'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]

For something on SSRC we must thank Junkscience:

http://junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/08/must-have-brass-ones/

be sure to follow the links.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Kenat,
For something on SHC: visit How Stuff Works which links to the BBCs QED program which may be where you and I both saw it.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

QED sounds right, I think I saw it before I moved out to the States.

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

 

[jmw]

I guess I should have kept quiet.

Maybe just mentioning the concept of human fuel was enough to trigger the reality.
I was about to add a clever remark about how truly apt would be the well worn phrase "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." but such is the power of words that I now understand why the dead cannot be named in some cultures nor why Jeh***'s name cannot be spoken (or taken in vain... see The Life of Brian, the stoning scene

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-04.htm)

and why some things are best left unsaid, why some people cannot bring themselves to open all those "final demand" letters as if opening them will make the grim truth a reality, a sort of Shroedinger's cat in real life where saying the unspeakable opens the box and makes a new reality.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html.

Thus, in quick succession to my original post about human fuel we had the news of crematoria warming the mourners with the heat from the cremated and now another dead cat:

In the Niven books about organ donors, a donor card was necessary to opt out of organ donating. Without the card one was assumed to consent to organ donation.... the Reader's Digest approach.....("to receive this book you need do nothing! It will be sent to you shortly. If you do not wish to keep it, then all you have to do is return it (at your own expense)... you know the psychology) i.e. implied consent.

Today you can carry a card that says you are happy for your organs to be taken for transplanting. Without this express consent, the consent of the relatives must be sought.

Alas, on the radio today I hear that Gordon Brown (AKA the Brun, AKA the Prime minister of the UK) is to propose that patients who die in hospital will be harvested for their organs unless they specifically have declared that they do not wish this.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlFnJUD-8K3-fc5YTi48jOpFUYPQ

We now step into the future, Larry Niven's future of implied consent]/b]. It is not a prospect to be enjoyed.
and which is the next dead cat we will encounter?

Of course, an NHS hospital is no place to be if you are sick and the longer you are there the more likely you are never to leave. On the other hand, those of us who smoke, are obese etc. can hope to gain preferential admission to hospital but only so as to bring us within the reach of the harvester, the grim reaper (AKA Gordon Brown.

It is now but a short step for the useless remains to the crematoria and a timely piece of legislation that will deny us a choice as to whether we are buried or cremated.

I wonder how Niven feels about all this?




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[toothless]

Has anyone else noticed that the term "global warming" is being changed to "climate change"? That way, regardless of which way the temperature goes, the greenies are right. They can blame any adverse weather on man and industry. Of course they ignore the fact that the weather cycles over long periods of time (remember the ice age?)

 

[csd72]

toothless,

there is actually a logical explanantion of this. Due to the thermal circulation around the earth there are actually some places that will get colder while the rest get warmer.

Although the average temp will increase.

Some mp3 lectures:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425

 

[garrettk]

Not to throw a bucket of cold water on global warming alarmists, but reading this article gives the impression that some of the very basic concepts of global warming may be incorrect.

I understand it is only one article, but when the ocean temperatures become slightly cooler over a 4 or 5 year period some rethinking of global warming should take place. This is especially true when you combine this information with resarch showing the impacts solar cycles have on earths environment and how many of the land based weather stations have skewed data due to local development.

Suprisingly it is reported on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

 

[csd72]

You skeptics will cling to any piece of information you can.

There is a lot more complexity to the science that is not covered in this article.

1. The oceans tend to act as the circulation for heat throughout the planet with the oceans tending to move the heat towards the poles. Hence the poles recieve the majority of the effect of warming.

2. addition of melting ice to the oceans can have effects in far greater proportion than the cause. For example in europe some of the glaciers melted in the alps sending a large amount of fresh water down into the mediteranean, this water covered the warm water circulating from the equator and caused a mini ice age in europe during the middle ages.

This is a very complex issue, and it is no surprise that the scientists disagree (they disagree on everything) but the vast majority agree that there is an issue and something needs to be done.

 

[garrettk]

csd72 - There seems to be enough pieces to 'cling to' lately that it makes sense to re-examine the concepts.

The analysis that started the global warming movement has been shown to be wrong (debunking of the hockey stick graph). Unfortunately, the original analysis was kept secret for so long that the mass movement was too far along to be kept in check. You'll recall that the guy who did the original work refused to share his research for a peer review.

