I doubt the future includes the EV except in a subsidiary local role. It is, in terms of capability, a step backward.
That is just you playing stupid games with my words. I explained how a deluge could still leave the ground parched creating an effective drought for those needing water of their fields. This seems to be your modus operandi where winning the argument is more important than understanding and making progress by agreement. You presented evidence things used to be OK and claimed that because change has not been around for long enough this was evidence that global warming was not having any effect. But you make no attempt to consider the proven effects of warming an atmosphere and the fact that our earth is warmer than it was. As I have pointed out, that way we do nothing until the damage is done, we sit and wait for the change to become un-reversible and only then say now we have proof it was climate change that changed the weather. Further your idea that a bit of warming would be good for us and the planet assumes some sort of upper limit at a couple of degrees, but there is no such low upper limit, there are as you know tipping points that will accelerate the process and might even make stopping it impossible. Still until we actually see it we can't prove it will so that's OK. The Met office state they think what we are seeing is likely to be the first effects of global warming but without waiting until its too late they can't say for certain. No thanks.
Well scientific advance always has its doubters. I believe much the same was said when it was first proposed that electric could replace gas lighting.
Nope its scientific advance, soon it will become unnecessary to ship lorry loads of processed fuel to storage chambers across the country.
Carbon scrubbers already exist. All we need to do is improve the technology and install a bunch of them atop sky scrapers in the future.
That's one route. I think not digging extracting processing and shipping gas in the first place is preferable
One can see the CO2 in atmosphere over the last 800,000 years. That's a great example of natural production. This includes the periods where Earth was both cold and hot, and had the natural biosphere of those periods. The difference between that and today is what humans have caused. Science shows that the emergence of the manufacturing age is the serious change. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions One can also note that Africa has several times the US population, but emits far less CO2 per capita, except in developed nations, such as South Africa. There is no question that the significant issue is the fact that the developed/developing world uses fossil fuel for required energy. You can look this stuff up from wherever you want. It's spelled out throughout climatology.
193 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement The idea is that the signatories hold each other to account but Trump withdrew and that opened the gate for countries like Russia to blow off their targets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement Question is - why do you not know about this?
Lols! Lots of claims - very little backing And this was on an obscure website not main stream media Definition of astroturf
Wow! Breaking news! Have you read this meta analysis of research on the drivers of climate change? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
LOL. It’s my fault you claim a drought and then change it to heavy rain when shown there is no drought? It’s my fault heavy rains don’t run into rivers but don’t soak into fields either and the water magically disappears? It’s my fault you think a model of late fall precipitation is evidence of current events that aren’t observable to any but you who definitively say it’s a now normal? It’s my fault crop yields are trending up, not down from changes we CAN observe? It’s my fault peer reviewed studies show lower death rates from temperature exposure from changes we CAN observe? It’s my fault deaths from natural disasters have plummeted? Ok. Requiring accuracy and evidence for claims in the science forum is a stupid game. Got it. I’ll stick with my modus operandi of facts when it comes to science. Oh, and AGAIN, I acknowledge warming! I’ve burned so many of your strawman arguments down warming is inevitable!
Is China still waiting until 2030 to actually do anything about it? I don't follow it simply because it's an absurd fraud. But you go right ahead and stay on top of it for both of us.
Deny what? The reality is that 193 nations have signed the Paris Agreement no they will be using the recommendations of the IPCC not some obscure astroturf website.
The link recounts the non-viability of a specific project. It has nothing to do with anyone's recommendations. But since you brought up the Paris Agreement, this seems a good time to point out that most of its recommendations are generally honored in the breach.
But my point stands - they are using the IPCC recommendations As for “hinoring in the breach” sadly, at present, yes but what is happening is that the Fossil Fuel industry’s voice is started to be drowned out as the impacts become more and more apparent
Ah, but they are not. And even today's minimal compliance will recede as the "impacts" are exposed as chimerical. The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be Posted on November 2, 2022 by curryja | 154 comments by Judith Curry Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years. Continue reading →