Matador

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2018, 06:12:07 PM »
To the best of my knowledge I have not said a single thing about the modelling. Please point out where I mentioned this in my posts.

A model is only as good as its predictions that can be verified. Trouble is the timescale of these models is so long they can't be verified right now. All they are is speculation. If you really want to know just how crude these models are you should read Climate: The Counter Consensus by Professor Robert M. Carter.


ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #161 on: October 10, 2018, 07:00:13 PM »
Crikey that was two years ago. Was that in this thread?? I stand corrected. My apologies.

So, have you read the book?

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

Matador

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #162 on: October 10, 2018, 08:35:34 PM »
Crikey that was two years ago. Was that in this thread?? I stand corrected. My apologies.

So, have you read the book?

Cheers

Ian
I have not.  Here are the first 5 Amazon reviews:

Quote
..."This is not propaganda, obviously, because Professor Carter has the FACTS on his side, unlike the alarmists, and he backs up what he says constantly."...
..."Want to destroy Liberal climate religious sheep?"...
..."Also, the global warming lie as a minimum should necessitate the more than welcome outright scrapping of the UN (useless nations)."...
..."It's unbelievable that these fabrications are still being taught in universities. Don't college students read books any more?"...
..."Exposes the truth of the Leftist lies on global warming."...
This does not bode well.

Quote
One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."
This really doesn't bode well.

I will read some of the published rebuttals to see if there is anything worth studying.

JohnRoberts

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #163 on: October 11, 2018, 09:52:36 AM »
I still think this argument is missing the point.

I have seen some highlights of one of the Nobel prize winning economists, and he appears to be a real economist, weighing the economic cost of various schemes. 

I will look for a link to share maybe... but as I have been saying for years huge economic cost.

------

Interesting (in an eww way) Exxon is now lobbying in Washington in favor of a carbon tax. They want to eliminate a crazy quilt of random regulations in favor of single tax....The article I saw suggested returning something like $2,000 of tax proceeds to each individual.

I am not comfortable trusting the government to not keep some of all of a new $600B tax revenue stream.   ::) (caveat all hypothetical at this point).

JR
John Roberts
http://circularscience.com
Tune it, or don't play it...

dmp

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #164 on: October 11, 2018, 10:30:19 AM »
I still think this argument is missing the point.

I have seen some highlights of one of the Nobel prize winning economists, and he appears to be a real economist, weighing the economic cost of various schemes. 


I agree - but you can't start talking about how technology will address a problem when a lot of people think the problem doesn't exists, or is made up by a conspiracy of scientists (?).
I read a little about the economist that won the nobel prize.  The simple summary is you create market incentives (carbon credits?) to lower pollution. I'm curious what are some examples of this working?  Does it work better / worse than government mandates?
I think of the economy as an optimization system (probably since I work in technology optimization). Unencumbered, it optimizes for $$.  For example, higher pollution usually makes production cheaper. So traditionally products produced with higher pollution are cheaper and win in the free market. Much of economics is devoted to externalities - how to control pollution for example (and ideas like the tragedy of the commons - that shared resources will be overused in a free market)
Of course this uses the efficient markets hypothesis, which has it's own caveats (the subject of last year's nobel winner's work).

The reduction of transportation emissions has been a remarkable success over the past 20 years and it was done by government mandates.  While renewable energy has had some market incentives (first 200k EVs sold/manufacturer get a tax credit, home insulation tax credits, etc...) there are also mandates in other parts of the world.

Whenever a company like Exxon starts lobbying I immediately think it is a market capture scheme. Whatever happens with regulation (mandates vs incentives) hopefully it let's technology run and doesn't just help the big corporations cement their market dominance.

The emissions regulations has allowed some technology startups for advanced engine concepts into the ballgame

http://achatespower.com/our-formula/opposed-piston/

Go to 1 min in to see the engine design. Pretty cool.

hodad

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #165 on: October 11, 2018, 10:54:41 AM »
What's really sad about Human-caused climate change deniers is that they're believing propaganda that even the folks paying for it (large oil companies) don't actually believe in.  For decades oil companies have utilized research that supports human-caused global warming in their future plans.  Part of the plan, obviously, was to create an army of useful idiots to spew their propaganda and slow any political action that might hurt their business. 

Buying into the oil companies' BS is almost as sad as getting hooked into the Nigerian prince scam.  Pathetic.

ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #166 on: October 11, 2018, 11:22:50 AM »
What's really sad about Human-caused climate change deniers is that they're believing propaganda that even the folks paying for it (large oil companies) don't actually believe in.  For decades oil companies have utilized research that supports human-caused global warming in their future plans.  Part of the plan, obviously, was to create an army of useful idiots to spew their propaganda and slow any political action that might hurt their business. 

Buying into the oil companies' BS is almost as sad as getting hooked into the Nigerian prince scam.  Pathetic.

I guess scepticism should be made illegal.

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #167 on: October 11, 2018, 02:24:47 PM »
I guess scepticism should be made illegal.

Cheers

Ian

What would you call it then, when solid evidence is provided, yet one continues to choose to remain part of the problem?

The problem being the avoidance of facts in lieu of facts that support one's own bias? Hence, which only leads to procrastination and worsening of the problem?

Is taking an active stance on reducing pollution and implementing more responsible energy practices a bad thing?
Is 96 percent of the scientific community convinced that it's having a negative effect?

Should we remain petty about this, or actually become a part of the solution...

The entire scientific world(nearly) is accepting of the facts or a reasonable enough scenario, apart from the ones that demand facts.

Maybe we should enlist the help of aliens to conduct an objective analysis as we're floating down stream?

dmp

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #168 on: October 11, 2018, 02:44:24 PM »
I guess scepticism should be made illegal.

Cheers

Ian
Nobody here is saying dissent or skepticism should be outlawed (or at least I am not).
But imagine someone posts in this forum an electronics idea that goes against the opinion of a consensus of experts here.
Is it possible that the idea is valid and all the experts here are wrong? Yes , but it is unlikely. But how would you react to a new poster getting into electronics (with an idea that appears wrong to everyone with advanced knowledge of electronics)  saying "I guess my skepticism should be illegal then". And that new poster being completely set in his/her belief - a belief that is dismissed by experts in the field?
I've been trying to explain the science on climate change based on my understanding in ways that would be understandable to someone with expertise in a different field  (electronics) but it seems like it is a competition rather than an exchange of ideas.
Anyway, 100% consensus on anything is impossible..
FWIW, I work in simulation of thermo-fluid systems and I took three grad level classes in thermodynamics, two in heat transfer, and three in fluid dynamics.

JohnRoberts

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #169 on: October 11, 2018, 03:53:41 PM »
again arguing about wrong questions... right question is what to do and when/how...

here is from one of the recent Nobel prize winners
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ignores-economics-of-climate-1539125496

Quote from: wsj
Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossible
---
Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented.
---
In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.
---
Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises.

Like I have been saying more research, less arm waving.

JR
John Roberts
http://circularscience.com
Tune it, or don't play it...


Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #170 on: October 11, 2018, 04:25:26 PM »
again arguing about wrong questions... right question is what to do and when/how...

here is from one of the recent Nobel prize winners
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ignores-economics-of-climate-1539125496

Like I have been saying more research, less arm waving.

JR

It costs too much to save the world, so let's destroy ourselves?

Matador

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #171 on: October 11, 2018, 04:42:35 PM »
again arguing about wrong questions... right question is what to do and when/how...

Like I have been saying more research, less arm waving.
In other words, it's likely too late.  It would seem that running out the clock is still a very effective strategy.
 The real crime is that our baby-boomer lead Congress is more than happy to continue the tradition of punting this down the road, since they'll be long dead before the impacts start to really be felt.

Since I like tobacco analogies:  let's smoke a pack a day until lung cancer has invaded our bodies, then increase to two packs per day because 'There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this!!!', then with our dying breath leave the $1M dollar hospital bill to our kids to pay back.

ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #172 on: October 11, 2018, 05:59:47 PM »
What would you call it then, when solid evidence is provided, yet one continues to choose to remain part of the problem?


Dunno. Nobody has yet been able to provide me with any solid evidence.

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #173 on: October 11, 2018, 06:17:37 PM »
Dunno. Nobody has yet been able to provide me with any solid evidence.

Cheers

Ian

I think I've provided you with more than enough.

ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #174 on: October 11, 2018, 06:29:19 PM »
Nobody here is saying dissent or skepticism should be outlawed (or at least I am not).

Ad hominem instead of actual evidence seems to be the normal response.
Quote
But imagine someone posts in this forum an electronics idea that goes against the opinion of a consensus of experts here.
Is it possible that the idea is valid and all the experts here are wrong? Yes , but it is unlikely. But how would you react to a new poster getting into electronics (with an idea that appears wrong to everyone with advanced knowledge of electronics)  saying "I guess my skepticism should be illegal then". And that new poster being completely set in his/her belief - a belief that is dismissed by experts in the field?
I would not respond in that way. As an expert I would not dismiss the person or his views.  I would try out what he has suggested to satisfy myself that it did or did not work and I would present my evidence either way. If I could not achieve what he had I would say so, present how I did it and politely ask if the way he did it was any different.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that adult conversations like that are rare when the topic is AGW.
Quote
I've been trying to explain the science on climate change based on my understanding in ways that would be understandable to someone with expertise in a different field  (electronics) but it seems like it is a competition rather than an exchange of ideas.
Anyway, 100% consensus on anything is impossible..
FWIW, I work in simulation of thermo-fluid systems and I took three grad level classes in thermodynamics, two in heat transfer, and three in fluid dynamics.
I think  a particular problem with this topic is that the outcome, whichever way it turns out to be, is going to directly affect both our lives and our pockets. It is different to a discussion with someone who claims to have  invented a way of eliminating partition noise in a pentode yet retaining its gain. Whatever the truth of that it has little impact on others.

I am concerned about a lot of things. I am concerned about the Nanny state, over political correctness and the insidiousness of communications that may turn our grandchildren into a seething mass of hermits unable to relate to anyone face to face.

I am even more concerned about the enormous quantities of poison the human race pours into the ground and the seas and the air (not CO2). I am very concerned about the islands of refuse that accumulate on the surface of our oceans.  All these are concerns that are obviously the fault of humans simply because the evidence is physically there for anyone to see and their rectification is is within our means. But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

JohnRoberts

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #175 on: October 11, 2018, 06:31:20 PM »
In other words, it's likely too late.  It would seem that running out the clock is still a very effective strategy.
 The real crime is that our baby-boomer lead Congress is more than happy to continue the tradition of punting this down the road, since they'll be long dead before the impacts start to really be felt.

Since I like tobacco analogies:  let's smoke a pack a day until lung cancer has invaded our bodies, then increase to two packs per day because 'There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this!!!', then with our dying breath leave the $1M dollar hospital bill to our kids to pay back.
I've buried too many close relatives to smoking cigarette  (father, sister, brother, cousins, etc).  So not funny IMO.

Perhaps a more appropriate (old) joke is about the person with a cold, who sits outside in the cold weather, hoping to get pneumonia, because they can actually cure pneumonia.  ;D

I am trying to be practical and scientific not emotional and manipulative.  I just see divisive verbal bomb throwing, not reasoned discussion.

There is only so much that we can do practically, so aiming too high is as sure a strategy for failure as aiming too low. (We can't zero out carbon use overnight.) If you think it is a binary all or nothing choice, prepare to be disappointed because zero carbon is not possible in my lifetime, maybe not yours.

JR
John Roberts
http://circularscience.com
Tune it, or don't play it...

dmp

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #176 on: October 11, 2018, 06:41:06 PM »
I am even more concerned about the enormous quantities of poison the human race pours into the ground and the seas and the air (not CO2). I am very concerned about the islands of refuse that accumulate on the surface of our oceans.  All these are concerns that are obviously the fault of humans simply because the evidence is physically there for anyone to see and their rectification is is within our means. But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.

Cheers

Ian

Some good points I agree with. I agree that reducing other pollution is very important and refuse into the Ocean. Unfortunately most (90+%) is coming from China and less rich countries.  Eliminating plastic straws in the US is really not going to put a dent in the problem. Difficult politics between countries.

ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #177 on: October 11, 2018, 06:42:35 PM »
I think I've provided you with more than enough.

I count eleven posts made by you to this thread. In only two of them do you offer any evidence. One is a link to an IPCC report and the other to a Scientific American article.

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

ruffrecords

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #178 on: October 11, 2018, 06:53:10 PM »
Some good points I agree with. I agree that reducing other pollution is very important and refuse into the Ocean. Unfortunately most (90+%) is coming from China and less rich countries.  Eliminating plastic straws in the US is really not going to put a dent in the problem. Difficult politics between countries.

Surely you are not suggesting that is a reason for inaction? To beat AGW the whole world needs to cooperate. A very tall order. To clean up pollution we can start in our own backyards. I think the 90% figure depends a lot on what type of pollution you are talking about. There are huge quantities of plastics in the oceans, from the highly dangerous micro beads through beer can wrappers that endanger sea life up to large crates. Most of these come from the West. We need to completely rethink food packaging for instance.

Cheers

Ian
www.customtubeconsoles.com
https://mark3vtm.blogspot.co.uk/
www.eztubemixer.blogspot.co.uk


'The only people not making mistakes are the people doing nothing'

Matador

Re: An engineering solution to climate change?
« Reply #179 on: October 11, 2018, 08:13:45 PM »
But until someone convinces me that that there definitely will be a catastrophe in 100 years time due to a 2 degree C rise in global temperature AND it is unequivocally caused by humans it remains a concern only in the sense it is diverting much needed funds from far more immediate problems.
So the bar is 100% certainty of a 100-years-in-the-future event that none of us will be around to see in order to convince you?  Except for death and taxes, no science theorem in the history of mankind could ever pass this bar.

Again: models based originally on Hansen's work and later made more sophisticated by CMIP5 have been able to recreate the past history since the mid 1800's with remarkable accuracy - they predicted CO2 levels in PPM with within 0.1%, and predicted quadrature  hemispheric temperatures to within 0.3C over that time period.  They match the observation record within a 95% confidence interval over the same timeframes.

If our scientific understanding is so poor as you imply, how can this be possible?

I also think that, modulo the current global political will, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1262 Views
Last post August 24, 2004, 08:57:53 AM
by
0 Replies
2253 Views
Last post December 01, 2004, 04:44:12 AM
by
24 Replies
4298 Views
Last post April 06, 2008, 01:02:03 AM
by mcfarlane_audio
14 Replies
3472 Views
Last post July 28, 2008, 05:53:46 AM
by thermionic