Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
You should know by now that the climate is what's known as a mathmatical chaotic system, thus PAST data is of no use for future projections (predictions). So forget that line of exploration.
If that's true, how did we figure out how to grow crops?Are we ready for profound lifestyle changes in order to save us from climate change?
The EU thinks we need to have a debate which I would assume is EU speak for prepare to have them imposed on you.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/15...
So Durbster et al, what profound lifestyle changes are you prepared to make? No more foreign holidays? Get rid of your private car? Ration your electricity? I think it's now up to the true believers to make the sacrifices required as an example to the rest of us.
The EU thinks we need to have a debate which I would assume is EU speak for prepare to have them imposed on you.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/15...
So Durbster et al, what profound lifestyle changes are you prepared to make? No more foreign holidays? Get rid of your private car? Ration your electricity? I think it's now up to the true believers to make the sacrifices required as an example to the rest of us.
turbobloke said:
"...the models weren't wrong it's just because other stuff happened..."
Does that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
IndeedDoes that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
My PhD would have been much shorter and easier to write had I been able to say:
"The model doesn't really predict reality, though I bent and twisted its arm into matching past events. But its ok, this other stuff happened that meant the model didn't work well in prediction, but really this means the model is still infallible and bang on the money."
Otispunkmeyer said:
turbobloke said:
"...the models weren't wrong it's just because other stuff happened..."
Does that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
IndeedDoes that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
My PhD would have been much shorter and easier to write had I been able to say:
"The model doesn't really predict reality, though I bent and twisted its arm into matching past events. But its ok, this other stuff happened that meant the model didn't work well in prediction, but really this means the model is still infallible and bang on the money."
Adding "The other stuff that changed things doesn't matter anyway because we already dismissed it as insignificant...ah, erm...anyway yes that's it." for good measure.
We shouldn't laugh but with climate modelling it's a reasonable response.
jurbie said:
Are we ready for profound lifestyle changes in order to save us from climate change?
The EU thinks we need to have a debate which I would assume is EU speak for prepare to have them imposed on you.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/15...
So Durbster et al, what profound lifestyle changes are you prepared to make? No more foreign holidays? Get rid of your private car? Ration your electricity? I think it's now up to the true believers to make the sacrifices required as an example to the rest of us.
I've stopped buying the Guardian !! I buy lottery tickets with the money I've saved.The EU thinks we need to have a debate which I would assume is EU speak for prepare to have them imposed on you.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/15...
So Durbster et al, what profound lifestyle changes are you prepared to make? No more foreign holidays? Get rid of your private car? Ration your electricity? I think it's now up to the true believers to make the sacrifices required as an example to the rest of us.
turbobloke said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
turbobloke said:
"...the models weren't wrong it's just because other stuff happened..."
Does that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
IndeedDoes that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
My PhD would have been much shorter and easier to write had I been able to say:
"The model doesn't really predict reality, though I bent and twisted its arm into matching past events. But its ok, this other stuff happened that meant the model didn't work well in prediction, but really this means the model is still infallible and bang on the money."
Adding "The other stuff that changed things doesn't matter anyway because we already dismissed it as insignificant...ah, erm...anyway yes that's it." for good measure.
We shouldn't laugh but with climate modelling it's a reasonable response.
robinessex said:
turbobloke said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
turbobloke said:
"...the models weren't wrong it's just because other stuff happened..."
Does that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
IndeedDoes that mean that climate models can be right by not matching reality due to stuff that happened?! Why was the stuff not in the models?
Stuff not being in models makes them inadequate. Model output parting company with reality makes them wrong.
Any other view is bizarre, frankly.
My PhD would have been much shorter and easier to write had I been able to say:
"The model doesn't really predict reality, though I bent and twisted its arm into matching past events. But its ok, this other stuff happened that meant the model didn't work well in prediction, but really this means the model is still infallible and bang on the money."
Adding "The other stuff that changed things doesn't matter anyway because we already dismissed it as insignificant...ah, erm...anyway yes that's it." for good measure.
We shouldn't laugh but with climate modelling it's a reasonable response.
It's a bit chilly in New England. They really need lots more turbines.
or should that be "it's winter".
Yesterday a report from Jo D'Aleo said:
A brutally cold air mass rode the arctic express from north of Alaska and northern Canada to the northeast in just two days. It arrived with temperatures surface and aloft that were more extreme than we have seen in decades.
We were 10 to 20 below zero here in central New England late on Saturday, Sunday morning and again Monday morning. Sunday barely reached the low teens. Wind chills reached the -30s and even -40s at times Saturday evening and Sunday morning.
Boston set records on Saturday with -4F (edging out -3F in 1967), and on Sunday with an amazing -9F, well below the old record of -3F in 1934. It was tied for Boston’s 4th coldest daytime low since the official measurements began at Logan Airport in 1936. It also was coldest temperature at Logan since January 1957, almost 60 years ago. The average temperature was more than 30F below the normal for the date.
Thank goodness for global warming We were 10 to 20 below zero here in central New England late on Saturday, Sunday morning and again Monday morning. Sunday barely reached the low teens. Wind chills reached the -30s and even -40s at times Saturday evening and Sunday morning.
Boston set records on Saturday with -4F (edging out -3F in 1967), and on Sunday with an amazing -9F, well below the old record of -3F in 1934. It was tied for Boston’s 4th coldest daytime low since the official measurements began at Logan Airport in 1936. It also was coldest temperature at Logan since January 1957, almost 60 years ago. The average temperature was more than 30F below the normal for the date.
or should that be "it's winter".Yes, more snowfall than the previous record in 1954 apparently. Here's some photos of the Ottawa snow:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottaw...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottaw...
LongQ said:
Current 12 month estimate of metered electricity generation reserve according to the Electricty trading people...
I'm hoping for a warm winter next year.
I reckon that I can probably get a subsidy that will make the installation cost neutral at worst.
don4l said:
I need to investigate diesel generators, and how to connect them to the house.
I reckon that I can probably get a subsidy that will make the installation cost neutral at worst.
Good plan. I reckon that I can probably get a subsidy that will make the installation cost neutral at worst.
Have a full sick bucket at the door to give Natalie Bennett when she comes knocking...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/16/c...
My apologies if this was covered previously but I don't recall reading it before.
Richard Lindzen's lecture to the 48th Session: Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies.
Presented via the link to a guest essay at Energy Matters.
http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrel...
What he observes seems to be right in line with the views most frequently expressed in this thread bringing most of them together in one place with a useful list of references cited.
Richard Lindzen's lecture to the 48th Session: Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies.
Presented via the link to a guest essay at Energy Matters.
http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrel...
What he observes seems to be right in line with the views most frequently expressed in this thread bringing most of them together in one place with a useful list of references cited.
Planned operation of British AGR nuclear power stations extended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35583740
The closing paragraphs indicate the need for strong, clear and coherent management from gubmint. Hah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35583740
The closing paragraphs indicate the need for strong, clear and coherent management from gubmint. Hah.
LongQ said:
My apologies if this was covered previously but I don't recall reading it before.
Richard Lindzen's lecture to the 48th Session: Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies.
Presented via the link to a guest essay at Energy Matters.
http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrel...
What he observes seems to be right in line with the views most frequently expressed in this thread bringing most of them together in one place with a useful list of references cited.
It's a very well-crafted piece and it would be churlish to criticise, but what the heck...in fact this is merely an observation not a criticism Richard Lindzen's lecture to the 48th Session: Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies.
Presented via the link to a guest essay at Energy Matters.
http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrel...
What he observes seems to be right in line with the views most frequently expressed in this thread bringing most of them together in one place with a useful list of references cited.
Where Prof Lindzen reminds his readers of this information pollution:
Richard Lindzen said:
Senators McCain and Lieberman (Boston Globe, February 13, 2007) offered the standard misreading of the IPCC WG1’s iconic statement: 'The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial’s coffin about the problem of global warming'
There really was no reason not to take the opportunity to point out that this is not just wrong and silly but worse than that. With the Pause in full swing the chance increased from 90% to 95% which is brazen to say the least, it could and should have been noted. Also those percentage figures, designed to look like meaningful statistical significance, are in fact pure conjecture from self-appointed experts as acknowledged in an IPCC SPM footnote. The abracadabra of climatewang is rarely hidden, they couldn't even hide the decline, so there's no harm in shining lights on it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff