Climate Change

[Grunthos]

Brilliant!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Brilliant!

He raises a valid point. Well, kind of valid. He's right about Britain's impact. It's really not that big. Per capita the entire UK emits less CO2 per person than China. This is in comparison to Australia where each person emits nearly 3 times what each person in China emits.

But he's kind of wrong about the poor people scenario. Kind of. He's right that if you ask poor people if they would rather eat or protect the planet, then they're going to eat. If they would rather stay warm or protect the planet, then they'll choose to stay warm. That just makes sense. But poor people aren't really the issue. Emissions are high because of companies and sectors. Because of the rich, not because of poor people. The reason the transport industry is the biggest emitter isn't because poor people walk to work. It's because people want to buy a new car every few years, and they usually drive by themselves in a big car to work. It's because we ship new items around the globe on mass scale rather than fixing the stuff we have, or just living without the junk we don't need.

He also raises a good point about fixing the issue. It's technology that will fix it. But he ignores two important aspects:

1) What if we can't develop the technology to fix the problem? Shouldn't we have a backup solution? If someone tells me that there's limited supply of healthy food, but an abundance of poisoned food. Then tells me that they may come up with a cure for the poison before it kills me. I'm not going to eat the poisoned food in the hopes I'll be fine

2) If we do come up with technological solutions to the problems (and I'm sure we will), how effective will they be? And when will we have them? We already have deaths attributed to climate change. Some studies saying it's around 5 million deaths per year that are happening currently due to climate change, and it's only going to get worse. So while we look for this technological solution, more and more deaths are accumulating and we have the potential to have much worse stuff happen if we accidentally wipe out certain species that we need (like the phytoplankton and other sea life that are making most of our oxygen)

I also agree with him on the protesting stuff. It's all pretty pointless. Sure, it does bring awareness. But people are already aware. When we have all of the major scientific organisations and majority of governments around the world saying, "Anthropogenic climate change is a problem", climate protesters aren't going to help. They're just going to make the actual climate scientists look as crazy as the protesters.

At this stage people will either listen to the experts, or they won't. Gluing your hand to a road isn't going to do anything.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Per capita the entire UK emits less CO2 per person than China. This is in comparison to Australia where each person emits nearly 3 times what each person in China emits.

I'm sick and tired of meaningless comparisons such as this, the population of the UK is 68 million spread over 244,000 square kilometers (275 persons/ km2), where as Australia population is 26 million spread over 7,700,000 square kilometers (3 persons/km2). This means for everything we do, visit friends, relatives, pick up groceries, get purchases delivered, transport from farm to plate, get to work etc etc is likely to involve 275/3 = 92 times more travel (electricity, fuel etc). The fact that we only emit 3 times is a farkin miracle, keeping in mind that 30%+ of China's population lives in abject poverty.

I will also add that 15% of the UK electricity is generated in zero emissions nuclear plants and ours is 0%.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'm sick and tired of meaningless comparisons such as this, the population of the UK is 68 million spread over 244,000 square kilometers (275 persons/ km2), where as Australia population is 26 million spread over 7,700,000 square kilometers (3 persons/km2). This means for everything we do, visit friends, relatives, pick up groceries, get purchases delivered, transport from farm to plate, get to work etc etc is likely to involve 275/3 = 92 times more travel (electricity, fuel etc). The fact that we only emit 3 times is a farkin miracle, keeping in mind that 30%+ of China's population lives in abject poverty.

I will also add that 15% of the UK electricity is generated in zero emissions nuclear plants and ours is 0%.


Always a Bulldog

Yep. Factors are important. Our transportation industry travels farther than most. That's one of the key reasons our emissions are so high. Another one being that politicians refuse to move away from coal (tough for us to export something we won't use ourselves). And the 3rd main reason being that we refuse to accept nuclear power as an option.

These are all things we could fix though. But not without politicians being willing to fix the issues.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Exxon scientists in the 1970s accurately predicted climate change

Analysis of internal climate projections shows Exxon scientists knew the harm of burning fossil fuels, while firm’s executives played down the risk

www.newscientist.com

Exxon scientists accurately predicted the pace and scale of climate change more than 40 years ago, according to a study that its authors say adds weight to claims the oil firm knew about and sought to downplay the risks posed by continued fossil fuel use.

Scientists working for Exxon between 1977 and 2003 accurately forecasted the rate at which global average temperatures would rise as a result of carbon emissions, correctly predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable by around 2000 and reasonably estimated how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous warming, according to the study.

Leaked internal documents published in 2015 suggest Exxon, which became ExxonMobil in 1999, was aware of climate change in the 1970s and knew the threat could cause “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050”.

But this is the first time Exxon’s quantitative climate projections have been assessed. Geoffrey Supran at Harvard University and his colleagues analysed all publicly available internal documents and research publications disclosed by the company between 1977 and 2014 to assess the accuracy of Exxon’s scientific predictions against both contemporary models and subsequent real-world changes in temperature.

The results were in line with scientific thinking at the time of writing, the team found. Meanwhile, 63 to 83 per cent of the projections were accurate in predicting subsequent rates of global warming.

“Most of Exxon’s projections accurately forecast warming, consistent with subsequent observations, but also, at least as skillfully as those of independent models,” says Supran. “Excellent scientists modelled and predicted global warming with shocking skill and accuracy, only for the company to spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

ExxonMobil is one of a number of oil companies facing lawsuits in the US accusing them of seeking to conceal the true impact of fossil fuel use from the public.

For decades, Exxon executives argued in public that the science of climate change was still uncertain, with former CEO Lee Raymond warning in 2000 that research wasn’t robust enough to “justify drastic measures” to cut emissions. The firm has also been criticsed for funding groups that promoted misleading information on climate change...

 

[TwinTurbo]

Scientists working for Exxon between 1977 and 2003 accurately forecasted the rate at which global average temperatures would rise as a result of carbon emissions, correctly predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable by around 2000 and reasonably estimated how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous warming, according to the study.

Maybe the IPCC should hire them, they are plainly better than the current bunch.

Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Maybe the IPCC should hire them, they are plainly better than the current bunch.

Always a Bulldog

IPCC models haven't been that bad...

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.

* SAR trend differences are calculated over the period from 1990-2016, as estimates prior to 1990 are not readily available.
# Differences in parenthesis based on blended model land/ocean fields

Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

Exxon scientists in the 1970s accurately predicted climate change

Analysis of internal climate projections shows Exxon scientists knew the harm of burning fossil fuels, while firm’s executives played down the risk

www.newscientist.com

Exxon scientists accurately predicted the pace and scale of climate change more than 40 years ago, according to a study that its authors say adds weight to claims the oil firm knew about and sought to downplay the risks posed by continued fossil fuel use.

Scientists working for Exxon between 1977 and 2003 accurately forecasted the rate at which global average temperatures would rise as a result of carbon emissions, correctly predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable by around 2000 and reasonably estimated how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous warming, according to the study.

Leaked internal documents published in 2015 suggest Exxon, which became ExxonMobil in 1999, was aware of climate change in the 1970s and knew the threat could cause “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050”.

But this is the first time Exxon’s quantitative climate projections have been assessed. Geoffrey Supran at Harvard University and his colleagues analysed all publicly available internal documents and research publications disclosed by the company between 1977 and 2014 to assess the accuracy of Exxon’s scientific predictions against both contemporary models and subsequent real-world changes in temperature.

The results were in line with scientific thinking at the time of writing, the team found. Meanwhile, 63 to 83 per cent of the projections were accurate in predicting subsequent rates of global warming.

“Most of Exxon’s projections accurately forecast warming, consistent with subsequent observations, but also, at least as skillfully as those of independent models,” says Supran. “Excellent scientists modelled and predicted global warming with shocking skill and accuracy, only for the company to spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

ExxonMobil is one of a number of oil companies facing lawsuits in the US accusing them of seeking to conceal the true impact of fossil fuel use from the public.

For decades, Exxon executives argued in public that the science of climate change was still uncertain, with former CEO Lee Raymond warning in 2000 that research wasn’t robust enough to “justify drastic measures” to cut emissions. The firm has also been criticsed for funding groups that promoted misleading information on climate change...

Very interesting. Not surprising. Large organisations (be they public or private) will have plenty of people in them who are seriously minded, skilled, and trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately they either cave to the (often diagnostically sociopathic) managers/leaders in the organisation, or get infected with the greed bug themselves. Die young enough to be a hero, or live long enough to become corrupt.

Will anyone at Exxon, past or present, be held to account for ignoring their own information, let alone selling the opposing message? Doubt.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Very interesting. Not surprising. Large organisations (be they public or private) will have plenty of people in them who are seriously minded, skilled, and trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately they either cave to the (often diagnostically sociopathic) managers/leaders in the organisation, or get infected with the greed bug themselves. Die young enough to be a hero, or live long enough to become corrupt.

Will anyone at Exxon, past or present, be held to account for ignoring their own information, let alone selling the opposing message? Doubt.

Yeah, the Exxon thing has been going through the courts for a while and generally where it has ended up is that there's a small chance Exxon could be charged with minor fraud. There's an ongoing House committee inquiry that basically states that when Exxon deliberately covered up climate change, they hid pertinent information from investors effectively defrauding those investors.

The inquiry has raised some interesting stuff though, including a internal memo between Exxon managers where they discuss the CO2 environmental reports, and discuss the best way to run a misinformation campaign before climate change becomes public knowledge.

If you get bored, it's an interesting watch

 

[TwinTurbo]

IPCC models haven't been that bad...

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.

View attachment 63798
* SAR trend differences are calculated over the period from 1990-2016, as estimates prior to 1990 are not readily available.
# Differences in parenthesis based on blended model land/ocean fields

Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

We have had this discussion previously, I deal in the numbers not the spin that spews from Carbon Brief almost daily. The table (which BTW I don't agree with as it is clearly cherry picked) shows the IPCC is not getting any better in their 23 years of forecasting. The error in 1990 = 17% and the error in 2013 = 16%. That is not much of an improvement, In fact their 2007 report was the most accurate with only an 8% error.

The well recognised problem with the IPCC climate change forecasting is (what they call) "other climate forcings", as well as them being unpredictable they also have a greater effect than the modeling can accommodate. In simple terms the effect of what they can predict is far less than what they can't predict.

I also rile against the Carbon Brief's insistence on making predictions look better by introducing factors that weren't in the predictions (eg; "Blended Land/Ocean temperatures"), nice try.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Aristidiz]

IPCC models haven't been that bad...

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.

View attachment 63798
* SAR trend differences are calculated over the period from 1990-2016, as estimates prior to 1990 are not readily available.
# Differences in parenthesis based on blended model land/ocean fields

Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Hahaha this just highlights how accurate the covid models are .... ahh, sorry global warming .... ahh sorry climate change models are.

There is absolutely no money to be made out of climate change, nothing to see here. Only those greedy oil moguls are making money, yeah right!

 

[The DoggFather]

How many private jets flew to the WEF meeting at DAVOS?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

How many private jets flew to the WEF meeting at DAVOS?

They could probably do these things online and no one travels, but anyone who attends these conferences will tell you that they don't work if you're not interacting directly with people face to face.

It's also not a huge problem. Sure, any flight is burning more CO2. But it's a tiny candle held to a raging inferno. It really doesn't have much of an impact at all.

But I'm guessing you heard that comment from someone else. And I guarantee you they heard it from someone else, and they heard it from someone else, and if you trace it right back you'll find a bloke who emits 1,000 times the CO2 of the entire conference just by breathing. Everytime there's a climate conference or something similar, some bloke who wipes his arse with $100 bills will tell you that you need to attack these people for taking planes to a conference. But that same bloke will emit more CO2 by sneezing 'cause he doesn't really care how many people take a flight somewhere. He just wants you to be angry at the ones that are trying to fix the problem because it'll stop you from attacking the ones that are actually causing the problem.

This is the problem with climate change. The oil companies literally admitted that they run disinformation campaigns to make the general public think that climate change isn't a thing. And people still follow their lies.

Can you imagine if The Roosters admitted that they paid Ref's millions to ensure that the Bulldogs didn't win. Then everyone said, "Bulldogs obviously didn't deserve to win"?

It seems like a weird comparison but that's literally what's going on. Fossil fuel companies literally spent billions of dollars trying to convince people that climate change isn't an issue, then eventually they admitted it and people acted like they were the heroes and the people trying to stop climate change are the evil ones.

It's just so insane.

 

[The DoggFather]

They could probably do these things online and no one travels, but anyone who attends these conferences will tell you that they don't work if you're not interacting directly with people face to face.

It's also not a huge problem. Sure, any flight is burning more CO2. But it's a tiny candle held to a raging inferno. It really doesn't have much of an impact at all.

But I'm guessing you heard that comment from someone else. And I guarantee you they heard it from someone else, and they heard it from someone else, and if you trace it right back you'll find a bloke who emits 1,000 times the CO2 of the entire conference just by breathing. Everytime there's a climate conference or something similar, some bloke who wipes his arse with $100 bills will tell you that you need to attack these people for taking planes to a conference. But that same bloke will emit more CO2 by sneezing 'cause he doesn't really care how many people take a flight somewhere. He just wants you to be angry at the ones that are trying to fix the problem because it'll stop you from attacking the ones that are actually causing the problem.

This is the problem with climate change. The oil companies literally admitted that they run disinformation campaigns to make the general public think that climate change isn't a thing. And people still follow their lies.

Can you imagine if The Roosters admitted that they paid Ref's millions to ensure that the Bulldogs didn't win. Then everyone said, "Bulldogs obviously didn't deserve to win"?

It seems like a weird comparison but that's literally what's going on. Fossil fuel companies literally spent billions of dollars trying to convince people that climate change isn't an issue, then eventually they admitted it and people acted like they were the heroes and the people trying to stop climate change are the evil ones.

It's just so insane.

Just pointing out obvious hypocrisy.

They keep their planes but I can't drive my V8.

When those motherfucking elites stop polluting, I'll think about doing shorter burnouts lol

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Just pointing out obvious hypocrisy.

They keep their planes but I can't drive my V8.

When those motherfucking elites stop polluting, I'll think about doing shorter burnouts lol

I had a good chat with some people who work on waste and CO2 reduction a while back when we had a conference on. I asked them about switching to electric vehicles over keeping my Commodore. The basic response was that they said that it's not worth switching as you're encouraging making another vehicle when you already have a functional vehicle.

Most of the waste of a vehicle comes from producing it. So best to keep the beast running until it dies, then switch to something less polluting. But only if they have decent quality.

 

[The DoggFather]

I had a good chat with some people who work on waste and CO2 reduction a while back when we had a conference on. I asked them about switching to electric vehicles over keeping my Commodore. The basic response was that they said that it's not worth switching as you're encouraging making another vehicle when you already have a functional vehicle.

Most of the waste of a vehicle comes from producing it. So best to keep the beast running until it dies, then switch to something less polluting. But only if they have decent quality.

Sounds good to me bro!

PS I have to start researching hydrogen motors, a lot of mechanics recommended to not touch EVs and hybrids and wait for hydrogen.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Sounds good to me bro!

PS I have to start researching hydrogen motors, a lot of mechanics recommended to not touch EVs and hybrids and wait for hydrogen.

Yeah, Hydrogen is the future. Still a long way off though. EVs are a good temporary measure.

 

[The DoggFather]

Yeah, Hydrogen is the future. Still a long way off though. EVs are a good temporary measure.

But where's the raw grunt? Where is the ground shaking rumble from a fine tuned, 8 cylinder symphony? Where are the sweet smells of petrol and burnt rubber?

 

[Natboy]

Yeah, Hydrogen is the future. Still a long way off though. EVs are a good temporary measure.

How long do you think Hacky? I’m thinking of buying a new petrol car next year before it’s gets harder

 

[Hacky McAxe]

How long do you think Hacky? I’m thinking of buying a new petrol car next year before it’s gets harder

Hard to say. For full commercial use I would think that it's at least 5 years away, but probably closer to 10.

There are some hydrogen vehicles available now, but they're not real hydrogen. They use hydrogen fuel cells which emit a fair amount of CO2 to make, and there's no real infrastructure in place for them. They're basically like electric vehicle cells that go a longer distance on a single fuel up, and are more powerful, but are much harder to fuel.

The issue they are facing is that they need to make smaller, more efficient converters. When that's done then mass production on decent hydrogen cars will start. Difficult to say when that will be.