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.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 10 Sep 2016 09:17

sudarshan wrote:AmberG, I think both will be almost the same, unless there's some weird asymmetry of the orbit around the sun that I don't know about. When I said "if anything, it's the opposite," I was just referring to the specific shading pattern in one particular figure on the NASA webpage. I really don't think either northern or southern latitudes receive more or less sunshine than the other.

Thanks for your answer. I will wait for a few days and see other answers before I comment. I do request that all hold on to your "rational" for a day or so before you print/justify it here. I am just curious that what one things "obvious" is also "obvious" to others. Thanks again.

I may have posted here but one book you may like to read (if you have not seen it already) is Muller (yes the "Physics for the future presidents" fame) book "Energy for future presidents". His site also has the largest (virtually every important data or link to that data) data if you like to play with your own model.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 10 Sep 2016 11:42

I am interested in answers not only from experts (eg RoyG whom I quoted) but also from skeptics who claim that "data" does not back up this or that ... What is your criteria to assume the "claim" is correct or is "bogus". For example cartoon posted a few pages ago ( scientist X said Y which is not correct so any scientist says anything is wrong too) drives the logic or you use math/science to verify something on your own. For example:
panduranghari wrote:But data does not back up the claims that climate is changing for the worse. And that's the essence of the argument.

Accurate data is available for a very very short period. Data pre 1995 is patchy. Data pre 1962 is almost equivalent to non existent.
..

So let me ask , and hope panduranghariji answers, if you have to choose between a) b) or c) what will you choose. Per data you have - just use the data post 1995 :) ) , is any of a) b) c) right? are all wrong? Does data support what Sudarsaji said above?

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 10 Sep 2016 13:34

Amber G madam,

I am not a scientist nor as erudite as Sudarshan ji.

Look at this post viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7122&start=200#p1948181

Image

The NCDC have data on their website and if you read through it, this is the information gleaned- the data from 1600 to 1961 is sparse. The data from 1962 to 2005 is based on limited global telecommunication data. The data from 1962 to 1997 is not very detailed. The data from 1997 to 2005 is more accurate. The data from 2008 to present is real time.

I will need to spend longer on coming up with calculations which Sudarshan ji has put up.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 10 Sep 2016 13:51

Hi panduranghari, all I was asking was to see what in your opinion in the following - sort of taking a poll ..

The question is which hemisphere (south or north), if any, gets more radiation or if one wants to be more precise --:
If one wants to be precise, consider two spots, one 45 degrees NORTH latitude and the other 45 degrees south. Both have same local weather pattern -- same cloud cover - similar days of sunshine per year ityadi ityadi... Both have similar solar power plants, identical area and quality of solar panels ityadi.. which one, if any, will produce more solar power? (averaged over a long time to even out small fluctuations)

a) Northern
b) Southern
c)Both will be almost same ..


a), b) or c) ?
Noting serious, I am just curious to see how junta makes up their mind ...Is the answer obvious? if so what do you think?
(My aim is to see if in brf we can get a "consensus" for a simple thought experiment :) so will appriciate if you answer
)

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 10 Sep 2016 14:28

I think it will be 'c'.

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 535
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby tandav » 10 Sep 2016 14:49

c ideally if the average temperature are the same at both locations,
however since the southern hemisphere (13.3C average) is cooler than the northern hemisphere (15.2C Average). The solar panels will in south will be more efficient. I will therefore change my answer to b

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 10 Sep 2016 19:35

Tandav - if the southern hemisphere is indeed cooler on average than the northern, that could also indicate that the southern hemisphere is receiving less radiation than the northern.

There is one little asymmetry I can think of, but it wouldn't make more than a couple of percent's worth of difference. Depending on how close you think is "close enough," it could be b or c. Staying with c, since I personally don't think the difference is worth considering.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Neshant » 10 Sep 2016 22:00

RoyG wrote:All world powers including India agree that more needs to be done to combat climate change meaning that they all agree w/ the scientific consensus that it has significant man made input.

The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost.

They all have their own scientists/security/economic guys who came to pretty much the same conclusions over the data which is why they all met to discuss what they can do about it. Are you telling me they are all incompetent? WHY WASTE TIME WITH CLIMATE TALKS SIR?

It is simply not possible to dupe all of them at the same time.


There has been no scientific consensus and if anything global warming claims seems to have gone down in flames.

Developed countries are trying to force developing countries to accept the bogus global warming claim despite zero evidence to further their trade protectionist agenda against good from developing countries. As well to prevent the development of developing countries through the use of cheaper fossil fuels and instead rely on more expensive means of energy production - most of which developed countries have a monopoly on technology/patent wise.

If you notice, there has been a quiet relabeling of the global warming terminology into the more ambiguous sounding "climate change". That way no scientific evidence is required. The reality is that it should have been easy to prove global warming with just an Excel spreadsheet and daily temperature data from the many weather stations that dot the planet. You don't need an army of taxpayer funded global warming "scientists" with multi-billions of dollars to do it either. That they can't even prove that global warming has occurred with the data set and instead have to make up a BS story about how the wind blowing means climate change is occurring and the wind not blowing also means climate change is occurring is surely the biggest travesty of the scientific method of all times. And YET this road show continues.

University of East Anglia global warming scientists were caught "massaging" the temperature dataset to produce fake global warming claims. The hacked emails in Climategate showed how the researchers lamented the fact that despite the circus they had created around global warming claims, it was a tragedy that the data simply did not support it! Accordingly they had to fudge the dataset to generate the desired result.

Global warming by far has been the biggest scientific boondoggle of the 20th century.

I would have loved to see a real scientific study as to what affects the Earth's temperature over time. The power output and changing orbit of the Earth around the Sun (surely the largest body that comprises 98% of the solar system's mass has a massive effect), the nuclear forces within the earth, the affect of emissions both natural and man-made on the Earth..etc. However no such discussion is possible because the aim of these bogus scientists not scientific discovery but to skip over doing legitimate research and arrive at a conclusion to fit an agenda. Climate change scientist run neck to neck with sorcerers and phone psychics as a legitimate profession.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 10 Sep 2016 22:56

sudarshan wrote:Tandav - if the southern hemisphere is indeed cooler on average than the northern, that could also indicate that the southern hemisphere is receiving less radiation than the northern.


Indeed it can. I think that ought to be first aspect to be considered unless one can explain it due to other causes..

BTW in 1980's I had a UG working for me for a summer job programing/analyzing satellite data to determine and store ocean temperature. It is not my field but I had the grant to hire the guy and help/guide him in his computer work but he worked for a colleague's data/model. I was impressed that how accurate one can get ocean temperature data (with very good reliability and horizontal resolution) by simply measuring IR from hundreds of Km above from an orbiting satellite.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 12 Sep 2016 02:59

Amber G. wrote:
sudarshan wrote:Tandav - if the southern hemisphere is indeed cooler on average than the northern, that could also indicate that the southern hemisphere is receiving less radiation than the northern.


Indeed it can. I think that ought to be first aspect to be considered unless one can explain it due to other causes..



Cooler southern hemisphere could be because it is much more watery than the northern. Higher specific heat of water plus higher evaporation could explain the cooling effect. The 60 deg. S latitude is known for the fact that you can sail all around it without encountering land anywhere. I don't think you can do this in the northern hemisphere at any latitude below 80 deg. N (could be mistaken).

N. hemisphere - 40% land, 60% water. S. hemisphere - 20% land, 80% water (by surface area).

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 14 Sep 2016 00:36

Neshant wrote:
RoyG wrote:All world powers including India agree that more needs to be done to combat climate change meaning that they all agree w/ the scientific consensus that it has significant man made input.

The only disagreement is on who should bear the cost.

They all have their own scientists/security/economic guys who came to pretty much the same conclusions over the data which is why they all met to discuss what they can do about it. Are you telling me they are all incompetent? WHY WASTE TIME WITH CLIMATE TALKS SIR?

It is simply not possible to dupe all of them at the same time.


There has been no scientific consensus and if anything global warming claims seems to have gone down in flames.

Developed countries are trying to force developing countries to accept the bogus global warming claim despite zero evidence to further their trade protectionist agenda against good from developing countries. As well to prevent the development of developing countries through the use of cheaper fossil fuels and instead rely on more expensive means of energy production - most of which developed countries have a monopoly on technology/patent wise.

If you notice, there has been a quiet relabeling of the global warming terminology into the more ambiguous sounding "climate change". That way no scientific evidence is required. The reality is that it should have been easy to prove global warming with just an Excel spreadsheet and daily temperature data from the many weather stations that dot the planet. You don't need an army of taxpayer funded global warming "scientists" with multi-billions of dollars to do it either. That they can't even prove that global warming has occurred with the data set and instead have to make up a BS story about how the wind blowing means climate change is occurring and the wind not blowing also means climate change is occurring is surely the biggest travesty of the scientific method of all times. And YET this road show continues.

University of East Anglia global warming scientists were caught "massaging" the temperature dataset to produce fake global warming claims. The hacked emails in Climategate showed how the researchers lamented the fact that despite the circus they had created around global warming claims, it was a tragedy that the data simply did not support it! Accordingly they had to fudge the dataset to generate the desired result.

Global warming by far has been the biggest scientific boondoggle of the 20th century.

I would have loved to see a real scientific study as to what affects the Earth's temperature over time. The power output and changing orbit of the Earth around the Sun (surely the largest body that comprises 98% of the solar system's mass has a massive effect), the nuclear forces within the earth, the affect of emissions both natural and man-made on the Earth..etc. However no such discussion is possible because the aim of these bogus scientists not scientific discovery but to skip over doing legitimate research and arrive at a conclusion to fit an agenda. Climate change scientist run neck to neck with sorcerers and phone psychics as a legitimate profession.


Yeah, and then what happened? Didn't the developing world including China agree to something at Paris? They solidified it on Sept 3. What was it and why? Grand conspiracy?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 14 Sep 2016 01:01

Solar radiation should be similar. Depending on where in orbit around the sun and some other factors, it probably fluctuates. I'm not sure.

But as far as heating is concerned, the Artic circle would heat faster because it is sitting on a body of water vs Antarctic which sits on a land mass.

Therefore, the temp differential will be greater in the northern hemisphere despite similar solar radiation levels.

Methane, CO2 emitted from oceans follows solar radiation heating which induces a positive feedback loop.

Humans are emitting more into the atmosphere accelerating this phenomena.

Waste heat as claimed by some is simply not a factor as of now wrt to AGW according to the data I have posted.

As far as this duping business is concerned, I see no evidence whatsoever that all major world powers especially in the developing world
would act against their own interests and agree to cut emissions at Paris.

However, I do see an attempt to preserve their competitive advantage while agreeing to cut emissions.

This fact has still not been addressed by conspiracy theorists in this thread.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 14 Sep 2016 01:10

sudarshan wrote:
RoyG wrote:Globally, in 2005, this anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) was +0.028 W/m2


Well now, this is a much better "debunk" of the "distributed heating model" I was talking about earlier. Why would you even post that silly link you posted before, if you had this? We could have also dispensed with the sarcasm (on both sides).

The global energy consumption figure was the one I was going for (and yes, I was looking for it and I'd have posted it here soon), and it matches well with this heat flux number you quote.

So until I come up with a good enough objection to this (and I could still do that), I have to admit that this does discount the heat addition into the atmosphere as the cause of any observed temperature rise. Because, by itself, this additional heat flux is too feeble to cause much of a temperature rise on top of the baseline ~25 deg. C or so.

P.S.: But I see you're still referring to it as the "waste heat model." It's not just the waste heat, it's *all* the heat generated in any engine which ends up in the atmosphere.


Perhaps I should've used Paint. :lol:

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 14 Sep 2016 01:25

Niti aayog has just announced that they want to move towards methanol and dimethyl ether in a big way. Biomass and coal will contribute heavily to this.

As far as electric cars go, i dont think there is enough lithium reserves to supply a global car fleet. Battery power will need to become more efficient and move to another sustainable material like graphene in a big way.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2016 01:59

RoyG wrote:Perhaps I should've used Paint. :lol:


Use whatever medium you need to to convey the point. That's what I've been saying all along - tell me, in simple terms, what is wrong with whatever argument I'm making, without linking to long web articles, without getting sarcastic, and without quoting authority. I didn't even read the paper you posted in support of that heat flux number - just the number (0.028 W/m^2) was enough to click, since it matched very well with my own efforts to cross-validate that "distributed heat input" model using the global energy consumption number. And BTW, I still think the model is perfectly valid, just that it is currently insignificant with regards to any warming effect on earth.

Now, can you or NRao saar tell me, in equally simple terms, what was wrong with the sea level (tide level) plots I posted before? Is the dataset suspect, or is it the analysis, or is it the limited nature of the analysis? Why should we worry about coastal flooding, specifically, "flooding caused by climate change," when the rate of local sea level rise at all these sites has been constant for 150+ (in some cases, 200+) years?

Please feel free to use Paint if you want, that's one medium of expression that I do understand.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7242
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby disha » 14 Sep 2016 02:54

RoyG wrote:
As far as electric cars go, i dont think there is enough lithium reserves to supply a global car fleet. Battery power will need to become more efficient and move to another sustainable material like graphene in a big way.


Actually Lithium is abundant. Very abundant. And a 80 KWh battery is enough to last @400 Km (Mumbai to Vadodra!) trip on a full charge contains approx. 20 Kgs of Lithium. Which can be fully recycled. And the production cost for both the raw material and the contents of the batteries is falling down. Rapidly. The inflection point for e-Cars is 2022., where in it is expected that the battery cost will be <100$ per KWH (that is a 100 KWh will cost $10000 at most (instead of current 300$))., at that rate., EVs will out compete Gas/IC Vehicles. And by 2030., 50% of N.America car market will be EVs (and no ICs)., think about the significant drop in GHG emissions and savings in oil.

Imagine 100 million EVs driving 1800 miles an average a year., saving some 600 gallons per year. Equivalent to 1.5 Billion Barrels of oil per year (or some 20% of current US consumption). Now imagine this is replicated all over the world and by 2030 - 20% of oil consumption just goes away.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 03:28

I think the problem is that when people hear that "sea level has risen by X cms in Y years" they expect that rise to reflect across the entire world. Nyet.

Check this out before we go down a rabbit hole.

http://www.space.com/30375-22-years-of- ... video.html

BTW, pretty much everything is out there. We, here, seem to be reinventing the wheel.

L8r.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2016 03:28

The cool things you can do with electric control, that you can't (or which are hard to do) with oil-powered vehicles:

Independent control of each wheel. This can give you tight turning radius, unmatched by current cars.

Regenerative braking, which recovers energy during braking, or downhill stretches. Actually, diesel-powered trains use this a lot, but that's because diesel trains convert the energy to electricity and then use motors for propulsion.

Driverless vehicles will be easier to implement, with BLDC or servo-motor control, rather than having to regulate and meter fuel in a combustion engine.

But with electric cars, demand for electricity will shoot up. It's not a given that emissions and oil consumption are going to go down with EVs, it depends on what source is powering the grid.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 03:38

@sudarshan

(Refrain from "saar" please.)

Nothing wrong in your math. Just the process is (IMHO) incomplete. You seem to have stopped too early in the thought process. I think if you had continued - completed - you would have reached the general consensus.

But nothing wrong with what you did. It happens. That is why you need skeptics around. :). Such people actually - if you listen to them - help you complete your work.

L8r.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 04:35

Oh. BTW:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

What is interesting is that this is NOAA - tidal. An inter-Governmental Agency claimed, based on tidal data, sea rise around 2008.

The post with the vid was from JPL - space.

Would be interesting to cross check them. Should not be too difficult.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Neshant » 14 Sep 2016 07:22

RoyG wrote:Yeah, and then what happened? Didn't the developing world including China agree to something at Paris? They solidified it on Sept 3. What was it and why? Grand conspiracy?


I'm afraid you have to understand how international politics work.

Countries do not seek to put themselves in a position where they can be ganged up on by foreign, especially developed powers - which is the whole reason this bogus "climate change" issue was being pushed by European countries at the UN level. China will continue to insist its in favor of the treaty (even if its not) because it knows others like India will fight hard against its implementation.

As per the treaty, parties are not legally bound at the international level to achieve their targets. Yet European nations after getting this road show going are already trying to move the goal post.

European nations certainly do not accept any treaty which binds them to the same level of emissions per capita as India or any other developing country. Yet they insist India reduce its emission.

Unless you understand why this is nothing more than a protectionist move against goods from developing country, you will not even begin to understand the games that are played at the international level.

As for the science around global warming, they have already proven to be total BS. Were it not so, the term global warming would not be pulling a disappearing act with the more ambiguous sounding and no evidence requiring "climate change" term put in its place.

Where is the solid evidence for global warming and why is the terminology after years of being pimped being quietly relabeled climate change? You will get no answer from the global warming researchers despite years of trying to get the data to fit an agenda.

