martini

I can't believe the R34 prices, I really can't.

I know the hockey stick graph, but that is the inside plot. Is the graph I show not the one to which you refer? Do you have the figures; for natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks? This paper might be interesting reading; but again, it is all model results. It's all we really have for any interpretation! Absolutely. You might like this anecdote! I was recently on a flight to a remote location, and 80-90% of the passengers were ministers of environment for various countries and their aides. I was sat between two, and they were quite chatty to each other, across me. They apologised and said "of course you have heard about global warming, we are just discussing some of the science behind it", to which I said "no, please go ahead". After a few minutes of their talking, one asked what I did. I told them I was on my way to a research station to install an instrument which measures precisely what they were discussing (soot, basically). They were gobsmacked. I educated them a little about the science behind cloud formation, of course which can offset any warming but can also change precipitation patterns and the water table. They weren't expecting that. I have actually edited a section of the upcoming IPCC report. My section is in the clouds and aerosols section, and merely summarises the state of the science (from recent publications and data). What the policy makers do with that information, is anyone's guess (though probably sufficiently spin it to hike up taxes in one way or another).

I lecturer at the Uni, on aerosol physics. There isn't a biased approach to those lecturers; it's simply physics and chemistry. I don't know what lessons, if any, would teach students about climate change topics, as I am too far into the research end of things. I wouldn't say that I "cherry picked" that graph. The data simply doesn't lie - it is data. Only our interpretation of it can lie to us We agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, yes? That was the major change regarding the industrial revolution; after which CO2 levels increased to present day levels. The difference is - we don't know what affect this CO2 will have, as there are many factors (e.g. Milankovitch cyles). We know it is a greenhouse gas, but as I said, aerosols negate this effect somewhat and the entire estimation is extremely complicated. CO2 and predicted temperature increase are not estimated to be linearly related. Thanks! I am completely in favour of criticism; I don't claim to know it all at all What this effect CO2 will actually have, is the big question, along with many other parts of the atmosphere. Current understand drives large computational models, which are really just "best guesses". The way they are tested is by running time backwards to known temperatures and CO2 levels and to see if they then work again going forwards. Nice anoalogy with the petrol - I completely agree on that one! CO2 levels and climate change are two separate, but related issues. CO2 is increasing, sure. What does this mean for the future? We simply do not know, but just have "model estimates". In the short term, the policy makers keep grabbing what they think can drive their policy from the science, and use that as their agenda to extract money from the masses.

I wouldn't ask you to; I know how good it sounds Cars produce CO2 from the combustion of petrol (excluding all other types of cars, let's just go for Supras and their ilk). Lifestyle wise, using huge amounts of electricity that come from coal and oil burning powerstations, which are like huge combustion engines, pumping out huge amounts of CO2. The effect on the planet is shown in the graph above. Now we are entering policy making discussion, and have stepped away from science. If we look at things purely scientifically, then though the loss of trees is significant, they also release CO2 into the atmosphere. However, they take it in. Burning a tree will only emit CO2, as will burning coal and oil. I assume threefold is a figure of speech and you don't have some data showing that deforestation is three times stronger than other human activity regarding the CO2 budget? "Worse than" is subjective. That's for the policy makers & politicians.

I said I would write this post about two years ago, but I forgot to Background: I am an atmospheric Physicist working at the University of Tokyo, Japan. I completed a Physics degree and Ph.D at the University of Manchester, UK. My main research focus is the influence of atmospheric aerosols on cloud formation, and subsequently climate. There are essentially three approaches to the climate change debate; that of the scientist, the policy maker, and the public. I'll start with the latter and work backwards. 1) Public approach: The public obtain most of their scientific news not from reading scientific journals, but from the main news channels and broadcasters themselves. Whether privately or publicly owned, the science is typically reported not by scientists but reporters (often with undisclosed scientific knowledge). As with any news, sensationalism sells. Drama captivates the mind. The British also love nothing more than to moan and complain about something (see Daily Mail & its comments section). Due to the manner in which the public obtain their information, it is therefore not surprising that most of the common consensus is plain wrong. I have heard people say things such as "how could it be possible, though? I mean, humans are so small and the Earth is so big!". Of course I can see the reason behind the statement, but there are north of 6 Bn people in the world at present; unless one goes to somewhere such as China or Bangladesh, one cannot imagine what real "crowding" is. Secondly, all scientific reason points towards a man-made hole in the Ozone layer. If we can put a hole in the ozone layer, it stands to reason that we can change the climate of the planet. People also say, with complete conviction in their words, that the changes are all within the "natural cycle" and that "changes in the Sun's power happen all the time". My favourite is "we are due an ice age". Firstly, the changes are outside of the natural record, dating back thousands of years: Secondly, the sun does change its intensity, but we don't know the exact affects as the conditions have changed on Earth now. There are also strange "events" which are not completely understood. As for the ice ages, well, there hasn't been one since people were able to talk to each other. Example conditions for an ice age are known, but the physical processes behind the an ice age starting are not known. So we don't know when the next one will be, if ever. 2) Policy-maker's approach: The public blur the line between science from scientists and science from policy makers/scientists with agendas. It is understandable that they do, for their only connection to the science is through media, which is driven heavily by agenda. On a policy level, it is clear that no one-country wants to hold any accountability for what is "mankind's doing", though it should be noted that it is essentially the 1st World countries which have created the levels of gases and aerosols to date, though developing countries have contributed heavily in recent times. Governments will most likely tax the public for their emissions (already happening in many places and only going to get stricter), whilst denying accountability and shifting the focus to other countries (USA vs. China anyone?). Governments would like a way to win votes and make money, so it is a careful balancing act. 3) Scientific approach: CO2 levels have risen across the world, in a manner unlike any historical record. We have an ability to go back and see the CO2 concentrations thousands of years ago from bubbles trapped in ice cores. CO2 has a huge lifetime, and as a greenhouse gas, absorbs large amounts of short-wave radiation from the sun and traps it as long-wave radiation in the atmosphere. This is how greenhouses work (on a much smaller scale), and hence why the first "back of the envelope" calculation is that global temperatures will rise. But it is not CO2 alone which contributes to the greenhouse effect; methane (emitted from cows, humans and decomposition etc) is also increasing and is a far more potent greenhouse gas (see this paper due to be published soon). Water vapour is another greenhouse gas but has very different removal pathways to the former greenhouse gases (i.e. will rain out). So, Methane and CO2 are increasing, to levels not seen before... Though gases are a major driving force for global climate change, there is another key player (my area of research). Atmospheric aerosols (e.g. dust, pollen, soot from cars) both absorb and scatter incoming solar radiation directly, and alter cloud properties (such as how long a cloud sticks around for before raining). The potential atmospheric changes are numerous and complex, and in fact will cool the earth's atmosphere. Aerosols, however, are very short lived (~ days) vs the gases (~ 100s of years). So, the answer to stopping uncontrollable warming from the gases is to make more dust, like when the meteor hit Earth 65M years ago and ceased vegetation for the dinosaurs? Not exactly. The volcanic eruption in Iceland a few years ago actually cooled the planet slightly (the link takes you to a free scientific journal's special issue on the topic). Pumping large amounts of aerosol into the atmosphere is not desirable for two main reasons. The first, is that we don't know what would happen, due to the numerous complex processes. The second is that it is directly bad for our health, to have fine particulate matter enter our lungs (hence PM1 and PM10 regulations in most cities). Science most certainly points to a changing climate in the future, much like climate change happened in the past. It is also sensible to assume that man has had significant influence on future climate, by introducing both numerous aerosols and large quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Powerful computers using our current knowledge of physics, chemistry and many other disciplines are being used to estimate potential climate change. What will actually happen? Only time will tell. I hope that this thread is an interesting read, and I would encourage people to ask questions and start a discussion on the topic. I am well placed to give an objective (i.e. scientific and without bias) answer to any questions as I have no agenda other than improving understanding.

I love NA jokes.

Matt_H hasn't managed to sell the goldfish yet?

Ah, there she is Yes, this is my old car. As Jamie stated, the only reason I sold her was because I relocated to Japan - otherwise she'd still be mine, for sure. I loved every minute in that car, and she never skipped a beat. Pulls well, sounds fantastic and those wheels took me ages to get hold of! When I had her, she was serviced (including new spark plugs which made a big difference) by m_life, who got to know the car pretty well (lived close by and was also kind enough to fit the Racing Harts). It looks like you've looked after her well, Jamie. GLWTS

How did the payout from 2010 go?

I am also saving for a GTR. Interesting to see quite a few of the Supra owners making the leap. Glad to see you're on the scene Ryan; your work on Supras is second to none.

Thanks Gaz. Impossible to search for FT-86 due to the minimum three character limit (excludes hyphens). Will drop you a mail soon

I think we need to define the term "life" in this question When people don't understand the science, they tend to "believe" in things. There is no room for belief in science, until you get to a certain point, which is not the topic of this discussion.

Hi guys, long time no see There are a few old threads on the FT-86, but I was sent these images today: Of course this is not a 3L turbo engine, but it is nice to see something sporty from Toyota (and Subaru) and not just electric cars and other boring shapes. I am going to the Tokyo Motor Show, and will report back in due course.

Lovely looking car there. The main problem here, is that you live in the North-west! Either embrace the rain, or it really will just be a paperweight

Stock all the way.