[POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers

[james_s]

What engine destroying fuel? I don't even remember the last time I encountered a bad engine in a car that wasn't completely falling apart, except for the kids who crank up the boost on their turbos.

Bunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?

[timgiles]

Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.

Now I am no climate scientist - but I simply don't understand what the issue is. If global temperature is going up, or going down - there is little the human race can do to change it. We seemingly have failed to change it doing our worst over the last 100 years with no or little control over emissions. Also from all the data I have seen put forward, none of it matters if the earth is changing its temperature rather than us.

So do I think we should have international agreements on energy cost (to the environment) - yes absolutely. Energy is a finite resource as has been said in the thread and we should ensure that we produce it efficiently. We should manage/restrict the release of toxins, we should try where possible to limit the negative effect our lives make on the environment around us as well as on the other side of the world.

However - when I hear people bemoaning the rising sea levels, I wonder what they expect us to do about it. I mean seriously? If people have chosen to live at sea level, or live there anyway - they need to be shown the evidence that sea level is rising at the same rate it has for 1-200 years and about 50% it raised the several hundreds of years before that. There is nothing we can do as a world to stop this. If we as a race believe these people should be moved, we should offer them that.

[james_s]

Now I am no climate scientist - but

Don't take this as a personal insult because none is intended, but I'm going to take the word of those who *are* climate scientists or at least subject matter experts over yours on this particular matter. It is pretty close to unanimously agreed that humans are responsible for a far greater portion of greenhouse gas emissions than that. There is really no controversy to speak of, the loudest skeptics tend to have  either ties to various industries or the concept of humans being capable of upsetting the climate of the earth is incompatible with their religious views.

[Marco]

What engine destroying fuel?

E15.

Bunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?

I don't have a sea harbour in front of my home, locally produced goods and foreign produced goods both go on the lorry. So subsidizing foreign produced goods seems like a bad idea. They might be relatively efficient CO2 wise ... but shipping emits enough sulphur to dwarf cars altogether. It's atrociously dirty.

[retrolefty]

What engine destroying fuel?

E15.

Bunker fuel is dirty, but I would wager that even the dirtiest bunker fuel spews less pollution per quantity of goods transferred than the cleanest road transport. Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?

I don't have a sea harbour in front of my home, locally produced goods and foreign produced goods both go on the lorry. So subsidizing foreign produced goods seems like a bad idea. They might be relatively efficient CO2 wise ... but shipping emits enough sulphur to dwarf cars altogether. It's atrociously dirty.

 Yea bunker fuel is some nasty stuff, just the rotten, barely able to burn, bottom of the barrel hydrocarbon family, just above asphalt and coke. In fact they have to use very expensive motor driven high speed centrifugal fuel filter machine(s) to keep from plugging up the engine. In most ports in 1st world countries they are not allowed to use bunker coming into or leaving port, they have to switch to diesel fuel. 

[orion242]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

More can be found HERE

It's also a fact  that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.

I'll look into these links, thanks.

Your first link however is the same report i already pointed to, and its NOT pointing to the conclusions you suggest.

[Fungus]

Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.

This is a false argument. A single straw can break a camel's back.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[mtdoc]

Human activity contributes only a tiny amount of the total addition 'green house' gases put out each year (water vapour, CO2, methane, N2O..). Of the annual green house contributing gas - Natural processes over which we have no control or possibility to control account for 99+%. Man made, contribution 0.3% give or take.

This is a false argument. A single straw can break a camel's back.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Exactly. This is something that any engineer or scientist with even a passing familiarity with control theory should easily understand.   Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.  The magnitude of the input can be a very small fraction of the other inputs.  For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.  Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day,  every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few  years you will be very fat.

[Kleinstein]

There are a few parts in the green-house effect that are not that easy (e.g. water vapor, cloud formation, changing wind patterns, ocean currents), however the balance of the carbon / CO2 is a really easy part. This is something easy to check, without help of computers:

There is reasonable knowledge on how much coal and oil is burnt (thus the main part of the "human" emissions) and there are also good, reliable measurements on the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. These data match up very well. So saying that the human caused emissions are too small is like trying to tell you 1 + 1 is 3. Comparing yearly emissions with the total carbon contend in the oceans is more like confusing with large numbers. Already going from emissions per year to emissions per century would change the impression, without any change in the values. Usually this should ring BS alarm on those using these false arguments. It's a little like a new Batterizer adding blazing billions of electron volts of Energy to a dead battery.

The difficult part is to judge wether we will see 1 or 2 or maybe even 10 degree temperature rise when doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere. This needs all the complicated models or at least trusting the accuracy of the temperature data with all the needed adjustments and fitting. Here it is really hard for a non expert to make up there own picture. Especially the models need experts we have to trust on this.

[Marco]

Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.

But it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.

Modern civilization might be in trouble, but we're in trouble any way. Overpopulation combined with peak everything, WMD proliferation with bioweapons quickly becoming more dangerous than nukes, demographic collapse among western culture (which lets not kid ourselves, are the core of modern civilization) combined with mass immigration of non western cultures ... I rate all those higher threats to modern civilization than the potential of AGW if true. We're doing a lot less about them too, with the exception of WMDs it's not PC to think or talk about them even.

[mtdoc]

Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.

But it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.

It all depends on what time frame you are considering and what you mean by stable. Yes, COs levels have been higher and the planet has been much warmer in the distant past- but at that time there were no large mammals living.   "Stable" for one type of biological system may not be stable for another.  Biologic systems can evolve, change and adapt to new physical conditions but rapid changes are problematic - especially when looking at specific species.  Humans have some unique characteristics which have obviously allowed us to adapt to a diverse set of physical environments.  But in the end, we are no different than other species - we depend on an intact biosphere that approximates the environment we evolved in.

[jonovid]

Modern civilization might be in trouble, but we're in trouble any way. Overpopulation combined with peak everything ....

      the doom and gloom of the deep state

[Fungus]

Addition of a relatively very small input beyond what a system was designed to handle can make the system unstable - especially if that input is continuous.

But it's not designed for anything and it has been metastable at CO2 levels far higher in the past, so it's scientifically very plausible that the biosphere will survive just fine.

Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?

[Hensingler]

For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.

The very obvious consequence is the system temperature will increase causing it to dissipate the extra heat. Systems do not have a 'designed' dissipation limit. A heatsink designed to dissipate 100W at 100C does not increase temperature till it melts if you feed it an extra watt. Remember the whole CO2 driven AWG theory is based on CO2 reflecting back some of the heat the earth would otherwise radiate into space.

Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day,  every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few  years you will be very fat.

No, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.

Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?

Back where? What is the ideal global temperature and ideal for who/what?  I and most of the life on the planet would rather it got warmer than go back just 11,000 years when much of the currently temperate climes were under kms of ice.

[mtdoc]

For example - add a very small amount of extra heat continuously beyond what a system was designed to dissipate, even if that extra heat is many orders of magnitude below the normal inputs, and the consequences should be obvious.

The very obvious consequence is the system temperature will increase causing it to dissipate the extra heat. Systems do not have a 'designed' dissipation limit. A heatsink designed to dissipate 100W at 100C does not increase temperature till it melts if you feed it an extra watt.

I was not specifically referring to heat sinks or electronics but giving a simple example of a general principle.  Nevertheless, the principle holds true.  A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink ).  Electronic systems, automobile systems, geophysical systems, biological systems, etc, etc.

Are you disputing that or just tr.....

Or from human physiology - eat just 20 extra calories a day,  every day (normal daily intake is around 2000) and in a few  years you will be very fat.

No, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.

  Wouldn't it be nice if that were true!  We could all eat as much as we want then...   Again - I was simplifying but the idea is factually correct. To be more specific - take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns (by whatever mechanism) and you will gain large amounts of weight over time - despite the extra calories being a small fraction of total caloric intake.

Are you disputing that or just tr.....

All complex systems geophysical and biological systems (and well designed by human systems) have mechanisms to maintain a steady state or homeostasis. Generally these involve a set of negative feedback loops.  But there are limits to the inputs and it's just a fact that beyond some point, continuous inputs that are relatively small compared to the total inputs, will result in loss of that steady state or homeostasis.  A new steady state is often achieved eventually but it may be quite different one.  There are countless examples of this in mammalian physiology (the field I am most familiar with) - body temperature, body weight, blood pH, ion concentrations, etc, etc.. 

Yes, but do we really want to go back there if we can avoid it?

Back where? What is the ideal global temperature and ideal for who/what? I and most of the life on the planet would rather it got warmer than go back just 11,000 years when much of the currently temperate climes were under kms of ice.

That's an extremely uninformed view. Even if one ignores the adverse impact that warming has on human life-supporting local and global ecosystems, there are hard limits as to what temperature animal life can tolerate. For humans and other large mammals those limits will begin to be exceeded within a few decades if current trends continue. A 3-4 degree C temp rise means very large numbers of people start to die from heat related illness. Continue that trend to a rise of 7 degrees and parts of the planet become uninhabitable. 12 degrees and most of the planet is uninhabitable.

See: An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress

But it's likely that long before then, ecosystem stress would result in lower food production, lower atmospheric O2, and of course loss of currently highly populated areas and large amounts of arable land due to sea level rise - all resulting in a large decrease in human population.

But I'm a cynic. Humans won't change enough to make a difference. Eventually we'll burn every bit of fossil fuel we are able to get our hands on.   If you zoom out both spatially and temporally,  AGW could be seen as the earth's way of re-achieving homeostasis. To quote George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked" and "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"

[Brumby]

Nevertheless, the principle holds true.  A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink ).

It seems to me that the key to this point is the statement "beyond what a system can dissipate" - which begs the question: What IS that figure?  Having that would really put some arguments to bed.

No, you will gain enough extra weight to burn an extra 20 calories a day moving it around.

  Wouldn't it be nice if that were true!  We could all eat as much as we want then...   Again - I was simplifying but the idea is factually correct. To be more specific - take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns (by whatever mechanism) and you will gain large amounts of weight over time - despite the extra calories being a small fraction of total caloric intake.

"take in just 20 calories more a day than your body burns".  This is changing the math - from a linear relationship to a geometric one - and changes the answer significantly.  Nevertheless, the question that then falls from this concept is: What similarity does this have to the current trend in global CO₂ emissions?

[Fungus]

Nevertheless, the principle holds true.  A relatively small continuous input of heat beyond what a system can dissipate (regardless of design) will have adverse consequences (and no I'm not talking about melting a heatsink ).

It seems to me that the key to this point is the statement "beyond what a system can dissipate" - which begs the question: What IS that figure?  Having that would really put some arguments to bed.

We don't know. That's the problem - some people seem to think we should do the experiment and find out.

The whole "it was warmer before" argument is completely empty, it's just unconnected words, but it's the one that usually pops up these days (the 'anti' arguments go in cycles).

a) It doesn't tell you anything about if the warming is man made.
b) It doesn't mean it would be good if it got warmer again.
c) It doesn't mean the planet will react the same if it happens again.
d)...

To me it seems common sense that if man is causing the warming ('AGW') then we should stop doing it. The money being spent on Iraq/Afghanistan or the F35 would make a great start towards fixing it and the cheap energy that results would probably pay for it in economic terms later on.

[Fungus]

But I'm a cynic. Humans won't change enough to make a difference. Eventually we'll burn every bit of fossil fuel we are able to get our hands on.

Me too. If "doing something about it" requires educating all the people who watch Fox News, etc. before any steps can be taken, then .... we're screwed.

The sad/ironic part is that those exact same scientists who currently know nothing about climate* will be the people called on to fix the planet via geoengineering it (or whatever).

(*) In the eyes of Fox News.

[jonovid]

Im more concerned about eugenics then one of 6 gases that the UN says is pollution.  CO2 is not the problem,  the real problem is the rise of eugenics, that to say the push towards the idea, humans are useless eaters. calls for depopulation to be the highest priority. to do it quickly, that equals euthanasia of the useless eaters. to save the world or the planet. for a utopian society.
this did take place in the 1940s Germany. gypsy's , homosexuals & Jewish people were rounded up like sheep. to be euthanized. as bullets were needed for the war. so it was decided to use gas as this is more efficient. the depopulation program was increased to an industrial scale useing ovens and full recycling programs! for human hair skin & even gold from teeth.  some will say this never happened. but it did. this should be a warning, when you have calls for depopulation in the name of planet.

[daveyk]

Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?

Yes, but I thought that was in the 1960's "Oh, we're heading in to a new Ice Age!".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#Origins

"Origins [of mammals]
Synapsida, a clade that contains mammals and their extinct relatives, originated during the Pennsylvanian subperiod, when they split from reptilian and avian lineages. Crown group mammals evolved from earlier mammaliaforms during the Early Jurassic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

"Five hundred million years ago the carbon dioxide concentration was 20 times greater than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago."

"The concentration of carbon dioxide has risen due to human activities.[50] Combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization."

That ^^^^ , does not mean that there's been life on earth, and mammals, and 4..5x more CO2 than now, before?

[Hensingler]

To me it seems common sense that if man is causing the warming ('AGW') then we should stop doing it. The money being spent on Iraq/Afghanistan or the F35 would make a great start towards fixing it and the cheap energy that results would probably pay for it in economic terms later on.

Because we really don't want to delay the next ice age where most of north America, Europe and Russia will spend thousands of years buried under thousands of metres of ice like the last time.

I asked you what the ideal global temperature was and you don't know or wouldn't say. If you don't know you can't say warmer is better or worse. Here is a clue. There is a 40C spread in average temperature between the equator and poles, 2 degrees of latitude change is around 1C temperature change. At what latitudes is life most prolific and diverse?

The idea that the globe was at the perfect temperature about 100 years ago is pretty unlikely and given no one has or can decide on criteria for what a perfect temperature is, ridiculous anyway. Do you ask penguins or lizards?

It is quite possible the benefits of some warming outweigh the disadvantages and plants certainly like more CO2.

The only thing that is really clear to me is the huge desire of stupid people to flagellate self and others for wickedness even to the point of, like Don Quixote, turning windmills into dragons just to tilt against them.

[Marco]

Im more concerned about eugenics then one of 6 gases that the UN says is pollution.  CO2 is not the problem,  the real problem is the rise of eugenics, that to say the push towards the idea, humans are useless eaters. calls for depopulation to be the highest priority. to do it quickly, that equals euthanasia of the useless eaters. to save the world or the planet. for a utopian society.

You don't need euthanasia, sterilization solves it quickly enough. That said, what calls? Overpopulation has become an completely un-PC topic, especially because it mixes with immigration ... that's why all refugees will soon be said to be "climate refugees" (doubling population in 25 years has slightly more impact than climate change of course, but that's another thing you won't hear much except from Nazis like me).

There are alternatives, none of which are terribly appetizing either :

Closing the borders and letting Malthus solve the problem in the countries having it.

A globally imposed government and culture which at the same time ensures basic survival for everyone, while on the other being so oppressive that all people stop wanting to reproduce. In other words, communism.

Singularity and post scarcity, not bloody likely.

[nctnico]

Don't forget to factor in a comet which could hit the earth at any time.

[SeanB]

More likely is the Yellowstone supervolcano popping it's cap off, pretty likely if the Big One turns California into an island. Think Deccan traps style eruption, will make Anak Krakatoa look like an anthill.