Pretty bold move….

[rideair]

Since, I live within the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (which at one time was an inland sea) and my house sits in the 50-100 year flood-zone, of which the entire first floor was under water during the flood of 1942, I do understand a little about rising water. It is "fact" with pictures to prove, the first floor was under water when the water rose, in 1942. Did that mean they dismantled the house and rebuilt it on higher ground as the water started to rise, nope. And the funny thing, the water has not been that high since almost 70 years ago. Had they used that thought process, I would not be living in a house that sits next to a creek for the past 25 years, listening to the sounds of water all day/night.

If we used the same thought process, that since the Shenandoah Valley was once an inland sea, we should never build in the valley because the water could return, many of the farms would not be here that has provided food for 100's of years.

Not trying to blame anything or anyone, and not saying that mankind can't screw things up (look at rivers, mining, development, etc..) unless everyone is willing to go back and live like the American Indian's where you only take what you need, move from place to place so areas are not destroyed, and given time to grow back, we need to learn everything comes at a price regardless if it's EV cars/trucks or ICE cars/trucks.

All I know is this, the very ones that are preaching to the world about Climate Change, Global Warming, etc.. are the very ones flying in private jets, have many 10,000 square-foot houses, take vacations on 300 ft. yacht's sucking down 300 gallons of diesel a day, so with that, I call BS. If they are the smart ones that know all about this subject, would they not stop living that way if all of what they say was true?

It's funny how Richard Branson answered the question about Al Gore being a "Prophet?" His answer, "It depends on how you spell Profit" and then started to chuckle.

And to Peter's thought, Drama can be very entertaining.

Just Saying,

[LNBright]

It was an inland sea, 350 million years ago when the bedrock was being deposited, then got shoved around when Africa and North America closed up into Pangea around 250 million years ago... it's not like the Shenandoah Valley was a sea then wasn't a sea in the near-distant past, ie, past 100,000 years or so....

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by rideair

Since, I live within the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (which at one time was an inland sea) and my house sits in the 50-100 year flood-zone, of which the entire first floor was under water during the flood of 1942, I do understand a little about rising water. It is "fact" with pictures to prove, the first floor was under water when the water rose, in 1942. Did that mean they dismantled the house and rebuilt it on higher ground as the water started to rise, nope. And the funny thing, the water has not been that high since almost 70 years ago. Had they used that thought process, I would not be living in a house that sits next to a creek for the past 25 years, listening to the sounds of water all day/night.

If we used the same thought process, that since the Shenandoah Valley was once an inland sea, we should never build in the valley because the water could return, many of the farms would not be here that has provided food for 100's of years. ...

Guess I was thinking about places where high tide flooding has become the norm rather than the exception, not a once in a 50 year flood. Some parts of coastal cities experience near daily flooding of roads and lower levels in buildings, something that didn't happen just a few decades ago. Not saying that this is the same as the conversation about fossil fuels, just an example of an environmental change which will affect us. Regardless of the cause, it requires action be taken.

Back to the question of transportation technology transitioning from fossil fuels to something else, I seriously doubt that we've reached the point that we know what will replace the ICE powered vehicles. The EVs we're seeing now are, IMO, transitional.

[rideair]

First, I want to say, "I'm Sorry, I was wrong". How do I know that, you might ask. Today I had Chicken/Broccoli lunch special at the local Chinese place. At the end of the meal, I broke open my fortune cookie looking for a few words of wisdom and it said the following:

"Now is the time for peace in your life. Go along with other's ideas". The lucky numbers "23, 28, 32, 33, 39 and 43".

I plan to play those numbers in the lottery this weekend and when I win and become a multi-millionaire, I to will be able to have many 10,000 square-foot homes, fly in private jets and vacation on 300 foot yachts. I will also at that time preach about Global Warming and Climate Change like many in the ruling class.

The water is rising, I'm heading for the hills!!

Thanks for the banter,
Enjoy,

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by rideair

All I know is this, the very ones that are preaching to the world about Climate Change, Global Warming, etc.. are the very ones flying in private jets, have many 10,000 square-foot houses, take vacations on 300 ft. yacht's sucking down 300 gallons of diesel a day, so with that, I call BS. If they are the smart ones that know all about this subject, would they not stop living that way if all of what they say was true?

It's funny how Richard Branson answered the question about Al Gore being a "Prophet?" His answer, "It depends on how you spell Profit" and then started to chuckle.

And to Peter's thought, Drama can be very entertaining.

I love it when people make the exception the rule. Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Maybe so, but it doesn't mean he's wrong about climate change. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Besides, I don't pay much attention to politicians like Gore, nor do I allow the pronouncements of people like him to guide my thinking on the matter. Instead, I pay attention to research by the overwhelming majority (97%) of scientists worldwide who are studying climate issues. I note the response of some of the biggest corporations in the world, from Daimler to Google to GM, who are making huge financial commitments to combat climate change. I read that the Pentagon is developing contingency plans for rising oceans and other effects of climate change. I'm concerned that CO2 levels, as measured by the NOAA, are the highest they've been on earth in 4 million years. Not to mention living through heat waves and unending fire seasons that are on a scale greater than anything I've seen here in CA in 70 years.

The "very ones" talking about climate change don't all own yachts, private jets and 10,000 SF homes. That's ridiculous hyperbole. I imagine most who are concerned are like me; people who worry what a future world will be like for their children and grandchildren. And that's the crux of the matter. I won't live to see the worst effects of what we're doing to the planet nor, I suspect, will most of the people posting in this thread. But my children might, and my 2 young grandsons certainly will. I'm writing for them, not for myself.

As for drama, I'm glad folks are finding this discussion entertaining. Maybe it will motivate just one person to take another look at what is really going on with this issue.

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

So at 100,000 miles the VOLT EV needs a new battery because it is degraded from 10 to 30%. What’s that going to cost? About $9,000 from what I’ve read. Yikes. That will buy a lot of gas.. just saying.

This is a completely and a utterly false statement. There are Volts with 400k on the odo and original battery pack. One was named Sparky:

https://insideevs.com/news/334835/th...y-degradation/

GM does not allow access to 25% of the battery pack and has robust thermal management. Though the battery does degrade over time, it could be between 10-20 years before it registers and the battery replacement costs would be in line with what the cost per kWh is at the time of replacement (average of 15k/year driven).

Back in 2011 when the Volt first arrived, the cost per kWh was prob higher than 500/kWh. Today it's getting closer to between 100 and 137/kWh.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ery-costs-fall'

For the record, my 2015 Volt still get nearly 60 miles of range per charge as is did new in 2015, roughly 1.5x what it was said to have gotten. It just about to break 60k on the ODO and with regen braking, still have the factory orig pads and rotors installed with a ton of life left in them...might not have to consider brake replacement until 120k at the rate it's going....

The hybrid would be an excellent bridge between ICE and pure EV be it a daily driver, TV, etc. PHEVs have been around and on the road for 10 years now with a proven track record....and to replace a Volt battery pack in today's price per kWh would land it **around** $1500. The same or less than that of a transmission rebuild.

[LNBright]

Okay, I have to say it....


If humans had died out during the last ice age, say 10,000 years ago, today we'd still see sea levels rising and glaciers retreating and forest fires and droughts....

But that's no reason to not still do things that make sense. It makes sense to not "mess your nest". It doesn't make sense to pollute waterways, keep them clean. Plant trees. Recycle. If two vehicles can do the same thing you need and one is more fuel efficient, pick it instead. If you vegetables are available for you to buy and one has less packaging, get it instead. Turn off the lights in your house instead of leaving them on. Don't buy a mcmansion if a house half the size suits your needs and tastes. All of the different things that are trying to be suggested are usually good things to do for the most part. Clean emissions, elimination of famine, water scarcity, habit loss corrected, etc., all these are things we need to work on.

But be honest about it, tell me to do those things because they're good things to do, not using polar bears as a scare tactic.

And I think we should still work to improve all of that, regardless. However...

Here's where it gets dark quick: you want to solve climate change? The problem isn't your F250, it's the number of people on this planet that's the issue. If we lived on a grass mat and had a daily bowl of rice and a cup of water, sure, we could support 15 billion people on this planet. Want everyone to have a nice 'western' lifestyle with a big screen tv and their favorite vacation places? Then "we" should have reached ZPG at a billion people, instead of our current fast-approaching 8 billion people. So that's the real problem: how do we get back to a global population of 1 billion people? Who gets to decide how that's done? Without achieving that as a number, the whole rest of it is just blowing smoke. Sorry, yeah, that's dark. But, facts bite sometimes.

Sorry....

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by LNBright

]how do we get back to a global population of 1 billion people? Who gets to decide how that's done?

Sorry....

Agree, it's way beyond just the automobile.

China tried population control. Didn't go too well.

Can you imagine American's being told you can only have 2 kids? We can barely get folks to agree on wearing masks in a pandemic, same thing as is was in the last pandemic in the early 1900s.

We're doomed....says Eeyore.....as I just got back from 1000 mile trip pulling my Airstream with my 6.0L 3.4 ton SUV.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by panamerican

Agree, it's way beyond just the automobile.

China tried population control. Didn't go too well.

Can you imagine American's being told you can only have 2 kids? We can barely get folks to agree on wearing masks in a pandemic, same thing as is was in the last pandemic in the early 1900s.

We're doomed....says Eeyore.....as I just got back from 1000 mile trip pulling my Airstream with my 6.0L 3.4 ton SUV.

Exactly..... I don't want China making the call, or India, or even the good ol' U S of A...

I'll do as good as I can myself, but otherwise, I'm gonna go see and love the scenery across this country of ours....

[rowiebowie]

I'm extremely pessimistic about our future considering our government and politicians prodigious ability to screw things up in their bid for ever more power and control.

But I'm optimistic that technology will find a way to overcome challenges. A hundred years ago over 90% of the US population was engaged in agriculture to one extent or the other. Today it's about 2%, so we've found a way to abundantly feed population levels once deemed as leading to disaster.

The above is just one example, but so far we haven't blow up the world in a nuclear confrontation, avoided "Silent Spring", death-trap Corvairs, and a predicted Ice Age never materialized.

At this point, were moving to a "green" future of electric cars. This is happening more to technological innovation than any detrimental effects of internal combustion (which will still be needed for many decades). Electric cars are proving superior to ICE cars and price parity is getting there. So governments (see my thoughts above) should stay out of picking winners and losers and let consumers decide. It's not always a bad thing, and certainly better than the choices our politicians would make for us.

Besides, artificial intelligence (AI) will most likely decide mankind is not needed long before climate change, a meteor, or inter-gallactic aliens will.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by LNBright

If humans had died out during the last ice age, say 10,000 years ago, today we'd still see sea levels rising and glaciers retreating and forest fires and droughts....

I agree with some of the other commentary in your post, but for the above: evidence please.

While it's not unlikely that the kind of climate changes you cite will occur eventually and over a long period of time, all the credible science and data I've seen on this shows that human activity has modified and rapidly accelerated the process of climate change.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

I agree with some of the other commentary in your post, but for the above: evidence please.

We're still coming out of an ice age. 20,000 years ago, continental glaciers extended down to the Ohio River. 10,000 years ago, they were well retreated, had opened up the Great Lakes. By 5000 years ago, most of the continent was ice free, except of the far north and some mountain-caps like Columbia ice cap (where the Athabasca glacier comes down). There's no question about it, that's all scientific fact. Humans aren't the cause of us coming out of an ice age. Read up on Milankovitch cycles...

The question is: what is the additional amount of ice-retreat/sea-level rise/etc that is occurring due to anthropogenic causation? It's apparent that there's an additional amount due to anthropogenic effects, but they're still working out the exact amounts. Is it half of it? 3/4? A quarter? I'm not gonna put a pin in that...

[jcl]

Originally Posted by LNBright

We're still coming out of an ice age. 20,000 years ago, continental glaciers extended down to the Ohio River. 10,000 years ago, they were well retreated, had opened up the Great Lakes. By 5000 years ago, most of the continent was ice free, except of the far north and some mountain-caps like Columbia ice cap (where the Athabasca glacier comes down). There's no question about it, that's all scientific fact. Humans aren't the cause of us coming out of an ice age. Read up on Milankovitch cycles...

The question is: what is the additional amount of ice-retreat/sea-level rise/etc that is occurring due to anthropogenic causation? It's apparent that there's an additional amount due to anthropogenic effects, but they're still working out the exact amounts. Is it half of it? 3/4? A quarter? I'm not gonna put a pin in that...

A consensus of scientists put a pin it. They put it at over 100%. They considered more than Milankovitch cycles in their analysis. Volcanos, aerosols, etc.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by jcl

A consensus of scientists put a pin it. They put it at over 100%. They considered more than Milankovitch cycles in their analysis. Volcanos, aerosols, etc.

You misunderstand me.

There is an amount that occurred due to natural effects, without anthropogenic input.

There is an additional amount due to anthropogenic effects.

100 percent, sum of both portions, natural and anthropogenic, are causes that contributed.

What I was meaning: I am not going to pin a percentage of the changes to what humans have caused versus what it would have been naturally without people.

Regardless, that amount can only go up to 100%, as it it of the total that occurred, you can't go beyond 100%. (Unless you're making the joke that 5 our of 4 people have problems with fractions.)

[Jim & Susan]

Originally Posted by Ginophiles

.......Not saying the guy isn't nutty.

But I do love the "rotary dial phone" gang that comes out on discussions like this. I always picture them sweeping their 8-track collection off the desk so they can really pound the keyboard about the latest tech innovation that's going to ruin society.

And yes, Safety 3rd my friend!!

Whuuuuuuttt? Next thing you'll be telling me is that article I read in PC Magazine the other day about VHS format taking over is all wrong. What's next, that DARPA Net will rule the world some day? Man, what IS the world of technology coming to........

There are a bunch of people taking this subject (and Neil Degrass-what's-his-name) way too seriously.

Jim

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by LNBright

We're still coming out of an ice age. 20,000 years ago, continental glaciers extended down to the Ohio River. 10,000 years ago, they were well retreated, had opened up the Great Lakes. By 5000 years ago, most of the continent was ice free, except of the far north and some mountain-caps like Columbia ice cap (where the Athabasca glacier comes down). There's no question about it, that's all scientific fact. Humans aren't the cause of us coming out of an ice age. Read up on Milankovitch cycles...

The question is: what is the additional amount of ice-retreat/sea-level rise/etc that is occurring due to anthropogenic causation? It's apparent that there's an additional amount due to anthropogenic effects, but they're still working out the exact amounts. Is it half of it? 3/4? A quarter? I'm not gonna put a pin in that...

There is little doubt there is a natural component to climate change. But it's difficult to look at the graph below and not conclude that the pace of change is bound to accelerate in conjunction with the pumping of more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by anthropogenic activity.

As you've suggested, changes in our atmosphere and climate have indeed occurred over thousands of years. But short of cataclysmic events like asteroid strikes and huge scale volcanic activity it doesn't occur over decades; until now. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Jim & Susan

There are a bunch of people taking this subject (and Neil Degrass-what's-his-name) way too seriously.

Jim

And there are a bunch of people taking it nowhere near seriously enough.

[Jim & Susan]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

.....And there are a bunch of people taking it nowhere near nearly seriously enough.

Ha! Take a stroll thru this thread. That one is more my philosophy of life these days. This current thread has all the items described there. Except #17, which I expect is just around the corner.

An old painter told me when I was a young guy that "you can't paint every wall in town". Took me a while to figure that one out.

Peace, Love and Granola Dudes and Dudettes.

Jim

[jcl]

Originally Posted by LNBright

You misunderstand me.

There is an amount that occurred due to natural effects, without anthropogenic input.

There is an additional amount due to anthropogenic effects.

100 percent, sum of both portions, natural and anthropogenic, are causes that contributed.

What I was meaning: I am not going to pin a percentage of the changes to what humans have caused versus what it would have been naturally without people.

Regardless, that amount can only go up to 100%, as it it of the total that occurred, you can't go beyond 100%. (Unless you're making the joke that 5 our of 4 people have problems with fractions.)

I believe I did understand you. No joke.

You didn't want to estimate how much of the current warming is due to anthropogenic effects. But a consensus of scientists did just that, as part of the IPCC reports. In different reports, they pegged the effects at up to 110%. That is because with no anthropogenic effects, they found that we would be cooling now. The effects they considered included aerosols (anthropogenic cooling) and without that, we would see more net warming than we are seeing.

Read the IPCC reports, it is there. And this isn't new, it is 8 years old, and more data since then has further backed the conclusions, not reversed them.

One article summarized it as follows:

...as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by Jim & Susan

Ha! Take a stroll thru this thread. That one is more my philosophy of life these days. This current thread has all the items described there. Except #17, which I expect is just around the corner.

An old painter told me when I was a young guy that "you can't paint every wall in town". Took me a while to figure that one out.

Peace, Love and Granola Dudes and Dudettes.

Jim

Oh I don't know...no one has gotten around to #10 and a few others yet either. This thing may yet have some life in it!

[OTRA15]

Z . . . z . . . z . . . z . . .