Yes they have for the most part, you can still get government grants for what they class as class 1 hybrid cars but they have to hit very strick rules to be in that category! Most PEHV cars you would want to buy are not in it
Off Topic Climate Strike
- Thread starter dennisboothstash
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yes they have for the most part, you can still get government grants for what they class as class 1 hybrid cars but they have to hit very strick rules to be in that category! Most PEHV cars you would want to buy are not in it
There is a lot of ice floating around in the sea. But there is an awful lot more that it's actually in the sea it's sitting on top of land. When that melts it will flow somewhere. Into the sea in all probability. It will. The sea levels will then rise.
Over two thirds of the worlds fresh water is stored in glaciers, which are on land, not in the sea.
Another aspect to consider is that water volume increases with temperature, so sea level rises the warmer it becomes.
This was resolved a page or two back, all the extra water can be put where the oil and gas came from solving two problems in one. the sea level won't rise and the earth won't implode like a broken egg.
Thanks chaps, done a bit of googling in the meantime so got your drift. So yes if it all melted we get very wet, but it doesn't seem likely
Science.howstuffworks.com:
'The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.'
Science.howstuffworks.com:
'The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.'
If anybody on this thread lives in Hull they can walk along the River Humber see the level of flood defences that are being erected !
Millions of pounds worth .
A summary study in 2018 incorporating calculations and data from many other studies estimated that total ice loss was 43 gigatons per year on average during the period from 1992 to 2002 but has accelerated to an average of 220 gigatons per year during the five years from 2012 to 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_Antarctica
You are falling for simplistic balderdash. The highest parts of the interior hit minus 60 in the winter. The coastal areas hit plus 10 in the summer.
A few points of a degree can make a significant difference in the summer months turning rock hard perma frost in to boggy mush. These are massive co2 sinks unfortunately and as they melt they will release a lot of green house gasses.
Guess what that will accelerate?
Blimey that's a bit strong . I guess you missed the bit where it said ' most parts'.
This guy only works for the British Antarctic Survey and says Antarctic ice is increasing. Is this balderdash too?https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice
That’s sea ice, it has nothing to do with melting glaciers and rising sea levels.
Yes but my post which Stockholm Tiger was reacting to was actually my reply to Des Head who linked an item to Antarctica.
Subsidies are and have been there at the beginning of solar, wind and electric cars, now it's planting trees . that's when those fortunate enough to have the insider information and money to get on the gravy train. As time goes by we learn more and the Chinese start to knock the same stuff out cheaper it becomes less attractive as an investment.
A few have got very rich, Joe Bloggs will pick up the pieces.
Canada's forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb — despite what you've heard on Facebook
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490
You link some odd articles. That one is in response to Canadians saying that they don't have to reduce their emissions because they have lots of trees.
Here's another one on wind turbines, still calculating the output over 20 to 25 year life span. Now that some have been in work for quite a few years now, research shows output reduces over time and lifespan is much less than predicted.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/29/wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study/
Stockholm Tiger is correct, though. At the coasts where the glaciers meet the sea the temperatures get well above 0 degrees. When the face of the glacier meets more seawater, it slides toward the sea from inland into the zone where it will melt. That why the rate of melting is increasing.
Last edited:
Wind turbine technology is improving all of the time. This is a study of older turbines which will inevitably be less efficient than modern ones, which in turn will not be as efficient as ones developed in the decades to come. Turbines installed today are providing power at a cheaper cost per kilowatt hour than coal or natural gas can deliver, and this should only improve with more development.
That's very true, my personal thought is it would be better for each house to generate its own electricity, obviously may not be possible everywhere but many could. Can't see big business backing that idea though.
And as I said , he missed the 'most' part and I think possibly conflated Arctic and Antarctic. Surely there has always been summertime melt.
According to the article I linked , Antarctic ice is increasing though yours indicated an increase in melt. But it's not actually clear if the melt is permanent or it melts and refreezes.
But you both cited 50 times more ice than is floating, but most of the ice is in Antarctica which is apparently increasing. It's going to be obvious that I'm no expert, but I suspect neither are you or Stockholm and as he said to someone else we can all ping articles back and forth and not sway one another. However when he used the 50 times more ice as an illustration of warming I think he should be more transparent and less scare mongering and disclose it's not likely to occur.
Despite possible appearances to the contrary, I'm not on the wind up , I'd like to make some sense of it. From everything I have read there's no clear science one way or another, merely a consensus. I've seen figures for co2 from human activity, and other articles saying that you can't determine human activity from natural levels. Governments funded scientists saying it's all man made, deniers accused of being in the pay of fossil fuels/Petro chemical companies. If it is all about human activity then we're totally ******, because the genie is never going back in the bottle. You've got China and India concerned only with the immediate economic well being of their respective population, and why wouldn't they? And how can we tell developing countries that they can't do what the developed countries have done?
But the biggest issue surely is the scale at which we're doing it( if we are causing climate change) and that's down to population growth. How do we resolve this?
Last edited: