The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

You're ruining my efforts to refocus this argument.

Yes, I generally ruin lots of things.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Yes there is a lot of evidence to support global warming, yes there is a lot of evidence that opposes it.

I know of no solid evidence that suggests man made global warming is not happening despite a vigorous search.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Look at my arguments above, I changed it from..."I'm right, you must be wrong" to "If good can be done...why not do it?

Because every solution has a cost. Until everyone is on the same page about the value of a solution, they're not going to give up much.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Why hasn't (an IGCC plant in California) been done, can anyone venture a guess?

Oh, I donno. How about...

1) California doesn't mine much coal and would have to truck it in from Utah
2) IGCC reactors have a higher price per KW/h
3) Not enough customers believe global warming and will pay for CO(2) sequestration
4) Property values around SF or LA would mean such a plant would not be competitive
5) California doesn't want more coal energy as they're required to convert 24% of their existing supply to renewables by 2020

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Yea, Cali imports the vast majority of their power...

Yep, that big majority of 22%.

bkelly

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Yes, I generally ruin lots of things.



I know of no solid evidence that suggests man made global warming is not happening despite a vigorous search.



Because every solution has a cost. Until everyone is on the same page about the value of a solution, they're not going to give up much.

Uh-huh, every solution does not have a cost. Everyone will never be on the same page...people will always not want to give things up. You're fighting a losing battle with that sort of mentality.

Oh, I donno. How about...

1) California doesn't mine much coal and would have to truck it in from Utah
2) IGCC reactors have a higher price per KW/h
3) Not enough customers believe global warming and will pay for CO(2) sequestration
4) Property values around SF or LA would mean such a plant would not be competitive
5) California doesn't want more coal energy as they're required to convert 24% of their existing supply to renewables by 2020



bkelly

1) Coal is very cheap to transport. And it's generally carried by train...not truck.
2) IGCC is not THAT more expensive and it can run on fuels other than coal such as RDF...which is renewable.
3) They don't HAVE to sequester it.
4) Power is another cheap thing to transport...they can get far enough away.
5) As I said before, IGCC can run on renewable resources. Its one of the perks.

Yep, that big majority of 22%.

41.4% of their In-State power is natural gas...however only 13% their natural gas is In-state
15.7% of their "In-State" power is coal...however they are mostly facilities that are OUTSIDE of california but are california utility owned. That is like me starting a bakery in france, shipping my rolls to the united states...and not calling it importing cause I own the bakery.

Again, my experience has really only been limited to coal plants. But you're right, they produce way more power in-state than I had been led to believe after talking to industry professionals.

Also, the IGCC process can be easily tooled to generate a syngas byproduct (natural gas substitute) or a Fisher Trope process to produce biofuels.

[bkelly]

Hmm, it seems my attempts to write in an interesting way are clouding my message. Let me reiterate.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Uh-huh, every solution does not have a cost. Everyone will never be on the same page...people will always not want to give things up.

Every solution does have a cost be it money, the environment or people's time and effort. People never want to give things up but will if they believe they trade for a net positive. For that to happen on the global warming front, since most will see little to no tangible benefit, you would need a very strong public consensus.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

1) Coal is very cheap to transport. And it's generally carried by train...not truck.
2) IGCC is not THAT more expensive and it can run on fuels other than coal such as RDF...which is renewable.
3) They don't HAVE to sequester it.
4) Power is another cheap thing to transport...they can get far enough away.
5) As I said before, IGCC can run on renewable resources. Its one of the perks.

Well 1, 2, 4 and 5 all increase cost.
1 and 3 offsets the environmental benefit.
4 negates your original goal of having the plant near LA or SF.
And 2 and 5 talk about using biomass which I don't think is currently economically feasible.

Oh and one other reason to not build an IGCC plant today that I just noticed in the wikipedia article is poor availability.

But I only wanted to answer you question about "why not do it?" The answers boil down to cost, poorer standard of living and people won't support it if they don't think it's needed or the best solution.

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

41.4% of their In-State power is natural gas...however only 13% their natural gas is In-state
15.7% of their "In-State" power is coal...however they are mostly facilities that are OUTSIDE of california but are california utility owned.

True and I suspect most of their coal is imported whether the plant is in our out of the state.

bkelly

[brain21]

I think that even if climate change is a complete lie, it's still a good idea to lessen our use of things. Water, food, oil, etc. Everything should be taken in moderation.

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by bkelly

GhostintheShell, I am confused about your position.

On one hand, you say fairly open-minded things like "...I am interested in reading what both sides have to say about these questions" and "[you should try] to accept that there are different and valid sides to every argument." But you've also posted statements from the global warming skeptic side that are misleading if not simply false and said "I suspect that [GW not adding up] is generally occurring in other [scientific] areas as well."

In putting together my posts for this thread, I've been amazed at how deep the global warming science has gone and how weak the counter-arguments have been. There have been questions raised about a few pieces of research but it's about as relevant as throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire. I would like global warming to be false but I've seen nothing that really supports that position.

So I'm curious, what makes you so certain that global warming is false and the theory is falling apart?

bkelly

The simple fact is that I am very open minded. I sat on your side of this fence for a few years when GW was young and almost no one had heard of it. I remember I even advocated the vandalism/destruction of Hummers and Escalades in dealership lots etc., if you can believe it. Then the worm slowly began to turn.

What makes me so certain that GW is false? I'm not certain it is absolutely false or true. As a matter of fact I think that as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. I've said it all along. The numbers don't pan out and the science is "not great" at best. The science should stand on its own, I don't think it does at this point. This is simply my opinion from reviewing the raw data and the science behind the various GW mechanisms. Sincerely read the junkscience/greenhouse link I posted several times in these threads. So far no one has had the balls to step up and disprove that webpage paragraph by paragraph. The best anyone has done is attack the author for being a big oil lackey. I would love to see someone actually "take it down" so to speak by disproving the info there point by point, it might give me some all together new insights. As it sits now I agree with a much greater proportion the information posted there than I do with the IPCC report.

What makes me think the theory is falling apart? Nothing "scientific" or measurable just the perception of a slowly building buzz within my network of colleagues and friends. Mostly along the lines that the "crisis" is not exactly what it seems. A general mistrust with what we are constantly being spoon fed. People who were afraid of being called heretics are now standing up and saying aloud that they either flat out disagree or aren't as sure as they used to be.

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by brain21

I think that even if climate change is a complete lie, it's still a good idea to lessen our use of things. Water, food, oil, etc. Everything should be taken in moderation.

Saving is good, but not because consumption is bad. Rather, saving invests in future production, increasing total wealth. Deferring consumption today means more consumption tomorrow.

Now if only we could get politicians to understand this....

[mentholated]

In 50 years all power distribution will be decentralized, transportation will be solely powered by zero point energy, and you'll all be old farts looking back at this time in your lives wondering why you spent so much money for gasoline. You know why you spent so much money for gasoline? So the oil companies can prepare and invest their current markets in zero point (also known as over unity) power supply systems. "Global warming" is completely natural, it occurs in cycles, and come 2012, we're going to be in a very long cycle so I suggest you start preparing now. The weather is about to get a whole lot more hectic. You can believe what you want to, but what I say is fact, not fiction. Choose to heed my warnings if you value the safety of your families. I suggest you move away from the east and western coastlines before its too late.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

What makes me think the theory is falling apart? Nothing "scientific" or measurable just the perception of a slowly building buzz within my network of colleagues and friends.

Thank you for your answer, GhostintheShell. I appreciate your taking the time despite our previous back-and-forths.

I would love to see someone actually "take (the junkscience.com arguments) down" so to speak by disproving the info there point by point...

I read through the site when you posted the link a few pages ago. I've offered a perspective closer to the scientists on this forum but I try not to discuss arguments on other sites that were not specifically mentioned here. It would be way too much work.

If there is one point or message from the site for which you'd like a dissenting opinion, let me know and I'll bring it to my coworkers and return with a perspective from weather scientists.

bkelly

[Razcsak]

Originally Posted by mentholated

"Global warming" is completely natural, it occurs in cycles, and come 2012, we're going to be in a very long cycle so I suggest you start preparing now. The weather is about to get a whole lot more hectic.

This cycle just happens to be coming far more precipitously and strongly than any in the past, I suppose, while coinciding with a tremendous increase in CO2 production over the last hundred years?

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by Razcsak

This cycle just happens to be coming far more precipitously and strongly than any in the past, I suppose, while coinciding with a tremendous increase in CO2 production over the last hundred years?

Remember, there havent been temps, melting, and CO2 like this for around 800,000+ years. That's some cycle eh?

The cyclical argument has already been defeated.. from now on, anyone who brings it up in this thread is categorically wrong and not keen on the current research. It's already been disproven.... time to move on

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Remember, there havent been temps, melting, and CO2 like this for around 800,000+ years. That's some cycle eh?

The cyclical argument has already been defeated.. from now on, anyone who brings it up in this thread is categorically wrong and not keen on the current research. It's already been disproven.... time to move on

Orthodoxy used to be something science challenged.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Orthodoxy used to be something science challenged.

Witty statement. But, what exactly do you mean by it?

[leejo]

Bill Clinton's solution: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming

Like Mr. Gore, now that he's got his, it's time for "we" to slow down "our" economy. So get used to living right where you are and with more fear in your life as "we" slow down our economy.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by leejo

Bill Clinton's solution: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming

*sigh*

No. It was a hypothetical solution in which he went on to explain why it wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by leejo

Like Mr. Gore, now that he's got his, it's time for "we" to slow down "our" economy. So get used to living right where you are and with more fear in your life as "we" slow down our economy.

Right. It's not like the Clinton administration was sounding the alarm bells while they were in office.

Oh wait...

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

Yes, he went on to explain why it wouldn't work -- to be precise, that he couldn't see any way to convince everyone to slow down their economies, because some of those damned foreigners were just too attracted to that whole "growing economy" thing and wouldn't buy it.

Therefore, his solution was that we should fight global warming by "prov[ing] it is good economics" and will actually expand the economy and make new jobs -- with "it" referring to doubling the price of energy voluntarily. In other words, he thinks we need more propaganda.

I swear, Bill Clinton sounds more crazy every day. >.>