Electric cars.

Yep you're right.

 

Hi,

But you couldn't plan ahead and carry a spare five gallon can of electricity? A power cut would indeed shut the lot down but once the power was back on petrol and diesel cars would be on their way much quicker.

I wonder how many EV's are bought just to show off to neighbours or for the two minute school run.

Canada & Japan plus other countries are suffering extremes of bad weather but this isn't new; when I was born back in 1947 it was the worst ever year recorded for bad weather my parents later telling me telegraph poles were buried in deep snow here in Yorkshire but in those days it wasn't climate change to blame it was simply nature. Too many scientists sitting on backsides instead of getting a proper job?

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/pict...ok-back-at-the-horrific-winter-of-1947-449879

Kind regards, Colin.

 

The absolute ideal use for an EV. City and town driving, short trips, overnight charge at home.

 

That's an expensive car just to use as a run around though Jocko. Especially if you need a second car for long journeys.

 

Probably a lot less than buy an SUV for the same purpose.
Climate change is called climate change rather than "global warming" because that is what will be observed climate different to the long term average. One effect is that the weather tends to become more extreme as the entire system becomes unstable, so more hurricanes and cyclones etc.

 

Long term average? how many years is the "long term average", a couple of hundred at most I would guess.
They often come out with statements like "since records began".

If you delve a bit you find out records began 30 odd years ago on some of this so called data.

We are screwing ourselves over something three quarters of the population of the world are not interested in, let alone believe.

I just cant understand why the western world wants to self destruct like this.

Solve over population and the rest will sort itself out.
But nobody wants to do that, its easier to build windmills.

Rant over.

 

I find it hard to believe that folks still think global warming isn’t a result of human activity. It was first raised as a concern over 40 years ago, I remember it. Everything that was predicted is coming to pass and folks are still pouring scorn? The evidence is there, but maybe we’d be better off listening to some bloke down the pub.

 

In some cases where you can look at tree rings, lake sediment cores or ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica thousands of years.

 

I'm not denying, it as such, but for me the only reason they have us doing all these things and taxing us to the hilt is because it is likely to affect the human race.
Climate change is a symptom, of over population, which is the cause.

It's like giving a a man with a brain tumour a couple of aspirin.

Or to put it another way kicking the can down the road, as they like to say these days.

We have even come down to blaming cows now, i wonder how much methane and carbon dioxide the average human being pumps out in their lifetime.

 

Hi,

One volcano eruption = how much exhaust emission? Eventually when the human race destroys itself will climate change stop. Cars weren't around at the time of dinosaurs.

Kind regards, Colin.

 

No. A meteor was.

 

Human activities emit 60x more carbon dioxide then volcanoes per year see here for details and discussion https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

Asteroid in Gulf of Mexico took them out, as it would cars if it happened today.

 

One of the nonexistent technologies that big polluters are pinning their hopes on is exactly this. Kicking the can down the road. The nonexistent technology I'm on about is Carbon Capture and Storage.

The idea is that they can continue as they are, but capture their co2 emissions and store it 'safely'. There are a number of fancy chemical ways being studied, like having co2 react with certain minerals to lock the carbon into rock, but the big method that we're far more likely to see in the next few decades is they simply pump it underground, into empty oil wells. The travesty here is multiple. Even if they get to a point where it's effectively carbon negative, even after factoring in building the plant (mining/quarrying materials, shipping them, running the thing etc), it doesn't solve the problem. There's only so much underground/undersea storage for it, and what if it escapes? And how are they going to raise funding for all this with private investors? Well, they're saying they can use the co2 under pressure to force the last dregs of oil out of the depleted wells they want to use. So the carbon they capture will be used to extract more carbon emitting fossil fuels.

Very occasionally we get to hear about a different carbon capture technology. Usually some tiny, start-up chemical company. There was one in Teesside a few years ago. They are trying to extract carbon from air and turn it into fuel. they've achieved it on a tiny scale. But where is their investment? Why aren't they growing and achieving more? It would be hard to invest in a company developing a process to make petrol out of polluted air when governments are likely to have banned petrol cars before their technology reaches a point where it's scalable. I'm all for electric cars, but they should be one part of the mix, and they're not ready. More research and development is needed, particularly into battery technology. If more work, and more time is needed for battery research, I can't see why other technologies should be frozen out, especially those that actively take pollution out of actual air and turn it into fuel.

 

I was under the impression that there was more carbon dioxide around in prehistoric days than there is today.