Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Yes, there is a range of usage patterns among car owners.

Yes, today manufacturers are not creating EVs that match every usage pattern.

 

I think the first question would have to be, what sources of information are you willing to consider?

Are we headed into another of the standard conversations where one side points to science and the other side points out that science is total crap?

 

.......

 

You clearly are just buying the hype and haven't actually looked into it.

Again, I've been in the business for 35 years. Government fuel economy standards have existed since the mid 70s and they've never been intended to push EV development. As a follow up to 2007's EPA v. Massachutsetts Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration turned those rules into one's that push EVs. However this year's WV v. EPA decision effectively reverses that earlier decision which crushes the hopes of regulating CO2 and using that to push EVs. Sorry, the government has lost it's ability to mandate and subsidize EVs. It'll take some time to work through all the details but you can just look at the Biden administration and specifically the Biden EPA freak out over that decision to see where that's headed.

To understand the technical disadvantage of EVs you have to understand the physics of energy release. An ICE releases the fuel's energy onboard the vehicle that uses it so it can take advantage of it all. The energy for an EV is released at the power plant maybe hundreds of miles from the actual vehicle which is then lost in all of the transfers made to get it into the vehicle, into and out of the battery and then in the electric motor. There is simply no way an EV can beat an ICE engine, period. That's simple physics.

And let's compare apples to apples, my F150 4x4 crew cab with a 5.0L V8 and a 36 gallon fuel tank vs. a new state of the art F150 Lightning EV.

My truck has a range of 650-700 miles on a single fill up which might take 10 minutes tops. That's the distance from my home in Virginia to my Mom's home in Michigan and halfway back again. I can also tow an 8,000 lb. trailer and still get a range of perhaps 500 miles or more.

The Lightning's range runs 280-300 miles and depending on what kind of charger is available might take anywhere from a couple hours to a couple days. And if you're towing any kind of trailer, people who have tried it have found the range drops to maybe 70 or 80 miles, barely enough for me to get to work and back, maybe.

And physics says things won't get much better from here. Again, go ahead, look it up.

And then there's the market proof from today's news:

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...023-ford-super-duty-orders-truck/69613146007/

Modern EVs have been around for 40 years (Tesla alone for about 20) and they're still only good for commuting to work and around town as long as you don't go far. Not looking like that will improve any time soon.

 

I don’t need to change the mind of some anonymous person on the internet who has not bothered to read the IPCC reports (and I know this because you are a disbeliever and, lols, you are actually contending “there is no study of green house gases lols!)

Bottom line - denialists have lost - big time. All the world governments are following the IPCC reports

 

Data are undermining the narrative.

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be
Posted on November 2, 2022 by curryja | 126 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 →

 

Russia seems to have thrown a massive wrench into the gears of that fantasy.

 

All I can say is watch this space

 

Don’t bother posting this rubbish here - I am not reading it because I am not the one in charge. If it is a definitive rebuttal of the science contained in the IPCC then it should be submitted to them

 

Ahhhh! But Russia was never truly on board even though it signed the Paris Agreement.

 

Didn't you say all the world's governments were following that IPCC crap? Exactly how many constitutes "all"?

 

Why? What's so danged important about the IPCC?

 

For what? More idiocy about the IPCC?

 

You are free to bury your head in the sand if you wish.

Summary: The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5 Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”), the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought. . . . .

 

Predictions 50 years out based on models is not evidence. The quote from MET you just posted refers to a study of rainfall in Oct., Nov., and December. They ran that data through a model that in one scenario comes up with possibly observable difference in rate of rainfall by Summer by 2080.

Here are your claims.

There is no evidence for your claim that summer droughts are the norm. When I pointed out there was no summer drought records you changed it to brief deluges that magically run off fields but never show up in rivers pumped dry because of need for irrigation. Now you want a smidgen of data from fall/winter that is run through simulations and comes up with something that may be observable in 50 years to be evidence of a claim you say you observe in summer today and is the new normal.

I also pointed out lower crop yields are not the norm. You didn’t like my examples of cereal grains and rapeseed so tried potatoes that also turned out to have massively increasing yield trends and studies showing those trends will further benefit from more CO2 and warming.

The MET doesn’t say there is no evidence for your claim. They probably haven’t read it. I am saying there is no evidence for your claim contained in MET or anywhere else. In fact there is a lot of evidence your claims are false.

You are now wanting to use one year’s data to support your claim of lower crop yields and summer drought being the norm. After saying this in the same thread.

Then you go back to the old tired strawman argument that I don’t believe AGW is occurring. After I’ve spent numerous posts explaining at least two mechanisms of AGW
of which you were completely unaware of or had no working knowledge of.

Don’t be fearful. Remember climate change/AGW has many, many huge benefits to you and mankind. Remember overall mortality due to temperature exposure is decreasing because of warming. Our ability to grow food is being augmented globally and in most cases locally by AGW/climate change. Remember the human population is thriving and growing the most in the warmest parts of the planet. Remember deaths from natural disasters have plummeted drastically over the last century.

I’ll encourage you again to trust science, not what others want you to believe is science. Just in this thread it’s been demonstrated what people believe about crops, precipitation, glacier melt, effects of deforestation, effects of transpiration, etc. in relation to climate is the opposite of reality.

And all that false information and false premise is marketed to me and you as science. I’ll sum that marketing of disinformation up with one word in the succinct style of my current President: No bueno!

