"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Unotec]

Yes, but the polar bears will die...

It would be less costly financially, life quality, etc... To adapt into a warmer climate than commit the financial suicide the AGW supporters propose, no question about that.

On top of that, the policies being created are based on very 'iffy' science, which has many questions to ask and many more answers to provide before it should have been taken as an irrefutable fact.

In any event, should we look after the environment? YES!!!

Should we look after the GLOBAL environment? NO!!

The best approach is to look after YOUR own backyard before there is a world wide policy (the bible, I think, said so: love thy neighbour). A global policy is too broad to actually have any significant control over it and obtain any significant results.

I think we should look after our immediate environment and start by remediating/optimizing it. And I am not talking about GHG, but water, soil, etc... Recycle your stuff; don’t waste water, energy, etc... Only this way and only if it becomes a wide spread culture, betterment/preservation of the environment can happen. And on top of that, quite probably your wallet will appreciate if you don't waste.

In my little world, and chances are in most of this forum's members’ too, we strive to save energy, reduce materials consumption, decrease or eliminate waste, recover whatever we can for useful purposes, save energy. That, in my mind, is what can make a difference for the environment in the long run. I think these types of practices can actually provide a sustainable development.

As far as taxing the industry because of emissions, I say BU!$#!7!!!! That is not going to work! The government wants me to fork over money to pay for emissions?!? Hah, the church used to have the same policy in the middle ages, selling indulgences! They already proved it does not work!

The pull and push has to come from the industry by striving to optimize resources, which most of us already do. We try to be as energy efficient as possible, reuse what can be reused, fix what’s broken, reduce the waste, otherwise the bean counters will be breathing down our necks (heavier than they already do).

So, whichever the case might be, if instead of creating global policies to hamper and damage the industry, the resources were allocated in creating a culture that promotes better practices, our wallets and grandchildren will thank us.

Build locally, hire locally, preserve assets and optimize resources. This will reduce environmental impacts and… yes, help the economy.

My opinion, only. But I do live by these principles, at work and at home.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[WhiteyWhitey]

Hi,

I'd like to start this post by assuring everyone that I am by no means a trained Climate Scientist. However, I do have an opinion on the issue of climate change that I have formed based on study in My University Engineering Degree,
The media, the internet and per reviewed scientific sources.

I note that in this debate data sets can be presented without any clear explination of their interpretation. When this data is presented that says temperature is going up or that data is presented saying tempurature is going down the method of calculation, the location and frequency of sampling and so on are not always specified. For all I know, the data presented on

http://www.junk-science.com

could the measured tempurature at the coldest place in america on any day which would possibly be in decline, yes.

Unfortunately, the variables and their influence on the "climate", i.e another whole set of variables, rainfall and temperature in any particular location are all related in ways that are so complicated and chaotic that they are beyond the capacity of our understanding and computation to predict.

Thus, there are a number of models, approximations, that are intended to be an indication of what is likely to happen to the climate based on past prediction. Their interpretation usually includes some statistical measures of liklihood, error etc etc.

However notwithstanding all this, even the skeptics among us will admit that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate that will claim their own tale. My opinion is that if there is even a sliver of doubt that we may be cooked ourselves and our planet with our consumption of any particular resource, then, given the potential outcomes from the over consumption, isnt it prudent to undertake some basic risk assessment?

Likelihood that CO2 and other fossil fuel emmissions are causing irreprible and lasting damage to the earth

1 Certain
2 Very Likely
3 Possible X
4 Unlikely
5 Not Possible

Consequence of irreprible and lasting damage to the earth
1 Dire X
2 Severe
3 Moderate
4 Minor
5 None

Liklihood.
Cons| 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------
1 | 1 1 1 2 3
-----
2 | 1 1 2 3 3
----
3 | 1 2 3 3 4
----
4 | 2 3 3 4 4

5 | 3 3 4 4 4


That gives us quite a high risk rating.
That means some mitigation measures SHOULD be taken IMHO.

Instead of arguing about weather there is such a thing as global warming, which we have established there possibly is, what are the best mitigation measures.

Lets start by looking at removing the hazard all togther.


... My opinions on that another day.


On a personal note:


Unotec (Chemical)

"In any event, should we look after the environment? YES!!!

Should we look after the GLOBAL environment? NO!!"


There seems to be a global problem in which America, my home country Australia, China and India may be big contributors to lasting and irreprable damage to the earth. What if this problem cant be solved by looking after our own backyard in isolation?

 

[TPL]

which we have established there possibly is[/b}

or maybe not then?

 

[jmw]

Excuse me if I ignore the call for precautionary measures, I think we already covered the "precautionary principle" in the two preceding threads.

Something else came up in the news:
There are some who believe CO2 reduction/sequestration etc is tilting at windmills; futile and unlikely to have any impact on global warming.
These are the advocates of geo-engineering; expensive, off the wall but with the potential to deliver significant results, they say.
This Telegraph article looks at some of them:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4641586/Can-geo-engineering-rebuild-the-planet.html

This article doesn't mention Nobel Prize Winner Prof. Crutzen's sulphur guns proposal which seems to have morphed into a plan for artificial volcanoes somewhere along the line (now that's messing with nature big time, as indeed all these schemes are; it appears that a recent Chinese earthquake was trigged by the vast amounts of water retained by a new dam and that a similar event was consequent on the Hoover Dam construction and filling... some of these plans are ambitious and the very fact they may have some effect suggests we ought to worry that the effects they have may not be what we are expecting).

But,

In the 1960s, two Russian scientists set out ambitious plans to reshape the world around us: to reverse the flow of rivers, shoot tiny white particles into space to illuminate the night sky, and melt the Arctic to water fields of Soviet wheat. "If we want to improve our planet and make it more suitable for life," wrote NP Rusin and L Flit, "we must alter its climate."

This suggests we have a moral dilemma as well.
If global warming thaws the tundra, well, it may get muddy for a bit, but how long before they address that problem and can start to populate the area and begin to access the vast mineral reserves?

It is not in the Russian interests to stop global warming.
What is good for some is not good for others and this alone is probably enough to ensure no multi-lateral efforts will ever succeed.

Actually, since we are now in a cooling cycle of 10years (according to some) or 20 years (according to others) and while not predicted by the computer models, it is dismissed as a temporary reprieve from warming by them (as I understand it) Some nations may find this is not such a good thing and would welcome a return of warming trends.

But, a moral dilemma? yes, is it right that some countries should act to restrict global warming when it adversely affects another country?

At what point would that constitute an act of aggression?
Are we back at weather warfare?
Would we end up in a new "cold war"? (no pun intended, honest )



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ewh]

Another AGW skeptic...

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n...t_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[Unotec]

WhiteyWhitey,

Have you done a risk assessment for the financial suicide proposed in order to mitigate -the yet unproven- AGW? The financial impact is a fact.

On top of this, how many reasources have been allocated for technologies that are proven not to be cost efficient but by being subsidized? This money would see much better use looking after other types of pollution before taxing emissions.

If the industry has local limitations (Mexico City's pollution prevention programs as an example) that will alleviate micro-climate changes (island effects) the benefit ripples would be felt globally, if they are indeed a global effect.

Think where all this emmissions' tax money goes to: to fund technologies that are no only un-economical, but also carbon positive. (in the best of cases, after being filtered through a few pockets and purses)

That would be one of the strongest reasons I think we should look after our own backyards first. Otherwise you'd be like Gore, polluting but buying (according to him) credits for what you are doing (and hoping that they actually offset what you're doing)

I rather deal with soil and water pollution first and curve the emissions by doing a process efficiency approach. Instead of taxing emissions, give tax credits for enhancements. As engineers we strive to save on our heating bills anyway.

On top of that, assuming that there is an AGW, what are the chances of actually making a difference when you put politicians and their policy at a global scale? look at local decisions (economy for one). The politicians tend to make all the wrong choices until the only one left is the right one.

Are you actually willing to submit to that? I think a much stronger approach would be local rather than global, and would preserve our own environments, the ones we are actually familiar with and where we can actually control what's going on.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[rb1957]

politicians act in their own best interest (like most people).

successful ones are good at convincing us that our best interest just happens to coincide with their's.

less successful ones just take the money and run.

 

[Unotec]

You know what the funny thing is about politics? The most charismatic person tends to get elected, not the best suited to do the job.
I can't recall meeting many charismatic accountants, which would be what running a country economy might require.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[rapt]

Unfortunately the charismatic accountants are running the banks now and HELPING the government sort out the mess they created and are getting richer by the minute while everyone else goes backwards.

 

[TGS4]

WhiteyWhitey - I take issue with your risk assessment assignment of Consequences of warming as "dire". Please justify that assignment.

