The Bureau of Transportation Statistics says the average driver drives 29 miles a day. I think there are a LOT of people who would be willing to plug in and eat lunch after driving any significant fraction of 400 miles. I know there are plains states that are pretty much empty over huge regions and there are jobs like regional sales jobs that require lots of driving distance. But, that's also only a fraction of the car market.
The graph of emission pathways and probabilistic temperature outcomes of the Paris agreement, on page 23 of this thread, shows that if all countries maintain their current intended nationally determined contributions (INDC) from 2030 to 2100 that the GMT rise will about 2.8 degrees C. above pre-industrail conditions. The 2 other pathways which involve non-compliance to the Paris Agreement would result in a GMT in the year 2100 of either around 3.6 degrees C. or above 4 degrees C (business as usual). The graphs showing increased ambition to reduce carbon emissions beyond 2030 are the one's that might achieve the stated goal of preventing a rise in the GMT above 2 degrees C by the year 2100. The 2 degree C. goal would require a flattening of the curve between now and 2030, a 75% reduction in 2030 emissions by 2060 and a 100% reduction in 2030 emissions by 2100. The graphs clearly show that the present INDCs are insufficient to achieve the intended goal of the Paris Agreement, a maximum 2 degree C. GMT rise from pre-industrial to the year 2100. We have to start somewhere and the current Paris Agreement INDC's are a starting point. None of the countries as of 2017 were taking the steps to meet their INDC goals made in 2015 but there could be a few that might make their target reductions by 2030. The Paris Agreement has no mechanism for punishing any country that doesn't meet its INDC objectives - it is voluntary. In the future there may be penalties imposed on countries that don't reduce carbon emissions through trade restrictions or tariffs. If rising global temperatures are inevitable and if those projections out to the year 2100 are even close to being correct, then there should be a strong incentive for every country to want to reduce carbon emissions. A rise of around 3 degrees C.in the global mean temperature (GMT) is considered by many climate scientists to be catastrophic warming. That could result in many meters of sea level rise and much more extreme weather.
And those are uses for which the electric car is unsuitable. Mrs. Hays and I regularly take long car trips (500-600 miles). We never stop for lunch. We hit a drive-through and keep rolling.
As regards Lomborg's analysis, I believe you just made my (and Lomborg's) point. Thank you. As regards the rest, please understand that I proceed on the basis of the work of Professor Nir Shaviv. GHG's were responsible for only about half of 20th century warming, the rest deriving from solar output. The upshot is that climate sensitivity is quite low, and the Paris Accord's 2100 temperature target can be achieved without changing anything.
An interesting question: The U.S. National Temperature Index, is it based on data? Or corrections? By Andy May The United States has a very dense population of weather stations, data from them is collected and processed by NOAA/NCEI to compute the National Temperature Index. The index is an average temperature for the nation and used to show if the U.S. is warming. The data is stored by NOAA/NCEI in their… Continue reading →
I think the more important issue is what is found by the marketing research done by auto manufacturers. I'm an outlier, too. I have a vehicle that is great for driving the 800 miles to my kids while carrying a load and for recreation. But, that's not the car my wife and I want for parking in the tight, often underground parking in the city.
When I retired we simply moved away from the city and tight, underground parking. We have one SUV that's an excellent highway cruiser and a two-seat roadster for fun and local errands.
That's what we have, too! But, there are a LOT of things I like about living in Seattle. When our kids left for university, we moved from our 75 acres in the nearby countryside into Seattle.
To each his own. We exited the DC area (northern Virginia) to leave behind congestion and high taxes. Now quite happy in a gated community in Williamsburg, VA.
My solution is to own a summer home on an fairly well populated island so there are services but also remoteness, my own salt water coast, etc. I'm not so concerned about the multiple large tax bills, the caretaker, etc.
Sounds good. My father once advised me to never own a boat or a second home. I have followed that advice.
I've learned to agree with the one about the boat!! The possibilities are very real and amazing, but I just can't care about a boat enough to make it work dependably. The house is entirely different. It accommodates my extended family for extended holiday and vacation experiences that are priceless.
I get it. Our house is large enough for extended family, and Williamsburg is a holiday/vacation destination.
Useful information. Strengthening the climate change scenario framework Over the past decade, the climate change research community developed a scenario framework that combines alternative futures of climate and society to facilitate integrated research and consistent assessment to inform policy. An international team of researchers assessed how well this framework is working and what challenges it faces.
Insightful. Cultural motivations for wind and solar renewables deployment Posted on November 19, 2020 by curryja | 265 comments by Andy West “For me the question now is, now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we going to keep letting them destroy it?”. – Michael Schellenberger Continue reading → ". . . Shellenberger rightly identifies the overall motivation as cultural. He uses the term ‘religion’, as indeed do many others, simply because this is the most familiar example of a bounded cultural entity that people tend to have. Regarding a ‘climate catastrophe’ generally, the social data completely agrees with him, as shown in Chart 1 (and more fully elsewhere, see the Summary File below). And as demonstrated above, this is exactly the case too for the specific motivation behind Renewables deployment. However, I believe Shellenberger has one thing wrong. Catastrophic climate culture is so pervasive exactly because it does satisfy deep psychological needs, which needs stem from signaling in-group identification via emotive, and preferentially existential, narratives. These in turn activate deep mental mechanisms which bypass our rationality, be that the advice of Planning Engineer or any other mere reason, via whatever expertise, experience or analysis. Anyone or any group that contradicts or even questions in-group narratives, is automatically out-group, and so passionately resisted."
It seems pretty clear that the focus on "catastrophe" is a huge part of the issue here. It allows people to totally ignore aspects such as cost or harm by simply arguing that it isn't a "catastrophe". It also allows people to totally ignore the synergies that are present in taking actions that ALSO help climate. We can say that coal isn't a problem, because there isn't a climate "catastrophe" - logic that just buggers the imagination. And, it's so handy that the very definition of "catastrophe" is so pliable and undefined. It's certainly not an accident that opinion on climate dvides on partisan party line, not on science, not on economics, not on issues of ethics/morality, with deniers so unwilling to accept arguments of science, economics, costs, synergies, the abject destitution of those living in places impacted today by sea rise, agricultural failure, temperature strengthening storms, water scarcity, etc.
It is certainly not an accident that alarmists default to fictional arguments and attacks when reality doesn't support their claims. Happy Thanksgiving.
More pushback on the AGW paradigm. Physicists: A CO2 Rise To 800 ppm Causes ‘Hypothetical’ 10°C Upper Atmosphere Cooling, 1.4°C Surface Warming By Kenneth Richard on 26. November 2020 Share this... A new analysis by Drs. Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) suggests the “self-interference” saturation of all greenhouse gases in the current atmosphere substantially reduces their climate forcing power. At the current concentrations, the forcing power for greenhouse gases like CO2 (~400 ppm) and CH4 (1.8 ppm) are already saturated. Therefore, even doubling the current greenhouse gas concentrations may only increase their forcings “by a few percent” in the parts of the atmosphere where there are no clouds. When clouds are present, the influence of greenhouse gases is even further minimized. While the “consensus” model view is that doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a surface forcing of 3.7 W/m², Wijngaarden and Happer find doubling CO2 concentrations from 400 to 800 ppm increases climate forcing by 3 W/m². This warms the surface by 1.4 K as it “hypothetically” cools the upper atmosphere by 10 K. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (when positive feedback with water vapor is included) is identified as 2.2 K, which is only a 10% different than multiple other analyses. Image Source: Wijngaarden and Happer, 2020
This is just more of you doing your pumpkin picking best to find outliers and presenting information in a forum where proper review is a total impossibility. The question with every one of these is the same: "Why do the vast majority of those working in climate science disagree with the implications (implied or explicit) of these tidbits you find?" Attempting to "win" an argument by presenting only the unreviewed arguments of one side is in NO WAY a legitimate approach. And, I find that offensive.
In fact, I find it downright offensive that you present unpublished papers that thus never even undergone review. And then by someone Trump hand picked to promote Trump's political viewpoint. There is NOTHING legit about your approach here.
Because it's better for their careers: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
In a significant number of instances , , , , So-called "science" has been weaponized and politicized to serve the political agenda of locked down political partisans who have a political agenda that they desire to force upon their political opponents as they attempt to use False-secular-god-Science as the political weapon of choice to give phony "scientific" prestige to their own personal political whims and preferences --,and they have invented the accusation "science denial" as the means to end debate on several issues. But the accusation "You are a science denier" is a sword that cuts both ways and both sides of the debate can make that accusation "YOU are a science denier." JAG ``
Here is an interesting article from the highly respected Forbes Magazine. Start quote; "Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latter said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” End quote Read more: Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong (forbes.com) "Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong" _________ Fear-mongering political agents pushing their personal political agenda and using so-called "science" as their weapon of choice to push and shove their personal political agenda down the throats of all the weak-minded sheep that allow themselves to be cowed into submission by their fear-mongering. JAG ``
It does NOW because life has been evolving more efficient processes for 3Gy, and enzymes achieve far more efficiently what occurred randomly 3Gya. Blatant question begging. Mutation and differential reproduction created them, not a person. "Poof"?? No. It took a billion years or so. You cannot even conceive how long that is. Actually, they are much more scientific than, "God created all life because the Bible says so." I gave you the scientific answer above.
