Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 438 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bcsapper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #15 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?
Time for bed said Zebedee...

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #16 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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #17 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.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 04:01:54 pm by TimG »

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #18 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?
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8045
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #19 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 **** together on this issue. They will probably haappy to see us gone.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2017, 04:50:08 pm »
There are a lot of species who will survive us if we don't get our **** together on this issue. They will probably haappy to see us gone.

I think human extinction from CC is a massive over-exaggeration.
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8045
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #21 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.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #22 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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #23 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.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #24 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".

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #25 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." 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #26 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.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #27 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...

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #28 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


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #29 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List