Climate Science/Resources Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 01:41 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Potholer54 is a science journalist named Peter Hadfield.

That's right, he's not a climate scientist, and therefore not a source I listen to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 04:35 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 04:14 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 01:41 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Potholer54 is a science journalist named Peter Hadfield.

That's right, he's not a climate scientist, and therefore not a source I listen to.

I can understand your position here but surely all sources are worth listening to.

Note that the scientist and the journalist play different roles in society...

Journalist = Incident Management (identify and documenting issues) + Service Desk (point of contact for latest information) and assisting with Problem Management by classifying incidents and pointing to likely root causes. Also Satisfaction Surveys (i.e. guaging perceptions and expectations)
... Potholer and of course Hitchens are good examples of this.

Scientist = Problem Management (root cause analysis, trend analysis, etc. recommendations for change)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
04-08-2012, 04:35 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 04:14 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 01:41 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Potholer54 is a science journalist named Peter Hadfield.

That's right, he's not a climate scientist, and therefore not a source I listen to.

That might be going a little far.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-08-2012, 08:25 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(03-08-2012 06:28 AM)Jeff Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 08:43 PM)aurora Wrote:  The only problem is, who can you trust that has no hidden agenda?

I agree that it is difficult. I try to assess each source individually. For example, I found the recent assessment by James Lovelock (author of the Gaia concept of a living earth) to be credible and agenda-free. Here's the source, what do you think?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/...ate-change

Thanks, Jeff.

Quote:
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

I think the above statement almost says it all. I don't think the scientists current knowledge is enough to make informed and factual predictions. They still don't know enough and it may be a while before they do.

Here in Australia we have recently been hit with a 'carbon tax' that has driven up our electricity bills to an insane level. We are the guinea pigs for the rest of the world as our 'she'll be right, mate' and layback attitude means we'll just 'cop' it! It is just another way to fleece the taxpayer.

I believe we should take better care of our world with greener practices but I also think we are being taken for a ride with this 'scaremongering' so these corrupt people can take what isn't theirs in a 'legitimate' way.

It's fucked up! Sad

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 08:25 PM)aurora Wrote:  Here in Australia we have recently been hit with a 'carbon tax' that has driven up our electricity bills to an insane level. We are the guinea pigs for the rest of the world as our 'she'll be right, mate' and layback attitude means we'll just 'cop' it! It is just another way to fleece the taxpayer.

Here's the analysis I've seen on what your higher electric bill accomplishes:

"Australia accounts for 1.2% of global CO2 emissions, and the government’s policy is to reduce this percentage by 5% over the ten-year life of the tax. On the generous assumption that the entire reduction would be achieved from year 1 onward, the fraction of global emissions abated would be just 0.06%. Because this fraction is so small, the projected CO2 concentration of 412 ppmv that would otherwise obtain in the atmosphere by 2020 would fall to 411.987 ppmv. Because this reduction in CO2 concentration is so small, the warming abated over the 10-year period of the tax would be just 0.000085 C°, at a discounted cost of $130 billion over the ten-year term.

Therefore, the cost of abating all of the 0.15 C° of warming that the IPCC predicted would occur between 2011 and 2020 by using measures as cost-effective as Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would be $309 trillion, 57.4% of global GDP to 2020, or $44,000 per head of the world’s population. On this basis, the cost of abating 1 C° of global warming would be $1.5 quadrillion. That is 110 times more costly than doing nothing and paying the eventual cost of any damage that might arise from warmer weather this century."

I'd be interested to know the before and after amounts of your electric bill, and whether you think the 0.000085 C° reduction in global temperature is worth it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 08:55 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 08:25 PM)aurora Wrote:  Here in Australia we have recently been hit with a 'carbon tax' that has driven up our electricity bills to an insane level. We are the guinea pigs for the rest of the world as our 'she'll be right, mate' and layback attitude means we'll just 'cop' it! It is just another way to fleece the taxpayer.

