Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:49:10 PM UTC-4, slurp wrote:

The world could certainly do without fossil fuels.

Then stop using fossil fuels, immediately.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-6, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:36:02 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.

These guys are pathetic in that they have no imagination.

Really? REALLY? I proposed that we put up mirrors in orbit so we could
reflect sunlight away from the earth if that is needed or TOWARD the earth
if GW turns out to be wrong. People like you are the ones not thinking
outside the box.

The world could certainly do without fossil fuels.

Not really. Solar and wind can supply our energy needs only when the sun
is shining or the wind is blowing. Natural gas is a, er ... natural for
peaking and closing the gap. Nuclear doesn't work well for that. It's
best for base load.

Burning them pollutes the atmosphere and water on Earth.

Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel we have and is a necessary part
of the energy budget. Coal is still a large part of the budget now and
is being phased out, but there is no great hurry to do so.

For transportation we could go all-electric with continuous recharging
for long trips via induction coils buried in roadways. Smart meters on
the vehicle would collect charging fees and even tolls on interstate
highways.

So where is the electricity going to come from 24/7?

There is enough wind and solar power available to meet the needs of the
nation's electric needs some 20 times over.

By covering over all of our farm acreage? The world's energy needs were
446 quads (4.7x10^20 Joules) in 2005. Solar power can produce 1.5x10^9
joules per year per square meter (assuming clear skies year around).

The area of the earth receiving sunlight at any given time is about
6x10^13 square meters, so we'd have to cover about 1% of the earth's
surface with solar panels. Furthermore, solar panels have lower albedo
than the nominal earth, so they would produce addition AGW. But to top
it off, solar panels cost about $100 per square meter, so the cost would
be $60 trillion dollars! You would, of course, agree that even at a
dollar per square meter, comparing the cost to the Manhattan program
(see below) is ludicrous :-)

So let's look at wind turbines. They cost about $2M/MW. Total cost
(assuming useful wind blows 20% of the time): $15 trillion!

Add to that high tech nuclear plants and you'll have more than enough
energy without burning one hydrocarbon molecule.

Nuclear isn't going to happen because of public fear.

Other countries are beginning to move in that direction, meanwhile we
lose technical advantage and future dominance in the energy field.

Yeah, all those solar panels are coming from China, built using fossil
fuel energy.

We have wars in the Middle east because we exchange our money for oil,
which they convert to weapons. I would not send one stinking dime to any
Sheik or Mullah which they use to fund their crazy ideology, foment wars,
and rape their own people.

Agreed.

For too long they've sat fat dumb and happy atop a huge underground
source of black liquid that ends up in the atmosphere while we send our
treasure over there to fund their lifestyle and their murderous ideology.

This sounds like an argument for home fossil fuel production :-)

If we do a Manhattan style all-out program to convert our energy needs
to renewables, it would create tons of jobs and get us off our collective
heinies and really accomplish something.

It's already been tried. The result: Solyndra, Abound Solar, etc.

The Manhattan project cost about $25B in today's dollars (less than $2B then)
over a four-year period. They had the best and the brightest, but all they
had to do was create destruction. It's harder to put things together than
to take things apart :-|

You may have imagination, but it's not tempered with reality :-)

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better.

More carbon dioxide does, as a general rule, help plants grow better. That's true
enough.

But more carbon dioxide also makes the world warmer, because the Earth doesn't
radiate heat as well into space - the greenhouse effect.

And it's well known that all sorts of plants have definite requirements for
where they grow best; some plants grow better where it is dry, some where it is
wet, some where it is hot, some where it is mild. Just look at any book about
how to grow houseplants; there's no need to point out peer-reviewed research to
prove something as well-known as this!

So, if the world gets warmer, given that most of the world's countries are much
smaller in area than the United States (just look at a map), and that most
countries don't want poor people to come to them as immigrants... (there's this
major political figure who is talking about building a wall that you may have
heard of)

when the world gets warmer, many countries won't be able to grow as much of the
specific food crops that the people in those countries are used to, know how to
cook, and know how to build a reasonably balanced diet from.

Thus, long before we have to worry about New York getting flooded, one of the
first obvious consequences of global warming is going to be massive famines in
the world's poorest countries.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
And the oceans contain
60 times as much carbon as in the "pre-anthropogenic atmosphere":

And you don't automatically conclude that this is a bad thing?

