Electric Car Drivel

[ban-all-sheds]

Never agree with them about what?

About the significance of ACC.

I certainly agree that 'ACC' exists, that it inevitably has some impact on climate and, indeed, that it relates, or potentially relates, to a lot of other human activities in addition to the burning of fossil fuel (although that is probably the predominant component).

And thousands of experts agree that ACC is, and for many decades has been, the dominant cause of global warming.

For how much longer, and with what degree of forcefulness, and what degree of unanimity, would all these experts have to keep on saying it before you agree that they are right?

I do not think we know enough to know, let alone be certain, as some people seem to be, that all recent (and predicted future) climate change is the consequence of 'ACC'

Those who do know about it say otherwise.

I strongly suspect that most of the "people with real expertise in the subject" field would probably agree with me.

There is no published evidence from climatologists which would support that suspicion.

To use a recently discussed abbreviation, one does not need to be an "SME" to understand what interpretations of available data are scientifically 'water-tight' - Scientific Method is Scientific Method, whatever the subject/discipline.

Maybe not.

But one does need to understand how hydrocarbons combust, and one does need to not be a swivel-eyed loony who thinks that several hundred government and scientific bodies have suborned thousands of scientists into a communist conspiracy to control the world.

 

[motorbiking]

Was it steven hawkins ? who said if we are serious about the survival of the human race, we'd better start looking for a new (planet) home.

 

[mikeey84]

Well if all you can do is be snide and then disagree with things that I did not say (I note that you don't quote where I did the things you accuse me of) then you clearly are not interested in a productive discussion or in learning anything. So I won't waste any more time on you.

I doubt I would learn anything from you so don't waste your time.

Thanks

 

[mikeey84]

The problem is that the UHI-affected sites bias the overall figures upwards. Especially when data is homogenised

But if the trend is similar, then there is no bias.

But anyway, I'm not debating you. I can't be bothered when most of the points you have posted have been debunked by greater minds than me. John at least had a novel idea.

 

[JohnW2]

About the significance of ACC.

Well, I could only agree with that if I knew what was meant by 'significance'. Do you perhaps mean ...

And thousands of experts agree that ACC is, and for many decades has been, the dominant cause of global warming.

??
If you do, then, as I have said repeatedly, I agree that there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the view that anthropogenic factors are a major component of the mix of factors that is resulting in climate change. What is meant by 'dominant', I don't know - more than 50%, 99% or what?

If the figures I'm working with, and my sums, are roughly correct, there is something left to explain. Back on page 10, I estimated that the apparent current level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (29 GT/year) ought, if 'natural processes' did absolute nothing to reduce it (which seems pretty unlikely), result in an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 6 ppm/year. Over the period from 1959 to 2016, CO2 emissions are said to have risen fairly linearly, with roughly a 6-fold increase over that period. Hence the average increase in atmospheric CO2 over that period ought to have been about 1 ppm/year (again, IF natural processes did absolutely nothing to reduce it) - hence a trotal increase of around 57 ppm over that 57 year period. However, the Moana Loa data shows an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 88 ppm (from 316 ppm to 404 ppm) over that same 57 year period.

Those estimates, if roughly correct, therefore would suggest that 'anthropomorphic' CO2 emissions could (if natural processes did absolutely nothing to reduce it) account for some 65% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (and consequent climate change) over that period (57/88). Does that count as "ACC being the dominant cause"?? - and, whether it does or not, don't you think we need to seek an explanation for the other ~35%, so that we can try to address it?

Of course, if natural processes were doing anything at all to reduce the CO2 rises, then there would be an even greater (than 35%) 'unexplained component' of the observed rise needing to be explained.

There is no published evidence from climatologists which would support that suspicion.

If these climatologists are (as I imagine is the case in many/most cases) true scientists then I do seriously doubt that what they have published will be as dogmatic and 'certain' as you appear to be suggesting, particularly given the inevitable lack of empirical evidence.

Mind you, if they would regard something which, as above, could perhaps explain 65% of the CO2 (hence climate) change as meaning that it was very probably the "dominant cause" of that change, then I would totally agree with them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

John at least had a novel idea.

I did?

