our power grid by effectively outlawing the construction of new baseload (coal, hydro, gas or nuclear) is extremely harmful and should be rejected. Arbitrary CO2 reduction targets are also harmful policies because they encourage governments to waste resources pretending to meet targets rather than focusing on actual improvments.
which countries have, in your word, "outlawed" hydro or gas? Should so-called "next gen" nuclear come forward and prove itself, expectations are that it will become more acceptable to those country/governments who policy shifted away from nuclear given the devastation associated with the Fukushima disaster. Please say outright that you're a proponent of "clean coal"... just say it; sure you can!  ;D 

2 can play at that game: what I am and right and aggressive policies don't work AND drive the global economy into a deep recession which results in much greater harm than would have occurred if those resources had been focused on adaptation rather than mitigation?
c'mon, you mean your interpretations of - not whether you personally are right or wrong! Your prior post shows just how vague your "adaptation only" nonsense is - you project it in terms of some uncertain and imprecise futures requirement; something that clearly plays to your, again, "do nothing today, delay at all costs". Except that latest revelation of yours is that you used to only speak of, "do nothing/delay", in terms of mitigation... now you've applied it to your nebulous ramblings on adaptation as well. Geezaz!

People who claim that very bad weather event is "caused by climate change" are intellectually no different from the people in the past claiming their cow died because the unmarried old woman (a.k.a. witch) cast a spell. IOW - it is scapegoating.
you sir, you are intellectually dishonest in how you continue to play out and leverage public perceptions on causal ties to extreme weather events. Of course, general public perceptions are typically influenced by lazy journalism and the absence/diminishment of good scientific writing for the layperson. If you had any semblance of honesty in this regard you would acknowledge that the majority of scientists working in related disciplines are most cautious in attributing any single extreme event to any singular causal tie... but most certainly include AGW/climate change as a contributing influence/factor in most extreme weather events.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2017, 04:37:26 am
now member TimG, let's be clear here. You have taken extreme liberties in posturing with your linked article; specifically you state, "NOAA says"... "The NOAA does not state"... while speaking for, as you say, "actual scientists like the ones at NOAA", etc. Somehow you missed the disclaimer attached to your own linked article; this disclaimer:
Quote
Disclaimer: This draft is an evolving research assessment and not a final report. The analyses presented have not yet been peer reviewed and do not represent official positions of ESRL, NOAA, or DOC.

I've not been able to find a final published peer-reviewed version of your linked article and am willing to state one doesn't exist - certainly you can prove me wrong - yes? Now, although your linked article's author is, for the most part accepting of AGW and impacts on climate change, he takes a most significant departure in regards certain extreme events like hurricanes and (most) droughts; and accordingly, has become somewhat the go-to reference for "skeptics/contrarians"... particularly those willing to ignore his overall acceptance of AGW.

Speaking of: Contrarian NOAA Meteorologist Martin Hoerling: Freak Heat Wave ‘A Darn Good Outcome’ --- https://thinkprogress.org/contrarian-noaa-meteorologist-martin-hoerling-freak-heat-wave-a-darn-good-outcome-764f7f03f0db/ (https://thinkprogress.org/contrarian-noaa-meteorologist-martin-hoerling-freak-heat-wave-a-darn-good-outcome-764f7f03f0db/)
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2017, 04:43:56 am
Sandy was a storm that happened before and will happen again. It is delusional to suggest that the damage was materially different because of some unmeasurable influence from the slight warming to date.

Lets look at Sandy again to better understand how complex the entire attribution problem is. Let's start with a link to a source you should fine reasonably credible:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/repository/entry/show/PSD+Climate+Data+Repository/Public/Interpreting+Climate+Conditions+-+Case+Studies/Climate+Change+and+Hurricane+Sandy?entryid=98c8065f-d639-496a-a684-fe4762e1d1be

Now the NOAA says two important things:

1) They affirm my statements that there is no evidence that climate climate change has not increased the number of hurricanes nor will they necessarily increase in the future.

2) They note that SLR is the only factor that might have influenced the damage done by Sandy but they also note that a portion of the SLR has nothing to do with AWG.

