Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21

[dik]

thread1618-496010:
thread1618-496614:
thread1618-497017:
thread1618-497239:
thread1618-497988:
thread1618-498967:

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

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

greg, greg, greg ... really, the science is settled !?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

It assumes that the greenhouse effect is due to CO2, and then looks at the implications of various amounts of fossil fuel usage. I'm keen to find the source for the climate sensitivity estimates, but the refs aren't structured in the way that is usual these days.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It's actually a pretty interesting document that Greg shared.

What I found particularly useful was the plots that showed the expected range of fluctuation and the natural range of fluctuations. This certainly demonstrates one of the things that is most challenging about "climate modeling" and why a single year (or even a decade) of data can be significantly up or down from the prediction just based on natural fluctuation.

 

[TugboatEng]

Odd to see ExxonMobil being attacked for this. I think it demonstrates a highest level of ethics that they even commissioned such a study.

Personally, I like ExxonMobil because only their greases have useful product data sheets.

 

[dik]

...and that they did absolutely nothing about the study may be a bit of a problem...

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

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

I think it demonstrates a highest level of ethics that they even commissioned such a study.

40 years ago, it wasn't even an ethics issue to do the study, just diligent science; the 40 years of suppressing the information is the unethical part, since they immediately cut the budget of those scientists the year after

Here's an earlier (1978) Exxon document

https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[dik]

My first inkling of climate change came about 60 years back on a series of tape lectures given by Dr.Ken McLachlan on cybernetics. He made a comment about us 'maybe being on that slippery slope'. When I asked him about the reference, he explained that...

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

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

...and that they did absolutely nothing about the study may be a bit of a problem...

There was nothing to do about this "study". It wasn't even a study, it was merely "mile high" / executive summary about research on a topic that they felt executives needed to be briefed about in case they were questioned about it.

The "study" was pretty clear about a number of things:
a) There wasn't any conclusive evidence that this was really happening (back in 1982-ish) and that given the margin of error caused by normal temperature variations, it would be mid 90's that any warming would actually be noticeable.

b) That the "results" from warming might be beneficial in some ways and negative in others. Result in more rain in certain areas, more drought in other areas.

c) That some scientists were concerned that the effects would not be reversible by the time the effects were noticeable enough to warrant action.

What action could Exxon have taken exactly? Let's say the CEO was "all in" and decided he had to campaign against fossil fuels and basically shut his company down. He would have been fired and replaced immediately.

Maybe, he could have spent their "public service money" less on wild life and endangered animals and such. Then put that money towards public service announcements about how the public should choose more fuel efficient cars. Would that have had any significant effect on consumer demand for fossil fuels?

Maybe he could have started a campaign to get rid of coal power plants and replace them with nuclear. Do you think the public would have supported that? Certainly not anywhere that coal is mined.

One of the problems with the left is they always thing there is some huge corporate "villain" out there like on some ridiculous episode of Captain Planet. LOL. The problem with global warning is about supply and demand. People want to be warm in the winter and comfortable in the summer. They want to be able to feed their families and live comfortably. Period. Abundant and cheap energy is what allows them to do all of this. So, unless you're willing to live "off the grid" like a hermit, compost your own feces and use that to grow your own crops then YOU are the closest thing to a villain that exists.

Providing a service or a commodity that the world consumers desperately want is NOT villainous.

 

[dik]

Sorry Josh...

If they found out there may be environmental problems and ignored the possibility, it could open a 'whole can of hurt' for them in the future, if they are taken to task about it.

Concern about the future, of our earth, is not a matter of 'right' or 'left'... only referenced so to vilify those concerned and to detract from what could be a real serious problem.

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

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

The "real serious problem" is that some want to destroy the economies of prosperous countries.

 

[dik]

I have no idea of how this will 'shake out', but there could be some serious changes in the not distant future.

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

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

You continue to say that, but my fortune teller says not to worry.

 

[dik]

It will be interesting if these events become bi-weekly:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64279891

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

-Dik

 

[dik]

...and there's a price to pay for these new events...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climat...ecord-atomic-bombs-getting-worse-researchers/

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

-Dik

 

[CWB1]

The "real serious problem" is that some want to destroy the economies of prosperous countries.

Including many politicians within those countries.

The other issue as I see it is the value many place on "research" by academia and govt, and mistrust of legitimate work by private industry. Having coordinated a Fortune 50's collegiate "research" program and worked in govt, I wouldn't trust either group to write a coherent report on current technology much less make meaningful predictions of the future.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Concern about the future, of our earth, is not a matter of 'right' or 'left'... only referenced so to vilify those concerned and to detract from what could be a real serious problem.

Of course not. I don't think I ever implied that..... All I implied was that the left seems to view corporations that look after their own interests as some comical Captain Planet type villain. Rather than as totally normal people acting in a totally normal and legal way. Exxon is under ZERO obligation to save the earth. Understanding what academics are saying about their product's effect on the environment is not nefarious in any way. Say you (knowing what you know now!) were Exxon CEO back then. What could you have done that would have made a shred of difference in where we are now? The only think I can think of is PSA commercials encouraging energy conservation. Maybe investments in "bio-diesel" research. But, I seriously doubt any of that would have made a lick of difference.

Let's compare this to Ford and GM. Say, that there is a study that says (with a reasonable degree of certainty) something like spending too many hours in a car is bad for your health. What could they do about it? Stop selling cars? No, some other company would just ramp up their production of cars instead. They are not under any obligations to solve this problem. They shouldn't hide it (like tobacco companies did). They can conduct research to better understand why and how this is true.

What about soda companies? They know that sugary drinks contribute to obesity. Should they be responsible for slapping the coke out of a fat person's hand?! No. That person is responsible for his or her own actions. They can offer other beverages that are more healthy and see if consumers want to buy them. But, if consumers do NOT want to buy them what can they do?

Are we the US to blame because we have probably released more CO2 into the air than any other country over the last 100 years? Yes. Of course, China and other countries have now caught up to us. Do we just commit ritualistic hari-kari on our economy and move back to a pure rural economy? Would that even help? The second we move even 10% in that direction, there would be an insurrection and the government would be replaced with a new one that allowed people the freedom to live their lives how they prefer.

My point is there isn't a single "villain" we can point to for AGW. We can certainly make changes that will help:

1) Encourage CO2 free power (like Hydro, Geothermal, Nuclear, Solar, Wind) even if it costs more.
2) Force the most least efficient (by CO2 emissions per MegaWatt of power) sources of energy to be completely replaced by more efficient sources of power.
3) Federal mandates on fuel efficiency in new cars, trucks and such.
4) Encourage other countries to do the same.
5) Impose tariffs on imported goods based on how much CO2 was used to produced them and ship them to the US.
6) Help re-plant areas of the world where forests have been clear cut. We already do that in North America. But, spend some money to figure out how best to do this in the millions of acres of rainforest that have been burned down.​

None of these are going to completely solve our problem. But, they will lessen the problem. Then we learn how to mitigate the damages associated with climate change.

 

[dik]

It might be that they are all responsible and there does not appear to be a remedy. I just hope it is not as serious as it could be.

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

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

All I implied was that the left seems to view corporations that look after their own interests as some comical Captain Planet type villain.

I think that honest greed would be what you are describing, but commerce is also about trust, so finding out that a company not only knew the truth, but lied and foisted the exact opposite position is a form of evil, and should make everyone trust them less, and trust their product advertisements and their products less. Of course, those who paid attention already knew that companies are in the business of lying, after all, when did most people actually need two entire quarters' area of shampoo to clean their hair? The cigarette companies and Perdue Pharma are examples of public lying about the nonvirtues of their products.

But, the big difference is that while wasting 3/4 of your shampoo purchase is certainly evil, it's not existential, but lying about a potential global calamity is evil at a new level. And let's just say that the "right" is wrong here, and seems to adhere themselves to liars and villains, and I have to wonder where their alleged moral compasses have gone.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

Of course there is no remedy if (1) CO2 is the thermostat and (2)70% of the world's population want to live what we call normal lives and (3)we aren't prepared to give them nukes.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[TugboatEng]

Greg, one thing to note about oceans is that there isn't a lot of vertical exchange. Earlier I posted a link to a reference on alternative climate change. The author, in an attempt to include heat in climate models had to make a few assumptions. One of them was to only include the top 1m of oceans in the model. That greatly reduces the size of the sink.