The engineering challanges of living with global warming 9

[sms]

Rather than continuing to hijack the thread on Saudi oil, I thought I would start a new thread...

Drillernic said in the Saudi Oil thread:

“However if anthropogenic global warming is fact, it may be too late to do anything about it when the arguments have finished, so perhaps the wisest course of action is to do something about CO2 emissions just in case?”

If my (perhaps pessimistic) friend moltenmetal is correct, then messing with CO2 emissions is a waste of time and effort. Perhaps we ought to take on the engineering challange to begin adapting human civilization to higher global temperatures, beginning by:

Start relocating pacific islanders.

Stop all development of the Florida peninsula

Start development of a New Orleans style water handling systems for London, New York, and other major cities…

Start relocating New Orleans inland.

Further development of drought resistant crops.

Although as certain parts of the globe become unlivable, migration will happen naturally.

What other engineering problems and solutions do you see as a result of adapting human civilization to higher global temperatures?



-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[corus]

Running away from the problem, or even flying, doesnt solve the problem, nor does saying It wasnt me! help either. The problem looming in either engineering terms or in conflict, will be access to water, or producing sufficient water to meet the needs of a population for certain drought ridden areas. It seems odd to me that they can think of ways of doing it on Mars but somehow cant do the same here where two thirds of the planet is covered in the stuff.

corus

 

[dcasto]

Send space ship B out with all the telephone sanitizers, hair dressers, and middle managers........

 

[regalia]

Responding to Corus...

We have all the water we could ever need. You just need the power to treat it and get it to where it needs to go. It all comes back to energy production (green or not). Considering how the water/wastewater infrastructure is falling apart in the US due to decades of neglect by government, I would not expect this to become a focus anytime soon.

Great point about Mars though!!! The funny part is that we could sustain a few billion of us here on earth for what we spend to keep 8 astronauts in space. Perhaps a bit exagerated, but the analogy certainly proves that it's absense of priority not lack of technology. Can't blame the engineers for that.

It is indeed a serious issue...but consider that not even Al Gore did much to bring about change despite his 8 years in a highly influential position. Many will likely die, but the majority will successfully adapt when the time comes. Civilization will continue.

 

[moltenmetal]

How do you cope with global warming? By using MORE energy, of course!

This is a problem which has no engineering solution. While fossil CO2 emission to the atmosphere remains "free", no technology will be used to deal with it. But we'll always find the money to "cope" with the consequences.

 

[epoisses]

"But we'll always find the money to "cope" with the consequences"

Finally an optimistic message from you, moltenmetal! I also think we will always find the money and the technology to manage problems, as we have always done (acid rain, millennium bug, the ozone layer is expected to recover according to the IPCC). The question though is what to spend the money on. Should we spend it on climate change, of which we don't even know if our CO2 causes it, or should we spend it on AIDS for example. I don't think anybody ever died of climate change yet. You can't really claim the same thing about AIDS. Let's get our priorities right.

 

[moltenmetal]

Sure, epoisses: let's do BOTH- let's put a huge tax on gasoline and the other fuels we're wasting on commuter SUVs and McMansions and other stupidity and use it to prevent AIDS (and malaria) in sub-Saharan Africa! You'll get no objection from me!

But you're being disingenuous in your argument. What you already feel, as expressed clearly in other posts you've made, is that you already pay enough for fuel. And you do pay about double what we here in North America, so you do have a point. (I'd like to see fuel here cost closer to what it costs you in Europe- then perhaps we'd see our auto fleet energy performance improve to levels seen in Europe!).

But what you really want is to simply keep on doing what we're already doing and to pay no more for it than you already do until there's hard proof that spending more is necessary. AIDS is just a red herring. And you won't get the "proof" you need until the climate is irreparably damaged.

 

[epoisses]

"AIDS is just a red herring."

Come on, just read what you just wrote moltenmetal. I think you are now taking me for some kind of heartless cynic. I happen to have a friend in South-Africa. When I was there the other day he told me casually (trying to sound casually, rather) that he had had to find a new household lady twice in a row since the previous visit (1.5 year ago). Oh yeah, I went, how is that? Well because of AIDS he answered.

So, red herring or whatever you want to call it if you think it happens far enough away from you, but it's a reality that 25% of South-Africans have AIDS and there are countries where it's worse.

So should I now ask you the same question in return, do you think we are spending enough on this issue, should we keep doing what we are doing?

Or do you think the money comes from two very different wallets, not from communicating vessels that are together just one and the same amount?

Let me put it differently again. Climate change is a luxury problem. Don't have the guts to go into an African ghetto (whichever one) and talk about your climate change problem. In some of them you hardly find anyone to talk to after the AIDS virus has passed by.

Let's solve the biggest and most urgent problems first please.

 

[moltenmetal]

The fact of the matter is, the money allocated for solving the global warming problem is just plain not being made available to solve the AIDS crisis. AIDS in Africa is also assigned a zero cost to us here in the so-called "developed world". You can argue with the morality of that fact and I would agree with you, but the fact remains. To compare the money "wasted" fighting climate change to what good it could do in the battle against AIDS is disingenuous, regardless how heartfelt your concern for AIDS sufferers clearly is.

As I said, I'd be happy to have government raise some taxes to take some of the money currently wasted on our voluntary excesses with respect to fossil fuels, and spend it to reduce the deaths caused by AIDS, or malaria, or suicides, or auto crashes, or obesity, or respiratory ailments, or whatever preventable cause of premature death you or I might wish to choose. I'd be less happy to have the tax money spent on hospitals and schools, or thrown in a pile and burned- but ANY of these choices would deter wasteful consumption, and that mere fact alone would be good for the planet.

Individuals contribute what they feel like when they can- but these problems, whether they be AIDS or global warming, need the force of the economy to solve them properly. The only force capable of altering the economic equation in the correct directions is government.

 

[FACS]

As soon as we accomplish the scientific reversal of global warming, a volcano will erupt spewing enough garbage into the atmosphere to ruin all our hard work.

Charlie

http://www.facsco.com

 

[PSE]

I do not feel that global warming will be successfully addressed through either governmental or economic means. If it can be addressed at all, it will require a societal/cultural change that would likely be quite painful (especially to those of us who live in the US). I know for a fact that shifting ever closer to a "green" lifestyle would cause and is causing my family and I some "hardship". Our lives are a bit less flexible and it is currently more expensive. It is however, a choice we have made to attempt.

Society as a whole needs to change first as it is what truly drives both the economies of countries and governments. Both of which contain huge forces that would react adversely to such change. We rely on our governments to keep our best interests in mind. As such, there is a polarizing effect in international relations and cooperation.

Shifting to a "green" economy would be tremendously disruptive to a number of large and powerful corporations. If by their very nature, they cannot accommodate change, they will resist change to the best of their ability in a bid for sheer survival.

Can success be realized against global warming? Not if we do not even try. It is however going to be a painful and disruptive time to go through at least in my opinion as I do not see any easy solutions.

Regards,

 

[rb1957]

climate change is a fact of life ... personally i think it is driven by that great big glowing ball in the sky each day.

that said, i agree with a previous poster that we probably should be doing more sensible things with regards to the environment. personally, i wonder about the effectiveness of fuel cells ... aren't you moving the pollution from one source to another ? how much energy does it take to make a fuel cell ? is it energy efficient, or does that even matter ('cause we're doing for it's other advantages) ?

again, from my personal veiwpoint, i believe climate change is inevitable, and that we as engineers should be thinking about practical solutions to the problems it causes (protecting low-lying land). i disagree with some posters above, who premise that the world will become uninhabitable.

now, today the UN "scientists" say we have 15 years to turn things around. what BS !! if we turn things around in 16 years we're doomed ?? finally, personally, i believe this global warming is just a scare tactic to get people to do the "right" thing since obviously we're stubbornly not.

 

[TPL]

Hope I am not hijacking this thread, I believe that CO2 levels are increasing as are the earths surface temperatures, but I have not seen anyone provide a link between the two issues.

My belief is that curbing population growth and even reducing population is the way to go, but it won’t happen.

Anyway, to my question…

Has anyone see the TV program called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ shown on UK tv? This contained interviews with climate scientists (mostly North American) whose names and works were allegedly attached to UN IPCC reports against their will, even though they disagree with the IPCC findings.

The program showed that many proponents of global warming have a vested interest in ‘proving’ that it is related to CO2 levels since it gives them a damn good living. If global warming was found to be caused by anything other than rising CO2 levels then their scientific credibility would be questioned and their livelihoods would disappear.

This program also suggested that the statistics used by Al Gore were a tad misinterpreted. One example of this was a huge wall chart trending CO2 and earth surface temperature against time, with the x-axis (time) covering several gazillion years, and showing a distinct correlation between CO2 levels and surface temperatures. However, when any small section of the graph was expanded around any given time, the trends showed that rather than changes in surface temperatures following changes in CO2 levels, it was the other way round, with increases in CO2 levels lagging behind surface temperatures by about 800years. The changes in surface temperature were attributed to ‘wobbles’ in the earths orbit causing variations in the distance from the sun. Variations in surface temperature then changed the solubility of CO2 in the oceans – as things warmed through, more CO2 came out of the sea.

I saw this program a couple of months ago. I would have thought that if it was true, then the airlines and other CO2 villains would have been using it as evidence to support their own causes, but I don’t see this happening. There is some ‘bad science’ somewhere.

 

[dcasto]

you can download the program The Global Warming Swindle for free at

http://www.channel4.com.

In my home town I demanded that the school board resign or show this video after they made my kids watch the Uncle Al infomertial.

 

[ewh]

dcasto,
Did they relent and give fair time to program?

 

[epoisses]

You know what... we've spent so much time talking about this issue now, and we have not got much further.

As far as I can see there are 4 parties involved:

1. The sceptical scientists, Bjorn Lomborg is the most prominent example (and there are many among us), who try to find out for themselves what is best using their brains and available statistics.
2. The environmentalists, who are obsessed by the subject of global warming, because it ties in to many of their ideas: globalisation, mass consumption, cars, planes and the "fact" (?) that we should all go back to pre-urban stress-free lifestyle because we'd be better off. Throw in some religious guilty feeling and what you get is a vision of the world based on something totally different than group 1's vision, hence a complete misunderstanding between both groups.
3. Politicians and other clever guys like Al Gore, who use the subject to their advantage.
4. The "masses" who are susceptible to anything that is in fashion.

Groups 1 and 2 shout but have little if no bottom line impact. Group 3 does have bottom line impact by manipulating group 4. Group 4 will have itself manipulated as it always has, as long as it does not cost *too* much money. It's as simple as that.

Global warming is in fashion. The EU requires air makers to lower CO2 emissions. This is the only major action taken as far as I am aware (this may just be my ignorance).

Actually reducing encon is not a bad thing to do in the base case, global warming or not. As long as we are not spending insane fortunes because we think we have to because of all the news about global warming, I think it probably won't hurt to spend *some* money and reduce CO2 emissions, if it creates something to hold on to for many people, in this age of disappearing religion and other points of reference. For the same reason I think I will pick my battles and stop trying to convince groups 2 and 4 - I have no interest anyway except my own wallet and my feeling of disgust when I see other people swallow nonsense.

*cynic mode off...*

 

[SomptingGuy]

I would guess that the teaching of global warming in schools is on a par with the teaching of any religion - you only ever get a one sided approach.

 

[MadMango]

A relative timeline to this discussion can be found here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Also, an interesting artiocle here:

http://www.rense.com/general75/who.htm

Seems to me the problem is not the production or reduction of CO2, but rather the reconstitusion of it, if possible.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[BJC]

As engineers we have to look at reality, which may well be only a political reality.
It means work for engineers. Wheather or not you believe in global warming is irrelavant. New types of power plants are going to be built, new types of vehicle power system developed, CO2 is going to be sequesterd etc. etc.
If the US wants to ignore the problem ( real or not) the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese will engineer and build that equipment and systems. The US will continue in a downward sprial becoming a classical "colony" producing raw materials and crops ( wheat, corn and soybeans ) for the rest of the world.

 

[PSE]

From epoisses,

"You know what... we've spent so much time talking about this issue now, and we have not got much further."

A good statement, showing we are but a microcosm of humanity at large.

Regards,

 

[dcasto]

I've not heard a word from the school board. My kids at the school have been told the the alternative to the Al Gore movie is "We are living in the alternative, there is nothing else to talk about". All three kids have been told they think their parents are cool and they agree with us.