The NOAA does not state (but they should have) is the SLR is less than the daily tide and the storm surge happened to coincide with an abnormally high tide so was the surge caused by climate change or the non-AGW portion of the SLR or the high tide? Take any one of those away and the damage would have been a lot less.
having put the appropriate perspective on your linked author/article reference and false statements/claims, you so ignorantly miss the most salient point concerning Hurricane Sandy; i.e., what caused its most dramatic tracking shift from a continued north-easterly trajectory where it would have normally diminished under a cold water influence... to a westward tracking turn that ran counter to more than a century of Northeastern history? Notwithstanding the abnormally warmer ocean water off the eastern coast, consensus attribution for the dramatic and radical western turn is one associated with "Greenland blocking"... notwithstanding impacts became an issue of "storm surge" rather than your misplaced references to SLR (sea level rise).

- Climate change and extreme weather linked to high pressure over Greenland --- https://phys.org/news/2016-04-climate-extreme-weather-linked-high.html (https://phys.org/news/2016-04-climate-extreme-weather-linked-high.html)

- A climatological assessment of Greenland blocking conditions associated with the track of Hurricane Sandy and historical North Atlantic hurricanes --- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4018/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4018/abstract)

now I do find one quote from your linked article's author somewhat interesting, somewhat telling in the context of your misinterpretation and improper summary statements on SLR; specifically... it's one where your linked author actually speaks to surge and SLR in the same statement:
Quote
"HOERLING: There is a nice historical record of the tide level at the Battery just below Manhattan that goes back to 1850s. And that time series, which is fairly complete up to current, shows a rise in the total sea level of about one foot in the 150 years of that record. Now, we have 14-foot rise related to Sandy. So one foot out of 14 may not be something that is critical. But it may very well be in the sense that that last foot maybe the foot that moved the water into very prone areas."
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 06, 2017, 10:39:52 pm
having put the appropriate perspective on your linked author/article reference and false statements/claims, you so ignorantly miss the most salient point concerning Hurricane Sandy;
This harping on completely irrelevant details while ignoring the main points presented is your modus operandi. You depend on it for your pointless declarations that any argument you disagree with 'refuted' simply because you can't deal with the substance of the arguments presented. In this case the substance is the NOAA quite clearly states there is no evidence that climate change is affecting the number of storms and the only possible climate change effect is the change in sea level but even that effect is debatable for the reasons related to the tides and historical records (as unreliable as they are). The  argument trying to link a single storm event to pressure changes over Greenland stinks of post hoc rationalization and would require decades more of data before it could be considered to be credible link. It certainly cannot refute the points that the NOAA did make.

One of the aspects of these forums that you don't seem to understand is no matter how many links you post to carefully selected blogs and newspaper articles you are only presenting someone else's opinion. This is true even if you cherry pick some peer reviewed papers where the caveats and limitations of the analysis are usually not available in the public abstracts.  I have stopped posting my own links because I realized their is no point with these topics because most readers do not have the desire or ability to assess each link on the merits of the argument and instead rely on tribal affiliation to determine which sources to treat as credible (In the past, I was naive and believed that most people were interested in understanding different POVs rather than simply seeking affirmation of positions they already hold).

Ironically - I believe you know that too which is why you try to overwhelm any dissent from your AGW religion with volumes text knowing that many people will not read it carefully and are only looking for an excuse to ignore information that may require them to rethink their position.

Personally, I have no idea what the consequences will be from CO2 but I have so much contempt for the field of climate science because of their obsession with enforcing a "consensus" for political reasons that I do not believe that scientists working in the field are capable of providing a honest assessment of the state of knowledge. I also suspect that the CO2 will disappear as an issue in the same way that the 'population bomb' disappeared as an issue in the 70-80s. i.e. a combination of improvements in technology and unexpected social change eliminated the problem without any special intervention by governments.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on December 07, 2017, 12:21:15 am
This harping on completely irrelevant details while ignoring the main points presented is your modus operandi. You depend on it for your pointless declarations that any argument you disagree with 'refuted' simply because you can't deal with the substance of the arguments presented. In this case the substance is the NOAA quite clearly states there is no evidence that climate change is affecting the number of storms and the only possible climate change effect is the change in sea level but even that effect is debatable for the reasons related to the tides and historical records (as unreliable as they are). The  argument trying to link a single storm event to pressure changes over Greenland stinks of post hoc rationalization and would require decades more of data before it could be considered to be credible link. It certainly cannot refute the points that the NOAA did make.

One of the aspects of these forums that you don't seem to understand is no matter how many links you post to carefully selected blogs and newspaper articles you are only presenting someone else's opinion.

no - I quoted the caveat attached to your linked article... it most certainly is not "the NOAA"... it's simply a non-peer reviewed draft article; I noted as much and challenged you to present an actual journal published version of it. So, where is it? Would you like that caveat re-quoted for you? What in this disclaimer gives you the continued audacity to emphasize your interpretation as associated with, "the NOAA"?

Quote
the attached disclaimer that member TimG refuses to accept/acknowledge: This draft is an evolving research assessment and not a final report. The analyses presented have not yet been peer reviewed and do not represent official positions of ESRL, NOAA, or DOC.

You put all your fake-skeptic emphasis on SLR, while ignoring the actual damaging aspect - that of storm surge. Notwithstanding, you now choose to ignore the impact of Greenland --- riddle me this: what caused the hurricane to dramatically shift from its, per typical/per norm, northeast tracking? What caused that, hey! It was heading into cold(er) water and would have dissipated, per norm... what caused it to shift westerly - dramatically west? Why so quiet on that front, hey?

you keep beaking off about the "number" of storms - even having the audacity to state, "the NOAA agrees with you"  ;D As you know, there isn't a scientific body/group (or individuals, as I'm aware) that suggests frequency of hurricanes has been affected. For some strange reason you keep harping on this yet have (purposely) ignored intensity - why so, hey! I mean, other than being the disingenuous denier that you are.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: waldo on December 07, 2017, 12:31:19 am
Personally, I have no idea what the consequences will be from CO2 but I have so much contempt for the field of climate science because of their obsession with enforcing a "consensus" for political reasons that I do not believe that scientists working in the field are capable of providing a honest assessment of the state of knowledge. I also suspect that the CO2 will disappear as an issue in the same way that the 'population bomb' disappeared as an issue in the 70-80s. i.e. a combination of improvements in technology and unexpected social change eliminated the problem without any special intervention by governments.

you have no idea of the consequences? Really? That sure hasn't stopped you from denying that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/climate change. You're a one-trick pony with your perpetual denigration of the collective world-wide body of scientists. You've been repeatedly challenged to "name your names" - name the rogues gallery that you pin your denial around... that emboldens you to ignore the need for mitigation... that you rely upon to champion your, "do nothing/delay at all costs" agenda? Just name the names - sure you can! As I've stated, even if you drop a half-dozen or so names... go for a dozen even... what about the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who dedicate their lives to science without regard to your fake narrative about politicization?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: cybercoma on December 07, 2017, 06:28:06 am
I noted as much and challenged you to present an actual journal published version of
Scientific peer review is a scam! It’s how climate alarmists push their agenda and keep out dissenting viewpoints! /s
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: cybercoma on December 07, 2017, 06:30:22 am
you have no idea of the consequences? Really?
Tim believes you can’t ever know he consequences until something happens. He doesn’t believe in science because it deals in likelihoods. In other words, Tim would step in front of a truck on the highway because you can’t truly know what will happen, then deal with the consequences later. That’s his approach to climate science.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 07:52:24 am
Tim believes you can’t ever know he consequences until something happens. He doesn’t believe in science because it deals in likelihoods. In other words, Tim would step in front of a truck on the highway because you can’t truly know what will happen, then deal with the consequences later. That’s his approach to climate science.
Holy Strawman Batman! The problem the AWG religion followers is they don't acknowledge the uncertainty. They claim that catastrophic consequences are a foregone conclusion or they plug a random number out of a hat (i.e. use a computer model that is completely depended on numerous assumptions about unknowns) and claim this random number is a a definitive statement of the probability of catastrophic consequences. At the same time these same alarmists refuse to consider that their pet policies have negative consequences too and ignore or minimize them.

IOW - you don't give a damn about the science of 'probabilities' or have any appreciation for how little we really know. You have simply decided what conclusion you like and ignore any thing that suggests that your pet conclusions is not necessarily reasonable and label anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your pet conclusions as 'anti-science'.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: cybercoma on December 07, 2017, 10:21:29 am
Don’t talk about logical fallacies then come at me with “AGW religion.” You’re clueless.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 01:06:36 pm
Don’t talk about logical fallacies then come at me with “AGW religion.” You’re clueless.
AGW is a modern day religion complete with dogma (reduction targets, solar/wind) and rituals (indulgences a.k.a carbon offsets). I would love to have a discussion with people who actually care about the science instead of proselytizing but they are few and far between.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 01:11:23 pm
AGW is a modern day religion complete with dogma (reduction targets, solar/wind) and rituals (indulgences a.k.a carbon offsets). I would love to have a discussion with people who actually care about the science instead of proselytizing but they are few and far between.

Around 93% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring so you shouldn't have trouble finding one. The main difference between the experts is how fast it is happening. 
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 02:09:00 pm
Around 93% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring so you shouldn't have trouble finding one. The main difference between the experts is how fast it is happening.
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

First: I have never said that AGW is not occurring yet you repeat this nonsense because it allows you pretend I am more unreasonable that I am and provide an excuse so you can refuse to to look at the arguments I actually make.

Second: how often do you take the predictions of 'experts' as truth when it comes to economics? Most people do not. Yet all of the claims of consequences from AGW are based on economic computer models. Yet people like you seem to expect people to treat these predictions as "truth" simply because the byline says 'climate' instead of 'economics'? Why should I treat the opinions of self defined experts as facts?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 03:07:08 pm
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

First: I have never said that AGW is not occurring yet you repeat this nonsense because it allows you pretend I am more unreasonable that I am and provide an excuse so you can refuse to to look at the arguments I actually make.

Second: how often do you take the predictions of 'experts' as truth when it comes to economics? Most people do not. Yet all of the claims of consequences from AGW are based on economic computer models. Yet people like you seem to expect people to treat these predictions as "truth" simply because the byline says 'climate' instead of 'economics'? Why should I treat the opinions of self defined experts as facts?

First, the arguments you attempt to make seem to simply contradict that you do believe the scientists who study climate science. And trying to conflate economics to climate change isn't much of an argument. We all know that economic predictions are all over the map and based largely on guesswork. Hard to predict how and when and why people will open their wallets for instance. Science is more based on what is actually happening. And with climate science  for instance, it's observing  satellite photos which show how much of the arctic ice cap is not there any more, or how fast the Greenland glacier is melting. None of that is not based on speculation. it's based on fact. As I previously said there are some differences among climate scientists as to best methods for trying to fix the problem, but there is consensus that it is happening.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 06:24:17 pm
And trying to conflate economics to climate change isn't much of an argument.
ROTFL - you really have no clue how climate scientists come up with their projections do you? Any claim of a model that estimates future consequences is first and foremost an economic model because the consequences are a question of economics. IOW - you must agree that "climate projections" are nothing but guesswork since you conceded that is all that economic  models are. This is progress.

As I previously said there are some differences among climate scientists as to best methods for trying to fix the problem, but there is consensus that it is happening.
The opinion of climate scientists on what to do is as relevant as the opinion of a bus driver because they do not have the engineering knowledge required to determine what is the most cost effective course of action. And given the fact that we agree that predictions of future consequences are nothing but guesswork that puts some limits on how much hardship we should endure today to deal with the problem.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 pm
ROTFL - you really have no clue how climate scientists come up with their projections do you? Any claim of a model that estimates future consequences is first and foremost an economic model because the consequences are a question of economics. IOW - you must agree that "climate projections" are nothing but guesswork since you conceded that is all that economic  models are. This is progress.
The opinion of climate scientists on what to do is as relevant as the opinion of a bus driver because they do not have the engineering knowledge required to determine what is the most cost effective course of action. And given the fact that we agree that predictions of future consequences are nothing but guesswork that puts some limits on how much hardship we should endure today to deal with the problem.

I see you didn't bother to read the article I linked. Typical of those who don't like to find out they're wrong. Your second notion is quite simple to unravel as well, the scientists educate the engineers on what needs to be achieved and let them then use their knowledge to effect it. Here's a simple example: let's say your driving home and steam starts to emanate from under the hood, you can determine something is wrong but you're not mechanically inclined, so what would YOU do? Pull into a garage and let a mechanic fix the problem.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 07:54:45 pm
I see you didn't bother to read the article I linked.
Skeptical Science is a propaganda blog. Nothing it says about the state of the science can be taken as accurate. The Cook paper referenced in the link is a pathetic joke that should have never passed peer review.

the scientists educate the engineers on what needs to be achieved and let them then use their knowledge to effect it.
Sure - scientists can say that CO2 needs to be reduced and when the engineers say it can't be done with the currently available technology at a cost that people would be willing to pay then that should be the end of the discussion. The opinion of climate scientists on what we should do is still completely irrelevant.

you can determine something is wrong but you're not mechanically inclined, so what would YOU do? Pull into a garage and let a mechanic fix the problem.
And if the mechanic says it is problem that might be a serious concern in 10 years but you can pay $5000 to rebuild the engine to fix it now or simply keep driving and hope for the best. What would you do?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 08:19:21 pm
Skeptical Science is a propaganda blog. Nothing it says about the state of the science can be taken as accurate. The Cook paper referenced in the link is a pathetic joke that should have never passed peer review.
Sure - scientists can say that CO2 needs to be reduced and when the engineers say it can't be done with the currently available technology at a cost that people would be willing to pay then that should be the end of the discussion. The opinion of climate scientists on what we should do is still completely irrelevant.
And if the mechanic says it is problem that might be a serious concern in 10 years but you can pay $5000 to rebuild the engine to fix it now or simply keep driving and hope for the best. What would you do?

