Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
XJ40 said:
I can of course see your logic. All the climate graphs I've seen dating from around 1850 to present day show at least some warming in that period though, is that not the signal that's being claimed?
One more which may be of interest to you.Since the IPCC statement below there has been a natural El Nino or two but beyond that no statistically significant warming AT ALL. Therefore it still applies. No visible causal human signal exists in any global climate data.
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch8 Section 8.6
turbobloke said:
No, as it happens, it's not! What you see is mostly 'adjustments' to actual data, which introduce the warming trend, and even after the 'adjustments' there's still no visible causal human signal in any global climate data of any kind. What's visible is the same natural variation there has always been, and contrary to the hyped claims, it's not unprecedented in either rate or extent, not by a long shot.
Fair enough, do you have a pic of a plot of similar timeline with unadjusted data?I do think it's important to establish the real truth of the matter, if we can. But I also think it's important to limit and eventually drive down fossil fuel useage. I do wonder whether the apparent climate change issue is a kind of proxy arguement to achieve the same ends..
XJ40 said:
<snip>
For me the big, big issue for mankind into the future is consuming finite resources. There's only so much material in the ground. At some point, who know when, we will surpase peak oil. We can't continue our exponential growth model and consume indefinitely if we want to survive in the way we'd like to in the future (I think at some point we'll have to switch to a more steady state economic model that doesn't rely on constant growth).. Anyhow, it's for this reason, the one of resources, that there has to be a gradual switch to renewable energy, and I think why I pretty much go along with the climate change agenda, regardless of the actual climate science.
I'm an engineer I'm optimistic that the march of progress will go on and technology will solve the problems we face..
Given you're an engineer do you not see fundamental problems with the idea of running the planet on renewable energy, both in terms of energy return on investment and in energy density?For me the big, big issue for mankind into the future is consuming finite resources. There's only so much material in the ground. At some point, who know when, we will surpase peak oil. We can't continue our exponential growth model and consume indefinitely if we want to survive in the way we'd like to in the future (I think at some point we'll have to switch to a more steady state economic model that doesn't rely on constant growth).. Anyhow, it's for this reason, the one of resources, that there has to be a gradual switch to renewable energy, and I think why I pretty much go along with the climate change agenda, regardless of the actual climate science.
I'm an engineer I'm optimistic that the march of progress will go on and technology will solve the problems we face..
don4l said:
durbster said:
don4l said:
durbster said:
If that's true what was NASA's reason for adjusting the data?
Do we agree that once the data has been adjusted, it no longer reflects reality?Jasandjules said:
don4l said:
Do we agree that once the data has been adjusted, it no longer reflects reality?
It must be agreed. After all, data is data. If it is "adjusted" it is no longer "data" but an arbitrary figure.Data can be adjusted for known corrective discrepancies (see adjustment for standard temperature and pressure for example).
I think the issue in this case of 'adjustment' is that it seems (to me anyway) that the adjustment is being made in order that the desired outcome of a model shows a certain trend.
I am not convinced that the adjustments have been made for the purposes of merely calibrating two separate measurement sources.
hidetheelephants said:
XJ40 said:
<snip>
For me the big, big issue for mankind into the future is consuming finite resources. There's only so much material in the ground. At some point, who know when, we will surpase peak oil. We can't continue our exponential growth model and consume indefinitely if we want to survive in the way we'd like to in the future (I think at some point we'll have to switch to a more steady state economic model that doesn't rely on constant growth).. Anyhow, it's for this reason, the one of resources, that there has to be a gradual switch to renewable energy, and I think why I pretty much go along with the climate change agenda, regardless of the actual climate science.
I'm an engineer I'm optimistic that the march of progress will go on and technology will solve the problems we face..
Given you're an engineer do you not see fundamental problems with the idea of running the planet on renewable energy, both in terms of energy return on investment and in energy density?For me the big, big issue for mankind into the future is consuming finite resources. There's only so much material in the ground. At some point, who know when, we will surpase peak oil. We can't continue our exponential growth model and consume indefinitely if we want to survive in the way we'd like to in the future (I think at some point we'll have to switch to a more steady state economic model that doesn't rely on constant growth).. Anyhow, it's for this reason, the one of resources, that there has to be a gradual switch to renewable energy, and I think why I pretty much go along with the climate change agenda, regardless of the actual climate science.
I'm an engineer I'm optimistic that the march of progress will go on and technology will solve the problems we face..
XJ40 said:
Fair enough, do you have a pic of a plot of similar timeline with unadjusted data?
It would be unhelpful if not downright cruel to say that there are many in this and other PH climate threads, so here is a selection of how the data is 'adjusted' to produce a warming trend. Then, as discussed a moment ago, a trend on its own is interesting as such but has no inherent causality, that has to be established - and it has not been.Please do take a few minutes to read through the links. I must confess that what I've posted below is itself only a selection that I could lay my hands on in a couple of minutes, there's a lot more out there.
Australia temperature data flat ~100 years with Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317
NZ Temps Flat ~150 Yrs New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
"There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?" Researchers find records adjusted to represent 'warming' when raw data show temperatures have been stable.
NZ Raw Data Flat
NZ Adjusted Data Warming Trend Introduced
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/doc...
USA Raw Data ~100 Yrs but USA Adjusted Data Hides the Decline
NOAA and NASA Dramatically Adjust US Temperatures
Finally:
Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend
HTH
XJ40 said:
What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior.
Renewables cannot provide the solution.As an engineer I trust you'll be interested in what other engineers have to say.
Another couple of links, but well worth the time taken to read through.
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Insoluble Problems in Powering a Developed Western Society by Renewables Due To EROEI:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Enjoy, IYSWIM
mybrainhurts said:
First 2 pics not working, TB
Thanks but I can see 'em (NZ raw and tampered with) on screen so not sure what's happening...http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/doc...
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/doc...
turbobloke said:
XJ40 said:
What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior.
Renewables cannot provide the solution.As an engineer I trust you'll be interested in what other engineers have to say.
Another couple of links, but well worth the time taken to read through.
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Insoluble Problems in Powering a Developed Western Society by Renewables Due To EROEI:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Enjoy, IYSWIM
Surely you can see the point I was making though, what do we do in a post fossil fuel world?
XJ40 said:
Thanks for the replies TB, I shall give the links a squint.
A word of caution if you're new to the thread: you have to read this thread like a tabloid newspaper. A lot of stuff posted is designed to influence you with outrageous sounding soundbites but there's often little substance to them when you care to look.For example, you'll see this posted a lot as above:
turbobloke said:
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
The actual quote is:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Google said:
Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-changeIt's almost as if some people only post here to obfuscate and muddy the debate... like they're being paid to do so...
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 2nd December 14:31
XJ40 said:
I've not looked at specifics of the situation, but no doubt your right and they'll be problems. What's the alternative though? As I said above, there's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, it's a unavoidable fact. What happens when we hit peak oil and output starts to trail off? Better to have developed some solutions before that point, even if they are inferior. This climate change issue seems to be forcing the agenda early, perhaps no bad thing..
As per the conclusions of the Google-funded RE<C study, I believe nuclear fission is the least worst option in the short, intermediate and even the long term. Irrespective of climate change being driven by CO2 or not there is an impending energy crisis, as the developing world continues to bootstrap upwards they want energy, more of it and as cheaply as possible; if they are not presented with an alternative that is cheaper than coal and gas they will stick with fossil fuel, and any time they're asked this is what they tell us. The Indians and others have been telling us just now in Paris, they won't brook any interference in their economic growth and reserve the right to power that growth with coal.If decarbonising electricity is a priority we better do like the Chinese are doing and investing a lot of money making fission work better, something that hasn't had much money spent on it in the west for about 30 years; it works ok as it is, but it could be a lot better. If a practical demonstration is necessary, take a look at Ontario in Canada(less than 50 grams of CO2 per kWh) or France(I think they manage ~80 grams per kWh); both make most of their power with nuclear generation. The insanity of Energiewende has Germany around ~450 grams per kWh.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff