Global warming

[corduroygt]

But I'm willing to bet that you'll drive rather than walk five minutes even if it's very pleasant out.

You would lose that bet. As long as I'm not going to the supermarket to get a lot of heavy stuff, I always walk when it's nice. I also usually park pretty far from the entrance to a place in the parking lot and walk, weather permitting of course. I have a financial incentive to use my car as little as possible.

Except there are certainly a lot of things you could do to decrease your energy usage that would save you money without significantly inconveniencing you. You could make sure your car tires are inflated, for instance. You could take care not to accelerate or brake hard whenever possible. You could replace your lights with fluorescent lights. You could be careful to keep them turned off when not in use. If you still have an old CRT TV, you could replace it with a flat panel. If you have any old appliances, you could save a lot of energy by replacing them with newer ones.

How do you know I already don't do those? I already switched to flourescent bulbs once they were less than a buck a piece and lit up immediately rather than 5 seconds after I flicked the switch. I just bought a LED TV, I already keep my lights turned off and my appliances are 5 years old. My car has TPMS so i never drive with underinflated tires or it warns me. My commute is short plus sometimes I work from home.

What I won't do is go from paying 9.2c/kWh (5% wind) to 13c/kWh (100% wind) to get my electricity from wind, and I have to have a 4x4 since it snows here.

 

[Frank]

The only way to change the climate in the long term is to change the radiative balance: to change the amount of radiation coming in, or the amount going out, or both. Right now, the radiation coming in is mostly steady (there is some increase due to the melting of arctic sea ice, as the darker seas absorb more radiation than they reflect, but the Sun has been less active and less warm of late, so there is little net effect). The only big change has been the change in greenhouse gases.

I would call that a feedback mechanism. Working as expected.

However, I would wonder in what way that human-induced CO2 increase affected that particular feedback chain. The effect seems to be the same, but we could learn something by closely monitoring that chain of events.

 

[Frank]

Yes, there's no question that the 40% drop in phytoplankton is a subtle issue, that you can't dumbly take 40% * 50% = 20% drop in oxygen production. But there's also no question that that is a huge change in the ocean's ecosystem. We don't yet know what all of the impacts will be. And that should scare people.

Don't worry, changes always scare conservatives, unless they just won the jackpot. And even then, perhaps.

 

[Frank]

What are you talking about? It's morons who are allowing themselves to be misled by oil/coal conglomerates that are the cause of climate change.

And by the way, even with climate change, there are still always going to be cold days. They won't be as common, but they will still exist. The current climate change is only about one degree Fahrenheit, which is far too small a change to notice in the daily weather.

I agree. The reason I couldn't drive my RWD BMW with wide summer tyres to work (or anywhere) for the last week is only inside my head. I should see a shrink, so I would notice the warm weather and be happy.

 

[Frank]

Yes!, precisely, this is why emitting less CO2 isn't attempted, and why the whole affair is a kind of class struggle.
you're in the top 10% richest people of Earth and want to stay it that way.

BTW I eat meat about twice a week and still use a bicycle. (lol, winter is a bitch compared to summer but how come some people manage to live either on the street or in Finland or in northern northern america?)

While I'm in the top 20% of countries, I know that even here the top 20% of that top 20% just hoards most of the wealth thus a tiny majority is responsible in the end for most of the CO2.
And so much of the "necessary" stuff is imposed on "lesser" people by television, advertising and social pressure it's not even funny. Guess what I don't need the crap.

I actually don't want a smartphone per year, nor do I want a car, a television set or red meat twice a day. the alternatives are all simpler or healthier and less expensive anyway.

Yes, that's why most normal light bulbs have been outlawed here in the Netherlands: we're only allowed to buy the expensive and polluting, "green" replacements: they are more efficient, besides the pollution (mercury and such), and they might break-even if they lasted as long as advertised.

In my experience, they might, unless they're switched on and off regularly. So I would suggest they extend that law in forbidding to turn them off.

 

[rpg.314]

Nah, science promises us they can find more new oil than we can harvest.

If anything promised you that, it could NOT have been science.

 

[gamervivek]

Yes, there's no question that the 40% drop in phytoplankton is a subtle issue, that you can't dumbly take 40% * 50% = 20% drop in oxygen production. But there's also no question that that is a huge change in the ocean's ecosystem. We don't yet know what all of the impacts will be. And that should scare people.

What's really scary is that this study got published in nature. Follow the comments of kate in that article you posted, and check out the comments at nature's link. The real howler, using data points made from 1899 till the time they started using satellites for observations, which were made by using a disk invented by a jesuit priest(just for the guys who find religious dogman a hurdle to science) and the eyesight of the user.

From the paper's conclusion:

Our analysis suggests that global Chl concentration has declined
since the beginning of oceanographic measurements in the late
1800s. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that these changes are
generally related to climatic and oceanographic variability and particularly
to increasing SST over the past century

SST- sea surface temperature

These are the graphs from the paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/fig_tab/nature09268_F4.html

And I think by the late 1800s he means 1899, for that's the start of his data points and the record-keeping as he mentions in the introduction of the paper.

Let's revisit the author's earlier religious proclamations, oops, scientific study(published in Science, mind you):

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the last one," said research leader Boris Worm, from Dalhousie University in Canada.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6108414.stm

Mr. Worm is surely one cool hair-raising cat.


Coming back to phytoplanktons, these nasty creatures besides doing stupid stuff like photosynthesis can also make hurricanes last longer and stronger:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/tiny-plankton-could-steer-giant-hurricanes/

Phytoplankton is as common in the oceans as grass is on land, and blooms when cold, nutrient-rich water upwells from the depths. That bloom turns the ocean surface from a deep dark blue to a murky turquoise, henceforth known as murkquoise.

The murkquoise stops the sun from penetrating as far as it normally does into the surface of the sea, making the surface layer much warmer, and the depths cooler. As a result, hurricanes tend to be stronger and last longer.

"I wonder if New Orleans residents can sue the wee timorous planktonic beasties for damages from Hurricane Katrina?"

I say, let's kill the bitches, IT"S SCIENCE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!1!


And they are also the producers of dimethyl sulfide which causes acid rain:

He said that 75 per cent of sulphur substances emitted over Scandinavia in June came from the North Sea. During the spring-summer period about 30 per cent of the sulphur-containing gases over Ireland originated from plankton living in the North Atlantic. 'Some people find this surprising,' he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/plankton-source-of-acid-rain-1466247.html

I mean isn't acid rain bad? really bad?
Why the hell are we letting these evil things live and breed!?!?!

The primary difficulty with reduced supply of oxygen wouldn't be a drop in oxygen levels, but rather a drop in the conversion of CO2 to oxygen. A 20% drop in the uptake of CO2 would be positively massive.

Yeah so doesn't that dent a big hole in anthropogenic global warming? Stupid plankton not converting CO2 and thus caused a positive feedback loop for their own demise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/walking-the-plank-ton/#comment-445088

 

[KimB]

I would call that a feedback mechanism. Working as expected.

Expected how? By whom?

However, I would wonder in what way that human-induced CO2 increase affected that particular feedback chain. The effect seems to be the same, but we could learn something by closely monitoring that chain of events.

Read the IPCC reports, if you're really interested in the science. They present a good, comprehensive summary of the available knowledge on the subject. It is quite extensive.

 

[KimB]

Yes, that's why most normal light bulbs have been outlawed here in the Netherlands: we're only allowed to buy the expensive and polluting, "green" replacements: they are more efficient, besides the pollution (mercury and such), and they might break-even if they lasted as long as advertised.

Actually, the majority of mercury pollution in our environment comes from coal-fired power plants, which comprise the majority of power plants. The savings in energy from switching to fluorescent, if you get your energy from a coal-fired plant, means that less mercury is released as a result of using the fluorescent bulb than exists in the bulb.

The situation becomes more mixed if your energy comes from renewable or nuclear, but in any event the amount of mercury in those bulbs is very small, small enough that even if it broke in a closed room, the amount of mercury doesn't exceed the OSHA standard. It just makes sense to be a little bit careful about handling it, and might as well ventilate the room to be safe, if one breaks. I haven't broken one yet, personally, though.

 

[Squilliam]

Get real. My current car has 320kkm on it. Its predecessor got over 400k. The current daily routine is 'cold start, drive 1.5km to kindergarten #1, stop the engine, start the engine after 5 minutes, drive 3km to kindergarten #2, stop the engine, start the engine after 5 minutes, drive 20km to work, cold start after 8 hours'. Yesterday it was -27 on the frigging Celsius scale here.

People should start using real engine oil instead of deep frying leftovers if they are so afraid of shutting down the engine. It's goddamn machines we are talking about, not sentient beings.

Point taken, it gets -2C at night sometimes at winter here...

What are you talking about? It's morons who are allowing themselves to be misled by oil/coal conglomerates that are the cause of climate change.

And by the way, even with climate change, there are still always going to be cold days. They won't be as common, but they will still exist. The current climate change is only about one degree Fahrenheit, which is far too small a change to notice in the daily weather.

No, you are. You're causing it as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Isn't the current climate change pegged at 1C not 1F? I haven't seen any real data recently on that.

 

[KimB]

No, you are. You're causing it as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Right, okay then....

Isn't the current climate change pegged at 1C not 1F? I haven't seen any real data recently on that.

Well, it's actually closer to 0.8C, so in between.

 

[Squilliam]

Right, okay then....

Well im glad we're on the same page here.

Well, it's actually closer to 0.8C, so in between.

Anyway it is best to use C because F is a failure temperature measurement. It doesn't even have a proper 0 at anything particularly meaningful.

 

[corduroygt]

People should start using real engine oil instead of deep frying leftovers if they are so afraid of shutting down the engine. It's goddamn machines we are talking about, not sentient beings.

You are very wrong on this. Motor oils have been getting thinner in the past 15 years (i.e. the same engine that had 20w50 as recommended oil is now 10w30. The reason they've been getting thinner is to reduce friction, thus improve fuel economy and therefore co2 emissions.

We're already forced to use thin oils to get better mileage, and I'm not shutting off my engine before it gets to working temperature, under any conditions.

 

[WhiningKhan]

You are very wrong on this. Motor oils have been getting thinner in the past 15 years (i.e. the same engine that had 20w50 as recommended oil is now 10w30. The reason they've been getting thinner is to reduce friction, thus improve fuel economy and therefore co2 emissions.

We're already forced to use thin oils to get better mileage, and I'm not shutting off my engine before it gets to working temperature, under any conditions.

You have to separate the cold and hot behavior of the SAE ratings. Lower cold side rating only means better behaviour in cold starts. 20w oil is pretty much useless in real winter; anyone afraid of cold starts should only use 0w or 5w oils to make sure the cold engine gets lubrication as fast as possible. The lower hot side rating is irrelevant, since we were talking about cold engine.

Obviously shutting an engine in a matter of seconds after a cold start is bad, but if you have already driven a couple of minutes with it, the lubrication should already be working in the engine. If you then shut the engine down for a couple of minutes, the oil most definitely will not be flushed immediately to the crankcase from a cold engine, as you suggested. If it did that, the problem would be even worse on hot engine, as the viscosity of the oil is much lower when hot.

 

[corduroygt]

Short sighted and stupid. The primary effects of climate change are not the typical daily temperature, but instead the secondary effects of that temperature change.

So you're saying the earth is warming but I cannot feel it? Good luck selling that thinly veiled wealth distribution scheme to the masses, and ask them for more money. I say fuck it, we can just settle in the newly warmed up land of Canada and Russia if some cities get flooded and become deserts, which is very unlikely anyways.

I am not going to have worse living standards than the previous generation did to appease the hippies. Instead of trying to limit our energy use, we should try to produce as much of it as possible. Since energy is the sole limitation in human progress, that's why we don't have the Concorde any more, etc. Nothing is a problem when you have infinite energy.

 

[corduroygt]

Obviously shutting an engine in a matter of seconds after a cold start is bad, but if you have already driven a couple of minutes with it, the lubrication should already be working in the engine.

It'd just be 60 seconds in my case, so I won't shut it off. Besides, I want heat coming out of the vents ASAP, since that takes about 3 minutes in my car before that happens in 30F weather. Not to mention the seat warmers won't work when the engine is off.

 

[KimB]

So you're saying the earth is warming but I cannot feel it?

I'm saying you should look at the evidence. Like this:

This is quite unequivocal evidence of warming. Granted, it is only one of many estimates of global average temperature, but they all are nearly identical. Now, look closely at the vertical axis: the entire plot is just 1°C (1.8°F). Typical day-to-day variation is more than that. So no, you just won't notice it. The magnitude is just too small to be obvious in peoples' daily lives, so you have to look more carefully. Flowers bloom earlier than they used to, for instance. Trees turn colors later. Glaciers are melting at record pace. Sea ice in the arctic is nearly gone in summer now. Snowfall has increased in the northeastern US due to the warmer great lakes. And on and on.

Look carefully, and the effect becomes blatantly obvious.

I say fuck it, we can just settle in the newly warmed up land of Canada and Russia if some cities get flooded and become deserts, which is very unlikely anyways.

Unlikely based upon what, precisely? And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to move multiple cities of millions of people on the scale of a few decades?

I am not going to have worse living standards than the previous generation did to appease the hippies.

And in so doing, you are ensuring that the following generations will have even worse living standards. You are a greedy ass.

 

[corduroygt]

I'm saying you should look at the evidence

That's very cute, but since the daily variation is a lot more than that and the ecosystem is just fine with it, why should a minor increase in average temperature matter so much? Looks like the earth can deal with a little warming just fine.

Also, that's only the last 120 years, how about the last 100 million years, where we know life was flourishing on Earth with tons of different species, etc. Are today's average temperatures the highest they've ever been ever since life began on Earth? I doubt it.

Unlikely based upon what, precisely? And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to move multiple cities of millions of people on the scale of a few decades?

Unlikely based on the lack of complete understanding of the matter by scientists. That's why they keep revising and changing their predictions.
"A few decades" is alarmist environmentalist propaganda. Scientists with their yearly flip-flopping theories know any better, either.
Also, considering that a lot of big cities got bombed out in WW2 and they got rebuilt in 10-20 years or so, I say that's not too big of a problem.

And in so doing, you are ensuring that the following generations will have even worse living standards. You are a greedy ass.

Why should I care about uncertain predictions of what will happen after I'm dead? How can you say they'll have worse living standards, anyway, I think they'll eventually get fusion working and have cheap plentiful energy for everyone, unlike what the head of Rocky Mountain Institute wants:

If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

 

[rpg.314]

That's very cute, but since the daily variation is a lot more than that and the ecosystem is just fine with it, why should a minor increase in average temperature matter so much?

Because the big things like rainfall patterns, sea levels, severity of droughts and floods are controlled by average temperature. And BILLIONS of people's life and death depends on it. But perhaps you don't need to care.

Looks like the earth can deal with a little warming just fine.

Earth can. Human beings can't. Not sure how you - or your behavioral descendants - would cope.

Also, that's only the last 120 years, how about the last 100 million years, where we know life was flourishing on Earth with tons of different species, etc. Are today's average temperatures the highest they've ever been ever since life began on Earth? I doubt it.

So you don't mind (or care) if human beings as a species are wiped out as long as they are replaced by some other species?

Also, considering that a lot of big cities got bombed out in WW2 and they got rebuilt in 10-20 years or so, I say that's not too big of a problem.

What's a world war's worth of destruction and suffering between friends, eh?

Why should I care about uncertain predictions of what will happen after I'm dead?

Well, it is expected from emotionally normal human beings, but don't worry, no body expects you to.

 

[corduroygt]

Earth can. Human beings can't. Not sure how you - or your behavioral descendants - would cope.
So you don't mind (or care) if human beings as a species are wiped out as long as they are replaced by some other species?

The most advanced species on Earth is unable to survive a couple degrees of warming? Maybe the rise in CO2 is due to human population exploding in this century, since we all breathe out CO2. What do you suggest then, population control?

Well, it is expected from emotionally normal human beings, but don't worry, no body expects you to.

I don't believe there will be significant impacts to anything, and I won't until I see it or read about it. I think by the time there could be significant impacts, we'll all switch to hydrogen cars and electricity generated by fusion, since those technologies will have matured.

I used to shift to neutral and redline the engine when I passed a Prius. That was when the Prius was still a hippy badge and not very prevalent, and before gas got expensive and when I still had a V-8 musclecar.