UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[roon]

as Andres well knows as he's read the report that I linked a few weeks ago .....

EV has only a slight advantage over ICE in particulates as EV's higher weight produces more tyre particulates
presumably the ICE hybrid is the best as it has relatively light weight combined with regenerative braking

Including soot? Which post from "a few weeks ago" are your referencing?

[strad]

No Andres.. they got caught in their own E-Mails admitting the lied about the numbers and when asked about it they said they did lie but for a good cause.
IF you can find them you can read their e-mails for yourself since you think I lie or make stuff up.

[DChemTech]

If with caught in their own emails you mean climategate, then yes, you are lying. That 'incident' is well known to be cherry-picked quotes from an honest scientific discussion. Deliberate smearing by a few contrarians, not by scientists.

[strad]

Their words, their admissions, and the reason so many scientists that were with them have bailed on them.
If I have e-mails between me and friends where I discuss lying to you and they are found and exposed that is not lying or cherry picking.
They are responsible for what they said and admitted they said.
It's a club made up ONLY of people who agree to agree with their agenda. They don't allow any discussion that does not fit with their opinion. There is no open scientific discussion just a group agreeing to agree with each other.
Even the most superficial research reveals that.

[roon]

You misconstrue the point about cherry picking and are arguing from predecision. You are saying the quotes you have are proof of lying, not of cherry-picking. DChemTech is saying the quotes you have are cherry-picking, not proof of lying.

For example, per your call for superficial research. The phrase:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t"

This was plausibly a referential critique of their own short term climate variabilty models. Interchange cooling or warming there; it's irrelevant. In context it could be a discussion of data and trends, and a general frustration at a stage of a project.

Another instance, from wikipedia:

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature (journal) trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This "decline" referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[31] John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[32] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[33][34] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[35]

[DChemTech]

Exactly as Roon says; the whole affair was based on statements of the scientists being pulled out of context. They may have admitted to using those words in the literal sense, but not to the (mis)interpretation of climategaters.

Anyhow, even if the statement "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" was made in the context the climategaters claimed it to be, that would only mean those scientists were incapable of -explaining- a particular observation at that time. In no way would it jeopardize the experimental observation of climate change and in particular global warming - which has been practically and unequivocally observed, regardless of our capability of quantitatively modelling it. It also would not jeopardize the link between said change and CO2 emissions, which has been firmly established (is not just known as correlation but also mechanistically understood) while alternative explanations have been consistently discarded - and boy, did they put effort in testing other hypotheses. Reality is a far cry from your assessment of scientists only stating what fits their agenda - but talking about agendas, I suppose that doesn't fit yours. (I can also assure you, as a scientist, that if one is to pick an agenda, CC-support is a rather poor one. Picking, say, the agenda of oil or tobacco companies is much more profitable)

As to your assessment of models and some other rather outrageous claims made in previous posts, I'd love to dissect them, but I am currently on a rather poor phone and poor WiFi. That will have to wait until next week.

[henry]

On the subject of particulates. I read the recent report.

Three sources of particulates were considered. Tyres, brakes and entrained. Entrained is the amount of previously deposited particles lifted into the air by the passage of the vehicle. Entrained was the largest proportion. So aerodynamics come into the equation. They suggest that because the EV is heavier it is also larger and so entrained more. I’m not sure about that.

The paper also mentions that the design of the tyres and suspension can heavily influence the tyre wear part of the equation. They suggest that individual models be assessed for their tyre emissions, seems like a reasonable suggestion. Unless, of course, particulates don’t matter.

In personal experience the latter differences can be very large. My two most recent vehicles, BMW 3 series and Golf, have the same tyre fitment. The Golf eats its tyres at half the rate of the BMW.

[Brake Horse Power]

Another instance, from wikipedia:

these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.

Haha sorry for not adding anything to the discussion, but if nature was based on natural selection Sarah Palin would not have come very far. Still an achievement of her to get mentioned on Wikipedia though

[hollus]

The climate might be debatable, but the thread certainly has heated up. Cool-down time, everyone.

[hollus]

A few posts which were getting too personal have been deleted. The word "you" was being used way too often. Nasty attacks were getting frequent. Such personal fights often end badly and they also stop the discussion for everyone else. Please don't make the thread descend down that kind of escalation again.

[hollus]

So, everyone feeling better after 48 hours of cooling down?

This thread is clearly off topic to F1. It is also about the environmental aspects of road cars and it was always going to link itself a bit with politics, which as you all know, is generally off-limits in the forum.
The thread is nonetheless interesting and relating to the very future shape of cars and probably even future F1. This thread was also rather well behaved considering the amount of politics vented into it.
And then the focus shifted to climate change and then it went the way climate change discussions usually go.

Guys, whether you think that climate change is real or not, human caused or not, huge or tiny, an impending catastrophe or a mere nuisance... really, it is almost impossible to convince people on the other side. And it is impossible by confrontation. There are whole psychology treaties about this.
Plus both sides have good arguments (there are more than two sides as there are many dichotomies). And both (all) sides have a bit of BS in their argumentations and more than a healthy dose of exaggeration IMO.

My colors in these discussions are clear for all to see, I guess and hope. And yet I love to hear from the other side. It breaks information bubbles which, IMO, exist on both (all sides).


So, please, let's continue discussing.

But:
No personal attacks (as everywhere in the forum).
Please refrain from dissecting posts into sentences and challenging all of them or selected ones out of context. This is not an interrogation in a trial and every such post generates more such posts in response, bringing discussion to a halt (and no resolution).
If someone posts something or says something, it is OK to ask for a source. Once, politely. But it is not OK to demand a source. Again, this is not a trial. This is meant to be a relaxed conversation forum. The target should be to talk, not to defeat anyone.
Agree to disagree, the opinions of people thinking very different from yourself is what makes the thread interesting. If you think the point of the thread is to win the discussion, well, wrong forum, find a climate change (or not) forum out there.


So thread open. Let's talk. Let's keep it pleasant.

[Andres125sx]

Didn´t read it yet, but wondering if some will think this is just another coincidence...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... elpais.com

[Big Tea]

Didn´t read it yet, but wondering if some will think this is just another coincidence...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... elpais.com

I had just sen something on 'disappearing glaciers' ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49345912 )
This one was 'declared dead' after 700 years. My first thoughts were well, 700 yrs ago it was not there and it would have been headline news. 'New glacier formed, things have gone wrong' sort of thing.

[Andres125sx]

I agree one glacier dissapearing does not show a trend nor is representative of anything, but unfortunately it´s not just one glacier, but all around the world, so yes, there´s a trend

Glacier mass changes were negative in all regions over the latest observational decade, from 2006 to 2016 (Table1)

Nine out of nineteen regions lost between 0.5% and 3% of their total ice volume per year. The other regions featured smaller loss rates. Under present ice-loss rates, most of today’s glacier volume would thus vanish in the Caucasus, Central Europe, the Low Latitudes, Western Canada and the USA, and New Zealand in the second half of this century.

By comparison with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCCAR5)11,24, the greatest improvement herein is in the geodetic sample: it has been boosted from a few hundred glaciers7 to morethan 19,000 globally, with an observational coverage exceeding 45% of the glacier area in 11 out of 19 regions (Extended Data Fig.1). Our approach, combining the temporal variability from the glaciolog-ical sample with large-scale observations from the geodetic sample, facilitates the inference of mass changes at annual resolution for all regions, back to the hydrological year 1961/62. This represents a major development compared with IPCC AR5, which had to focus on the satellite altimetry and gravimetry era (2003–2009) and relied on estimates modelled using climate data or on interpolated values from scarce and mostly uncalibrated observational samples for earlier time periods (seeMethods)

Our central estimate for the global rate of glacier mass loss is 47Gt yr−1 (or 18%) larger than that reported in IPCC AR5 (section 4.3.3.3, table 4.4)11,24 for the period 2003 to 2009 (Extended Data Fig.5

[Just_a_fan]

Didn´t read it yet, but wondering if some will think this is just another coincidence...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... elpais.com

I had just sen something on 'disappearing glaciers' ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49345912 )
This one was 'declared dead' after 700 years. My first thoughts were well, 700 yrs ago it was not there and it would have been headline news. 'New glacier formed, things have gone wrong' sort of thing.

I was a little confused by that one. Did it form 700 years ago, presumably at the end of the Middle Age Warm Period, or is that just when it was first discovered / recorded? If it formed at the end of the MAWP / beginning of the Little Ice Age then using it as a sign post for recent climate changes might be a bit tricky. It's not like we're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, for example.