Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
This carbon thing is relevant palm. The coal based electricity market is LNGs opportunity. It's a big market. LNG is the cleanest choice by far. It's also more efficient than coal. The combined cycle turbines that get 60% efficiency can use oil or NG. I don't think they can use coal. NG is also about as clean as it gets. On the other hand coal is cheap and it's a lot cleaner these days if the scrubbers are turned on.
This discussion is relevant.
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
Ok; solve the issue then in 5 posts or less. I dare you.
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
I don't think China is going to hurt it's economy over this issue. Here is an EIA report on Chinese coal use.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22972
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
3
Many well-meaning people have adopted the agenda and join in calling people that disagree various names and try to put them on the sidelines to silence their voices. We are witnessing that even here on SHU in this discussion. Lots of political correctness, inference and name assignments, but no facts.
Who is trying to silence you here?
As a matter of fact, the only thing that happened is that I disagree with you, then you were calling me stuff (politically correct, wearing tin hats, etc.)
And I did actually produce facts, like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have been pumping that into the air on an industrial scale since 1750, the CO2 content in the air has risen 40% since then, etc.
I also tried to show that your point of view critically hangs on a giant, rather unprecedented conspiracy theory involving most governments, most climate scientists, and now even the UN, etc. for the best part of three decades..
It's extraordinary unlikely:
-
Most governments would rather not hear climate science is real. Even on your own terms (governments just wanting to grow, redistribute, etc.), that would give them more resources to deal out and get reelected, rather than having to take unpopular measures to avert climate change or deal with the consequences.
-
Most climate scientists that think global warming is real work in publicly funded universities, yes. But do you know how these universities are actually funded (at least in democratic countries)? Earmarked funds for specific research is just a fraction, most universities are funded either lump sum or on the basis of some throughput measures (students, PhD's, etc.). A large part of the faculty is tenured, in most countries it's extraordinarily difficult to get rid of them, and they can basically write and research as they please.
-
I've asked you several times whether you can come up with any precedent of such an enormous conspiracy of science and government, even one on a much smaller scale. The only thing you came up with was Nazi Germany, which is telling in itself
-
Why stop at just climate science? Given the similar institutional setup, if we can't trust climate science, why can we trust other science? Are scientists in other fields, given the same institutional setup, also writing what they think is convenient for the government of the day?
-
Despite this conspiracy between science and government being on such a vast, near world-wide scale and going on for the best part of thee decades, is there actually any direct evidence of it?
There is a much simpler theory, rather than depending on outlandish motives and conspiracies and virtually no real hard evidence, it depends on strong motives and routine conspiracy and there is considerable evidence to back it up. Stay tuned.
Posts: 254
Threads: 36
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
29
The truth here is that computer models often are wrong when you are talking the scale of the earth and from my business activities they can be off on the very local level as well if the data input is off ever so slightly. They cannot even predict Hurricanes accurately year to year. So you take the information you have and make assumptions and projections. Again I point to a Newsweek article in the 1970's that stated we are starting a mini ice age. Wrong! So we could be experiencing man made global warming but, I think having a healthy skepticism is not a bad thing. It is not a slam dunk and questioning the hypothesis is a good thing. Likewise the naysayers are only asking these questions to ensure our government and other governments are not over reaching on this issue. There are a lot of dollars at stake and significant economic impact. Finally, it is very likely coal will be out of business for most large power plants in the US in the next few decades. Let's have our brother and sister humans in India and China follow suit as well as the third world countries. This topic gets manipulated whichever side you fall on. But more gas is good for IOC. Gotta keep the topic relevant.
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
3
Again I point to a Newsweek article in the 1970's that stated we are starting a mini ice age. Wrong! So we could be experiencing man made global warming but, I think having a healthy skepticism is not a bad thing.
Maybe both computers and the models have improved a tad since the 1970s and yes, maintaining healthy skepticism, I'm all in favor of that (this is actually a basic character of science and crucial to the way it advances understanding of our world).
But..
Assuming governments (basically all of them, for 3 decades) have a motive to coax scientists (the majority of them, many with tenure who can write as they please) into fooling the larger public that climate change is real seems unreal on so many dimensions.
For starters, motive. If climate change is real, it would force governments to take a raft of unpopular measures, divert resources, take on special interests. Why on earth would they want to do that if they knew it was all a hoax?
Life of governments would be much easier if climate change didn't happen, they could avoid having to take on special interest, have more resources for popular causes that get them reelected, avoid having to take unpopular measures, etc. etc.
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
The public gets fooled all the time without big conspiracies.
Tulips
dotcoms
Gulf of Tonkin
Hurst and the Spanish war
Hurst and the DEA
Tea Pot Dome
It goes on and on.........
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
3
The public gets fooled all the time without big conspiracies.
Indeed, but the question is, who is doing the fooling here? Some here argue that there is a giant, near world-wide conspiracy involving most governments, most scientists, to hoist climate change on an unsuspecting public. And it has been going on for decades.
I think there is no proof for this, there is certainly no precedent for anything remotely similar (not even one on a considerably smaller scale) and no motive.
Climate change would force governments to incur costs today for benefits in a fairly distant future (generations away).
We know from other examples (pensions, debt and deficits, structural reforms, tax reforms, taking on special interests, etc.) that this is exactly the type of situations governments are NOT good at. They want exactly the opposite, benefits now, and costs later, the later the better.
Why would climate change be any different?
Why would governments, not just this government, basically all of them, bring this on themselves, voluntarily, in an effort to fool the wider public and in cohort with a majority of scientists over which they hold little leverage?
It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Posts: 615
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
122
Not a conspiracy....It's is mistake in the math of the climate change model, says Perth, Aus, EE/mathematician.
http://www.australiannationalreview.com/...discovery/
A Perth-based engineer says he has debunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change.
Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, believes the famous modelling of climate change is far more dramatic than the truth and claims he has found an error in the equation’s application, American-born Australian columnist Miranda Devine wrote in an opinion piece for Perth Now.
Dr Evans, who holds six degrees in mathematics including two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering and one in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney, has discovered that even though the underlying physics of the basic climate model is correct, it has not been applied correctly. After fixing two mistakes, the man found that the climate’s vulnerability to carbon dioxide is not as severe as it was previously thought.
According to Dr Evans, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has exaggerated future global warming. In reality, the carbon dioxide is “about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.” The engineer said that carbon dioxide is not driving the climate and explained that it is actually responsible for “less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades.” Dr Evans is convinced his discovery “ought to change the world,” but mentioned that the political obstacles are huge.
Dr Evans’ theory explains why the climate models used by the IPCC have not predicted the pause in global warming, which has been ongoing for the past 18 years, Devine wrote. The engineer revealed that carbon dioxide causes insignificant warming and opined that the climate is mostly driven by factors which cannot be controlled by people. Plus, even though scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in carbon dioxide would be followed by changes in temperature, the records over the past half million years demonstrate this is not the case.
After learning that carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming, Dr Evans has been actively trying to find the real culprit. According to the engineer, solar activity may be the actual cause of global warming, an idea that was emphasized by a NASA study in 2009. The research report from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland looked at climate statistics over the past 100 years and judged that solar variation has had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate.
Although the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on climate warming and cooling patterns, it quickly returned to the argument that man is responsible for climate change.
Dr Evans judged that global temperatures will begin to cool significantly beginning between 2017 and 2021. British astrophysicists have recently managed to develop an accurate model of predicting the solar activity fluctuations with an accuracy rate of 97 per cent. The model demonstrates that the magnetic waves inside the Sun will become increasingly more desynchronized during the next couple of cycles, particularly during cycle 26, which covers the decade between 2030 and 2040. Their results show that our planet could be heading for a “mini ice age” in the next 15 years. The findings were presented at the U.K.’s National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in early July
Dr Evans has been summarizing his results in a series of blog posts that can be found on his wife Joanne Nova’s blog The Skeptics Handbook. His work will be published as two scientific papers as soon as his series is completed.
- See more at: http://www.australiannationalreview.com/...d0yB7.dpuf
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
10-19-2015, 05:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2015, 05:45 AM by Palm.)
This whole thing is agreed upon theory. To use mathmateical models to try and simulate LT weather patterns is a bit of a reach. And it doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" to be wrong. History is full of examples of theories which were accepted as "fact" only to be proven wrong many years later. Our medical world is ripe with "facts" accepted one day which are wrong the next. LT studies are undertaken by the whole industry for things like cancer, which affects millions every year. There MUST be a cure. Maybe there is, but how long has that battle been fought only to fail or only be partially right?
Possible dire situations tend to create panic which generate studies and industries are born and die. Timetables have been put on the need to act on climate change and the assumption is that the models are correct. Hell the petroleum industry has been around for a lot longer than they've been studying climate change "threats" and you still have to drill the damn well before you "know" what is or isn't there. You'd think by now their models would be perfect and you'd NEVER have a dry hole. I believe a lot of math goes into those models.
Doesn't mean it's a worldwide conspiracy; just could mean, as in many cases, the models aren't perfect and likely are quite a bit off. Almost absurd that we think these models could be spot on.
This paper discusses much of this and is why I think as we move along these models used for CC will prove to be wrong for the LT.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a...Models.pdf
|
