Game Over for the Climate

lynnvinc · #1 May 10, '12, 2:12 pm

From an article yesterday in the NY Times, May 9, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/op...e-climate.html :

Game Over for the Climate
By JAMES HANSEN
Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the top climate scientist in the U.S. His article echos an American Geophysical Union conference paper he gave 3 years ago (read esp p. 24): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/A...s_20081217.pdf

In the NYT article he's referring to something Obama said about how Canada will be exploiting the Candian tar sands "regardless of what we do," which according to Hansen would spell extreme disaster long term for humanity, and even a lot of serious problems short-term. He also makes suggestions for something better than a Cap&Trade scheme.

This is important, since JPII told us in 1990, that it's everyone's responsibility to mitigate global warming, and BXVI has been repeatedly telling us this.

For those interested in reading or making suggestions about how we can mitigate AGW (in ways that don't break our piggy banks), I've started a thread at http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=656903

Cristiano · #2 May 10, '12, 2:57 pm

We could help the climate by not posting the same things over and over on the CAF forums. However, if we were to do that the stuff posted here on CAF probably would go down by by 98%.

triumphguy · #3 May 10, '12, 3:39 pm

All this nonsense about the Oil Sands is a smoke screen - it is COAL that causes most global warming.

Coal fired electrical plants in the USA, China, Russia, Brazil, Europe and India especially.

Stop burning coal, and don't worry about gasoline if you REALLY want CO2 emissions to go down.

Quote:

The oil sands make up about 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, or 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. wiki

So don't blame Canada!

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...0219/20120219/

Scott_Lafrance · #4 May 10, '12, 5:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

All this nonsense about the Oil Sands is a smoke screen - it is COAL that causes most global warming.

Coal fired electrical plants in the USA, China, Russia, Brazil, Europe and India especially.

Stop burning coal, and don't worry about gasoline if you REALLY want CO2 emissions to go down.

So don't blame Canada!

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...0219/20120219/

Actually, the biggest culprit in climate change is the Sun.

triumphguy · #5 May 10, '12, 8:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Actually, the biggest culprit in climate change is the Sun.

coco2 · #6 May 10, '12, 8:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

All this nonsense about the Oil Sands is a smoke screen - it is COAL that causes most global warming.

Coal fired electrical plants in the USA, China, Russia, Brazil, Europe and India especially.

Stop burning coal, and don't worry about gasoline if you REALLY want CO2 emissions to go down.

So don't blame Canada!

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...0219/20120219/

Stop burning coal, and much of the country won't have electricity and heat or jobs! How about clean up the coal, while working on alternatives.

triumphguy · #7 May 10, '12, 9:00 pm

I'm only saying IF you're concern is CO2 then stop burning coal.

I agree that the way the infrastructure is set up you can't just stop. There have to be alternate sources of fuel.

But the whole thing about the Alberta Oil Sands is just Bull Fluff.

If you really want clean energy then go nuclear.

**po18guy** · #8 May 10, '12, 10:10 pm

OK, here is the post I was going to make earlier:

Doesn't the sun have something to do with it?
Is not the sun exanding, on its way to becoming a red giant?
What does driving a '75 Oldsmobile have to do with that?

triumphguy · #9 May 10, '12, 10:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

OK, here is the post I was going to make earlier:

Doesn't the sun have something to do with it?
Is not the sun exanding, on its way to becoming a red giant?
What does driving a '75 Oldsmobile have to do with that?

Over the next billion years or so, sure.

We'll have totally exhausted the earth by then.

**po18guy** · #10 May 10, '12, 11:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Over the next billion years or so, sure.

We'll have totally exhausted the earth by then.

When I was little, I used to read about the end of the sun and get worried! Ha!

**JimG** · #11 May 11, '12, 7:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

OK, here is the post I was going to make earlier:

Doesn't the sun have something to do with it?
Is not the sun exanding, on its way to becoming a red giant?
What does driving a '75 Oldsmobile have to do with that?

The Sun isn't expanding yet. That won't happen until much later in its lifetime. Only when it runs out of hydrogen will it expand into a red giant.

Currently the Sun "burns" hydrogen in a thermonuclear reaction which produces helium. So, at base, themonuclear energy is the source of all our energy on earth. We can produce nuclear fusion artificially, but only in hydrogen bombs. Until there's a good way to contain the reaction, it's not much good to us. (The Sun contains it by the force of gravity.)

Nuclear generating plants in use now simply use nuclear fission--not fusion--to produce heat, to make steam to turn a turbine. Nuclear plants are essentially steam generators. Pretty primitive. Nuclear fusion would be a more powerful force if it could be contained.

Ender · #12 May 11, '12, 5:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

All this nonsense about the Oil Sands is a smoke screen - it is COAL that causes most global warming.

Give us some relative numbers: how much CO2 is generated by burning enough natural gas to produce (e.g.) 1KW of electricity and how much CO2 is generated to produce that same amount of energy using coal? I can believe that most CO2 comes from coal plants but that is likely to be simply because there are a whole lot more of them.

Ender

triumphguy · #13 May 11, '12, 6:37 am

Something like this?

Quote:

(Comparing emissions of natural gas to coal) The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.1 Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.2 In addition, the process of extraction, treatment, and transport of the natural gas to the power plant generates additional emissions. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...tural-gas.html

Ender · #14 May 11, '12, 8:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Something like this?

Yes. Thank you. I did notice, however, that your source was the EPA. I'd like to believe that something from a government agency was reliable but frankly the EPA doesn't inspire a lot of confidence so I did a quick search myself and found ... apples and oranges. It turns out this computation isn't so easy to make. One of the interesting things I did find was that as a result of the 1970 Clean Air Act (by mandating pollution controls they reduced efficiency), the average amount of CO2 released by coal plants went up about 20%. Talk about your unintended consequences.

I also found out something about coal gasification which is intriguing:

The permit allows Indiana Gasification, LLC, which is being funded by Leucadia National Corp., to emit just 100 tons of carbon dioxide per year — a fraction of what coal-burning power plants put into the atmosphere.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201..._gasification/

If gasification really is that efficient - and there aren't other problems - this might be another possible solution. One thing is apparent: many coal plants are quite old and inefficient so any calculation involving an average of emissions from all plants is misleading. The real question is what are the emissions from new gas plants versus new coal plants?

Regardless, I remain unconvinced that CO2 emission is a serious problem. Nor do I believe that the total elimination of CO2 would satisfy the people driving this controversy because I don't believe CO2 elimination is the objective; it is merely a means to achieve an objective.

Ender

lynnvinc · #15 May 11, '12, 9:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Something like this?

Quote:
(Comparing emissions of natural gas to coal) The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.1 Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.2 In addition, the process of extraction, treatment, and transport of the natural gas to the power plant generates additional emissions. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...tural-gas.html

I'm wondering if any holistic (cradle to grave) study has been done on fracking. I saw the film GASLANDS, and they showed a tremendous amount of inputs (trucks after trucks, water, etc), not to mention the pollution -- people's kitchen tap water catching on fire, etc. See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0fAsFQsFAs