You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The rate at which the world burns oil.
I'm currently reading Andri Snær Magnason's book "On Time and Water" which is about climate change and the melting of glaciers.
One of the striking figures is this one, which in terms of a waterfall looks like this:
On top of that we're burning 600kg of coal for everyone on the planet annually.
So you know there's a problem, how much of it are you? And what can you do to be a less of a problem?
The heating threads on this very forum demonstrate how reluctant people are to use alternative energy sources and less polluting solutions because they cost more and are posibly more difficult/complicated.
The fundamental problem is that the most polluting option is often the cheapest, easiest one.
With reference to heating threads - if you have mains gas then that is almost certainly going to be the cheapest, easiest way to heat your house, so that is what 99% of people will choose.
The only way that is going to change is if the consumption of fossil fuels is priced in such a way that it takes into account all of the environmental cost, so filling your car with petrol/diesel is fine, but will cost £500 for 50 litres. Flying to Dubai on holiday is allowed, but will come with a fuel surcharge of £5k per seat. Heating your home with oil fired heating is ok, but it will cost 10x as much to fill the tank.
If that happens then people will start to make decisions that reflect the fact that if we carry on as we are then by the time our grandchildren are getting old:
the seas are going to have risen by several metres, flooding many settlements
large parts of previously cultivated land will become desert
the collapse of many ecosystems will have taken place
People will not do it "for the good of the planet". They will only do it when it makes sense for them and their families.
The only way that is going to change is if the consumption of fossil fuels is priced in such a way that it takes into account all of the environmental cost, so filling your car with petrol/diesel is fine, but will cost £500 for 50 litres. Flying to Dubai on holiday is allowed, but will come with a fuel surcharge of £5k per seat. Heating your home with oil fired heating is ok, but it will cost 10x as much to fill the tank.
I agree but how do you get the Canadians, Saudis or Americans to do that? They're using 3-4 times as much as us per capita. Need some kind of global agreement but I can't see it ever happening. Hopefully the EU can do something on it as part of their trade deals.
I'm of an age where I've been pouring petrol and diesel into vehicles for about 45 years. It was only a couple of years ago that I actually thought about what 50 litres of fuel actually looks like. You know, imagine a 50 litre container on your driveway/Street, and then how about how far that actually took me. Then multiply that by how many times I'd have to refill that container each year. Visualising the volume actually did have an effect on me. My annual mileage has plummeted from a high of 30k miles per year to less than 3k now.
by the time our grandchildren are getting old
By the time our children getting old and whilst sea level has only risen slightly the other points are here and now and accelerating.
We're about to find out what happens when the Arctic sea ice goes, it's been getting thinner and the next step is much reduced extent. Lots of water where there once was sea, you think the weather is crap now... .
Syria has lost so much agricultural land that war or no war there's little point anyone staying there. Much of the African north coast lost its population to desertification when there were no CO2 emisions, just poor land mangaement. In SW France farmers are changing crops in response to changing climatic conditions already.
I could write pages of this but it's not going to change anything, the advice on the heating threads will still be dominantly "gas" and "if you insulate an old house you'll have problems with damp". The information to the contrary is out there, people prefer to ignore it and burn fossil fuels.
Its interesting that a lot of commentators think its an age thing to poo-poo climate change.
I had a discussion with my son last night (30 years younger than me)
He was just of the opinion that nobody will want to take up electric vehicles, for example, because they are too expensive.
I could not get him to understand that part of the purpose of yesterdays announcement is to generate jobs in 'new industries'.
It will be the motor manufacturers challenge by innovation etc to get the price today (Tesla c. £80K) down in 10 years to £25K, an average car price that is 'affordable', or the manufacturer goes out of business, probably to be taken up by another.
Just think of the potential new jobs creation. He could not see that argument.
People don't ignore the advice - they just do the maths and find that the cheapest, simplest thing to do is burn fossil fuels.
If there was only a small difference in price and convenience then a lot of people would choose the green option. Battery powered cars are approaching that point, and for many users have already reached it.
The fundamental problem with building the environmental cost of things into the price is that the only mechanism to do it by is taxation. Who is going to vote for a party that pledges to massively increase the price of almost everything?
It was only a couple of years ago that I actually thought about what 50 litres of fuel actually looks like. You know, imagine a 50 litre container on your driveway/Street, and then how about how far that actually took me.