Apparently you would ignore the expert, keep driving, and pay a hell of a lot more when it actually seized up on you.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 08:59:06 pm
Apparently you would ignore the expert, keep driving, and pay a hell of a lot more when it actually seized up on you.
You are assuming a lot things:

1) That I expect to be driving the car in 10 years;
2) That the cost of buying a new car after 10 years or so would be more expensive to me than paying 5K now.

It is a basic principal of investment that money paid out in the future is worth less than money paid out now. It is partially because money you have today can be invested so you will have more money in the future. In addition, incomes can rise over time so a 5K bill to a college student is an extraordinary burden but the 20K cost of a new car is affordable to someone with a stable job.

The analogy holds for adaption. It the Canadian economy continues to grow at about 2% per year it will double in size by 2050 so Canadians living in 2050 may find the cost of adapting to climate change effects less than the cost of trying to stop emissions today even if the dollar value is more. When you add the inevitable technological and social change and the huge uncertainty wrt the effects of warming it becomes very hard to justify making significant sacrifices today in the name reducing CO2 emissions.

 

Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: wilber on December 07, 2017, 09:02:22 pm
One difference, you can always junk the old car and buy a shiny new one. You can't do that with a planet.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 09:13:07 pm
One difference, you can always junk the old car and buy a shiny new one. You can't do that with a planet.
The planet does not care about CO2. It will be fine. The only reason CO2 is even a concern is because it might have an economic impact on human societies. Since we are dealing with economic questions an economic analysis is necessary but it can't be based on lunatic statements like the 'planet will be destroyed'.

FWIW: if the most dire claims about AGW come true we are screwed no matter what we do now. So the only real choice is to assume that the outcomes are manageable and think about the relative cost of spending money now vs. later.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 09:25:06 pm
The planet does not care about CO2. It will be fine. The only reason CO2 is even a concern is because it might have an economic impact on human societies. Since we are dealing with economic questions an economic analysis is necessary but it can't be based on lunatic statements like the 'planet will be destroyed'.

FWIW: if the most dire claims about AGW come true we are screwed no matter what we do now. So the only real choice is to assume that the outcomes are manageable and think about the relative cost of spending money now vs. later.

You're right, the planet doesn't care, and the planet can't do anything about it. We should care, and we can. Assuming is not acting.
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: TimG on December 07, 2017, 09:32:02 pm
We should care, and we can. Assuming is not acting.
What we should do has to based on rational assessment of cost-benefit. Engaging in expensive virtue signalling exercises that accomplish nothing useful is a waste. What makes it difficult is we have no real information on what the future costs might be which means it is impossible to justify major sacrifices today for any but the most risk adverse. 

Nuclear power is a useful example. It is a excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions but most environmentalist oppose it. That tells me that no matter what they claim about the possible outcomes from AGW they see it as less of a problem than dealing with nuclear power. IOW, if the people most concerned about AGW do not really see it as a big enough threat to justify the use of a reliable power source that they dislike then why should people less inclined to care about AGW worry about bad outcomes?
Title: Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
Post by: Omni on December 07, 2017, 10:00:56 pm
What we should do has to based on rational assessment of cost-benefit. Engaging in expensive virtue signalling exercises that accomplish nothing useful is a waste. What makes it difficult is we have no real information on what the future costs might be which means it is impossible to justify major sacrifices today for any but the most risk adverse. 

Nuclear power is a useful example. It is a excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions but most environmentalist oppose it. That tells me that no matter what they claim about the possible outcomes from AGW they see it as less of a problem than dealing with nuclear power. IOW, if the people most concerned about AGW do not really see it as a big enough threat to justify the use of a reliable power source that they dislike then why should people less inclined to care about AGW worry about bad outcomes?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-30/record-winds-in-germany-spur-free-electricity-at-weekend-chart
Germany recently produced enough wind power they were able to give consumers free power for a time is an example of how far renewable energy has come. Nukes are OK with me as well, unless they do such a silly job as the Japanese did with Fukushima. The success of renewable s seems to be well ahead of your concerns. We seem to just want to pollute the air until the last bbl. is sucked out of the ground and then we have no choice.