UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Dazed1]

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year."
*********************************
"The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect."

[Zynerji]

Sounds like someone should ask Monsanto to engineer a tree that grows 100x faster, and consumes 100x more CO2...

[strad]

I believe it's true. Something to do with tides on the sun or some such.
There are scientists that say the sun is cooling off which is to stop any global warming.

[aterren]

It's just total wibble.
The Earth's orbit is getting further away from the Sun. By about 15mm a year.

I'd love to see the math on that... That statement is akin to ice skating uphill, or water flowing up a drain, with no addition of energy to do so.

Please see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... g-advanced

[DiogoBrand]

One could also apply a version of Pascal's Wager to "climate change".
1. If it exists, and we do something about it, we win.
2. If it exists, and we don't do anything about it, then we lose.
3. If it doesn't exist, and we don't do anything about it then we lose nothing (a win, in effect).
4. If it doesn't exist, and we do something that we think will "help" then we lose nothing (again, a win).

Best then to avoid 2 and do what we can. At worst we are no worse off than now, at best, we save ourselves a lot of insurmountable problems down the line.

Of course, some people will say "I want my big inefficient car, and my inefficient house etc., so please go away sexually". Others will say, doing somethinjg doesn't hurt me so I'll tag along. Others will want to do something because it's trendy. Yet others because it's the right thing to do.

I don't have children, neither does my sister. My genetic line dies with me so I don't, effectively, give a stuff what happens to the planet in, say 50 years. On that basis, I can burn every drop of oil, burn every lump of coal, fell every rainforest tree. What do I care?

Except that if we do something about it, we also lose. We spend tons of money to ditch stuff that supposedly enhances global warming to replace it with stuff that doesn't. Like having to buy a more modern, maybe even an electric car because burning fuel causes global warming, and that's on an individual scale. Just look at how VW almost went bankrupt simply because their cars were not as 'clean' as advertised, look at the amount being invested in research and development of cleaner energy sources.

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

[Zynerji]

It's just total wibble.
The Earth's orbit is getting further away from the Sun. By about 15mm a year.

I'd love to see the math on that... That statement is akin to ice skating uphill, or water flowing up a drain, with no addition of energy to do so.

Please see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... g-advanced

No. No math here. Just more punditry.

[Zynerji]

One could also apply a version of Pascal's Wager to "climate change".
1. If it exists, and we do something about it, we win.
2. If it exists, and we don't do anything about it, then we lose.
3. If it doesn't exist, and we don't do anything about it then we lose nothing (a win, in effect).
4. If it doesn't exist, and we do something that we think will "help" then we lose nothing (again, a win).

Best then to avoid 2 and do what we can. At worst we are no worse off than now, at best, we save ourselves a lot of insurmountable problems down the line.

Of course, some people will say "I want my big inefficient car, and my inefficient house etc., so please go away sexually". Others will say, doing somethinjg doesn't hurt me so I'll tag along. Others will want to do something because it's trendy. Yet others because it's the right thing to do.

I don't have children, neither does my sister. My genetic line dies with me so I don't, effectively, give a stuff what happens to the planet in, say 50 years. On that basis, I can burn every drop of oil, burn every lump of coal, fell every rainforest tree. What do I care?

Except that if we do something about it, we also lose. We spend tons of money to ditch stuff that supposedly enhances global warming to replace it with stuff that doesn't. Like having to buy a more modern, maybe even an electric car because burning fuel causes global warming, and that's on an individual scale. Just look at how VW almost went bankrupt simply because their cars were not as 'clean' as advertised, look at the amount being invested in research and development of cleaner energy sources.

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

[Just_a_fan]

I'd love to see the math on that... That statement is akin to ice skating uphill, or water flowing up a drain, with no addition of energy to do so.

Please see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... g-advanced

No. No math here. Just more punditry.

It's exactly the same process that is causing the Moon to slowly move away from the Earth.

Let's turn it around - you claimed the Earth is getting closer to the Sun by "falling down the gravity well". Care to share the mathematics of that with us?

[Just_a_fan]

Mankind is investing a countless amount of money because of global warming, and if it turns out to be bullshit, all that money will have gone to waste.

Money is a manmade construct. It is illusory and we can have as much of it as we wish. We can even do things and not bring money in to the equation if we wish - money was invented, after all, as a way for a tiny elite (kings etc) to have a share of the stuff produced by the rest of the population - it replaced the tithes of wheat / rice / meat that went before and were somewhat limited in their storage lives.

Or we could, perhaps, not spend so much on bombs and bullets and spend it instead on stuff that would bring a benefit. The world spent $1739 billion in 2017 on their military. The US alone spends $560 billion a year. Can we honestly say that spending all of that on ways to kill each other is ok but spending a fraction of it on ways to ensure a continued existence isn't? If that's the case, then Trump really should dig out his "very big button" and press the f'ing thing because we are truly a lost cause.

[jjn9128]

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

Wind and solar currently account for ~30% of the energy on the national grid in the UK. New wind farms are government subsidy free and are selling energy at ever lower prices (£45/MWh and continuing to get cheaper as turbines get more efficient and require less maintenance per MWh produced) - unlike Hinkley C which is costing the UK taxpayer billions in subsidies, as well as selling electricity way over current wholesale (£93/MWh) with all the money going to the French and Chinese. Energy companies are investing in wind because they can make money back. I don't know how other countries are doing but the UK as an island has more than enough potential off shore to make most of out electricity from wind farms, if we can sort out tidal we'd be close to 100% from renewable.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 81656.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... h-analysts

[Just_a_fan]

the UK as an island has more than enough potential off shore to make most of out electricity from wind farms, if we can sort out tidal we'd be close to 100% from renewable.

We're an island with some of the highest tidal ranges in the world. Only good old politics prevents us from being 100% renewable already.

We have a Govt that is happy to waste money on HS2, a third Heathrow runway, a replacement for Trident but won't invest in a truly renewable power system. Too many vested interests...

[jjn9128]

the UK as an island has more than enough potential off shore to make most of out electricity from wind farms, if we can sort out tidal we'd be close to 100% from renewable.

We're an island with some of the highest tidal ranges in the world. Only good old politics prevents us from being 100% renewable already.

We have a Govt that is happy to waste money on HS2, a third Heathrow runway, a replacement for Trident but won't invest in a truly renewable power system. Too many vested interests...

I probably could rant for pages about government short term-ism... but it's probably best not to

[Just_a_fan]

Yeah, you and me both.

[Big Tea]

EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment...

Wind and solar currently account for ~30% of the energy on the national grid in the UK. New wind farms are government subsidy free and are selling energy at ever lower prices (£45/MWh and continuing to get cheaper as turbines get more efficient and require less maintenance per MWh produced) - unlike Hinkley C which is costing the UK taxpayer billions in subsidies, as well as selling electricity way over current wholesale (£93/MWh) with all the money going to the French and Chinese. Energy companies are investing in wind because they can make money back. I don't know how other countries are doing but the UK as an island has more than enough potential off shore to make most of out electricity from wind farms, if we can sort out tidal we'd be close to 100% from renewable.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 81656.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... h-analysts

I agree with the principle of wind and solar, and they should be pursued to the (reasonable) maximum.
However, in UK at least it has passed into politics and people making money from government grants for instillation and the government being able to point to figure which are completely disconnected from reality seem to have become more important than the actual reason for it.

Also, no one seems to factor in the resource cost of building installing and maintaining, then disposing of all this new tec. or having to have a stand by for when it is dark with on wind.

While I am fully for it, it has taken on a headline life of its own rather than being an included element in the national grid.

Politicians, business profit and headline grabbers have hijacked what should have been handled by expert planners.
And I mean experts, not of the sort we usually get trotted out to tell us how good the government and the pressure groups are doing.

Edit,
As an incidental to this, from my upstairs windows I can see 3 25mw wind farms and several small installations, and know that out of sight that area are 3 medium size solar farms.

I have no problem with seeing them and find them far preferable to what I saw through my window when I was a kid, which was plumes of smoke everywhere.

[Andres125sx]

I'm surprised people are surprised by climate change. Climate stasis would be truly anomalous in my opinion.

I don't think anyone, even Trump, would deny that climate change exists.

But he did!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donal ... ming-hoax/


Some people perfectly represented by Trump, have been denying climate change for decades. Once they´ve been told that´s not debatable, they switched to ok ok it´s real, but it´s not our fault

Anything to ignore our responsability and continue prioritizing economics over anything else