Climate Change Report

#551
#551
luthervol said:
Of course they were, and they were much smarter than the people who said the sun was pulled by a chariot and the earth was 100 years old and made of cheese.
There is no good alternative to using the best data available, to claim otherwise is just non-sense.
Click to expand...

That's true, but it doesn't mean you will be correct either. The earth's climate has gone through a few cycles, but to understand those cycles, you have to study multiple cycles ... not a fraction of one. I've spent many days and nights (they appear to be the same inside a nuclear plant) watching a Fourier analyzer dig frequency content (power spectra, cross power spectra, transfer function, coherence,etc) from data consisting of both random and deterministic vibration/noise trying to correlate a response with a driving force. There have been many times I was certain a couple of things were going to be related by watching the averages compile only to see the coherence between what looked like absolutely coherent peaks to be zip. While it takes a long time to statistically account for frequencies below 10 Hz, that's nothing compared to cycles in the range of thousands of years. The climate guys may have some ideas - good and bad, but they don't have what it takes to decide that man and not nature is the driving force. Of course, some of us are only engineers, etc and not "scientists"; and only versed in mundane and simple topics life fluid and nuclear dynamics and not the deep stuff like climatology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#553
#553
AM64 said:
That's true, but it doesn't mean you will be correct either. The earth's climate has gone through a few cycles, but to understand those cycles, you have to study multiple cycles ... not a fraction of one. I've spent many days and nights (they appear to be the same inside a nuclear plant) watching a Fourier analyzer dig frequency content (power spectra, cross power spectra, transfer function, coherence,etc) from data consisting of both random and deterministic vibration/noise trying to correlate a response with a driving force. There have been many times I was certain a couple of things were going to be related by watching the averages compile only to see the coherence between what looked like absolutely coherent peaks to be zip. While it takes a long time to statistically account for frequencies below 10 Hz, that's nothing compared to cycles in the range of thousands of years. The climate guys may have some ideas - good and bad, but they don't have what it takes to decide that man and not nature is the driving force. Of course, some of us are only engineers, etc and not "scientists"; and only versed in mundane and simple topics life fluid and nuclear dynamics and not the deep stuff like climatology.
Click to expand...
Coherence... what a novel concept when trying to correlate data sets...😏
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#562
#562
NorthDallas40 said:
I was stating if it had moved appreciably then we should be able to find evidence of such. Archeological investigating will have to be the discovery method due to the lack of recorded data relative to the age of the earth.
Click to expand...
But we do have this data. They can detect historical CO2 levels from air trapped in glacial ice.

NorthDallas40 said:
I’ve seen no such typical claim as you asserted proven and definitely not tied directly to the results of human action. I think the whole point of conflict could be summed up as due to the timespan and time constants involved relative to the available historical measurements were all guessing what’s normal cyclical and what’s driven by the human forces. The one measurement method the blog did mention was satellite temperature data and that it did not correlate with model predictions nor did it actually show significant temperature change ( I think a tenth of a degree was referenced? )

I would say that the blog directly attacked the original post article claim that the global temperature is rising and pointed to actual satellite data as well as data homogenization techniques used by climatologists supporting their stance (no idea of the veracity there either...) One of them has to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Well what counts as proof is going to be different between people, but science typically proceeds via inference rather than deductive arguments. For instance, we know that atmospheric CO2 levels correlate strongly with atmospheric temperature changes over the past 800,000 years or so (from ice samples); we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and we know that much of the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels because of the ratio of carbon isotopes, and that fossil fuels don't contain C-14 (because all of it has decayed from the fossil fuels).

It seems to me that the best way to explain all of the data is that a) climate change is happening; and b) we are contributing to it. Of course, what we should do with this information is another question entirely.
 
#563
#563
Wafflestomper said:
But we do have this data. They can detect historical CO2 levels from air trapped in glacial ice.



Well what counts as proof is going to be different between people, but science typically proceeds via inference rather than deductive arguments. For instance, we know that atmospheric CO2 levels correlate strongly with atmospheric temperature changes over the past 800,000 years or so (from ice samples); we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and we know that much of the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels because of the ratio of carbon isotopes, and that fossil fuels don't contain C-14 (because all of it has decayed from the fossil fuels).

It seems to me that the best way to explain all of the data is that a) climate change is happening; and b) we are contributing to it. Of course, what we should do with this information is another question entirely.
Click to expand...
First off good discussion we’ve got going thanks.


I’m on board with a lot of what you typed until the proven temperature change point. I honestly think causation on that is totally unclassified at this point. RE the coherence references above. And the blog I listed specifically attacked a lack of correlation between model predictions and actuals.

I’m not saying who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m saying definitive proof isn’t presented yet. And again we’re already out front when it comes to renewable energy development. Thus at this moment I just see no clear reason to jump off an over reaction cliff.

And finally... until China is brought into the cooperative approach this is largely a huge waste of time. 25% of the worlds energy consumption largely from fossils. And some silly “so we should do nothing?!” argument totally falls on deaf ears with me when you consider our own self initiated efforts already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#564
#564
NorthDallas40 said:
I’m on board with a lot of what you typed until the proven temperature change point. I honestly think causation on that is totally unclassified at this point. RE the coherence references above. And the blog I listed specifically attacked a lack of correlation between model predictions and actuals.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "proven temperature change point."

There have been tons of models and predictions made, with varying degrees of accuracy. Some of them have been quite accurate. I think the variables involved make it very difficult to come up with a prediction that is spot-on. It's much easier to look back at geological and atmospheric conditions from the past to see the contributions of these phenomena to global temperatures than to forecast all these variables into the future.

NorthDallas40 said:
I’m not saying who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m saying definitive proof isn’t presented yet. And again we’re already out front when it comes to renewable energy development. Thus at this moment I just see no clear reason to jump off an over reaction cliff.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, definitive proof is relative to each person. Many people see the evidence for anthropogenic climate change as providing definitive proof. Many people won't believe it no matter how much evidence there is.

I will say that I think if we're serious about the threat of climate change to our future then maybe we need to be more accepting of risk. Nuclear power is a good "bridge" to help us meet these lofty goals we've set (e.g., the Paris agreement), but you see these European countries shutting down the entire industry, and the regulations in our country are only getting more stringent. Of course, I'm biased toward nuclear so take it for what it's worth.
 
#569
#569
LouderVol said:
while better NG isn't good enough as a straight replacement for other fossil fuels to get us where we need to be.
Click to expand...

It's an acceptable alternative for most all cars and the technology is getting better for commercial trucks. The problem is distribution.
 
#573
#573
Grand Vol said:
China has five times the population we have. And the electrification of their nation started two decades ago has taken its toll.

Here's the problem. Coal fired plants still make up 66% of Chinese electrical generation. Even per capita, that's a whole metric butt-ton of coal being burned and way more carbon emissions as a whole. Yes, they make strides in hydro where we haven't, namely because they really don't have the pesky environmentalists screeching about those sorts of things. They want the Three Gorges Dam, sorry, we're building it and your family is going to move and just don't care about the endangered species of grass we're about to kill. We try to build a hydro plant, first you have idiots like California screaming about it not being "renewable" enough since it may impact the environment, then you have years of lawsuits pending in court to stop it, then construction time, etc. It's no wonder we don't have more of it.

However, the main point was being India and China, which are two of the world's worst offenders, were not even taken to task by the Paris Agreement. They had fifteen years of a "pass" to do whatever they wanted. Now, you know as well as I do there are no incentives to build more renewable power plants because China has a huge amount of coal under its borders. Provided, they stopped a lot of new projects since the current plants were generating at under capacity, but what incentives do they have to retrofit them to natural gas? They don't have the reserves we do in that area and the Chinese are going to continue using resources they control rather than buying enough LNG on the world market to replace coal fired plants.

There is no incentive to change from coal. There won't be any incentive to change from coal in 2030.

India's numbers are worse. 75% of their overall power capacity (which needs are growing) comes from coal. And like China, they don't have access to large deposits of NG either. Their coal is a poor source of fuel as well. However, where is the incentive to change due to their growing economy? Do they economically slit their throats while they are "growing?"

Yes, we have a great many things we could be doing in our own nation in regards to alternative power sources and I think we've taken great strides in that regard. But only when your idiot friends in the environmental sector STFU and allow such things to move forward. Hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear and NG are the best options we have moving forward. Tax breaks and incentives are helpful in that regard. Doing away with laws requiring homeowners to hook up to electrical grids even if they have their own sustainable electrical sources is another. (The arguments against that are horrible) Better access to recycling and changing the lifestyle of "disposable" Americans is a worthy goal and is cheaper in the long run.

Regardless, the Paris Agreement was a real bad deal for us. Just ask the French what they think of the effects of implementing the provisions.
Click to expand...
Jeez you ramble worse than I do.

Still, you acknowledge that China is building more hydro, nuclear, etc. than we are, then you go right back to saying they are “doing nothing”. Then you want to scapegoat India?! We still emit more than twice as much as they do, total, and nearly 10x as much per capita. I’m curious, if their per capita emissions never surpass ours, will you still feel they’ve done nothing? And then you move on to blame “my friends" the extreme environmentalists? It sure seems like you just want to blame everyone else and take no responsibility yourself.

And you still haven’t made the connection as to why the Paris Agreement is bad for us. You’ve claimed that we’re meeting our (voluntary!) commitment already anyway. Is the economy in shambles? No? Ok, so what would be the difference if Trump hadn’t announced we will withdraw? The only difference would be that our diplomats in Poland could be negotiating from a position of strength. Now they’re just twitting their thumbs while the rest of the world hashes out the rulebook for implementing the Paris Agreement.

And the demonstrations in France are about much more than a few cents diesel tax, as I’m sure you know. The French support climate action. The takeaway on climate policy, if any, is don’t make your carbon tax regressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#574
#574
How well have climate models projected global warming?

This article includes all the IPCC temperature projections and some older ones too, including Hansen’s famous projections. Even Arrhenius’ calculations back in 1896 turned out to be remarkably accurate, though I guess he’s omitted here since his rudimentary model ended up being more lucky than good.

The temperature trend may have been overpredicted by a hair in the last two IPCC reports, but they’re well within the uncertainty range. Sea level rise and arctic ice loss, on the other hand, have been progressing at the high end of IPCC projections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top