I would put the consequences as between minor and moderate. The planet has been to equivalent temperatures (or higher) before and will do so again, whether through AGW or some other action. The planet has not gone off it's orbit, wobbled off its axis, lost all of its atmosphere, or any of the other consequences that I would place in the "Dire" category. That would put your entire risk as a 3.

Given that - wouldn't it be money better spent to adapt to the change, rather than try to stop it?

 

[Unotec]

TGS4, I agree with you, but W/W evaluated "Consequence of irreprible and lasting damage to the earth". And I agree, an irreparable and lasting damage to the earth would be DIRE. So he is technically correct here.
Funny, the so-called-AGW forecasted a 0.5ºC increase in what, 10 years? Needless to say they went from "warming" to "change" to "disruption".
I can hardly call it a "damage", if it were to occur. It is a change. More than that, a very adaptable change by all flora & fauna. Some might dissapear, maybe. Most would adapt.
But, if you're a greenie, you have to make it sound DRASTIC!!! in order to get funding. No money ever goes to a mild cause.
And I am not saying that W/W is a greenie, just that the nomenclature he so chose to use would deem the "Consequence of irreprible and lasting damage to the earth" dire.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[rb1957]

yes, but if you extrapolate that increase into the future, in 100 years you'd have 5deg, which would be significant.

this is the same as dogbert's strategy for creating $1m from $1 ... invest it, and wait 100 (maybe 200) years ...

 

[Unotec]

So, if we are experiencing a cooling period... that will lower the global average temperature, right?
Now, assuming this is cyclical and global cooling and warming happens with regular intervals, which it does... how does that work on the extrapolation?
Oh, not to worry, according to the news from when this theories sprang, there is not going to be enough fossil fuel to last that long... oooffff! we're safe.
Well, safe from AGD (D for disruption), now how are we going to power up?
Something doesn't make sense here.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[TGS4]

Unotec - good point about the "Consequence of irreparable and lasting damage to the earth". In that case, I would classify the probability as remote, somewhere between unlikely and not possible. Result - overall risk is still 3 - medium.

Now, if we start talking about the earth's magnetic field weakening to the point of not providing protection for the atmosphere from the solar wind, now that's something that would have a dire consequence of irreparable and lasting damage to the earth. And that has a probability of at least possible - it happened on a sister planet - Mars. That's a high risk, but I don't see any money going to people who are trying to prevent that from happening.

Or let's talk about impact from large near-earth objects. It has definitely happened before - so likelihood is high (given a long enough time frame). And consequences would be in the severe range (or perhaps dire if you used to be a dinosaur). That's a high risk, but I don't see any money going to people who are trying to prevent that from happening. At lesat not on the magnitude of the AGW folk.

So, to all the AGW sympathizers - why is the risk of "global warming" more important than these two I've mentioned? Why is it more deserving of money and attention?

 

[Unotec]

TGS4... shhhhhh!!!. you might give them other tax-payer funded ideas.. Maybe all the electric power lines are affecting the earth's magnetic field!
Another thing I've noticed when AGW is discussed in a little less religious way, such as here... It never lacks sarcasm at the end.
And this I also see as an issue, since most scientists probably saw it as such an absurdity that they did not react in time and now we are paying the consequences.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[WhiteyWhitey]

Hi Forum!

In regards to my risk analysis,

My language is somewhat alarmist looking back over it. However that is probably due to my emotinal attachment to the issue so my passion for the subject is oozing from my vocabulary. Sorry.

However, I would still regard the possibility of humans messing with the gears of the earth somewhat scary. I spose im imagining the earth as some delicately ballanced (Or equally chaotically balanced) system that predicting the out comes of mild warming of the climate would to me possibly risk a big output. No human or machine algorithm (That I am aware of) can yet prove me wrong unfortunately.

Regarding other risks factors to human life of this magnitude, eg asteroid impact, magnetic field weakening (??!!)

We actually seem to have control over this effect on the earth via our consumption of and emmission of the greenhouse gas products. Fossil fuels, cattle farming, deforestation etc etc. Therefore while we cannot hope to stop a species ending asteroid hitting the earth i would argue that we can take steps to slow or prevent the globe from warming due to human impact.

This brings me to a second point
"Given that - wouldn't it be money better spent to adapt to the change, rather than try to stop it? "

i this case I would argue that seeing there is a risk That everyone has guaged between 3 and 1 there should be the thought of mitigation measures. The first mitagation measure, the most effective, is removing the risk altogether.

I know there is going to be an argument somewhere there for getting more bang for your buck by adapting to our new simmering hot pot of a globe but my thoughts would be that not everywhere can adapt, the effects of one countries emmissions can often be felt remotely from that country, eg ice caps, the maldives etc etc and not all of these countries will have the money to implement these measures.

Anyhow, I think my feelings on the issue are clear. I think what it comes down to is the fact that I believe consumerism without consideration of its real cost in terms of the environmental resource cost are a damaging human practice and that eventually it will be our end (Sh*T it, im getting alarmist again)... or maybe roaches and red spiders will be our end, not really sure.

Im as guilty as any by the way.

Cheers.

 

[jmw]

Er, meteor strikes... well, yes there is something that might be done and I understand that is why they are working on solutions; collision with dark comets are also in its remit.

But, we do have a range of catastrophic scenarios we can worry about and maybe some we can't.

The list of potential disasters is pretty long and includes gamma ray bursts within 30,000 light years (

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...rst-that-was-heading-for-Earth-detected.html)

collisions with dark comets or ordinary comets, meteors, large earth orbit objects, magnetic field dsruption, solar flares on a massive scale, and so on.
Then we have volcanoes, earthquakes, mud slides, floods, (including Tsunamis).
Somehow, Global warming isn't one of the most abrupt nor the most concerning.

We have limited resources. Too limited to spend on the wrong problem or on non-existent problems.



Earthquakes... maybe.
Volcanoes... maybe.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Unotec]

MM: I believe consumerism without consideration of its real cost in terms of the environmental resource cost are a damaging human practice

I completely agree, but not towards global warming. I'd loath to see many beautiful places turned into wasteland because of over exploitation. There are many ecosystems that serve a crucial role to life in this planet and tend to be very hardy. On the other hand, this should not be an excuse to destroy the ones that, even though are not crucial, are still part of the cycle.

MM: that eventually it will be our end

I disagree. It might be the end of the type of life we enjoy, but as much as destroy the planet, I hardly think so.

JMW: We have limited resources. Too limited to spend on the wrong problem or on non-existent problems.

YES!!!! That is exactly what I have been striving for!!

Unfortunately that is not a large enough concept for the law-makers to embrace and win votes. It would mean focusing into multiple different areas and managing the approaches and projects. It is far easier/simpler to embrace a one overall global concept than to actually understand and try to manage a multiple smaller approaches.

The global solution, nobody expects results fast. The smaller ones would force to give quicker results and the politicians would loose face rather quickly.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[cranky108]

So if global warming is such a problem, why not start with smaller solutions that have big impacts?

Am I the only one who has noticed it is so difficult to recycle? I can throw plastic away, or I can collect it, then drive to some remote place and give them away. Same with batteries, paper, cans and electronics.

To keep the my tires aired up it costs 0.75 cents, so usually I can wait several weeks.

My roof is a dark color, only because it is the fashion.

So instead of another tax, why not make it easer for people to do the right thing.

Hey want to buy my old fridge?

 

[TGS4]

Don't get me wrong - I too am all for conserving finite resources (i.e. fossil fuels), and have been doing my part to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

What I don't understand is the pseudo-religious fascination with keeping the world the same as it was in 1990 (or some time around there), like the entire world was the Garden of Eden that needs to be preserved for all eternity. Seriously - the tectonic movement of the continents has moved once-lush locales to the South Pole. Oh my Gawd - the Eden there is now forever destroyed! Maybe we should try to stop tectonic movement...

Since when has "Change" been a curse world. As in Climate Change. The systems on this planet have been in a constant state of change since planet started to coalesce. Imagine the changes that occurred that resulted in Earth having an atmosphere, and then that atmosphere changing due to organic life forms appearing. Maybe Earth pre-organic life was better - maybe we should go back to that state? Or maybe change is one of the few inherent constants in the system.

Thought experiment - if we reduced anthropogenic CO2 emissions to exactly zero tomorrow, would Climate Change stop? Would the world return to the idealized 1990 Eden? Would it stay there forever?

My answers - No, Possibly for a brief period of time, and No. Simply look back at the geological record to see what has happened in the past.

Maybe when we're looking at time periods that had climates that we should strive for, maybe we should look back to the last Ice Age. I understand that many parts of the world were lush oases. Hmmmm - maybe not - my locale was covered in 1km of ice. On the flip side, the warmer areas south of me had plenty of melt water for plants, maybe irrigation, maybe white water kayaking.

OK - enough soap box - real question - Why is the reference for all AGW discussions (temperature, ecosystem biodiversity, etc) referenced to one particular date? Why that date? Was the world Eden then?