Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 1:18 AM
388 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,040 Year: 16,646/21,208 Month: 2,535/3,593 Week: 2/646 Day: 2/78 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Climate Change is Real
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1 of 43 (687026)
01-06-2013 8:22 PM


Bill Moyers interviews Anthony Leiserowitz on Making People Care About Climate Change

Most excellent.

So what can we do to increase awareness and willingness to act?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-08-2013 10:18 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2013 10:33 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 43 (687051)
01-07-2013 7:21 AM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 3 of 43 (687064)
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Science first?
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.

AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ficantly-anthropogenic-forcing

From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as “An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union” comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn’t statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
More...

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2013 2:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 01-07-2013 2:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-07-2013 3:53 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 10 by DBlevins, posted 01-07-2013 4:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 4 of 43 (687091)
01-07-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
Can you help me out with the science behind this paper? I have to admit to being able to critique the paper myself. After all for every paper denying AGW, there are many more supporting it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 01-07-2013 5:00 PM NoNukes has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 43 (687092)
01-07-2013 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing

From three economists?

Well this is a statistcal study of some of the data and their math is probably all right.

I'll await the climatologists take on the data used in this analysis as well as a recheck of the math.

From what we know already after decades of study, I wouldn't hold my breath. This extraordinary claim, at first glance, does not appear to contain the extraordinary level of evidence required. But we shall see.

Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.

If my understanding of the state of the present science is acurate then it's already too late. The effects will become more and more dire over the next 30, 40, 50+ generations and there is not anything we can do to stop it. All we can do if we started in ernest today is to slow the accelerating rate of damage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 5:09 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(4)
Message 6 of 43 (687093)
01-07-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.

The science was settled by Arhenius in the early 20th century:

quote:
Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[8] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Carbon dioxide will trap heat in our atmosphere. Even if other mechanisms are adding to warming, our contribution to the atmosphere is trapping additional heat that would otherwise be radiated into space. There is no getting around it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29028
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 7 of 43 (687100)
01-07-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.

What do you think would ruin the global economy specifically?

What makes you think several trillion dollars need to be spent?

What makes you think we don't have several trillion dollars?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 4:14 PM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 8 of 43 (687103)
01-07-2013 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
01-07-2013 3:53 PM


Re: Science first?
What do you think would ruin the global economy specifically?

Spending money we don't have and losing much of our energy infrastructure. Ref: the recent regulations impacting the US coal industry. This could be mitigated by building nuclear power plants again, but the irrational phobias out there are preventing that in the US.

What makes you think several trillion dollars need to be spent?

There are many such estimates on the web. Here's the first one I found:

Capital Cost of Germany's ENERGIEWENDE

- The capital cost estimate for Germany to implement its ENERGIEWENDE would be about $4.5 trillion by 2050, according to a cost estimate by Siemens.

- The US capital cost would be about $18.7 trillion by 2050, if the US were to follow Germany’s course.

- The world’s capital cost would be about 3-4 times the US cost, if the entire world were to follow Germany’s course.

http://theenergycollective.com/...sts-germany-s-energiewende

What makes you think we don't have several trillion dollars?

Latest reports put our current debt at over 16 trillion dollars, and unfunded mandates could run as high as 100 trillion dollars.

Edited by Coyote, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-07-2013 3:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-07-2013 4:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 5:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29028
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 43 (687107)
01-07-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
01-07-2013 4:14 PM


Re: Science first?
Not sure how we would be spending money we don't have.

Exactly how does that work? Doesn't the coal industry buy supplies and technology from other companies?

There are no such things as unfunded mandates when it comes to business.

I've seen the horrors that are coal country and the slag heaps from other mining as well.

What does the US current debt have to do with the issue at all. It's not like the US should pay for the costs of regulations.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 4:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(3)
Message 10 of 43 (687109)
01-07-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.

Since this topic is on Climate Change and not economics, I'll refrain from correcting the misapprehension that countries don't use debt to service their economies. Debt is not always a bad thing, such as we have now in the United States.

As far as the science of AGW is concerned it is, for all intents and purposes, settled.

The paper referenced has a few problems. Ignoring that the paper comes from the [underline]Department of Economics[/underline] of The Hebrew University, the first is the fact that physics doesn't fall so neatly into statistical models. Climate forcings are not so neat and if the author's don't understand the physics inherent in climate forcings they're bound to screw up, as they do in the paper. The second issue is the fact that the author's assume that global mean temperature behaves like a 'random walk', when in fact historical climate has been rather stable. For more in-depth analysis, those interested might check out the following links:

Real Climate
Rabbett Run Climate blog
Bert Verheggen's Climate Change Blog


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 11 of 43 (687110)
01-07-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 2:34 PM


Re: Science first?
See my reply to Coyote. It has some links that explain why the paper is bunk.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:34 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:58 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 12 of 43 (687111)
01-07-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AZPaul3
01-07-2013 2:44 PM


Re: Science first?
From three economists?

Well, we all know that there's no-one so good at predicting the future as economists. Nothing ever takes them by surprise.

Well this is a statistcal study of some of the data and their math is probably all right.

Not according to this guy.

However, it doesn't really matter. Papers like this serve their purpose by existing, they don't actually have to contain good math or (in this case) any physics whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2013 2:44 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2013 7:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 13 of 43 (687118)
01-07-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
01-07-2013 4:14 PM


Re: Science first?
Spending money we don't have and losing much of our energy infrastructure.

At the very least, that should be an "or" and not an "and", since obviously the money is to be spent on replacing the energy infrastructure. You give as an example Germany's Energiewende. The reason it costs so much is because their plan does not involve just turning off all their carbon-emitting power plants and returning to the Middle Ages. They could do that for free.

- The US capital cost would be about $18.7 trillion by 2050, if the US were to follow Germany’s course.

What would be the capital cost of meeting our increasing energy needs by an expansion of the present infrastructure?

What about running costs? I seem to remember that after one has made a capital investment in a coal-fired power plant, it is necessary to keep buying coal to put in it. Sunlight is comparatively cheap.

Googling around, I see that the Energiewende is supposed to save more money annually than it costs by 2020. I'll post a link if I can find out the basis for the calculation; at the moment I don't know if it's actually true, but the running costs are definitely something you'd have to take into account, you can't just look at capital costs to see if it makes economic sense. If people did that, our economy would still be based on subsistence agriculture, and this message would be incised on birch bark with a sharp piece of flint and brought to you by carrier pigeon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 4:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2013 7:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(4)
Message 14 of 43 (687125)
01-07-2013 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2013 5:09 PM


Re: Science first?
Well, we all know that there's no-one so good at predicting the future as economists. Nothing ever takes them by surprise.

Hey Bub,

One of my Masters is in Economics and I assure you, given the level of math skill needed to model complex chaotic systems like the economy and climatology, it always takes us by surprise when one of us gets something right!

OK, it doesn't happen often but when it does it is one hell of a surprise.

So there!

Edited by AZPaul3, : some change or other. I forget.

Edited by AZPaul3, : something else I forgot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 5:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 15 of 43 (687130)
01-07-2013 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Science first?
I seem to remember that after one has made a capital investment in a coal-fired power plant, it is necessary to keep buying coal to put in it. Sunlight is comparatively cheap.

Sunlight is cheap for sure, but the technology to convert it to useful work is not. Strictly looking at operating costs coal is still more productive than solar. That's why solar has not replaced coal.

The problem is that our accounting systems do not account for the true social and environmental "costs" of such a plant. Only the operating cash flow is considered. If there were a way to assess an environmental damage cost as a journal entry into the expense system then the equation would be considerably different.

That's not going to happen. So until our solar technology reaches a point where it is less expensive, on an operating cash flow basis, than digging coal out of the ground and shipping it many hundreds of miles, then coal will remain. We humans will always opt for the cheaper solution in order to maximize return on investment.

Edited by AZPaul3, : What I said made no damn sense at all. Had to change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 5:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017