Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Climate Questions -- Is Eng-Tips Fit for Purpose? 22

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guest102023

Materials
Feb 11, 2010
1,523
Question: as stated in the header, and as a service to the Eng-tips community.

Let's examine the content, direction, moderation and decorum (or lack thereof) of recent climate related threads. I will kick this off but not participate. Knock yourselves out.
______________________________________________________________________________

All the worst characteristics of internet 'speech' and particularly 'social media' have appeared, and a general antagonistic tone has become the norm. Threads have all had the same pattern of devolving into conspiracy theories, personal attacks, petty politics, and general invective that should be beneath a professional engineer, and certainly do not meet the stated expectations of the Eng-Tips managers in the house rules. There has been no moderation, other than an occasional scream to 'stay on topic' (often when a member simply disagrees with a post). I'll state up front that I don't claim to be proud of every single thing I have posted. And I always forget that folks most in need of hearing sarcasm are those least likely to detect it.

Some of the posts IMO are informed by ignorance, naked economic self-interest, one-dimensional thinking, total lack of self-awareness, even conspiracy theories. The political and ideological skews correlate well with member nationality. Command of logical principles at a fundamental level is frequently lacking and whataboutery is rampant. The fallacies are too numerous to list here. The worst social media crime of all is that of accusing another of the thing one is clearly guilty of. Members who post factual, verifiable information have had all kinds of aspersions cast at them, including personal insults, up to and including comments about the member's mental health. Well being aquainted with such issues, and having become a keen student of HU factors in organizations, I am somewhat adept at identifying such issues in myself and others (and let's face it, we engineers are highly prone to one or two 'conditions'. If you need help identifying what those might be, I refer you to popular jokes and stereotypes). I have held myself back from offering sometimes needed diagnoses.

Some of the worst offenders (there are at least three) have profiles that say "I'm an Eng-Tips Forums Fellow and member of the Eng-Tips Forums Round Table, where management is advised on site operations and proposed programming enhancements." I have no words for that discovery, other than 'what the actual ****??!!' All of them are old enough to know better. (Even though the profiles are public I apologize for snooping; it feels creepy. Anyone else feel creepy about it?) Maybe I have the wrong impression, but I associate things like 'Fellow' and 'member of the Round Table' with mature, thoughtful behaviour.

Discuss, considering how you all could make this work.

...see you all après le déluge




"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

TBE said:
I tried to bring up a newer theory called Equivalent Climate Change. Our left leaning forum members stayed the heck away from that one.

What is the theory of "Equivalent Climate Change"? Can you summarize it quickly for me or (better yet) point me to an article to read?

I've heard the term of GWP (Global Warming Potential) where they assign a number to a greenhouse gas based on how many tons of carbon one ton of this gas would be equivalent to. Is it similar to that?

Methane would have a number of 25 meaning that 1 ton of atmospheric methane would have the "equivalent" effect of 25 tons of CO2. Nitrous Oxide would have a number (I believe) somewhere along the lines of 300!

What I find this concept useful, as it can help us to look at OTHER by-products of petroleum or power production to see if there are OTHER effects that contribute as well.

FWIW, I believe there is a ton of natural gas released into the atmosphere (unintentionally) during the extraction process when we pull oil out of the ground. I imagine that this is similar with coal. Heck, I'd be surprised if coal doesn't release a bunch of other greenhouse gases as well (both as part of the mining process and part of the burning process).
 
I found it while digging around for info on atmospheric enthalpy. The author's complaint is that current climate models are weak because they are looking at radiative heat loss only. Basically, how much heat is passing through the upper atmosphere.

The author wants to include heating from energy production in the model. The author makes the assumption that all heating occurs and stays within the first 150m above ground and 0.5m below sea level (I don't have time to look up the exact numbers at the moment). This is important because it makes the mass of the sink much smaller. The author claims his model better represents the rapid temperature rise than the greenhouse effect alone.

 
Tug said:
moved on to climate justice

Yeah, that was pretty much the final straw for me. Not even bothering to play science anymore. Just full blown social justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor