On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>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. > Here is what I consider to be the most serious red flag: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg I have proposed that AGW may trigger global cooling on several lists based on the Vostok ice core data without any response except on the Climate Change Forum where a climatologist presented the above link to a comparison of that data (and some supporting climate data) to the solar isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles and claimed that those cycles explained the cusp-like Vostok data. I would like youall to look at the comparison on that link and tell me if you think the cycles explain the data. I of course do not think so. Yet the climatologists, almost all as far as I can tell, have been claiming for years that ice age data is explained by Milankovitch cycles. So I can only presume that I am missing something. Richard > > >> >> I do not believe in conspiracy either... >> > > I don't understand this position. 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. > > >> 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. > > 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. > > 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. > -- 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.
