UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Andres125sx]

The thing we face with AGW is the modern equivalent of Pascal's Wager.

If AGW does exist and we do nothing, we lose. If AGW doesn't exist and we do some stuff then we have only lost a few quid, but will have gained new infrastructure. Etc.

On balance, doing stuff is the sensible option. It might be politically inconvenient for some, but that's life.

Exactly, even if we wouldn't know it would we the sensible thing to do

But we know some facts which are not debatable. We've increased dramatically co2 concentration, that is a measurable fact, not an opinion. See the graph and link I posted in the EV thread from NASA. Another fact is co2 is a greenhouse effect gas so it's concentration in the atmosphere has direct impact on global warming, not debatable either.

But for some people, even despite these measurable facts which prove humans are responsible for a greenhouse gas concentration increase in the atmosphere, even despite this fact, some still defend if we can't predict how much and in what time scale co2 increase will affect the planet (as if planet weather was something easy to understand or predict), then it's all false and we should do nothing at the respect

To me it's pretty obvious some people only look for some excuse to dodge our own responsibility, if they are forced to ignore some known facts that's not a problem

[Andres125sx]

This is the graph and link

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/



Edit, as many people is not going to click the link, current co2 concentration is 412ppm, 80% above average (considered 230) and 37% more than highest historical record before industrial revolution

[AngusF1]

The thing we face with AGW is the modern equivalent of Pascal's Wager.

If AGW does exist and we do nothing, we lose. If AGW doesn't exist and we do some stuff then we have only lost a few quid, but will have gained new infrastructure. Etc.

On balance, doing stuff is the sensible option. It might be politically inconvenient for some, but that's life.

By the same line of reasoning, I hope you are making a 10% tithe to the Protestant Church, a 10% tithe to the Catholic Church, a 10% tithe to the Mormons and while we're at it the Muslims and Buddhists, too. Probably best to cover a few niche sects as well just in case. You'll have lost a few quid, but you'll have loads of new friends and community support. On balance, it's clearly the sensible option. It might be financially inconvenient for some, but that's life.

[AngusF1]

He says, suppose if the possible feedback models were Gaussian

Gaussian in what sense?

He means, distributed according to a Gaussian distribution, otherwise called the "normal" distribution. It's a statistical distribution which is symmetrical about the mean and extends infinitely in both directions, ie there is a nonzero probability of any outcome, however far from the mean.

The problem is, the real "correct" climate model (whatever it is) is not a random statistical variable at all. It's a specific mathematical model. There is only one "real" or "correct" model of the climate, which the professor readily admits to being totally ignorant of. So to substitute for his ignorance he says, "let's suppose that the model could be anything" (which is what he really means when he says, "suppose it is Gaussian"), "then choose the worst values". Then he begs for billions of dollars in research funding.

[AngusF1]

I can't comment on whether using a Gaussian distribution is appropriate or not, having no exposure to the data.

However, if he'd used a non-Gaussian distribution, in all likelihood the distribution would be positively skewed, meaning the worst case temperature scenario would probably have a delta higher than 8 degrees for the same level of significance.

The level of significance must have been fairly small to obtain that "worst case" right-tail event, considering the values for mean warming I am aware of (1.5C - 2C by the latter half / end of this century).

The point is IMO, if you are ignorant of a phenomenon, you can't just say "suppose it's statistical according to this specific model which I pulled out of my backside and can take any value I want!", which is precisely what the professor is doing.

If you are ignorant of a phenomenon you get to say... nothing, and stick to what you are certain of, ie the 1.2 degrees directly caused by CO2. Anything further is pure speculation.

[AngusF1]

This is the graph and link

For reference, here is the real history of CO2 levels on earth, showing the highest historical level.

[Andres125sx]

This is the graph and link

For reference, here is the real history of CO2 levels on earth, showing the highest historical level.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/ima ... ic_CO2.gif

Are you suggesting NASA lies or your unsourced graph is more reliable than that published at NASA web?

[AngusF1]

All I want is a mid-rear, RWD, two seat sports-touring car with a flywheel-free 60 degree V12 engine made from exotic materials with a high tech valve train producing 450hp at 10,000rpm. I don't care how much fuel it uses. To governments worldwide: please leave me alone and let me burn oil.

[AngusF1]

This is the graph and link

For reference, here is the real history of CO2 levels on earth, showing the highest historical level.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/ima ... ic_CO2.gif

Are you suggesting NASA lies or your unsourced graph is more reliable than that published at NASA web?

The NASA graph above extends to only 400,000 years ago. It rather misses the full picture, which extends back 1,000 times further to over 400 million years. If NASA publishes a graph of CO2 back 400 million years I would gladly accept it over the link I referenced.

[Andres125sx]

For reference, here is the real history of CO2 levels on earth, showing the highest historical level.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/ima ... ic_CO2.gif

Are you suggesting NASA lies or your unsourced graph is more reliable than that published at NASA web?

The NASA graph above extends to only 400,000 years ago. It rather misses the full picture, which extends back 1,000 times further to over 400 million years. If NASA publishes a graph of CO2 back 400 million years I would gladly accept it over the link I referenced.

Maybe NASA only care about current era instead of including co2 concentration on past eras which are not comparable

Anycase... Do you think the increase in co2 concentration since industrial revolution, and the much higher rate of increase than ever in past 400000 years is just a coincidence or not relevant?

[AngusF1]

Are you suggesting NASA lies or your unsourced graph is more reliable than that published at NASA web?

The NASA graph above extends to only 400,000 years ago. It rather misses the full picture, which extends back 1,000 times further to over 400 million years. If NASA publishes a graph of CO2 back 400 million years I would gladly accept it over the link I referenced.

Maybe NASA only care about current era instead of including co2 concentration on past eras which are not comparable

Anycase... Do you think the increase in co2 concentration since industrial revolution, and the much higher rate of increase than ever in past 400000 years is just a coincidence or not relevant?

The recent increase in CO2 is certainly caused by us burning gargantuan quantities of coal, gas and oil. According to the world's best scientists (see my link previous page), the warming they are certain of if we double CO2 to 600ppm is 1.2 degrees. I think it's not a big deal.

It's important to view the full picture to put the climate in perspective. The recent climate over the last 400,000 years as per the NASA graph has been thoroughly hostile to life and characterised by an ice age featuring regular glacial periods. It's not a climate conducive to life at all, in general terms. Higher CO2 and slightly higher temperatures would be much better for life on the whole.

[Andres125sx]

The NASA graph above extends to only 400,000 years ago. It rather misses the full picture, which extends back 1,000 times further to over 400 million years. If NASA publishes a graph of CO2 back 400 million years I would gladly accept it over the link I referenced.

Maybe NASA only care about current era instead of including co2 concentration on past eras which are not comparable

Anycase... Do you think the increase in co2 concentration since industrial revolution, and the much higher rate of increase than ever in past 400000 years is just a coincidence or not relevant?

The recent increase in CO2 is certainly caused by us burning gargantuan quantities of coal, gas and oil. According to the world's best scientists (see my link previous page), the warming they are certain of if we double CO2 to 600ppm is 1.2 degrees. I think it's not a big deal.

And you're wrong. It's enough to affect sea level, life, sea currents and weather

[RZS10]

Very interesting article about how there's little time to act

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

According to the U.N. entire nations could get wiped off the face of the earth through rising sea levels creating a huge number of climate refugees if the global warming trend isn't reversed and that there's only little time left to save the planet ...

But ... whoopsie ... that article is from 1989 ... so they've been painting the same horror scenario for decades and if there was any truth to it then i would have a beach close by instead of the netherlands, most island states would be gone, large parts of various countries flooded and the average temperature should now be 7°C higher than it was back then ...

[Fulcrum]

I can't comment on whether using a Gaussian distribution is appropriate or not, having no exposure to the data.

However, if he'd used a non-Gaussian distribution, in all likelihood the distribution would be positively skewed, meaning the worst case temperature scenario would probably have a delta higher than 8 degrees for the same level of significance.

The level of significance must have been fairly small to obtain that "worst case" right-tail event, considering the values for mean warming I am aware of (1.5C - 2C by the latter half / end of this century).

The point is IMO, if you are ignorant of a phenomenon, you can't just say "suppose it's statistical according to this specific model which I pulled out of my backside and can take any value I want!", which is precisely what the professor is doing.

If you are ignorant of a phenomenon you get to say... nothing, and stick to what you are certain of, ie the 1.2 degrees directly caused by CO2. Anything further is pure speculation.

"Suppose" is a pretty well worn phrase in statistical analysis. You make an assumption, run tests, reach conclusions about your original assumption. It does not imply he is ignorant.

Like others have said, there is a high price for being wrong (under prediction). I can understand the pressure scientists must feel to have some estimate for 'worst case scenarios'.

Has that mindset infiltrated his analysis, and undermined the logic? I doubt we can rightfully claim to know from looking at a youtube video, but my intuition suggests no.

Like you said, if you're ignorant, perhaps its best to not comment.

[Brake Horse Power]

This is the graph and link

For reference, here is the real history of CO2 levels on earth, showing the highest historical level.

OK so CO2 was higher. Now let's take a look at the temperature. Source Wikipedia earth temperature history or something



Coincidence?