Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[djos]

Show the compelling scientific data that convinced you.

I've been following this since the 90's - I'll admit I was skeptical at first but the evidence is now categoric - if you doubt the science, it's up to you to find and disprove it.

[subcritical71]

Show the compelling scientific data that convinced you.

I've been following this since the 90's - I'll admit I was skeptical at first but the evidence is now categoric - if you doubt the science, it's up to you to find and disprove it.

Honestly, that has been my problem. And I'm probably looking in the wrong area. I have an engineering mind and not a scientific one. I don't trust politicians (aka Al Gore) or actors (aka Leonardo DiCaprio) to provide my evidence (and I'm not saying you do) but these are the loudest groups in the room.

Interesting was this XKCD graph (https://xkcd.com/1732/), but it has been debunked on some sites.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/qipRd.png

[strad]

anyone who can't grasp that there is complete consensus (and for good reason) in the scientific community that global warming is caused by man, needs their head examined.

More insults? That's all you've got? I showed quotes from many respected scientists and meteorologists and can show more. So what you say is not close to true.

[strad]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26600&start=435

[djos]

anyone who can't grasp that there is complete consensus (and for good reason) in the scientific community that global warming is caused by man, needs their head examined.

More insults? That's all you've got? I showed quotes from many respected scientists and meteorologists and can show more. So what you say is not close to true.

I'll go one better, you know its serious and real when the U.S. Defense Department publicly airs its concerns!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ate-change

“The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to DOD missions, operational plans and installations,”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... e-threats/

In its assessment of those 79 installations, which included Army, Air Force and Navy installations — and notably no Marine Corps bases — the services reported that 53 of the 79 faced current threats from flooding; 43 of the 79 face current threats from drought and 36 of the 79 faced current threats from wildfires.

[strad]

Find an independent credentialed climatologist or meteorologist with no ties to the IPCC
All you show are people in league with or indebted to the U.N. or the IPCC.
Have you seen any appreciable rise in the ocean? There is nothing going on that can't be explained by other causes.
I believe in the end this will be shown to be the biggest fraud since P.T. Barnum showed Joice Heth as the 116 year old nanny to George Washington.
If you want to believe that's fine but can your insults.

[roon]

As for our health, the smoke of cigarettes is much much worse than exhaust fumes but I don’t see so much enthusiasm globally to circumvent this.

In the developed world anti-smoking laws, and in the US big corporate tobacco related lawsuits, have been common for three decades. Cigarette smoke is almost non-existent in many US cities. You might only encounter it intermittently while walking on a sidewalk or passing by someone's automobile.

Generally tobacco smoking is much less common than it has been in these areas. The mass of cigarette fumes is trivial compared to automotive exhaust. A cigarette contains ~0.5-1.0 g of tobacco. A gallon of petrol weighs around 2700 g.

In the US in 2018 roughly 140B gallons of gasoline and 40B gallons of diesel were sold. Roughly 250 billion cigarettes were sold. Your base constituents are about 500B kg for gasoline and up to 250M kg for cigarette tobacco. Three orders of magnitude difference, maybe 2-3000x more fuel is burned than tobacco.

What inspired you to make this comparison?

[djos]

If you want to believe that's fine but can your insults.

It's got nothing to do with "belief", this isn't a religion, it's science.

I find it highly paradoxical that "Climate Science Deniers" all except Science when it suits them, but for this one branch of science, it's all somehow a scam. I mean go figure, if scientific research finds we can all talk to each other using Radio frequencies, everyone thinks it's awesome, but as soon as science finds we are killing the planet some folk suddenly decide scientists are untrustworthy pariahs!

The data is pretty clear, if you want to ignore it fine, but don't make this about belief, climate change is not a religion, it's an observed fact.

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

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

EDIT: Here's a nice Skeptics guide to Climate Change that has imo a great overview of the subject.

[Dazed1]

anyone who can't grasp that there is complete consensus (and for good reason) in the scientific community that global warming is caused by man, needs their head examined.

More insults? That's all you've got? I showed quotes from many respected scientists and meteorologists and can show more. So what you say is not close to true.

A simple experiment shows CO2 blocks some of the sun's energy from striking earth, but blocks even more infrared energy being lost back to space.

“History of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. “

CO2 concentrations have risen from 300 ppm at the time of his statement to over 450 ppm today and the rise is accelerating.

So yes, I am going to go ahead and worry about global warming. I have grand kids.

[djos]

FWIW, I'm no hippy, I love Internal Combustion Engines (Deisel's excepted, they don't belong in regular passenger cars IMO) and many forms of motor racing (including drag racing) and I'll be sad to see them go. I miss the F1 V12/V10 era - those engines were sensational! The current Hybrid era really lacks pizzaz and they should imo go back to a simple KERS setup with a decent sounding and powerful ICE.

That said, I won't miss the servicing costs that come with ICE-powered cars - once EV's get properly price competitive with ICE-powered cars it'll be a no brainer for me to switch. I'll likely try to buy and hold on to a nice V8 powered pony car at some point - even if it becomes illegal to drive the thing.

I'm coming to the USA for work at the end of this month and I can't wait to drive from LAX to Santa Barbara in a Mustang GT - it's gonna be fun and I plan to enjoy driving ICE-powered cars while we still can.

[V12-POWER]

I hope that by “bad for the environment” you’re not talking about global warming or it’s younger sibling climate change, because there’s enough data to prove man made climate change is simply not real and not caused by ICEs. Same for global warming.

As for our health, the smoke of cigarettes is much much worse than exhaust fumes but I don’t see so much enthusiasm globally to circumvent this.

Thanks for confirming you are a science-denying nutter with zero credibility.

As I said, it is biased science. Carefully cherry picked data, manipulated data, absurdly blown out of proportion press releases don’t count as true science. Let’s ignore 30000 scientist who sort of declared global warming a hoax.

Years ago it was global warming. Now it’s climate change.

At last, I have yet to see sea levels rise, oddly enough, year after year they are in the exact same place as declared by locals and scientist around here.

I have yet to see 30 degrees Celsius temps in winter for prolonged time. Why not 50c summer temps too? Or just for the sake of it, -10c temps during winter. The first time I heard about global warming was when I was 5-6 years (that is, 2006) but as I said, I have yet to see anything out of ordinary.

The case with these predictions is that it’s always something that’s “coming” but it really never ever seems to “come”

So if you’d like I’d recommend you a book, just tell me and I’ll send it - We don’t even have to worry about my credibility buddy

[roon]

Years ago it was global warming. Now it’s climate change.

It's also called the greenhouse effect.

[djos]

Thanks for confirming you are a science-denying nutter with zero credibility.

As I said, it is biased science. Carefully cherry picked data, manipulated data, absurdly blown out of proportion press releases don’t count as true science. Let’s ignore 30000 scientist who sort of declared global warming a hoax.

Years ago it was global warming. Now it’s climate change.

At last, I have yet to see sea levels rise, oddly enough, year after year they are in the exact same place as declared by locals and scientist around here.

I have yet to see 30 degrees Celsius temps in winter for prolonged time. Why not 50c summer temps too? Or just for the sake of it, -10c temps during winter. The first time I heard about global warming was when I was 5-6 years (that is, 2006) but as I said, I have yet to see anything out of ordinary.

The case with these predictions is that it’s always something that’s “coming” but it really never ever seems to “come”

So if you’d like I’d recommend you a book, just tell me and I’ll send it - We don’t even have to worry about my credibility buddy

BS, it's merely referred to as "climate change" to combat quacks like you making stupid statements like "Winter is colder this year so Global warming must be BS". The fact is Global warming results in climate change - climate change means more extreme weather in all seasons. eg Hotter drier summers with a higher number of wild fires and colder winters with more extreme storms.

So you are around 20 years old, it's a shame the school system has let you down.

Here in Australia (as does the US), we have the data to see the results of Climate Change - it's real and measurable.

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.go ... an-trends/

Your 3,000 scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus number is BS, there's less than 100 who have publicly said they disagree with the consensus:

https://electroverse.net/the-list-scien ... te-change/

[Andres125sx]

Scientists don´t have an agenda,

That's simply not true. Science doesn't have an agenda, but the people doing it sure can do. They need to get funding in order to do the science. That funding can, and does, come with strings attached. That, sadly, can and does affect the outcome.

Are you really comparing the agenda of petrol companies and governments like the USA and their huge economical interests in keeping ICEs and polluting industries, with the agenda of a scientists who do prefer investigating in this or any other field?? Really?


I was assuming this is a serious debate, but last replies show me maybe I was wrong... Now science is not science, the big economical interests are not from petrol companies but from scientists, there´s no evidence of man made CC...

Did I jump to a parallel dimension where science is based on rumours and didn´t notice?

[Andres125sx]

Years ago it was global warming. Now it’s climate change.

Don´t know how to say this without being rude, so I´ll be straight forward. You need to instruct yourself deeply if you don´t know one is the consequence of the other

So you don´t understand the most basic aspect, but you know better than the thousands scientists all around the world investigating for decades...


This link may be useful for you