Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
OverSword

Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham

246 posts in this topic

Two years ago, climate scientist came out with cow farts were bad for the environment. About a week later they changed that to american cows were bad, and chinese cows were good for the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot more people that cows; should we stop farting?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago, climate scientist came out with cow farts were bad for the environment. About a week later they changed that to american cows were bad, and chinese cows were good for the environment.

You just heard that one? It was at least nine years ago and it all started with a flippant comment by a minor bureaucrat in the EPA who made the comment in a report, thinking he was being funny. The Sierra Club, or another of those left-wing ecofreak groups, got ahold of it and filed suit because the EPA hadn't followed up on it. To settle the suit, the EPA did a study which led to some unfortunate cows wearing devices to measure their "emissions." The study found that there was no significant effect, but the SC didn't buy it and filed another suit. The EPA commissioned another study that found there was an effect. And that led to a third study to break the tie. At any rate, many studies later, the consensus is that cow "emissions" are a minor problem and that feed lots are a bigger one.

Doug

There's a lot more people that cows; should we stop farting?

Just stop eating beans.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius said:

"The central point here is can the statement that global warming stopped 15 years ago be supported by the data - the answer is NOT."

the central point is - what is the trend over the last 15 years.

"The basis of your position regarding the models is based upon the false premise that a pause of 15years in global warming is proof that the models are invalid. Since there has been no pause your premise is invalid."

I never said stopped, i never said paused, i said trend.

the trend over the last 15 years has been flat on all indices.

"In datasets there are always extreme outliers which skew the overall result. Only by using the largest avilable dataset can the effect of such outliers be diminished from skewing the trend within the data. It is not acceptable to dismiss outliers (such as the year 1998) but it is the objective of stats to interpret them and to diminish their skewing influence."

it was the climate modelers themselves that stated 15 years of flat trend was enough to determine a discrepancy in their models, specifically stating that a 15 year period was enough to account for natural variability "outliers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all 14 pages of this topic, so please excuse me if my comment has already been dealt with. I only have one observation and two questions.

I've never known any two people who can agree on the temperature of a single room. So, what is the ideal temperature of the Earth and who gets to control the thermostat?

Edited by Big Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius said:

"The central point here is can the statement that global warming stopped 15 years ago be supported by the data - the answer is NOT."

the central point is - what is the trend over the last 15 years.

"The basis of your position regarding the models is based upon the false premise that a pause of 15years in global warming is proof that the models are invalid. Since there has been no pause your premise is invalid."

I never said stopped, i never said paused, i said trend.

the trend over the last 15 years has been flat on all indices.

Stopped = paused = flat = zero slope.

The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated. See Post #197.

Because Br. Cornelius cannot prove an increasing temperature based on the statistics, does not mean that the trend is zero. All it means is that no answer can be produced within the required 95% confidence limit.

"In datasets there are always extreme outliers which skew the overall result.

This dataset is full of outliers. In this case, they didn't skew the result. They just rendered it gibberish.

This argument cannot be decided using standard statistics. The data is too variable and there isn't enough of it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Doug.

You have to apply appropriate statistical techniques and limits to interpret any dataset - and the 15 year period Little Fish is attempting to analysis, and draw an overwhelming conclusion from, simple isn't adequate to calculate any meaningful pattern.

As Doug pointed out there is no 15 year flat trend to use as the basis of a critique of the models, there is only an inadequate noisy dataset. There are standard statistical tests to establish if the data can be analyzed using stats, and Doug has done those tests and found that stats cannot be applied to such data.

Take the data back to 1983 and a significant trend can be discussed for the last 15years.

The fundamental problem here is that Little Fish has absolutely no understanding of statistics yet he is attempting to use statistics to analysis the data. A crash course in basic stats would be in order if he were really honestly interested in understanding what he is talking about.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated."

is the trend allowed to be calculated for any 15 year period, or is it just the last 15 years that we are "not allowed" to calculate the trend.

what you boys are missing is that the model projections rule out 15 year flat trends if those models understand climate correctly - either 15 year flat trends will not exist or those global climate models are wrong. you know it, I know it, we all know it.

now you are backed into a corner and say "we are not allowed to calculate the trend". its like watching the ******* karl marx brothers.

"Because Br. Cornelius cannot prove an increasing temperature based on the statistics, does not mean that the trend is zero."

the trend is something to be calculated not "proven".

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated."

is the trend allowed to be calculated for any 15 year period, or is it just the last 15 years that we are "not allowed" to calculate the trend.

If you calculate the trend over at least any 30year period (longer is better) you can discuss the significance of any sub-portion of that 30year period in terms of its trend. If you calculate the trend using one of the standard techniques back to 1983 then you can start to look at what the data is telling you about the last 15years or the 15 years before that.

The technique you choose doesn't even have to be looking for a linear trend, it can be a smoothing trend which would show a variable rate of warming over the 30year period - but the critically important thing with appropriate stats analysis is to smooth out the skewing influence of extreme outliers like 1998.

There is no arbitrary prejudice against the particular 15 year period you want to study - it would apply to any set of 15 years of data.

Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius said

"Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking."

I choose to look at the 15 year interval to find a zero trend, not because "it supports my beliefs", but because that is the interval period given by the climate modelers in 2008 as a falsifiability test against their climate models. if you find that unacceptable then take it up with the climate modelers who stated it.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius said

"Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking."

I choose to look at the 15 year interval to find a zero trend, not because "it supports my beliefs", but because that is the interval period given by the climate modelers in 2008 as a falsifiability test against their climate models. if you find that unacceptable then take it up with the climate modelers who stated it.

As Doug pointed out - all you are basing your opinion on is noise.

Fail.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious the planet is getting warmer, so I conclude that it's possible to prove practically anything with statistics, if you pick them and manipulate them to do so.

I'd like to see a table of first frost for some location away from a big city over a century or so. For a dozen or so towns actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious the planet is getting warmer, so I conclude that it's possible to prove practically anything with statistics, if you pick them and manipulate them to do so.

I'd like to see a table of first frost for some location away from a big city over a century or so. For a dozen or so towns actually.

Anyone who understands stats understands that you can use them to prove dishonest things if misapplied. This is why a statistician has "tests of significance" in order to establish where the analysis he has carried out shows a valid trend. If you applied a "test of significance" (as Doug did) to the 15 years of data in question you find it is not significant and you should not carry on to perform the analysis since the result will be misleading or wrong.

This is why it has been established that significance in climate data can only be reliably established over a minimum period of data of 30years. Real climate scientists use the whole data set of over 100years which significantly increases the reliability of their conclusions.

Stats are a tool which can be abused - but when applied honestly they can tell us things which it would be almost impossible to find out in any other way.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious the planet is getting warmer, so I conclude that it's possible to prove practically anything with statistics, if you pick them and manipulate them to do so.

hi frank, can YOU explain to me what this means:

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals are moving north, growing seasons getting longer, glaciers melting, the arctic ice cover getting smaller, etc. Further, as a layman I have to depend on government sources, and our government here sure thinks warming is here and getting warmer; they are preparing for rising sea levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi frank, can YOU explain to me what this means:

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

When you can show a zero trend of 15 years (using valid stats techniques) you can make that point.

Its highly ironic for you to attempt to prove your point using stats whilst simultaniously abusing one of the primary foundational principles of stats analysis.

Did you apply a test of significance to that data when you analysed it - or did you simply take someones word for it that the test had been correctly applied ??

More to the point - did you do any analysis at all or are you just parroting ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of studies there and most do not address the specific point. Can you point out which study draws that conclusion so that we all don't have to trawl through the many documents to confirm it.

When I did a quick search this is what I got from the California Air Resources Board ;

I'm sorry if you missed it:

The study is called Preparing for a Life Cycle CO2 Measure which is under 2011 studies from the link i provided. http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/resources-library/reports-and-studies.asp?pg=%203

EV's come out with the lowest Life cycle carbon footprint followed by hybrids.

I used Life Cycle studies in my degree and became fairly cynical of the results. Basically depending on how you tweak the assumptions - you always end up confirming the prejudices of the company paying for the study.

Unless the study can be shown to be truly impartial (Independently university financed) then the results should be taken with a huge pinch of salt and a firm review of the sponsoring body.

Br Cornelius

Although LowCVP is a private company, its the UK government "go-to" guys when its comes to low carbon transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if you missed it:

The study is called Preparing for a Life Cycle CO2 Measure which is under 2011 studies from the link i provided. http://www.lowcvp.or...udies.asp?pg= 3

Although LowCVP is a private company, its the UK government "go-to" guys when its comes to low carbon transport.

It seems that the study actually suggests that overall the LCA carbon footprint of EV's are lower - but that much of that burden is shifted to the production cycle rather than the tailpipe emissions. In this case the benefits are assessed to be marginal.

Correct me if my assessment is incorrect.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the study actually suggests that overall the LCA carbon footprint of EV's are lower - but that much of that burden is shifted to the production cycle rather than the tailpipe emissions. In this case the benefits are assessed to be marginal.

Correct me if my assessment is incorrect.

Br Cornelius

I would agree with you assessment that the LC carbon footprint of EV's are lower. But only if you don't change your battery.

As soon as the second battery is accounted for then its greater. The study actually indicates that a small petrol or diesel car is better for the environment than any EV because as soon as the production of a second battery is included then EV's have a great footprint.

Now for the question i can't answer and the study doesn't have any indication of.

This is where your expertise is needed.

Which have a higher carbon footprint, disposal of an EV or a petrol/diesel car?

Surely its must be an EV given the recycling?? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with you assessment that the LC carbon footprint of EV's are lower. But only if you don't change your battery.

As soon as the second battery is accounted for then its greater. The study actually indicates that a small petrol or diesel car is better for the environment than any EV because as soon as the production of a second battery is included then EV's have a great footprint.

Now for the question i can't answer and the study doesn't have any indication of.

This is where your expertise is needed.

Which have a higher carbon footprint, disposal of an EV or a petrol/diesel car?

Surely its must be an EV given the recycling?? Correct me if i'm wrong.

The parts in an EV would be more durable (apart from the battery) so the life expectancy should be longer. This is based on real life experience of people survicing EV's. When it finally does come to recycling the value of the parts embodied within the EV are far more valuable than the parts in the petrol (copper - rare earth metals) so recovery of embodied energy should be higher and the gains in recycling should be greater than for a petrol car.

EV's only really make sense to me if the batteries are in a closed loop recycling cycles where there is almost no loss of raw materials as the batteries are renewed. Until that side of things matures - EV's are going to be more expensive initially and throughout their life and the percieved benefits cannot be fully realized.There also has to be a significant step up in battery technology for adoption to become more widespread. This is an area of research which promises to transform transport when the current research matures into a usable technology.

The real issue with realizing the closed loop battery cycle is that those companies (Renault) who are attempting to implement it are using a business model which will inhibit the takeup. They are losing at least a 1/3 of their profits in servicing and parts (because EV's are more durable and don't need as many brake changes and no oil changes) so they are attempting to shift the loss onto the cost of their franchised battery replacement service. They are charging the most they can get away with and this means that running an EV is costing nearly as much as putting petrol in the tank (even at current prices). Until a competitive market develops in battery replacement and recycling for EV's most people will never consider the up front hit of a more expensive EV whilst also realizing almost none of the potential life cycle cost savings.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a motorbike to go places, except when I go to the airport I have to take a taxi as they don't let motorbikes in. They want to reduce air pollution and gas consumption but still force use of a car to go certain places.

Now I understand the plan is to ban motorbikes entirely from Vietnam's main cities by the end of this decade, as well as from all the major highways. If the people can't afford a car they will have to take the bus.

Of course the reason is safety; Vietnam has gotten a bad reputation for slaughtering its inhabitants on the roads, but that is mostly because they allow teenagers to drive big lorries and put bus drivers under severe route completion rules. Also, of course, the roads do remain rather primitive, although good progress here is being made.

Vietnam is just too crowded to go automobile, and busses are horrid and undependable and hot and smelly and a danger to all other vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ae I understasnd it. You have to drive an ev car for 20years(I may be off on that) to get a positive impact on the carbin footprint. The problem, at least in the usp is we tend to trade cars about ever five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ae I understasnd it. You have to drive an ev car for 20years(I may be off on that) to get a positive impact on the carbin footprint. The problem, at least in the usp is we tend to trade cars about ever five years.

It depends how long they stay in active use. most cars are resold at least two or three times.

I still suspect that the whole battery thing will significantly improve as the infrstructure to recycle them matures.

For me though EV's are the wrong answer to the wrong question. Most people live in cities and the use of personal transport such as cars in most cities is very inefficient for everyone (including the user who sits in traffic jams for most of the time). The right question is how can we reduce the need for private transport and the right answer is good public transport and better urban planning. Unfortunatey that goes against the current fetish for absolute freedom to do whatever we can afford.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want busses. I won't ride them. They get just as stuck in traffic as do cars, are hot and uncomfortable, if you can find a seat, they are especially hard on the elderly, they are inconvenient and undependable, any time the drivers can go on strike and hold a city to ransom.

Other forms of mass transit require disrupting a city for years, ruining neighborhoods, and huge capital investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want busses. I won't ride them. They get just as stuck in traffic as do cars, are hot and uncomfortable, if you can find a seat, they are especially hard on the elderly, they are inconvenient and undependable, any time the drivers can go on strike and hold a city to ransom.

Other forms of mass transit require disrupting a city for years, ruining neighborhoods, and huge capital investment.

You should go to a modern European city such as Berlin and see that everything you say doesn't apply.

Urban planning has forced us to communt long distances to work which for most people involves sitting for at least an hour a day in traffic jams. Public transport can be given priority over all other transport and this means that in most situations can save you that wasted hour and leave you considerably more rested when you arrive at work.

Vietnam is not a particularly good example of what I am talking about here.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.