RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

[otolith]

bigothunter said:

Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:

Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?

What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?

What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?

In terms of not making life difficult for whatever is living on the planet at the time - close enough to what it has been recently not to cause changes in the environment faster than those things can deal with it.

[havoc]

otolith said:

dcb said:

I don't see a small change in conditions over a vanishingly small geological interval of a couple
of thousand years making much difference to the planet.

The issue, for many species, is the rate of change exceeding their capacity to migrate or evolve.

This. Very very much this.

Take a look at coral, as an example. Specifically at the massive increase in fatal/permanent coral-bleaching events happening due to rises in sea temperatures.

Then consider that coral reefs act not just as oases for both littoral and open-water fish (providing key services such as cleaner wrasse to sharks, turtles etc.) but importantly as nurseries for all sorts of open-water fish, and think about what will happen to those fish stocks as their nurseries collapse.

...and given how intertwined oceanic ecosystems are, if small-fish stocks collapse, what happens to the populations of the mid-size fish who feed on them (and who feed a LOT of people worldwide)?

...then there's the feedback loop that some of THOSE fish are active in keeping populations of destructive creatures like sea urchins at bay...who then breed in an uncontrolled manner and decimate other aquatic habitats such as kelp forests. It's akin to taking the big trees out of a rainforest and wondering why most of the animals have died out.



The "planet" will survive - it's a lump of rock with water on top of most of it. But many of the creatures living on it won't, either through loss of habitat (coral reefs, rainforest, etc.) or through loss of food (e.g. the decimated fish-stocks through environmental changes and overfishing), or through loss of a symbiotic partner (including cleaning animals in that).

[bigothunter]

otolith said:

In any case, it's not directly the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 which is the problem so much as the rate of change of climate if the models are correct about the positive feedback we risk incurring.

Water vapour has a large effect on climate change. So does methane. Fixating on CO2 is not healthy.

Mathematically modelling and computer simulation are wonderful tools. But unless accurate, they can be misleading. Climate and weather are particularly fickle (alias complex) - ask Michael Fish.

[bigothunter]

Soupdragon65 said:

No idea, but would this suffice?

About as useful as your opinion

[havoc]

bigothunter said:

Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 has been almost constant for the last 40 years.

You are aware of the timescales that evolutionary changes in animals happen over, right?

I mean...there we are, heating the planet up at a linear rate, and expecting evolution to happen in 1/10,000th or 1/100,000th of it's usual timescale to save all the animals that are otherwise going to die-off. And in doing so fundamentally change the biosphere that WE live in...

[Soupdragon65]

bigothunter said:

otolith said:

In any case, it's not directly the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 which is the problem so much as the rate of change of climate if the models are correct about the positive feedback we risk incurring.

Water vapour has a large effect on climate change. So does methane. Fixating on CO2 is not healthy.

Mathematically modelling and computer simulation are wonderful tools. But unless accurate, they can be misleading. Climate and weather are particularly fickle (alias complex) - ask Michael Fish.

So what should be do, wait until the consequences of burning fossil fuels are absolutely incontravertible by which time it will be too late (and also someone else's problem)?

The vast majority of climate scientists are sure enough that such evidence exists now.

[otolith]

bigothunter said:

otolith said:

In any case, it's not directly the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 which is the problem so much as the rate of change of climate if the models are correct about the positive feedback we risk incurring.

Water vapour has a large effect on climate change. So does methane. Fixating on CO2 is not healthy.

Mathematically modelling and computer simulation are wonderful tools. But unless accurate, they can be misleading. Climate and weather are particularly fickle (alias complex) - ask Michael Fish.

As I understand it, the effect of a small rise in temperatures caused by CO2 on things like release of methane from permafrost and the humidity of the atmosphere has been modelled, and are the kind of amplifying effects which are leading to the concerns.

[havoc]

Strangely Brown said:

Coastal erosion has always been a problem and is bugger all to do with climate change.

Sorry to burst your cosy little myopic bubble, but yes it is.

Global warming is changing sea temperatures, but not uniformly.
Changing sea temperatures, and in particular changes in one area vs another, are driving changes to global wind patterns and sea currents.
Those two combined are creating tides, swells and surges where they didn't exist before, eroding parts of coastlines which were previously either protected by or passed-over by the local currents.
Extreme weather events (caused by the temperature changes) are increasing, and these are throwing higher swells at coastlines than previously.



Science doesn't care whether you believe it or not, or whether you want to believe it. Science is there to model the facts 'on the ground' and explain what's causing things.
(st, I'm starting to sound like GT9! )

[bigothunter]

havoc said:

Take a look at coral, as an example. Specifically at the massive increase in fatal/permanent coral-bleaching events happening due to rises in sea temperatures.

Then consider that coral reefs act not just as oases for both littoral and open-water fish (providing key services such as cleaner wrasse to sharks, turtles etc.) but importantly as nurseries for all sorts of open-water fish, and think about what will happen to those fish stocks as their nurseries collapse.

...and given how intertwined oceanic ecosystems are, if small-fish stocks collapse, what happens to the populations of the mid-size fish who feed on them (and who feed a LOT of people worldwide)?

...then there's the feedback loop that some of THOSE fish are active in keeping populations of destructive creatures like sea urchins at bay...who then breed in an uncontrolled manner and decimate other aquatic habitats such as kelp forests. It's akin to taking the big trees out of a rainforest and wondering why most of the animals have died out.

Hmm

BBC News said:

Coral has recovered from storms and bleaching events to record levels across much of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a survey has found.

The reef's northern and central parts have the highest amount of coral cover since monitoring began 36 years ago.

But coral cover in the southern part of the reef has decreased.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-6240289...

[swisstoni]

What effect did the human race’s timeout for a year or two have on climate temps?

Edited by swisstoni on Thursday 23 March 13:54

[havoc]

Ref coral - yes, I'm well aware that some bleaching events ARE reversible. But there's a time limit. Temperature rises put stress on the animal part of the coral, which ejects the plant part (which provides the colour - hence 'bleaching') as a response to that stress. But the plant part provides a large chunk of the food for the animal part.
- Over short periods of time it's survivable - weaker animal-corals will die-off through lack of food, stronger ones will survive.
- But extended high temperatures lead to extended stress for the animal-corals, who don't then re-admit the plant, and who can't then survive long-term. Which leads to dead reefs. And once a reef is dead, it can't be re-animated.

bigothunter said:

Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:

Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?

What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?

What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?

1) Yes. Plants need it to live, without plants everything is dead.
2) Bloody good question. Depends who you talk to and what their perspective is.
3) Probably isn't one. See #2.

What (most) scientists are doing is looking at the trends, looking at existing impacts, and forecasting forwards. As you, say, it's far from an exact science, but most of Michael Fish's problem is he's trying to accurately forecast a short-term dynamic picture, which is orders of magnitude harder than forecasting long-term trends.
e.g. I can tell you with accuracy that it's going to be warmer in June than it is now, but I can't tell you for certain whether it's going to be warmer tomorrow than it is today, nor can I tell you which day in June is going to be warmest.

[otolith]

havoc said:

e.g. I can tell you with accuracy that it's going to be warmer in June than it is now, but I can't tell you for certain whether it's going to be warmer tomorrow than it is today, nor can I tell you which day in June is going to be warmest.

I can model with great confidence what the long term average score of a roll of dice will be, but I can't tell you what the next throw will be.

[bigothunter]

otolith said:

bigothunter said:

Would appreciate your advice on the following issues:

Can atmospheric CO2 concentration ever be too low?

What are the acceptable lower and upper limits of atmospheric CO2 ppm?

What is the optimum CO2 ppm concentration?

In terms of not making life difficult for whatever is living on the planet at the time - close enough to what it has been recently not to cause changes in the environment faster than those things can deal with it.

Plants need 180ppm and thrive in 2000ppm (commercial greenhouse level is typically 1800ppm). Mammals don't like over 5000ppm, although some claim minor adverse effects over 1000ppm.

I suggest the optimum CO2 ppm concentration is close to where we are now - 400ppm but certainly not below 300ppm which would compromise crop yield and food supply.

But focus on not continuing to increase over 400ppm remains vital.

Edited by bigothunter on Thursday 23 March 13:05

[pheonix478]

bigothunter said:

ITP said:

But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chosen path.

Yes that is the broader agenda. Adopting EVs supports their objective. Why would any government buck the trend?

Fewer cars on the roads sounds good to me.

[bigothunter]

pheonix478 said:

bigothunter said:

ITP said:

But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chosen path.

Yes that is the broader agenda. Adopting EVs supports their objective. Why would any government buck the trend?

Fewer cars on the roads sounds good to me.

And to the government. It removes pressure to sort out our failing road network.

Just fine if you can afford the forthcoming expensive luxury of car travel. The right crowd and no crowding

[ITP]

SpeckledJim said:

ITP said:

GT9 said:

Strangely Brown said:

"...a very real issue facing today's motorists - the increasingly large divide between those who can afford a NEW CAR and those who cannot. Are NEW CARS a realistic and practical solution for all?"

FTFY

Try writing it out 50 times, I find it helps:

Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
.....

You do mention it a lot, and it’s true.

Trouble is, a 10 year old leaf, can be classed as a family car no problem, is still 4-5k. Affordable to many more of course. However, a 10 year old leaf has a range of about 50 miles, so it’s virtually useless.

Even 5k is a stretch for many of the poorest in society, who run about in 1-3k fords/Vauxhall etc. plus these will still do 300-400 miles range of course….
It comes back to the (too fast) rush to EV’s effectively pricing less well off people out of being able to have private transportation at all. As their older fords/Vauxhalls etc will be increasingly, punitively taxed off the road via euro 5/6/7 increments for charge zones, with the second hand old EV’s, as above, being useless range wise.
Maybe they could buy a newer petrol car, a euro 5 you may say. That’s great, as fairly soon this will be taxed heavily too when euro 6 is made minimum for charge zones. They have to sell again, losing more money.

But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chose path.

A 2013 Nissan Leaf is a severely limited product. Useful within some constraints. But a 2023 Kia Niro isn't anything like as limiting. It's really rather excellent.

How much does a 2023 Kia Niro with a range of 300 miles cost in 2038?

If they sell 100,000 Kia Niros in 2023 does that make any difference to the 2038 price, compared to a situation where they only sell 1,000?

If you want to see people enjoying cheap used cars in the future (as I do), then you also want to see a huge number of them selling new right now.

What I’m saying is with EV’s there most likely won’t be any ‘cheap’ 2nd hand cars in the future. Sure the Kia may still have a 200 mile range after 10 years but it will probably be 10k. Or else the tech will be so far out of date it will be rendered worthless. Plus because they are packed with electronic tech no doubt if anything breaks the cost to fix will be so prohibitive, even if the parts are still made, that the car will be scrap. It’s pretty easy and cheap to fix old simple ICE cars.

Like I said, the less well off and young will be effectively denied personal private transport once all the old fiestas and the like have fallen apart. Unless of course they are taxed off the road sooner with blanket ‘low emission zone’ cameras of course. I’m guessing that will get them first actually. But maybe by then all kids will have been brainwashed into thinking those personal freedoms are ‘bad’ for the planet somehow anyway and they won’t want a cheap runabout when they turn 17.

But having said that, I hope you are right, and there is an abundance of cheap secondhand EV’s that still have a good range and are still cheap to run at 10 years old. We’ll see.

Edited by ITP on Thursday 23 March 15:38

[otolith]

ITP said:

What I’m saying is with EV’s there most likely won’t be any ‘cheap’ 2nd hand cars in the future. Sure the Kia may still have a 200 mile range after 10 years but it will probably be 10k. Or else the tech will be so far out of date it will be rendered worthless. Plus because they are packed with electronic tech no doubt if anything breaks the cost to fix will be so prohibitive, even if the parts are still made, that the car will be scrap. It’s pretty easy and cheap to fix old simple ICE cars.

Last car I scrapped was because it wasn't worth fixing the diesel injectors.

A modern ICE car is a much more complicated machine, with much more electronics, than a modern electric car. A modern engine is an electromechanical device, not something running on carbs and distributors.

[bigothunter]

ITP said:

Like I said, the less well off and young will be effectively denied personal private transport once all the old fiestas and the like have fallen apart. Unless of course they are taxed off the road sooner with blanket ‘low emission zone’ cameras of course. I’m guessing that will get them first actually. But maybe by then all kids will have been brainwashed into thinking those personal freedoms are ‘bad’ for the planet somehow anyway and they won’t want a cheap runabout when they turn 17.

Many (most?) young adults born this millennium are not interested in cars or driving...

[SpeckledJim]

ITP said:

SpeckledJim said:

ITP said:

GT9 said:

Strangely Brown said:

"...a very real issue facing today's motorists - the increasingly large divide between those who can afford a NEW CAR and those who cannot. Are NEW CARS a realistic and practical solution for all?"

FTFY

Try writing it out 50 times, I find it helps:

Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
.....

You do mention it a lot, and it’s true.

Trouble is, a 10 year old leaf, can be classed as a family car no problem, is still 4-5k. Affordable to many more of course. However, a 10 year old leaf has a range of about 50 miles, so it’s virtually useless.

Even 5k is a stretch for many of the poorest in society, who run about in 1-3k fords/Vauxhall etc. plus these will still do 300-400 miles range of course….
It comes back to the (too fast) rush to EV’s effectively pricing less well off people out of being able to have private transportation at all. As their older fords/Vauxhalls etc will be increasingly, punitively taxed off the road via euro 5/6/7 increments for charge zones, with the second hand old EV’s, as above, being useless range wise.
Maybe they could buy a newer petrol car, a euro 5 you may say. That’s great, as fairly soon this will be taxed heavily too when euro 6 is made minimum for charge zones. They have to sell again, losing more money.

But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chose path.

A 2013 Nissan Leaf is a severely limited product. Useful within some constraints. But a 2023 Kia Niro isn't anything like as limiting. It's really rather excellent.

How much does a 2023 Kia Niro with a range of 300 miles cost in 2038?

If they sell 100,000 Kia Niros in 2023 does that make any difference to the 2038 price, compared to a situation where they only sell 1,000?

