Alfa Romeo 4C Forums banner

161 - 180 of 202 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Breaking my promise now - again - but I thought before anyone sells their cars and becomes reduced to watching them only on Netflix.. that won't do I'm afraid.
"One hour of netflix equals 10 hours driving a car"
Nothing short of either living in a tree or full-on Seppuku will do.
It's been nice to have known you.

Meanwhile while you contemplate how to eliminate yourself from the face of the earth: be afraid, be very afraid.
Hot, hot, hot (similar urgent story in June 2019, but hey, you can't warn clearly enough)

Or, no, no, sorry we were exaggerating.

Actually, I should not be negative about that one. It seems an honest attempt to make for a more credible story and approach.
This article in Nature points out that for too long those with an agenda had a free podium to pitch the worst case RCP8.5 scenario as "business as usual". See my previous posts comparing actual data vs projections per models. As per the article: "more-realistic baselines make for better policy"

You can choose your approach depending on how guilty you would like to feel, I suppose.
You may even want to feel guilty for this... as it begs the question what is the real pollutant.

104713
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,711 Posts
Breaking my promise now - again - but I thought before anyone sells their cars and becomes reduced to watching them only on Netflix.. that won't do I'm afraid.
"One hour of netflix equals 10 hours driving a car"
Nothing short of either living in a tree or full-on Seppuku will do.
It's been nice to have known you.

Meanwhile while you contemplate how to eliminate yourself from the face of the earth: be afraid, be very afraid.
Hot, hot, hot (similar urgent story in June 2019, but hey, you can't warn clearly enough)

Or, no, no, sorry we were exaggerating.

Actually, I should not be negative about that one. It seems an honest attempt to make for a more credible story and approach.
This article in Nature points out that for too long those with an agenda had a free podium to pitch the worst case RCP8.5 scenario as "business as usual". See my previous posts comparing actual data vs projections per models. As per the article: "more-realistic baselines make for better policy"

You can choose your approach depending on how guilty you would like to feel, I suppose.
You may even want to feel guilty for this... as it begs the question what is the real pollutant.

View attachment 104713
This is why I like this thread. There are some clever individuals presenting reasoned arguments. On both sides. And we can do it (mostly) without totally ridiculing those with opposing views.

And I agree that we haven’t, despite all of the “green investment and good intentions” solved or come close to the problem of sustainability. However, in my opinion, that does not mean we should not try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
But yet, I have a question. A serious question. I hesitate to ask bc I'm sure it'll come off as argumentative, but here goes-
How can you guys that believe this stuff drive a car, let alone buy a new car, wear the clothes and shoes you do and live in the houses I presume you live in? It seems to me that if you really believed in the outlook you paint, you'd get off the grid, have no children and be a self sustaining person. You would certainly not be buying and driving what you drive. It seems hypocritical to me. Please explain.
And to speak to the politican issue...I reference the book I hated reading in school, yet love now. Animal Farm - All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
But yet, I have a question. A serious question. I hesitate to ask bc I'm sure it'll come off as argumentative, but here goes-
How can you guys that believe this stuff drive a car, let alone buy a new car, wear the clothes and shoes you do and live in the houses I presume you live in? It seems to me that if you really believed in the outlook you paint, you'd get off the grid, have no children and be a self sustaining person. You would certainly not be buying and driving what you drive. It seems hypocritical to me. Please explain.
And to speak to the politican issue...I reference the book I hated reading in school, yet love now. Animal Farm - All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
Its just like DiCaprio preach all day long about what we shouldnt do as he flys around his private jet and giant yacht

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
But yet, I have a question. A serious question. I hesitate to ask bc I'm sure it'll come off as argumentative, but here goes-
How can you guys that believe this stuff drive a car, let alone buy a new car, wear the clothes and shoes you do and live in the houses I presume you live in? It seems to me that if you really believed in the outlook you paint, you'd get off the grid, have no children and be a self sustaining person. You would certainly not be buying and driving what you drive. It seems hypocritical to me. Please explain.
And to speak to the politican issue...I reference the book I hated reading in school, yet love now. Animal Farm - All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
I’m not an extremist. I’m trying to limit my car use. Walk to shops, take the train into town (Sydney), use small 4 cylinder cars, don’t buy cars often...my recent Giulietta to replace an almost 20 yr old 147 that will be passed to my son, PVs on the roof, solar hot water. The 4C I’d been waiting a lifetime for as an Alfista and use it once every two to three weeks so not excessively. I’ll be keeping it until end of days and not flick it for the next new toy. Gotta do more admittedly, but I’m making an effort. Got my own jungle growing in the front yard too. I like trees. There is an inevitability that oil resources will run out eventually so it’s no big jump for me that the climate change issue will hurry along the change to other tech. What I’m perplexed about is the passionate opposition to change. Any change will be a gradual thing. No one will be taking your cars away from you. They might stop building the cars you‘re used to but you’ll still be able to drive.
I don’t believe it’s the end of the world. The planet has a way of finding a balance after going to an extreme. With our destruction of forests I think the extreme will be very uncomfortable if our present Summer is anything to go by. Slowing the pace of progress towards that extreme seems to me to be a sensible choice. If it means the gradual weening off fossil fuels, so be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
I’m not an extremist. I’m trying to limit my car use. Walk to shops, take the train into town (Sydney), use small 4 cylinder cars, don’t buy cars often...my recent Giulietta to replace an almost 20 yr old 147 that will be passed to my son, PVs on the roof, solar hot water. The 4C I’d been waiting a lifetime for as an Alfista and use it once every two to three weeks so not excessively. I’ll be keeping it until end of days and not flick it for the next new toy. Gotta do more admittedly, but I’m making an effort. Got my own jungle growing in the front yard too. I like trees. There is an inevitability that oil resources will run out eventually so it’s no big jump for me that the climate change issue will hurry along the change to other tech. What I’m perplexed about is the passionate opposition to change. Any change will be a gradual thing. No one will be taking your cars away from you. They might stop building the cars you‘re used to but you’ll still be able to drive.
I don’t believe it’s the end of the world. The planet has a way of finding a balance after going to an extreme. With our destruction of forests I think the extreme will be very uncomfortable if our present Summer is anything to go by. Slowing the pace of progress towards that extreme seems to me to be a sensible choice. If it means the gradual weening off fossil fuels, so be it.
I do my part as well , changed the air filter in hummer and now i get 12 miles to the gallon instead off 11 😆
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,711 Posts
Ive eliminated broccoli from my diet in an attempt to fart less.
That’s the first sensible takeaway from this thread. I think that I shall adopt the same approach!

@HeavyFoot , I agree with what you are saying. But here’s the rub. First of all, I am old, and am the last of my line. And I’m about as fiscally and economically a capital C Conservative as anyone in my country. There is absolutely no incentive for me to be in any way environmentally conscious. I would be far better off to leave ‘scorched earth’ for the next generation. And yet, I feel that the only legacy that I might have is to leave the world a better place.

My biggest contribution is that I have no children by conscious decision. As I’ve said before in this thread, population is a significant part of this and other issues that our planet is facing. Although that is probably enough of a sacrifice on its own, I can add that nobody in my family has sat in an airliner in over 25 years or a cruise ship ever, and we don’t take driving trips anymore. In fact, other than commuting and the occasional time on track, I hardly drive. Household heating and cooling is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions an individual can contribute, and I cannot help heating my house when I live in Canada. So I’ve updated to high-efficiency propane heating (cannot get gas where I am), upgraded insulation as best I can, and haven’t replaced the two air conditioners which died from lack of use over the years. I live on a farm that is in hay, woods, and pasture, and is probably a carbon sink.

So, although I have no plans to be a carbon martyr, and no reason to do anything, yes, I walk the talk. ;)

And no, I did not see your question as argumentative at all. It’s the logical one to ask!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
I take it by your flippancy you haven’t bothered to read the link below....it is Australia I suppose, not the US, but our region seems to be the canary in the coal mine. Hoping your hurricanes are decreasing in intensity out NY, Philly and Florida way.
Back in 2017 there were predictions made that by 2040 we in Sydney would be getting days with maximums of 50 deg C. Unheard of. We got 49.6 this Summer.
There is no strong, resilient Australia without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions

edit: Thanks for reminding me 4Canada, our aircon lasted 4hours this summer. Didn’t replace it. Used fans. Interested to see how our electricity bill has been affected. Don’t know if the marriage will survive another summer without one though.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,711 Posts
I take it by your flippancy you haven’t bothered to read the link below....it is Australia I suppose, not the US, but our region seems to be the canary in the coal mine. Hoping your hurricanes are decreasing in intensity out NY, Philly and Florida way.
Back in 2017 there were predictions made that by 2040 we in Sydney would be getting days with maximums of 50 deg C. Unheard of. We got 49.6 this Summer.
There is no strong, resilient Australia without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions

edit: Thanks for reminding me 4Canada, our aircon lasted 4hours this summer. Didn’t replace it. Used fans. Interested to see how our electricity bill has been affected. Don’t know if the marriage will survive another summer without one though.
Yeah, well, we usually have about one week in the low to mid 30’s (continental climate). Not sure I could handle high 40’s in an urban / suburban setting.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,711 Posts
In keeping with HeavyFoot’s question, the thing that one needs to press every politician that espouses a concern for climate on is what they would do to combat it. Banning petrol cars in a timeframe so far in advance that it isn’t realistic, is rubbish. They cannot bind future governments anyway. “Studying the issue” is code for “I don’t know, but I want to make it seem like I care, just for the votes”.

If someone were truly serious about acting, they would immediately ban race cars, dirt bikes, ATV’s, personal watercraft, recreational boats other than pure sail-powered, snowmobiles, private aviation, and gas powered landscaping equipment. Which is the political equivalent of putting al loaded shotgun in your mouth and pulling he trigger.

In other words, most people and politicians, even if they believe in the cause, aren’t going to inconvenience themselves by actually acting. Which doesn’t leave room for optimism.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,494 Posts
What’s being suggested is a gradual reduction of emissions to zero net by 2050. It’ll probably be earlier. Plenty of time to change behaviours and adjust so long as that is what happens. We’ve a Federal govt who says our emissions are reducing per capita but failing to mention our population is rapidly increasing (due to massive immigration) so our gross emissions are actually increasing. Exasperating to say the least. They also don’t count the emissions from the coal we export.... if they did it would make little us, with only 25million in pop, the fifth grossing emitter on the planet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
But yet, I have a question. A serious question. I hesitate to ask bc I'm sure it'll come off as argumentative, but here goes-
How can you guys that believe this stuff drive a car, let alone buy a new car, wear the clothes and shoes you do and live in the houses I presume you live in? It seems to me that if you really believed in the outlook you paint, you'd get off the grid, have no children and be a self sustaining person. You would certainly not be buying and driving what you drive. It seems hypocritical to me. Please explain.
And to speak to the politican issue...I reference the book I hated reading in school, yet love now. Animal Farm - All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
Not sure who you address. But I definitely agree with the Animal Farm reference. It is exactly that what I am somewhat sarcastically pointing out.

At the start of this some scientists rang the alarm bell just as they should have, and those with other agendas jumped on it and took control of the narrative. The media sells more advertising space with scary stories than with good ones so they are happy to go along. The problem is that those people* had their way for so long, all others must follow for fear of losing face.
New problem however: as could have been expected, even with some manipulation, the actual measurements are way below the doomsday predictions.
Sooner or later even the media will pick up on this. Ouch.
As an actual objective scientist, the options are: (a) admit that the worst-case-scenarios are very unlikely to unfold - but that may mean being labelled a "denier" and losing research grants or even job. Or (b) howl along with the wolves and hope you will be home dry by the time the population wises up.

*I know that when I write "those with other agendas" that makes me sound like a conspiracy nut. However, just to pick one of the legion of political extremists involved: consider George Monbiot.
He is a zoologist, so a "scientist". He writes columns, he does TED talks etc. He does not believe we will die in 5 years. He believes we are dying today. He also believes "Capitalism is the problem".
So you would think he would rush to China to tell them they are making a mistake abandoning their communist ways, right? Wrong - he says we should lay off China, it's us that's the problem.
Or you would think he would be happy with the only zero-CO2 energy that is not only achievable, but high-volume and relatively affordable namely nuclear, right? Nope. The only way out of the crisis is to pay more taxes and abolish capitalism, according to that "scientist".

So yes, I would agree most of this is pure Animal Farm.

Question remains, with all the manipulation going on, the scientists that raised their hand at the very beginning: in the face of current measurements, do they have a point? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is climate change but certainly is no consensus and there never has been (2012 article) that it is man-made. But why not develop new technology to help us ween off petroleum gradually and responsibly? It can't hurt anyone except big oil and dictators.

I take it by your flippancy you haven’t bothered to read the link below....it is Australia I suppose, not the US, but our region seems to be the canary in the coal mine. Hoping your hurricanes are decreasing in intensity out NY, Philly and Florida way.
Back in 2017 there were predictions made that by 2040 we in Sydney would be getting days with maximums of 50 deg C. Unheard of. We got 49.6 this Summer.
There is no strong, resilient Australia without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions
Those "scientists" in that link refer to a study, the 2020 ScienceBrief review of the Fifth IPCC Assessment from 2013. This study (a) does not support in any way that climate change is man-made and (b) does not ... include Australia. I tried to have a quick look who owns that URL but it is not apparent who is behind it. To me the sum total take-away: these "scientists" are perhaps more interested in bringing about change to Australian politics with regards to migration, capitalism, than they are to climate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
It doesn't really matter if climate change is man-made or not - when the planet is not habitable we are fucked in both cases.


Climate forecast made by scientists are consersvative. The consensus is: when we change our habits now we get away with a warming of (at least) 1.5 degree. This article explains the topic more in detail.

Money Quote: Among the factors that appear to contribute to underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we label univocality: the felt need to speak in a single voice. Many scientists worry that if disagreement is publicly aired, government officials will conflate differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction. Others worry that even if policy makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, they will actively seek to find their common ground and focus on areas of agreement; in some cases, they will only put forward conclusions on which they can all agree.

These two Norwegian journalist made a photo collage about the things changing in Norwegian nature.

For those who d'like text over pictures - I suggest to read this article made by McKinsey about the costs of climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
It doesn't really matter if climate change is man-made or not - when the planet is not habitable we are fucked in both cases.
True. Although even when poorly habitable we are already fucked. We'd survive but it will not be comfy.

Thing is though it appears that there is no certainty there is a big CO2 button that we can dial back any warming with. There are indications that increase in temperature is related to solar activity (which does not seem to be so far-fetched an idea), cloud albedo, etc. But the biggest pointer is that historical data appears to point out that CO2 so far never initiated warming but amplifies it.
What could be the case is that this time around human production of CO2 could be making it a driver. But this is by no means certain. Therefore it is not certain that reducing output will dial back anything.
It may mean that we will stop amplifying it. Which seems like a good idea, even if the actual measurements so far show we are likely simply in a climate cycle like those that took place many times before us.

But, oh, wait, no. Sorry.
Here is a bona-fide "scientist" to tell us none of it matters. We'll just have to kill ourselves first. Nothing else will do.
'The only solution for climate change is letting the human race become extinct'
So I guess we may as well give up and de-cat the hummer 😜
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
First, I think these two paragraphs form the German wiki are important (google translate):

In contrast to nitrogen, oxygen and all noble gases, greenhouse gases are active in infrared radiation thanks to their molecular structure. For example, CO2 can absorb solar thermal energy at wavelengths of 4.26 µm and 14.99 µm and re-emit it towards the earth's surface. Due to this greenhouse effect, which was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, the near-surface average temperature in the mathematical-physical model increases by approximately 33 ° C to +14 to +15 ° C. Without the greenhouse effect, the lower atmosphere would have a global mean of only −18 ° C and lead to complete icing of the planet (whereby the temperature level would probably drop even further due to several interactions).

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is usually given in ppm (= parts per million), that of methane in ppb (= parts per billion). Due to human influences, the carbon dioxide content has increased to over 400 ppm (previously 280 ppm) and that of methane to 1,800 ppb (previously 800 ppb) since the beginning of the industrial age. These are the highest concentrations in at least 800,000 years. [88] It is highly probable that even during the past 14 million years (since the climatic optimum of the Middle Miocene) there were no significantly higher CO2 values than in the previous 21st century. [89] Nonetheless, there were geological epochs with significantly larger amounts of CO2, as in the Cambrian some 500 million years ago, when the carbon dioxide concentration was in the range of 5,000 to 6,000 ppm. However, conclusions about the present are problematic since the conditions at that time (including the 4 to 5 percent reduction in solar radiation compared to today, the complete absence of land plants and the associated change in the organic carbon cycle) are in no way transferable to the Holocene.


Climate sciences knocked off around 1824. This knowledge is now accessible since 200 years and nobody could disprove it. Otherwise the wiki article would be different.

Solar radiation has certainly an influence but the greenhouse gases have a much bigger impact. In addition, we cannot change the suns radiation.

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor – something we can’t influence either. Clouds and rain have positive side effects so we should not try to turn that screw. However, there are greenhouse gasses we can alter without side effects: Co2, ozone and methane. When we reduce these gasses, less sunlight will be converted to heat. This will also reduce water vapor concentration in the atmosphere.


The best button we have to fight co2 is nature:
The easiest thing we can do to reduce the co2 concentration in the atmosphere would be to plant many fast growing plants, mainly trees. These plants need to be processed to stuff and not burnt down. This would help to take some co2 out of circulation for a couple of decades. So buy stuff made of wood instead of plastic.
There are experimental plants to gather co2 out of the air but this needs a lot of energy and we end up something we need to store and look after it. Doesn’t sound very promising compared to plants which can be used for something else.

PS: When you read that a politician thinks we can terraform another planet in our solar system then think about how well it worked out on earth.
PPS: Climate change is a problem for the inhabitants not the ball itself. As you can read - surrender is not my style 😁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
How can you guys that believe this stuff drive a car, let alone buy a new car, wear the clothes and shoes you do and live in the houses I presume you live in? It seems to me that if you really believed in the outlook you paint, you'd get off the grid, have no children and be a self sustaining person. You would certainly not be buying and driving what you drive. It seems hypocritical to me. Please explain.
Since you asked.
I work from home, rarely drive.
I rarely use appliances.
I have solar panels on my home to offset my reliance on the electrical grid.
And most importantly to combat the climate change, my spouse and I chose to not have kids. There's no need to have more than two kids unless you live on a farm, otherwise it's irresponsible.

So by not adding another human to this already crowded planet, I'm easily within reason to own my fuel inefficient cars and enjoy tracking them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Well, then irresponsible I am. I don't work from home and I have (gasp) 5 children. Of course, to move everyone around we need a Suburban. ( sorry @lars , otherwise I'd have your hummer twin) We do use appliances and I do not have any intention of putting a solar panel on my roof. Does this make me irresponsible as well? We can keep going, but I'd hate to see what happens when it comes out I voted for the orange guy and intend to do so again.( Hmmm. Perhaps an avatar change is needed?:unsure:)
Before any meltdowns occur (yes pun intended), I do believe in being good stewards for future generations...I apparantly have more invested in them then many of you.
I just do not believe that we are a scourge on the planet and therefore must be eliminated. (Perhaps forced serilizations are needed) Because that is exactly the direction this conversation ALWAYS goes. Where is the line then drawn? If the claimed future is dramatic then the solutions must be as well right? The real inconvenient truth (yes, another pun) here is that the claims made are almost always ridiculous. Especially when the date by which they "will happen" proves nothing of the sort. We are warming. Oops. No. We are cooling. The water is hotter, we mean colder. Ice is melting....but has been since the ice age. The narrative keeps changing. Always. The accuracy of what "will happen" isn't even close.
We live on an amazing planet. Keep it clean, treat it well, don't be more wasteful than needed...and perhaps the most important thing we can do for the future of mankind is to just be decent people. Help those in need. Pick up those that are down. And try our hardest to tolerate those we don't agree with. You can drive your Tesla if you'd like, while trying not to think of the children slaves that made it possible, but let's not key Lars' hummer bc he uses more gas than you.
Tolerance goes both ways. Forced compliance doesn't.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,711 Posts
^ I hope that your notion of tolerance and decency extends to welcoming the waves of climate refugees from parts of the globe that are flooded or turned to hot or arid for habitation.

Most life (us, and the stuff that we count on every day) lives in a Goldilocks zone (of temperature, latitude, geology and elevation) on a Goldilocks planet. I would that good thoughts and kind actions be all that are required to keep things in balance, but believe that this is wishful thinking in this case.
 
161 - 180 of 202 Posts
Top