Smart questions
Smart people
 Find A ForumFind An Expert Join Eng-Tips Forums
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Remember Me

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*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.
Jobs from Indeed

Just copy and paste the

# Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 5(11)

 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 3 Oct 09 17:54
 A new direction.We are not here interested in whether Global warming is happening nor even if it is, if it is anthropogenic.What we are really concerned about is the end of the scientific method, the failure to reveal computer model algorithms, and now, the apparent loss of global temperature data.This, and similar articles, should cause us to reject any and all spending on AGW and CO2 until we can actually have the data freely available and can let the scientific method back into the game.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MA==
 (3)  jmw (Industrial) (OP) 3 Oct 09 18:04
 And the temperature proxies based on tree rings?Visit Watts up with that and this article here:http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988
 owg (Chemical) 4 Oct 09 8:33
 I also have serious doubts abut AGW but this train has left the station, is heading down hill, and has no brakes. I suggest that our time would be better spent, assembling and discussing a list of "good", "silly", and "questionable" developments. If the "Good" list could gain traction, then governments could quietly move resources from the silly projects to the good projects. Government subsidies are rendering silly projects economic. This has to stop. Here is a start to the list.GOOD - insulation, smaller cars, better mass transit, hydro-electricity, oil sandsSILLY - Windmills, hydrogen, tidal, biomass, scrubbing CO2 from coal fired stationsQUESTIONABLE - Nuclear HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 josephv (Mechanical) 4 Oct 09 15:09
 The National Review and Financial Post (linked to the National Post) are not exactly members of the engineering or scientific community. Heavily politicized, embracing radical nationalism and many times closer to the National Enquirer when it comes to science.Does anyone actually expect any objectivity from these sources?
 GregLocock (Automotive) 4 Oct 09 19:18
 owg-Why do you think tidal energy is silly? You could also classify wavepower and geothermal and solar thermal and photovoltaic somewhere in your list.Solar hot water has got to be a gimme for many climates. Last week I read that some new eco-development has banned solar hot water systems because they are ugly. Way to go boys.  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 5 Oct 09 3:47
 Oh dear, so the National Review and Financial Post are bad and I just know that this link isn't gonna be well received:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168'cos its climate audit and we know the guys their don't believe in AGW.... no, that's not true, they don't believe in bad science.So OK, BIffa didn't use just one or two selected trees for his study.... let us see the the reference to the source material with all the raw data exposed and the calculations and algorithms declared...and let's see the same for the CRU data....Some people are real fussy but seem rarely to post any links.
 owg (Chemical) 5 Oct 09 8:35
 Thanks for the comments Greglock. I suppose one of my problems is that by subsidizing some sensible applications, like solar for hot water in certain climates, we may render some silly applications economic. Geothermal makes sense where it is available, but drilling down 4 miles may not be an answer to our problems. I suspect tidal is silly in most locations. However there are a few special cases. We have some very high tides in Eastern Canada. Also I have read that a dam is going across the Severn Estuary in the UK. That may be another special case. I question whether these special cases can ever make a strategic contribution. Firstly there are not many of them, and secondly they need special one-off engineering and construction which is always more costly than the generally applicable technologies in which certain firms are able to specialize.GOOD - insulation, smaller cars, better mass transit, hydro-electricity, oil sandsSILLY - Windmills, hydrogen, tidal, biomass, scrubbing CO2 from coal fired stations, wavesQUESTIONABLE - Nuclear, PhotovoltaicSPECIAL CASES BUT DON'T SUBSIDIZE ACROSS THE BOARD - Tidal, Geothermal,    HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 ivymike (Mechanical) 5 Oct 09 8:40
 hasn't "biomass" been providing for the heating needs of most of the world's population since the invention of fire?  What has put it suddenly on your "silly" list?
 cranky108 (Electrical) 5 Oct 09 11:08
 If I were to quote specific applications, I could include any of these on any of the three catagorys.Examples:Photovoltaic does make sence in many places there currently isen't commertial power, and where a large demand isen't required. Or where fuel costs are high, like space.And Hydro-electric is just silly in the flats.Solar hot water makes since when compaired to high fuel costs, like propane.
 (2)  YoungTurk (Mechanical) 5 Oct 09 11:18

#### Quote:

What we are really concerned about is the end of the scientific method, the failure to reveal computer model algorithms, and now, the apparent loss of global temperature data.

The scientific method (source: Wikipedia)

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

Seems like this is exactly what is being done with AGW. The problem is that if the hypothesis is correct, we cannot debate our course of action much longer.  Pascal's wager?

It amazes me that people can stand on one side of a debate and accuse the other side of making grandiose claims while claiming things like "the death of the scientific method".

Like the list idea; but serious questions about your example.  Oil sands are "good" and biomass is "silly"?  Silly is destroying our enviroment (with much more certainty than AGW) and sending our wealth to hostile nations.

 owg (Chemical) 5 Oct 09 13:04
 Good comment ivymike. The list is intended to provide strategic direction. When there were only a few of us, biomass was good. Now there are almost 7 billion of us, we may be getting ahead of the biomass regeneration rate. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 owg (Chemical) 5 Oct 09 13:14
 cranky108 - I am hoping the lists will distinguish between strategic replacements for conventional oil and coal, and role players. You have pointed out some niche roles for photovoltaics and solar. But you may be correct that hydro-electric does not belong on the list of strategic replacements for oil and coal. Presumably all the cheap, well located hydro, has been developed. Future hydro will come on when energy costs get and stay high, and populations move to areas where hydro remains to be exploited. What do others think, should hydro move off the good list? How about changing the titles to:STRATEGIC IMPACTS ON WORLD ENERGY BALANCEROLE PLAYERS ONLYQUESTIONABLE   HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 cranky108 (Electrical) 5 Oct 09 15:24
 Maybe a catagory of application specific would be approprate. As I am seeing here applications of small hydro, in water collection pipes (no dams), just to meet some renewable requirment.If you are looking at a specific power requirment, then a starting point should include all of these. The list should be reduced quite quickly because of general location and quantity of energy. Don't through out ideas because you don't like them. Who said Nucular is questionable. It works for the navy, and deep space crafts.With the remaining ideas look at cost.Electric lines are $1M a mile, gas pipe line costs$, trucking in fuel costs $, Etc. Also consiter new ideas, and co-usage alternatives.Energy is almost everywhere, but what type do we need, what is the cost to extract it.Oil and coal are the standards which most every thing is measured, because it is the most common. But if you can't beat it in price, don't assume it's because they are to cheep, it maybe your idea just isen't that good.  moltenmetal (Chemical) 8 Oct 09 8:15  cranky: coal and heavy oil will always win unless you put a price on atmospheric emissions.Stop trying to solve an economic problem with technology! The existing economics PRODUCED our existing energy mix. Want a new energy mix? You need the economics there FIRST.  cranky108 (Electrical) 8 Oct 09 10:02  coal and heavy oil will always win unless you put a price on atmospheric emissions.Two comments:1. That is wrong for extreme conditions. Usually because of a lack of transportation infistructure.2. What is the appropiate price to put on atmospheric emissions?In a recent FORBES article, for a CO2 cost of$20 a ton, it will make natural gas a more cost effective fuel that coal or oil.But what justification does the goverment have of puting a price of around $1700 a ton, which is the benifit value the goverment put on hibreds?At$1700 a ton nucular probally would become very popular.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 8 Oct 09 10:05
 At these prices revolution is also relatively cheap and saves waiting for election time.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 8 Oct 09 14:18
 Why wait for the taxes to be passed, start protests now.
 ivymike (Mechanical) 8 Oct 09 14:59
 You need the economics there FIRST. are you familiar with the term "negative externality?"
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 8 Oct 09 15:30
 ivymike:  read my posts on the other four forums.  The negative externalities are what we need the taxes to compensate for.Working against the market is a recipie for failure.  A market mechanism is necessary to give the capital a reason to flow in the correct direction.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 8 Oct 09 22:45
 What exactly is the correct direction?Energy is a big part of our lives, and by making it more expencive will lower our standard of living. Someone should tell the goverments that hurting the golden cow will hurt the recieved income from it.No one wants to hear more unprovable theorys, but we also don't want taxes leveled based on false assumptions.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 9 Oct 09 6:39
 Young Turk, you missed out a bit, a very important bit as it happens.The bit about publishing full data and methodology sufficient to allow others to duplicate the work and verify it.The bit that is missing from the AGW argument, the missing bit of "scientific" method, is the unadulterated temperature data that Hadley has "lost" or won't release, the CRU computer algorithms that no one will declare.The level of AGW "verification" is about the same as perpetual motion machines or ZPE energy scams where about the time you want to see the results of your investment, they'll have the money squirrelled away in the Cayman islands and declare bankruptcy.... we won't ever see the results. We are looking to be the same in the AGW (Abrupt Climate Change or whatever, AGW is passe).
 TPL (Mechanical) 9 Oct 09 7:13
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 9 Oct 09 8:27
 Ooops! Just how good is that tree ring data for temperature proxy's?No good at all suggests Science Daily, commenting on a new paper in Nature.The paper suggests that trees ;leave control their own temperature which explains also why some trees are better in certain climates than others.Watts Up With That takes this and discusses Liebigs law of the minimum.... good stuff.From Dr Kieth Briffa's background comments on tree ring studies, they are not necessarily invalidated by Liebigs law since he suggests that for trees at high altitude temperature is the dominant factor i.e. the Liebig minimum property is temperature.However, the Science Daily article says that temperature was determined not from tree ring widths but from Oxygen isotope proportions. The new work invalidates the link between temperature (environmental temperature) and isotopes because the leaves control their own temperature.This is going to be an interesting discussion as the arguments fly back and forth on this.Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611135100.htmBriffa: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep94/trees/WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/(I can't access the Nature article.)
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 9 Oct 09 8:40
 If carbon dioxide and other emissions are viewed as harmful, permitting their continued emission utterly without cost is foolhardy.  If there are costs associated with these emissions, they need to be borne substantially by those creating the emissions so there's a market feedback to them to reduce their emissions.What some of you are arguing is that until there's concrete proof that CO2 is a harmful emission, investing in its reduction is risky madness.  Yeah, we get it.  We just don't agree with you, and will have to agree to disagree on that point.I personally agree at least that CO2 emissions shouldn't be the focus.  Rather, we should focus on reducing the CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels- all of them- because by so doing, we will reduce ALL the undesirable impacts of their (mis)use, and reaping ALL the benefits of their conservation for higher value uses.  Doing this on the basis of their carbon content just happens to also match up nearly exactly with their environmental impact even if CO2 emissions are not part of that impact.  Therefore a carbon tax accomplishes the desired job- unless such a tax gives credits to carbon dioxide sequestration schemes.  Personally I think such schemes are risky and low priority because they will actually push us to piss through our fossil carbon reserves even faster.As to the argument about standard of living:  people in North America could reduce their per capita energy consumption in half merely by behaving the same way that Europeans do.  Last I checked, the average European didn't have a third world standard of living.  YES, clearly there are some differences between North America and Europe that lead us to require more energy per capita, but most of the consumption differences are the result of bad choices made economically sensible or at least tolerable by cheap energy.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 9 Oct 09 10:18
 To paraphrase:"If Dihydrous Oxide and other emissions are viewed as harmful, permitting their continued emission utterly without cost is foolhardy.  If there are costs associated with these emissions, they need to be borne substantially by those creating the emissions so there's a market feedback to them to reduce their emissions."What some of you are arguing is that until there's concrete proof that Dihydrous Oxide is a harmful emission, investing in its reduction is risky madness.  Yeah, we get it.  We just don't agree with you, and will have to agree to disagree on that point."Yes, that's right, there is a lot of indisputable evidence that dihydrous oxide is a major factor in climate change and forms a very potent greenhouse gas. It is also a killer, sometimes singly but sometimes hundreds of thousands of people at a time. It does huge amounts of property damage each year, destroys crops, kills live stock, and makes land untenable.And yet some people think it is not a poison, is not toxic and is in fact vital to life.But, the dangers are such we should invest in trillions to sequester this under the earth .... even as a precautionary principle...... we can't afford to wait for absolute proof.
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 9 Oct 09 11:20
 Again with the f*ing water straw man!There's a world of difference between water and carbon dioxide with respect to this issue.  If you don't understand this difference, frankly listening to anything you say on this issue is of questionable benefit.
 (2)  rb1957 (Aerospace) 9 Oct 09 12:29
 indeed there is ... water vapour is by far a much more significant GHG than CO2 ...of course i think your point is that CO2 emmissions are somewhat discretionary (whereas water vapour is beyond our control) so let's do something about the things we can affect.the contray position is why work hard (inflicting pain on ourselves) at affecting something which won't have a significant effect in the long run ...as you said earlier, we agree to differ
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 9 Oct 09 13:41
 Water vapour is in PHYSICAL (rapidly established) equilibrium with the enormous amount of liquid water in the oceans, lakes and rivers, as well as being involved in chemical and biological processes.  The equilibrium position established with liquid water is complex, shifting, variable from place to place- but RAPID.CO2 is a GAS.  Yes, it too is involved in complex chemical, physical and biological cycles, but with a very, very much longer timescale than those involved with water vapour.There's hard proof (by means of direct measurements, not inference) that we've nearly doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere.  The CO2 content has risen in such lock step with human consumption of fossil fuels that you need the sort of wilful blindness of a 1960s cigarette company executive to NOT see the correlation.  As to whether or not this will affect the earth's climate, and how, and when, and to what extent- these are questions we may never know the answer to.I'm sorry, but I'm done arguing with people who can't see this very obvious difference, which should be immediately apparent to anybody with high school chemistry under their belt.  Heck, even a kid with gr 8 environmental studies would probably have a shot at understanding this point!
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 9 Oct 09 14:09
 well of course we're releasing CO2 into the atmosphere when we burn fossilised organic deposits (solid, liquid, or gas).  i agree with you that everyone reading this forum would (or should) agree with that.the question is ... is this a bad thing ?  a different question altogether is should we try to conserve the reserves of these fuels ?the answer to the first question (as you yourself state) is unknown (and probably unknowable).  the answer to the 2nd is governed by economics, pure and simple.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 9 Oct 09 18:06
 The simple question for anyone wanting to tax carbon is, do you want to live the way you are asking other people to live?Just ask Al Gore about his utility bills?Personally I want to arive at work without geting my car stuck in 2 in of snow. Or wake up stoke the fireplace.And yes I've tried candles instead of electric lights, and cleaning the cealing afterwards isen't fun.
 ivymike (Mechanical) 9 Oct 09 20:07
 taxing carbon emissions doesn't by itself force any wide-reaching changes in standards of living, within a very large range of tax rates.
 GregLocock (Automotive) 9 Oct 09 23:52
 While I agree that water vapor is in equilibrium with water liquid, so is carbon dioxide in equilibrum in the carbon cycle. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 3% of the total carbon cycle.Of course the proportion of CO2 is increased by burning carbon, that is exactly how feedback loops work. Increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 will increase the speed of the cycle, as the equilibrium point shifts (carbon fixing reactions become slightly energetically more favorable, carbon releasing reactions become slightly less so).However I do agree that using a valuable resource like oil as a heating fuel, or feedstock for industrial ethanol, is ridiculous in the extreme, and shows that the market price for oil is far too low.So although I think the whole AGW thing is just an unproven trendy fad, I do support reductions in oil usage. If it has to be done by taxes rather than common sense, oh well, such is life.   CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 TheMasterMechanic (Mechanical) 10 Oct 09 8:06
 One thing that has always burned me is Hybrid Cars. There are small efficient cars that get almost 40mpg. While some hybrids may get 50mpg, they typically cost more. Even if they only cost 5k more, thats allot of gas and by the time you break even, you may have to buy expensive new batteries. The batteries themselves are lithium. I don't believe lithium is a renewable energy source. It has to be mined which has environmental impacts. And what about plug in hybrids? While they reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they don't cut back on co2 since most electricity in this country (US) comes from coal. I think cars with small, four cylinder turbo charged engines that run on cellosic ethanol or low sulfer diesels running on biodiesel are the way we should be headed. I've said for years its not the cars its the fuels.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 10 Oct 09 16:40
 Fifth thread, and someone got out of bed the wrong side.So, somewhere along the line CO2 has gone from being a beneficial component of our atmosphere to a poison. Nonsense.Dihydrous Oxide? yes. YES. And I'd put it up again in a flash.We just ended the last thread with exactly this discussion... a stupid and inane attempt to justify the precautionary principle that said we had just four options, and the smiley face comes with crippling our economy to fix something "just in case" when in fact there are more than four options and most of them bad, and some totally disastrous.That dialogue might as well never have happened because some one who didn't join that discussion has ignored it to tell us again that CO2 is bad and mankind is responsible for destroying the planet.So, do we have to go over it all again? and by the way, I am not the climate scientist here, these threads are about opinions not scientific judgements so what we tend to do is have a "show and tell session" where we bring along bits and pieces we've discovered to discuss. Anyway, Precautionary Principle?If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Don't do things "just in case".Someone (an aircraft manufacturer) said most (80-90% I recall) failures are caused by maintenance. This is one heck of a maintenance project and the negative possibilities are not nice to contemplate. Do we have to say again that CO2 is not a poison. That its role as a Greenhouse gas is minor?DO we have to point at the saturation levels of CO2? i.e. that beyond a certain concentration it has no further temperature effect?This link helps put water vapour and CO2 in perspective.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htmlCO2 lags temperature, we did that, warmer is better, CO2 stimulates plant growth and that means better crops, including biofuels, we did that.So yes, lets call it dihydrogen oxide....because without any justification or discussion we have been lead back to CO2 is a poison and we should do something just in case.Water and CO2: both are beneficial.But water vapour is far more potent as a greenhouse gas and probably does kill more people than CO2 anyday of the week.So dihydrogen oxide is a reminder of that.Oh, and we also recently put up some new work on ocean currents that throws light on the mechanisms of climate that haven't been included in the models, work that shows the AGW signature is missing. We have lost of problems with the temperature data, the temperature proxies, the missing source data that CRU says it has lost and the data processing they won't reveal, in case some on picks holes in it, the problems with the weather stations (www.surfacestations.org) and now some research that questions the validity of the tree ring proxy data. We did this at the end of the last thread, in case you missed it. There is every reason to doubt the veracity of the AGW arguement but on top of that there is even a suggestion that the planet is now cooling and a climate manipulation that assumes warming when we are cooling or cooling when we are warming and which is designed to significantly affect the climate is, frankly, plain stupid. Dangerously stupid.But fine, ignore it all and ust tell us again that CO2 ius bad, man is evil and we should be frightened into a bad choice.This isn't about some sensible degree of reduction, this is about stupidity to the nth degree because what the eco engineers want to do is actively engineer changes in the climate and that is about as stupid and dangerous as it gets.You think I'll sign of on that "just in case"? No way. The precautionary principal I believe in is not fixing things that ain't broke.So who is the straw man here?
 owg (Chemical) 11 Oct 09 8:14
 My wife just brought home an extremely silly book from the local library - Fuel from Water by Michael A. Peavey. The book is undated but claims to be in its 11th edition. It shoots itself in the foot in the first 3 lines. "In this inconceivably enormous universe, we can never run out of energy or matter. But we can all too easily run out of brains." Sir Arthur C. Clarke, 1963. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 ivymike (Mechanical) 11 Oct 09 16:21
 obviously written by zombies - their rate of brain consumption is frighteningly high.
 TPL (Mechanical) 13 Oct 09 2:45
 What happened to global warming?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
 GregLocock (Automotive) 13 Oct 09 5:29
 So even the Beeb now admits that the science isn't "in". CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 13 Oct 09 10:11
Interesting comment on Pres Obama's green attitude.... it isn't only the climate that is said to be cooling but his commitment too.
Christopher Booker reports:

#### Quote:

Just as President Obama was exciting the frustration of the greenies by making his conspicuously commitment-free speech to the UN about global warming, a Bloomberg poll reported that, asked what was the most important issue facing their country today, 46 per cent of Americans replied "the economy".

This was followed by health care (23 per cent), the budget deficit (16 per cent) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (10 per cent). Way at the bottom of the list, on 2 per cent – as Obama is doubtless aware – was "climate change". As he dithers around over Afghanistan and so many other issues, it seems that, now the great campaigner is in office, his slogan has subtly morphed from "Yes we can" to "No we can't".
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6235341/Barack-Obama-is-cooling-on-global-warming.html)

Seems to methat with taht sort of support spending more than a thin dime would be politically risky.
Anyone come across these figures anywhwere else?

 gearguru (Automotive) 13 Oct 09 11:50
 GregLocock (Automotive) 13 Oct 09 21:34
 jmw sure- interest in climate change has dropped by 29% in  the last 2 years in Australiahttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/13/2712203.htm CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 14 Oct 09 5:28
 Interesting article, Greg.The actual survey appears to be about climate change as a foreign policy goal.Concern has slipped.The article postulates all sorts of reasons that weren't tested in the survey. The survey doesn't actually say "loss of interest" but how it ranked as foreign policy.Does it mean people no longer believe in it? Don't see it as something we can do anything about? Think something is being done?Or what?You'd think, given how much commitment most politicians have to climate change and how close their green gurus stick to them, that they'd really want to know the answers.Sometimes, just sometimes, the electors do punish politicians for bad decisions.Of course, politicians leaving office could care less what electors think so long as they are making money... like Blair.So, as long as there is a pile of greens coming their way from "eco" or AGW funding maybe these guys could care less. But if any of these bozos has any intention of a long term political career, and not just the way onto to the gravy train of luncheon speaking, you'd think they'd want to know exactly what people think and why.The downside of term limited presidencies is that the incumbent has nought to lose by adopting duff policies the electors don't agree with - and how bad does a US president have to be to not get his second term?As we have seen in the UK, given the option between repaying expenses and standing down at the next election, quite a few seem to favour hanging on to the cash.I think the real problem is that politicians aren't frightened enough of the electorate.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 14 Oct 09 5:34

#### Quote:

Greens leader Bob Brown does not think Australians are any less keen to tackle climate change than two years ago.

He thinks the Lowy Institute poll shows that most Australians now see the reduction of greenhouse gases as an urgent domestic concern.

Of course, it shows nothing of the sort because it didn't seek to establish that.

If true, then they must be sophisticated people, the Australians. I doubt UK voters would be able to discriminate between it being a foreign policy issue and a domestic policy issue; if asked about climate change at all and with whatever qualifiers, they'll respond about climate change foreign or domestic or not stated.

The survey seems badly constructed (or very cleverly constructed) leaving lots of wriggle room.
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 8:28
 I don't think much on the subject of global warming, as spending much time debating doesn't seem to go beyond the "Ginger or Marianne" level. As an aside, Ginger or Marianne? Too bad the professor isn't around to invent something with coconut shells and spare boat parts. I guess that was my motivation to go into engineering (Ginger or Marianne).I am a big Arthur Clarke fan, and what was quoted is dead on. How else can the Jerry Springer Show and pet rocks be explained?I wonder why we don't hear about killer trees or need to put diapers on cows as their flatulence was supposed to be blsitering a hole in the ozone back in the 70's?Rnewable is great. I've been heating with wood for four years, almost have my land cleared, clear other people's property, and feed the clippings to my animals. That doesn't mean I believe in what I see on TV, it just means I'm painfully cheap.Through the doorWomen come and goSpeaking ofMichelangelo.
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 14 Oct 09 8:57
 jmw said:  "The precautionary principal I believe in is not fixing things that ain't broke."If that's truly your attitude, I quite simply do not want you to design anything that myself or my family members ever come into contact with.  That's not an ad hominem attack- that's a simple assumption that this attitude on your part is not hypocritical and hence extends to the rest of your engineering practice.Risk mitigation is part of engineering.  We no longer find it satisfactory to wait until things blow up a few times to establish causality before we take protective, preventative action.  This is no less true with human effects on the climate than with any other human endeavor.  This is especially true when the preventative, precautionary measures (conserving fossil fuels) are both reversible AND of tremendous secondary benefit.What's comical is that you apply this precautionary principle you apparently loathe to the economy, but not to the environment.  As to the discussion about the differences between water and CO2- I'm done.  Arguments about the size of the natural CO2 flux etc. and continued inaccurate analogies to water that have been made, demonstrate either ignorance or a willingness to put aside a basic knowledge of thermodynamics or physical chemistry in order to justify your position.
 YoungTurk (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 9:46
 Clearly this thread is not a discussion - its a lecture.CO2 concentrations are out of equilibrium due to human emissions.  If you don't believe this look here:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Now answer this - what is the impact of applying a continuously increasing force to a damped oscillating system?BTW, what straw man said CO2 is a poison?What difference does it make that a single researcher won't publicize their algorithms? What does a short term cooling trend tell us about the century time scales we're concerned about?  What proof is there that changing away from a fossil fuel economy will bring hardship and not growth? What does interest in climate change have to do with the science?Nothing. Except that with all these straw arguments you can't see the forest for the tree rings.
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 10:07
 If you can't see the forest, it's because I burned it in my fireplace.Ginger or Marianne?
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 14 Oct 09 10:13
 from your link ... "The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and may not be the same as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface."the data you present doesn't support your assertion.
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 11:19
 This looks like a hole with no bottom. After 40 years of deliberating, I'm going with Marianne.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 14 Oct 09 12:12
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 13:12
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 14 Oct 09 13:24

#### Quote:

Risk mitigation is part of engineering.  We no longer find it satisfactory to wait until things blow up a few times to establish causality before we take protective, preventative action.

It has worked pretty damn well for quite some time.

Fixing things that aren't broken is not good practise.
A major aircraft manufacturer reported that 80-90% of failures were caused by "preventative maintenance" doing things when they didn't need doing.
There is a big move away from preventative or predictive maintenance to Condition Based Monitoring.

For example. Most people change their car engine oil at the recommended intervals whether it needs it or not.
The point at which the oil will actually need changing depends on different conditions, different driving styles etc.

SO the manufacturer plots the mileage interval against quality over a number of vehicles. He gets a normal/bell curve type distribution.
He now has to pick a safe interval at which to recommend an oil change.

This is conservative. Of course it is.
Very few people will actually be at the lifetime limit of their oil when it is changed.

So Condition Based Monitoring means you start to measure oil quality and decide when to replace the oil based on when it needs changing. This extends the interval significantly and saves resources and money.

So now let's look at our system the climate. WE don't know that it is broken. We are not even close to knowing that.

The intervention here is about replacing oil, or simple maintenance, the intervention is to actively intervene in the climate and change it.
This isn't a "maybe we're affecting the climate, maybe we're not" type of intervention, it is an intervention designed to substantially alter the environment. But if we act to cool the climate and it is actually already cooling, then that intervention is damned stupid and dangerous. Similarly if we act to heat it up when it is heating, it is stupid and dangerous.

There isn't a third way that says Heh, if the climate is heating, this will cool it and if it is cooling, this same action will heat it.

Now according to some, the climate is actually in a cooling phase that will continue till around 2030. This is just an interruption of warming, say some warmers... others, no doubt deny it is happening.

So OK, if it is cooling , lets use the grace period to improve the knowledge and science so we can say with some degree of confidence we know what the heck we are talking about.

Please don't pretend that the Smiley face from JosephP's link represents the true situation. It doesn't.
I happen to think there is far more danger in tinkering with high powered machinery we don't know anything about than in leaving well alone.

The trouble is not just that we make achieve the desired effects of intervention but that the law of unintended consequences adds a further worrying dimension to it.
Man's history of intervention in the environment, even (or especially) with he best intentions has a very poor track record and nothing suggests to me that it would be any better with the sort of intervention proposed to correct a problem not everyone agrees is a problem.

Risk mitigation?
The planet's fine, reasonably well adjusted and reasonably well self regulating. Until you can prove absolutely what is happening and that it is harmful, leave the controls well alone.

 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 13:50
 RB1957,You're tight, in my dreams. Since they're my dreams, I say "Marianne and Ginger". Should have thought of that when I was young.
 imcjoek (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 14:30
 After careful review of this thread I have concluded...Jeannie > Marianne > Ginger
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 14:32
 If Jeanie granted you three wishes, would they all be the same?
 YoungTurk (Mechanical) 14 Oct 09 14:39
 rb-The MaunaLoa data is presented first but global average sea level data is given on the same page if you scroll down.  The trend is identical.  There is no doubt that CO2 levels are steadily increasing.What is the effect of this forcing on the climate system?jmw-"...leave the control well alone."  Completely agree.  Step away from the gas pedal.Whats all this talk about "actively intervene"? Is this what you're concerned with?  There is no mainstream support for actively altering the climate.  The question is all about controlling CO2 emissions.
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 14 Oct 09 15:22
 My answer to the other question is "Given it's MY fantasy, I'd prefer Eliza Dushku to either, thanks."
 owg (Chemical) 15 Oct 09 8:01
 Here is a more user friendly shot at the "silly" list. I have serious doubts abut AGW but this train has left the station, is heading down hill, and has no brakes. I suggest that our time would be well spent, assembling and discussing a list of "Strategic Potential", "Role Player Only", and "Questionable" developments. If the "Strategic" list could gain traction, then governments could quietly move resources from the not so hot projects to the strategic projects. Government subsidies are rendering silly projects economic. First let's try to get the table correct. This is my first shot at a table on Eng-Tips so be patient as I try to get it right.   HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 15 Oct 09 9:04
 i think it's a case of TV mimicing real life, but i remember the West Wing episode where they were trying to subsidise renewables.  they had advocates for each flavour of renewable (solar, wind, etc) in the room and all they could agree on was individually each was right and the others were pretenders.  IMHO creating a table of what we think is sensible is pointless.  back to the earlier posts, different regions develop different solutions in part to the local environment (what's available, what's expensive) and of course what's politically acceptable.  you can't say solar is sensible,'cause there are places where it obvoiusly isn't (take the UK as an example).  i guess you can say orbiting SPS are sensible (but who cares).
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 15 Oct 09 9:31
 Young Turk,Let's ignore that CO2 is disputed as a cause of global warming and accept it as true.Even among those who believe we are warming, there are those who believe that even if we do reduce CO2 the effects will be negligible and definitely less effective than if the money were spent on other projects so even if CO2 reduction were effective they'd still argue that environmental engineering is quicker, cheaper and more effective.There are various schemes proposed as able to provide a "quick fix".  One such is to seed the atmosphere with Sulphur oxides.This is a scheme proposed initially by Nobel Prize winning scientist Professor Paul Crutzen from the Max Planck Institute (http://www.livescience.com/environment/060727_inject_sulfur.html) whose ideas has morphed into creating artificial volcanoes (http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/artificial-volcanoes-a-solution-to-global-warming/).This is just one example.There are a variety of such schemes.There is always a risk that any commitment to "doing something" will lead to a desire for a radical "quick fix", especially if more affordable (tax payer tolerable).Whatever solution is proposed and adopted, the question that has to be answered first is, are we cooling or warming? The change in rhetoric from Global Warming to Climate Change to Arupt Climate change appears to admit that both scenarios are possible.The announcement of Global Chilling was co-opted by the AGW camp as meaning that the worst effects of Global Warming were being "masked" by global chilling. So even good news is bad news in their books and the underlying trend is warming. That predisposes them to act against warming.(incidentally, a Google for Global Chilling brings this interesting nugget to the surface: http://dangoldfinch.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/global-chilling-what-is-this/)But we now have a growing body of evidence that we are now in a cooling cycle and will remain so till 2030.Again, this is "just a temporary" respite and Global Warming will return.... well, naturally it will... but will it ever be able to produce the dire consequences predicted for us or will some other cooling cycle moderate it back again.... changes in the ocean currents again?Let us assume that CO2 is a very powerful influence over temperature, as the AGW camp believe, and we act to reduce CO2 sufficiently to correct for all the effects predicted by the warmists... but we are not warming at the time but cooling.. (Of course, the warmers could or most likely will claim this is the best time to act because the effect will be amplified). 20 years of cooling cycle and we are effectively, very effectively if CO2 is as potent as believed, providing added cooling also. This could result in a very poor outcome.  Even if we believe in CO2 and Temperature, though it doesn't matter what measure you apply, applying the wrong corrective at the wrong time could have disastrous consequences.Our best hope is that Warmers reduce CO2 and it has no effect on the climate - when we are cooling. It will cost a lot but do no harm to the planet. It may do a lot of harm to society.Worst case is that the appeal of a quick fix will win out and be applied at the wrong time.
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 15 Oct 09 9:47
 I'll put that down as a vote for the Skipper.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 15 Oct 09 10:06
 i guess the question is are we building windmills and doing the other things (eg hybrids) to reduce petrol consumption or to reduce CO2 emissions ?does the end (whichever) justify the means ?
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 15 Oct 09 10:23
 PS The Washington post article appears to show that S I Rasool used a Hansen program for calculating the effects of aerosols.... It was published in 1971.James Hansen makes his reply here:http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070924_Grandfather.pdfShame he didn't speak up in 1971 about the "misuse" or "misapplication" of his program then. But there isn't any evidence that I've found that he actually believed, at that time,  in a coming ice age.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 15 Oct 09 10:54
 We are looking at converting burners in a coal fired plant to burn sawdust. The wood would come from trees killed from the western pine bark beetle.Yes it would emmit CO2, but it is renewable CO2. And would reduce the usage of coal.We also allow net metering to encurage others to invest in solar. Besides form a utility perspective, solar somewhat follows the load.We also use small hydro for additional renewable energy.These are all small proportions of the total energy demand, but they make people feel good.
 YoungTurk (Mechanical) 15 Oct 09 11:27
 jmw - In one post you went from saying that we shouldn't intervene with cooling/CO2 absorbing schemes (which I agree with) to saying that is would be a bad idea to stop emitting CO2 because we're in a cooling cycle.  Which is it, do you want to intervene or not?  Or am I right in guessing you just like it hot?By the way, the current cooling cycle is a 30 year cycle.  Last ended in 1977 when CO2 levels were lower.  That would put the previous cycle at the turn of the 20th century when C02 levels were pretty close to pre-industrial levels. I don't recall hearing about any need to warm the atmosphere to avert disaster in those decades.http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/a-headline-that-will-make-global-warming-activists-apoplectic/rb - I think the answer to your question is both.  And that underscores that fact that we have more to gain by changing energy sources than we have to lose.
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 15 Oct 09 13:17
 Anyone else feel like these threads do nothing but go around in circles that we have already discussed?  I thought that we were all in agreement that IPCC's reports were falsified by omitting data and applying unproven algorithms to adjust surface temperature readings.As far as having more to gain than loose, I think you missed the cap and trade scheme that Sachs and others are clamoring for.  Cap and trade will cost companies a ton of money and that will all be put on the backs of the consumers.  How does economic collapse sound?
 ewh (Aerospace) 15 Oct 09 13:41
 They only have our best interests at heart! "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 15 Oct 09 14:01
 yep, the "golden rule" in practice ... "those who have the gold, make the rules" that is.
 josephv (Mechanical) 15 Oct 09 21:05
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 6:35
 personnally i'll wait around to see it.i don't think anyone is saying that there isn't climate change happening, wait 5 minutes and it's changed (locally and globally).  the crux of the debate (slagging match) is whether it is due to human effects (and so changable back to what it "should" be) or not ('cause there are other effects/drivers that swamp the human effects).  some people accept the computer models and their experts; others follow the other experts (who say the models are full of "it").
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Oct 09 8:09
 "some people accept the computer models and their experts; others follow the other experts (who say the models are full of "it")."...and some don't care, since reducing fossil fuel consumption is beneficial in either event.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 16 Oct 09 8:26
 The arctic ice cap story is suspect, according to some. There is quite a bit about it on WUWT:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/In "State of Fear" (Michael Crichton's book) it was suggested that just before every climate change conference, something dramatic was needed to boost the message, some great PR attention grabber - and here we have, suspiciously just in time for Copenhagen, the Catlin Survey results broadcast to the eager media. Polar bears are pretty jaded as a attention grabber, not just because they are inconveniently actually growing their population but we have some animal rights activists who are calling for zoo born polar bears to be allowed to die and others asking what's the point of Pandas? if they can't hack it, let them die out....they're a pretty poor excuse for evolution.  What I can't find on the WUWT website is the added comment from an ice specialist that he wouldn't be using the Catlin data, however valuable ground based observations usually are for measuring the snow cover and helping calibrate satellite data, it seems to have disappeared.Hmm.Young Turk, the PDO effect is also discussed here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/daily-mail-joins-bbc-in-writng-about-climate-skepticism/Yes, 30 cycles.... so 1970 warming to around 1998 (the hottest year, and we are now around 10 years into a cooling cycle which will end in 2030 ... seems about reasonable.So in 2030 we'll get the runaway warming claims again until 2070 when they'll admit to having been in a cooling period for a while with 2060 as the hottest recent year.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 8:29
 true enough, some don't care about fuel consumption ...but some separate the two issues and disbelieve the AGW doom-sayers (the contention that the increased CO2 emission is forcing climate change) but still consider that being more efficient with fuel consumption is a good thing.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 16 Oct 09 8:30
 There is this link to another expedition that found the ice thicker than before:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/and so on.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 11:11
 exactly, one report sees daylight (reporting what "people" want reported) and another (inconvenient) doesn't.and yes, there was a 3rd shooter on the "grassy knoll" ... i have pictures (well, copies of pictures a friend took ...)
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Oct 09 11:27
 rb1957 said "true enough, some don't care about fuel consumption ...but some separate the two issues and disbelieve the AGW doom-sayers (the contention that the increased CO2 emission is forcing climate change) but still consider that being more efficient with fuel consumption is a good thing. "Amongst those who claim to support the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, some "care" about the issue, just not enough to spend significant money or to brook any significant inconvenience to deal with it.Others think that there's plenty enough reason to reduce fossil fuel consumption regardless, AND that the threat of AGW is just another justification for what we should be doing anyway.Some feel that reducing fossil fuel consumption is "a good thing", while others feel it is necessary and urgent- and therefore worth doing something COLLECTIVELY about it.Anybody with a brain knows that voluntary individual action on the issue is a drop in the bucket.  While we're fighting market forces which support continued wasting of fossil fuel resources, total consumption will climb.  You're either OK with that particular status quo, or you're not.I'm not.jmw:  in Canada I believe there is no dispute whatsoever that Arctic ocean ice cover is disappearing.  Just ask the Inuit in the Canadian north.  They live there, year-round, and are routinely seeing species now that they've never seen before, as well as having their hunts disrupted by thin sea ice.  So it's not just the polar bears, nor can you put too much faith in one "expedition".
 cranky108 (Electrical) 16 Oct 09 11:49
 Personally I see so much money and fuel being wasted trying to prove Global warming, and so quickly they throw off any other explanation. They also throw off any ideas that don't meet there goal.It's become a religon.Reducing the use of energy/fuel is a good thing. But don't preach to me about it if you aren't willing to walk the walk.By the way, it apperently isen't cost effective for the bus to stop anywhere near my office, or home.The bigest concern is the religon is creeping into our tax system.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 12:02
 mm ..."Some feel that reducing fossil fuel consumption is "a good thing", while others feel it is necessary and urgent- and therefore worth doing something COLLECTIVELY about it."humm, that's where the trouble really starts ... people saying "i know better, i know what's good for you, do this".  and there're plenty of people complaining about our elected officials doing just that.some of us have the nerve to think "no, you don't; you only think you do"
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 16 Oct 09 13:29

#### Quote:

jmw:  in Canada I believe there is no dispute whatsoever that Arctic ocean ice cover is disappearing.  Just ask the Inuit in the Canadian north.  They live there, year-round, and are routinely seeing species now that they've never seen before, as well as having their hunts disrupted by thin sea ice.  So it's not just the polar bears, nor can you put too much faith in one "expedition".

There are two questions, is arctic ice disappearing more or less than corresponding periods? Most of the discussions relate to coverage not thickness.
Secondly, is it normal natural cyclic behaviour or did man cause it?
I'd say there is a dispute about what is seen and how it is interpreted.

A citation or link to an Inuit report would be nice.

There are a number of ongoing techniques for measuring the ice thickness including satellite, radar, laser interferometry and so on.
The Catlin "survey" came back with 39 data points across a shorter 450km(?) route than planned and which depended on bore holes once their radar didn't work.
There own web site admits a bias because it is easier going for the explorers to travel on new (one year) ice which is flatter easier going and preferred for camping.

One survey shouldn't be relied, I quite agree.
And one which collects so little data as this is a case in point so would you please direct your comment to the BBC, the Daily Telegraph Environment Correspondent and a few others who have taken the report and blown it up without doing a sanity check against the various other data sources.

In either case, please note that I have posted links. I am not the scientist here but an interested observer.

 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 16 Oct 09 13:41
 PS the blogs at WUWT include some interesting comments including one from Peter Taylor on the 15th at 3:50:55.Several commented that the released report is not peer reviewed.(Couldn't say bout the other)
 ewh (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 13:54
 Time to throw some more coal on the fire.  According to the recently released German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, available here http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2009_en.html) -"... the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020 -- in other words, quit carbon entirely within ten years."I guess we had better start practising holding our breath! "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Oct 09 14:38
 cranky:  who said I wasn't willing to "walk the walk"?  You don't know me- accusing me of hypocrisy is a bit rich!I've managed to cut my own home's energy consumption by 30%+ and I've reduced my personal transport energy use by about 40%.  Neither were all that high to start with.But what I can do personally isn't the issue, since it amounts to nothing.  One idiot with a Hummer and electric resistance heating cancels me out.The payback period of my capital investments to reduce my energy consumption are so long that they make no (current) economic sense.  Yet YOU benefit from my reduced consumption.While externalities in energy economics continue to exist, your consumption becomes MY business.  All I want is for you to pay as you go, so your choices are NOT my f"ing business- truly.AGW is just one of MANY externalities represented by the current energy economy.rb:  statements like that make me wonder if you have ever objectively looked at the AGW debate.  Rather, you want it PROVEN before you are asked to spend a dime on it. This issue does not afford us that option.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 16 Oct 09 15:17
 moltenmetal, Was I accusing you of hypocrisy? Did I specifically mention your name? (Actually my first thought was Al Gore).What does electric resistance heating have to do with carbon? In the Northwest, most electricity comes from hydroelectric (I think, I don't live there). Is deforrestation really better than electric resistance heating?I've tried to reduce my heating costs, but so far people only want to install solar, but no one want to fix them. So unless things change, in 15 or less years, those stupid things will all be broken and useless.How exactually do I benifit from your reduced usage?And for ideas that you don't want to hear, exactly what color is you roof? Is it white to reflect sun light, or is it a dark color so it gets hot and heats the air.Your right, I don't know you. I am only interested in hearing ideas, and presenting mine. If you want me to change, however, you need to convence me with facts.So show me real facts, or a new point of view. Just don't try to tell me how to run my life.And stay away from my wallet.
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Oct 09 15:37
 Sorry cranky- I took that personally and didn't need to.  Both of us can poke fun at Al Gore's hypocrisy."How exactually do I benifit from your reduced usage?"Since you don't understand that point, my argument is entirely lost on you.As to resistance heating:  the WORST a heat pump can do is the best a resistance heater can do.  And a properly-designed heat pump can do a great deal better.  Consider that most electricity in North America is not generated from hydro- a great deal of it originates from fossil fuels.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 16 Oct 09 17:02
 mm, when the Mann "hockey stick" was IMHO proven to be little more than a fabrication, that was about the time when i thought this is a crock.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 16 Oct 09 18:27
 Heat pumps do work well, except below 32 degrees. At that point most heat pumps use electric resistance heating.I once had a pellet stove, and I loved it. Except we had to import the wood pellets from 250 + miles away.To me this seemed a very carbon frendly technology. The wood was used for something, then converted to wood pellets.However this fact is lost on the green religin people.Also lost is the whole idea that most of the heat comes from the sun. Gee, lets color our roofs black to make it hotter here.So with the greens not looking at alternite ideas, they really can't be that concerned about the globe.
 josephv (Mechanical) 17 Oct 09 17:03
 Global Warming Changing Inuit Lands, Lives, Arctic Expedition Showshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html
 GregLocock (Automotive) 17 Oct 09 19:20
 Not half as big a change in lifestyle as you will see in your lifestyle if the global warming alarmists get their way.Incidentally I saw this rather nice line when discussing whether man should modify his environment "Britain used up entire mountains of coal in the 19th century. That resource is largely exhausted but so what? We got the Industrial Revolution in exchange, something that continues to pay serious dividends." CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 18 Oct 09 6:45
 Thanks for the link JosephP but that's a 2007 report (I get caught like this as well).In the last 2 years arctic ice has been reported as responding to lowered temperatures in its extent and the reduced summer melt.
 owg (Chemical) 18 Oct 09 8:03
 jmw - "last two years" is weather not climate", whichever camp it favours. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 18 Oct 09 8:25
I was being a bit generous before.
Yes, thanks for the link. No problems.

But what did we get?
A scientific survey with raw data?

This is a story by an "explorer" and it is anecdotal and possibly very selective.

It gives some useful indication of changes in the climate experienced by some people but can they be useful in determining AGW?

There is a worrying aspect to this report in that the expedition didn't visit the Inuit, discuss things in general, note some disproportionate emphasis on changes related to warming and then formulate some ideas based on that discovery, ideas that could inform proper scientific research.

#### Quote:

The 1,000-mile (1,600-kilometer) journey was the first in a series of planned expeditions called Global Warming 101 designed to raise awareness of the impacts of climate change in the polar regions.

In other words the expedition was designed to collect information, stories, anecdotes etc that supported a particular pre-conceived idea. They didn't take along any instruments to measure what they expected to find.

This doesn't mean suppressing any information, it just means asking questions that draw out only the information sought.

There is an episode of Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey explains how to make a survey deliver the result you want.
http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html
It is the easiest thing in the world to get the answers you need.

Given the objectives of this expedition it would be very surprising if they didn't find what they wanted, and especially if they chose where to go with some care.

If I wanted to prove the existence of UFOs through anecdotal evidence I could do it by finding and asking the right sort of people (whom I could find on the internet Roswell sites etc.).

#### Quote:

....and more about the remote Inuit population living on the edge of the Arctic.
so note that it wasn't a complete survey of all Inuits with a prepared and tested questionnaire but a selective visit to "the edge of the Arctic"... whatever that means. A well chosen route?
Is there any pretence at gathering information from a true cross section of Inuit?

We don't know.

The article doesn't have a route map, it doesn't show where and when they spoke to people, it doesn't list their exact question and answers at each location.

This isn't to say that in any one fact the report is wrong. It isn't to say that the Arctic wasn't warming - at that time - just that it is rather short of anything that supports any one hypothesis or another.

{quote]But "we have lived in this region for centuries and we will continue to," he added. "As the climate changes, we will adapt." [/quote]
Sensible man.

 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 18 Oct 09 16:38
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 18 Oct 09 16:41
 Sorry, that's Antarctic report... I'll get back to you on the Arctic.
 josephv (Mechanical) 19 Oct 09 8:41
 Satellite survey reveals dramatic Arctic sea-ice thinning"Kwok and colleagues at NASA and the University of Washington, in Seattle, report that Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick, older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record."http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2009-19.html
 owg (Chemical) 20 Oct 09 6:12
 Can someone explain to me the relevance of a short term Arctic Ice study (interesting as it is) to Global Warming, when we are advised that 10 years of global temperature cooling or at least lack of increase is just a normal pause in an upward trend, and that we will need to wait at least 20 more years to determine if this is a climatic change and not just the weather doing its thing. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 owg (Chemical) 20 Oct 09 6:28
 Here is a link to a story which illustrates why we need a list of "silly" projects. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/on-a-cost-basis-carbon-capture
 b2theory (Electrical) 22 Oct 09 18:20

#### Quote (rb1957 ):

mm,
when the Mann "hockey stick" was IMHO proven to be little more than a fabrication, that was about the time when i thought this is a crock.

That highlights the difference between your opinion and reality. While your perception is that it was debunked, the reality is that his experiments have been repeated and yielded similar results. Not that I expect data to change any climate denier's mind but here:

S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205

J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677

Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277

J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253

A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617

As far as solutions being good, silly, or questionable, I would suggest a different metric.

Possible Now:
Nuclear
Geothermal (will be geographically limited)
Coal gasification (supplement Aerospace fuels)

Maybe Possible in the Future
Wind (will be geographically limited)
Solar (Possible in some areas, Production needs to increase by three orders of magnitude in order for it ever to be a significant energy source)
Tidal (where available)

Will Never be Possible:
Bio-fuels
Biomass
*People who suggest either of these have no concept of the scale of our energy consumption. Mathematically, it is impossible for these ever to be a significant energy source. If you want raw numbers I can supply.
Hydrogen (not an actual energy source)
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 22 Oct 09 19:33
 Meanwhile, on the subject of tree rings, that ultra green and fanatical supporter of Anthropogenic Climate Change, the BBC, published this article on tree ring research......http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stmOf course, this is another correlation but it is just that, a correlation, we need a causation, a mechanism to account for it and we are very dubious about tree rings these days. (I wonder, as the Huns destroyed their legions, if the Romans experienced the same doubts about chicken entrails?)
 owg (Chemical) 22 Oct 09 21:23
 b2theory - I like your revised metric. I will recast the list. The one issuez that I am wondering about are coal gasification and scrubbing CO2 from coal fired generator flue gases. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have a presentation on line on the CO2 removal from generator flue gas dated 1991. Perhaps with modern control systems the flue gas will not vary so much as it used to. There is a lot of work and money going into flue gas scrubbing and burial of CO2. I still have not seen an energy balance. Coal gasification I suspect will be a specialized application. Is your reference to aerospace fuels hydrogen? HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 b2theory (Electrical) 22 Oct 09 23:16

#### Quote (owg ):

Is your reference to aerospace fuels hydrogen?

It is more a recognition that there isn't a path to a practical alternative to turbofans and Hydrocarbon fuels. The engines keep getting more and more efficient, and jet fuel is one of the safest way to carry extremely dense energy with you.

If we hope to maintain our travel habits, we will have to accept that we will use hydrocarbon fuels for air travel well beyond the period where oil will be cheap. The military has recognized this. They are rapidly getting every airfame certified to use both syth and biofuels. If I had to choose between the two, I would pick coal based syth fuel and find away to removed the CO2 generated by their use from the atmosphere.

I don't think it would be wise to wait for someone to make a practical electric aircraft. For now and with anything that anyone has even imagined at this point, the energy densities are too low.

 GregLocock (Automotive) 22 Oct 09 23:23
 Agreed, although CNG might make a tolerable fuel for large civilian aircraft, probably in diesels/turboprops. I imagine cruisng speed will drop, there again I've never seen the point of shipping strawberries or RAM at M0.85.  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 b2theory (Electrical) 23 Oct 09 9:15

#### Quote (GregLocock):

Agreed, although CNG might make a tolerable fuel for large civilian aircraft, probably in diesels/turboprops. I imagine cruisng speed will drop, there again I've never seen the point of shipping strawberries or RAM at M0.85.

That is what I expected. Apparently, there is no difference in engine performance. I would not be surprised if you didn't see a major effort, in the coming years, to switch US commercial air transport to these fuels. Decoupling their largest expense from the world oil market could be the only way to save the industry.

 ewh (Aerospace) 23 Oct 09 9:28
 I hate those absolutes... how can you say that bio-fuels will never be possible?  On a large scale perhaps, but if you are off of the grid and don't have huge energy needs, it is indeed possible, as is solar.  In this type of situation, nuclear may well be considered impossible. "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 owg (Chemical) 23 Oct 09 9:38
 Fischer-Tropsch coal based hydrocarbons are an approved blendstock for military jet fuel, and good strategically being a domestic source. Uncoupling from crude oil pricing should be good long term. Negatives include 7 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of liquid hydrocarbon product according to Wikipedia. So CO2 collection, compression, and burial will need to be part of the cost structure. I don't know much about F-P coal but maybe the CO2 is relatively easy to capture. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 b2theory (Electrical) 23 Oct 09 9:59

#### Quote (ewh):

23 Oct 09 9:28
I hate those absolutes... how can you say that bio-fuels will never be possible?  On a large scale perhaps, but if you are off of the grid and don't have huge energy needs, it is indeed possible, as is solar.  In this type of situation, nuclear may well be considered impossible.

I classify bio-fuels as an impossibility because it needs to be reasonably scalable and the amount of available energy needs to be vastly greater to our requirements, even if only in a geographically limited area such as geothermal.

Biofuels are all indirect solar. Compared to photovoltaic, you could say that biofuels are incredibly inefficient but chemically convenient. The Earth's total bio-energy production is only ten times the global energy consumption of humanity. That is to say that the total energy produced through the photosynthetic conversion of solar energy to chemical energy is not vastly greater than our requirements. Keep in mind, our agricultural production is only a sliver of the global crop. Most of that is algae and wild plants.

Your point about the feasibility of moving off grid is indeed true if only a few people do it. However, you cannot divorce the feasibility of energy sources from the fact that everyone needs/wants energy. In this case, they also want to eat.

Nuclear, on the other hand, could conceivably last us well beyond the point that other "hypothesized" sources would have come on line. With reprocessing and non-traditional extraction technologies, nuclear power could last for thousands if not millions of years. I would hope by that point we have solved all problems related to fusion, orbital solar, or some other comic book energy source.

Keep in mind, geothermal is indirect nuclear!
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 23 Oct 09 12:38
 If we do away with (most of) the stationary wasters of fossil fuels by a combination of conservation, renewables with storage, and nuclear, we'll have plenty of options for transportation including for aircraft.  You can do F-T, which makes lovely zero-sulphur diesel and jet fuel, from ANYTHING that has carbon in it- including biomass.  It's just a lossy process-much less lossy than burning the biomass for stationary energy production.I'm with the "withouthotair" guy:  just don't propose an energy mix unless it adds up.  And don't talk about the issue at all unless you're willing to pay for it.
 moltenmetal (Chemical) 23 Oct 09 13:10
 Pushed send on that one too soon:  burning is LESS lossy than making a gas, then a liquid, and THEN burning.  In essence, that is what gasification plus F-T equates to.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 23 Oct 09 18:06
 Why is biomass, which could include several things, always brushed off without consitering the different technologys. They are different and have differering efficienies.I do agree they probally won't be a large percentage of our fuel mix, but they should be consitered for some locations.Wood and woody byproducts is a mature technology used in cogeneration of electricty and steam. And it works well to supply secondary heating for homes, or fireing of boilers.Methane retrieval from land fills reduces a powerful green house gas.Corn ethonol so far just rases the price of corn so the goverment pays less subusities.Making biodiesel from pig and cow fat is less talked about, so I can't comment much.
 b2theory (Electrical) 23 Oct 09 22:57

#### Quote (cranky108 ):

Why is biomass, which could include several things, always brushed off without consitering the different technologys. They are different and have differering efficienies.

I do agree they probally won't be a large percentage of our fuel mix, but they should be consitered for some locations.

They will be considered, where they are a natural choice and extremely cheap. However, as part of a national energy policy they are a complete disaster. I live in a major ethanol state. Even the people who are(were) profiting from it know that it is nothing more than another farm subsidy.

To use, on the order of, 50 percent of our crop land to provide less than half of our transportation fuel is not sustainable, period. Additionally, there is going to be a big reckoning coming to the US in the coming years pertaining to our incredible water consumption. Unless massive desalination projects are undertaken, we simply won't have the water.

It would be better to take the $5 Billion plus we spend annually subsidizing Ethanol production and buy 5000 MW of photovoltaics, which are 10 to 100 times more efficient with the suns energy than biofuels.  owg (Chemical) 24 Oct 09 7:58  Speaking of biomass Cranky108 wrote "I do agree they probably won't be a large percentage of our fuel mix, but they should be considered for some locations."That is exactly the trap. They get big subsidies for for some locations based on the expectation that they will get better and not need subsidies in the future. BUT THEY ONLY WORK IN SOME LOCATIONS. So they only provide a little bit of energy and never achieve the economies of scale that are necessary to get better. Canada and Alberta just committed about$900 million to scrub CO2 out of a coal plant stack and pump it underground in the neighbourhood. But it only works for power plants near underground space where there used to be oil or gas. It also does not work for oil sands with their multiple sources of CO2. We are heading towards lots of CO2 pipelines with a few breaks and clouds of suffocating CO2 lying around. Sorry I got carried away there.    HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 24 Oct 09 9:00
 When did CO2 go from this wonderful gas that plants NEED to survive to this gas that is as deadly as chlorine gas and will end the world?
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 24 Oct 09 9:23
Time to eat the dog!.

#### Quote:

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog

Well, that's a tough choice, isn't it, the dog or the car?
 b2theory (Electrical) 24 Oct 09 15:05

#### Quote (NomLaser ):

When did CO2 go from this wonderful gas that plants NEED to survive to this gas that is as deadly as chlorine gas and will end the world?

When we almost doubled the amount of it in the atmosphere. I know that is a bit terse. It isn't a poison, we just need to find a way to reach a new equilibrium and understand what it means to our long term climate situation. On the up side, we probably interrupted the glaciation cycle!

There is also an underlining energy supply issue here, which I feel is far far more disastrous then climate change. The era of cheap oil is winding down due in part to production issues and in a large way to increased consumption in developing countries. More people are chasing the same barrel of oil. Additionally, fossil fuels are simply to valuable to burn. They have enabled an agricultural revolution and the feedstock of our chemical/materials industries. We can create other energy systems. However, synthesizing replacements for non-fuel uses will be very difficult.

 GregLocock (Automotive) 24 Oct 09 19:00
 "However, synthesizing replacements for non-fuel uses will be very difficult. "Which non-fuel uses are you thinking of?  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 24 Oct 09 21:14
 So exactly why are we subsidizing any of the alternative technologys? And at the same time the oil, gas and coal are heavly taxed, and they are proposing more taxes.At what point is the tax enough, and the subsidizies to much?Also notice that nucular is also heavly taxed, although it could solve many more problems than solar and wind ever can.
 josephv (Mechanical) 24 Oct 09 21:51
 G20 agrees to phase out fossil fuel subsidies: drafthttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=g20-agrees-to-phase-out-fSo if fossil fuels are not subsidized then the oil companies will not mind having these imaginary subsidies removed?
 b2theory (Electrical) 25 Oct 09 12:27
 GregLocock Which non-fuel uses are you thinking of?The first ones that come to mind are fertilizers and plastics.
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 25 Oct 09 17:57
 BTW, we haven't doubled the atmosphere's CO2 levels.  From 1884 to now it has went from 0.0284% to 0.0384% in 2007.  That's less than 1/2% of the atmosphere is CO2, even a small fraction of that CO2 is actually anthropogenic.  Do you realize how ridiculous man-made warming sounds when you put it in actual percentages of the atmosphere that CO2 composes?
 GregLocock (Automotive) 25 Oct 09 18:20
 "The first ones that come to mind are fertilizers and plastics.  "For fertilisers isn't the oil being used as a source of hydrogen?The ubiquity of plastics is just another symptom that the price of oil is too low. In both case coal+water would be a rather grungey but widely available feedstock.  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 25 Oct 09 19:50
 Aren't plastics also made from coal?I believe most lubricants are presently made from oil. Also mineral oil which is used as an electrical di-electric/coolant.What ever happened to the clorniated compounts that were suposely caused a hole in the ozone. We quit using them, the UN never pushed the issue, and we still have a hole in the ozone?
 GregLocock (Automotive) 25 Oct 09 20:24
 The Ozone hole appears to be getting smaller. Whether that is due to the various actions that were put in place I don't know. There is an interesting conspiracy theory to do with expiring patents on all that.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/16/2092527.htm  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 b2theory (Electrical) 26 Oct 09 8:00

#### Quote (NomLaser):

BTW, we haven't doubled the atmosphere's CO2 levels.  From 1884 to now it has went from 0.0284% to 0.0384% in 2007.  That's less than 1/2% of the atmosphere is CO2, even a small fraction of that CO2 is actually anthropogenic.  Do you realize how ridiculous man-made warming sounds when you put it in actual percentages of the atmosphere that CO2 composes?

Careful, we now account for 5 percent of annual CO2 emissions. That is not an insignificant number. Those percentages sound small until you consider that .0384 percent accounts for at least ten degrees of radiative warming on this planet. Also, we account for nearly 100 percent of that increase if I understand the research correctly. However, since this is a closed loop I am not sure we have a handle on where we are going to end up. Our excess emissions are integrative. Yet, it won't keep increasing the amount of CO2 forever even at our current rates. It will simply settle at a new equilibrium. I also remember something about our land use effecting the sink process. Does anyone have any data on this?

You are right about the doubling comment. I keep getting a head of myself on that one. The projections have China's explosive increase in coal driving us 550 ppm significantly faster.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 26 Oct 09 9:10
 So how much has the planting, or protection of forrests reduced the increase of CO2?Any numbers?If I recall that was the sticking point with the last climate treaty.And could you consiter wood furniture as a carbon capture stratigy? (At least it provides more jobs, vs plastic and steel).
 owg (Chemical) 26 Oct 09 14:32
 cranky108 - Good question on wood furniture. I suppose as long as it was chopped, whittled, and pegged, it would count as a positive capture. The opportunities for global warming to take us back a couple of hundred years are manifold. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 owg (Chemical) 28 Oct 09 15:45
 As I posted earlier this month, if we have to spend lots of money dealing with global warming, let us spend it wisely, so that if there is no impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate, we will still have made good decisions. With lots of help from various contributors our list of sensible ways to provide enough energy to limit and perhaps reverse global warming, in my opinion, has reduced to three.Conservation efforts like insulation and mass transit just make sense. Nuclear could see us through until the uranium runs out. Coal gasification with CO2 capture could keep the USAF in the air, and possibly evolve to be a big part of a solution.The rest are at best, bit players, and at worst a tremendous waste of resource. Their main role is to route government funds to marginal constituencies. These bit players include, again in my opinion, geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, and good old bio- just about anything.    HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 owg (Chemical) 28 Oct 09 16:14
 I note that today is Climate Fools Day, Oct 28, 2009. See http://climatefoolsday.com HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca http://climatefoolsday.com/
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 28 Oct 09 18:01
 nice idea, but the comon ground is very small.take CO2 scrubbers ... a complete waste of time, money IMHO, but no doubt well worth it if you want to reduce CO2.take hybrids (please, take them for a long drive off a short pier) ... of course they get 60 mpg 'cause they obtain a significant amount of their energy from the grid ... possibly worthwhile if you're trying to reduce consumption (waste of time IMHO, though i like the idea of regenerative brakes).that leaves improving efficiency, which i think is a good thing, but i'm willing to bet that others will think it's not enough, that consumption and emission will carry on regardless (as i expect they will).then there's carbon trading ... what a way to scam money from folks.  i tell ya, someone's getting rich out of this and it ain't me (i'm not smart enough).off soapbox ...
 KENAT (Mechanical) 28 Oct 09 18:38
 RB1957, you mean plug in hybrids? Current run of the mill hybrids don't get any energy from the Grid unless I'm missing something, do they?However, I agree with the sentiment of concentrating effort in areas that are of some kind of beneffit even if it turns out the human role in climate change is very limited.For instance, things that reduce known pollutants other than CO2 (you'll excuse my imlication that CO2 is a pollutant), or that have other environmental benefits such as less mining/resource extraction in arguably 'vulnerable areas', or improve balance of payments/energy freedom or whatever you choose to call it. Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
 GregLocock (Automotive) 28 Oct 09 18:47
 RB1957 is confusing PHEVs and HEVs (ie Prius and such, where the battery is too small to be worth charging overnight). I think reducing oil usage is probably a good idea, but the way the world works all that does at the moment is to reduce the price of oil, rather than reduce the usage.  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 28 Oct 09 20:44
 Consiter this, electric cars would bring the auto repair people to a new place. 1. Because they would have to be retrained. 2. Because they would not be as difficult to work on.1. problem. 2. good for consumers.This has no bearing on what I think of GW, but more about the problems I'm having with my car.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 29 Oct 09 6:08
 i accept i don't know much about hybrids.  i was thinking of prius type cars.  i know they only use their petrol motor occassionally, so are basically electrically powered; thought they plugged in to recharge.  though they can recover some energy with regenerative braking (i wasn't sure they used this tech.)guess i'm off to the toyota site to learn about hybrids.cranky, hear your pain brother ... last week the wife (bless here cheery heart, she'll never read this) did in the volvo front end, last night it was the 3rd car's transmission; sigh.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 29 Oct 09 8:55
 In my case it sounds like the transmission has a problem (3rd in 2 years).However, if it was the engine, I'm not sure I can find it through all the smog stuff.And would't it be nice if the computer would tell us the owner what is wrong.And just maybe that's the whole irritating issue with GW, that we are being talked down to, and not lissened to. We aren't stupid, although the "name a group" treats us like we are. (come to think of it, that's why I changed jobs).
 KENAT (Mechanical) 29 Oct 09 9:09
 rb1957, off the shelf Prius (or any other current hybrid I'm aware of) doesn't plug in.  The efficency gains are primarily from the regenerative breaking.I wonder how many other people have this or similar confusion and how it further muddies the water. Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
 owg (Chemical) 3 Nov 09 12:16
 "At present, the Danish government has allocated approx. US$62 million on the government budget to COP (Convention on Climate Change) activities, but it is possible that the final amount will exceed this figure." "When 192 countries meet in Copenhagen next month, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns it won't result in a Kyoto successor."So we will spend a lot of money avoiding a climate change agreement. Is this good news or bad news? HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca  rb1957 (Aerospace) 3 Nov 09 12:35  and that's only the very tip of the iceberg ... think of how much the other 191 countries are spending on this boon-doddle, all on the backs of us tax-payers !  moltenmetal (Chemical) 3 Nov 09 13:48  owg: that's peanuts: we spent$100 million in the '90s to  NOT site a landfill in Metro Toronto!
 cranky108 (Electrical) 3 Nov 09 14:03
 And how much were the utility companys in the US forced to spend for a nucular depository? And when will it be open?Many of the problems are caused because people have ideas, but don't become involved until the last moment. This increases costs and wastes time on many projects, and kills some outright.So if we sign this climate treaty, and China dosen't, how is that going to reduce anything? It simply makes buying from China cheeper, while reducing jobs here. They get richer, we get poorer, and no reduction result.
 josephv (Mechanical) 3 Nov 09 22:44
 In North America we pollute more per capita than China (in GHG emissions for example).If am not mistaken we also use more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world.So as the biggest polluter and energy consumer per capita in the world we should be in the table of any international treaty.
 Zapster (Electrical) 4 Nov 09 1:37
 josephv, you are mistaken.
 josephv (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 11:41
 don't think so, ZapsterEnergy consumption per capita, Canada is first, US second... China is relatively lowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_consumption_versus_GDP.pngChina is first in CO2 emissions and US a close second, but when you look at per capita US is firsthttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.htmlIt is rich of us to go to China and complain when we are worse.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 4 Nov 09 12:09
 IMHO it's a fact of life, higher standard of living = higher energy consumption.  of course there are other factors too ... extreme climate (colder, maybe hotter but then it's more of a comfort thing).  and of course efficiency/conservation; yeah i know already, you Europeans are sooo efficient and conservation-minded (sorry).
 Zapster (Electrical) 4 Nov 09 12:09
 Josephv, you are mistaken on several accounts.  Carefully read your links and what you stated.  Do you know the difference between GDP and per capita?  There are many countries with higher energy usage and pollution generated per capita than the United States (yes, even GHG which I consider to be an exaggerated problem).
 cranky108 (Electrical) 4 Nov 09 13:23
 In many ways we do consume more energy because of location (lets move South and save).We also consume more energy and water because of life style (we bathe every day).We also treat our waste water, which increases energy usage (verses dumping in a stream).We also capture soot from power plants and factories (so our we have less smog, but increases energy usage).We also don't use as much nuclear as other countries (wich requires us to use more coal).We use emmission controls on our cars (which means we get less gas milage, but cleaner exast).We use GFCI devices because of safety, despite the energy they use.We have more safety devices in our cars, despite the increased weight.So yea, we use more energy. Some of it necessary, and some of it required.
 ewh (Aerospace) 4 Nov 09 15:23
 Gore admits CO2 not as evil as supposed.http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/ "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 16:45
 What that's really telling us is that no one really has any idea how much CO2 is contributing to the warming vs water vapor, methane or any of the other million factors that could actually be causing it.  In another decade we will be told that it isn't CO2 causing it at all and it's something else man-made.  Then another decade it will move on to another and another until someone gathers enough data to say that it's Sol that's really causing it.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 4 Nov 09 18:25
 In one interview Al Gore admited he wasen't planning to become a vegetaren, despite the fact it would reduce his carbon footprint.The thinking of "your rules, and my rules" needs to stop. If he wants to meet his goal he needs to lead by example (which is probally why he wasen't elected).
 apsix (Structural) 4 Nov 09 18:42
 ZapsterPerhaps you can explain why the US isn't shown to be the 2nd highest user of energy and CO2 emitter per capita by the links posted by josephv, as it's not clear to me.
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 19:09
 Biased perhaps?  One is posted on Wiki with no source data and the other is on a global warming website, go figure.
 apsix (Structural) 4 Nov 09 19:42
 That's another issue.Zapster is claiming that the posted links show information that is not apparent to josephv and me.
 josephv (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 22:09
 Zapster, please have a look at this list. US consumes more energy than China per capita, far more. Yes Canada consumes more energy than the US per capita and so does Qatar and a few other countries. They all should participate in international talks.If you still disagree, I'll gladly look at information that you have that backs your point of view.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capitaNow, what prevents China from saying, we too want to have a standard of living like Canada and the US? Are you in favour of this and the consequences that this brings (e.g. more pollution, resource depletion, higher cost of energy etc.)? Or are you in favour of us joining China in the negotiating table?
 josephv (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 22:27
 Nomlaser, "One is posted on Wiki with no source data"Not true...Below the graph it says, "Graph was produced from data in the 2006 Key World Energy Statistics from the International Energy Agency."Nomlaser, "and the other is on a global warming website, go figure."Show me some information that contradicts this data, because  simply saying is wrong and not backing it up is not engineering.
 josephv (Mechanical) 4 Nov 09 23:18
 Zapster, pls look at the first chart again, and this time look at the X axis which shows kW/capita. The US and Canada are further to the right (i.e. use more energy per capita) than China, Russia, Brazil, UK, Japan... the Y axis GDP per capita is not even part of this discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_consumption_versus_GDP.png
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 5 Nov 09 3:54
 I like the way dissenters are often accused of being in the pay of "Big Oil" (Moonbat is good at this) but one of the links suggests that far from being simply altruistic, Al Gore, who in february removed a slide from his presentation and may now have to modify a couple more, is set to become the first carbon billionaire. This first came from a NY Times article but can be found also by a google search so take your pick of sources.
 owg (Chemical) 5 Nov 09 15:06
 Surely, in the Global Warming context, kW per head is less important than the number of heads. The fundamental problem is too many people. HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 cranky108 (Electrical) 5 Nov 09 15:50
 Too many people? Who do you suggest we get rid of?Has anyone noticed that educated people have fewer children. So educate the poor, and your problem should be solved, in 20 to 50 years.
 owg (Chemical) 5 Nov 09 16:48
 Sorry cranky108, I was referring to seats at the table as referenced in the recent post by josephv. "So as the biggest polluter and energy consumer per capita in the world we should be at the table of any international treaty." HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
 cranky108 (Electrical) 5 Nov 09 22:05
 What if we don't believe in GW? Or we believe we already spend to much on it?Why do we need to sign the treaty?Would it not be easer to stop funding the UN and tell all those people to quit flying to New York?Would it not be easer to built more nucular plants?Many of us don't want another tax increase that this treaty brings. To say nothing about our loss of freedom.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 6 Nov 09 7:51
 The worrying bit is claims that the legislators plan to depart from the usual treaty procedures and create an organisation with the power to enforce any agreement.Under conventional MEAs (Multilateral environmental agreements) or any treaty, enforcement is by the individual signatory nations within their own territory. The implications of this are that a global authority would enforce the treaty in the "subject nations"This is very bad.It is also a means to impose a more rigorous set of regulations because it means they can overcome some of the need for a mutually acceptable agreement. It is also at risk of becoming an EU type non-democratic global government.
 ewh (Aerospace) 6 Nov 09 9:32
 Similar to WHO recomendations, which are actually mandates that member states must follow.I apologize for being off-topic, but how many are aware that this "pandemic" we are now experiencing is only a pandemic because the WHO changed the wording of the definition?  A health issue does not have to be fatal to be a pandemic anymore. "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 6 Nov 09 11:14
 The Arctic sea ice position appears to be changing and the earlier panics as coverage dropped are now compensated for as coverage has increased again... both short term anomalies it appears and the overall trend is for increased coverage over this part of the natural cycle.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/interesting-analysis-of-iarc-jaxa-arctic-sea-ice-data/
 csd72 (Structural) 8 Nov 09 7:54
 Look at Qatar, over twice that of the US!
 GregLocock (Automotive) 8 Nov 09 18:17
 East coats of Australia.Average annual sea level change since last ice age 12mm paIPCC prediction for next century 6mm pa (oh woe is us)Actual measurement for last decade 2 mm pa  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 rb1957 (Aerospace) 9 Nov 09 12:55
 greg,maybe you need some "rain coats" ... your typo !
 mauricestoker (Mechanical) 9 Nov 09 14:16
 If educated people stop having children, we won't have to worry about global warming. The movie "Idiocracy" covers the matter quite thoroughly.
 cranky108 (Electrical) 9 Nov 09 14:55
 I honestly don't think all educated peoples children are the problems. But it could be the schools (University's) that these children attend.Those of us who don't make the big bucks, send our children to more reasonable schools.
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 11 Nov 09 7:55
 I am beginning to get a bit concerned. Not about warming, or "abrupt change" or athropogenic CO2, but about solar activity, or rather, the lack of confirmed science and the difficulties of prediction.It seems we are in SC24 and the scientists were finding it hard to predict when it would bottom out.Now if you believe in Anthropogenic Global warming and that CO2 is a killer, this won't concern you, but if you think there might just be a chance that the sun has something to do with the earths climate maybe you ought to worry a little bit too.It appears the last solar cycle (SC23) was pretty near average but that SC24 was thought, like Moby Dick, to be going to sound deep and long. As deep as cycles SC15 and SC17. However, the duration is somewhat uncertain. It was projected as going to be longer and now some say it will be the shortest ever.The scientists don't know how to predict this cycle.It appears they don't actually know for sure when it started or if we have passed the peak or not, nor when it will end. But it has been well below max. None the less there has been a past correlation between sunspot activity and climate, if no casual link.So if that correlation holds good, we are in a cooling period but don't know how long or how severe it will be.Short and sharp? long and sharp? A maunder minimum was being projected as a possible outcome. Wow! uncertainty in forecasting and the different models and prediction methods show the usual uncertainties of prediction but it seems that SC24 is being a bit of a pig to predict. I hope that isn't a portent.If, as some scientists (Prof. Henrik Svensmark: effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation) theorise, there is a causal link between solar particles and cloud formation and between cloud formation and the POD currents (which have recently changed over and for which some scientists point out a "coincidence" of a possible link between the Pacific Ocean Decadal currents and solar activity) then we could be in for a fairly cold spell, more cold than usual perhaps  and maybe not just the 10-20years the AGW camp are allowing as a temporary respite from AGW.As I have suggested (and others too), we'll look right Charlies shivering away with all our money invested in wind farms and carbon sequestration and cap and trade but with not two pennies to pay toward some heating or food, which will be in short supply; how short dependent on how cold and how much food production has been given over to biodiesel production.On the other hand, if we get a really cold spell, it will probably cure our over-population problem. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/janssens_sc24uraniawebeng.pdfThese guys think (Nov 2009) very short: http://psc.suijs.info/sc24predict1.htmThe Jannsens is an October 2009 paper and the predictions are discussed here:http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.htmlNow I have to say that fundamentally, despite there being no causal relationship established, I personally suspect (and I only say this to declare my own opinion, I am not reporting fact or other people's opinions) there has to be some kind of link between that great big orange thing in the sky that just happens to always seem to be there when I feel warm and not there when I feel colder. I've noticed this especially as part of the day night cycles and I tend to suspect some kind of link between warm summers when it is there for longer in each day and colder winters when its not. I've also noted the effect of clouds on how warm I feel. So I kind of suspect that if it has this pronounced an influence over day to day weather, maybe, just maybe there is some kind of link between the Sun and climate.But maybe this sort of thinking is some kind of hang over to pagan religious thing? to Ra and Egypt even?
 ewh (Aerospace) 11 Nov 09 10:08
 Take it with a grain of salt, but for a lesson about the sun and earth's magnetosphere, sunspots and 2012, this is an interesting read:  http://www.halfpasthuman.com/RadioSpecial.html "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 GregLocock (Automotive) 11 Nov 09 20:20
 Interesting news about the negative feedback loop for atmospheric CO2. http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.htmlNote the funny spin he's had to put on it to preserve heterodoxy.Here's an analysis, commentary, and some of the data (nice graph!)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/  CheersGreg LocockSIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 KENAT (Mechanical) 7 Dec 09 15:46
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34311724/ns/us_news-environmentAGW must be real, EPA says so. Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
 NomLaser (Mechanical) 8 Dec 09 20:58
 Kenat, CEI already filed a lawsuit before the end of the day on Dec 7, same day that EPA's announcement.Try this on for size.  Not sure if I should post it here or the other thread.  Both have headed down the same path.The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zerohttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
 jmw (Industrial) (OP) 31 Dec 09 8:46

#### Quote:

[4]. Thus, the IPCC concludes that what man has caused, man can now remedy. That
misconception is a greater danger to us than the illusion of anthropogenic global
warming. Were it not for these remedies, whether warming was anthropogenic or
natural, it would be purely academic. It is not.
This is from a paper here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
Also interesting is a paper on planetary resonance here:
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
Not to be confused with "The Jupiter Effect", what this does is demonstrate a set of correlations between solar activity and planetary resonance. This is of interest as is suggests a link between solar activity and planentary movements which could help us measure solar cycles more accurately that trying to guess when a new sunspot cycle is thought to begin and end, a somewhat arbitrary decision at the moment.

Sun spot cycles correlate very well with climate (Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age etc)and we have other strong correlations such as that between aurora activity and the Nile flooding - the Nile records are apparently very robust throughout the Egyptian era but the correlation comes from an 850 year sequence when there were also robust records of aurora activity.

The import of these empiracal data sets is that we ought to suspect a solar contribution to climate that goes beyond just the variation in irradiance, if irradiance does contribute enough to cliamte to be significant something else must be happening. The work at CERN (the cloud chamber experiment) suggests a mechanism that links with cloud formations and we do know water is one of the most significant greenhouse agents.

OK, so we really need to understand the mechanisms before we can say for sure. But if there is a strong correlation between climate and various types f solar activity we have to believe it isn't man influencing the solar activity, it just has to be the other way.

The case for anthropogenic warming is far too suspect for me and I'd like to see more weight given to solar research.
I'd also like to see the IPCC remit changed from

#### Quote:

IPCC operates under a myopic mandate to assess "the risk of human-induced
climate change"
to something more realistic; I mean, with that remit we can hardly expect anything better from them but if their remit was to "investigate climate change" then we might have gained more sense from them.

 ewh (Aerospace) 31 Dec 09 12:12
 That, or they may find that man is actually affecting solar cycles.   "Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter

Close Box

# Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!