octave
-
Posts
4,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
57
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Our Shop
Movies
Posts posted by octave
-
-
Have any of the CC scientists worked out this calculation?
One of the original climate models by Hanson from NASA produced a graph with 3 scenarios from memory there was the A scenario which assumed a large increase in co2 and methane etc. A B scenario which assumed midest cuts and a C scenario with aggressive cuts. One of the tricks climate contrarians use is to criticize only the A scenario which makes assumptions about emmusions that have not occured. Here is an article that includes 3 scenarios. Also a search for scientific papers that address the question you pose are not hard to find.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/?q=book/export/html/141
-
We have the choice of controlled but aggressive technological innovation or as some want to do we could just run the experiment an accept what the world that we get for our grandchildren. It is interesting to ponder that in the future our descendants when studying family history will no doubt search the net for our postings in the way that we search for letters written by past family members. I hope my descendants will see that I read the science and took the descion to make modest changes to my life and pressed my politicians and busines leaders to move towards the technology that is coming sooner or later. Governments championed the car and built highways because they knew that using horses was a big problem.
Onetrack for me to believe nothing needed to be done I would need be 100% sure. If even 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 expressed doubt about the airworthyness of an aircraft I certainly would not be flyng my family in it.
You talk about th IPCC as if it is the sole body that accepts climate change but it is not.
Nobody is seriously talking about closing every coal fired power station or mine but rather as these power stations become old and financially unsustainable replacing them with newer cleaner technology. Most people in the developed world do seem to want change but almost none of us wants to live without modern conveniences. The "renewables alarmist" seem to think that decarbonisation means destroying our modern way of life. At the moment I am visting my son in NZ, the electricity here is generated 86% by renewables hydro,wind solar. As I look out the window I see his Tesla which is also charged by these renewables at a cost of, depending on the time of day 90 cents per 100km. I dont see our decarbonised future as being dismal. Regsrdless of what the deniers think these changes are going ahead. The debate is pretty much over even amongst compannies that deal in fossil fuels as well as companies such as BHP. The Saudi's are building yhe worlds biggest solar PV annd solar thermal plant not because they are idiots or tree huggers.
-
Yes, once you have initiated the formation of a huge UN bureaucracy, as in the IPCC, you have to keep generating things for it to do.
Meetings must be held, reports produced - and nowhere must it be mentioned, that the reason/s for the panels existence, have now been attended to and fixed.
I'll wager if the climate cooled dramatically for the next 20 years, the IPCC would still exist, and be larger than what it is now, and continue to warn us of the likelihood of the near-term death of Planet Earth.
You do know the Shell and Exxon were involved in early studies regarding climate change?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html
I wonder what was the motivation of the early scientist who studied this phenomena long before the IPCC, Fourier,Tyndall Arhenius etc back in the 1800s.
Most fossil fuel companies now publicly admit the problem and to be fair most are trying to mitigate the problem.
onetrack Shell, Exxon and BHP now acknowledge the problem. I am wondering what gives you so much confidence that it is all a lie created in the early 1800s and propagated through to the present.
-
The reason so many climate scientists believe global warming is a fact, is that they are “climate scientists “
If they don’t promote climate change, they will be out of work.
So I guess what you are saying is that money is a motivator for scientists to commit fraud. I wonder if that same assertion could be leveled at other members of society perhaps those who receive financial gain from maintaining the status quo.
I am also wondering why one of these "disreputable" scientists doesn't approach a fossil fuel company or perhaps a conservative government and offer to produce the right kind of research, this would seem logical if they were so easily bought.
-
I haven’t answered your question, sorry. After serious background reading, I believe that support for anthropogenic global warming by “ climate scientists” is between 70% and 80%. However, support by all scientists is much lower, less than 50%. That includes geologists. The so called climate scientists include a high proportion of computer programmers and modellers, for whom I have little regard.
PM the problem is that if your side is wrong and we simply go on as we are the implications coul be dire. If we begin an agressive change to significantly reducing co2 and it turns out to be not required, this is a position we can backtrack on. Aggresivly but sensibly transitioning is the way that gives us the maximun number of options. To hold your view I would need to be 100% certain.
-
That is worthy of investigation. One possibility is that CO2 levels rose as a result of volcanic action, which was associated with extinction. The massive basalt flows of the Deccan Traps are a prime example. Wikipedia gives a discussion of that. Linkage to higher CO2 levels is an association, but not causation.
by the way, I have walked in the Deccan Traps, very impressive.
PM you seem to be open minded to different hypotheses and theories unless it implicates coal.
I acknowledge that although sound at the moment the theory of anthropogenic could be overturned. I would say my levell of confidence is around 90%. I will happily apologize to my grand or great grand children if I insisted that my government engineered an orderly move away from fossil fuels. I am wondering what level of confidence you hold that this theory is rubbish, is it 100%? If it is 90% and you are wrong how will you explain your stance to your grand children? If we move towards renewables and the theory is wrong the coal will still be there to be exploited by fhe generations go come.
-
PM this is from the study you quoted and is reason enough to be concered about co2 is it not?
Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.
-
The 97% of scientists was a complete piece of fakery or fake news.
Wether it is 97% or 87% or 67% it is hard to deny that the theory is accepted by fhe majority of scientists. But putting that issue aside PM you posted a portion of a study a few posts back. I assume that since you posted it you accept its findings. I read the whole study. It suggest does unlike many other studies suggests that the further reduction of co2 will provide diminishing benefits. Most importantly it points out that sudden changes in levells of co2 are associated with mass extinctions.
It seems to me that an orderly transition away from burning things is required.
-
Someone put me on to videos of this guy. A little disturbing to watch if you are scared of heights. Whole series of absolutely fascinating videos about this amazing fellow, well worth watching
-
Not all older people are conservative, Octave. Nev
Absolutely FH , there is you and I and many others. I went on one of the cliate strike marches and what struck me was the number of older Australians who took part. Although I am not one of the older people clinging to the past I do understand the younger peoples cynicism towards us as a group. I think history will judge our peers harshly. I am always conscious when I post here that in the future my descendants may when investigating family history, may read these posts if they are still around on the net. I do hope that they will see that I did care for things other than my own income and comfort. I can't rule out that climate change will be found to be false but if I was about to fly a plane with a grandchild (of which I have none) and 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 said it was unsafe, I think I would would heed that warning.
-
Follow WHAT money??
The money is on the other side, as Nev mentioned the Koch brothers, Minerals Council and its members. These are the vested interests that don't want any change to the status quo and will put out all sorts of propaganda to retain their profits.
I tend towards optimism because although governments are slow and vested interest are happy to fund misinformation more forward looking companies are getting on with the business of innovation. The old industries that do not adapt or change their business models will fail Even leaders in a particular industry are not immune to failure if they fear change. Think Nokia and of course Kodak. Kodak invented digital photography but was reluctant the change.
"Steve Sasson, the Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera in 1975, characterized the initial corporate response to his invention this way:"
"But it was filmless photography, so management’s reaction was, ‘that’s cute—but don’t tell anyone about it.’"
"Kodak management’s inability to see digital photography as a disruptive technology, even as its researchers extended the boundaries of the technology, would continue for decades."
At the moment we have companies like BP who whilst downplaying climate change are none the less getting into the renewable energy area. We have Shell and BP, companies that sell petroleum products building an running EV charging networks, why? They can see the writing on the wall, in fact Shell in particular did some of the earliest research on climate change.
We have Saudi Arabia a country with no shortage of energy building enormous photo voltaic and thermal solar power plants.
What I believe will happen is that hard core deniers will not change their opinion but as technology improves at the rapid pace it has been the cleaner technologies will be the cheaper option. Whilst I am here on my holidays I have had the pleasure of driving my sons Tesla. As a vehicle even discounting it's environmental cleanness it is just simply a more advanced and better piece of technology.
In 2 weeks time I am having a solar power system installed. This system is predicted to produce 6200 Kwh per year. I use about 4000Kwh a year. Of course there is the matter of when I need power and when it is available. I have looked at battery storage and it is almost economically viable but not quite yet, I am expecting it to become viable in the next few years. It is interesting to ponder how the electricity generation companies and retailers will have to adapt in order to stay in business. History would suggest that some will embrace change and adapt and flourish and others will fail.
The world mostly run by conservative older people but of course the younger generations will bring their new ideas and ways of doing things.
-
For CO2 to be considered a driver of Earth’s temperatures, changes in CO2 that uni-directionally correlate with temperatures should not be an exceptional occurrence. Yet a causal link from CO2 radiative forcing to temperature changes could hypothetically be inferred for just 2.6% of the last 425 million years.
A detailed analysis (Davis, 2017) of temperature and CO2 proxies over the Phanerozoic Eon by environmenalist Dr. W. Jackson Davis finds that for 77.9% of the record there was a non-discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature.
On the occasion there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature, most (60%) of the correlation instances were negative. In other words, when a correlation could be discerned, temperatures fell as CO2 rose or CO2 fell as temperatures rose more often than CO2 and temperature rose and fell with a semblence of synchronicity.
If we assume temperature changes are radiatively forced or amplified by CO2, this cause-effect link could be correlationally established for just 2.6% of the 4.25 million-year record.
As Dr. Davis concludes, “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
Good to see you are posting real peer reviewed papers rather than the Heller rubbish. This is of course but one of many papers. There are in most areas papers produced that vary in the results they produce and I could post numerous papers that come to different conclusions however let me assure you that I accept this paper as being rigorous and most importantly peer reviewed. The author seems to be open to further accepting further data. I have read the whole study and a few points stand out here is just one of them
I have made the most interesting part bold
I report here that proxies for temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are generally uncorrelated across the Phanerozoic climate, showing that atmospheric CO2 did not drive the ancient climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a less-direct measure of its effect on global temperature than marginal radiative forcing, however, which is nonetheless also generally uncorrelated with temperature across the Phanerozoic. The present findings from the Phanerozoic climate provide possible insights into the role of atmospheric CO2 in more recent glacial cycling and for contemporary climate science and carbon policies. Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.
So lets say that this study is correct (although we have to consider this against many other studies) doesn't it still suggest a pressing need to sensibly carbonize our society, achieving this in a staged way whilst considering the economic effects. Of course there will be some disruption as there was during the industrial revolution but this will pass.
Again thanks for posting actual science (although one paper among many) By contrast the Heller videos among other thing suggest that Bill Gates, Andrew Forrest et al oh and me are mentally deranged people who are trying to destroy the economy which I suspect is not what you think.
-
Octave, how would the acceleration compare to something like the old E types or a GTHO.
Tesla3p 0 to 100kph 3.3 seconds not sure about e type but I think around 6
-
I am staying with my son at the moment, he is very into competing in motor sport and has a quite fast IC race car but his car of choice is his new Tesla model 3P which is his daily drive and also has been used on the track, although the motor sport body is drawing up new rules because although he usually does alright he came second to the 200k custom built car.
I had a long drive of it today and I was extremely impressed, It was very easy to drive and makes IC car seem primitive. I of course drove it quite sedately although tomorrow we are going a day trip.
Here is some video of an aggressive launch, I was sitting in the back at this point, my wifes reaction say it all.
-
So you are getting high for Christmas?
32979 ft to be precise ? 40 minutes NZ
-
-
Not a cop out at all. The world is warming at present. It goes through warming and cooling cycles. It always has. The sea is rising. It has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The rate of rise has not changed in the last 150 years. These are facts, easily checked. That is what science is about.
The dispute is about models, made on computers, that cannot be tested because they are predicting the future. To the extent we can check their predictions, over only the last twenty or thirty years, they have failed.
The alarmist predictions are predicated on the more extreme results from the unreliable models.
-
This is where Iam posting from at the moment, 35000ft A321Neo[ATTACH]50494._xfImport[/ATTACH]
-
I certainly don't know how they fell for the last lot.
Some political commentator on the radio yesterday was talking about Labor's loss and was saying that in some quarters there's a view that people who voted for the LNP were voting against their own interests, voting against the climate, voting against the economy, voting against health & education, and were therefore stupid. She was making the point that such a view will not win votes next time, so was unhelpful.
My thought was "despite being bloody true!"
The sad thing is that Labor proved that being a big target by putting up well-considered and costed policies only gets you shot down by the voting sheep, so they won't do that again. Whereas the conservatives had no actual policies, and in fact had already given up on winning the election that a pack of senior members had resigned.
What the LNP/One Nation/Palmer voters achieved was nothing more than making all politicians even more cowardly and loathe to actually lead than they already were.
duh.
We rightly criticise politicians but seem unable to accept any blame ourselves. Attempt to solve a long standing serious problem or get a $10 tax cut, unfortunately too many are seduced by getting more in their pocket. I suspect that many of the voting public are like children sitting on santas knee down at the department store asking for for toys.
-
PM do you believe as Tony Heller/Steve Goddard's assertion that hottest temperatures have decreased since the middle of the 19th century? PM is it getting cooler? Do you agree with this guy that the likelihood of hot weather has declined sharply over the last 130 years?
This guy claims the Bom his suppressing temperature readings before 1910, do you agree that Bom is commiting fraud here at at the very least lying? My understanding is that before 1910 measurements were not very reliable, but not to worry Tony or Steve whatever name he is going by at the moment sites newspaper articles before 1910 where people say it is very hot. In any case the science is more sophisticated than maximum temperatures, it is also about higher minimums and the extension of the hot weather and fire season.
For some critiques of Mr Heller's work you might like to try Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield veteran science journalist
Another critique of Hellers shoddy work
Heller could site references so his assertions can be checked but he doesn't, Hadfield does.
-
It is often stated by deniers here that the climate models have been poor at making predictions. However
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/
I could post links from reputable sites all night but it would be pointless. I suspect your interests are in promoting your industry.
-
22 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:
This thread has been quiet for days! Time to inject some new Australian data.
Do believe the Bom is concealing temperature data? Commiting fraud?
-
"Margaret Thatcher was a woman"
AND went to WAR !
as did most female Leaders.
spacesailor
Generally in our system government an idividual does not take a country to war by themselves. Whilst Bush was the president during the gulf wars I would argue that it also required the colloboration of Chainy Rumsfeld etc.
-
Octave, I don't understand why you posted a funny emoticon on my above post. It's no laughing matter trying to keep those two in check, and then there's the maintenance on the Gulfstream. It's enough to make you cry.
You have my sympathy. I would be happy to come around and lend a hand or something!
The climate change debate continues.
in Science and Technology
Posted
When considering whether has the ability yo alter the atmosphere we have to consider that in 2017 there were 7.53 billion of us and this figure is predicted to slow and stabilize at 22 billion. There is hardlg a place on earth thst we have not altered. Pesticude residues are found in the shells of birds eggs in polar regions. The oil and coal that we burn formed over millions if years. Consider spacey how many tonnes of coal and litres have been burned in your and my lifetime. There are no free lunches in this universe every thing we do gas benefits and cost.