Warning: Discussing politics can cause......

[Old Man Mike]

For my part, I hate that politics has become so involved in a complex scientific issue as this --- an issue that very few politicians can even understand at the level of science required. This awkwardness leaves them and the country vulnerable to pseudoscientific speech and writings of "experts" possibly having ulterior motives. So, I'd like to leave the politics aside for the moment and say overly-briefly what the real scientists are worried about.

This will be a bit difficult without my old blackboard, but maybe some will understand.

Picture a flat piece of paper. On that paper a kid is drawing a crude flower blossom --- crayon lines up and down and round a central point. The lines have a relatively short length as the radiate around the anchor point. This is a crude analogy for a graph of a "chaotic system", a system comprised of so many interrelated feedback loops that you get "excursions" stretching away from the anchor point, but the feedbacks ultimately win out and the system returns back towards the anchor. In such a system, the anchor point has the nickname "strange attractor".

In the real world when you perturb such an established system by pouring energy into it, it is as if the kid gets fired up and begins winging those "flower petal lines" to greater lengths --- in our analogy, greater "distances" from the strange attractor. Thus the system spends more time at extreme positions than comfortable "close"/"normal" positions. In the global climate game, this is greater abnormal climate outbreaks.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Part two of what the scientists are worried about:

In a chaotic system situation, putting more energy in creates more extremes but they at least DO return to the attractor and in those circumstances things look normal. But, physical systems have their breaking points when they are organized like this. Too much energy will overcome the complex feedback mechanisms [ex. the oceans' microorganism responses] and the attractor will "jump" to a new location on our theoretical kid's drawing page. This shift is profound as it changes entirely the "normal" expected states for the system. And it in a case like the planet, takes "forever" [centuries ?] to undo. This base-state-shift is what real scientists are fearing and hoping against. Every one of them hopes that the climate extremes are not on the verge of an attractor shift. Every one of them believes that it's a criminal behavior to gamble with the planet this way.

I too believe that such a gamble is immoral, but have given up on people overcoming their "wishing will make everything alright" behavior. I'll sneak out of this life without much concern to my own welfare. My younger nieces and nephews may not be as lucky.

 

[BobD]

Awesome description Sir! I understood exactly what you were describing. Wow, I would have given anything to be in one of your classes. Thank you!

 

[Old Man Mike]

Part three: concerning the Middle Ages.

They were a warm period. However best estimates of global temperature then [using things like Greenland ice core measurements] indicate that current global temperature has been higher than those values since 1960, and significantly higher since 1980. Like all situations in a chaotic system, you can find examples where the local weather was warmer, but the global situation indicates something different. Using selective facts to support "political" rather than scientific argument has become disgustingly rife to the real scientists simply trying to get the facts out. This is not aimed at anyone on this board of course, as the depth of BS being spewed by superficially-knowledgeable pseudoscientists is nearly impossible to dodge.

The Middle Ages are known to be a period where natural processes combined to give the system an unusual warming period. The Sun was abnormally "quiet" during those years [thereby more radiant --- more heat-output] and we had a very unusual lull in volcanoes [thus less crap in the atmosphere to shield that radiance]. Therefore the Earth slowly warmed. When the Sunspot cycle began flourishing again and we got back to a timely volcano now and then, the temperature retreated more towards the Attractor norm.

This story is actually more alarming than calming. We have passed this Mediaeval Period WITHOUT either of these "advantages" in warming the system. We're tickling a sleeping Tiger entirely on our own.

 

[BobD]

Do you feel that we've gone to far already? Past the point of no return? Or can we fix it?

 

[Old Man Mike]

I know several of the scientists well enough to know that they pretty uniformly believe that the intellectually-honest answers are:

1). The system has obviously warmed and it's excess is due to anthropogenic causes, mainly fossil fuel burning, excessively rapid deforestation [without Earth-total maintenance of volume of carbon-content maintained], unusual amounts of forest burning leading to direct carbon release, massive changes in agriculture and consequent Methane releases, and a rather large handful of other human-produced systemic changes.

2). This impact in a way has already gone too far to readily reverse. These sorts of deficit impacts are of a species loss and agricultural shift nature [particularly where a culture is too poor to adjust by, say, "buying" more water to make up for drought impacts.] Once something or someone is dead it is, of course, an irreversible change. We tend to ignore such things in our country since we CAN overpower certain losses with cash. That DOES affect cost, of course.

3). Some amount of sea-level rise has probably passed the point of being retrievable by spartan measures. The water of the ocean is a gigantic heat-sink locomotive which once trending in a direction will run its course before stopping and reversing.

4). None of us knows where we are on an attractor shift [the worst outcome scenario]. We just have to pray that it won't happen. An attractor shift would destroy almost the entirety of modern food-production. But, because the system is too complex to measure where we are on that, we will do nothing and roll them dice.

 

[BobD]

Sorry I have two more questions.

If you were able to decide what should be done, what are a few things you would start immediately?

I've read that the earthquake in Japan possibly changed the earths axis slightly and slowed its rotation. Is that true and if so would that impact our climate?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Well, to dispense with the easy one: sweat not earthquakes changing axis-of-rotation. The Earth's momentum is immeasurably gigantic to affect.

As to the real concern: scientifically it's simple --- stop putting so much energy into the system. Since the tri- [and greater] atomic carbon gases are infrared absorbers [which release their "heat-radiation" wavelengths radially --- causing a preferential transfer back downwards through the denser layers of the atmosphere, thus holding heat on the surface] we need to seriously subtract from our carbon emissions. But how, since everybody's such a bunch of spoiled brats that they won't give up anything?

A few almost-acceptable ideas for the cry-babies: 1). use T.Boone Pickins' idea of shifting natural gas to a prime source of hydrogen gas and hydrogenizing the auto/truck fleet, gradually eliminating combustion of gasoline. This would have big impact if the carbon could be sequestered during the gas-cracking process. And has impact even if you can't.

2). Replace all current natural gas burning power plants with solar energy sources. This is part of Pickins' plan to shift the natural gas to cars, as a first phase. Once shown to be do-able, the solar technologies could speed onwards faster to replace more plants.

3). If one insists upon burning coal, do it with the new designs which "catch" the carbon dioxide and sequester it in solid [bury-able] form [This is much preferable to ocean-sequestration which plays several gambles].

4). Nationally replace all lights with LED technology. This would conserve so much energy that a huge number of coal-burners could be shut off.

5). Do the same sort of thing with high-insulation windows. Both four and five require that the public be helped out in making the upfront cost layout. [so this won't happen].

6). Change cattle feed practices to minimize methane "burps". Sounds funny but given the mass of livestock this is a huge curable carbon-emission. Changing certain rice-field practices would have a similar effect.

This list can be very long. Pickins' idea is not ideal, but with his billionaire's clout, someone might actually listen to him. Scientists or environmental system-designers---no way.

 

[BobD]

I don't understand why its taking so long for solar to become more of a solution? The technology has been around a long time now.

I like the LED lighting! ...my power bill was about 30 dollars less this month than the same month last year, just from using LED Christmas lights.

Are you 100% against nuclear power? Sorry if you mentioned it earlier in the thread, I haven't gone back to reread it tonight.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Old Man is going to have to go to bed, so this is his last mind-blurt for the evening.

Nuclear power: 1). the technology works once you get the plant built. The ability of humans to royally eff anything up, though, is astounding [take our "recent" mess in the Ukraine]. We shouldn't assume that we in the US are beyond that stupidity and casual screwing around on the job. But let's grudgingly say that we probably can out-design the plant issues.

2). Storage of post-use radioactive waste. France and Japan have the generally correct idea --- unfortunately Japan has lousy land choices being entirely in an earthquake zone. But France is pretty geologically stable, and its deep storage site is probably OK. Our Yucca Mountain would serve as well if the politics could be gotten around.

3). mining hazards --- guys who mine the Uranium have very high cancer rates. Hell with them?? You gotta sacrifice somebody for the larger good?? They had a choice to mine or not?? UGGGHHH. If mining safety could be licked, then OK. [Note that everytime you add something on to the crude current system, though, the price goes up].

4). temporary storage of high and low-level waste before going to the depository. Right now this is done with VERY poor security in many places, and in technological ponding situations of mixed soundness. Want to be a terrorist?? Organize a raid on a company storing rad-waste and throw it into some big city's water reservoir.

5). transfer of high-level radwaste to Yucca Mountain. These, in part, are very "hot" bars of depleted uranium from the reactor cores and extremely dangerous. They will probably have to be transported by military convoys on the ground [no air travel as a plane could go down anywhere]. Whereas driving this convoy through your town probably wouldn't be a health problem [though all the residents would freak out and riot], the "exposure" to enemy action, as we say in the military game, would be huge --- all along the route the convoy could be attacked.

Those are just some of the dimensions of the "nuclear solution". I bother to write them so as to show that the simplistic bullcrap put out there by persons pushing certain greed agendas is almost uniformly piecemeal and manipulative.

The school bell just rang. Class dismissed. Merry Christmas from the Old Prof.

 

[BobD]

"The school bell just rang. Class dismissed. Merry Christmas from the Old Prof."

LOL Good night Professor, Merry Christmas and Thank you!

 

[irishfanjho15]

"The school bell just rang. Class dismissed. Merry Christmas from the Old Prof."

LOL Good night Professor, Merry Christmas and Thank you!

I was but a mere observer of these exchanges but thank you both for the lessons. Merry XMAS both BobD and OMM

 

[IrishinSyria]

Agree with OMM on the storage issues, especially regarding spent fuel. Even a place like Yuca mountain is only secure as long as there's a government that actively invests in keeping it that way. Considering that that stuff remains dangerous for thousands of years, it seems like presuming that level of security completely ignores human history.

 

[BobD]

To bad we couldn't come up wth a way to neutralize the spent fuel faster or destroy it altogether.

 

[phgreek]

I am not against saving the world but I think it is best done through capitalism. Geothermal heating and cooling systems are cost effective and incredibly efficient, why not promote those instead of pipedream ideas for energy? I am looking into solar panels for my house if they make financial sense, I will probably do it. I am planting Bermuda grass because I don't want to waste money on a sprinkler system and water to fight nature and keep Fescue alive in the heat. I am a capitalist. As resources become scarcer, price will go up and alternatives will be more competitive. I also don't discount the power of innovation. Someone will figure out more efficient solar panels, celulostic ethanol and any other list of solutions to the problem. Crippling our economy in the mean time to artificially raise the price of energy so the rest of the world catchs up to us faster is a dangerous solution.

This is really close to where I come down... did my own Geothermal for my off grid cabin. Solar and wind generator goes in next year...have a propane backup generator (UDOT mobile generator I bought for 3K...so when it breaks its already on wheels, and gets hauled in for repair). Once I get it all worked out, I will be scaling it up for my home. Its out there....all of it.

And I agree...No one who is a true leader leads by shooting hemslef in the foot...America's leadership edge comes from economic superiority (or did). Can't lead by kicking those pins out. You need to understand our economy drives the problem and the solution. Don't be so single minded in solving the problem that you make us unable to lead everyone else....DUH.

As for the state of politics...

It is unfortunate, but politicians need two things Money (alot of it) and message (one liners and slogans). Money requires selling out. Message is limited to an audience who can't or won't embrace complexity, and laud oversimplification as "communication" vs doing the research for themselves. Until those fundamental problems are addressed, we really can't get the change we seek. The glutonous hypocritical behavior of politicians can be addressed only after the folks that we send are unencumbered, and proven doers with some intellect. Can't get that with how things are now.

Now...to address something you all may not know...(because its near and dear to me)

Where do you think the preponderance of PRACTICAL solutions and leadership w/ regard to environmental issues is coming from...Lemme help ya...DoD.

If you think about who has the most time-critical, high-performance needs, and a THE premier environment for real world testing of processes and technology...its DoD.

Yup...so before you folks get all wound up about cutting DoD...and talking about over-proced toilet seats...look a little harder.

All the latest waste water treatment technology was born in ...DoD. Nearly all of the energy progress related to Hydrogen/fuel cells...yup DoD. Reclamation of fuel from municipal waste (Dumps) facilities...DoD. Hybrid vehicles...DoD. Thin film photovoltaics...DoD. THE strictest carbon tracking and mitigation approaches and technology...DoD. Replacement of heavy metals with various composites...DoD. Material and waste reduction with nano-technology...DoD. The most pervasive "pollution prevention in the industrial process" efforts...DoD.

...kinda goes to what many have said...if you don't dig, think, and ask...but simply assume based on ideological sound bytes, you get EXACTLY what you deserve.

In this case you all think DoD is bombs and bullets...and you fail to see it as a multinational industrial organization that serves as the most diverse test facility in the world with the ability to fund, test, and roll out all stages of technology for evaluation...and thus, you deserve the retardation of enviornmental progress you get by employing the meat axe. Had DoD retained all of its environmental-related IP, it might be financially self-sustaining at this point. However, DoD is the garden of the technology that supports capitalism...always has been.

In short DoD returns many times over what it "takes". I simply laugh out loud when I hear the constant barrage on NPR of the "military industrial complex"...so just what environmental innovation (not just bench level think tank crap...but field tested, market ready SOLUTIONS) does private investment bring? Good Grief! Trust me I'd be happy if it was more private...but the truth is, wishing in one hand...ah hell, never mind.

Point is...the solution to DoD waste is for idiot politicians to have clue WTF they are doing...and provide very pointed limitations on $$$$, and for them to know WTF to actually measure for performance. In fact that is the the key to killing waste in all government. You actually need to know something about the mission of the organization, and the initiatives it is undertaking. But that would require someone to actually work really hard at it...what we the people give ourselves to achieve these things is whiners who think hours in the office talking to one another, conducting political obstructionist maneuvers, conducting campaigns to cover for over-reach, executing insider trades, and grab-assing interns = the peoples' work.