Suggestion - forum title change? 5

[Brian Malone]

Just a suggestion: change the title of this forum to Climate Adaptation Engineering or something similar. I certainly believe human actions change / affect weather patterns but I also believe the planet and its systems are fluid and dynamic and free to change for reasons not understandable or observable in the timespan of human existence.

Certainly, many of the challenges seen today are driven by human actions or human presence and that colliding with natural systems often creates less than desirable outcomes for humans.

Humans are dependent on energy. We use it to warm us, cool us, feed us, entertain us, heal us, and protect us, etc. We have to burn something, divert something, or extract / gather something to provide the energy that human society runs on. This by definition will collide with natural systems that operate not by defined expectations and wants, but by adjusting to what is there. As societies become more technology based, more energy is required and this will by necessity cause more potential for colliding with natural systems. I doubt if anyone in modern society wants to reduce the conveniences tech / mechanization provides so the energy needs won't reduce. The question on any level of 'climate change' may never be definitively answered for many generations but the need for energy and minimization of impact with natural systems will always be present with us everyday. Maybe I am being too pollyannish to think by changing the title of the conversation (losing the squabble over whether change is happening because of humans or not) will allow better development and evaluation of technology to help humans accommodate the variations in climate and minimize our impact. The most we will ever be able to do is minimize impact because we need energy/resources and those have to be removed from the environment and we do not return that energy to its original form.

 

[rb1957]

the thing I learnt from COVID ... we are SOOOOO EFFED.

COVID was something that should have drawn us together. The initial wave swamped the hospitals. Something I noticed ... back in the 1920s, with the Spanish Influenza, the rich people went to hospital and the poor people suffered at home. I am NOT saying this is right and good, I'm saying this is how I thought it was. Now with universal healthcare everyone goes to hospital, and the hospitals are not sized for this, no plans are in place, and the system breaks.

Then the vaccine ... crazy conspiracy theories, oversold expectations ('cause probably people wouldn't've understood the more nuanced "the vaccine will protect you from the most severe symptoms" and not taken it). Clearly the vaccine was a very effective response to the pandemic, sure maybe it would have died out naturally (who knows). People developed their own opinion ... an engineer friend of mine insisted on taking the J&J vaccine (and not the Pfizer, 'cause his aunt had a very severe reaction). OK, we have to allow people to have their own opinions.

Then the schools ... yes, the "school-at-home" was for the most part a disaster (my wife was a teacher). The kids came back "feral", completely unsocialised.

Such a Sh*tshow !

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

Back to the first post, I disagree, since it tightens the focus onto adaptation rather than the many hare brained schemes whose net result is slight, so far as climate change goes, but significant so far as the economy goes, and the sheer shonkiness of the tactical science being fed to the gullible via MSM.

That said there's no problem I can see with having threads about engineering based adaptations to climate change as opposed to weather.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

It didn't have to be political... Live free and die...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

Clearly the vaccine was a very effective

They were so ‘effective’ that the definition of ‘vaccine’ had to be altered—removing ‘provides immunity’ (as vaccines like the polio vaccine once did)—to keep these mRNA treatments classified as vaccines. They didn’t provide immunity, didn’t prevent transmission, and failed to stop the spread. By any traditional standard, they were not vaccines.

I was initially banned from many forums when I pointed out that these ‘vaccines’ weren’t providing the promised immunity. Despite being fully vaccinated, expressing this observation was dismissed as ‘anti-vax propaganda.’ That’s how flawed these treatments are – simply stating their actual efficacy was treated as malicious misinformation.

 

[RVAmeche]

I've previously asked the same thing because 90% of the posts here devolve into "nun uh climate change isnt real" or the usual political bs.

Unfortunately this isn't the place where that type of conversation is going to be had. The forum needs to be renamed if we're not going to at least defer to the actual science instead of continually touting misinformation on the subject.

 

[Rputvin]

defer to the actual science instead of continually touting misinformation

What happens when "the actual science" ends up being misinformation? Or obfuscated enough by the interested parties to no longer bear any resemblance to real science?

But it gets parroted and disseminated like the propaganda it is. And to question its validity is to be labeled a non-believer. Almost as if it's no longer about science, but unquestioning faith in a political movement...

Or would we rather engineering became about echo chambers and no longer allowed challenges to our ideas?

 

[GregLocock]

This forum is supposed to be about climate change engineering solutions. Therefore by definition it accepts the existence of climate change. But that doesn't mean we have to accept unchallenged the alarmist infantile rubbish based on tactical science at best that makes its way deliberately into the main stream media, never mind the internet, that is regularly posted here.




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

rb1957, there is some misinformation about the overcrowded hospitals. Hospitals are staffed to operate at near max capacity all of the time. In general, a hospital will be ideally at 90% capacity. The capacity of hospitals is flexible and not a good indicator of pandemic severity.

The data about the vaccines preventing death is also poor because there is no national database of vaccination status. If you got vaccinated at a Walgreens vs your primary care provider you would likely not have any record of vaccination and would be included in unvaccinated statistics.

 

[Tomfh]

But that doesn't mean we have to accept unchallenged the alarmist infantile rubbish based

Yes, there’s a text book motte-and-bailey tactic in the climate change debate. The bold claim is that climate change is an immediate existential crisis requiring drastic action. But when this is questioned, advocates retreat to the safer claim that climate change is real and caused by humans—a point almost everyone agrees on. We see this tactic in action when commentators suggest that critics of radical action are somehow denying climate change altogether.

 

[RVAmeche]

This is why this forum is useless. The science (the general fact of climate change) is settled. Yes every day we're learning new things and adjusting the known information, thats how science works.

I personally have copies of the studies from the early 1900s, the Exxon climate change report from the 70s, and the government papers discussing the impacts from the same period. They're all surprisingly consistent, even today, with current expectations. But yes, the whole damn planet is just a smidge complicated and even today not easy (or possible in some instances) to fully model and capture. There are limitations to our understanding - there are limitations to all of our scientific knowledge.

Climate change denial is the same as my religious coworker who swears jesus walked next to dinosaurs. It's simply wrong. And I'll go back to ignoring this particular forum since nothing of value is added or discussed due to the topic.

 

[GregLocock]

If the science is settled then why is the estimate of sensitivity to CO2 still essentially unchanged from 1990 , from a value that implies little to worry about to the sort of number that inspires lurid fantasies and headlines, but I repeat myself.

This forum is only useless for people who want to push their silly mainstream media led agenda without discussion, if they want to discuss engineering solutions it is fine. The fact that those solutions even where viable are being implemented very poorly, generally, can be analysed with an engineering mindset.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

I think Greg is onto something (it's his thread after all). The title assumes some sort of climate change from some source or another. The magnitude of the change also shouldn't be a discussion point here. if you want to engage in this (futility) then go to one of Dik's many threads.

So if we're to talk of engineering solutions a topic could be ...
1) the degree of de-carbonisation of our fuel sources (is "net zero" a practical engineering solution ?),
2) the degree of electrification of our fuel sources (a subtly different question),
3) the degree we should become more efficient in our use of power,
4) measures to be taken to address (expected) water level rise, or is this a problem that needs to be solved ?,
5) how do we ensure that the developing countries can access these fuel sources as they develop ?
6) what are the nuclear options (fission and fusion) ?

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

Brian started this thread, not me.

Your list is a good start , off the top of my head I'd add CCS and the like, and geoengineering. I see it doesn't include the 'settled' science and those computer models.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

yes, "settled science" and "climate models" are only red flags, and somewhat irrelevant to "engineering solutions".

but someone will ask (quite sensibly) ...
what is the magnitude of the problem ?
is the problem "existential" and so cost is irrelevant ?
what is the objective of the solutions ?
Will these solutions fix the "problem", achieve the objective ?
Will reducing CO2 fix the problem ? (and now we're back into the model universe)
are the proposed solutions "existential" ??

and we're back at square one. sigh ...

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[Tomfh]

The science (the general fact of climate change) is settled.

That’s a vague slogan which, while loosely accurate (yes, human emissions have contributed to some warming), is weaponised to back every alarmist prediction of the moment.

This week in Australia, we're being told that climate change will make floods worse, bringing "wetter" summers from here on. It's all based on "settled science" — or so we're told.

But rewind less than a decade, and the same "settled science" insisted that climate change would lead to permanently drier conditions.

 

[Tomfh]

is the problem "existential" and so cost is irrelevant ?

That's their general principle. It is an existential crisis, therefore the cost is irrelevant, especially given it will be born by others. As Al Gore said, people like him who are saving the world, are too important to be constrained by the sorts of limits he proposes for the world at large.

 

[Brian Malone]

rb1957 your description captures the intent of what I suggest may be more constructive than constant bickering over is climate change a thing. But emotions and opinions are easy to slip in - intentional or not. Possibly, another useful guardrail would be to limit the use of stating of an anonymous "they" entity. If an actual entity cannot named to be dictating a questionable system then maybe a little more research is needed? Saying 'those out-of-touch pearl clutchers are trying to mandate x, y, and z' doesn't seem to be useful - it is emotional though. From what I see, the preset forum title is fine as long as the subject focus is good. But I get it - sometimes those tangents grow legs!

Certainly the solutions to the challenges are what are important. And pointing out obsurdities goes hand-in-hand with constructive discussions on viable technology.

 

[GregLocock]

So far as the settled science goes, try this peer reviewed paper in nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1

My bolding

Abstract​

The global mean surface temperature is widely studied to monitor climate change. A current debate centers around whether there has been a recent (post-1970s) surge/acceleration in the warming rate. Here we investigate whether an acceleration in the warming rate is detectable from a statistical perspective. We use changepoint models, which are statistical techniques specifically designed for identifying structural changes in time series. Four global mean surface temperature records over 1850–2023 are scrutinized within. Our results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023. As such, we estimate the minimum changes in the warming trend required for a surge to be detectable. Across all datasets, an increase of at least 55% is needed for a warming surge to be detectable at the present time.