Here's the analysis I've seen on what your higher electric bill accomplishes:

"Australia accounts for 1.2% of global CO2 emissions, and the government’s policy is to reduce this percentage by 5% over the ten-year life of the tax. On the generous assumption that the entire reduction would be achieved from year 1 onward, the fraction of global emissions abated would be just 0.06%. Because this fraction is so small, the projected CO2 concentration of 412 ppmv that would otherwise obtain in the atmosphere by 2020 would fall to 411.987 ppmv. Because this reduction in CO2 concentration is so small, the warming abated over the 10-year period of the tax would be just 0.000085 C°, at a discounted cost of $130 billion over the ten-year term.

Therefore, the cost of abating all of the 0.15 C° of warming that the IPCC predicted would occur between 2011 and 2020 by using measures as cost-effective as Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would be $309 trillion, 57.4% of global GDP to 2020, or $44,000 per head of the world’s population. On this basis, the cost of abating 1 C° of global warming would be $1.5 quadrillion. That is 110 times more costly than doing nothing and paying the eventual cost of any damage that might arise from warmer weather this century."

I'd be interested to know the before and after amounts of your electric bill, and whether you think the 0.000085 C° reduction in global temperature is worth it.

OMG! When it's put in those terms I can't think of anything more ridiculous. I knew it was pathetic but now I'm fucking angry.
Australia - The Lucky Country...pfffft Dodgy

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:06 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 04:35 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I can understand your position here but surely all sources are worth listening to.

By "listening to" in this context I meant those whose expertise I place trust in.

A science reporter's job is to report on the work of scientists and make it understandable by the public. But in the YouTube video he's not reporting on others, he's making his own analysis. On the basis of what expertise in climatalogy does he make these analyses? None that I have heard of. I don't get better answers by averaging in the less competent with the more competent.

I'm an avid science buff with a degree in engineering, but I consider climate science to be way too complex to draw my own conclusions directly from the data. I have to seek out and rely on trustworthy, knowledgeable sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
04-08-2012, 09:15 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 09:04 PM)aurora Wrote:  OMG! When it's put in those terms I can't think of anything more ridiculous. I knew it was pathetic but now I'm fucking angry.
Australia - The Lucky Country...pfffft Dodgy

I don't blame you. I remember watching a video, maybe 9 months ago, of a public hearing in Australia, with various members of your government questioning various scientific sources about climate change and the merits of your carbon tax. One of the sources was a scientist who was trying to tell them that the underlying cause of global warming had not been established. The government official (a minister or something) said "Well we can't just wait, or it might be too late, we've got to do something." It turns out that "something" was spending your money. Now they'll probably vote themselves a pay raise to cover their own increased electric bills.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:21 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 09:15 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 09:04 PM)aurora Wrote:  OMG! When it's put in those terms I can't think of anything more ridiculous. I knew it was pathetic but now I'm fucking angry.
Australia - The Lucky Country...pfffft Dodgy

I don't blame you. I remember watching a video, maybe 9 months ago, of a public hearing in Australia, with various members of your government questioning various scientific sources about climate change and the merits of your carbon tax. One of the sources was a scientist who was trying to tell them that the underlying cause of global warming had not been established. The government official (a minister or something) said "Well we can't just wait, or it might be too late, we've got to do something." It turns out that "something" was spending your money. Now they'll probably vote themselves a pay raise to cover their own increased electric bills.

You can bet your arse that's exactly what they'll do.

I'm wondering which country will be next to start this 'earth-saving' strategy Dodgy

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2012, 12:04 AM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
There might be beneficial spinoffs from this "carbon tax"...

If you think of it in terms of natural selection you are selecting for technology and innovation that releases less carbon into the atmosphere. Chances are there are things that can be done right now that can significantly cut carbon emissions and barely cost anything. Things that wouldn't have been found if some pressure wasn't applied in the right areas.

We'll see soon enough.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: