What am I doing to reduce AGW?

[Dragonrock]

I am very careful to hide my head in the sand every time someone mentions global warming. So far it seems to be working.

That and I support nuclear power.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have had no children.

 

[Arthur Denton]

I am very careful to hide my head in the sand every time someone mentions global warming. So far it seems to be working.

That and I support nuclear power.

Tsc tsc. I'm disappointed, Dragonrock. I thought that, from all the forum posters, you'd be the one, first to engage the war against humans making the earth a living fireplace. You'll hear from my lawyer soon enough.

Oh, good thing. I heard that the problem with nuclear power is not contaminating the groundwater or leaking. It's the digging of the uranium that actually pollutes. So it's not really safe... Unfortunately, you can't win.

 

[Spud1k]

Sounds like IPCC moved the goalposts as well, then doesn't it?

The IPCC mandate is to examine...not "climate change" in general, but "human-induced" climate change, and examine "options for adaptation and mitigation".

Which makes sense, because if and I say if the climate change is driven primarily by natural causes, there won't be much we lil' old humans can do to prevent it.

Personally, I don't see how that counts as 'moving goalposts', but hey-ho.

I think the reason for the emphasis on 'human-induced climate change' is that if some aspect human activity is causing any bad stuff to happen to the planet, we could, in principle, simply stop doing it in much the same way as we stopped using CFCs when we found out they were harming the ozone layer. That's the principle, anyway.

It's not like the IPCC ignored natural processes. Quite the opposite, in fact; without knowing the magnitude of the natural effects, it's impossible to quantify the man-made ones. And as for whether we could do anything about it if it did all turn out to be natural, it depends on who you talk to.

 

[Dragonrock]

Tsc tsc. I'm disappointed, Dragonrock. I thought that, from all the forum posters, you'd be the one, first to engage the war against humans making the earth a living fireplace. You'll hear from my lawyer soon enough.

Oh, good thing. I heard that the problem with nuclear power is not contaminating the groundwater or leaking. It's the digging of the uranium that actually pollutes. So it's not really safe... Unfortunately, you can't win.

Burning coal puts far more radioactive dust in the environment than nuclear power. Plus, any radiation is energy so all that radioactive waste will one day be dug up and used to power the servers that keep us all in World of Warcraft and porn.

 

[Ziggurat]

I defy anyone to come up with a decent definition of the term 'AGW' and I guarantee that it'll either be horribly convoluted or not consistent with the actual scientific sentiment that it attempts to describe.

Well, I'd say it's that component of global warming which is caused by human activity. The only problem I see for this definition is that the current prefered term seems to be "climate change" - but that itself is a shift in terminology within the field, since "climate change" is more flexible than "global warming", which I seem to recall did get quite a bit of use, and not just by people claiming it wasn't real. While I can understand a preference for the IPCC's term "human-induced climate change", that's really exactly equivalent to "anthropogenic climate change", which in turn isn't that far off from "anthropogenic global warming", since it isn't localized cooling that people are worrying about now.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, good thing. I heard that the problem with nuclear power is not contaminating the groundwater or leaking. It's the digging of the uranium that actually pollutes. So it's not really safe... Unfortunately, you can't win.

The real problem is in raising the capital required. "Support" is one thing, finance is another. Where there's finance and support, it gets built. Safety doesn't enter into it.

 

[Arthur Denton]

Burning coal puts far more radioactive dust in the environment than nuclear power. Plus, any radiation is energy so all that radioactive waste will one day be dug up and used to power the servers that keep us all in World of Warcraft and porn.

And I get that you're all into porn and WOW. Tsc tsc...

 

[Spud1k]

Well, I'd say it's that component of global warming which is caused by human activity. The only problem I see for this definition is that the current prefered term seems to be "climate change" - but that itself is a shift in terminology within the field, since "climate change" is more flexible than "global warming", which I seem to recall did get quite a bit of use, and not just by people claiming it wasn't real. While I can understand a preference for the IPCC's term "human-induced climate change", that's really exactly equivalent to "anthropogenic climate change", which in turn isn't that far off from "anthropogenic global warming", since it isn't localized cooling that people are worrying about now.

What I kind of meant is that it's difficult to define AGW as a phenomenon that either does or doesn't exist, which invariably ends up being the line in the sand when these arguments take place. What the deniers are really saying when they say they don't believe in AGW is that human induced climate change (I'll concede that HICC isn't a great acronym) isn't significant. And then you get embroiled in what does and doesn't count as significant. And that's when it starts getting complicated.

 

[Wangler]

Personally, I don't see how that counts as 'moving goalposts', but hey-ho.

I think the reason for the emphasis on 'human-induced climate change' is that if some aspect human activity is causing any bad stuff to happen to the planet, we could, in principle, simply stop doing it in much the same way as we stopped using CFCs when we found out they were harming the ozone layer. That's the principle, anyway.

It's not like the IPCC ignored natural processes. Quite the opposite, in fact; without knowing the magnitude of the natural effects, it's impossible to quantify the man-made ones. And as for whether we could do anything about it if it did all turn out to be natural, it depends on who you talk to.

I wanted to just make it clear that folks who don't prescribe to "AGW" did not begin concentrating on man-related warming, just to "shift the goal posts".

IPCC is concentrating on man-related warming, as well.

It is, after all, clearly written in their mandate.

 

[GreyICE]

C'mon, GreyICE, you are better than that. From the IPCC website:



Bolding and underlines are mine.

Sounds like IPCC moved the goalposts as well, then doesn't it?

The IPCC mandate is to examine...not "climate change" in general, but "human-induced" climate change, and examine "options for adaptation and mitigation".

Which makes sense, because if and I say if the climate change is driven primarily by natural causes, there won't be much we lil' old humans can do to prevent it.

What the heck is with you people who think that humans can't do a damn thing to change the climate?

Have you even seen what we're capable of? Our planet twinkles like a star at night. Manmade machines orbit our planet, observing and connecting every square inch of it. We have changed the course of rivers, dug holes through mountains, created and destroyed swamps, changed the coastline itself. With our weapons we could trigger earthquakes or potentially collapse even hurricanes.

Little old us can definitely change our climate.

The IPCC, in its reports (I doubt you've read any) lay out both natural and human related warming causes, as well as natural feedback mechanisms. They quantify the amount of heating that could be related to natural cycles, and how that contrasts with the observed heating.

Conspiracy theorists always love to claim that no one has even investigated their topic properly, when in fact the investigation has simply found the cause they're championing lacking.

Climate change is being caused by humans. There are definitely natural factors that effect it, but the thrust of climate change, currently, is caused not natural cycles, but by us.

And yes, 'little old us' the dominant lifeform on this planet, can change things. It's about time a bunch of kids who think that we can't really do anything permanently and we could never burn down the house (even if we run around playing with matches) grow up and take responsibility for what we are doing, and consider how best to mitigate the effects.

 

[mhaze]

Wrangler is correct regarding the mandate in the IPCC charter.

 

[Wangler]

With our weapons we could trigger earthquakes or potentially collapse even hurricanes.

Are you aware of the energy dissipation of an average hurricane? Do you really think that our weapons could collapse a hurricane?

Time to run some numbers.

Little old us can definitely change our climate.

I think man can change the climate, but I am not sure that he can have a drastic effect, one that would culminate in the "worst disaster in the history of mankind"

 

[Wangler]

The IPCC, in its reports (I doubt you've read any).

Nope, only got as far as the mandate, which is about a paragraph further than some others got, by all appearances.

 

[GreyICE]

Are you aware of the energy dissipation of an average hurricane? Do you really think that our weapons could collapse a hurricane?

Time to run some numbers.

Do I think a 30 megaton weapon - thirty million tons of TNT, the equivalent of 60 100 story skyscrapers in weight of pure TNT - could disrupt a hurricane?

The wind energy of the entire hurricane is estimated by this site at 1.3*10^17th Joules/day

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

A megaton is 4.18*10^15th Joules.

Do I think releasing the energy of a day's worth of hurricane force winds in roughly a 1/1000 of a second might be enough to disrupt a hurricane?

Oh hells yes.

The winds generated by a nuclear blast can exceed a thousand kilometers per hour. Hurricanes of category five have wind speeds of 250 km/hr, by contrast.

There's been some very decent theory that backed that up too, I read the paper. Problem is, politicians are a little loath to suggest detonating 30 megaton weapons, pretty much period (plus minor problems like fallout, etc.). Also there's a decent chance that the bomb might temporarily kill the winds, but leave the underlying mechanism more or less intact, causing the hurricane to simply restart itself (the mechanism is many times more energetic than the winds it generates).

Then there's the danger that it would just make it worse. After all throwing 30 megatons of energy into a chaotic system is not necessarily a recipe for an ongoing string of successes.

The rainstorm on the edge of the bomb blast would be something to behold though.

