Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Yes, the number of parts and the number of moving parts make ICE vehicles more expensive to build and maintain.

No, in those past times the batteries we had could not power an automobile such as what people want. Also, the only real rechargeable battery types were lead-acid, which simply wasn't good enough. Beyond that, electric motor technology has improved in major ways.

You can't claim that the mere existence of electric motors and batteries means we had the technology.

EVs are cheaper to maintain than are ICE cars. We'll have to see what companies can be successful.

The design and retooling required to manufacture a new type of car is hugely expensive.

We saw the same thing in the computer industry. The technology for building desktop computers was known for some time before companies were in a position to sell them in volume at low cost.

There is no way to tie the demand of today with the talk of banning ICE cars in the future.

I do believe US auto is making some horrendous mistakes. They decided to make an electric Hummer. Why does that make ANY sense? That car already failed as an ICE car. It was built to be attractive to those who love the military - but, why would they be MORE attracted to an electric version??? Now, they want to make an electric Corvette!! What justifies screwing with the muscle car vibe of that line? But, the basic design problem is that EVs have different design requirements. It isn't just a matter of removing the motor and drive train and adding batteries and electric motors. Ford has recognized this by dividing the company into two separate divisions - one for ICE and one for EV.

Also, they are trying to make a lot of different models. Where are they going to get the batteries that would allow them to sell enough of each to make a profit?

 

I agree with most of this, but I think you're changing the goal posts.

I'm well aware that forest management is important.

 

Yes. I'm discounting that site. The site clearly has an agenda.

Besides the article not being anchored in cited fact, it represents a dream, not a statistically detectable effort.

When I stated 100%, I clearly meant statistically speaking.

These are the same kinds of problems we see in WUWT.

 

Sorry, but now you're just arm waving.

Stanford Study: U.S. Can Move to 100% Renewable ...
https://cleanenergygrid.org › stanford-study-u-s-can-m...


Jul 17, 2022 — More than 90 percent of renewable generating capacity is utility-scale – including a large majority of solar PV; virtually all generation is ...

100 Percent Renewable Electricity by 2030
https://energy.ri.gov › renewable-energy › 100-percent...


In January 2020, Executive Order 20-01 set a first-in-the-nation goal to meet 100% of Rhode Island's electricity demand with renewable energy by 2030.

 

Time to set the record straight. I’ve done your homework. I tried to get you to do it yourself but to no avail. Here is what your MET office says.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/resear...obal-extreme-events-heavy-rainfall-and-floods

The only trends that exist are repeats of things seen before. Nothing out of the ordinary unless you completely ignore historical record keeping.

Modeling studies predict what you claimed is happening in summer now may be observable by 2080!

The MET office does link to data showing there have been increases in 2 inch rain events in the late fall but that isn’t at all what you’ve claimed.

I’m well aware of what my charts show. I’m asking you to provide evidence of YOUR claim. You can’t because there isn’t any data to support your claim. Weather you are upset about is not outside of historical natural variation—according to those who DO record precipitation intensity—not journalists

I can guarantee you the data MET has on intensity of rainfall does not come from “reports of flash flooding”.

Unusual years are by far the predominant points in data sets. Averages of any climate measure rarely appear in data.

Your link reports there have been 5 precipitation anomalies since 1861 that were farther from average than the year being reported on. Yet you tell me once-perfect climate has gone down the tubes in the undefined recent past.

I think it may time to start getting information from more reliable sources than journalists who are more interested than influencing your opinion in one direction than informing you of facts. Someone, even a journalist, just saying something doesn’t mean the thing is evidence based. It’s a bit frightening people are getting their information about climate from journalists and bloggers.

 

Wow!!

Let's get on with that!!

 

Then the chart is wrong

 

One has to be extremely careful about how one uses history to prove a point about today.

For example, human response to climate change in the past has include moving or dying.

We do not accept either of those alternatives - even slightly.

We note that glaciers have grown and receded over history. But it takes thousands of years to grow a glacier. And, humans don't have that kind of time, even when considering the grandkids, obviously.

 

What was my original point on climate in this thread ? Where have I moved the posts to?

I’m glad you are aware forest management is important. I wish more were aware of the fact most reported climate related problems in places like Pakistan are not caused by AGW from fossil fuel use. My whole point in the thread is that very little of what climate alarmists believe is true—about agriculture, forests, local temperature, precipitation, etc.

I didn’t introduce Pakistan into the discussion.

I see suffering around the world that could be alleviated. But the actual problems people face are not being addressed.

 

Well I never. I am wrong and you are right. We cannot know with certainty how climate change is effecting us for a very long time.
Weird thing is I didn't start out trying to make this climate change, but to use it as an example of how your argument that everything can be managed ignores the underlying problem.
But you win, I cannot prove the underlying problem and by the time we can it will probably be too late. I apologise to you for be rude and to myself for being sucker punched.

 

When it was agreed that trees would help, you pushed ideas of proper forest management. If I agree with that, which I probably would, where would you go next?

What we would actually need to see is a plan for influencing and helping Pakistan with their problems. Of course, our major interactions with Pakistan have been related to trying bend their government to our wishes for support of our war in Afghanistan, against the will of their people. It's not like we have a great relationship.

Personally, I doubt that America will be interested in doing that.

I just don't see such ideas passing in a congress that is so seriously disinterested in climate, helping foreign countries, science (including the science of forestry), Pakistan, etc.

Plus, I don't see it as likely to be interesting to private enterprise. What business would make long term investments in trees in Pakistan?

 

You should read my posts.

I've said nothing about AGW killing me, or most of what else you are saying here.

I don't know where you found that "blame" thing.

Climate changes in Pakistan ARE influenced by our warming Earth. They are not isolated from the rest of the planet.

 

Oh. Like comparing current global temps and atmospheric CO2 to historical data points? Is that what we need to be wary of? Or comparing rainfall in the UK to historical data? Why the difference?

So now you think you can stop the climate from changing for everyone on the planet? Sounds unlikely. If you were to succeed in cooling the planet more would die than die now. If it warms, less will die than now. Your choice. More deaths or less?

Noted. Then everyone better start addressing causes of climate change beyond just global fossil fuel use. You can cut carbon emissions to zero and Pakistanis will still die in floods and have to move away from dams and coasts. They will still experience extreme high summer temps. And minuscule pre and post monsoon precipitation.

Someone tell the Tulutsa glacier! It didn’t get the memo! Growing like an invasive weed and only 25 years old.


And the Karakoram glaciers. Something as simple as irrigation management can grow glaciers!

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/10/15/irrigation-glacier-growth/

The only reason your grandkids would be without glaciers is if ya’ll continue to address the wrong problems.

Something as simple as helping Pakistanis and Indians transition to rocket mass heaters could almost completely stop glacial melt in some areas.

 

Climatologists ABSOLUTELY use that info.

In fact, modern climatology is why you know that stuff.

No, you need to read something about climatology.

The thought today is that changes in human behavior DOES affect how the Earth collects heat. So, with effort, humans could cause Earth's temperature to rise more slowly, thus giving more time to adapt.

Why the focus on Pakistan?

How about considering NOLA, Manhattan Island, Florida, etc.?

But, it is true that in a lot of places the view seems to be that millions of people will need to move over time. And, our DoD sees that as a serious national security issue.

I'm fine with you proposing rocket mass heaters for Pakistan and India.

The point with glaciers isn't that glaciers are so desirable. It's that the overall direction is an indication of warming, plus as ice melts (on land or sea) it decreases the reflectivity of Earth, thus allowing Earth to heat more rapidly AND as seas warm, the water expands! Plus, in some places substantial ice IS melting, which causes sea rise by simply adding water.

Since Earth's warming is an average, there is NO reason to believe you can't find specific locations that show signs of cooling. Having a location that is cooling or that has a growing glacier doesn't mean that Earth's surface isn't warming.

 

I suspect operator error.

 

UK Trapped In The Green Energy Cul-de-Sac
October 30, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  Often I have referred to the situation that the UK, Germany, California and others have set themselves up for as “hitting the green energy wall.”
  
  
• But now that the UK has actually gotten there and has begun to deal with the consequences, I’m not sure that “hitting the wall” is the best analogy. A better analogy might be “driving into the green energy cul-de-sac.”
  
  
• After all, when you hit a wall you can probably just pick yourself up and turn around and be on your way. In the cul-de-sac you are trapped with no evident way of getting out. You might be in there for a long time.
  
  
• This is where the UK finds itself today.
  

READ MORE

 

No it became popular because of fracking in spite of government incompetence.

 

Yet thats what they settled on despite electric cars being commercially available before this technological advance. To make them just to be a villain on captain planet doesn't make sense.

At this stage cars with lithium ion batteries are quite scarce. so until they fully supply all the hipsters and lowlifes that buy this garbage we won't really know if people want it. I'm guessing no they don't.

Motor tech means nothing if you can't get batteries.

We had the technology Musk like ford just put it together. nobody did before because its shitty compared to a 10 year old used ICE car, much less a new car.

People who say they are cheaper to maintain are naïve. The car company can just switch it off and charge you 10k to switch it back on and you won't have a clue you are getting ripped off because you cannot access the software. They do this with standard cars as much as they can get away with. the reason car manufactures are embracing this is because a certain contingent is dumb enough to buy them and they can eliminate the used car market. I doubt the claims this battery operated garbage will last longer or even as long as the more dependable ICE cars

And it will be trash to waste away in land fills

Computers were replacing something lesser. electric cars are eliminating utility.

The demand only exists today because it is a novelty that is scarce and crappy. If they become mass produced they will rot ion overstock lots.

Trying to compete with real cars. That car already failed as an ICE car.

There was a company that made a stupid little vegan truck similar in size to the Tacoma, and charged 70k for it and they are going bankrupt repairing the trash they decided to scatter on the planet. how green that was. anybody with sense would have just bought a Tacoma and kept the remaining 35k. I think an electric corvette makes more sense than an electric impala. corvettes are for people that spend too much money on a less useful car. thats exactly what electric cars are.

They don't sell many of them. you don't ruin your money maker. I bet gm loses money on corvettes. The money is made with the merch.

Dissagee the probem is the battery. its heavy it makes the ride suck, it makes the car fail quicker and you have to charge the stupid thing up. when it fails you junk the car because you don't spend 10k repairing a used car so they go to a dump to leak and poison the water table. these crappy cars are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. i just hope most people aren't stupid enough to buy them.

The EV division is doomed. their EVs are worthless.

Do it now before people realize what **** they are. Id also get some serious lawyers prepared for the lawsuits when the piece of crap fails in a couple years.

 

???

You are having a nightmare or something.

What's happening is that EVs are getting new features and fixes over the air, with customers not bringing in their cars.

Tesla and others are complaining, because they are being dinged for "recalls" when all that happened is they updated the entire fleet over the net as soon as the issue was found.

You are making scattered and unspecific accusations that appear to represent nothing but your personal opinion.

That is NOT a successful approach to attempting to refute the entire world of auto manufacturers.

OK, I'll try to pick some sense out of this.

I do agree that there are auto manufacturers such as Ford and GM that are making serious mistakes. Surely the Hummer and the 'vette will be seen as good examples of that. Also, Toyota TOTALLY screwed up by delivering an EV that had to be totally recalled, with every car being taken back PERMANENTLY, because (now get this) the WHEELS could FALL OFF!!! Now they say they are about 5 years behind!

But, that doesn't mean that the electric vehicle direction isn't superior. It just means that there is an expensive learning curve going on.

Teslas have been on the road for years now, and they are very definitely NOT falling apart. In fact, their resale value is AMAZINGLY high - just look it up.

 

I’m confused. You guys expect me to identify climate problems around the world, design detailed plans, implement them, convince government to support implementation, get private companies to invest in third world forestry, correct factual errors in your arguments, and you still want more?

My job is to feed you (literally) , not all the above. I’m here on PF to present facts in the face of disinformation and misinformation I see posted, not to solve every global problem. I’m here to discuss science, not come up with solutions to get government and businesses to do anything let alone everything you want me to.

I’m pleased to discuss science. That’s why I’m here. Not to answer strawman arguments about how to get politicians who have been brainwashed for decades to accept science.

I’ll not do your homework but I’ll assign some reading.
https://www.usaid.gov/news-informat...n-additional-humanitarian-assistance-pakistan

https://www.state.gov/forest-investor-club-establishment-at-cop26/

We give Pakistan money hand over fist. As for the rest it’s not science related. I’m into biology and other hard science. I’m happy to discuss facts, data, and studies relating to climate and climate change and solutions based on science. I have no interest in strawman arguments about the US not wanting to help Pakistan. Talk about moving goalposts.

I’ve enjoyed discovering your love of trees/forest.

 

The reason is electric cars suck.

No im not in the EV cult that's all

You don't know much about car manufactures. They make products that fail so they can make more money from them. I worked as a mechanic for decades. They aren't going to give up their income stream so you can pretend to be green.

Don't buy it. The terrible cheapo ways car manufacturers addressed Flaws in the past... that "fleet update" was likely a shoddy band aid.

Well its based on experience in this field, but you read an article. lol

I don't need to. Buy thier ****, believe their marketing gimmicks. My words are to the wise, not belligerent know-it-alls.

Turn off the religious brainwashing and it'll be easy

I don't think these are mistakes. it's smart. Don't ruin good selling vehicles by making them electric. use vehicles that don't do well.

I think they are ahead. EVs are a fad.

Agreed the shitty battery means it isn't superior.

You can get much better quality for less money and you dont have to deal with a crappy battery.

Thats because of novelty. Once that wears off they will be in the dump not even in junk yards.

 

You still have no idea what the underlying problem is with Pakistani flooding that you introduced to the discussion. Taking CO2 to 300 ppm won’t solve their problems. Lowering global temps 1°C won’t solve their problems. I am pointing out the underlying problem nobody has ever informed you of before. As I said, it’s not a criticism of you but of your sources of information.

How is it rude to expect someone to stick to science in the science subforum? How is it rude to expect your statements in the science subforum to be based on evidence?

And even the thing you think is Pakistan’s underlying problem but really isn’t CAN be managed. This is a carbon cycle whether people want to admit it or not.

I never asked you to prove any underlying problem. Just to substantiate your claims that conflict with yield and weather data.

It’s funny how I see you commentating on flaws you perceive in other poster’s arguments. I see you criticizing sources presented. But then you get your feelings hurt if I hold you to similar standards of accuracy.

I can not conceive of how on matters of science actual correct data matters so little to some. It seems as long as any old wive’s tale or bogus data “supports” a certain narrative it’s fine. Science and facts and accuracy be damned. And then those pushing the bogus information seem upset when others reject their narrative because they see through the con. Nobody is ever sorry they peddled disinformation, they just get butt hurt when they get caught.

 

So, you have a vested interest in gas/diesel cars?

 

You seem to be laser focused on fossil fuel driven AGW like many others. If you aren’t and can accept not every climate related problem on earth is a result of fossil fuel driven AGW that’s good. But I don’t get that vibe.

You seem to blame (or attribute if you prefer that term) AGW for every negative you see from food production (that you and I started with in this thread) to glacial melt, etc.

The allegory I created of the house on an acre of trees was intended to demonstrate we can’t blame every little thing about climate we don’t like on fossil fuel AGW. Attributing every negative to AGW is not only illogical but direct denial of climate science. The allegory was not a literal statement that you think AGW is killing you.

Although you did say climate change makes people move or kills them and you haven’t moved have you?

Climate changes in Pakistan are very mildly influenced by AGW from fossil fuels. But if they had the forests they had in even 1947 we would not be having this discussion because they would not be having the troubles they face now. Their PRIMARY problem with climate is deforestation, not atmospheric CO2 or AGW.

No they are not isolated. Any action on afforestation there would benefit their neighbors and the rest of the planet in small ways as well. But the FACT remains, if we magically made atmospheric CO2 300 ppm and/or global temps 1°C cooler Pakistan would still have all the major problems they have now.

 

In that I want to continue driving dependable reparable useful vehicle yeah. I am no longer a mechanic. if I was, I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about the EV fad. if anything, it would mean I would have even more work because people will be hanging on to real cars.