A four step guide to Global Warming

[boomerang]

Must be a national election coming up!

 

[glenn1]

OK cool, I'm happy to agree that best theory which fits is scientifically accepted... That's kinda my thing as someone who subscribes to the scientific method.

Though I don't agree it's moot in any circumstances. And as smart as it might sound I really don't think anything you said adds to the discussion. I saw something about the timescales and something about "SUV"'s in "emerging world nations". Plus the concept of shaming those people.

Not really relevant.

It's relevant because this isn't just some academic and theoretical discussion about science. Rather the entire point of the science in this case would be to inform the inherently political discussions about what if anything we do about it should we accept the basic premise of climate change. This isn't a scientific topic that has little to no applicability with the lives of the average layperson like whether the Higgs Boson exists or not, we're talking potential economic and social changes that could completely change/disrupts the lives of billions in critical ways and that's true whether we act or not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you explain any of that?

Sea Level is a bit of a mess because not only is the water basin filling up, the shape of that basin (the land under and around it) is moving. There are great pains to attempt to account for all the changes to the shape of the oceans, let alone the volume of water contained within that ever changing shape.

 

[Thebobo]

Sea Level is a bit of a mess because not only is the water basin filling up, the shape of that basin (the land under and around it) is moving. There are great pains to attempt to account for all the changes to the shape of the oceans, let alone the volume of water contained within that ever changing shape.

Lol I want Taj to explain it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Lol I want Taj to explain it.

Opps. Cat's out of the bag now.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Can you explain any of that?

As a matter of fact I can. I have a degree in Geology which deals with the subject of isostatic and glacial rebound especially in regards to sea level rise.
Will I pontificate on the subject ? No.
Will I cut and paste inane and idiotic doctored graphs from skepticalscience ? No
Will i point you to an expert in climate science that routinely posts articles on the subject?
I just did.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As a matter of fact I can. I have a degree in Geology which deals with the subject of isostatic and glacial rebound especially in regards to sea level rise.
Will I pontificate on the subject ? No.
Will I cut and paste inane and idiotic doctored graphs from skepticalscience ? No
Will i point you to an expert in climate science that routinely posts articles on the subject?
I just did.

I have a measured IQ of 166, which is like billions on the internet.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I have a measured IQ of 166, which is like billions on the internet.

Yes and women are all svelte and beautiful, every guy has a big penis and a mansion and some people work at NASA.

 

[Paratus]

As a matter of fact I can. I have a degree in Geology which deals with the subject of isostatic and glacial rebound especially in regards to sea level rise.
Will I pontificate on the subject ? No.
Will I cut and paste inane and idiotic doctored graphs from skepticalscience ? No
Will i point you to an expert in climate science that routinely posts articles on the subject?
I just did.

So the answer is you can’t.

While you may or may not have a geology degree your demonstrated understanding of geology is such that there is no difference between you and someone without a degree.

Whose been linking to skeptical science?

So we can assume you agree with her published works on the increase in hurricane frequency due to climate change, her comment that “all things being equal more CO2 means more warming”, and this article which confirms the mass of the oceans is increasing at an increasing rate?

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation."

Guess who owns factcheck.org? You must love getting manhandled by me.

Direct from AP news

"Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn’t follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

https://apnews.com/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91

 

[Victorian Gray]

..

That one never gets tired.

 

[Vic]

That one never gets tired.

The people who believe that ostentatious displays of waste equate to wealth also don't understand that efficiency is the reason why their new Dodge Charger has twice as much horsepower and gets 3-4 times better gas mileage than the old ones.
In other words, they believe than any efforts to combat global warming will make them poorer, when in fact the opposite is true. Increases in efficiency from new technologies always lead to greater societal wealth.
But thinking like that can be counterintuitive (which is why it's called Jevons Paradox even though it's not a paradox), and the entrenched industries fighting the emergence of new, more efficient technologies work to make sure their messaging is as intuitive as possible.

 

[Paratus]

The people who believe that ostentatious displays of waste equate to wealth also don't understand that efficiency is the reason why their new Dodge Charger has twice as much horsepower and gets 3-4 times better gas mileage than the old ones.
In other words, they believe than any efforts to combat global warming will make them poorer, when in fact the opposite is true. Increases in efficiency from new technologies always lead to greater societal wealth.
But thinking like that can be counterintuitive (which is why it's called Jevons Paradox even though it's not a paradox), and the entrenched industries fighting the emergence of new, more efficient technologies work to make sure their messaging is as intuitive as possible.

Look at Porche who just beat the 35 year old lap record at the Nürburgring by almost a minute using the Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO.

It uses a battery system coupled with a 2.0L turbo and puts our 1160HP vs the 650 HP of the 2.65L turbo flat 6 of the original record holder.

I can’t see that power train being developed if there wasn’t a push for greater efficiency.

If you guys haven’t seen it check out the lap run. It looks lien someone recorded a Grand Turismo run and played it back at twice speed.
https://jalopnik.com/porsches-record-smashing-nurburgring-lap-video-looks-te-1827234367

 

[SP33Demon]

While it's good to correctly state the percentage of scientists who agree with something, science still isn't a popularity contest and thus the percentage agreeing with a particular proposition is relevant but barely. If 99.99999999999999999% of scientists agree with a theory for which there's little evidence but represents what's thought to currently be the best fit to explain the observations then that theory will be well-agreed with but not robust.

This is all a sideshow anyway, even if one stipulates to climate change that doesn't by itself oblige everyone to accept any and all proposals to mitigate it. Do you think the 3rd world will agree to remain non-industrialized in order to prevent releasing some more carbon into the air? Do you think people are going to agree to abandon their cars, or all go vegan, or even really agree to pay large scale carbon taxes or whatnot? People will agree with peripheral changes that don't really impact their lifestyles. When/if technology advances so that people actually see "climate change fighting" products as being better alternatives then they'll be adopted without government prompting. Currently there's some key technology pieces missing (like battery storage) or the products aren't fit for purpose for most users (e.g. range too short, etc) and thus you can scream "global warming" all day long until the cow farts turn us into Venus and nobody will change much if at all.

Yes it's not a popularity contest but it still holds weight via the appeal to authority rules of debate (Trump used this to his advantage many times during his debates). Appeals to authority hold clout.

I agree with your realist POV. People are concerned about finding a job, climate change is for the birds. Yet Dems still feel the need to push it like it's going to swing a vote. It's not.

Oh btw, I'm also looking into getting a plug-in car (Volt with a 53 mile electric only range). Why? Because I love coal more than OPEC (not to mention it pays me $500/yr to drive on the price diff alone).

 

[SP33Demon]

..

You're forgetting one thing Vic: Who is going to fund this shit? We go around and around with these ridiculous wishlists like free college, healthcare, and 100% renewables. I'd rather be a realist than idealist and Trump gets what is most important to voters. It's not climate change, even if it is actually happening. Nobody gives a shit when their life has no purpose and they're sitting on their couch wondering which pills will kill them the fastest since they have no self worth (which a job would ameliorate).

 

[SP33Demon]

Look at Porche who just beat the 35 year old lap record at the Nürburgring by almost a minute using the Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO.

It uses a battery system coupled with a 2.0L turbo and puts our 1160HP vs the 650 HP of the 2.65L turbo flat 6 of the original record holder.

I can’t see that power train being developed if there wasn’t a push for greater efficiency.

If you guys haven’t seen it check out the lap run. It looks lien someone recorded a Grand Turismo run and played it back at twice speed.
https://jalopnik.com/porsches-record-smashing-nurburgring-lap-video-looks-te-1827234367

It's not relevant to the discussion since hybrids are ALWAYS more than the gas version. Sure, it'd be great to drive a Tesla with the Ludicrous option that grants 2.4 0-60 times, but who's paying that crazy amount when they can buy a gas 'Vette that will get a little over 3sec 0-60 for half the cost and virtually the same performance? Unless you're drag racing it doesn't matter. My point is that gas hp is simply cheaper, and cheaper usually wins when talking about what an entire populace can afford vs what they want.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not relevant to the discussion since hybrids are ALWAYS more than the gas version. Sure, it'd be great to drive a Tesla with the Ludicrous option that grants 2.4 0-60 times, but who's paying that crazy amount when they can buy a gas 'Vette that will get a little over 3sec 0-60 for half the cost and virtually the same performance? Unless you're drag racing it doesn't matter. My point is that gas hp is simply cheaper, and cheaper usually wins when talking about what an entire populace can afford vs what they want.

Have you figured out yet why you cited someone as saying climate data was tampered with who unequivocally said climate data was not tampered with? I mean for a reason other than being stupid and gullible.

Just wanted to check in on that one.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh btw, I'm also looking into getting a plug-in car (Volt with a 53 mile electric only range). Why? Because I love coal more than OPEC

Why? Because I love coal more than OPEC

coal more than OPEC

coal

You know nothing, SP33Demon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While it may be fun, there are people un the world who are not able to properly evaluate scientific data. It may be due to any combination of intelligence, knowledge or emotional temperment. Of these three only knowledge can be addressed. In this thread the latter is the most significant in the sense of "our minds are are already made up so don't confuse us with facts". Naturally that's not how those individuals would state it, but their ideological and political dispositions hamstring their abilities to make judgements.

 

[fskimospy]

While it may be fun, there are people un the world who are not able to properly evaluate scientific data. It may be due to any combination of intelligence, knowledge or emotional temperment. Of these three only knowledge can be addressed. In this thread the latter is the most significant in the sense of "our minds are are already made up so don't confuse us with facts". Naturally that's not how those individuals would state it, but their ideological and political dispositions hamstring their abilities to make judgements.

Yes. We have a situation here where Speedy cites a person as a source for saying there is data tampering going on. When literally the exact same guy comes out and says there was no tampering he doesn’t believe it. That’s someone who is so far gone into la-la land there is no reaching him.

 

[Commodus]

It's not relevant to the discussion since hybrids are ALWAYS more than the gas version. Sure, it'd be great to drive a Tesla with the Ludicrous option that grants 2.4 0-60 times, but who's paying that crazy amount when they can buy a gas 'Vette that will get a little over 3sec 0-60 for half the cost and virtually the same performance? Unless you're drag racing it doesn't matter. My point is that gas hp is simply cheaper, and cheaper usually wins when talking about what an entire populace can afford vs what they want.

Actually, many people are paying that crazy amount.

Chevy delivered 25,097 Corvettes in 2017. Sounds good, right? Well it would, except that Tesla delivered 101,312 Model S and Model X vehicles in 2017, most of which were Model S units. It didn't break down production by variant; most Model S cars are probably 75D or 100D models, but I wouldn't make any definitive statements.

So yes, the Corvette is cheaper, but plenty of people are willing to pony up for the Model S. And we're now in a situation where they don't have to pay Model S money, since a Model 3 with a performance package is in spitting distance of Chevy's offering in terms of acceleration (and will be cheaper to run). That, I think, is what we should focus on -- that EV performance per dollar is improving at a much faster pace than gas-powered cars.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

1) Give grants to academic institutions on a massive scale the caveat being that government retains the patents.

2) R&D are likewise funded for promising technologies as determined by experts who have a clue. They exist but would not be from corporate interests.

3) Final designs are licensed to companies for manufacture with strict financial oversight, or they can pass. A small royalty goes back to the developers in lieu of patents.

Storage technology, CO2 elimination, non-fossil alternatives, improved drivetrains, improved power topologies, the kitchen sink.

There ya go.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

1) Give grants to academic institutions on a massive scale the caveat being that government retains the patents.

2) R&D are likewise funded for promising technologies as determined by experts who have a clue. They exist but would not be from corporate interests.

3) Final designs are licensed to companies for manufacture with strict financial oversight, or they can pass. A small royalty goes back to the developers in lieu of patents.

Storage technology, CO2 elimination, non-fossil alternatives, improved drivetrains, improved power topologies, the kitchen sink.

There ya go.

https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-...st-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation

"During the 1961 address, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he included a few sentences about risks posed by a scientific-technological elite. He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

While continuing to respect discovery and scientific research, he said, “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
................................
"“This deepening dependence on scientific-technological elites is an inescapable condition, one that knows no party or ideology,” Sarewitz said. If Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of public policy becoming the captive of an elite, Sarewitz continued, “what he appeared not to anticipate was that ‘elite’ should be plural, that there were elites to be mobilized on behalf of competing or even contradictory ideological and political goals.”

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-...st-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation

"During the 1961 address, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he included a few sentences about risks posed by a scientific-technological elite. He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

While continuing to respect discovery and scientific research, he said, “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
................................
"“This deepening dependence on scientific-technological elites is an inescapable condition, one that knows no party or ideology,” Sarewitz said. If Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of public policy becoming the captive of an elite, Sarewitz continued, “what he appeared not to anticipate was that ‘elite’ should be plural, that there were elites to be mobilized on behalf of competing or even contradictory ideological and political goals.”

And the Manhattan project completes in 20 more years.

This is a matter of scientific and technological challenges. Politics can either hinder or help but the best thing they can do is not tell Fermi how to think.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

And the Manhattan project completes in 20 more years.

This is a matter of scientific and technological challenges. Politics can either hinder or help but the best thing they can do is not tell Fermi how to think.

Along with political and scientific elites paid for with public money.




https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/12/the-politics-of-knowledge/

"JC reflections

Jasanoff raises some important points. Scientific ‘facts’ are being used as a political weapon. Unfortunately, there is widespread confusion about what constitutes socially relevant knowledge, with much purveying of truthiness and factiness. The sociology and politics of knowledge is a topic that deserves much reflection. I am particularly heartened to hear how Jasanoff is educating her students."