The Forum > General Discussion > Climate Change - for the sceptics
Climate Change - for the sceptics
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by davsab, Friday, 16 November 2007 5:50:34 PM
| |
Bazz,
I apologise if I sounded a bit brisk the other day, I was on a tight schedule and a bit frayed. Anyway, I believe David Rutledge answers your question/s … in a novel sort of way. Quite enlightening really, when you consider he is coming from ‘left field’ and uses data quite readily available, if one knows where to look. My point, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Have a look at his power-point presentation if you can’t watch the actual lecture – you can download it (2 MB) and follow the slides he uses in his talk. Not bad actually, you can view his slide-notes, complete with references. I am assuming you have something like MS PowerPoint. Here is the link again. http://rutledge.caltech.edu/ Here is his lecture on ‘Youtube’, if this is of any help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUcxYdMmj4 ________________________________ Just a word of caution to those who have websites or blog-sites and want to comment on something they are obviously not expert in (like climate change); it is very easy to misinterpret something quite complex or inadvertently (or otherwise) misrepresent the facts. Others of course may have a more devious agenda. This is why the media in general and journalists in particular have a very important and responsible role in bringing us the truth … unfortunately, some abuse this power and knowingly or otherwise end up propagandising. So, we (humanity) have a very “sobering” document on climate change; the AR4 Synthesis Report, the summary for policy makers is now out there for all to see, again at, http://www.ipcc.ch/ Sobering because it really is a conservative document agreed by all governments that are party to the IPCC and who were represented in Spain this last week. Of course, what we do from here is going to challenge all stakeholders … the outcome of the UNFCCC meeting/s in Bali next month will be critical in determining where we go after *Kyoto*. Bye Posted by davsab, Sunday, 18 November 2007 4:03:32 PM
| |
Davsab pointed me in the direction of the energy supply portion of the
IPCC report on climate change. The following is part of page 267 ch 4.3.1.3 of the report. Quote Thus, the total available potential proven reserves plus resources of around 10,000 EJ should be sufficient for about 70 years’ supply at present rates of consumption. Since consumption rates will continue to rise, however, 30 to 40 years’ supply is a more reasonable estimate (Hallock et al., 2004). Burning this amount of petroleum resources would release approximately 700 GtCO2 (200 GtC) into the atmosphere, about two thirds the amount released to date from all fossil-fuel consumption. Opportunities for energy-efficiency improvements in oil refineries and associated chemical plants are covered in Chapter 7. Unquote I now understand why commentators said that the IPCC report does not take account of peak oil, gas, coal. I have never heard anyone else assume that consumption will remain constant let alone rise. I believe that the IPCC has its head in the sand with Exxon and others. If that is what they are running their models on then it truley is garbage in and garbage out ! Thanks Davsab, I was able to download just the energy part and I can get more next month. Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:05:02 PM
| |
Bazz (Sherlock), I am glad you found some info on one page out of in excess of 3000 pages covering all the reports of the AR4 … without even looking at the primary sources! Well done.
Seriously, did you get to look at Rutledge’s power-point slides? Even more enlightening!! !! I am still troubled though (and we have been through it before, the SRES scenarios that is). You say, “I have never heard anyone else assume that consumption will remain constant let alone rise.” The IPCC don’t, repeat DON’T, “assume consumption will remain constant” or “let alone rise.” Four different narrative storylines were developed to describe the relationships between emission driving forces (and their evolution) and add context for the scenario quantification. Each storyline represents different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments, which may be viewed positively by some people and negatively by others. Each scenario represents a specific quantitative interpretation of one of four storylines. All the scenarios based on the same storyline constitute a scenario "family". No judgment is offered as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence. Six models were used which are representative of assessment frameworks in the published literature. One advantage of a multi-model approach is that the resultant 40 SRES scenarios together encompass the current range of uncertainties of future GHG emissions arising from different characteristics of these models. Thirteen of these 40 scenarios explore variations in energy technology assumptions. For a better understanding (more bandwidth) I suggest you look at; http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm It doesn’t help anyone if you misinterpret or misrepresent the facts. Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 6:10:40 PM
| |
Davsab,
Yes, I do only have one chapter but it is the one you pointed me to for the energy information. Are you saying that some of the scenarios do reduce the oil, gas, and coal inputs to simulate peak everything ? I will be interested to come accross them. I will be going to the local library to see if I can get the rest of the report. Can you give me your opinion on the hockey stick controversey and the model of Michael Mann and the critisim by Steven McIntyre that the figures were faked ? Is the hockey stick that was highlighted by Al Gore, which I believe was the output of Mann's model, was in the earlier IPCC report ? Has it been removed in subsequent reports ? These things are widely reported and for the likes of me it is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:54:18 AM
| |
Yes the IPCC modelled multiple scenarios. Without such a sensitivity analysis it is hard to judge the value of intervention.
Posted by freediver, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 12:10:06 PM
|
“Here is the section you mention;
Energy Supply Improved supply and distribution efficiency …”
No, that is not the section I mention.
I repeat, The Working Group III’s 4th Assessment Report (Chapter 4: Energy Supply), pp 252 – 322, 15MB download). This is getting ridiculous; we are not in primary school.
Really, you should refer to the whole AR4, ALL working groups.
I am sorry about your limit – maybe you can see a friend, visit a library, university or vote for the political party that will do the most for fast broadband internet access, Australia wide. JOKE.
Must go,
Bye