Excellent article. I'm sure my kids roll their eyes when I mention articles such as yours. Young people seem to be much more believing than they used. Aren't kids supposed to be the sceptics? "But what about the science?" they say and roll their eyes some more. It's just dad reading too many conspiracy theory books. There was a time when I was deeply pessimistic about the future but now I'm the opposite. There are many problems but the world is still a much better place than it was even 70 years ago when I was born. People should be reminded of that.
From what I understand there are two targets for global warming, an ambitious one of 1.5C and a less ambitious one of 2C. Last time I looked we were already more than 1 degree above historic temperatures but really hardly anything has changed. None of the terrible predictions have happened. It's true that winters are a little milder and summers are a little warmer although you wouldn't think that today in the UK. It's chilly. When I hear the climate activists they seem to be expecting that when we reach the 1.5C that'll be the end, like a cliff edge. They talk about tipping points all the time, telling scary stories like kids around the camp fire.
It's a talk given by Mark Mills from the Manhatten Institute to a Danish Investment fund called Skagen. He explains why the transition from Fossil Fuels to renewables is not possible because we can't mine the minerals needed fast enough ( by a long way). It made sense to me and I think Mark Mills and the Manhatten Institute are respectable bodies.
In a way I see the effort to require all vehicles to become EVs by some date seems to deny reality. Already we see the cost of solar panels beginning to level and are now beginning to increase slightly. Whether that means we have reached in limits of improvement in current technology is unknown; it may very well mean that raw material costs are rising. In a similar vein has Li-ion technology reached some limit and the raw material costs will begin to limit the future. We can't solve the environmental issues of refining rare earths in the US and have allowed those costs to China, but how long will the Chinese accept damages as their demographics change?
We might be able to build a hydrogen vehicle economy once a lot of technical issues are resolved. Maybe the resistance of the oil lobby will decline. Still a lot of investment is needed which requires cheap energy to free those resources.
Is our confidence in engineering the world and society part of a Puritanical will to "build a city on a hill"? (Is it more of a phenomenon in the Anglosphere?) Or, as some might suggest, is it part of the darker aspects of the legacy of the Enlightenment? Light and dark, "chiaroscuro".
I'm sure you're calculations are correct but there there does seem to be confusion on some websites as to what ppm means and I did find one which stated that 400ppm was referring to a mass ratio of g/kg even in a gas which I think is wrong. It's further complicated by the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases are often converted to the CO2 equivalent. I think data from the UK's department of energy and climate change multiply by a factor depending on the gas. So for example methane emissions are multiplied by a factor of 25. So they give data on greenhouse gas emissions as CO2 equivalent which includes all green house gas emissions not just CO2. I don't suppose they include water vapour in that though.
Excellent article. I'm sure my kids roll their eyes when I mention articles such as yours. Young people seem to be much more believing than they used. Aren't kids supposed to be the sceptics? "But what about the science?" they say and roll their eyes some more. It's just dad reading too many conspiracy theory books. There was a time when I was deeply pessimistic about the future but now I'm the opposite. There are many problems but the world is still a much better place than it was even 70 years ago when I was born. People should be reminded of that.
From what I understand there are two targets for global warming, an ambitious one of 1.5C and a less ambitious one of 2C. Last time I looked we were already more than 1 degree above historic temperatures but really hardly anything has changed. None of the terrible predictions have happened. It's true that winters are a little milder and summers are a little warmer although you wouldn't think that today in the UK. It's chilly. When I hear the climate activists they seem to be expecting that when we reach the 1.5C that'll be the end, like a cliff edge. They talk about tipping points all the time, telling scary stories like kids around the camp fire.
I thought you might be interested in this if you haven't already seen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg
It's a talk given by Mark Mills from the Manhatten Institute to a Danish Investment fund called Skagen. He explains why the transition from Fossil Fuels to renewables is not possible because we can't mine the minerals needed fast enough ( by a long way). It made sense to me and I think Mark Mills and the Manhatten Institute are respectable bodies.
"Younger people today!"
Yes, where are all the rebels?
In a way I see the effort to require all vehicles to become EVs by some date seems to deny reality. Already we see the cost of solar panels beginning to level and are now beginning to increase slightly. Whether that means we have reached in limits of improvement in current technology is unknown; it may very well mean that raw material costs are rising. In a similar vein has Li-ion technology reached some limit and the raw material costs will begin to limit the future. We can't solve the environmental issues of refining rare earths in the US and have allowed those costs to China, but how long will the Chinese accept damages as their demographics change?
We might be able to build a hydrogen vehicle economy once a lot of technical issues are resolved. Maybe the resistance of the oil lobby will decline. Still a lot of investment is needed which requires cheap energy to free those resources.
Reassuring thesis, reasonably voiced.
Is science, in the manner of a religion, putting humanity at the centre of the climate disaster universe and missing 'big forces'?
Original sin. We just love to hate ourselves.
Well said, brother. Sump'n to that.
Is our confidence in engineering the world and society part of a Puritanical will to "build a city on a hill"? (Is it more of a phenomenon in the Anglosphere?) Or, as some might suggest, is it part of the darker aspects of the legacy of the Enlightenment? Light and dark, "chiaroscuro".
I'm sure you're calculations are correct but there there does seem to be confusion on some websites as to what ppm means and I did find one which stated that 400ppm was referring to a mass ratio of g/kg even in a gas which I think is wrong. It's further complicated by the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases are often converted to the CO2 equivalent. I think data from the UK's department of energy and climate change multiply by a factor depending on the gas. So for example methane emissions are multiplied by a factor of 25. So they give data on greenhouse gas emissions as CO2 equivalent which includes all green house gas emissions not just CO2. I don't suppose they include water vapour in that though.
Thanks for another solid essay. Not sure that we can stop the CO2 religion anytime soon given the schools indoctrination.