UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[hollus]

People are talking about that fleet of shades, Angus, which is particularly scary.
For that, we really don’t have the technology now, we don’t know when we will and the project is so gigantic that it would absorb a fraction of the worlds economy. And yet, people are starting to consider it, for desperate reasons, ironically, from both extremes of the debate.

But a cheaper, more realistic (today) alternative is injecting aerosols in the high atmosphere.

I remember having PM discussions with members in this very site about how it was time to move from prevention to adaptation, but adaptation was tabu at the time, lest its existence robs prevention of its urgency. Now, 5 years later, adaptation is almost mainstream and the tabu is being slowly removed from active countermeasures. Scary!

[Andres125sx]

So Andres, go to the spanish weather organisation and get them to pull insolation per year (or month) for the past 30 years. It doesn't get around the fact that the climate has changed before. here's the results for my place, kWh m_2 per day average for each month. The last figure is the average for the year. Your vegetable people are probably suffering from lack of water, not excess sun.

Sorry to say this, but you obviously know nothing about agriculture. Lack of water and excess of sun have completely different consequences. Excess of sun literally burn the fruits and even the plant itself, even if it is big and luxurian thanks to a correct irrigation.

[Andres125sx]

hope that wasn't too long for you to read.

No it wasn´t, but it only support my previous statement

Anycase it is funny (actually scary) how some people assume we humans MUST be able to predict everything, and if we ruin a balance wich have been similar (with fluctuations, but those fluctuations have been more or less constant) for hundreds thousand years, if no human can predict the consequences of this unbalance, then everything is fine

As I´ve said previously, we humans are worrying arrogant, we should be a lot more humble to not ruin something we can´t know what consequences will provoke. But looks like some of you think "if no human can assure me that will be bad, I´ll assume it will be good or at least not bad". Are you serious Strad?

You think humans must be able to predict everything, and if scientists can´t predict the consequences of climate change, then climate change does not exist

Science is far from infallible Strad, we don´t know so many things about our own planet (ocean currents, temperature increase limit for each ecosystem to survive are just two examples) that assuming we must be able to predict consequences of climate change is extremelly and worryingly arrogant

[Andres125sx]

People are talking about that fleet of shades, Angus, which is particularly scary.
For that, we really don’t have the technology now, we don’t know when we will and the project is so gigantic that it would absorb a fraction of the worlds economy. And yet, people are starting to consider it, for desperate reasons, ironically, from both extremes of the debate.

But a cheaper, more realistic (today) alternative is injecting aerosols in the high atmosphere.

I remember having PM discussions with members in this very site about how it was time to move from prevention to adaptation, but adaptation was tabu at the time, lest its existence robs prevention of its urgency. Now, 5 years later, adaptation is almost mainstream and the tabu is being slowly removed from active countermeasures. Scary!

This, really scary as we´re seeing the consequences today, even if some negacionist will keep repeating it´s all false.


I sometimes feel like the frog in the boiler. Since climate change is something slow, people does not react, we´re assuming extreme weather or extreme solar radiation as something normal, when 30 years ago it wasn´t. But since it´s a slow change (from humans point of view) we don´t react, but if you analyse it climate change is so obvious it´s really scary

[Just_a_fan]

hope that wasn't too long for you to read.

Not too long to read but definitely painful to read - was it written by D Trump? Just a Republican invective, an ad hominem attack on "leftists" etc., riddled with "facts" that are not actually relevant to the issue - gen-eng rice, for example. The little bit about "babies are human beings" - nice attempt to get the Christian Right's anti-abortion stance in there too.

So, thanks for posting it, but it doesn't really move the discussion on very much.

[henry]

So Andres, go to the spanish weather organisation and get them to pull insolation per year (or month) for the past 30 years. It doesn't get around the fact that the climate has changed before. here's the results for my place, kWh m_2 per day average for each month. The last figure is the average for the year. Your vegetable people are probably suffering from lack of water, not excess sun.

Sorry to say this, but you obviously know nothing about agriculture. Lack of water and excess of sun have completely different consequences. Excess of sun literally burn the fruits and even the plant itself, even if it is big and luxurian thanks to a correct irrigation.

What do you think is causing the increased radiation striking the plants? Is there less cloud cover? Does that also affect water availability? We’ve suffered some of that in the U.K. this year.

[Andres125sx]

So Andres, go to the spanish weather organisation and get them to pull insolation per year (or month) for the past 30 years. It doesn't get around the fact that the climate has changed before. here's the results for my place, kWh m_2 per day average for each month. The last figure is the average for the year. Your vegetable people are probably suffering from lack of water, not excess sun.

Sorry to say this, but you obviously know nothing about agriculture. Lack of water and excess of sun have completely different consequences. Excess of sun literally burn the fruits and even the plant itself, even if it is big and luxurian thanks to a correct irrigation.

What do you think is causing the increased radiation striking the plants? Is there less cloud cover? Does that also affect water availability? We’ve suffered some of that in the U.K. this year.

It´s not related with clouds, in summer there has never been any significant cloud in Spain, so it must be atmosphere changes reducing its capability to absorb solar radiation

[Badger16]

Anyways, on one hand, it will be difficult to adapt to a new life with less energy consumption and other sources for said energy, but on the other hand, it's not like we have a choice ; actually, the biggest issue is that governments are planning to do by 2040, 2050, 2100, what has to be done within the next 10 years according to the leading scientists researching these issues. Not to mention that I don't see most of the reforms that we need to have ever implemented due to the fact that it's not going to lead to a reelection within a couple years ; and if it isn't a short-term measure that can improve the image of the governing party of any country until the next election, then it won't be implemented at all...

[strad]

This B.S. has been going on for decades. By now the Atlantic ocean is supposed to be lapping at the steps of the Statue of Liberty.... New Orleans is supposed to be under water... all kinds of dire predictions that have not come to pass. '
Now they want us to freak out because they are now predicting a rise in temp of .9°.
I have been following both sides of this for decades and like over 1000 climatologists that started out buying into this I have learned it's all a con job."" Fool me once , shame on you,, fool me twice shame on me."""

[Brake Horse Power]

So besides the fact we are all petrolheads...

Why is there so much resistance? In case of mobility, and my personal job in heavy machinery and transport, we can:
- Make more silent equipment or cars / trucks, which is comfortable
- We can make them emission free, which is better for personal health and at least it doesn't hurt the environment
- We can, if we just scale it up a bit, drive cheaper than fossil fuels. (depending on country and infrastructure)

BMW told only to make electric cars from 2030 onwards, so the 2040 goal is almost redundant if all manufacturers choose this approach. VW is making the transition, Hyundai, Volvo, who isn't in Europe. I think most important is some battery development for graphene or something instead of Lithium.

[hollus]

@ Strad:
Do you have a link to this prediction of 0.9F (0.5C)? I always see higher predictions, but of course it depends of the start and end points used to create the benchmark.

By the way, "climate change" as a substitute of "global warming", might be oversimplified by the press and misused by many, but "climate change" was supposed to mean this:
Global warming in average
Lots of warming in some places
Moderate warming in most places
Moderate cooling in some places
More extremes and swings in weather just about everywhere.

"Climate change" in not a softening on "global warming", it is a refinement of it.

[strad]

assuming we must be able to predict consequences of climate change is extremelly and worryingly arrogant

They are the ones thinking they can accurately predict what's going to happen in such a complex system and pronounce what is definitely going to happen with dire consequences not this side.
That not abortion was the point of my quote. They,the liberal left are the arrogant ones. They want to change everyone's lives based on their predictions....Predictions are not facts.

[Andres125sx]

This B.S. has been going on for decades. By now the Atlantic ocean is supposed to be lapping at the steps of the Statue of Liberty.... New Orleans is supposed to be under water... all kinds of dire predictions that have not come to pass. '
Now they want us to freak out because they are now predicting a rise in temp of .9°.
I have been following both sides of this for decades and like over 1000 climatologists that started out buying into this I have learned it's all a con job."" Fool me once , shame on you,, fool me twice shame on me."""

Strad, are you by any chance the administrator or a big shareholder of a petrol company? This is a completely serious question, when you keep asking scientists to be sheers and if they fail predicting future you assume it´s all false (what a poor excuse), there must be something behind....


Look for studies on Antarctica and what have happened to permafrost in last few decades. That is science, raw data not debatable, not like asking people to predict future accurately...

[turbof1]

No involvement of political allignment please. That is against forum policy.

[Andres125sx]

assuming we must be able to predict consequences of climate change is extremelly and worryingly arrogant

They are the ones thinking they can accurately predict what's going to happen in such a complex system and pronounce what is definitely going to happen with dire consequences not this side.
That not abortion was the point of my quote. They,the liberal left are the arrogant ones. They want to change everyone's lives based on their predictions....Predictions are not facts.

Again, what a poor excuse Strad...

Predictions are done because when people is told about global warming or climate change, first thing wich comes to mind of most people is... and what is the problem? What´s the reason I should do something to prevent it?


People need to be told about the consequences to do something to prevent it, so basically scientists are forced to make predictions to raise awareness of people who otherwise think this problem is not affecting them directly so not their problem

And yes, predictions are not facts, but you keep focusing on failed predictions while ignoring undebatable facts. What´s the reason? Do you have any interest on defending petrol companies?


Anycase this is becoming absurd, you´re bordering trolling on this thread when you keep asking scientists to predict future accuratelly or you will ignore all their work Do you really think this is a reasonable behaviour Strad?