[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

I know that not all people who hold certain beliefs follow this tread so if the hat doesn't fit please don't try and wear it; I was not talking of you...!

I do not "wear a hat" that fits any belief. I do know that many forms of life developed and then became extinct, long before mankind appeared on the planet. This is knowledge from known facts discovered over may years of study. Even the human race developed from a subform; reference latest findings currently being reported in the media.
And many previous species became extinct through the changing forces of nature; now mankind is ultimately going to be faced with changes that could result in extinction and, if the global-warming pundits are really to be believed, mankind is on the road to hepling nature do just that.

There is another problem with this global warming argument. No single person has the expertise to study every aspect of what is happening to the planet; the overall opinion, if there is one, is an assembly of different study groups with expertise limited to their own fields. Still further, many of these groups also have differing opinions within their own spheres of knowledge so, when putting together an explanation of just what is happening (or going to happen) we will have several permutations, depending on who talks to whom.

Anyone who claims to have a precise knowledge of what the future of the planet holds for everyone who will be on it in, say, 500 years time is simply deluding themselves.

The Earth is around 4,500 billion years old, and went through many changes before Mankind appeared, some 3 million years ago. Earth is now roughly half way through its life, and I would bet that it has many more phases to go through before the end; and mankind is just as vulnerable as were the dinosaurs.

It makes sense for mankind to take steps to carefully manage the planet's irreplacable resources, and there are many other elements apart from fossil fuels that are necessary for survival, and all of them do not have renewable alternatives.
The problem is going to be able to get all the governments of different countries to work together with a single aim. That hasn't happened yet, and is not likely to happen in the future. Despite us being aware that we already need to act, governments are pulling further away from each other; not even trying to pull together with the determination crucial to the prolonging of an environment that can support life as we understand it.
And that is the rub; prolonging it, because nobody knows what is really in store in the future mists of time.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Xenomorph: Your comment: 'We know that there has been about a 10 'C rise in the GMST over the last 20000 years.' That is my argument. How do we 'know' this. There are those in the scientific community who disagree with not only how this information was gathered, but how the conclusion was reached in terms of the information. Unfortunately, those that produce and publish this information appear to resort to the tactic of 'shouting down' the opposition. I made a post relative to this as seen in soil samples taken in Siberia. Air samples taken from an unopened tomb in Egypt also cast doubt on these assertions, and those in favour of the theory just accused them of 'sloppy work'. So who are we to believe? As an example, a while ago we had 'severe solar winds'. They were blamed for all sorts of problems with regard to wireless frequency interference, yet when questions were raised as to their effect on our ecology, they were ignored.

From a pragmatic point of view I would say, why bother to argue? If we assume that global warming is a fact, then we should attempt to move to other energy sources and become more efficient. If the science turns out to be wrong, what harm done? Fossil fuels are going to run out anyway. If science was correct then we are moving in the right direction if they are wrong then we have solved the future energy problems and become more efficient. Win Win as far as I can see.

Remember it is the media that present everything as black and white, in general, science will only and can only say something is highly probable. As data is collected then the probability will get ever closer to one. Even the primary time unit of 1 second has changed as better ways of measuring time have been discovered.

[Fisher]

Global warming

It saddens me that so many seem to misunderstand what science is about. Science is NOT about providing certain knowledge about anything at all. 'Consensus' plays no part in scientific enquiry. There can be no such thing as a 'settled' scientifiic opinion - if there were, that would be the end of science. Correlations are NOT causal relations. Models are models are models and no substitute for observations. Meta-research (sitting at a desk reading other peoples' papers and adjudicating/
synthesising conclusions is not science - it is sitting at a desk lookung for evidence that supports the opinions of your paymasters. Global warming or climate change, take your pick, is big business and Joe Public will pay whatever it takes to provide profits or sinecures for politicians.
False religions have always promised doom for non-nelievers and GW/CC fits into the false religion category very neatly - a powerful theological myth with certain knowledge, prophesies of doom to come, expensive remedies that just may provide absolution and defer, if not dispose of, the threat to an afterlife - this time of children on Earth since Hell is out of fashion.
So please do not associate all this pop coffee table panic provoking mythology with science. And as for economists, of all people, claiming that adding their models to those of climate modellers is also 'science' - dont make me laugh!
Why not save you souls by putting GW/CC on hold while we try to survive the wreck these very same pundits have made of our economy?
What's it got to do with motoring - simple - we are being invited to scrap perfectly adequate vehicles long before their expiry date in the name of saving the planet! Cobblers!

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Fisher

It saddens me that so many seem to misunderstand what science is about. Science is NOT about providing certain knowledge about anything at all. 'Consensus' plays no part in scientific enquiry. There can be no such thing as a 'settled' scientifiic opinion - if there were, that would be the end of science. Correlations are NOT causal relations. Models are models are models and no substitute for observations. Meta-research (sitting at a desk reading other peoples' papers and adjudicating/
synthesising conclusions is not science - it is sitting at a desk lookung for evidence that supports the opinions of your paymasters. Global warming or climate change, take your pick, is big business and Joe Public will pay whatever it takes to provide profits or sinecures for politicians.
False religions have always promised doom for non-nelievers and GW/CC fits into the false religion category very neatly - a powerful theological myth with certain knowledge, prophesies of doom to come, expensive remedies that just may provide absolution and defer, if not dispose of, the threat to an afterlife - this time of children on Earth since Hell is out of fashion.
So please do not associate all this pop coffee table panic provoking mythology with science. And as for economists, of all people, claiming that adding their models to those of climate modellers is also 'science' - dont make me laugh!
Why not save you souls by putting GW/CC on hold while we try to survive the wreck these very same pundits have made of our economy?
What's it got to do with motoring - simple - we are being invited to scrap perfectly adequate vehicles long before their expiry date in the name of saving the planet! Cobblers!

I take it you are non-believer then.;)

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I take it you are non-believer then.;)

Nope - just a scientist!

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Nope - just a scientist!

So you would say there is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are affecting the GMST, causing a rise in temperature at a rate not seen before?

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Xenomorph: Your comment: 'We know that there has been about a 10 'C rise in the GMST over the last 20000 years.' That is my argument. How do we 'know' this. There are those in the scientific community who disagree with not only how this information was gathered, but how the conclusion was reached in terms of the information. Unfortunately, those that produce and publish this information appear to resort to the tactic of 'shouting down' the opposition. I made a post relative to this as seen in soil samples taken in Siberia. Air samples taken from an unopened tomb in Egypt also cast doubt on these assertions, and those in favour of the theory just accused them of 'sloppy work'. So who are we to believe? As an example, a while ago we had 'severe solar winds'. They were blamed for all sorts of problems with regard to wireless frequency interference, yet when questions were raised as to their effect on our ecology, they were ignored.

You are right, to say we "know" is too definite a word and I used it incorrectly. The correct phrase would be to infer. We do this by studying numerous sources from Pollen deposits (in lake beds for instance), fossil records, geology, plate tectonic Theory and so on. The conclusions could very well be wrong but if it is then the evidence of that error has yet to be found. As with all science the current conclusion is our best current educated ‘guess’. Even though the chance of some Theories being wrong is slim no one is pretending we know everything yet.

Further down you suggest some scientists disagree; who is disagreeing and what are they disagreeing about? Also there is no such thing as 'shouting down' as anyone publishing research does so via Peer Reviewed publications. If the science is sound it is accepted and the greater scientific community can then (and do) look into greater detail of the findings.

What was wrong with the soil samples taken from Siberia and how does a sample of air from a sealed tomb shed light on anything other than a snapshot of that particular year, which would be far too brief a period of time to gain any useful knowledge? If they were accused of 'sloppy work' by the scientific community then that, unfortunately, is exactly what it was; remember the aim of the scientific method is to enable others to test your results thus reducing the chance or erroneous findings. If something in the method makes your conclusion invalid then it is back to the drawing board.

The solar cycle is something that is taken into consideration when running climate models.

Regards

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

So you would say there is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are affecting the GMST, causing a rise in temperature at a rate not seen before?

No - I would not say anything like that.

I note that there are anthropogenic emissions. I am not too sure that there is a plausible measure of global temperature or indeed that temperature is an adequate surrogate measure of the energy transfers that are supposed to be affected by those emissions.

I note too that there are various phenomena that might possibly be attributed to changes in climate, but I note that some of these have been observed only recently and that there are few long period measurements of many of them. For example, the behaviour of the upper atmosphere has not been observed for more than 40 years - a very short period indeed. The discovery of the 'hole in the ozone layer' and of an entirely unknown weather system in the upper atmosphere, the effects of the precession of the Earth's axis, catastrophic changes in the magnetosphere and in solar radiations at different frequencies, the distribution of the energy store in atmospheric water, the effects of changes in oceanic salinity on surface evaporation, El Nino and all the other unstable long reaching oceanic flows, the effects of algea blooming, the variations in the natural release of methane hydrates and of volcanic and submarine emissions and a myriad of other possible factors are still beyond the comprehension of most scientists, but not of the mathematical model builders apparently!
Perhaps more importantly, few, if any of the phenomena being observed are linear - all seem to have bifurcation points that are poorly defined (I dislike 'tipping points') and which could lead to chaotic trajectories, and I have no idea at all about the reversibility of any of the trends that have been observed.
Let me explain my concerns with an example - There was very strong evidence that the incidence of solar energy on the USA increased very rapidly in the few days in which all commercial flights were grounded after the 11th September incidents apparently because of a reduction of particulates in the upper atmosphere. We also know that SE Asia is shrouded in an almost perpetual sooty fog. If, as part of the general push to clean up the atmosphere, aircraft were to become cleaner and if SE Asia adopted clean air policies, we might accelerate, rather than reduce, the effects of solar warming. I won't bore you with more of this sort of thing - all I am trying to say is that in a few decades we have built up a kind of pantheon of causes, all fair targets for model builders, but we are very far indeed from understanding how the climate works. Despite this, politicians and business interests are energising public opinion to take various stances, such as demonising old cars, with a fervour that would do credit to any revivalist movement.
As a scientist, I neither deny or affirm what makes the climate change - I simply don't know. And if the popular press are anything to go by, I must be the last scientist alive to admit ignorance of something that all the others are so certain about.
If you get this far - thank you for you patience.

[Snowball]

Fisher, I am not a scientist, but I spent the whole of my career in engineering; the last 30-odd years in development. I therefore find your observations both refreshing and logical.
For the first time on the thread someone has clarified the situation from a scientific viewpoint. The whole issue is based upon the assumptions that already acquired knowledge is correct. So what is thought likely to happen in the future is merely considered opinions, based on those known facts. However, there are differing points of view that derive different conclusions from those known facts.
In addition to this, by the time information filters down via the media, various unqualified bodies in the field of natural science, with their own passionate agendas (politicians, industrialists, environmentalists, etc), have misconstrued many facts into fiction.
A great deal of what happens on the planet in the future will be as dependent on natural evolution as it has always been. The behaviour of mankind may play a (very) minor role, but politics, religion and environmental activities will have little effect on the ultimate outcome.
In trying to understand the planet, it is necessary to limit the opinion of mankinds abilities to that of being recognised only as the dominant species in the animal world. Nature itself is the truly dominant decision maker for how long life exists on the planet, and what forms it will take in the future.

[Xenomorph]

Fisher -

With respect to the increase of solar radiation over the USA, do you know whether the amount of solar radiation that was absorbed by the atmosphere, over the same period, was reduced in parallel? Is there any information on the amount of infrared radiation escaping into space during this period?

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

Fisher -

With respect to the increase of solar radiation over the USA, do you know whether the amount of solar radiation that was absorbed by the atmosphere, over the same period, was reduced in parallel? Is there any information on the amount of infrared radiation escaping into space during this period?

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your first. As to the second, I am not aware that there is any very reliabe measure of this variable at this time or, for that matter, at any other. Measures have been attempted but, so far as I know, no methodology for combining the results to provide a global measure has been developed. The same problem of combining measurements from different parts of the planet has, so far as i know, defeated climatologists - of course it has not defeated the model builders.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Fisher, I am not a scientist, but I spent the whole of my career in engineering; the last 30-odd years in development. I therefore find your observations both refreshing and logical.
For the first time on the thread someone has clarified the situation from a scientific viewpoint. The whole issue is based upon the assumptions that already acquired knowledge is correct. So what is thought likely to happen in the future is merely considered opinions, based on those known facts. However, there are differing points of view that derive different conclusions from those known facts.
In addition to this, by the time information filters down via the media, various unqualified bodies in the field of natural science, with their own passionate agendas (politicians, industrialists, environmentalists, etc), have misconstrued many facts into fiction.
A great deal of what happens on the planet in the future will be as dependent on natural evolution as it has always been. The behaviour of mankind may play a (very) minor role, but politics, religion and environmental activities will have little effect on the ultimate outcome.
In trying to understand the planet, it is necessary to limit the opinion of mankinds abilities to that of being recognised only as the dominant species in the animal world. Nature itself is the truly dominant decision maker for how long life exists on the planet, and what forms it will take in the future.

Thank you Snowball.
These problems of the limitations of science and human knowledge in general are well understood by most scientists and many engineers - both are dealing with uncertainty all the time and have some humility. Other professions are learning too - e.g. economists, entrepreneurs and financial whiz kids. But learning is painful as the present economic crises are demonstrating.
There was an eighteen year old young man who nearly went insane when he suddenly came across the problem of causation. The time- 1729. The place - a farm in the Borders. The man - David Hume, Science has never been the same since then - as philospohers of science, such as Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Russell and mahy others agree. His conclusion - certain knowledge is impossible. Put that way, no one disagrees - but having agreed, off they go making generalised assertions and predictions. I suppose the alternative is madness!

[Rolebama]

I am bowing out of this discussion, as, to be honest, I can not answer some of the points raised in question. I do not know. I have both an opinion, and an attitude to it. My opinion is based upon what I have seen and heard through the Media, both sensational and documentary. Unfortunately, my attitude has been swayed by the Govt using the argument to raise revenue.

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your first. As to the second, I am not aware that there is any very reliabe measure of this variable at this time or, for that matter, at any other. Measures have been attempted but, so far as I know, no methodology for combining the results to provide a global measure has been developed. The same problem of combining measurements from different parts of the planet has, so far as i know, defeated climatologists - of course it has not defeated the model builders.

Thanks for your answer. I was under the impression it was understood that by removing man made pollutants from the atmosphere it would clear the way, so to speak, for greater solar radiation penetration to the Earth's surface. However, isn't it true that by removing excessive particulates from the atmosphere we would actually reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of energy trapped on Earth?

Also, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know your reasons for objecting to the climate models currently used. Again, I was under the impression that these models are shown to be accurate when data was fed into them using observations from decades ago and then the model was used to predict current climate. I understand that there is a of variables but as long as we don't ask too much of the models then surely we should take heed of what we find.

Whilst I agree that nothing is certain in the future if we refuse to act on what we do predict then what is the point in trying?

[Snowball]

Man will act as man wishes to do. If you take the two extremes of the groups of people who can be described as influential in policy decisions; on the one side those who wish to set a course for the best possible measures to help protect the environment of the planet, and on the other side those who wish to use the planet's resources to the full, there will probably be an equal match on either side. These two groups will then vie for support from the general population.
It is hard to predict which way things will go in the future, but look what happened in the present.

The motorist was depicted as the big bad wolf in the war against CO2 emissions, with the government supporting the environmentalists.
So, when the recent economic problems put all the major car manufacturers in desperate straits, the environmentalists probobly saw the situation as manna from heaven. But, when push came to shove, the major governments of the world rapidly took steps to help the car giants save their businesses.

I have no doubt that science and technology will continue to work together to get the best return in living standards in conjunction with preservation of the planet's resources. But their efforts will be subjected to control by governments, based on political agendas which may, or may not, be ecologically beneficial. And in the decision-making, the environment will never be the first priority; when it does happen to be so, it will be because it fit conveniently within the political agenda.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

Fisher -

With respect to the increase of solar radiation over the USA, do you know whether the amount of solar radiation that was absorbed by the atmosphere, over the same period, was reduced in parallel? Is there any information on the amount of infrared radiation escaping into space during this period?

A large part of the incoming energy is infra red, some of which is reflected straight back. Some of the absorbed energy is re-radiated at a lower frequency. Because this is now at a different frequency different obstacles will prevent or enhance its escape back to space.
Think of a greenhouse (hence the name greenhouse effect) incident sun light brings energy in; one would expect that as the glass let the energy in it would let it out. What happens is matter inside the greenhouse is heated and re-emits energy at a lower frequency which the glass does not transmit very well thus some of the energy is trapped. Along similar lines the atmosphere prevents the earth behaving like the moon, when the sun shines, very hot, no sun freezing cold. Frosty nights have clear skies; the clouds in this case normally act as blankets and keep the energy trapped. Yes I agree the above is a very simplified version.

Re-lack of aircraft: I did read a comment that the day time temperature was lower than a particular model predicted it should have been, the reason turned out to be, the models re-radiation figures were too low, but this came from the media..........

Re-modelling: To make a model, for example modelling a pendulum. We would first collect data on the system, observed or previously collected data. From the data and observation we would eventually deduce that a given pendulum has a fixed frequency, and it appears to be simple harmonic motion. It is not too difficult to arrive at the usual pendulum formula. The next stage is to use our new formula to predict how an experimental pendulum will behave. We will of course find that it nearly predicts the experimental setup; we may conclude that we have damped harmonic motion. Again we can deduce that the damping comes from air drag on the pendulum. We then develop a mathematical model of the drag add that to our model and re-test. There is still an error, so we go round the loop again. This cycle will be reiterated many times, covering pendulum arm mass, pivot friction, amplitude of swing, atmospheric pressure,local gravity and so on. At any point the cycle may be stopped and the remaining error becomes a constant correction or better known as a ‘fiddle factor’. Very few models are without a fiddle factor, successive models will build on the last, and as you may now see it is all too easy to create a model to fit historic data. Again I must stress this is a simplified version, but in essence it is correct.

As to global warming; due to positive feedback effects modelling is going to be extremely difficult. The output from any model should come with an estimate of its accuracy, usually in the form of a probability but even if stated it will never get through the media filter.

As to my view on global warming can I refer you to posting #62 in this thread.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

A large part of the incoming energy is infra red, some of which is reflected straight back. Some of the absorbed energy is re-radiated at a lower frequency. Because this is now at a different frequency different obstacles will prevent or enhance its escape back to space.
Think of a greenhouse (hence the name greenhouse effect) incident sun light brings energy in; one would expect that as the glass let the energy in it would let it out. What happens is matter inside the greenhouse is heated and re-emits energy at a lower frequency which the glass does not transmit very well thus some of the energy is trapped. Along similar lines the atmosphere prevents the earth behaving like the moon, when the sun shines, very hot, no sun freezing cold. Frosty nights have clear skies; the clouds in this case normally act as blankets and keep the energy trapped. Yes I agree the above is a very simplified version.

Re-lack of aircraft: I did read a comment that the day time temperature was lower than a particular model predicted it should have been, the reason turned out to be, the models re-radiation figures were too low, but this came from the media..........

Re-modelling: To make a model, for example modelling a pendulum. We would first collect data on the system, observed or previously collected data. From the data and observation we would eventually deduce that a given pendulum has a fixed frequency, and it appears to be simple harmonic motion. It is not too difficult to arrive at the usual pendulum formula. The next stage is to use our new formula to predict how an experimental pendulum will behave. We will of course find that it nearly predicts the experimental setup; we may conclude that we have damped harmonic motion. Again we can deduce that the damping comes from air drag on the pendulum. We then develop a mathematical model of the drag add that to our model and re-test. There is still an error, so we go round the loop again. This cycle will be reiterated many times, covering pendulum arm mass, pivot friction, amplitude of swing, atmospheric pressure,local gravity and so on. At any point the cycle may be stopped and the remaining error becomes a constant correction or better known as a ‘fiddle factor’. Very few models are without a fiddle factor, successive models will build on the last, and as you may now see it is all too easy to create a model to fit historic data. Again I must stress this is a simplified version, but in essence it is correct.

As to global warming; due to positive feedback effects modelling is going to be extremely difficult. The output from any model should come with an estimate of its accuracy, usually in the form of a probability but even if stated it will never get through the media filter.

As to my view on global warming can I refer you to posting #62 in this thread.

Thank you, wagolynn, for that. May I add that once the fiddle factor has been reduced to what the researcher thinks is acceptable or where computer availability is limited, or when publication date approaches, all that has been developed is a model that more or less fits the past.

As someone else mentioned here, the past is a poor guide to the future, especially where all or parts of the system are near the limits of stability (excuse the shorthand) and where, literally, anything can happen - such as the sudden reversal of El Nino or the (accidental) discovery of the 'hole in the ozone layer' that seems to have started all this off.

Very little is certain, and the future is rarely like the past, especially in the long run. The problem with models is that they can never be validated because we cannot know what the future will bring - a black swan or a butterfly.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

Thanks for your answer. I was under the impression it was understood that by removing man made pollutants from the atmosphere it would clear the way, so to speak, for greater solar radiation penetration to the Earth's surface. However, isn't it true that by removing excessive particulates from the atmosphere we would actually reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of energy trapped on Earth?

Also, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know your reasons for objecting to the climate models currently used. Again, I was under the impression that these models are shown to be accurate when data was fed into them using observations from decades ago and then the model was used to predict current climate. I understand that there is a of variables but as long as we don't ask too much of the models then surely we should take heed of what we find.

Whilst I agree that nothing is certain in the future if we refuse to act on what we do predict then what is the point in trying?

I think the objections to moels are outlined above, in short they are designed to fit the past and predict the future in so far as it is like the past, But the future future is unlikely to be like the future past (I think Russell made this point).

My scepticism arises from the problem of unintended consequences - e.g. In UK, we are rushing into new and largely untried technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) which can literally double the cost of electricity from coal fired power stations and have prevaricated over cheap and proven technologies such as nuclear power generation. If CCS fails, or we cannot afford the electricity it produces, the lights will go out and people will suffer - all for the sake of an ill-founded belief tha usng CCS will save the planet for mankind in the future. Also forgetting that people are starving all over the world and we are doing little to alleviate their condition.

Since this is a motoring forum, I see a very similar mind set among the Health and Safety community who go to extraordinary lengths to reduce risk in some departments of life, such as air travel where the risks are miniscule, while ignoring risk in others - such as the slaughter on the roads.

If we have to do something - let's tackle the core issue - there are simply far too many of us around. We are lapping up all kinds of resources very recklessly, and common sense, not just science, should tell us that unless we act to reduce our population, nature will do it for us one way or another.

[Xenomorph]

Thanks for the answers wagolynn and Fisher. :)

Well it seems it's not the science behind the conclusions that is the real issue here then but the reaction from political leaders, and the media, when faced with these conclusions.

However, forced birth control (like nuclear power) is something that won't win votes in the near future whilst the problems are still far enough into the future that the majority of us won't concern ourselves with it.

It would appear that whilst governments are pushing ahead with less than ideal 'solutions' the public, instead of being able to address the suitability of these solutions, is instead being tricked into believing there is a lack of consensus within the scientific community over whether global warming on this scale is manmade. We then start to get bogged down in myths, mostly perpetuated by catchy titled books.

[Fisher]

The technques of persuasion are now so sophisticated that almost anything is possible - even voluntary birth control. I note that opulence tends to reduce procreation so maybe if people FEEL wealthy, they will stop making children. The task of the propagandists is clear - persuade poor people that they are really wealthy and the population will fall. A new religion is needed - to sanctify the proliferation of credit maybe?

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Fisher

The technques of persuasion are now so sophisticated that almost anything is possible - even voluntary birth control. I note that opulence tends to reduce procreation so maybe if people FEEL wealthy, they will stop making children. The task of the propagandists is clear - persuade poor people that they are really wealthy and the population will fall. A new religion is needed - to sanctify the proliferation of credit maybe?

How about education as a solution for the future?:)

[wagolynn]

Things we could and should do even if we are not sure about global warming. All would enable society to run at a lower cost both in cash and environmentally. The first two alone would reduce energy production emissions by 80% and energy cost by about the same! All it really needs is the will to do it.

We could decide now to change our national electricity grid to Direct Current. At present, due to capacitive effects we loose about 20% of all power generated, DC eliminates that.

We could pipe the bulk of the country into district heating systems, to utilise the waste heat from power stations. Thermodynamics dictates that 60% of the energy going into a power station has to come out as waste heat, why not use it? Anyone unable to tap into district heating should have micro generators supplying heat and power, probably owned by the power companies.

I am not too sure about Atomic power stations. It appears to me very cavalier to leave many future generations having to look after our waste.

We could make more of an effort to control and use methane (10 X more warming effect than CO2) from landfill and use it even if we have to revisit old sites. We need to actively control the decaying process. We could of course use digesters to deal with waste, deliberately to produce methane as a fuel.
We should be putting big bucks into breading ruminants to minimise methane output, or more drastically stop eating meat.

We could force car manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles both in the short and long term. There are relatively simple adaptations to the reciprocating engine that have the potential to cut fuel consumption by 30% but there is no pressure on manufacturers to go there. They argue that fuel consumption does not sell cars. Similarly styling wins over aerodynamic efficiency, it needs stringent fuel consumption legislation to force design down the better path.

We could force electrical equipment manufactures into making the off switch mean off, - disconnected from the mains. Intelligent battery chargers, that turn off when battery is charged, are said to be worth 2 power stations output. Again legislation is required; designers know that Joe public is too dumb to work it out for themselves, hence the need for legislation.

[Snowball]

wagolynn, I think the "we could's" sum up what we can expect in reality.
You only have to consider the recycling fiasco, which should be a relatively straightforward procedure, to realise that the control and monitoring of energy resources is going to fall flat on its face.

Different councils have different domestic containers for the collection of materials for recycling, and what can and cannot be recycled depends on which council is responsible for the processes.

Our own council have changed the local tip at great expense, with specific bays for different materials. The new layout means that you have to circumnavigate a one-way system and, depending on which bays are closed and the various directions from the operatives, you can find yourself going around two or three times if you have differing materials in the car.

In addition, the indicator boards over the bays are parallel to the tip roadway, so drivers pass the required bay before they can read to sign properly. I pointed out to one of the operatives that the signs need to be angled. He sighed a reply that this has already been appreciated, but the persons responsible for planning the layout refuse to accept the criticism.

So the elders sitting behaind closed doors will gather up information from specialist consultants, at great cost of course, and then they will cogitate the findings, change things according to their own beliefs, and probably end up with the status quo.

Does anyone really believe that a coherent and scientifically logical environmental plan will ever be instigated and acted upon; never mind globally, but even for an individual country?

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball, yes recycling is the usual mess; we never seem to do anything properly in the UK. Our governments of whatever persuasion rush in with a solution before they have identified the problem. Perhaps the media is correct and everyone has a short attention span. Until it comes to filling in applications for expenses that is, but then they employ people to do that for them.

[Snowball]

In our office we had a cartoon on the noticeboard, relating to panic when things go wrong.
It was a drawing of railway tracks. The indication was that the track had been laid from both directions and, where the track met, the rails were offset so that there was a conituous rail, with the remaining rail ends going to nowhere.
The picture showed a few railway personnel studying the situation, and the caption read:
"Don't worry, we'll sort it out when the train comes".
I reckon this is a good parallel to the way global warming will be approached.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

In our office we had a cartoon on the noticeboard, relating to panic when things go wrong.
It was a drawing of railway tracks. The indication was that the track had been laid from both directions and, where the track met, the rails were offset so that there was a conituous rail, with the remaining rail ends going to nowhere.
The picture showed a few railway personnel studying the situation, and the caption read:
"Don't worry, we'll sort it out when the train comes".
I reckon this is a good parallel to the way global warming will be approached.

Sounds very British.....

What gets me about all this is how can an engineer walk away from say a power station he was responsible for without doing something with all the waste heat? How can the designer of anything be satisfied with his work if it is not as efficient as current knowledge will allow?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Sounds very British.....

What gets me about all this is how can an engineer walk away from say a power station he was responsible for without doing something with all the waste heat? How can the designer of anything be satisfied with his work if it is not as efficient as current knowledge will allow?

What I found during my years in engineering development, and which I imagine is generally par for the course, is that three main problems reared up in opposition to what the engineer(s) may be proposing.
(1) Higher management often challenge ideas, not because they know more about a subject; simply because they can. I had this problem for years with one particular individual; it became a battle of wits to achieve progress in anything within this fellow's sphere of influence. Where I did get success, it was from still higher management, and usually when the proverbial hit the fan, and my proposals were the alternative to nothing, except a continuing problem.

(2) Someone may come up with an inferior alternative, but with a much lower cost element. This can result in a less efficient solution (your power station), possibly ending up more expensive in the longer term, or even the wasteful expense of scrapping a white elephant and starting again from scratch.

(3) Many professionals and specialists do not voluntarily "walk away". Frustration and pressures from other projects, and superiors, force the situation.

I worked with one very talented man who was a valuable asset to the company. He finally threw in the towel and set up his own business, standing market. Eventually he was financially better off, and said he had not felt so relaxed for years.

I wonder, how many valuable people have we lost over the years due to this one realisation that they are wasting their time and expertise?

[Snowball]

With the latest propaganda exercise of "driving 5 miles less per week" to reduce CO2 emissions, I wonder what the balance is between some drivers not using their cars, and others slipping and sliding around in low gears with spinning wheels?

In these conditions, could it be possible that the environmentalists' nightmare (that dreaded 4x4) is actually the most climate-friendly car on the road?

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

With the latest propaganda exercise of "driving 5 miles less per week" to reduce CO2 emissions, I wonder what the balance is between some drivers not using their cars, and others slipping and sliding around in low gears with spinning wheels?

In these conditions, could it be possible that the environmentalists' nightmare (that dreaded 4x4) is actually the most climate-friendly car on the road?

I had a very similar thought yesterday while walking the dog but, I have seen sensible drivers in ordinary cars tackling the icy roads with ease.

Still, It makes a change for the Chelsea tractor owners to be using them for the purposes they were actually built for. :D

[VonTron]

Global Warming.

I believe global warming is a natural cycle. The main cause is CO2. But, it is not only cars that give off CO2.... volcanic activity, cattle, the human body.... we all give off CO2. The world has been in this situation before, and it will happen again, its just a natural cycle.