Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[V12-POWER]

Here’s a good site for you to get started.

https://nov79.com/gbwm/gbwm.html

lol what a site . It takes general principles and misapplies them to the specifics of global warming, to push an agenda. Fake science, i bet Donald believes it . Like

"One molecule of carbon dioxide surrounded by 2,500 air molecules is not going to heat anything no matter what else happens."

well no it's true, the co2 doesn't heat anything - it's the sun that does the heating! The real story is more like

There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gas molecules all are made of three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecules release the radiation, which will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process keeps heat near the Earth’s surface.

Most of the gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen – both of which are molecules made of two atoms. The atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Obviously CO2 doesn’t heat anything by itself. It absorbs energy from the sun and then releases it so this is a matter of wording and nitpicking stuff which I’m not interested in discussing.

And by that logic in that quote we cannot heat oxygen and nitrogen gases? (The atoms are unable to vibrate so they cannot absorb heat)

This my friend is bs. The energy states depends on the speed of the electrons spinning around the core (p+ and n) the article clearly sort of states these molecules are independent one from another and this is really illogical and ignores what’s talked about convection, conduction and radiation (energy transfer)

If you really believe this I’m done here. You can’t have a mass of CO2 at 1000 degrees Celsius and believe it wouldn’t affect what’s nearby.

Put some gas state nitrogen into a previously empty tank but don’t compress it. Then heat the tank. Chances are, when you open the valve, the nitrogen will be at an higher temp than the one it had at the beginning. Mind=blown.

But back to reality, remember oxygen and nitrgen CANNOT absorb heat.

[Just_a_fan]

The heat of a gas is a measure of how much the atoms (generally molecules for real-life gases) are vibrating. That's not the "energy state" of the molecule - which is what the electrons are doing.

CO2 is a good absorber of long wave (infrared or IR) radiation. That IR is coming from the planet's surface. The CO2 absorbs some of the IR that would otherwise be radiated out in to space and re-radiates it downwards (some will also be radiated out in to space too, of course, because the radiation direction will be random). This is the greenhouse effect. Note that other molecules are also good at this - methane, water (in vapour, not liquid, state), nitrous oxide for example.

Elemental oxygen and nitrogen don't exhibit this effect to nearly the same degree.

Note: the greenhouse effect is very important to life on Earth. Without it, we'd be much colder than we are which means liquid water would be scarcer and so life harder. We don't want too much effect, however, or the temperature will cause much of the liquid water to evaporate quicker than it condenses back out - meaning drought and deserts and life is again harder.

Astronomers talk about the Goldilocks Zone for planets. Just the right temperature for liquid water to exist and chemistry to do its thing making life. In reality, the Earth is only just in the Goldilocks Zone and it's only really there because we have a balanced greenhouse effect.

[izzy]

Obviously CO2 doesn’t heat anything by itself. It absorbs energy from the sun and then releases it so this is a matter of wording and nitpicking stuff which I’m not interested in discussing.

And by that logic in that quote we cannot heat oxygen and nitrogen gases? (The atoms are unable to vibrate so they cannot absorb heat)

This my friend is bs. The energy states depends on the speed of the electrons spinning around the core (p+ and n) the article clearly sort of states these molecules are independent one from another and this is really illogical and ignores what’s talked about convection, conduction and radiation (energy transfer)

If you really believe this I’m done here. You can’t have a mass of CO2 at 1000 degrees Celsius and believe it wouldn’t affect what’s nearby.

Put some gas state nitrogen into a previously empty tank but don’t compress it. Then heat the tank. Chances are, when you open the valve, the nitrogen will be at an higher temp than the one it had at the beginning. Mind=blown.

But back to reality, remember oxygen and nitrgen CANNOT absorb heat.

This is what happens when you try to rely on yourself and your own personal experiences to explain the world, instead of relying on other people who specialise, working as a team. Another case of F1 resembling the real world . There are lots of sites saying the same thing, as Just-a-Fan explains perfectly below: co2 absorbs and re-emits infra-red radiation, oxygen and nitrogen don't. Hence the greenhouse effect, and we need a certain amount not too much.

It was the same with CFC's and the ozone layer, something humans did that had a surprisingly big effect on the atmosphere. We caused the problem, reduced CFC use and the holes have been shrinking again. But a site like that one could easily talk generalities and say it can't possibly be true because, for example, laser printers emit ozone!

[Just_a_fan]

The problem is that there are people on the web who claim that the greenhouse effect is false because they conflate the effect with AGW.

The greenhouse effect is established (so far as anything is ever established in science). The debate is thus about the human effects in the process. Is Anthropogenic Global Warming real? That's the question for debate, not whether the greenhouse effect is real.

[Jolle]

The problem is that there are people on the web who claim that the greenhouse effect is false because they conflate the effect with AGW.

The greenhouse effect is established (so far as anything is ever established in science). The debate is thus about the human effects in the process. Is Anthropogenic Global Warming real? That's the question for debate, not whether the greenhouse effect is real.

There is also a general scientific consensus that it’s man made. It’s just some politicians that call it a hoax.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Just_a_fan]

It's important to say that the consensus you refer to is AGW, not the greenhouse effect. They are separate issues although obviously the basic process occurring is the same.

[Andres125sx]

It’s eady to fool people but it’s hard to make them realize they’ve been fooled. There are charts of millions years ago where CO2 concentrations were higher and there was life indeed, dinosaurs or plants or whatever.

Sorry but there was life... until there wasn´t anymore. In that period there have been at least 5 massive extintions

Btw, we have people like Andres that thinks NASA is a 100% transparent company with absolutely zero political/economical bias in regards to what they release and what they don’t.

No I never said that, it´s you and others who are claiming the opposite, they´re biased, they try to manipulate with graphs wich don´t tell the whole picture. I only said the bias some of you are claiming about NASA does not have any sense in my opinion. What will they win as a scientific company?

Also, I´m struggling with this sort of claims as you´re ignoring the most obvious manipulation in this regard wich is that from petrol companies trying to protect their business (as they´ve been doing with EV for decades, we all know about the EV1), but you ignore this manipulations wich obviously does include biased reports refuting CC, and assume the biased company manipulating information is NASA. Sorry but I struggle with this

So in your opinion the vast mayority of scientifics in the world, NASA, IPCC, ONU, etc. are trying to manipulate public opinion because they are after... after what exactly?. But there´s no manipulation in the other side from companies whose business will be drastically reduced, and also from powerful governments whose industries are too polluting to reduce emissions and stay competitive

If that´s what you really think, we´ll have to agree to disagree because I will never understand that point of view

Forgot to say. Yeah computers don’t model the atmosphere accurately. Lets not go too far; there are tens of satellites, the best of satellite images, thousands of meteorologists and computing power yet they can’t predict what will the weather be like 2 weeks from now, with accuracy. But I’m guessing I’m the only one who has been shocked by how wrong the forecasts can be, 2 days from now (for example)

If we can’t even predict whether it’s gonna rain or not, do you think it’s possible to accurately model the atmosphere?

You really need an accurate prediction to accept emitting greenhouse gases constantly, for decades, at a worrying growing rate, what have actually increased co2 concentration well above the max limit reached in hundreds thousands years, exactly since we started burning fossil fuels at the industrial revolution, will cause an abnormal greenhouse effect in the whole planet? Really?

IMHO you get lost refuting theories and ignore the basics, what I said in the previous paragraph is proven science, data has no bias as we have, it´s data. co2=greenhouse gas. And exactly since we started burning fossil fuels, co2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased much more than ,at least, in previous 400.000 years. Today we are around 40% higher than the absolute maximum in 400.000 years, that´s also proven data.

What else do you need to worry about this mate?

What´s the reason you need an accurate prediction about something we know for sure will happen? Maybe you think co2 will stop acting as a greenhouse gas magically at some point and increasing the concentration in the atmosphere quite noticeably will have no effects?

How drunk will I get after drinking three tequilas? It doesn´t matter exactly how much, you know it will happen and that should be enough

[V12-POWER]

It’s eady to fool people but it’s hard to make them realize they’ve been fooled. There are charts of millions years ago where CO2 concentrations were higher and there was life indeed, dinosaurs or plants or whatever.

Sorry but there was life... until there wasn´t anymore. In that period there have been at least 5 massive extintions

Btw, we have people like Andres that thinks NASA is a 100% transparent company with absolutely zero political/economical bias in regards to what they release and what they don’t.

No I never said that, it´s you and others who are claiming the opposite, they´re biased, they try to manipulate with graphs wich don´t tell the whole picture. I only said the bias some of you are claiming about NASA does not have any sense in my opinion. What will they win as a scientific company?

Also, I´m struggling with this sort of claims as you´re ignoring the most obvious manipulation in this regard wich is that from petrol companies trying to protect their business (as they´ve been doing with EV for decades, we all know about the EV1), but you ignore this manipulations wich obviously does include biased reports refuting CC, and assume the biased company manipulating information is NASA. Sorry but I struggle with this

So in your opinion the vast mayority of scientifics in the world, NASA, IPCC, ONU, etc. are trying to manipulate public opinion because they are after... after what exactly?. But there´s no manipulation in the other side from companies whose business will be drastically reduced, and also from powerful governments whose industries are too polluting to reduce emissions and stay competitive

If that´s what you really think, we´ll have to agree to disagree because I will never understand that point of view

Forgot to say. Yeah computers don’t model the atmosphere accurately. Lets not go too far; there are tens of satellites, the best of satellite images, thousands of meteorologists and computing power yet they can’t predict what will the weather be like 2 weeks from now, with accuracy. But I’m guessing I’m the only one who has been shocked by how wrong the forecasts can be, 2 days from now (for example)

If we can’t even predict whether it’s gonna rain or not, do you think it’s possible to accurately model the atmosphere?

You really need an accurate prediction to accept emitting greenhouse gases constantly, for decades, at a worrying growing rate, what have actually increased co2 concentration well above the max limit reached in hundreds thousands years, exactly since we started burning fossil fuels at the industrial revolution, will cause an abnormal greenhouse effect in the whole planet? Really?

IMHO you get lost refuting theories and ignore the basics, what I said in the previous paragraph is proven science, data has no bias as we have, it´s data. co2=greenhouse gas. And exactly since we started burning fossil fuels, co2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased much more than ,at least, in previous 400.000 years. Today we are around 40% higher than the absolute maximum in 400.000 years, that´s also proven data.

What else do you need to worry about this mate?

What´s the reason you need an accurate prediction about something we know for sure will happen? Maybe you think co2 will stop acting as a greenhouse gas magically at some point and increasing the concentration in the atmosphere quite noticeably will have no effects?

How drunk will I get after drinking three tequilas? It doesn´t matter exactly how much, you know it will happen and that should be enough

5 massive extinctions, thats cute. I fail to see the mention of CO2 and Earth temps rising so high they fried everything on the face of the planet. When CO2 was well over 2000ppm millions of years ago, what were the temps like? 60c on a cold winter night? Lol

Im not ignoring the basics. The "basics" are clear, It would take immense amounts of energy to make current CO2 levels to rise temps. CO2 having such amount energy, whether from the sun or the earth is unlikely. That is the "basics"

"We know for sure will happen" The next year will be the 5th decade that "scientists" predict global warming IS a threat. Im waiting buddy See how thats the problem with all these predictions? It's always WILL - it's always in the FUTURE. Meanwhile all warmists keep drooling over a meaningless heatwave.

Im not trying to refute anything, aside from the fact that some senseless and manipulated stuff is shoved down our throats, we take it as the ultimate truth while in reality it isnt. I show you the opposite side of the coin, tell you to use common sense, take a step back and look at history, see WHEN this did phenomenom was brought out to the public, WHO are the people behind it, etc. The same people who were behind the predicted ice age in the 70s did a 180 and became warmists in the 80s.

I have cited a website that anyone can understand, it covers pretty much everything related to this, someone quoted me before and said stuff that left me saying "This guy didn't read a single paragraph" not gonna reply to that anyways

All it takes to make people believe nonsense is to turn on the tv and watch the news channel bring an "expert" about any subject, put some trasgiversed words from someone else, a skewed graph of some sorts and voila you have brainwashed the masses.

If EVs become the norm and take over the market, the same organizations blaming ICEs will start to look at EVs, find "flaws" in them and start another set of regulations just like EURO 3, 4, 5, etc, you're gonna go through this, and you either fall for it again "Oh, EVs are bad!!!" or finally wake up to the fact youre being played with. I know im not gonna be the one regretting beind fooled this hard.

I love the fact that when electricty goes out, the good old Detroit diesel generators come to life and save the day.

[strad]

What will they win as a scientific company?

Same answer as to your following question …. MONEY.
The IPCC already admitted they lied to get millions in grant money.
If they weren't getting grants for this, they'd be off studying the sex lives of frogs.

[Andres125sx]

Im not ignoring the basics. The "basics" are clear, It would take immense amounts of energy to make current CO2 levels to rise temps. CO2 having such amount energy, whether from the sun or the earth is unlikely. That is the "basics"

Thanks for confirming, so you think a greenhouse gas increase will not cause a greenhouse effect because you think this will not cause a temperarture rise... so basically you´re denying the existence of greenhouse effects, does not exist in your expertise opinion...


Thanks for clarifying, I´m out of this nosense debate, I´m not going to argue about proven science, if you want to fool yourself and others I will not participate

[Maritimer]

"Immense amounts of energy", like that big ball of nuclear fusion we travel around once a year? That sheds 4.3 million tons per second as it gets converted into energy?

Yeah, that'll heat up gases like nobodys business buddy.

[V12-POWER]

Im not ignoring the basics. The "basics" are clear, It would take immense amounts of energy to make current CO2 levels to rise temps. CO2 having such amount energy, whether from the sun or the earth is unlikely. That is the "basics"

Thanks for confirming, so you think a greenhouse gas increase will not cause a greenhouse effect because you think this will not cause a temperarture rise... so basically you´re denying the existence of greenhouse effects, does not exist in your expertise opinion...


Thanks for clarifying, I´m out of this nosense debate, I´m not going to argue about proven science, if you want to fool yourself and others I will not participate

You’re imlying N, O atoms act in an isolated manner by saying they cannot absorb heat from CO2 molecules. This is simply not how stuff works whether you’re a warmist or not.

Thats fine with me if you have no more to say, it’s not like saying “Proven science! Proven science!” added anything to the discussion anyways.

[henry]

I think the difference between nitrogen, oxygen and the other small molecules and the large molecules CO2, methane, water vapour is the latter can convert radiation energy into kinetic energy, and back? They can all store energy, heat up. By increasing the proportion of the large molecules, either directly in the case of CO2 and methane or indirectly in the case of water vapour, we increase the ability to convert radiation from the sun into heat trapped in and below the atmosphere.

Even if this is not a problem the effect of dissolved CO2 on the oceans is.

[Jolle]

I think the difference between nitrogen, oxygen and the other small molecules and the large molecules CO2, methane, water vapour is the latter can convert radiation energy into kinetic energy, and back? They can all store energy, heat up. By increasing the proportion of the large molecules, either directly in the case of CO2 and methane or indirectly in the case of water vapour, we increase the ability to convert radiation from the sun into heat trapped in and below the atmosphere.

Even if this is not a problem the effect of dissolved CO2 on the oceans is.

Kinetic energy is not how you call molecules vibrating. That’s just being warm.

The growing amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere insulate the earth preventing to radiate its heat into outer space. It’s nothing or very little to do with the gasses themselves warming up or not transferring it to other molecules. This “blanket” heats up the atmosphere, including all the nitrogen, O2, CO2 and other gasses and particles. CO2 of course is the main product of everything we burn and breath. Apart from CO2 we have Methane that is also one of the major green house gasses.

[Tommy Cookers]

.....By increasing the proportion of the large molecules, either directly in the case of CO2 and methane or indirectly in the case of water vapour, we increase the ability to convert radiation from the sun into heat trapped in and below the atmosphere. .....

Apart from CO2 we have Methane that is also one of the major green house gasses.

neither Methane nor CO2 are major greenhouse gasses
water vapour does 95% of the greenhousing

and ..
increasing the proportion of water vapour happens automatically as temperature increases
this was always stated as tending to reduce temperatures due to the increased cloud cover
(but rather recently NASA has decided otherwise)

afaik ...
each of the large-molecule constituents has its own absorption 'frequency response' ?
the IR band is a range of frequencies
the total absorption is close to and has in earlier times reached 100%
CO2 and methane are together quite good at absorbing the little IR that escapes absorption by the water vapour