If you want to see people enjoying cheap used cars in the future (as I do), then you also want to see a huge number of them selling new right now.

What I’m saying is with EV’s there most likely won’t be any ‘cheap’ 2nd hand cars in the future. Sure the Kia may still have a 200 mile range after 10 years but it will probably be 10k. Or else the tech will be so far out of date it will be rendered worthless. Plus because they are packed with electronic tech no doubt if anything breaks the cost to fix will be so prohibitive, even if the parts are still made, that the car will be scrap. It’s pretty easy and cheap to fix old simple ICE cars.

Like I said, the less well off and young will be effectively denied personal private transport once all the old fiestas and the like have fallen apart. Unless of course they are taxed off the road sooner with blanket ‘low emission zone’ cameras of course. I’m guessing that will get them first actually. But maybe by then all kids will have been brainwashed into thinking those personal freedoms are ‘bad’ for the planet somehow anyway and they won’t want a cheap runabout when they turn 17.

This is great. A confident prediction that they'll either be too expensive, or too cheap, but definitely not 'just right'. The aGoldilocks Zone

The forces that drive us Brits to order many more new cars than we really need - which is the reason our used cars are so cheap - aren't going away when an ICE becomes an EV.

We're still going to need to keep up with the Joneses. Whether the Joneses have an X5 or a Model X isn't important.

We're still going to hand millions of new company cars to people who live a mile from the office (and work from home anyway).

If 100,000 Kia Niros hit the roads today, in 15 years they'll be cheap.

[ITP]

SpeckledJim said:

ITP said:

SpeckledJim said:

ITP said:

GT9 said:

Strangely Brown said:

"...a very real issue facing today's motorists - the increasingly large divide between those who can afford a NEW CAR and those who cannot. Are NEW CARS a realistic and practical solution for all?"

FTFY

Try writing it out 50 times, I find it helps:

Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
Only new car buyers can make second hand cars.
.....

You do mention it a lot, and it’s true.

Trouble is, a 10 year old leaf, can be classed as a family car no problem, is still 4-5k. Affordable to many more of course. However, a 10 year old leaf has a range of about 50 miles, so it’s virtually useless.

Even 5k is a stretch for many of the poorest in society, who run about in 1-3k fords/Vauxhall etc. plus these will still do 300-400 miles range of course….
It comes back to the (too fast) rush to EV’s effectively pricing less well off people out of being able to have private transportation at all. As their older fords/Vauxhalls etc will be increasingly, punitively taxed off the road via euro 5/6/7 increments for charge zones, with the second hand old EV’s, as above, being useless range wise.
Maybe they could buy a newer petrol car, a euro 5 you may say. That’s great, as fairly soon this will be taxed heavily too when euro 6 is made minimum for charge zones. They have to sell again, losing more money.

But I guess this is another conversation about forcing some elements of society out of cars altogether, which increasingly appears to be the chose path.

A 2013 Nissan Leaf is a severely limited product. Useful within some constraints. But a 2023 Kia Niro isn't anything like as limiting. It's really rather excellent.

How much does a 2023 Kia Niro with a range of 300 miles cost in 2038?

If they sell 100,000 Kia Niros in 2023 does that make any difference to the 2038 price, compared to a situation where they only sell 1,000?

If you want to see people enjoying cheap used cars in the future (as I do), then you also want to see a huge number of them selling new right now.

What I’m saying is with EV’s there most likely won’t be any ‘cheap’ 2nd hand cars in the future. Sure the Kia may still have a 200 mile range after 10 years but it will probably be 10k. Or else the tech will be so far out of date it will be rendered worthless. Plus because they are packed with electronic tech no doubt if anything breaks the cost to fix will be so prohibitive, even if the parts are still made, that the car will be scrap. It’s pretty easy and cheap to fix old simple ICE cars.

Like I said, the less well off and young will be effectively denied personal private transport once all the old fiestas and the like have fallen apart. Unless of course they are taxed off the road sooner with blanket ‘low emission zone’ cameras of course. I’m guessing that will get them first actually. But maybe by then all kids will have been brainwashed into thinking those personal freedoms are ‘bad’ for the planet somehow anyway and they won’t want a cheap runabout when they turn 17.

This is great. A confident prediction that they'll either be too expensive, or too cheap, but definitely not 'just right'. The aGoldilocks Zone

The forces that drive us Brits to order many more new cars than we really need - which is the reason our used cars are so cheap - aren't going away when an ICE becomes an EV.

We're still going to need to keep up with the Joneses. Whether the Joneses have an X5 or a Model X isn't important.

We're still going to hand millions of new company cars to people who live a mile from the office (and work from home anyway).

If 100,000 Kia Niros hit the roads today, in 15 years they'll be cheap.

I hope you’re right.