Electric Car Drivel

[mikeey84]

In terms of short-term variation, that is undoubtedly true, but, if anything, that supports the point I was making. There will inevitably have been appreciable short-term variation in biological activity (e.g. due to periods of extremes of temperature, rainfall, vulcanism etc.) but the natural control processes ('the carbon cycle') managed to maintain atmospheric CO2 levels pretty constant during those periods (in more-or-less real time)

If you class "short term" and "real time" as thousands of years then you are correct.

 

[JohnW2]

If you class "short term" and "real time" as thousands of years then you are correct.

I think you probably need to answer that question, since it was you that talked about the 'normal' degree of variation as seen in ice-core samples. However, if you're talking about variation over thousands of years, then you can't really compare that with the variation in the last 50 or 200 years.

The problem with the 'ancient' ice-core data I've seen is that it only provides figures for intervals of around 10,000 years. Within such period, there may well have been very marked 'short-term' variations (say over years, decades or centuries) that can't be seen (at least, in the data I've seen) since all we have very coarse data. I'm not sure whether they are 'point' figures every 10,000 years or averages over 10,000 year periods but, either way, they tell us nothing about what may have been considerable variation within those periods.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

I think you probably need to answer that question, since it was you that talked about the 'normal' degree of variation as seen in ice-core samples. However, if you're talking about variation over thousands of years, then you can't really compare that with the variation in the last 50 or 200

Well if in 800 000 years the earth has never seen co2 this high, as part of the natural variation, and the increase starts quite soon after we start burning fossil fuels (which never happened in the 800 000 years previously) then you can certainly say that's an anomonly.

The problem with the 'ancient' ice-core data I've seen is that it only provides figures for intervals of around 10,000 years. Within such period, there may well have been very marked 'short-term' variations (say over years, decades or centuries) that can't be seen (at least, in the data I've seen) since all we have very coarse data. I'm not sure whether they are 'point' figures every 10,000 years or averages over 10,000 year periods but, either way, they tell us nothing about what may have been considerable variation within those periods.

I've just found data that has samples for the past 800000 years at significantly less than 10000 year intervals. I don't think we would see a spike and reduction within that period especially when there is a clear pattern over that 800 000 years of gradual increases and gradual reductions over long periods.

Anyway, that's it. I'm out. There is plenty of data available. I am finding it hard to believe you are not being deliberately obtuse (I don't think you are, based on your posting history in Electrics).

I could explain what the evidence is till I am blue in the face, but I don't think you will have a damacene moment, so I'll stop wasting all of our time.

 

[JohnW2]

Well if in 800 000 years the earth has never seen co2 this high, as part of the natural variation, and the increase starts quite soon after we start burning fossil fuels (which never happened in the 800 000 years previously) then you can certainly say that's an anomonly.

I'm sure it's not intentional, but that has some BAS-like undertones - i.e. you seem to be thinking that I am one of what he calls my "fellow travellers", and also forgetting the point I was making....

... I have clarified for you, only a page or two back, that my view is that it is almost certain that the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest single factor which has led to the substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and consequent climate changes (in highly non-scientific, everyday terms, it is 'pretty obvious'). In the same post, I even told you that I am perfectly open to the possibility that the burning of fossil fuel might be responsible for virtually all of those changes (but don't think that we know that for sure). I am therefore not "one of them" that you might be more used to arguing with or trying to convince/convert.

My recent comments were stimulated by yours about historical variability (or the lack of it) in historical ice-core data. I pointed out that this (assuming it to be true) illustrated the fact that natural control processes seemed to have managed to maintain a fairly constant atmosphere despite the natural phenomena ('short-term' climate changes, vulcanism, species extinctions etc.) which must have occurred and tried to increase atmospheric CO2 from time to time - and hence my degree of surprise that those control processes have not coped a bit better with the changes due to the burning of fossil fuels.

I've just found data that has samples for the past 800000 years at significantly less than 10000 year intervals.

Can you point me to that since, as I said, I have yet to find any such data?

I don't think we would see a spike and reduction within that period especially when there is a clear pattern over that 800 000 years of gradual increases and gradual reductions over long periods.

Without seeing the less-coarse data, I don't know about atmospheric CO2 but, in general, it is extremely common for data relating to almost anything to show very different short-term, medium-term and long-term variability (sometimes with superimposed complications due to seasonal or other cyclical changes). That's true of heart rate or blood pressure, a house's electricity usage, share prices and millions of other things. If I only had daily data on electricity use, I would be oblivious to the considerable hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute variation.

I could explain what the evidence is till I am blue in the face, but I don't think you will have a damacene moment, so I'll stop wasting all of our time.

As above, if you're talking about evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is (at least) the largest single factor that has given rise to recent (50-200 years) increases in atmospheric CO2, and consequential climate changes, then there is no need for any damascene (with an 's' ) moment, since you are preaching to the converted. My discussion has been at a level of appreciably greater subtlety and detail than that. As above, in terms of proper science, it's a horribly dangerous/'wrong' thing to say, but in everyday terms, the causal relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change is 'pretty obvious'! ... and I have repeatedly stressed the importance of doing all we can to reduce, if not eliminate, those emissions (as well as other aspects of 'ACC' - trees, cows, population growth, diet etc.).

My involvement all really started because I reacted to BAS's assertions about what he seems to regard as 'absolute certainties', and the things he was saying about people who felt we should take a more measured scientific approach than that.

I am finding it hard to believe you are not being deliberately obtuse (I don't think you are, based on your posting history in Electrics).

As above, perhaps (seemingly like BAS) you have not fully understood my position (as clarified, again, above), since I am in no way contesting/challenging/doubting the importance of the burning of fossil fuels and the importance of reducing it.

If you have looked at much of what I've written in this forum (and elsewhere, although you wouldn't then know it was me ), you will perhaps understand that what you might consider to be "being deliberately obtuse" may relate to the fact that I often "play Devil's Advocate", in the interests of ensuring that all possible viewpoints are reasonably represented, considered and sensibly discussed. I would add that a substantial part of my life has been (and is) involved in the rigorous examination of scientific data and the conclusions which people draw, want to draw to try to draw from it!

Again, I thank you for an interesting, stimulating and enjoyable discussion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hey, it's not my fault that you believe the rubbish written by others.

Well, I certainly don't believe the rubbish written on climate change by someone whose ignorance of relevant science is so vast that he doesn't even know what happens when hydrocarbons are burned.

It's you that's been calling me stupid

Well what term would you use for someone who thinks he can genuinely dispute the conclusions of thousands of true experts when he himself knows SFA?

this is a discusion forum, and I'm amazed that you feel you have the right to be nothing better than a troll.

I'm not the one trolling.

I've learnt a lot from this thread, but absolutely nothing whatsoever from you.

That's because you refuse point blank to learn the only thing I am trying to teach you, which is that you have absolutely no grounds to dispute the conclusions of expert climatologists.

 

[Doggit]

Oh dear BAS, I now you're not trying to teach me anything because you've just got a long pole stuck up your rear end, and can't realise that I have every right to disagree with you and all the eminent climatologists that you bow down to so happily, and you don't have the right to keep telling me how stupid I am. It's called a difference in opinion, and it's interesting the everyone in this thread, knows how to discuss thing, and you only know how to be rude and abusive.

You continue to show your ignorance and intolerance in just about every post that you make. One day, I may well change my mind, but it won't be because of the likes of you, it will be because someone tollerant, and patient, has given me a convinging argument that I can accept. But I doubt if you on the other hand, would ever change your mind once you've decided that you're right, and for that closed mind of yours, I feel very sorry for you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh dear BAS, I now you're not trying to teach me anything because you've just got a long pole stuck up your rear end, and can't realise that I have every right to disagree with you and all the eminent climatologists that you bow down to so happily,

You have that right.

Everybody has the right to behave as stupidly as they choose, and to believe anything they choose, no matter how nonsensical.

What you do not have are any grounds, any reasons for disagreeing with them.

and you don't have the right to keep telling me how stupid I am.

I have as much right to do that as you have to keep on telling us that we should be stupid enough to accept that you have a valid opinion which differs from the one that the experts have.

It's called a difference in opinion, and it's interesting the everyone in this thread, knows how to discuss thing, and you only know how to be rude and abusive.

It can't be discussed with you!

ACC is not "a matter of opinion", and the fact that you keep claiming that it is shows that you do not give a stuff for science, reason, evidence, facts, expertise.

You have looked at the findings of a huge number of experts and decided, on the basis of zero competence, zero rationality, that they are incorrect.

You won't listen to any of them, so who are you going to listen to here, and why?

You are a walking embodiment of Dunning-Kruger effect.

One day, I may well change my mind, but it won't be because of the likes of you, it will be because someone tollerant, and patient, has given me a convinging argument that I can accept.

Thousands of experts have given you convincing arguments.

You refuse to believe them.

 

[SimonH2]

Everyone, ESPECIALLY BAS, needs to wrap this up.
BAS - you are just too blind to understand what people are attempting to explain to you. Before you spout off, try actually READING the whole of this post before you go into a hissy fit and start abusing me for what you want me to have written.

You have clearly read the "sanitised" versions of scientific opinion and are accepting as FACT what the scientists themselves couch in terms of "highly probable", "almost certain", etc. No-one is actually arguing that climate change isn't happening, and neither are they arguing that our own actions are a major (if not main) factor behind it.
What most people (except the blind, like yourself) are able to agree on is that there are huge uncertainties in the details. All the best experts actually agree that we DO NOT KNOW all the details. We do not know what WILL happen under various scenarios. Those experts have a lot of models (all of which are incomplete) which show POSSIBLE outcomes.
That is why almost all output from real scientists who know their field properly uses terms like "most likely" etc. Very little scientific literature on the matter will say things like "this WILL happen".

By the time those technical scientific papers get edited for public consumption, those qualifiers tend to get omitted for clarity - and often because there is a political or financial imperative to present a "cast iron armageddon" scenario. You keep questioning how this international conspiracy can happen - but you only need to look closer to home to see how the science is "misleadingly presented" in order to support what would otherwise be unsupportable spending, such as on incredibly expensive "green" energy & "smart" meters (which brings us back to how this thread started). The government NEEDS the climate change bogeyman to push through measures they'd never get through otherwise.

Checking the post you selectively quoted from (and taking your response in that context), Doggit is spot on with his assessment of you. You ARE a troll around here, and I can only assume that it's because it can be so amusing to watch at times that the mods allow you to carry on as you do.

 

[Doggit]

Thanks for that piece Simon, much more elequently put than I was able to. I have also reached the conclusion that BAS may well have aspergers (I have it but it's not as bad as it used to be), and a degree of autism, and no that's not trying to be rude to him, but the obsessive inability to see the view he holds as even remotely wrong, make it a strong possibility. In suspecting that, I now realise that any further interaction would be a waste, and have decided not to engage any further with him.

 

[JohnW2]

Just a quick comment ... I've been having an initial look at some of the long-term atmospheric CO2 data and will probably fairly soon be posting some of my initial observations, in case anyone is interested. However, since I suspect that this thread is getting close to being locked, I may have to start a new one - so, if you have any interest, please 'watch that space'

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Everyone, ESPECIALLY BAS, needs to wrap this up.
BAS - you are just too blind to understand what people are attempting to explain to you. Before you spout off, try actually READING the whole of this post before you go into a hissy fit and start abusing me for what you want me to have written.

I am not too blind to understand, and I have read all of your post.

You have clearly read the "sanitised" versions of scientific opinion and are accepting as FACT what the scientists themselves couch in terms of "highly probable", "almost certain", etc.

No - I am absolutely not doing that.

What I am accepting as FACT is that the overwhelming majority of experts are as certain as they can be about climate change and the extent to which our actions are driving it.