India’s U-turn on Paris Climate Change Agreement and Why It Is Right

http://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjay ... t-n2178949

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 07:52

As for the science around global warming, they have already proven to be total BS. Were it not so, the term global warming would not be pulling a disappearing act with the more ambiguous sounding and no evidence requiring "climate change" term put in its place.


It is the other way around.

"Climate change" always existed. The change in temp was referred to as "Climate modification". A professor in 1975 introduced "Global warming".

Global warming refers specifically to temps across the. Globe. It is static, as of now like.

While climate change has a long term dimension. "Change" represents the time dimension.

Two diff things, but with overlap.

On BS, that is how everything starts.

Max Planck was told he was BS because theoritical physics was non existent.

We were told we were BS when we said the lead in gasoline caused health issues. Took us 10 years to change.

Asbestos.

Auto emissions.

Diesel emissions. Same stuff.

L8r on green house effects and related topics.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 14 Sep 2016 08:01

Neshant wrote:
RoyG wrote:Yeah, and then what happened? Didn't the developing world including China agree to something at Paris? They solidified it on Sept 3. What was it and why? Grand conspiracy?


I'm afraid you have to understand how international politics work.

Countries do not seek to put themselves in a position where they can be ganged up on by foreign, especially developed powers - which is the whole reason this bogus "climate change" issue was being pushed by European countries at the UN level. China will continue to insist its in favor of the treaty (even if its not) because it knows others like India will fight hard against its implementation.

As per the treaty, parties are not legally bound at the international level to achieve their targets. Yet European nations after getting this road show going are already trying to move the goal post.

European nations certainly do not accept any treaty which binds them to the same level of emissions per capita as India or any other developing country. Yet they insist India reduce its emission.

Unless you understand why this is nothing more than a protectionist move against goods from developing country, you will not even begin to understand the games that are played at the international level.

As for the science around global warming, they have already proven to be total BS. Were it not so, the term global warming would not be pulling a disappearing act with the more ambiguous sounding and no evidence requiring "climate change" term put in its place.

Where is the solid evidence for global warming and why is the terminology after years of being pimped being quietly relabeled climate change? You will get no answer from the global warming researchers despite years of trying to get the data to fit an agenda.

India’s U-turn on Paris Climate Change Agreement and Why It Is Right

http://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjay ... t-n2178949


Neshant,

The link you posted states the reason why India is putting the breaks. It's not because the science is bogus which is what I've been saying all along if you read my posts on the matter carefully.

India has always viewed the climate change mitigation proposals as biased and limited in their potential to address the present challenges faced by the country. Hence it has argued and advocated for “climate justice,” arguing that developing countries should be not be forced to compromise on their developmental goals but should be granted monetary benefits to meet the climate-change mitigation plans.


Again, there are two issues: Anthropogenic Global Warming and emissions reductions targets at the cost of development.

India expects the West to take a lead role in footing the bill, sharing technology, and higher emission reduction targeting. They have the resources to do so. I support India's position as does everyone in this thread.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 14 Sep 2016 08:20

Neshant wrote:There has been no scientific consensus and if anything global warming claims seems to have gone down in flames.
Global warming by far has been the biggest scientific boondoggle of the 20th century... <snip>
.

From what I know about scientific consensus there is really NO doubt about Basic conclusions among scientists. Global warming is real and Humans are almost entirely the cause. Sure, there are (and always will be) debates about details but I have not seen ANY reputable scientist seriously contesting the basic premise these days. (NO exaggeration - a comparative analogy -there may be debate about details but not too many brfite think that Kasab was not a Paki, yet some still keep pushing all sort of CT's.

For those who are serious about the subject, I will highly recommend do their own thinking and reading such as -
You Tube -- If you have not seen it please do it is only a 5 minutes clip Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change

And NYTimes article The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 08:28

Sure, there are (and always will be) debates about details


That is exactly why they use the word "trend".

Also, it it is not do much about inclusion of details as much ad it is about convincingly excluding some factors while retaining the pertinent ones.

Very difficult, even at a local level, to exclude factors that skeptics think influence the result. More later.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 14 Sep 2016 09:14

With respect to Northern vs Southern Hemisphere -- which gets more solar radiation .. (post here: <here>...
As promised some comments -
Thanks to those who took a shot. I was asking a very basic scientific question to point out how scientists do their thinking. I was NOT asking about temperature (which is much more complicated) but rather just the incoming radiation. Sudarshan took a shot (and a reasonable conclusion) but not too many other people commented. Slightly surprised because I thought that at least some simple points ought to have been picked up by others :(

So some simple points:
- Both NH and SH have seasons - summer and winter (Because earth is tilted - 23 degrees)
- One gets more radiation is summer (vs winter) - on average.
- Earths orbit around sun is an ellipse. Earth is closest to sun around Jan 2.
- Sun is closer to earth in January then it is in July. (Simple math - inverse square - will show that the difference in radiation is about 7%)
- In January it is Summer in SH (and winter in NH) and vice-versa.

Now does this change anything?

(SH gets more radiation in it's summer (January) than NH gets more in its summer.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 09:15

What about radiation maps?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 14 Sep 2016 09:16

NRao wrote:
Very difficult, even at a local level, to exclude factors that skeptics think influence the result. More later.

Please do watch Muller's video (link posted above) it talks precisely of the points you are raising,

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2016 09:25

Amber G. wrote:With respect to Northern vs Southern Hemisphere -- which gets more solar radiation .. (post here: <here>...
As promised some comments -
Thanks to those who took a shot. I was asking a very basic scientific question to point out how scientists do their thinking. I was NOT asking about temperature (which is much more complicated) but rather just the incoming radiation. Sudarshan took a shot (and a reasonable conclusion) but not too many other people commented. Slightly surprised because I thought that at least some simple points ought to have been picked up by others :(

So some simple points:
- Both NH and SH have seasons - summer and winter (Because earth is tilted - 23 degrees)
- One gets more radiation is summer (vs winter) - on average.
- Earths orbit around sun is an ellipse. Earth is closest to sun around Jan 2.
- Sun is closer to earth in January then it is in July. (Simple math - inverse square - will show that the difference in radiation is about 7%)
- In January it is Summer in SH (and winter in NH) and vice-versa.

Now does this change anything?

(SH gets more radiation in it's summer (January) than NH gets more in its summer.)


Yes, this is the asymmetry I was talking about - sun is closer to the earth in Dec./ Jan. than in June/July.

sudarshan wrote:There is one little asymmetry I can think of, but it wouldn't make more than a couple of percent's worth of difference. Depending on how close you think is "close enough," it could be b or c. Staying with c, since I personally don't think the difference is worth considering.


The distance is smaller by about 2% (that's the number I remember). So the radiation should be higher by about 4%. But then, in the winter, it is compensated a bit, because the sun is closer to the NH in winter than to the SH in the winter. That's why I was saying the difference would be minor, and depending on how close one considered "close enough," one might as well say that both hemispheres received about the same level of radiation through the year.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 14 Sep 2016 10:48

sudarshan wrote:
The distance is smaller by about 2% (that's the number I remember). So the radiation should be higher by about 4%. But then, in the winter, it is compensated a bit, because the sun is closer to the NH in winter than to the SH in the winter. That's why I was saying the difference would be minor, and depending on how close one considered "close enough," one might as well say that both hemispheres received about the same level of radiation through the year.

From wiki: Earth is about 147.1 million kilometers from the Sun at perihelion in early January, in contrast to about 152.1 million kilometers at aphelion in early July. Because of the increased distance at aphelion, only 93.55% of the solar radiation from the Sun falls on a given square area of land than at perihelion. (May be you are taking about "less than 2%" variance from perigee vs mean and not between perigee vs apogee)

You are correct about "close enough" FYI: If one do some calculation the diff the calculation comes out (integrated over whole hemisphere and whole year) - SH actually gets more radiation (about 0.7 Wm^(-2)) if one averages over the whole year. (We are considering ONLY incoming shortwave radiation from sun)

Main reason NH is warmer than SH is surprisingly northward cross-equatorial ocean heat transport currents. If there is interest I may post somethng later but a few points which many (even some scientists) may not know or guess correctly.

-Ocean is warmer than the land in general which, acting alone, would make the Southern Hemisphere warmer because of its greater fraction of ocean. ((Oceans are warmer than land because of smaller surface albedo).
BUT this actually adds very little if any (differences in total albedo are negligible because the impact of differences in land-sea fraction are offset by SH ocean and land reflecting more than their Northern Hemisphere counterparts)

Once people think: the difference was caused by greater humidity and greenhouse trapping over the ocean than over the land.
(However this is not correct as for any given temperature, greenhouse trapping is actually greater over the land than the ocean)

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 14 Sep 2016 14:37

Neshant wrote:Global warming by far has been the biggest scientific boondoggle of the 20th century..


A good friend works in the Indian Meteorological Department. And even he is very uncertain if 'climate change' can be considered anything scary enough. He regularly visits the west and gives lectures in many prestigeous universities. I would call him an authority. Besides he is a young chap, I am certain our national interests will be guarded when we have intelligent professionals working for government. I can give his contact details if anyone is interested. Contact me offline.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 14 Sep 2016 14:41

disha wrote:
Actually Lithium is abundant. Very abundant.


Disha ji,
Please give proof. You have a habit of making grandeous claims. I would request you back those claims with something concrete. Lithium might very well be abundant but the cost of extraction at a reasonable price makes it scarce. What new technology is on market permiting this?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 18:37

A few observations/comments:

The NCDC have data on their website and if you read through it, this is the information gleaned- the data from 1600 to 1961 is sparse. The data from 1962 to 2005 is based on limited global telecommunication data. The data from 1962 to 1997 is not very detailed. The data from 1997 to 2005 is more accurate. The data from 2008 to present is real time.


Check out NOAA. They downloading 17 TB of data per day. Raw numbers.

Digital Globe downloads around 7-8 TB a day. Mostly pictures.

So, there is ample data. And, as can be seen in some cases (the JPL vid) scientists are narrowing their windows because they can now deal with more clean data. And, then they tend to use older (sparser) to extend the time component.

On "accurate", not sure if you mean "sparse". The data collected across time is normally considered to be accurate (for those time). What is questioned and rightly so, is the accuracy of the location. So, a ship transiting in the 1700/1800 from Spain to the Caribbean would keep a detailed log, but we have to rely on star location to estimate where the readings were taken and that causes issues (naturally). So, the temp is not questioned - that is "accurate".


A good friend works in the Indian Meteorological Department. And even he is very uncertain if 'climate change' can be considered anything scary enough.


Cool. This could be very interesting.

I assume "scary enough" are your words (which is OK). But, what is he not scared of? What would scare him?

Within India, his opinion on:
* Correlation between human activities and climate (or better still environments)?
* Acid rain?
* Loss of glacial ice? If he believes there is loss, then how much does he estimate it to be?

* How far does IMD extend into the surrounding oceans?
* Type and quantity of data collected?
* Computing power?

May be you can provide URLs to papers he may have published?

Thx.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 14 Sep 2016 19:44

NRao, ok, I can continue with that analysis and see if I reach this famous consensus :). BTW, that word soured for me long ago, when I. K. Gujral became the "consensus candidate" for the PM post. Or was that Deve Gowda? I don't remember anymore.

Amber G., yes, I must have been thinking of 2% between mean and perihelion. That number might also be close to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit.

Lithium was found in Afghanistan a few years ago. Draw whatever conclusions you want from this. Another good reason for India to engage with Afghanistan, in any case.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Sep 2016 20:54

^^^^^

There are two "analysis": the math part and the thought part.

I am referring to the "thought" that was terminated too early. Think first and then apply math/stats to prove or disprove.

So, the idea that global temps can be arrived at cumulatively is patently false. So, no matter how good your math (regression) of local temps (or for that matter tidal data) is, it really does not matter. You just cannot - even at local levels - use Excel spreadsheets to conduct such research. Not even possible.

At a high level, let us (quickly) take the example of an "island" (seems to be the in thing).

Islands are influenced by tectonic activities and ocean dynamics - both themselves are very complex. Both influence "sea levels"/"tidal" as they relate to an island. No doubt about that. No when we introduce "global warming" to that it becomes even more complex. We all can agree to that.

However, the challenge becomes how do we isolate the influence of ONLY one of them - pertaining to thsi thread, how do we hold the other two constant and figure out the influence of "global warming". Once you agree with this "thinking" now you can easily concentrate on collecting data and analysis.

But, if one were to collect the data first, pass them through a stat package, come up with some numbers and then declare this is right and that is wrong, that is a flawed process.

Makes sense?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 15 Sep 2016 00:52

panduranghari wrote:
disha wrote:
Actually Lithium is abundant. Very abundant.


Disha ji,
Please give proof. You have a habit of making grandeous claims. I would request you back those claims with something concrete. Lithium might very well be abundant but the cost of extraction at a reasonable price makes it scarce. What new technology is on market permiting this?


It's 100% recyclable. Costs money though.

I think we are going to to see some major advances in battery tech including synthetics over the next two decades.

Coupled w/ a home solar regeneration unit it will pretty much kill the pump station engine.

Methanol/Dimethyl ether may be a good hedge though.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 15 Sep 2016 01:44

RoyG wrote:
panduranghari wrote:I think we are going to to see some major advances in battery tech including synthetics over the next two decades.
Coupled w/ a home solar regeneration unit it will pretty much kill the pump station engine.
Methanol/Dimethyl ether may be a good hedge though.

Hope so, OTOH the talk about this "game change" has been there for *many* years.. so would be nice to see ....
Image
Nice article in Scientific American for those who are interested:
Beyond the Hype: What's the Future of Batteries?
And this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1613/2/4/045002/meta

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 15 Sep 2016 02:03

Li-S was supposed to blow everything away, a few years ago. The problem with Li batteries (I haven't kept up with advances after around 2009-2010) was that the individual cells were prone to catastrophic failure. This failure would affect neighboring cells, which would then explode, propagating the failure to the entire battery. The result is a violent explosion and fire hazard, which you definitely don't want in a passenger vehicle. In fact, a US Navy submarine was lost this way.

Li batteries are very energy-dense compared to older Ni-MH or Pb-acid technologies, but this was the problem - when that energy couldn't be contained, you would have violent failure.

NRao, my point is, that the local tide level changes have been constant for so long, like I said, 200 years+ in some cases. I haven't looked at every single station, only like 15 of them, but I can automate that process. But when there is no discernible change in local tide level data, ranging from Asia to Europe to the Americas to Australia and Africa, then what sense does it make to claim that the global sea level is rising faster than ever before? Shouldn't you be seeing a change somewhere in the local patterns if the global pattern is now claimed to be different from before?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 15 Sep 2016 02:21

panduranghari wrote:
A good friend works in the Indian Meteorological Department. And even he is very uncertain if 'climate change' can be considered anything scary enough. He regularly visits the west and gives lectures in many prestigeous universities. I would call him an authority. Besides he is a young chap, I am certain our national interests will be guarded when we have intelligent professionals working for government. I can give his contact details if anyone is interested. Contact me offline.


I knew Dr Ramaswamy (CV Raman's younger brother) worked for Meteorological Dept. His son and DIL (both Physics PhD's and friends) are working as meteorologist in India for decades (Boy! that makes me look ancient).. obviously India has very talented scientists and from what I got from talking to them that they have fairly good relationship with GOI and are listened too.

As someone said, I don't know what exactly "scary" means, or for that matter "climate change'..but "climate" is not exactly "global warming".. we still have quite poor understanding (relatively speaking) about "climate", and experts differ about their causes -- (For example how much global warming contributed to latest heat wave in India).

BUT where most of the scientists agree is global warming, and its cause (CO2 - Green house effect) etc, This consensus, I believe, is among Indian Scientists also. I seem to recall some poll among those who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals - The result was something like >97% agreement among these scholars. Ask you friend if the "Global warming" is real on not?

Put succinctly - Many (like Gore and company) miss they point. Our data (or models) at present can not predict accurately about specific heat-waves, tornados, or even rising sea-levels at specific points -- too many factors can effect it -- we can talk only in statistical way in some cases.. but there is NO doubt about the rise in temperature, Its correlation with CO2, and theories about unstable-equilibrium (runaway effect), that is -- if we do not do anything about it, results may be bad and it may be too late to do anything.

Hope this helps.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 15 Sep 2016 02:49

Amber G. wrote:
RoyG wrote:

Hope so, OTOH the talk about this "game change" has been there for *many* years.. so would be nice to see ....
Image
Nice article in Scientific American for those who are interested:
Beyond the Hype: What's the Future of Batteries?
And this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1613/2/4/045002/meta


I've been hearing great things about advances in sodium ion batteries. Could be the next big thing coupled w/ graphene wrt compact energy storage.

http://www.econotimes.com/Teslas-batter ... her-273676


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests