IPCC says crucial threshold reached by 2030

[itsmoked]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-chang...[/url]

"Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn."

What about this?

[!]Let's keep this civil and go at it with open minds.[/!]

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[IDS]

It seems that many people don't want to discuss this issue here, seeing it (I guess) as too political.

I think it is absolutely an engineering issue, starting from the original definition of civil engineering:

"being the art of directing the great sources of power in Nature for the use and convenience of man"

Assuming that "man" applies to all of humanity (not just the adult male portion), including future generations, that means that engineers should consider the long term consequences of everything they do, using the best scientific information available, and in the case of conflicting data, erring on the side of caution.

The question is, how can we make future costs visible, as far as possible, when it is in the short term interests of politicians to hide them as far as possible?


Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[itsmoked]

Engineering problem.. I kinda think it's a lot more political. Engineers are not likely to refuse the building of a power plant that perhaps should've been distributed solar, as it's a job, a challenge, and someone else would do it.

On the flip-side these are really complex subjects that should probably be left to engineers and are instead left to politicians who don't have the vaguest idea about exactly what should be done.

A bit of a quandary really.

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[IRstuff]

It's only an "engineering problem" if we agree that there's a problem at all. That's the crux of the political issue, whether or not there's a problem to be, or required to be, solved. To compound the issue, there's a sector that thinks that not only is there no problem, there's a huge conspiracy and hoax.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[IDS]

It's only an "engineering problem" if we agree that there's a problem at all.

But deciding if a potential problem is real and significant is an engineering problem. The fact that there are huge political pressures and vested interests doesn't change that.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[waross]

What are the major sources of greenhouse gasses?
What is true and what is fake news?
I have been told by an oil executive that a major source of greenhouse gasses is methane release from undersea sources.
True or false?
What percentage of green house gas comes from sea sourced methane?
I have been told that a major source of greenhouse gas is cattle flatulence.
True or false?
What percentage?
What percentage do coal fire plants supply?
what percentage do natural gas fired plants provide?
Any other major sources?
The first rule of trouble shooting is to determine the root of the proplem.
Many of us have seen disasters when a problem was not properly identified or a symptom was remedied rather than the root cause.
What are the sources of green house gases before we devote 99% of our efforts to solving a small percentage of the problem.


Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[IDS]

waross - the answers to your questions are in IPCC reports, other than what is true and fake news. You have to work that out for yourself.

But the complexity of identifying all the sources of GHG, and reducing them at minimum cost, is the reason why we should put a price on GHG emissions, and let the market sort it out.

Centralised government directives within long term costs hidden from view rarely produces an efficient solution.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[hokie66]

I think there already is a big cost on emissions. Where I am, we are paying about $1,70 a litre for automotive fuel. And farmers here are being charged so much for electricity that they can't afford to irrigate their crops. Some of this cost, I don't know how much, is because of the high cost we are paying for renewable generation. But I do agree that we should let the market sort it out, and that is what we have not been doing.

 

[itsmoked]

I can't imagine that someone hasn't nailed how much:
1) Cars
2) Cows
3) Power plants
even
4) Landfills
contribute to the greenhouse but while some of these are certainly LARGE I bet things like:
a) Volcanos
b) The oceans
c) Natural decay of dead stuff
could contribute and those can all be really hard to get good numbers on.

Bill asks about the ocean. Man, that's got to be hard to do! It's huge and varied. So if you instrument some part of it really well it may be really accurate in that little corner of the ocean but completely wrong for some other area. This means any assumptions made from the study could result in large error.

You have to instrument the entire ocean to get anywhere near correct numbers.

I wonder if the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2) can discern CO2 appearing from the surface or if it only shows general atmospheric concentrations.

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[hokie66]

I started reading this article thinking it was just another attribution of a single weather event to "global warming".

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/health/sutter-natural-disaster-hurricane-michael/index.html

Reading further, I realized that the critical issues of overpopulation, poor developmental planning, and lack of adaptation are also addressed.

 

[waross]

Food for thought.
Some popular conceptions in regards to pollution control.
I have been cynical about EPA methods from day one.
They focus on percentages.
Remember the early days of pollution control. Air pumps were used to introduce extra air into the exhaust manifold. That may have done more to reduce the percentage than to reduce the actual pollution.
Today I have a truck with a diesel engine. It uses a Diesel Particulate Filter to clean the exhaust. It pours raw diesel fuel into the exhaust to burn the filter clean.
My friend has an older, larger truck with very little pollution control. He gets almost 30 miles to the gallon. I get about 10 miles to the gallon.
When you consider not just the truck emissions but also the emissions created refining three times as much fuel, it is hard to believe that we are making real progress.
Oh, and by the way, my truck doesn't meet emission standards anyway. When the manufacturer ran out of carbon credits they discontinued the engine.
Is there any indication that the regulators are starting to look at overall emissions rather than percentages.
My fuel costs are about $0.58 per mile. I am probably paying over $0.30 per mile extra to fuel the DPF, and not meeting standards anyway.
But hey, I'm almost meeting an arbitrary percentage. Pollution on a ton mile basis must be dismal.
I'm toying with the idea of changing engines. Sure,it will cost a lot, but, on the other hand I may be able to get more power and at the same time cut my fuel consumption almost in half. If I can get my consumption down to about $0.33 per mile I will save about 25,000 in 100,000 miles at present prices. As the price of fuel goes up I will save more.


Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[RVAmeche]

While policy definitely isn't perfect for obvious reasons, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that change needs to occur and to occur fast before the feedback loop gets even worse. Should be an interesting century.