 

First, please use the PF quote function to supply a quote of me saying afforestation should be a key method of stopping or slowing Earth’s warming.

Can you answer my “for fun” question? Are you unable or unwilling?

 

No. I want a peer reviewed study that compares what nature puts out to what humans put out

 

Naah, its becoming the norm
30 min charge time, fuel at half price. And 95% of journeys only 20 miles.

 

They also say.
When will climate change affect the UK?
Change is already happening. Some variables, such as heavy rainfall, will take time before increases are clear, beyond natural variability.

It's important to remember that there are ranges of possible change. We can provide information on the probability that something will happen, but it isn’t guaranteed.

The further into the future we look, the more likely we are to see record hot temperatures or heavy rainfall events. This is more likely if we consider a high emissions scenario. That doesn't mean we won’t experience cold events; they will just occur less frequently.
They don't say there is no evidence, they say there isn't enough yet. We are seeing with our own eyes these more intense rainstorms, roads flooded etc. We did see a drought this summer and three lots of highest ever recorded temperatures.
You can say scientists wont/can't say this is proof of global warming effecting our weather and you would be right. Scientists are very reluctant to make such claims as they are aware of how the climate deniers strategies have misused these estimates.

All we heard here all summer was warnings of lower crop yield, smaller potatoes, requests for us to be less picky about the shape of vegetables in our shops.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...ato-crops-heatwave-shorter-chips-drought-2022
We had a hose pipe ban in many areas including mine. I am now trying to find out why our main crops Wheat, Barley Oilseed rape were not as badly hit in the end.

This is interesting.
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/press/n...cing-the-crop-failures-of-1976-all-over-again
It appears better water distribution systems may have made a significant difference.
They also say "The past 12 months have been particularly dry over much of the UK and since May 2021, only October and February have recorded above-average rainfall." Which is what we observed.

Are these small changes harmful of beneficial to the UK. Who knows, we are quite lucky in that our position in the Northern hemisphere means our weather is less fragile than other places.
Weather we can just keep on adjusting our practices if global warming continues unabated is unknown. I am not running scared, it is purely that my view is its better to slow AGW than to keep adapting to it.
I also think that wind and solar power are a far more resilient resource than are fossil fuels, especially for countries like ours with little natural resources left.

 

Like this?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00260/full

 

So in other words, they're great for driving alone to work with nothing more than a briefcase.

And pretty much useless for anything else.

That's why they'll never beat ICE vehicles. Mostly because relatively few people live like that.

 

A 30 minute charge is never a full charge. And that's still 30 minutes vs 5 to gas up. And the range reduction for an EV truck towing or hauling remains massive.
Yes, the EV may find a niche as a local runabout. Many people have two cars: one for local use and one for longer trips. An EV could function well in the former role, but not in the latter.

 

No.

"It is beyond the scope of this paper to review the various connections at the intersect of humanity and the natural environment. "

As I've stated, there isn't a single peer reviewed study showing everything that the earth puts out naturally and comparing it to what humans put out

And there is a hardly scientific consensus regarding this.

 

Another one bites the dust.

Massachusetts’ 1,200 MW Offshore Wind Project ‘no longer viable’ (rough waters ahead?)
Guest Blogger

By Robert Bradley Jr. — November 2, 2022

“… global commodity price increases … sharp and sudden increases in interest rates, prolonged supply chain constraints, and persistent inflation have significantly increased the expected cost of constructing the project.”

Electricity rates are going up because of wind, solar, and batteries being forced upon, and duplicating, the grid. Reliability is going down because of wind and solar intermittency. And higher interest rates are (further) ruining the economics of the infrastructure-heavy, up-front capital necessary to turn “free” wind and solar into electricity.

It’s a perfect storm that might just overcome the taxpayer largesse of the federal subsidies (DOE and IRS) and rate averaging for captive ratepayers. With offshore wind experimental and extra-uneconomic, the worst can be assumed.

An October 30, 2020, article by Colin Young, “Major Massachusetts offshore wind project no longer viable,” explains the fluid situation. . . .

 

There is no evidence for your claims. You have even made contradictory claims that summers are droughts and that summer rains are too intense. Those things are mutually exclusive. As is too much rain and dried up rivers. And one year of short chips and having to eat a blemished potato is not evidence of any trend. I presented trend information showing increased yields over time.

Again, modeling showing possibility of a thing far in the future is not evidence at all, certainly not evidence you claimed to see with your own eyes and is the new normal. The only actual data even looked at in this analysis was months outside your claim of summer concurrent drought/flood.

I find it humorous that people are complaining about short irrigation/environmental problems and short chips in the same freaking article. In a sane world, if people REALLY cared about the environment they would eat short chips and blemished potatoes every year instead of throwing them away and only eating the perfect ones. Only eating the good ones requires far more land, water, and fossil fuel resources than if we ate ALL the potatoes. Having to have consistently long chips and moaning about the environment in the same article is as illogical as it gets.

But what do facts and logic have to do with climate science, right? If we put the word “climate” in front of “science” any bogus claim will do—even if all evidence is to the contrary. It’s the narrative that matters. Facts and evidence can go hang.

Remember there is more to crop yields than rain. Days of sun are high in drought years. That can often compensate for short water especially in naturally cloudy/foggy environments.