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...olfEnclp07.pdf

Of course, packing more CO2 in the oceans may be a problem, but:

"Dissolving large amounts of carbon dioxide in the oceans is an unplanned
experiment whose effects will change the Earth in unknown ways."

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/cl...solve-co2.html

So "all the facts are in"? Get real! We know way too little and what one
age considers "facts" are often overturned by the next generation.

Well, I could point you to _some_ facts. Such as how ocean acidification due to
dissolved carbon dioxide is threatening the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

But I think the point is: we _know_ that our carbon dioxide emissions have been
sufficient to cause a *detectable change* in the carbon dioxide content of the
world's oceans!

The oceans are kind of... big.

And if we know "way too little", then obviously we don't know enough to be
*absolutely sure* that our tinkering with the magnificent balance of nature
might not have bad results.

We're supposed to "tread lightly on the Earth"; that is, human activity should
have no significant impact on the environment. The world's forests and birds
and fish and animals should go about their lives as though Man did not even
exist for the most part.

This does not mean that we should not take what we need to survive. But our
taking what we need should be insignificant compared to what the world can
spare without ill effect.

So that there is absolutely no conflict between protecting the environment, and
a vibrant economy that serves human well-being. If this is not the case, a
re-think is required, as clearly something has gone wrong.

Since, as it happens, the democratic world actually _does_ need its incredibly
high level of material production in order to successfully defend itself
against the forces of tyranny, the recommendations of "greens" and other
defenders of the ecology cannot be followed.

Well, then, have I not just argued that we have an impossible situation? Ah,
but we can decouple our production from the environment. If we need energy,
instead of burning oil, we can split the atom.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
And the oceans contain
60 times as much carbon as in the "pre-anthropogenic atmosphere":

And you don't automatically conclude that this is a bad thing?

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...olfEnclp07.pdf

Of course, packing more CO2 in the oceans may be a problem, but:

"Dissolving large amounts of carbon dioxide in the oceans is an unplanned
experiment whose effects will change the Earth in unknown ways."

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/cl...solve-co2.html

So "all the facts are in"? Get real! We know way too little and what one
age considers "facts" are often overturned by the next generation.

Well, I could point you to _some_ facts. Such as how ocean acidification due to
dissolved carbon dioxide is threatening the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

But I think the point is: we _know_ that our carbon dioxide emissions have been
sufficient to cause a *detectable change* in the carbon dioxide content of the
world's oceans!

The oceans are kind of... big.

And if we know "way too little", then obviously we don't know enough to be
*absolutely sure* that our tinkering with the magnificent balance of nature
might not have bad results.

We're supposed to "tread lightly on the Earth"; that is, human activity should
have no significant impact on the environment. The world's forests and birds
and fish and animals should go about their lives as though Man did not even
exist for the most part.

This does not mean that we should not take what we need to survive. But our
taking what we need should be insignificant compared to what the world can
spare without ill effect.

So that there is absolutely no conflict between protecting the environment, and
a vibrant economy that serves human well-being. If this is not the case, a
re-think is required, as clearly something has gone wrong.

Since, as it happens, the democratic world actually _does_ need its incredibly
high level of material production in order to successfully defend itself
against the forces of tyranny, the recommendations of "greens" and other
defenders of the ecology cannot be followed.

Well, then, have I not just argued that we have an impossible situation? Ah,
but we can decouple our production from the environment. If we need energy,
instead of burning oil, we can split the atom.

John Savard

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 16:17:01 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
In general, leaf crops do better, grain crops do
worse (probably because they put more energy into leaves than seeds).
Unfortunately, human food security is primarily dependent on seed
crops.


They have no Alpen? Then let them eat lettuce.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 10:18:04 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better.

More carbon dioxide does, as a general rule, help plants grow better.
That's true enough.

But more carbon dioxide also makes the world warmer, because the Earth
doesn't radiate heat as well into space - the greenhouse effect.

So reduce the insolation.

And it's well known that all sorts of plants have definite requirements
for where they grow best; some plants grow better where it is dry, some
where it is wet, some where it is hot, some where it is mild. Just look
at any book about how to grow houseplants; there's no need to point out
peer-reviewed research to prove something as well-known as this!

So, if the world gets warmer, given that most of the world's countries
are much smaller in area than the United States (just look at a map),
and that most countries don't want poor people to come to them as
immigrants... (there's this major political figure who is talking about
building a wall that you may have heard of)

Robert Frost, "Mending Wall": "Good fences make good neighbors"

when the world gets warmer, many countries won't be able to grow as much
of the specific food crops that the people in those countries are used to,
know how to cook, and know how to build a reasonably balanced diet from.

Thus, long before we have to worry about New York getting flooded, one of the
first obvious consequences of global warming is going to be massive famines
in the world's poorest countries.

John Savard

We won't have to worry about either if we put up mirrors in orbit.

And the oceans contain 60 times as much carbon as in the
"pre-anthropogenic atmosphere":

And you don't automatically conclude that this is a bad thing?

Nope, it's comparing apples and rocks. It just shows that there is
MUCH more carbon in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere. Yes,
worry about warming because more of what's in the oceans is going to go
into the atmosphere, no matter "what" is causing the warming, but don't
go Chicken Little on the "what" -- I'm arguing for a better understanding
of the cycles involved.

And, BTW, there was MUCH more CO2 in the atmosphere 100 million years
ago than there is today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...on_Dioxide.png

Well, I could point you to _some_ facts. Such as how ocean acidification
due to dissolved carbon dioxide is threatening the survival of the Great
Barrier Reef.

Two points: (1) The earth must have gotten along without coral reefs 100
million years ago and (2) the ocean is NOT acidic:

http://oceanacidification12.weebly.c...836_orig.jpg?0

The projected pH 80 years hence is 7.85: the oceans are BASIC, not acidic,
and will be for many, many years to come. The environment is constantly
changing, and trying to keep things as they are may be going against nature.

But I think the point is: we _know_ that our carbon dioxide emissions have
been sufficient to cause a *detectable change* in the carbon dioxide
content of the world's oceans!

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. The solar "constant" has
increased by about 2.5 W/m^2 over that time period:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FOR...r.constant.png

Could that increase be the cause of the increased CO2 since temperature
rise causes more to be released from the oceans?

And if we know "way too little", then obviously we don't know enough to
be *absolutely sure* that our tinkering with the magnificent balance of
nature might not have bad results.

Indeed! It's quite possible, however, that "nature" is causing much of
this, so the AGW advocates may be stampeding us into fighting the wrong
battle.

We're supposed to "tread lightly on the Earth"; that is, human activity
should have no significant impact on the environment. The world's forests
and birds and fish and animals should go about their lives as though Man
did not even exist for the most part.

As a Webelos leader, I certainly sympathize with that. However, it doesn't
appear that will be possible in the future if our energy requirements
continue to increase. That 2.5 W/m^2 increase in insolation is only about
an order of magnitude greater than all our energy production. We're going
to have to go into space for industrial production in the not-to-distant
future. Maybe that's what the purported folks at KIC8462852 have done :-)

Whew, this has been a marathon discussion but worthwhile. I enjoy useful
exchange of ideas.

Gary

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:44:15 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

That is true as a general principle, but since the industrial age involved
burning stuff, there is clearly an obvious mechanism by which we are immediately
causing more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere.

John Savard

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

Wrong. Fossil fuels produce CO2 with a different isotope ratio than
natural sources. The increase in CO2 reflects this ratio. Direct
causation between fossil fuel burning and global CO2 rise has been
firmly established.

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:37:41 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

Wrong.

No, it's not "wrong." As Savard said, "That is true as a general principle"
There may be a causation of A implies B in a particular case, but that's a
matter for further investigation, which you hint at he

Fossil fuels produce CO2 with a different isotope ratio than
natural sources. The increase in CO2 reflects this ratio. Direct
causation between fossil fuel burning and global CO2 rise has been
firmly established.

This is good though sparse information. Here is probably what you are
referring to:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreac...es/stable.html

So my understanding of this is that plants prefer 12Carbon to 13Carbon,
so burning plants or letting them decay doesn't really change the 13C/12C
ratio. Burning fossil fuels decreases the 13C/12C ratio because the
carbon in them didn't come from the present atmosphere. OTOH, the top
ocean layers have a higher ratio of 13C/12C because plankton die and sink
to the bottom, taking their 12C with them, leaving a higher concentration
of 13C at the surface. So CO2 coming from the ocean has a higher 13C/12C
ratio.

Question: Wouldn't emission of CO2 from the ocean favor the lighter isotope?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_fractionation

"isotopically lighter water molecules (i.e., those with 16O) will evaporate
slightly more easily than will the isotopically heavier water molecules with
18O"

Gary