The Cycle of Global Warming 42

[2dye4]

We have several problems.

1 Not all scientist agree, although it seems a majority of
those competent to comment agree that we need to reduce
greenhouse gasses. (true or not)

2 We tend to not believe them because of the possibilty of
their self interest interfering with ethics.

3 A highly divided issue. Most people believe strongly
one way or another ( apocalypse or hype )

4 The golden rule ( Those with the gold make the rules)
Big business would stand in net to loose some of their
economic and political power do to the neccesary weakening
of the economy that would occur if this issue were
to be adressed. The economy will weaken because we would
be undertaking work or effort that we formerly did not
anticipate needing to do.

In light of this I think lobbying this issue is a waste of
breath and any other resource used in its name.

Resources will only be devoted to it when it significantly
degrades the standardard of living in developed societies
and the evidence is irrefutable by all but the most thick
headed.

I am off to burn my trash in my yard and buy an SUV

 

[THEReifleman]

I have direct dealings with half the labs you mention and no doubt there is some sincere brain power there. However, they have few or no political agendas?!? Pu-lease! That's incredibly naive.

 

[moltenmetal]

2dye4: you are not nearly cynical enough! Surely it's crystal clear to you that major problems in developed nations will not be sufficient for humankind to deal with this problem! No! We'll need to have serious impact to virtually all countries, developed or not, before we even start to take action. And I guarantee you that even at that point, there will be people, engineers amongst them, who say that things aren't as bad as they seem, or the problems we're experiencing aren't our fault etc.

If this discussion has proven anything to me, it's that even engineers, those most pragmatic of scientifically-trained people, are so fixated on "proof" that they won't take action until we're all up to our necks and it's too late to do anything. We're also so filled with hubris and false faith in our own technology that we imagine that we can survive for a SECOND without this Earth and its living systems to protect and feed us!

As I've said repeatedly and still believe fervently, there are enough benefits to the minimization of wasteful consumption of fossil fuels that we should be doing it ANYWAY, aggressively, whether global warming is caused by CO2 emissions or not. The mere credible risk of irreverible human-caused climate change with utterly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic results should be sufficient to trigger such action too. And the only way to make this happen is by taxing the commodity to apply a cost to atmospheric dumping, something that is currently considered "free", so that fossil fuel consumption is moderated by the marketplace.

Europe is doing this in more than a half-hearted way. North America (now that the neo-cons are in power in Canada) isn't. China and India probably won't, ever, rendering what the rest do essentially meaningless anyway. But without a credible international effort, there will be no reason to even try.

Be sure to roast some fatty red meat on that garbage- the dioxins and PAHs give it a particularly interesting flavour!

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> those most pragmatic of scientifically-trained people, are so fixated on "proof" that they won't take action until we're all up to our necks and it's too late to do anything.
I think you're completely mis-reading the situation. It's not that they don't want to do anything, they don't want to do the wrong thing and make it worse.

Learning is not doing nothing.

==> The mere credible risk of irreverible human-caused climate change with utterly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic results should be sufficient to trigger such action too.
Absolutely. The issue is not responsible conservation. That's a given. The question is, other than responsible conservation, what action should be taken that will not cause potentially catastrophic problems, while at the same time, will not destroy the economy leading to an altogether different form of human suffering?

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

 

[2dye4]

Cajun:
The only solution to the greenhouse problem is to reduce
the emission of manmade greenhouse gasses into the atmosp.
Are there any other credible ideas out there to cure the
problem??

So the only wrong thing that can be done is not reducing
gasses. Correct or not.

So the question is really
Do we take the hit on our economy or not??

Of course if pushed to far government would break down
and the effort would fail.

So I ask is not the right thing to do to pursue reduction
of gasses at a moderate pain level to our economy. ??

 

[CajunCenturion]

How simple things are when in black and white.

How much manmade reduction is necessary? How much pain is moderate? How can you estimate the effect on global climate change when we really don't how much of the observed global warming in strictly from anthropogenic emissions? How big is the investment, and what is the return on that investment?

Given how little we really know about the big picture, how much money are you willing to spend, and how much pain are you willing to endure to engage is activities that may have little or no effect?

I would much prefer that we put that money into research so that we learn more about the system so that when we do act, we act smartly and efficiently, not hastily out of ignorance and fear. I think the right thing to do is to invest in education so that when we do take action, we don't kill ourselves or do irrepable harm to ecosystems because we don't know any better. Right now, there are too many questions and not enough answers. We need to seek those answers.

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

 

[2dye4]

Good points Cajun

It probably impossible for modern civilization to exist
with zero long term impact on our planet.

The conclusion must follow that our time here is limited
as we will inevitably reduce the carrying capacity of our
planet. So do we attemp to stretch that out as long as
possible or just live it up.

Is it not true that the solution vector lies in less
polution. I will be suprised if future credible research
says we can pollute all we want and not cause harm.

So we know the solution dirction so to speak. True??
We can now argue about the magnitude of effort necessary.

So your research could say we can pollute at X rate and
live on the planet for Y years. What other data will it
give??

How could we hurt our ecosystem by conservation ??

 

[electricpete]

molten metal==> those most pragmatic of scientifically-trained people, are so fixated on "proof" that they won't take action until we're all up to our necks and it's too late to do anything.
CajunCenturion==>I think you're completely mis-reading the situation...

I think moltenmetal is right on target.

IF we view this thread as a microcosm of the larger debate (I'm not sure if it is but let's make that assumption for the sake of discussion), THEN I think we have seen clear evidence of the unreasonable burden of proof that the do-nothing-except-study advocates will impose:
1 - Anyone's credibility can be questioned.
2 - Naysayers will change their mind about credibility of a source depnding on whether the source supports their opinion (witness LANL - used as a tool to discredit LNL when LLNL when LLNL's comments were under scutiny, but later choose to discredit LNL when their comments are not convenient).
3 - We will automatically disregard any opinion from the people who are MOST qualified to judge the situation (climatologists) since they have an inherent conflict of interest.
3A - Note that #1 and #3 are especially effective together - we will discredit thos most qualified, which leaves only those who have no basis to comment!
4 - We want something stronger than the written scientific consensus already presented at IPCC. In a politically-charged debate with big money on the line and big $ spent for propoganda on both sides, and almost-insurmountable credibility issues discussed above, we are looking for some kind of national clear consensus to emerge.

A compounding factor is that everyone agrees there are strong natural weather pattern variations independent of man's effects. So, we really can't rely on our gut-feel from personal observations that the weather is in fact tremendously changed over the past 20 years. Science will tell us that this is statistically insignificant within historical patterns of variation. I have no objection with believing the scientists on this point. But if we put our trust in the scientist to ignore our gut feel on this point, we must also put trust in scientists when the international scientific community (ipcc) tells us that the situation demands action. Summary: If we are inherently limited in our own ability to use personal observation to analyse the situation, we should put MORE credence in what our scientific community tells us. Like it or not, the national labs and ipcc are the most credible voices of the scientific community. (If someone has a group more credible they think we should listen to, I am very interested to know who it is).

How simple things are when in black and white.
How much manmade reduction is necessary? How much pain is moderate? How can you estimate the effect on global climate change when we really don't how much of the observed global warming in strictly from anthropogenic emissions? How big is the investment, and what is the return on that investment?

These questions have been studied and the international community gave their best assessment of the answer in the Kyoto treaty. Some nations have made sincere attempts towards Kyoto targets, while others have abandoned responsibility toward the global community on these issues by ignoring the Kyoto targets.

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

 

[electricpete]

Please allow me to correct my grammar:
"IF we view this thread as a microcosm of the larger debate.."
should have been
"IF we view this thread as representative of the larger debate.."

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

 

[electricpete]

When considering what the burden of proof question, we should bear in mind the potential large consequences of making a wrong decision, and the irreversibility of our actions (man has the capability to stop pollutants before they enter the atmosphere but no ability to affect their removal once they are airborne).

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

 

[moltenmetal]

Of course things are simple in black and white! Like the notion that anything that increases the cost of energy consumption will automatically destroy our economy! Or that the consensus in the scientific community about the human origins of global warming is a result of inherent conflict of interest rather than one of honest scientific inquiry, measurement and debate amongst scientists on an international basis!

Conservation and weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction will NOT ruin our economy. It WILL change our lives and our lifestyles, though, and I believe that in composite this change will be vastly for the better. The fact is, we have no choice but to breathe if we want to continue living. Lots, in fact MOST, of the things we waste energy on ARE optional choices. And we're subsidizing these choices at the expense of our own health and that of the planet. In fact, on the planetary level, most of us are subsidizing the choices of a scant few who waste enormous quantities of these resources for their own "choices"!

"Responsible conservation" is an economic impossibility unless a significant MONETARY VALUE is attached to the dumping of wastes into our atmosphere. Whether you categorize CO2 as a detrimental waste or not is basically irrelevant, though I believe the risks of not doing so are vastly greater than those of doing so. It just so happens that the fossil fuel options for energy production get dirtier and dirtier in all other pollutants in lock-step with the amount of CO2 they produce when you combust them.

 

[jmw]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Whatever the effects of fossil fuel burning in producing greenhouse gases, we have been very successful taking sulphur out of fuel simply because we could.

We used to contribute 33% from fossil fuel burning and mother nature provided the other 67%.
The trouble is that sulphur oxide relase from fossil fuel meant that many fossil fuel power plants were neutral for greenhouse effects since the global dimming effect of the sulphur oxides compensated for the effects of greenhouse gases.
So guess what, we cured one problem without having a cure for the other.... we now only contribute 3% sulphur oxides and we are very busy doing something about that.

So if greenhouse gases are now accelerating global warming it is because we applied a partial solution not a complete solution.
This is just the sort of action we ought to consider: how isolating one problem and addressing it isn't necessarily always the right thing to do.

Sure, sulphur oxides are a health hazard but if you produce your sulphur oxides away from the main centres of population you could limit their effects on health and manage the situation till we could address the other problems. As it is, solving one problem exacerbates the other.

We may all be less prone to asthma and we'll all be very healthy as we go to our abrupt climate change hell.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

When I said that the situation was being misread, I was referring to the following:
==> are so fixated on "proof" that they won't take action until we're all up to our necks
Taking the time to learn more about the situation IS taking action. It may not be the action you prefer, but it is nonetheless, taking action.

==> These questions have been studied and the international community gave their best assessment of the answer in the Kyoto treaty.
Yes they have, and the Kyoto treaty is a perfect example of why we need to proceed cautiously. The Kyoto treaty has serious flaws (hashed and rehashed in another thread) which, in the final analysis, is a means to get developed countries to invest of poorer countries with minisule improvement to the environment. In other words, it's not about improving the environment, it's about the economy of poorer countries at the expense of another. Someone earlier made a comment about right-wing takeover and left-wing takerover, but consider this. The US Senate, which enjoys the company of both extremes, voted 96-0 against the Kyoto treaty. 96-0! That's not an either-wing takeover; that's simply not good business.

Of course things are simple in black and white! Like the notion that anything that increases the cost of energy consumption will automatically destroy our economy!

That's a very black and white statement. No one said anthying about "automatcially destroy", but it is acknowledged there will be a cost. Again, we need to get away from that kind of extremeist rhetoric and address the issues responsibly. We can't look at one or two things in a vacuum and expect the overall situation to improve. And there will be a cost and that needs to be part of solution.

The questions that I'm asking are not intended maintain the status quo, far from it. The questions, if anything, are to get people to think before they act, to be responsible, to look at the big picture.

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

 

[2dye4]

Why do we need to study whether or not to
reduce pollution and the burning fossil fuels.
I suppose someday it may be revealed that combustion
by products of fossil fuels are actually good
for us.

 

[GregLocock]

You may be slightly surprised to hear that that has already been shown.

High altitude sulphur-containing clouds, as produced by coal-burning power stations, have an effect on the albedo of the Earth rather greater than the warming effect of the CO2 produced by the same plants.

Consequently closing down these smelly old plants will actually increase the greenhouse effect, according to the model used. I haven't seen these results disputed, or even much discussed.

As to the more general point. There is a cost associated with reducing the use of fossil fuels, if we wish to maintain a given standard of living. There is an argument that says that you are better off not paying that cost, investing the money saved in growth, and then using the extra income generated to cope with the costs of climatic changes (etc) brought about by the use of those fossil fuels. This is our (human) traditional approach, if you think about it. On average it has worked to date, but we have already wrecked a significant proportion of our environment, so it has been a bit hit and miss.

Changing to an approach where we try to predict the long term consequences of a particular strategy needs good science, or great faith. Good science needs models that create testable hypothesese. Thus far to my mind the climate models do not seem to do this, since models from equally reputable groups seem to make rather different predictions, and don't include obvious factors like solar output.

Having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that we are wasting oil/gas in all sorts of stupid ways, which will probably reduce somewhat when it hits 300 bucks a barrel. Bring it on. The sad truth is, humans do not respect free resources, and the current cost of oil is so low that any reasonably affluent society at the moment does not think twice about expending it.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[25362]

A widely-recognised formula is enviromental pollution caused by humankind = population[×](economic activity per person)[×](pollutant emissions per unit of economic activity).

Beside any natural mechanisms that may help in the removal of pollutants, we all are aware of the fact that nations actually attempt to diminish pollution by acting on one or all of the above factors.

Although many would diverge believing it means just quixotry, IMO scientists and engineers, should be the vanguard in that crusade.

 

[davefitz]

2dye4:

That reminds me of the scene in the Woody Allen film Sleeper, where the future scientists remark that bacon fat, chocolate, and alcohol used to be considered bad for you, but advanced science had disproven that and now ( in the year 3550 AD) they are considered to be health foods.

In many of the above discussion, there is a presumption that we need to maintain the current "standard of living", which in developed western countries seems to be characterized by "conspicuous consumption" and a belief that ones social status can be conveyed by displaying expensive ( and ecologically damaging) accoutrements. While I don't expect it to occur voluntarily, a sea change in rate of consumption of scarce resources could occur if the concept of social status was de-coupled from the number of toys one has accumulated. Sort of implies the classic eastern philosophy would displace the currently dominant western philosphy.

 

[epoisses]

Homo sapiens being a hunter/collector kind of species, I don't expect that having less would ever mean a higher status... not even in Asia... the Chinese emperor had a bigger house (heck it was an entire forbidden city) and more stuff around him than anyone else. We will consume unless our own consumption starts to cause major problems.

BTW among all the bad news in this thread, did anyone notice how smoothly we are improving the air quality within just 1-2 decennia, with the introduction of automotive catalyst, more efficient (especially diesel) engines and with sulfur in gasoil and mogas stepping down orders of magnitude? And our standard of living is only going upward.

 

[z633]

Boy that liberal left green wing is out of control.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

The nerve "The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat." and "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said."

who they trying to fool!

 

[electricpete]

Well, your article shows we can add the National Academy of Science to the list of of recognized scientific groups who are warning us about man's effect on the climate.

"A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." "

"Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850."

"The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said."

"The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters."

I asked a question awhile back but still no answer... where are the respected scientific organizations that are telling us that climate change is not occuring and/or man has nothing to do with it?

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