Jump to content

Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Damn, as pessimistic as I can be, I hadn't even seen that one coming...

This firm is working to control the climate. Should the world let it?

 

As if things weren't bad enough, as things worsen, we'll no doubt have to contend with legions of well-meaning idiots who will take the initiative of dumping toxic materials in the stratosphere.

Bad enough that some states will do it (like China), but if individuals can do it as well... Seven hells, just one lone human with a stupid idea might accidentally find a way to fuck things up beyond repair.

GOD DAMNIT YOU'VE SUMMONED ELON MUSK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Damn, as pessimistic as I can be, I hadn't even seen that one coming...

This firm is working to control the climate. Should the world let it?

 

As if things weren't bad enough, as things worsen, we'll no doubt have to contend with legions of well-meaning idiots who will take the initiative of dumping toxic materials in the stratosphere.

Bad enough that some states will do it (like China), but if individuals can do it as well... Seven hells, just one lone human with a stupid idea might accidentally find a way to fuck things up beyond repair.

I seem to recollect a slew of post-apocalyptic movies and books with something like this as a starting premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will always be a bit dismissive / doubtful of anything that isn't a non-emitting replacement for fossil fuels. I generally think that humans putting more substances into the environment not the way to go, and has a high chance of negative unintended consequences.

Just cut out fossil fuels. And on that note it seems the EU parliament have voted to ban all petrol and diesel new car sales by 2035. Se information sources say passenger cars contribute 41% of transport emissions, and transport emissions contribute about 25-30% of total emissions. So it is a modest step towards reducing 10-12% of emissions. But how long will it take to remove the vast majority of petrol and diesel cars from the road?

It's a bold move that is going to force change in 100s of millions of people's lives. But by itself it's not going to fixt the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I will always be a bit dismissive / doubtful of anything that isn't a non-emitting replacement for fossil fuels. I generally think that humans putting more substances into the environment not the way to go, and has a high chance of negative unintended consequences.

Just cut out fossil fuels. And on that note it seems the EU parliament have voted to ban all petrol and diesel new car sales by 2035. Se information sources say passenger cars contribute 41% of transport emissions, and transport emissions contribute about 25-30% of total emissions. So it is a modest step towards reducing 10-12% of emissions. But how long will it take to remove the vast majority of petrol and diesel cars from the road?

It's a bold move that is going to force change in 100s of millions of people's lives. But by itself it's not going to fixt the problem.

Ten to twenty years. After that, your typical fossil fuel vehicle will be a clunker that only sort of runs, or a lovingly tended to classic. (At least in the US). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Was listening to a podcast today with a section of it being about the looming climate crisis and they discussed something I overlooked. Western states in the US may soon have serious power shortages due to hydroelectric dams not having enough water to operate. The expert said we're still a long ways away from them being "deadpool," i.e. no longer to operate again, but people in several states will likely experience blackouts that could last for days at a time. Fun times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Was listening to a podcast today with a section of it being about the looming climate crisis and they discussed something I overlooked. Western states in the US may soon have serious power shortages due to hydroelectric dams not having enough water to operate. The expert said we're still a long ways away from them being "deadpool," i.e. no longer to operate again, but people in several states will likely experience blackouts that could last for days at a time. Fun times. 

Expect to see a *lot* of wind farms and solar arrays to partly offset the loss from hydro.

That said, given the severe western storms this year (LA under its first blizzard warning ever, among other events), I am wondering if the actual trend is less towards 'global warming' and more towards 'climate chaos with a slight warming trend'). Meaning multiple years of record high temperatures and drought in many places, followed by a couple years of slightly cooler temperatures accompanied by massive precipitation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I am wondering if the actual trend is less towards 'global warming' and more towards 'climate chaos with a slight warming trend').

 

You've landed in the middle there. It is unquestionably not 'a slight warming trend', average temperatures are spiking sharply, but there's a reason the preferred term is 'climate change' not 'global warming' now, because the changes are causing chaos that does cause more extreme weather of all stripes, not just warmer and dryer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

You've landed in the middle there. It is unquestionably not 'a slight warming trend', average temperatures are spiking sharply, but there's a reason the preferred term is 'climate change' not 'global warming' now, because the changes are causing chaos that does cause more extreme weather of all stripes, not just warmer and dryer. 

Key term there is 'average' - which is one of the biggest mistakes climate change proponents make when stating their case. Yes, the global average temperature is on the increase - yet the regional picture is often very different. Some areas - like parts of North America - are remaining relatively 'normal,' while others - like coastal western Europe - are looking at increasingly severe winters (Gulf Stream issues). I would also submit that the 'El Nino/La Nina' currents in the south Pacific - a major climate driver - appear to be...working differently.  There is also the issue of the transient North Pacific 'hot spot' which affects the Pacific coast of North America. All this tells me a case can be made for increasing climate chaos, warming overall, but with major regional exceptions.

To this can be added the offset from modest successes so far - 'green energy' and electric vehicles alone have modestly offset the temperature increases over the past decade. Both these trends are set not only to continue, but to accelerate, *regardless* of the political situation, further offsetting the global temperature rise. (I posted a link to the relevant study a page or two back in this thread).

Conservatives (climate change deniers) are already seizing on both these points to argue (convincingly to their base) that climate change is either a hoax or something not all that serious. In this they are incorrect, but the other sides near complete failure to acknowledge these points does not help their case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Conservatives (climate change deniers) are already seizing on both these points to argue (convincingly to their base) that climate change is either a hoax or something not all that serious. In this they are incorrect, but the other sides near complete failure to acknowledge these points does not help their case.

It's sad that you think this is about a "case." The first point is pretty much universally aknowledged: it's widely understood that a warming planet means a chaotic climate. Even setting the threat of apocalyptic warming aside, an increasingly chaotic climate is enough to bring civilization as we know it to its knees. For instance, years of severe drought followed by massive precipitation means widespread crop failure, at least local food shortages, massive flooding, and looming geopolitical instability. The combination of heatwaves and floods that we are already observing is something our societies are woefully unprepared for.

As to the second point, it depends on your base reference I guess, but at present we are only slowing down the increase in emissions, and even that comes at a different kind of environmental cost. Warming itself is still proceeding according to some of the worst scenarios, and accelerating the timid trends that can be observed would mean political decisions that are not being taken. As far as I know, we're still closer to the RCP8,5 scenario than the RCP6 one, but even RCP6 can go up to +3.1°C, and that's quite simply not something we are ready to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's sad that you think this is about a "case." The first point is pretty much universally acknowledged: it's widely understood that a warming planet means a chaotic climate. Even setting the threat of apocalyptic warming aside, an increasingly chaotic climate is enough to bring civilization as we know it to its knees. For instance, years of severe drought followed by massive precipitation means widespread crop failure, at least local food shortages, massive flooding, and looming geopolitical instability. The combination of heatwaves and floods that we are already observing is something our societies are woefully unprepared for.

As to the second point, it depends on your base reference I guess, but at present we are only slowing down the increase in emissions, and even that comes at a different kind of environmental cost. Warming itself is still proceeding according to some of the worst scenarios, and accelerating the timid trends that can be observed would mean political decisions that are not being taken. As far as I know, we're still closer to the RCP8,5 scenario than the RCP6 one, but even RCP6 can go up to +3.1°C, and that's quite simply not something we are ready to face.

Again, you make the mistake of going with the global average instead of acknowledging major regional differences in the effects of climate change. Many conservates can honestly point to the lack of significant climate change in their areas and then (wrongly) cite this as evidence that there is no such thing as climate change. Very much a 'me' thing.

I will also point out that when forced to acknowledge artificial climate change these people will immediately go into conspiracy theory territory - climate change is deliberate to force us all into a socialist nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2023 at 1:04 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

I will always be a bit dismissive / doubtful of anything that isn't a non-emitting replacement for fossil fuels. I generally think that humans putting more substances into the environment not the way to go, and has a high chance of negative unintended consequences.

Just cut out fossil fuels. And on that note it seems the EU parliament have voted to ban all petrol and diesel new car sales by 2035. Se information sources say passenger cars contribute 41% of transport emissions, and transport emissions contribute about 25-30% of total emissions. So it is a modest step towards reducing 10-12% of emissions. But how long will it take to remove the vast majority of petrol and diesel cars from the road?

It's a bold move that is going to force change in 100s of millions of people's lives. But by itself it's not going to fixt the problem.

The EU parliament voted for that but as the parliament on its own is powerless that does not really matter. The European Council has postponed the vote because they expect countries like Germany, Poland to vote against it and can't get past the 65% of the population and 15 out of 27 countries threshold. 

It will only pass if enough exceptions that make it completely useless are added I suspect. There is already an exception for luxury cars built in lol...(does not really matter emission wise but works well for the side that is against such measures because it shows only the lower classes are expected to change behaviour).

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

The EU parliament voted for that but as the parliament on its own is powerless that does not really matter. The European Council has postponed the vote because they expect countries like Germany, Poland to vote against it and can't get past the 65% of the population and 15 out of 27 countries threshold. 

It will only pass if enough exceptions that make it completely useless are added I suspect. There is already an exception for luxury cars built in lol...(does not really matter emission wise but works well for the side that is against such measures because it shows only the lower classes are expected to change behaviour).

I saw a TV add recently from Mercedes saying they will be all electric by 2030. So that lays down a bit of a gauntlet, and it means a luxury car maker moving 5 years ahead of even EU parliament's ambition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I saw a TV add recently from Mercedes saying they will be all electric by 2030. So that lays down a bit of a gauntlet, and it means a luxury car maker moving 5 years ahead of even EU parliament's ambition.

an add... lol 

Might even true according to their stragety but I would not hold my breath as 2022 about ~6 percent of the vehicles produced by Mercedes were electric.  

This are the exemptions that are currently planned:

Quote

- Manufacturers responsible for small production volumes in a calendar year (1,000 to 10,000 new cars or 1,000 to 22,000 new vans) may be granted a derogation until the end of 2035 (those responsible for less than 1,000 new vehicle registrations per year continue to be exempt);

A true exemption for the millionaires and billionaires not for brands that the upper middle class might afford like Mercedes.

The main exemption governments that are currently preventing that EU legislation want is for e-fuels which would ensure that you could keep producing cars that can use fossil fuels indefinitely. That would get at least Germany on board afaik.

 

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m more positive. Electric cars are happening. More and more car manufacturers like Volvo and VW are setting end dates on the fossil fuel cars. They see the writing on the wall - the electric cars are so much better that the only thing keeping fossil fuel cars  competitive is price. Range and charging is pretty much solved already, and getting better all the time. Once the dozens of battery factories currently being built in Europe, China and the U.S. become operational, price will come down to meet the demand and then it’s game over for internal combustion vehicles, at least in Europe and the U.S. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if electric car sales are above 50% of total sales in those markets by 2030 and 90% in 2035. Less developed parts of the world will take longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...