Pelican Parts Forums - The irony here is off the chart

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - The irony here is off the chart (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1125582-irony-here-off-chart.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtEgerer (Post 11794511)

Batteries are not progress. That's a marketing illusion. It's technology older than ICEs. Making vehicles heavier is not progress. Making vehicles with less driving range is not progress. Increasing refueling time and decreasing fuel availability is not progress. Decreasing towing ability is not progress. Relying on fossil fuel power plants is not progress. Developing 1000s of new strip mining operations is not progress. Relying on foreign countries for critical minerals is not progress (see Russia, Europe ....).

Something truly innovative and efficient to replace the ICE will happen. It will most likely involve some type of fuel cell that we can't really even conceive of currently. When that happens, it will not need to be force-fed down our throats by legislation and government rebates. It will be something everyone WANTS to buy because it is better, cheaper, has more range, better performance and is more convenient than an ICE vehicle (think cellphone revolution). Until that day comes, we have enough oil to outlive all of us and then some. The sky is not falling. 'Mother Earth' is not in danger. Relax. :cool:

Science may disagree with you about the earth being in danger.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Scientist with an agenda pumping fear to uneducated people disagree with Curt.
Read the published info in other threads concerning climate change and don't be in denial.

Here, I'll save you the time looking:

Global Warming a la Climate Change alarmists are basing their hysteria on two inaccuracies:
-They do not accept that the earth climate changes are measured in eons and not years or even decades.
-They chose to throw out data that does not come to their desired conclusion. Just one example

Quote:

Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans
By Adam Kredo
Published December 21, 2016
Washington Free Beacon

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.
The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age
Upside-down "rivers" of warm ocean water may be one of the causes of Antarctica's ice shelves breaking up, leading to a rise in sea levels. But a new study suggests an increase in sea ice may lead to a much more devastating change in the Earth's climate — another ice age.

Using computer simulations, the research suggests that an increase in sea ice could significantly alter the circulation of the ocean, ultimately leading to a reverse greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide levels in the ocean increase and levels in the air decrease.

“One key question in the field is still what caused the Earth to periodically cycle in and out of ice ages,” University of Chicago professor and the study's co-author, Malte Jansen, said in a statement. “We are pretty confident that the carbon balance between the atmosphere and ocean must have changed, but we don’t quite know how or why."

The last major ice age ended at the end of the Pleistocene era, about 2.5 million years ago, as glaciers have periodically grown and then gotten smaller. Researchers believe that changes to the Earth's orbit may be partly responsible for some of the Earth's cooling, but additional factors have likely played a part, Jensen added.

“The most plausible explanation is that there was some change in how carbon was divided between the atmosphere and the ocean,” Jansen continued. “There’s no shortage of ideas about how this happens, but it’s not quite clear how they all fit together.”

Researchers also believe a mini-ice age may have occurred roughly 12,800 years ago. It likely stems from an asteroid impact that "rocked the Northern Hemisphere" and led to the Younger Dryas climate event.
Jansen pointed out that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica "plays a key role in ocean circulation" due to the deep waters in the region, leading it to have "outsize[d] consequences."

“What this suggests is that it’s a feedback loop,” said the study's lead author, Alice Marzocchi. “As the temperature drops, less carbon is released into the atmosphere, which triggers more cooling.”

“What surprised me is how much of this increased storage can be attributed to physical changes alone, with Antarctic sea-ice cover being the key player,” Marzocchi added, noting that future study of the ocean and the role it plays in the carbon cycle can help simulate "future environmental change.”

The research has been published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

But wait, there's more:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1662780705.jpg

Quote:

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.
It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.
---
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.
---
The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.

Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

and this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reiver (Post 11792205)

A declaration of scientists and professionals...over 1000 signatures. The only part they do not cover are those 'scientists' that make money off of 'climate change'....who invented the self licking ice cream cone.

There is no
climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more
scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in
their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately
count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the
planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age
ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis
of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the
modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as
policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they
also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable
for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth
in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the
yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes,
floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.

However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and
alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy
proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.

OUR ADVICE TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERS IS THAT SCIENCE SHOULD
STRIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE
SYSTEM, WHILE POLITICS SHOULD FOCUS ON MINIMIZING POTENTIAL
CLIMATE DAMAGE BY PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BASED ON
PROVEN AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is
to believe what the model makers have put
in. This is precisely the problem of today’s
climate discussion to which climate models
are central. Climate science has degenerated
into a discussion based on beliefs, not
on sound self-critical science. Should not
we free ourselves from the naive belief in
immature climate models

link has signature list

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsscott (Post 11794572)

Science may disagree with you about the earth being in danger.

Yeah? Does science say fix it with a tax. ?

Read: this is a massive scam on people who don't understand basic chemistry.

Just pay a sin tax and you can BUY carbon Credits.

Once the gods of taxation are made happy the earth will not get sick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn 549 (Post 11794941)

They must box up the money and sent it to the guy in charge of the weather and climate.?
LOL
The Left minions are too stupid to see the tax goes into the pockets of those on the other side of the moat.
No amount of money spent is going to change anything.
Most any drooler "could" go back into time on google and read temps, and Co2 levels.
There is small variations and right now we are at the lowest CO2 level ever recorded.
For those of us that can read we know those puts on on the edge of another ice age!
This earth has spent most of its life in and out of them, and the last one receded just 10K ago.
Be careful what you want to change.!!!
Most humans have a zero for a concept of time on a geological scale.
a Million years is nothing here.
ABSOLUTELY nothing! Not even 10%
Not even 1%!
Buy watch these inbred supposed educated Left types, flail their arms and lips about cow farts and repeating
crap from their comic books.
Edited and printed by Left thinkers who were taught by left thinkers who have not ever done anything.

The irony here is off the chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsscott (Post 11795402)

Once again, the power never went off because of the heatwave but cool memes bro. [emoji106]

Thanks, but we have heat in Florida too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racerbvd (Post 11795414)

Thanks, but we have heat in Florida too.

Well you have hurricanes which the rest of us get to pay for so there’s that. I’m not complaining though because that’s life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsscott (Post 11794484)

Are you against any type of progression? It seems that way. If I had the money I’d gladly get a tricked out Tesla over another over priced super car like say a Porsche. As far as the ICE ban in California, it’s really not a ban at all. You can keep your polluter car and if you want something new you can go with a hybrid version. Also by that year battery tech will be vastly different in a good way so what is wrong with looking towards a different future?

I have zero issue with people buying electric cars if they wish to - I believe in freedom of markets and choice.

However, when they are subsidized heavily, and the choice is being eliminate legislatively, I have a problem.

So what you say? Because dismantling and replacing an infrastructure that works pretty well with an equivalent infrastructure that is not any better (electric cars offer no real benefit over an ICE other than the alleged CO2 reduction) is consuming our societal resources that could be deployed to solve far bigger problems.

Couple that with the corollary changes that the alarmists want to undertake - removal of fertilizer, elimination of meat production, increased costs of anything that consumes energy - which is almost everything, increased governmental control on individual activity....well...there is a large negative impact ranging from food shortages, impoverishment and reduction of our freedoms.

Being old enough to have experienced serious discussion about a new ice age and global cooling, I think there are other factors (sunspots? magnetic field changes? changes in the earth's molten core flow) and CO2 is at most a minor player.

I believe that all the effort we are putting into stopping CO2 will have close to zero effect on climate, and it will not shock me at all to start seeing colder temperatures such as I saw as a youth beginning to return.

In the meantime, we will have shot our wad and have no real improvement on any dimension.

D.

PS - if I were in charge, I would put far more investment into recycling of everything, particularly plastics and I would seek a far better method of birth control for both sexes as we have too many people in the world - make it easy, safe, reliable and not dependent on feticide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggie (Post 11795490)

Finally a smart retort. A lot of what you say makes sense. I don’t think reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a bad idea and battery technology will only get better. I’m for progressive thinking when it comes to alternative energy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsscott (Post 11795509)

I think getting your energy supply from sources which are either proven or likely to become hostile to you is stupidity beyond belief.

North America can pretty well take care of itself between the Canadian supply (which is very large in the oil sands), plus US + Mexico...no issue.

Europe is not badly off either, but the idiots in Brussels have to wrap their heads around using clean coal, natural gas as well as a lot of nukes. We're better positioned to use BEV's in some ways, but there is no way on this earth we can make enough at home charging stations as the population density makes it impossible. Over 300 units in my apartment complex, little over 140 parking spaces (garaged) and from what the condo association tells me, there is literally not enough wires in the ground to power a BEV charger for every resident....but I digress.

As for "foreign oil", use it for peaking supply and to keep your own oil in the ground for as long as you can....perhaps a hard policy to figure out (do you pay your national oil companies to keep oil in the ground?? That gets twisted pretty fast...)

I am also a huge fan of doing the "normal stuff". Insulation, data centres using fresh air cooling rather than full time AC, how about cars that get 5 l/100 km (about 47 mpg) as the normal driving machine.

I typically get that in a Volkswagen Polo on the freeway at 130 kmh (80 mph)...on regular gas. The Nissan Pickup I drive when I am in North America gets 12l/100 (20 mpg) and I drive it max 110 kmh (68 mph)

Final thought. I work closely with a PhD chemist, she does not see any chemical reaction based battery combination that will give the energy density, safety, charge rate, discharge rate and all that stuff on the horizon...and maybe not even theoretically possible. Lots of tweaks available, probably even get another 30% better....but not much more than that.
I think it will take a radically different technology, perhaps based on capacitance or something......but batteries aren't it.

D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggie (Post 11795699)

https://www.investors.com/news/ev-battery-technology-hunting-for-the-next-big-thing/
It seems there is some tech on the horizon that will hopefully cut the need for lithium and other resources. Sodium ion and solid state batteries to be specific. My guess is any of these new ideas will be bought out by the larger corporations and shelved. That’s the way the world goes round as John Prine would say.

Here is a great idea:

Make the DOE and EPA offices raise their thermostats to 78 degrees just like CA requests its citizens to do!

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sen-ernst-pushes-bill-requiring-doe-epa-raise-own-office-thermostats-match-ca-recommendations

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1662991600.png

Ha! - that's harsh but funny. Thanks Byron.

If only the power had gone off then these awesome memes would have made sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsscott (Post 11796377)

If only the power had gone off then these awesome memes would have made sense.

The funny thing is, a circuit breaker popped in one TV studio in Los Angeles, and the Wrong Wing siezed on it as a 'statewide blackout.' But California didn't have a blackout, rolling blackout or 'brownout' and that fact undercuts all the cartoons -- except for people allergic to reality.

Oh, and I survived being asked to 'cut back on electricity use between 4 and 9 for a few days, as did my Tesla.

Quote:

Originally Posted by techweenie (Post 11825398)

And the other States never got notice to not charge their electric cars for fear of crashing capacity.

And the other States never got notice that electric cars will become the standard.

It's funny, that combination of notices. - in a rainbow Unicorn flatulent sort of way.

And here are the defensive "But California didn't have a blackout..." as if that proves that there is no problem with the grid and future demands of mandated EV's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey (Post 11786147)

Everyone is making an EV these days.

The advances we will see in a decade plus will be driven by competition amongst the auto makers.

Same as we see with MPG driving purchase decisions we will see the same with efficiency in not only range but also in charging.

You'll have lighter cars, more efficient motors, better charging tech.

The impact of an EV that you buy 10 years from now will most certainly be demonstrably less than the EV you bought today.

You will also see growth in another market, PowerWalls.

You can store solar all day and charge at night and never touch the grid.

Current Powerwall 2 can maintain a Tesla off solar alone if you are only driving 100+ miles per day.

It's entirely possible for EV's to not only have zero impact on todays grid but actually have less demand on todays grid a decade down the road.

I just read about the electrical energy needed to manufacture gasoline vs. the electrical energy needed to charge an EV. They are about the same. So when we switch to EVs we use the grid savings from not making gasoline. So there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hcoles (Post 11825512)

Oh my... I would really like to hear more about how gasoline production takes more energy to produce than it gives.