Global Warming 24

[zdas04]

Scientific American Frontiers on the U.S. PBS network aired a program this month about Alaska. One sequence showed a "drunken forest". The ground temperature under the forest increased 3F or so and the permafrost became permaslush. The trees were no longer adequately supported and have started to subside at odd angles.

One of the scary things about the show was the contention that global warming is a positive-feedback loop. The permafrost holds an unimaginable quantity of frozen plant material. The contention of the people interviewed is that when that plant material begins to rot, it will release more CO2 into the air than the sum total of all human emission sources of all time. That CO2 increases the green house effect and further raises temperatures. The higher temperatures thaw the permafrost further and further north and release even more junk.

This loop was in addition to the well-understood loop of the warmer temperatures melting more snow, the water under the snow reflects less light, and the extra energy further raises temperatures.

Evidence in the deep-ice cores show that cycles like this have happened many times in the past. My question is: What is the mechanism of the reversal of the warming cycle? And will the industrialization of the planet make it more or less effective.


David

 

[aspearin1]

My personal opinion is that industrialization is negligible when compared to catestrophic events like volcanic eruptions. In one shot a larger eruption can emit decades worth of greenhouse gases emitted by industry. Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist at heart, and I by no means promote noxious emissions. I believe we are witnessing a cycling of the earth that has previously been unrecorded. We are nearing an inflection point where climactic changes will occur relatively quickly, thus is apparent to us. Rest assured, the earth will cycle back. It will not happen in our lifetime, and it will likely require a dark dust cloud to block out the sun for some time (either meteoric or tectonic) to start another ice age. Man may not survive, but something else will evolve.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[jmw]

The earth has "been there, done that" including an ice-ball phase which ended only with volcanic activity.
Periods of heat and cold come in cycles.

Everything does. One day Boston will have the grand-daddy of all earth quakes. It has before but it is a rare event. When it comes it is said it will make the Califronia quakes seem like a mild case of indigestion.

This doesn't say that we shouldn't worry about the fuels we burn or the waste we create, it just says keep it in perspective.

What fires the imagination kmisleads and panics the all too gullible public are Media Shock headlines which remove any opportunity for rational debate.

Are we entering a phase of gobal warming? If all you have to listen to is one side of the debate, a side which appears to argue from uncertain data as to the inevitability of global warming but don't listen to the equally sane rational and opposing views of equally eminent scientists, we will never be able to make a rational judgement by ourselves.

A couple of years back and the media put El Nino before a gullible public. El Nino isn't new, it's just the first time the general public heard of it and its effects. Hollywood loves disaster movies. The media loves them too.

As usual, voices that do not follow the "party line" are rididuled but not rationally answered.

But, how much air time do they give to those like Bjorn Lomborg? (

http://www.lomborg.com)

It's like having an election with only one official candidate and one official party.

Perhaps it is about tme we had properly trained scientists and engineers as journalists and editors.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

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

 

[mabn]

We just need a little more journalistic integretiy in the Western world. Technical issues aren't the only area of concern either.

Also, I'm not trying to generalize the entire profession. Just some bad apples.

 

[epoisses]

Yep jmw, the earth has been there, done that... It has seen dinosaurs come and go (hey, wasn't that a natural catastrophe as well?) and it will see the human race come and (one day) go. So don't worry about the earth, but worry about the human race itself, or rather its quality of life.
To me it's clear that the interests are so huge that there won't be any rational, let alone unbiased debate. My former employer (guess which one! it's from Texas) tried to brainwash all engineers claiming that global warming does not exist, or if it did, that they had nothing to do with it. ("Kyoto is for countries, not for companies" - as if the two are different worlds).
I'm convinced about one thing: we won't be doing anything about it until (if ever) it becomes obvious to everybody that we went way too far.

 

[Comcokid]

Global warming is a proven and irrefutable fact! - it began 25,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age. The only question is - 1) how much as man contributed recently to global warming? , and 2) is mans contribution to warming important?

My opinion is that 1) yes - some, and 2) not really, unless you're one of the people who have an expensive beachfront condo on a Florida key.

Note - I make the previous statement in jest, and realize it will be very detrimental to people in countries such as Bangladesh.

There are more important issues that the environmentalist should be paying more attention to such as: overfishing and deforestation.

However, it seems that environmentalist have a strange focus. They oppose Nuclear power generation. But then, in a stretch of schizophrenic logic they also oppose less impacting technologies: Wind turbine power, solar power, hydroelectric power, and tidal power generation. It would seem that they oppose these types of power generation more than oil or coal-fired steam power generation.

Maybe it should be the environmentalist who have the bumper sticker -- Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later.

 

[friartuck]

Whether you believe in global warming or not, we still polute the planet far too much.

We need to conserve our fuel...and no..Nuclear power isn't the option.

We can all contribute. Even a small amount helps.

Sowhat if a volcano erupts and makes our pollution look tiny in comparison,...we can't do anything about natural disasters...but we can do something about man made disasters.

We in the UK have to pay an extortionate amount for our fuel. The tax is very high. and we pay around $7 a gallon (Or more). The net result is smaller more efficient cars.
Equally, our gas and electricity isn't cheap, and our building regulations are getting a lot tighter on making the buildings more airtight and much beter insulated.

Boilers will soon be condensing only, and air-conditioning units are tending towards inverter driven in order to meet with tougher energy targets.

For Gods sake don't bury your heads in the sand or leave it to someone else. Don't blame the poorer countries either, they are trying to catch up with the rest of the world.

All nations need to comply with the Montreal and Kyoto treaties. And trading off with poorer conuntries is a big con. We all know who those countries are.

The buck stops with each and every one of us.

Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[ChrisatEastAg]

Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels are historically fluctuating, that has been proven. The scale of the effect of industrialised man on these processes is debatable, but how relevant is it? In a self-correcting system we may slightly hasten or delay the earth's natural cycles, but we won't stop them. Let's not forget that all the fossil fuels we burn were once atmospheric CO2 anyway.

Are the proponents of Kyoto really so arrogant as to suppose that we can control global climate? The science of climate change is still very much in its infacy; it's far to early for attempts at atmospheric engineering.

Whether or not a reduction in industrial CO2 emmisions would slow the process, only the dreamiest of garden fairies actually believe that this reduction is possible. Developing nations are exempt from the Kyoto protocols, developed resource economies such as Australia and the US would be fools to sign and even the Kyoto ratifiers will not meet the targets. The following table shows how far EU nations are projected to be short of achieving their 2010 goals.

Germany -1.3%
Luxembourg -5.6%
France -9.5%
Italy -10.2%
Greece -10.7%
Netherlands -12.1%
Portugal -14%
Finland -16.5%
Belgium -22.9%
Austria -24.5%
Ireland -26.8%
Spain -33.3%
Denmark -37.8%
Sweden +3.3%
UK +1.4%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1098635,00.html

Climate change is being used as a sop to the green ideologues and a thinly veiled attack on US industrial pre-eminence. Typical of feel-good pseudo environmentalists, the only answer they have is that somebody somewhere must stop what they're doing immediately, and then we will all live in nirvana.

If global climate change is really such a credible threat, what are we doing to prepare for it? Where are the harsh new building codes in anticipation of wilder weather? What nations have put a moratorium on development within 20 metres of a rising sea level? Who is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure development for Greenland's agricultural industries? Are the French building new cities in the Alps to accommodate their colonial subjects from drowning South Pacific Islands? No?

The Kyoto protocols are akin to King Canute commanding the tides to stop. No doubt they are politically useful to some governments or opposition parties, but good for the world? The energies that are being wasted on Kyoto would be far better spent in recognising and preparing for the inevitability of change.

 

[friartuck]

A few points

a. Do I know for sure if global warming is a reality.

The answer must be NO.

b. Do I believe I can make a difference ..no matter how small.

Simply...YES

I understand some people having serious doubts about the possibility of global warming. I look at like this.

We can't afford to ignore it.

All I can see is that some Nations are taking it very seriously.

Sure, the ice age comes around every 25000 years or so. But maybe, just maybe we are accelerating that time period.

Not something to look forward to if you live in a low lying area.

In the UK, we have recently revised our building codes and regulations. They are a bind, but we have taken a serious step in the right direction.

Oil is running low, fuel and electricity prices are rising and we will be reliant on oil from Russian pipelines in just a few years. No very secure at all.

I don't fancy another European or Worldwide conflict to battle it out over oil.

If we act now, we can slow down the rate of energy use and this will give us more valuable time to source alternative energy sources.

If this has a knock on effect of slowing down global warming, then great.

High fuel prices in the UK mean that most of us drive 'smallish' cars or techinically efficient cars.My car is a family saloon and returns an average 45 Miles per gallon and 56 on a long run. We would all like a 5 litre chevvy but we couldn't afford to drive one. (Our roads aren't big enough anyway)

I believe that there will be some technological developments soon that will help the environment, but until that comes, we should look after mother earth.

The need for going to work,for many might be reduced by the information highway. I can work from home. I don't really need to go to the office every day. I could use video conferencing for my meetings.

I can send emails instead of using 'snail mail' (Sorry Mr. Postman). I can design out air-conditioning in new office block. I can increase natural ventilation to assist also.

We don't have to believe in Global Warming to help the environment.

Education is the Key and it seems like some of US need a bit of that.

Yes, you are right, we are letting the Chinese grow at our expense. We can't stop the machine now, it's rolling too fast. What we can do is help ourselves. What is that saying, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'.

I'll try to do my bit. If anyone else does, thats a bonus.

At least I can sleep at night.





Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[quark]

Well, we don't need to minimize our CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions and we don't need to stop riding our motorcycles. Global warming is repetitive and happened even in bronze age(and we got the proof in Arctic excavations). Let the sigle chlorine atom disintigrate ozone for 170 years before it gets destroyed and we need not stop using our A/C units.

We just have to innovate some new drugs to combat skin cancer and increase CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions. We just have to invent novel techniques in water and air purification and further complicate the nature. If Chinese are to be blamed for this cycle I hope there is one other nation in the future which Chinese can blame. After all this cyclic effect is natural.

 

[friartuck]

I like the idea of using a skin cream to obviate the effects of global warming. I have this crazy vision of hundreds of queues of people lining up to get their cream and a separate queue for rabbits, one for dogs, one for pigs etc. Somehow I think that would be a tall task.

Perhaps we should just go back to the medieval times and all ride horses and farm the land. Life would be so much simpler. Less stress, no traffic jams, etc.

I suppose if we carry on as we are, that will happen anyway???



Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[ChrisatEastAg]

The Khmer Rouge are alive and well, living in Sherwood Forest...

Naturally in our new pre-industrial Utopia the world will support only a tiny percentage of its current population, so we'll have to get rid of several billion souls. Obviously the first to go should be those whos skills won't be of any use in the new world, and those who may have dangerous reactionary ideas, ie the professional classes. This was exactly Pol Pot's thinking in Cambodia/Kampuchea in the early seventies.

Technological society has evolved because it allows more people to live, and to live more comfortably. The challenges that climate change pose will be best met by more technology, not less. This was the whole point of my earlier post, that initiatives such as Kyoto are counterproductive because they focus on limiting industrialisation, and draw resources away from managing the effects.

A sufficiently advanced society may eventually develop climatic engineering processes, but at the very least we should be able to predict the likely changes and prepare for them. If for example global warming shut down the Gulf stream and brought on a new ice age a high-tech society could survive quite successfully. Pol Pot and his Merry Men will starve.

Energy efficiency and waste minimisation are good things, naturally. I have nothing but support for people making a personal effort towards extending the life of our non-renewable resources, but too often this develops into an attitude that resource use is somehow 'evil' and should be stopped.

 

[moltenmetal]

There's nothing morally wrong about consuming resources to meet needs. There's nothing wrong with consuming resources to meet wants either, provided you pay the full and total cost to everyone of that choice, not just the immediate monetary cost of the goods. That's the problem with wasteful consumption of finite resources- once their gone, they're gone. How do you value them properly? Do you assign any value to the needs of future generations in comparison to your own wants?

If global warming caused by human consumption of fossil fuels is even a remote possibility, do a HAZOP analysis for a second and realize that a small probability multiplied by a HUGE, DEVASTATING negative impact is something we should be very concerned about and doing something to avoid. And the science related to human-induced climatic change would suggest that the outcome is PROBABLE rather than merely possible. Surely we should curb our wants- based consumption in response to such a severe risk?

We can argue about the merits and disadvantages of the Kyoto protocol, but that's just an implementation strategy. My personal view on Kyoto is that it's an incentive for industries to reduce cost by wasting less of our grandchildren's share of the planet's resources. Those who get on the bandwagon are going to reap the benefits not only for their own populations in terms of having technologies and consumption credits for sale to others who participate, but also of a healthier planet. Less greenhouse gas emissions and less air pollution are directly linked. And yes, if major players like the US and China and Russia aren't on board, the credits/debits system is pointless- but there should be no less incentive for Western nations to invest in conservation and pay for it by taxing wasteful consumption.

 

[StressGuy]

It's a dangerous and, IMHO, and irresponsible thing to suggest that simply because their MAY be a POSSIBILITY that current human behavior is somehow accelerating the natural warming cycle of the planet that we need to start retreating towards the caveman lifestyle. The death toll from such a radical change such as would be required by Kyoto may very well far outweigh the potential death toll from pollution and globabl warming.

You want to talk about doing a HAZOP, which is certainly a sensible engineering approach. But that requires taking a look at the real potential modes of failure and weighing the impact of those failure modes. You're going to have to be open to the real possibility that the changes you propose can end up doing more harm than doing nothing.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[moltenmetal]

Stressguy:

Energy conservation and a reduction in wasteful consumption isn't equated with a "caveman lifestyle" anywhere else except inside your imagination. What it's really equated with is reduced energy cost by virtue of less waste, less pollution by virtue of less extraction, refining, spillage, evaporation and combustion of fossil fuels, less political and military intervention to secure a cheap supply of these fuels etc. etc.- oh, and engineering jobs, I might add! We engineers have more to contribute to this field than most, that's for certain.

And when you do a HAZOP, as I said, you look at the POSSIBILITY of each failure mode and then evaluate its probability and severity. Only the foolhardy totally drop potentially catastrophic single-jepoardy events off the list because they don't have the imagination to consider them possible. World scientific consensus is that global warming induced by both our increased emission of greenhouse gases and our continual destruction of carbon sinks is not only possible, it's probable. And the consequences are potentially devastating over the long term. Any sensible HAZOP analysis would give this serious weight for future action.

IronGoth:

Your first post equates the overwhelming consensus of climatologists today about global warming with the opinions of a few people who grabbed the media spotlight for a short time in the '70s about the potential for a new ice age- that puts you in league with the likes of those who feel that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!

And Kyoto or not, North American manufacturing is moving to China en masse already. The driver is money- the same driver that is the ONLY hope to make people think twice about the massive, needless waste of fossil fuel resources on the planet. The same economic externalities apply- the smog, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions move off-shore with some of the profit, while the unemployment cheques for the laid-off manufacturing workers come out of general government revenue.

Want to change people's behaviour for the good of society at large? Hit 'em in the pocketbook or give up.

You should continue to be free to drive your motorcycle as long as you pay the true and full cost of that pleasure, plus some contribution toward public transit for those who don't have that luxury.

 

[ScottyUK]

A few months ago the BBC's Horizon program had an interesting documentary about the Gulf Stream. The upshot of the research carried out was that the Gulf Stream may one day simply stop flowing. Not, as you might think, grow weaker first then die away, but a sudden stop. This was attributed to global warming affecting the temperature differentials within the Atlantic Ocean which cause surface water to circulate from the Gulf of Mexico towards Norway where it meets cold Arctic water and sinks deep to the ocean floor before returning to the Gulf. Scotland, being on the same latitude as northern Canada, would experience savage climatic changes.

Has anyone heard any more about this research?




------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[2dye4]

None of us can know anything about global warming. The
data is too subtle for casual observation. And the
system too complex for anyone but a dedicated professional
to evaluate. Let us acknowledge our ignorance about it.
After this all we can do is examine the consensus from the
scientific community. As a professional I am willing to
let the professionals do their work. I trust that most of
them will report accurate estimations about the subject
and that some will politicize the subject. If we take the
position that the majority of scientist are going to
be dishonest with us about the topic there is no hope
for the future.
Now what do the majority of credible scientist believe??
I would like to know if anyone has identified these people
and conducted a survey of their concerns.
Only by this step can we be informed about the issue.

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
It would be wonderful if "scientists" would do science and leave the policy to the representatives of the people. Everytime a scientist with a "the sky is not falling, that is just rain" point of view (with data) about global warming he or she is quickly shouted down. The eco-Nazis like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" have made this discussion impossible.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

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

The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

 

[aspearin1]

If memory serves:

Some say the world will end in Fire.
Some say in Ice.

From what I know of Desire,
I hold with those who favor Fire.

But if I had to die Twice.
Ice would also be Nice, and would Suffice.

-Robert Frost.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[friartuck]

The simple answer is, we don't really know if global warming is attributable to mans actions. We can postulate all day. We can have educated guesses, but there is only circumstantial evidence.

I've read contradictory information on GW. One expert says this, one expert says that, blah blah blah. Does anybody recall the tobacco inductry denying that smoking was bad for you. Those who wanted to believe it kept on smoking, and hey, guess what.....a lot of them are now DEAD.

And what else, ...the interested parties (Tobacco companies paying government loads of taxes--indirectly) proved for years that smoking was GOOD for you. Where is the Marlboro man now?

So we can prove that ice levels are increasing, and also that sea levels are rising and that overall global temperatures are not rising (but maybe local temperatures are) etc. confusing eh!

Again, I don't know if GW is a reality. Is it a natural phenomena or not??

We can only make decisions based on fact. The fact is that GW MAY be having an effect.....but I can't afford to wait to see if it really is affecting the world or not. I don't wish to work on the ostrich principle...though it seems some of you are prepared to.

We might or might not have an affect on the climate, but it doesn't seem right to simply stick your head in the sand and wait for things to get worse.

Even if we work on a 'take respnsibility of your own waste' principle is adopted, we can certainly help the environment.

So even if you don't believe in GW, do something positive for the environment. That issue is every bit as important as GW. GW is just part of a larger problem.


Friar Tuck of Sherwood