gas cars

We have two choices. Expect big business to spend money to reduce emissions on their own, or enact laws requiring them to do so.
Or enact laws, enact taxes, and use those taxes to create a new Manhattan project or moon mission.

But the current attitude is, government spending is bad, cut taxes. You can't have massive infrastructure projects without taxes to pay for them. But that won't fly with the right. Read my lips etc.

So yeah, business is pushing electric to make money. Still a good idea and I feel electric vehicles will be the majority in 50 years.

 

Simple question what is hotter to touch on a sunny day your lawn or the hood/roof of a black car?

 

****content deleted to give the Mods relief from the KARENS hitting rhe report button. Sorry that the Karens need the report button to feel self important Pathetic.

 

exactly. That is what I said above. The country wont accept it just yet to have a huge commitment unless it is war. War is always ok.

 

I would point out that from 1961 to 1972 NASA spend 147 Billion dollars, in inflation adjusted money.

The Vietnam war was not a factor in this.

It could be done, but we don't have the national will to develop a new energy source, at least not yet. So to abandon our current source simply cannot happen.

JW

 

I heard this morning EPA is going to up the standards for car emissions so what is next is to make it so your car will not pass E-Check then you will have to buy electric car, all by 2035, you know about the time SS gets trimmed 20% Too many collecting money got to cut back.
We must use all energy and make transition easy to do. You still have to mine this stuff and you have to get rid of it
What is the plan for that mr climate change and what about a fire in a car will it burn it back to the core of earth what about that pollution What's the plan just shut it off and plan after you read it?

 

I'm surprised this thread has survived.........

Not surprised its starter hasn't been back.......

Time for a swim in the porcelain pool.........

 

Pretty civilized conversation/discussion in my opinion. Some questions go unanswered, but that is to be expected today.

 

It's scope is more technical in nature, than political.. with a few minor exceptions. It's good to question authority, and I will keep on beating that dead horse, until I get as many folks to think for themselves as possible.

Will that make any difference? Well, you never know..

At this point in time, I would not kill the whole thread, just removing offending posts (and possibly posters) as required.

JW

 

That's why my dog likes to walk in the grass. Also, grass has a lot of surface area to disperse the absorbed heat and dissipate it back through any little breeze. Blacktop or a car finish have no such advantages. They simply absorb or reflect, depending on the finish.

 

S'plain please. I don't see what the point of this statement is.

 

NotRyan,

Most of the anecdotal examples you point out are due to either slight increases seasonally in ocean temps, or simply random weather phenomenon. The hard line you draw in your head to climate change, is a result of being indoctrinated to that thinking since pre-school. No offense intended.. This is how you bring an unproven theory into the social consciousnesses of our society. Declare it as fact, repeat it over and over again, and start the education early.. in a few generations, you could convince society in general that the moon is made of green cheese. This is because, as a rule, young children do not question their teachers.

Some items you mentioned, such as increased Hurricane activity, beginning off the coast of West Africa, are in fact directly related to warmer ocean temps. One must be careful in categorizing these Hurricanes by damage costs. As the years go by, population growth, as well as existing infrastructure/housing is updated/increased/expanded to accommodate that growth. It is entirely expected that this will increase the cost of damage due to a given storm, as mentioned in constant dollars.

To put it simply, a cat 5 that moves over an unimproved sand bar causes little $$ damage.. but when that same storm hits Miami Beach... Well, you can do the math. And the Miami beach of 1963, is a far cry from what it is in 2023 as far as pretty, expensive things that a hurricane destroys. So, of course the most expensive storms have been recent. To be expected.

What is still at issue is the reason for these increased sea temps. There is no direct correlation to CO2 output by man, and increased ocean temps, no matter how hard CC activists try to make one. We have seen changes, both up and down, seasonally. While the overall trend is toward an increase, your talking about tenths of a degree, when averaged out across the total expanse of the oceans.. colder some places, warmer others.. One would reason that if the link is direct to the greenhouse effect caused by CO2, that the increase would be linear year to year, and be directly associated to the amount of CO2 we are creating ever year. The X factor here is sun spot activity.. The sun, remember that?.. you know the thing that actually heats the earth. Sun spot activity increases solar radiation output, which when that output strikes the earth, increases our temps.. What is unknown is how much does that increased energy get trapped by greenhouse gasses, and what percentage/ratio of increase/decrease are we seeing on a year by year basis.

That calculation simply can't be made to an exact figure.. Too many variables.. not the least of which is exactly how much of that Man caused C02 actually makes it to the upper atmosphere. They really have no idea, just educated guesses. But it stands to reasons that flying a private jet and creating that CO2 much closer to the upper atmosphere should be a concern to those who truly believe we are in danger from increased greenhouse gasses, but it certainly does not seem to be.. witness the hundreds of private jets flow into Davos, Switzerland to a climate change conference recently. In an age where a computer conference is entirely possible.

While CO2 has been vilified for the last couple decades, the simply fact is that without it, there would be no life on earth. The vast majority of CO2 created in a given year, by both natural and man caused sources, is absorbed back into the earth via plant life and the photosynthesis process. Again, the data here are estimates.. and estimates have a tendency to be swayed toward of specific point of view, if the individual posses that.

But the real red flag here is that "The Science is Settled on his issue"... and no dissent is allowed, without you being put in a vilified class of individuals, with it's own special name..

Real Science does not work that way.. Not so long ago, if you though the world was round and not flat, you were subject to execution. Times haven't changed that much I guess.

Never forget that science is constantly progressing, anyone who wants to stop that progress of exploration and knowledge gathering, and replace with government funded studies that rubber stamp previous theories/conclusions, needs to to be looked at with a suspicious eye.

JW

 

I think the point is that as we continually develop the earth, we should expect increased average temps. More Sun energy is being absorbed then used to heat the atmosphere, by dark, man made surfaces. Blacktop, roof coverings ect ect.. No accounting for this development is typically available in CC temp prognostications.

Cities tend to produce heat islands.

That phenomenon is really apparent where I live, today. The temp here in Pine City, just 60 Mi north of the Twin Cities, is 5* colder than it is at MSP (airport) This is due to the snow pack we still have that they don't.. the snow is white and it reflects much more of the suns energy than the bare, brown colored earth that is in the cities right now. The Airport is about 10 miles south of the downtown area, where I am sure the temp is even warmer.

We are under both under the same air mass, a stable high pressure system, with clear skys and bright sunshine. So there is no outside influence from fronts or air masses.

JW

 

I agree.
I remember doing oil changes on my dad and sister’s cars, kicking away the gravel and pouring the oil into the gravel, then covering it up. Hosing antifreeze into the street, doing an oil change on an auction car bought at Northwest Auto Auction in North Carolina, driving it to the trim shop using their open pit and letting the oil spill on the ground.
Well not anymore, which is a good thing.
Better engine management systems along with fuel injection becoming common place in the late ‘80s these cars are running cleaner and cleaner.

 

Although I agree with Jim's most recent post, my request for an explanation was based on the fact that dense dark surfaces have always absorbed more energy then porous lighter ones. The biggest absorber of heat on this planet is the oceans. Obviously if we build hundreds of thousands of miles of asphalt highways, the Earth's surface will absorb more heat (just one example).
Certain states are attempting to ban gas appliances; gas is a relatively clean source of energy - why ban it? As non-polluting (at the final user's location) as electricity is, it must be generated in large quantities, and as EVs are phased in the electrical use will increase dramatically. Don't forget that there are line losses in the transmission of electricity.

 

John,

Your assuming good sound logic for Government mandates and rules.. Oh, if that were only true.


CO2 has been vilified, and must be reduced at all costs. Hence the ban of NG appliances.

Makes zero sense, but then switching to EV transport systems don't either, when you consider all the additional CO2 that will be expelled by the creation/manufacture of the products for both the vehicles and the support systems, and then the massive amount of CO2 expelled by all the trucks required to install everything from home chargers to power plant upgrades.. I would suspect that in the short term their will be a substantial net increase in CO2 emissions.. and it has clearly been stated that unless the US "de carbonizes" it's power production, their will be little to no reduction in actual CO2, once we have a fully working and finished Electric Vehicle transit system.

But then again, "don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument"...

JW

 

Science is always proving that the only thing constant is change. Here is some new thinking on air pollution-most of this will affect the way scientists model air pollution:

Hydroxide oxidises many gases released by natural processes and human activity, decomposing them into water-soluble products that can be washed away and removed from the atmosphere. Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Crutzen referred to hydroxide as the "detergent of the atmosphere."
Up until now, scientists thought that hydroxide was mainly formed by sunlight, but the new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week found that a strong electric field that exists at the surface between airborne water droplets and the surrounding air can create OH as well.

“The conventional wisdom is that you have to make OH by photochemistry or redox chemistry. You have to have sunlight or metals acting as catalysts,” said Sergey Nizkorodov, a University of California, Irvine professor of chemistry and a member of the research team, in a press release. “What this paper says in essence is you don’t need any of this. In the pure water itself, OH can be created spontaneously by the special conditions on the surface of the droplets.”
from
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...&cvid=574f251d5c7f4e1ca1eb768526c53a96&ei=142

 

John my point is simple. JW gave the science side of it so no need to beat that horse..
What I'm referring to is this. In this state" Maine"( many other states as well), the push to go Green is at a major cost to that which is Green. Traffic circles, along on ramps, state lands all are being converted from green grass and forest lands to black solar panels. Farmland is being bought up and turned into solar farms. Private acreage is being bought up by climate groups and cleared of vegetation for more solar farms.
Our electric Bill is almost doubled from 2 years ago, a result of community solar development.
If that not enough of an explanation let me know.
Friends bought an old farm to do what they had dreamed of =farming. Within the first year a company cleared about 50 acres across the road from their farm. Today they look out at about 45 acres of solar panels.