Climate modelling wrong

ROTFL - how many posts have you authored blaming CO2 for (MM)GW?

I get personal experience with modelling from denialist blogs?

 

based on your posts, your understanding of climate science seems to be based on them.

 

You are saying my posts can't possibly be based on my own experience and research?


I'm still waiting for anyone with experience modelling complex systems to comment.

 

Have you any viable alternative to explain the rise in average global temperature?

Have you ever quoted anyone other than a denialist blog? Have you ever done your own analysis on the models?

 

No. My point has been it doesn't matter what moves the climate. Lets assume it is CO2, we don't have the technology to stop increasing CO2 in the near future (without starving billions), let alone reduce it.

Government taxation on fossil fuels to fund "green energy" will result, as it has, in lots of spectacular headlines, that never come to fruition. In parallel, the technologies developed inthe private sector that would result in the necessary serenditous break throughs will be starved of funding.

The private sector will (as it has) product alternative energy, and people will buy it when the cost is acceptable. Slow technology, and you slow the result you profess to desire.

I don't remember quoting a single blog, just news articles and sources of data.

Why would I do that? My whole point is the model is far too complex, with too many assumed values, too many assumed interactions, with no way to test those assumptions.

 

That is like saying to a cancer sufferer "Sorry we do not have a 100% guarantee of a cure for you so we won't even try to cure your cancer"

But underpinning that statement is a fallacy - that mitigation will cause billions to starve. I would love to see you validate that point and meanwhile I will demonstrate how billions will starve if we DON'T mitigate Co2 production

And again this is founded on several unproven assumptions. Are you trying to tell me that the advances in alternate energy production and methods of production have all been failures? Why would technologies be starved of funding - I thought the bedrock of capitalism was that if an idea is good enough someone will develop it and market it. But I remember the opposite happening about 20 years ago - people were being almost encouraged to buy products that were energy INEFFICIENT because that sold more electricity!!

You have no proof the government IS slowing technology

Yerrrrssss! That is sort of our point - perhaps if you HAD and read widely (which both Cass and myself and many other people here have done) you would come to other conclusions

Because without the wider reading into how they are addressing those issues you really are not understanding where the scientists are coming from

Look I take note of who is quoting what and how many of us support our statements with research and citations. Just from reading posts on this subject I can assure you that the people who do wide reading on both sides of the argument are in the main the "warmists" and it is the "warmists" who use citations at more than a 3:1 ratio in comparison to "denialists"

 

I opined somewhere in this forum regarding this issue but I can't find it offhand.

I would ask anyone to answer this question. If we all agreed that climate change actually were proven beyond any reasonable doubt, what are we to actually do about it?

Is it reasonable to believe that if we totally eliminated all CO2 and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere, would it really make any difference in that China puts on line one new coal fired power plant every week?

As a corollary can we really expect to do anything meaningful with a few windmills and solar panels. Last I looked at the statistics, in the U.S., something on order of .2% of our total power output is generated by these expensive "green" energy sources. And ironically, those solar panels come from China since our manufacturers are not competitive. Addtionally, the windmills greatest claim to fame is the mass slaughter of the golden eagles which fly into the spinning propellers.

In my opinion, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that until we unlock the secret of cold fusion, we will have to rely for centuries on either nuclear, hydro or "dirty" fossil fuel of which we have about 600 years supply. It is a fallacy to believe we have a shortage of fossil fuel in North America. That has been a fiction proven false over a century which has been positing the false idea of "peak energy" which never comes true.

Anyone?

 

What percent "cure" do you think we have?

The only way to stop adding to CO2 by 2020, is to stop all fossil fuel use - billions will starve.

What technology do we have that will replace fossil fuels by 2050?

Which of those technologies were developed by government funded research?

R&D is funded by profits, a very small part of gross sales. When energy is taxed as heavily as you want, less money is avaialbe for R&D.

Has government spending sped up technology?

Have you read, and understand, the code for their model?

I don't read the PR from either side, I look at the technology required, and technology we have (not what is hyped by those looking for government funding). I base my conclusions on fact, not PR.

 

If you were doing research on climate science you would be far better informed.... so yes.

 

the scientific community tends to disagree with you.

 

you need to do more reading .. and quite frankly I'm pretty tired of going over the same old ground time and time again ... it feels like I have been teaching the same year 9 basic class the same stuff for the last ten years ... and they are still just not getting it.

China - which is advancing rapidly and increasing its CO2 output due to this - is also investing heavily in alternative energy.

I really hate this mindless "all or nothing" approach - there are numerous technologies that can contribute to reducing our emissions - but learning to be smarter in how we use energy is one of the most effective.

 

MM old dear the word is "Mitigation". We do not have a hope in hell of stopping it even if we stopped polluting tomorrow - that is because Co2 has a lasting effect in the atmosphere

Even the IPCC is not talking about stopping it but mitigating the worst effects


http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/press/cont...the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change

In other words - every little bit helps

But more importantly it is about creating a market that will give us more and more alternate energy. 15 years ago solar energy was a rare and fragile commodity - now Germany gets a large proportion of it's energy from solar panels on people's roofs.

Yes this has sparked a big rush on research and development in alternate energy but the upshot of that is that we are still seeing innovations that will revolutionise the world of energy production

http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/articledetail.aspx?ArticleID=61870
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/inventions/

 

The same scientific community being funded by the government?

What break throughs has this scientific community made that will save the day? How many of these break throughs are actually in operation? How many of those are in commercial operation?

The only significant sources of green energy are hydro, wind mills, nuclear, and photovoltaic, with PV being the most recent technology (the "break through" occurred in 1954) and just reaching a price point where it is commercially viable for home use (my son investigated building a 10 acre array, but the price for electricty was too low).

 

Would I have to be a micro-biologist to understand drug resistance?

To discuss this thread intelligently, all I need to understand is the limitations in modelling. Do you?

 

You have yet to establish whether or not you do. The simple claim is insufficient.

 

oh please!

I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist!

 

Yet more dogma from the warmist religion. Will it ever end?

 

one day you'll understand.

 

Do you realize how silly that sounds from a person that wants to increase government funding to that same scientific community?


This thread is about the climate model - what is your experience in math models?

 

Ummmmm - yes!! You might understand that some drugs don't work but believe me there is so much more to drug resistance than that.

 

you do realise that sounds silly from someone claiming that this is occurring in 187 countries throughout the world and who is ignoring independent NGO's like Woods Hole Oceanography Institute who also have a LOT of information and data backing AGW

 

I was unaware that Germany developed any appreciable energy from solar panels. Offhand, do you know the percentage
of their total power production comes from that source? I'm sorta surprised in that from the time I spent in Europe in the 1960s (France) there weren't all that many sunny days.

In the southwest, Arizona and California where they have a lot of sunlight it might make good sense but in order to best utilize it it is necessary to locate the houses in such a way to catch the maximum amount of sunlight. This is now being done in California in newer houses as recently shown on news broadcasts. Of course that adds to the construction costs.

I'm really a little leery of the claims for alternate energy sources to be perfectly frank. I think this whole business is more of a faith based belief than fact. And I will continue to hold to that view until I see real evidence that it amounts to anything more than a pittance of the energy produced.

And what are we do to about the decimation of our eagle population?

Now if I may give a practical solution to this problem of "global warming" it would be to increase the number and size of man-made lakes. This is both a huge engineering task, expensive and perhaps not viable politically. But having driven over lakes and then onto land I noticed about a 2-3 decrease in the outside temperature from my in-car temperature gauge.

My major concern is not with the alleged global warming but more with the availability of water. This is going to be a tremendous problem in the future with our increasing population in the U.S. Texas, for example is expected to grow from 25 million to 50 million people by 2050. But Texas had a devastating drought last year that led me to abandon the state for Arkansas. I saw the lakes start to dry up and that is going to be a huge problem for the large population centers. Texas only has 1 or 2 natural lakes. All the rest are man-made. We can live without many things but without water we are up the creek with no water. That's a tough slog to contemplate.

 

You're just speculating, as usual.

 

maybe you could explain what increasing funding to scientific research has to do with conspiracy theories?

 

its relatively low - about 3.5% I think, but total renewables is over 20% - and this is expected to almost double over the next ten years.

in a climate similar to California, I haven't paid an electricity bill for a couple of years - and last year I got money back. My daughter, whose roof ffaces east (but has a family, a bigger house and higher demand) has reduced her electricity bill by over 60% in winter. This won'yt be enough for industry - but it does reduce carbon emissions significantly. I still think better overall design and increased efficiency is at least as important - and thats just being smarter, not reducing quality of life.

it may involve retrofitting and relatively simple changes in some instances.

Denmark is expected to be 50% wind power by 2020.

no.

where are you getting the water from? you only need to look at the impact some dams have had on local environmemts - specifically depletion of aquifers.

both are a major concern.