'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.

 

[KENAT]

Right, well I'm gonna install a coal fireplace, put the incandescant bulbs back in, remove the draft insulation I just put in, replace the evaporative cooler with A/C and buy the biggest SUV I can find.

That should put a dent in the cold spell;-)

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

 

[zdas04]

I can see it now, the Global Warming acrimony continuing in an atmosphere where the remaining elephants start getting woolly. The Warming debate will not end until Al Gore (and his ilk) freezes to death.

Bottom line is that Nature is so big that the best (or worst) that humanity does cannot have more than a temporary, local impact.

David

 

[csd72]

zdas04,

Where can I get some of those rose coloured glasses you are wearing?

 

[davefitz]

It may be that the battle over "climate change" is a just proxy war- the real issue facing us in 40 -50 yrs is depletion of fossil fuels, and the implications it would have on a mechanized society. Since both issues are adressed in the same manner ,, one can fight the depletion issue without ever mentioning it

 

[csd72]

dave,

Then again, if the Al Gore types are right, then the depletion of fossil fuels may be the best thing that could possibly happen.

Mankind has always come up with leaps of technology at times when there were pressures(e.g. population pressures).

We may just end up using mini nuclear reactors in our vehicles or ZPMs or whatever.

 

[zdas04]

I really have a hard time seeing how talking about an impending ice age can possibly be "viewing the world through rose colored glasses". The NASA article says that in about 3 years it is going to start getting COLD on this planet and I really hate the cold.

The argument has never been about whether the climate is changing, but rather whether anthropogenic sources of "greenhouse gases" are a significant contribution to the direction and magnitude of those changes. The NASA article seems to me to show clearly how small our impact really is--when a small change in the sunspot activity can drive us into an ice age, how arrogant are we to think that the mites on the parasites on fleas (mankind) can really wag the dogs tail?

When we run out of burnable hydrocarbons, the world will find a new equilibrium. That equilibrium will either be built around new energy sources or a hugely reduced human population with significantly reduced per capita energy consumption. The Tempest in the "Global Warming" Teapot is preventing a focus on solving the end-of-burnable-hydrocarbons problems by demonizing industrial activities.

David

 

[owg]

The NASA article says nothing about the weather or the climate. It is the SSRC that makes that extrapolation based on a theory developed by guess who, the SSRC. Their work is supported by one name who used to work in Washington but who now works for a company in Florida. This company has issued one press release in 2008. I could not find any press releases from them in 2007.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

zdas04: looking a few posts back, you basically said that humans can't affect nature because nature is too "big". That's a lovely notion which is totally correct if you take a very, very broad view of "nature". Yes, I'm convinced that there will still be life on earth after we've dumped 100% of the fossil carbon back into the atmosphere. That we're doing so in what amounts to a geological nanosecond is no different than any of innumerable cataclysmic events the Earth has faced over geological time, and life will adapt. Humans will too: I'm convinced there will be still humans on the planet after we're finished burning all the oil and coal and natural gas and methane hydrates and anything else we can get our hands onto.

But that's entirely NOT the point!

Humans can and DO have a dramatic influence on Nature viewed on a slightly smaller scale. We've caused mass extinctions, denuded vast areas of the planet of the forests that have covered it for millenia etc. Humans have had lots of measurable influence on Nature! It is hubris (of a reverse sort I guess) to assume that we can't hurt the Earth no matter how hard we try!

What the legions of people who actually study this topic for a living are saying is simply this: there is the PROBABILITY that we humans, by dumping so much CO2 and methane back into the atmosphere, causing a MEASURABLE and significant difference in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, will alter the climate of the entire Earth in a way which it will take millenia for Nature's processes to even partially reverse. The results and magnitude of this change are not known quantitatively, but qualitatively they can be estimated, and the results for most humans are not pretty. Hence the argument to at least curb the rate at which we dump this carbon back into the atmosphere from a geological nanosecond to at least a geological microsecond. It seems eminently reasonable to me and it's unconvincing to you, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[zdas04]

Motlenmetal,
Funny, there seem to be just as many people "who actually study this topic" that disagree with your position. I guess you have to choose your experts.

David

 

[Sideswiper]

Yes, it is all about choosing your experts. I bet if you follow the money far enough, all of the "experts" agree with whoever paid them.

Which makes good business sense... why pay someone to disagree with you?

But it's a sad state for science no matter which side you're on. We like to think of science being an ideal, above politics... but it isn't.

 

[CajunCenturion]

We like to think of science being an ideal, above politics... but it isn't.

So very true, but isn't that human nature? As much as I, and I think to some degree all of us, would like to think otherwise, scientists, just like everyone else need to make a living. Science is a business run by people, and as such, is subject to the same politics, greed, corruption, and agenda pushing as every other career. Just as that Nobel prize winning scientist Al Gore. The sad thing that it's that it's so easy with science because people don't understand it, and FUD sells. Science can easily scare people into parting with their money to investigate this problem or that problem, because if you don't, it will kill you, and maybe, all of humanity as well.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jmw]

Here's a neat solution,
people are carbon neutral; burn people.
Supply and demand laws will result in there being not enough bodies naturally available and so the organ doner business would go hand in hand (pardon the pun) with bodies for fuel...it will be seen to have set a precedent for ensuring adequate supplies both of parts and bodies (what's left after supplying organs)... and due to the natural market forces the demand for bodies will accelerate to the extent that all sorts of crimes will be punishable by death.... no car tax, insurance, jaywalking etc. with body parts going to the organ market and the body as fuel.

This is a win win situation because .... eventually you will run out of people; no more Anthropogenic warming and no one to worry about an ice age... or, at the least, the few who are left will be sure of adequate fossil fuels.

Here's to Gil "The Arm" Hamilton!

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

Too funny, it really is a shame that Niven doesn't write anything that good anymore.

David

 

[KENAT]

Hmm, waste to energy crematoriums...

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

 

[IAAWVU05]

There a few problems with burning people, as there is with burning excrement or other forms of biomass. There is too much moisture. You would have to spend a lot of energy or time (either way it amounts to $$) just to get the moisture content down to ensure better results, especially for gasification.

Besides that, here are some other effects (before making jaywalking punishable by death) beneficial or not:

Human traficking would be legalized and encouraged.

US borders would be covered in sniper towers to meet the energy needs of California and other border states.

Population of third world countries would go down because energy goes to the highest bidder, and the losers become the energy supply.

Interesting future...

 

[jmw]

Yes, well, there is a flaw in my idea....the food or fuel debate....
Biofuels are already pushing food prices up significantly and we could just as easily starve.

As we know, when it comes to shortages there are no taboos to strong to be broken... ask the Donner Party... or the Andes plane crash survivors.

Actually, both parties opted to eat rather than heat. But maybe they didn't realise they had a food or fuel choice... human bodies burn quite well using the "wicking" principle.
This is apparently the real cause of "spontaneous combustion" being that a clothed human (live or dead at the start) will slow burn like a candle with remarkably effective conversion of the body to heat. In an experiment with a pork carcass they discovered they could emulate the complete combustion, bones and all (it was the bones problem that confused early efforts to find an answer).

Re Niven: responsible for some of the best science fiction (e.g. the Gateway Series).
The Gil Hamilton series appears either to have acted as a blueprint for the modern organ transplant business or was extremely prophetic. This is for me one of the most important roles of science fiction, to take a basic concept and ask "what if?" Niven seems to be good at providing the answers (or asking the right questions).

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

Heat from people? This was in yesterday's UK Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...VCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/08/ncremate108.xml

 

[jmw]

Synchronicity, that's what it must be. (or Deja vu? or something else?)
Obviously the time is right for the idea. PS, don't forget all those animals out there too. Perhaps we will measure animal fuel in hamsters? (One adult human equals 200 hamsters of energy) And what else is there? well, the NHS in the UK is muttering about not treating obese people and even GPs may refuse to see obese people. Ergo, obese people (the best fuel) will now suffer the highest death rates and we can quickly see the Human fuel idea grow. Pretty soon we'll have CcHP (Combined Cremation, heating and power) with crematoria the new power stations at the centre of district heating schemes.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

This line of discussion is starting to sound very solvent green. Now that movie is a depressing prediction of the consequences of global warming.

 

[KENAT]

Well given that the wick effect works better with more fat then I can see it working.

On the TV show I saw of it (sounds like the same one as jmw), the only part of the pig left were its trotters. They believed this was due to the limited fat content. However someone really obese might have cankles so problem solved.

However this has all got a bit gruesome for me so I think I'll get out of it before I say something I come to regret, if it's not too late.



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