I think man can change the climate, but I am not sure that he can have a drastic effect, one that would culminate in the "worst disaster in the history of mankind"

Mankind has had a short, disaster free history. We're not even getting on towards the million year range. We're not even a young species, we're newborns in the scales we're playing at.

Is this going to equal the dinosaur-killing asteroid? No. The Cryogenian Ice Age that froze the earth into a snowball? No.

Could it rival the effects of one of the lesser ice ages that we get hit with all the time? Quite likely.

And remember, although the earth has corrective mechanisms, they don't really work on timescales we like. 100,000 years is an eyeblink to some of these mechanisms. The Cryogenian Ice Age lasted 160 million years. And our best guess is that it was finally broken by Carbon Dioxide and Methane build up.

 

[Wangler]

Do I think a 30 megaton weapon - thirty million tons of TNT, the equivalent of 60 100 story skyscrapers in weight of pure TNT

Let's start with the basic stuff--Where are you going to get a 30 megaton weapon? America didn't have any of that yield in it's inventory. Russia had anywhere from 0-25 of that size, or greater. But that was a long time ago.

- could disrupt a hurricane?

Wait, disrupt a hurricane? Disrupt?

Earlier you said:

With our weapons we could trigger earthquakes or potentially collapse even hurricanes.

Let's see:

col·lapse \kə-ˈlaps\ :

1. to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely
2. to break down completely

dis·rupt \dis-ˈrəpt\ :

1. to break apart
2. to interrupt the normal course or unity of

Those words are only very broadly synonymous..are you changing the goal posts?

 

[Wangler]

Could it rival the effects of one of the lesser ice ages that we get hit with all the time?

GreyICE, are you talking about the planet, or the human race, when you say "we get hit with all the time"?

 

[Lonewulf]

I think man can change the climate, but I am not sure that he can have a drastic effect, one that would culminate in the "worst disaster in the history of mankind"

I keep hearing this. I think that this is from people who think that humans are pathetic compared to the earth that surround them, and incapable of any great actual change. It seems to really insult the human race's development, and ignore their size, for the past few centuries.

This strikes me as naive. 6 billion people, and a very decent chunk of those people work in skyscrapers, live in houses, work in industry, congregate in huge cities, slash-and-burn entire swathes and forest (not so popular today, of course, but we certainly did our part in that), and radically alter local environments. It's gotten to the point where humans are staking out any kind of land that they can find, including areas that are very likely to see disaster (such as New Orleans), simply because we're hard-up on finding other kinds of land.

The Earth really is only so big. It's not some monster unstoppable machine. And a lot of what makes it up -- from it's iron core to it's crust, to it's atmospheric pressure, chemical make-up, etc. -- is not untouchable. Humans do not live in a vacuum, and neither do their actions. To ignore that humans have impact is something I could never understand.

We populate almost every corner of the earth; we sent ships all over the oceans; we've taken off into space with huge rockets; we've build huge industrial centers, to take care of the wants of billions; we've consistently shown to be quite creative and energetic with the resources we've been able to unearth. We've also been using them on a very massive scale. I mean, just the scale of gasses that we put up, every single day...

Manure on our fields put up methane and nitrous oxide. Every single car that exists (and they don't just exist in the U.S., like some might believe; Athens, Greece has horrible traffic, and has nearly 1.5 million people living in a very very tight space), every single airplane, every single train, hell, every single boat, every single factory that requires energy, every single power plant that relies on fossil fuels, every single house that requires energy for heating, cooling, television, computers, lights, etc., all of this exists at a massive scale.

But not only that, it's not like human actions live in a vacuum in the sense that the earth itself has absolutely no effect either. Methane gasses are being produced in very natural parts of the planet, for instance; but it would be hard to convince me that they could compare at all to the effect that 6 billion+ people can produce. And even if the two were equal, it certainly wouldn't help doubling the total amount of greenhouse gas production.

 

[mhaze]

Let's start with the basic stuff--.are you changing the goal posts?

Why is it considered that it may be a good thing to destroy hurricanes? They may be essential to some ecological cycles. Monsoons are to India, fire is to the giant redwood.

I am not claiming to know. What would a hurricane expert say?

 

[Spud1k]

I can't speak for hurricane experts, but I think the residents of New Orleans might have a thing or two to say about that...

There are some that think extreme weather is nature's way of punishing mankind. Given that it tends to be the poorest people with the low carbon footprints that suffer at the hands of them, I'd say nature has a pretty lousy aim.