Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

Forums › Off topic › Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453698 19-Dec-2015 23:38

Technofreak:
JWR: Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

I think you'll find some have been bought.

JWR: Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

No one says there are any stupid ideas. Both sides of the coin can provide peer reviews that stack up

JWR:Evidence is what counts... not opinion.

It's hows the evidence is presented and or analysed that really counts. So often evidence that doesn't support a point of view is discarded.

Geektastic:

The problem is that science is also run like a democracy. Not every scientist believes in global warming being caused by humans. However because a majority do, it must be so.

There's no actual reason to assume the majority are correct and not the minority. Both sets are educated scientists with their own interpretations of the 'evidence'.

There in lies the problem, interpretation. It's not uncommon to hear of a patient getting a second medical opinion only to get a different diagnosis from the first one.

What about the predictions of calamities from years past Have a look here http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/ Things like Over population, Mass starvation, Mass extinction, none of which actually happened.

No wonder there's sceptism about what's causing climate change and how bad it will be.

Not to mention all the religions who have promised us that the end of the world is next Thursday/ week/ month/ year !

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8872 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1453740 20-Dec-2015 03:37

MikeAqua: Poor old King Cnut. So mis-understood ...

MikeB4: ....any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

.... like the confusion of Bob Cunis, NZ cricketer of the 1970's.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453758 20-Dec-2015 08:37

frankv: The climate control issue is more political/economic than scientific.

The science questions are (a) is the climate changing? and (b) what can we do about it?

The answers seem to be (a) yes, and (b) not much, unless we spend a huge amount of money on it.

(NB: Whether the change is natural or man-made is irrelevant... the same types of decisions would need to be made regardless).

Economically, the questions are (a) who should pay? and (b) how much?

The obvious answers are (a) who would lose something if it happens, and (b) a bit less than they would lose if it did happen multiplied by the probability of it happening. But this is a bit difficult to estimate: e.g. if climate change caused the Gulf Stream to change direction, the consequences would be near enough to unpredictable, but likely to be enormous. Also the loss of trading partners may mean that there are indirect consequences (e.g. NZ becomes too warm for efficient dairy production is way bad for NZ, but also bad for everyone who currently buys dairy products from us).

Politically, this is far more difficult. The people who will lose the most are poor (sub-Saharan Africans, Bangladeshis, Pacific islanders). Most (all?) of the likely losers aren't even born yet. The rich and powerful got that way by doing the things that the rest want to do (e.g. burn coal)... climate change would be a convenient way to expand the economic power of the rich club. The rich can insulate themselves from the bad consequences by essentially doing more of the same (more electricity to run more air conditioners, for example, or burn fossil fuels for energy to build seawalls, jet fuel for holidays in cooler climes). Some countries may even gain from global warming (e.g. if some Pacific nations are wiped out, vast areas of the ocean become open slather for exploitation by other nations. Currently-cold places become more habitable).

That wont happen. As the water temps become less variable, the great water conveyor slows as it goes around the world from warm to cold areas. It also slows the effect of water sinking and rising, as the temp variation is less. One day it would stop. Sea water becomes stagnant as the oxygen dissipates, exacerbated by ocean life deaths and decomposition.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453760 20-Dec-2015 08:46

Technofreak:
JWR: Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

I think you'll find some have been bought.

JWR: Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

No one says there are any stupid ideas. Both sides of the coin can provide peer reviews that stack up

JWR:Evidence is what counts... not opinion.

It's hows the evidence is presented and or analysed that really counts. So often evidence that doesn't support a point of view is discarded.

Geektastic:

The problem is that science is also run like a democracy. Not every scientist believes in global warming being caused by humans. However because a majority do, it must be so.

There's no actual reason to assume the majority are correct and not the minority. Both sets are educated scientists with their own interpretations of the 'evidence'.

There in lies the problem, interpretation. It's not uncommon to hear of a patient getting a second medical opinion only to get a different diagnosis from the first one.

What about the predictions of calamities from years past Have a look here http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/ Things like Over population, Mass starvation, Mass extinction, none of which actually happened.

No wonder there's sceptism about what's causing climate change and how bad it will be.

Thats the thing. We read statements like this on a forum of non scientists. All of a sudden, its a fact. Its an opinion of the poster. So many such statements are in this thread that are purported by the grammar, to be fact. In my opinion, from the years of interest in this topic, Ive seen the scepticism ratio decrease markedly, as science pushes forward on it. Anecdotal yes. Many feel that as the earth has natural cycles, that this is just one of those. It is actually, but the piece on top that has increased this warm cycle is caused by us since the industrial revolution. Adding massive amounts of smoke, CFC's, CO2, farming is a part re methane, reducing the earth's ability to take in CO2 and expel O by way of deforestation. Fossil fuel burning, jet aircraft, cars, these are pumping out 24/7. Our earth is wrapped in H4 batts

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453773 20-Dec-2015 09:15

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

Seems the ratio of sceptics is about 3%. Squeaky Wheel Syndrome?

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1453782 20-Dec-2015 09:52

I highly recommend watching John Oliver's episode on Climate change

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453793 20-Dec-2015 10:35

Humorous. And factual. A great point is the debate between one scientist and one sceptic. A 50/50 debate, misleading. I just washed the vid from my own link, all science.

So, me, I feel the science is in. Thats not up for debate, the question is what do we do about it? Why I asked earlier if there is any data on what the trillion is made up of. Its not about reducing emissions, its about replacing emissions. Nuclear, solar, fusion, wind, tides. There are ways to make the wheel turn. (as in electricity production) Lifestyle. Do we need a cruise ship burning a gallon every 20 metres or can we use a smaller sail based cruise ship? Creative, innovative.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

17155 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1454076 20-Dec-2015 22:26

The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1454082 20-Dec-2015 22:37

gzt: The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

The question around "binding" is how would anyone enforce something that was binding?

If country cheats - as NZ is already cheating - what do you do? Invade them?

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454089 20-Dec-2015 22:56

gzt: The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

What on earth was the cost of getting "an agreement to meet and review"?

Could have done that with a few phone calls!

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454090 20-Dec-2015 22:57

Linuxluver:
gzt: The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

The question around "binding" is how would anyone enforce something that was binding? If country cheats - as NZ is already cheating - what do you do? Invade them?

Also, how can we possibly exclude agriculture?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454177 21-Dec-2015 09:03

Linuxluver:
gzt: The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

The question around "binding" is how would anyone enforce something that was binding?
If country cheats - as NZ is already cheating - what do you do? Invade them?

Have you never heard of Japan and whaling?

gzt

17155 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1454752 21-Dec-2015 19:34

Linuxluver:
gzt: The trillion claim is possibly silly.

The Paris agreement contains not a lot of binding stuff anyway. For the most part is an agreement to meet again and review.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first time every country membership of the UN have made a single agreement together, but it is only a starter. Nothing really binding on the carbon side.

The big hope of most nations is a combination of technical change towards low carbon tech, and as yet unrealised carbon removal technologies.

It is a mighty challenge there is no doubt of that.

The question around "binding" is how would anyone enforce something that was binding?
If country cheats - as NZ is already cheating - what do you do? Invade them?

The non-binding nature of it does not bother me.

Yeah it would be nice if they could sort it out but the non-binding nature just shows they cannot. Politically it is a very difficult problem. It would require the politicians to go against the money flow and realistically that is unlikely.

That means the only thing we can do is focus on this as a technical challenge and get it solved.

This really long technical article gives an overview of where we are at now with technical solutions:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114005450

Ie; we have a really really long way to go. Personally I am confident we can get there.

This is a technical problem we really need to focus on and find solutions. Imho this should be compulsory teaching material and discussed in schools.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5