Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 16 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
This follows on from: Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III | |
| ID: 1332247 · | |
|
A small part of the present state of play: | |
| ID: 1332258 · | |
|
Gary Charpentier wrote: Uh oh, models wrong again ... now we know the cause is over population ... If this is pure heat driven, what does this imply if the energy source was 100% green without any CO2 emissions. Is the problem that we are industrialized? It is just overpopulation? How do we solve it if going green will not stop the issues that our cities present to the planet's climate? ____________ | |
| ID: 1332336 · | |
If this is pure heat driven, what does this imply if the energy source was 100% green without any CO2 emissions. Is the problem that we are industrialized? It is just overpopulation? How do we solve it if going green will not stop the issues that our cities present to the planet's climate? That study highlights the large local effects from local land use. Ok, so cities are an extreme example but that clearly shows yet another strong influence that we have directly on the world about us. As for your glib "duh, models wrong again...": I guess you missed that the global effect was 0.01 deg C... That highlights more how the models are being refined to ever yet finer detail. We already know the big story and the multiple options that can play out. The big gamble of Russian Roulette that our politicians and industry fat cats are playing is that of which direction we go, how bad, and when. A turn-around for the good would be a good and smart move for all. However, that requires smashing the subsidies and profits of Big Fossil Fuels. We have alternatives that do not mean we bring the planet to a standstill. As usual, it's the old story of politics and influence... All on our only planet, Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1332504 · | |
|
Meanwhile, we bumble along vaguely in the right direction: | |
| ID: 1332505 · | |
As for your glib "duh, models wrong again...": I guess you missed that the global effect was 0.01 deg C... That highlights more how the models are being refined to ever yet finer detail. Thank you for confirming that the model is wrong. It is a healthy thing you have done. To finally admit we don't have the answer. If you can retain that skepticism then you can contribute to a solution. However you miss the point. The model has a variance of 1.8 deg C with reality. Does that mean that our baseline instrument reading could also be out of whack by that amount? After all that wasn't known until now so it could have not been part of the data massage necessary due to changing conditions at the instrument sites; Now we have evidence conditions at an instrument site can be a 1000 mile circle! Many questions should be asked. That is science. ____________ | |
| ID: 1332678 · | |
If you can retain that skepticism then you can contribute to a solution. Until you know the magnitude of the problem you can't design a solution. Models are algorithms based on theory. If they aren't giving answers that match with reality, there are a couple possibilities. One, the theory is wrong. Two, the algorithm is wrong and doesn't match the theory. Three, the calculations aren't being done correctly or with sufficient precision. Four, the initial data set or conditions are wrong. Of course more that one of these things may be at issue. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=70699&postid=1332366 As an IPCC model fell completely outside its error bars, if we had implemented a solution based upon it ... I am saying the alarmist posts about how bad things are, without the realization behind it that the fix, if that alarmist model is correct, is the deindustrialization of humans and the depopulation of humans, is beginning to sound a lot like the sky is falling and every new report says the sky might have slumped a bit but it didn't fall, but it still will fall. ____________ | |
| ID: 1332869 · | |
... I am saying the alarmist posts about how bad things are, without the realization behind it that the fix, if that alarmist model is correct, is the deindustrialization of humans and the depopulation of humans, is beginning to sound a lot like the sky is falling and every new report says the sky might have slumped a bit but it didn't fall, but it still will fall. Is that why reality is not your alarmist case? Is that also why multiple models are run and compared to see what extremes might happen and also to average out what can happen or most likely will happen... There is the method you ignore called running an ensemble so that the models themselves are characterized... We still have the means to avoid the worst calamities and to still make progress. All a question of when we start and whether we start soon enough and seriously enough... Change is happening, despite the worst of the Fossil Fuels sponsored FUD and pollution (See this YouTube summary vid)... All on our only planet, Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1332881 · | |
|
Sometimes, politics can move in a more world-friendly direction despite commercial pressure or political 'expediency': | |
| ID: 1333154 · | |
Is that also why multiple models are run and compared to see what extremes might happen and also to average out what can happen or most likely will happen... There is the method you ignore called running an ensemble so that the models themselves are characterized... I think you are confusing a "model" and a "scenario" but perhaps the literature does so. model: A hypothetical description of a complex entity or process scenario: A postulated sequence of possible events A model is the expression of the theory in the form of equations which are reduced to a computational exercise. A scenario is the assumptions you plug into the model about future conditions, e.g. how many tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere per year. When you run a model with the scenario of historic data and it does not match observed conditions, there is an obvious error in the model. Such being the case with the IPCC model that is outside its error bars. That leaves you with three possibilities. 1) The theory is wrong. 2) The equations describing the theory are wrong. 