Questions, questions…😎😎

D

Deleted member 126969

Guest
Best to be accurate in apportioning 'climate change' blame and substitute 'we' for China, the worlds largest emitter of anthropogenic greenhouse gases by some margin.

Perversely China is also the worlds largest investor in renewables. Making a buck at both ends to the detriment of everyone else.
I intended the 'we' to mean mankind, the species. While it's useful to know which nations are the worst offenders so attempts can be made to mitigate it (somehow...), picking out the responsibility is another matter. If the west hadn't turned to China to make everything, then perhaps they wouldn't have gone the way they have - who can say, but the emissions would just be coming from somewhere else, chances are.

The league table in 2018 was China (21%), US(15%), India(7%), Russia(5%)

It gets more complicated when you look at the per-capita numbers, but by that metric, Qatar are the 'winners' by a huge margin, producing about 6x what China do. China are pretty good per-capita, there are just a lot of folk there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,429
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
Geological timescales indeed....we are 20000 years from the last glaciation cycle and about 60000 from the next one.

View attachment 116185

This increase isn't happening in geological timescales - it's happening in human ones. One can attribute it to the industrialisation of the world and the ever increasing population, or perhaps simply to the lack of Pirates, as there is a clear connection of you look for it in the data....


This report from NOAA, Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov is saying that human activity generates 60x the CO2 as volcanic activity does in any given year.

I used to be a human driven climate change sceptic too, but I changed my view when faced with the balance of evidence. Given your occupation, I can see why you don't want to accept that Man is making things worse - you have to make a living and you have to sleep at night, so I'm not having a pop here. Very few are in a position to claim the moral high ground.

I absolutely get that the climate is shifting all the time, but the key point is that Man now has the power to make it better or worse. Whether we have the will to do anything significant to try and help is another matter entirely, and as has been said by others and myself often enough, the planet will be fine, but we might not. It wouldn't have supported us in the past and it may well not in the future - hard to see how we could survive a full-on ice age for example, certainly at the population levels we have now, but I can't see us lasting that long anyway. Mars here we come, if the oft-maligned purveyor of EVs can achieve his goal of getting a human colony on Mars. Of course, we'll screw up the climate there too, but at least it'll be more favourable to support us than it is at the moment.

Ultimately though, there is one single issue, and that is far too many people. Glad I don't have all that much longer to live and equally glad I decided long ago not to have any offspring.
The above graph looks like a section of the infamous Dr Michael Mann hockey stick graph.

Namely the bit purporting to show an uptick in global temperature post industrial revolution. The Mann hockey stick graph was produced for the United Nations IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) in 2001 and used to justify anthropogenic climate change.

Oddly Dr Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick , was unable to produce any validating sources of data for his graph in a court case.

mann-ball-graphs.jpg
 

ChrisHGTV

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
958
Location
Guildford
Car
E250 Avantgarde Estate, Alfa GTV V6, Vespa, Ducati, many bicycles...
Geological timescales indeed....we are 20000 years from the last glaciation cycle and about 60000 from the next one.

View attachment 116185

This increase isn't happening in geological timescales - it's happening in human ones. One can attribute it to the industrialisation of the world and the ever increasing population, or perhaps simply to the lack of Pirates, as there is a clear connection of you look for it in the data....


This report from NOAA, Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov is saying that human activity generates 60x the CO2 as volcanic activity does in any given year. Of course, there are the occasional blips like the Yellowstone caldera popping (yes, an understatement).

I used to be a human driven climate change sceptic too, but I changed my view when faced with the balance of evidence. Given your occupation, I can see why you don't want to accept that Man is making things worse - you have to make a living and you have to sleep at night, so I'm not having a pop here. Very few are in a position to claim the moral high ground.

I absolutely get that the climate is shifting all the time, but the key point is that Man now has the power to make it better or worse. Whether we have the will to do anything significant to try and help is another matter entirely, and as has been said by others and myself often enough, the planet will be fine, but we might not. It wouldn't have supported us in the past and it may well not in the future - hard to see how we could survive a full-on ice age for example, certainly at the population levels we have now, but I can't see us lasting that long anyway. Mars here we come, if the oft-maligned purveyor of EVs can achieve his goal of getting a human colony on Mars. Of course, we'll screw up the climate there too, but at least it'll be more favourable to support us than it is at the moment.

Ultimately though, there is one single issue, and that is far too many people. Glad I don't have all that much longer to live and equally glad I decided long ago not to have any offspring.


I'm still wondering which will see us off first, self destruction in one of many possible ways, a large volcanic event like Yellowstone or perhaps just another dinosaur killer. I doubt I'll live long enough to see which one but it would be interesting.
I’m not actually a human driven climate change sceptic, more that the current general dialogue seems to be suggesting that climate change is only driven by human activity and we “...need to stop climate change...”. I don't believe either statement is correct. I do believe we need to reduce emissions and use of energy but not necessarily due to effect on climate change. There are many more reasons. The oil and gas industry (possibly ironically) are at the forefront of carbon sequestration, geothermal, marine mining (in support of battery production) etc so I’m not worried on that front. But oil and gas will still be used for decades to come. I work a lot in Africa and exploitation of hydrocarbons is still top of the agenda.

For sure though the biggest issue is population. I studied ecology for a while for fun and you cant help but think we’re heading for a “bust” scenario following the “Boom”. Maybe Covid is a precursor for adjusting the balance?
 

ChrisHGTV

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
958
Location
Guildford
Car
E250 Avantgarde Estate, Alfa GTV V6, Vespa, Ducati, many bicycles...
Question. Will these forums become redundant when we’re all driving around in EVs? 🤷‍♂️
I don't think so, but we may see more diverse international content i guess. I don't think so many people will be driving EV's Africa, large parts of the Middle East, Russia, South America, Eastern Med, India....at least for quite a while. Maybe that's where all the current ICE cars will end up? Or maybe the main car companies will set up spin off companies to make ICE cars to support those markets?
 

ChrisHGTV

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
958
Location
Guildford
Car
E250 Avantgarde Estate, Alfa GTV V6, Vespa, Ducati, many bicycles...
The above graph looks like a section of the infamous Dr Michael Mann hockey stick graph.

Namely the bit purporting to show an uptick in global temperature post industrial revolution. The Mann hockey stick graph was produced for the United Nations IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) in 2001 and used to justify anthropogenic climate change.

Oddly Dr Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick , was unable to produce any validating sources of data for his graph in a court case.

View attachment 116186
I saw a really good paper a while back that demonstrated that many of the challenges of evaluating this kind of data comes down to scale. We're comparing the last few hundred years (or less) at a high resolution with much lower resolution trends over a much longer period (previous cycles of warming and cooling). The paper showed that similar sharp peaks and troughs could be seen in these previous cycles (both cooling and warming) but they are rarely discussed as the tendency is to look at the general trend. I'm sure this does open up the issue of "fitting the data to the argument" on both sides.
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,429
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
I saw a really good paper a while back that demonstrated that many of the challenges of evaluating this kind of data comes down to scale. We're comparing the last few hundred years (or less) at a high resolution with much lower resolution trends over a much longer period (previous cycles of warming and cooling). The paper showed that similar sharp peaks and troughs could be seen in these previous cycles (both cooling and warming) but they are rarely discussed as the tendency is to look at the general trend. I'm sure this does open up the issue of "fitting the data to the argument" on both sides.
Sadly articles such as the one listed below claiming the UK is already undergoing disruptive climate change based on short term observations is the narrative being pushed by the 'climate emergency' agenda.


I read recently that the moons regular 19 year cycle of what is termed 'wobble' is a major cause of extremes of low & high tides worldwide. A global flood risk that does not fit the anthropogenic climate change agenda but has been in the science books for nearly 300 years.
 
Last edited:

Gbrowncls55

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
1,252
Location
Surrey
Car
CLS55 AMG 06, SL350 06, 996 cab, all current. Gone : E500 W211, 2x M5s and far,far too many 911s
Climate change is happening as part of the normal climatic cycle. Yes of course we have exacerbated it and indeed accelerated it , but delaying rather than reversal seems the most likely, if rather gloomy, prognosis even if we (manknind) really pull our fingers out and do our bit. That covers ALL areas of our lives where carbon is "released" (of which personal transport is but one) but also the sensitive area of reducing "demand" by limiting population.
Personal transport is one area that can make a small but significant contribution, however EVs at the moment generally have to be driven 50k to 100k miles before they achieve the same carbon footprint as an average ICE car and that is only if the battery does not need replacing in that time. This is changing with new battery technology, more focus on carbon neutral manufacture and cleaner power generation, but still some way to go. Although structurally far more difficult hydrogen , either fuel cell or ICE conversion would seem to offer a better, if costlier, solution but at the moment I cant see any country willing to make the huge short term investment for the long term good (public transport, road haulage and even perhaps air transport could also benefit). One suggestion might be for the world to select a small country and make a joint investment in a kind of "Hyrogen conversion test market" to learn the best way forward, rather than the current "3 hydrogen pumps round the M25" strategy.
Anyway put my name down for an AMG V8 HICE GT
 
D

Deleted member 126969

Guest
The above graph looks like a section of the infamous Dr Michael Mann hockey stick graph.

Namely the bit purporting to show an uptick in global temperature post industrial revolution. The Mann hockey stick graph was produced for the United Nations IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) in 2001 and used to justify anthropogenic climate change.

Oddly Dr Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick , was unable to produce any validating sources of data for his graph in a court case.

View attachment 116186

\
I can't really speak to the legal aspect of that case, I'm not qualified, but I do know that a court of law is not the place to decide a scientific argument, nor, frankly, 'rightness'. All too many cases where technicalities of the law get people off when they are clearly guilty of the crime itself.

The website linked looks....suspect to me. One thing caught my eye - a claim that coral bleaching isn't new. Evidence presented was a picture drawn by Ransonnet in 1862 in a diving bell. The piece on climatechangedispatch is written in a fashion that attempts to discredit any reference to bleaching as being irrelevant as it's nothing new. Reading the article, and the attributed cause for the observed bleaching was cold, not heat. Basically, they seem to be scratching around for any and all means possible to deny that man has any impact on the environment...and that simply isn't tenable IMO - classic 'climate denier'

Re the global temperature over time, does this site have any authority do you think? Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change or is it just another part of the conspiracy to make us drive EVs??
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,429
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
\
I can't really speak to the legal aspect of that case, I'm not qualified, but I do know that a court of law is not the place to decide a scientific argument, nor, frankly, 'rightness'. All too many cases where technicalities of the law get people off when they are clearly guilty of the crime itself.

The website linked looks....suspect to me. One thing caught my eye - a claim that coral bleaching isn't new. Evidence presented was a picture drawn by Ransonnet in 1862 in a diving bell. The piece on climatechangedispatch is written in a fashion that attempts to discredit any reference to bleaching as being irrelevant as it's nothing new. Reading the article, and the attributed cause for the observed bleaching was cold, not heat. Basically, they seem to be scratching around for any and all means possible to deny that man has any impact on the environment...and that simply isn't tenable IMO - classic 'climate denier'

Re the global temperature over time, does this site have any authority do you think? Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change or is it just another part of the conspiracy to make us drive EVs??
Conventional climate history show a warm medieval period from around AD 1000 to AD 1400, followed by a mini 'ice age'.

How does that fit with the notion that anthropogenic climate change is settled science?

Regarding the Dr Mann hockey stick graph see below for a link to a Guardian newspaper article published over a decade ago on the same subject.

 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 126969

Guest
Conventional climate history show a warm medieval period from around AD 1000 to AD 1400, followed by a mini 'ice age'.

How does that fit with the notion that anthropogenic climate change is settled science?

Regarding the Dr Mann hockey stick graph see below for a link to a Guardian newspaper article published over a decade ago on the same subject.

It doesn't preclude it by any means - those pesky scientists attribute that warming period to increased solar output and a reduction in volcanic activity.

"One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming."

We can swap pieces that support our beliefs all day I suspect.

Let's carry on as we are and see how things are in 100 years then. That way we can be sure if our activities are influencing things or not. Or perhaps it might just be sensible to go with a safer plan and try to mitigate the effects, even if you don't believe they are our fault?

The problem with a lot of this is there are way too many people with axes to grind or positions to support/defend. The cold fusion thing was a good example of how scientists and researchers will happily suck up money just to keep themselves employed. Being a scientist doesn't mean you aren't human and thus open to the temptations we all suffer. It would be nice to think that every scientists is utterly and totally unbiased and honest, but I'm not that naive. Same goes for people in positions of power and influence - they tend to get there because they will do and say anything to get what they want. Truth rarely comes into it unless it's convenient. Principles are expensive and very few are prepared to pay the price.

As for a piece in any tabloid....not where I choose to get my critical & independent thinking from TBH.

Ultimately, most of us are obliged to decide who we are going to believe and trust, as very few are in a position to actually test these ideas for veracity. I choose to trust the overwhelming majority and places like NASA or others with less to gain. Follow the money is a wise adage.

Anyway, I'm done with this - it's turned into an argument about faith, which is pointless. It matters little what any of us may believe - world governments are shifting opinion and policy toward supporting the notion of anthropogenic climate change so we can howl at the moon about it or applaud it as befits our position.
 

190

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
4,178
Location
Cheshire
Car
2009 W204 C180K


You have to treat scientists forecasts with a degree of skepticism given recent events. Professor lockdown plonker Fergurson's astonishing consistency in grossly exaggerating reality is hopefully not typical of climate scientists forecasts.

download.jpg
 
OP
OP
Connoisseur

Connoisseur

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
255
Location
Yorkshire
Car
A205 C200 Cab; Porsche Macan; BMW i3s
You have to treat scientists forecasts with a degree of skepticism given recent events. Professor lockdown plonker Fergurson's astonishing consistency in grossly exaggerating reality is hopefully not typical of climate scientists forecasts.

View attachment 116188
It’s can be difficult to read on when someone prefers to insult and demean……
 

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,907
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
You have to treat scientists forecasts with a degree of skepticism given recent events. Professor lockdown plonker Fergurson's astonishing consistency in grossly exaggerating reality is hopefully not typical of climate scientists forecasts.

View attachment 116188

There's an expectation among some parts of the public that science will have all the answers. But scientists make predictions, based on modelling, which in turn is based on a mixture of data and assumptions. Ultimately, some will prove to be more accurate than others. More crucially, publishing predictions can have an impact on subsequent events and stop those predictions from coming true. The scientific community is well aware of the limitations of predictions and projections, but Joe Public isn't. That's where the debate is - should scientific data be shared with the public, who may lack the academic training required to understand its meaning? The alternative would see the scientific society being regarded by the public as elitistic patronising arrogant self-indulging lot who look down on non-academics. Discuss.......
 

grober

MB Master
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
29,931
Location
Perth, Scotland
Car
W204 ESTATE
Most non scientists and the mass media need to get a hold of the Concept of the passage of TIME its scale and importance in almost everything we do in our daily lives -its a vital missing factor in the equation of life
 

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
8,017
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
Bit of a jump in global temperature in 1940 and for the 5 years hence. Was there some energy intensive activity back then that we should learn from?
 

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,907
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
Bit of a jump in global temperature in 1940 and for the 5 years hence. Was there some energy intensive activity back then that we should learn from?

And yet some people still doubt that the climate change that we see around us is man-made.
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,429
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
It doesn't preclude it by any means - those pesky scientists attribute that warming period to increased solar output and a reduction in volcanic activity.

"One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming."

We can swap pieces that support our beliefs all day I suspect.

Let's carry on as we are and see how things are in 100 years then. That way we can be sure if our activities are influencing things or not. Or perhaps it might just be sensible to go with a safer plan and try to mitigate the effects, even if you don't believe they are our fault?

The problem with a lot of this is there are way too many people with axes to grind or positions to support/defend. The cold fusion thing was a good example of how scientists and researchers will happily suck up money just to keep themselves employed. Being a scientist doesn't mean you aren't human and thus open to the temptations we all suffer. It would be nice to think that every scientists is utterly and totally unbiased and honest, but I'm not that naive. Same goes for people in positions of power and influence - they tend to get there because they will do and say anything to get what they want. Truth rarely comes into it unless it's convenient. Principles are expensive and very few are prepared to pay the price.

As for a piece in any tabloid....not where I choose to get my critical & independent thinking from TBH.

Ultimately, most of us are obliged to decide who we are going to believe and trust, as very few are in a position to actually test these ideas for veracity. I choose to trust the overwhelming majority and places like NASA or others with less to gain. Follow the money is a wise adage.

Anyway, I'm done with this - it's turned into an argument about faith, which is pointless. It matters little what any of us may believe - world governments are shifting opinion and policy toward supporting the notion of anthropogenic climate change so we can howl at the moon about it or applaud it as befits our position.
Yet believers in anthropogenic climate change choose to give China, earth's polluter, a free pass.

Stakeholder capitalism is evidently more important than actual beneficial change.
 

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,907
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
Yet believers in anthropogenic climate change choose to give China, earth's polluter, a free pass.

Stakeholder capitalism is evidently more important than actual beneficial change.

I don't think that China is getting a 'free pass' on climate change, any more than Saudi Arabia is getting a free pass on human rights (and gay rights, and women rights).

We influence where we can, but ultimately we acknowledge the limitations of our ability to dictate to other countries.
 

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
8,017
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
And yet some people still doubt that the climate change that we see around us is man-made.
And a percentage of them deny what happened back then.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom