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

 

[GOTWW]

What about all the frigg'n black asphalt we are pouring every where. And for the photo-voltaic freaks. These are 10% efficient at generating electrical power, and 90% efficient and generating ambient heat. Maybe all this is a drop in the bucket, and I am left alone, a ranting fool, again.

 

[tgmcg]

That global warming is man-made and will lead to environmental catastrophe is junk science at it's worst.

The folks pedalling this junk also believe that cow flatulence is a major contributing factor. These people have zero understanding of the natural methane cycle. Natural methane sources include vast sea-bed gas hydrate deposits and coal seams. Oil production operations also release vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. I'd estimate that cow flatulence accounts for maybe 0.000001% of all methane emissions. Guess we'd better pipe the cows up to the gas grid!!

Yes, the climate is changing. It has NEVER been constant. The most likely cause is as plain as day.....the sun. This is all a ploy to sap American industrial prowess while China trys to play catch-up....a much more plausible theory than global warming.

 

[corus]

Personally I always thought that the reason cows burped so much, that they contribute to global warming, was that they intended the destruction of mankind to take over the world. Surely much more plausible than world leaders ratifying the Kyoto agreement on the advice of 'bad' scientists in order that China can catch up with the USA.
I for one welcome our new bovine leaders.

corus

 

[ScottyUK]

[blue](BTW tomaspin, UK fuel taxes may be high, but we don't yet have toll roads like most of the rest of Europe!)[/blue]

Actually, we do. The first one opened around a year ago providing an alternative route through the M6 / M42 nightmare around Birmingham. I am uncertain whether it is a positive move.

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/motorways/m6/m6_toll/m6_toll_background/index.htm

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

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

 

[25362]

Some of the ideas ventilated in this thread coincide with the following:

"If we can stop the sky turning into a microwave oven, we still face the prospect of living in a garbage dump." Prince Charles (March 1989)

Prince Charles also said in 1987:

"If science taught us anything, it is that the environment is full of uncertainties. It makes no sense to test it to destruction. While we wait for the doctor's diagnosis, the patient may easily die."

 

[SnTMan]

Too much here to read it all right now.

When I logged on just now there is a banner at the top of the page that says "Stop Climate Change"

Huh? How? Would that be good or bad?

I think it's safe to assume that NOBODY is in FAVOR of dirty air, water, etc. Resources, financial, time, effort, are limited. The ability to be concerned about the environment is a luxury enjoyed by affluent populations. As the developing countries increase in affluence they too will have the luxury of worrying about the environment.

Real progress is being made, some driven by government, some by market forces.

I don't see Kyoto as providing benefits that are worth the cost. I know that if I had to reduce my energy consumption 30% overnight my standard of living would nosedive. I'll bet yours would too. Some could die as a result, for instance, elderly people without air conditioning during a heat wave. (See France). I don't believe in risking these people's lives and well being over unproven theories and half measures.

Follow "no regrets" policies towards reduction of CO2, etc. Use common sense. As I said in another thread, it's a question of what does it cost and who pays?

My 2/100.

 

[ivymike]

McGuinness (Mechanical) Oct 20, 2004
That global warming is man-made and will lead to environmental catastrophe is junk science at it's worst... This is all a ploy to sap American industrial prowess while China trys to play catch-up....a much more plausible theory than global warming.

It sounds to me like you'd have said the same thing about the earth being round, if you'd only been born in time. Those yellow heathens are at it again, eh? And this time they've got the whole of the scientific community in on the scam. We should've known that the scientists would eventually join the communists. The scientists are the intellectual elite, after all, who continually try to gain the upper hand over the common man, so they can tell him how to live...

 

[corus]

The earth being round is only a theory. In fact measurements taken by the science editor of Fox news have clearly shown that the earth isn't even flat but rather bumpy. I hope that ends this disxcussion.

corus

 

[GregLocock]

It is very difficult to check complex models - the only real test is to wait and see if they made the correct predictions, by which time, of course, there will be newer, better models.

As a cautionary tale once upon a time we employed a consultant to model a complex phenomenon. As we continued testing, they would redevelop their mathematical model, and got good agreement with our data, as we added more and more design variables.

BUT... what were they doing? Were they analysing the system from the basics, or were they just adding corrections based on statistical analysis? If it was the latter, had they really EXPLAINED the system, or merely improved the fit of an empirical model?

Which of those two sorts of model can be used to extrapolate?

(Incidentally they were basically curve fitting, so the model was only useful inside the existing design space)

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[ivymike]

wow, it really is a conspiracy:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.html

Scientific Consensus

To prove a scientific consensus on global climate change, Oreskes searched the scientific literature for papers published between 1993 and 2003 with the words "global climate change" in their abstracts. She found 928.

"Not one of the papers refuted the claim that human activities are affecting Earth's climate," she said.

According to her review, the scientific literature indisputably links greenhouse gas emissions from human activities—such as driving cars and burning oil and coal to generate electricity—with a rise in surface-air and subsurface-ocean temperatures.

However, Oreskes goes on to write that "many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics."

 

[BobPE]

Glad that proplem is solved....

the problem is that the data sets used by researchers is flawed. Keeping that in mind, of course people will come to the conclusions they do.

BobPE

 

[corus]

Bob is quite correct. I have taken extensive temperature measurements sat watching tv in my room and temperatures are hardly varying, a bit colder in winter and a bit warmer in summer maybe, but nothing to worry about.
For more facts see

http://www.flat-earth.org/

corus

 

[BobPE]

corus:

You are that old??? I mean, to have a good understanding of what the impacts are in your home, a good data set would be 2+ million years....and as for your HVAC system, well, we will factor that out of the equation because it is providing the largest impact to your recorded temperatures, and after all, the data wouldnt look right if the HVAC was factored in....

BobPE

 

[Rich2001]

Saw this article on the effects of solar eruptions on the thinning of the ozone layer. This article illuminates the conundrum of separating the natural and human-induced effects.

http://livescience.com/forcesofnature/050301_ozone_thinning.html

 

[JayMaechtlen]

"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."

that contribution is in the form of the taxes on fuel, licenses, and so forth.

Others don't have the "luxury" because either they haven't earned it or they don't want it bad enough to pay for it.

Jay


Jay Maechtlen

 

[Rich2001]

Another Theory on global climateclange "Huge Space Clouds May Have Caused Mass Extinctions"

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/050503_mass_extinctions.html

 

[moltenmetal]

Jay: I'm arguing that if you live in North America you may FEEL you've paid the cost of operating your vehicle in terms of existing fuel taxes, income tax to pay for roads, license fees etc., but in reality you've only paid a mere fraction of the actual cost society bears as a result of your activity. Have a look at fuel costs at the pumps in Europe and compare them to costs here and you'll see that we actually subsidize car use here in North America.

I want these fees to go into a separate fund so that uses of these funds for energy conservation projects, public transit etc. don't have to compete with schools and hospitals. Giving government more money in directed consumption taxes without constraining how they use the revenues generated is nearly pointless- schools and hospitals will ALWAYS win because that's where people's values are. Most members of society have no grasp of the bigger picture on issues like this and shouldn't be expected to have one. Note that I said that such taxation is NEARLY pointless- even if the money is just dumped into public coffers, the taxes will do PART of the job by making people pay more for a finite resource and hence motivating them to CONSERVE it.

 

[JayMaechtlen]

The motorcycle generally causes less impact than a car does.
It will create more pollution than a modern car per gallon used, not necessarily per mile.
The comment referred to a "motorcycle", not "car", or "personal vehicle in general".
It may be that we should pay more in taxes on fuel, to encourage conservation. Personally, I'm not in favor of it.
Comparing to Europe is ridiculous, because they tax puniitvely to subsdize all the wonderful rapid transit that costs so bloody much. It also acts to control trade balances for those countries which have little or no home-grown fuel reserves.
Fuel taxes, afik, are set aside for highways and related.
Passenger rail is a loser in most applications- only good in heavy metro areas, where destination has enough public transport that cars aren't needed or usefull.
But- that belongs in another thread!

Jay Maechtlen

 

[CRG]

moltenmetal, you stated, “Have a look at fuel costs at the pumps in Europe and compare them to costs here and you'll see that we actually subsidize car use here in North America.” Whether North America subsidizes car usage or nor, what does the cost of fuel at the pumps in Europe have to do with the argument? I can just as easily confer, that the European community does a poor job at bring the commodity to market.

 

[moltenmetal]

CRG: all I want is for the price of products, all of them, especially gasoline, to reflect the TRUE and FULL cost of their consumption. That'd take some of the moralism and hypocrisy out of it. Since many of the costs of the wanton consumption of these finite resources are not reflected in the current purchase price of the commodities themselves, taxes need to be added. A well empty of crude oil or a forest denuded of trees or a global temperature rise- none of these consequences show up in dollars and cents on the balance sheet. European gasoline prices are relevant because they show that the kind of taxation I'm promoting is EFFECTIVE at reducing consumption, as evidenced by the greater use of public transit, the greater preponderance of smaller, lighter vehicles etc.

Jay: city design determines which form of transportation is "bloody expensive" or practical. And one thing you can't argue with is that an electric train is a more energy-efficient way to move people around en masse than a freeway packed with idiots in SUVs (or Harleys- take your pick!). Subsidize roads from the public purse yet charge public transit riders for every trip, and subsidize consumption of fossil fuels (or fail to charge the full and true cost for them, what's the dif?) and guess what you get? A typical North American city. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy- build a North American city predicated around the car, and presto! you get a city for which public transit is expensive. It's going to take a couple of generations to undo this idiotic, wasteful mode of city design even if we make a determined effort at it, and ultimately we'll get nowhere unless we start increasing the taxes on fuels NOW to pay for it. We'll reap all sorts of fringe benefits from this move as well, primarily in the form of more liveable and vibrant cities.