An engineering solution to climate change?

[ruffrecords]

Nobody here is saying dissent or skepticism should be outlawed (or at least I am not).

Ad hominem instead of actual evidence seems to be the normal response.

But imagine someone posts in this forum an electronics idea that goes against the opinion of a consensus of experts here.
Is it possible that the idea is valid and all the experts here are wrong? Yes , but it is unlikely. But how would you react to a new poster getting into electronics (with an idea that appears wrong to everyone with advanced knowledge of electronics)  saying "I guess my skepticism should be illegal then". And that new poster being completely set in his/her belief - a belief that is dismissed by experts in the field?

I would not respond in that way. As an expert I would not dismiss the person or his views.  I would try out what he has suggested to satisfy myself that it did or did not work and I would present my evidence either way. If I could not achieve what he had I would say so, present how I did it and politely ask if the way he did it was any different.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that adult conversations like that are rare when the topic is AGW.

I've been trying to explain the science on climate change based on my understanding in ways that would be understandable to someone with expertise in a different field  (electronics) but it seems like it is a competition rather than an exchange of ideas.
Anyway, 100% consensus on anything is impossible..
FWIW, I work in simulation of thermo-fluid systems and I took three grad level classes in thermodynamics, two in heat transfer, and three in fluid dynamics.

I think  a particular problem with this topic is that the outcome, whichever way it turns out to be, is going to directly affect both our lives and our pockets. It is different to a discussion with someone who claims to have  invented a way of eliminating partition noise in a pentode yet retaining its gain. Whatever the truth of that it has little impact on others.

I am concerned about a lot of things. I am concerned about the Nanny state, over political correctness and the insidiousness of communications that may turn our grandchildren into a seething mass of hermits unable to relate to anyone face to face.

I am even more concerned about the enormous quantities of poison the human race pours into the ground and the seas and the air (not CO2). I am very concerned about the islands of refuse that accumulate on the surface of our oceans.  All these are concerns that are obviously the fault of humans simply because the evidence is physically there for anyone to see and their rectification is is within our means. But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

In other words, it's likely too late.  It would seem that running out the clock is still a very effective strategy.
The real crime is that our baby-boomer lead Congress is more than happy to continue the tradition of punting this down the road, since they'll be long dead before the impacts start to really be felt.

Since I like tobacco analogies:  let's smoke a pack a day until lung cancer has invaded our bodies, then increase to two packs per day because 'There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this!!!', then with our dying breath leave the $1M dollar hospital bill to our kids to pay back.

I've buried too many close relatives to smoking cigarette  (father, sister, brother, cousins, etc).  So not funny IMO.

Perhaps a more appropriate (old) joke is about the person with a cold, who sits outside in the cold weather, hoping to get pneumonia, because they can actually cure pneumonia.  ;D

I am trying to be practical and scientific not emotional and manipulative.  I just see divisive verbal bomb throwing, not reasoned discussion.

There is only so much that we can do practically, so aiming too high is as sure a strategy for failure as aiming too low. (We can't zero out carbon use overnight.) If you think it is a binary all or nothing choice, prepare to be disappointed because zero carbon is not possible in my lifetime, maybe not yours.

JR

 

[dmp]

I am even more concerned about the enormous quantities of poison the human race pours into the ground and the seas and the air (not CO2). I am very concerned about the islands of refuse that accumulate on the surface of our oceans.  All these are concerns that are obviously the fault of humans simply because the evidence is physically there for anyone to see and their rectification is is within our means. But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

Cheers

Ian

Some good points I agree with. I agree that reducing other pollution is very important and refuse into the Ocean. Unfortunately most (90+%) is coming from China and less rich countries.  Eliminating plastic straws in the US is really not going to put a dent in the problem. Difficult politics between countries.

 

[ruffrecords]

I think I've provided you with more than enough.

I count eleven posts made by you to this thread. In only two of them do you offer any evidence. One is a link to an IPCC report and the other to a Scientific American article.

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Some good points I agree with. I agree that reducing other pollution is very important and refuse into the Ocean. Unfortunately most (90+%) is coming from China and less rich countries.  Eliminating plastic straws in the US is really not going to put a dent in the problem. Difficult politics between countries.

Surely you are not suggesting that is a reason for inaction? To beat AGW the whole world needs to cooperate. A very tall order. To clean up pollution we can start in our own backyards. I think the 90% figure depends a lot on what type of pollution you are talking about. There are huge quantities of plastics in the oceans, from the highly dangerous micro beads through beer can wrappers that endanger sea life up to large crates. Most of these come from the West. We need to completely rethink food packaging for instance.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

So the bar is 100% certainty of a 100-years-in-the-future event that none of us will be around to see in order to convince you?  Except for death and taxes, no science theorem in the history of mankind could ever pass this bar.

Again: models based originally on Hansen's work and later made more sophisticated by CMIP5 have been able to recreate the past history since the mid 1800's with remarkable accuracy - they predicted CO2 levels in PPM with within 0.1%, and predicted quadrature  hemispheric temperatures to within 0.3C over that time period.  They match the observation record within a 95% confidence interval over the same timeframes.

If our scientific understanding is so poor as you imply, how can this be possible?

I also think that, modulo the current global political will, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[boji]

'Less hand waving'

Carrot or stick. We primates are really good at defending against having our minds changed, and while yes, turning public opinion isn't as powerful as getting corporations to reconsider their impact on the climate, corporations are run by executives, not scientists, who let profit rule their decision making process.  So the hand waving can be seen as a call to long-term profit.

Hand waving can also be data-additive while it 'spins':
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/arctic-lakes-are-bubbling-and-hissing-with-dangerous-greenhouse-gases/

Edit:  The bubbling methane lakes are just one example where "unknown unknowns" emerge and create feedback loops. Cascading effects are possibilities worth considering, not deriding.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I agree - but you can't start talking about how technology will address a problem when a lot of people think the problem doesn't exists, or is made up by a conspiracy of scientists (?).

conspiracy...? (straw man fallacy). While many research scientist are motivated by human nature to please their funders, to keep the research grants rolling in. (follow the money).

I have read estimates that as little as $1B-$10B a year could maintain stable global temperature by spraying reflective media into upper atmosphere. So this is affordable for a fraction of the multiple $T handle on most strategies.

Note: this is not proposed as a total solution but a delaying action. The same people advocate $100B annual research budget.  I would expect the thousands of climate scientists to line up at that feeding trough.

I read a little about the economist that won the nobel prize.  The simple summary is you create market incentives (carbon credits?) to lower pollution. I'm curious what are some examples of this working?  Does it work better / worse than government mandates?
I think of the economy as an optimization system (probably since I work in technology optimization). Unencumbered, it optimizes for $$.  For example, higher pollution usually makes production cheaper. So traditionally products produced with higher pollution are cheaper and win in the free market. Much of economics is devoted to externalities - how to control pollution for example (and ideas like the tragedy of the commons - that shared resources will be overused in a free market)
Of course this uses the efficient markets hypothesis, which has it's own caveats (the subject of last year's nobel winner's work).

The reduction of transportation emissions has been a remarkable success over the past 20 years and it was done by government mandates.  While renewable energy has had some market incentives (first 200k EVs sold/manufacturer get a tax credit, home insulation tax credits, etc...) there are also mandates in other parts of the world.

Whenever a company like Exxon starts lobbying I immediately think it is a market capture scheme. Whatever happens with regulation (mandates vs incentives) hopefully it let's technology run and doesn't just help the big corporations cement their market dominance.

Indeed Exxon wants to manage their corporate pain, with a known tax structure, that they can pass along to customers.

I do not trust the government to keep their fingers out of the hundreds of $B new tax revenue stream.

The emissions regulations has allowed some technology startups for advanced engine concepts into the ballgame

http://achatespower.com/our-formula/opposed-piston/

Go to 1 min in to see the engine design. Pretty cool.

I didn't read the Nobel economist full work, but my sense is that they find the current approach would do more harm to poor than help. Of course attempting to simply characterize their full career work is surely inadequate.

No, I do not know how to educate the public, when an informed group like this forum cannot even agree about a single direction. I do not respond well to typical political scare tactics. I am also surprised that Nobel and UN are not on the same exact page.  8)

JR

 

[hodad]

But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

There's reams of research & evidence available, of course.  Is it unequivocal?  Perhaps not.

An analogy:
Would you, in 1943, have said, "There's no reason to go ahead with this atomic bomb thing.  Until we have definitive proof of the existence of black holes and gravitational waves, there's no way to be sure that this whole relativity theory isn't just a bunch of overhyped nonsense." 

I'll grant you it's a bit different, in that one can actually prove an atom bomb will blow up, whereas waiting around for irreversible global warming--sort of makes it hard to do anything about it once it's already happened.  And I'll wager you'd still not believe it was human-caused regardless. 

Scientific predictions about global warming have been in the ballpark--not always perfect, but we've seen enough data line up to predictions that it would seem more right than wrong. 

As to how much impact humans have on this:  I think there's certainly strong evidence that human activity has had a significant impact.  Will addressing these issues solve the problem?  One can't be absolutely certain unless we actually do something.  And the potential cost of doing nothing is far too grave. 

I think that the closest one would come to "proof" is by actually reducing carbon emissions and noting what, if any, effect it has.  If you really want an answer, quit being a curmudgeonly crank.  Let's put it to the test and see who's right or wrong. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

still arguing about the wrong stuff... (after decades of debating this we can just stick a thermometer out the window). No NYC isn't underwater like was predicted, but a northern ocean shipping passage looks like it will be open year round.

so carry on.

JR

 

[cyrano]

Effects of reducing CO2 and other gases have already been proven by experiments like car-free Sundays. The effect of reducing exhaust gases just for one day is measurable and the results are only positive. Effect on climate takes a lot longer, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't work.

It's not that we lack ideas, or means to do something. There just is no willingness to be the first to take the risk. Remember, you won't be blamed for doing nothing when you're in politics.

There's an experiment being carried out now to collect a massive amount of plastics from our oceans. Luckily, the one who proposed it, was a kid, or it would never have happened. All indicators are good. Will it solve the problem? Probably not as plastics are already incorporated into the food chain and into sand. But it might just render the problem less lethal. And it might offer future generations a chance to clean up further.

Another project from the Netherlands, is Dave Hakken's (see Youtube) who sees plastics as a useful raw material, not as a waste and who is developing simple tools to re-use plastics, so people in poor countries can make a living out of recycling. Remember, that's where our waste ends up: Afrika, China and a few other countries.

Another indication that it just takes some willingness, is Morocco. Morocco is the first nation in the world to outlaw plastic bags. ALL plastic bags. They were so fed up with their splendid beaches being littered with plastic bags, that they acted. It didn't completely solve the problem, as predicted by nay sayers, but it reduced waste by more than half, making it a manageable problem. And now, other countries are slowly following.

 

[ruffrecords]

Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.

But surely that only means a lot more methane from humans instead of cows  ;D

Cheers

Ian



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown
[/quote]

 

[ruffrecords]

Ahaha...I didn't even catch that .....Good one........

Mind you, if we could collect all this gas we could make big balloons and slash the cost of air travel.

Cheers

Ian

 

[desol]

But surely that only means a lot more methane from humans instead of cows  ;D

Cheers

Ian

https://ollilaasanen.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/humans-cows-methane-and-global-warming/

 

[john12ax7]

If people switched to a  majority plant based diet the net benefits would be enormous.  As mentioned the positive environment impact.  Plus overall health would improve greatly lowering healthcare costs.  This would  free up doctors and researchers to solve other non-diet related issues which would then improve health and quality of life even further.

 

[ruffrecords]

If everyone in America stopped eating beef tomorrow and started eating chicken, it’d be like taking 26 million cars off the road

http://thecontextofthings.com/2014/07/06/eat-more-chicken-seriously/

Interesting article. If we multiply the 400 billion litres of cow methane per day by 365 to get a year's worth then multiply that by 20 to get the equivalent CO2, how does that compare with the total CO2 emitted by humans. Is it 1%, 10%, 50% or what? In other words is it significant? Also what happens to the methane? Does it accumulate? One day will someone light a match and the whole world will explode? Also, if we were to burn the CH4 to CO2 and H20: 2CH2 +3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H20 is the greenhouse effect of the resultant CO2 less than the CH4 that produced it. Unfortunately the article fails to answer any of these important questions.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

I see electric cars and solar panels on houses everywhere? Usually it's expensive to get into the game but, I'm guessing you mean by no willingness, you are talking about a more focused strategy to get everyone greener regardless of income? My neighbor just got a Tesla and I'd love to be able to afford one...Pretty cool looking to boot...but I'm not picky....

Hurry up and buy yours now because their tax break is about to drop by 50%

the Volts are nice too.... And I just can't afford solar panels but wouldn't mind if my utility co's large solar field could do it....  They do a lot of natural gas too but, I'm not sure what the ratio is of the three methods they use.....

A major fraction of the solar panels are subsidized by tax breaks and funny lending (perhaps another artifact of the excess liquidity sloshing around the economy this last decade).

Speaking of NG my local "clean coal" (cough) power plant, built at huge expense and cost over runs is running on NG because its cheaper than clean coal.  :  Maybe eventually if we build out NG infrastructure (like pipelines and LNG terminals) it wouldn't be so hard to get to market that they stop flaring it off in some regions (and sell it).  World NG prices are higher than domestic because of this lack of infrastructure, so eventually our NG prices will rise (and maybe my coal plant will burn coal again).

I thought there have been studies and attempts happening for a while? Do you mean a kid has found a revolutionary idea  or that some kid was the first one to ever think and attempt it? Can you elaborate?

President Trump just signed the Sullivan bill https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/10/11/trump-signs-sullivan-bill-aimed-at-reducing-plastic-waste-in-ocean/ But the breathless media is too busy lecturing us about what a "mob" is, so more people know about Kanye's visit than any plastic  waste bill signing.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that Kanye and  Taylor Swift have both been elevated to political icons? Maybe some left over angst from Kanye showing his butt at the Grammies in 2015, when he took the mic from Swift on stage?  It couldn't possibly be because Kanye is black...? That didn't bother media when he bad mouthed President Bush (after Katrina). 

We have been recycling plastic in the US for quite some time? I'm not sure I agree the waste where I live ends up anywhere but our land fills and recycling plants? Giving everyone an opportunity to recycle is a good thing.  Living near a landfill, I'm very concerned with the amount of waste that goes into landfills daily (although they do collect the methane and fuel the equipment and trucks) ,  what might end up elsewhere.....  really needs to stop.

On the top ten list of world's problems this does not register high if at all (IMO). I feel bad about watching my small (poor) town carry a huge trailer load of trash to a landfill every week.  Since I recycle my beer bottles by refilling them with beer, and compost my vegetable waste, my weekly trash is almost embarrassing (small) compared to all my neighbors.

I wish they'd get rid of those things here..... My wife always asks for paper bags and has a few of those reusable grocery bags.

seriously... reusable shopping bags is another bad PC idea...  Unless you routinely wash your reusable shopping bag it becomes a reservoir of bacteria and disease. Hard to wash paper bags.

Maybe a $0.02 deposit on plastic bags with a refund for recycling them. But again low on my list... They can already make plastic from food starch so how about shopping bags we can eat, or just throw in the yard to biodegrade? 

Thankfully all of the grocery stores where I live have plastic bag recycle bins. I just save up giant bags full of them and load up those bins every few months....  They are not allowed to be put in our recycle garbage. If the recycle garbage  man sees them, they will leave yours .... Unfortunately this doesn't work with the totally automated trucks where the only garbage man is the driver. We have the hybrid system here where a ground man pulls the cans to the robotic arms after opening the can so it is a good way to inspect at least a little....

ah.. big city life....  :

I think it's slightly unrealistic to generalize that the entire world isn't making efforts to take steps towards a cleaner environment. It's been happening for a long time at least here in the US . Maybe not enough concern among individuals, but, there are many ways people can try to do their part and I see a pretty strong effort  by those who can afford to do more, ....

from the link I already provided..."Academic researchers say five nations are responsible for more than half of the plastic waste in the oceans: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam."

China used to be off the hook crazy with unregulated toxic waste processing but are cleaning up their act as the population gets wealthier and woke. (I never get to use that word.)

and those who can't do but small things are doing what they can......  We definitely need to make it easier for the people who can't afford things to participate more.  This is where I'm interested to see what happens since I'm one of them.

Economics (cost) is always the pesky variable... It takes wealth to be able to hug trees full time... we need to balance the cost/vs benefit. Global poverty is shrinking and IMO that is a very good thing. Lets not disrupt that trend.

JR

 

[cyrano]

I see electric cars and solar panels on houses everywhere? Usually it's expensive to get into the game but, I'm guessing you mean by no willingness, you are talking about a more focused strategy to get everyone greener regardless of income? My neighbor just got a Tesla and I'd love to be able to afford one...Pretty cool looking to boot...but I'm not picky.... the Volts are nice too.... And I just can't afford solar panels but wouldn't mind if my utility co's large solar field could do it....  They do a lot of natural gas too but, I'm not sure what the ratio is of the three methods they use.....

Electric cars are a prime example. They are not a solution, just a diversion from the problem. We must first do away with the crazy habit of traveling and transporting without a reason.

We've been upscaling for too long. Starting with farming, we need smaller farms. Smaller farms can be closer to the consumer and need less resources for transport.

Most almonds in the world come from California. Isn't that crazy?

The same goes for grain-fed beef. It's extremely wasteful, especially on an industrial scale. Smaller farms can keep animals in an almost closed resource circle. The farm animals are mostly fed surplus from field fruits we don't eat. And animal waste is composted into fertiliser.

I thought there have been studies and attempts happening for a while? Do you mean a kid has found a revolutionary idea  or that some kid was the first one to ever think and attempt it? Can you elaborate?

A scaled down model has been tested and works very well. Now they are preparing for production of a full-size plastic collector.

This has only happened because the regular waste industry didn't oppose, as the idea was brought by a kid. By the time they realised this kid had plans worked out that were far better than theirs, funding had been found and it was too late to send out the lobbyists to kill the plan.

We have been recycling plastic in the US for quite some time? I'm not sure I agree the waste where I live ends up anywhere but our land fills and recycling plants? Giving everyone an opportunity to recycle is a good thing.  Living near a landfill, I'm very concerned with the amount of waste that goes into landfills daily (although they do collect the methane and fuel the equipment and trucks) ,  what might end up elsewhere.....  really needs to stop.

You have separated waste collection. Some of it still ends up in China (electronics, although China has just declared they'll stop accepting a lot of waste categories, incl. electronics), Africa (plastics and general waste) or South America (textile waste). Separated waste collection is a beginning, not yet a solution. We should start with producing a lot less...

I wish they'd get rid of those things here..... My wife always asks for paper bags and has a few of those reusable grocery bags. Thankfully all of the grocery stores where I live have plastic bag recycle bins. I just save up giant bags full of them and load up those bins every few months....  They are not allowed to be put in our recycle garbage. If the recycle garbage  man sees them, they will leave yours .... Unfortunately this doesn't work with the totally automated trucks where the only garbage man is the driver. We have the hybrid system here where a ground man pulls the cans to the robotic arms after opening the can so it is a good way to inspect at least a little....

Some shops allow you to bring your own packaging. Re-useable, evidently. Like Denmark has machines for milk in supermarkets, butchers accept to fill your Tupperware boxes instead of packaging in plastic, etc.

Sometimes, it fails. We have separated collection of clear glass and colored glass, fi. After collection, it still goes onto one pile, as there isn't much demand for low quality glass. But pretty soon, glass will become expensive, as the sand is gone and these piles will be valuable again.

I think it's slightly unrealistic to generalize that the entire world isn't making efforts to take steps towards a cleaner environment. It's been happening for a long time at least here in the US . Maybe not enough concern among individuals, but, there are many ways people can try to do their part and I see a pretty strong effort  by those who can afford to do more, ....

The US is still world leader when it comes to producing waste. Not that we are so much better in Belgium, but at least there's more effort. Like 75% of paper is recycled into paper and cardboard. 95% of batteries are collected separately for recycling. And all of that recycling is local. The burden is put on the industry that produces the product. Only not yet for plastics. The chemical industry has a very large and well paid army of

and those who can't do but small things are doing what they can......  We definitely need to make it easier for the people who can't afford things to participate more.  This is where I'm interested to see what happens since I'm one of them.

The laws that resulted from the latest gigantic oil spill in the gulf have just been reverted by the current administration. That oil spill hasn't even been cleaned up. Most of the promised damage payments haven't yet been paid. And now the oil companies no longer have to pay.

There's certainly a lot of willingness with the American public, but unfortunately, you govt is owned by corporations. And that corruption gets exported. The UK, fi has replaced a number of old, dirty coal plants producing electricity with modern plants, burning wood pellets. Renewable energy, so they score good points. The sad thing is, they burn pellets produced in the USA and Canada, from forests that have been cut to make way for strip-mining or fracking. These forests will never be replanted, so not exactly "renewable"...

 

[cyrano]

'Less hand waving'

Carrot or stick. We primates are really good at defending against having our minds changed, and while yes, turning public opinion isn't as powerful as getting corporations to reconsider their impact on the climate, corporations are run by executives, not scientists, who let profit rule their decision making process.  So the hand waving can be seen as a call to long-term profit.

Hand waving can also be data-additive while it 'spins':
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/arctic-lakes-are-bubbling-and-hissing-with-dangerous-greenhouse-gases/

Edit:  The bubbling methane lakes are just one example where "unknown unknowns" emerge and create feedback loops. Cascading effects are possibilities worth considering, not deriding.

Actually, those lakes (and undersea sources of gases) are a tiny speck, compared to what the defrosting of Alaska and Siberia will release. Not only gases, but thousands of tons of mercury too. The gases can be quanticised, the mercury has only recently surfaced on the list of stuff scientists need to take a look at.

And that's not even considering that there are numerous bodies buried there. Both animal and human, carrying diseases like Anthrax, the plague, smallpocks, polio and a lot of unknown stuff. And we are at a point where a lot of antibiotics are failing...

BTW. Has anybody noticed the "Preview" button no longer seems to function?

 

[ruffrecords]

Yes it's a mess with these corporations and I hope we can all try our best do do our parts . I know we're not alone in tragic corporate disasters.  I agree with what you're saying. It'll be a great time when we all can do what is in the best interest of the world and not just ourselves. I can only do what small things I do for now however meaningful but am hopeful for the future , especially seeing how successful it is where you live.

+10

Cheers

Ian