On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected]> wrote:
2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected]> wrote:
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark <[email protected]>:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected]> wrote:
The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't
sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never
heard of RCP either.
For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"
I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?
I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this...
As I see we are in a thread talking about climate...
This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John
seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a
scientific and technological perspective.
He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture
distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all
of the attention.
The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let
persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in
these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these.
I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be
able to have an informed opinion.
But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and
over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias
and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is
nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus
here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food
pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes.
In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For
me, the major ones are:
- claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science;
- claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system -
> I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this;
- scientists using emotional, loaded terms like "deniers";
- so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have
statistical significance;
- retroactive cherry picking of models;
- there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will
lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis;
Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags.
I agree with this. I also agree that, as long as we are carbon made,
and live on a planet, that we have to be utterly cautious in handling
our environment. I "fear" more pollution than climate change, but
those can be related.
I do not believe in conspiracy either...
I don't understand this position.
Nor do I. Since prohibition (of alcohol, and then cannabis), it is
clear for me that democracy is not immune against propaganda.
Biased by my quality of classical logician, perhaps, if someone lie
once, I stop trusting him. There are too much evidence of systematic
lies, notably in the food and drug domain.
Then in 2009 I heard about the NDAA bill, which was said to be in
preparation. I completely dismissed this as "conspiracy theories",
like for 9/11. But the 31 december 2011, Obama signed it, and his
administration refused to add the commas asked to clarify it, and I
change my mind: the war on terror now seems to me based on a fear
exploitation to make anti-constitutional and anti-democratic possible
moves.
In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event.
Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to
implement total surveillance.
Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any
suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power.
Absolutely. There is a general mocking of the very notion of
conspiracy, and that is a strong evidence of real conspiracy. When an
idea is mocked, instead of attempted to be refuted, you can suspect
some lies are there.
I have today more evidence that 9/11 was planned in advance by the US,
than for a "terrorist acts" by enemy of America. In fact, the
evidences have become overwhelming. Just look at all "investigation
crash": the one on the 9/11 planes does not ring like any other one.
The thinness of the NIST reports, like not mentioning the building
seven crashing, and the hardness to get any more information, makes
me suspecting that fear of terrorism is exploited in a very similar
way than the fear of drugs. Now, I do find some consensus on climate
change suspect, but this does not mean that there is no climate
change, but that some people are ready to exploit it, and we have to
be vigilant.
and all the comments about the "all or nothing" are complete BS... I
don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more
sustainable source of energy...
I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion.
I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal),
being destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power.
Meanwhile, more and more people are falling below the poverty line
while not even the middle class can afford to remain warm in winter
(energy is too expensive because 80% of the energy bill subsidises
the wind mills).
I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and
having a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just
that beliefs... not facts. The green parties in europe certainly
don't advocate such policies...
and certainly not in my country (belgium) can't talk much for other
countries, but they seems to be more or less the same views... No
one is advocating to transition tomorrow (as in tomorrow tomorrow)
to a full solar power (or other) and shut down all nuclear power
plants...
Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to
shut down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades.
This is due to political pressure from the green party amongst
others. Meanwhile, it is reactivating coal power plants (renewable
sources are just not enough) and air pollution in Berlin is already
measurably higher.
I agree too. If there is a pollution problem, the nuclear seems to
best option, in my non expert opinion, sure.
In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing
energy on principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I
know.
they are even people (green or not) considering the LFTR reactor we
were talking about... climate and policies arount the mitigation of
the global warming are not binary... either we do everything or
nothing.... even if we were really doomed, that's not a reason not
to try to mitigate things... even slowly, slow extinction seems
better than dying tomorrow... and starting today even if today we
thing we're doomed, doesn't mean tomorrow (and because we started
today) we won't find a solution escaping this predicted doom... so I
can't agree with an argument saying we should do nothing just
because new form of energy production cannot currently totally
replace the current form of production.
So, instead of forcing us to do things, why not encourage us to
invest in renewable energy tech companies? If the tech is viable, it
will generate a lot of revenue. No need to force anyone to do
anything. Do you think that capitalists prefer oil money to other
types of money?
If you can't even get investors (because the tech is not viable
yet), then this might be a good indication that doing it by coercion
will only serious human problems. Doing it slow will only lead to
misery slower.
OK,
Bruno.
Telmo.
Quentin
- Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority
of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how
confident can we be in further predictions?
- With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the
global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? What
would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for
wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard
numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary
to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on.
- What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs.
the probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable
sources would create a human catastrophe itself?
- Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be
too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering
geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold,
which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment?
Also this:
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning
Telmo.
using google correctly and not as an asshole... you would have found
what you were looking for (if you genuinely were looking for it...
but you weren't, you were trolling as usual). So blabla as usual...
no point arguing with you.
Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym "RCP" and that's
the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment.
Wikipedia has never heard of "Regional Climate Prediction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP
> (And I didn't know it before doing the search)
Who did?
> 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was
unable to do it
And still is.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
