Food for thought - Climate Change

[Sundance]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

Half a dollar! My how times have changed 😊

So it's not just the climate then! 🤫

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Sundance said:

So it's not just the climate then! 🤫

Of course not. IF Butch and Sundance charged out guns blazing it would be the drones that got them.

[Phil xxkr]

3 hours ago, Sundance said:

So it's not just the climate then! 🤫

It's only time before the zealots blame the dollar to GBP exchange rate decline on climate! 

[Malc1]

20 hours ago, Malc1 said:

Oh my.   How does one divert away from such complexity ……. and bring the convo “ down “ to the level of us mere mortals ? 
 

CLIMATE CHANGE and running a Ls400

….. btw my first petrol refuel on my Mk1 1991 Ls400 on my mega miles distance to Wales and around ….. the 2nd day of the 5 …… tells me I’m averaging some 27.35mpg for these some first 316 miles …… I think that’s quite good for lots of motorway with Welsh hills and valleys too 👌

with local E5 at 156.9p ltr 

Malc 

And that was Shell V Power E5 too where the E10 was 141.9p ltr …… Whitchurch in Welsh Wales 

Noting all thru Wales the E5 might be 15/16p per ltr dearer than E10 AND the local councils want one to weeeeee  behind hedgerows coz of the 40p tariff to use the public loo 

s’pose that saves the climate in not flushing public loos whatever ….. C’mon Wales you’re doing your bit to save the planet, reducing Climate Change and fertilising the hedgerows 👍👍👍

Malc 

sarcasm 🤔😂🤔

[Bluemarlin]

On 10/17/2023 at 2:14 PM, Linas.P said:

2C is just basic condition on which the policy and restrictions are based. It is like having fines over any speed above 0 miles per hour - simply cannot be complied with and as long as you not standing still. You said - "nobody says humans should stop living", what I am saying - to achieve 2C goal we have to stop living and even that is not enough. We can still agree that trying to slow down the climate change is desirable, but this 2C goal has to be removed altogether as it is no compatible with continued human life on earth - that is all.

The next point - I understand you are just messenger, so I am not attacking you, but lets look at what is being stated... you just take it at face value without analysing and questioning data at all. Let's start with this statement- "Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation." So everyone agrees that natural climate processes are causing all this and have caused all this many times in the past, as such none of that could be classed as "catastrophe", it is just natural occurrence related to climate change. 

That rate of climate change is as claimed - "This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale" is simply false! Look at the speed of warming between ~150,000 -120,000 years, or ~350,000-340,000, we can even look in recent years and it is OBVIOUS, that the statement is plainly false - the temperature raise between ~20,000-10,000 years ago (i.e. since last ice age, which is incorrect terminology as we are still technically in the ice age) was significantly faster and just ~10,000 plateaued. When looking at it from correct perspective it again is obvious that change since industrial evolution and since 1970s is so tiny that it doesn't even appear on the graph. Again - I am not picking on you, but the claims made in the links and quotes you have provided is provably wrong. 

The problem with Co2 data from UK is that we import a lot of Co2 i.e. we net importers, cars, electronics etc. majority is made abroad and we do not count that as our Co2, so this gives wrong impression on how clean we are and what causes the most pollution in UK.

I classify catastrophes the same - I can see you provided list of catastrophes, which is very good, but link between catastrophes and climate change is speculation at best. Look at the graph above again - we are now at the point where we were at ~135,000; ~250,000; ~340,000; ~425,000 years ago... So to say that natural disasters and catastrophes are MORE FREQUENT now we need to prove the number is higher than it was 100s of thousands of years ago. There is no such proof, we don't even have proof that they are more common now than they were 1000, 2000, 5000, 20000 years ago. That they are becoming more common in last 50 years, is first of all irrelevant, because it is too short period to correlated with climate change which again takes 10s to 100s of thousands of years, not 50 years and secondly here is no proven correlation this is climate related at all. It could be simply statistical or data error. For example maybe there was drought in Ethiopia 400 years ago, but because humans didn't live in that area of the country back then... nobody died. Now they live in the environment susceptible for draughts and complain that climate change is causing deaths?! No - their choice of habitat is what is causing deaths, not climate. 

So all the "catastrophes" are at best cherry picked data and hypothesis that correlation between frequency of these events and temperature raise is related. It could be related, I would argue it is likely related, but this is not proven and other thing is not proven is that these "extreme weather events" are not just natural for the temperatures we living in. And we won't be able to prove it unless we can travel in time 100,000 of years and document frequency of extreme weather events for 100s of thousands of years.

Do you even realise how flawed are these statements from scientific perspective? They basically saying - we only started recording the "extreme weather event" for last few 100 years, and properly for last few decades and based on this extremely inadequate and extremely too short data set we making conclusions. This is just bad science - if you tried to submit such claim in basic university research project it will be marked as 0, because it is nothing more than hypothesis.  

 

I'm not sure what else to say Linas.

I'll start by saying that of course we have proof of both the climate, its changes, and the extent and frequency of extreme weather events and catastrophes that happened thousands of years ago. No one needed to be there to see them, or write them down, we have things like geological evidence and ice core samples that can tell us such things. So we don't need to go forward, as we can go back and see what happened in the past. Nor do we need to go forward to understand the cause, as we can predict the effect of warming and how it alters weather patterns and causes things like floods, droughts and heatwaves. Whilst I accept that little in life can be predicted with absolute certainly, the expertise and technology we have today means things are a lot more sophisticated than the guesswork and supposition you suggest.

Essentially though, I've given the perspective of those who say that human emissions are having a significant impact on climate change, which increases the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters/catasptrophes. I've also provided links to numerous scientific papers and studies that support this view, based on all the available evidence. In addition, the scientific, political, industrial and business communities have spent many millions looking over all this evidence, and have reached a consensus that the conclusions are both real, and that actions we take to reduce our carbon emissions will have a sufficiently meaningful effect to warrant taking them. In turn, you've said that they're all wrong, based on your own interpretation of a few cherry picked data points which, without detail or supporting scientific analysis, are at best impossible to assess, or at worst refutable once viewed against the wider context and counter arguments.

So, on the one hand I can accept the conclusions of all of these experts who, having spent many years and many pounds, and with a variety of opposing vested interests, have agreed are valid. Or, on the other hand, I can accept your supposition that they've all somehow missed things, made false claims and inaccurate assumptions, and have all practised bad science, because what little of the data you've read has LED you to different conclusions, and to feel that they're wrong.

Given the time and inclination, I suspect I could dig up the detailed arguments that counter those claims and suppositions but, as inteteresting as the debate is, I have neither. In any event, I imagine it will become a game of whack a mole, as with each point countered, another will be put forth. So I'll leave it there, with me believing the consensus, and you believing what you feel, and us agreeing to disagree.

The best of luck to you Linas 🙂

 

[Boomer54]

3 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I'm not sure what else to say Linas.

I'll start by saying that of course we have proof of both the climate, its changes, and the extent and frequency of extreme weather events and catastrophes that happened thousands of years ago. No one needed to be there to see them, or write them down, we have things like geological evidence and ice core samples that can tell us such things. So we don't need to go forward, as we can go back and see what happened in the past. Nor do we need to go forward to understand the cause, as we can predict the effect of warming and how it alters weather patterns and causes things like floods, droughts and heatwaves. Whilst I accept that little in life can be predicted with absolute certainly, the expertise and technology we have today means things are a lot more sophisticated than the guesswork and supposition you suggest.

Essentially though, I've given the perspective of those who say that human emissions are having a significant impact on climate change, which increases the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters/catasptrophes. I've also provided links to numerous scientific papers and studies that support this view, based on all the available evidence. In addition, the scientific, political, industrial and business communities have spent many millions looking over all this evidence, and have reached a consensus that the conclusions are both real, and that actions we take to reduce our carbon emissions will have a sufficiently meaningful effect to warrant taking them. In turn, you've said that they're all wrong, based on your own interpretation of a few cherry picked data points which, without detail or supporting scientific analysis, are at best impossible to assess, or at worst refutable once viewed against the wider context and counter arguments.

So, on the one hand I can accept the conclusions of all of these experts who, having spent many years and many pounds, and with a variety of opposing vested interests, have agreed are valid. Or, on the other hand, I can accept your supposition that they've all somehow missed things, made false claims and inaccurate assumptions, and have all practised bad science, because what little of the data you've read has led you to different conclusions, and to feel that they're wrong.

Given the time and inclination, I suspect I could dig up the detailed arguments that counter those claims and suppositions but, as inteteresting as the debate is, I have neither. In any event, I imagine it will become a game of whack a mole, as with each point countered, another will be put forth. So I'll leave it there, with me believing the consensus, and you believing what you feel, and us agreeing to disagree.

The best of luck to you Linas 🙂

 

I have come to the conclusion the thread was mislabelled. Definitely should have been 'drink for thought' if the will to live is to be preserved.

[Sundance]

[Linas.P]

Interesting take from kind of unusual source, but I think the take is more or less correct:

 

[Malc1]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Interesting take from kind of unusual source, but I think the take is more or less correct:

 

Be interesting to hear the current “ story “ with UK stocks held etc of EVs too 🤔

Malc 

[Linas.P]

19 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Be interesting to hear the current “ story “ with UK stocks held etc of EVs too 🤔

Malc 

Yeah sadly it was US centric view, I believe UK numbers were ~ 20% of sales and ~4% of total car park, but all the rest of the issues would be similar to US - lack of infrastructure to generate the electricity, lack of infrastructure to charge. This is by the way even worse in UK as unlike US majority of people don't have off-street parking, nor garages and overall US infrastructure would be much easier adapted to BEVs as they have generally more car centric infrastructure. So in US it is challenge to convert/upgrade the infrastructure, in UK is challenge of creating it from scratch. In other hand UK probably benefits from being smaller, more urbanised and therefore range issues are much less relevant here than in US... and climate is much milder, compared to at least half of US getting proper winters and snow. All in all, challenges in UK are more comparable to that of the state of California which has done quite well for BEVs, but even they have a limit and rely on extremal inputs to support the growth. Unlike California however, UK is not as tightly integrated with EU and is taking active steps to distance itself, which will only hurt BEV adaption (for better or worse).