'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.

 

[jmw]

Here is a nice line of reasoning:
IF the earth's temperature were rising (a lot of growing concern over the integrity of the temperature data presented)and only the earths, then we are whetre we are today with two camps; those that believe in anthropogenic global warming and those that don't or who are "agnostics" rather than "atheists".
BUT IF the temperature on other planets is rising also then there is a reasonable chance that this might not be co-incidence but due to a common cause... increased solar activity.
The other planets could represent a nice control group where man has not had his evil way with the planet.

So:
1) are the other planets showing a real increase in temperature in a meaningful way?
2) is this a co-incidence or is there a common causation?
(I am indebted to a Telegraph On-line reader's post for this idea).

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

For the planets that have a meaningful atmosphere this could indeed be interesting.

Of course, apparantly we have solar dimming as well as global warming. So global warming is actually a lot worse than we realize, but global dimming is mitigating. Said it on TV so must be true.

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

 

[rb1957]

nice idea, but I'm willing to bet that the intrepretation of the results on other planets could be spun ... their atmosphere is different, increasing/decreasing the effect of an increased/decreased solar input.

I do understand (ie I've read reports of this, not the original science, nor am I smart enough to do the science) that the sun is in a period of unusually high activity indicated by sun spots.

 

[jmw]

But I thought that the sun was actually cooling down at the moment? Isn't that one of the claims by which the AGW climatologists were undermining the solar mechanism for warming?
Given the problems with Hansens temperature data and its apparently daily switching around of which years were hottest and coolest etc. I'd have to guess that rb1957 is right, whatever the data is and whatever it appears to show, the spin will make you dizzy.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[kenvlach]

Worth noting is
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
- by Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow, Sept. 12, 2007
"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate."

http://hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/9-07 Avery Global Warming.pdf

About 163 publications are listed. Note that Mr. Avery only claims that the major portion of global warming is natural, not that mankind isn't contributing.

It seems common sense that some plants and animal species will benefit while others (e.g., polar bears) will suffer. Same with nations.

 

[MechanicalAnimal]

I have a few suggestions that might work on a global scale:

1. Changing the policy of the automotive industry and it's customers, specially in the US, to return to optimal rather than jaw-dropping constructions (no you DON'T need a 12-cyllinder SUV wagon to go to a McDonald's drive through in the center of NYC).
That's why I drive an Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTI, avg 4.5 l/100 km.

2. Car pool.

3. Changing the packaging policy of all products. I'm amazed how you buy something in a bag which has been put in another bag which is placed in a box wrapped in paper and placed for you in a nylon bag. Even if you buy wrapping paper, it's wrapped.
That's why I deliberately choose to buy products with minimum packaging (also saves the trips to the bin).

4. Support and buy eco-farmed products as much as you can. I won't get into global warming and whether it exists, but I think we can all agree that pesticides, chemicals designed to kill different life forms, ARE a threat to different life forms. They get into drinking water, and into you, when you eat food treated by them. If we boycott producers who use such substances in their production, eventually they'll come around.

 

[MechanicalAnimal]

Oh yeah:

5. Make your own energy. Solar collectors to warm your water, a small wind-turbine, solar cells, whatever: it reduces your personal energy expenses,it's fun to own and maintain (well, we're engineers, aren't we?), and even if it's 500 W, it's 500 W less in oil and other polluting fuels.

 

[GregLocock]

"1. Changing the policy of the automotive industry and it's customers, specially in the US, to return to optimal rather than jaw-dropping constructions (no you DON'T need a 12-cyllinder SUV wagon to go to a McDonald's drive through in the center of NYC).
That's why I drive an Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTI, avg 4.5 l/100 km. "

Why on Earth would a rational consumer in the USA care what their fuel consumption is? The cost of fuel is far less than the cost of financing a new car.

Incidentally, automotive companies do not choose what cars to sell, for the most part. The customers choose what to buy. Ignoring that fact of life has killed 97% of the car companies ever created.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[graybeach]

You hit the nail on the head Greg. The cost of fuel in the US must go up for any real change to occur. It is not just cars either. You should see the size of the houses being built in the US today. They are huge! And it is not just the heat; it is also all the stuff one has to buy to furnish them. Then there are all the new roads that are built to get to the new big houses, further and further away from cities. Are people really so much happier with these huge cars and houses?

 

[KENAT]

To some extent the US has painted themselves into a corner. Various rules/regs were introduced some time back that at least in part led to the increased amount of SUVs & Pickups.

Now because of all these large vehicles on the road many drivers don't feel safe in smaller, more efficient, cars.

Combined with the relatively cheap gas (it's approximately doubled in price in the last 4 years or so, bit lower at the mo'. Was usually under $1.60/gallon when I moved out here in my part of the world but now is up around $3, more until a few months ago. However, still a lot less than it was in the UK) then limited incentive to drive really small efficient cars. Combined with the rules on diesal emissions...

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

 

[MechanicalAnimal]

Greg,

I was more or less appealing to human reason and common sense, not to pure economical calculations. US is leading this enormous overconsumption trend (as graybeach addressed) which has very little to do with either (human reason OR common sense). If we are to do anything to help improve environment or lessen our impact on it, we must make a difference between what we NEED and what we WANT, and adjust our mindsets to NOT do things just "because we can", or worse, "because we can afford it".

I am not naive enough to think it will actually happen, though.

 

[csd72]

MechanicalAnimal,

Bravo, that is exactly what I have been thinking since I arrived here.

The politicians are trying to keep the interest rate unnaturally low because that is what is popular. But this results in excessive spending and no incentive for people to save.

Meanwhile the US foreign debt is rising, and this will not be helped when the oil starts to run low and countries stop needing US dollars to trade for oil.

Reminds me of the situation in Australia a decade ago, and a certain politicians claim of "the recession we had to have". Sometimes boom is not the best thing to maintain, because it just makes the bust even greater.

csd

 

[jmw]

However, a report in the last week or two gave a projection as to how many billion extra people there will be on the planet in a few years time.
That is the real problem. Unless that is addressed then what possible benefit can the changes we make have if they will be set aside simply by increased consumption?
So in respect of the last two responses part of the solution is certainly to be more responsible for how we manage our lives on this planet.
But that is not the problem. Indeed, it simply makes the problem more acute and the damage of a response to a false scenario even more so.
The questions about climate change are:
[ul][li]is man causing it?[/li]
[li]is climate change bad for us?[/li]
[li] is CO2 the cause?[/li]
[li]is more CO2 totally bad fr us or does it bring benefits? (remember the headlines about the cost/damage of El nino and the small paragraphs about how beneficial it really was?)[/li]
[li]Is the climate really warming up?[/li]
[li]Is responding to the assumption that the climate is warming up, that man is causing it and that man can do something about it a "safe" assumption to make and does it warrant a precautionary response?[/li]
[li] what if the IPCC et al are wrong? How much harm does the precautionary approach do to our ability to respond to the real problem, as an when it is identified?[/li]
[li] Can you scam the taxpayers twice? will they (taxpayers) pay out for another alarmist scare after having been duped on the first (the "Boy who cried wolf" principle as it is generally presented) or will they dig their heels in?[/li][/ul]
This isn't about whether we are environmentally concious or not but about whether the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is genuine, mistaken or a hoax? or is it robust enough that we should act. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is no help when the real problem emerges and no one can be made to take it seriously and if the could, don't have enough remaining resources to do anything sensible about it.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

jmw,

a billion extra people in third world countries will not come anywhere near close to the consumption of 300 million americans (for example).

The resource consumption of First world countries is way out of proportion to their relative population.

Much of our consumption is optional and therefore we have the option to reduce it. Poorer people tend to have less optional consumption as most of their resources are spent on survival.

csd

 

[KENAT]

We all know not everyone here agrees on global warming/CO2 link etc.

However, what if any, negative effect could just reducing personal consumption/individual impact have?

There may be an economic impact if we use less and someones already brought up mercury in cfl but within the readily achievable limits what negative impact can trying to use a little less energy have?

If nothing else reducing the European/US reliance on imported energy sources is probably a good idea, no?

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

 

[jmw]

One concern is that third world people may not get enough to support even the most primitive lifestyle. That is why I asked the question about bio-fuels. Collectively many of these measures will impact very badly on third world living conditions.
There is something strange that when starvation is such an ever present risk in such countries that so much (or even some) of their arable land is devoted to producing wild bird seed for the western population to scatter about wastefully in their gardens. Or that valuable rain forest will be subjected to slash and burn for sugar cane or palm oil for bio-fuels with consequent losses to the already endangered species.
And we see meat and egg prices rising here already, without even bio-fuels getting into their stride yet.
Fine if there is a genuine reason to replace mineral oils with bio-fuels but worse than frivolous, it is criminal to do so if that results in a substantial proportion of the population falling further behind in the survival stakes because their grain and their arable land is more valuable for bio-fuels than to feed them.

So granted the first part of your comment, about consumption but that does not excuse the need to recognise the inherent dangers of uncontrolled population growth nor the consequences of poorly conceived strategies to address unproven problems that may not even be problems in the first place.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

jmw, reducing personal use should better their plight though.

Using less energy generally would reduce the pressure on all energy sources wouldn't it, including bio fuel? Using bio fuel isn't reducing energy consumption which is what I understood the OP to be asking about.

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

 

[csd72]

Kenat,

I disagree with how this whole biofuel thing has been projected - as if it is a cure to all our problems - It is more a supply solution than an environmental one. Granted it is better for carbon emissions (depending on how it is produced), but it has other problems associated with it.

jmw,

Cure poverty, and the population growth will come down. First world countries all have lower growth than third world ones.

csd

 

[KENAT]

Csd, My point is, that widespread introduction of biofuel has little to do with the OP as I understand you meant it.

I agree that biofuels have issues, I'm just not convinced this is the place to discuss it unless you have a diesel you want to convert and a source of recycled veggy oil. thread730-198198 is maybe more appropriate.

However it’s your thread so I guess you get to decide.


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

 

[ewh]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but new developments happen.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare