Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Jun 2017 21:03

A_Gupta wrote:
sudarshan wrote:If you can fit it with piecewise linear curves, a quadratic would still do a decent job of showing the acceleration trend, right?


If you assume that the acceleration is a constant.



Doesn't have to be constant, if your aim is simply to estimate whether or not there is an acceleration factor. A quadratic should qualitatively reveal the presence of an acceleration factor, if it does a better job of fitting data than a linear trend. If the aim is to accurately estimate the acceleration, then yes, a quadratic would only work for this when the acceleration is constant.

Now my query is - where are these claims of 1 to 2 meters of sea level rise per century coming from?


Most of the sea level rise depends on what you predict for the fates of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.


OK, so the claims *are* based on model predictions. I think it's simply a question of - how much do you trust the computer models, then?

The issue is this:

* When it comes to experimental data, everybody believes them, except the person who collected the data
* When it comes to computer models, nobody believes them, except the person who built the model

While the lay public is often in awe of computer modeling, scientists who aren't directly in the field of interest, but in related fields, tend to be more skeptical - "what did you feed into your model? how did you validate it? what are your governing equations?" It comes down to this trust deficit, I think. I know the kind of approximations and assumptions that go into computer models (having built many such models myself), so I inherently trust measured data (having also done plenty of experimental investigations myself), such as the NOAA tidal data, much more than what I read about model predictions.

But my basic premise was this. Given that there are so many claims and counter-claims regarding climate change or sea levels or global warming, it should be possible for somebody who is not directly in the field, to tell who is right or who is wrong, by doing a few simple "truth tests" with available data and basic reasoning. That is where I was going, and that's why I was trying out the most basic tests with tidal data or other such available data to figure out which side of the debate was "truthful" and which one was propaganda.

I think my premise was flawed to begin with. There's some truth on both sides, and some propaganda on both sides. Simple "truth tests" aren't going to cut it here. They might help with revealing media bias and propaganda, but sorting out the presence or absence of propaganda in the science part of it with such simple tests isn't going to work.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Jun 2017 21:36

WRT Greenland ice. Here are the claims and counter-claims.

* Ice is melting from the edges faster than ever before
* Yes, but a team of Norwegian scientists has found that ice is actually building in the center of Greenland, more than offsetting the melt from the edges
* Maybe, but the models have already predicted this ice build in the center, even with a warming planet, so long as this warming is below 3 deg. C - once the warming goes beyond 3 deg. C, Greenland will melt away and we are all doomed

WRT Antarctica, here are the claims and counter-claims.

* Ice is melting away from Western Antarctica
* Yes, but it is building in Eastern Antarctica, and the build more than offsets the melt in the West, to the extent that it would actually lower sea levels by 0.25 mm every year
* Ah, but think of it this way - if the seas are rising so fast despite this ice build in Eastern Antarctica, then what other horrible things must be happening in other parts of the world, that we don't even know about??

So somebody not in the field has just to wait, Ram Bharose, 10 years or 20 to see who is right. But the cry is - "we don't have 10 or 20 years to wait around to see who is right, we have to do something now, what if the models are right after all?" So - Karmanyeva adhikaraste, I guess.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 06 Jun 2017 21:58

1. Whatever the cause, if enough land ice melts to raise the average sea level by a meter in the space of eighty years, the effects on the global economy will be huge and negative.


All this about "Climate Change" is ONLY about the human activity component. *Nothing else*.

IF the rise in temps is due to some natural cycle, there is really nothing humans can do. And, if humans can do nothing, then why have so many nations investing so much in "Climate Change". Then truly it is a hoax.

The Paris Accord, as an example, is collecting $20 billion (some of it for India, which is what Trump was railing about). Why do that if there is no human activity impact on "Climate Change"?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 06 Jun 2017 22:09

A_Gupta wrote:Image

Image


How do you reconcile the following (and you have to), considering they are really not that far apart:


Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 06 Jun 2017 22:53

^^^^^

Nice!!!! (Just a small quibble. Most of the world is rebounding.)

But, the point being, such exotic factors, do go into models about "Sea Level" rise/fall. This particular one has nothing to do with man and has to be discounted from any model that is seeking to see the impact of human activities.

On "there is no doubt" .................. all I can say is that the doubt is receding. I do not think we have definitive technologies to be (absolutely) certain. Yet. But, the topic is so complex, I am not sure we ever will.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 00:18

^^^^
Exactly.

It always surprises me that people expect for there to be proof that C02 emission is damaging the planet before something should be done.

You don't get to pee in the pool where everyone is swimming, even though in truth it is relatively harmless at low levels. Same as CO2.
-------------------

The main argument always comes down to the cost. The interior folks who are not that affected, want the coastal folks to pay for all the cost of cleaning up. The coastal folks want the interior folks to to quit polluting and drowning them. Personally I don't know who should pay for all this.

I do think the folks who built all those houses on the sea shore should pay more. But politically a non starter.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 07 Jun 2017 00:33

SriJoy wrote:2. There is no doubt that it is being driven by man. Doubt is receding for those who have a vested interest in denying man-made GW or do not have a technical background (or both), but for most in the scientific & technological community, its a virtual certainty.


Hmm, so back to the stance that anybody who questions the settled science is either an ignoramus, or has a vested interest? At least some people are honest about their stance.

Theo, the idea is that we go for renewables, go for greenhouse reduction, because that, like you said, is a good idea considering we're dumping so much into the atmosphere, but that, pending proof, we don't do anything drastic like sequestering the carbon under the ocean or (like that link A_Gupta posted) using giant machines to repave the Arctic and Antarctic with ice. Do we fully know the consequences of such drastic actions?

Renewables/ greenhouse reduction - go for it. Drastic measures on the presumption that CO2 is a demon gas - really? Don't you think that requires more investigation before pulling the trigger on those?

NRao ji, since you were involved with modeling these phenomena, just out of curiosity, how much do you trust the models you built or were involved with? Would you say that these models accurately captured phenomena like wind, ocean currents, incoming radiation and energy budget in general, tectonics, etc.? How much uncertainty would you say there was in input parameters, representation of governing equations, or estimated quantities? And how much validation typically goes into these models?
Last edited by sudarshan on 07 Jun 2017 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 07 Jun 2017 00:45

^^^^
Exactly.

It always surprises me that people expect for there to be proof that C02 emission is damaging the planet before something should be done.


It took us (scientists) 25 years to roll back lead in gasoline. We had records of kids suffering because of lead contamination, etc. But industry pressure on politicians would not allow us to roll back.

That is pretty much what is happening now. The rich want to make as much money as they can before the tide prevents them from making more.

Watch the coal industry. The segment making a ton will be the owners of these coal companies. Not the ave Joe. But the politician will tell and scream that he made available so many 1000s of jobs in coal.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 01:42

Srijoy,

The question would be what do you want to do about it. And how are you going to pay for it.

Despite what it may seem, other than the odd contrarian, no one even on the hard right believes dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. The arguments all come down to the cost, nature of the solution and who pays.
-------------------------

BTW WRT to the forest cover, way back in time during my childhood India was a non-fossil fuel economy and the rural folks had pretty much wiped out the forest cover to burn for cooking, heating purposes. The pollution was unbelievable. One of the unsung battles within official-dom back then was the fight to provide the poor with essentially free unlimited kerosene and now LPG. Once the poor abandoned fire wood and cow-dung for cooking/heating our forests and tree cover has improved quite dramatically. I can see it with my own eyes. The perpetual pall of blue smoke over our small villages and rural areas has disappeared.

The other side of this battle within Babu-dom was the gobbar gas crowd. Ultimately they won many thousands of crores which did create some small scale methane plants, but in the absence of a tax base and and any sort of economic return on investment, the entire experiment petered out.

You'd be surprised at what is saving forests sometimes.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Jun 2017 02:04

NRao wrote:How do you reconcile the following (and you have to), considering they are really not that far apart:
(graph of sea level falling)


Previous material that I've quoted on this thread constantly cautions that one needs to distinguish the global average sea level rise with the sea level rise at a particular location.
e.g., viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7122&start=600#p2165210
Suppose you're a mayor in Miami and you hear that the projections for Greenland ice melt are wrong, and they're going to be much greater in the next century. You have to worry much more than if you're a mayor in Nova Scotia. But then if you're talking about ocean currents, it's flipped," said Davis. "Wherever you live, you can't just go by these [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports that say global sea level rise is one number."



posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=2166067
Although sea level is rising globally, in some places it is rising more quickly than others, and in some places sea level is even falling. This type of local- and regional-scale sea level change is what is most important when talking about the impacts of sea level on people and communities and how to plan for and manage those impacts.

Different places will experience varying consequences of sea level change for many reasons:

* Some coastal areas are positioned high above sea level—such as Scotland, Iceland, and some parts of Alaska—while others are much closer to, or even below, sea level, such as New Orleans, Louisiana and much of the eastern United States. Coasts are constantly moving and changing, with inputs from tectonic plates.
* Local geology can make land more resistant or prone to becoming saturated with encroaching seawater and eroding away.
* When ice sheets melted, a great weight was removed from some areas. To understand what has been happening since, it helps to think of a person (like an ice sheet) sitting on a mattress (the land). When the person stands up (the ice melts), the part of the mattress underneath and close to the person springs back up; but the parts of the mattress far from the person sink back down. The same rising and sinking are still happening all over the world, even thousands of years after continental ice sheets have disappeared. This is called glacial isostatic adjustment.
* Prevailing winds and ocean currents can push water towards or away from the coast.


Some of the NASA material that you have linked to also makes the same caution.

The point of my particular example was not to prove global average sea level rise, but to point out how to look for an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. An acceleration merely means a change in rate; it does not mean a steady change in rate.

To your example of Stockholm, Sweden:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 73787.html
In contrast to worries from the Maldives to Manhattan of storm surges and higher ocean levels caused by climate change, the entire northern part of the Nordic region is rising and, as a result, the Baltic Sea is receding.

The uplift of almost a centimetre a year, one of the highest rates in the world, is part of a geological rebound that has been taking place since the end of the Ice Age removed a vast ice sheet from regions around the Arctic Circle. "It's a bit like a foam rubber mattress. It takes a while to return to normal after you get up," said Martin Vermeer, a professor of geodesy at Aalto University in Finland. Finland gains 2.7 square miles a year as the land rises.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 02:20

Srijoy,

Those are useful ideas on the ‘keep nature out’ theme. A valid option, but let’s be clear we are not saving the environment here. That delta region has been cleared off every trace of native mangrove or forest and is essentially a rice mono-culture right now. As far from nature as you can imagine. So then it comes down to is the cost worth saving for the agricultural output.

If you are going to raise the land by 50 feet, what happens to the drainage of the interior rivers? In TN there is a place called, Veeranam which supplies water to Chennai. Years back Dr JJ had decided to raise the level of the bund to store more water. But the danger of the back floods (during a flood the water gradient can be drastically different between 2 sides of a lake) means that the entire lake must be completely emptied now before the monsoon and during the monsoon anytime there is threat of heavy rain. Essentially it is now more dangerous to the residents than before.

Way back in time on BRF, during the nano-factory debate, the value of Ganges delta/coastal land was dissected from every angle possible. Eventually most agreed that the actual income from these lands was miniscule. Less than Rs 10,000 and acre per/year. So is the cost worth defending. You bring up a valuable point on the ‘liebensraum’ argument and the ‘sentiment’ argument. In which case should not the folks who need these things pay for it. If you are going to ask everyone else to pay for this then your arguments will have to become more powerful and persuasive. Would it not be cheaper to educate and industrialize these folks and move them away from the coasts. I bet it would be a lot cheaper and more useful for the nation.

Netherlands is a wealthy first world nation. The Ganges delta is very far from this. The tax base is not there to pay for this. More importantly tax is not there to maintain such a system. Even in the USA New Orleans is defended, the rest of the Delta, not so much. Entire towns have been abandoned to the sea as not worth defending.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Jun 2017 02:32

NRao wrote:
How do you reconcile the following (and you have to), considering they are really not that far apart:


Image


FYI, if one does the same procedure to this, dividing the time series into two approx 63 year segments, one gets:
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Stockholm
one gets
Jan 1889 - Dec 1952: -4.07 +/- 0.76 mm/year
Jan 1953 - Dec 2015: -3.20 +/- 0.95 mm/year

So Stockholm's post-glacial rebound is slowing, or the sea level is rising faster now and reducing the effect of the post-glacial rebound.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 03:01

Srijoy,

It is at that point that you start losing people and folks start saying there is no climate change at all.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have your sentiment respected and ignore other folks sentiments, however bewildering it may seem to you. This is the main reason why the entire denial thing sprang up.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 03:17

There are no affected states yet. Well maybe on the margins. So logically you should wait till something happens. Which is partly the denial point of view.

BTW there has been a hazzar floods in India. An entire Island was wiped out in TN along with all the people and a famous train accident. The Island has been abandoned and people moved elsewhere. Why not do the same? You are asking for something no one else has got so far.
-------------------

Your idea about raising the soil on the coasts is interesting. Have you done calculations to see how much soil might be needed. Quick math in my head tells me it is many orders of magnitude above what the Ganges would provide.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 07 Jun 2017 03:52

A 5% moisture content silt assays at a density of about 2.5 tonnes per m3. So 1 billion tonnes of of silt will have a compacted volume of .4 km3/year. So in 60 years you would get about .4x60 = 24 km3.

BTW you can not just take the silt out of the water as it is in sediment load balance based on velocity of flow. If you take out the silt out it will simply scour it from the land causing more problems. The best option is to redistribute the silt laden water through the delta. This is already being done, in fact must be done, as deltas are constantly compacting through the km's of sediment depth. Without constant renewal delta would slip beneath the waves.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Jun 2017 17:39

sudarshan wrote:WRT Greenland ice. Here are the claims and counter-claims.

* Ice is melting from the edges faster than ever before
* Yes, but a team of Norwegian scientists has found that ice is actually building in the center of Greenland, more than offsetting the melt from the edges
* Maybe, but the models have already predicted this ice build in the center, even with a warming planet, so long as this warming is below 3 deg. C - once the warming goes beyond 3 deg. C, Greenland will melt away and we are all doomed


Do you have pointers to the articles that make these specific claims?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5856
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 08 Jun 2017 03:14

On the same day when I was feeling sad due to US pulling out of Paris accord, I was encouraged to hear Modi tell the US reporter Megyn Kelly that India is going to lead and he gave an example of LED bulbs.

His data: 400,000,000,000 LED light bulbs have replaced the older one..

UK is getting there too.. It is going to import LED Bulbs from India - about 100,000,000 !

(I remember a few years ago, in a leadership conference, some of the scientists/engineers were trying to influence GOI -- even though LED bulbs were very expensive then but we were telling -- prices will go down and more over new industry of making LED lightbulbs will make India leader -- Now India has a big share of inexpensive LED market. --- Modi Government has been very good in providing good leadership and making things happen)

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jun 2017 06:41

A_Gupta wrote:
sudarshan wrote:WRT Greenland ice. Here are the claims and counter-claims.

* Ice is melting from the edges faster than ever before
* Yes, but a team of Norwegian scientists has found that ice is actually building in the center of Greenland, more than offsetting the melt from the edges
* Maybe, but the models have already predicted this ice build in the center, even with a warming planet, so long as this warming is below 3 deg. C - once the warming goes beyond 3 deg. C, Greenland will melt away and we are all doomed


Do you have pointers to the articles that make these specific claims?


Article from 2005, but still:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Obser ... 28print%29

From the article:

"There is clearly a need for continued monitoring using new satellite altimeters and other observations, together with numerical models to calculate the Greenland Ice Sheet mass budget," Johannessen added.

Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation.

Such models agree with the new observational results. However after that threshold is reached, potentially within the next hundred years, losses from melting would exceed accumulation from increases in snowfall – then the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet would be on.


Must be part of the same study - paper from 2003:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1294189/

And again, same group, from 2012, this time reporting elevation increase in Greenland from 1992 to 2006, and elevation decrease from 2006 to 2008:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp. ... er=5970115

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Jun 2017 08:59

The 2005 Johannessen et al paper is available here (PDF):
http://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.edu/ ... essen(2005)Science-Recent_Ice-Sheet_Growth_in_the_Interior_of_Greenland.pdf

Even in that 2005 paper, the last paragraph reads that their results do not rule out a net loss of ice over all of Greenland:

There are, however, caveats to consider.

First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes—let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change—for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1). It is conceivable that pronounced
ablation (e.g., 10,11) in low-elevation marginal areas could offset the elevation increases that we observed in the interior areas. Second, there is large interannual to decadal variability in the high-latitude climate system including the NAO, such that the 11-year-long data set developed here remains too brief to establish long-term trends. Therefore, there is clearly a need for continued monitoring using new satellite altimeters—including advanced ones with improved ice-sheet ranging in steeper coastal areas—and other remote-sensing and field observations, together with numerical modeling to calculate the mass budget through net losses and net input from snow.


The paper is based on radar altimetry using the satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2. There is a 2009 paper by the same group
https://www.nersc.no/biblio/merging-ers ... -ice-sheet
They find that their 2005 estimate is an overestimate:
Applying our new method used for assessment of biases to ERS-1 and ERS-2 measurements results in lowering by 1.3 cm/year our previous estimation of elevation change from 1992 to 2003 of 5.3 cm/year obtained using time series method [Johannessen et al., 2005]. Moreover because of excluding the areas with negative elevation change rates over cost in the North-East Greenland from the new estimation the difference between the results would be even larger.


In the meantime, the methods of measurement have increased, such as (2002) the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites that map the Earth's mass distribution; satellite laser altimetry (ICESat 2004), and airborne ice-penetrating radar.

The summary is that even during the period when the high elevation interior was gaining ice, Greenland as a whole was losing ice.
(2006) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986
(2008) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 34816/full
(2017) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ ... d-meltdown

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Jun 2017 20:23

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tudy-shows
India is now two and a half times more likely to experience a deadly heat wave than a half century ago, and all it took was an increase in the average temperature of just 0.5 degrees Celsius (less than 1 degree Fahrenheit), a new study shows.
...
The study also found that the number of heat wave days increased by 25 percent across most of India. Areas in the south and west experienced 50 percent more heat wave events, or periods of extreme heat lasting more than three or four days, in 1985-2009 compared with the previous 25-year period.

The paper is here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700066

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 15 Jun 2017 20:55

sudarshan wrote:how much do you trust the models you built or were involved with?


In financial parlance, capital is Tier 1 or 2 or 3. Tier 1 is marked to market, tier 2 is marked to models and tier 3 is marked to fantasy. Climate data at the moment is either tier 2 or 3. There is nothing directly linking the data to the current perceptible changes.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2017 23:30

panduranghari wrote:
sudarshan wrote:how much do you trust the models you built or were involved with?


In financial parlance, capital is Tier 1 or 2 or 3. Tier 1 is marked to market, tier 2 is marked to models and tier 3 is marked to fantasy. Climate data at the moment is either tier 2 or 3. There is nothing directly linking the data to the current perceptible changes.


* In The US, by law, all major cities (actually SMSAs) *have to* predict 25 years out. And we have been doing that for some 50 years or more
* BTW, Indian 5 year plans were the earliest forms - borrowed from the Soviets in the 30s. Yes pre-independence

* Models are only as good as the data. Which is why it makes climate change models so debatable. It is just that over time more and more have been "convinced", based on "models". Global climate models are perhaps the most challenging. So, *localized* models, such as mobile source emissions , are very accurate.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2017 23:33

Coal's major competition is ............................ natural gas.

Energy outlook: Coal 'collapses' by 2040, placing damper on Trump's agenda


Renewable energy is set to dominate the energy landscape over the next two decades, while coal use will lose more than 50 percent of its market to natural gas, solar and wind, according to the latest energy outlook released Thursday by Bloomberg's analytical wing.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 16 Jun 2017 06:43

panduranghari wrote:
sudarshan wrote:how much do you trust the models you built or were involved with?


In financial parlance, capital is Tier 1 or 2 or 3. Tier 1 is marked to market, tier 2 is marked to models and tier 3 is marked to fantasy. Climate data at the moment is either tier 2 or 3. There is nothing directly linking the data to the current perceptible changes.


I'm familiar with many of the mathematical building blocks of climate models, as well as some of the databases that would support these models, so I have a fairly good idea of how much I'd trust a global climate model (not a whole lot). Which is why I find it funny when international policy is decided based on these models. I also agree that there's not much link between data and recorded weather phenomena (which I believe is what you meant by "current perceptible changes").

I was just curious about NRao's take on how trustworthy the models were.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2017 08:05

I was just curious about NRao's take on how trustworthy the models were.


Short answers:

not very. That you and many others are skeptical is an expected response. And, it is a good response (for those building these models). More skeptics means better models down the road. (Wish Trump was as open minded.)

1)
* Modelling weather is complex - check out your local weather for rainfall. They provide a %age. IF they were sure, the predictions would have been binary - yes/no
* So, what to say about *global* weather models?
* Two observations: Models have improved over time (BUT they are still not good, just better than yesterday). And, more skeptics have crossed the line as time went by - this is not so much a testament to the models

2)
* Models - at the very least - are expected to replicate the past. This is THE most difficult part of modelling. NO weather model really is capable of doing this yet - else it would be very easy to predict the weather a day or two out with 90-95% accuracy
* Only a model that is capable of replicating the past can predict the future. The better fit of the past, the better predictability of the future
* The problem: While everyone has been beating up on this "model", the glaciers have been happily melting and arguably the sea level has been rising

3)
* The debate is about does man contribute to the "climate change"
* IF he does, then the likes of the Paris Accord needs a lot of attention (although I do not like that accord)
* IF he does NOT, then please become experts in building dykes all over the world. FOR SURE do not sit and discuss "models" - that is a waste of time. Invest your time in saving the coast, ensuring that humanity has enough to eat and water to drink, etc, etc, etc. Forget models

4)
* Model skeptics need to explain why the glaciers are melting at such a rate. These melts are real. Glaciers all across the world are melting faster than normal. NZ, Greenland, ....................... places where there are no industries that could contribute to such melts. OK, models are rotten. Now explain why such melts (and perhaps sea level rise and other matters)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2017 19:41


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2017 19:45

Meanwhile, slow progress:

U.S. Reports a Major Milestone in Wind and Solar Power



Ten percent of all of the electricity generated in the U.S. in March came from wind and solar power, marking the first such milestone in U.S. history, according to a new U.S. Energy Information Administration report.

The EIA estimates that wind and solar farms likely generated 10 percent of America’s electricity in April as well, which would be another first, according to the report.

This year’s milestone shows that renewables are becoming a major source of electricity in the U.S. and can no longer be considered “alternative” energy, said Christopher Clack, CEO of the power grid modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher.

The report’s findings represent a marked increased from March 2016, when wind and solar generated 8.6 percent of total U.S. electricity. Overall, about 7 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind and solar annually, up from less than 1 percent a decade ago. Texas is the country’s biggest wind power producer and California is the largest solar producer.

EIA analyst Owen Comstock said state renewables goals are one of the biggest reasons wind and solar are hitting milestones. Most states require a certain portion of their electricity to be generated from renewables, and some, such as California, are strengthening their renewables goals. California’s current goal is to obtain half its electricity from renewables by 2030, and lawmakers there are currently debating expanding that to 100 percent by 2045.

“Infrastructure changes such as new transmission lines have also allowed developers to install large wind farms and connect them to population centers,” Comstock said.

Nationwide, electricity generated using wind and solar varies by the month and is highest in the spring partly because of seasonal changes in wind patterns and daylight hours. As electricity use spikes across the country in the summertime when more people use air conditioning, electric power companies turn to more coal and natural gas power plants to help meet the demand, reducing renewables’ share of total U.S. power generation, Comstock said.

The EIA projects that wind and solar will generate 10 percent of U.S. electricity year-round by 2020. But scientists say the country’s power supply could see a larger share of wind and solar by then for at least part of the year.

“I believe that by 2020, we will see the first 15 percent month, possibly a little sooner,” Clack said. “This will partly depend on the weather patterns in the year, but I could see substantial (wind and solar plant) additions before 2020 that will increase production to those levels.”
Jeremy Firestone, director of the Center for Carbon-free Power Integration at the University of Delaware, said the U.S. will reach 15 percent “within the next few years.”

Image
This graph shows wind and solar power's share of total U.S. electricity generation each year since 2007. Credit: EIA


“The U.S. was at under 5 percent just five years ago and maxed out at about 7 percent in 2015,” he said. “Given price competitiveness of wind and commercial-scale solar and the public and corporate appetite for clean, renewable energy, an increasing fraction of U.S. electricity will be generated renewably.”

The renewables milestone comes amid actions by the Trump administration to turn back federal climate policies intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions by embracing wind, solar and other renewable energy. Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” has re-committed the U.S. to coal energy, which was the largest single source of climate pollution in the U.S. until being eclipsed by the transportation sector last year.
Though the federal government is doubling down on coal, electric power companies are embracing less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power as the cost of generating electricity from those sources falls.

March’s milestone “says that the Trump Administration is living in the last century,” Firestone said.

He said coal power generation is no longer socially acceptable in many parts of the country and most electric power companies prefer natural gas and renewables because they cost less.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2017 20:35

Perhaps the most serious impact of climate change:

Why ‘hydro-politics’ will shape the 21st Century

The 2008 James Bond film Quantum of Solace pits 007 against an evil criminal syndicate bent on global domination. Sounds par for the course… but this particular network of baddies isn’t using lasers or missiles to cause havoc.
Grand Challenges

No, the Quantum organisation has a uniquely dastardly plan: seizing control of Bolivia’s water supply.

While the evil syndicate’s role in the film might not be entirely realistic, this piece of fiction does raise a scenario that is worth considering seriously: what would happen if a country’s water supply was cut off? What would be the global fallout?

Think about it: sure, we need water to survive. But it also fuels a country’s commerce, trade, innovation and economic success. This has been the case for time immemorial, from the Nile in Ancient Egypt to the Amazon in the Brazilian rainforest.

While bodies of water typically help form natural borders of countries, several nations tend to share access to rivers or lakes – the Nile runs through nearly a dozen countries alone, for example. Given how conflict-prone humankind is, it’s surprising there haven't been more dust-ups of a “hydro-political” nature.

Experts agree: if there was no access to water, there would be no world peace. That’s why one of the grand challenges of the next few decades could be maintaining this ultra-sensitive stasis of water management. In the 21st Century, freshwater supplies are drying up, climate change is raising sea levels and altering borders, explosive population growth is straining world resources, and global hyper-nationalism is testing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, water demand is expected to go up 55% between 2000 and 2050. In the coming century, in terms of its value as a global resource, it’s been described as “the next oil."

So what can we do to guarantee global access to water – and thus global peace?
World peace hinges on hydro-politics

Water’s role in shaping politics goes back centuries. “In the ancient world, large bodies of water formed natural boundaries for people and nations,” says Zenia Tata, executive director of global development and international expansion at XPrize, an organisation that’s holding a worldwide competition for innovative water management solutions. “But today’s geopolitical landscape looks very different,” and access to water remains paramount.

Experts agree: if there was no access to water, there would be no world peace
In many areas of the world, bodies of water run through several countries or brush up against many countries’ borders. That’s where something called "riparian water rights" come into play.

In the case of a river, upstream countries – where the river originates – enjoy inherent power and leverage over the downstream countries. These kinds of riparian hotspots abound. And they’re often in places that are already fraught.

In the Middle East, the Jordan River basin is the primary water source for many regions, including Jordan, Palestine, and Israel, regions of long-standing political tensions. In Syria, meanwhile, the worst drought in close to a millennium has been partly blamed for the country’s generation-defining civil war and radicalisation that led to the formation of so-called Islamic State.

Egypt and Ethiopia have sparred over development of water from the River Nile for centuries: the iconic river originates in Ethiopia but ends in Egypt, which sets up an inherently combative relationship. In 2015, Egypt and Ethiopia put enough differences aside to construct the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the river, which is Africa’s largest dam and is due to open in July. The countries also signed a deal that strives to ensure fair river access.

Tata points to many developed or emerging markets that have had similar challenges: “Take the example of Malaysia’s 99-year deal with Singapore, giving them paid access to fresh water from the Johor River,” Tata says. “Singapore is arguably one of the most progressive nations on our planet, but without sufficient fresh water resources within its boundaries, all industry, trade, commerce and culture would all stand still."

The answer might lie in how countries with more food and water export those supplies to other countries
According to the Pacific Institute, a California-based water resource information nonprofit, there have been dozens of water-related conflicts worldwide from 2000BC to present day.

So how do we make sure everyone gets enough water – and thus keep relative world peace in the 21st Century? The real answer won’t lie in countries controlling others’ water supply in what’s been dubbed so-called "water wars" – rather, the answer might lie in how countries with more food and water export those supplies to other countries.

Divvying up water supplies
While there have been many “water-related” conflicts over the millennia, there have actually been very few in terms of sending water over national boundaries.

There are three main issues when it comes to water in the 21st Century, says Aaron Wolf. He’s a professor of geography at Oregon State University who specialises in water resource management and environmental policy.

The first issue is the most obvious: water scarcity. A lack of safe, reliable water kills as many people worldwide as malaria and HIV/Aids, he says.
The second issue is the political implications of that scarcity. For example, in Syria, that history-making drought drove more people to cities, saw rising food prices, and exacerbated tensions in the country that already existed. They ended up with “climate refugees”, who travel to other countries to seek places that have better water availability, which may in turn stoke the flames of political tension.

The third main issue – and perhaps the most underreported, experts say – is that trans-boundary flow of water. In other words: water moving between countries. And that’s where those riparian rights come into play.

But here’s the twist – that third part of the puzzle, the hydro-politics, is actually the part to be most optimistic about, says Wolf, since there have been so few violent skirmishes over transboundary water flows.

The grand challenge: building hydro-diplomacy
Despite alarmist headlines about “water wars”, the 21st Century is still offering up no shortage of new and unique threats that complicate hydro-diplomacy more than ever before.

Population explosions, especially in Asia and Africa, strain resources. Increasing global temperatures have led to some bodies of water drying up. And rising nationalism worldwide may stymie diplomatic efforts across the board.

While water presents obvious potential conflict, it could also accelerate global cooperation
So that’s why at Oregon State University, Wolf helps organise the Program in Water Conflict Management – where they try to identify where hydro-diplomatic tensions are going to rise in the next three to five years. For example, Afghanistan is an upstream country to many nations in the region, and is trying to use that advantage to develop its economy. For a country that’s been subjected to decade upon decade of war and upheaval, the political power of water sources like the Kabul River could be a boon.

That’s why there’s growing academic desire for an increased awareness of not just hydro-politics, but hydro-diplomacy – that while water presents obvious potential conflict, it could also accelerate global cooperation.
“We’re building the next generation of hydro-diplomats,” says Wolf.

A solution? Pay farmers more
But amid all these changes in the aqua political landscape, experts urge us to remember that not all water exists in rivers and lakes and even oceans.

There’s water in the soil – the soil that farmers use to grow vegetables, crops and feed for livestock. And the water from that soil is transferred into these products – whether it is wheat or beef – ­before they get shipped from water-surplus nations to deficient ones. This is known as “virtual water”,­ a phrase coined by John Anthony Allan at King’s College London, whose specialities include water issues, policy and agriculture. "Virtual water" is going to play a huge role in the 21st Century.

If you include virtual water in the picture, farmers are managing much of the water in the supply chain. And in countries that are water deficient, that imported embedded water is integral. In Europe alone, 40% of this "virtual water" comes from outside the continent.
Here’s the problem: farmers are underpaid for the critical role in that transaction. And by the time the food reaches the destination country, its politicians use subsidies to keep food prices low. The reason? Politicians want to maintain peace among their people – they want their citizens to live under the assumption that they’ll be able go to the store and expect food on the shelves.

160 countries depend on imported food – and the water needed to make it
“Governments go to great lengths to make sure there is enough affordable food on the market,” Allan says. “There are forces in places that will bring the prices down – there’s pressure to keep food cheap."
For water-surplus countries like the United States or Canada, they sell these products to more water-deficient countries at a low price. Over 60% of the around 220 countries in the world are major food importers. In other words, 160 countries depend on imported food – and the water needed to make it.

“The world is at peace because we have virtual water trade,” says Allan. “It’s solved silently. Revealing virtual water trade as a solution is something that politicians don’t want to do because they want to appear as they’re managing their country well.”
But in reality, the water that goes into the country's food is being brought in from elsewhere. That’s why hydro-diplomacy is one of the great unsung heroes in maintaining global stability that you never hear about.
It’s also why water’s next big challenge isn’t just making sure it’s judiciously and peaceably managed between nations to accommodate the world’s ever-burgeoning population. It’s about helping farmers who live in nations that have lots of water do their jobs successfully, and manage that water and how it’s distributed to drier places.

Of course countries need low-priced food, especially in places with lower income citizens. But the public needs to know that imports, exports, and hydro-diplomacy are what really keep countries with imbalanced water sources in balance. In our globalised, 21st Century world, it's not just about where countries fall along the flow of a river. It's about working together to share Earth's most vital resource.
So while a James Bond-scale water hostage situation isn’t exactly realistic – there’s nothing unrealistic about needing to maintain worldwide access to water. Even as we use it to slake our thirst and grow our crops, the political power of water shouldn’t be forgotten. It's been around for millennia, and it's not going anywhere.

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7576
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Theo_Fidel » 16 Jun 2017 22:38

NRao wrote:Meanwhile, slow progress:


Thx for that post.

No sir, I would not call that slow progress. This is blisteringly fast, in fact I would say too fast!

The report says that March 2015 was, 7%, so it is now growing at about 1.5% p/y. Say it accelerates to 2% p/y, over the next 20 years we will reach 50%. About 2037. Combined with geothermal and hydel we would get 65% of our power from good old renewable. The US grid is not ready for this and 20 years is nowhere near enough time to get it ready.

I would point out that this is way way faster than ALL predictions out there right now. As I said it is too fast, we need more time to make the infrastructure changes needed and also push the roughly 80% of states that are not on board to get going or they will be stuck importing power from the cheaper first moving states. Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas now have bids to deliver wind energy to St Louis @ 2.8 cents/kw. Essentially unlimited and @ capacity factors of 45% or so. Delivered. It costs about .5 cents/kw per 1000 miles with the newer 700kva HVDC transmission, so you can see how this can cause some serious disruptions further East once transmission lines are built.

The other reason it is too fast is battery technology is not ready with the capacity needed to moderate this power. And won't be ready for at least another 10 years.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2017 23:09

^^^^^

I will not be surprised if the legacy systems are over run. So, while Rick "Dino" Perry is busy ordering a study of the elec grid system (yeah, in 2017 :rotfl: ) and there are other estimating it will cost $5 trillion (now a days nothing is short of a trillion - time to drop a few 0s), we also have the disrupters.

Brooklyn’s Latest Craze: Making Your Own Electric Grid

Then one day in 2016, he got a knock on his door. Sasha Santiago had been on a nearby rooftop and spied Guerra’s solar panels; he used Google Earth to home in on the right building.

“A strange man rang my bell and—I’m not kidding—said, ‘Hi, I’m Sasha. Can I talk to you about a microgrid?’” Guerra says. “I said, ‘What’s that?’”

Santiago explained that the company he worked for, Brooklyn-based LO3 Energy, was running a pilot program that would permit renewable energy users like Guerra to sell power directly to their neighbors. In effect, the neighbors would become their own small power grid in the middle of the most populous city in the country.

“Oh, this is shared economy. This is Airbnb, this is Uber, this is 21st century,” Guerra remembers thinking. He agreed to be part of the project on President Street. Residents with solar panels on one side of the street sold environmental credits to residents on the other side of the street who had no solar of their own.




So, yes, "slow" is relative.


And, if the renewable are growing fast, all the more we need grids that can deal with such a growth.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2017 05:35

For your consideration. 2016.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2017 06:19


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2017 05:04

Tesla moves beyond electric cars with new California battery farm

Image
The Tesla battery farm will be used to store energy and meet spikes in demand – like on hot summer afternoons when buildings start to crank up the air conditioning. Photograph: Katie Fehrenbacher

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5856
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 20 Jun 2017 21:57

While many other desi's (IIT'ians in Bay Area) were having discussions/presentation/looking up for VC's in startups etc with hot topics , recent tech-trends like Autonomous Vehicles, AI, cluoud-this-and-that..I enjoyed panel discussion about "clean energy". Informal discussion afterwords was fun too..

(Some of the people were ​Ram Narayanmurthy( EPRI), Kumar Dhuvur(Founder PowerScout),Deep Chakraborty(Enact systems)

So if you are an engineer/scientist there is lot of exciting work opportunities. At present you may have to take a pay-cut but job is well worth it.

While I get sad with US's attitude and actions post Trump, I am some what happy with all the work (and environment/culture of present GOI)being done, and attitude regarding Climate Change in India.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6572
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Mort Walker » 21 Jun 2017 08:52

^^^California is a big producer of oil and gas. With Trump dropping regulations, CA companies will make money in "clean energy" and in oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2943
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Dipanker » 13 Jul 2017 06:44

An Iceberg the Size of Delaware Just Broke Away From Antarctica

A chunk of floating ice that weighs more than a trillion metric tons broke away from the Antarctic Peninsula, producing one of the largest icebergs ever recorded and providing a glimpse of how the Antarctic ice sheet might ultimately start to fall apart.


That is ~13 tons of ice per person on the planet!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 30 Jul 2017 06:01


A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Aug 2017 03:29

About the Permian extinction event:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8 ... -into-Acid
USGS Scientist Finds Smoking Gun for Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, CO2 Turned Oceans into Acid

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2017 03:09

Parts of Asia May Be Too Hot for People by 2100

South Asia, where one-fifth of the world's people live, could face summer heat waves that are impossible to survive without protection, thanks to global warming, new research suggests. Hardest hit regions are in northern India, Bangladesh, and southern Pakistan, home to 1.5 billion people. These are also among the poorest regions in South Asia. Many are dependent on subsistence farming that requires long hours of hard outdoor labor.


video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/101-videos/151201-climate-change-bill-nye-news

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2943
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Dipanker » 04 Aug 2017 01:18

Will massive planting of trees help ward off this potentially catastrophic event for us South Asians? In any case trees should be planted regardless, as it can provide respite from the scorching heat, attract rainfall, help in attaining carbon neutrality, and just plain look good.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests