Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28569 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #615 on: May 23, 2019, 10:17:38 am »
Canada has the highest emissions per capita in the world. But that's a total divided by the number of people, and individual people are not really the source of our massive emissions: industries are.
Per capita emissions mean nothing. The atmosphere only only cares about absolute emissions. More importantly,few people care about CO2 emissions if the economy is not strong or if purchasing power decreases due to extra costs and/or higher taxes. Those two factors means it makes zero sense for Canada to adopt policies that are more aggressive that the US, China or India.

Emissions from the reporting facilities account for 41% of Canada's total GHG emissions
Again, does not mean much. Buildings are essential and they consume energy and that is not going to change. Energy already costs money so there is already an incentive to reduce wasted energy so the scope for reducing emissions though relatively low cost efficiency improvements is minimal. Zero emission buildings are accounting fictions that manipulate numbers to ensure the emissions needed to keep the building functional are counted against someone else's ledger. Any policy on buildings needs to focused on real emission reductions through deployment cost effective technologie. Setting targets simply encourages people to play games with accounting rather than actually reducing emissions.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 10:19:52 am by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #616 on: May 23, 2019, 11:30:44 am »
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.

Ah, no Tim, many climate models have been accurate and have done so by using a procedure called hindcasting, which means you look at the records over the past, say, thirty years and use that data to construct a future looking model. If we ignore that and just sit on our hands for the next thirty years we might just find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #617 on: May 23, 2019, 11:45:57 am »
Ah, no Tim, many climate models have been accurate and have done so by using a procedure called hindcasting
Hindcasting is glorified curving fitting and provides no meaningful validation of the models. The only scientifically valid way to demonstrate that the models have useful predictive ability is to show that they can accurately predict future events. Over the last 20 years they have failed to meet that criteria.

If we ignore that and just sit on our hands for the next thirty years we might just find ourselves in a spot of bother.
I am not saying we should do nothing. I am only saying that the climate models are unverifiable hypotheses and have not been shown to represent anything resembling the the real world.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #618 on: May 23, 2019, 12:26:26 pm »
Hindcasting is glorified curving fitting and provides no meaningful validation of the models. The only scientifically valid way to demonstrate that the models have useful predictive ability is to show that they can accurately predict future events. Over the last 20 years they have failed to meet that criteria.
I am not saying we should do nothing. I am only saying that the climate models are unverifiable hypotheses and have not been shown to represent anything resembling the the real world.

No, it's not "glorified curving fitting" ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, it's based on actual data collected through history and used to predict future events given similar conditions. In this particular case, when there is an obvious  correlation between increases in global temperatures concurrent with increased use of burning fossil fuels, you can predict what the future will bring given those same conditions. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #619 on: May 23, 2019, 12:43:18 pm »
No, it's not "glorified curving fitting" ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean
It means the models depend on a large number of tuning parameters that are adjusted to get a good fit with the historical record. It is circular logic to use the historical record to adjust the tuning parameters and then claim the match with the historical record is evidence that the models have predictive ability. This is a common problem with all computer models. Climate science is the only field where computer modellers try to absurdly argue that a match to the training dataset is evidence of correctness. This is just another example of how climate science does not deserve to be treated like other scientific fields where replicable experiments are possible.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 12:50:22 pm by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #620 on: May 23, 2019, 12:56:42 pm »
Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.

good to read you finally going full-on TonyWatts - full on conspiracy that those wascally scientists have been 'working the temperature data to falsify warming'!  ;D Hey, some time back I kind of washed my hands of your fantasy blog-world... did the/your guy ever publish and bring down the entirety of the network of world-wide temperature monitoring/analysis?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #621 on: May 23, 2019, 01:09:20 pm »
Well it showed up at the top when I hit CBC news' main page.  I will assume you are dead right that it's an algorithm that serves up the top story.  This means that somebody is willing to believe the story based on one study.  If it's not a CBC editor or web master then it's the audience.  Groupthink in any case.

your premise is nonsensical stooopid! There is an onus on the, as you say, "audience", to extend upon any information provided to them by the MSM. Or are you seriously advocating for "news media" to become the arbiter of real science versus false/fake science!  ;D Hey now, considering Harper's move to prevent scientists from talking directly to media/journalists, you should welcome any articles that actually quote real scientists - yes!
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #622 on: May 23, 2019, 01:15:43 pm »
It means the models depend on a large number of tuning parameters that are adjusted to get a good fit with the historical record. It is circular logic to use the historical record to adjust the tuning parameters and then claim the match with the historical record is evidence that the models have predictive ability. This is a common problem with all computer models. Climate science is the only field where computer modellers try to absurdly argue that a match to the training dataset is evidence of correctness. This is just another example of how climate science does not deserve to be treated like other scientific fields where replicable experiments are possible.

I guess deniers will continue to deny, regardless of the data showing otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #623 on: May 23, 2019, 01:16:48 pm »
which ones make your top/target list?

hey member TimG - again, notwithstanding your periodic conflation of replication & reproducibility, you've laid down a brazillion posts claiming that climate science can't be "replicated". And yet, when you're finally asked for specifics... for your top/target list, you ignore the request.

wait now, perhaps you missed the initial request... sending it again:

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #624 on: May 23, 2019, 01:19:56 pm »
I guess deniers will continue to deny, regardless of the data showing otherwise. I'll leave it at that.
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #625 on: May 23, 2019, 01:25:55 pm »
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.

"Naming calling"???

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8714
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #626 on: May 23, 2019, 01:38:07 pm »
Here's one that's more recent https://phys.org/news/2019-02-arctic-lakes-carbon.html

Seems legitimate and we're not hearing about it, although if you google you will find articles all over the place on both sides.

in its capacity as a 'partner' to phys.org, the article was provided/written by the University of Washington... the affiliated university of the study's lead authors. I note it has no citations as of this date, albeit it has only been a few months since its publication. Perhaps you could extend upon your worry and suggest how to get this into the mainstream media.

now, of course, there is a real problem with the single-study syndrome... but its typically attributed to fake-sceptics and deniers who charge forward after a single study comes forward to their liking/preference... not to mainstream media!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #627 on: May 23, 2019, 01:46:17 pm »
Per capita emissions mean nothing. The atmosphere only only cares about absolute emissions.
More importantly,few people care about CO2 emissions if the economy is not strong or if purchasing power decreases due to extra costs and/or higher taxes.
Nonsense again.
A LOT of Canadians have been VOLUNTARILY paying extra for products etc than are less damaging to the environment, sealong our houses, high efficiency heating, hybrid cars/EV's solar panels, etc to cut down on our own use of fossil fuels, carbon tax (without whining about it), etc.
I think maybe Conservatives always whine the most about environmental measures that cost them more, and Albertans in particular are feeling  let down, defensive and cranky about that right now.

Those two factors means it makes zero sense for Canada to adopt policies that are more aggressive that the US, China or India.
Again, does not mean much. Buildings are essential and they consume energy and that is not going to change. Energy already costs money so there is already an incentive to reduce wasted energy so the scope for reducing emissions though relatively low cost efficiency improvements is minimal. Zero emission buildings are accounting fictions that manipulate numbers to ensure the emissions needed to keep the building functional are counted against someone else's ledger. Any policy on buildings needs to focused on real emission reductions through deployment cost effective technologie. Setting targets simply encourages people to play games with accounting rather than actually reducing emissions.
[/quote]

I suggest you read up on Green Party policy to understand the measures they suggest. You are absolutely wrong that we can't improve efficiency of large buildings/facilities.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #628 on: May 23, 2019, 01:47:46 pm »
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.

Apparently it's the other way around. I do understand it must be difficult supporting the 3% of environmental scientific BS.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #629 on: May 23, 2019, 03:19:10 pm »
A LOT of Canadians have been VOLUNTARILY paying extra for products etc than are less damaging to the environment, sealong our houses, high efficiency heating, hybrid cars/EV's solar panels, etc to cut down on our own use of fossil fuels, carbon tax (without whining about it), etc.
Symbolic gestures. If reducing emissions was simply a matter of going without a latte for a week we would have solved it long ago. Real emission reductions require real sacrifices.

I suggest you read up on Green Party policy to understand the measures they suggest. You are absolutely wrong that we can't improve efficiency of large buildings/facilities.
If the measures are cost effective and don't involve accounting tricks then I am all for it. No need to waste if we don't need to.