UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Andres125sx]

Facts just don't seem to matter.

Facts matter, but all facts, not only those that prove your point

There are rascals everywhere, that´s not new at all

[Just_a_fan]

USA - China politics and relations have no place in this thread.
Politics OFF, thank-you.

The posts about it have been removed.

Climate change (or not) is obviously OK, since that is the whole point (or not) of the reductions in hydrocarbon emissions. But if anyone feels that it should be split into a different thread, just call out loud Tommy Cookers, you get priority as the OP.

Wow. How to miss the point. The whole subject is a political one!

<Mod edit: Clarification of politics added, underlined, above. Hopefully everyone knows what is off-limits, in the same way that religion is off-limits in this forum. If in doubt, ask. PM, please. Hollus>

<Troll comment removed > <J_a_F edit: it was a tongue in cheek troll and not meant seriously >

[henry]

henry, are you aware that we live in a rather unusual climate/co2 state for the Earth?

Historically CO2 levels (and average global temperatures) were much higher than today, the Cretaceous being a particular example.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_ge ... scale.html for an overview.

Now, marine animals like plesiosaurs and other such fun things coped quite happily with those CO2 levels.

The graph in the paper you quote covers 4.5 billion years of earth’s history, so I’m not sure which normal you are referring to.

But it’s clear that in the past CO2 and temperatures have been higher for long periods. It’s also true that over the last million years there has been a steady drop in temperature, albeit with large fluctuations above and below the trend line. We are currently at the top of one of those fluctuations so if we continue upwards we will be potentially reversing the trend of the past million years and on our way back to “normal”.

The issue appears to me to be whether it’s good for today’s human cohort that we return to this higher temperature normal, and if so whether it’s a good thing that we hasten this return by burning fossil fuels. We can no doubt cope with higher temperatures, previous populations have (albeit there were rather fewer of them) but the transition period is, to my mind, a much greater concern. The slower a change happens the easier it is to cope, that’s pretty much true of all species.

Which brings me to the oceans. Here I think it is much clearer that our fossil fuel habit is acidifying them. This will change their ecology. See here for a summary: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/inverte ... dification. It won’t result in empty oceans, just as your plesiosaurs there will species that thrive. But in a rapid transition for those species there are likely be “losers” and that may well have a significant impact on humans.

So we are conducting a huge experiment, the sort of thing Mother Nature does with the biggest of volcanic eruptions, and we’ve seen the effect they have. The rise in temperatures you asked Andres125x to account for might be explained as a return to normal after cold brought on by a century of very intense volcanic activity. Unfortunately the feedback mechanisms that return lower temperatures to previous levels are not present if the excursion is to higher temperatures. Some may think it will be good for mankind, some bad and some that the change is trivial or unavoidable. It’s a judgement call. I’ve stated my position and awareness doesn’t change it.

[strad]

Not one of the warmists dire predictions have come true.

[Greg Locock]

This one certainly looks a tad overblown



Actual rise has been 3mm per year, or less.

[hollus]

Hyped headline? Sure. But read the content. It starts with the word “if”, then describes a possible result in 50 years. Possible, because “if”.
Then it points out an outcome after that time point, qualifying the certainty with the word “model”.
What makes you think it is wrong? We’ll find out in 2080 or 2100.

Journos can suck, but the content says what it says, nothing more.

[Fulcrum]

The headline is the equivalent of clickbait, and of a standard one would expect from a youtuber, not a journalist. Ironic considering it's age.

[henry]

This one certainly looks a tad overblown

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... W4zaC9Tx1Q

Actual rise has been 3mm per year, or less.

So that’s just 1.5m. The good people of Florida will be happy at that news. Except that it won’t stop after 50 years.

[Andres125sx]

Not one of the warmists dire predictions have come true.

They´re scientifics, not sheers, take their numbers, not their predictions


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? We´re talking about our planet, there´s no spare, there´s no instruction manual to know what are the limits for any concentration, but people think they can risk its balance assuming it will take everything...

As Henry said, it is not only the number itself, it is how long it took to reach that point so all species have time to adapt, or not.

[Steven]

Ignoring the climate for a minute, let's not forget the proven impact of the other microparticles that are emitted. Studies have shown there is a measurable effect, including increased asthma, instead lung cancers, reduced effectiveness of oxygen intake (reversible, but measurably reduced in a matter of weeks), etc, etc.

So for those who believe it's all useless/unneeded for the climate, then let's focus on our own health first.

[Tommy Cookers]

This one certainly looks a tad overblown
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... W4zaC9Tx1Q

Actual rise has been 3mm per year, or less.

So that’s just 1.5m. The good people of Florida will be happy at that news. Except that it won’t stop after 50 years.

