Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[Suffolkhifinut]

Why not do both?

Believe the threat from pollution should be the focus of our efforts to protect the environment. Plastic waste throughout the World has reached crisis proportions.

 

[earlevel]

The x-axis lists 1979-1983.

I'm confused why you say this, because I don't see the x-axis labeled, and the dates you give can't possibly be true. I see 30 data points for the UAH satellite record, I'm certain that's annual plotting. There were no satellite troposphere measurements before 1979 Annual would put the last data point at ~2009, and there is a tick mark to the right that should be 2010, according to my recollection of the shape of the warming graph.

 

[blueone]

I'm confused why you say this, because I don't see the x-axis labeled, and the dates you give can't possibly be true. I see 30 data points for the UAH satellite record, I'm certain that's annual plotting. There were no satellite troposphere measurements before 1979 Annual would put the last data point at ~2009, and there is a tick mark to the right that should be 2010, according to my recollection of the shape of the warming graph.

I'm sorry, I miss-typed. The date range is on the y-axis.

 

[Chromatischism]

Climate warming and cooling is part of nature

Definitely. It's also influenced by greenhouse gases. Ever been to a greenhouse?

Furthermore, too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm sorry, I miss-typed. The date range is on the y-axis.

I believe that indicates they used the average of 1979-83 to compare later years.

 

[blueone]

I believe that indicates they used the average of 1979-83 to compare later years.

I give up. What a dumb chart.

 

[earlevel]

You are abusing the graph here. Those are different scenarios. I don't think anyone thinks scientists have a crystal ball and know the future specifics...

I'm abusing nothing. I don't know if you're not reading all of my words, and making assumptions about what I'm saying. Once more, the reply was to someone saying "In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100". I said that implies certainty, and there is no certainty. If there were certainty, why would the IPCC publish such a wide range of scenarios?

Like I said, this is all in the hands of politicians anyway. I'm confident they will continue to abuse it for equity and other purposes, and benefit donors who will make fortunes on the changes in store. Some have even talked about using the lessons of COVID restriction on the masses for this. In light of that's it's futile to spend a lot of time talking about exactly where the temperature will land. I just wanted to make the point there is no certainty, there is no way to calculate where it will be. The error bands are large.

 

[Frgirard]

3°C at 2100, you are dreaming. In Europe we are already at 1.7°C
The Paris agreements require a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions per year to be at 0 in 2050
The global containment of 2020 is a 7% reduction in emissions.
The 5% is and will never be required. The fight against climate change has never existed and will never exist.
Robert Charney wrote in 1979 in the first report of what was not yet the IPCC: if we do nothing in 1979, it will be too late when we see it.
Climate change does not exist. It will soon be forbidden to talk about it under penalty of repression.

for an emissions scenario leading to more than +4°C in 2100, about 74% of the world's population will face life-threatening temperature and humidity conditions more than 20 days a year.

For the same emissions scenario, the working capacity will be reduced by less than 60% on average for the world population, during the hottest months in 2100.

In its Sustainable Development Scenario (supposed to be compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement), the IEA estimates that, by 2040, the global demand for nickel and cobalt linked to the energy transition could be multiplied by 20 approximately and that of lithium by more than 40.

In concrete terms, the share of "low carbon energies" in the world demand for minerals could, by 2040, reach 45% for copper (compared to 24% in 2020), approach 60 to 70% for nickel and cobalt ( against respectively 8% and 15% in 2020) and exceed 90% for lithium (against 29% in 2020).


CO2 has been in the atmosphere for millennia. 3°C in 2100, this is madness and the industrial world live in a bubble

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Definitely. It's also influenced by greenhouse gases. Ever been to a greenhouse?

Furthermore, too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Yes and don’t plants grow well in them!

 

[earlevel]

Definitely. It's also influenced by greenhouse gases. Ever been to a greenhouse?

"Greenhouse gases" is considered in the climate science fields as a horrible analogy. Superficially, yes, the idea of "holding heat in" as compared to not holding heat in has some descriptive merit. But otherwise there is no similarity, so while it may be an effective social term, it's a terrible scientific term.

That said, we wouldn't be here without GHGs. And whatever one might say about the dangers of global warming, if it had worked out the other way (if industrialization had caused depletion of CO2, or otherwise had more of a cooling effect than a warming effect), it would have been far more deadly than however it will turn out. Just looking at the bright side. (CO2 depletion in the Little Ice Age caused massive crop failures and starvation, including the root of the Great Famine less than 200 years ago.)

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm abusing nothing. I don't know if you're not reading all of my words, and making assumptions about what I'm saying. Once more, the reply was to someone saying "In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100". I said that implies certainty, and there is no certainty. If there were certainty, why would the IPCC publish such a wide range of scenarios?

Like I said, this is all in the hands of politicians anyway. I'm confident they will continue to abuse it for equity and other purposes, and benefit donors who will make fortunes on the changes in store. Some have even talked about using the lessons of COVID restriction on the masses for this. In light of that's it's futile to spend a lot of time talking about exactly where the temperature will land. I just wanted to make the point there is no certainty, there is no way to calculate where it will be. The error bands are large.

Your phrasing was easy to read as trying to say scientists don't know what will happen and we shouldn't listen to them. Yes, you didn't say that. The scientists on this aren't exactly hardliners or they wouldn't offer all the different scenarios. Plus it obscures that their models do give us a good indication for what will happen depending upon what scenario plays out.

I don't think the thing is really solvable as in a path that can be taken which will allow the world to avoid this warming. Too political with no authority world wide and too many interests that diverge. Everyone will do what they deem best for themselves and the near future. Like many things it may well play out wealthier countries can afford the disruption better than others and others pay the price. That is what history would suggest. Also why I don't think countries should harm themselves trying to "do the right thing" when they cannot control the outcome and will only put themselves in a relatively disadvantaged position.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Homo sapien illogic has resulted in a rather long list of human species threatening issues:
-- Climate change
-- Health issues: obesity, smoking, anti-vax, potential killer virus, etc
-- Environmental health issues: toxic substances; air pollution; water pollution
-- Clean fresh water: availability and maintenance there of
-- Excessive tribalism and racism
-- Dictatorships
-- Species exterpation
-- Overfishing and massive reduction in fish stocks
-- Gender suppression
-- Religous fanatacism
-- Overpopulation

The list goes on and on with little or no agreement on many fronts, let alone solutions or problem solving. At some point a major link in the chain breaks and billions get wiped out.

Covid was just an early warning, along with the more than 55 chemicals now found in most human bodies that were not there in the past, including a number of "mystery chemicals" that are unknown as to how they got inside of us.

U.S. life expectancy is declining, as may be the standard of living for most of the population.

Until then, be glad for some good hi-fi, as it gets better each year, and more affordable.

 

[pseudoid]

Now I realize and must apologize for every post I added to this thread!
To be honest about the whole environmental topic and to be truthful about eVs: The more I read, the more I realize how complex propositions are involved in making one's mind pro or con. It has gotten to the point that I am forced to take either side's premises and substantiations (pro or con) as just opinions but they will added to memory.
I realize that even the aggregate collection of numbers I previously posted are probably skewed (and/or in error), as well!
TL&DR: I be no professional and I know JACK SH*T about either topic!
(I try to be a concerned citizen by minimizing my waste contributions but there ain't no f'in way I am parting w/my 400HP ICE...Even if $6.58/gallon hurts like hell!)

 

[Timcognito]

there ain't no f'in way I am parting w/my 400HP ICE

But several PHEVs and EVs have 0-60 mph under 5 sec and more that 400 hp. An electric motor develops 100% torque at a full stall.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now I realize and must apologize for every post I added to this thread!
To be honest about the whole environmental topic and to be truthful about eVs: The more I read, the more I realize how complex propositions are involved in making one's mind pro or con. It has gotten to the point that I am forced to take either side's premises and substantiations (pro or con) as just opinions but they will added to memory.
I realize that even the aggregate collection of numbers I previously posted are probably skewed, as well!
TL&DR: I be no professional and I know JACK SH*T about either topic!
(I try to be a concerned citizen by minimizing my waste contributions but there ain't no f'in way I am parting w/my 400HP ICE...Even if $6.58/gallon hurts like hell!)

And for most of us we make our own decisions for what makes sense to each of us. This worrying about global results of those choices is new. And in fact stupid, because it is beyond any of our abilities to know how it all shakes out.

So for me, I've driven, ridden, and know people with EV's. I like them so far. Once supplies catch up a little I'll likely get one. Not saving the planet and have plenty of reasons completely divorced from that. Other people don't like or understand them and will stick with ICE. Over time it looks like the market will be mostly EV or it may end up in some mixture for a couple or three generations. One more generation will do it for me and after that will be someone else's choices to make.

 

[earlevel]

there ain't no f'in way I am parting w/my 400HP ICE

But several PHEVs and EVs have 0-60 mph under 5 sec and more that 400 hp. An electric motor develops 100% torque at a full stall.

Yet no one gathers around them idling in a parking lot

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yet no one gathers around them idling in a parking lot

Actually of course EVs don't idle. OTOH, been to quite a few cruise ins. Lots of people gather around some of the neater EV's. So basically your statement is a fantasy. Quoting the Eagles , "Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy!"

 

[earlevel]

Actually of course EVs don't idle. OTOH, been to quite a few cruise ins. Lots of people gather around some of the neater EV's. So basically your statement is a fantasy. Quoting the Eagles , "Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy!"

So, you do understand I was making a joke? (Fresh off a buddy showing off his Camaro build Saturday night.) I also considered,

"But sound like $#!+"

and

"Yet attract no women"

Tough crowd.

 

[pseudoid]

Woke, freedom, and privacy -minded people may have much different thoughts and worries on the subject of eVs, sooner or later!
I personally think it was born weaponized, and prematurely so!

• Should everyone doing 70MPH in an 65MPH zone be automatically sent an e-ticket?
• Should doing 80MPH automatically throttle you down?
• Should doing 100MPH immobilize your vehicle?
• How about an illegal "No right on red"?

Or do we take the human out of the equation altogether and prevent him from that sneaky right when no one is around?

 

[RayDunzl]

Most EVs are direct drive.

Not "direct" like the typical electric fan, but a single gear ratio.

Tesla Model S transmission. Gear 1 is the output ring gear and gear 2 is the intermediate gear​

Maybe n