×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

The Cycle of Global Warming
42

The Cycle of Global Warming

The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
Global Warming Dramatically Changed Ancient Forests

Quote:

The findings, which appear in this week's issue of the journal Science, provide the first evidence that land plants changed drastically during a period of sudden global warming 55 million years ago, said Jonathan Bloch, a University of Florida vertebrate paleontologist and member of the research team.
(emphasis mine)
and

Quote:

The warming was caused by a gigantic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that was comparable to the atmospheric effects expected from human burning of fossil fuels, he said.
How much of the warming is man-made, and how much is part of the natural cycle of the earth?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Jeesh...here we go again.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

This info can be used to good advantage when filming the  next catastrophe movie. The plot is:

a) everyone in China and India get an SUV and average 9 miles per gallon, first 20 minutes of movie. US cars just sit in driveway with cars runnign 24 hours a day at full idle, with drivers poking at iPods.
b)ferns start to grow to 150 ft in height, pine trees to 600 ft height, next 20 minutes
c)crocodiles morph into tyranasoaurus rexes, next 20 minutes
d) meteor hits earth and puts all of us out of business.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

7
Here's the real catastrophic scenario:  Alarmists convince everyone to artificially sequester CO2, which causes Earth to cool to the trend line it was on at the MWP - LIA interface gradient.  In the meantime, crops fail due to increased water etc. demand.  Then, billions of suddenly cold people start burning everything that will burn to stay warm - including pretty much everything Dupont has made over the last 50 years.  Talk about air pollution!

Then, of course, all the hungry people start climbing over *everybody* elses back fence and breaking in to their houses...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

back to cajun's post ...

that's the $64m (or is it $64b these days) question.  politics (and money) has charged the debate so that both sides attack and counter-attack each other with near religious fervour.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

What is the analysis from the engineering perspective?  I assume the measured data we have is over too small a time aperture so can we consider the fundamentals?  This is out of my field, but I am still an engineer and this could be understood from at least a likelihood analysis.

1)  What is the energy falling on the area of the globe from the sun considering all wavelengths?  What is the variability vs time (std. dev, pdf shape etc.)

2)  What is the reflectance (or whatever the proper term is) that determines what portion of the energy makes it inside the volume of our atmosphere.  Again, the variance question.

3)  What is the retransmission energy, it's variance and the reflectance back again with it's variance (high frequencies turned into heat and perhaps reflected back)

4)  What is the natural heat (any energy) generation, forest fires, natural gas burning, and even geothermal and again the variance stuff.

5)    How does the man made energy production relate to item #1 times item #2.  I am guessing it is itty-bitty and no one is arguing that point.

6)    What is the man made induced variation on the internal reflectance?  I think this is the key issue being considered as the only possible man made impact that could possibly impact global temperature changes.  This is an awful egotistical view, but the engineering part should have a nominal estimate and a range and probability.  The probability tails should be straightforward to understand.  This has nothing to do with measured temp. trajectories.

7)    What is the man made affect on the reflectance in #2, this could make us go cold if in the wrong direction.

8)    If we start to warm up, is there a possible overcompensation mechanism that could cause us to flash over into the next ice age?

Are these the key points and does anyone have an analysis they could share o point to?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I'm not an expert (then again, neither is anyone else, especially the people who call themselves "experts").

But I've been into this for 10 years or so, as a hobby - starting when I was checking into hydrology throughout the 20th century.

Visigoth asks:

1)  What is the energy falling on the area of the globe from the sun considering all wavelengths?  What is the variability vs time (std. dev, pdf shape etc.)

The energy is pretty constant - the variable is the particle flow.  Here is a basic, mostly correct, analysis:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/climate-change/basics/

2)  What is the reflectance (or whatever the proper term is) that determines what portion of the energy makes it inside the volume of our atmosphere.  Again, the variance question.

It almost all makes it inside the atmosphere.  About 30% is immediately reflected back.  That is the definition of albedo, which on Earth is about 0.3.


3)  What is the retransmission energy, it's variance and the reflectance back again with it's variance (high frequencies turned into heat and perhaps reflected back)

The same as the incoming, except what is now being taken in by the oceans.

4)  What is the natural heat (any energy) generation, forest fires, natural gas burning, and even geothermal and again the variance stuff.

It all comes, originally, from the sun.

5)    How does the man made energy production relate to item #1 times item #2.  I am guessing it is itty-bitty and no one is arguing that point.

Yes, man made energy (actually recovered) is extremely small - discountable.


6)    What is the man made induced variation on the internal reflectance?  I think this is the key issue being considered as the only possible man made impact that could possibly impact global temperature changes.  This is an awful egotistical view, but the engineering part should have a nominal estimate and a range and probability.  The probability tails should be straightforward to understand.  This has nothing to do with measured temp. trajectories.

Right.  The big flaw in the "greenhouse effect" theory is that the great majority of energy transporting back up through the troposphere is via convection - air masses moving up and down.  The "greenhouse effect" has no effect on convection.


7)    What is the man made affect on the reflectance in #2, this could make us go cold if in the wrong direction.

True, but the primary anthropogenic effect now is stripping of vegetation through overuse, which decreases the heat turned to flora and increases the sensible heat.

8)    If we start to warm up, is there a possible overcompensation mechanism that could cause us to flash over into the next ice age?

It could, but there are many short term (geologically) negative feedbacks keeping us in this climatic regime - not the least of which is floral response to increased temperature, which increases CO2 by way of the warm coke effect out of the oceans, but also arctic sea ice which regulates the sink of CO2 into the ocean - and that increasing temperature increases evaporation, and what goes up must come down, so precipitation increases.

Are these the key points and does anyone have an analysis they could share o point to?

Here are some links:
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser
Very good info...
A star from me


Regards

pennpoint

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

rb1957

"attack each other with near religious fervour."

Now you've done it, brought religion into the discussion. Won't be long now before Nazi's are called out.

Life is what happens while we're making other plans.

Wally

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser, thanks for taking the time to concisely respond and open my eyes to new issues.  You have the ability to explain key points with few words, that it a good trait.  I appreciate it.  

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Thanks VisiGoth.  You can see, if you look closely at them, that the CO2 variation follows the temperature variation, so it's kind of doubtful that CO2 caused the temperature change (cause seldom trails effect...).  

Also, lots of chatter going on now about Urban vs. Rural temp trends -  Here's a graph of that from California:
http://sharpgary.org/CalifCountyTemps.jpeg

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The article is right in suggesting that consensus science is not science.  Peer-reviewed, published papers are.  Einstein went out on a limb and publihsed, but it took years to vindicate him.  How many published, per-reviewwed papers, are there that rubbish global warming?
The links below show that on the contrary, the US government is trying to get the head climatologist in NASA to shut up, as he tries to speak about the issue.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article344220.ece
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925403.900.html
maybe the Bush administration is busy buying up property on the southern Georgia border with Florida, so that when the sea levels come up and flood Florida, they can sell it as prime beachfront property

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

4

"Jeesh here we go again"

A pretty relevant comment.

I suspect that many important issues get talked out early on i.e exhaust peoples tolerance for the discussion before the discussion is actually resolved.
In other words, after a while all they do is note the headlines because they are pretty zoned out by all the chatter they don't understand.
Grabbing a sound bite last week it seems further debate is futile as the media report we have gone beyond the point of no retunr i.e. the point at which we can do anything about it.

Great, I'll go buy that SUV after all.

By the time the debate centres on hard and fast facts ... which of course we don't have yet, mosyt people have already stopped listening.

That's probably why we still have a flat earth society.

The Global Warming issue also gives the lie to all those disaster movies and films like Jaws where the hapless Mayor is too frightened of the effect on toruism etc to raise the alarm unless he sees the damn shark eat someone with his own eyes  i.e. until it is too late...

In real life, it seems, we have the opposite with every man and his dog only too happy to swallow the whole speculation hook line and sinker and accept it blindly as fact.

Thus, in all probability, the Mayor in Jaws should have taken out an ad claiming a whole shoal/pack whatever of maneating sharks were eating tourists as fast as they could and it would have probably doubled tourism....

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Quote (davefitz):

a) everyone in China and India get an SUV and average 9 miles per gallon, first 20 minutes of movie. US cars just sit in driveway with cars runnign 24 hours a day at full idle, with drivers poking at iPods.

I am too dull to get the catastrophe here. Is the development outside the developed nations a catastrophe or the already existing SUVs (which average 9mpl)?

In later case, I would save 20 minutes of film cost if I were directing it.

In any case, it is not a good idea. Warming must have been a global contribution.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

For a good yarn that's also a well-documented commentary on the "global-warming industry," read Michael Crichton's State of Fear

--------------------
How much do YOU owe?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
--------------------

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

2
One can argue both sides of this issue till we're all in the ground- the main point to be made is that as engineers, we are supposed to be designing things and systems to be more efficient - using resources more efficiently, conserving fossil fuels, and minimizing our footprints on the planet, regardless.   Global warming may be a natural cyle that we humans, living only a short time, and having accurate records only going back a micro-second in geological time, don't really have a grasp on.  Let's just practice smart engineering, making things more efficient, using less energy and less resources, to accomplish our means to our ends.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

5
Which would be fine if fuel efficiency was a zero cost option. It isn't.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

for my money, I say we quit spending on the environment and build a liferaft off of this planet!

Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

There are many more cost effective options than reducing CO2 - which hasn't even been conclusively proven to be a problem. Land use changes, albedo from e.g. Chinese power plants, etc. also play a part.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

6
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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

2
[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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

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.

----------------------------------
  I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

ScottyUK -

That's BS.  90% of the northward Gulf Stream flow continues around and south in the gyre around the Sargasso sea.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060114/fob1.asp

Quote:

"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."

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
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

http://tinyurl.com/g4pcf

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

ivymike, are you serious?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

2
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?



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

3
(OP)
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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming


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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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?


RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

rhodie:

"nobody expects the spanish inquisition! "

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser:  Greg Locock was the one who brought "car safety" into this, not me.  He's the one who asked me how many dead children I'd trade to save a gallon of gasoline.  I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of his hyperbolic statement.

Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door.  What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture.  

The economic argument doesn't work unless the consumer pays the entire cost of their consumption, and that's just not the case with fossil fuels whether or not you believe in greenhouse-gas induced global warming.  There are so many costs which our societies' bear for this consumption which do not show up at the pump.  The economic equation can and should be adjusted by taxation so that non-consumers aren't bearing part of the costs of others' consumption.  Taxing "pollution" is great in concept but troublesome in practice.  It's better to tax consumption- there are fewer loopholes that way.

As to whether or not CO2 is harmful pollution rather than merely plant food, that's a matter of probabilities rather than certainty.  If we waited for certainty we'd never get ANYTHING done as engineers, but that's no excuse to carry on regardless.  We don't deal in certainties, nor do we blunder blindly into the unknown- we do HAZOP reviews and FMEA and manage risk based on probability, frequency, severity of impact and potential means of mitigation at our disposal.  Global warming is no different than any other possible or probable risk with enormous and irreversible potential consequences:  ignoring the risk and proceeding until we "know more" is simply not an option worthy of consideration.  

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
I'm not suggesting that we ignore the risk, but rather that we crawl before we start running, and that we not jump to conclusions about what we should do until we do know more.  We fool ourselves into thinking that we know enough about the situation to make intelligent decisions, when at best, they are elementary guesses.  It's true that we can only act based on what we know, but we need to realize how little that is.  How many times has man done something with the best of intentions and for all the right reasons, and ended up screwing up some ecosystem because we simply didn't know as much as we thought we did?

Of course we need to good stewards of the environment and practice reasonable conservations and so forth, I have no quarrel with that.  I'm amazed at how many people continue to claim the sky is falling, when in truth, we really don't know.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

So the answer, moltenmetal, is that you can't or won't answer me.

I was attempting to point out that in the real world we can only sell the cars that people will buy. The #1 consideration in most people's mind is purchase cost. In order for us to make cars and stay in business, we have to match the content of the car to that cost. If our customers do not value child seat anchorages, which cost say $10, and weigh say 1 kg, then that is 1 kg and $10 that we will never get back. If we had put that money into the engine, we might reduce the fuel consumption by 0.1% and the weight reduction would also help. That, whether you like it or not, is a direct trade-off between safety and fuel consumption.

Blowing hard about some idealised world where children travel on mass transit will not move the needle. The world we live in TODAY is the one creating the problems we'll see tomorrow, and in today's environment, that means cars, not mass transit, and it means free choice for the purchaser, not rhetoric-inspired safety and economy features.

"Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door.  What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture.  "

Really? Please do tell what platform we have that is so effective at modifying public opinion. I am all ears. I'd be interested to hear good examples where engineering opinion was opposed to public opinion and yet we argued them round to our way of thinking.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

To me (mr. nobody) it is just a matter of common sense. Take 100M years accumulation of condensed energetic hydrocarbons and release the resulting by-products of the combustion in an accelerating manner over 500 years (or 0.0005% of the time it was required for them to accumulate), and there will be an effect.  Almighty humans are not that different than bacteria, give them enough food and they will self reproduce until the point at which they die from the toxic effects of their own waste. I just love the Rush Limbo mentality that there is no problem until the problem becomes pandemic, at which point the "American ingenuity" will solve the problem.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Common sense is not much help when a problem is very complicated. Why would there be an effect just because we burn oil faster than it was formed? Shouldn't you compare the quantity of CO2 formed by burning oil with the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and shouldn't you put the effect of CO2 emissions (if we know what those are) in the global context of climatological effects on a scale of many centuries back and ahead, to be able to draw any conclusion whatsoever?
Why would the human race die just because the temperature increases by a few degrees if it increases? And why wouldn't we be able to address the problem if it becomes a problem?
The climate change story begins to sound like the millennium bug story, only there is no 1 Jan 2000 0:00 coming up soon to verify if it is true or not.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The cue for someone to mention the "butterfly flapping its wings" and we can all treat complexity and chaos the same.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Is not the main risk the possibility of a positive feedback
event in the climate.
Maybe we won't do anything until it is too late.

One of the greatest challenges facing society is the
unrestrained free market idealism that is the fashion now.

The problem is that it is not in any one person or groups
interest to assign assets to the cause.
In this situation the free market cannot by itself prevent
a catastrophy. As population density grows it becomes more
important that limits be put on behavior for the good of
all.

Note this does not mean you cannot use the free market as
a stick or carrot. Like penalizing polution by fines. But
this would have be done by a government.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

jmw,

re the butterfly...

now WHY is the climate predictable when you think the temperature is going up,
but unpredictable when you think it's not? That's not fair, is it..? smile

Honestly, can anyone explain what would be so dramatic about the expected consequences of global warming if it exists? A couple degrees higher average temperature year-round doesn't shock me, on the contrary...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

It is not clear to me that the bulk of the climate change is due to CO2 or some other "natural " cycle. Regardless of the cause, it is occurring slow enough that humans can adapt, hysically  by moving from tropic areas to cooler areas,  and politically the normal social amnesia that occurs as each generation is supplanted by the next generation. So catastrophe or shock to hman  structures is nto the main issue- but there may be significant ecological issues to species that cannot adapt.

We already are destroying ecosystems in manners completely independent of activities that cause increases in CO2 accumulations- the wholesale destruction of deep ocean fisheries is one example- the damage to fisheries  due to climate change is insignificant to that caused by overfishing. Ditto the effect we have on groundwater and underground aquifers, and the wholesale conversion of rainforest to soy producing fields is another  such case.

 My own guess is that the global warming phenomena, and associating it with burning of fossil fuels, will provide an excellent forum for adding a carbon use tax , and it may be used as a proxy for reducing the rate of consumption of depleted fossil fuels whiel also providing funds for other pork barrel projects.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
==> In this situation the free market cannot by itself prevent a catastrophy.

Sounds like you're assuming that a catastrophy will occur if we do nothing.  Maybe, but maybe not.  Perhaps you could start by showing how man's activities of the last hundred years or so will cause a catastrophy in climatological system that's been operating for several billion years.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I wonder if part of the problem with the Global Warming Scenario (real or not) is that it isn't necessarily going to be universally bad.

Just as with the El Nino event and with some other events, maybe there will be winners and losers.
Maybe it won't be an "extinction level event" for the whole of mankind. That's going to make it a difficult sell if the winners are expected to give up their winnings and pay for it.

I leave to you all to figure out the response of the winners and losers depending on who they are; e.g. if the US is a net winner and some pacific island with a population of 5000 is a net loser; or visa versa.

It won't be pretty to see how attitudes would vary under such different circumstances.

So, the question I'd like asked and answered  is "Does Global Warming (if it can be proven to be a real phenomena) bring a net benefit or a net loss to the world?

Who are the expected winners and loser?
So far this seems to be being presented as  purely "catastrophic" and catsastrophic for everyone.
Is this the case and can we know yet based on the "evidence"?

Dare one even ask if GW might even be desirable?

For example, suppose we really are on the cusp of a new mini-ice age, which seems to have  more supporting evidence than GW, perhaps this is a positive.

Or maybe we want a mini-ice age?
Wouldn't that cause sea levels to drop?

In case anyone wonders, I certainly agree that we should always seek to be more responsible.
Not swallowing the GW scenario hook line and sinker doesn't mean that I like being a polluter or that I shouldn't be doing something constructive when and where and how I can, or that i don't care.
NOT believing in GW or even just being sceptical isn't cause for castigation.
It is a call for the proponents to show cause and justify there case that:
(a) it is/will happen and the evidence is sound
(b) it is a wholly bad thing
(c) that we can and should do something about it.
(d) that what we do won't, as so often the case, make things a dang site worse.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Greg:  If you presuppose that the solution has to permit the status quo to continue, you've eliminated the possibility of any solution to the problem other than sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "Na na na, everything's fine!".  If you believe that to be the case, why bother talking about this issue at all, since the only possibility is to keep doing what we're already doing?

Again, if you actually care about moving kids around safely, stats clearly show that public transit is the way to do this.  It also happens to be the most energy-efficient way to do the job, which is also beneficial to the kids' health.  Making cars heavier is of dubious benefit, since it will protect only the kids travelling in those cars, and then only if the cars are made heavier in the right ways.  

As sick as it sounds, "the market" can only really properly value kids' health if it puts a dollar value on sick, injured and dead kids and then feeds that back into the full price of the things that sicken, injure and kill them!  Short-sighted, narrow economic analyses which equated people's lives to the cost to the car companies in lawsuits are legendary as examples of the stupidity of using cost-based risk analysis to make design decisions!

Yeah, people don't care about fuel economy when they're buying gasoline at de-facto subsidized rates.  That's an indication that gasoline is far too cheap at the pump, not that people won't accept more fuel-efficient vehicles when there's an economic driving force pushing them in that direction!  The market has proven that it WON'T provide that driving force in adequate measure, so taxation and regulation MUST.

Taxation and regulation are legitimate roles of government.  These are the way that the people through their governments impose their values on the economic equation, to tell both buyers and sellers in the market that certain things are not as cheap as they seem when all the costs are added up, and some things may be cheap but are unacceptable because of the harm they cause.  

We engineers have a responsibility to inform government and the people at large of the consequences of their decisions or indecision.  We must have a hand in directing public policy.  And if public policy is not directed by an ideal of what we want our society, our environment and our futures to look like, it's aimless and destined to failure, global warming or no.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Every decision made when designing an aircraft or a passenger car ultimately has an effect on the cost vs safety equation. Nader et al pretend to be mortified when this point is made, yet it is, and should be, standard practice.

The dollar value on a USAn kid is around 6 million, an Australian kid is around 1 million. That's how the sums are done.

You have still completely failed to answer my questions.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Agree with Greg
You HAVE to eventually compromise between safety (or environment) and cost, otherwise you'd spend every penny you have on safety (and die of famine).
This means that the scope of possible solutions to a global warming problem (if it is a problem) or any other safety/environmental problem is limited by the amount of money that the public is willing to spend on it.

Moltenmetal says we engineers have a responsibility toward the rest of the world in the sense that (if I understand correctly) if "they" don't want to pay for e.g. fuel-efficient vehicles, we'd have to educate them any build fuel-efficient vehicles anyway, because we know (we think) it's better for all of us.
I think this would be a valid point for e.g. seat-belts, which many people think are useless, but are put into every car because it makes the world a better place (excuse me for this pathetic expression in this context).
However global warming is such a complex phenomenon and certain solutions might impact on people's lives so dramatically, that I don't think that this is an engineers playground uniquely. This is a problem for everybody (if it is a problem, once again) and decisions should have sufficient support i.e. should be taken in a democratic way, not be imposed by engineers.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Re "extinction of mankind" due to GW...

I think we underestimate the flexibility of nature. I have a palm tree in my garden. He made a funny face when he was covered with 10 inches of snow a couple of weeks ago. But he's been there for 20 years and he's OK. It's not his natural habitat - so what does that mean? That means there have never been other palm trees in the area that have produced my palm tree. But that doesn't he wouldn't survive. Somebody planted it and there it went. There are no tigers in Africa. Wouldn't they survive? Of course they would but they just don't live there.
If the average temperature in France rose a couple degrees, it would start to look more like Spain or maybe Algeria. We'd still be making wine (like in Spain and Algeria), cheese, cars and planes, so problem. There'd be more swimming pools in the north and more forest fires in the south (too bad but we'd deal with it). The French would continue to live.

Re rising sea levels, please don't make me believe that that is an unmanageable problem.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(sorry about the errors, I do speak english but am interrupted all the time)

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Greg:  I realize that you can only sell cars that people will buy.  That's indisputable.  But that's not what I'm arguing.

I also realize that all design decisions represent trade-offs between various factors such as capital cost, operating cost, ease of maintenance etc. etc.- I'm an engineer just like you.

What I'm arguing is that it idiotic to expect that industry and the free market will control technology in the public interest.  It's quite clear that the market alone is incapable of doing so.

Controlling technology and altering the market equation for goods and services for the public benefit via taxation and regulation IS a legitimate role of government.  Governments decide that whether car companies or customers want them or not, cars will have seatbelts and child seat anchors etc.  We engineers then solve the problem of how to incorporate these features for the optimum cost, with our employers determining how the optimum will be calculated.

But governments must not be left to make these regulatory and taxationdecisions without the input of engineers!

Engineers have a responsibility to inform governments and engage in the development of public policy so that it doesn't occur in a technological vacuum.  We can't let public policy continue to be influenced only by hired business lobbyists and grass-roots ideological environmental groups.  

Yes, epoisses, engineers cannot be the only voice around the table in regard to the debate around global warming, but we cannot be ABSENT from this debate either!  Nor can we allow the lack of certainty in the science on this issue blind us to the fact that global warming is a probability, risk and mitigation issue like any other we encounter in engineering design.

Taxation and subsidy and regulation can be used to wean people and the economy off things that are not in our collective interest.  If we don't do so, the outcome is certain:  the market will just keep doing what it's already doing- selling us products for which we're only paying part of the real, true cost.  People will suffer the consequences, and the ones suffering most won't be the ones doing most of the consuming.  

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

moltenmetal -
You are correct in that policy should not be made in a technological vacuum, but to impose living conditions is not the role of government in a free society.  Neither should we injudiciously tax or outlaw things to push for a shift - although it's done all the time - look at the mess we have in drug laws because Hearst and Mellon were afraid of the decorticator.

The problem with increased fuel taxation is that we don't *know* what the ultimate effects of a warmer environment will be, so how can we e.g. raise taxes on fossil fuels, when it will put a drag on productivity, and therefore lower our standard of living?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"...altering the market equation for goods and services for the public benefit via taxation and regulation IS a legitimate role of government."

Wrong. Taxation should only be done to raise the proper amount of revenue for a government to function. It is NOT a legitimate role of government to tax particular products and/or services in order to alter the behavior of those being taxed.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Outtolunch:

The classic conservative philosphy that you espouse may have been correct in most cases prior to 1900, but it doesn't seem to  work in today's modern industrial society, at least in a pure form.

Tax policy has been used to direct industrial or investment decisions at least since 1940 in the US- the primary rationale for most tax deductions used by industry is usually stated  as an incentive to invest in certain areas ( although the real reason they were enacted is usually tied to campaign contributions from the affected industry).

 Can you support the notion that tax deductions have not had a beneficial  effect on home ownership, rental property developement, accessibilty for handicapped persons,  investment in heavy machinery, or domestic oil production?

In the rare  case where one can unimpeachably predict that there will be known beneficial effect of imposing an add'l tax on ( fill-in the blank), then adding a tax to modify investment or consumption behavior can be supported, even by some conservatives. Basically, a carrot and stick approach- the carrot is the tax deduction ( already common) while the stick is the tax.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Any system of taxation does alter the behavior of those being taxed, whether you like it or not. Even no taxation does (everybody comes to live in your country).

I do think it is a legitimate government role to change the behavior of the people in general, and that specifically taxes are a perfectly legitimate way to achieve that. (How would you otherwise? 3 days of jail for 1 pack of cigarettes bought?)

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The government's job is to provide for the common welfare, but not be parents.  Being parents is also not an engineer's job.  That seems a bit elitist does it not?  Maybe it is time to put our engineering money where our mouth is and run for office and do something instead of type it.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"Any system of taxation does alter the behavior of those being taxed, whether you like it or not. Even no taxation does (everybody comes to live in your country)."

You are generalizing too much - the discussion was centered around taxing specific products or services tailored to alter one specific behavior.

I do think it is a legitimate government role to change the behavior of the people in general, and that specifically taxes are a perfectly legitimate way to achieve that. (How would you otherwise? 3 days of jail for 1 pack of cigarettes bought?)"

I see. So what is the behavior du jour that you propose taxing? Today it is smoking - how about we put heavier taxes on hamburgers sold at McDonalds/Burger King/etc tomorrow? Maybe we should start putting heavier taxes on specific food items - cookies, soda, anything with sugar in it? What else do you find socially unacceptable? Do you object to women showing their midriff? Then let's start taxing clothes that bare the midriff. I personally don't think that toes are very attractive - I suggest we increase the tax on open toed sandals by 50%.

It's always easier to try to manipulate behavior through taxes than it is passing a law that prohibits certain behaviors. Most of these laws are failures, anyway (anyone remember prohibition? how are we doing on that War on Drugs?). Backdoor approaches to social engineering are just as wrong as the social engineering is in the first place.

"The classic conservative philosphy that you espouse may have been correct in most cases prior to 1900, but it doesn't seem to  work in today's modern industrial society, at least in a pure form."

Just because taxes have been and currently are being used to modify behavior does not make it right or legitimate. This makes no difference whether we are in a more industrialized nation or not.

FairTax, baby!
http://www.fairtax.org
http://fairtax.freestarthost.com/

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Moltenmetal;
you say the government should listen to engineers.

The problem is they are listenting to someone else and usually do not listen to who you or I might think they should listen to.

Politicians used to listen to their astrologers. These have now been replaced by all manner of gurus talking directly to them or to their significant others.

In the real world you need a few million bucks to put into the campaign funds before you get their attention because however unpopular what you want them to do, they can spend the money to get/manipulate the votes.

If the media and the alarmists have the voters convinced that the sky is green, politicians aren't going to argue because this is their excuse for raising more extra taxes in carbon tax than they spend in tax revenues on windfarms. (they hate hypothecation).

Forget the idea that governments do what the poeple want, if they did we'd all be a lot better of but we be living in the twilight zone.
 
They do what ever it takes to stay in power and some of them aren't averse to manipulating the law, the media, the facts, the truth etc to make sure this happens.
Politicians generally have an even shorter term view than any one else and it generally doesn't extend beyond the next election (if they still have them).

If pressed, I'd have to say they are part of the problem not the solution.

But if you want an example of just how effective the tax dollar can be, look no further than Norman Belle Geddes' vison (funded by General Motors) which was so influential is sounded the death knell of the railroads and laid the foundations for cities filled with cars. This vision influenced tax dollar spending - not a dollar more on railroads, every dollar on the highways.
So you are right they have the power, but the wisdom is the bit that's always lacking.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser:  you make the assertion that weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction will necessitate a decrease in our standard of living.  In fact, I think if we make the investments to minimize the amount of energy we waste in everything we do, we'll actually increase our "standard of living" as broadly measured.  Once you take into account the political, social, health etc. costs of excessive fossil fuel consumption, it's pretty much a no-brainer that reducing the amount of these resources that we currently WASTE will be of benefit.  Yes, I freely admit that defining a wasteful use versus a beneficial use is inherently a value judgment, but so too is defining a beneficial use as merely a use that a person can "afford" in dollars and cents!  

Of course if you measure "standard of living" merely by partial measures like gross domestic product etc., perhaps you'll be right.  But realize that disasters like Hurricane Katrina actually raise GDP because they provide reasons for people to spend money.  I doubt too many people would advocate creating more hurricanes to improve our "standard of living", so perhaps GDP isn't as good a measure as the economists would lead us to believe.  On that basis, global warming too might inherently increase GDP, while increasing suffering on a global scale.

It stands to reason that our "real" standard of living should improve as we reduce our fossil fuel addiction, considering that most of the nations consuming most of the energy are net IMPORTERS of fossil fuels and hence net exporters of huge swaths of their GDP to other nations.  My own nation of Canada is an exception to that since we're at once a major consumer and net exporter of fossil fuels, but we'll benefit from consumption reductions in a different way.  Slower consumption will mean we'll have our resources around for a longer period of time, and ultimately we'll be selling them for higher value uses rather than bulk "burning" for energy production.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Outtolunch

How do you feel about tax credits for polution control.
The current US administration would like to allow companies
to buy and sell polution emission credits to enable free
market effeciencies dictating polution control methods.
This is a tax in disguise. You say government should not
tax behavior. In this case should we allow all polution??
Put strict limits, in which case the business is closed if
a violation is discovered.

Lcruiser
To impose living conditions is not the role of government.

Why do we make education manditory for our youth??
Why do we have a seat belt law.

When one persons living conditions cause an effect on
others, does the government have any role.

When population density is high many of these kinds of
rules are necessary because of the neighborhood effects.

In cases where ones behavior affects others negatively
is the only recourse for goverment to pass criminal laws??

 





RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

OK, I have to say both Greg and Moltenmetals posts show a lot of sense being talked and the debate, if lively, is engaging and thought provoking.

Last post by MoltenMetal I have to wholeheartedly agree with the principal that we should strive to reduce waste and that the problem is to identify waste but the way it is now phrased I would be hard pressed not to.

I do suggest the obvious target is not necessarily the right one though or at leas, not the only target.

I think we could many of us agree that recycling aluminium, glass and plastics is a good move.
If ever there were an industry almost single handedly devoted to waste it would have to be the packaging industry.

It would be nice but probably contarversial to have some Greenhouse gas emissions valuations on the amount of packaging as it is produced and as it goes to landfills (methane gas recovery from landfills: is that "carbon neutral"? Is it a "natural renewable resource?"). What is our net balance?

2Dye4 raises the spectre of criminal prosecutions:
This year a ships engineer was given a 6 months jail sentance for a pollution offense. Earlier three crewmen were awarded a $250,000 reward for "whistleblowing" and a recent agreement bewteen the US and France sets a precedent for a whistle blowers charter in Europe where they have passed laws making (marine) pollution criminal offences.

I don't pretend to be au fait with the pro's and cons of emission trading for land based power generation but I think there is a very strong case for it for marine pollution and without it I suspect we have some very shaky legislation.

For useful information visit: http://www.nera.com/MediaCoverage.asp?pr_ID=1626
and see the public reports area.

So yes, there is a lot we can and should do as a matter of course and for the reasons suggested by MoltenMetal among others, but as Greg points out, it must be paid for and finding what is the price people are prepared to apy is a key issue. More important, it is money that should be spent wisely and here we fall dwon when it comes to Global Warming. There are a lot of genuinely understood problems we can invest our resources in solving where we know our money will do some good.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"You say government should not tax behavior. In this case should we allow all polution?? Put strict limits, in which case the business is closed if a violation is discovered."

it's amazing how you can link taxation with pollution or whatever your current cause is. Why does it have to be done through tax credits? Why shouldn't there be strict limits? If the goal is to reduce emissions, then why can't it be accomplished through legislation? And why are you so heavy handed that you would suggest shutting a business down completely if a violation is found? How about fines which increase if the problem isn't fixed? How about due process? There are other methods available than taxes.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I think we should tax bads instead of goods.  However, first we have to find out for sure what the "bads" are.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

outtolunch

fines-taxation  whats the differece ??
If you pollute you write a check to government.

Moving to a free market in polution credits is not my idea.
It is the present administration of the USA.

I don't advocate shutting down a business. I advocate
a government mandated cost with polution emissions
either financially meaningfull fines or charge them for
the right to emit polution.
Either way the government has to use one of two sticks.
shut down or  pay up.

I also believe the cost of polution should be gradually
increased.
I also believe that it is acceptable for the economy to
be somewhat damaged by enviromental rules.
Changes will take place in consumption or effeciency
and the economy is better in the long run.

If we do not start looking long run on this planet we
will eventually kill our race.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Pollution based taxes can also be viewed as proxies for real "externality" costs, that is, costs to downstream persons that are not explicitly assigned in the course of normal engineering economic analyses of alternative investment schemes.

As a simple example , let us pretend that it is possible to quantify the present value of the cost to future generations  of raising the ocean level by 23 ft , and that this 23 ft rise is 50% due to CO2 emissions. If that cost can be normalized as a $/ton Co2, then one could rationalize a CO2 tax up to that presetn value of that externalized cost.

Rationalizing the CO2 tax on that basis has at least one flase premise, that is, that the gov't which collects the tax is  somehow applying the monies to the benefit of the future gnerations that may be harmed by the CO2.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"fines-taxation  whats the differece ??"

Are you serious? Perhaps what would make you happy is for the government to seize 100% of everyones income and then only hand it back to us in the form of "tax breaks" for good behavior...
TaxMan: "Well, let's see Beav, you only got caught speeding once this year, you get a tax break of $40, here ya go. Ya know, it would have been $50 if you didn't speed at all! Tsk Tsk! No jay walking? another $3 back to ya! Looks like you didn't pee in public this year - that's worth a buck. Now don't spend it all in one place, Beaver!"
The Beaver:"Gee Mr. Government Guy, thanks!"

Tax breaks for complying with law is just as stupid.

If pollution is to be controlled, then do it through legislation and fines, not taxes.

"If we do not start looking long run on this planet we
will eventually kill our race."

Such doom and gloom, but I doubt it.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

davefitz:  the deterrent factor of the consumption tax alone is of benefit, even if 100% of the tax revenue generated by the taxation is wasted.  And less than 100% of the tax revenue will be wasted!

Taxing to provide a cost to at least represent the externalities to the basic economic equation is way better than doing nothing, and more effective than unenforced or unenforceable regulations.  As Greg points out, current gasoline costs aren't sufficient to make fuel economy a primary consideration for determining which vehicle people choose, even though there are taxes on those fuels.  That means car companies are not rewarded in the marketplace for making more fuel-efficient vehicles.  But whether you believe in greenhouse gas-induced global warming or not, it's clear that significant externalities exist in the cost of production, refining, distribution and consumption of gasoline, and these costs are borne by everyone in society, not just those who drive fuel-inefficient vehicles.  So in a sense, the rest of us are subsidizing the stupid consumption of others.  You "free market" libertarians should be offended by this concept every bit as much as I am!  

Taxation is the only means we have as a society to enter this economic (in)equation and correct it so that it's closer to equal.  I suppose we COULD regulate the industry and force car companies to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, but as Greg correctly states, that's an idiotic proposition if "the market" won't buy them!  We COULD just ban SUVs, for instance, but that would punish the guy who lives in the deep woods and needs the 4-wheel drive rather than going after the idiot who drives his SUV in commuter traffic every day.  We COULD tax vehicles based on their average emissions, but that would tax the heavy-foot driver with the long commute at the same rate that the old lady who drives to church and back on Sundays.  Taxing fuel is far more egalitarian AND more effective than any of these options.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Fines are allright with me.

But that does preclude a market based solution where
business could decide on their own how much polution is
the most cost effective for them. It could be some high
value industries would rather pay a percectage fee on
emmissions over a certain limit. And some low margin
companies find ways to comply.

The free market could work to advantage in this case.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The reason for taxation is a means of reducing behavior is ludicrous. Just read you phone bill. Approximately 25% of what you pay is fees and taxes. Do these fees and taxes get you to use your phone less? I becomes a cost of doing business.

Diesel engines are supposed to meet current levels of emissions specifically Tier 2 or Tier 3 emissions. There is currently an engine manufacturer who pays a fine for every engine being produced. Who ends up paying the fine? The end user.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

davefitz -

You are making the CO2 case too simplistic and exaggerated.  For the sake of argument, let's say sea level does not continue on it's long term (as yet unaccelerated) rate of 1.7 mm per year, but doubles due warming effects from land use changes which decrease transpiration, black carbon increases from China wihc decrease Arctic albedo, and anthropogenic CO2 increases.  Note that the first two reasons will also increase atmospheric CO2 due to the warm coke effect.  So, let's just give a still simplistic equal valuation to all causes.  1/3 to each of the first three, then 1/3 of the increase of CO2 to each cause.  That would be 1/9 of the doubling.  

So, in 100 years, we would, under this scenario, have an increase of 1.7*100/9 = 19 mm due to increased CO2.  

However, it's not that simple.  Increased CO2 increases plant growth, which increases transpiration, which increases the food supply.  So what do we have left?  It's possible the increase in the food supply will vastly overwhelm the negative impacts of a 3/4 inch increase in sea level.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Interesting debates, I'll throw some more grist into the mill.

Although we do not know all the subtleties about "Global Warming", for all essential purposes, we are living in a closed loop system.  We do not currently have anywhere else to go.  Why then should we as engineers not strive to keep, as best we can, humanity from poisoning itself.  Now I know there is much debate on whether or not what humanity is doing is actually affecting the environment.  Some will likely debate the issue up to the point where they pass away.  Modern civilization is dependent upon or to push to the extreme, addicted to energy.  Reduce consumption, not likely, finding a less environmentally destructive alternative, preferrable.

Governmental involvement, though likely necessary to set the "vision" of a cleaner future, can be problematic in an of itself.  Governments are addicted to money.  Giving them another opportunity to tax feeds the addiction.  As a legislative body, they can establish the "rules" by which we are all supposed to play.  Taking a Cue from the EU Reduction of Hazardous Substances and other directives, (WEEE), the simplest route would be "if you don't comply, you don't sell here."  Protectionism, possibly (definitely if "domestic" manufacturers need not comply).  However, it can be relatively simple in execution and effective.  No industry is going to want to loose a market.

Regards,

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

PSE -
You have illustrated one of the precepts of "Engineering".  We should not allow our principles to be compromised to the detriment of civilization - which includes building in flood plains, deliberate transgressions in terms of pollution, etc.  

However, it is not at all established that CO2 is harmful to the environment.  There are several things shown to modify our climate, including land use changes, black carbon deposition on Arctic ice and snow, etc.  

Anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels can be argued to be the result of rescuing carbon from the depths and returning it to the biosphere.  As such, it is enriching our environment and any detrimental effects need to be adequately proven - which they are not.  Enron et al want nothing more than to be able to buy and sell energy - literal power brokers:

http://tinyurl.com/9mdtz

They are pushing this whole "global warming" thing.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

BillPSU:
Taxation does work as a means of influencing industrial investment decisions, since  they are normally undertaken only after a rational analysis of long term costs. More relevant to this discussion, many US electric utilities are delaying their decisions on building new coal fired power plants simply because of the uncertainty in the application of carbon taxes. Some proposed taxes are as high as $20 usd/Ton CO2, and the evaluated present cost of such a tax would make any utility exec pause.

LCruiser:
Simplifying and exagerating is a conventional  means of demonstrating the limits of validity of a proposed approach. In this case, some persons have proposed a carbon tax (eg Carper's bill), and it should be useful to posit what  limit such a tax may become if it is to be rationalized by  a percieved damage or externality.


RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

How many respondents to this thread:
- drive hydrocarbon powered vehicles?
- heat their homes?
- cool their homes?
- utilize electricity from coal fired generating stations?

So, what are you personally willing to sacrifice for global warming?

Until you are willing to contribute personally, chances are, society (which you belong in) won't either.



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

What would I give up for the environment?

Street lights.

This doesn't require a belief in global warming or even in environmental friendliness, just a natural dislike of waste and excessive local government taxation.

Options:
  • take out unnecessary lights
  • turn off the lights in the dead hours of the night... are they really necessary all night long?
  • substitute smart light management e.g. motion sensors... I'm sure governments would love everyone to be bugged so their computers can track us all the time... and they could then only switch on lights that are needed... but I'd rather a more anonymous means of active lighting control.
  • big plus: in theory, a chance to reduce my local government taxes; reality? they'll probably dump the money saved into government workers final salary pension schemes. But what the heck, at least we'll save firvolous energy usage.
By the way, anyone got any data on municipal power use on lighting?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

jmw,

Good answer. I liked that.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

davefitz
If such a tax would be placed on from the producers of electricity to the consumer of electricity. I can guarantee the tax would be passed on to the consumer and not come out of the utilities pocket. The cigarette tax is not paid by the manufacturer its paid by the smoker with higher prices.

Corporation do not build plants because they decide its not the time to invest or the economic conditions are not correct(too much unused capacity, too much risk, not profitable). Look at the oil industry there has not been a new refinery built for years. Reason there is enough capacity and when there is a glitch in the system (Katrina) prices naturally go up and they make more profit.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

BillPSU -

Actually, new power production is all natural gas.  Coal would be much cheaper, but the potential for future restrictions makes building coal plants risky.

Because of that, my natural gas bill is about $500 higher this year than last.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I somehow was on a barstool in st. louis mo. and met a retired  power engineer from the local electrical utility. He stated that con-ed, or something-ed there used 100 box-load cars a day of coal. Rather staggering i pondered, as i staggered out. One comment in all the above got me thinking, is there somewhere, baby coal fields or baby oil fields out there maturating in puberty, adolescence or infantile states that will reap a harvest someday in the future? or we just clear cutting all of these carbon compounds forever lost? the american landfills come to mind, but what a toxic mess, (or treasure) that would be to harvest 150,000 years from now.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

z633:

Staggering may be the correct word. A new 1000 MWe coal fired plant ,operating at 75% capacity factor with a 37% net station cycle efficiency, will burn about 3.03E6 Ton coal/yr, which works out to about 8.88E6 T/yr CO2 if the coal is 80% carbon by weight.In the worst case, with a $20/Ton CO2 tax, that is an annual tax bill of $177.7 E6/yr. Excluding inflation etc, that would be $5.33 billion USD over a 30 yr life of the plant.

Some other less known facts:

According to the DOE, the 250 yr reserves of US coal actually works out to about 45 yrs if one factors into the equation normal increase in coal usage plus coal gasififcation plus coal-to-liquids re[placement for oil.

Also, latest reports are that 10-35% of all atmospheric methane is actually a natural product of plant activity while they are growing , which shoots to he!! the concept of plating trees to offset CO2 emmissios.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Interesting:
apparently mitochondrial DNA studies suggest that 60-70,000 years ago the human race was virtually wiped out and down to literally no more than a few thousand people.

That seems a remarkably recent event.

Co-incidentally right in the middle of this time frame Tora errupted leaving a 100km caldera lake.

Estimates of the sulphur released and the resultant cooling suggest the average global temperature dropped by 5degC or as much as 15degC in the northern zones.

The big caldera type volcanic event on the horizon to worry everyone is when Yellowstone park goes up.
This would be an extinction level event.

The problem is that with no observational data on this type of volcanic erruption know one has any idea what the warning signs will be.

I would guess we can adapt to temperature changes of 1 deg over a 100year period (is this what is meant by "Sudden Climate Change"?) but 5 degrees overnight is a bit of a problem.

ELE's and sub-ELEs are great for Hollywood (2 x Meterorites in one year, earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes in downtown LA) but perhaps they have pursuaded people that all such events, because they have been portrayed by Hollywood, are fanatsies and thus it is a bit difficult to get worked up about global warming, especially without a box-office star name in the title role.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser,

In my view, CO2 being harmful to the environment does not have to be established as fact.  Oftimes engineers need to contend with "this could happen scenarios" not that they necessarily will.

What will happen if we irreversibly change the gas mixture of our atmosphere?  Truth is, I don't know.  Empirically I do not think anything good will come of it.  Most organisms die when their environment is sufficiently disrupted.

What is the probability that the gas mixture of our atmosphere is irreversibly changing?  Again, I don't know as it is a tremendously complex system that science is still learning about.

What containment or preventative actions can be taken to prevent this (presumably undesirable) effect from happening?  This I can at least try to do something about.  In the way I live my life, and the way I help my company produce its products.

Regards,

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

PSE,

I'd be glad to take any preventive action to prevent any potential undesirable even in case that action is free, like putting on my seatbelt.

But are you prepared to never switch on your AC anymore (if you need one where you live) because of a scenario of which we don't know whether it is happening and of which we don't know what would be the results?

I think the relationship between fresh fruit and cancer has been established much better than "human" CO2 and climate change (whatever it may result in). So do you eat 3 oranges a day to prevent a horrible scenario? If not, if that is already too much, how would you reduce your energy consumption sufficiently?

There are so many other things mankind can do to prevent so much more realistic doom scenarios much more efficiently (famine, AIDS, you name it) that I wonder why we spend so much money and effort on CO2.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

evenT (sorry)

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The problem with lowering CO2 as a "preventative" is that increased CO2 increases plant (aka food) growth.  With the burgeoning population of the world today, you're not talking about a potential detraction vs. no change (besides which climate is always changing anyway), you'r talking about potential detraction vs. potential enhancement, and we don't know enough yet to understand the relative magnitude of effects:

http://www.co2science.org

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
I believe that photosynthesis is the largest oxygen producing process, not to mention sugar, on the earth, and is vital to almost every form of life on the planet.  Photosynthesis requires plants and CO2.

6CO2 + 12H2O + Sunlight ? C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

If photosynthesis doesn't take place, humans die.  If we reduce the atmosphereic levels of CO2 too much, or too quickly, we can starve the very plants that produce the oxygen we breath.

It's a very complex system, and there are huge gaps in our knowledge about its inner workings.  How we proceed could, and probably will, have drastic effects on humanity.  Doing nothing could, and also too probably would, have equally drastic effects as well.  We can quite easily make a bad situation worse if we do the wrong thing.

There are no easy answers, but one thing you can be sure of, there are those who simply are in it for the money, living well on fear mongering, and by exploiting "the sky is falling" mentality.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Cajun, don't worry, global warming will either go out of fashion again or some day turn into a real, visible and workable problem.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

If you're worried about your own well-being, and that of your offspring, does it make more sense to try to prevent global warming, or to try to position yourself and your offspring to be amongst the group that survives it, no matter how bad it gets?  My own feeling is that being amongst the few survivors might be better than trying to stop a disaster.  The question then becomes "how do I position myself to give my offspring a fighting chance of being in that group?"  

Possible answers:
- Having lots of offspring
- Accumulating lots of wealth (may be at odds with the first, and you have to store it appropriately!)
- Training your children to survive "off the land"
- Living in a moderately populated region of the world (not low enough pop. that you can't get support, but not dense enough that you starve)

Just think of the benefits you might reap as a member of "the few survivors!"

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Hmmm. King of a wasteland.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Wasteland?  That's a matter of opinion.  How long would it take to "clean up?"  Probably only a generation or two...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Mad Max IV - revenge of the engineers

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

is it possible that by the time we people of the earth
can reach a concensus on this issue that it will be too late?

I think that is what worries some people about climate change.

If it takes a really undeniable,significant event to convince the vast majority that we have created a problem could it be that it is much harder to solve at that time.

I think Ivymike has the answear to this issue.
Maybe many of us look foreward to the challenge as a way
to give our offspring a repreductive advantage.

Darwin will reward us because we are smart.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

For those who consider "excess" CO2 as good for plant growth and photosynthesis, please remember that plants also go through the respiration cycle and produce CO2 during the nightime hours.

Epoisses, I simply do the best I can with minimizing my personal impact on the environment.  I grew up with farming and have maintained a sensitivity and affinity for nature.  I had AC installed in my home after my son was diagnosed with asthma. (a condition that "seems" on the rise these days perhaps due to the air we breathe?)

Admittedly, I am not without certain "guilty pleasures" that are environmentally harmful as I enjoyed racing for a number of years.  Overall, I try to do more good than harm.  I do think that regardless of legislation to any affect, consideration of environmental impact should be a routine part of best engineering practice.

Regards,

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

PSE said:

"For those who consider "excess" CO2 as good for plant growth and photosynthesis, please remember that plants also go through the respiration cycle and produce CO2 during the nightime hours."

This is a common display of warmers' failure to comprehend orders of magnitude.  It's one reason there's so much panic these days.

Does anyone here truly think plants produce more CO2 in the nighttime than they consume during the day?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Not to be an alarmist, but, as the global supply of oil dwindles, economies are ruined and famine becomes rampant, the probability of a major nuclear event increases to near 100%. At that point who cares about C02.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

PSE, I try to limit my impact on the environment too, but if it turns out to be necessary to turn back the clock of economic and social development 100 years to reach certain projected human CO2 emissions of which we don't know exactly what they do to the climate and of which we don't know exactly what potential effects there are (rising sea level, temperature changes) nor what the most effective solution would be to fight those effects, then.... well then I simply refuse.
I am too much of an engineer to act because of an unquantified doom scenario that doesn't convince me.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

We will never run out of oil.  It will just become too expensive.  Alternate sources will become cost effective, as ethanol could well be, except that Mellon didn't want his oil market interrupted and Hearst didn't want his wood paper market (he cut down the trees to make the paper to sell his newspapers) jeopardized by the decorticator. You can search Mellon, Hearst, decorticator to get details.  A lot of what looks to be chaff, but some good consistent info too.  We do need to get alternate fuel sources into production to save bitumen for roads - there's no substitute for that yet...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

At the one hand you have people who refuse to believe we are impacting the environment, (so nothing needs to be done) and on the other you have people claiming the end of the world (and someone else needs to do something about it).  I am glad I am in neither camp as I have at least chosen to act to reduce or minimize my personal environmental impact.  Global warming is a "rallying" issue for the moment which at least serves to raise some awareness.

Regards,

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I think my opinions are best expressed by Braxton Alfred in a "Letter to the Editor" of our local rag some time back:

"It is tempting to assert that anyone who believes an economist deserves what he gets.  The problem is that we are all affected by the nonsense they peddle.

The fundamental problem that invalidates everything they say is their unwillingness to to take into account the value of natural services – clean air and water, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, forests and the hydrogen cycle, grasslands, pollinators etc.  This value has been conservatively estimated to be on the order of $33 Trillion per year.  Its continuing unrecompensed exploitation means that capital, not interest, is being spent – on the advice of economists.  An implication of this fact is that growth – any growth – is unsustainable.

Economists prattle on about the “importance of growth” in order to “get sustainable increases in our standard of living” and are probably not even aware of the contradiction in that statement. (Note the emphasis on standard of living, not quality of life).

It is simply impossible to have a “sustainable increase” in anything.  As Richard Douthwaite, an economist who is not for sale, observes in “The Growth Illusion”, growth “has enriched the few, impoverished the many and endangered the planet”.

Wake up folks.  You cannot have it all – at least not for very long.

Braxton M. Alfred."

I think that about sums it up.  Humans' selfish trick of assuming that resources are ours to use without proper cost assessments, and the pursuit of the quick buck, and "shareholder value" has become the mantra, and I feel sorry for those engineers who have put their ethics and grey matter on hold to "just do what the public/market demands".  When did the engineers' acts say we all had to become slaves to others' wills?  Many Provincial Engineering Acts in Canada are now incorporating a list of sustainability requirements into the Codes of Ethics, so it's something that we have to really start keeping in mind.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Quote (GMcD):

Many Provincial Engineering Acts in Canada are now incorporating a list of sustainability requirements into the Codes of Ethics, so it's something that we have to really start keeping in mind.

Can you provide a link? This is interesting.

Some industries are inherently unsustainable. For example, petroleum, where I work. I am very interested in seeing the verbiage.

Thanks in advance.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

APEGBC has the Sustainability Guidelines in the Code of Ethics here:  

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/aboutus/sustainability/sustainguidelines.html

Go to any of the provincial engineering associations and look through their codes of Ethics and there is verbiage or at least a paragraph requiring consideration of environmental impacts etc.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

It is simply impossible to have a “sustainable increase” in anything.

Oh yeah?  How about entropy?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Thank you for the link.

It makes sense that BC is taking the lead on sustainability. With regards to forestry and fisheries, it makes a lot of sense.

Would you have any information on how the coal and oil&gas industries are implementing this in BC?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Ashereng:  I don't know how those guys are complying, and I guess it really depends on how one defines implementing "sustainability" when it comes to exploiting the environment and fossil fuel burning.  It comes down to complaints and enforcement.  If no one is aware, or feels violated, and no complaints result, then the engineer carries on.  However, given the information, even hard facts out there on direct harm to the environment (forget global warming for now), we do KNOW what kind of activities can and will "do harm to the environment and human welfare".  Most professional engineering associations have some kind of wording in their respective code of ethics about "holding public welfare paramount".  For example, this clip from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick Code of Ethics:  "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace".  Depending on how you define that, anyone knowingly burning fossil fuel and creating air pollution is in violation, since we all know how much airborne pollutants result from that activity, right?

It really depends on where you draw the line around personal ethics, vs living up to what is interpreted by wording like that in the Engineers' Codes of Ethics.....

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

GMcD -

You are correct, and furthermore when engineers ignore the primary priority of holding "paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public" (the rest might be a stretch) they drag us to mere technocracy and we become nothing more than mercenaries.

And, to refine your point, it's difficult to eliminate the *product* of fossil fuel burning - especially since we really don't know if it (CO2) is bad or good, overall, for the environment.  To clear the air (so to speak) we should be concentrating on the *byproducts* of fossil fuel combustion - a much easier (more economical) process, and one which has proven benefits.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser,

I think the point was getting the oil out of the ground, processing it, and using it is enough of an unsustainable problem, without the controversy of CO2 as a pollutant.

The fact that coal oil and other fossil fuel is unsustainable means regardless of where you draw the definition of sustainability, fossil fule will be on the other side. For any engineer to implement sustainability, the only solution is to stop.

Well, where do we start?

- close all coal buring electric generating stations?
- stop all coal mining?
- close all oil refineries?
- stop all oil drilling and tar sands mining?
- stop using all synthetic fabrics?
- stop using PCB in transformers?
- stop NASCAR, FI and all other forms of racing?
- stop production of all automobiles?

Quote (Ashereng):


How many respondents to this thread:
- drive hydrocarbon powered vehicles?
- heat their homes?
- cool their homes?
- utilize electricity from coal fired generating stations?


We as engineers produce lots of products, using lots of processes and materials that damage the environment.

I understand your desire to protect the earth, be environmentally friendly, be sustainable.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

What is the alternative? And who is willing to pay the price first?

Let say we all agree to stop everything that pollutes. What happens if China and India doesn't?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

What if someone gives you a gift of a large amount of money.  Will you not use that money because it's not "sustainable"?  Use of fossil fuels will by supplanted by alternatives when the fossil fuels become rare enough and technology makes the alternatives cost effective enough.  How many people use synthetic engine oil now?

And, China is bringing online a new coal power palnt every 5 days, and is scheduled to do that for the next 7 years anyway.  

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LC, I am FOR using fossil fuel.

I am arguing that there are some enineering areas/process/functions that are inerently NOT sustainable.

I agree that the environment needs to be protected, and sustainability should be strived for.

I don't know whether the two can be reconciled.

AND, selfishly, I don't know if I want to be the first to try.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

All the claimed sustainable energy sources on earth are from the sun.  The sun is not sustainable.  For all of our practical future the sun is good for long enough.  Maybe some of our other non sustainable sources are sustainable enough until an alternative arrives.

jsolar

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Oops!
Global Dimming!
No why haven't we heard about that before?
The sun is getting now getting brighter!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Science/493983.html

It appears our "Global warming" experts have neglected not only methane produced by plants from their model, sun spot activity but now also the brightness of the sun.

Pretty soon we'll have to start a few volcanoes up to spread some sulphur and some dust in the air to compensate for all the smog and sulphur we've been taking out of our emissions and which have been cutting out sunlight.

Wake me up when some one out there really knows and can prove what's going on.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

2
I'm a latecomer to this thread.  Hard to add much that hasn't already been said. But can't pass up the opportunity to put in my two cents.

I really agree with several sentiments expressed eloquently above:
1 - Taxes are the logical way to put the cost of polluting and the cost of using limited resources where it belongs,as a general principle.  
2 - None of us is really expert enough to know the real answer.
3 - We have to rely on the so-called experts.
4 - The information is politicized on both sides, so important to be skeptical of anything we read.


What to make of the fact that a lot of countries have signed on to Kyoto at considerable expense, while the US has not.
Either:
A - Those countries have had their logic/objectivity hijacked by the far-left environmentalists.
  OR
B - The US decision-makers in congress have had their logic/objectivity hijcacked by the far-right business interests, as well as substantial political interest in short-term economic performance over long-term environmental performance.

I don't have a hard time believing either one and perhaps a little of both.

As you read the facts and opinions presented and spun by experts on the internet, please be sure to keep a careful eye on who is presenting the information.


Both sides claim they own the scientific mainstream.  Both sides claim to have thousands of scientists signed on to documents supporting their views.

I would offer my personal perceptions:
A - A fair number of the status-quo advocates (but certainly not all) are affiliated with business interests.
B - The big names at NASA, NOAA, and MIT/Woods-Hole have come out with views that somewhat mirror those of the environmentalists.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

We should take some advice from our Native Americans and natives of the colder regions and learn to adapt, instead of trying to change the environment.  In this case, it is the environment that is changing.  We should adapt.  The heating has been going a long time.  Find out who will be hurt by the changing climate, and help them adapt.

An evil recently identified is for poison ivy.  More CO2 makes for healthier ivy.  But there is less news for the benefits to the poor nations of the word where farming will improve with more CO2.

It is pollution that is the evil related to oil, not the warming.  If more warming means less pollution, the let the warming begin.

There is nothing today's science can do about the coming ice age.  But who cares now?  Global cooling is far more destructive than global warming.  But both are change and change has good points and bad points.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Poison Ivy isn't the only thing that grows better with higher CO2.  CO2 isn't just fertilizer for plants, as some insinuate.  It's food.  There's a big difference.

Here's a summary of CO2's effects on fruit growth:

"Based on the voluminous data summarized by Idso and Idso (2000) for the world's major food crops, the calculations we have made for wheat can be comparatively scaled to determine what the past 150-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has likely done for other agricultural staples.  Doing so, we find that the Industrial Revolution?s flooding of the air with CO2 has resulted in mean yield increases of 70% for other C3 cereals, 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N28/EDIT.jsp

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Looking at the web site posted by LCruiser and some of the ridiculaous data shown on it for 'proving' that global warming doesn't exist by looking at the temperature recording of one town in the USA (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp) led me to lok at who funds the people who create these sites. Needless to say it's the oil companies http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full


electricpete's idea that all the countries in the world, besides the USA, have been taken over by the far-left is absurd to say the least. It'd be more plausible to conclude that the USA's lone stance against tackling global warming is due to the take over of the USA by the far-right and oil companies.

corus

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Thanks for pointing out that heatisonline.org website.  I thought commercial sites needed to be .com?  The guy's trying to sell books and dvd's.  That's about the most alarmist site I've seen.  Sells books.  

Getting back to financing, you do realize, of course that most of the "work" done in the area of "global warming" is done by people whose paycheck depends on fear.  Plus, it's backed by the IPCC, which is part of the UN, who are the "Oil for Food" guys.  So, the alarmists are funded by oil too.  

In looking at the funding levels to the co2science.org group, I'd say your comment "funded by" is quite over the top.  "Some funding" would be appropriate, as opposed to the  funding levels of the alarmists.

As an aside, it's been over 17 years now since I've bought any Exxon gas...

Getting back to corus - did you have anything of substance to say? I mean besides the obvious error discounting funding of climate change research:  The US has put up more funding toward research than the entire EU.

And if you think the science is settled, you're sadly mistaken.  The latest is that less than a quarter is due to increased CO2.  Destruction of arable land, heat islands, solar particle variation - there is much more to it than what plants eat (CO2).


RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

(CFTSOCDAGC is of course the same people who give us the wonderful co2science.org)

For $90k, I could build a website and slap up a helluva lot of misleading statistics such as the one mentioned by Corus.   (Temperature records from a single city proves there is no global warming!)

$90not enough for you LCruiser? See here:
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
"These records and others show that ExxonMobil Foundation and ExxonMobil Corp. also have contributed $160,000 to the George T. Marshall Institute in the past three years and more than $900,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute"

As far as I can tell, none of these institutes that Exxon donated to is research oriented - they are all P.R. oriented posting the same junk science that is peddled at CFTSOCDAGC.

The scary thing about these sites - they can't make up their mind. Is it that there is no evidence of global warming, or is it that global warming will actually be GOOD for us?  They don't really care as long as we believe something that means the oil companies can continue to make their big $.

And lest we forget in discussing contributions approaching 1 million above, we're just talking about one oil company.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

$65k for 4 people for 8 years is not what I consider "funded by."  I admit they receive some funding, but most alarmists get 20 or 30 times as much - to spread fear.  If there was no fear, most alarmists would not have a job.

And, to say they are trying to prove there is no global warming by posting a single city's record is ridiculous.  They are pointing out by different sites every week that temperatures vary all over.  

It's becoming apparent that "Urban Heat Island" is a misnomer.  We all have our own share of heat island - roads we drive, roofs over our heads, land that has been used up for cultivation and various other reasons.  All that reduces evapotranspiration, reducing cloud cover.  It's not just "urban".

I'm not saying CO2 isn't having some effect on the temperature - but we still don't know if it's relatively significant, or if it's even bad.  We know it's food for plants.  Not just fertilizer, but food.

In the past, civilizations have always thrived when temperatures are going up, and when temperature goes down it causes strife.  

We don't know enough about climate to make any kind of decision yet on any action that may unnecessarily burden us.  

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

In search of an unbiased source of climate change data and opinion I came across www.pewclimate.org. I think you will find that this organization believes that we are changing the climate for the worse. The founders of the organization are the Pew family of Philadelphia. Second generation J. Howard Pew's Sun Oil Company, "Sunoco" was fully responsible for the funding of the first synthetic crude plant in the Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, which started up in 1967, and now produces 260,000 bpd. So we have big oil funding research that comes down in favour of anthropgenic global warming.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I don't think there are any unbiased opinions out there on the subject (including the Pew Center).  The reason is that we simply don't know enough about anthropogenic effects on climate.  The potential for benefitting the food supply, particularly in third world countries, by enhanced CO2 is tremendous - giving us more time to address the population explosion there.  

And, as is very convincingly pointed out (e.g. the Pielkes) adaptation, if required, will be a much more cost effective solution.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

It's a good debate with good arguments on both sides. LCruiser I enjoy reading your posts even if I don't tend to agree with your views. I hope no-one takes it personally if I argue/question on a few specific points.

"I don't think there are any unbiased opinions out there on the subject (including the Pew Center)."

owg has made a pretty convincing argument for objectivity of this source.  I would tend to conclude your basis for distrusting them would be that they don't agree with your views.  Can you identify any sources you consider more objective which support your views?

"We don't know enough about climate to make any kind of decision yet on any action that may unnecessarily burden us."

"And, as is very convincingly pointed out (e.g. the Pielkes) adaptation, if required, will be a much more cost effective solution."

In other words, until there is proof positive, there is no sense in doing anything about it.  We all agree with the politization of facts on both sides there will never be proof positive.  So you advocate doing nothing until after we are forced to adapt to the man-induced climate change (if/when it occurs)?

With all the benefits to plants and third-world countries and benefits of man-made global warming, maybe we should be trying to ramp up our CO2 emissions?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I think anyone who makes the argument for action is naive.  There are in fact both costs and benefits to increased CO2.  The benefits are establishing themselves slowly but steadily - increased crop production intensity and spatial coverage, and  less water use by plants to name a few.  There is a lot of backlash from the original sin department (fear mongerers, or alarmists).

Here are some basic questions and *my* opinions:
1.  Is man causing global warming
a. I think most of it.
2.  Are CO2 emissions the main cause
a. I think not - there is more and more evidence that land use changes are partially to blame, and that black carbon falling on the Arctic ice and snow are a major cause of that warming.
3.  Is warming going to be bad?  
a. Nobody knows, but historically warming has been good.  You hear of people dying in heat waves - those are typically people close to death anyway.  Freezing to death is not that way - it takes anybody.
4.  Are solar variations contributors?  
a. Yes, but not simple solar output.  The mechanism appears to be the solar wind variability shielding us from cosmic rays, which nucleate water vapor.

So, on the one hand we have the alarmists saying the sky is falling, and on the other we have the skeptics saying it's not happening.  Then, on the other hand we have a lack of coherency in the whole research program, indicative of slanted science, particularly by people who depend on fear for their next paycheck.  

Well, I'm out of hands so that's about it...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"I think anyone who makes the argument for action is naive."

Duly noted.

"1.  Is man causing global warming
a. I think most of it."

So you think we're causing global warming (unrelated to CO2) but you have a feeling that's a good thing?

And atmospheric CO2 has increased by 25% as a result of man's activities and that's a good thing as well?

Dang, we're good.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I meant of course.... we the U.S. are good. Those Europeans and Japanese and the rest are just plain irresponsible for not participating in all this goodness we're creating thru warming and CO2.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

OK, everyone's participating. Some just trying a little harder than others.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Sorry, maybe a little to heavy on the sarcasm.  I was just a little surprised by your position.  It's definitely not with the mainstream on either side. I'll have to ponder it a little bit.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming


Astronauts manifest their emotions on seeing the beauty and fragility of our planet from outer space. Here is one of many expressions:

Quote:

A Chinese tale tells of some men sent to harm a young girl who, upon seeing her beauty, became her protectors rather than her violators. That's how I felt seeing the Earth for the first time. I could not help but love and cherish her.
Taylor Wang, China/USA

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

So if we accept that global warming is happening, and that we know that the ice sheets are retreating at the moment, a brief extrapolation puts the sea level rise at 1-7 metres.  Which pretty much wipes out quite a few population centres, starting with London and New York, New Orleans of course, and most of Bangladesh, population vast, who will need relocating.  Anyone got space for a few hundred million evacuees?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

It's all about the Frankenstein complex....

We have been pursuaded that if we like something it is bad for us or someone else. And that includes just about everything we do.

Global Warming (or Abrupt Climate Change; the more inclusive catch all now favoured by some alarmists) is an easy piece of propaganda since it triggers a Pavlovian reflex of guilt and fear.

The fundamental point is that we don't really know if we are headed for an ice-age or a greenhouse and we don't know what the real balance of good and bad are for either option.

As has been said, we can adapt; that is what we are good at, adapting. Not just us but all of nature. Sure, it looks alarming and appeals to our cuddly centres if we see Polar Bears floating around adrift on ice floes and we respond. This is a triggger.
Sadly, one of the endangered species is the European brown rat and as one conservationist said, nobody cares about it because it has all the wrong associations for people.

Our environment has been in a continuous state of change with species going extinct and other species resurgent. In almost every field of conservation there are disputes aabout what it is that is being conserved and why and what is the right policy........ in the UK there are no bears or wolves, nor wild boar, though there used to be. So of course, there are those whao believe they have a natural place in the UK countryside and are trying to re-introduce them....

Adapt means to respond to changes but if they are momentous changes coming then we need to be sure which it is we can expect and devote our resources to that scenario.... a bit tough if we have spent all our resources on the wrong scenario and don't have anything left....or if that effort has been completely counter-productive.

Of course, part of the propaganda is to instantly label anyone who questions the "Global warming" scenario as a Humvee driving polluter. It isn't axiomatic that you are environmentally friendly if you belive the global warming scares.

We live in a sound byte photo-opportunity age where one picture of a cuddly polar bear or an oil soaked seabird outwieghs all logic or rational thought.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Well said JMW.  

The problem with the future is that with 3rd world overpopulation things are going to jam up.  Not only is the numerator going up, the denominator is going down, with sucking dry aquifers and ruining arable land with inadequate irrigation practices.  It's that denominator that's going to get us.

So, blame it on the US, and we become the Great Satan to more and more people.  Last time it was called the dark ages...

Those of us who believe in science should be scared.  Very scared.

Just kidding.

Maybe.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

We are.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I have read there is a correlation between CO2 and warming based on the infamous ice cores.  Cause and effect not exactly clear.

Somewhere in this thread I think someone (a status-quo advocate) said the CO2 always comes after the warming.  Where did that information come from? (any links?)

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

9pm ET on CNN, Larry King will interview Al Gore on global warming and more.  

Watch and learn.  Maybe.  Should be entertaining anyway.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

LCruiser - you made the statement:
"You can see, if you look closely at them, that the CO2 variation follows the temperature variation, so it's kind of doubtful that CO2 caused the temperature change (cause seldom trails effect...).  "

Can you provide any more information on this (links)?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I had the pleasure of attending a detailed briefing on global warming and future strategy of mitigating such, The briefing was given by DR. John P. Ziagos of Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory. From this briefing, there was no debate about if. The fact is that it is in fact happening and there is in planning for a tremendous engineering effort to mitigate the effects. Some of what I can remember.

1. Carbon sequestration from coal burning power plants and other major producers of CO2.

2. Huge deposits of "methane Ice" that exceed the integrated total of petroleum "oil". Said is deep, mostly in coastal areas around the globe. Plus the tar sands etc. Apparently "oil shale" does not produce oil, but rather, something mineral based, but simular.

3. 5X increase in the use of nuclear power.

4. Additional "North Dakota sized wind farm"

5. Comparable effort in solar technologies.

All said, Global warming will be a huge windfall for armies of engineers in the future.

So the naysayers in this thread really have there heads up somewhere or in the sand. Prostegious institutions like Lawerence Livermore do not blindly run around and make these types of planning and statements just for more R&D funding.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

electricpete - You can pretty much look at any two reputable graphs of both and see that.

z633 - I don't know too many people who have their heads hidden somewhere denying temperatures are going up.  The question is why?  CO2 has never before caused temp to rise except in the laboratory.  There are many other potential causes (see above).  

You're right about adaptation though -  and that's what homo sapiens are very good at.

Don't kid yourself about LLNL though.  Many researchers are there because they are alarmists.  Not many people get more funding if they say "It's probably not a problem".

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

z633,
I assume you received some convincing evidence at this briefing that will compel all other scientific experts in the field to the same evidence-based conclusion, or was it just their assurance that it is true?
Scientists have split and.... well see the rest of this and related threads for the discussion.

Quote:

Prostegious institutions like Lawerence Livermore do not blindly run around and make these types of planning and statements just for more R&D funding.
and the evidence for this is...? why are they so different?
You then say:

Quote:

"All said, Global warming will be a huge windfall for armies of engineers in the future."
.
Hmmm. Does this mean engineers are far less ethical than the scientists on the side of GW? Are you appealling to our greed?

Actually we have several scenarios, on either side of the debate, and most of them will benefit engineering.

What we have at the moment is a propaganda war, not science. We are being asked to adopt a "religious style" belief system and act accordingly.

"Convincing", "compelling", "overwhelming" is when the majority of scientists and institutions are all aligned and are perhaps arguing about the details not the principal.

We need the scientific method to work and to let it work its way through to the point where everyone (the scientific experts, not the journalists and politicians) have agreed on a theory that accounts for all the evidence, that makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be true.

One cannot simply discount the evidence for or against simply because it doesn't fit the model; it has to be accounted for. So far as I can see, we aren't anywhere near a reliable "theory of everything" for global climate.

Nor are we in the situation where we have a win win situation: it would be nice to think that the safe option is to assume the truth of the model and act accordingly since there is no harm done if it is wrong... we aren't there either.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"Convincing", "compelling", "overwhelming" is when the majority of scientists and institutions are all aligned and are perhaps arguing about the details not the principal.  

All right, we'll wait for the last three to join, then we'll use those words.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Lc and jmw, perhaps you are right. It is all just one big conspiracy to raise taxes, milk the middle class out of billions to subsidize Exon Mobile. Exon Mobile can further expand their monopoly of the energy supply, continue double digit growth rate, and reward the major stake stock holders.

And as far as university researchers stretching the truth to get more funding, shame on you. Well, other than setting their mothers sock on fire, with the mother in them, "for research into safer socks".

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

z633,

Just because "LLNL said so" is the arguement?

I'm not saying whether LLNL is right or wrong. I am just not convinced by the arguement "Put Name of Prestigious Institution Here said so".

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

z633,

Found the name for your type of argument:

Ad Hominem

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
I don't think that's an ad hominen fallacy.  

I think it's more likely the
Argumentum ad verecundiam - appeal to authority.  It must be true because <insert name here> says it's true.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

CajunCenturion,

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

You are correct. In this case, it is sort of a reverse ad Hominem arguement.


Oh, by the way, Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his/hers special field.

I would posit that LLNL is within its area of specialty and authority on the subject, depending on the speaker.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I would argue that climatology is not a "special field" and as such is outside of all "special fields".  It is the ultimate interdisciplinary study.  The unknowns in it are largely outside of the physical sciences fields, and are now mostly in the natural sciences.  Unfortunately, due to the tendency for people to study "more and more about less and less" we have a rather serious Tower of Babel problem when it comes to climate science.

I would think LLNL would be the penultimate place to study climate, if the alarmists could be held at bay.  Unfortunately a lot of them get into climate science just because they are alarmist - also there is a big tendency for computer gamers to contiue their play in the modeling fields, so take that for what it's worth...

At any rate, it's pretty much common knowledge in the scientific field that LLNL is a distant second to LANL.  That would be Los Alamos National Laboratory.  winky smile

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

OK, let's look at LANL.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&amp;story_id=2030&view=print

Quote:


"We want the global-warming community to know that we've identified a possible explanation for why satellite atmospheric temperature and surface temperature trends can disagree," said Charles "Chick" Keller, director of Los Alamos' Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics. "The truth is that the temperature trends probably do agree when you consider the effect that massive ozone depletion caused by large volcanic eruptions has on the stratosphere and upper troposphere."

Keller and his colleagues - Manvendra Dubey and Howard Hanson of Los Alamos' Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Group, and Tracy Light of Los Alamos' Space and Atmospheric Sciences Group - presented their findings today at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.

The researchers set out to explain why scientists have seen less warming in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, than at the surface. If global warming were actually occurring, some scientists have said, then observers should be able to document warming trends in the atmosphere as well as on the surface. This doesn't always happen, however, and critics of global-warming theory use the trend disparity to discount the idea that Earth is slowly heating due to a buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and other environmental factors.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=nb.story&amp;story_id=2443&amp;nb_date=2002-04-09

Quote:


Researchers at the Laboratory are studying a simple, cost effective method for extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, which could allow sustained use of fossil fuels while avoiding potential global climate change.

The method would allow researchers to harvest carbon dioxide from the air, reducing buildup of the so-called "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere and allowing it to be converted into fuel. A Los Alamos-led research team presented the topic at the 223rd annual meeting of the American Chemical Society today in Orlando, Fla.

"Fossil fuel supplies are plentiful, and what will limit the usage of fossil fuels is the potential climatic and ecosystem changes you may see as a result of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere," said Los Alamos researcher Manvendra Dubey of Hydrology, Geochemistry and Geology (EES-6).

Somehow it doesn't sound to me like LANL considers CO2 harmless.

By the way, is MIT Woods-hole an organization that you don't consider respectable?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I didn't say they were perfect...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming


http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&amp;volume=17&issue=18&;page=3477

Quote (Thomas R. Knutson of NOAA):


Previous studies have found that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. The present study explores the sensitivity of this result to the choice of climate model used to define the CO2-warmed environment and to the choice of convective parameterization used in the nested regional model that simulates the hurricanes. Approximately 1300 five-day idealized simulations are performed using a higher-resolution version of the GFDL hurricane prediction system (grid spacing as fine as 9 km, with 42 levels). All storms were embedded in a uniform 5 m s?1 easterly background flow. The large-scale thermodynamic boundary conditions for the experiments— atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles and SSTs—are derived from nine different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP2+) climate models. The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1% yr?1 CO2 increase experiments, range from about +0.8° to +2.4°C in the three tropical storm basins studied. Four different moist convection parameterizations are tested in the hurricane model, including the use of no convective parameterization in the highest resolution inner grid. Nearly all combinations of climate model boundary conditions and hurricane model convection schemes show a CO2-induced increase in both storm intensity and near-storm precipitation rates. The aggregate results, averaged across all experiments, indicate a 14% increase in central pressure fall, a 6% increase in maximum surface wind speed, and an 18% increase in average precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm center. The fractional change in precipitation is more sensitive to the choice of convective parameterization than is the fractional change of intensity. Current hurricane potential intensity theories, applied to the climate model environments, yield an average increase of intensity (pressure fall) of 8% (Emanuel) to 16% (Holland) for the high-CO2 environments. Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is 21% higher on average in the high-CO2 environments. One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/pubs/dai_speech.pdf

"Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference*
A Discussion of Humanity’s Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due"

You need only read the title to figure out the gist of this article.  Written by some left wing propaganda group?  Not quite. James Hansen of NASA.

NASA, NOAA, LANL, LLNL, Woods Hole... all have political agendas?  I guess you guys can dismiss anything if you try hard enough.  Let's hear some of the credible sources that are saying that mans activities have no effect on the climate.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I have to say Woods Hole seems a little bit in the middle. They clearly acknowledge uncertainty. Their biggest concern is the Atlantic conveyor.  Among their website you can find the following:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10149#ocean_2

Quote:


Q. Have humans contributed to the warming?
A. Yes, but there is debate over how much. Natural variability - such as that arising from changes in the sun's energy input to Earth, volcanic activity, and regional climate phenomena like El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) - does play a role in adjusting the global thermometer. But the observed temperature record cannot be wholly accounted for by natural causes. As the American Geophysical Union recently concluded: "It is scientifically inconceivable that - after changing forest into cities, putting dust and soot into the atmosphere, putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture, and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - humans have not altered the natural course of the climate system." Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) are being added to the atmosphere largely as a result of burning fossil fuels, tropical deforestation and other human activities. These gases trap energy that would normally be radiated into space, and raise Earth's surface temperatures.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Go back and look at Scott's 2 links posted 27 Feb 06 and you will see a hint of the pressure applied to supress the view of the scientists.

Go back and look at the funding sources for all these anti-gw organizations and you will see how business is controlling the information we see.

Too plausible scenario's
1 - A bunch of hype played up by the environmentalists and the media and a few government scientists got caught up in it.
2 - mainstream science believes what they said at the ipcc.  All of the spin comes from people trying to convince us it's not true.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Either one could be true in my opinion.

Speaking of credibility (or lack thereof)....

DON'T FORGET....  BIG AL!  9PM ET TUESDAY ON CNN
BE THERE!

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Yes, they are good. But there are several others:

Argonne National Laboratory

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Ooops, hit the enter buttn by mistake.

Also:

Sandia
Argonne
Oak Ridge

They are all very good. Some have specialties that others don't. It is hard to say one lab is better than another, since they all serve their own purposes.

Sort of like: What is the best engineering school in the US?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I watched an interested program on NOVA last night, about Global Dimming and how it makes the effects of Global Warming seem lower or less serious.

What I found interesting, during the 3 days after 11SEP01 when all commercial air traffic over the CONUS was suspended, the temperature range (cold-hot-cold) increased by an average of 3deg F.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Steven K. Roberts, Technomad
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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!

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
==> 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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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. ??



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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 ??




RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
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.

Quote (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!
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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming


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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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!

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming


I'd add reproducibility.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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 !

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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!!!

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.






RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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).

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Just a reminder (to save searching back through the thread): http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/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
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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 ???

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

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 ??

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

It's not a question of "more being necessary."  Can you not survive on half your salary, even if you have to live in a van down by the river?  It a question of quality.

And yes, we should concentrate on real pollution.  The convolution of that with CO2 makes real emission controls more difficult.

If you don't think we need to burn fossil fuels to enhance our environment, stop using gasoline and electricity.  See where you get.

No, I don't think we're sustainable right now.  But that's beside the point.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Lcruiser
"all we know is the deck is stacked toward increased CO2 is good."

Is this true now only because it counteracts prior human
activity, or was it allways a good thing to bring more
CO2 into the enviroment.

By enviroment I meant the standard definition used throught
this thread to mean natural envirmoment, not my personal
enviroment as pertains to electricity and transport.
So lets seperate the question.

Do we need to continue to burn fossil fuels to improve
or just maintain the carrying capacity of our enviroment.

If we are not sustainable at our current consumption rate
then why should we not start now to reduce it in ways
that spread the economic hit as broadly as possible.
You have to start some time. You said so yourself we
are not sustainable.
We are just like a credit card junkie thinking the lottery
will come along and bail us out.











RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

2dye4 -

It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

Why should we decrease our efficiency even further?  How many people in China or India make, for example, $50k per year?  Why cobble us further in the global market?  Altruistic behavior leads to elimination from the human race.

http://tinyurl.com/6p33g



RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The way I see it is that you can create LC’s planet, Venus, the caldera of hell. Or my planet, Mars, thin atmosphere with vast reserves of  subsurface frozen H20. Well which is better a world to regenerate, someplace that will eat your belt buckle in 10 seconds or another that can be survived in and manipulated?

The notion, plants need CO2, sure they do. The genetically static commercial crops love it (maybe). But also are rapidly infinitely adaptable wild weeds. They grow quicker and choke out the good ones. Go swim in Lake Michigan fungi pond for instance.

And what a political soap box ploy. Blame it on the Chinese, a group of people that historically use what 100 no maybe 1000 less fossil fuel per capita than the Anglos.
Sounds like a cleverly designed attempt by the oil lobbyist again to me.

Another MIA would be ok, if restores the glaciers, providing clean drinking water for another 2-3 generations + plus would save a few endangered species. It is easier to heat than cool, passive energy speaking wise.

I just got a petition from John McCain Rep. AZ to help reduce global warming. We all know what a pork-barrel special interest lover he is.

Historically speaking, fires occur after bad wiring is installed, there is obviously no correlation.

So take your Lincoln Continental and filler up.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Good

Then lets at least answear the question more honestly.

We won't cut our emissions because it will put a damper
on the party were having. It has nothing to do with
any scientific debate.  We just say that because we
haven't the courage to look our future generations in
the eye and say "Sorry we burned your resources for you"

That I like.
The first step for an alcoholic is admitting the problem.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

ok, we know that
CO2, methane and a few others tend to cause warming.
sulfur aerosols and a few others tend to cause cooling.

Which is the bigger effect that stares us in the face?   The warming effect.  Is there any credible source that disagrees?  Not that I know of.  I will be glad to hear if I’m wrong  (a link, not an opinion from a forum member).

So all this talk about coal plants... fixing it wrong the last time... global dimming... doesn’t change the fundamental conclusion that we should be working toward limiting CO2 and other warming gases  (unless there is someone recommending to increase sulfur aerosols... I don’t believe I have heard anyone recommend that).

I have provided above links to credible sources supporting these views.  I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request to expect that people provide links to support alternate their views.  The absence of any real response to my query begings to lead me to believe there is no source other than arm-chair climatologists, politicians, lobbyists and the like.  But I am still waiting to be proven wrong.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

What is the basis for wanting cooling?  Over vast historical time the warming is of greater benefit to mankind than the ice age it replaced.  There will be many who are harmed by warming, but IMO less harm than the benefit of greater airable lands.  The main problem is how to take care of the people who will be harmed by warming during the adaptation cycle.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

People keep saying that increased CO2 can help the plants grow.  Well, there are some issues with that:  the ocean absorbs some of the extra CO2, making it more acidic.  So, creatures that rely on calcium carbonate deposition for their shells are severely compromised.  So if you like lobster, get it while it lasts.  And krill forms a significant part of the food chain too... oh, and coral...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025542.600.html

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

"What is the basis for wanting cooling?"
We don't want cooling. We want to limit the warming that is already in-progress... even as we continue to add warming agnets (CO2) at an increasing rate.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Electricpete,
I fully agree with you that we're not all experts in this subject (I am speaking for myself here) and I fully respect your opinion etc etc, but please let me know: WHY do you (or "we" as you wrote) want to limit the warming that appears to be in progress? Why do you consider it a problem and how do you rate it against other problems like malaria, aids, famine and the like?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Just heard on NPR (I know, leftist radio) that due to the change in climate, high elevation winds are carrying flying, disease causing insects far from their original habitat.  Denge fever and malaria are just two diseases that are becoming more common where they were unheard of before.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

epoisses ,
A small group of people today in Greenland and northwards are already acutely feeling the effects of this warming.     We can see we have had an effect and the writing is on the wall that we need to amend our ways or the impacts will be felt by a much wider population in low-lieing coastal areas.

We can choose to continue to ignore the problem until it becomes unavoidable... or we can take action now.

I like 2dye4’s analogy that ignoring global warming is like living above your means using credit cards.  The time to take action is not when the interest costs 50% of your income and the creditors are banging down your door.  The earlier you deal with the problem the more options you have and the better solution you can select.

Yes there is some economic cost today in acting responsbily for tomorrow.

You bring up a good point that if we could channel to economic benefit of our present consumptions towards sovling world problems there may be more benefit.     I don’t know whether there is necessarily any direct connection between economic benefit/spending in one area vs the other. But to the extent there is a connection, I don’t have any basis for comparing the benefit of $25 billion invested in one good cause vs $25 billion invested in another good cause.

To make any intellligent decision on these matters, we first need to understand and face the facts.   My fear is that most of Americans don’t understand the facts and they are more inclined to believe the spin that comes from the oil lobbiests than to accept an “inconvenient truth” (sorry, couldn’t resist).   Should we expect leadership from our politiciations?  Unfortunately in our political environment, a politician who demands hard economic choices will likely lose favor from a public that doesn’t understand the reason for the sacrifice.   Absent any grass roots push for action, our political leadership is content for the most part to take the politically-expedient short-term actions which favor the economy.  

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Wow – I used the terms related to politics/political 4 times in the last 3 sentences.  Whoops... make that 5. “politiciations” should be “politications”.  Maybe my next crusade should be illiteracy winky smile

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Did I just do that? Nope it was my evil illiterate twin.

“politiciations” should be “politicians”.  

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Well, I feel a little guilty, but LC's last link indicated when in a no-win tic-tack-toe match one should pull out a 2x4 and club his opponent to death.

Just now, what to do with the d** petition. I do not want to get on the liberal green neck list of suckers for a cause.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

electricpete,
I know this is very annoying but I think it's essential that these fundamental questions are answered: so what is the problem that these people in Greenland experience? And can't we address it more efficiently than trying to cut worldwide CO2 emissions?

(I don't know much about Greenland except that it was pretty snowy when I once flew over it. If I lived there I guess I wouldn't mind the temperature going up by a few degrees. And I am not trying to be sarcastic.)

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I have pasted some links below based on a 15 minute google search.  I didn't take time to select only reputable sources as I did in my links above.   I don't think there is any serious disagreement with the fact that a dramatic warming trend is in progress in the artic (the only area of disagreement by some is why.)

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
"Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.   The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century"

"The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people, wildlife and plants. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf splintered, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. Polar bears, whales, walrus and seals are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. The native people of the Arctic view global warming as a threat to their cultural identity and their very survival."


http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/2001/0716arctic.htm
"The evidence for global warming across Alaska is stark. The average temperature has risen 3C - 4.5C in winter, 10 times the rate elsewhere in the world. In Kotzebue the tundra has turned from spongy to dry and the sourdocks and many other plants have disappeared. The region's polar bears have lost 20% of their weight in the past few years. The arctic ice is 40% thinner than in 1960. In Deering it is melting so fast that hunting on it has to abandoned early, and in Point Lay it is now too thin to walk on. Down in Fairbanks, the gateway to the arctic, the golf course is remarkable for two reasons: you can watch people teeing off in summer at midnight and you can see that they have some unintended holes to contend with. The holes and the dips and waves in the adjoining Farmer's Loop Road, are the most obvious examples of what happens when the permafrost, which underlies the region to a depth of 600 metres (2,000ft), starts to melt."


http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut000131/nvt20121_04.html
"The commercial shows the disastrous effect of receding sea ice on polar bear populations, and the hardship that more snowfall brings to the endangered Peary caribou. 'Our way of life is on the edge of extinction. Plants and animals are dying,' said Rosemarie Kuptana, a former president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference who was recruited to host the 30-second spot."




http://www.islamdaily.net/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=228


'Nature [MAGAZINE] went on to detail the visible and measurable impact of climate change in Alaska.


“Temperatures have changed more in Alaska over the past 30 years than they have anywhere else on Earth: winters have warmed by a startling 2-3 °C, compared with a global average of 1 °C. That's guaranteed to have dramatic effects in an Arctic landscape, where even small temperature changes can make the difference between freezing and melting. In Fairbanks, a city built on permafrost, the annual mean temperature is just -2 °C. If it pops above zero, residents can say goodbye to the frozen ground beneath their feet, along with the free iceboxes in their basements. The impacts on wildlife, and the people who depend on it for their livelihoods, will be huge.”


Additionally, at this week’s UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Inuit people of Nunavut in northern Canada revealed that they are asking the American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic to see the devastation being caused by global warming as a matter of human rights.


Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents all 155,000 of her people inside the Arctic circle, said: “We want to show that we are not powerless victims. These are drastic times for our people and require drastic measures.”


“We are already bearing the brunt of climate change - without our snow and ice our way of life goes. We have lived in harmony with our surroundings for millennia, but that is being taken away from us,” Watt-Cloutier continued.


"People worry about the polar bear becoming extinct by 2070 because there will be no ice from which they can hunt seals, but the Inuit face extinction for the same reason and at the same time.'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4568630.stm
'I spent many hours talking to the Inuit hunters and the people of Qaanaaq and Siorapuluk who told me of the problems they were facing in terms of changing weather patterns.

  
The ice is melting sooner and freezing later, it's thinner which makes hunting difficult; the winds are more unpredictable.

The polar bears and other animals are changing their hunting and migratory patterns; the type of snow falling is changing, which again is making hunting on the ice more difficult and dangerous.

I left the Arctic having formulated the conclusion that their concern over their land and future is great, although an element of sad resignation exists.

The Inuit voice is almost inaudible on the world stage and one cannot help but wonder if anyone even knows they exist.

Amid the media hype of the race for the US presidency in 2004, I noticed a tiny newspaper report that said the world's foremost scientists predicted the north polar ice would all but disappear in the next 50-70 years.

 
The Arctic is the world's early warning system and the red light is flashing - just how arrogant and complacent can we afford to be?'


http://seagrant.uaf.edu/news/01ASJ/06.08.01Alaska-heat.html
'Scientists for years have predicted that as the Arctic climate warms, sea ice, glaciers and permafrost will melt, sea levels will rise, and the tree line will move north. As Doug Schneider reports in this week's Arctic Science Journeys Radio, their predictions are coming true, and the changes they'll bring will have a profound effect on Alaska's people and environment.'


http://www.thousandreasons.org/get_article.php?article_id=174

Already global climate change is affecting the lives and livelihoods of some of the world's most vulnerable people, threatening millennia-old cultures, and literally stealing the ground beneath people's feet. The people of the Inuit nation near the Arctic Circle are seeing deformed fish, depleted caribou herds, dying forests, starving seals, and emaciated polar bears. Recently, the Inuit began battling with northward-migrating mosquitoes and other infections disease-carrying insects, which they had never before encountered. As the sea ice melts, rising water levels are washing away entire coastal villages.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/arctic-climate-impact-assessment.html#Observed_changes
'Temperature: Mean annual surface air temperature over the past 50 years has increased 3.6 to 5.4°F in Alaska and Siberia and decreased by 1.8°F over southern Greenland.

Sea ice: Sea ice extent in late summer decreased 15 to 20% over the past 30 years (see above).

Glaciers: Between 1961 and 1998, North American glaciers lost about 108 cubic miles of ice—about equivalent to spreading one foot of water over California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.

Vegetation: White spruce, the most valuable timber species of the North American boreal forest, experienced sharp declines as summer temperatures frequently exceeded the tree's critical threshold temperature.

Marine Animals: Almost no seal pups, dependent on sea ice, survived in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence during the ice-free years of 1967, 1981, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Fisheries: Warming in the Bering Sea after 1977 has increased the herring, Pacific cod, skates, and flatfish species, and Pacific salmon commercial catches have been high since 1980.

Indigenous Culture: Peary caribou populations on Canadian arctic islands plummeted from 26,000 in 1961 to 1000 by 1997, affecting people whose culture is intertwined with caribou'

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

And yet, in recent historical times Greenland was warm enough to support a permanent population of farmers, ex Vikings.

Read Collapse by Jared Diamond for the details.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I haven't seen his name in this thread and I guess a lot of the posters will have this book or at least have read it.  But anyway, for those who haven't, it's well worth a read:

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Another aspect of global warming is, perversely, the 'big chill' to northern europe, and in particular the UK. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html with reference to the sudden change in the gulf stream.

Perhaps this is why some scientists referred to the coming of an ice age, 'some' referring to those scientists in europe.

corus

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I haven't seen it mentioned recently, but I recall reading that one possible trigger mechanism for northern hemisphere ice ages is an open Arctic Ocean.  Open ocean means more water into the atmosphere, more water in the atmosphere means more precipitation, more precipitation in the form of winter snow the more likely that it won't all melt before the next winter in the far northern climes.  Warming might be the trigger for an ice age.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

(OP)
==> Warming might be the trigger for an ice age.
If there is one thing that I hope we all agree on is that climate is cyclical.  The earth is, always has been, and probably always will be, either warming or cooling based on its own internal systems.

Should be we be reasonable stewards of our environment?  Absolutely, to me that's not even an issue.  But I question the wisdom of expending considerable resources to address an issue that has so many facets that we don't understand, when there are so many other things that need attention that we can do something about.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Global warming? Pah!  Show me a plot with millions of years on the X-axis.

CO2?  Pah!  Before those climate-changing plants and animals gobbled it all up and locked it in fossils underground the World was a better place.  Burning them is releasing it again (theists could argue that we are restoring the World to how (s)he first made it).

The fate of the Gulf Stream? Pah! The Gulf Stream is a temporary effect caused by the current positions of the World's tectonic plates, coupled with the land piled on them.  And the seas around them.  It'll change ... eventually, gradually.

My point is that the World changes.  As an aside, I live near the sea and there are people living in houses on the edge of cliffs nearby expecting the cliffs to never change.  Do they not know where cliffs come from?

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

To how (s)he first made it? That would be an unstable collection of mass and gas that could not sustain conventional life as we know it.

Maybe the Saudi King should buy panama and have it graded into the ocean, because before it existed, the global ocean currents flowed through it and that actually made the northern Africa part of the world a tropical paradise. They could use the tourist money after the oil runs out.

Everybody is making too big of a deal about it. Human activities effect the environment. We need to limit the effects of the impact of the environment. Do you what to go back and use leaded gas, remove all pollution controls that annoy are first but in retrospect have greatly improved quality of life. CO2 control is just another form of emmissions control. Working globally and getting the developing countries to incorporate the latest technologies that are mass produced, economical and have net advantage over disadvanage. It can be done, slowly, and coincedently will be a great head start into sustainability as oil-coal breadfruit becomes cost prohibitive.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Actually the Sahara was a verdant plain only 5,000 years ago in the Holocene maximum.  Not much continental drift since then.  Just a little warmer...

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

One reason we need to understand our impact (more likely, the lack thereof) on the global environment is if we truly changed it for the worse, can we arrogantly assume we can affect change for the better....or do we just make things worse in the process.  There are those (breast-beaters) whom think that no matter what we do, we'll muck things up.  They somehow think it's thearaputic to accept guilt where none previously existed.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

A couple thousand inuit who complain there are not enough seals to kill or millions of people who die of aids and malaria, I think it's pretty clear which problem deserves a higher priority.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

epoisses - if we believe the scientists, the changes that we see today in the artic will be just the tip of the iceberg, if we continue the status quo.
Greg is right - there have been many variations in climate within our recent history.  The purpose of my multiple links was to respond to a question that appeared to question whether there was any warming going on in the artic.  As I indicated the question is not whether it's going on but why (natural cycle or man-accelerated).

There are several in this thread who point to historical climate change apparently as proof (!?) that the current climate change are not man-created.  What it proves is that from a layman's perspective there is a plausible alternative scenario.  It doesn't prove one way or another what the causal factors are.  To make an educated guess on that question will require consideration of the climate model with all it's forcing functions well as looking at rates of change and applying statistical analysis. If we adopted the stance that any change which does not exceed historical climate extremes should therefore be disregarded, I guess we won't be taking any actions until we see something like an ice-age?  I hope we agree that is not the correct approach.

The proof to me is not in the warming, it is in the consensus among scientific organizations cited above.  (I have not yet seen any credible scientific organizations or panels yet cited on the other side although I will repeat my request for someone to prove me wrong on this.)

One historical criticism of the state-of-the-art climate models is that they predict more warming from CO2 than we have actually seen.  To the extent we see global warming trends become apparent, it tends to counter this criticism and support the models.

regarding corus' link - cooling of Northern Europe as I understand it would be associated with slowing down of the North Atlantic ocean conveyor, all part of the same scenario predicting overall global warming which does not mean warming everywhere, but an average warming with different changes depending on where you are.

Sompting guy - that looks like an interesting reference although I don't plan on spending the money for it.  I would like to ask if you think that this single author has comparable credibility to LANL, LLNL, NANA, NOAA, NAS, WHOA, IPCC?

davidbeach - I think you are correct.  An accelerated ice age is identified as a possible result of man-induced global warming but the time frame is very long.  The global warming scenario's are already upon us with dramatic change forecast within a century.

Quantum - I don't see what's arrogant about trying to minimize our impact.  Quite the contrary it is arrogant to on one hand acknowledge CO2 has increased by 25% as a result of man's activities, continues to increase at an INCREASING RATE, is identified as a contributor to global warming by our most credible scientific organizations, has barely begun to show it's effects due to the huge thermal inertia of the system.... and on the other hand to conclude that we don't need to do anything about it because A - someone on the internet said it doesn't exist B - we think we can cope with it when it happens, C - insert your favorite lame excuse here.  THAT is arrogant!

I see a repeated refrain through the posts that there appear to be so many contradictions within climate science that we can't possibly hope to understand the problem and shouldn't waste any effort in addressing since the results of our tremendous efforts will be unknown (and if you listen to LCruiser, limiting CO2 would plunge us into an ice age!).  The contradictions appear within the cluttered cacaphony (sp?) of cyber-space and the media.  As we know there are winners and losers in acting responsible and the losers will undoubtedly try to influence us with any smoke and mirrors they can muster.  If the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement created through these smoke and mirrors creates uncertainty, and if uncertainty means inaction, then I guess it's been a pretty effective strategy.   They score bonus points using by keeping the discussion politically charged with plenty of labels like "fear monger" and "alarmist".

The uncertainty and chaos does not extend to the mainstream scientific community.  They have spoken in large credible groups with a fairly uniform message urging us to reduce CO2 production as I have cited above.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I will say that I think there are intelligent well-informed people on both sides of the issue.  I didn't mean to imply that everyone who argues against man's inluence on global warming is trying to obscure the truth as they see it. (Only some and particularly the oil interests). For that matter there are probably people on the other side who try to obscure the truth on some issues. Plenty of spin and labeling on both sides... not the exclusive domain of one side or the other.

I think it's an interesting discussion and I hope it continues on a fairly amicable level.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

In rereading my comments, it's probably also important to acknowledge that there are not just two sides.  A lot of intelligent people look at the issue and come up with important distinctions in the way we should view the problem.. For example some agree there is strong evidence of man's effect but want to proceed to the next practical question: what could we do and how much would it cost?  I have a hard time proceeding to that next important discussion without addressing the other voices that question whether CO2 has any effect at all.

It's inherent in this multi-participant dialogue format (and maybe in the political discussion at large) that those important distinctions are sometimes lost and the discussion focuses towards the differences between the extreme views.  I'm not sure how to overcome that but I'm going to make an effort to avoid viewing this problem, the solutions, and the participants through a one-dimensional prism (with only two extremes of view.)

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

What would be the cost to the US of leveling our CO2 production within 20 years?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The Innuit, polar bears, seals, etc. did fine a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.

Also, the rate of increase of CO2 concentration is concave downward, not upward.  3D dimensional analysis shows it peaking in about 50 years.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

You are correct that I mis-spoke on the CO2 concentration. Our rate of addition of CO2 to the air is still increasing today.   The rate of increase of CO2 in the air is not increasing (there are removal mechanisms that increase as concentration increases so the air concentration is not an integral of the input).

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

On the subject of Lomberg, I found this criticism of his book.  It is clear this author thinks Lomberg's book is hogwash.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322

The interesting thing is that the author of this piece is John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American.

I don't put Scientific American in quite as high of a credibility category as the organization I cited above, but I have to think they are a fairly respected organization with a pretty scientific outlook on these political questions.  

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong. The technology is available today to mitigate the accumulation of CO2. These devices that are fundamentally based on nanobiotechnology artificial photosynthesis function similar to the silicon solar panels, except that instead of 20-25% efficiency, these run currently 45% in the lab. These obviously require sunlight,   water effluent that is basically partially treated sewer waste water. The output is methane and purified water. The methane can be stored back into the ground or converted into hydrogen fuel, at the normal efficiency that still is not acceptable for mass utilization. Also desalination plants have been discussed as the intake has a good amount of inherent nutrients, plus the process is adaptable to salty intake water, seaweed. IPO is coming. Sorry can
not link, proprietary secrecy you understand.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

electricpete, you might want to read a bit more about SciAm and Lomborg, there's more than a hint of a witch-hunt about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomberg

has some interesting links.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

That is interesting.  He's a controversial guy. What conclusions you draw from that I guess depend on your predispositions.

Greg - you have GOT to check out this article on another book he wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Crises%2C_Global_Solutions

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

No, never mind. Wrong link.  I had edited something humorous into Wikipedia at the link below but I guess it doesn't show up immediately (maybe they have a reviewer in which case it'll never show up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Crises%2C_Global_Solutions

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I have no great sympathy for Lomberg, he wrote a controversial book... and got a controversy. Although on balance I think he is right in a lot of ways. Your links just lead to a stub article.

Meanwhile, since we were playing my experts are smarter than your experts, here's what some amateur chair-warmer at a little known college had to say:

EARTH IN THE BALANCE
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
WSJ.com
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060627/20060627_15.html


Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Ah, addendum, well OK, your short lived jocularity is now in the bit-bucket. Wiki is pretty tough on that sort of thing, I guess they are scared of it turning into eng-tips.

Anyway, the Lindzen article is a good read, it articulates many of the cynic's points well. But I would add, I don't know if he's a respected climatologist, as such, but he's a damn sight closer to the source than I am.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Quote:

What conclusions you draw from that I guess depend on your predispositions.

I think that's the whole point of the book.  It challenges just about every bit of ingrained thinking.  Some of his points really make you think, even if you end up not agreeing.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

A few posts back I asked Lcruiser if he though our course
was sustainable in regard to fossil fuel burning.
He answeared no.
So what do we have if we acknowledge right now that we are
on a non sustainable path regarding our enviroment but we
also are unwilling to reduce our usage of the very substance
that puts us on the downward path.
You can argue all day about what scientist predicts what.
If you believe our way of life steadily reduces the
carrying capacity of our planet then what argument can
you give that we should not take some action now.
You can say lets wait and see if science develops some
majic bullet that will fix all the unwanted by products
of carbon fuel burning. You could even say one day a
bright guy will emerge from a lab with a vial of
enviro-fix-it and release it into the atmosphere and the
problem would be solved. But i ask in return how do we
get to this point. We can't get there by saying its too
difficult now lets put it off until there is better
science. Then when will we devote the resources to
fix the problem??

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Predictably, I have to point out that the Wall Street Journal is a business publication (we know where business stands on the issue), and this author is one voice among many.  Surely he is more distinguished and knowledgeable on this subject than anyone in this forum (certainly me), but  he also got a chance to get his name in the paper (would he have had the same chance if his views were more mainstream?).  I will repeat that in my view, the only way to cut through the spin is to diligently search for credible sources.  Not one person, but organizations that made their credibility and fame long before any pronouncements on global warming, who have a lot to lose in putting their credibility on the line.

Surprisingly, I think Lindzen is not too far off on most of his points... I disagree mostly with his tone.

He is certainly correct IMO that Al Gore's speeches have exagerated some facts.  One thing is Mr Gore's implications that recent increase in hurricanes are caused by global warming.  I don't think that many scientists are saying anything like that.  Similarly malaria seems like a stretch to me.

Lindzen trumpets a series of somewhat unrelated statistics and factoids as if they prove something... these  don't seem to prove anything to me:

"* To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940
* that icebergs have been known since time immemorial;
* that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average.  [WHERE IS THAT EVIDENCE?)]
*  A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming. [ THERE ARE SEVERAL LINKS ABOVE DESCRIBING LOSS OF TOTAL ICE AREA... NOT JUST CLIPS OF ICE FALLING INTO THE OCEAN.... PLEASE PROVIDE ONE LINK SHOWING GREENLAND ICE SHEET IS GROWING]
*They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that.
* Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

Dr. Lindzen critiques Gore harshly on the semantics of "there is consensus....".   One item he points out is that the question being debated is not defined.  (as we have observed in this thread it's tough to pin down what the question is when there are so many different voices).   Another he points out is that there are substantial variations in forecasts (how many meters in how many centuries).    From my perspective the fact that there is a consensus among scientists that we need to do something is more important than the fact that not all scientists agree on all their coefficients, which is certainly no excuse for inaction.  To continue the credit card analogy,  do I have to know whether my credit card balance is $50k or $500k to know I better cut down my spending?

I like Lindzen's wrapup of the state of the debate:

Quote:

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.  [SIGNIFICANT!]

This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today.

Finally, there has been no question whatsoever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas -- albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system...

It seems like he agrees the state of the art conclusions are that warming is going on, man has had a significant impact on it, CO2 is known to have significantly increased and is known to be a factor in warming.  His only point I can see is that CO2 he says is a small factor.... followed immediately by the criticism that he himself expects that if our temperature change were due soley to CO2 then it should have been larger???   Two responses:
1 - How can he say he thinks it's a minor effect and at the same time say he expects to see a bigger temperature increase.
2 - If you focus on his sentence structure, you see that the contradiction must be resolved by a flaw in his stated assumption that the climate change were due soley to CO2.   The logical conclusions are that there are other forcings at work to push temperature down but the change in CO2 would have increased temperature by MORE than we have seen if not for those other factors.

Maybe he was making another point that he thought the climate change was a natural cycle unrelated to man.  That seems a little inconsistent with his admission that the state of the art consensus is the climate change is occuring and man has a significant impact.
===================
I have another article by Dr.  James Hansen.   His credentials from Wikipedia: "Dr. James E. Hansen is the lead climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science. His primary interests are radiative transfer and climate modeling."


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf

There are a lot of things you can take out of this article.  I would point out just a few:
1 - CO2 is not a small factor.  Either Hansen is mistaken or Lindzen is mistaken.  I know who I believe (because it's not just one expert against another expert...remember all those other organizations?).
2 - Chart on page 72 (page 6 of 11).   It tells the story that climate is no longer 1 exclusively a naturally-controlled phenomenon.  Man has significant impacts in both directions (I'm sure there are a few significant natural forcings omitted but still a sobering picture).  With this realization should come the realization that we have an obligation to act responsibly.
3. - Whenever he estimates the effects he mentions the delayed effects of CO2 that is already in the pipeline.  In my simple mind this means there is significant inertia.  The climate doesn't respond instantly to the forcings.  Even after we finally start decreasing our production of CO2 (a long way off?), the effects of the CO2 we have already produced will continue to drive temperature up.  In other words, we can't wait until the situation gets untolerable and then take action.  We have to use a little bit of foresight to keep out ahead of this.   Or we could keep on charging until the bank cuts off the credit cards, the car gets repo'd and we don't have any way to commute to work to pay back our debt.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

CO2, another commodity of the future. Most everybody changes their oil and hopes that the recycler transforms this into a useful byproduct. Why not CO2 as well?  Imagine as you fill it up with methanol, the integral safety hollow framework of your vehicle, charged with waste C02 is discharged simultaneous with the re-fuel. Sure, additional infrastructure piping associated with the transport of the C02. Plus the remote sites would require liquefy or some other form of molecular combinational compaction of the CO2.  There would be the some efficiency penalty as LC states in the vehicle performance, but we are used to that; EPA, catalytic converters, lean combustion etc. The transport and recycle of CO2 is a piece of cake compared with H2. Plus it is non-volatile, and if leaked it no big environmental catastrophe.  Plus!!! Imagine given the soon to be mentioned solar conversion technology that used the C02, water, with output methanol. The car would re-fuel its self!! With much more energy storage potential compared to “current” electrical solar-battery technology. New meaning to green car, literally as green is evolutionary the choice color for the synthetic photosynthesis function. Arguably  carbon neutral, but better than nothing

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

what would be the reaction
2CO2 + 202 -> 2CO + 3O2 ?

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I probably got a little carried away talking about credibility.  All sources are relevant, but we just should bear in mind what we know about our sources.

I did not mean to imply that Hansen's view is the official view of NASA.  He had made it clear in other articles that his articles represenent his own personal views  and not official NASA views.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

I've just been reading the Hansard of the Senate Committee on Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. This is is a process by which pollies invite written syubmissions from interested parties, and then discuss them with various 'experts' and experts.

In their opinion: Hydrogen is a niche product. Fuel cells are therefore a waste of time, since once you add a reformulator you might as well just have a diesel engine.

Ethanol offers a reasonable alternative to oil. I haven't seen a discussion of methanol (there's several hundred pages of this to read).

In Australia, at least, Coal to Liquid (CTL) aka Synfuel, is a viable technology if oil stays above $40 per barrel.

OK, so that's oil sorted.

For greenhouse, it seems to me that the contribution of vehicles is rather over-stated. Their overwhelming contribution these days is CO2, road transport represents less than 1.2% of total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. So, increasing the efficiency of cars will make a relatively small contribution to the greenhouse effect, even if it exists in the popularly accepted form.

Working: Total worldwide automotive CO2 emissions are equivalent to 700 million tons of carbon per annum.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-28-03.asp

Gross non-marine flow of carbon (not CO2) into the atmosphere is 59.3 billion tons per annum

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/globalco2flows.cfm
 
Of that 59 billion tons most gets reabsorbed into plants etc.
 
Having said that there is no point in burning oil for the sake of it, it is a valuable resource, and using it in stationary applications in particular is quite ridiculous.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Sorry guys, just trying to think outside of the ellipsoid.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

And Pete, Sorry. The answer to your question is, well ,that I am no organic chemist. But I think some of the ideal by-products of combustion are h20 and c20. Now, looking out your window, from your nuclear powered yacht, you probably notice some hungry plankton soaking in the sunlight, sucking in a good CO2-H20 cocktail, and getting high off the sugar rush. Now this organism is jazzed up to re-produce, that is how it is programmed.
 
So in short there is a development of membranes and capillaries and effective stages of yeast-like digestion that, again given sunlight  H20, & C20, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that products a tailored energetic hydrocarbon compound that is in liquid form, pure, and ready to internally combust.

The key is to develop are these hard working nanobots, and keep the motivated, as so they do not get lazy, distracted. What do you do? Reproduction, but this is dangerous as the mutant offspring are likely to have an uprising. So some other distraction would be required, reward for the hard work?

So I am no rocket s.., well actually I am in the broad sense of the word(s). But I think it is per principle sound. May take another Madhatten project to solve, but then again,…., maybe the byproduct of this endeavor will not emit deadly sub-atomic particles for the next 100K years either.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

And I am sorry, again, do not mean to electrocute you folks. But, I forgot. The closest analogy we have found so far are ants and bees. The produce chemically encoded elixirs that somehow program the masses for the need at hand and satisfy their needs.

However, in the lab, these have been difficult to analyze. Plus the complex nature of the compounds can produce irregularities in the resultant, desired product. pollution.

Anyway who would figure? Ants, Plants, and a higher intelligence at work.

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Al Gore on CNN was a bust. Nothing interesting there.  I'm not sure whether Al only came prepared with hype (forgot to bring his facts) or whether Larry King kept him too busy tapdancing around questions about politics.  Either way,  I apologize for recommending a useless show last time.

I'm hoping Tom Brokaw will be better.
The Discovery Channel
9pm EST Sunday
Be there!
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/about/about.html?clik=fsmain_feat4

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

If you follow the links on the left hand side of the page above, there looks like a lot of information pulled together.

Under "Signs and Sources" / "Sources" / "Getting Around", their statistic is that 20% of US CO2 engines come from gas-powered internal combustion engines and another 13% from commercial trucks.  Seems out of whack with Greg's statistic in Australia.  I'm not sure why.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_iv&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

for some reasonably intelligent observations.

I was using the total ground based emissions into the air, I suspect you are using the proportion of anthropogenic CO2.

My point was, in a system with an annual turnover of say 150 billion tonnes, (of which 59 is land based) paying undue attention to the precise impact of a particular additional 0.7 billion tonnes seems odd.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

If we get past the "is it real?" and "is it man-made or natural cycle?" phases of the discussion (which I am not necessarily dismissing), then  it would be logical to focus on those parts of the equation that we can control.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Grow more seashells? It seems to me that you can control many aspects of the cycle, to fine tune it, IF you understand what you are doing.

Note that cement production is releasing carbon from the bank, might it not be more cost effective to look at that process than the usual suspects?

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

The link looks interesting.  If I click on the author's name I see it brings up a whole series of articles by him. Looks like I have some reading to do.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Don't forget 9pm EST 8pm CST (now!)
Tom Brokaw on The Discovery Channel.

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

RE: The Cycle of Global Warming

Brokaw, eh? Great! Another "lecture" from a non expert who uses 100 times more resources than I do. My apologies if you find my sarcasm offensive.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources