'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.

 

[patdaly]

Could someone please send us some extra CO2?

It is bloody May the 16th, and I am still being killed buying Propane.

Trust me boys, I understand localized conditions, but I am beginning to believe I was right back in the early 70's when I was a lad warning about the "settled science" showing the Ice Age was coming.

 

[jmw]

Hey Pat, where are you?
In the UK we emerged from a long wet cold winter, (the occasional snow flurry just after Easter) had a couple of days of global warming and now we're back to global chilling again.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

That's the global warming "emergency" - They need to get all these cap and trade schemes as law before everybody realizes it's a scam as things get cold again... Al Gore has a lot invested in his future income. As more and more oil etc. companies get positioned, they also start (one by one) to raise the "alarm".

 

[jmw]

Global Warming? I rather think that bar a couple of days of it we are still where Flanders and Swann left us:

http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/hat_weath.html

nuff said.
Of course, if like me you have the CD you can enjoy this song in alls its glory.
(Flanders and Swann are responsible for the "Animal Songs" including the song of the Gnu, the Hippopotamus etc.)

By the way, Al (Tust me, I'm a former Presidential Candidate married to Heavy Metal hating Pippa) Gore should be collecting some funds together for a class action suit from all those of us freezing our toes off.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

That is why they now call it 'climate change' some effects will actually temporarily cool certain areas just because of the convection processes.

 

[GregLocock]

Ah, is that the reason? I rather thought it might be that they realised that by confidently predicting an effect they were limiting their options. Climate change means they stay in business whichever way it goes, or even if there is no global effect at all, just local effects.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[electricpete]

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10149#ocean_3a

Warming can cause unusual melting of the ice caps, releasing large amounts of fresh whater which disrupt the north Atlantic conveyor / heat-pump.

But I guess if you think that Wood's Hole MIT is part of the conspiracy, there's not much point in discussing it.


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

 

[electricpete]

Some more from the same folks:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986

It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable

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

 

[GregLocock]

I don't think you need a conspiracy, more likely a "coalition of the willing". The scientists researchers gain from the funding, the journos have something to write about, the public gets to blame the evil oil/car/coal/etc companies.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[owg]

Electricpete - Thanks for the Wood's Hole references. The bit about the countries bordering the North Atlantic possibly having no change in temperature over the next 100 years due to the greenhouse gas effect offsetting the slowing of the ocean current that keeps us warm was particularly interesting. It is an example of how little we know about the future. Here is the quote.

"A reduction in the Atlantic heat pump in the next several decades would cause winters to be colder and more severe than today in the regions around the North Atlantic. If changes in the heat pump occur instead a century from now, then the effects would be different. Since greenhouse gases are projected to rise over the next 100 years, the global average temperature will also continue to rise. Cooling in the Atlantic region might actually mitigate that warming such that winters then would not be colder than today."

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[csd72]

The earth is an incredibly complex place, and any simplifying assumptions are usually wrong.

It is no coincidence that most of the sceptics on this forum come from petroleum reliant industries. Not accusing them of self interest but the industry journals e.t.c. that these industries put out all have a vested interest.

 

[LCruiser]

The "Atlantic heat pump" is moderated now, and always has been as long as there has been seasonal ice in the Arctic.

Read the Wood's hole link objectively - don't let the word "may" translate into "will".

Also, in this statement:
"It is scientifically inconceivable that - after changing forest into cities, putting dust and soot into the atmosphere, putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture, and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - humans have not altered the natural course of the climate system"
you will notice ghg's are last in the list. It is inconceivable that the first ones are not affecting climate, but it is pretty well accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only increase temperature by about 1 deg C (3 to 4 w/m^2) - and we really have no clue about what the feedbacks will do.

Read the rest of them - notice that when they talk about the hydrological cycle they don't get into latent heat - shows that this is not put together by someone familiar (or even aware of) thermodynamics. Average global rainfall is about a meter - a 5% increase in evaporation completely offsets the effect of CO2.

 

[Zapster]

The earth is an incredibly complex place, and any simplifying assumptions are usually wrong.

csd72 could not have said it better. I wonder how many folks in this discussion will agree that all of the assumptions that reside in a computer model of earth’s environment make the projected outcome lack credibility. A sensitivity analysis of a climate model should make anyone with a technical/math background skeptical of any projected outcome regardless of their belief system.

 

[csd72]

Zapster,

I am talking about the simplifying assumptions that many people on this forum are using to justify their point of view.

Yes, computer models are not perfect, even our engineering Finite Element Method computer programs are just a close approximation but they are the best we can do at the moment apart from having a working model (a bit hard for the earth, but maybe if we tow mars into the right orbit....).

One thing I can guarantee you is that the simplifying assumptions used in those computer models are far less than those used by many of the skeptics.

 

[LCruiser]

csd72 -

I'm not sure I get your point. Alarmists say models are robust, yet you say they are not. Then, as most skeptics (as opposed to denialists) raise issues that illuminate problems with the models, you say the skeptics have no credence, although they are primarily just showing where models are off base.

I think you are confusing showing what is wrong with thinking they know something the models don't show.

Then, you say:
"It is no coincidence that most of the sceptics on this forum come from petroleum reliant industries."

Name some industries that are *not* petroleum reliant.

On a separate note, the biggest moneymakers in the global warming fiasco are the James Hansens (over a million in donations outside his salary) and the Al Gore type "carbon brokers" who are interested in skimming money.

 

[KENAT]

Sorry for taking this thread back on topic but

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24523584/

made me think.

Fuel consumption increases significantly at high speed.

Is it time to put speed regulators on most vechicles?

I'd have thought with the widespread use of engine management computers etc it wouldn’t be too expensive to implement on new vehicles.

Of course the argument of what the level should be will be an issue, especially in the US where the maximum varies quite a bit by state. The highest posted limit I've seen is 75 (all speeds here in are in mph).

Then there's the (supposed?) safety issue of being able to accelerate out of danger, so you'd probably want a margin on top of that.

Then there's that small group of people that like to take their cars onto a track and race, or at least go fast. So you'd perhaps need some way to temporarily turn it off, though as that's arguably wasting fuel maybe not;-).

Plus I'm sure there is some reason the ACLU can think of why it infringes on human rights guaranteed by the constitution.

You could get it real fancy and tie it in with GPS and based on location the governor could be adjusted to be X above the posted limit, that or via transponders in the road signs. Then this could all be recorded in a black box & checked once a year when you go for your tags so should you go abroad or onto a track and speed the Police/DMV will be able to tell the difference. Maybe insurance companies would give a discount for this even if it wasn't mandatory by law.

However this all starts to get a bit big brother, where do you stop?

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it on Trucks/Big rigs. The amount of times I've been tail gated by a big rig on the 138 between Gorman & Lancaster or on the 55 stretch of the 5, North of Castaic is pretty high. This when typically doing about 60 on what are 55 roads (45 in some areas for Trucks). However the proposed 68 in the link wont help much with that.

Other ideas, “to reduce your individual impact” – don’t go dirt biking or partake in other motor sport etc.; don’t support motor sport (though there’s the old argument about developing technology in motor sport that finds its way to the road may come into play); don’t use camper vans, get a room or a tent.



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

 

[GregLocock]

csd72

I think your lack of experience with safety related models is showing. In my world we correlate our models and whenever we have to extrapolate outside the zone of correlation we erect big signs saying "here there be dragons". My models are used to sign off investments of the order of half a billion dollars.

Instead the global warming guys are attempting to extrapolate forward by 50 years on models that seem to trip up every two years. They are 'signing off' on investments of the order of 5% of the world's economy (say).

I think my cynicism/criticism is justified.







Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[electricpete]

Since you bring up the analogy of safety analysis: If you are analysing actions to provide high confidence of avoiding an unacceptable (unsafe) outcome, doesn't the presence of uncertainty in your estimate steer you toward more conservative actions to compensate?

For example if my best guess is that I need exactly 2" thick structual beams to avoid bridge collapse and I have high confidence in my model, I might make those beams 2.2" to provide myself a modest 10% safety factor. But if that same 2" estimate is based on a model with low confidence, then we have to provide maybe 4" or 6" thick steel to provide a higher safety margin to compensate for the uncertainty.

The same logic applied to global warming would suggest more agressive approach since the situation may be even worse than our best-guess models tell us.

I am not saying the climate change argument is that simple (there are many different adverse consequences to consider), but I don't see how analogy to safety analysis tells us that uncertainty in our results should lead toward less conservative actions.

The fact that the models are uncertain is not a suprise to anyone. It is certainly not a suprise to the Hadley center which provides uncertainty analyses spread throughout their documents, for example here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/COP10.pdf

I don't think there are a lot clear-cut conclusions in this debate. I do think that people (myself included) tend to make up their minds early on about what are the credible sources and then filter out everything that doesn't match their preconceptions. In some ways, it is similar to the political pundits on CNN. And then you have the name-calling. We have some here that can't get through 2 posts without using the word "alarmist", and who think it is civil behavior to offer to "educate" someone simply because a differeing opinion is expressed. Now I'm not whining, I'm sure I have done some of the same type of tactics myself. But I thought engineers were a little better than the talking heads on CNN.

I guess it just comes Comes with the territory (global warming discussions).

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

 

[electricpete]

By the way Kenat, did you really think you were going to get a word in edgewise on the original topic? Sorry.

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

 

[GregLocock]

ep

Yes I agree, that would be the usual way to operate if the model had demonstrated its reliability in the domain in question. That is, a model that is reliably predictive if not especially accurate can be a useful tool.

BUT these models that have failed to demonstrate any ability to predict in the domain of interest (ie the future, from the viewpoint of 8 years ago, or whenever it was that global temperatures stabilised). They do not seem to me to be anything more than the beginnings of understanding of the subject in question.

I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to predict future climate, but neither would I take the first output from these /demonstrably innaccurate/ models as a good reason to do anything drastic, especially when we take into account that even if their predictions come true there is a good argument that the results will be beneficial or (relatively) cheap to deal with.

Having said that as well, there is no particular point in burning oil (etc) to make electricity, and a more efficient lifestyle would be a good idea. But the latter rather presupposes that the enormous majority of people worldwide will never be 'allowed' to have a moderately energy consumptive lifestyle. Ignoring them ignores reality.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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