Climate Change

[Hacky McAxe]

Thank you for your support even if it wasn't intended.

I am aware of my limitations and I wouldn't take on an impossible task. The only way this could work is if my country gave me total freedom to go wherever the negotiations take me, and the other countries gave their representatives the same freedom. This would be a conference of 190 presidents, prime ministers and third world dictators. I doubt if even the presidents and prime ministers would have this kind of authority (ours doesn't), and the third world dictators wouldn't attend lest they be overthrown in their absence.

Negotiations are generally carried out by professional negotiators. There was some conjecture during the recent COP as many 1st world counties had multiple negotiators. Some had up to 10 negotiators. While small island nations had only one negotiator as that's all they could afford to send.

As there tends to be thousands of negotiations going on, with many going on at the same time, richer countries could attend most negotiations while the poorer countries missed out on many deals.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Not sure you should presume my intentions, especially based on the second paragraph.

My point was your objectives are to try ensure your own national interest whilst taking home a message that you contributed. This is politics at its highest or most complex form, not flogging some widgets or services to another company. Now its not my area but I would imagine point #1 for most countries and the awakening expectations for most pollies across the world to align with their own constituents is attendance. So everything after that is gravy.

My intention was to point out a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 is one thing. Trying to advance your countries position (or flog a concept) with 189 other countries in a few days is something else entirely.

Now do I think the COPs are achieving much? No. But then I'm an idealist and I'd like to think if we really put our mind to it we can deal with our shit. The realist side of me expects to die knowing I was wrong.

I was listening to a good discussion with BBC, climate and economical experts and they generally agreed that while COP wasn't anywhere near as effective as it should be, it was much better than nothing.

Prior to the COPs we were set for 5 degree increase by 2100. Now we're in target for a 2.5 degree increase by 2100. Basically halved it thanks to the COP negotiations. Still well behind where we need to be, but much better than doing nothing.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Global politics. As I said, China is way ahead of us when it comes to renewable transition. So it makes us look bad.

China are building 100 coal fired power stations this year, we are building, let me see, none, not a single one. It seems to me that we are way ahead of China.

As always it depends on which statistic is emphasised.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

This was a moral statement of why we should do something rather than sit back and do nothing. And the issue was doing the wrong thing by speeding, not whether or not the people at the end of the street should own a car.

So I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Unless you're trying to suggest that I should stop driving my car until all chinese/indians own a car because somehow I'm making a statement in relation to GHGs? Wouldn't my statement be counterproductive? Would I not be encouraging more GHG?

China also has 900M people in highly urbanised areas where car ownership is difficult in the extreme - as you have no where to park it. And China also has access to a exceptional public transport system. So most chinese don't need to have a car.

The average wage in India is USD $387/month. The average fuel price in India is USD $1.25/L. Compare that to Australia $7500/month and fuel say $2/L, how exactly do most Indians afford to have a car?

I'm not sure your comparison is valid with all due respect.

You were spot on, you don’t drive your car 30/40 kph over the speed limit to demonstrate to the local hoons that neither should they. Well same same, you shouldn’t drive your car to demonstrate to the Chinese and Indians that that shouldn't drive their‘s (when 2.3 billion of them eventually can).

Monkey see monkey do, or in this case monkey don't.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

I was listening to a good discussion with BBC, climate and economical experts and they generally agreed that while COP wasn't anywhere near as effective as it should be, it was much better than nothing.

Prior to the COPs we were set for 5 degree increase by 2100. Now we're in target for a 2.5 degree increase by 2100. Basically halved it thanks to the COP negotiations. Still well behind where we need to be, but much better than doing nothing.

That‘s a comparison of future estimates (AKA guesses), and we have had this discussion before. The guesses started out as drastic scare tactics, quickly proven to be wrong, so the guesses were tempered in an attempt to get back some credibility. Still the guesses get lower and lower.

“wasn't anywhere near as effective as it should be, it was much better than nothing” OR maybe it was simply that the overly pessimistic guesses were once again being corrected.

A few more cycles of guesses and we will be down to the Maunder effect, which we are already close to in the Southern Hemisphere.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Doogie]

You were spot on, you don’t drive your car 30/40 kph over the speed limit to demonstrate to the local hoons that neither should they. Well same same, you shouldn’t drive your car to demonstrate to the Chinese and Indians that that shouldn't drive their‘s (when 2.3 billion of them eventually can).

Monkey see monkey do, or in this case monkey don't.


Always a Bulldog

So you're suggesting I shouldn't drive my car (which will be an EV by mid next year btw) until SE asians can, as a demonstration that our gvt should abide by GHG targets to show that China/India should.

Think your monkey just discovered an electrical socket.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

China are building 100 coal fired power stations this year, we are building, let me see, none, not a single one. It seems to me that we are way ahead of China.

As always it depends on which statistic is emphasised.


Always a Bulldog

Yet China still gets over 50% of their energy from renewables. We have a target of 50% by 2030. So we're 7 years behind China. Maybe China will slow down and we'll catch up.

But probably not. China is on track to meet their 2030 targets by 2025. So unless they make a complete u-turn, then they'll still be well ahead of us.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That‘s a comparison of future estimates (AKA guesses), and we have had this discussion before. The guesses started out as drastic scare tactics, quickly proven to be wrong, so the guesses were tempered in an attempt to get back some credibility. Still the guesses get lower and lower.

“wasn't anywhere near as effective as it should be, it was much better than nothing” OR maybe it was simply that the overly pessimistic guesses were once again being corrected.

A few more cycles of guesses and we will be down to the Maunder effect, which we are already close to in the Southern Hemisphere.


Always a Bulldog

Yes, I remember the discussion. You insinuated that the majority of climate scientists were making guesses and the projections were wrong. Except that majority of the climate scientists are saying the opposite of you. So either you know something they don't after their masses amounts of education and experience, or your bias is showing.

 

[CrittaMagic69]

Last night I found out that Y2K was actually REAL. Maybe climate changevisvtoo I guess

 

[TwinTurbo]

Yes, I remember the discussion. You insinuated that the majority of climate scientists were making guesses and the projections were wrong. Except that majority of the climate scientists are saying the opposite of you. So either you know something they don't after their masses amounts of education and experience, or your bias is showing.

Anyone can compare the estimates of temperature rise from 40/30/20/10 years ago to the actuals and confirm how inaccurate those projections were. This is just another example of inaccurate modelling being corrected by a slightly less inaccurate modeling. Perfectly understandable, as more and more data becomes available the scientists correct the mistakes made in the previous models, that’s standard scientific practise. At the same time the scientists with the poor estimates have had their modelling discredited.

This bullshit about the “science being settled” is being revealed almost daily, Hansen (Columbia University) and Mann (University of Pennsylvania) are currently in a slanging match over whose latest model is correct. Their projections differ by a huge factor ~400%, with Hansen‘s paper only being published last month. What will next month’s paper project?


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Anyone can compare the estimates of temperature rise from 40/30/20/10 years ago to the actuals and confirm how inaccurate those projections were. This is just another example of inaccurate modelling being corrected by a slightly less inaccurate modeling. Perfectly understandable, as more and more data becomes available the scientists correct the mistakes made in the previous models, that’s standard scientific practise. At the same time the scientists with the poor estimates have had their modelling discredited.

This bullshit about the “science being settled” is being revealed almost daily, Hansen (Columbia University) and Mann (University of Pennsylvania) are currently in a slanging match over whose latest model is correct. Their projections differ by a huge factor ~400%, with Hansen‘s paper only being published last month. What will next month’s paper project?


Always a Bulldog

Hansen and Mann's debate could result in a complete change of modelling, but Hansen's projections are more extreme than current projections. They're basically doomsday projections and they go against the IPCC and the majority of the current understanding of climate science.

I would ask Hansen the same thing I would ask you. If you want me to believe what you say, and what you say conflicts with the vast majority of the scientific community, then you need to provide a very good reason.

Hansen provides some reason. He provides research to back up his stance, and he has been one of the leading climate scientists for a long time. But he's only one climate scientist and his research hasn't been accepted by most of the community.

Also important to keep in mind that he's an alarmist. He has often been arrested for climate activism. He definitely knows a lot more than me about the subject and he could be right, but I will stick with the majority until proven otherwise.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And more importantly, scientists having different educated opinions on projections isn't a reason to ignore peojections.

