What am I doing to reduce AGW?

[Wangler]

There are many on JREF who are genuinely concerned about AGW, and it's potential impact on our planet, and our lives.

I was interested in what people were actually doing about it.

[Wangler]

For example, my family recycle as much as we can, but not specifically to fight AGW.

I ride my bike into work, but that is just to save money, not to reduce carbon footprint or anything.

If I was really concerned about AGW, I might stop my flying lessons, for example. Or maybe I would make drastic changes to how I heat/cool the house, or impose strict guidelines on energy usage in the house. I have done neither.

I am interested in what others are doing, or not doing.

[Pipirr]

Hating America, reading the Guardian, making out with polar bears, eating tofu and building a life sized statue of Al Gore out of recycled aluminium cans.

But seriously, why is this in SMMT and not, in say, Community?

[GreyICE]

I heat my house with strawmen, this forum has an abundant supply, and they're handed out freely.

[Wangler]

I heat my house with strawmen, this forum has an abundant supply, and they're handed out freely.

GreyICE, I hope you don't think I am being sarcastic; I am being serious in saying that was funny.


A very good one.

:)

[dahduh]

Work from home; I reduced my commute from 50 miles/day to 5 paces. Bonus: extra time in bed, even more energy savings.

[Mark Felt]

NOTHING.

Well, that's not true. I saved money by switching my insurance to Geico.

[Pixel42]

I've reduced the amount of travelling I do, taken several small measures to reduce the amount of electricity I use, and installed a solar water heater which provides all my hot water from April to September.

[skeptigirl]

I haven't changed much because I have been doing a lot of the same stuff to conserve the environment long before the GW issue arose.

[skeptigirl]

NOTHING.

Well, that's not true. I saved money by switching my insurance to Geico.Fell for that false marketing ploy, did you?

Hint: Anytime you see a huge marketing campaign like Geico's, you can rest assured the customers are footing the bill in the cost of the product.

[Lonewulf]

Well, my own personal life, not much. Attempting to cut down on meat to lessen the impact of livestock on the environment (15-20% of global warming gasses come from Land Use, and a decent chunk of that comes from livestock; it's not a lot compared to industrial stuff, but I'm more likely to be able to change my diet than major industry!)

Other than that, I take the Straßenbahn everywhere I go, and do not own a car.

I buy what I can that saves energy.

Stuff. I'm willing to take suggestions on what else I can do.

[In My Spare Time]

Vegetarian diet for the last 12 years, partly due to environmental concerns, bought a house where I could walk to most all of my basic shopping needs, bus to work most every day, at home there's no AC & minimal heating. None of that seems drastic to me, but I suspect I'm doing better than most Americans.

[Spud1k]

I've made, or tried to make, changes but most have motivations in addition to carbon footprint minimisation such as reducing deforestation, landfill use, health-affecting pollutants and so on.

In honesty, my carbon footprint sucks thanks to all the travelling I do with work. Makes me feel very hypocritical. I try to justify it along the lines of my job is to do research that feeds into climate science and stuff. Greater good and all.

[Bob Blaylock]

The very best thing that could be done to fight global warming would be to put a muzzle on Algore and others like him.. If Global Warming is really taking place, and if the cause is man-made, then surely the vast majority of it is being caused by all the hot air being given off by Algore and his ilk.

[GreyICE]

The very best thing that could be done to fight global warming would be to put a muzzle on Algore and others like him.. If Global Warming is really taking place, and if the cause is man-made, then surely the vast majority of it is being caused by all the hot air being given off by Algore and his ilk.
This is coming from a real scientist folks. You know we can trust him, he gives off that science air. He's obviously not a conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

I never got the obsession the anti-AGW people have for Al Gore.

It's starting to get me to wonder if they think about him often.

If they dream about him at night.

If he's their boogeyman.

I'm starting to wonder if these people tell horror stories so many times, they start to confuse the characters...

[Dr. Trintignant]

I am convincing everyone I can to support nuclear power.

- Dr. Trintignant

[mhaze]

Well, my own personal life, not much. Attempting to cut down on meat to lessen the impact of livestock on the environment (15-20% of global warming gasses come from Land Use, and a decent chunk of that comes from livestock....But isn't it your duty to consume large qtys of meat to help get rid of all that livestock?:)

[Lonewulf]

But isn't it your duty to consume large qtys of meat to help get rid of all that livestock?:)Which just creates more demand. I'd think you free market people would be smarter than that.

Not hard to breed more livestock, after all. And evidence clearly shows that as people are growing up in population and are starting to consume more and more meat, more and more livestock are being bred. Numbers of livestock are expected to double within a few decades.

As for what my "duty" is, well, my "duty" is essentially what I give myself.

[a_unique_person]

Work closer to home
Pay a premium for 'green' electricity. (It's a bit of a scam, but it does encourage them to build the infrastructure. Once the economies of scale kick in, a scam no more).
Small car.
Fluoro lights.
Insulation in walls and ceiling. (OK, that's mandatory for all new homes, but it's a law I approve of).
Thermostat kept low in winter. (18C)

[Cuddles]

There are many on JREF who are genuinely concerned about AGW, and it's potential impact on our planet, and our lives.

I was interested in what people were actually doing about it.

The trouble with your poll and question is that it misses three very important points that most realists also make. Sure, global warming is happening and it's almost certainly at least partially our fault. However, that doesn't mean we can actually do anything about it. No matter what a few people, or even a few countries, do, everyone else will make sure that all that coal and oil gets burned. Even if that were not the case, we don't have a viable way to reduce the carbon we've already released. There's very little point trying to stop global warming. Even without any human influence, the climate will change, as deniers are often fond of pointing out. What we need to do is make sure we can cope with whatever happens, whether it is our fault or not.

The second point is pollution. Arguing about carbon and its long term effects is all very well, but there are many other forms of pollution which are easily demonstrated to be harmful and often have much easier solutions. Acid rain was a big worry for a while. Whole forests were dying, lakes becoming sterile and so on. Fortunately we saw the problem, found the cause and it is now much less of a problem. Same for the ozone layer. It's still not looking happy, but the holes aren't getting bigger any more, although there's still a way to go before they actually heal. Smog is one that's much more of a problem. The Beijing Olympics gave a bit more focus, but there are many places with similar problems that no-one hears about. Toxic waste and disposal appear in the news occasionally, but they are a problem all the time. Landfills, chemical spills, heavy metals, radioactive waste, mine leavings and so on. There are many, many different types of pollution and almost as many different sources. We shouldn't need global warming in order to realise just how dirty the human race is. Even if you don't believe global warming is happening at all, there are so many other reasons to try to reduce waste.

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Does burning coal and oil cause global warming? Who cares? It'll all be gone in a few years anyway. We don't need renewables and nuclear to give us clean energy, we need them to give us energy, full stop. It won't be a decade, it probably won't be a century, but non-renewables will run out, by definition. And it's not just fuel. There's a limited amount of virtually everything that human civilisation runs on. Plastics are mostly made from oil, which makes burning it really quite stupid. Metals could all be recycled, but the way we use them tends to scatter them around the place which males it impractical to do so. Which brings up the point that I've noticed a couple of people mention recycling. Recycling is bad for global warming, since it often takens more energy than simply making new stuff. However, what recycling does do is make our resources last longer and reduce waste. We could theoretically have unlimited clean energy just using current technology. What we can't have is unlimited material resources.

This is why I generally have problems with both sides of the global warming arguments (I wouldn't consider it any kind of actual debate). On the one hand you have the deniers who are perfectly happy to ignore reality and lie as much as possible just to support their ideology. On the other hand, you have people making a huge fuss about something which their proposed solutions won't do a damn thing about, and which is unlikely to cause us any real problems until well after we have plenty of more serious things to worry about. Climate change is real, and it can be coped with by working out what will probably happen and planning appropriately. The doomsayers who make it out to be a big bogeyman just to score political or environmental points are just as bad as those who deny it exists at all. Humanity has enough problems without having to pretend some are much bigger than they really are.



As for the actual question, I have electricity from windfarms (and my flat doesn't have gas or oil), I cycle to work and walk to the shops. I have energy saving lightbulbs, I hardly use heating (high metabolism or something), and I recycle all the stuff I can. In order to offset that, I work at a particle accelerator which requires the equivalent of a small power station to run.

[GreyICE]

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Does burning coal and oil cause global warming? Who cares? It'll all be gone in a few years anyway. We don't need renewables and nuclear to give us clean energy, we need them to give us energy, full stop. It won't be a decade, it probably won't be a century, but non-renewables will run out, by definition. And it's not just fuel. There's a limited amount of virtually everything that human civilisation runs on. Plastics are mostly made from oil, which makes burning it really quite stupid. Metals could all be recycled, but the way we use them tends to scatter them around the place which males it impractical to do so. Which brings up the point that I've noticed a couple of people mention recycling. Recycling is bad for global warming, since it often takens more energy than simply making new stuff. However, what recycling does do is make our resources last longer and reduce waste. We could theoretically have unlimited clean energy just using current technology. What we can't have is unlimited material resources.

With all due respect, I'm going to have to take issue here. Recycling is very cost-effective for many materials, especially metals. It is so cost-effective, in fact, that when I am documenting recycled material costs, I am allowed to assume a certain percentage of many metals are recycled, with no documentation. None. It's just so cost-effective to recycle metals, that we are already doing it on a very large scale.

Furthermore, many uses of recycled paper, such as cheap insulation, are very cost effective as well.

Glass recycling is also cost effective.
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Glass.htm

Plastic is the only one that's a tough nut to crack, and that's because of the number thing. When you mix different numbers of plastic together, they tend to separate when they're melted down. That produces an exceptionally weak plastic, since it's striated into layers. So you have to sort the different numbers of plastic. The numbers are NOT quality, but literally type of plastic, chemically.

[quarky]

We grow food here; pull drapes to block passive solar gain during summer; opposite strategy in winter; catch rain water and gravity feed to toilet; wear sweaters in winter...simple stuff like that...keeps the power bills low. yet, we've been that way all along, because it makes sense for us. It will do little to fix the problem, true.

[Furi]

I have reduced my Chilli, Soya and Cask Stout intake, as such my flatulence has decreased significantly

[Lonewulf]

Plastic is the only one that's a tough nut to crack, and that's because of the number thing. When you mix different numbers of plastic together, they tend to separate when they're melted down. That produces an exceptionally weak plastic, since it's striated into layers. So you have to sort the different numbers of plastic. The numbers are NOT quality, but literally type of plastic, chemically. We should do what they do in Germany; have procedures where you can give the plastic bottles to a certain center, where they wash it out and refill it.

[Cuddles]

With all due respect, I'm going to have to take issue here. Recycling is very cost-effective for many materials, especially metals. It is so cost-effective, in fact, that when I am documenting recycled material costs, I am allowed to assume a certain percentage of many metals are recycled, with no documentation. None. It's just so cost-effective to recycle metals, that we are already doing it on a very large scale.

Note that I didn't say anything about cost.

[GreyICE]

Note that I didn't say anything about cost.
Quote by Cuddles:
Recycling is bad for global warming, since it often takens more energy than simply making new stuff.
If you followed the links, you'd realize this simply isn't true for glass or metal.

If recycled glass is used to make new bottles and jars, the energy needed in the furnace is greatly reduced. After accounting for the transport and processing needed, 315kg of CO2 is saved per tonne of glass melted.

Paper depends strongly on what's being done with the paper, and plastic, as I said, doesn't work out too well, but for metal and glass it's highly beneficial.

[Cuddles]

Quote by Cuddles:

Nope, nothing about cost there.

If you followed the links, you'd realize this simply isn't true for glass or metal.

Did I say it was? Oh look, no I didn't. Why would I bother following links that aren't arguing about anything I actually said? What I did say is that it is often impractical to recycle because of the way we use certain things. Sure, metal is great to recycle when it's all collected in one place. What about when it's scattered around the countryside in the shape of little tin cans? Still think it's more energy efficient to hunt it all down than to just dig it out the ground in big lumps? What if I break my window? I can't put that in a bottle bank. Will a glass recycling company come and collect it from my door, or will it just end up in a landfill? Why do we have scrapyards full of old cars and other junk, yet people still keep digging metal out of the ground? And this is before I even point out that there is no such thing as "metal" or "glass", there are many different types, all of which have different methods of production and recycling and therefore very different costs and practicalities involved.

As I thought was apparent from my original post, I'm all for recycling. But there's no point pretending it's better than it really is, and the simple fact is that the way we use things and produce waste often makes recycling impractical, less efficient and/or more costly than just dumping stuff and making more.

[quarky]

Yes, but:

If we ever achieve elegance with technology, we need to do some pretending now, like recycling, to get in the mood. We're children playing with dolls and toy trucks. Eventually, we'll transfer our playing to real world concerns.

Similarly, we'll need to use our remaining oil most wisely, to get from here to there.
It will require enourmous amounts of lesser technology to create better technology.

We need lots of practice paying attention, on whatever pathetic level we can start at.
The alternative doesn't even offer the training camp.

[GreyICE]

Nope, nothing about cost there.

Did I say it was? Oh look, no I didn't. Why would I bother following links that aren't arguing about anything I actually said? Wow, your psychic skills are impressive. I'm glad you know there's nothing that's actually there before you even click on the link.

FYI, cost effective = less human time involved, or less energy used. With raw materials, there's really no other options. If we assume the time is reasonably equal (not an overall bad assumption) if it's more cost effective, it's more resource effective.

Moreover, if you followed the link, OR read the excerpt I posted, you'd realize glass recycling is more material effective. They posted the amount of CO2 reduction, including transport energy usage.


What I did say is that it is often impractical to recycle because of the way we use certain things. Sure, metal is great to recycle when it's all collected in one place. What about when it's scattered around the countryside in the shape of little tin cans? Still think it's more energy efficient to hunt it all down than to just dig it out the ground in big lumps? I'm disturbed that you scatter tin cans around the countryside and think that tin comes out of the ground in hunks. I assure you, you will never find a hunk of 'tin' from the ground, or a hunk of any other metal.

It's very cost effective to collect and remelt tin, or even to separate it from the waste stream (hint: Magnets help) and recycle it. If people throw their cans around the landscape, cost effectiveness goes down, but if you, say, throw them in recycling bins, it's very cost effective. Also, litter has other negative impacts that means that cleaning it up is often something people do even with no recycling benefit. What if I break my window? I can't put that in a bottle bank. Will a glass recycling company come and collect it from my door, or will it just end up in a landfill? Why do we have scrapyards full of old cars and other junk, yet people still keep digging metal out of the ground? I submit the amount of glass that you use in food bottles is anywhere from 100 times to 10,000 times more than the amount of glass you go through in the form of 'broken windows.' If your window breaks, sweep it up and throw it in the garbage. It's still NOWHERE close to the amount of glass you go through in food containers. Your example is missing the forest for the trees. Or, in this case, one single tree that's three feet tall in one corner of the forest, when you're surrounded by 40 foot tall oaks.

Yes, there's cases where recycling is not effective. I imagine you could think of many of them (I throw the glass over the edge of a cliff and it sticks, taking a rock climber 40 minutes to get to it, oh look, not cost effective to recycle). These cases are the vast minority. Even if you break, say, one window a year, which is absolutely absurd, and you shatter it into pieces (instead of just cracking the pane, which is easy enough to recycle) you will STILL go through many times that glass in food containers.

As for metal recycling, check this out:
http://www.southeastny.com/

Do you suppose they are paying cash for your scrap metal because they are kind environmentalists who love to hug trees? Or because they're making money recycling scrap metal?



And this is before I even point out that there is no such thing as "metal" or "glass", there are many different types, all of which have different methods of production and recycling and therefore very different costs and practicalities involved. I submit that there are such things as metal and glass. If you mean there are different costs involved for each type, yes, that's true. However, each and every type is cost effective to recycle, and that includes separation costs.

As I thought was apparent from my original post, I'm all for recycling. But there's no point pretending it's better than it really is, and the simple fact is that the way we use things and produce waste often makes recycling impractical, less efficient and/or more costly than just dumping stuff and making more.

I submit you're working with 15/20 year old information. This is the state of recycling in the 80s/early 90s, not the state of recycling today. There have been vast improvements in the field of recycling in terms of resource usage, and cost effectiveness. A lot of this is due to superior computer technology (making separating types much easier), and other technological advances.

[Arthur Denton]

I live in a farm, my car runs on ethanol, we save everything we can regarding food and energy. We planned to install a solar water heating thingie in top of the house, but the climate is too cold and the tree leaves would block the sun, so no, we didn't. We recycle everything we can too, even gathering pieces of plastic that other land owners have left laying on the ground, and we go deliver it two kilometers from home once a week (the recycling truck won't pass at our home). We don't use pesticide and look out for cultures who doesn't need them. I think my family is really really into energy and planet conservation. But what does AGW stands for?

[GreyICE]

I live in a farm, my car runs on ethanol, we save everything we can regarding food and energy. We planned to install a solar water heating thingie in top of the house, but the climate is too cold and the tree leaves would block the sun, so no, we didn't. We recycle everything we can too, even gathering pieces of plastic that other land owners have left laying on the ground, and we go deliver it two kilometers from home once a week (the recycling truck won't pass at our home). We don't use pesticide and look out for cultures who doesn't need them. I think my family is really really into energy and planet conservation. But what does AGW stands for?

Anthropogenic global warming. It's mostly a term created by the denier crowd. Because the evidence for a warming trend has been so strong , a lot of them have moved from claiming that there was no warming trend to claiming that there's a warming trend, but it's all natural. You know, standard goalpost shifting nonsense.

Because of this, the term anthropogenic global warming was developed so they could separate the people who think that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are increasing heat retention on the planet from people who think it's all just a giant coincidence, and there's really no reason to assume that it's human caused.

One could suggest these people are the sort who, upon seeing a shattered window, and a baseball lying on the floor surrounded by broken glass, conclude that the baseball is unlikely to have anything to do with the situation, and that the window must have failed because of preexisting stress cracks, and it's far too radical of an assumption to suggest the baseball had anything to do with the situation, but that would be snarky.

Of course the rest of the crowd is the sort who say "Oh look, a free baseball," and tell you the window is perfectly okay, and that draft is all in your head.

[wolfgirl]

I drive a small, fuel-efficient car and try to schedule my driving to make the most efficient use of my gas (stopping at the post office on the way to the store instead of making a separate trip, etc.).

I've switched to compact fluorescent bulbs in my house.

I recycle as much as I can.

I recently bought re-usable grocery bags. I couldn't stand trying to decide between paper and plastic any more; I tried to read as much as I could to see which one was worse, but they just both seem to be bad...

Turned the thermostat on the AC up 2 degrees (that one hurts, as I'm a great big ol' weenie when it comes to being hot - I must confess that I have the timer set to 2 degrees cooler just before I get up in the morning so that I can shower and dress comfortably, but it goes back up right after I leave).

[BenBurch]

I drive a Hybrid car (and have since 2002) run almost no lights in my house at night, and when I do they are CFLs, do without air conditioning except when its above 90 degrees, and then have it set for 85 degrees, recycle, buy recycled products, and have changed to a telecommuting job.

[Spud1k]

I drive a pretty small car (a 1.1 Peugeot) but that's more because I can't afford anything better. However, when we can finally afford a new one, it'll still be a smaller one. Partly for the environment, partly because I like how small cars handle, but partly because they are much cheaper to buy, run and maintain.

That's the crux - if there is going to be big reductions in CO2 output, it'll mainly be down to the direct or indirect results of government policy. The goodwill of the people will go so far but doing things like putting up road tax on big cars will go much further in real terms.

[Wangler]

Hey,

Thanks all!

These have all been good responses, just what I was looking for (except for maybe one or two joking ones).

I appreciate everyone sharing.

I envy BenBurch...I would love to have a Toyota Prius like the one my sister used to have.

[Ziggurat]

Because of this, the term anthropogenic global warming was developed so they could separate the people who think that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are increasing heat retention on the planet from people who think it's all just a giant coincidence, and there's really no reason to assume that it's human caused.

That's rather over-simplified. For one thing, not all greenhouse gasses are anthropogenic (water vapor, for example). And for another, you're presenting a false dichotomy. Warming being due to man and warming due to other factors are not the only possible answer. It's perfectly possible that we have a combination of both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic warming, and in that context, the relative fractions of each may matter quite a bit. So the label makes perfect sense.

[GreyICE]

That's rather over-simplified. For one thing, not all greenhouse gasses are anthropogenic (water vapor, for example). And for another, you're presenting a false dichotomy. Warming being due to man and warming due to other factors are not the only possible answer. It's perfectly possible that we have a combination of both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic warming, and in that context, the relative fractions of each may matter quite a bit. So the label makes perfect sense. And yet somehow the climate scientists always refer to it as Global warming and try to break down the sources, while the conspiracy theorists who think it's all a giant plot to defraud the government of millions and destroy capitalism refer to the concept that humans could be responsible for any little part as "Anthropogenic global warming."

[Spud1k]

That's rather over-simplified. For one thing, not all greenhouse gasses are anthropogenic (water vapor, for example). And for another, you're presenting a false dichotomy. Warming being due to man and warming due to other factors are not the only possible answer. It's perfectly possible that we have a combination of both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic warming, and in that context, the relative fractions of each may matter quite a bit. So the label makes perfect sense.

I think the point is that the term 'AGW' is never used in real climate science precisely because the term is such a bad description of what is a hugely complex situation. In the context of most discussions, 'AGW' is a convenient catch-all that the sceptics can rally against. Ten years ago they would have been called 'global warming sceptics' but as it's becoming increasingly difficult to argue that the earth hasn't been warming up, they needed a new flag of convenience.

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. But maybe that's something for another thread.

[Wangler]

Anthropogenic global warming. It's mostly a term created by the denier crowd. Because the evidence for a warming trend has been so strong , a lot of them have moved from claiming that there was no warming trend to claiming that there's a warming trend, but it's all natural. You know, standard goalpost shifting nonsense.

C'mon, GreyICE, you are better than that. From the IPCC website (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm):

Mandate


The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

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.

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122377).

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122377).

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 (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm):



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.



:D

[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\ :

to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely
to break down completely


dis·rupt \dis-ˈrəpt\ :

to break apart
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.

[GreyICE]

Wrangler, this is hideously off topic, but you're accusing me of lying or somesuch, so here we go.

A hurricane operates by bring up moist air from the center of the storm. The eye drags the moist air into the upper atmosphere by virtue of the wind pattern. This moist air in the upper reaches of the storm causes condensation. This is also why they never survive landfall, but can batter coasts indefinitely - if the eye is over land it loses its constant supply of hot moist air, and therefore the storm is doomed to dissipate.

The heat of condensation provided by the water keeps the storm going. That's its energy source. The heat of condensation.

Now what does a sonic shock do to the air? Well, here's pictures of planes breaking the sound barrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

See that white wall they're running through? That's water vapor. Sonic booms wring water out of the air like us squeezing a sponge.

The Blast Wind from a nuke is a sonic boom. At a thousand kilometers per hour, it's faster than the speed of sound.

Now drop a nuke in the eye of the storm. First, the blast winds will stop the storm from spinning around the eye. Second, they will wring the air like a sponge, making it hot and dry. Very, very dry.

That means the entire storm mechanism is done for.

Now the question is the perimeter winds. They could potentially tighten up, and restart the eye. That would mean the storm would move on with minimal disruption.

Or they could collapse, like hurricanes frequently do on their own. We can't really model this well enough to decide what will happen.

In any case, we're very tangential, but now your stupid nitpick is dead. Happy? Now stop picking at word choices, it makes you look stupid. The fact that it goes over well on freeperville or wherever you've seen it before doesn't make it a good debate tactic. It's just stupid.

Now can we get back to the stupid idea that humans couldn't possibly effect the global climate?

P.S. I am not endorsing this plan. I would love to see it in operation, from a curiosity standpoint (would it restart or collapse? We can't model something that complicated) but it's definitely risky in many ways (nuclear detonations probably have some effect on our climate, overall)

[Soapy Sam]

I don't think there's any doubt a big thermonuclear event would have some effect on even a super hurricane. As you say, we don't know what effect- it might snuff it briefly, only to have it start up again, but this time with added radionucleides.
I doubt it's a practical mechanism, though I agree it would be neat to see it tested once, preferably over somewhere we don't mind losing. Several possibilities spring to mind.

But at the end of the day, the only way humans can affect global climate is by not doing things- not burning oil or coal, not eating meat that requires a whole field to fatten one cow, not buying hardwood furniture made from tropical rain forests and most of all, not producing even more humans.
Save the planet. Use condoms.

[Don At Work]

I have moved closer to work, and do not drive nearly as often as I used to (for pleasure).

Not because of AGW, but because of the economy :p

[tyr_13]

I didn't take a bath today and I might not take one tomorrow. Also, I quit my job and burned my car. Now I'll spend my time grazing in a field.

[Wangler]

....... but now your stupid nitpick is dead. Happy?

I am sorry to nitpick...but I have found that in debates about scientific issues, especially on forums such as this, it is helpful to be precise and accurate in one's use of words, and of facts.

Perhaps AGW-proponents don't worry too much about precise and accurate words and facts?

Also, your comparison of the energy output of a 30 megaton bomb to the daily output of a hurricane was a poor choice, as bombs of that yeild don't exist.

But, using realistic figures for megaton yield would have made the comparison less sensational.

[Lonewulf]

There's no such thing as a 30 megaton bomb? Well, even if that were true, then he could just simply say 50+ megaton. Those exist. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) developed by Russia could function.

And, you know, we could just make one, since as far as I know, nothing is keeping us from being able to, especially since bombs of much higher yields have already been made.

But I guess 30 Tg of explosives is "less sensational" than 50 Tg or even 100 Tg.

[GreyICE]

I am sorry to nitpick...but I have found that in debates about scientific issues, especially on forums such as this, it is helpful to be precise and accurate in one's use of words, and of facts.

Perhaps AGW-proponents don't worry too much about precise and accurate words and facts?

Also, your comparison of the energy output of a 30 megaton bomb to the daily output of a hurricane was a poor choice, as bombs of that yeild don't exist.

But, using realistic figures for megaton yield would have made the comparison less sensational. Did you really just say bombs of that yield don't exist?

I used a nice round number. But sure, call it sensationalist. It helps your conspiracy theory leanings.

I explained the theory, now go hype your New World Order bs elsewhere. There is not some conspiracy of climate scientists trying to bring about a one world government by scaring people with climate change. It's not an absurd theory.

Little old us can change the environment. Given how many species we've driven to extinction, given the rivers we've changed the course of, this seems obvious. Unless your ideology demands that you think that's impossible, of course.

[mhaze]

The Blast Wind from a nuke is a sonic boom. At a thousand kilometers per hour, it's faster than the speed of sound.

Now drop a nuke in the eye of the storm. First, the blast winds will stop the storm from spinning around the eye. Second, they will wring the air like a sponge, making it hot and dry. Very, very dry. ...When you have ran a Naviar Stokes analysis on that crazy scheme let me know.

[tyr_13]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.

[lomiller]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.


I don’t think either of them was arguing that it’s a good idea or even that it would work. The question seems more of a hypothetical “could it work”. GreyICE seems to make a pretty good case for the possibility it may, but it’s clearly something no one is ever going to test.

[GreyICE]

When you have ran a Naviar Stokes analysis on that crazy scheme let me know.

Sure, as soon as you publish your solution the Navier-Stokes equation, which might actually give us a vague hope of getting close to an analysis on that, you tell me. :rolleyes:

And we're not just talking simple Navier-Stokes. We're talking Navier-Stokes for compressible flows, which is a whole different layer of pain. Masochists run in fear of that.

Oh wait, you just found the term Navier-Stokes in a blog somewhere, right.

I said what happens after the eye is gone is where it gets touchy.

[Lonewulf]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.Yes, you do, considering you totally missed the point of why it was brought up.

[Wangler]

There's no such thing as a 30 megaton bomb? Well, even if that were true, then he could just simply say 50+ megaton. Those exist. The Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) developed by Russia could function.

And, you know, we could just make one, since as far as I know, nothing is keeping us from being able to, especially since bombs of much higher yields have already been made.

But I guess 30 Tg of explosives is "less sensational" than 50 Tg or even 100 Tg.


Existed Apparently you did not read my post...russia made up to 25 of these super-yield weapons. It is doubtful that any exist today.

These sensational claims and comparisons just get tiresome.

[Lonewulf]

Existed Apparently you did not read my post...russia made up to 25 of these super-yield weapons. It is doubtful that any exist today.Well, even if you could prove that none of them did, so what? You make it sound like bombs are Mana from Heaven, that we cannot create ourselves.

These sensational claims and comparisons just get tiresome.Well, harping on it certainly doesn't help, nor does making ignorant counter-claims.

[GreyICE]

Anyway, we're all about to suffer the wrath of thread split, I sense.

[Spud1k]

Anyway, we're all about to suffer the wrath of thread split, I sense.

How many megatons of nuke yield does it take to split a thread?

;)

[CapelDodger]

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.

I must say, that was the first thought that struck me. "Ummmm ... you guys are gonna do what now?"

[CapelDodger]

I doubt it's a practical mechanism, though I agree it would be neat to see it tested once, preferably over somewhere we don't mind losing.

Preferrably on another frickin' planet.

[CapelDodger]

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.

And let's not forget the concrete.

[CapelDodger]

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.

Indeed; the IPCC was established to investigate and report on the AGW thing that more and more scientists were getting concerned about. An example of what diplomats call "taking action"; to whit, establish a committee to look into the matter. Hopefully by the time it reports the issue (whatever it might be) will have gone away.

Four reports later and the issue of AGW still hasn't gone away, of course. It's a persistent irritant. That's why diplomats will gather yet again next year, in Copenhagen, to finally thrash out how they're going to decide what to do about it.

[GreyICE]

I must say, that was the first thought that struck me. "Ummmm ... you guys are gonna do what now?"

Oh yeah, that was my initial thought. Then I read the paper.

The paper is old. Like, very old (predates the net) and I seriously doubt I'll ever see a copy again. But it has spawned some interesting discussion over the years, every time it comes up.

Best I've ever heard is a tentative agreement that there's a good chance (as in 50%ish) it would work, but no one is going to do that. Ever.

In any case, Wangy has harped on one point for far to long, and if this goes on any longer, I'm reporting myself for a thread split. We're way off topic.

[David Wong]

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.

That "we puny humans could surely never affect the big ol' Earth" thing should be easy to debunk. How many millions of years did it take for all of these hydrocarbons to form? And trillions of tons of the stuff combusts in the blink of an eye, inside countless cars and power plants etc?

Even if you know nothing of the science, is it that hard to understand that burning anything on that scale will have a huge impact on the environment?

The shocking thing would be if there was no impact.

[tyr_13]

Yes, you do, considering you totally missed the point of why it was brought up.

Actually I didn't, but I intentionally took it out of context for humor's sake.

[Wangler]

In any case, Wangy has harped on one point for far to long, and if this goes on any longer, I'm reporting myself for a thread split. We're way off topic.

You are correct sir.

I have derailed my own thread.

:o

Just to keep this post on topic, I have been very encouraged with the responses that people have proffered based upon the poll questions.

Thanks, all!

[Lonewulf]

Actually I didn't, but I intentionally took it out of context for humor's sake.Ahhh.

My mistake, then.


fnord