octave

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.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/bhp-boss-warns-of-climate-change-risks-and-mass-extinctions/news-story/1fa4b68c5161e0a03265e4ab95056f13

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.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/mbr-solar-park-dubai-desert-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1Q1NpRtdXhGqxFKAHbwdUPFGUMaiyss4zLR_kkL52vkmwtmu2VGSSsHlY

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

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions/amp

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.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions/amp

 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/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/12/04/early-climate-modelers-got-global-warming-right-new-report-finds/

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!

I was thinking about some of the benefits of the digital age.   In my work I need a music score writing software program (like a word processor but for music)   For many years I used a software package that costs around $800. I have to admit that I did have a dodgy copy but eventually it would not run on newer versions of windows.

These days luckily I use a very powerful open source software package that is completely free to use. This began life as a crowd funded project and has the goals of with the help of it's users digitising all public domain music. I have done some digitising for them. This makes a large an ever growing library of music available for free to anyone who can access the net.

"OpenScore[edit]

In 2017, MuseScore and IMSLP launched a Kickstarter for OpenScore, an initiative to create MuseScore and MusicXML versions of public domain music from IMSLP's library.[59]

OpenScore wants to digitise and liberate all public domain sheet music, including the great classics of Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. Our community aims to transfer history’s most influential pieces from paper into interactive scores which you can listen to, edit and share. Together, we can make sheet music accessible to everyone. For free, for any purpose, for evermore.

I would assume that this kind of thing is happening in many other areas also.  I can only see this as a positive thing overall.

Peoples knowledge often dies with them and is often GONE forever.

 

Agreed, this is why this information must be recorded by whatever means and preserved.

IF you are restoring an old vehicle or even a plane you job is to resist the temptation to modify it as by doing that you often ruin it entirely, as frequently happens. You also lose the contact with the feel and history of the time.. 

 

Nev not sure if this was in answer to my post or not

My friend who  restores vintage cars is a stickler for authenticity. More often than not a car being restored is not 100% complete. My friend doesn't modify but where necessary remanufactures to original specifications. He also has done work for Point Cook RAAF Museum and wrote the history of RAAF Point Cook.  The point is that looking for the definitive answer to something on the net is just one thing you can use it for but it is often the networking that can be extremely useful. In the past you might consult with your local vintage car crowd now using the www you can perhaps find the one person who has a spare xxx part that you may be having trouble finding or who has some documentation.