I'm not going to bother bringing up all the research that shows that climate models have actually been very accurate. From memory you immediately dismissed the research last time.

 

[Doogie]

And more importantly, scientists having different educated opinions on projections isn't a reason to ignore peojections.

I'm not going to bother bringing up all the research that shows that climate models have actually been very accurate. From memory you immediately dismissed the research last time.

Modelling is an indication. One says that the forecast is bad. The other says the forecast is very bad. And this is all based on how you interpret one planetary warming cycle 15k - 20k years ago.

So this is modelling based on modelling which cumulates the error. Bad advocates current actions (which are not being implemented anyways), very bad advocates larger and riskier interventions now.

Bad is still bad though.

 

[TwinTurbo]

And more importantly, scientists having different educated opinions on projections isn't a reason to ignore peojections.

I'm not going to bother bringing up all the research that shows that climate models have actually been very accurate. From memory you immediately dismissed the research last time.

I don't dismiss anything, unless it's bullshit of course. When looking at projections that say 2 degrees increase by 2100 (76 years away) a deviation in the modelling from the actual of 0.3 degrees is important and many projections have been multiples of that inaccurate. In a time frame between projection and actual of less than 10 years. If the projections are out by 10%+ in 10 years then how much are they out in 76 years?

Just one example that I have used previously, a 2019 assessment from Harvard University of the IPCC FAR projection from 1988 to 2017 which was 0.61 degrees compared to the actual of 0.38 degrees. More recent IPCC SAR 0.47/0.42, IPCC TAR 0.35/0.46, IPCC AR4 0.48/0.51, yes they are under as often as they are over.
Source;
(ttps://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf)

Of course any deviation is blamed on "forcings", but there are always going to be forcings and the projections of the forcings themselves is always going to be unreliable.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Philistine]

I don't dismiss anything, unless it's bullshit of course. When looking at projections that say 2 degrees increase by 2100 (76 years away) a deviation in the modelling from the actual of 0.3 degrees is important and many projections have been multiples of that inaccurate. In a time frame between projection and actual of less than 10 years. If the projections are out by 10%+ in 10 years then how much are they out in 76 years?

Just one example that I have used previously, a 2019 assessment from Harvard University of the IPCC FAR projection from 1988 to 2017 which was 0.61 degrees compared to the actual of 0.38 degrees. More recent IPCC SAR 0.47/0.42, IPCC TAR 0.35/0.46, IPCC AR4 0.48/0.51, yes they are under as often as they are over.
Source;
(ttps://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf)

Of course any deviation is blamed on "forcings", but there are always going to be forcings and the projections of the forcings themselves is always going to be unreliable.


Always a Bulldog

The kernel of truth that underpins all of the doomsday projections is that carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. It offers very little resistance to the high energy radiation entering our atmosphere from the Sun, and a greater resistance to the lower energy radiation being reflected from the Earth back to outer space. Increasing the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will produce a warming effect. How much warming effect? It was calculated to be a 1.1oC rise in global mean temperature per doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If the present 400 ppm rises to 800ppm, we get a 1.1oC rise. If the CO2 concentration rises to an unlikely 1600 ppm, we will get 2.2oC, and so on.

Of course there’s a catch (there always is). The calculation assumes that, when the CO2 in the atmosphere rises and produces its warming effect, all of the other factors that contribute to the global mean temperature remain the same, and this is not necessarily the case. If, for example, our 1.1oC rise causes the polar ice cap to shrink, we lose the reflective power of the ice that has melted, and the warming effect increases. There is a whole array of factors that can impinge on this 1.1oC figure, and they are poorly understood, even by those who self-present as experts. They tend to get lumped together under the heading of “radiative forcing”, and the value attributed to radiative forcing is whatever the investigator wants it to be. This is why we have had these end-of-days forecasts. The investigators have plucked radiative forcing values of 3X, 4X, etc. from their nether regions to support whatever message they are pushing, and they have not been made to justify their numbers.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I don't dismiss anything, unless it's bullshit of course. When looking at projections that say 2 degrees increase by 2100 (76 years away) a deviation in the modelling from the actual of 0.3 degrees is important and many projections have been multiples of that inaccurate. In a time frame between projection and actual of less than 10 years. If the projections are out by 10%+ in 10 years then how much are they out in 76 years?

Just one example that I have used previously, a 2019 assessment from Harvard University of the IPCC FAR projection from 1988 to 2017 which was 0.61 degrees compared to the actual of 0.38 degrees. More recent IPCC SAR 0.47/0.42, IPCC TAR 0.35/0.46, IPCC AR4 0.48/0.51, yes they are under as often as they are over.
Source;
(ttps://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf)

Of course any deviation is blamed on "forcings", but there are always going to be forcings and the projections of the forcings themselves is always going to be unreliable.


Always a Bulldog

So basically you're saying that the IPCC are bullshit. The CSIRO are bullshit. Nature journal, Science Mag, NASA, all bullshit?

They've all accepted these findings but I should ignore them and listen to you?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The kernel of truth that underpins all of the doomsday projections is that carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. It offers very little resistance to the high energy radiation entering our atmosphere from the Sun, and a greater resistance to the lower energy radiation being reflected from the Earth back to outer space. Increasing the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will produce a warming effect. How much warming effect? It was calculated to be a 1.1oC rise in global mean temperature per doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If the present 400 ppm rises to 800ppm, we get a 1.1oC rise. If the CO2 concentration rises to an unlikely 1600 ppm, we will get 2.2oC, and so on.

Of course there’s a catch (there always is). The calculation assumes that, when the CO2 in the atmosphere rises and produces its warming effect, all of the other factors that contribute to the global mean temperature remain the same, and this is not necessarily the case. If, for example, our 1.1oC rise causes the polar ice cap to shrink, we lose the reflective power of the ice that has melted, and the warming effect increases. There is a whole array of factors that can impinge on this 1.1oC figure, and they are poorly understood, even by those who self-present as experts. They tend to get lumped together under the heading of “radiative forcing”, and the value attributed to radiative forcing is whatever the investigator wants it to be. This is why we have had these end-of-days forecasts. The investigators have plucked radiative forcing values of 3X, 4X, etc. from their nether regions to support whatever message they are pushing, and they have not been made to justify their numbers.

Radiative forcing has to be explained in research. They don't just say, "radiative forcing". They explain the factors that account for the effect.

It's like handing in math test and just showing the answer. It's not accepted so you have to show your working. Same goes for radiative forcing. They don't just use whatever they want. They use formulas that evolve when more factors are added into the calculation.

 

[Doogie]

Just saying. Modelling anything stochastically is fairly easy but the predictive power is highly dependent on the same size. As we have a sample size of bugger all for climate change, a deterministic approach is required.

This kind of modelling is very dependent on the quality of your input data and your understanding of the interrelationships. And you can build feedback loops into your modelling approach. However, due to the complexity of modelling an entire planet, these guys use a combined approach. Now thats ok but you are then subject those feedback loops having minimal influence on the stochastic part of your modelling approach. Which then leads you to having to over characterise the influence of said feedbacks. This can cause significant changes in model output because you have little data with which to train this part of the model.

Radiative forcing is one such feedback loop.

I just find this whole argument stupid. The earths temps are going up. The cause of that is humanity. This is not in dispute. Just because someone cannot tell you whether the planet is completely fckd in 50 or 500 years shouldn't change a thing. But apparently it does - always good to kick the can down the road to the grandkids, grandkids eh?

 

[Philistine]

Radiative forcing has to be explained in research. They don't just say, "radiative forcing". They explain the factors that account for the effect.

I don't want explanations, I want reliable measurements. The example I gave of the polar ice cap melting - that was an explanation! How would you set about measuring its effect? There are myriad factors that might or might not contribute to radiative forcing. How do you put numbers on them?

 

[TwinTurbo]

So basically you're saying that the IPCC are bullshit. The CSIRO are bullshit. Nature journal, Science Mag, NASA, all bullshit?

They've all accepted these findings but I should ignore them and listen to you?

That was a long bow you drew there, where did I say they were bullshit?

Of course you make your own judgement. I haven't made mine yet.


Always a Bulldog