The Cycle of Global Warming 42

[epoisses]

Well... that's because climate change appears to be occurring.... just like it did around the year 1000.

The hypotheses that man has or does not have anything to do with it are extremely difficult to falsify.

But at least the events around the year 1000 suggest that climate change without man having anything to do with appears to be both possible and relatively harmless.

So I don't see any reason to worry about consequences of climate change. Over the years we have heard so many horror stories about what might happen to our planet in X years from now (the world population reaches 20 billion and we will all die of famine), we had the sobering experience of the millennium bug that was supposed to shut the western world down but it didn't.... most people including me have become pretty sceptical and insensitive to eloquence from organisations that all have their own little interests...

This does not mean that I won't try to reduce my encon, for the sake of my own wallet that is, but don't threaten me with climate change please.

 

[LCruiser]

There is a substantial difference between warmest since the Little Ice Age (LIA) and warmest since before the Medieval Warm Period. I don't think there are many who would argue it is now the warmest since the LIA, when arguably we started warming Earth by burning stuff to keep warm and clearing forests.

The report did not address Mann's refusal to release his algorithms nor data. That means it was a whitwash, because without that how can the experiment be repeated.

Repeatability is one of the tenets of science, isn't it?

It used to be...

 

[25362]

I'd add reproducibility.

 

[electricpete]

I don't think the best way to verify a calculation is to go line-by-line through the calculation using the same input data. I think the best way is to seek out independent methods and data.

One would assume that in reaching their conclusions, the National Academy of Science had access to data and models from a variety of sources (at least as much data as the folks on this forum!). And they specifically said the conclusions were supported by more recent data.

But hey, if that's not a good reason to disregard what they say I'm sure you'll find another. After all these guys are scientists. I think we should disregard their input and go find some journalists or lobbyists to give us our credible information.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[ivymike]

Don't forget politicians. They're a good source too.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050429a.aspx

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050614a.aspx

 

[rb1957]

my 2cents ...

global warming is difficult to Prove (except in hindsight)

the contribution of mankind to this is much harder to Prove.

in the absense of Proof, we have Belief.

certainly there is "data" that suggests that the climate is changing; a few years ago we were told we're heading for an ice age.

certainly there are just as many pointers to non-human influences, like the sun.

it's not too much of a leap to connect our burning of fossil fuels to these effects, but this smacks of egotism, and water vapour is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.

As to this particular report, they believe only the last 400 years of data, about 1/2 of which was spent coming out of the LIA.

Personally, from what I've read about it, I disbelieve the "hockey stick". I believe that the issue is so political that it isn't scientific but ideological. I'm prepared to accept that the climate is changing, but I don't know what's driving it. I believe that its being driven by forces beyond our control, and that we're foolish (read self-centered ego-maniacs) if we think we can control it. I believe that if we adopt measures to counter-act the susposed global warming, that the effect will be catastrophic for western "civilisation", which may not be a bad thing for the world but will be for me and mine (yes, I am selfish).

off soapbox !

 

[2dye4]

rb1957
You say you beleive that climate change is being driven
by forces beyond our control.

I am interested if you mean that even if mankind
eliminated greenhouse gasses very rapidly we would still
have no effect.

Or do you mean that despite our best effort we will not
be able to reduce greenhouse gasses even though it would
help the situation.

Or do you mean that greenhouse gasses have no relationship
to climate change.

Or possibly a synthesis of these answears.
Climb back on that soapbox once more!!!

 

[rb1957]

ok,

I believe that if we stopped producing greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) that there would be no near-term effect, due to the hystersis in the environment; there might be a small longterm effect, but that's only opinion.

I believe that we will choose not to stop producing greenhouse gases, 'cause the political consequences will be too extreme. To stop i think we'd need to stop consuming petrol, natural gas, coal, oh, and get rid of the cows. This would, i think, cause the supportable population to crash, and the ensuing disruption would bring an end to human civilization (which, as i said earlier, may not be a bad thing for the planet). Even reducing our consumption is almost too difficult to achieve, and so we're into trading carbon emissions. btw, why should countries like Russia be allowed higher emissions than western countries ... 'cause it's too difficult politically. Some governments are much more ready to give away money than they are to actually change; and of course some countries are perfectly happy to take their money !

I believe that the linkage between greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4)production and climate change is tenuous at best. As I understand it H20 is a much more significant greenhouse gas, and i don't think we want to get rid of that ! I believe that changes in the sun and our orbit are bigger influences on our climate. I have no confidence at all in the climate models.

 

[2dye4]

rb1957
To summarize you believe we could not go on like present
without greenhouse gas emissions.
Also that greenhouse gasses likely have no influence anyway
on our climate.

However I wonder this issue.
Prior to industrialization the planet did support a
significant but much smaller human population. I can
imagine the only fuel used would have been wood or other
surface carbon materials. Is there a qualitative difference
in burning these (natural) sources than in burning
mined sources from the earth. I have to believe it is part
of nature for these surface carbon materials to burn due
to natural sources of ignition. Forrest fires predate
mankind. If it is different how much of this type resource
could we use instead of fossil fuels.

Incidentially i think what motivates many people with
regard to climate change is concern for their own future
generations. Your immediate offspring may be better served
by ignoring the issue, but your 3rd generation offspring
may be significantly damaged.

 

[rb1957]

i haven't checked the numbers, but i'm sure the human population pre-industrialisation was much less than it is today, i mean we past 1 billion people in the 1900s (i think), and now we're at 6 billion so that's at best 1:6 surviving, but i suspect that the number will be less than 1:100, and the majority of them will be in 3rd world countries (where people still remember how to grow food without chemicals, how to make cloth without machines, ...). i would have thought that this population required (used) some level of fuel, let's call that a sustainable level.

granted we'd be able to keep some lights on (with nukes, solar power, hydro, etc) but i think that'll only make things worse. take the US as an example (but i'm not yank bashing), let some lights stay on but turn off most of them, well these guys (without the lights) will just go and get the guns needed to blow away the first lot, and then someone else will blow them away ... but as i've said, maybe not a bad thing for planet earth !

and, of course, no computers.

as for your last point, are you going to worry about the collapsing (or expanding) universe ? I can't plan for my children's lifetimes, i can't even plan for my own. sure i've got some insurance and some retirement savings but i've no idea how things are going to happen, so i save a bit and a spend a bit (rather than saving it all to maximise the future payout).

in all seriousness, i know some people are going to be adversly affected if the ocean's rise, if the weather is stormier, if the crops fail ... sorry, but sometimes life sucks; i disbelieve that this is due in a major way to the fossil fuel i burn (or that is burnt on my behalf).

 

[electricpete]

We have a great group of folks here who are inquisitive, skeptical, intelligent, and most of all engineers. As such, we will always try to absorb the facts and process them to form conclusions using our knowledge of F=MA, V=I*R, 62.4 lbm/ft^3, 1BTU/lbm-deg-F etc etc.

But let's get real here.
* Not one of the participants here has an educational background related to climatology (unless you're just masquerading as a civil or electrical or mechanical or petro etc)
* Not one of us is a full-time professional in the field of climatology.
* Not one of us is a member of a team working with other qualified people full-time to reach a conclusion on these specific questions.

So as much as I respect your opinion and value your right to express it, you will permit me to remain skeptical of your conclusions (for instance we all agree that water vapor plays a tremendously bigger role that CO2, but that in no way proves that CO2 is incapable of upsetting the stability of the sytsem.).

Can you point to the credible scientific organizations that support your views ?
And more importantly, what's a hockey stick?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[z633]

I have got to admit that thermodynamics is not my field. However, I have wondered since last summer. In this pseudo enclosed system where net energy in + energy out == 0?

There are the gigantic hurricanes that encompass the Gulf of Mexico. That would take a motor/blower or whatever of solar system proportions. The HP of flinging that amount of water-air in the accelerated circular motion, over what, a week or so. This must expend billions of gigawatt-hous of energy. So I understand sun power enters, somehow creates the gigantic atmospheric motor force that obviously expends massive amounts of energy. So what happened? did this energy just now go away? or was it somehow just re-dissipated as heat ( basically the lowest form of energy). entropy, enthapy all plays into this some how. I know the scientest-phD's have massive super computers running around the clock doing simulations of all this telling us what their opinion of the data says. But basically "what happens to the energy from such an event?", for a motor it is easy, current/volts in power out, and a low loss return, but doesn't that all basically degenerate to heat in the finite end?

 

[z633]

So Duh, the whole point is what most seasoned engineers have experienced one time or another. Thermal Runaway. e.g. an electric motor that losses efficiency as is gets hotter, lead acid batteries that have a negative voltage coefficient of charge versus temperature. That is my favorite. A wind generator that continuously cranks power into a lead acid batteries, finite loss, but yet enough to reduce the fully charged state of voltage. Well the uneducated wind generator controller senses this as a need to crank more juice into the battery bank that just produces more heat that causes the generator to push more amps that produces more heat.... I hope you get the point. I would just like to get down to a explanation that will satisfy my common sense. Well wait a minute, green house that gets more efficient over time?, oh yeh, I get it now. Sorry to bother.

 

[LCruiser]

Actually there are civils here trained in climatology as a part of hydrology. There are others here who understand other portions of the lack of coherence in the greenhouse alarm as well.

"A" causing "B" doesn't mean all of "B" is caused by "A."

In fact, we know (and have known for a long time, but is buried by the lab rats who need more funding so they spread fear) that plants eat CO2. It's not just fertilizer, it's food. Therefore, there are pluses and minuses to the CO2 picture, particularly to the billion or so people on the edge of starvation in the world. It's easy to raise the alarm when you work in a cushy building and your boss tells you you need more funding; it's a different thing entirely if you've seen how the other half (or so) lives.

So, when they start giving you the Oil for Food guys' line, wave your hand and say "I know, I know, but how much of the warming is CO2, how much is wasted arable land or cut down forests that don't evapotranspirate as much anymore, how much is natural variability, how much is black carbon from China's dirty coal-powered power plants settling on arctic ice and snow (and other places as well), etc." and watch the blank stares of the ignorant or the angered look of the brainwashed.

 

[jmw]

Just a reminder (to save searching back through the thread):

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrat...Releases/2006/pressRelease20060110/index.html

The Max Planck researchers discovered that plants emit methane direct into the atmosphere.

Plants are not the innocents they appear to be... CO2 in Methane Out..... how much nicer Methane is for the atmosphere!
Plants presumably prefer warmer climates so I suppose this isn't that surprising. And how very probable that plant life should evolve the ability to influence their own environment: More methane - global warming - more plants. At last, we can blame global warming and water shortages on all those gardening shows with "water well" instructions.

OK, so I have no idea how serious a contribution plants make to global warming (like power stations with high sulphur fuels i suspect the net effect on global warming is neutral.. they probably like it how it is). Real point, we are being alarmed by models that don'ta account for all the data.

(Sorry about the extra spaces at the beginning, some advert is obscuring the top lines of the message pane)

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[electricpete]

LCruiser - I will stipulate without hesitation that you are far more qualified to provide a technical opinion on these questions than myself - if nothing else based on your education and time spent over many years reading about these questions.

When I followed up on the question of historical timing between CO2 and temperature, I found that you were right. It appears temperature has historically changed before CO2, which in my mind makes the historical (ice cores) correlation between CO2 and temperature seem irrelevant in judging whether CO2 can help cause climate change. The website I was reading which appeared credible neglected to mention this "minor" detail. So I fully acknowledge I have incomplete access to the information necessary to get the big picture and can easily be led astray.

In spite of your qualifications, I hope you will also agree that the numerous respected panels and organizations cited above have far more qualifications, have invested far more time in reviewing the subject, and present a far more credible resource for the average joe to believe. In terms of judging credibility, I hope we can all accept the rule that on this controversial topic, we should place heaviest weight on pronouncements by respected scientific organizations that go out on a limb and put their credibility on the line in taking a stance. I would exclude opinions on such a controversial topic which are associated with any single individual. I would also exclude opinions that come from scattered thousands of "experts" (within a population of tens or hundreds of thousands of experts) who share no common organizational affiliation other than that they all agree to sign a petition (there is no organizational credibility on the line there).


Absent from your response is any comment on the existence of respected organizations who have put their credibility on the line to say there is no evidence of man's contribution to global warming. I haven't seen it in my internet roamings. I dont' rule out the possibility that such statement exists. As I freely acknowledge there is a lot about this subject that I don't know. If you can prove me wrong I would be grateful.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

ElectricPete -

There are many causes of global warming. I would not refer you to anyone who says there is no proof of man's causation. I just don't think we know enough, and the Precautionary Principle really says that we shouldn't restrict CO2 emissions until we know the true cost/benefit of that move, since we know CO2 emission definitely has some benefit to flora growth - both robustness where it is and in geographical extent.

Right now the alarmists are just a bunch of Chicken Littles.

 

[2dye4]

LCruiser
Can you help me understand the down side to undertaking
a moderate enonomic hit now and reduce fossil fuel produced
greenhouse gasses.
What are the chances that this will cause us harm??
What are the chances it will do some good ???

 

[LCruiser]

2dye4 -

The down side is that the portion of the anthropogenic global warming attributable to increased CO2 (vs. albedo changes from black carbon residue, decreased evapotranspiration from deforestation, net UHI etc.) is unknown, and balanced against the potential gain to flora - aka the bottom of the food chain - which we know is happening, is impossible at this time.

So, there's no way to know what the chances are - all we know is the deck is stacked toward increased CO2 is good.

We are a carbon based life form. We can potentially view CO2 as the closest thing there is to manna. We may just be rescuing it from the depths. We really don't know.

 

[2dye4]

Lcruiser
I can see the complications in the CO2 issue.
Why would more CO2 be necessary now than in the past??
Is it just to counteract other aspects of human impact??

I would think there is a lot more to the issue than CO2.
Burning fossil fuels makes other stuff too.

I can not bring myself to believe there is even a minute
chance that we need to burn fossil fuels to enhance our
enviroment.

Do you believe our current enviromental impact rate is
a sustainable one. We can do this indefinately ??