Electric Car Drivel

[Doggit]

And this link in the Limate change deniers thread, perfectly sums up my position. Not that we aren't causing climate change, but that it's not being discussed properly. Cars are being demonised, wind farms blight the landscape but are not consistant, solar doen't work at night, but renewables are seen as the only way forward.

There was a discussion about 5 years ago that we'd have a type of CO2 passport, that would only allow you a certain number of flights, but that debate got shut down. We import goods from abroad, but cause massive pollution by the cargo ships, but they don't get discussed either.

From April 23, 2009 Guardian journo :-
http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
He points to :-
https://www.slideshare.net/Calion/dkgroup-environment-remake-cha-v14

 

[mikeey84]

No one's mentioned changing cows diets to reduce the methane they output

Yes they are

http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/ea07199

no one discusses the affect that all the fields under cultivation have on heating the air above them

Yes they do, but not that much, as its probably not a huge cause of warming
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818197000052

 

[mikeey84]

there would be bound to be 'spikes' of atmospheric CO2 levels after a sudden increase in CO2 injection into the atmosphere, since some of the natural 'regulatory processes' (particularly the geological one) can take quite a time to catch up. There have, of course, been plenty of 'spikes' (and cyclical changes) in atmospheric CO2 long before industrialisation was a factor

Those changes, for the most part, took place over millions of years, allowing the planet to adapt.

When there were short, fast changes in CO2 levels during the planets history, there was an accompanying massive extinction of plant and animal life, as it takes eons for them to adapt.

The rate at which ACC is changing the climate is much faster than almost any time in our history, and the times it has been faster are usually related back to a massive event, such as significant volcanic activity (not seen for 16 million years)

 

[scousespark]

I think you will find that the wording is "it is extremely likely" to be the result of human activity - because no one actually knows.

I didn't say human activity had caused GW, just that the evidence is clear that it has had a major impact. Approx 97% of climatologists accept this.

 

[mikeey84]

Just because a climate chance scientists enter data into their model, doesn't mean that they are neutral, and I've yet to see any model give a higher and a lower result; they always give the worst case scenario

Some climate models have accurately predicted phenomena we not have empirical data for, proving that they were accurate.

All models have a level of uncertainty, its a complex area to model, however all real world data tends to agree with the top end of the model output, so often the models are conservative, not alarmist.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, the debate is .... Is it loads or loads and loads.

It's quite difficult to determine that when we don't event necessarily know what all the contributory factors are, let alone have the ability to quantify the extent of their relative contributions.

As I understand it, a fundamental problem in studying mechanisms is the fact that what matters in terms of climate is the tiny 'tip of an iceberg'. It is (presumably) the carbon in the atmosphere (primarily CO2 and methane) which has the ability to affect climate, yet this is a pretty tiny proportion of the total amount of potentially 'exchangeable carbon' in our planet. Even if one forgets the biological aspects, the oceans contain about 50 times more inorganic carbon (initially as dissolved CO2) than does the atmosphere, and the crust of the earth contains an incredibly large amount of potentially 'exchangeable' carbon, albeit that exchange is much slower in this case.

It therefore follows that very small changes in what is going on in the oceans and rocks (processes which may as yet be unknown or poorly understood) have the potential to result in large changes in atmospheric CO2, hence climate. Some of those processes may also themselves be influenced by human activity. For example, I would imagine that small changed in oceanic pH (perhaps due to man-made pollution) could profoundly affect the ability of the oceans to 'sequester' CO2.

Whilst I have no expert knowledge in this area, I do have some experience of studying/mdelling situations in which 'something very small' is influenced by changes in 'something very big', and therefore am aware of the difficulties and uncertainties which can arise. It's a bit like the nightmare situation of looking at 'a very small difference between two very large numbers' - very small changes in the latter can result very large changes in the former.

Those are some of the reasons I feel that there must be uncertainties - not about the qualitative fact that man-made CO2 emissions will 'inevitably' have some effect on atmospheric CO2, hence climate, but about the quantitative aspects of this effect.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it's disingenuous to say there exists a SCIENTIFIC debate on the wider issue.

Use "a lie" rather than "disingenuous".

 

[Doggit]

The problem with Al Gores film, was that he suggested that CO2 absorption and release by the ocean, was closely linked to the CO2 production by man, but the oceans absorb more when they are cold, and release it when they warm up. What the film should have shown, was a gap of hundreds of years between the change, instead of a direct correlation. But in recent studies, they now suspect the cycle could be as short as 200 years. Solar activity could be causing the oceans to warm and release CO2 stored from previous activity, and that could be adding to what man is currently putting out, but volcanic activity seems to follow a 41,000 year cycle that's linked to the earths wobble tilt phenomanon, and they could be adding CO2 at a far greater rate than man. As the romans were growing grapes for wine in Britain only 2000 years ago there are a lot shorter warming and cooling cycles that we haven't understood yet.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But it didn't have much credibility. Thatcher used it as a way of saying that CO2 was damaging the planet, so coal power stations should be mothballed, and that meant that the coal mines weren't needed any longer, and that was how she defeated Scargil.

More credibility than you.

You have just demonstrated again your lack of grasp on reality, and your credulity when it comes to bonkers conspiracy theories.

 

[Doggit]

If you can't learn to be poite BAS, please don't bother posting. You continue to show yourself as rude and intolerant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To answer the various charges above I will say this:

I am not trying to shut any debates down. I am saying that there is no longer any debate to be had. Only the loony fringe believe that there is.

A "sensible debate on climate change" is a call made by people with as much rationality and as much use of evidence in their positions as those who call for "a sensible debate on immigration". For ideological reasons the latter are opposed to immigration and the former are opposed to the idea of ACC.

 

[mikeey84]

volcanic activity seems to follow a 41,000 year cycle that's linked to the earths wobble tilt phenomanon, and they could be adding CO2 at a far greater rate than man.

Volcanic activity puts out 0.3billion tons of co2 per year. Burning fossil fuels puts out 29billion tons.

Stop spouting half truths and random theories.

All of the points you have made have either been debunked or taken into account by models

 

[JohnW2]

I am not trying to shut any debates down. I am saying that there is no longer any debate to be had.

Those two sound remarkably close.

A "sensible debate on climate change" is a call made by people with as much rationality and as much use of evidence in their positions as those who call for "a sensible debate on immigration". For ideological reasons the latter are opposed to immigration and the former are opposed to the idea of ACC.

I, for one, am not "opposed to the idea of ACC", but I do believe in the need of ongoing research and 'debate'. Some people seem to accept it as a 'certainty' that the burning of fossil fuels is the only factor bringing about climate change, and I strongly suspect that they are probably misguided/wrong in believing that is a certainty.

Fortunately, as witness the ongoing plethora of papers being published to which you refer, research (and hence potential 'debate') clearly is ongoing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Burning fossil fuels puts out 29billion tons.

To put that into perspective, even if (I would think pretty unlikely) no natural processes 'dealt with' any of those 29 billion tons (assumed tonnes) of CO2, by my reckoning it would only result in an increase of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere (by weight) of about 0.0006% per year - to be compared with the normal atmospheric CO2 of about 0.05% (by weight).

I do not know what, if anything, that means, but it is an observation. I would imagine (but do not know) that 'natural processes' probably reduce that increase to appreciably less than that 0.0006% per year.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I am not trying to shut any debates down. I am saying that there is no longer any debate to be had. Only the loony fringe believe that there is.

OK, explain the real difference between those two statements ? By saying there is no debate to be had, and only loonies believe there is - you ARE trying to shut down debate. It's a classic debating trick - to label the opposition as "loonies" (or something equally derogatory for the situation), and thus undermine their argument by undermining the person rather than defending against their argument.
I'll add that it's a classis trick used mostly by those who know they are on shaky ground as far as the actual discussion goes.

A "sensible debate on climate change" is a call made by people with as much rationality and as much use of evidence in their positions as those who call for "a sensible debate on immigration". For ideological reasons the latter are opposed to immigration and the former are opposed to the idea of ACC.

Ah, another classic trick, though really just a variation the same one. Label the opposition in such a manner that you can argue that anything they say cannot be taken seriously rather than actually address the subject. In this case, applying wide (and wrong) generalisations to try and discredit them.

it really does not make you look rational or intelligent when you stoop to such techniques. it's the sort of thing that's resulted in both sides having more or less entrenched in such a manner that rational debate is getting harder and harder to have.

And actually, if you open your eyes, ears, and mind, you will find that many experts in that list of many thousands of experts ARE calling for just what you say only the loony fringe call for - for experts on the "pro AGW/ACC" side are also calling for RATIONAL debate because they are fed up with producing reasoned reports, only to have them "misinterpreted" for political reasons and used to stifle reasonable debate.