Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

-1=e^ipi

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,786

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. -1=e^ipi
    Yeah, I've tried to ask waldo to speak normally with limited success. Either I've gotten somewhat used to it over the past year or Waldo has improved slightly, I can't tell. Well with respect to coverage bias, it tries to take things into account such as ocean sensitivity being different from land sensitivity. So it does krig but it also includes parameters in the model that take into account such differences (I don't remember the exact methodology though). It depends on how much CO2 reductions you want to perform, but yes benefits and costs of mitigation policy for the globe are in the trillions of dollars per annum .
  2. -1=e^ipi
    By that logic, we should have banned cars 100% years ago because it hurt the horse and buggy industry. And we should have never allowed the industrial revolution to occur because it hurt textile workers in the 19th century in the UK. Personally, I think if a decision is of net benefit to the country then that decision should be made. The well-being of the vast majority of the country should not be held hostage by a few special interest groups.
  3. -1=e^ipi
    No, it takes the last 2 data points and fits a straight line and idiotically calls that BAU. In the other thread, I explained what business as usual would look like if you look at trends in population, CO2 intensity and real GDP per capita growth.
  4. -1=e^ipi
    BAU does not imply unrestricted emission growth. BAU can involve a decline in emissions.
  5. -1=e^ipi
    Yeah take NAFTA for example. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in Mexico, it hurts them. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in Canada, it hurts them. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in the USA, it hurts them. Somehow trade, which is a positive sum game, causes everyone to lose according to protectionists/socialists. It's ridiculous.
  6. -1=e^ipi
    Waldo, I refuted your claim of China's pledge not being BAU in the other thread, and I also addressed why fitting a linear trend to the last 2 data points in a time series is not BAU. I suggest you either simply accept the truth of China's pledge being BAU, or you try refuting my arguments (which I doubt you can since your mathematical ability seems to be on par with Justin Trudeau).
  7. -1=e^ipi
    After someone pointed me to an article by the CATO institute (http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrations-social-cost-carbon) which claimed that the CO2 fertilization effect used by Anthoff and Tol in their FUND model (page 10 has CO2 fertilization parameters) was overestimated by a factor of 2-3 based on results by Idso 2013 (http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/Agriculture/CO2FoodBenefit%282013%29.pdf), I tried to see where the discrepancy arises. It seems that FACE studies are showing roughly 50% of the CO2 fertilization effect compared to enclosure studies (https://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1918.abstract), for whatever reason. Furthermore, Idso assumes a linear relationship between yields and CO2 concentrations, as opposed to a logarithmic approximation, which means that Idso is overestimating the CO2 fertilization effect for an increase in atmospheric CO2 by 300 ppm given the data used. So CATO and Idso seem to be full of nonsense, the FUND model parameters seem reasonable (though I don't get why they use a truncated normal distribution as opposed to a lognormal distribution), and the other integrated assessment models used by the EPA (DICE and PAGE) don't directly account for the CO2 fertilization effect (PAGE doesn't have it and DICE's quadratic damage function somewhat accounts for it but is likely inadequate).
  8. -1=e^ipi
    Scientific like Rajendra Pachauri? 'For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.'
  9. -1=e^ipi
    Your overconfidence concerns me. Look at the recent doubling of energy prices in Ontario. Look at Germany's insane energy policy. I demonstrated that China's pledge is just BAU here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24698-emission-scenarios-and-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/?p=1072167
  10. -1=e^ipi
    You can keep repeating a lie over and over again, that doesn't make it true. Please explain how countries taking advantage of comparative advantage results in job losses.
  11. -1=e^ipi
    Heat index isn't wet bulb. Look it up.
  12. -1=e^ipi
    50 years? I've heard of the Gleissberg cycle (88 years) but not a 50 year cycle. I've also done fourier analysis of solar irradiance data and I have never seen a peak around 50 years.
  13. -1=e^ipi
    Max wet bulb temperatures in the Gulf are around 31 C. Humans can survive up to 35 C wet bulb temperatures. So you need + 4 C. But the Persian Gulf is in an equatorial region and warms less than polar regions and the globe as a hole; factor this in and you need 7 C of warming, which realistically isn't going to occur over the next century.
  14. -1=e^ipi
    I already explained this, but you refuse to acknowledge the difference between full and partial derivatives.
  15. -1=e^ipi
    I'm pretty sure there's a difference between 'more intense storms' and 'more intense impacts of stalling storms'. Please clarify what you mean by the latter.
  16. -1=e^ipi
    Define what you mean by intensity/severity in this context, because your question appears ambiguous in meaning to me.
  17. -1=e^ipi
    Why? Because you disagree with Occam's razor and the scientific method?
  18. -1=e^ipi
    The frequency of stalling storms is increased.
  19. -1=e^ipi
    Here's an interesting paper that estimates the effect of CO2 on Net Primary Production: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.00021.x/pdf Basically, Global Net Primary Production is approximately proportional to (1 + 0.34*ln(CO2/278)), where CO2 is atmospheric CO2 in ppm. So a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases global net primary production by 24%.
  20. -1=e^ipi
    Why do you continually deny the well-known CO2 fertilization effect? Are you that emotionally attached to a certain conclusion?
  21. -1=e^ipi
    Come on waldo, why not just put a bit of effort into reading what I wrote? At the top of this page I suggested that an increase in the global average temperature by 3 C would result in a 28% increase in the frequency of resonant phenomena (also note that the relevant relationship is that the frequency is proportional to the temperature gradient to the power of -0.75).
  22. -1=e^ipi
    I did summarize. Go to page 1.
  23. -1=e^ipi
    I'll take Cowtan & Way data for 1970-1998 and 1998-2014, and I'll fit a linear trend with autocorrelation factor. For 1970-1998 I get a rate of warming of 0.0151 +/- 0.0071 C/year (95% confidence interval). For 1998-2014 I get a rate of warming of 0.0113 +/- 0.0110 C/year. The difference is 0.0038 +/- 0.0122 C/year. I guess the number of data points are too few to demonstrate a slowdown at the 95% confidence level.
  24. -1=e^ipi
    1. People that deny the existence of the slowdown annoy me. 2. People were generally overestimating climate sensitivity a decade ago because they were underestimating natural variation and a fair amount of the warming from 1970-1998 was natural. Taking into account the recent slowdown, this suggests that natural variation is more relevant than previously thought, which reduces climate sensitivity estimates. But that does show a slowdown... warming from 1970-1998 is clearly larger than warming for 1998-2014. The AMO started increasing in 1970, so starting at 1970 makes sense when it comes to the relevance of the AMO in explaining recent temperature changes. As for graph of global temperature trends, I don't think it makes sense to start at 1951, and I don't think the methodology is appropriate to measure uncertainty (there is clearly autocorrelations; so a linear regression with autocorrelation factor would make more sense and this would reduce the uncertainty bars).
  25. -1=e^ipi
    Pretty sure you need about 7 C of global warming for this to occur in the Persian Gulf.
×
×
  • Create New...