Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-06-2013, 07:10 AM   #461 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,711

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,161
Thanked 2,738 Times in 1,710 Posts
The 97% is not from a survey. It is an analysis of all the scientific papers.

So, you have decided that you know better after reading some blog than the 2,000+ PhD's of the IPCC? They don't know what they're talking about? Did they screw up on gravity and evolution, too?

What's the climate done for us lately, anyway?

__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 02-06-2013 at 07:18 AM..
 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-06-2013, 08:54 AM   #462 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
That argument would be a stinging repost...

...except for 2 things. Firstly they are discussing scientists discussing something else (the guy quoted is an acknowledged expert in his field)

...and you quoted Skeptical Science a few pages ago - that's a blog (of sorts) run by a cartoonist using Australian taxpayer's money.

This guy is a professor, he writes interesting stuff on a blog. G Cornelis van Kooten | Resource Economics & Policy Analysis (REPA) Group

Scientists blogging ? What a great idea.

Look they all seem to, here's James Annan.

Oh noes - there's loads of them here.

Outreach by scientists is a good thing, no ?

EDIT -
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
The 97% is not from a survey. It is an analysis of all the scientific papers.
If you are referring to the Oreskes paper then no she didn't do that bit I've highlighted, a correction was published to this effect.

EDIT2 - A Scientist, writing a blog, about consensus. Whats not to like ? She worked on BEST too
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]

Last edited by Arragonis; 02-06-2013 at 09:13 AM..
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:26 AM   #463 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
OT but funny

Wind turbines attack school

Quote:
Wind turbines attack school

UNSIGHTLY wind turbines have attacked a school near Swindon, leaving a trail of dismembered corpses in their wake.

The so-called renewable energy devices went on the rampage after they were struck by lightning during an electrical storm, causing them to become animated with a malevolent lust for human blood.

Local resident Nikki Hollis said: “I dropped my kids off at school when suddenly there was screaming. Looking up, I saw about fifteen wind turbines hopping over the horizon, their blades dripping with red.

“Anyone in their path was being stomped or cut to ribbons. The turbines were making a high-pitched whirring sound which I believe was their hellish laughter.

“It seemed that they really wanted the children. Perhaps because their blood is fresher.

“We crowded the kids into the school hall, barricading the doors and windows. Unfortunately the headmistress Mrs Gerving was too old and slow, probably, so we left her outside.

“I remember seeing her spleen bounce off the window. Thankfully she was a spinster, so no-one will mourn her death.

“Six hours later police marksmen arrived and shot the turbines in their motors.

“I’m not against renewable energy per se, but I’ll never forget emerging from that school and seeing the playground sprayed with slivers of human meat.”

Following the incident, residents feel vindicated in their initial opposition to the turbines, which was ignored by the local council.

Post office manager Tom Logan said: “We always felt those things would kill if they could. More importantly, they’re ugly.

“We shall be having a meeting about this next Thursday at the scout hut, and have invited a photographer from the local paper. It’s really just so that everyone knows we were right.”
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
 
Old 02-06-2013, 01:50 PM   #464 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 805 Times in 591 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
I understand the "simple physics" the problem is that the world doesn't seem to be acting like a simple experiment says it should. If there was a super positive feedback and CO2 lasted so long, why aren't the levels much higher ? World emissions haven't declined although some countries (like the US) have managed to do so.
All I can suggest is that you must have very effective filters on your input, since everything I see - not just media reports or scientific papers, but actual things happening out here in the real world - says that the world is following the simple physics model quite well.
 
Old 02-06-2013, 03:25 PM   #465 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
All I can suggest is that you must have very effective filters on your input, since everything I see - not just media reports or scientific papers, but actual things happening out here in the real world - says that the world is following the simple physics model quite well.
Well, all I can tap is that I see more - all sides and none. If you came here and stated AGW didn't exist I would argue the opposite. If you said science is in the grip of a conspiracy I would argue against - I have in another thread on this - thats what some skeptics say.

My view is that if we are going to commit several $tn, and the future GDP of the world and probably the future wellbeing of those in the 3rd world (who don't seemingly have a choice) - I think we need to know everything, not just what one "set" of scientists or the WWF (who voted for them ?) say. That means questionning everything - including muppets who dismiss CO2 as a trace gas.

Because of this I would argue my filters are actually less restrictive than yours.

BTW I liked your energy saving. Do you think a lot can be applied to those who rent or live in a flat (aka appartment) instead of a house ?
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:00 PM   #466 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,711

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,161
Thanked 2,738 Times in 1,710 Posts
Broadening the discussion a bit - here's a very enjoyable overview of science in the past 60 years, by Sir David Attenborough:

Video: Attenborough's Life Stories: Understanding the Natural World | Watch Nature Online | PBS Video

Among the huge breakthroughs that occurred during these 60 years is plate tectonics and mapping the human genome.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:25 PM   #467 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 14,152
Thanks: 3,480
Thanked 4,651 Times in 3,709 Posts
Quote:
Broadening the discussion a bit
The Oak Gall Wasp goes up to an Oak tree, injects it with a hormone or virus, and the tree makes it a place to live and starts bringing it food.

And we think we're the smart ones.
 
Old 02-06-2013, 11:42 PM   #468 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 805 Times in 591 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
My view is that if we are going to commit several $tn, and the future GDP of the world...
Now where exactly are most people talking about committing several trillion, or GDP, or whatever? The money spent won't change, it'll just be directed to e.g. nuclear power plants, solar panel makers, railways, and so on, instead of going to oil companies, coal mines, etc.

(I say most, because there are always people looking to skim off a bit for themselves or their pet projects, but this is true of everything.)

Quote:
...and probably the future wellbeing of those in the 3rd world (who don't seemingly have a choice)...
Except that the present course of action seems highly likely to create less overall wellbeing in the 3rd world, not to mention the 2nd and 1st worlds, even if we completely leave out any consideration of CO2 and its consequences. That's the really ironic thing about your complaint above: by redirecting those several trillion dollars, we would get a far better world to live in. Mitigating AGW would be a bonus :-)

Quote:
...I think we need to know everything, not just what one "set" of scientists or the WWF (who voted for them ?) say. That means questionning everything - including muppets who dismiss CO2 as a trace gas.
Sure, question stuff, but at some point you either have to accept that there actually ARE answers (even if you don't happen to like those answers), or you have to admit that your "questioning" is just tinsel wrapping over wishful thinking.

Quote:
BTW I liked your energy saving. Do you think a lot can be applied to those who rent or live in a flat (aka appartment) instead of a house ?
Sure. Of course some things depend on the landlord - you can't readily go adding insulation to your apartment - but you can do things like turning down the water heater, adding window film, or drying clothes on a line instead of using an electric dryer. (Which in my experience is pretty common in Europe anyway. When I lived in Switzerland, in an area where ordinary houses started in the $1 million range, every back yard seemed to have its rotary clothes line.) And of course renters can always vote with their rent money: if they're willing to seek out apartments with higher energy efficiency and thus lower utility bills.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesqf For This Useful Post:
Occasionally6 (07-10-2013)
Old 02-07-2013, 02:31 AM   #469 (permalink)
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 665

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 54 Times in 47 Posts
Change in data for the 2012 temperature record

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - Annual 2012

Quote:
Note: On January 15, 2012, NCDC announced as part of its 2012 Global Climate Report that 2012 was the warmest La Niņa year on record. While there are a variety of approaches for defining a La Niņa or El Niņo year, NCDC's criteria is defined as when the first three months of a calendar year meet the La Niņa or El Niņo threshold as defined by NOAA Climate Prediction Center's (CPC) Oceanic Niņo Index (ONI). The list of historical La Niņa years released on January 15 was based on an ONI dataset in force in early 2012 and used a 1971–2000 base period. During the course of the year, CPC introduced an ONI dataset using different base periods for determining anomalies for each year, with the most recent years (1995 to date) utilizing the 1981–2010 base period. Because of long-term warming trends in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, applying this more recent base period allows for better discernment of the temperature patterns needed to identify El Niņo and La Niņa years. In the most recent version of the dataset, using the newer base period methodology, 2006 and 2009 are now classified as La Niņa years. The global average temperature in both 2006 and 2009 was 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than 2012, making these two years the warmest La Niņa years on record. NCDC has updated (via strikeout) our Annual Global Climate report to reflect the most current CPC ONI dataset.

With binary definitions of El Niņo or La Niņa, small changes in processing the data can affect the classification of weak El Niņos or La Niņas. Despite these reclassifications, the general conclusions are similar from previous work: (1) global temperature anomalies for each phase (El Niņo, La Niņa, and neutral) have been increasing over time and (2) on average, global temperatures during El Niņo years are higher than neutral years, which in turn, are higher than La Niņa years.

NCDC continually examines its practices and definitions as science, datasets, and the understanding they bring improve. Thus, given the nature of our current method of classifying years as El Niņo or La Niņa, NCDC plans to re-examine and employ the best available definitions and datasets to robustly characterize the influence of El Niņo and LaNiņa on annual global temperatures.
Maybe they should go to a sliding scale based on severity, like -10(la Nina) to +10(El Nino).
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:58 AM   #470 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,711

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,161
Thanked 2,738 Times in 1,710 Posts
Sandy was a wake up call. Insurance companies and people in Norfolk VA, the Solomon Islands, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan, Venice, Holland, the US military, East Africa, Texas and the Midwest, Eskimos, etc. - already knew that climate change is a big problem.

But now, people in New York and New Jersey know. And people in Boston know that they only missed a major disaster by about 5 hours - if it had coincided with high tide, Boston would have been a multi-billion dollar event. So, they are now starting the hard work of deciding how to prepare for more sea level rise - do we abandon certain areas? Do we build barriers? Do we supplement and enhance existing natural barriers? Do we have a government-back insurance plan? Do we pay people for lost property value? Do we spend a fraction of what we will pay for damage in the future, on mitigating carbon output now?

The massive drought in the breadbasket of the US (and the world?) is continuing. The Ogallala aquifer is dropping at an alarming rate, and so is Lake Meade and the Great Lakes. How many more rivers will run dry? Will shipping on the Mississippi come to a halt? What happens when we produce less grain and soybeans than we consume? Do we continue to have factory farms for cows, pigs and chickens? Fracking operations have been halted in several areas already - due to a lack of water.

Will the number of billion dollar plus events continue to increase? Will the Arctic ice be gone in August/September of 2016? 2018? 2020? Will Greenland's ice pack melt faster and faster? Will we get 2 more feet of sea level rise in this century? We have "only" had about 8" rise so far in the last 100 years? Or will we get 4 feet, or even 6 feet? Will rainfall rates top 6 inches in an hour, or 8 inches in an hour? Will a storm drop more that 30" in three days, like what happened in Pakistan? Vermont and the Connecticut River valley almost got washed away by 7" of rain in about 10-12 hours.

When will we all realize that we are all in this together?

__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 02-07-2013 at 10:20 AM..
 
The Following User Says Thank You to NeilBlanchard For This Useful Post:
Occasionally6 (07-10-2013)
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com