Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

The Cycle of Global Warming 42

Status
Not open for further replies.
if you don't know that something is a problem, how can you have cost effective solutions ?

personally, i doubt that CO2, or more specifically human produced CO2, is critically changing the environment. i think the environment is changing, but i doubt that we can control the system and impose our will on it; generally, the tail doesn't wag the dog.

maybe it'd more usefull to anticipate future changes in the environment and develop ways and means to adapt to them, rather than trying to stop the unstoppable.
 
There are lots of people who will take any excuse to keep doing what we're already doing. The intellectual inertia amongst engineers saddens me to no end, and doesn't bode well for the planet's future.

I don't really give a rat's @ss whether there's proof that human activity is causing global warming or not. All there has to be is a possibility, much less a probability which is what the scientific consensus currently provides us, and that should be more than sufficient for us to take significant action to mitigate this potential harm. By no means do we need certainty on this issue before we ACT!

There are enough KNOWN impacts of fossil fuel production and consumption that we engineers have a responsibility to do whatever we can to minimize the amount that we waste them. Engineers know better than anyone else how to optimize a system to minimize energy consumption. A focus on conservation and efficiency and sustainable energy generation will mean more jobs for engineers rather than fewer- and a healthier planet. But not if we are lazy and stupid and overcome with inertia in our thinking!

As to whether or not energy efficiency is a "zero cost" option, it depends on what you consider your costs to be, i.e. where you draw the box around your analysis. Short-sighted, narrow economic analysis is the driving force for much evil in the world at large. We engineers have a responsibility to look at the bigger picture because we, unlike the bean counters and bizknobs, have a hope in h#ll of understanding what that may be. Let's face it- some things we think we can afford, we really can't- we're just deferring the cost to our kids or our grandkids, or putting the cost on someone else's shoulders.
 
[quote}The Cycle of Global Warming [/quote]

I am just guessing here, but hasn't the earth been "warming" up since the last ice-age (by definition)?

Doesn't the term "Cycle of Global Warming" mean that the earth warms up and then cools down? And hasn't it done it a few times already, at least in known history that scientist have studied so far?

Is this supposed to happend?

If this is supposed to happen (because it is nature's way), should we be changing the cycle?

Can we change the cycle?

As engineers, we often fail to look at the "bean counters" side of things. Where does the money to do things come from? And does the owner of the money want us to spend it the way we want to, or the way the owner wants to?

I think global warming, regardless of what is causing it, will have consequences for us.

What I don't know is what happens if we stop/address the global warming cycle, AND WE WHOULDN'T HAVE. What do we do then?

Should we also look at whether we should be stopping global warming?

Should we be stopping the next ice age?

Is it natural for the earth to be neither warming or cooling?

Just some questions.
 
moltenmetal -

It's not as easy as that. We're at the end of this interglacial, and there are indications that man, through burning not only fossil fuels but anything else to keep warm, has forestalled the next ice age. The rate of temperature fall from the peak of the MWP to the valley of the LIA is the same rate as we fell out of the Eemian. Want bad climate change? Try ice age.

I fully agree we should try to minimize pollution from fossil fuels, (e.g. Chinese power plants dumping black carbon on Arctic ice) but that should be real pollution, which does not include CO2.
 
This link is from the Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institute, so I give it some technical credence, unlike some of the treehugger BS that I hear every day:


There was a fascinating programme on Discovery (I think) about this subject. If it happens, the UK will develop a climate similar to that of Churchill, Canada. Such a change would, for me at least, be extraordinarily bad news.

----------------------------------
image.php
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...
 
ScottyUK -

That's BS. 90% of the northward Gulf Stream flow continues around and south in the gyre around the Sargasso sea.
 
The sheepdog barks; the sheep panic.
Of course, the sheepdog didn't really bark, he was just clearing his throat.

What started as a speculation has rapidly assumed the status of a proven fact.
We know this to be truth because the media and the politicians tell so; the scientists still debate and collect the data, the models they run have about a 300% error factor.

How many engineers would rely on a computer simulation with that degree of uncertainty and base their entire futures on it?

It might be true?
We ought to act as if it is true?

IF I choose the right six numbers, I can win millions on the lottery.

True.

Yes, in fact this is absolutely true; more so than global warming.

I should of course, sell everything I own and trust in the future happy outcome. The reality is more likely that I will end up living rough.

Sure, we could act now "just in case" but that's what sheep do. It's this sort of primeval fear that enabled prehistoric man to drive herds of mammoth over the edges of cliffs to their certain doom.

Just what are the probabilities that these events are "true".

Flavour of the month for "renewable energy" was the "Carbon Neutral" fuel approach.
This meant we would have to plant out the planet with vast acreages of quick growth trees (which would spell doom for the various local ecosystems: the vast forrests of Cyprus pine grown in the UK are pretty sterile environments; not indigenous (Cyprus?) it supports very little of the local wildlife while an English oak tree will support over a thousand species).

The secret to this solution? Carbon in = carbon out.

Neutral.
Very clever.
Not.

The very latest bad news, hot from the Max Plank labs, is Methane:


"From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature."
Click to expand...

Based only on this data, which is probably more sound than the data to support the global warming sepeculation, I am justified, more justified than in claiming global warming exists, in instantly assuring you all of a death from heat extinction within years of adopting this carbon neutral policy.

How can you know that whatever panic measures you decide to adopt will help or condem? and what if the problem doesn't even exist or if the alternative (falling over the cliff) is worse?

The power of auto-suggestion... because of all the hype about global warming "Observers" are reporting they have "never known weather conditions such as these before..." usually some 25year old TV presenter who couldn't be expected to have experienced the extremes of weather personally before anyway but none the less this is "responsible journalism" today.

Remember the "El Nino" event? Its great novelty on a slow news day was that no one had heard of it before. Apparently (and far less newsworthy) is that this is pretty normal behaviour and yes, it did do billions of dollars of damage. On the other hand the extended growing season etc resulted in a net benefit.

Again, not newsworthy because:
a} its not alarming
b) by the time this sort of data has been collected everyones forgotten all about it.
c) good news doesn't sell newspapers

What most of us recall is how this was presented as yet more evidence of global warming.

What we don't even have is scientific debate.
What we do have is media and political debate and everyone confusing the profundity of journos and politicians with reality.

On UK TV today, Jonathan Porrit is busy explaining why more Nuclear power won't significantly affect the UK's carbon emissions...

????????

Of course, this is based on the assumption of only a moderate increase in nuclear power generation. The UK doesn't actually have than much nuclear power generation to begin with ... the result of the anti-nuclear "save our planet" mob being so effective just as they are now with "global warming.
So doubling nuclear capacity sounds like a reasonable basis for the argument until you realise just how little that really is.

Doubling my income isn't going to excite anyone;
Doubling Bill Gates' would be pretty impressive.

On the other hand, the measures proposed to address the greenhouse problem that he espouses are on nowhere near such a modest scale, the UK is going to be surrounded by vast windfarms onshore and off shore....

Nuclear power will increase costs... but so will wind farms and they justify the big tax incentives (costs) on the fact that it is good for us... why wouldn't the same justification work with nuclear power?

I'm lost, do I treat this man with the reverance that the politicians do?

Disingenuous? Objective? Self serving?

Of course, he argues, power generation isn't the only use of fossil fuels.
He implies cars.
While he implies zero effect of nuclear on transport uses of fossil fuel, he doesn't explain how wind turbines will be any better, he just lets the sheep think this is a profound statement that nuclear power is no good as a response to climate change.

So go ahead;let the media prod you with their circulation growth tool and commit to as yet unjustified investments.

Taking a bit of time to get the true facts shouldn't be an unusual requirment should it? But then we are being give the same old "Club of Rome" hysteria all over again.

JMW
 
There is a lack of hard data on the current global climate of the Earth. NASA has just cut a number of Earth-observing satellites from their budget. The worst example of their bumbling is that they have built a satellite but canceled the launch to save money.

 
moltenmetal

How many dead children in car accidents is it worth to avoid burning one gallon of gas in a car?

THAT is the level of tradeoff we have to do.

I'd be interested to hear your estimate.




Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
The worst example of their bumbling is that they have built a satellite but canceled the launch to save money

It would only be bumbling if they decided beforehand to build it and not launch it. After the satellite is built, the charges are sunk, and no future action can affect them. In deciding which actions to take in the future, you only compare the actions and outcomes you can change. "Selling the satellite to someone who might launch it" would be something you would compare to "launching" and "not launching," perhaps, but you don't consider "not building" after a satellite is built. For more on the subject, search online.



 
ivymike, are you serious?
 
ScottyUK,
The BBC is its usuall wonderful self.

Followed the link; pathetic graphic.

We seem to have moved on, as per "State of Fear" from "Global Warming" to "Abrupt Climate Change" which is like an each way bet in a two horse race.

Of course, the BBC is a bit behind this thinking and is still hooked on global warming.

What does abrupt mean?

Next week?
Within 25 years? That justifies the journos pontificating on TV about never having experienced weather like it.
Within 500 years?
OK that encompasses the last min-ice age...

According to BBC3 ("The Sun", one of those dumbed down programs they do so well now):

1) no one knows how sun spot activity interacts with the earths weather.
2) BUT: an extended period with no sun spot activity at all corresponded with the mini-ice age, you know, the frost fairs on the Thames etc.

Note: I say "corresponded with" since they don't know how sunspots interact with the "weather" (curious how the BBC used the word weather in this context, not climate) and thus it is as yet co-incidence.

Having said all this they then went on about global warming as if it were a proven scenario .... no comment on how climate models can account for sunspot activity (on a par with astrology?)

For some reason the program seemed to go from here to the idea that the sun might help cool the earth....and I really lost the plot.

In fact, pretty well every BBC program now seems to feature some article or some comment on global warming.

Sadly the BBC doesn't seem to have moved on to the next page; "Abrupt Climate Change".

On one BBC program, some poor shmuck of a scientist has been looking at the "Atlantic Conveyor" (Gulf stream to my generation) and has determined from studying the composition of fossil sea shells that periodically the conveyor turns off and plunges Northern Europe into a ice age. This also accounted for the Greenland ice core phenomenum.

However,despite the science he was swiftly debunked/trumped with the global warming scenario (cue split screen images of power stations belching steam) that says we will have unprecendented warming, but no evidence.

We were left with the implied belief that he was wrong.
He could be right and his next ice age is starting now, well a couple of months ago actually since that's apparently when the conveyor stopped.

All quite unnecessary had the BBC been up to speed with "Abrupt Climate Change" as the latest big lie.

"Abrupt Climate Change" confuses me.
I am not sure if it is intended to mean that warming or ice age, it will happen next year and its our fault; or it doesn't matter what happens it all supports the global warming scenario.

Our problems as sheep to be manipulated by the media etc. are ego and guilt and ignorance.

Ego: we think we are capable of anything.
Guilt: we probable are doing wrong whatever we do.
Ignorance: we don't know enough about anything

And, thanks to Mary Shelly, we have the Frankenstein complex which has been a main stay of modern agnst about science and technology ever since: whatever we do will come back and haunt us.






JMW
 
Oh geez, Greg- nothing like taking the argument right off the cliff with hyperbole!

You want to talk about kids' health- talk about all the kids who are suffering with asthma and other breathing disorders because a huge crowd of dumb-@sses have a sense of entitlement to commute in bumper-to-bumper city traffic in their 2-tonne SUVs so they can feel SAFE! Or because the same group of idiots want to keep their homes like the freakin' arctic while they're away at work!

Who is making the roads safer for whom? My little Civic hatchback would be markedly safer on the road with fewer of those SUVs out there. Neither of us would stand a chance in an impact with a transport truck carrying goods that SHOULD be on the railways!

This entitlement mentality has to go. Nobody is entitled to drag two tonnes of metal around with them everywhere they go! Permitting this stupidity to continue is bad public policy.

You want kids to be safe? Put them on public transit. Far less risk of being killed or injured than putting them in cars, regardless how much like armoured vehicles you want to make those cars.

Regardless whether or not you "buy" greenhouse gas emissions as a cause of global warming, we engineers still have a responsibility to minimize the amount of energy our projects and our products waste. There are enough proven, known, CERTAIN harms arising from the production and consumption of fossil fuels to justify this position. The global scientific concern over the probability of human influence on global warming is just one more in an enormous pile of evidence supporting this position. It's time for engineers to stop arguing over this and start doing something about it.
 
ivymike, are you serious?
Yes. Perhaps they could be blamed for their failure to appropriately plan for foreseeable budget cuts, but faced with a budget cut, the fact that a satellite already exists does not factor into the question of whether you can afford to launch and maintain it. Many people (sounds like you too) would make the mistake of saying "since we already spent this much money, we should keep spending until we're done." Wrong answer. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, and it's time to pull the plug.



 
moltenmetal -

You're talking apples and oranges. This thread is about potential "global warming", and not about car safety.

And, you're wrong about our "responsibility to minimize the amount of energy our projects and our products waste"

We're responsible to make the most we can out of the least expense in materials. If people value quality of life in a larger car that can see further ahead and avoid accidents at the increased price of fuel, so be it, that adjusts our priorities. You are absolutely right in that we should consider the effects of pollution, and I personally think we should put a higher price on it. However, CO2 is not pollution. It's what plants eat, so arguably is the closest thing we have to manna.
 
Maybe we should ask ourselves another question.
What scenarios or group of evidence would be necessary
to convince you to a high certaintity, that man's industrial
activity is damaging our future survival prospects.

If the temp started climbing one deg C per year ??

How could you prove beyond a sceptics doubt that any
effect is due to mans activity. What analysis can be done??

It seems the naysayers to global warming have the upper
hand. Any anecdotal evidence suggesting a similar climate
pattern in the past is enough to prove no causal connection.
Which is of course false logic.

If it was your responsibility to ensure mankinds survival
where would you get concerned?



 
I think that's a very good question 2dye4, and I'm glad you used the word evidence, and not the word proof. What folks on both sides of the debate accept or reject is what they want to accept or reject because the truth is that neither side can prove anything. It's all evidence subject to interpretation.

All we really know is that the earth heats and cools in cycles and that at present, we are in a warming cycle. I don't know how much, or even if, man is contributing the current warming cycle. Nor do I know that we're not.

==> Any anecdotal evidence suggesting a similar climate pattern in the past is enough to prove no causal connection.
Anecdotal? What makes the evidence presented in the article anecdotal as opposed legitimate scientific findings?

I agree that this evidence does not prove that no causal relationship exists. All it shows is that the earth has in its past been, hotter than it is now. But that's not anecdotal.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 

err... make that THREE things to avoid conversation with casual acquaintances with:

politics
religion
global warming!?!

Thermodynamics, Boyle's Law, and the persistence of green algae variants of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in total darkness while emitting O2 relieve me of the guilt every times I fill up my truck.
 
Is there evidence that man can affect the cycle of global warming/ice age?

If we all stopped using fossile fuel (and hypothetically, I mean all), will global warming be changd to global constant temperature?


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ian Portsmouth
  • Locked
  • Question
Who will the Engineer of the Future be? 4
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
geotechguy1
geotechguy1
EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
751
IRstuff
IRstuff
FuelCellEng
  • Locked
  • Question
Suitable types of Fuel Cells for Automotive Application 2
Replies
2
Views
478
BrianPetersen
BrianPetersen
geotechguy1
  • Locked
  • Question
Changes to the iron ring ceremony 4
2
Replies
31
Views
901
Sparweb
Sparweb
Geotech-ing
  • Locked
  • Article
Geotechnical Engineering - The Great Divide between Younger and Older Engineers 14
Replies
17
Views
826
CWB1
CWB1

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom