An engineering solution to climate change?

[ruffrecords]

Of course we know. A few obvious points: We can look at our planet as well as at other planets in the solar system, measure the composition of their atmospheres and calculate the thermodynamic effects. We can also look at the historical record, analyze human activity and find a glaring correlation between an unprecedented CO2 rise and humans setting carbon free.

Of course there is an apparent correlation if you look in a superficial way. But if you look in more depth, as I have explained before, you will also know that there is a huge annual exchange of CO2 between a number of large sources and sinks. Minor differences in these can easily outweigh the tiny amount of CO2 that humans pump into the atmosphere. Our understanding of these sinks and sources is to say the least basic, and until we understand these better it is not possible to say what causes the observed increase in atmosphere CO2.

A massive cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to explain away the mountain of evidence and avoid the only logical conclusion.

No some basic undestanding of the underlying mechanisms is required - see my earlier posts in this htread.

Please ask yourself WHY you are so opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Hint: It has usually nothing to do with science.

I am not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to bad science.

Cheers

Ian

 

[boji]

I can accept that the climate is changing, but isn't it strange that public discussion whether (or to which degree) this is caused by humans are not allowed to be held ?

You know what's worse that that?  Knowing which side a person is on concerning climate research is highly, highly likely to also tell you their political persuasion.

This alone should indicate there's some bad confirmation bias being applied to data regardless of who's right about GW/CR.

Edit: I still love you RR, however I think history will be unkind to those who implied we could proceed without caution. I see it as a high stakes game that benefits big oil at the potential expense of human suffering.

 

[boji]

Also sorry for stoking the fire. I just wanted to put out more information. I didn't think it was outright drivel tho.

 

[cyrano]

When it comes to CO2 and some other gases, the melting of the permafrost will be our primary problem. All the rest is dwarfed by the amount of toxins that are being held. Like mercury.

And very recent research has shown forests to be airing a lot of carbon and producing far less oxygen than previously had been assumed. Can't find the source atm. If I find it, I'll post it.

Seems we need to look at the oceans...

 

[Matador]

I'll bring up this analogy again, because I think it's a good one.

Nobody knows exactly why cigarettes cause cancer.  There are many likely candidates: carcinogens destroying cells and causing genetic mutations...the presence of specific compounds which trigger uncontrolled dividing...many reasons that seem plausible, even likely.  Nobody can predict with any certainty which individual smokers will get lung cancer.  Some smokers can smoke a pack a day for 50 years and die of old age.  Some get lung cancer having never smoked at all.

However for a sufficiently large group, very accurate predictions can be made.  Computer models have been developed which can accurately predict cancer,  emphysema, and heart disease rates per capita in different countries  with astonishing precision.  Models can accurately predict the percentage of smokers suffering from these diseases as a function of the total number of smokers, even going back in the past.

Nobody argues anymore that smoking isn't detrimental to the health, despite the fact that we can't explain the underlying mechanism with 100% certainty.  Nobody decries studies of the disease rates amongst smokers as bunk or flying in the face of the scientific method.  Nobody says its ok to just keep smoking because the underlying mechanisms are unknown (although if you go back to the 50's, one does see a large business-centric campaign of misinformation on the part of cigarette manufacturers).

Climate modeling is similarly sophisticated (and I would argue it is far more so):  modern models can combine hundreds of distinct, measurable factors, and using stochastic modelling can predict global temperatures in a region-accurate way with a high degree of precision.  Rewinding these models through the past several million years can predict aggregate climate that agrees closely with the fossil record.  Projecting these models into the future reveals dire predictions for sea-level rise, large changes in habitats and farmable land, major change to sea-adjacent infrastructure, etc.  The models don't vote Republican or Democrat.

There is also very little credible argument that climate modeling isn't sound science, as the basis of the scientific method is experimentation, observation, and formulation of a hypothesis that gives a predictable, verifiable outcome, and climate modeling has passed all of those tests.  Because a climate model can't predict the exact temperature in your home town in two weeks (or two years) doesn't mean it's bunk or invalid, when it can very accurately predict macro-effects of the entire northern hemisphere.

I also noted here before that the Ebers-Moll model of the BJT bears only a passing resemblance to the underlying physics of doped semiconductors (it's a compromise between a first order and second order transistor model), but it's allowed countless DIY'ers to make very accurate predictions about how a BJT will function in-circuit by using SPICE.  Nobody argues that the model isn't science, or that it can't be used because it isn't a perfect reproduction of the 7th order underlying physics constructs, or because there's that one oscillator that doesn't start in SPICE but works fine on the bench.   

Because something has uncertainty doesn't mean the information can't be used to make accurate predictions.  The GPS receiver in your car can have horrendous errors due to multi-path reflections, blocking of satellites in the sky, imprecision in sensor measurements of the cars motion, etc, but it can still place you on a road most of the time, and nobody refuses to utilize GPS because the uncertainty can be high in the raw data.

 

[living sounds]

Mirror mirror
Please ask yourself WHY you are so suppotive to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. science.

Hint : Do I  implicitly believe everything I am told by my peers through  my life from cradle to grave. ?
Quote
Well, since the data we have overwhelmingly leads to a conclusion of anthropogenic climate change.

Who is the WE ?

You only know what you seem to have been told.

Again, it's the evidence. I am not a believing kind of person, but  obviously I am not free of biases. I actually know not to argue with true belivers, so let's leave it here.

 

[s2udio]

40 years of media climate predictions.......same old song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPGK6pNO0Qw
As a child of the late 50s, I remember newspaper stories/ parent discusions,in the 60s, telling the same tale of woe.
cui bono?

 

[dmp]

The real shame is that transitioning to renewable  energy is possible, will be a great technological accomplishment, and is fully realizable with what we know now - if only the corrupt politicians (and conspiracy theorists) get out of the way.  Solar energy generation, a smart grid, and electric cars. The really great thing about decentralized solar energy production technology is it can quickly spread around the world to eliminate pollution globally.  In no way is fossil fuel energy better, other than it being the status quo.

We already played out this same scenario of regulating and eliminating other forms of pollution and there were always critics.
The worst is people who figure they'll be dead before it gets really bad, so they don't give a sh*t and oppose change for the sake of opposing change.  Like subsidizing burning coal, which is already economically unviable compared to solar.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 

[ruffrecords]

Again, it's the evidence. I am not a believing kind of person, but  obviously I am not free of biases. I actually know not to argue with true belivers, so let's leave it here.

Your main point seems to be that there is overwhelming evidence of AGW. Where can I find this evidence?

Cheers

ian

 

[desol]

Your main point seems to be that there is overwhelming evidence of AGW. Where can I find this evidence?

Cheers

ian

"The Role Of Human Activity

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

[dmp]

Your main point seems to be that there is overwhelming evidence of AGW. Where can I find this evidence?

Cheers

ian

Of course there is an apparent correlation if you look in a superficial way. But if you look in more depth, as I have explained before, you will also know that there is a huge annual exchange of CO2 between a number of large sources and sinks. Minor differences in these can easily outweigh the tiny amount of CO2 that humans pump into the atmosphere. Our understanding of these sinks and sources is to say the least basic, and until we understand these better it is not possible to say what causes the observed increase in atmosphere CO2.

Wasn't there a thread where you posted the numbers and it was quickly apparent that the amount of CO2 being put into the environment by humans was clearly significant in comparison to the other numbers? It is not tiny.
My take is  to acknowledge, yes, there isn't a control group to run an experiment to conclusively show the effect of human CO2 on temperature variations
But the atmospheric CO2 concentration can be shown to correlate with higher global temps (from geological records), CO2 has a 'greenhouse effect', and humans are converting CO2 from the stored term (fossil fuels) to a significant amount of atmospheric CO2.  Reason enough to let technology run and transition to a solar powered electrical grid.

 

[ruffrecords]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Maybe not 99%, but well over 90%

The opening lines of that article are:

"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."

Of course they say that, they want the gravy train provided them by politicians (anxious to divert attention from real problems) to continue funding them. The same way alarmists accuse oil companies of funding research that undermines their point of view.

I could go on but I know I am flogging a dead horse. Only our grandchildren will know which of use was right.

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Wasn't there a thread where you posted the numbers and it was quickly apparent that the amount of CO2 being put into the environment by humans was clearly significant in comparison to the other numbers? It is not tiny.

No, those figures showed the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by humans is insignificant.

My take is  to acknowledge, yes, there isn't a control group to run an experiment to conclusively show the effect of human CO2 on temperature variations
But the atmospheric CO2 concentration can be shown to correlate with higher global temps (from geological records),

Atmospheric CO2 levels do correlate with global temps from geological records. However, the geological records show that CO2 changes tend to happen around 600 years after the event the initiated them. In other words, the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is an effect not a cause of changing temperatures.

CO2 has a 'greenhouse effect', and humans are converting CO2 from the stored term (fossil fuels) to a significant amount of atmospheric CO2.  Reason enough to let technology run and transition to a solar powered electrical grid.

Unfortunately CO2 is a very mild greenhouse gas. Unfortunately water vapour, which is exists in much greater abundance than CO2, is is much more powerful greenhouse gas. So global warming pundits had to invent and amplification effect for CO2 to make it more powerful.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Interesting perhaps that Nobel awarded prizes to two (white male) economists for their work related to market incentives wrt controlling carbon in atmosphere. 

I didn't dig deep into their work but it seems supportive of the kind of thinking that Nobel committee would embrace .  Not the same Chicago economists I cited in the past (but they may be from the same region). 

This is just my initial impression so look into it yourself, instead of letting me tell you what to think (or your normal opinion wrangler).  8)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/oct/08/nobel-prize-2018-sveriges-riksbank-in-economic-sciences-awarded-live-updates just one of many articles

JR

 

[desol]

Only our grandchildren will know which of use was right.

Cheers

Ian

I'd like to offer a slight variation:
"Only our grandchildren will know which of those were responsible enough to do something about it!"

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5

 

[Matador]

Ian, you know full well that there's no way to ever satisfy your "prove to me that CO2 rise isn't naturally occurring" as we would need to prove a negative.

It's also strange to effectively argue that a person wasn't warm in bed because they were wearing a blanket, but rather, became warm for some unknown reason and 600 years later decided to wear a blanket as an effect of already being warm.  CO2 causes heat to be trapped, which causes a temperature increase, which increases the ability of air to retain moisture, which causes more heat trapping.

I still don't understand why we are stuck on the argued "insignificant" amounts of man-made CO2 - as though the simple magnitude of the amounts thereby proves their effect.  It took a small 12-pound sphere of enriched uranium to build the Fat Man, and yet it leveled an entire city.

I've been unable to convince my friend to create an account here, as he does this for a living and explains it far better than I can.

 

[ruffrecords]

Ian, you know full well that there's no way to ever satisfy your "prove to me that CO2 rise isn't naturally occurring" as we would need to prove a negative.

No, you just need to properly understand the other sources and we don't yet.

It's also strange to effectively argue that a person wasn't warm in bed because they were wearing a blanket, but rather, became warm for some unknown reason and 600 years later decided to wear a blanket as an effect of already being warm.  CO2 causes heat to be trapped, which causes a temperature increase, which increases the ability of air to retain moisture, which causes more heat trapping.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a weak one and there is not much of it. There is far more temperature variation due to the vast quantities of water vapour.  The blanket is water vapour. CO2 is a handkerchief placed on top. I am sure the man will not notice the difference in temperature due to the handkerchief.

I still don't understand why we are stuck on the argued "insignificant" amounts of man-made CO2 - as though the simple magnitude of the amounts thereby proves their effect.  It took a small 12-pound sphere of enriched uranium to build the Fat Man, and yet it leveled an entire city.

If I tie a one pound weight to you and throw you in a deep lake you will probably  survive. If I tie a 100 pound weight to you and throw you in the same lake I bet the magnitude of of the weight makes a difference to the effect.

Analogies are pointless. What we need are facts The fact is there is a lot more water vapour than there is CO2. The fact is water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. So why are you so concerned about CO2 when its effect is clearly insignificant.. This is really basic science.

I've been unable to convince my friend to create an account here, as he does this for a living and explains it far better than I can.

A Pity. Perhaps he has some real evidence.

Cheers

Ian

 

[desol]

Analogies are pointless. What we need are facts The fact is there is a lot more water vapour than there is CO2. The fact is water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. So why are you so concerned about CO2 when its effect is clearly insignificant.. This is really basic science.A Pity. Perhaps he has some real evidence.

"Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not, so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that water vapor may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/

 

[JohnRoberts]

and I repeat that isn't even the question...

What is the correct remedy? What will do the most good and least harm (especially economic harm)?

At least the Nobel winning economists were looking at market based solutions and cost (while repeat I have not read their published work.)

The sky is falling arm wavers at the UN are once again declaring "crisis"... no doubt to suspend thoughtful reasoned analysis. 

The title of this thread is about an engineering solution. Economists wrote up a brief analysis of several different ways to cool the planet. We could do this quickly if convinced it is the right thing to do... I am not convinced that we know enough yet so advocate for more research and less political sentiment wrangling.

Tens of millions of voters agree, "not yet".

JR

 

[desol]

and I repeat that isn't even the question...

What is the correct remedy? What will do the most good and least harm (especially economic harm)?

At least the Nobel winning economists were looking at market based solutions and cost (while repeat I have not read their published work.)

The sky is falling arm wavers at the UN are once again declaring "crisis"... no doubt to suspend thoughtful reasoned analysis. 

The title of this thread is about an engineering solution. Economists wrote up a brief analysis of several different ways to cool the planet. We could do this quickly if convinced it is the right thing to do... I am not convinced that we know enough yet so advocate for more research and less political sentiment wrangling.

Tens of millions of voters agree, "not yet".

JR

Tens of millions of voters voted for Donald Trump. They can't even choose between right and wrong, let alone take a responsible position on climate change.

I offered a response earlier in terms of an engineering solution. The main issue facing climate change is inaction due to greed and stupidity(inaction on the part of some of earth's most powerful leaders). Seeing as greed and stupidity are human personality characteristics(flaws), we should find ways to remove those flaws either with genetic physical engineering(more extreme) or programmed psychological retraining. However, greed and stupidity remain as obstacles to objective action, so it's probably best to lock these people up so they can't continue on their path of destruction.

Removal is the only fix.