Today's theories on "global warming, climate change, . . ." Is like someone predicting the
stock market based on one weeks performance.
stock market based on one weeks performance.
A near certainty
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
Re: A near certainty[/URL]Ray Stantz posted on 5/17/2014...
_________________________________________________________
I'm all ears. My problem is that I haven't seen any studies or articles from those who should know addressing any of these questions. Do you have a link to anything?
You ask very good questions. I'm not being a smart ass when I say that, but I know well enough when to say: "I don't the answer to this." I think we need to listen to people who do know, and you and I both know that's been a problem for years.
_________________________________________________________
I'm all ears. My problem is that I haven't seen any studies or articles from those who should know addressing any of these questions. Do you have a link to anything?
IPCC's 2014 working group 3 report: "Mitigation of Climate Change" provides a good summary of the research in these areas. The 6th chapter on "Assessing Transformation Pathways" addresses most of your specific questions with references to recent relevant research.
http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter6.pdf
Effort?]sharing frameworks could help address distributional issues and decouple regional
mitigation investments from financial burdens, but would be associated with significant
international financial transfers (medium confidence). Without transfers across regions, costeffectively
allocating emissions across countries would yield an uneven distribution of mitigation
costs. Scenarios indicate that this would lead to higher relative costs in developing economies as
well as for many fuel exporters. Studies estimate that the financial transfers to ameliorate this
asymmetry could be on the order of hundreds of billions of USD per year before mid?]century to
bring concentrations to roughly 450 ppm CO2eq in 2100. [6.3.6]
In this paragraph and elsewhere in the Executive summary of Voet's referenced document there are two clear assumptions:
1. There would be international standards set for and "allocated" to each country.
2. There would be transfers from developed countries to developing countries in the range of hundred of billions of dollars per year. With the large time frame that would amount to trillions of dollars.
According to the New American in 2013, the US spending (in various forms) was appr. $22.2 billion to combat global warming. According to UN official Ottmar Edenhoffer (Ger) that cap and trade is the ultimate objective and estimated that when implemented, it would cost the average american family budget an additional $1,600 initially. It would increase the cost of a gallon of gasoline between 61 cents and $2.53. Electricity would also increase 44 to 129 percent. That's sticker sshock nobody on the left wants you to hear.
I find it funny that this group thinks countries are going to accept CO2 emissions quotas from the UN or from treaties.
Only this week the country with the largest population, China, is in a crisis with Vietnam. China put a drilling platform in waters claimed by VN. VN fired water cannons. China moved in 120 ships. Vietnam had riots killing and seriously injuring Chinese workers and burning a plant in VN. China is evacuating 3000 Chinese by three large ships. So does anyone really think that China is going to walk away from fossil fuels because a study says there will be problems in 80 years.
Now let me quote the document again. [I hope it won't get spread out so much on the page again.]
"The scenario literature does not systematically explore
the full range of uncertainty surrounding development pathways and the possible evolution of key
drivers such as population, technology, and resources."
I would add or forces outside of man. They ran 1000 simulations based on three major factors that they did not systematically explore the reliability of. In fact, they are assuming technology and resources that do not exist will exist.
Only this week the country with the largest population, China, is in a crisis with Vietnam. China put a drilling platform in waters claimed by VN. VN fired water cannons. China moved in 120 ships. Vietnam had riots killing and seriously injuring Chinese workers and burning a plant in VN. China is evacuating 3000 Chinese by three large ships. So does anyone really think that China is going to walk away from fossil fuels because a study says there will be problems in 80 years.
Now let me quote the document again. [I hope it won't get spread out so much on the page again.]
"The scenario literature does not systematically explore
the full range of uncertainty surrounding development pathways and the possible evolution of key
drivers such as population, technology, and resources."
I would add or forces outside of man. They ran 1000 simulations based on three major factors that they did not systematically explore the reliability of. In fact, they are assuming technology and resources that do not exist will exist.
"The" incontinent Truth
I now not only believe in "Climate Change" but I believe in "Global Warming.
The Weather Station had a program that showed that the Earth is in the process of a "Polar Inversion". This is a phenomenon that the Earth experiences about every 500,000 years, where the poles swap their electromagnetic polarity. During this period the Earth's magnetic field is reduced thus allowing solar activity to penetrate the Earth shield which causes "Earth surface warming". This phenomenon coincides with the melting of the glaziers, and other colossal historical Earth events.
I support conservation, clean air, clean water, recycling, and respect for our planet, but WE have nothing to do with the warming and can do nothing about it!
I now not only believe in "Climate Change" but I believe in "Global Warming.
The Weather Station had a program that showed that the Earth is in the process of a "Polar Inversion". This is a phenomenon that the Earth experiences about every 500,000 years, where the poles swap their electromagnetic polarity. During this period the Earth's magnetic field is reduced thus allowing solar activity to penetrate the Earth shield which causes "Earth surface warming". This phenomenon coincides with the melting of the glaziers, and other colossal historical Earth events.
I support conservation, clean air, clean water, recycling, and respect for our planet, but WE have nothing to do with the warming and can do nothing about it!
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/
So why are the climate radicals closing "selected" data gathering stations? Do we need fewer or more of them?
Or is there another reason behind it? A simple question.
We spend billions every year on Obama's climate change junk science - grants to solar and wind tech. Shouldn't some of that money go to the "hard" measurements - the evidence? Why would they do that?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/
So why are the climate radicals closing "selected" data gathering stations? Do we need fewer or more of them?
Or is there another reason behind it? A simple question.
We spend billions every year on Obama's climate change junk science - grants to solar and wind tech. Shouldn't some of that money go to the "hard" measurements - the evidence? Why would they do that?
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
"the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data."
The article answers your question.
"the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data."
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
So your position is that we need fewer stations overall and the stations "they" select for closure are not selected because they might contradict GW? I see. And they just so happen to be those stations that "cool" the data. Hmmm!
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
Voetvoet,
Do you know how NOAA is adjusting it's temperature data to account for the effects of urban sprawl near many of it's weather reporting stations? Wouldn't weather data from rural stations which isn't effected by man-made surroundings provide a much more accurate representation of historic weather trends?
Voetvoet,
Do you know how NOAA is adjusting it's temperature data to account for the effects of urban sprawl near many of it's weather reporting stations? Wouldn't weather data from rural stations which isn't effected by man-made surroundings provide a much more accurate representation of historic weather trends?
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
IMO
The problem is that the stations are being closed down in the first place. Wouldn't more data be better than less - redundant or not? And as far as spending is concerned, we are already spending billions, mostly going to "friendly" climatologists whos jobs are tied to GW and who aren't even questioning the reason for the research to begin with. A little expenditure for "repairing" those data stations rather than eliminating them altogether seems more relevant and revealing. The more info the better IMO. Then we can sort out the details of what is found from it.
IMO
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
BTW this state will be fine with or wo fossil fuel energy. Oklahoma is one of the few states that will be energy rich no matter what form of energy is used. This state is rich in all those sources - Oil, NG, wind and solar. OKLA is in the top ten states for energy "resources" including wind and solar. But the question is whether we should make an about turn and restructure the worlds greatest economy if its not called for and as part of a scheme to increase taxation and fines on a hard working middle class who are caught in the middle.
IMO
BTW this state will be fine with or wo fossil fuel energy. Oklahoma is one of the few states that will be energy rich no matter what form of energy is used. This state is rich in all those sources - Oil, NG, wind and solar. OKLA is in the top ten states for energy "resources" including wind and solar. But the question is whether we should make an about turn and restructure the worlds greatest economy if its not called for and as part of a scheme to increase taxation and fines on a hard working middle class who are caught in the middle.
IMO
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
Our stance on data gathering should be similar to what a lawyer wants in his case gathering - more "evidence, not less".
If a prosecutor was gathering evidence in a murder trial and he "suppressed" some of that evidence, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrail? Even disbarment? Just using that as an example of what "may be" occurring here.
In my view, the closing of data stations that conflict with the scientists agenda is cause for "climatic" disbarment so to speak. Science is supposed to be blind isn't it? Just like justice?
This post was edited on 7/24 9:13 AM by rabidTU
Our stance on data gathering should be similar to what a lawyer wants in his case gathering - more "evidence, not less".
If a prosecutor was gathering evidence in a murder trial and he "suppressed" some of that evidence, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrail? Even disbarment? Just using that as an example of what "may be" occurring here.
In my view, the closing of data stations that conflict with the scientists agenda is cause for "climatic" disbarment so to speak. Science is supposed to be blind isn't it? Just like justice?
This post was edited on 7/24 9:13 AM by rabidTU
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
And now for a little comic relief -------------------- Vice President Al Gore and his oscar winning documentary and best selling book. Notice the excellent Hollywood special effects used.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/
Notice that Greenland has evidently been sunk into the north atlantic and whats with those hurricanes?
This post was edited on 7/24 1:04 PM by rabidTU
And now for a little comic relief -------------------- Vice President Al Gore and his oscar winning documentary and best selling book. Notice the excellent Hollywood special effects used.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/
Notice that Greenland has evidently been sunk into the north atlantic and whats with those hurricanes?
This post was edited on 7/24 1:04 PM by rabidTU
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
There are algorithms that correct for abnormalities, but they're more complex than I can understand. I know there's an aspect of comparing nearby references and there's some component that uses satellite temperature data to help correct as well.
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
I'm pretty sure budget wouldn't be a major concern. Was that the point?
So the point is that the stations are being cut back because of budgetary concerns? The FGt is currently spending billions on GW. Cutting back on the very data this discussion is based on is obviously another example of the poor job the FG does with this sort of thing to begin with.
I'm pretty sure budget wouldn't be a major concern. Was that the point?
Re: "The" incontinent Truth
But since there is no fairness involved in the data gathered, there is no legitimacy to their side imo. And there is also a political/ideological slant to it because there really is no such thing as peer reviewed results if some who question the results are demonized and castigated for questioning those results. Scrutiny is vital to science. The inevitable example in science of Piltdown Man will always be an example of that. Everyone accepted the lie. In your field of medicine, I'm sure you can come up with many examples where peer review proved wrong because it was too easily accepted. It goes all the way back to Paul Ehrlich and even Pasteur who were demonized mercilessly at first.
But again, reality (what you can feel at your doorstep) is the real peer review where climate/weather is concerned. It makes no sense when the models prove wrong, but the so called experts just laugh it off and yell to high heaven they are still right.
imo
No actually my point is that the money would be better spent on compiling the data (not alternatives as you say because that pre-supposes MCGW is settled science - its not) and because legitimately arrived at data is the only way to prove the global alarmists wrong. If the data was arrived at fairly and impartially by those who have absolutely nothing to gain from the results then the tree spikers would have some semblence of a legitimate argument. But the scrutiny has to be absolutely fair.
But since there is no fairness involved in the data gathered, there is no legitimacy to their side imo. And there is also a political/ideological slant to it because there really is no such thing as peer reviewed results if some who question the results are demonized and castigated for questioning those results. Scrutiny is vital to science. The inevitable example in science of Piltdown Man will always be an example of that. Everyone accepted the lie. In your field of medicine, I'm sure you can come up with many examples where peer review proved wrong because it was too easily accepted. It goes all the way back to Paul Ehrlich and even Pasteur who were demonized mercilessly at first.
But again, reality (what you can feel at your doorstep) is the real peer review where climate/weather is concerned. It makes no sense when the models prove wrong, but the so called experts just laugh it off and yell to high heaven they are still right.
imo
