Bigritchie
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 377
Horizon Project.............
Global Warming Poll
- Thread starter TromboneAl
- Start date
greg
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
Howdy ERD50:
I'm not a psychologist but I play one on message boards
.
You said earlier:
If the IPCC really was saying that lowering our carbon footprint could avoid (or even greatly reduce) the impacts, I'd be waving the flag high and wide for carbon reduction. But, in light of what they say, I think we need to be weighing the situation very carefully.
The consequences of this distorted message:
A) Putting a lot of effort into carbon reduction will likely mean taking money *away* from preparing for the flooding that they say we will get in either case.
B) Some attempts at reducing carbon emissions will adversely affect the environment in other ways - choose wisely.
C) If we take measures to reduce carbon, people will think that we are 'solving' the problem, and won't focus on the necessary plans to prepare for the expected flooding for either scenario.
D) Since the message is being warped, people will once again claim the scientists got it wrong, when it was actually the media and some public figures that misrepresented the data. Of course, the scientists *might* have it wrong too...
So, yes, I think we *should* be doing *something* - but what? Fortunately, we have some time (really), this flood isn't coming tomorrow, next week, or next year. I think we will learn a lot more in the next five to ten years, and that can help us to focus our plans, Right now, we should be investigating plans to lower our carbon footprint and understand the pros/cons, conserve, and reduce pollution. I'd love to see a 5x reduction in the cost of solar/watt! But most importantly, every coastal city should start putting together a plan for how they are going to deal with a range of flooding over time. If we start planning now, and update that plan as we learn more, we can adapt and at least minimize the disruption that will likely occur under *either* scenario.
I haven't read the IPCC report and may not. From what you've said, it mildly offends me that they appear obsessed with future flooding across the coastal regions of America. This doesn't help create a good environment to solve problems. In fact, fear mongering creates an imbalance that inhibits the mind from making cool rational choices and implementing realistic goals--as I see things. By example, I saw (and have experienced) the George Bush fear machine in action. [-]After 9-11[/-] . . . nevermind . . . some poor choices were made.
One can construct a similar psychological situation that has probably actually been done in real life. A fatty guy walks into a doctor's office (no this is not the start of a joke) and the doctor scares the heck out him, telling him he may die soon if he doesn't start losing weight today. The patient leaves the doctor's office in severe distress and then rather than deal with the issue, he runs off for an ice cream sunday so that he has enough energy to plan a full scale eating binge. I think stuff like this really happens. I think doctors are probably trained (somewhat?) to deal with this stuff--the proper psychological shaping of a patient's reaction to a frightening event. Too bad many of our politicians (and some scientists?) aren't capable of this also. They are so frustrated by inaction to their ideas that they pump those ideas up to get a supposed better reaction. That's my guess. And I've done it too: sometimes something is so important to me that I mildly pump it a bit, to put it mildly.
Anyway, I think for the most part folks need to be charmed into doing things. They don't like doing things that they find personally offensive or destructive to their current way of life. A rational, trusted leader, especially in a democracy, is needed to guide folks to the promised land. (As an aside: when GWB said he was "a uniter, not a divider" I perked up a bit and listened to him; but almost immediately after elected the first time, I noticed that the country almost immediately developed fractures and divisions: this told me huge amounts about the man. And it also amuses me now that this phrase has come back and bit him on the a**. Much of the country has now united against him. He has created what he wanted, but differently than he imagined. Poll ratings against him are approaching 80%.) Anyway again, I strongly believe that forcing compelling folks to do things rarely if ever creates good long term results, especially in a democracy. Mostly, folks need to be drawn in with solid, rational ideas and stable emotional support. I know I like things to happen to me this way.
By example, someone made a comment on this thread that maybe we should punish countries that don't stop their populations from growing excessively fast or don't stop polluting--something like that anyway. This stuff rarely works and when it does usually not for very long (again see GWB and the spoils of force and fear). We actually know how to reduce population growth in poor countries: make sure the poor feel fairly secure about their future old age. Poor folks in Africa, for instance, mostly have lots of kids because that's their retirement plan. But as soon as they start making even slightly more than subsistence wages they stop making [-]babies[/-] future little retirement plans. In fact, they go out on their own and look for birth control methods. The dominoes all sort of stand up and things start falling in a much better direction. And they actually spend more time thinking about their children as children rather than selfishly, as little IRAs. This is a good thing. Maybe all they need is a few good ideas and a nudge, a turning of minds away from misery and toward small money making enterprises.
Time to conclude: So, to my mind it doesn't help to dwell too significantly on such things as huge barrier walls to prevent Florida from going under water at some point down the road--black swanish fear mongering--even if it may be true. This mostly frightens folks and creates inertia--at best. Better to highlight the smaller incremental positive things that can be done in the near term that will for the most part encourage folks to do positive things step by step. Pointing out and polishing up huge disasters won't help much. Nor will highlighting some crazy sort of soon approaching Apocalypse. Small, positive incremental changes that actually work and provide near term good feed back may be the way to go with this whole global warming mess.
I'm not a psychologist but I play one on message boards
.You said earlier:
If the IPCC really was saying that lowering our carbon footprint could avoid (or even greatly reduce) the impacts, I'd be waving the flag high and wide for carbon reduction. But, in light of what they say, I think we need to be weighing the situation very carefully.
The consequences of this distorted message:
A) Putting a lot of effort into carbon reduction will likely mean taking money *away* from preparing for the flooding that they say we will get in either case.
B) Some attempts at reducing carbon emissions will adversely affect the environment in other ways - choose wisely.
C) If we take measures to reduce carbon, people will think that we are 'solving' the problem, and won't focus on the necessary plans to prepare for the expected flooding for either scenario.
D) Since the message is being warped, people will once again claim the scientists got it wrong, when it was actually the media and some public figures that misrepresented the data. Of course, the scientists *might* have it wrong too...
So, yes, I think we *should* be doing *something* - but what? Fortunately, we have some time (really), this flood isn't coming tomorrow, next week, or next year. I think we will learn a lot more in the next five to ten years, and that can help us to focus our plans, Right now, we should be investigating plans to lower our carbon footprint and understand the pros/cons, conserve, and reduce pollution. I'd love to see a 5x reduction in the cost of solar/watt! But most importantly, every coastal city should start putting together a plan for how they are going to deal with a range of flooding over time. If we start planning now, and update that plan as we learn more, we can adapt and at least minimize the disruption that will likely occur under *either* scenario.
I haven't read the IPCC report and may not. From what you've said, it mildly offends me that they appear obsessed with future flooding across the coastal regions of America. This doesn't help create a good environment to solve problems. In fact, fear mongering creates an imbalance that inhibits the mind from making cool rational choices and implementing realistic goals--as I see things. By example, I saw (and have experienced) the George Bush fear machine in action. [-]After 9-11[/-] . . . nevermind . . . some poor choices were made.
One can construct a similar psychological situation that has probably actually been done in real life. A fatty guy walks into a doctor's office (no this is not the start of a joke) and the doctor scares the heck out him, telling him he may die soon if he doesn't start losing weight today. The patient leaves the doctor's office in severe distress and then rather than deal with the issue, he runs off for an ice cream sunday so that he has enough energy to plan a full scale eating binge. I think stuff like this really happens. I think doctors are probably trained (somewhat?) to deal with this stuff--the proper psychological shaping of a patient's reaction to a frightening event. Too bad many of our politicians (and some scientists?) aren't capable of this also. They are so frustrated by inaction to their ideas that they pump those ideas up to get a supposed better reaction. That's my guess. And I've done it too: sometimes something is so important to me that I mildly pump it a bit, to put it mildly.
Anyway, I think for the most part folks need to be charmed into doing things. They don't like doing things that they find personally offensive or destructive to their current way of life. A rational, trusted leader, especially in a democracy, is needed to guide folks to the promised land. (As an aside: when GWB said he was "a uniter, not a divider" I perked up a bit and listened to him; but almost immediately after elected the first time, I noticed that the country almost immediately developed fractures and divisions: this told me huge amounts about the man. And it also amuses me now that this phrase has come back and bit him on the a**. Much of the country has now united against him. He has created what he wanted, but differently than he imagined. Poll ratings against him are approaching 80%.) Anyway again, I strongly believe that forcing compelling folks to do things rarely if ever creates good long term results, especially in a democracy. Mostly, folks need to be drawn in with solid, rational ideas and stable emotional support. I know I like things to happen to me this way.
By example, someone made a comment on this thread that maybe we should punish countries that don't stop their populations from growing excessively fast or don't stop polluting--something like that anyway. This stuff rarely works and when it does usually not for very long (again see GWB and the spoils of force and fear). We actually know how to reduce population growth in poor countries: make sure the poor feel fairly secure about their future old age. Poor folks in Africa, for instance, mostly have lots of kids because that's their retirement plan. But as soon as they start making even slightly more than subsistence wages they stop making [-]babies[/-] future little retirement plans. In fact, they go out on their own and look for birth control methods. The dominoes all sort of stand up and things start falling in a much better direction. And they actually spend more time thinking about their children as children rather than selfishly, as little IRAs. This is a good thing. Maybe all they need is a few good ideas and a nudge, a turning of minds away from misery and toward small money making enterprises.
Time to conclude: So, to my mind it doesn't help to dwell too significantly on such things as huge barrier walls to prevent Florida from going under water at some point down the road--black swanish fear mongering--even if it may be true. This mostly frightens folks and creates inertia--at best. Better to highlight the smaller incremental positive things that can be done in the near term that will for the most part encourage folks to do positive things step by step. Pointing out and polishing up huge disasters won't help much. Nor will highlighting some crazy sort of soon approaching Apocalypse
. Small, positive incremental changes that actually work and provide near term good feed back may be the way to go with this whole global warming mess.
Last edited:
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Greg - I'd recommend you read the IPCC report 'summary for policy makers'. I think you'll find its a lot more informative and covers a lot more ground than whats been bandied about here. Further, the summaries of the mitigation and impacts reports are available in a "pre edit" format.
greg
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
Well I read the IPCC summary. Whew! and Holy Moley, Rocky. Also, I have to pretty much fall down on CFB's side of the argument: humans seem to have caused a lot of the problems related to current global warming. And we're the ones who need to fix it . . . starting soon. Thanks CFB
I'm also beginning to understand just how important national leadership is, not paralysis or stonewalling.
I still believe that the first things we should be doing are the easy steps like encouraging/mandating florescent bulbs as replacements for incandescent ones, encouraging solar, wind, and perhaps tidal energy alternatives with various incentives, etc. I also think we need to develop some sort of five and/or ten year plan that sets up some goals and methods of implementation (primarily thru incentives or mandates?). I'd like to see things like coal's future footprint as a portion of electrical usage be discussed publicly with all ramifications both negative and positive. It shouldn't be hidden behind closed doors. As ERD50 said, the IPCC report seems to be a good place to start.
I know the issues transcend Democratic and Republican ideologies, but the solutions can include both perspectives.
I'm also beginning to understand just how important national leadership is, not paralysis or stonewalling.
I still believe that the first things we should be doing are the easy steps like encouraging/mandating florescent bulbs as replacements for incandescent ones, encouraging solar, wind, and perhaps tidal energy alternatives with various incentives, etc. I also think we need to develop some sort of five and/or ten year plan that sets up some goals and methods of implementation (primarily thru incentives or mandates?). I'd like to see things like coal's future footprint as a portion of electrical usage be discussed publicly with all ramifications both negative and positive. It shouldn't be hidden behind closed doors. As ERD50 said, the IPCC report seems to be a good place to start.
I know the issues transcend Democratic and Republican ideologies, but the solutions can include both perspectives.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Believe it or not, I was trying pretty hard to not have "a side". I was trying to point to the available facts as the actual scientific community has stated them, and attempting to mitigate misinformation regarding those statements.
Everyones entitled to their own opinions, even in the absence of factual support. But they're still just opinions.
So Greg, what was your take on the proposed actions to be taken? Based on what you read, do you feel that its prudent to "wait awhile" or that satisfactory immediate actions werent well formed enough to be actionable?
Whats surprising in looking back at the poll figures is that almost 40% of respondents feel that GW is either not real or not caused by people. I'm curious as to the source of their data sets and whether these can be made available to the scientific community...which has determined that is is real and is caused by people...at a high probability and with much supporting data.
Everyones entitled to their own opinions, even in the absence of factual support. But they're still just opinions.
So Greg, what was your take on the proposed actions to be taken? Based on what you read, do you feel that its prudent to "wait awhile" or that satisfactory immediate actions werent well formed enough to be actionable?
Whats surprising in looking back at the poll figures is that almost 40% of respondents feel that GW is either not real or not caused by people. I'm curious as to the source of their data sets and whether these can be made available to the scientific community...which has determined that is is real and is caused by people...at a high probability and with much supporting data.
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I would put it down to a badly designed poll. This has been discussed at length upthread.
I also think that many people here have lived long enough to have learned not to jump on every bandwagon that comes their way.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
So what you're saying is that people would feel compelled to vote in a random internet survey, even though the choices didnt represent the way they actually believed?
As far as the 'bandwagon'...we've got thousands and thousands of scientists and additionally tens of thousands of reviewers...gazoodles of data...and years of research, resulting in a set of agreements and compromises that the vast majority feel comfortable with.
What exactly has to happen to push it beyond the "bandwagon" stage?
As far as the 'bandwagon'...we've got thousands and thousands of scientists and additionally tens of thousands of reviewers...gazoodles of data...and years of research, resulting in a set of agreements and compromises that the vast majority feel comfortable with.
What exactly has to happen to push it beyond the "bandwagon" stage?
greg
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
My guess is that my new signature line is a partial answer/reason for that 40% number. I suspect that idea may color what is looked at regarding global warming and how deeply it registers. But maybe not.
As to your first paragraph, there is a need for me to mull further, at least for a couple of days. Like others, every day brings new data and new solutions. Obviously, I think it's important to keeping stressing the obvious good, easy choices such as renewable energy sources. Those are no brainers.
I was thinking about ERD50's earlier comment about the huge increase in the amount of coal (30% more) needed to reduce the CO2 levels in coal fired electric plants. I think some sort of cost benefit analysis needs to be done to before a decision can be made on whether to bury CO2 in the earth, or no. While reading the IPCC report, I was thinking that maybe we need to just get rid of all coal fired plants as quickly as possible, where possible: That not doing it MAY actually increase actual sea levels from 16" to 30". This would have a huge economic toll over a 20-50 years, or whatever, as water levels rose.
In addition, I was thinking about the temperature rises in this country and things might not be all that bad. More rainfall in Texas keeps the mail wet and varmints in the house, and snowbirds where they belong
; more locally grown food is good, esp in AZ and desert regions. This might actually be not such a bad thing. Milder winters would be very good for Minnesotans. Anyway, it may not be all bad. But we shouldn't encourage it either. Or end up paralyzed with inaction.USK Coastie
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2006
- Messages
- 347
Just remember that if we do every thing the GW pundits what us to the net difference in 100 years will be 1 degree F cooler. That's if you could talk China into NOT bringing on line 2 coal powered electrical plants per week.
I would be greatly amused if the people pushing this would not say a thing against switching our generating capacity from 20 % NUC to 95% NUC.
That is politically incorrect because NUC is bad and you can't build it in my back yard. Kinda like Teddy K's windmills on Cape Cod they spoiled his "view" so we can't have this technology where it disturbes a politicans view.
Get real all this GW stuff is the latest grab at wealth transfer between the haves and have not's of the world conducted by the societal Elite..
I would be greatly amused if the people pushing this would not say a thing against switching our generating capacity from 20 % NUC to 95% NUC.
That is politically incorrect because NUC is bad and you can't build it in my back yard. Kinda like Teddy K's windmills on Cape Cod they spoiled his "view" so we can't have this technology where it disturbes a politicans view.
Get real all this GW stuff is the latest grab at wealth transfer between the haves and have not's of the world conducted by the societal Elite..
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Well I read the IPCC summary. Whew! and Holy Moley, Rocky. Also, I have to pretty much fall down on CFB's side of the argument: humans seem to have caused a lot of the problems related to current global warming. And we're the ones who need to fix it . . . starting soon. Thanks CFB
Hi Greg, I've been working on some replies, but 'real life' has been intervening (all good things, fortunately).
But I saw this post, and here's a (OK, not-so) quick reply to think about:
Please go back and read my post # 25 ( http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/527254-post25.html ) in this thread. You will see that I am not denying man's involvement in GW, I am just trying to clarify how much involvement (per the IPCC's own data), how much of that involvement is 'water under the bridge (as unfortunate as that may be), and also, *can* we 'fix' it? I don't think one can define a 20% reduction as a 'fix'. Improvement, yes; maybe worth doing, yes; maybe there are other good reasons to pursue it, yes; but if it leaves us with 80% of the problem to deal with, we cannot ignore that 80%.
The question (and it has been a question) from me all along has been:
Is the IPCC saying that even if we move away from fossil fuels, we still are left with about 80% of the problem?
So, if that interpretation is correct (this is what I've been asking people to challenge - not all the other points), then it also seems to stand to reason that 'small changes' are going to leave us with even more than 80% of the problem.
So, I say that if that's true, we better be planning to adapt to at least 80% of the problem, because getting off fossil fuel is a fairly small part of the 'fix'. In light of this, I say that just 'wishing/hoping' that a few small changes will make the problem go away is irresponsible.
So, does anyone want to answer the question I've posed umpteen times (rather than answer other questions):
Is the IPCC saying that even if we move away from fossil fuels, we still are left with about 80% of the problem?
And if anyone says 'NO', can they explain what the IPCC *is* saying that getting off fossil fuels for the next 100 years *will* accomplish (with regard to global warming over the next 100 years). Provide references, please.
BTW, in that one-liner, I am using 'sea level rise' as a proxy for the 'Global Warming Problem'. It is the most measurable output I can find. Other measurements get awkward - a bad climate change in one place may be good in another.
Regards - ERD50
PS: for reference, I'll post the IPCC statements here once again:
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Well, some people were compelled to NOT VOTE (me, and probably kcowan), because of the wording. So their views are not reflected, distorting the results.
-ERD50
OAG
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
What a total waste of time.......................
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I managed a market research function for 5 years. Surveys are greatly influenced, not only by the choices offered but also by the way they are presented: their order, their wording, the survey sample...
Example:
Do you believe mankind should reduce pollution?
A) Yes because we owe a good life to our grandchildren.
B) No because we are helpless to control our destiny.
Anyone want to guess the results of that poll?
The largest source of heat in our solar system is the sun. If the global warming on earth was natural wouldn't the other planets also be warming?
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Seems there are other reasons for other planets changing temperature, from Mars wobbly orbit, plutos recent orbit taking it nearer the sun, volcanic activity on jupiter, etc.
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
This pretty much covers all of the other "But what about...?" questions. Not that anyones mind is going to be changed by mere facts...
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
This pretty much covers all of the other "But what about...?" questions. Not that anyones mind is going to be changed by mere facts...
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."
I don't believe the wobble of mars would explain warmer temps 3 summers in a row, since that represents 3 cycles of the wobble.
I don't believe the wobble of mars would explain warmer temps 3 summers in a row, since that represents 3 cycles of the wobble.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Sure. Thats why I like to leave this complicated stuff to these huge scientific bodies who study it, rather than people who take bits and pieces of unrelated and uncorrelated tidbits and try to make facts from them.
From the link above:
"One theory is that winds have recently swept some areas of Mars clean of dust, darkening the surface, warming the Red Planet and leading to further increases in windiness – a positive feedback effect (see Dust blamed for warming on Mars).
There is a great deal of uncertainty, though. The warming could be a regional effect. And recent results from the thermal imaging system on the Mars Odyssey probe suggest that the polar cap is not shrinking at all, but varies greatly from one Martian year to the next, although the details have yet to be published."
So elliptical orbit (which takes TWO of earths years), some wobble, some winds, some changes in surface coloration, some regional temperature changes, and its also entirely possible that the melting is a normal and cyclical activity.
From the link above:
"One theory is that winds have recently swept some areas of Mars clean of dust, darkening the surface, warming the Red Planet and leading to further increases in windiness – a positive feedback effect (see Dust blamed for warming on Mars).
There is a great deal of uncertainty, though. The warming could be a regional effect. And recent results from the thermal imaging system on the Mars Odyssey probe suggest that the polar cap is not shrinking at all, but varies greatly from one Martian year to the next, although the details have yet to be published."
So elliptical orbit (which takes TWO of earths years), some wobble, some winds, some changes in surface coloration, some regional temperature changes, and its also entirely possible that the melting is a normal and cyclical activity.
greg
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
ERD50:
I just found this. I don't know how up-to-date it is, or what part of the GW jig saw puzzle it belongs in:
Carbon dioxide sequestering
As part of the current scientific opinion that excess amounts of carbon dioxide produced by humans in the atmosphere lead to global warming, various methods of limiting or removing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been suggested. Current debate on the subject mostly involves economic or political matters at a policy level.
Methods of carbon dioxide extraction/separation include:
(In addition, I want to know if the Amazonians in #9 wore tight fitting undergarments or nothing at all)
Plus, the language of these scientific articles is driving me crazy. I might as well be doing taxes. I just slowly zone out, get up, and take a nap on the couch. Life is tough.
You said:
. . . how much of that involvement is 'water under the bridge (as unfortunate as that may be), and also, *can* we 'fix' it? I don't think one can define a 20% reduction as a 'fix'. Improvement, yes; maybe worth doing, yes; maybe there are other good reasons to pursue it, yes; but if it leaves us with 80% of the problem to deal with, we cannot ignore that 80%.
And I still disagree with you. I 'feel' that you are looking at the dark side of global warming (not that there's a light side) By analogy: I believe that General Motors engineers invented the automatic transmission some time in the 1940s or 1950s (maybe). This was a good thing, a simple two speed transmission. But if GM upper management had decided that they were going to wait for a perfect or 'much more better' transmission before stepping up and taking a risk by putting it in a line of cars, then not much of anything would have happened. We'd still be waiting for that perfect car, with fantastic mileage, a wonderful, infinitely variable transmission, and Marilyn Monroe next to us every Friday nite that we wanted her . . . um . . . in the seat next to us.
Again, better to do things incrementally, starting with the obviously better, easier, cheaper choices. Not worry so much about whether or not perfection would be attainable in the near future. Not quite so worried that we are solving all of the problems immediately. Better to gradually (over the next ten years or so) gather folks together in a consensus, much like we've done with cigarette smoking issues, slowly educating folks about the harms of direct smoke and second hand smoke and doing those things that are obviously correct. We can and should, to my mind, start a similar process with global warming and CO2 reduction. And it may be that 50-100 years from now that the sea level rises 10-20 feet just because we didn't start the process of cleaning the environment early enough. And our great grandkids may have to put up with moving inland and suffering thru 100 degree summers instead of 90 degree summers. But we might prevent a terrible dark and dirty black swan. And hopefully we'll never know that.
Another interesting semi-positive fact is that new, growing forests rid us of huge amounts of CO2, much more than mature forests. This means that if we manage forests carefully, regularly extracting old growth wood, we also speed the reduction of CO2. Again, good management of forest lands, differently than we manage them today (perhaps getting the Greens, who sometimes demand no cutting in some forest lands, to see things differently) would and could be good. Sometimes both sides need to adjust a bit--incrementally--without capsizing our boat.
Improvements are good, even small ones.
I just found this. I don't know how up-to-date it is, or what part of the GW jig saw puzzle it belongs in:
Carbon dioxide sequestering
As part of the current scientific opinion that excess amounts of carbon dioxide produced by humans in the atmosphere lead to global warming, various methods of limiting or removing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been suggested. Current debate on the subject mostly involves economic or political matters at a policy level.
Methods of carbon dioxide extraction/separation include:
- Aqueous solutions
- Adsorption
- Solid reactants
- Membrane gas separation[19][20]
- Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS)
- The RCRS on the space shuttle Orbiter uses a two-bed system that provides continuous removal of CO2 without expendable products. Regenerable systems allow a shuttle mission a longer stay in space without having to replenish its sorbent canisters. Older lithium hydroxide (LiOH)-based systems, which are non-regenerable, are being replaced by regenerable metal-oxide-based systems. A metal-oxide-based system primarily consists of a metal oxide sorbent canister and a regenerator assembly. This system works by removing carbon dioxide using a sorbent material and then regenerating the sorbent material. The metal-oxide sorbent is regenerated by pumping air heated to around 200 °C at 7.5 standard cubic feet per minute through its canister for 10 hours.[21]
- Algae Bioreactor Technology
- Originally developed at MIT using power plant flue gas to support bio diesel feed stock, they use algae to process out the CO2. Commercial studies have been performed on over 2000 MW of power plants in the United States since 2001. As of March 2007, this is the only commercially installed technology for CO2 mitigation on active power plants. The largest test site for an Algae bioreactor system is connected directly to smokestack of Arizona Public Service Redhawk 1,040 megawatt power plant, producing renewable biofuels as a process by product. At commercial scale, this organic process holds the potential to "scrub" CO2 without the considerable solid and fluid waste issues associated with other technologies[22]
- Underground geological storage.
- Deep Ocean storage. At sufficiently high pressure, around 500 m depth, carbon dioxide forms a solid hydrate with water.[citation needed]
- Terra preta - Charcoal enhanced soils
- Amazon soils that are valued today for their rich agricultural abilities are found to contain charcoal that was put into the soils by Amazonians thousands of years ago. Plant and organic material converted to charcoal can be used to enhance soils and keep CO2 out of the atmosphere for thousands of years. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found a way to further enhance charcoal's agricultural benefits and capture more CO2 by combining ammonia and fossil fuel exhaust to form ammonium bicarbonate in the charcoal lattices. The work by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently being commercialized by a corporation called EPRIDA, Inc.[23
(In addition, I want to know if the Amazonians in #9 wore tight fitting undergarments or nothing at all
) Plus, the language of these scientific articles is driving me crazy. I might as well be doing taxes. I just slowly zone out, get up, and take a nap on the couch. Life is tough.
You said:
. . . how much of that involvement is 'water under the bridge (as unfortunate as that may be), and also, *can* we 'fix' it? I don't think one can define a 20% reduction as a 'fix'. Improvement, yes; maybe worth doing, yes; maybe there are other good reasons to pursue it, yes; but if it leaves us with 80% of the problem to deal with, we cannot ignore that 80%.
And I still disagree with you. I 'feel' that you are looking at the dark side of global warming (not that there's a light side) By analogy: I believe that General Motors engineers invented the automatic transmission some time in the 1940s or 1950s (maybe). This was a good thing, a simple two speed transmission. But if GM upper management had decided that they were going to wait for a perfect or 'much more better' transmission before stepping up and taking a risk by putting it in a line of cars, then not much of anything would have happened. We'd still be waiting for that perfect car, with fantastic mileage, a wonderful, infinitely variable transmission, and Marilyn Monroe next to us every Friday nite that we wanted her . . . um . . . in the seat next to us.
Again, better to do things incrementally, starting with the obviously better, easier, cheaper choices. Not worry so much about whether or not perfection would be attainable in the near future. Not quite so worried that we are solving all of the problems immediately. Better to gradually (over the next ten years or so) gather folks together in a consensus, much like we've done with cigarette smoking issues, slowly educating folks about the harms of direct smoke and second hand smoke and doing those things that are obviously correct. We can and should, to my mind, start a similar process with global warming and CO2 reduction. And it may be that 50-100 years from now that the sea level rises 10-20 feet just because we didn't start the process of cleaning the environment early enough. And our great grandkids may have to put up with moving inland and suffering thru 100 degree summers instead of 90 degree summers. But we might prevent a terrible dark and dirty black swan. And hopefully we'll never know that.
Another interesting semi-positive fact is that new, growing forests rid us of huge amounts of CO2, much more than mature forests. This means that if we manage forests carefully, regularly extracting old growth wood, we also speed the reduction of CO2. Again, good management of forest lands, differently than we manage them today (perhaps getting the Greens, who sometimes demand no cutting in some forest lands, to see things differently) would and could be good. Sometimes both sides need to adjust a bit--incrementally--without capsizing our boat.
Improvements are good, even small ones.
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Well CFB, I will agree on one point - I just looked at the poll again and there are some surprising results. I stand by my view that the poll is poorly worded, so it is difficult to draw conclusions, however....
Within that 40% you mention, is (currently) >18% ( 18 by count also) that say that Global Warming is not real. Now that is a result that I find surprising.
I learned about the Ice Age in grade school. I have not seen anything to make me think that info was false. Just the opposite, and now I'm aware of several Ice Ages.
So I am curious about this. Who does not believe in Global Warming, and why? Maybe the same people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, so we could not have had an Ice Age 14,000 years ago?
So, to those who voted 'not real', would you mind telling us your reasoning?
TIA - ERD50
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Thanks Greg, I'll look that info over later tonight. I also have dug up some interesting (to me at least) info, I'll probably share that in another thread (some of it in the old CFL thread), also later.
Re: incremental improvements... I'm afraid my point is not getting communicated (very likely my problem). I am not saying we should wait to take action, or wait for the 'perfect' solution, I am not saying that small incremental improvements should not be undertaken.
I am saying that we need to accept small improvements for what they are (small!). I don't want people to over-estimate the benefit and get lulled into a false sense of security. Fine if we uncover many,many of them, but the math needs to work.
And, I keep falling back on the IPCC's own words (as I understand them). If we make *large* improvements regarding fossil fuel usage, we are still left with 80% of the problem. So we better plan for that 80% (at least), and/or seek out-of-the box solutions. We probably should be doing the fossil-fuel reduction thing also, but we should realize that it solves only a small part of the (GW) problem.
IMO, that is not defeatist at all. It is an attempt to be realistic, and the route to real solutions, not 'feel good' solutions.
Greg, I think that some of your optimism may stem from a lack of understanding of the scope of the problem. Sorry if that sounds condescending, I don't know quite how else to put it, but please let me make a point or two regarding this. A few posts back you discussed a ban on incandescent lights as a 'Wow!' kind of thing. In reality, we found very solid numbers that say 100% adoption cannot reduce energy consumption more than about 2% (and there may be some unintended consequences there also - more to come). Maybe well worth doing, but 'Wow!' overstates it a bit, no?
A few posts back you also mentioned that maybe in a few years, we can commute using a solar powered car and a $50 solar panel. Do some math there, and even with the most optimistic numbers/trends I think you'll find that is far, far from any reasonable guesstimates of what can be done 'in a few years'.
I'm hopeful for solutions also, I just think we need to address the problems realistically. But I do appreciate the discussion - it keeps motivating me to do more research - thanks!
-ERD50
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Greg, just to provide a little balance to my previous post, I also recognize that technical solutions will go nowhere if they don't get some public support. So, the 'emotional' side of things *is* important, essential even.
But I think it is important that public support be built on realizable expectations. Else, you get the 'those scientists lied to us again', response.
-ERD50
But I think it is important that public support be built on realizable expectations. Else, you get the 'those scientists lied to us again', response.
-ERD50
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
greg, interesting links, esp the one on Algae you pointed out. That link seems broken, but a search within wiki led me here:
GreenFuel Technologies Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and that links to:
MIT Energy Research Council : Research Spotlight
Nice - capture most of the CO2 from a power plant with algae, then use the algae to make bio-fuel. I have read a bit about these before. Hard to say how practical they are on a really large scale, but it's good to see some creativity being applied.
It appears that the IPCC is already counting on a lot of these kinds of innovations in their scenarios. And that gives them the roughly 20% reduction in sea level compared to sticking with fossil fuel.
-ERD50
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I agree with you but I suspect it was the closest choice by process of elimination of the less correct choices. Also there might be a feeling that GW is referring to the political process rather than the scientific one. Climate change is more correct because it includes the 3 decade cooling period after 1945.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I dont believe the IPCC or any supported credible entity associated with the scientific community has made such a claim.
The IPCC specifically states that more than 50% of the warming is caused by human sources. They frequently note that non human sources can also be controlled and mitigated.
OP
OP
TromboneAl
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,880
Hey, be glad I didn't go with my original wording:
Global Warming
o Yes
o No
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Update on Cord Cutting (Cable TV) - 2021 version
- Latest: RetiredAndLovingIt
-
-