Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 Next
Comments 32851 to 32900:
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Recommeded reading:
Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline to Increase Oil Prices by Anthony Swift, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), May 21, 2012
-
billthefrog at 01:11 AM on 20 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Being something of an old git, I cannot but help thinking of Apollo 13 whenever I hear/read about the decidely unwelcome effects of elevated CO2 levels.
A quick Google check turned up the following reference which may be of interest to some readers. The title of the piece is "Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants" and it is on the National Acadamies Press.
The section in question deals with Carbon Dioxide - although I'm sure the very idea of regarding CO2 as a contaminant will raise some hackles. The opening paragraph reads as follows...
Carbon dioxide is the major expired by-product of human metabolism; if not effectively controlled, it can rapidly accumulate to dangerous concentrations in spacecraft atmospheres. On earth, the outdoor CO2 concentration is typically about 0.03%, and average indoor air contains CO2 in the range of 0.08% to 0.1% (IEQ 2006). In nominal spacecraft operations, the CO2 concentration is typically about 0.5%, but the concentration approached 2% during the troubled Apollo 13 mission (Michel et al. 1975). Carbon dioxide can also enter the atmosphere of a space habitat from accidental combustion of materials, from operation of payloads that use CO2 as an intravehicular propellant, and from use of the fire extinguisher, which, on the U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), is CO2.
From the above numbers, anyone who spends most of their time indoors is already experiencing CO2 levels somewhere in the 800 - 1000 ppm(v) range as their default exposure. Until the Lithium Hydroxide scrubbers in the Apollo 13 Command Module were "persuaded" to fit into the Lunar Module, the levels in Aquarius were pushing 20,000 ppm. -
Russ R. at 00:53 AM on 20 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Tom Curtis @14,
"your comment amounts merely to a slogan."
Slogan? Are you serious?
The chart depicts a perfectly linear relationship between blood pH and atmospheric CO2. There are two blatantly obvious reasons that this contradicts reality.
- First, pH a logarithmic scale.
- Second, blood is a buffered solution.
Here's what the logarithmic H-H relationship looks like over that range, without even considering the buffering effect (i.e. HCO3 held constant):
I wouldn't say that "approximates to linearity". Would you? And that's entirely ignoring the buffering effect, which would further limit the pH change.
If you want to dispute the validity and accuracy of the H-H equation which you claim "is not a given", be my guest. Those are some mighty fine straws you're grasping at.
-
Russ R. at 00:37 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
The US Midwest is a region, shrinking crude supply in that region would be offset by growing supply in another... the US Gulf Coast.
You're conflating higher prices in one region with higher prices nationwide. That's seriously flawed.
-
Composer99 at 00:36 AM on 20 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R.:
I'd like to know how that's possible, because the laws of supply and demand don't support that conclusion
On what basis don't they? So far all you've provided is your say-so.
-
Christian Moe at 00:25 AM on 20 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Martin Audley @28,
Far as I can tell, the graph is not from any measurements of blood pH at all. There are none in Robertson 2006 and none in the cited data source, Robertson 2001. The 2001 paper does some calculations, apparently based on the premise that the hydrogen ion concentration in the blood changes proportionally with the atmospheric CO2 concentration. No idea how he got from there to the linear graph, though.
-
Martin Audley at 22:39 PM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
If I say this article is bollocks, I'll be moderated out, so I won't, but...
The graph of association between atmospheric CO2 and blood pH can only be from (very) short term experiments on raising CO2 and measuring blood pH. It has no relevance to how the body buffers and stabilises blood pH over a longer term (which might even be as short as hours or days. It's therefore simply irrelevant to a conversation about human response to century-long changes in CO2.
-
michael sweet at 22:04 PM on 19 November 2014Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science
Satoh,
While I appreciate your opinion that you can detect flaws in peer reviewed science without reading the article, I doubt that many readers on this site will agree with your uninformed assessments. Perhaps you should consider reading the article that graph came from before you decide it is incorrect. The LIA and MWP are both very flexible time periods depending on who is looking at the graph.
Moderator Response:[JH] The comment that you have responded to has been deleted because it was nothing more than nonsensical trolling. Satoh had been previously warned that his/her posts would be summarily deleted.
-
Tristan at 21:35 PM on 19 November 2014Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science
Which graph, Satoh? This one http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=48 ?
-
Christian Moe at 19:50 PM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Tom Curtis @23,
I agree that the NRC findings do not seem to challenge those of Fisk et al 2013 directly. Fisk et al sought to measure capabilities that the pencil-and-paper tasks in the 1974 study in all likelihood did not. I take back the comment that they are difficult to reconcile.
Think about the wider context of submarines, though. If the findings of Fisk et al are correct and widely applicable, the U.S. Navy (and its Soviet counterpart) spent the Cold War entrusting its most critical missions, its weapons of absolute last resort, to crews with significantly impaired "decision-making performance" – below average at utilizing information and taking a broad approach, and dysfunctionally deficient in initiative and basic strategy. Come to think of it, given what was at stake, it's sort of astonishing that the NRC study doesn't record any studies of decision-making under elevated CO2. So I guess it's conceivable that these functions really are badly impaired, and that the Navy didn't know, or didn't let on that they knew.
Still, it's easy to agree with Fisk et al that:
The strength of the effects at 2,500 ppm CO2 is so large for some metrics as to almost defy credibility, although it is possible that such effects occur without recognition in daily life. Replication of these study findings, including use of other measures of complex cognitive functioning and measures of physiologic response such as respiration and heart rate, is needed before definitive conclusions are drawn.
The Zappulla reference sets off my alarm bells in much the same way as Robertson's. Two of Zappulla's four publications on Scopus, including the one referenced here, are book chapters published by academic vanity press Nova Publishers.
I'll go out on a limb and disagree with you, something I rarely do. I don't think the article is informative. It does tell about an interesting, actually, an astonishing study. But the potential for misinformation outweighs the information. It ignores the study's caveats about needing replication before conclusions can be drawn, sandwiches it between speculative claims from sources of low credibility and a thought experiment about lowered IQ (not observed). The casual reader is left with the take-away message that rising CO2 will make us stupid, an extraordinary claim not supported by extraordinary evidence. I rely on SkepticalScience to be more skeptical than this.
-
shoyemore at 18:28 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
After the recent elections, President Obama has to thread cautiously and pick his fights. If he vetoes the Keystone legislation, there may still be enough Democrat Senators to join the Republicans in overturning his veto.
As I just read that the current Senate has still voted it down, the clash is going to come in the new year, when the Republican Senate takes over.
If he thinks letting Keystone pass will gain him some advantage elsewhere, perhaps he should approve it. That is what Bill Nye seems to be saying in this interview (towards the end).
IMHO, the President should still veto the pipeline and challenge the Senate to override it. It will set up the battlelines for 2016, fire up the Democrat environmental base and reinforce the logic behind the US deal with China.
-
longjohn119 at 18:08 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Here is why the cost of gasoline will rise in the US Midwest.
Currently most gasoline in Midwest is made from Canadian bitumen (It's NOT oil and I'm not going to call it oil because it is not) and refined mainly in the Chicago area. If the Keystone XL goes through then all that oil will go to Texas and the gasoline made from it overseas which will create a severe feedstock (bitumen) shortage and as the Law of Supply and Demand tells us the price of gasoline will go up
Before you answer "Bakken" or "North Dakota" as a sup[plier that's a no-go because that is real oil and all the Midwest refineries are set up to refine bitumen meaning a complete overhaul and once again the price goes up
It's as simple as that -
chriskoz at 15:31 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob@17,
Why are you so sure?
My understanding is: this outcome was short by only one vote (59-41, wheareas 2/3 or 60-40 is needed) but this is Dem controled senate; next year, when new senate sits, it will be Rep controlled, so they will gather required 2/3 more easily.
Then, Obama's veto may not last very long, because according to Veto legislation in US:
in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation
which is highly likely in the new congress that we'll inheritt afted recent election. So IMO, the KXL fate is not moot for full 2years, it may be pushed within couple months of next year. Unless my understanding of US legislative process is incorrect in which case please advise me.
-
beansformilagro at 15:08 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R. @11 ...
the IEA data at Macleans you've linked to states " ... the cost of crude is by far the largest cost to a refinery, and there is no question Keystone XL will affect crude oil prices in the US, leading to more expensive crude in the mid continent than would otherwise be the case."
