'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.

 

[owg]

For anyone trying to follow Climate Change the acronyms can be a problem. Here is a list. Its not complete but it may help some.

AAAS American Academy of Arts and Sciences

http://www.amacad.org/

AAS American Astronomical Society

http://www.aas.org/

AASC American Association of State Climatologists

http://www.stateclimate.org/

AC Arctic Council

http://www.arctic-council.org/

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

AGU American Geophysical Union

http://www.agu.org/

AMB Australian Meteorological Bureau

http://www.bom.gov.au/index.shtml

AMS American Meteorological Society

http://www.ametsoc.org/

AR4 IPCC Working Group 1: The Physical Basis of Climate Change

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

CCSP Climate Change Science Program

http://www.climatescience.gov/

CERN Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

CIRES Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

http://cires.colorado.edu/

CLOUD Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

CPC Climate Prediction Center

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/

ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

http://www.ecmwf.int/

EUMETSAT European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/index.htm?l=en

GAW Global Atmosphere Watch

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/gaw_home_en.html

GCOS Global Climate Observing System

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/interproj/gcos/

GECC UK Global Environmental Change Committee

http://www.ukgecc.org/

GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/

GFSC Goddard Space Flight Center

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html

GHCC Global Hydrology & Climate Center

http://198.122.199.231/ghcc_home.html

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System

http://www.ioc-goos.org/

GOS Global Observing System

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/

http://www/OSY/GOS.html

GTOS Global Terrestrial Observing System

http://www.fao.org/gtos/

IASC International Arctic Science Committee

http://www.iasc.se/

ICECAP International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project

http://icecap.us/index.php

ICSU International Council for Science

http://www.icsu.org/index.php

IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/index.php

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/

MBL Marine Biological Laboratory (aka Woods Hole)

http://www.mbl.edu/index.html

METHC Met Office Hadley Centre

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

NAMMA NASA African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analyses

http://namma.msfc.nasa.gov/

NAS National Academy of Sciences

http://www.nas.edu/

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

http://www.nasa.gov/

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction

http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/

NHC National Hurricane Center

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

NSF National Science Foundation

http://www.nsf.gov/

NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/

NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

http://www.noaa.gov/

NRC National Research Council

http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

NWS National Weather Service

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

RMetS Royal Meteorological Society

http://www.rmets.org/

SAR Second Assessment Report IPCC 1995

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sa(E).pdf

SPPI Science and Public Policy Institute

http://www.sppionline.org/Home/tabid/53/Default.aspx

TAR Third Assessment Report IPCC 2001

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm

TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission

http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/TRMM/index_e.htm

UAH University of Alabama in Huntsville, Atmospheric Science Department

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/

UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

http://www.ucar.edu/

USGCRP US Global Change Research Program

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

http://www.unep.org/

UW University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/

WGMS World Glacier Monitoring Service

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/index.html

WMO World Meteorological Organisation

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/index_en.html

Climate Science Abbreviations

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
ADRF Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing
AEW African Easterly Waves
AGHG Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas
AIRF Aerosol Indirect Radiative Forcing
AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
AO Arctic Oscillation (aka NAM)
AOD Aerosol Optical Depth
AOGCM Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model
ARF Aerosol Radiative Forcing
ARIMA AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average

BT Brightness Temperature

CAPE Convective Available Potential Energy
CAS Climate Analysis System
CCN Cloud Condensation Nuclei
CINE Convection Inhibition Energy
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CONUS Conterminus United States
COT Cloud Optical Thickness
CRE Cloud Radiative Effect
CRF Cosmic Ray Flux
CRII Cosmic Ray Induced Ionisation

DEAD Dust Entrainment and Deposition
DLF Downward Longwave Flux
DTR Diurnal Temperature Range
DVI Dust Veil Index

ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation
EOF Empirical Othogonal Function

FACE Free Air Carbon Enrichment
FAR First Assessment Report IPCC 1990
FOIA Freedom of Information Act

GCM General Circulation Model
GCM Global Circulation Model
GCM Global Climate Model
GCR Galactic Cosmic Ray
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMST Global Mean Surface Temperature
GOSTA Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas
GRL Geophysical Research Letters
GW Global Warming

IR Infra Red
IRD Ice-Rafted Debris
ISO IntraSeasonal Oscillations

LACC Low Altitude Cloud Cover
LCC Land-Cover Change
LCL Lifting Condensation Level
LFC Level of Free Convection
LFO Low-Frequency Oscillation
LGM Last Glacial Maximum
LI Lifted Index
LIA Little Ice Age
LNB Level of Neutral Bouyancy
LTS Lower-Tropospheric Stability
LUC Land-Use Change
LW LongWave
LWC Liquid Water Content

MAGICC Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse gas Induced Climate Change
MAT Marine Air Temperature
MJO Madden-Julian Oscillation
MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
MPA Mobile Polar Anticyclone
MSD Mean Square Differences
MSLP Mean Sea-Level Pressure
MSU Microwave Sounding Unit
MWP Medieval Warm Period

NADW North Atlantic Deep Water
NARR North American Regional Reanalysis
NAM Northern Annular Mode (aka AO)
NAO North Atlantic Oscillation
NATL North Atlantic Tropical Latitude
NH Northern Hemisphere
NPO North Pacific Oscillation
NWP Numerical Weather Prediction

OMR Observation Minus Reanalysis
OPAC Optical Properties of Aerosol and Cloud

PDF Probability Distribution Function
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation
PDI Palmer Drought Index (Moisture)
PDI Power Dissipation Index (Hurricanes)
POD Period of Data

QBO Quasi-Biennial zonal wind Oscillation

RCM Regional Climate Model

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar
SAT Surface Air Temperature
SCENGEN A regional climate SCENario GENerator
SLP Sea Level Pressure
SOI Southern Oscillation Index
SRES Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
SST Sea Surface Temperature
STS Sub Tropical Storms
SW ShortWave

THC Thermo-Haline Circulation
TOA Top of Atmosphere
TSI Total Solar Irradiance

UHI Urban Heat Island
USHCN US Historical Climate Network

Comment by Philip Mulholland — August 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

http://climatesci.org/2007/08/25/cl...thank-you-to-everyone-for-your-participation/

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

Uh oh, no consensus:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Numbers vary, according to whose article you read, but around 31,000 scientists, 9000 with PhDs, most in some sort of climate or environment related discipline (it is said) have signed the petition.

That's an awful lot of people to be in the pay of the petrochemical giants.

As one diehard said "When 100% of scientists sign that's when we'll have a consensus."

Now for those who think taxation is the answer, take a look reports of "Spanish, Belgian and Portuguese fishermen launched nationwide strikes over soaring fuel prices, the latest in a wave of oil related protests sweeping Europe."
and protests in other countries about the price of fuel.

SO now let's look again at the problem and how to solve it if it exists.

Seems ironic to me that as fast as everyone is cutting down trees (not just the slash and burn merchants but also local authorities who believe trees are harmful to motorists...(from their habit of positioning themselves just where motorists speeding along at 90mph a#re going to come off the road)... that someone now suggests giant artificial trees

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7429562.stm

(I wonder if they will put them up on bends in the road).
So now we have artificial trees to add to artificial volcanoes (proposed as a means to put Sulphur into the atmosphere, after we've taken it out of fuels) as an aid to global chilling.

Its a funny old world, isn't it?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Sorry, just had to add a bit.

The artificial tree proposal comes from Dr Broecker.

He said the challenge was to get rapidly developing countries such China, India and Brazil behind the idea.

The UK is littered with Palmerston's follies. These are the forts built against an expected French invasion. They were built in the 1870's at great expense.

It transpires that all the French invasion plans began with a statement "First the British Royal Navy is lured away...."
but without saying how. Dr. Broecker's "challenge" is a bit the same. Without that the Chinese agree it ain't going to happen.

OK, so the Russian Academy of Science has decided AGW is a myth. I see no reason why the Chinese should choose to believe in AGW, indeed, they have every reason to reject the idea.

Incidentally, the French Invasion scare was attributed to Napoleon the Third. Not only did the UK get all those forts and lots of orders for Armstrong but in the southern UK all houses had gravity tanks for water so that if invasion came and interrupted supplies every house would have a reserve.
As for Napoleon III, he lived out his days with the Empress Eugenie at Farnborough Hill House in Hampshire and his son was killed on active service with the British Army in Africa.

But don't expect that Al Gore should be accorded a similar courtesy should he have to flee into exile. (Britain has always been a haven for failed or threatened politicians and Royalty including Metternich who lived at Brighton for a while).

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

That petition is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Here is the response to their original petition in 1998 from the National Academy of Sciences:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

 

[LCruiser]

Thanks for the quote josephv. You will notice it was over 10 years ago and Earth has cooled since then...

 

[josephv]

You are welcome. According to the National Academies, "9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred during the past decade."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

cheers,

 

[csd72]

Interesting part of the petition

"Proposed limits in greenhouse gases would harm the environment..."

What!? How can putting less of our man made pollutants harm the environment? I would be really interested to hear that explanation.

Also there seems to be a very large concentration in certain states like texas, California and Florida, are these oil producing states?

Also interestingly only 3,697 are in Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences, and there are almost 10000 from engineering and general science (some of which are probably no more informed than we are).

The petition does not convince me at all when weighed against a buch of scientists specifically picked for their knowledge of climate related issues.

 

[josephv]

Also, if you look at the petition itself it has a check box that says, "please send more petition cards for me to distribute".

This basically means that the distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled ( i.e. they could distribute the petition to anyone).

 

[LCruiser]

Most ghg emissions, namely CO2, are not "pollutants". They are the base of the food chain. So much for your paradigm.

As far as limiting their emissions being harmful to the environment, look at the results of the very first step we have done - that is encourage making ethanol. the raw materials for 25 gallons of ethanol from corn would feed an adult for an entire year. The cost of food has risen worldwide due to this calamity, therefore more people are farming less arable land, using more fertilizers etc. They are also pushing the limits on crop rotation, ruining more and more arable land.

And that's just the first step.

Then you get into not letting third world people use fossil fuels for food production, manufacturing, etc.

Contrast that petition with this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/29/usa.climatechange

which they could only get *100* IPCC scientists to sign.

100.

 

[csd72]

The real impetus of using ethanol was not really climate change it was more to do with rising fuel costs.

The environmental 'benefits' were just a political wrapping.

If bush was really into the environment, mandating better fuel efficiency standards would have a much more immediate effect.

 

[LCruiser]

csd72 said:
"The real impetus of using ethanol was not really climate change it was more to do with rising fuel costs."

Got any backup on that? It doesn't make any sense, especially since it takes so much fossil fuel just to manufacture ethanol.

 

[rb1957]

back to the petitions ...

1, 100, 100,000 who cares ... science is about proving stuff, having an idea about the causal relationship of some things, devising experiments to test predictions, then living with the results, possibly explaining a more complicated relationship.

politics is about getting people to believe stuff so they'll do as they are told, or let others tax the cr@p out of them.

NO-ONE can prove AGW, these day's we're having enough trouble detecting GW. Everyone has an opinion and each is to a greater or lesser extent educated. if people say "well 1,000 scientists say so, then it must be true", then they'll get the world they want.

of course the climate is changing; it's always been changing and always will, but we have no proof as to what it's going to do tomorrow.

 

[csd72]

Lcruiser,

Your point can also be used to argue against the environmental benefits of ethanol.

But the truth is that these are unexpected side effects that were not expected at the original inception of the idea. It can work though, as Brazil has shown.

 

[KENAT]

csd, Native Tribes, Endangered Animals, Wildlife groups etc. may argue whether it really works.

I’m not sure if the de-forestation is linked that much to cane sugar or to cattle ranching or even subsistence farming etc but the last I heard it was continuing.

“Environmental Impacts” is a huge remit, CO2/AGW is just one part of it.


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

 

[LCruiser]

Brazil is #1 in the world in destruction of rainforests. Even above other continents.

 

[csd72]

KENAT,LCruiser,

Very good points. Thats what comes from not having time to think these posts through.

I would never make it in politics.