Which of my ideas was 'novel' and, whatever it was, are you seriously suggesting that its something that none of BAS's 'tens of thousands of experts' have ever considered?

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

I did?

Which of my ideas was 'novel' and, whatever it was, are you seriously suggesting that its something that none of BAS's 'tens of thousands of experts' have ever considered?

Kind Regards, John

Well novel to me (that bar is pretty low!)

I liked your supposition that toxins could affect a reduction in photosynthesis. Absolutely no evidence, but then no studies looking at it that I could find. The fact that evidence shows that photosynthesis has increased in the past 200 years does suggest it has no merit, but I liked it for being a new suggestion to me

 

[JohnW2]

Well novel to me (that bar is pretty low!) ... I liked your supposition that toxins could affect a reduction in photosynthesis. Absolutely no evidence, but then no studies looking at it that I could find. The fact that evidence shows that photosynthesis has increased in the past 200 years does suggest it has no merit, but I liked it for being a new suggestion to me

Oh, I see!

It was certainly not something that I thought was at all probable, but I mentioned it as an example of how environmental factors (even perhaps 'anthropogenic' ones!) could affect the behaviour of plants or animals in terms of their participation in the carbon cycle. Given that an important proportion of photosynthesis takes place in the oceans, one would also have to look at such things as how changes in fishing practices etc. may have altered the populations of fish and animals that predate upon the photosynthesising organisms, as well as the possible role of marine pollutants.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Going slightly more off topic, I recall watching something on the gogglebox a while ago. There was concern that fish populations were declining due to reduced fertility. Blame was placed on oestrogen (or other compounds that mimic it's effects) from two sources - compounds leaching out of plastics, and domestic sewerage (both human excretions and unused tablets being flushed away).
While it's not directly related, it's an example of how seemingly innocent things can have unexpected effects on ecosystems.

So it's not so fanciful to consider what at first sight might seem ridiculous factors.

 

[JohnW2]

... There was concern that fish populations were declining due to reduced fertility. Blame was placed on oestrogen (or other compounds that mimic it's effects) from two sources - compounds leaching out of plastics, and domestic sewerage (both human excretions and unused tablets being flushed away). While it's not directly related, it's an example of how seemingly innocent things can have unexpected effects on ecosystems.

Indeed so, and I suppose that decreases in fish populations (whether due to pollutants, over-fishing or whatever) might even explain the increase in photosynthesis which mikeey says has apparently happened, if it's result has been that there are less fish around to gobble up the photosynthesising algae.

So it's not so fanciful to consider what at first sight might seem ridiculous factors.

Exactly, and I suppose that's largely the point I've been making, particularly when I've spoken of 'unknown unknowns'. Despite what BAS keeps saying, anyone who believes that the situation is anything like completely understood, 'with certainty', is not IMO a true scientist - and I doubt very much (again, despite BAS's view) that (m)any of the experts actually do have that belief.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

Exactly, and I suppose that's largely the point I've been making, particularly when I've spoken of 'unknown unknowns'. Despite what BAS keeps saying, anyone who believes that the situation is anything like completely understood, 'with certainty', is not IMO a true scientist - and I doubt very much (again, despite BAS's view) that (m)any of the experts actually do have that belief.

I think we can agree on a number of points

1) human carbon emissions are not the only factor in ACC
2) the evidence indicates however that they are the most significant factor (we have yet found)
3) reducing these emissions should help slow down the rate of climate change
4) reducing them is going to be expensive and difficult, and a lot of policy on the matter is unrealistic and hasn't fully considered the impact to a lot of things (infrastructure being a key one which started this thread many pages ago!)
5)there are other potential things we can do to slow down ACC (increase organic biomass (ie plant trees), reduce the cow population, examine other potential contributing factors)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

JW2 and his fellow travellers reject #2, and think there should be more "debate" instead of #3, and that #4 is being deliberately engineered by a cabal of governments and scientists intent on enslaving the world.

 

[JohnW2]

I think we can agree on a number of points

Indeed so.

1) human carbon emissions are not the only factor in ACC

Very probably. I'm not totally sure of the definitions of "human carbon emissions" and ACC respectively but, if you mean that the latter ('human activity') includes such things as chopping down trees and increasing the number of cows (and even allowing the world's human population to increase almost exponentially), then I definitely agree. Despite accusations being thrown at me, my mind is not closed to the possibility that virtually all climate change is attributable to human activity - but I (we) just don't know for sure.

2) the evidence indicates however that they are the most significant factor (we have yet found)

As with BAS's "dominant", I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "most significant". If you mean something like "the single largest factor", then I would definitely agree. The scientist in me would be happier if there were a "very probably", or even "almost certainly" in that sentence, but I can live without it (unless "most significant" means "virtually all"!).

3) reducing these emissions should help slow down the rate of climate change

I would go (and have gone) much further than just "should help", and I don't understand why BAS thinks otherwise of me. I don't think there is any doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 (and other 'greenhouse gas') levels will cause climate change, so, no matter what the mechanisms of those atmospheric changes, it is all-but-impossible that reducing man-made (or man-related) carbon emissions would not improve that situation. Hence, although I believe that there are uncertainties in our understanding about mechanisms, I believe that it is is all-but-certain that reducing those emissions would improve the situation, hence feel it crucial that we attempt to reduce those emissions as much as possible.

4) reducing them is going to be expensive and difficult, and a lot of policy on the matter is unrealistic and hasn't fully considered the impact to a lot of things (infrastructure being a key one which started this thread many pages ago!)

Whilst I agree that reducing the emissions will be expensive and difficult, this is not an aspect of the issue that I have really commented on. Whilst there obviously are many political and commercial issues, leading to all the 'conspiracy theories', this is again something that I have not really commented on. My interest is in establishing, scientifically, what is going on and what needs to be done to reduce (or even reverse) climate change, and those other considerations have no place in 'scientific method'. If science can establish what needs to be done, then 'society' (governments, corporations etc., and hopefully the people) have to decide whether they want to, and can, do those things.

5)there are other potential things we can do to slow down ACC (increase organic biomass (ie plant trees), reduce the cow population, examine other potential contributing factors)

Indeed. That obviously represents most of what I've been saying, particularly the last bit - about the importance of continuing research, discussion and 'debate', in an attempt to make sure that we are not overlooking ('currently ignorant of') other contributory factors (maybe even ones that could be addressed more easily and cheaply).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

JW2 and his fellow travellers reject #2, and think there should be more "debate" instead of #3, and that #4 is being deliberately engineered by a cabal of governments and scientists intent on enslaving the world.

See my response to Mikeey. I'm not sure whether you have been properly reading, understanding and digesting what I have been writing but, whilst what you say may be true of those you describe as my "fellow travellers", it simply is not true of my position ...

Provided "most significant" does not mean "virtually all (and we're absolutely certain of that)", then I definitely do not "reject" #2.

What you say about #3 is ludicrous in relation to my position. Regardless of debates and uncertainties about mechanisms, reduction in "human carbon emissions" has got to improve the situation, so I believe (and say) that it is crucial that we do all we can to reduce those emissions.

As for #4, my interest is only in the science. Unlike others, I am not considering politics, commercial interests or 'conspiracy theories'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

3) reducing these emissions should help slow down the rate of climate change

I recently wrote that my personal view was stronger than this - i.e. I felt that it was almost certain that (regardless of details of the mechanisms of atmospheric changes), reducing "human CO2 emissions" would have a beneficial effect (and I was thinking in terms of a fairly 'prompt' beneficial effect!).

However, I have started glancing through the literature and (to my surprise, and somewhat to my 'disappointment') have stumbled across papers which say things like this (from very reputable 'expert' sources) ( see here ) ....

This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years

Any comment/thoughts about that? I have yet to read enough to fully understand the theorised (or hypothesised) mechanism that people are suggesting for this very slow recovery. On the face of it, it seems like a very surprising suggestion - but, as I said, these are by no means the only people saying it.

Whilst I suppose we should be thinking about our descendants 1000+ years into the future, if this is even remotely true, it is obviously something we need to consider very seriously if we are hoping for a 'quick fix' that would benefit the next few dozen generations, let alone ourselves! I suppose it means that reducing/eliminating the emissions would at least stop things getting worse, but I would have hoped (and had expected) that they would actually get better!

Kind Regards, John