Poll

[POLL] Is AGW a sure thing?

Yes, no doubt at all.
46 (34.1%)
No, something smells fishy.
39 (28.9%)
The IPCC's "very likely" 90% scenario sounds about right.
50 (37%)

Total Members Voted: 132

Author Topic: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers  (Read 35587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1804
  • Country: pl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #225 on: May 22, 2017, 10:01:12 pm »
A person produces about 1.5 kg of CO2 per day, one litre of gasoline about 2.6 kg. In both cases the O2 comes from the air, but the C in the gasoline comes from a fossil that's been sitting underground millions of years and the persons' C comes from food ultimately from plants that captured it from the air presumably not too long ago so that's somehow a closed cycle unlike the gasoline's. Or so it seems, if I'm not mistaken.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 11:31:01 am by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
 #include <unistd.h>
 int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline ziggyfish

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Country: au
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #226 on: May 23, 2017, 01:44:48 am »

The 97% figure is utter bullshit,

No, it's verifiable fact based on several studues. From earlier in this thread:

----

Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:

Quote
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

More can be found HERE

It's also a fact  that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.

Damn those Pesky Facts.

Yeah, those pesky facts.




I stopped believing in climate change, when the only excuse they could come up with to explain the current climate pause, was the extra heat is under the couch in the oceans.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3579
  • Country: us
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #227 on: May 23, 2017, 03:26:06 am »
The post above is the perfect example of science illiteracy and pseudoscience run amok in the internet age   It's astounding that even some posters on a technical forum can't make the distinction.

What's next on EEVblog - people posting "creation science" videos? :palm:
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9967
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #228 on: May 23, 2017, 06:43:20 am »
I stopped believing in climate change

Because you wanted to.

...and when you want to, any old crap on the Internet sounds like solid evidence.

 

Online NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4434
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #229 on: May 23, 2017, 09:06:30 am »
it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.
It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles.
Don't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.
I have a very strict differentiation between fanatics greens and greens. Fanatics will chain themselves to trees and "we should all ride bicycles". That is stupid. If there is a green revolution, it will be technology driven and it will improve things, not restrict me and not make my life less comfortable or more expensive.
I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.
There are plans to increase the usage of green energy in a clever way. There is a manager working on just this, sitting next to me. Working on variable pricing of electricity, social studies, etc. Trial runs are expected to start. Very simple concepts, like charging your car when the sun is shining. It requires infrastructure, data processing, smart meters, controllable chargers, websites, etc. The end result is higher solar production, and less fossil usage.
It is simple. If you tell someone, that it is cheaper to use green energy, and buy the technology to reduce waste, pollution, they are going to do that. And maybe we can prevent half of Holland going underwater.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9967
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #230 on: May 23, 2017, 09:10:47 am »
The post above is the perfect example of science illiteracy and pseudoscience run amok in the internet age   It's astounding that even some posters on a technical forum can't make the distinction.

What's next on EEVblog - people posting "creation science" videos? :palm:

Yep. The science/mechanisms behind greenhouse gases couldn't be clearer or easier to understand but these people refuse to believe because a single, relatively unimportant number might be 93% instead of 97%, or because nobody can tell them exactly how much the earth's temperature will rise this decade (to 0.00001 degrees C, please).

These are the exact same people who totally believed that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans - because they read somewhere it on the Internet!

It's  :palm: all around. Science will still happen whether you believe in it or not.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9967
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #231 on: May 23, 2017, 09:29:11 am »
I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.
There is a manager working on just this, sitting next to me.

Yep. Electric cars are all-around better than gasoline/petrol cars.

There's one remaining problem at the moment which is very long range. Most daily car use isn't a problem but sometimes people want to drive 1000 miles.

My solution for that to rent a battery "trailer" that attaches to the back of the car. You drive into a battery station on the highway, hook one up, drive, drop it off when you arrive and pay for the electricity used. Change as many times as needed to complete your journey.

The overall effort and extra delays needed for a long journey would about the same as filling up with gasoline/petrol1. As a driver you're driving you're not even going to see it behind your car.

All we need is some nice designs2 and a standard connector built into all new cars. If it's designed right it can be all automated so you don't even have to get out of your car to attach/remove them.

How will this be a loss in "standard of living", unless you're an oil-baron?

1 If you can charge your car at home you're going to save an awful lot of trips to gas stations anyway.
2 Engineered to not restrict top speeds, obviously.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 09:32:08 am by Fungus »
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17644
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #232 on: May 23, 2017, 10:00:34 am »
I do not doubt that increase in CO2 is a byproduct of human behaviour

But I do doubt that main source is fossil fuels....

See attachment for human population vs CO2 since 1850'ish. Some data is estimates but all from official sources. Data intervals with no data are interpolated. All sources listed in PNG text
You can create all kinds of graphs which hint in some direction but that doesn't prove there is an actual relation. Statistics is much harder (and often severely underestimated) than plotting data into a graph and look at it. Many scientists don't have a good grasp of statistics!
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17644
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #233 on: May 23, 2017, 10:08:22 am »
it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.
It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles.
Don't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.
I have a very strict differentiation between fanatics greens and greens. Fanatics will chain themselves to trees and "we should all ride bicycles". That is stupid. If there is a green revolution, it will be technology driven and it will improve things, not restrict me and not make my life less comfortable or more expensive.
I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.
I don't know anything about phasing out petrol engines. Diesel engines maybe. The NL is about the only country where you can't get E10 fuel (10% ethanol). Also the plugin hybrids where popular due to tax incentives which have already been stopped and hence the sale of plugin hybrids has dropped to insignificant levels. Nobody was using the batteries on their plugin hybrid cars. You do see a lot of Teslas in the NL though.

BTW rising sea levels won't have any effect on the NL because keeping the water out means upgrading existing infrastructure which is a continuous process already.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 10:10:07 am by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9967
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #234 on: May 23, 2017, 10:19:07 am »
You can create all kinds of graphs which hint in some direction but that doesn't prove there is an actual relation. Many scientists don't have a good grasp of statistics!

Sure, but the "relation" is a simple scientific phenomenon predicted over 100 years ago, ie. greenhouse gases vs. earth temperature. They're overlaying a graph of temperature and a graph of greenhouse gases and seeing if they match or not. There's not much room for massaging numbers when it's two simple sets of data against time.

Believe it or not, the climate scientists are also trying to disprove their own theories[/url] by looking for other things that match. This is actual science, this is how it's done - not just by reading stuff on the Internet. Have they found anything? Not so far.

nb. Most of the deniers theories have been tested too and found lacking, eg. solar activity.



If the mechanism being proposed (ie. greenhouse gases) was long and complicated then the deniers might have a point. It isn't though. It's very simple.  :-//

« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 10:26:34 am by Fungus »
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1804
  • Country: pl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #235 on: May 23, 2017, 11:18:58 am »
Quote
These are the exact same people who totally believed that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans

They do, in fact, because humans produce about naught, unless by humans you mean burning fossil fuels.
 #include <unistd.h>
 int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1804
  • Country: pl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #236 on: May 23, 2017, 11:21:47 am »
Quote
Electric cars are all-around better than gasoline/petrol cars

Define "all-around better". Heavier, more expensive, less range and takes much longer to refill are not "better" things imo.
 #include <unistd.h>
 int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1804
  • Country: pl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #237 on: May 23, 2017, 11:27:19 am »
Quote
If the mechanism being proposed (ie. greenhouse gases) was long and complicated then the deniers might have a point. It isn't though. It's very simple.

Things like these below, then... why?

Quote
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
 #include <unistd.h>
 int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29673
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #238 on: May 23, 2017, 11:54:21 am »
This thread and the poll has done it's dash.
 
The following users thanked this post: Neilm, AF6LJ, GeorgeOfTheJungle, gildasd


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf