'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.

 

[josephv]

So using the same logic, it then follows that we should also not trust the "experts":

- at The Danish Space Research Institute
- from the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
- Phil Chapman and Dr. Hugh Ross

That is if you are a true skeptic and apply the same standard to everyone.

 

[GregLocock]

Actually I can see some fairly simple explanations for that graph I posted.

a) solar output reduction
b) increased burning of coal produces atmospheric sulphates which increase Earth's albedo
c) large forest burn offs increase smoke haze which increases Earth's albedo.
or
d) there is no causation between global average temperature and CO2

NASA say is (a) is a tiny effect. Everyone agrees that (b) and (c) are real, it is just whether you choose to emphasise them or not. Since they don't suit the anthropogenic CO2 mantra, the IPCC prefers to underplay them. (d) speaks for itself.

One of the funniest contradictions in the IPCCs stance is that they ignore water vapor, the biggest greenhouse gas by a factor of 4, claiming that it is natural cycle and you can't do anything about it. The carbon cycle is a natural cycle, anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny (<<5%) additional input into that cycle, yet according to the new religion although the water cycle is self regulating, the C cycle is not.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[KENAT]

Yeah, I can think of a number of human activities that emit significant water vapour.

Now if it's significant compared to that evaporating off surface water I don't know.

Then again, the biggest ones I can think of are mostly closely linked to activities that also burn a lot of fossil fuels.

Hmmmm...

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

 

[moltenmetal]

Aw, Greg-the water vapour canard again?! Honestly...

Water vapour content in the atmosphere is regulated by physical equilibrium processes which are FAST. Granted, the water cycle like all aspects of the climate is enormously complex. What matters here is that carbon dioxide uptake processes are chemical/biological and hence vastly slower than the physical equilibria that determine how much water vapour is there to prevent IR from re-radiating into space. The same goes for methane and the other greenhouse gases the climatologists are concerned about: once emitted, these gases take a long time for the biosphere to re-absorb- at least a "long time" relative to how quickly we're spewing them into the atmosphere from locations where they were previously "permanently" stored!

 

[LCruiser]

Here's something fresh and focused on reality:

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/in...of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/

 

[rb1957]

"i've looked at clouds from both sides now ..."

 

[jmw]

'Useless' green levy on drivers rakes in £4bn"

The treasuries own data,apparently.
Now, what was everyone saying about taxation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/24/nlevy124.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

JMW: gas (petrol) prices are roughly double in the UK what they are in the US and Canada, and the UK car fleet is roughly 20% more efficient than ours. Not 50%, but 20%. There's elasticity in the demand for motor fuels- the convenience that cars offer is worth a lot to people, and they're not done paying for that convenience. Unfortunately, they're causing inconvenience, and worse, to people who don't even OWN cars- that's what we've got to fix.

Put the 4 billion/yr entirely into mass transit instead of into the general treasury and you'd get quite a few more people out of their cars. Some London suburban commuters drive because even at current petrol prices it's still CHEAPER to drive than to take the trains!

I favour carbon taxes much more than these sort of car-model levies, and I they'll work better. But I freely agree that they too will not work if they're set too low, or if the tax system gets lobbied full of loopholes or has the rates set wrong. And I know that politicians don't do dedicated taxes.

Again- great criticism- but have you got any better suggestions? I don't. Biofuels certainly aren't it. And taxes work better at detering consumption than doing NOTHING does!

 

[KENAT]

"Some London suburban commuters drive because even at current petrol prices it's still CHEAPER to drive than to take the trains!"

Molten, there are other issues than just the cost. I tried using the train to get to work for a while when I first left university. About once a week it seemed that one of the trains I had to catch (I had to change) would be cancelled, not just a bit late, cancelled and so I'd be stuck on a platform somewhere for 45 minutes. That or the first train would be just late enough that I missed my second train.

Then there was the fact it made if difficult to be flexible with my hours. It was almost impossible to get in earlier and the small station near wear I actually worked only had one or two trains per hour, less after about 6pm. So when you took into account trying to make connections it was almost impossible for me to work late and get home in a reasonable timescale.

Now I suppose 4bn spent improving the above situation might help, but just reducing the price without improving the situation wont help much IMO.

The convenience of personal transportaion should not be underestimated.

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

 

[moltenmetal]

KENAT: service is definitely an issue here too. Our plant is right next to a major commuter train station but is in the suburbs. Folks like me doing the reverse commute from the city have trouble taking the train because it's so poorly served- only two trains in the morning, and often the early one doesn't run. Trains in the other direction are both frequent AND full, and that's good- but it's a chicken-and-egg thing: people won't ditch their cars until the transit alternatives are in place, and they won't be built until the demand can be demonstrated.

Fortunately, living in a city with a good public transit system, I'm the only person in the family who needs a car. It's used more or less only for the commute. Living near work you'd need a car to go to the corner store!

Tax the fuel and there'll be revenue to pay for more frequent transit service, new routes and better parking at the major transit hubs. And there'll be an incentive to build renewable electrical generation capacity and electric commuter vehicles too.

It'll take generations for us to change North American cities which have been planned around the car. The car will be with us for a long time, I'm not denying that. But we need to make it worthwhile for people to minimize their consumption by buying smaller, more efficient vehicles, carpooling etc. Even at $1.25 CDN/litre, most folks don't even bother to consider it.

 

[jmw]

Of course, as taxation increases, so to do the expectations of employees come pay rise time; they need more money to keep up with increasing costs.
The only winner is the government which gets to collect its "green" taxes and a bonus of increased income tax.
The economy then spirals out of control.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

And, as can be seen in previous links on this thread, the connection between CO2 and climate change is tenuous at best at this time anyway, so the discussion of energy use and taxes (other than that climate change is the excuse to raise the taxes) is really OT.

 

[csd72]

We just sold our car and are doing the public transport thing - it has its inconveniences but I take the time to catch on my reading and my podcasts.

We are lucky though as we live within 2 minute walk of a shopping center so we can easily walk home with our shopping. This is not really an option in some areas.

There are a large number of people in many countries that need their car to get to worrk and have no other option, the best public transport in the world probably would prevent that.

 

[KENAT]

I think I've posted before that I grew up without a car till I was about 10-11. We walked or cycled almost everywhere, on the rare long trips we took the train. Till I was 9 we lived in walking distance of the town centre so it wasn't too much of a problem.

However, when we moved to a slightly larger newer house, (not large by American standards but big enough so my siblings and I could have our own rooms) in the suburbs not having a car was a pain.

By this time (late 80s) they'd started building shopping centers on the edge of town etc and not having a car became a real pain.

So once my Dad got a better paying job and my sisters were old enough to start working & pay rent, then we got a car.

So I know what it's like to try and make do with only public transport, CSD good luck I hope where you are it's easier than it was for us.



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

 

[csd72]

Yes in the US things are definately set up for people having cars.

 

[jmw]

And increasingly so in the UK with the superstores and retail parks following the US pattern and with industry having mobed out of town.
Time was when people lived right where they worked. Then came public transport and the bicycle,then came the car and each innovation has increased the separation.
It will be a long road back.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[wvphysicist]

Isotopic analysis shows that the new carbon in the atmosphere came from coal and oil. We did it. You can't out argue 3000 top scientists with high priced oil company nonsense.

What are you going to do when all fossil fuels are outlawed?
Nature's way is mass starvation.

 

[LCruiser]

wvphysicist -

You're missing the point. Of *course* additional CO2 is produced by fossil fuel emissions, and concentrations are increasing because of it. Approximately 40% of emissions are reflected in concentration increases. The rest goes into the ocean and the biosphere - CO2 is, after all, the base of the food chain.

The point is, what does that CO2 do? It's pretty well established that a doubling of CO2 will increase, withoout any other influences, 3 or 4 w/m^2 at the surface which means about 1 deg C. However, what will that do to convection? A 5% increase in global precipitation will completely offset that - and increased convection and evaporation *will* occur.

Basically though, warm has always been good for mankind. The real challenge is to prove that this time, for the first time, it will be bad.

Is wv water vapor? We may be able to have an interesting discussion.

 

[GregLocock]

I doubt many people are still claiming that the CO2 levels have not increased, or that at least some of it is derived from fossil fuel (most atmospheric CO2 is not derived from fossil fuels, of course, despite what you seem to be trying to imply).

We just don't think it is the primary cause of global warming. Possibly some of your 3000 scientists would support that observation:

1) Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado reacted to this study in the journal Nature by declaring: "Climate models are of no practical use." Pielke, who is not a climate skeptic, said on April 30, "There is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy."





Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[jmw]

Another of those interesting blogs here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warming-mostly-hot-air/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lets-save-the-planet-—-without-starving-people/

This last is worrying.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com