What to do about Human Induced Climate Change
Discussion
RobM77 said:
Climate change is one of the most researched topics in science worldwide. The idea that all of the scientists involved are colluding in a mass lie which extends from their pens out to peer review and across all the journals they publish in is surely ridiculous?
Researched in unvalidated models, with corrupted data as a starting point...and the result biased by needing to pay the bills.Not really that far fetched.
AW111 said:
I am designing a power plant fuelled by ignorance, rage and denial.
When it is finished, I will lure regular posters on NP&E in with a carefully crafted post praising the Guardian and BBC, and power the world for a decade with their replies.
Sorted.
Excellent, may I be the first to question how you are going to deal with the toxic waste? When it is finished, I will lure regular posters on NP&E in with a carefully crafted post praising the Guardian and BBC, and power the world for a decade with their replies.
Sorted.
Sell it to the Daily Mail?The answer isn't this
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/court-rules-...
I particularly like the statement by the judge that has allowed this to proceed.
“A stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society.”
World peace would be nice too.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/court-rules-...
I particularly like the statement by the judge that has allowed this to proceed.
“A stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society.”
World peace would be nice too.
Toltec said:
The answer isn't this
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/court-rules-...
I particularly like the statement by the judge that has allowed this to proceed.
“A stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society.”
World peace would be nice too.
I stopped reading anything from IFLScience ages when they started spouting crap like that article and other BS. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/court-rules-...
I particularly like the statement by the judge that has allowed this to proceed.
“A stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society.”
World peace would be nice too.
Looking at this from the opposite perspective what is being done at the moment that you think is wrong?
I'll open with-
Carbon credits and the trading thereof. This is just some kind of political and money making form of fiddling the accounts by moving the costs between capital and revenue expenditures.
Intermittent or unreliable renewables, e.g. wind and solar, while they may reduce net co2 emissions they need backing up with rapid response power generation such gas turbine power stations. To make them truly viable we need a way to store and release the energy they produce on demand.
Carbon sequestration, the energy needed means you burn even more fossil fuel.
The above may be a temporary way of reducing co2, but they are not long term solutions to our energy needs.
I'll open with-
Carbon credits and the trading thereof. This is just some kind of political and money making form of fiddling the accounts by moving the costs between capital and revenue expenditures.
Intermittent or unreliable renewables, e.g. wind and solar, while they may reduce net co2 emissions they need backing up with rapid response power generation such gas turbine power stations. To make them truly viable we need a way to store and release the energy they produce on demand.
Carbon sequestration, the energy needed means you burn even more fossil fuel.
The above may be a temporary way of reducing co2, but they are not long term solutions to our energy needs.
For those voicing doubts here, what is it exactly that you doubt?
1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
RobM77 said:
For those voicing doubts here, what is it exactly that you doubt?
1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
1) Man made climate change is real, but probably not a cause for alarm. I think the data has been massaged to death for the cause.1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
2) I've had the dubious privilege of attempting to validate the models of experienced vehicle dynamics modellers. It seems from my experience that humans can't model a simple car, but we can model the planet...sorry but I can't accept that. The arrogance of the ignorant.
Rhyolith said:
Following on from the information discussed in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I think this is the real debate. Whatever opinion you hold on HICC (human induced climate change), the action to take on it is a subject of debate.
I have a lot of opinions on this, but will not flood this first post with them just yet.
What do you think we should do about HICC based on the evidence?
In the UK we should be doing nothing, if you really believe in it you need to stop the major emitters, China has been and still is building 2 coal fired power stations a month, the rest of Asia is building large numbers of coal fired power stations, to think shutting down our few coal stations is going to make a difference is naive in the extreme, what we are doing is putting up energy costs and driving industries that are controlled and monitored away to countries that do not.I think this is the real debate. Whatever opinion you hold on HICC (human induced climate change), the action to take on it is a subject of debate.
I have a lot of opinions on this, but will not flood this first post with them just yet.
What do you think we should do about HICC based on the evidence?
One thing about all this I find strange is why China is given a free ride, it signed up to the climate agreement, but in the small print it doesn't have to do anything for 20 years, if people feel it's an important subject (I do not) why are they not flying out to China and protesting ? Maybe they should walk as flying creates even more CO2.
RobM77 said:
For those voicing doubts here, what is it exactly that you doubt?
1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
Mmcc is unproven. All that is known is that co2 has the ability to absorb and emit ir. All else is supposition and modelling. As before, global human co2 emissions flat for the last three years, yet atmospheric co2 still increasing and temps stable. Things just don't correlate at all. 1) That man made climate change is real.
2) Specific future predictions about certain measurable parameters on the earth.
These two statements are really quite different; 1 relies on studying real data and drawing conclusions and looking at correlations, whereas 2 requires the use of models to predict the future. The climate is a highly complex phenomenon, and it's not as simple as stating, for example, that because a Force F acts on a mass M it'll experience an acceleration a, or that because energy E is applied to a body B it'll heat up by an amount T. They'll be thousands upon thousands of equations like that all interplaying against each other in a horrendously complex manner in thousands of cells that again interplay against each other. That incredibly high level of complexity can only really be resolved by running a model, and that's all we have in terms of tools. The models are validated, of course, against existing data sets, and they stand up well; but predictions about the future can only be given in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Picking out individual predictions made years ago, often after they've been picked up and re-worded by the media, that suit your own beliefs and comparing them to today's reality is not logical, and it's certainly not a basis to doubt statement 1.
As an analogy, if we studied the body of a smoker we could say two things: 1) We could tell that they had damage to their body and that it was caused by cigarette smoke; that's basic pathological analysis. 2) We could state how likely they'd be to contract certain conditions and die in the future. They're very different things.
mondeoman said:
Mmcc is unproven. All that is known is that co2 has the ability to absorb and emit ir. All else is supposition and modelling. As before, global human co2 emissions flat for the last three years, yet atmospheric co2 still increasing and temps stable. Things just don't correlate at all.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it untrue! CO2 emissions have not increased in the last three years, but atmospheric CO2 has because there's a lag between the two of about 20 years. That's a well understood process, not a gap in understanding. 
As for temperatures, scientists are doing a bit more than just sitting there drawing graphs and spotting correlations, there are a whole host of factors that one needs to take into account to isolate MMC, and looking at a three year period of global temperatures is very bad science - that doesn't mean anything.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff