Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 9   >   >>
jackOfManyTrades
User Rank
Manager
Re: As to climate change ...
jackOfManyTrades   11/19/2013 6:14:44 AM
NO RATINGS
"Even if the average joe doesn't spend his entire career fussing over self-regulating systems, EEs typically do."

Bert, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen streadily by 1/3 over the last 150 years or so (from 0.03% to 0.04%). This alledged self-regulating system must have a very long time constant (far longer than the life of your average plant), because so far no regulation has occured.

Ogemaniac
User Rank
Manager
Re: As to climate change ...
Ogemaniac   11/19/2013 4:10:02 AM
NO RATINGS
"But again, you are assuming an open loop system. Why? As I said previously, we already know that greenhouse operators pump CO2 into their greenhouses, to stimulate plant growth. This hints right away at the fact that the photosynthesis process is not open loop, and that it can use more CO2 than what is available out in the open, at LEAST for certain types of plants."

Your problem is the numbers. There are something like 560 billion tons of living carbon biomass. We are emitting just under 10 billion tons per year. Even if CO2 fertilization trumps desertification, a few percent swing either way in the earth's biomass only offsets a couple year's worth of emissions. Then what?

Also, it is not if CO2 fertilization is not understood and incorporated into climate models. Like anything, however, it has diminishing returns, and at higher temperatures, almost certainly gets trumped by the water and heat stress that lead to desertification.

Your reforestation idea suffers from the sample problem. Maybe we can offset 5-10 year's worth of emissions, in theory. In practice, we are heading the wrong way entirely and adding to our problems via deforestation. Changing this would actually be harder than shutting off the coal plants, which are the primary problem. You say planting trees is "benign", but it costs money and diverts that land from other uses.

 

 

jmoore852
User Rank
Rookie
Re: As to climate change ...
jmoore852   11/18/2013 1:20:39 PM
NO RATINGS
"So little evidence, as in several tens of thousands of published papers, dating back nearly 120 years? Pray tell, what would you consider an acceptable amount of evidence?"

You confuse activity with evidence. In an environment where the government funds $20bn/year of research, you are guaranteed to get a whole lot of papers. Evidence does not come from counts of papers or even counts of science. Go look up how science is supposed to work, next time.

 

BobsView
User Rank
CEO
Re: Poseurs vs doers
BobsView   11/18/2013 9:47:14 AM
NO RATINGS
jmoore852:  Thanks for your detailed and well thought-out explanation.  I can say I pretty much agree with all of it.

Since this post has sort of shifted to "Climate Change", here are my thoughts:

Why is a warmer planet a bad thing?

I realize this is heresy to some, but there are many advantages to having a warmer climate.  For instance:

(1)  Northern states will require less energy to heat their homes. A good thing!

(2)  Less traffic accidents due to icy roads. I've experienced this.

(3)  Longer growing season for farmers.  Could reduce food prices.

(4)  More cloud formation resulting in more rain for farmers increasing food production.

(5)  Longer tourist season at resorts.  I've seen this at the Jersey Shore.  More income for the locals and the retired folks love the shore when the crowds leave (as long as the weather is good).

(6)  More evaporation from the ocean causes more rain which fills rivers and lakes with pure distilled water and displaces polluted water.  Seen this also on the Delaware River in Philadelphia.

There are probably many more good reasons to have a warmer planet, but this gets the idea across. 

There used to be dinosaurs in the arctic, so it's definately not the first time the poles have melted.  The world recovered and became better.  Why is it a problem now?

 

Ogemaniac
User Rank
Manager
Re: As to climate change ...
Ogemaniac   11/18/2013 7:30:43 AM
"I am a bit skeptical, simply because the climate scare mongers have been so assertive on so little evidence"

So little evidence, as in several tens of thousands of published papers, dating back nearly 120 years? Pray tell, what would you consider an acceptable amount of evidence?

David Ashton
User Rank
Blogger
Re:
David Ashton   11/18/2013 2:30:26 AM
Mother nature provided a very efficient system for distributing pollution all over the world.  It's called the atmosphere (and to be entirely correct, the weather that goes with it).    Also the ocean, and the currents in it.

The only way to stop pollution is for us to stop causing it.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re:
prabhakar_deosthali   11/18/2013 1:55:07 AM
NO RATINGS
As per the statistics available , only about 25% of the earth surface is land . Out of this only 3% of the land has urban population and about 40% is the agricultural land , the rest being either rocky, desert or wildlife.

Out of this 3% urban land , 90% of the population is concentrated in 10% of this land .

So all the problems of pollution that we are talking about are affecting only this 0.3% of the densely populated earth surface.

So by creating a proper infrastructure , if we are able to make the population spread over the sparsely populated areas of the earth, we can greatly reduce the effects all kinds of environment pollution, in my opinion.

And bringing some of that unpopulated land under cultivation we may be able to feed that ever growing population of 10 billion people

Just a wild thought!

 

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: As to climate change ...
Bert22306   11/17/2013 7:00:10 PM
NO RATINGS
"Imagine a bathtub into which a 97 ml of water leaks every day, but from which 97 ml also evaporates. Now I start adding 3 ml of deuterium-spiked water each day, what happens?"

But again, you are assuming an open loop system. Why? As I said previously, we already know that greenhouse operators pump CO2 into their greenhouses, to stimulate plant growth. This hints right away at the fact that the photosynthesis process is not open loop, and that it can use more CO2 than what is available out in the open, at LEAST for certain types of plants.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

So, rising CO2 levels should stimulate plant growth, which in turn works to counter the rise in CO2. This is called negative feedback.

Even if the average joe doesn't spend his entire career fussing over self-regulating systems, EEs typically do. So we should not feel obliged to just buy into the simplistic, first order assumptions, IMHO. At least, look on it with some level of skepticism, just because it sounds so simplistic.

"As for reforestation,

"1: We are doing the reverse

"2: It's impact would be limited and slow"

Well, (1) isn't that EXACTLY why we should be doing something about reforestation? (2) It's not at all slow. Matter of fact, paper mills treat trees as a harvest. They plant as much as they use. If paper companies can do this, why not do the same thing on a grander scale?

Planting trees is totally benign. It makes sense, it's obviously a good idea (because we know for damn sure that we have been the biggest offenders at deforesting), and it's not one of those pointless "feel good" exercises in futility. You got China and India coming on line here, in the next decades. Sorry, but these ideas of CO2 sequestratiuon sound preposterous to me. And increasing fuel economy, even though it makes perfectly good sense and SHOULD be promoted heavily, is going going to be enough to compensate for the new demand.

Ogemaniac
User Rank
Manager
Re: As to climate change ...
Ogemaniac   11/16/2013 8:05:41 PM
NO RATINGS
Your analogy is not correct. Imagine a bathtub into which a 97 ml of water leaks every day, but from which 97 ml also evaporates. Now I start adding 3 ml of deuterium-spiked water each day, what happens?

1: The water level starts increasing by 3 ml per day

2: The deuterium level also starts rising in a predicable manner

Does it make any sense to claim that I am not responsible for 100% of the increase in this case? That appears to be what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact that in the unperturbed state, we were in an equalibrium (at least on human time scales).

CO2 levels are rising, and they are rising virtually entirely (and perhaps even more than entirely) because of human activity, mostly fossil fuel use. This is not really a debatable point.

As for reforestation,

1: We are doing the reverse

2: It's impact would be limited and slow

It's not a bad thing per se, but it can only be a small portion of the solution even we got about to actuallly doing it

 

Piyush.Patel
User Rank
Rookie
sustainability
Piyush.Patel   11/16/2013 11:17:41 AM
NO RATINGS
I am a practicing EE but I participate in protests and activism around climate change and other issues, sign petitions etc. I don't see a problem with that, it often is in contradiction with what I am doing as an engineer but transformations in society cannot happen without accepting contradictions when we move from the old to a new.

Most engineers haven't raised fundamental questions about sustainability yet. Most engineers today have forgotten the basics of energy, a key but not the only aspect of sustainability. EEs today are obsessed with optimizing in the small (gadgets etc) while missing on the big picture (big energy and materials sustainabilty problems). Public has an overconfidence on technology because of its past success but there needs to be some realism based on fundamental science. There is too much political correctness and system level understanding is lacking. Engineers need to develop a proper understand of modern economic system and biology/ecology, connect the dots and see how their work fits in the society. Following materials are highly recommended:

1. See the video lecture arithmetic, population and energy by Dr Al Bartlett on you-tube.

2. Google "Tom murphy do the math blog", he is a physics professor and every single post there is worth reading, and in particular the conversation with an economist.

3. See the movie growthbusters at growthbusters.org. See also growthbiasbusted dot org.

4. Read the book limits to growth the 30 year update.

 

<<   <   Page 4 / 9   >   >>


Flash Poll
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Engineering Pop Culture!
Chuck Maggi, Engineering Manager

Two Cocky Techs Get Their Comeuppance
Chuck Maggi, Engineering Manager
Post a comment
Two swaggering technicians are dramatically humbled when they flip the power switch on a high-voltage simulator.

The Engineering Life - Around the Web
Dwight Bues, Systems Engineer

The Case of the Nonexistent Component
Dwight Bues, Systems Engineer
Post a comment
Every engineer has likely had the unfortunate experience of verifying a part's availability with a vendor, only to have the part ultimately wind up either not getting produced or ...

Engineer's Bookshelf
Caleb Kraft

The Martian: A Delightful Exploration of Math, Mars & Feces
Caleb Kraft
6 comments
To say that Andy Weir's The Martian is an exploration of math, Mars, and feces is a slight simplification. I doubt that the author would have any complaints, though.

Design Contests & Competitions
Caleb Kraft

Join The Balancing Act With April's Caption Contest
Caleb Kraft
58 comments
Sometimes it can feel like you're really performing in the big tent when presenting your hardware. This month's caption contest exemplifies this wonderfully.

Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)