That same visualisation strikes me in the opposite way. In a modern vehicle a 2 litre bottle of fuel will transport 5 people and a bunch of gear almost 50km. Hydrocarbons have an impressively high energy density, one of the reasons they are proving to be hard to displace.
In the case of a good number of petrolhead anti-eco posters on this forum it's not even a matter of cost, it's a philosophy. The know they don't need a huge SUV or 400bhp estate, they know it'll pollute more, they know it has less interior space and is less practical they know it costs more, but they want it and hell they'll buy it if only to piss out of the greens.
This was a contribution to the house thread
Before the green wash get here. Based on what you have another gas boiler
It's provocative, anti-green.
There are some well-formed thinking responses:
Insulate, draught proof then consider how to heat the property, although be careful with old buildings. Seek expert advice, you can use a wood fibre insulation (Stieco is a brand I have come across the most) that is then lime rendered.
but the majority of posts on car and house threads on here could be summed up as "bollocks to the environment", and this is a cycling forum.
It's not just cost it's a mindset, willful sqandering to impress a peer group with a same values, or lack thereof.
I think the price of EVs is going to be the biggest sticking point when it comes to buying new. Charge times and range will fade from the decision making process, as they improve and (most) people realise how little they need a car for.
ATM the price difference between a new Pug 208 petrol/EV is around £12k - £16.5k vs £28.5k according to What Car.
That's not a small difference
Where will people actually charge them? Most people don't have off-street parking, especially in cities.
Compared with solving the problem of dealing with the whole of London (and every other coastal city) being underwater I think that installing charging points in the street will be a minor issue.
It’s not just cost it’s a mindset, willful sqandering to impress a peer group with a same values, or lack thereof.
Maybe they're just trolling you? After all you do tend to pontificate 🤔
ATM the price difference between a new Pug 208 petrol/EV is around £12k – £16.5k vs £28.5k according to What Car.
Concentrating on the purchase price rather than life time running costs to the owner is an example of anti-green propaganda. Are you quoting with or without goverment incentives?
Check out the Electric car thread on this forum and you'll find that many owners may little or nothing to charge and have lease deals that are very competitive.
Of course it's even better if households can reduce the number of cars they own as well as reducing use and changing to electric because if ever we a to reach the carbon neutral staement of Mrs May us prols are going to be in busses, trams, train and on bikes.
Maybe they’re just trolling you? After all you do tend to pontificate
Oh I know they are, but it's not just me, they are trolling the whole of society. Even when I'm absent they'll pick on whomever is defending the green cause.
Are they really buying that diesel thing to annoy me, or install that radiator in the glass conservatory to annoy me. I'd be flattered if they were but I think their statement is to the people they know in real life rather than some anonymous bod on a bike forum.
According to someone on 5live yesterday (from Vauxhall Cars, I think), the economics of EVs are getting much, much better. Therefore, the initial cost has to be factored with overall mileage economy and maintenance to do a fair economic evaluation. If I recall correctly, recharge Vs refill costs per mile are about 7x more for diesel over electric. This guy also reckoned there were very few maintenance costs associated with EVs.
When I have visited some countries, like Russia, Kazakhstan and Colombia, for example, their reliance on coal and (heavy) oil is so great and their reserves of these resources are so significant, that I do wonder how on Earth they will manage to reduce their reliance on them. When you factor in that average people in most countries (the non-G7 ones) don't change their vehicles unless they can't fix them anymore, it is difficult to see a big uptake anytime soon, outside of the affluent parts of the big cities.
Its almost unfathomable. How many millions of years it took to "produce" all that oil, coal, gas (ie sequest all that carbon) vs how quickly we're spewing it back out is the current thing in my head that scares the bejesus out of me.
Therefore, the initial cost has to be factored with overall mileage economy and maintenance to do a fair economic evaluation.
Not unless something creative happens with financing. You don't buy your petrol car and a lifetime's supply of petrol all in one go. So whilst an EV might be cheaper in the long run if you can't find the cash for one right now, then it's not happening.
Aye, it's hard to get your head around the fact that in a relatively microscopic period of time we've absolutely trashed our planet, and I agree it is very scary. I just can't see a way out of it. I think about the climate emergency almost daily.
On one of the other threads someone said that it was a privilege to be in a position to worry about such threats (or something along those lines) when some people have such immediate and short term worries about the next rent payment or putting food on the table. I hadn't thought if it in those terms before and it does make me understand that just to be worrying about it, I am in a very fortunate position.
Technology is a wonderful thing and if we look at the advances in medical science it truly is a wonder, and living standards have improved dramatically compared to 150 years ago, but at what cost?
I try and do my bit but it just feels like pissing into the wind. I've changed a lot of things in the last 12 months but there is still a ways to go for me personally.
It's interesting how we tend to fixate on cars in threads about "going green". They are only a small fraction of our energy use (10%?), but we devote a disproportionate amount of energy to thinking about them and ways of making them greener.
molgrips: agreed, but there's a lot of people that pay for cars (and bikes) using finance. If EV running costs are lower, perhaps repayments could be higher. I'm no expert, but I know that people in finance can be fiendishly creative.
Think that waterfall is the one off the opening sequence in Prometheus isn't it?
Hopefully the EU can do something on it as part of their trade deals.
Not sure the EU are to be held up on a pedestal on this one. Germany's disastrous energy policy saw them not only increase their use of fossil fuels (double ours for similar population), but made it more expensive for their population and increased their dependancy on Russian gas, so a disaster environmentally, economically and politically. Not holding out much hope for the Italians or the Eastern European nations. The scandi nations were always cleaner, but only because they have an abundance of hydro electric resources so why wouldn't they be - and Norway needs to export their oil and gas to feed their sovereign wealth fund, so don't want to consume it themselves But happy for others to consume it for them... so motivations are not due to climate change so they can't claim the moral high ground on this. The French are showing the way with Nuclear, but people are ignorant about Nuclear so don't like it and discount it.
The UK is doing our bit...almost 50% of our energy is from clean/renewable sources and increasing, people are insulating their homes at an alarming rate, acres of solar panels popping up on house roof's and in farmers fields and there is hardly a view in the whole of Scotland where you can't see a wind farm or off the NE coastline, and by 2030 we will only be able to buy EV's or Hybrids so our CO2 emissions are on the way down.
Does require the big fossil fuel burners to move the needle though - US, India, China and Russia are almost 60% of global CO2 emissions.
Re: EVs - do the cost models take into account the battery replacement after 7-10ish years?
The total cost of ownership for the consumer for the products lifespan is not the same as costing up the building of it, running it etc. I'm yet to see this detailed level of comparison. Does it exist?
Concentrating on the purchase price rather than life time running costs to the owner is an example of anti-green propaganda.
Anti green, really? I can only speak for myself with any certainty. My running costs for my current car - Citroen C1 - are around £600-£700 per year. Includes "tax" insurance, MOT, servicing and petrol. That's been pretty consistent over the 8 years I've owned it, and it's got a few more years left in it. At that rate, it'll take 18+ years just to recoup the price difference.
You may be in a position where an extra £12k doesn't matter, and seriously, good for you. But many people aren't, and even with all the best intentions in the world, they aren't going to be stumping up that extra money.
Hopefully (though I somehow doubt it) EV prices will come down to what the fossil burners would have been when the ban comes in
Concentrating on the purchase price rather than life time running costs to the owner is an example of anti-green propaganda
No it's not. Up-front cost is pretty important when you've got to find the money from somewhere!
The main people that need to be persuaded aren't those into bangernomics. It's the new buyers. I was replying to a comparison between two new cars posted by someone else.
Even if you are into bangernomics you should be comparing second-hand electric prices and running costs with the ICE equivalent. If you want a commuter and a second-hand Leaf will do it on a charge make that comparison, not with a new electric. Though if you check out the cost of leasing and running a Leaf you might find the up-front cost and running costs are in budget.
How much is a set of batteries for an old Prius or Leaf or Zoe?
Without a good public transport system cars are going to be here for a long time
It's notthe cost as such that ours me off alternative fuels it is the cost uncertainty. People like their life expenses to be predictable and easy to plan, and novel fuel sources are not that.
If it's an old Zoé the battery will be on a lease so you get a new one when it's down to x percent of capacity. A new battery for a Leaf depends on how much you can get for the old one for example:
https://hackaday.com/2020/10/23/battery-swap-gives-nissan-leaf-new-lease-on-life/
ElShalimo
Full Member
Re: EVs – do the cost models take into account the battery replacement after 7-10ish years?
I see your point, I drive a knackered old diesel which is probably destined for scrap once im done with it. Realistically the least environmentally costly way for me to get arround at the moment.
But does the cost of £1.08 diesel at ASDA at the moment take into account the need for a new planet in 7-10 years time. Hyperbole, of course but not by a huge ammount.
