Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[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.

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.

Ok, bad terminology. However I think my point holds, the large molecules capture radiation energy, and I think convert it into heat energy. This is how they “insulate”, not by being poor conductors or convectors but by absorbing radiant energy and preventing its onward passage to space.

[henry]

.....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

If 5% is down to gases we emit and we increase the gases then there will still be an effect on temperature. If temperature goes up then water vapour goes up and now we have more vapour and more gases. So the emitted gases may act as a catalyst for the more significant contributor. But then that may be ameliorated by cloud cover. As @izzy remarked earlier it’s difficult as a lay person to put the picture together.

What I do know is that HADCET 30 year moving average shows the temperature rising inexorably from the mid 19th century to now with only a mid 20th century pause. The 22 year solar cycle and massive natural events like Krakatoa show only as blips. And atmospheric CO2 levels follow a similar pattern, with a rather shorter mid century pause.

[Jolle]

What I find most scary, is the disbelieve in science. That there are large groups of people who think they are all part of a conspiracy to somehow steer us away from something and follow politicians who are paid by oil companies and other interest groups benefitting from discrediting organisations like NASA, the WHO and others.

For me climate denial fall into the same group as flat earth theorist, ani vaccine moms, Alex jones listeners, Breitbart followers, etc etc.

This “us against the world” from the current American gouvernement is scary.

[Tommy Cookers]

.....The 22 year solar cycle .... show only as blips. ....

afaik
the 22 year solar cycle is the cycle of some visually apparent solar behaviour (btw the sun has been odd in recent years)
unrelated to cyclic variations in the planetary gravity vector at the sun that are of much longer periodicities and duration
the c 800 year warming cycle should be acting currently (it's the big planets being in a cluster)
it gave us the medieval warm period and other (Roman era) warming established by measurements on archaeological material
said a Danish (Government) Laboratory

btw
before the Essex marshes were drained malaria was endemic there - proof of a warmer 'climate' there than today's
vines were grown in Roman and MWP times further North (in England) than is done today

and if there's significant AGW or GW ...
the UK and NW Europe should worry about the collapse of the N Atlantic Gyre (in effect the Gulf Stream)
NW Europe will cool and partly ice up
if the NAG doesn't collapse N Europe will benefit eg Scotland greatly increases scope for potato and cereal growing etc

[henry]

and if there's significant AGW or GW ...
the UK and NW Europe should worry about the collapse of the N Atlantic Gyre (in effect the Gulf Stream)
NW Europe will cool and partly ice up
if the NAG doesn't collapse N Europe will benefit eg Scotland greatly increases scope for potato and cereal growing etc

I do. It’s a one way bet. I wish we weren’t taking it.

[Just_a_fan]

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

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

Junk dressed up to sound convincing. The guy doesn't even know what the Stefan-Boltzman constant is. He presents it as

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is this:

W/m² = 5.670373 x 10-8 x K4

That's just wrong. He's multiplying the actual constant by the fourth power of temperature and presenting the result as the constant itself. You multiply SBC by the emissivity and by dT^4 to get the flux Q. He rambles on about how things are radiating at hundreds of watts because he's missed the key point about the formula - it's deltaT to the fourth, ie its the difference in temperature between surfaces, objects etc. That's why you can prevent frost by covering a plant with a thin sheet of fleece. Without it, the plant 'sees' space radiating at 3.5K (frost is on clear nights, of course, because on cloudy nights, the plant 'sees' the clouds radiating at significantly higher temperature than space does). So radiative heat loss is massive. With the fleece, the plant 'sees' the fleece at something around ambient temp, say 273K (ie 0 deg C) (fleece acts like the clouds do on in effect). Much lower difference there then, hence much lower heat loss. Plant's surface stays above freezing point and so ice (frost) doesn't occur.

If he's getting the basics such as that so wrong, then the rest is going to be way out too.

When you read this

Not the least reason for the error is that Planck's constant is used to derive the SBC, while there is no Planck's constant, because the whole concept of photons is absurd and admittedly in conflict with the wave nature of light.

You begin to see the reality of his site. It's rambling rubbish dressed up to sound scientific/complex. It's aimed at people with little science education who also feel the need to believe "they" are out to get us. Sadly, the power of the internet gives people like this power.

[rscsr]

... it's deltaT to the fourth, ie its the difference in temperature between surfaces, objects etc. ...

it's actually temperature to the fourth, i.e. T1^4-T2^4 not (T1-T2)^4
but your point still stands anyway

[henry]

That's why you can prevent frost by covering a plant with a thin sheet of fleece. Without it, the plant 'sees' space radiating at 3.5K (frost is on clear nights, of course, because on cloudy nights, the plant 'sees' the clouds radiating at significantly higher temperature than space does). So radiative heat loss is massive. With the fleece, the plant 'sees' the fleece at something around ambient temp, say 273K (ie 0 deg C) (fleece acts like the clouds do on in effect). Much lower difference there then, hence much lower heat loss. Plant's surface stays above freezing point and so ice (frost) doesn't occur.

And for this reason I make a canopy to shield my wife’s precious acer over the winter only shielding the sides when cold wind might be a problem and so avoiding the dreaded mildew.

[V12-POWER]

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

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

Junk dressed up to sound convincing. The guy doesn't even know what the Stefan-Boltzman constant is. He presents it as

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is this:

W/m² = 5.670373 x 10-8 x K4

That's just wrong. He's multiplying the actual constant by the fourth power of temperature and presenting the result as the constant itself. You multiply SBC by the emissivity and by dT^4 to get the flux Q. He rambles on about how things are radiating at hundreds of watts because he's missed the key point about the formula - it's deltaT to the fourth, ie its the difference in temperature between surfaces, objects etc. That's why you can prevent frost by covering a plant with a thin sheet of fleece. Without it, the plant 'sees' space radiating at 3.5K (frost is on clear nights, of course, because on cloudy nights, the plant 'sees' the clouds radiating at significantly higher temperature than space does). So radiative heat loss is massive. With the fleece, the plant 'sees' the fleece at something around ambient temp, say 273K (ie 0 deg C) (fleece acts like the clouds do on in effect). Much lower difference there then, hence much lower heat loss. Plant's surface stays above freezing point and so ice (frost) doesn't occur.

If he's getting the basics such as that so wrong, then the rest is going to be way out too.

When you read this

Not the least reason for the error is that Planck's constant is used to derive the SBC, while there is no Planck's constant, because the whole concept of photons is absurd and admittedly in conflict with the wave nature of light.

You begin to see the reality of his site. It's rambling rubbish dressed up to sound scientific/complex. It's aimed at people with little science education who also feel the need to believe "they" are out to get us. Sadly, the power of the internet gives people like this power.

If the plant isn’t completely sealed or if the fleece isnt tightly around it will still get frost anyways, that is, if ambient temp is equal or below 0 and enough air gets within the plant and the cover. Cloudy or not cloudy, what matters here is ambient temps and if the plant is sealed.

So even if I didn’t go deep in the subject of that specific constant, I did read that it’s for surfaces. The atmosphere isn’t a surface anyways.

(CO2 can’t be taken as a surface since hotter molecules go down and colder ones go up; it’s always moving)

[djos]

What I find most scary, is the disbelieve in science. That there are large groups of people who think they are all part of a conspiracy to somehow steer us away from something and follow politicians who are paid by oil companies and other interest groups benefitting from discrediting organisations like NASA, the WHO and others.

For me climate denial fall into the same group as flat earth theorist, ani vaccine moms, Alex jones listeners, Breitbart followers, etc etc.

This “us against the world” from the current American gouvernement is scary.

I couldn't agree more, it all boils down to greed; corporations who don't want to stop carrying out profitable activities have gotten into bed with corrupt politicians whose only goal is to hold on to power, who then use pseudo scientific bs or flat out lies to sow doubt into the minds of the ignorant masses so they can maintain their power and profits for as long as possible, at the expense of the human race!

[roon]

What I find most scary, is the disbelieve in science. That there are large groups of people who think they are all part of a conspiracy to somehow steer us away from something and follow politicians who are paid by oil companies and other interest groups benefitting from discrediting organisations like NASA, the WHO and others.

For me climate denial fall into the same group as flat earth theorist, ani vaccine moms, Alex jones listeners, Breitbart followers, etc etc.

This “us against the world” from the current American gouvernement is scary.

I couldn't agree more, it all boils down to greed; corporations who don't want to stop carrying out profitable activities have gotten into bed with corrupt politicians whose only goal is to hold on to power, who then use pseudo scientific bs or flat out lies to sow doubt into the minds of the ignorant masses so they can maintain their power and profits for as long as possible, at the expense of the human race!

Both sides of this battle are corporate and fit your description. I would guess both sides have nearly as much money. They both wield great power in the forms of finance and capital. They both purchase political influence and both curate media.

[djos]

What I find most scary, is the disbelieve in science. That there are large groups of people who think they are all part of a conspiracy to somehow steer us away from something and follow politicians who are paid by oil companies and other interest groups benefitting from discrediting organisations like NASA, the WHO and others.

For me climate denial fall into the same group as flat earth theorist, ani vaccine moms, Alex jones listeners, Breitbart followers, etc etc.

This “us against the world” from the current American gouvernement is scary.

I couldn't agree more, it all boils down to greed; corporations who don't want to stop carrying out profitable activities have gotten into bed with corrupt politicians whose only goal is to hold on to power, who then use pseudo scientific bs or flat out lies to sow doubt into the minds of the ignorant masses so they can maintain their power and profits for as long as possible, at the expense of the human race!

Both sides of this battle are corporate and fit your description. I would guess both sides have nearly as much money. They both wield great power in the forms of finance and capital. They both purchase political influence and both curate media.

At least one of the sides is basing their actions on real science - I'm not saying there aren't frauds using AGW to try and make a quick buck (see all the bs solar roadways companies as an example).

Their existence does not however make AGW a fraud, it's backed by 40+ years of solid science.

[Just_a_fan]

So even if I didn’t go deep in the subject of that specific constant, I did read that it’s for surfaces. The atmosphere isn’t a surface anyways.

(CO2 can’t be taken as a surface since hotter molecules go down and colder ones go up; it’s always moving)

That very method is used to describe the heat radiated by hot gas layers in rooms on fire. So it can be used for gases.

And the point is not that the CO2 gets to 2500degC as he says it must, it's that some molecules are relatively more or less transparent to IR. The transparent molecules are nitrogen and oxygen. The less transparent ones ate the greenhouse gases. These gases don't "trap heat" (a simplification used to get the idea across to the public and now used by the likes of that site to hit the science). The gases cause a fraction of the heat being radiated in to space to be redirected back to the surface. So the Earth loses slightly less heat.

If one wants a simple example of greenhouse effect in action, look at Venus. If the greenhouse effect is a lie, as he suggests, then Venus should be at a temperature between Mecury's and Earth's based solely on distance from the Sun. But, wow, Venus is the hottest rocky planet by some margin. The other three follow the basic distance/temperature relationship. The difference? Venus has an atmosphere that is c.97% CO2. Venus has what is termed a "runaway greenhouse effect".

I don't mind people not agreeing with the idea of AGW, but I do object to people willfully naysaying science they obviously don't understand purely because they don't understand it. There is a move amongst some to try to denigrate STEM subjects. There are agendas behind this, the discussion about which doesn't belong on this forum.

[Just_a_fan]

... it's deltaT to the fourth, ie its the difference in temperature between surfaces, objects etc. ...

it's actually temperature to the fourth, i.e. T1^4-T2^4 not (T1-T2)^4
but your point still stands anyway

Indeed so.

[Edax]

What I find most scary, is the disbelieve in science. That there are large groups of people who think they are all part of a conspiracy to somehow steer us away from something and follow politicians who are paid by oil companies and other interest groups benefitting from discrediting organisations like NASA, the WHO and others.

For me climate denial fall into the same group as flat earth theorist, ani vaccine moms, Alex jones listeners, Breitbart followers, etc etc.

This “us against the world” from the current American gouvernement is scary.

That is partly because the the science around climate change is pretty bad. Vaccines and flat earth is a debate between nutcases and overwhelming evidence which passes the test of science. In climate change, the nutcases populate both side of the argument.

Climate research has become a cargo cult where scientific standards are regularly abandoned to prove a point. Idea’s which deviate from mainstream ideas are suppressed in order not to rock the boat. Concepts are dumbed down to the point of ridiculousness, to make them accessible to politics, media and the general public. Moreover the proponents for climate change have fortified themselves on the moral high ground ready to shoot anyone who dares to bring as much as even a nuance.

Don’t get me wrong climate change is real and I firmly believe that making our habitation on this planet sustainable will be by far the greatest challenge mankind is facing in the current century.

But in order to get to that conclusion you need to wade through tons of pseudo-scientific crap spewed from both sides. Watching the debate between climate change proponents and disbelievers is like watching a Priest and a Rabbi discuss who’s god is better.

The same goes for the EV debate. Depending on your viewpoint the EV is a solve-all which will propel humankind into a glorious future having rid it of the evil that is the combustion engine, and woe to someone who dares to mention something like particulate emissions. For the other it is a complete vanity project, wasting resources with no impact at best. Both arguments larded in “science”.

With the quality of the debate I cannot blame people getting lost and losing faith in science.