They also continue with a number of contradictory statements where previous massive crude discounts had virtually no discount on midwest oil prices which were 4% higher than coastal prices. They go on to say 'consumers were still paying gasoline prices based on the higher cost production in other areas and export market prices."
It is not a far leap from what Macleans says to see that higher cost crude will mean higher prices to consumers.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:12 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
And, really, likely moot for another two years since Obama is likely to veto any bill.
-
wili at 14:09 PM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ seems to have a bone he won't give up no matter how much counter evidence is presented. In the mean time:
Senate Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline By One Vote
So the whole discussion would seem to be moot, for now at least.
-
paul11176 at 10:46 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I am skeptical of this article.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Christian Moe @21, thank you. That book seems like a very definitive reference on the subject. Recommended maximum levels are set out in Table 3-3 (page 60):
"TABLE 3-3 Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Carbon Dioxide
Exposure Level
U.S. Navy Values (ppm)
NRC Recommended Values (ppm)
Current
Proposed
EEGL1 h
40,000
30,000
25,00024 h
40,000
15,000
25,000
CEGL90 days
5,000
7,000
8,000
Abbreviations: CEGL, continuous exposure guidance level; EEGL, emergency exposure guidance level; h, hour; NRC, National Research Council; ppm, parts per million."Formating was not preserved in my cut and paste, so in explantion, the values are in order the current (2001) Navy maximum concentration standards, the recommended new standard by committee, and the National Research Council recommended values for, in turn, 1 hour, 24 hour and 90 day exposures. The report does not some minor adverse effects that are ignored because they clear up on return to normal atmospheric conditions. If atmospheric CO2 levels were to rise to 7,000 ppmv, these minor conditions would not clear up, and may become worse with prolonged exposure. Never-the-less, it seems clear that CO2 will not have direct toxic effects on humans at concentrations achievable in this century, or likely even with BAU in the next. Mild toxic levels could be achieved from a determined effort to burn all fossil fuel reserves (which can raise CO2 concentrations to 10,000 ppmv if carried through) but that is likely not a realistic scenario, nor one that need be considered in the short term even if it were in that there must be a significant time in which that route could be avoided.
I do not think these results challenge those of Fisk et al 2013, however. They types of effects shown by Fisk 2013 are too sutble for consideration by NRC subcomittee, and would fall into the category they considered as not relevant because the effects are not permanent after return to normal (380 ppmv) CO2 concentrations. They would become relevant if normal CO2 concentrations rose to 2500 ppmv or (perhaps) even 1000 ppmv. I think reliance on Robertson 2006 was a mistake, but that the rest of the article is interesting and informative, and has not been challenged by anything you have uncovered.
-
Christian Moe at 09:31 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
The pH graph is from an article by D. S. Robertson in Current Science, which bills itself as India's leading multidisciplinary science journal. For the "data", the graph credits another article by the same D. S. Robertson published in the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses in 2001, "The rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and the effects on human health" ( doi:10.1054/mehy.2000.1256). Scopus suggests this was Robertson's first published article, followed in short order by a further 11 papers in Med. Hyp. on a variety of topics up to 2005, during which period he published nothing in any other journal. It's way past bedtime here, so I'm not reading it tonight, but it sounds speculative at best, and I don't think this was a well-considered post.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:13 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ @8...
1) These are two different issues. Tax and dividend would account for externalities and incentivize low carbon solutions, while returning the costs to tax payers. KXL is a question of whether to leave reserves in the ground.
2) The Forbes article I cited above addresses issues of refining and export.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:09 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... There's a great deal of support for the position that KXL may likely raise gas prices. Perhaps your analysis of supply and demand doesn't take full account of the economics involved.
Forbes: KXL Won't Lower Gas Prices, It Might Raise Them
Why The Keystone Pipeline Will Actually RAISE Gas Prices In the U.S.
Bernie Sanders Shatters The Big Keystone XL Lie: Pipeline Will Cause US Gas Prices To Go Up
Keystone Oil Pipeline Seen Raising Gas Prices in Midwest: Energy
The Keystone XL pipeline isn’t about lowering your gas prices
-
Russ R. at 08:42 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Composer99,
" it doesn't follow that US citizens will benefit in the form of reduced prices at the pumps..."
I never claimed that US consumers would enjoy lower gasoline prices. In all likelihood, the benefit of lower crude oil prices would go to the refiners, assuming that the marginal unit of gasoline supply is being imported.
John Abraham claimed that the pipeline would cause US gasoline prices to rise... not just Midwest prices... US prices. I'd like to know how that's possible, because the laws of supply and demand don't support that conclusion.
-
Russ R. at 08:33 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
wili,
"But being refined in this country does not mean it will be sold here."
There's a piece missing in your reasoning. Crude oil is already being refined in the Gulf Coast (which is operating at capacity) and the products are already being sold in the US.
If more cheap Canadian crude flows to the refineries on the Gulf Coast, which displaces expensive Mexican and Venezuelan heavy crude, why should domestic sales of refined products (gasoline and diesel) fall?
The only reason that refiners would ship more fuel abroad is if domestic gasoline prices fell relative to export prices.
-
Russ R. at 08:18 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
beansformilagro,
"The Keystone crude is all earmarked for Latin America and Europe and not for the US." Evidence?
"the pipeline will cause the rerouting of oil destined for midwest USA and that will raise prices of gasoline, esp for the midwest." This has been addressed and debunked... with EIA data.
But even if it was true... the regional reduction in Midwest crude supply would be offset by an equivalent increase in Gulf Coast supply. The net amount of crude oil supply wouldn't decline... rather, it would increase because the pipeline would extend all the way to Canada.
-
wili at 08:15 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R--Of course it's going to be refined on the Gulf. That's one of the main reasons to build the line in the first place. But being refined in this country does not mean it will be sold here.
-
Composer99 at 08:14 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R:
The Globe & Mail article you quote doesn't claim what you assert it does. The passage you cite confirms only that Canadian tar sands crude is priced attractively with respect to refining firms; it doesn't follow that US citizens will benefit in the form of reduced prices at the pumps unless you can also show that domestic US usage is the designated purpose for Canadian tar sands crude. The Globe & Mail article certainly doesn't.
What is more, unless you have some analysis (i.e. of the factors affecting US gasoline pricing) to back it up, you're not in a position to proclaim with any authority that a carbon tax and Keystone XL can't possibly both cause a rise in average/typical gasoline prices in the US (or in individual regions therein).
-
Christian Moe at 07:57 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
This all seems terribly difficult to square with the performance of the crews routinely enduring significantly higher CO2 levels in submarines and spacecraft. Have a look at chapter 3, "Carbon Dioxide", in Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11170&page=46), from which I take all the quotes below.The OP suggests "dysfunctional" initiative and basic strategy at 2500 ppm CO2. Alert the navy! "Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm..." (p. 47)
There are studies from the 1990s to suggest a lowest observed adverse effect level of 25,000 ppm for visual effects (p. 53). In a study from 1974, "CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen" (p. 54)
As for buffering of blood pH: "CO2 exposures as low as 7,000 ppm can lower blood pH by up to 0.05 units, but even at high exposures, renal compensation seems to occur in healthy subjects. In a 30-day exposure to CO2 at 20,000 ppm, there was an average pH change of only 0.01 units" (p. 51) Again, that is hard to square with the OP's claim that the rise from preindustrial has lowered blood pH by 0.1.
-
Russ R. at 07:48 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob Honeycutt,
1. Very well then. Given that a carbon tax is desirable because it accounts for negative externalities by raising the price of gasoline and reducing consumption and emissions, and if this claim were true (that the Keystone XL pipeline would somehow raise gasoline prices) then the pipeline would deliver the same outcome as a carbon tax. I'm sure you can appreciate the absurdity of this.
2. "It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US." Incorrect.
"Heavy Canadian crude, or bitumen in its undiluted form, is practically tailor-made for the massive U.S. Gulf Coast refining complex, which has long been configured to run heavy Latin American crudes arriving by tanker. Thanks to its attractive prices and surging output, Canadian output is displacing crudes from Venezuela and Mexico along the Gulf Coast."
You still need to explain how increased crude oil supply and lower transport costs "will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA". Because this claim defies the most basic laws of economics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
KR... That's still a far cry from "lifetime toxicity at 426ppm."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Tom... I didn't think you were making that claim at all. My comment wasn't specifically directed at your comment. What you're saying is exactly what I'm also thinking. The claim of toxicity under lifetime exposure is dubious at best.
I did find one EPA document that discusses toxicity levels as part of comments on the EPA findings to suggest there is no evidence to support that position.
-
Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
From the reading I've done it appears that there are very few studies of <1000ppm CO2 long term health effects - given that such experiments might have to run for significant portions of a human lifespan, and that brief exposures to ~10,000ppm, while dehabilitating, have reversible effects. Long term exposure to somewhat raised CO2 may, however, have significant health effects due in part to long term acidosis.
Despite the paucity of literature on low level exposure, I did locate Satish et al 2012, Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low to Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. They studied decision-making performance at in blind tests for several CO2 levels:
At 1,000 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly diminished on six of nine metrics of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly reduced in seven of nine metrics of performance, with percentile ranks for some performance metrics decreasing to levels associated with marginal or dysfunctional performance.
Business As Usual scenarios point to ~1000ppm by 2100. I would opine that this is not good.
-
John Hartz at 06:45 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
The impacts that the mining of the Athabasca tar sands are having on Aleberta's ecosystem is elequently presented in:
A Forest Threatened by Keystone XL, Op-ed by Andrew Nikifurok*, New York Times, Nov 17, 2014
*Andrew Nikiforuk is a Canadian journalist and the author, most recently, of the book “The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude.”
-
Tom Curtis at 06:22 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Rob @15 & 16, I am certainly not claiming the toxicity claim to be correct. I have merely pointed out that two "rebutals" of the graph have failed to actually do any rebutting.
My concern with the graph is that it is cited to Robertson 2006, but Roberston 2006 merely claims, "The estimated toxic level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under lifetime exposure is 426 ppm (Figure 1)4", where reference 4 is Roberston (2001). I have been unable to find a public domain copy of Roberston (2001); and the graph merely shows the fall in blood pH with rising abient CO2 concentrations. While falling pH can lead to acidosis, the argument as to why that should have lifetime consequences at 426 ppmv ambient CO2, and what the level of the purported toxic effects are is not accessible to me. Certainly the graph does not establish it.
-
beansformilagro at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R.
The Keystone crude is all earmarked for Latin America and Europe and not for the US.
Also, according to a number of sources, including Cornell University and Consumer Watchdog, the pipeline will cause the rerouting of oil destined for midwest USA and that will raise prices of gasoline, esp for the midwest.
-
John Hartz at 05:49 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
If you want to refresh your memory about the history of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and related matters, check out this reader article on North America's biggest energy and climate fight.
Keystone XL Pipeline: Everything You Need to Know in 23 Stories by By Stacy Feldman, InsideClimate News, Nov 18, 2014
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
One clue here is, if there were a serious human toxicity issue one would think that would have been a key element of the EPA findings on carbon emissions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:38 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Trying to understand this one better. It does sound like mammals have the capacity to buffer these effects. That's what is bothering me about the graph. The H-H equation sounds pretty standard, and the normal range indicated on the graph also seems to be well accepted. What I'm not yet buying is the idea of long term toxicity at atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 400ppm.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:00 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Russ R @13, following your link I found that the equation you refer to as "reality" is in fact an approximation. Further, it is an approximation that is close to linear across most of it range, and where it departs significantly from linearity, it often also becomes very inexact (with real values approximating to linear). Therefore, for you to draw you conclusion you need to show that:
1) the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linarity across the range shown in Fig 1; and
2) If the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linearity across that range, that it is in fact accurate across that range (which is not a given).
Absent that, your comment amounts merely to a slogan.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:54 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... Okay, first off, there isn't a "green plan." That would be an ad hom comment. A carbon tax would raise the price of fossil fuels by accounting for externalities, which was even an idea promoted by Milton Freedman (who could hardly be labeled a "greenie").
It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US. It benefits oil companies (particularly Koch Industries) a great deal. The net benefit for the US is nominal. Some short term construction employment and that's about it. The impact on increased carbon emissions is significant.
It's abundantly clear that oil reserves need to stay in the ground. KXL is another step in the wrong direction.
-
Russ R. at 04:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is suspect for more reasons than just its data points and uncertainty.
It depicts a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and blood pH, which is entirely at odds with reality.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:34 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Ooops...meant no point talking about this unless we have a reference.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:33 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Mauricio...what Nature study are you talking about? No point talking
As a general principle, you must realize those ecosystems that show CO2 fertilization have already been taking more carbon out of the atmosphere during the last 50 years of increasing CO2. And yet, the CO2 has continued to increase. So, all such a study does is provide a post hoc constraint on how we explain the past trends. It doesn't provide much hope for the future with regard to CO2.
In fact, it's worrisome. The CO2 fertilization effect for C-3 plants will effectively saturate once we get near 600ppm, and is already effectively saturated for most C-4 plants. Once that happens, C-4 plants will no longer increase WUE with incereasing CO2 and a larger proportion of the annual CO2 emissions could remain in the atmosphere. If the contribution of plants to drawdown has been increasing with CO2 more than expected in the past, that increase in the airborne fraction could be larger that we currently think.
-
Russ R. at 04:30 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob,
That entirely depends on the nature and quality of responses.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... May I ask, is this going to just be another driveby comment or are you going to stick around and discuss the issue?
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
ianw01@11, Figure 1 has data points in the original version in the linked paper. Further, the range of variation given for 2005 represents the uncertainty in blood pH given the CO2 concentration in that year. Intuitively, projecting that range across the entire graph gives a partial estimate of uncertainty.
-
Russ R. at 02:14 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
"A pipeline that, if approved, ... will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA,"
How exactly does increasing the supply of crude to the US and lowering its transportation costs (pipeline vs. railcar) result in higher domestic prices for refined products?
And correct me if I've misunderstood something here, but isn't the "Green" plan precisely to raise gasoline prices in order to reduce consumption and GHG emissions?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 19 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
The set of wealthy and powerful developed nations are working towards collectively limiting the success of tax cheaters globally, rather than nationally. My preference would be for them to also cooperatively and collectively effectively limit the success of the highest impact pursuers of profit and pleasure globally, rather than allowing the game playing of nations that can have leadership that is temporarily under the thumbs of some of those undesirable characters.
-
MAURICIO11346 at 00:57 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
The American and German researchers who worked on the Nature study wanted to test out those models in the real world. Using data collected from forests in the northeastern U.S., they found that as carbon concentrations increased by about 5% per decade over the past 20 years, the rates of water-use efficiency increased by about 3% a year. That’s much faster than computer models would have suggested—it means the improvement in water-use efficiency is about six times as large as the corresponding increase in carbon concentrations. As Trevor Keenan of Harvard University, a lead author on the paper, put it in a statement:
This could be considered a beneficial effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. What’s surprising is we didn’t expect the effect to be this big. A large proportion of the ecosystems in the world are limited by water–they don’t have enough water during the year to reach their maximum potential growth. If they become more efficient at using water, they should be able to take more carbon out of the atmosphere due to higher growth rates
-
ianw01 at 00:21 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is extremely suspect. It lacks data points and has no indication of uncertainty. I'll bet the particpants in "From Peru"'s reference did not use that figure in advance to extrapolate to determine their likely blood pH! :-) The result is nonsensical, but nonetheless the figure indicates a horrifically acidic blood pH, which of course did not arise.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:17 PM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Per capita may be the easiest remotely valid method to follow, but it does have many limitations. As OPOF notes, it ignores differences in emissions between individuals / groups within each country. It also ignores the cumulative emissions issue raised by scaddenp. Though, on that, do we need to consider emissions prior to knowledge of the potential harm and/or dangerous atmospheric levels differently than emissions thereafter? Does using a per capita basis discourage wealthy nations from continuing to conduct research on better food crops which have allowed the large populations in some developing nations to survive? Et cetera.
There is no 'perfect' / 'fair' solution. Per capita is a reasonable starting point, but while we structure things to give developing nations a chance to improve their standard of living we should do just as much to allow developed nations to continue improving their standard of living as well. Ultimately, the global targets have to be based on 'units of energy / units of GHG'.
Prev 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 Next
