1 hour ago, PetrolDave said:

...and since we are officially in a climate emergency I would argue measures such as those are morally required, definitely not questionable.

 

Just on that subject I spotted this today tucked away from general view in the news:

 

NASA, NOAA: Sun Reaches Maximum Phase in 11-Year Solar Cycle - NASA Science

 

Space Weather Impacts On Climate | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

 

Just on that subject I spotted this today tucked away from general view in the news:

 

NASA, NOAA: Sun Reaches Maximum Phase in 11-Year Solar Cycle - NASA Science

 

Space Weather Impacts On Climate | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

 

Good highlight on second article:

Quote

However, though the effects of solar variability on the climate are not noticeable to most of us, they are detectable by dedicated scientists.   Careful measurements suggest that solar activity does in fact warm the Earth by about a tenth of a degree (0.1° C) during solar maximum relative to solar minimum. 

 

There is 0.1c increase between solar max and solar min. But we are over 1c above 1900, start of industrial revolution.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

 

Good highlight on second article:

 

There is 0.1c increase between solar max and solar min. But we are over 1c above 1900, start of industrial revolution.

 

Read on too...  and be less 'selective'?

 

"Furthermore, solar radiation appears to have a subtle influence on some of the climate’s internal modes of variability, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). 

 

This influence is more than might be expected from a global solar energy change of only 0.2 W/m² so it is believed that there are positive feedbacks that serve to amplify the climate response.   One such feedback scenario is called the “top-down” mechanism and is attributed to the heating of the stratosphere by the absorption of UV radiation.  As mentioned above, UV light from the Sun varies much more over the course of the solar cycle than TSI and may lead to changes in the circulation patterns between the stratosphere and troposphere.  Another “bottom-up” positive feedback mechanism has to do with the absorption of excess solar radiation by the ocean in cloud-free areas of the subtropics.  This can establish self-reinforcing circulations by enhancing evaporation,  amplifying the strength of the trade winds.

 

There are other ways that solar activity can affect the climate that are even more subtle and less understood.   Sunlight is not the only sort of radiation that reaches the Earth from space; energetic particles also rain down on our atmosphere, mostly in the form of high-speed protons.  High levels of solar magnetic activity can simultaneously enhance lower-energy particles that are produced  by solar storms and suppress higher-energy particles that originate from outside the solar system.  The latter are referred to as galactic cosmic rays and they are diverted by the solar magnetic field that permeates interplanetary space.   Changes in energetic particle fluxes can potentially induce subtle changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere or seed cloud formation.  However, the impact of these changes on climate variability is still a matter of debate.

 

Whatever the mechanism, climate changes induced by solar activity can be expected to be enhanced during extended periods of low or high activity that may last multiple cycles."

 

 

Wonder if my solar panels will get more power when Bettlejuice goes supernova?

 

Just now, lol-lol said:

Wonder if my solar panels will get more power when Bettlejuice goes supernova?

 

 

Is anyone on here actually bothered about whether your panels do or don't other than you?  😉

The American Tech Industry seems to fully into getting on with Small Modular Nuclear for powering their data centres.

 

The Tory government were all for them in the UK and right being Rolls Royce as it appears the Labour Government are with various locations they seem to think they will be going up at.

I do wonder just how many years it will be before these ever started generating & providing energy in England where they will located since Scotland and Wales are unlikely to want them. 

48 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

Is anyone on here actually bothered about whether your panels do or don't other than you?  😉

 

More important will be to get Aluminium foil hats made in time for intense solar radiation or super nova.

 

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

Read on too...  and be less 'selective'?

 

"Furthermore, solar radiation appears to have a subtle influence on some of the climate’s internal modes of variability, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). 

 

This influence is more than might be expected from a global solar energy change of only 0.2 W/m² so it is believed that there are positive feedbacks that serve to amplify the climate response.   One such feedback scenario is called the “top-down” mechanism and is attributed to the heating of the stratosphere by the absorption of UV radiation.  As mentioned above, UV light from the Sun varies much more over the course of the solar cycle than TSI and may lead to changes in the circulation patterns between the stratosphere and troposphere.  Another “bottom-up” positive feedback mechanism has to do with the absorption of excess solar radiation by the ocean in cloud-free areas of the subtropics.  This can establish self-reinforcing circulations by enhancing evaporation,  amplifying the strength of the trade winds.

 

There are other ways that solar activity can affect the climate that are even more subtle and less understood.   Sunlight is not the only sort of radiation that reaches the Earth from space; energetic particles also rain down on our atmosphere, mostly in the form of high-speed protons.  High levels of solar magnetic activity can simultaneously enhance lower-energy particles that are produced  by solar storms and suppress higher-energy particles that originate from outside the solar system.  The latter are referred to as galactic cosmic rays and they are diverted by the solar magnetic field that permeates interplanetary space.   Changes in energetic particle fluxes can potentially induce subtle changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere or seed cloud formation.  However, the impact of these changes on climate variability is still a matter of debate.

 

Whatever the mechanism, climate changes induced by solar activity can be expected to be enhanced during extended periods of low or high activity that may last multiple cycles."

Very good, and what are your thoughts on what we should do about it?

 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

 

Quote

What Effect Do Solar Cycles Have on Earth’s Climate?

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

 

It's not natural CO2 cycle either:

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

Quote

Scientists have examined greenhouse gases in the context of the past. Analysis of air trapped inside ice that has been accumulating over time in Antarctica shows that the CO₂ concentration began to increase significantly in the 19th century [Figure B3], after staying in the range of 260 to 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years. Ice core records extending back 800,000 years show that during that time, CO₂ concentrations remained within the range of 170 to 300 ppm throughout many “ice age” cycles - learn about the ice ages -  and no concentration above 300 ppm is seen in ice core records until the past 200 years.

 

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change

Quote

Human Versus Natural Causes

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change⁴

 

Scientists have pieced together a record of the earth’s climate by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate, such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun.² This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.³

Human activities have contributed substantially to climate change through:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Reflectivity or Absorption of the Sun’s Energy

 

 

So once again, what can we do about it?

Keep arguing against scientific consensus, as keyboard worriers? Keep arguing against policy makers because "freedom"?

Or heads down and solve the underlying issue, and from consumer point of view vote with wallets.

If you mean re climate change - well...   yes clearly things are changing and have changed over the last 100 years or so, as to be expected in any developing world.  Some of that will be due to man-made influence and some due to other things, such as Solar Max and the like potentially beyond our control.

 

As to my thoughts - well...   I already do what I can on a local level - by reducing, reusing and recycling, not buying stuff I don't need (like a new car every couple of years) and making stuff last the absolute longest I can by repairing as a preference wherever possible (thus avoiding initial manufacturing impacts) - all alongside making positive choices about my energy use.

 

As for what the others in the collective 'we' think should be done - well...   you'd have to ask them as I can only answer for myself

2 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Or heads down and solve the underlying issue, and from consumer point of view vote with wallets.

 

See above re what I'm doing in that cause and what I try and pass on to others in respect of approach.  Feel free to do what you think is appropriate in a similar manner - I shan't stop you.

 

Other than that feel free to continue referencing documents - as I'm sure others will with info that possibly counters some of them - so that people can be convinced one way or the other.

 

You see I don't think we are actually at opposite ends of the spectrum - the difference between you and me is probably more to do with our view on the 'scale' of the 'problem'.

 

24 minutes ago, skomaz said:

You see I don't think we are actually at opposite ends of the spectrum - the difference between you and me is probably more to do with our view on the 'scale' of the 'problem'.

 

Indeed, it's clear we view the problem differently as evident by the way you've put this:

 

31 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Some of that will be due to man-made influence and some due to other things, such as Solar Max and the like potentially beyond our control.

 

 

As referenced above, there is an overwhelming majority consensus, through many peer review papers written by many experts in their respective fields, that climate change is man-made.

 

Problem happens when doubts are cast on man-made climate change by individuals without going through the proven scientific peer-review methods, it end up changing minds of non-scientific community (aka general public). This is the definition of mis-information.

 

There is no question about it, some of the climate change is natural, it has been happening for millions of years and some of it man made, now the natural part, we can do nothing about it, but here's the catch, the man made part of it we can do something about. Is what we are doing the right thing? I doubt it, it's already happened and all that we are doing right now with the all the clean air zones and net-zero drives is trying to prevent it getting any worse, so the global warming effect is going to remain at what ever level it gets to when we think that we have achieved the goal. 

 

So if man made the situation worse, then surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to reverse the damage down by finding the antidote to all the excess CO2 and the all the other harmful pollutants, without all the current problems and needing to change the way we do everything, we just need to find a solution to neutralise the things that we have added to the atmosphere etc and at the same clean up the emissions that we are making by the fitting of exhaust scrubbers to the things that we already have and also cease making excessive emissions when we make new items to replace old worn out items?

Edited 17 October, 20241 yr by Graham Butcher

50 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

As referenced above, there is an overwhelming majority consensus, through many peer review papers written by many experts in their respective fields, that climate change is man-made.

That's not an accurate summary, climate change has happened over the billions of years that Earth has existed, from the much wamer climate when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth (with CO2 levels as high as 6%) and there is documented evidence of climate change in the middle ages (a warming event) and in the 17th(?) Century there was the little Ice Age when the River Thames froze over.

 

What is well accepted is that post industrial emissions have created a man made warming event - but it is not the only warming event that has happened nor possibly the largest warming event that has ever happened.

Edited 17 October, 20241 yr by PetrolDave

6 hours ago, wyx087 said:

 

Indeed, it's clear we view the problem differently as evident by the way you've put this:

 

 

 

As referenced above, there is an overwhelming majority consensus, through many peer review papers written by many experts in their respective fields, that climate change is man-made.

 

Problem happens when doubts are cast on man-made climate change by individuals without going through the proven scientific peer-review methods, it end up changing minds of non-scientific community (aka general public). This is the definition of mis-information.

 

 

You seem to be confused about the points I am making and inferring that I'm a climate change denier???...

 

There is a scientific consensus - yes - but there is also clear evidence from within the scientific community itself that not ALL change is man-made and that SOME is natural - eg per the NASA / NOAA info. and, for example, naturally occuring events like volcanic eruptions.

 

The Solar Max element may be a small proportion (10% or so prior to any exacerbating effects we don't yet have a clear understanding of - as you yourself pointed out) but that doesn't nullify the fact that it exists.  Stating that SOME is natural is therefore not misinformation at all...   but to ignore the natural impacts and simply state '100% is man made' IS misinformation.

 

You note that 'the scientific community say 100% of climate change is man made' - but all I have said in this thread is that's not factually correct, as other parts of the scientific community are saying that some is naturally occurring...

 

You are free to disagree but I would suggest that it is that '100% is man made' approach that is actually contributing to the general public not being wholly accepting of the scientific consensus.  There needs to be an honest approach that acknowledges some natural impacts and expresses things in a way that doesn't catastrophise quite so much - as a section of the public have simply turned off from it all as a result and once that has happened it's hard to get them back.

Edited 17 October, 20241 yr by skomaz

 

 

21 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

Interesting that he said he had 7 miles left on his range and even with diversion on his way home, he still made it to home with 6 miles of range left, so not much of a diversion was it? Now if I'm coming home on the M25 and there is an accident which closes the A12, the next suggested route to bypass the A12 is to use the A127 and then A130, adding an extra 12 miles. On that route there never used to be any public chargers (might have changed now), possibility that I'm not going to make it home without running out So that range anxiety is still going to be there, especially in my area until the number of public chargers increases along the way increase. 

Well put. you are both right, not 100% of climate change is man made, that was my mistake to write in such a way. I went in too hard to counter the NOAA article.

 

But my problem is that NOAA talked about this minor natural climate change in an unbalanced way, for example wordings (I know not your words) like these will only fuel climate denier further and delay action. It is irresponsible of NOAA to end an article in such a way.

7 hours ago, skomaz said:

Whatever the mechanism, climate changes induced by solar activity can be expected to be enhanced during extended periods of low or high activity that may last multiple cycles."

 

Messaging need to be crystal clear: man-made climate change is the majority cause behind rapid temperature growth and we must do something about it ASAP.

I have no doubt the views expressed in this video may tick some people off ;o)
 

 

@Winston_Woof  Who is it you think the views expressed would tick off & why would they?

 

People acting daft for affect certainly does annoy some people. 

 

If you drive a petrol or diesel you want to know which pump you need to buy fuel at.

If you buy an EV, borrow it or what ever best just find out if it charges only with a ChAdeMO or at on an  AC charger and what your max charging speed is.  (He was looking at a CHAdeMO in his hand.)  AC port at one side of the car and CHAdeMO at the other.

If buying an older or early model expect it to be different from vehicles a decade or more newer. 

 

£1,000 for a road legal car for going to the shops, work, train station etc.

Less than an Electric Bike might cost you and leave it for hours charging maybe 10 kWh on an AC charger for £3.50-£4.50 and less chance of being stolen than a bike.

If you can charge at home, work, college or where ever maybe much cheapness. 

 

Edited 18 October, 20241 yr by Ootohere

10 hours ago, wyx087 said:

and we must do something about it ASAP.

Perhaps drop a line to the CCP in case they want to reconsider their plans for 120GW of new coal power.

11 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Interesting that he said he had 7 miles left on his range and even with diversion on his way home, he still made it to home with 6 miles of range left, so not much of a diversion was it? Now if I'm coming home on the M25 and there is an accident which closes the A12, the next suggested route to bypass the A12 is to use the A127 and then A130, adding an extra 12 miles. On that route there never used to be any public chargers (might have changed now), possibility that I'm not going to make it home without running out So that range anxiety is still going to be there, especially in my area until the number of public chargers increases along the way increase. 

 

You would make it home in mos EVs.  I was the Turtle in my Zoe earlier this week when it got down to 2 % range. At 6% left, about 20 miles the car suggested I use ECO mode, at 3% a battery warning come up and a limited performance warning and I got home with 2% showing on the battery percentage of charge. The limited performance was not really evident, it still accelerated like a scalded cat.  In actuality, much like range prediction on a VW, one can do miles and miles after the zero.  In a car powered by liquid hydrocarbons the fuel pump start to dry in air and cavitate, horrible noise. In a good EV the available power gradually diminishes to zero but this will be many many miles after zero miles range shown and the 0% State of Charge.  Matt Watson drove for nearly an hour after these warnings came up in the Zoe, admittedly at a sort of town driving pace as he came off the motorway  rather than breakdown there. I think he started at South Mimms and was turning off for the A19 off to Thirsk/Teesside. They had driven at 70 mph when they could up until then.

 

Range anxiety is quite easily avoidable these days by either slowing down a bit or nip off for ten or twenty minutes and get some rapid charging done. 

 

    

@lol-lol  please remember there is plenty of the UK where nipping off for a 20 minute rapid charge is problematic or not an option. 

Winter or adverse weather times and roads closed by diversions and others requiring to do the same if there are rapid chargers actually near or working.

 

But that is the 'Truth of EV driving still' for quite a lot of EV drivers and something potential ones will be thinking about. 

Range anxiety is not a myth for many even in October 2024. 

10 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

@lol-lol  please remember there is plenty of the UK where nipping off for a 20 minute rapid charge is problematic or not an option. 

Winter or adverse weather times and roads closed by diversions and others requiring to do the same if there are rapid chargers actually near or working.

 

But that is the 'Truth of EV driving still' for quite a lot of EV drivers and something potential ones will be thinking about. 

Range anxiety is not a myth for many even in October 2024. 

 

Indeed it was quite exciting coming back from Liverpool into the face of heavy rain and wind sapping the electrical reserve. 

My point is generally the range can be much more than usual or even WLTP. Zoes have done over 400 miles if one if prepared to dawdle etc compared to a WLTP of 238.