While not expressly stating it, the article on NPR raises the question of are the researches forcing the square peg into the round hole. They certainly didn't get the answers they expected (or wanted?) and are now looking for reasons the numbers are wrong instead of considering an alternative hypothesis.

You're absolutely right that this is a complex issue, but I question the 'vast majority' and 'concensous' statements tossed around so easily. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that bring serious questions to the table. What I find suprising (and disheartening) is how quickly global warming followers quickly dismiss any shred of evidence that may prove them to be wrong.

The climate has been changing for many millions of years, why should we not expect it to change now.

 

[zdas04]

csd72,
Yep, us "skeptics" will continue to cling to data that supports our position. The people who believe that climate change is caused by human activity will cling to any emotional argument that sells lectures.

The "vast majority of scientists agree that there is an issue and something needs to be done" (a contention that I heartily disagree with), is just more emotional baggage that doesn't add value to the argument. I have seen considerable solid data that supports the conclusion that the climate is changing--and has been in a constant state of flux since the planet cooled from a gas cloud. What I haven't seen is physical evidence that this change is anthropogenic. If we didn't cause the "problem" then it is very unlikely that our activities will have a significant impact on its "solution".

David

 

[Tomfh]

What concerns me is how many skeptics appear to base their opinions on television programs.

Any mention of "solar cycles" or whatnot is a dead giveaway.

I'd expect better from engineers.

 

[vc66]

The Ice Ages (there have been many) -

Do you think that we caused them?

Did they involve HUGE climate changes?

Could the opposite (global warming, or whatever you'd like to call it) happen without the human race having anything to do with it?

I'd say so.

V

 

[jmw]

Oh dear,
at least csd72 now admits that there is disagreement..

it is no surprise that the scientists disagree

, for a long time it has been a tenet of the global warming theorists that there was a "consensus" among scientists.
Of course, as others point out, science isn't about consensus anyway, but it was a handy stick used to beat at the sceptics.

Now what is wrong with solar cycles? Considering that the sun is where we get our energy I'd be very surprised if it didn't have something to do with our weather and I'd be even more surprised if, by the time you take into account all the various factors of planetary orbits and solar activity, that it should be thought of as giving an absolutely constant output. No, engineers wouldn't expect that it is constant and I don't see why we should not consider even the slightest possibility that the sun might affect our climate. Of course, we'll have plenty of time to find out because according to NASA and others the sun is gong into one of those cycles right now.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

(two links because though they appear the same, there are two different pages originally found...) and of course, we can rely on the BBC for the contrary view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm

And a link to NASA:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[csd72]

garrett/zdas,

I understand the not beyond reasonable doubt attitude, but I do believe it has been shown on the balance of probability.

vc66,

No,Yes,Yes.

On the lighter side:
My university Civil Engineering society had a T-shirt one year, the front had a globe and the words 'save the planet' One the back was the same globe encased in a cube with the words 'encase it in concrete'.

 

[zdas04]

csd72,
Where has it "been shown on the balance of probability"? I have been looking at all the data I could lay my hands on for 5 years and I keep seeing "... data shows ... " some change in the physical world and then leaps without justification to "we must reduce industrial greenhouse gas production".

The thing that I have never seen is a credible, non-ambiguous link between human activities and measurable changes in the global climate. If the polar ice caps are receding (and for every study that says they are, there is another that says they're advancing), then they are receding--that doesn't prove that human sources of CO2 have any part of the cause.

If the level of the ocean (a very difficult measurement that doesn't have consensus on basic techniques) is rising, then it is rising--I don't see any data that links the rise to human activities.

I have never claimed that the climate is not changing, it is now and has always been in flux. My problem is that rather than focusing on shifting human society to better cope with inevitable change we are vilifying industry and imposing Draconian restrictions on industrial activity to "slow the change". This is irresponsible and seriously counter productive. If the planet is warming significantly and the ice caps are melting, then we shouldn't be rebuilding New Orleans because it will become insupportable with mean high tides increasing several feet. If the planet is entering another ice age then we should be focusing industrial effort in improving energy efficiency far beyond the current lip service.

David

 

[garrettk]

Tomfh,

I'd expect more from an engineer than to ignore the 500lb gorilla that sits in the room next to them. That 500lb gorilla is the sun, the largest energy source impacting the earth.

These are not a television shows:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;294/5549/2130

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5641/1890

The abstract for the second link is pretty direct in saying small variations in the suns energy have large impacts on the earth.

 

[Toastie]

Personally I say both sides are right to an extent
1. The earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling
2. The crap humans put out in the air is amplifying its effects

The main question that should be asked is where the humans here will be intelligent enough to take steps to reduce their impact on the planet or just say to hell with it and let out children ride the ship on down

 

[toothless]

What humans are we talking about that should "take steps"? the way I see it, only the U.S. and Europe will even make an attempt (translate that to spend money) whereas China, India, Africa, . . . . aren't going to do a thing. Will that help?

 

[csd72]

China,India and Africa have a very good point. The majority of the pollution so far was put there by the rich western countries, in fact is a byproduct of why they became rich.

The up and comming countries would have an even greater hurdle to overcome if they have to implement the same stringent measures during their industrialisation.

Where would the western countries be if, during the industrial revolution, they were told "you cant use coal until you find a way to stop it polluting".

If the USA bites the bullet and signs the kyoto protocol(and ratifies it) then the other countries will no longer have an excuse. At the moment it is just a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

 

[jmw]

In Europe and North America sulphur has been largely removed from fuels but the IPCC cannot say if, in total, SOX emissions have increased decreased or stayed the same between 1980 and 2002.
In short, we don't know how much reliance to place on the inventories of pollution for the various nations.

By the way, removing SOX locally makes some sense because it is considered a particulate and believed to have some health impact. I say believed because in the report on "long term exposure to air pollution, effect on mortality"

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/longtermeffectsmort2007.htm

There is a section devoted to SOX which suggests our knowledge is far from satisfactory yet major policy decisions are taken none the less.

At the same time the link between particulates and global chilling is now suddenly well received (once they twigged they could claim it was actually masking the full effects of AGW) and there are now proposals for using artillery and missiles to inject Sulphur into the upper atmosphere or, more recently, suggestions of artificial volcanoes.

Environmentalists seem prepared to advocate any extremes to remove NOX and SOX, particularly SOX, even at the expense of extra CO2. Senator Boxer is proposing unilateral legislation to mandate distillate only fuel for ships even though the extra refining may increase CO2 and without considering Senator Vittor's comment that all that will happen is that shipping will divert to Mexico and goods will come across the border by road and rail... increasing COX and NOX and without the benefit of the river system for distribution.

There is too much ill-informed propaganda out there which is fuelling potentially counter-productive legislation....
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions." and bad propaganda.
Oceana says, for example, "a switch to distillate fuels (for shipping) would drastically cut pollution including NOX which is a powerful greenhouse gas." (near as I recall the quote, it may not be exact).

NOX from shipping is around 3% of the the fossil fuel combustion which is 1% of anthropogenic NOX, most from agriculture and biomass burning, and anthropogenic NOX is around 15 terra tons of NOX (form bacteria and electrical storms mostly) compared to 2 terra tons of anthropogenic NOX.

Note how the Environmentalist websites seem to be harmonised... not difficult when for whichever solution they oppose, they back all the alternatives. Oceana and FOE, fo example, were proposing (still are I suppose) a tax on Bunker fuel but both adapted to a call for distillates only.
The "voluntary" speed reduction in California waters is supposed to help reduce pollution. It actually means increased shipping since it takes longer to deliver the same cargoes. Sure, speed reductions will help but sensibly arranged. Of course, many of the measures lead to increased size of vessels which then doesn't suit Seaflow who are concerned about underwater noise.

All laudable concerns but sometimes treating the symptoms isn't the best way forward nor is treating problems in isolation or unilaterally.

The temperature data used to promote the AGW scenario is increasingly suspect and is coming under considerable scrutiny. Some say the tampering with the data is tantamount to fraud. Some say the bristle cone pine data is unreliable and should not have been included. Some suggest the temperature data "corrections" are of greater magnitude than the forecast change and investigation of the recording sites is revealing that many US sites do not meet specification as they have become urbanised.
So, am I supposed to roll over and bow to the findings of some very dubious science?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com