F1technical.net

AJI wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2018, 13:20

There were large dinosaurs roaming the earth not so long ago, now there are not.., it wasn't the fault of the large dinosaurs.
I'm not for one second suggesting that man has had no influence on the climate, but there are other things to consider that are beyond the control of man. Devastating events (depending on your perspective) have peppered the earth's history since the begginig of time.

Timescale is a bit different tough, dinosaurs walked around the planet for hundreds million years, while humans who can be considered humans are only here for some thousands, so not comparable actually, in less than a thousandth we´ve managed to break the natural balance deforesting millions hectares, causing an ozone hole and polluting atmosphere to the point it´s causing a lot of health issues into the cities. I´m not going to argue about climate change, but even ignoring this, we can´t ignore our impact to the planet



Evaluating the consequences of this impact is debatable obviously, but not the impact itself

I’d still love to get a link to that new 0.5C story.

That comes directly from the latest UN press release.
I cannot find the exact story just now but it was all over the news just a couple of weeks ago.
There is this from NASA

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius)

Still less than 1° C.

Andres125sx wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2018, 18:53

AJI wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2018, 13:20

There were large dinosaurs roaming the earth not so long ago, now there are not.., it wasn't the fault of the large dinosaurs.
I'm not for one second suggesting that man has had no influence on the climate, but there are other things to consider that are beyond the control of man. Devastating events (depending on your perspective) have peppered the earth's history since the begginig of time.

Timescale is a bit different tough, dinosaurs walked around the planet for hundreds million years, while humans who can be considered humans are only here for some thousands, so not comparable actually, in less than a thousandth we´ve managed to break the natural balance deforesting millions hectares, causing an ozone hole and polluting atmosphere to the point it´s causing a lot of health issues into the cities. I´m not going to argue about climate change, but even ignoring this, we can´t ignore our impact to the planet



Evaluating the consequences of this impact is debatable obviously, but not the impact itself

Yes the comparison was silly, I just figured it had vague context in the topic as oil is sometimes called dinosaur juice.
How about the Neanderthal as a better comparison. They weren't directly responsible for their demise either, and that wasn't so long ago..?
From my egoistic perspective it does seem more likely that the end of humankind will be brought about slowly by us, rather than quickly by a catastrophic natural event or another organism wiping us out, but we'd be the first to achieve it...

strad wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2018, 20:11

I’d still love to get a link to that new 0.5C story.

That comes directly from the latest UN press release.
I cannot find the exact story just now but it was all over the news just a couple of weeks ago.
There is this from NASA

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius)

Still less than 1° C.

And you won´t worry if your water glass is not boiling by itself


UN press release:

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

AJI wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2018, 01:51

it does seem more likely that the end of humankind will be brought about slowly by us, rather than quickly by a catastrophic natural event or another organism wiping us out, but we'd be the first to achieve it...

I think humanity will fall victim to antibiotic-resistant infections. This will cause a large population reduction - although it's unlikely to lead to extinction as we have enough people (7+ billion) to have naturally immune individuals somewhere on the planet. Think post-WW1 influenza pandemic. Although the real killer will be the deaths from post-operative infections or people not having operations because the risk of infection is too high. It will set medicine back 200 years.

Other than that, there are some very nasty things in storage in the US, Russia (and even former USSR states?), the UK and doubtless a few other countries too. A release (accidental or otherwise) could cause some real problems.

<Hardcore politics edited out>

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2018, 12:12

AJI wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2018, 01:51

it does seem more likely that the end of humankind will be brought about slowly by us, rather than quickly by a catastrophic natural event or another organism wiping us out, but we'd be the first to achieve it...

I think humanity will fall victim to antibiotic-resistant infections. This will cause a large population reduction - although it's unlikely to lead to extinction as we have enough people (7+ billion) to have naturally immune individuals somewhere on the planet. Think post-WW1 influenza pandemic. Although the real killer will be the deaths from post-operative infections or people not having operations because the risk of infection is too high. It will set medicine back 200 years.


<Hardcore politics edited out>

Not an unlikely scenario. It says something about many of the coming issues. The scientists have been warning of overuse of antibiotics in both humans and, especially, farm livestock for a long time. This overuse accelerates the development of resistant strains of bugs.

The use of antibiotics to promote growth in livestock could have been banned worldwide as soon as the first warnings from scientists came. Instead countries waited 30+ years (EU 2006) 40+ years (USA 2017) or more (China 2020) taking the 3 largest economies. This has greatly increased the risk that we’ll lose the benefit of antibiotics earlier and more profoundly than might have happened.

It seems likely that this pattern will repeat for other risks. Climate change, plastic pollution, sea acidification, bee loss, etc. Too many societies will behave like 6 year olds. Boo hoo, x isn’t doing anything, I’m not doing anything till they do. And then it’s too late.

The Paris accord on climate change was a big step in the right direction. We need lots more such initiatives.

On the bright side, whilst the majority of the world's population will suffer, a small number of people will be making mahoosive amounts of money. And as we know, money is all that matters in this world...

I can’t imagine that will make any difference, surely such people wouldn’t prioritise wealth over humanity?

Don't you believe it. Most of the people making money out of continually polluting the planet would sell their own children for a profit.

I burst out laughing when I saw 'Sir' Richard Branson lecturing us plebs on global warming.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/ ... a/10361330

Thanks Strad and Andres for putting me on the track of that 0.5C.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2018, 23:16

I burst out laughing when I saw 'Sir' Richard Branson lecturing us plebs on global warming.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/ ... a/10361330

About like Al Gore and others lecturing us whilst flying all over by themselves in a massive jet capable of commercial use. But that's ok because....well because.... they are them. Only we should sacrifice.... OH and they know it's a sham.

today a Parliamentary Select Committee recommended a 2032 target for ending sales of fossil-fuel-only cars
so (they say) from 2032 cars will be 'practically zero emission'

no mention of decarbonising most energy use ie heating in domestic and production situations
presumably the car user will pay thousands annually to forest the Sahara ? (to take UK net carbon to zero)

I'm coming to the conclusion that the politicians don't believe that they can go "fossil free" by the deadline proposed. What the proposal will do, however, is help to hasten the development of ever better hybrid vehicles with higher "fossil free" range coupled to low emission ICE power units.

The aim is to reduce air pollution in urban environments - having a family car that can do 50 miles on the battery and still be useable for longer journeys is a good place to aim. Currently, manufacturers are producing hybrids that can do a couple of dozen miles on electric-only. Not really enough for the bigger urban areas. They are also not the best family cars either.

As we see increasing use of emission free zones in urban environments, the ability to run on battery only for a significant range is going to be essential. Once out of the EFZ, the use of an efficient ICE to pootle along for the rest of the way will be a good balance. For most car owners, a 100-150bhp ICE is sufficient for their use. Yes, there are those for whom anything less than 300bhp is worse than having both legs cut off, but they really are a minority.

today our omniscient BBC has written that PHEVs ......
in company fleets give 40 mpg not the claimed 130 mpg (this fraudulent claim being legally mandated)
and no longer carry a public subsidy

yesterday the BBC told us that Toshiba has withdrawn its NuGen nuclear power plant (planned to make 7% of UK electricity)
though the plans still exist for another 38% of UK electricity to be made by the other new nuclear power stations