I used to work at a big yellow digger company, manufacturing massive generators, purely for standby power on oilfields. Most likely, these machines were never used. All this expense, materials, manufacturing and shipping them out to Saudi, for what?
The thing that cracked me up most was the strict rules about recycling a few kilos of cardboard every week. Like that matters!
The green economy rhetoric is just another fashion statement from a bunch of muppets who have no clue about the environment and want to be cool. I don't believe a word of it.
If we could re-frame the wider conversation into "how can we make revenue from providing well designed, well thought out green solutions?" then things will improve.
At the moment the big companies haven't quite worked out how to monetize climate change .. That time will come though. Soon, hopefully!
molgrips: agreed, but there’s a lot of people that pay for cars (and bikes) using finance.
Yes. How about government 0% loans for EVs? Or a govt lease plan that's really good value? Or pre-tax?
How much is a set of batteries for an old Prius or Leaf or Zoe?
We have an old Prius, it had a battery failure. They fail cell by cell. I bought a cell for £30 from ebay, but had another failure - turns out I'd replaced one where you have to replace pairs. The garage charged me £450 for a full diagnostic and four cells, which is a bit steep, but they said they'd halve that if any more went.
A reasonable bill, for sure, but I've had the car for 14 years and the total repair (excluding consumables and service) bill is now at £850. First £400 was fuel related not battery.
The green economy rhetoric is just another fashion statement from a bunch of muppets who have no clue about the environment and want to be cool. I don’t believe a word of it.
Some of it is, some isn't.
Without a good public transport system cars are going to be here for a long time
Absolutely this.
Without a good public transport system cars are going to be here for a long time
Exactly.
The 'REDUCE' comes first. Better insulation before a new boiler. Fewer car journeys, more biking and walking. Local food, and don't water waste it.
We're not addressing the basic issues yet - but arguing that electric is better than a diesel.
Re: EVs – do the cost models take into account the battery replacement after 7-10ish years?
Depends on a number of things - Teslas new battery tech being introduced with the S Plaid next year is being promoted with a 2 million mile lifespan, which basically means well beyond the likely life of the car itself, and the batteries can then be upcycled into domestic power storage units, or even put into another car!
You need a stronger commitment to pubic transport for any reduction in oil usage. Look at the difference in China/India when everyone stopped riding bikes to work.
There are limiting factors to renewables, such as the transmission costs from a windfarm will go up as they are placed further away from cities and it's never sunny in the UK so solar panels are a waste of time.
In reality, you have to build new nuclear power stations atm to satisfy the kind of demand we have, or reduce consumption.
Surely everyone has seen this cyclist powering a toaster:
Just gives an idea of the immense amount of energy required to perform a basic task!
it’s never sunny in the UK so solar panels are a waste of time.
Dear me, have a look at the PV threads on this forum and check out the production figures people are getting.
Where did you get your information from, finefilly? Please post a link.
I can't see any way that we're going to stop burning all the oil, gas and coal while it's so cheap and easy to do so.
I also can't see any way that it's going to become more expensive or inconvenient to keep burning. The world's leaders are never going to get their heads together and enact the kind of tax rises required to do that when it would have such a negative short-term effect on their people.
The only hope is that green energy becomes so cheap that it makes burning fossil fuels look expensive.
I really can't see how that is going to happen either, so I conclude we're doomed to suffer all the worst effects of climate change.
That's the fatalistic view. An ELF geologist (now TOTAL) said to me "every drop of oil that can be extracted and burned will be". It'l only stop when there's non left.
He's probably right but everyone who reduces their direct and indirect consumption reduces the flow of that waterfall in the opening post. The slower the flow the slower the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and teh more time for it to find its way into carbon sinks.
And that's the other end of the problem, at the same time as we are emitting more we are destroying carbon sinks both on land and in the oceans, double trouble.
@Edukator - I know you're interested in CC, so fill your boots with this. It's a really interesting bit of research. I saw him deliver this at a conference in Zurich last year.
He's really disorganised. He says the maths in his own graphics are dodgy (why didn't he check them) and he expresses himself badly. I ended up having no idea whether he should be taken seriously.
"we do not know which answer is right" sums up his presentation. "Who knows what climate change is doing" (repeatedly); "all the models can be wrong". "we've gotten close to nowhere on it in many years", "you have to make the assumtion that would change with climate" (well why wouldn't it?)
It's painful to watch.
He eventually gets around to saying theat aerosols won't be protecting us anymore and global warming is increasing, and that the Atlantic is likely to follow Pacific trends (which aren't good right). But failed to commit to the obvious statement - hurricanes are going to get more frequent and more powerful from here on in.
Who is he funded by (oficially and unofficially)? Who funded and hosted the conference? what are a bunch of Yanks (both presenter and audience - al th equestions at the end) doing in Zurich, were there any non-anglo-saxon guests?
Checking a couple of the references on his presentation a lot of this is old hat and he's selective in his choices of reference.
I'd have asked for my money back. 😉
That video was from Miami. As stated earlier "I saw him deliver this (meaning the presentation) at a conference in Zurich last year". That was an insurance conference, where everyone spoke English regardless of where they were from. He was a guest speaker to present a scientific research perspective on something that the wider industry is trying to quantify. Of ~200 attendees there were only a handful of North Americans.
But failed to commit to the obvious statement – hurricanes are going to get more frequent and more powerful from here on in.
There's no absolute guarantee of this so why would he he commit to it?
What's your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?
How much is a set of batteries for an old Prius or Leaf or Zoe?
I can tell you to get a new battery fitted in one of our Mitsubishi PHEVS when it got damaged was around £13000 and it was off the road for 4 months.
What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?
I'll stick to France and say that in terms of localised tornados there's no significant change over recent decades. In terms of cyclones there's been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency. The problem with putting numbers on it is that data pre-satelites was poor so there are only 40 years or so of reliable data. Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.
All this is really well documented and has been the subject of documentaries in France and Germany, the main channels I watch. If you speak French the Meteo France site has articles on just about every aspect of climate that could interest an insurer. And they aren't afraid of stating there's an increase when they find one.
Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.
You may well remember Lothar & Martin but there were also clusters of strong storms in 1990 and many strong individual storms in the 60s & 70s e.g. Capella. Decent scientific instrumentation has existed for while but the the advent of satellites and computers has helped improve this. We do have some good data for 60+ years.
In terms of cyclones there’s been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency.
I don't agree with this. What we've seen is not conclusive enough and the largest storm we've seen in recent years was probably in 1990.
I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change. The signal from CC is not a strong one.
However, it is undeniable that we will get more flooding (fluvial, pluvial and coastal) from CC and there is almost a consensus on that (which is rare in any scientific discussion )
Solar (in the UK) is a waste of time considering the alternatives. The UK is more windy than sunny. Solar panels generate very little output for a given surface area and cost. You need acres and acres to get a few MW, which can be achieved by one wind turbine. Fine if you have a south facing roof (or better still, panels which track the sun) but for energy generation on an industrial scale in the UK, wind is a much better option. You musn't forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can't be grazed by sheep as well. This opportunity cost is much lower for wind, although maybe transmission costs are higher as they are likely to be further away from areas of high demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom
Without wanting to state the blooming obvious but greenness and energy consumption is a lot more complex than just do you own a gas boiler, suv, or insulate your house to the nth degree.
- a 400bhp suv used one a week is going to use less energy than a sensible car being run for every journey; could you cycle or walk instead
- electric cars need charging this energy needs to be generated some how which might be burning fossil fuels.
- what do you eat, meat industry is pretty carbon intensive. Where does it come from, berries from Morocco or just seasonal veg.
- do you have a dog - meat consumption etc
- how often do you wash; every day or more is going to require more energy than every other day. Power shower or gravity fed etc
- how often do you wash your clothes
- do you watch Netflix; all that data is on a cloud somewhere that Is chugging out a cloud of smoke to power it
- do you drink tea or cold drinks. Someone on 10 cups a day is going to use a lot more energy than someone on waters
- do you own a filthy sex pond
- do you live in a big house, could you cope with a smaller one.
Etc etc.
The bottom line is everything man does is pretty bad for the environment. You might be badder in one area but better in others. Capitalist society is such that people are encouraged to be selfish. Adverts never show the sexy girl being snagged by the sweaty chap cycling to work but rather the one negotiating the speed bump in a cool SUV. The only way anything will change is if it is forced on companies/people and even then there will be compromise. E.g. the move away from plastic Is going to push up energy consumption as a glass bottle used once is much more energy intensives in both production and transport than a plastic one.
Now how would you get more flooding without bigger storms dumping more water, El Shalimo. 🙂
The signal from CC is not a strong one.
That's what the man in the vid said. Other signals he mentions include aerosols which he says are decreasing due to lower soot emissions. He said they are falling without much justification. Global coal consumption and oil consumption are stil rising:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-coal-consumption-1978-2019
with China producing lots so his conclusion that aerosols have a decreasing role in preventing large storms strikes me as odd. Intuitively the opposite of what the man said is true and aerosols are still masking the effects of CC.
We have enjoyed a remarkably calm period in volcanicity. The last explosion to put up enough dust to give red sunsets worldwide was 1883 and a big enough one to give significant cooling and crop failures was 1815. Mount st Helens went off more sideways than up.
If ever China and India do clean up their acts then the masking effect will go and we'll get the full impact of CC due to CO2. If the short term trend in that coal graph is confirmed that starts now.
Why wouldn't the Atlantic behave in the same way as the Pacific as water temperatures rise? Every graph I've seen shows a steady climb in Atlantic temperatures most everywhere. Warmer water means more energy, more evaporation, bigger storms.
If you're a gambling man which insurance companies are, don't bet against things getting worse.
The signal from CC is not a strong one.
I'm referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
It's just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.
Also don't need bigger storms to get more flooding. Fluvial flooding is not often due to storms, antecedent conditions are more important than storms. Pluvial usually is and coastal flooding is normally due to sea surge from storms. Add to that rising areas levels, coastal erosion, isostatic rebound etc and you'll quickly see it's not a simple thing.
If you look at North Atlantic Oscillation, El Niño, La Niña variability you get water in different places etc
It’s just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.
However that's what a lot of studies show and gets repeated on local news every time there's an Episode Cévenol. Metéo France are prediciting that as the temperature of the Med rises so will the intensity of the episodes (storms).
Edit to add:
The news is for the general population and has to be dumbed down to a digestible format.
How many times have you watched the news discussing something that you actually know a lot about, or have worked in for years, and they simply get it wrong or use outdated thinking?
A great example is when they say flood defences failed when a 5m flood overtops a 4m flood defence. The defence did not fail, the flood exceeded the flood levels it was designed for. The Tohuko earthquake tsunami was up to 28m high in places so the 10m tsunami defences had no chance (exacerbated by 150km of coastline dropping 1.5m in the earthquake). The media says they failed... 🤦
Anglo-Saxon news may be dumbed down, I live somewhere they credit the population with a minimum of intelligence, enough to understand. And they generally call on the right people to comment rather than the first climate change sceptic that offers their services. 🙂
You're sounding very much like a sceptic and linking "don't knows". Go on check out that graph on the Méteo France link I added and try to denay a trend.
Incidentally if you're looking for oudated your man in the video up there has graphs that are well out of date missing between 5 and 15 years of recent data. Updating would significantly change his conclusions.
You're misreading this. I'm simply stating that it's not as simple as you suggest. If it was we'd have a consensus within the scientific community and be diligently working on mitigation rather than still trying to understand these extremely complicated and dynamic systems.
Go back and read my posts. I'm trying to demonstrate that it really isn't simple.
Insurance companies know all about the increasing risk. They are investing millions in trying to understand this. They tend to write business on an annual basis but they know that tomorrow is not going to be the same as today. In real terms the day to day claims are irrelevant - they're just cashflow, it's the large events that affect their solvency and capital requirements. This is why we have EIOPA, Solvency II, etc.
As you're in France just look at what companies AXA, CCR, SCOR are researching right now. Check out Groupama too
I'm not suggesting it's simple either. Your man in the vid waffles around but fails to say what he put into his models and what he left out. A few seconds of thought says that things he should consider:
Al the satelite data, measured sea surface temperature at different points, measured air temperatures, measured wind speeds, aerosol influence at a global level, volcanic activity, ice sheet extent, solar output, CO2 and other greenhouse gases... .
He was vague on his model because it's crap, modelling the weather/climate is the stuff of national weather centres using some of the most powerful computers on the planet. He's dabbling and out of his depth. I'll take Méteo France over him, they have the expertise, the monitoring capability, the satelite data and the computer power to crunch the numbers.
Do you think they’re the only ones with rather impressive computing resources?
Yes, in a word, the national weather organisations have the most computing capacity and way beyond your bod in Miami. And getting more impressive, even in lil' ol' UK:
What are your credentials? Could you do it better?
I was the first name on the first UK paper pubished on lake liming as a response to surface water acidification. I'd like to think I was one of those who contributed to getting scrubbers added to UK power stations. I set up the rain water quality monitoring network in Wales. All that is long time ago though. I long ago decided that fighting causes isn't for me.
In short I'm a scientist, geologist by initial training.
As for whether I could do better, I wouldn't even try, I'd leave it to people far more expert than me who are already working on it. I'm too old, too lazy and to slow thinking these days.
That doesn't stop me recognising when someone is out his depth which the guy in your video is.
I think climate modelling is better done by organisiations financed by taxes with the public interest at heart rather than universities funded by the private sector with vested interests.
I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change. The signal from CC is not a strong one.
I think that the science community is playing up things like the ice-free Arctic to help get their message across. I'm sure they are fully aware of natural variability.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/26/adam-sobel-testifies-extreme-weather/
Seems he's changed his tune. 🙂
"“Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change,” he said."
@molgrips - awareness of it and being able to quantify it are sadly two very different things
Well now he's stopped saying "don't know" Sobel has testified before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and said:
Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change
So now he has joined the concensus are you happy to agree with him (and me)?
You musn’t forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can’t be grazed by sheep as well.
Sheep are used for keeping the grass down under solar panels to cut maintainance costs:
In Spain the solar panels reduce water consumption and direct sun damge for some crops.
Solar panels are compatible with and can enhance agricultural production.
I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
Didn't you read this?
The heating threads on this very forum demonstrate how reluctant people are to use alternative energy sources and less polluting solutions because they cost more and are posibly more difficult/complicated.
I have gas heating, but I was seriously looking at getting solar PV panels fitted when they were being offered with grants, etc, but due to the shape of my roof, it wasn’t possible to fit enough panels to generate enough to make it viable.
Maybe the Tesla roof tiles would be an option, but there’s no way I could fund them myself.
I did, I read this too:
What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?
I've replied to that much more general question with a series of links that support my stated view and suggestions for your further research. If you don't like it you don't have to agree with it but there's no need to get unpleasant and insistent about it, eh.
You're getting insistent about the wind component, I'm not fussed about one component, I'm happy with a more global appreciation which even Sobel is happy to testify - increased hurricane risk.
You're unlikely to find an answer to your question because a bigger more powerful storm won't necessarily have higher wind speeds if the extra energy in the storm is spread over a bigger area.
To answer a specific question about wind speed you need to identify the type of cyclones with the highest wind speeds and whether they are likley to be proportionately represented in the predicted increased frequency of cyclones in general.
Good luck researching.
it’s never sunny in the UK so solar panels are a waste of time.
My PV panels fund all my household energy expenditure throughout the year.
I've got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.
I do, however 20k miles a year; moving closer to work isn't an option... EVs wouldn't work for me at all right now. Hoping biofuels (again pretty CO2 neutral and requiring fewer new units to be built as cars can be adapted) become the answer.
Unfortunately, our government confuse whats right for London to be whats right for the rest of the UK.
Solar is good the further south you go, wind the further north. Generally speaking.
Everywhere has its challenges and strengths, its about recognising them and using the appropriate technologies rather than a stupid one size fits all solution.
Other people can read, Elshalimo, I'm answering the quesions you keep asking to the best of my knowledge. You word your questions to try and trip me up and fall flat on your face trying because the guy you linked to demostrate we don't know and that there's a lack of consensus has testified with consensus that CC will lead to higher hurricane risk. As for you last two posts:
Penultimate post
I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
last post
I never mentioned windspeed
I can't be the only one to wonder just what you are asking about.
If you've learned you don't like the answers I give you to direct questions to me, there's a simple solution, don't ask me questions you aren't going to like the answer to. In short stop trolling.
I’ve got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.
CO2 neutral my arse, you are still burning stuff! Grow trees for building materials etc for carbon capture, biomass is generally just greenwash.
Reduced usage should still be the primary objective, dial ya heating back a degree or two, wear a jumper etc etc
Dickyboy, oh please!
The trees absorb CO2. A similar amount is released back to atmosphere in burning.
Pretty Eco, I'd say. Particularly when oil or Calor gas are my options right now. I back on to a wood at the top of my garden and that will more than cater for my needs....
I'm also a big fan of a jumper and strict heating discipline; don't make assumptions about people you don't know!
I think you're confusing neutral and negative. I don't ever profess to being carbon negative, as much as I'd like to.