New Orleans sank about 20 feet in 2 centuries due to drainage of the ground causing settling
North Jakarta has sunk about 10 feet in 2 decades due to water abstraction from the ground causing settling

London sank from post ice-age recovery tilting and from water abstraction but abstraction was actually stopped pre WW2
the Thames flood barrier was unnecessary as pumping to replace abstracted water would have raised the city's ground level
so said a paper once published (now archived) by a reluctant Institution of Civil Engineers
decades later the ground level has risen by natural water transport processes, extending the barrier life by about 40 years
now the whole region has ground level monitoring

so whose 'facts' are 'the facts' ?


there's another climate change shock today - we now must aim for only 1.5 degC warming
NOTE to SELF - afaik ie 0.5 degC warmer as we already have 1 degC warming as defined from chosen pre-industrial mark
Myron Ebell says warmist forecasts have always been wrong and still are
some UKites say we UKites must get to 100% reduction by 2050 ie nil carbon from all sources
every home will have electric car charging - paid for by 'the Government' - apparently electricity is then cheap
'the Government' is already paying us to have EVs
but Phil Korbel (from a carbon awareness body) says most carbon is from heating (as I've said about 1000 times)
so we must 'insulate our homes' and use only electrical heating in them
the impossibility of this will cause the UK to fall behind its over-ambitious schedule of carbon reduction
50 billion annually is necessary for the UK we're told

re the previous post .....
the UK has reduced carbon emissions by burning wood - this is 75% of city particulate emission (it's not the diesel car)
though particulate and NOx totals have anyway decreased - says our government
so whatever health effects are caused they are less than in previous years
the predicted health effects are based on massaging 30 year old Canadian data
those data of course included the effects of the newly-suggested mechanisms adverse to health

[Steven]

More related to the original, car-related post, I'd like to add that the EU parliament recently agreed to target a 40% emission decrease from new cars by 2030.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliame ... a-45742019

MEPs in the parliament argued that accelerated decarbonization was required in transport — the only major EU sector in which greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.

The draft law, including a report adopted by most parliamentarians, will next be negotiated with the EU executive commission on October 10, a day after EU ministers deliberate on the package.

Existing EU rules set targets for the average emissions across carmakers' fleets. The next set kicks in in 2021, and will call for an average set of CO2 emissions no higher than 95 grams per kilometer driven. Wednesday's 2030 target proposal would be a 40 percent reduction of this 2021, 95 gram figure.

[Andres125sx]

@Tommy & Greg
You can't make any headway. Been there done that.
They won't listen to facts because they heard otherwise on TV.
Statements like "the facts are in" and "the science is proven" win the day for them.
The same as people who believed the world was flat or that earth was the center of the universe.
Back then those claims were backed by the same type of statements.
They won't even listen after hearing the facts of Climate Gate. I showed quotes from the mouths of those making these proclamations that they lied and manipulated the facts to support Global warming and that when the claims did not prove out they pivoted to climate change.
Facts just don't seem to matter.

So United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don´t listen to facts because they heard otherwise on TV?

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/10/1022492


What if the point of view fooled by some sensationalistic new is yours?

[strad]

So United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don´t listen to facts because they heard otherwise on TV?

They are the ones that were caught lying and admitted to falsifying the facts.
They did make many predictions that have failed to come about.
The 61 or whatever the number is that released this newest report are the same group made up of mostly politicians and not scientists with climate specialties that made up the previous reports.
It is not so important which side you want to believe so much as you be willing to research both sides.
We have been thru this before. Now it's less that 1°C that they are freaking about? Come on.
Read some books that don't re-enforce you preconceived ideas. Look at both sides.
I have and I have learned to not believe liars that have something to gain.

[Brake Horse Power]

More related to the original, car-related post, I'd like to add that the EU parliament recently agreed to target a 40% emission decrease from new cars by 2030.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliame ... a-45742019

MEPs in the parliament argued that accelerated decarbonization was required in transport — the only major EU sector in which greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.

The draft law, including a report adopted by most parliamentarians, will next be negotiated with the EU executive commission on October 10, a day after EU ministers deliberate on the package.

Existing EU rules set targets for the average emissions across carmakers' fleets. The next set kicks in in 2021, and will call for an average set of CO2 emissions no higher than 95 grams per kilometer driven. Wednesday's 2030 target proposal would be a 40 percent reduction of this 2021, 95 gram figure.

So this can only be achieved by reducing fuel consumption by 40%. I think it is highly unlikely that ICE's can be improved by this amount. So all cars sold will need to be (plug-in) hybrid at least? I wonder how it will be regulated since you can drive a plug-in hybrid just on petrol

ICE cars are not allowed to be sold in Norway by 2025, and in the Netherlands by 2030.