Global Warming III

[cxt]

IJ

That is kinda my point, your makeing blithe assumptions about things we really know little about at this time.

Its not that I'm worried--not really--its just that there is nothing more dangerous than zealots with only PART of the picture.

If what we see now is the result of us "tampering", as you put it, by accident.

Then how do we know were not doing something worse--equally by accident?
Or an unintended outcome?

The answer here is that we don't.

We have no idea what caused the Little Ice Age or what stopped it.

I'm just saying that before we go too far and cripple our economy--while the rest of the world continues to industrialize in an uncontrolled and rampant fashion.
Before we do something drastic.

Lets make sure that we know what we are really doing--and right now--we don't.

[Glenn]

A question that more immediately relates to my wallet then climate change, but does anyone have any reliable info about which uses less gas when driving a car, running the air conditioner or driving with the windows down? I've heard it both ways but never seen any good stats on it. And since the AC draws more power but the open windows create more drag it may be a toss-up and no real difference in gas mileage between the two.

Obviously driving with the windows up and no AC would use the least gas, but for some reason I cannot convince the family of the benefits of this with the current 100 degree weather we're having in the mid-west.

[mhosea]

I've heard it both ways but never seen any good stats on it. And since the AC draws more power but the open windows create more drag it may be a toss-up and no real difference in gas mileage between the two.

They tried this one on "Mythbusters" with a pair of "identical" new vehicles. My recollection was that there was (not surprisingly) a speed cutoff. Below something like 40 mph, having the windows down and AC off was better, above 40 mph, having the windows up was better. Not sure of the 40mph cutoff, nor how reliable their results would be on that anyway, given their low sample size problem, but it makes sense. Drag is low at low speeds and increases as speed increases, while AC is a constant drag on the engine.

Another one they looked into was the pickup tailgate up versus down. Up turned out to be better. Turns out that a cushion of rotating air builds up over the empty bed, reaching up to the top of the cab. Instead of the air passing the vehicle traveling down into the bed and striking the tailgate, it skips across the top of this rotating "air wheel", missing the tailgate entirely. Putting the tailgate down prevents this cushion from forming, the net result being more drag.

[Glenn]

Thanks Mike. The difference in effect at different speeds does make sense there.

[Bill Glasheen]

Understand that the numbers vary here, as Mike eloquently articulated.

Let's say you have identical vehicles. In the one, you put a 500 BTU A/C unit, and the other you put a 1000 BTU A/C unit. Assuming identical efficiencies in the units, you'd expect the second unit to draw more horsepower (and thus gas) from the engine than the first.

Also consider that not all vehicles are made alike. Some are more aerodynamic than others. And even with a single vehicle, you can have any number of windows open - or not.

So the break-even speed varies by a number of different factors.

The bottom line is that on the Interstate, it's both more pleasant and more economical to have the windows up and the A/C on.

- Bill

[mhosea]

It's a good point that the number of windows and amount that they are opened are variables. When I travel at higher speeds with windows open, I adjust the size of the opening to achieve comfortable airflow. It's very difficult to predict where that break-even point is going to be.

I think, though, that it doesn't matter too much to me. If I have the windows open it is to experience the fresh air on a good New England summer day while cruising around town, or it's to have a little more power for acceleration from a stop. I don't think I'd do one thing or another on account of the cost.

[IJ]

"That is kinda my point, your makeing blithe assumptions about things we really know little about at this time."

Well, ANY recommendation would be a "blithe assumption," at this point, yeah? So how'd you decide changing the status quo is more dangerous than not changing it? Besides, one of the "blithe assumptions" is that going green will scuttle the whole economy--far from it. Whoever runs renewable energy in the future is going to make $$, warming or not, and renewable is going to be greener.

AC: Since there are so many factors:

--car and speed
--windows: # and how far open
--degree of cooling requested
--prevailing temp probably

... I wonder if the best way to find out is a "feel" test. Sometimes I'm driving and someone throws the AC on (I don't use it; I use sunshields and perfect weather and a low speed washout with windows down, then windows up and AC off for highway speed) and it's just as if someone threw on a low strength parking brake--I can feel the car react before I feel the air--its an instant drain. When I open all the windows a third at the same speed i get nothing similar. That's the most cooling I've needed out here, at least, but I am willing to tolerate a lot more than most for my fuel economy, and willing to tolerate a lot less when it comes to paying at the pump, evidently. I'll take off my dress shirt before I run the AC, for example.

[cxt]

IJ

I honestly don't know--AND NEITHER DO THEY.

Yet that lack of understanding has not made them any more cautious---IMO, about tinkering about with a system they don't really understand.

Going the other way, an analogy that is often used is if you didn't really didn't understand how a car works--would you really just walk up to it and start pulling stuff out.

Its actually a pretty good analogy--problem is that it works BOTH ways.

I never said anything about NOT working to develop renewable energy.
Good idea and we should push ahead full steam--if you'll excuse the pun.

I'm not nearly as convienced of the climate change data in terms of other drivers, and I'm appalled at their economic plans.

And I'm really disgustied at their attempts to end discussion/debate.

When you already assume you know everything you need to know and no further discussion is needed--that is point where research and development stops.

[Bill Glasheen]

Besides, one of the "blithe assumptions" is that going green will scuttle the whole economy--far from it. Whoever runs renewable energy in the future is going to make $$, warming or not, and renewable is going to be greener.

I'm all for developing the NEXT energy source. Do it sooner than later.

But practically speaking, economies will use the cheapest energy available. Not to do that is bad for the GDP and trade deficit in a global economy.

With India and China buying up as much oil as they can to fuel their growing economies - and doing more for less in many economic sectors - other countries are going to grab on to every economic advantage they can. So practically speaking these new energy sources are likely going to be very much the in the minority until traditional carbon-based energy gets to be a lot more expensive.

Or, go nuclear like France. Hmm... There was a time when a self-respecting environmentalist would go postal over the thought of that. Go figure.

- Bill

[gmattson]

I've been following this topic with great interest. Based on the information in the following article, our earth home has probably gone through this "global warming" cycle a number of times and will, in spite of anything we do, will go through it again. Does this mean we should abandon our conservation efforts, based on the likely hood that regardless of what we do, nature's ultimate course of action will prevail?

I think not! We should be concerned about "quality of life" for ourselves and future generations. And I'm sure that whatever Mother Nature has in store for us, with foreknowledge and preparation, we will be able to deal with it and survive.
=======================

Drilling could unearth global forecast
by William Mullen | Tribune staff reporter
July 3, 2007
Article Tools
E-mail Print Single page view Reprints Reader feedback text size: MCMURDO STATION, Antarctica - Dropped down a hole melted through 267 feet of floating ice, a diamond-toothed drill had to travel another 2,776 feet through seawater before it reached the bottom of an offshore moat in Antarctica and pierced the ocean floor.

There, it began to drill back in time, sending a ropy core sample about 3 inches in diameter back to a derrick built on top of the Ross Ice Shelf.

Nearly a quarter-mile down, the drill bored into sediment that would astonish one of the largest groups of scientists ever assembled in Antarctica. It was a layer more than 300 feet thick of fossilized diatoms, microscopic algae that once bloomed near the ocean surface.



Related Links
Recent warm-up 'unprecedented'

The toll of global warming
Cape Royds, Antarctica Graphic
Drilling for the core Photos

View from the South Pole

Listen, see: What's it like?
The diatom layer, laid down 2 to 5 million years ago, was evidence that Antarctica has undergone past cycles of warming and cooling. It meant the frozen wastes of the Ross Ice Shelf -- a seemingly permanent slab of ice the size of Spain -- were once open water.

In other times, this information might be of interest only to specialists. But scientists with the Antarctic Geological Drilling project, or ANDRILL, believe the Antarctica of the past can show us what to expect from the warmer world of tomorrow.

In November and December, the ANDRILL team pulled 10 million years of critical climate information out of the Antarctic seabed. The diatom layer was a key prize, representing "a time when ... glaciers were in retreat, a different regime when there was a lot more water in the system," said Reed Scherer, a diatom expert at Northern Illinois University.

In today's terms, "more water in the system" could mean sea levels high enough to put low-lying places like Florida and Bangladesh underwater. If the Ross Ice Shelf again were to shrink or disappear because of higher global temperatures, it could signal very dangerous changes for the rest of the planet, despite its remote place on Earth.

For this reason, ANDRILL is one of the biggest scientific undertakings in the history of Antarctica and a showcase project for the International Polar Year, a major international cooperative research push this year and next that is focusing hundreds of millions of dollars and vast expertise on the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Much of it is related to global warming.

The project brings together 150 scientists from the U.S., New Zealand, Italy and Germany, with the U.S. National Science Foundation providing two-thirds of ANDRILL's $30 million cost. Last year's drilling put 58 geologists, geochemists, volcanologists, sedimentologists, paleomagneticists, paleontologists, petrologists and others "on the ice."

The samples they extracted provide "the best record of time ever established" in Antarctica, said NIU geologist Ross Powell. Now, in a process that will take years, ANDRILL will try to match the new data with much more complete geological histories from the rest of the world.

"We want to relate these warming events with other known world events," said Powell, an expert in glacial sediments.

ANDRILL's slogan is "Drilling back into the future," and Powell reels off some of the questions the project is hoping to answer:

"How did the Antarctic ice sheet react to temperature rises in the past, and how will it react in the future? What's the critical point that triggers changes? Are there tipping points, like water temperature or air temperature that we should be aware of? What was the global picture when this happened before?"

Antarctica was not always as frigid as it is today. Forty million years ago, the Antarctic land mass was connected to the tip of South America and was home to thick vegetation and teeming populations of animals similar to those in Australia.

But when Antarctica became completely detached, a frigid circumpolar current began to spin around it like a giant freezer coil, trapping the continent in a super-cold climate. Glaciers and ice sheets grew up to 3 miles thick, covering 98 percent of Antarctica, which is larger than the U.S. and Mexico combined.

Though the chill has lasted ever since, the amount of ice in Antarctica has grown and shrunk many times during previous global climate changes. The ANDRILL core samples confirm at least 60 warming/cooling cycles in Antarctica in the last 10 million years.

But today's warming trend appears different from those of the past. Most climate experts have come to agree that the pace of change is unusually fast and that the cause seems to be man's activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, which releases heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

The planet's average annual temperature has risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, and parts of the Arctic and Antarctic regions have seen much bigger temperature increases, rising as much as 4.5 degrees since the 1950s.

The rising temperatures threaten to affect the three major types of ice associated with the Antarctic continent: the seasonal pack ice that grows outward from the shore each winter; the thick, semi-permanent ice shelves attached to the Antarctic coast; and the ice sheets that cover its rocky land.

Most catastrophic would be melting of the ice sheets. If the warmth causes even a small portion to thaw, the added water in the world's oceans could create staggering human problems.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nation ... ws-science

[RACastanet]

A number of years ago in a former life I was Mr. GE to the GM parts divisions such as Delco Air Conditioning. I did many, many projects with them, including one on compressor manufacturing in theDayton, Ohio plant.

The compressors built at the time, circa 1984-85 are still in wide usage. They are the radial four (R4) and the axial six (A6). They were also developing the variable 5 (V5) at that time to reduce power consumption.

The R4 and A6 models required about 10 HP when running. When you engage them, to Ian's point, you feel it. On a small 4 cylinder engine engaging the AC produces a significant 'bump'. My 4 banger 120HP Jeep really bogs down when I put on the AC. My 285HP Tahoe does not even notice it.

Also to Ian's point, when you roll down a window you do not feel a bump. That is likely because it takes a few seconds to do so whereas the AC compressor comes on immediately.

Also, most cars have an AC 'dump' switch that turns off the compressor during a hard accelleration so you have the powere to pass, merge or whatever. When merging on an interstate in the Jeep I deliberately turn off the AC to make sure I have all the HP I can get to get up to 65+ or whatever to safely merge.

GM's V5 would have had a soft start and would also have used only the HP necessary to cool the air. If it was only 80 degrees with low humidity a sensor would have engaged only enough HP to do the job. I have never seen a V5 on a car so it may not have caught on.

One more thing about BTUs... auto systems put out huge amounts of cold air to overcome all of the losses thru the glass ans sheet metal. I do not remember the actual BTU ratings but it is thousands, not hundreds.

Rich

[chewy]

Source?

This needs no source. This is one of those issues that any scientist worth his degree and training knows.

I think you may be trying to say "why didn't they show a Y-axis that goes all the way to zero"?

No I'm not.

I'm merely asking that the author be reasonable. And what reasonable is has to be taken in context. And knowing what reasonable is would be why they pay me to do my job both privately as a scientist in a commercial company and publically as a peer reviewer for articles that make it into the literature. (The last paper I reviewed was last month for an Operations Research journal.)

To put it simply, we need to understand what is significant, and what is random (noise). You can take any part of any graph, blow up the abscissa, and see complex patterns. But are they meaningful in the context of what you are studying?

To answer questions like this, we apply tools such as statistics.

Bill- I know you are far more qualified in the field of statistics than I can ever hope to be. But again, the engineer in me says, if the data they have does not exceed the Y-axis bounds of the graph, then why bother artificially zooming out. All you will get is the antithesis of extreme zoom... mainly a flat line. You argue that they've magnified it. All I'm asking is, do you know what their min/max Y-axis data points were (ones that they may be hiding off the graph)? If not, then how can you argue that it is artificially zoomed in to overstate their point? I'm not getting it. Truly. Bring me up to your level on this.

I will also note that the solar sunspot activity graph has similar issues

Indeed. But to what degree? Look at the magnitude of the magnification. What percent of the total is the range of the Y axis? You will see that it is different.
.
.
.
It is what it is. Step back, think, and study more.

Again, not seeing it. The graphs you are critical of occupy 90% of the visible axis. The three graphs you are pointing to as an example of good graph technique occupy 75%, 95%, and 90% of their respective visible Y-axis. The first cuts off it's X-axis prematurely, even though data is available (perhaps there is a lack of correlation hiding there?) .

You sound like you are an engineer, or have been. That being the case, you should also understand other concepts such as phase lags (delay between cause and effect), low pass filtering, and transfer functions between factor A (say sunspot activity) and another factor (say cosmic ray count, C-14 levels, or global temperature). As you realize, this can get very complicated - and very interesting.

- Bill

Yes indeed. I've been in the Electrical Engineering field for 12 years or so and have a B.S. and M.S (as long as we are trading qualifications ). Unfortunately I don't get to really exercise my statistical chops often. Much of what I learned in my Stochastic Processes and Random Variables classes has left my poor brain (like they say - use it or lose it). Sometimes I get to so some statistical exercises when designing queues for telecom traffic, but thats about it.

Seriously, though, I just don't see your point. That's not to say I've read the paper in question, just the journalistic summary... for what it's worth.


chewy

[Bill Glasheen]

if the data they have does not exceed the Y-axis bounds of the graph, then why bother artificially zooming out. All you will get is the antithesis of extreme zoom... mainly a flat line.

Let's consider this. Pretend you have a really good temperature measurement device. You measure temperature in a room over time. Nobody opens or closes any doors, and nobody messes with the thermostat.

How would you characterize the temperature on a plot over time? Well, it depends. If you want to make the point that nobody is changing either the thermostat or the boundary conditions, then you may show a temperature axis from 50 to 100 degrees and display a flat line. It's a stable system, right? Or maybe you want to show the properties of hysteresis in a bipolar strip thermostat system. So you blow up the Y axis so that it goes from 70 degrees to 70.5 degrees. Voila - you have a sinusoidal pattern, right? It's an on/off system with hysteresis. The room warms and the A/C kicks in. The room cools and the A/C turns off.

Which characterization of the system is relevant? Well... It depends upon what point you're trying to make. If you blow the axis up to only half a degree and show a plot over a few hours, you are showing some beautiful patterns. But it isn't telling you anything about whether or not someone is messing with the thermostat or leaving the door open here and there.

There are some wonderful studies of coastlines that show that no matter how far you zoom in, you get a squiggly line. But a squiggly line from outer space is very different from a squiggly line with your nose a foot away from the water.

What matters is cause and effect over time. What are we trying to measure? In this case, average temperature of the earth over time. How may drivers are there to the system, and which ones are significant drivers? THAT is the question.

If we were God, we'd run an experiment with the earth over a few millenia and tweak a few factors here and there. But all we can do for now is observe what's going on around us, and try to make sense of it. And while we're at it, we must show whether or not what we see is relevant given that the geologic record shows many, many little ice ages and warming periods (and a few really big ones) w/o human intervention.

- Bill

[cxt]

First, you can flog me for not having the source. I recall the gist of the article but not where I read it.

Sorry.

But at least one person is looking at the actual devices used to measure temp change.

They are strung out all over the USA and it seems that nobody has actually gone and taken a site visit of them in years.

One of the first one he checked was right next to the hot air exhaust of an large scale air conditioning unit.

They were sit in place many years ago and who knows what has grown up around them.

Not suggesting that all or even most of them are like the above example----just wondering how many might be and what the result would be if a number of them were reading just a BIT higher than they should be????

[IJ]

"Going the other way, an analogy that is often used is if you didn't really didn't understand how a car works--would you really just walk up to it and start pulling stuff out?"

This depends, of course. If I were at a car sale, no, of course not. If I knew the car's electrical system was required to power the detonation of a bomb that was going to take out the whole city, and there was one minute left on the timer and no Jack Bauer in sight, then, you bet your bottom I would start ripping things out of there.

Here's an alternative situation for you to consider... what if we notice preliminary data--not confirmed, but suggestive--that drugs called glitazones, used in millions and millions to control diabetes, increase the risk of heart attack and heart failure. You rush to find better data... and so, recently reported in the New England Journal, came an interim finding of a large study on the drugs. It couldn't conclude anything but suggested there could well be a large risk. The accompanying editorials said... (drum roll!)... don't freak out, but get your patients off these drugs and onto alternatives whenever possible until we know they're safe. DON'T keep pushing effort into a situation (glitazones/CO2) that might be causing major problems (heart attack/climate change) when you don't know what you're doing. They did not say, "oh, we're not sure so just do whatever!"

There are many interim solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. We have coddled US carmaker lobbyists by keeping CAFE standards ridiculously low and lower than other countries. We have energy wasting homes. We have lame public transport. We have little disincentive to wasting energy in the home or outside, since its cheap. We killed the electric car. You name it, there are things to do, things that aren't going to cripple out economy (pressure engenders innovative which creates novel products which enhances the economy--think of the space race, think of how california's emissions initiative and Clinton's hybrid push, even aborted, got us hybrid cars--think Toyota is crying about CAFE right now?)