Bad news for diesel owners?

[ninaandphil]

I'm going to vote Green, lets stop producing power, that will reduce 30%, lets stop heating our homes and workplaces, that's another 30%, and then we can all scrap our diesels.... another 30% if we stop the lorries and buses too ( Sorry Tesco, more probs )... and YAY we're all saved..
Does any one on here want to swap my CDTi for a Chinese made pony and trap ( Must be the non farting kind!,,, the ban on methane is due in 10 yrs )...... We can worry ourselves silly whilst the rest of the world gets on with 'living the dream'... a car for every household in India and China!

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by calibrax

It's a MASSIVE amount of missing data. Yes, you can extrapolate from a small amount of data - but when the amount of data you have is so small compared with the total, then the margin of error increases exponentially. So they cannot say with any certainty at all that it is man-made.

Nah its not a massive amount. Factor in all the different sources of data from all the different eco systems.

I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong.

The effects being seen are huge and unprecedented. From coral reef devastation, glacier retreat and ocean acidification to animal extinction and habitat reduction Its undeniable. I find it thoroughly depressing that people deny it anymore.

[andymc]

Originally Posted by calibrax

It's a MASSIVE amount of missing data. Yes, you can extrapolate from a small amount of data - but when the amount of data you have is so small compared with the total, then the margin of error increases exponentially. So they cannot say with any certainty at all that it is man-made.

Ice-core drilling from the likes of Greenland and the Antarctic gives a very comprehensive record of climate, CO2 concentration levels etc for several hundred thousand of years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ta-help-solve/

“The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”

Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.

[alanjay]

Originally Posted by rosephus

Nah its not a massive amount. Factor in all the different sources of data from all the different eco systems.

I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong.

The effects being seen are huge and unprecedented. From coral reef devastation, glacier retreat and ocean acidification to animal extinction and habitat reduction Its undeniable. I find it thoroughly depressing that people deny it anymore.

"I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong."

Think about King Canute or Hans Christien Andersen's Kings Suit of Clothes, both involved sycophants who would not re-examine the evidence.

Re-examination might provide a more balanced argument.

Lancaster university once did research on the increase of Kites (birds) around motorways which went into decline when unleaded fuel became the norm.

Conclusion, mice had adapted to leaded fuel and were prospering in the central reservation, so Kites had an increased source of food.

Reversal of situation meant mice declined and so did Kites.

The reproduction cycle of humans takes a lot longer than that of mice but the alternative argument is, given the equivalent development times, humans will adapt to climate change.

Also consider this, the 3% of scientists whose opinions you ignore are the ones who show there has been climate change in the past, not man made but a natural occurrence and all living beings adapted.

Climate change is a natural evolvement of our world, man's intervention might change when it happens but cannot stop it.

[calibrax]

Originally Posted by andymc

Ice-core drilling from the likes of Greenland and the Antarctic gives a very comprehensive record of climate, CO2 concentration levels etc for several hundred thousand of years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ta-help-solve/

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that they have 500,000 years of data. That still means that out of the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed, they have no data for the other 4.4995 billion years...

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by calibrax

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that they have 500,000 years of data. That still means that out of the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed, they have no data for the other 4.4995 billion years...

So what? We just ignore man's effect on the data we have? Your argument boils down to: there are 4.5 billion years of data we don't have so lets forget the whole thing.

No one is denying earth's climate hasn't changed over the age of the earth. Given how the earths eco systems work that's a scientific fact. The argument is that human actions especially since industrialisation have accelerated a warming cycle to the point where the earth's own protection of negative feedback loops kick in. Its a downward spiral we can't control and its our actions that caused it.

The earth will survive and out last anything we can do to it. In terms of cosmic time we are but a blink of the eye but that doesn't mean we should just go hell for leather towards our own species destruction surely?

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by alanjay

"I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong."

Think about King Canute or Hans Christien Andersen's Kings Suit of Clothes, both involved sycophants who would not re-examine the evidence.

Re-examination might provide a more balanced argument.

Lancaster university once did research on the increase of Kites (birds) around motorways which went into decline when unleaded fuel became the norm.

Conclusion, mice had adapted to leaded fuel and were prospering in the central reservation, so Kites had an increased source of food.

Reversal of situation meant mice declined and so did Kites.

The reproduction cycle of humans takes a lot longer than that of mice but the alternative argument is, given the equivalent development times, humans will adapt to climate change.

Also consider this, the 3% of scientists whose opinions you ignore are the ones who show there has been climate change in the past, not man made but a natural occurrence and all living beings adapted.

Climate change is a natural evolvement of our world, man's intervention might change when it happens but cannot stop it.

Humans will adapt to climate change based on a mouse example??

Do you realise the effect on the human species of an increase in ocean levels once the ice caps melt?

It will make the immigration issues and problems of recent super storms look like a walk in the park.

Why would you even contemplate that as acceptable given we can positively effect the outcome in our favour?

[rosephus]

One in six of world's species faces extinction due to climate change – study

http://gu.com/p/47qqx

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected

http://gu.com/p/47p9j

Vatican official calls for moral awakening on global warming

http://gu.com/p/47qh2

Australian taxpayers funding climate contrarian's methods with $4m Bjørn Lomborg centre

http://gu.com/p/47n9v

Earth Day: scientists say 75% of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in ground

http://gu.com/p/47yya

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...l-fuels-ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=VbiRNT_gWUQ

http://watchdisruption.com/

[Zeeblum]

Originally Posted by rosephus

Humans will adapt to climate change based on a mouse example??

Do you realise the effect on the human species of an increase in ocean levels once the ice caps melt?

It will make the immigration issues and problems of recent super storms look like a walk in the park.

Why would you even contemplate that as acceptable given we can positively effect the outcome in our favour?

It may be possible to effect outcomes but is it realistic to expect ourselves to.

Live close to the people you want to see, live close to work, maintain what you have.
Make positive change in every choice you make and represent the value of life.
Ocean levels and super storms are the adventure/challenge when they are, for now though, we must wade through the constant flow of miss information and rely on our own truths and our core beliefs, always with an open and inquisitive mind and be willing to to expel our energy BEING the changes we want to happen.

How much does an electric car save on emissions (including its creation) compared to keeping an old diesel on the road?
And does an electric car save more in it's running life than was used in its production?

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by Zeeblomity

It may be possible to effect outcomes but is it realistic to expect ourselves to.

Live close to the people you want to see, live close to work, maintain what you have.
Make positive change in every choice you make and represent the value of life.
Ocean levels and super storms are the adventure/challenge when they are, for now though, we must wade through the constant flow of miss information and rely on our own truths and our core beliefs, always with an open and inquisitive mind and be willing to to expel our energy BEING the changes we want to happen.

How much does an electric car save on emissions (including its creation) compared to keeping an old diesel on the road?
And does an electric car save more in it's running life than was used in its production?

I don't think its just realistic I think it's an obligation of us as custodians of the planet to do so.