Help support TMP


"New Paper Corroborates NOAA's 2015 Ocean Temperature dataset" Topic


29 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset

Ætherverse: Upheaval


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Derivan Paints: Striking It Lucky With Colour

Sometimes at a convention, you can be just dead lucky and find a real bargain.


Featured Workbench Article

Crayola Bases for Trees

A simple way to make scenic bases.


Featured Profile Article

Return to Fernando Enterprises

We're trying to keep up with Fernando Enterprises - here they are in their new home!


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


678 hits since 5 Jan 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Zardoz

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Martin From Canada05 Jan 2017 9:37 a.m. PST

Great 5 minute video that explains the main points of the new paper by Zeke Hausfather that corroborates with the "infamous" – among deniers at least – 2015 pausebusting paper by NOAA.
YouTube link


And here's the full paper (It's open access and fairly readable for non-expert audiences).

link

Who asked this joker05 Jan 2017 9:50 a.m. PST

Pretty interesting stuff!

GarrisonMiniatures05 Jan 2017 1:59 p.m. PST

Of course, conspiracy theory says it's all fake…

Bowman05 Jan 2017 2:18 p.m. PST

American Academy for the Advancement of Science. The largest scientific society in the world.

Now you know it has to be all fake as they clearly have an agenda to push. Bastards.

I think this harkens back to Martin's excellent graph of scientific terms, what they mean, and how the public often incorrectly perceives them. "Data manipulation" means the processing of the raw data. The public perceives this as "illicit tampering" in order to obfuscate.

Look how much trouble there is with the word "theory".

15th Hussar05 Jan 2017 2:56 p.m. PST

Yeah, damned "trying to know it alls"!

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP06 Jan 2017 3:52 a.m. PST

All fake. Al Gore tortured the head scientists families ti make them cook up the numbers.

Also Al Gore eats kittens and talks rudely to old ladies.

Zargon06 Jan 2017 10:27 a.m. PST

I heard Al Gore used $20,000 USD of electricity at his main house a year when he was first sprouting the cause all those years ago.

Winston Smith06 Jan 2017 4:43 p.m. PST

They're all Illuminati anyway.
Of course they would corroborate each other!

Charlie 1206 Jan 2017 7:14 p.m. PST

Yes, a VAST conspiracy. Controlled by mindmended minions across the ENTIRE world…. Or so some would have us believe (and hopefully their supply of meds doesn't run out…).

Charlie 1206 Jan 2017 7:15 p.m. PST

I heard Al Gore passes gas in elevators. True evil incarnate….

Terrement07 Jan 2017 3:20 p.m. PST

Better to have heard than smelled…

Bowman07 Jan 2017 6:19 p.m. PST

They're all Illuminati anyway.

I suspect the Reptilians. They're terraforming Earth for their own needs.

link

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP08 Jan 2017 1:47 p.m. PST

Reptillians, puh! Don't believe everything you hear. It's the crab people!

Both the crab people and Al Gore have been on south park. Coincidence? I think not.

Bowman08 Jan 2017 3:32 p.m. PST

Crab people from the Crab Nebula and the Reptilians come from Sigma Draconis. Both are here on Earth causing trouble.

Remember, it is a very LARGE conspiracy.

KTravlos09 Jan 2017 7:08 a.m. PST

This is pretty good work. Concilience is building, but I do not expect any action until the vast majority of people, who prefer anecdotal evidence, feel the bite of the consequences of these changes. Ah well. C'est la vie.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Jan 2017 8:12 a.m. PST

Most people already feel the consequences. But they pretend they don't.

They won't go to the doctor when they pretend it's only a mosquito bite. Even tho everyone tells them it was a rattlesnake.
They will go to the doctor when the leg falls off because the "mosquito bite" really was a rattlesnake bite. But then it's to late.

Great War Ace09 Jan 2017 9:37 a.m. PST

What part of the earth's "leg" is falling off? Who's the doctor again? Who's paying him and how much? The answers are as rhetorical as the questions. Follow the money………..

Martin From Canada09 Jan 2017 9:58 a.m. PST

ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2

This might be a good point of departure, but I doubt you'll read it since it was written by "Watermelons".

Mithmee09 Jan 2017 2:20 p.m. PST

Follow the Money

Bingo, GWA this is a prime factor along with controlling others.

Oh when the numbers are made up corroborating them still means that they are made up numbers.

KTravlos09 Jan 2017 2:52 p.m. PST

It is well known that some of the people who do not want to go to a doctor, say they do not want to go because they believe doctors are part of a vast conspiracy out to get them or take their money.

Which Part of the "earths" legs is falling off-> Martin provided you a citation for a summary. Main part falling off is temperature changes, which make some places colder, and some places warmer, and is likely to affect people either directly by adverse weather, or long-term via habitation changes, and impact on agricultural production, and fresh water availability. Not all parts of the world will be impacted in the same way, but the socio-political consequences will probably diffuse.

Who's the doctor again?-> A mix of Governments, International Organisations, Private Enterprises, and ordinary citizens.

Who's paying him and how much?-> Right now no one is really doing much about it. As consequences begin to pile up the rates will go up.

Follow the Money-> For the current level of pain it is normal. We will see if as the pain goes up the patients will get serious. That said some of them are near death and might not give a damn. Let the kids deal with it. Or so they say.

This should cover this little diversion to political propaganda.

Back to the study.

Great War Ace09 Jan 2017 7:05 p.m. PST

PDF link
Page 1467: "Strategies resulting in energy demand reduction would reduce GHG emissions and reduce the vulnerability of the sector to climate change."

No kidding. Just reduce energy demand and voila! fewer GHG emissions. Of course, with an increasing population, the only way to reduce energy demands is to cost energy out of the reach of more and more people.

My Mom decided to turn her thermostat up from 65F to 70F. Good on her! How well would that go over, times millions of households, if "reduce the energy demand" was the "strategy" to meet GHG emissions?

Bowman09 Jan 2017 10:13 p.m. PST

Nice quote mining, AGW. The content that you quote from is from:

Wilbanks, T., D. Bilello, D. Schmalzer, M. Scott, D. Arent, J. Buizer, H. Chum, J. Dell, J. Edmonds, G. Franco, R. Jones, S. Rose, N. Roy, A. Sanstad, S. Seidel, J. Weyant, and D. Wuebbles, 2012: Climate Change and Energy Supply and Use: Technical Report for the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 79 pp.

In the section above your quote, they are discussing energy demand issues from the years 2050 to 2100. So I think your Mom will be fine. Also a better reading of the article shows that there are other suggestions besides "reducing energy demand" to reduce future impacts on the energy sector.

Need more straw for your argument?

Great War Ace10 Jan 2017 6:51 a.m. PST

Straw? It was a direct quote of intent, now and for the future. This is the sort of "solution" that gets debated in those international meetings joined by the elite, who will never be cold in the dark. My Mom won't either, please God. Neither will I, ditto that. But a world of increasing demands from an exploding population WILL squat in the cold dark, just above lethal levels, in their countless millions. It, is, inevitable. Too many people will result in ALL energy sources being inadequate, especially water, the ultimately essential energy source for each living thing.

Above my "mined" quote (I was actually just waiting for the quintessential "suggestion" to raise its ugly face, before I responded back here), is a reference to Mexico specifically, and how the degradation of the quality of urban water supplies will increase as the population increases, and the water supply GOES DOWN. Projected to do exactly that. People, up; water supply down. Go figure!

How is any of this a straw man argument?

KTravlos10 Jan 2017 12:08 p.m. PST

GWA thinking

"Strategies resulting in energy demand reduction would reduce GHG emissions and reduce the vulnerability of the sector to climate change."

MUST MEAN

"Of course, with an increasing population, the only way to reduce energy demands is to cost energy out of the reach of more and more people."

Reality Thinking

Usually means

"Strategies resulting in energy demand reduction would reduce GHG emissions and reduce the vulnerability of the sector to climate change."

MORE EFFICIENT ENERGY PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

for example

Better insulation, does reduce energy demand.

Nuclear Energy will probably defeat the Luddites who have been blocking it in the long term.

More efficient batteries will reduce energy demand.

GWA, when are you going to understand that Malthus does not apply in industrial and post-industrial capitalism (including its social-democratic and capitalist statist versions)?

It is not a race between scarce resources and and mouths to feed. It is a race between efficient management of scarce resources and innovation and a declining rate of mouths to feed (as economic development is inversely related to population growth)

Get your thinking out of the 1600s. That there are people who think this way trying to use the very real problems coming from Climate Change to deal with a non-existent Malthusian problem, does not mean that every person worried about the consequences of climate change ascribes to the fallacy of applying Malthus to where he should not be applied.

Repeat 100 times:

Malthus is not relevant
Malthus is not relevant
Malthus is not relevant

Bowman10 Jan 2017 1:23 p.m. PST

How is any of this a straw man argument?

From this:

"How well would that go over, times millions of households, if "reduce the energy demand" was the "strategy" to meet GHG emissions?"

Its not "the" strategy, it is one of many strategies. The paper lists others. You just set this one up to knock it down. Hence "straw man".

Mithmee10 Jan 2017 1:54 p.m. PST

the only way to reduce energy demands

Malthus is not relevant

Well I like Malthus and he is right about many things.

link

This planet can only support just so many people and quite frankly I think we have passed that number several billion ago.

You improve food production – results more people

There will come a time when there will be more people than food production can handle – results

Soylent Green

I love it when the experts claim that certain countries will increase their population by 200%-300%.

Take Nigeria and 173.6M by 2050 it will be around 400M.

But do you really think that they will have the clean water and food to maintain this population…

Not on your life, since their neighbor's populations will also increase.

But look on the bright side by 2100-2150 we will more than likely bring to run out of oil and the 3rd World War and quite possibly the 4th World War would have been fought.

So by doing what we do best we will decrease the population of this world by billions.

KTravlos10 Jan 2017 2:30 p.m. PST

Mithmee no he is irrelevant. And quite wrong when applied outside of the domain he studied.

If your logic held Europe and North and South America should be in the billions by now. They are not. And no, the World Wars are not sufficient explanations, especially concerning North America and South America, as well as parts of Europe that were not touched by them.

Demographics and economics (evil experts) have shown that every time economic development passes a certain stage, despite increases in food production and health, population growth goes down, until replacement levels are stagnant.

Yes, there is a point where the advances in health and food security in a society spur demographic explosion (Europe had it around the 1800s). These are the result though of economic development (Capitalism). And down the way (not that long, 2-3 generations top) that economic development brings about efficiency and welfare economics that undercut the incentive for families to have many children.

It is why my grand mothers family was 12 siblings, and my fathers was 4, and mine is two. You had 12 kids in the hope that four would reach adulthood, and that two would be around to take care of you when things go bad. From my grandmothers 12 siblings, only 4 survived to adulthood. From my fathers siblings all four did (the point were food production and health care efficiency dampened the high mortality rate among children). They got the message and only had two of us, as they were pretty confident that a) we would both survive to adulthood, and b) they were not fully reliant on us being around to survive old age (pensions plans, and more efficient health systems- i.e the point where the same economic development that produced phase two, kicked in to produce phase three).

This has happened in Europe, North America, South America, parts of Asia, and will undoubtedly happen in Africa(already in some areas) and the rest of Asia.Simple as that.

Second, how marxist are you? Is it so hard to comprehend innovation and production efficiency? It is really not a hard idea. It is why a much smaller base of agricultural producers feed a much larger population.

There is untapped clean water on this planet, and untapped agricultural land (hell most of the planet surface is not used in agriculture). African agriculture is still largely in pre-industrial mode (which is why they have so many children). As the continent develops that will change.

More efficient corps are being introduced, and more efficient land use. We are becoming better at recycling. Hell by 2100 we will probably be able to send ice trawlers to Jupiter to bring back water if need be, and I highly question if it will come to it.

And you luddite (I mean this in the definition of a person that does not comprehend how the capitalist system works) if oil runs out market and societal pressures will overcome environmental concerns and we will go nuclear (with more efficient technologies).

As I said

Get out of the 1600s. A thing called the industrial revolution happened, and it has a very specific effects on population growth. Not made up. Not experts lying, historical facts and trajectories.

Malthus is spot on for the pre-industrial world, and largely irrelevant to the post-industrial world. He applies to those parts of Africa and Asia that are still stuck in pre-industrial (some of them even pre-agricultural)modes of production. And those places are going through the process. Nigeria is slated to grow so much because it is in Phase 2 (economic development mostly fed by resource capital, has had its positive effects on child mortality rates). Barring something stupid it will go into Phase 3 in a couple of generations. And if something stupid happens it will face famine like North Korea did in the 1990s.

Africans are humans like anybody else.They will react to the incentives created by economic change the same way Europeans and some Asian areas did a century ago.

Great War Ace11 Jan 2017 8:38 a.m. PST

I appeal to Isaac Asimov (sorry, don't remember where he said it, though): his projection, iirc from the vantage point of the 80s, was that by the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, at the then-current rates of population growth and food production, there would very likely be another outbreak of The Black Death or something equally dire, a pandemic, which would remove a similar proportion (20 to 33%) of the world's population. If added to the resulting societal upheavals, Earth could anticipate a reduction of c. half its populations by the end of the century.

Of course, since Asimov, food production has received some boosts. But I also read a decade ago, that already we were into several years of a deficit in food production, as population continues to explode. So if he was an accurate "prophet", changed conditions might move that pandemic and societal upheaval calamity out a few years or even decades. But it isn't going to go away.

Malthus, heh, I had to look him up, aaagain, to remind myself what you were on about. I've never ascribed to social engineering in any form. People need to decide on their own to limit their families.

Here, in the land of plenty and the home of the free, my wife and I "happily" had nine children. So far, we have nine grandchildren. None of our children are going to have even half as many children in each of their families as we did. In our case, it was as much a religious world view as anything else. Our Mormon culture typically produces large families. It has nothing to do with security in old age!

There is no straw man in my arguing; when I seriously propose that the State will take over management and ownership of energy resources: and thereby dish them out to the overburdened populations. That is the "solution" already available to any State that assumes control. Cleaner, more efficient, cheaper, renewable energies are all imaginary until big money funds research and development: which they will not do while they are in competition with each other over the exploitation of fossil fuels……………….

KTravlos11 Jan 2017 12:12 p.m. PST

Well, I feel I said what I had to say on Malthus and the apocalyptic scenarios so loved by many libertarians and conservatives (they rival the most crazy hard core Climate Alarmists). Wargames, job applications, grading etc beckon. I will respect you having faith, and not point something out, because it is not relevant. Do enjoy your grandchildren.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.