I should have said "I" just read the Lewis and Clark journals.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 07 Aug 2019, 14:57
by AngusF1
So I had a look further into this and listened to a lecture by a well known globally renowned PhD-holding conventional establishment scientist, Dr Alivisatos from Berkeley. This video is the first to appear on youtube when searching "global warming science fundamentals" filtered to longer than 20 minutes.
Dr Alivisatos takes a while to get to the point, but between 40-44 minutes he states that the CO2-induced warming caused by doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would be 1.2C. He even admits that the climate of the earth is so complicated that we may never know how to accurately model it (and by inference, that we don't know how to now).
To twist out of this bind, he then invents an outright lie so great that the audience must believe it. He says, suppose if the possible feedback models were Gaussian (!?). In that case, some models result in 8 degrees of warming! Argh! The sky is falling and we must fund billions of dollars into the "opportunity" of his research programs.
The dishonesty of this rhetorical trick is so mind-bogglingly appalling that I'm just flabergasted anyone remotely of his stature would attempt it. Assume the possible feedbacks are Gaussian and act based on the worst possible outcome?! Oh yes, I will assume the possibilites of my day tomorrow are Gaussian, and act on the worst possible outcome. I would not leave my bed. This is total, pure speculation of the highest order. If I asked a customer at work to spend one million dollars based on such logic I would be laughed out of the room, yet the professor asks us to spend maybe, one trillion dollars. This appears to be the core of the global warming argument: the known warming is mild and inconsequential, but by making ludicrous assumptions we can speculate that it could be catastrophic, so please give us one trillion dolllars and reorganise your whole civilisation.
Link is here. The lecture up to this point is otherwise quite good.
Roy W. Spencer .... at the Heartland Institute's 9th international conference on climate change in Las Vegas ...went on to criticize the temperature data of NOAA because it has never taken into account the phenomenon of urban heat island effect...……
Roy W. Spencer .... at the Heartland Institute's 9th international conference on climate change in Las Vegas ...went on to criticize the temperature data of NOAA because it has never taken into account the phenomenon of urban heat island effect...……
Who is, after his work for NASA, financed by the Peabody organisation (coal) and believes creationism is a solid scientific theory.... He's on the board of a conservative climate change think tank financed by oil companies. He is by far the least objective person to have a say.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 07 Aug 2019, 16:15
by Tommy Cookers
so are you saying his (quoted) statement about NOAA is false ?
So I had a look further into this and listened to a lecture by a well known globally renowned PhD-holding conventional establishment scientist, Dr Alivisatos from Berkeley. This video is the first to appear on youtube when searching "global warming science fundamentals" filtered to longer than 20 minutes.
Dr Alivisatos takes a while to get to the point, but between 40-44 minutes he states that the CO2-induced warming caused by doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would be 1.2C. He even admits that the climate of the earth is so complicated that we may never know how to accurately model it (and by inference, that we don't know how to now).
To twist out of this bind, he then invents an outright lie so great that the audience must believe it. He says, suppose if the possible feedback models were Gaussian (!?). In that case, some models result in 8 degrees of warming! Argh! The sky is falling and we must fund billions of dollars into the "opportunity" of his research programs.
The dishonesty of this rhetorical trick is so mind-bogglingly appalling that I'm just flabergasted anyone remotely of his stature would attempt it. Assume the possible feedbacks are Gaussian and act based on the worst possible outcome?! Oh yes, I will assume the possibilites of my day tomorrow are Gaussian, and act on the worst possible outcome. I would not leave my bed. This is total, pure speculation of the highest order. If I asked a customer at work to spend one million dollars based on such logic I would be laughed out of the room, yet the professor asks us to spend maybe, one trillion dollars. This appears to be the core of the global warming argument: the known warming is mild and inconsequential, but by making ludicrous assumptions we can speculate that it could be catastrophic, so please give us one trillion dolllars and reorganise your whole civilisation.
Link is here. The lecture up to this point is otherwise quite good.
I can't comment on whether using a Gaussian distribution is appropriate or not, having no exposure to the data.
However, if he'd used a non-Gaussian distribution, in all likelihood the distribution would be positively skewed, meaning the worst case temperature scenario would probably have a delta higher than 8 degrees for the same level of significance.
The level of significance must have been fairly small to obtain that "worst case" right-tail event, considering the values for mean warming I am aware of (1.5C - 2C by the latter half / end of this century).
so are you saying his (quoted) statement about NOAA is false ?
You have to not be confused by tactics like this. It's like what we had with these shooting the past week. Suddenly videogames are to blame and I watched some expert on Fox state that Japan had no mass shooting because they are not playing video games. At first this sounds logical and should show a clear link between them. But... they do play the same games as in the US (and Europe) and they deflect from the fact that in Japan nobody owns a gun.
So with this statement, yes, it's true and wel documented and researched over the decades that urban areas are warmer then the countryside. Thats why measurements are not taken just in city centers but all over the glove, especially in remote locations where there is less direct local interference from humans (like buildings, roads).
Oil, tobacco and weapon manufacturers are well known for their lobby and funding of organisations to keep the status quo. Gazprom is even influencing European politics (by funding nationalist movements) at the moment to have the import ban lifted. The veal industry has lobbied so well that spreading negative information about eating meat falls under the patriot act and you can be send to jail without a trial.
To counter this storm of misleading information from the effected industry themselves we all have national and global scientific bureaus. NASA, the UN and the WHO among the best knowns. But somehow these are now considered "deep state" by the leaders supported and funded by big energy and the NRA.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 07 Aug 2019, 19:01
by Tommy Cookers
you seem to be admitting that his statement is true
regarding representative temperature measurements ....
'they' are continuously changing their measurement sources during these experiments
over half of the sources have been changed
the representative value has been changed eg weighting the polar values
6 measurement stations in Alaska have now been replaced by only 1 (at Anchorage airport)
there is now a heated maintenance hangar built 30m from the Anchorage measurement station
in scientific terms - the data set has been and is still being manipulated (said the brother of our socialist would-be PM)
even some of the data from past years have now been retroactively changed
these practices are the reason meteorologist staff have resigned and gone public
they don't want to be involved in scientific fraud
we might trust eg the UN brand as they trusted that man in the old days who took payment of 30 pieces of silver
yes I agree as I always have that the scientific fraud doesn't mean there is no case for AGW
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 07 Aug 2019, 19:24
by strad
You all conveniently dodge the fact that the IPCC admitted that they lied and fudged the figures and that none of their models have come true.
Believe what you will. We won't know who's right till after they have screwed us.
Think about the polar bear hoax. They said the polar bears were dying off...Last survey there were more than ever.
South Americas ice melting..Yeah on one coast while growing on the other.
There are lots of things at work. Earth tilting on it axis for one.
Hottest July on record? Even Chuck Todd and his echo chamber say that a heat wave is not proof of warming any more than a blizzard shows it's not.
Ya know I don't mind if I don't change any minds, I can't expect otherwise when I'm going against a well oiled machine with all the advantages of the 24/7 news cycle. We are all supposed to be able to have and voice our opinions but I do take issue with those who are uncivil or rude. Which does not encompass all here but is sure does some.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 07 Aug 2019, 22:43
by Just_a_fan
The thing we face with AGW is the modern equivalent of Pascal's Wager.
If AGW does exist and we do nothing, we lose. If AGW doesn't exist and we do some stuff then we have only lost a few quid, but will have gained new infrastructure. Etc.
On balance, doing stuff is the sensible option. It might be politically inconvenient for some, but that's life.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 08 Aug 2019, 04:39
by strad
A few quid?
If only it was just a few quid.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 08 Aug 2019, 06:18
by roon
Figure of speech, strad.
Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040
Posted: 08 Aug 2019, 09:56
by Just_a_fan
It's going to cost a few quid if it's true and nothing is done now. US Govt's own report suggested up to $500B per year cost to the US by 2090 if the AGW predictions are true. That's just cost to the US.
S'funny how we can spend $1.7trillion a year globally on "bombs and bullets" but not on helping our planet. By 2090 we won't be able to afford to do so, so maybe AGW is a blessing in disguise after all.
