[Zipperfish]

Quote:

Quote:

The Bottom Line

The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.

I'd also like to see some evidence of anthropogenic forcing beyond anything we've seen in the natural world.

Ever seen this 4 part lecture series from Bob Carter?

...

It goes into what the geological data tells us. He's a geologist. Now people like Michael Mann might disagree with his facts, but Carter is a learned guy, and he's worth listening to. It's worth seeing the other side. Carter says nothing is happening as far as speed and force of change, we haven't seen before.

[/quote]

I'll have to check at home. I don't get youtube at work. I think neither Lindzen nor Mann know what the climate sensitivity is. Lindzen argues it's much less than 1; Mann says it's much more. I say that there is too much uncertainty to know. It's probably not even a constant.

Ergo my position. Don't tax or "cap and trade" carbon. Legislate carbon control for the "low hanging fruit"--maxmize effect for minimum economic disruption. Invest in some R&D for carbon sequestration, adpatation options. Wait and see what the climate does. Adapt as necessary.

[N_Fiddledog]

Quote:

Ergo my position. Don't tax or "cap and trade" carbon. Legislate carbon control for the "low hanging fruit"--maxmize effect for minimum economic disruption. Invest in some R&D for carbon sequestration, adpatation options. Wait and see what the climate does. Adapt as necessary.

Gee...I think we might actually agree on something. From a Canadian perspective, I don't even have a problem with the carbon sequestration R&D thing, providing we emphasize the research element, and look towards making an eventual profit with sale of technology. At present I like Harper's strategy, of baby-steps while waiting to see what the rest of the world is going to do. I also like the idea of looking for economically viable alternate energies, providing they don't - like what biofuels have done so far - create more problems than they're supposed to solve.

It's funny; we seem to agree on the necessary response to the climate issue, but disagree on the little incidentals of how we get to the conclusion.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Gee...I think we might actually agree on something. From a Canadian perspective, I don't even have a problem with the carbon sequestration R&D thing, providing we emphasize the research element, and look towards making an eventual profit with sale of technology. At present I like Harper's strategy, of baby-steps while waiting to see what the rest of the world is going to do. I also like the idea of looking for economically viable alternate energies, providing they don't - like what biofuels have done so far - create more problems than they're supposed to solve.

It's funny; we seem to agree on the necessary response to the climate issue, but disagree on the little incidentals of how we get to the conclusion.

I just like arguing. I'm pretty sure we both do.

I don't think wind, solar, tidal and geothermal, etc, will ever be more than scribbling in the margins. The only other viable option at this time is nuclear fission. And if we did that we'd only have enough uranium for maybe fifty years. I'm with Bart on this one--time to stop pussyfooting around and go big: nuclear fusion and/or a 100-km diameter space-based solar array in space that microwaves power to earth.

Biofuels suck. Same with ethanol based fuel.

[N_Fiddledog]

And here's where we part company, I bet. For now, I like Sarah Palin's "all of the above" strategy for energy use including fossils, and exploration of alternatives for the future. Basically though the ones that make economic sense now, or look like they could in the future with a little encouragement.

CO2 doesn't scare me. I like my Pepsi fizzy.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

And here's where we part company, I bet. For now, I like Sarah Palin's "all of the above" strategy for energy use including fossils, and exploration of alternatives for the future. Basically though the ones that make economic sense now, or look like they could in the future with a little encouragement.

CO2 doesn't scare me. I like my Pepsi fizzy.

Oh there's other challenges ahead for oil besdeis global warming. There's peak oil, if you buy that. There's teh thermodynamic limit (where it takes more than a barrel full of oil's energy to process a barrel full of oil). There's the geopolitical aspects i.e. the Middle East).

No matter which way you look at it, the price will rise over time as the population of the planet increases and available resources decrease.

The options like fusion and space based solar will probably look better two or three decades down the road.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

No matter which way you look at it, the price will rise over time as the population of the planet increases

Every projection I've read has the global population peaking at 9 billion around 2030-2050 and then declining down to around 5 billion by 2100.

Add to that the Norwegian fellow whose abiotic oil theory has led to oil discoveries in places where biotic oil is impossible and the probablity is that we may not see 'peak oil' anytime in the next 500 years.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

No matter which way you look at it, the price will rise over time as the population of the planet increases

Every projection I've read has the global population peaking at 9 billion around 2030-2050 and then declining down to around 5 billion by 2100.

Add to that the Norwegian fellow whose abiotic oil theory has led to oil discoveries in places where biotic oil is impossible and the probablity is that we may not see 'peak oil' anytime in the next 500 years.

yeah--that';s about what I've heard. The thing is that according to one source (a pretty good doucmentary called "Crude Awkening" about peak oil), the planet can only sustaion about four billion without cheap energy. In other words, two billion people on this planet are only alive today because of cheap oil and all it affords (energy, pesticides, plastics, etc).

The abiotic oil thing is a bit of a long shot. Most petroleum geologists think that it is tehre, but in commercially viable amounts. No shortagge of methane adn other hydrocrabons here and elsewhere in teh solar system though.

Incidentally, I said above:

Quote:

I'm with Bart on this one--time to stop pussyfooting around and go big: nuclear fusion and/or a 100-km diameter space-based solar array in space that microwaves power to earth.

It was you that proposed this at one point, wasn't it?