'Educated' opinions on climate change 41

[csd72]

As engineers we are educated in physics and chemistry and should have a reasonable idea on what really effects the energy consumption that causes climate change. I am looking for peoples opinions on what suggestions have been good ideas to reduce your individual impact. Alternatively what suggestions have you heard that are utter nonsense.

It would be good to hear comments from engineers on this matter.

 

[csd72]

It seems most people in this discussion are from the US, so I will base my comments on that country.

Americans(i.e. from the US) are, on the majority, so incredibly anti tax that they will come up with any arguement against it.
Increasing the cost of goods by a few percent has no comparison to the cheap cost of labour in places like India and China. In 2006 the average chinese income was $2025 per year, no comparison to US salaries, so if the couple of percent is going to make a difference then I guarantee you they have already been looking into sending it offshore.

The exact same arguements were used against environmental protection laws, but the country got over it.

Carbon tax is not about penalising companies for their pollution, it is about paying a decent and fair price for the cost of the production. Capitalism is not a perfect system, sometimes it needs a little prodding to ensure that those that create the problems pay a fair price to subsidise the rectification. This is one of the main reasons we need government.

 

[KENAT]

So anti tax that they had a war about it that let to the founding of the USA in the first place;-).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[josephv]

It’s time that we put the oil for food program into proper perspective. The label “biggest rip-off in history” came from politicians who wanted to discredit the UN, but at the same time wanted to ignore the role their own countries played in this scandal. I can think of bigger rip-offs, for example most of the illicit income that Saddam’s regime received came from oil smuggling and had nothing to do with the program. This oil was smuggled into our allies Turkey and Jordan. Now our governments either completely missed this fact (i.e. were incompetent) or decided to look the other way while this was happening (i.e. were corrupt). Either way it is bad new for us.

Secondly, I strongly believe that it is important for engineers to participate in these types of discussions. To say that talk of economics and policy only belongs to one group of people and not to another one strikes me as elitist (i.e. “we know what is best for the people attitude”). I know you did not actually say this, David, but there are some people who think that way and I completely disagree with them. Final note, we need to expand these debates not narrow them down.

 

[moltenmetal]

David: that's what you get when you ask a technical person to solve a problem which CANNOT have a technical solution until the economics etc. are properly addressed.

What p*sses me off royally is that politicians assume we'll invent our way out of this one too- and that engineers are only too willing to be amongst the snake-oil salesmen telling them that it's possible to do so. Makes me sick to my stomach, really, for my kids' sake.

 

[vc66]

Star for you, moltenmetal. Good point!

When politicians and corporations are the one's who ultimately cause problems, they then expect someone else (engineers) to fix it.

V

 

[moltenmetal]

vc66: reminds me of the old chestnut about the guy in the hot air balloon. He's lost, so he calls down to someone he sees on the ground below and says, "Hey buddy, can you tell me where I am?". The guy on the ground replies, "You're in a hot air balloon, about 10 metres above the ground, and you're at about such and such degrees and so many minutes latitude and longitude".

The guy in the balloon says, "You wouldn't happen to be an engineer, would you?"

"Why yes, I am- how did you know?" he replies.

"Because you gave me an answer which is no doubt absolutely technically correct and accurate, but which is absolutely NOT helpful!" retorts the balloonist.

"Hmm- you must be either a manager or some other kind of politician!" replies the guy on the ground.

"Why yes, I am- how did you know?" asks the balloonist.

"Because YOU asked ME for help, and I gave it to you as best I could. I didn't put you in or alter your situation one bit, but somehow now you seem to think it's MY FAULT!"

 

[LCruiser]

I've been gone awhile - in order for me to not have to read all 205 previous posts, can anyone tell me if there was any actual, real, evidence posted here that global warming is happening and will be a bad thing?

Thanks in advance...

 

[electricpete]

The results of the most comprehensive review of your complex question that mankind has undertaken are given here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[zdas04]

Or not.

Read the thread.

David

 

[joshua0977]

Actually there are many scientists that believe the converse is happening and that Global cooling is more prevelant and dangerous than warming. Crops will not have the seasonal growing temperatures needed during their germination stage.

 

[LCruiser]

Ummm... If the IPCC is the best you can do, you need some education. They're in it for the money.

So, why have exactly zero GCM's predicted this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

On the other hand, since snow has a higher albedo than low clouds, this concept does predict it:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html

 

[GregLocock]

Coincidentally I've just read a book of Feynman's lectures. In one of them he discusses Cargo Cult science. It has a spooky resonance with the global warming cult.




Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

Yeah, we've been there, cargo cult, Lysenkoism, religious beliefs dressed up as "science", the theocracy of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Me?
I begin to think we just blame Al Gore and take him and Pippa out and introduce them to Mr. Vigillante (she's the one who wanted to ban rock an' roll or heavy metal or something. These guys are serious fruit cakes) or find them something useful to do with their lives, like answering spam mail. I do hope we get to hold them accountable sometime, and soon.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

jmw, it was Tipper not Pippa. Dee Snider of Twisted Sister or other Rock/Metal stars, maybe even John Denver may que up to the the vigilante.

Given the amount of hot air they generate maybe we should just eliminate all non essential politicians.

I'll leave it to you to each decide how many are essential.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[jmw]

As in fly, got it, but thanks for the correction.
Seems these guys are a match made in heaven.
Think she's a fan of Sharon and Ozzie?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

From the BBC - Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

 

[jmw]

But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.

That was the original objection but then, others have reported on the global chilling effect which effectively masks global warmings full extent. Particulates have some interaction with cloud formation which has, they say, caused much of the climate problems in the monsoon areas etc.
Since 1980 sulphur has been removed from fossil fuels in North America and Europe. SOX was 33% anthropogenic, 30% from land based fossil fuel use. However, in the IPCC 4th report they have no idea if SOX emissions have increased or decreased over the last 22 years to 2002.
That means that any link might be obscured and we don't have the data to unmask the effect.

A big problem is that correlation is not causality and it seems to me the converse is true; the lack of an obvious correlation does not mean there is no link.

What is really needed for the solar activity link is to identify a precise mechanism that links solar activity with cloud formation or with any other atmospheric phenomena that would impact on climate change.

But it seems to me a big step from not finding the proof of solar activity having an effect on climate to saying that the sun does not have an effect. Those are two different things and just as it would suit the sceptics to find a look and to postulate that there is one, it also suits the AGW group to shout out that every failure to find the link means there is no link.

Me, I kinda think the sun has to have some role in our climate, especially today when the sun is out and the windows are open compared to last week when we had snow on the ground. So I kinda expect there to be a link but I can't say there is one.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[civilperson]

The source of cosmic rays is probably not the sun. The quantity of solar energy impacting earth is enormous, (orders of magnitude greater than mankind's energy production from all sources). The variability of the energy during a eleven year solar cycle has been estimated at 11-15%. This variability is also greater than all human energy production. Anthropologic impacts on climate change are minor and it is false hubris to assume these are the main cause of climate change.

 

[LCruiser]

The relevent cosmic rays (muons) are indeed not from the sun. The ones from the sun are not strong enough. It takes an energy of over 10 to 15 GeV to penetrate the atmosphere and magnetic fields to get to the lower clouds. What happens is that the solar magnetic field, loosely related to sunspot number, deflects them. The stronger the field, the more muons are blocked, and the less of them ionize the atmosphere to enhance water droplet formation (aka clouds). At least that's the theory. Hers's a link:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html

As additional information on the veracity of solar influence, Consider that ice and snow have a higher albedo than clouds. Therefore, fewer clouds should mean coole temps. In the northern hemisphere that is obviously not relevent due to black carbon (soot) considerations. However, the South Pole gives a pollution free venue to compare the relative strengths of the solar effect and CO2. They are global, soot is a northern hemisphere phenonemon - with some secondary effects from ocean circulation. So, the further one gets from the ocean, the more we have the two forcings battling it out:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

 

[WoodyPE]

I figured that the population of the human race is releasing a lot of CO2, and it is equivalent to several large power plants. Consider that the average human being burns about 400 BTU/hr at a fairly low level of activity. The energy is coming from carbohydrates and the end product is CO2.

There are several billions of us humans on the earth. Hence, we should do less strenuous activity to reduce our CO2 emissions. So if you are fat and lazy you can tell the whole world you are doing your part to reduce CO2 emissions. ;-)