Of course I know that they aren't saying "this absolutely is without doubt happening, and it absolutely is without doubt down to us", but they are using terms which indicate an almost-certainty, and they are doing it in vast numbers. Not a single national or international scientific body is now arguing that climate change is not happening, nor that it is not extremely likely that we are responsible for most of the global warming over the last 50-60 years.

Not one.

So what I do not accept is that someone like Doggit is qualified in any way to dispute the consensus, to say they might be wrong, we need to debate it more.

On the one hand he says that one day he might change his mind about that if someone gives him a convincing argument that he can accept, but on the other he has already decided to reject all of the arguments that all those thousands of experts have put forward and on which there is such almost-complete certainty and unanimity. Just how "convincing" would those arguments have to be?

He doesn't even understand at a GCSE chemistry level what happens when hydrocarbons are burned, and yet thinks we should all agree that he can have valid objections to the consensus reached by all those experts? Don't make me laugh.

No-one is actually arguing that climate change isn't happening, and neither are they arguing that our own actions are a major (if not main) factor behind it.

They are arguing against the conclusion of all those thousands of experts who say that our own actions are a major (if not main) factor behind it. Oh, they dress that up by saying we should be "open minded", we should consider other causes, we should continue to debate it etc, in a way which has parallels with the way that racists say they want a "debate" about immigration, or name their anti-immigrant pressure group "Migration Watch".

But be in no mistake about it - denying ACC is exactly what they are doing.

What most people (except the blind, like yourself) are able to agree on is that there are huge uncertainties in the details. All the best experts actually agree that we DO NOT KNOW all the details. We do not know what WILL happen under various scenarios. Those experts have a lot of models (all of which are incomplete) which show POSSIBLE outcomes.
That is why almost all output from real scientists who know their field properly uses terms like "most likely" etc. Very little scientific literature on the matter will say things like "this WILL happen".

I think the term now being used, mostly, is "extremely likely" wrt ACC.

But that's not "convincing" enough for some people.

By the time those technical scientific papers get edited for public consumption, those qualifiers tend to get omitted for clarity - and often because there is a political or financial imperative to present a "cast iron armageddon" scenario. You keep questioning how this international conspiracy can happen - but you only need to look closer to home to see how the science is "misleadingly presented" in order to support what would otherwise be unsupportable spending, such as on incredibly expensive "green" energy & "smart" meters (which brings us back to how this thread started). The government NEEDS the climate change bogeyman to push through measures they'd never get through otherwise.

If they don't actually believe in ACC, why would they feel a need to push through spending on "incredibly expensive green energy", and therefore need the "climate change bogeyman"?

If you claim that the science is "misleadingly presented" in order to support what would otherwise be unsupportable spending and they don't believe in ACC they you're saying that the science is "misleadingly presented" in order to support what would otherwise be unsupportable spending that they don't want to make in the first place.

Checking the post you selectively quoted from (and taking your response in that context), Doggit is spot on with his assessment of you. You ARE a troll around here, and I can only assume that it's because it can be so amusing to watch at times that the mods allow you to carry on as you do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have also reached the conclusion that BAS may well have aspergers (I have it but it's not as bad as it used to be), and a degree of autism.

Oh - so now you're a trained psychiatrist as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[mikeey84]

Just a quick comment ... I've been having an initial look at some of the long-term atmospheric CO2 data and will probably fairly soon be posting some of my initial observations, in case anyone is interested. However, since I suspect that this thread is getting close to being locked, I may have to start a new one - so, if you have any interest, please 'watch that space'

Kind Regards, John

I'm sure the IPCC is waiting with bated breath!!

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure the IPCC is waiting with bated breath!!

If they are, they would have failed miserably in their role!

I sincerely hope that I'm not doing anything original - that would be inconceivable. I'm really only looking, pretty superficially, at the data out of personal curiosity and, if I find the time to actually get my thoughts into some order, I just want to expose any interested members of this forum to some of the observed facts.

Kind Regards, John