3) Computational error. (programming bug) It appears that the climate people are thinking it is number one. That because they are constantly "refining" the model. They are adding new parameters of things they believed would have no effect on the outcome. e.g. the heat of a big city. The real issue though is climate is a chaotic system. In a deterministic system, being off a small percent isn't a big deal. An example being the difference in gravity between Newton and Einstein. For most of us most of the time we never know the difference. However in a chaotic system where miniscule changes in the input make tremendous changes in the output, being off is cause for concern. It says the ass-u-me-ed parameters are not everything that is going on and offers no confidence that what you expect is the driving item is in fact the driving item. That earth is getting warmer doesn't depend on a model, that is historic data. However every time that data gets looked at and massaged again and the rate of warming goes down means there may be issues with the quality of the data or the theory behind the measurement if not made by instrument or the conditions of the instrument and its surroundings. The error bars get bigger. Humans are warming the planet. However until theory matches real observations, we can't say with certainty why it is happening. It may be because of some parameter that has been assumed to be insignificant but really isn't. Because NYC is warming the planet 1.8C 1000 miles upwind and theory says the effect should be 0.01C speaks more to the way we build cities and live in them changing weather patterns than it does CO2 caused global warming. It could be that the CO2 effect is being totally swamped out by some other factor. In any case the alarmist predictions of a tripping point and that we have past it and we are doomed to Venus's fate are pure BS, but they were made. The question remains, even if we can't come up with solid numbers, how much do we have to deindustrialize and how much do we have to depopulate so that Darwin doesn't get us? Or are we assuming that CO2 is a much smaller factor now and that some real modest cuts and we can continue our lifestyle and growth rate for 10,000 years? ____________ | |
| ID: 1333431 · | |
|
our "lifestyle" needs to change, and I do not think de-industrialization is an answer at this point. Moving beyond OLD technologies, reducing birth rates, and moving forward to clean technologies. Will it be enough? No idea, but I do know not moving towards them is suicidal. And waiting for developing countries to lead the way is foolish. | |
| ID: 1333542 · | |
... [Lots of techno babble of various fidelity...] ... Humans are warming the planet. However until theory matches real observations, we can't say with certainty why it is happening. It may be because of some parameter that has been assumed to be insignificant but really isn't. Because NYC is warming the planet 1.8C 1000 miles upwind and theory says the effect should be 0.01C ... [More techno babble of various fidelity...] Very good GC-isms. I almost for a moment thought you might have read something up rather than the usual random trolling. Unfortunately, as more often than not, you are just adding confusion and noise. The models are good science and are refined enough to match reality closely enough that we can use them to untangle the physical effects at play. We use many models just as craftsmen similarly use many tools. Each are good for their particular job/purpose. There is also a further world of science confirming that we are very definitely the primary cause. The story is not just from the models, we have wide confirmation elsewhere. As for that old claim of all too complicated... Only for your little head? Also, please do not confuse weather (daily stuff affected by the wings of a butterfly and chaos theory), to that of climate and longer term effects where things 'average out'. We've explained that one too many times, repeatedly. Please read Wikipedia for enlightenment. And your claimed 0.01 deg C is for the WORLD AVERAGE DIFFERENCE. Not the temperature difference locally, which is what those articles are all about. Sheeesh, if you can't even read let alone get your numbers unmuddled! Please see this video right through. Then recite back the lines about the climate predictions made for the polar regions for now that were made back in the 1960's. Then please explain about models if you can keep to reality. Please take your further noise over to the DENIAL thread rather than pollute this POSITIVE thread of SOLUTIONS. No further comment to you on here. You are welcome to befuddle us on the DENIAL thread. Regards, Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1334035 · | |
pollute this POSITIVE thread of SOLUTIONS. Then you had better not post another "sky is warming" in this thread. That ditto post belongs in the denial thread. Now, how much warming is acceptable? Or put so a ditto head can figure it out, if we are going to build a rocket to go to Mars, don't you think is is important to know where Mars is? Assuming that reduction in population growth is going to be a required part of the solution ... Some things to consider, how do we convince a illiterate third world person to use birth control? How do we convince the Government of Japan, which presently is doing all it can to increase its birth rate, to allow its population to decline? Assuming that some reduction in the rate of industrialization is going to be part of the solution ... How do we convince the illiterate third world voter to forgo any hope of a first world life for his grandchildren and remain hunter - gatherer? How do we convince the Government of China to cease industrialization? Martin, you see these are the valid questions that belong in the solutions thread, not more denial ditto posts that it getting warmer. If you have no solutions don't post here! Allow engineering to happen. ____________ | |
| ID: 1334102 · | |
|
| |
| ID: 1334122 · | |
|
In 900 ad things started to get warmer, by 1200 ad that was over,colder agin till 1850, the agreed upon end of the little ice age up sharply to now. | |
| ID: 1334131 · | |
|
"How do we convince the Government of China to cease industrialization?" | |
| ID: 1334133 · | |
"How do we convince the Government of China to cease industrialization?" ========================================== don't have to china is having a meltdown. ____________ | |
| ID: 1334136 · | |
|
Some things to consider, how do we convince a illiterate third world person to use birth control? | |
| ID: 1334138 · | |
|
One trend in the right direction, despite the politics: | |
| ID: 1334143 · | |
|
And one small part of the game of politics (and industrial lobbying corruption?): | |
| ID: 1334144 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |