Jonger Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Massive algae blooms and reforestation combined with massive irrigation using water vapor harvesting. O2 levels would skyrocket. We would all need to live in small dome cities in order to reduce our land use. You are trying to find negatives, just bio-char and bury the char... Its the same thing as coal pretty much. CO2 isn't going to stop, it will slow... But its not going to stop completely for a few decades more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I can assure everyone that sucking Co2 out of the atmosphere at great cost ain't happening when almost a billion people go without food on a daily basis. With the amount of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons out there as well as delivery systems. It would be extremely wise for NATO to start pouring billions in AI defense systems to hopefully be able to detect any building, moving or use of these weapons some how some way. When **** hits the fan the United States and all of it's riches will be target #1 Billion people going without food? What are you talking about? AGW is GOOD for agriculture, our world wide output because of raised co2 levels and GMO is rocketing food output upward. You sound like a wide-eyed socialist, makes me question your whole intent on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokolow Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Billion people going without food? What are you talking about? AGW is GOOD for agriculture, our world wide output because of raised co2 levels and GMO is rocketing food output upward. You sound like a wide-eyed socialist, makes me question your whole intent on this issue. The last meta-study I saw positing modest, positive economic changes from AGW, mainly from increased ag output iirc, was Tol's. And I'm pretty sure everyone itt is caught up on the slow collapse of the Tol study and the highlighting of its radical limitations, including and especially the long-tail problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokolow Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Anyone relying on or hoping for effective DACC -- this includes me -- should be worried that we haven't heard much about Lackner or Chichilnisky in the news, lately. edit. by this i mean two good friends of mine are materials scientists directly concerned with open air or flue gas carbon capture. one worked with a lab group headed by a climate scientist who, like Chichilnisky, is a optimistic pessimist AKA believes that carbon capture would be an essential and critical technology due to political and environmental realities. Friend says about open air carbon capture: We (and by extensions I mean also his startup that does environmental materials) no longer do that work because if it can't be regenerated perfectly and cheaply for many cycles, it becomes economically implausible.My other friend is another optimistic pessimist working on capture from flue gas and he just completed a comprehensive field and literature review as part of a flue gas capture funding proposalas always, he says his hopes are industrial-scale but the realities are and will be firmly bench scale for the forseeable future. Jonger I gotta emphasize there is a fine but crucial difference between the opinions of those field specialists and what you are saying, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokolow Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 At any rate all such measures -- including DACC -- would be well served by a coalface and wellhead price on carbon of 50€ per metric ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 At any rate all such measures -- including DACC -- would be well served by a coalface and wellhead price on carbon of 50€ per metric ton. I just don't see how a carbon tax lowers emissions, its basically a method of ticking off the general public enough to force change. I guess a mixture of bio-char and renewable investment might matter. BTW, I'm heading out for the day soon... Going to pick up a 2014 Prius. I'm serious, my lease is up on the Camry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Requires a long time to remove 800 PPM CO2 from the atmosphere, lol indeed. That would be more like 200k years untill a return to the icehouse Earth. With feedbacks, even longer. It would be great if that were true, but it's not. As the latest peer reviewed ligature suggests, it's the equator-to-pole gradient that will matter 2000 years from now, after AGW has maxed out (probably a 4-6K warming, maybe more). The down-cycle of Obliquity will warm the tropical oceans further after AGW has already torched them, while cooling the poles which will be in a yearly energy deficit, unlike the tropics which will continue to warm (see below). This promotes increased evaporation and convection in the tropics, which is deposited as snow at the poles. Here's an image depicting the radiative effect of the Obliquity cycles. Our tilt is slowly de-amplifying. Global Warming will be a unprecedented paleo event, on the same level as the KT extinction event. Hopefully it does not have the same effect as a massive asteroid impact. Definitely. But a problem with humans is we have a linear, short-sighted view of things. It's why we need computers to handle multi-dimensional equations. So we sometimes lose sight of chaos and instability, in a general sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 " As the latest peer reviewed ligature suggests" A Faustian slip I presume;>} Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Requires a long time to remove 800 PPM CO2 from the atmosphere, lol indeed. That would be more like 200k years untill a return to the icehouse Earth. With feedbacks, even longer. Global Warming will be a unprecedented paleo event, on the same level as the KT extinction event. Hopefully it does not have the same effect as a massive asteroid impact. LOL at that last paragraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You are trying to find negatives, just bio-char and bury the char... Its the same thing as coal pretty much. CO2 isn't going to stop, it will slow... But its not going to stop completely for a few decades more. Its not that anyone is trying to find negatives, its that you keep suggesting really poor ideas that don't have an ounce of thought put into them. Cover the tundra in sand? I can't even think how that would be feasible and less costly than simply not putting as much CO2 into the air? Take it out? Well if we could do that and if it was less ideal than simply not putting it in the air then we might be considering it more. Its not about being negative, its about actually putting some thought into things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 At any rate all such measures -- including DACC -- would be well served by a coalface and wellhead price on carbon of 50€ per metric ton. Let us have the "alternative grid" in place before resorting to heavy carbon taxes. Mabye wishful thinking on my part, the incentive for people to stop using fossil fuels would be to save the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Let us have the "alternative grid" in place before resorting to heavy carbon taxes. Mabye wishful thinking on my part, the incentive for people to stop using fossil fuels would be to save the planet. Definitely wishful thinking. No "alternative grid" will be built until there is an incentive to build it. People will always act in their own self interest, it is human nature. Attaching the "true" value of fossil fuels to their price will make the alternatives more attractive and will encourage their use. This method has worked before, and it will work again. The only people against this are the ones that have something to lose if we transition to alternate fuel sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 " As the latest peer reviewed ligature suggests" A Faustian slip I presume;>} Terry James Hansen's faustian bargain. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/011006 The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole—it is time to stop digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Definitely wishful thinking. No "alternative grid" will be built until there is an incentive to build it. People will always act in their own self interest, it is human nature. Attaching the "true" value of fossil fuels to their price will make the alternatives more attractive and will encourage their use. This method has worked before, and it will work again. The only people against this are the ones that have something to lose if we transition to alternate fuel sources. My biggest concern is economic collapse, if you drive up prices too much a domino effect will occur throughout the entire society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 My biggest concern is economic collapse, if you drive up prices too much a domino effect will occur throughout the entire society. Yes, that is a concern. If implemented properly, the tax would start at a very low rate and slowly ramp up over a decade or more, giving time for an alternate market to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 BC has had a carbon tax in place since 2008. The only ones complaining are the oil companies & their proxies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.