I Was Wrong

[jabberwock]

Thanks, I know what margin of error is. FYI, a person with a bachelors degree who has done a “senior project” is not a scientist. They are a person with a bachelors degree who has done a senior project. It doesn’t make them dumb or part of an infallible religion, it just means they are not a trained scientist. Hence, using their naivete to prove that the rest of us don’t know what we’re doing is telling of your level competence .

You are right, I am incompetent. I totally concede to your superiority. Have a nice day.

 

[bshonesy]

You are right, I am incompetent. I totally concede to your superiority. Have a nice day.

I take it that means you are a “scientist” with a bachelors degree and a senior project too. Also it’s not superiority, can I just go around calling myself an attorney if I never went to law school?

 

[jabberwock]

I take it that means you are a “scientist” with a bachelors degree and a senior project too .

Nope, it means this is not a hill I choose to die on. It does not matter.

 

[jabberwock]

I take it that means you are a “scientist” with a bachelors degree and a senior project too. Also it’s not superiority, can I just go around calling myself an attorney if I never went to law school?

LOL, my senior project was hilarious!

 

[jabberwock]

I take it that means you are a “scientist” with a bachelors degree and a senior project too. Also it’s not superiority, can I just go around calling myself an attorney if I never went to law school?

I have been a scientist for about 20 years.

 

[Lavey29]

Are you suggesting it is a coincidence that global temperature rising aligns with the rise of human utilization of fossil fuels? The Sun’s irradiance does vary over time, but notice the moving average is actually trending down since the 1950s, the opposite of temperature and carbon. It’s easier to believe the pollution because you can’t refute that nature didn’t put trash in there. Similarly, you cannot refute that we have put carbon into the atmosphere (and ocean) at unnatural rates and this has led to climate change.

Apparently you did not read my posts. Especially the parts where I state some of the climate issues are man made and some are a normal evolutionary phase for the planet.

 

[rhizotron]

Well, I could also comment on human overpopulation - but then the fight would truly start…

It speaks to the laziness, cowardice and myopia of the debate that you can't even whisper the plain and obvious upstream problem, human overpopulation, without being immediately shut down. The two political extremes will accuse you of being either a baby killer or a fascist endorsing genocide if you so much as whisper human population as a variable in environmental destruction.

The refusal to confront human population further originates with a fundamental psychological rejection of any perceived menace to the ego. That is, people hold their own personal selves as some kind of ultimate, supreme value and by extension reject any challenge to limitless human population growth. This is quite a crude, flawed, incorrect and simple-minded way to conceptualize the world and humanity, but it runs deep.

We've even extended this subconscious notion to some of our material things. Two or three decades ago, there was quite a lot of alarm about destruction of wildlife habitat and open space as consequences of urban sprawl. But now you can hardly mention this issue because of a perceived threat to human dwellings and by extension humans in general along with the individual ego. The same goes for agriculture. In the US alone, millions of acres of wildlife habitat and elbow room for people are degraded or destroyed every year by development and agricultural intensification. Yet this is completely ignored by media and policymakers. Even professionals who work in conservation are timid to discuss habitat destruction out loud. Human conversion of land to farms and cities is just taken as an inevitability or inviolable right, even while numerous options for better use of land area exist....

https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/seeing-fewer-mule-deer-turkeys-and-ducks-thank-americas-habitat-crisis





.

 

[blaxsun]

It speaks to the laziness, cowardice and myopia of the debate that you can't even whisper the plain and obvious upstream problem, human overpopulation, without being immediately shut down. The two political extremes will accuse you of being either a baby killer or a fascist endorsing genocide if you so much as whisper human population as a variable in environmental destruction.

The refusal to confront human population further originates with a fundamental psychological rejection of any perceived menace to the ego. That is, people hold their own personal selves as some kind of ultimate, supreme value and by extension reject any challenge to limitless human population growth. This is quite a crude, flawed, incorrect and simple-minded way to conceptualize the world and humanity, but it runs deep.

We've even extended this subconscious notion to some of our material things. Two or three decades ago, there was quite a lot of alarm about destruction of wildlife habitat and open space as consequences of urban sprawl. But now you can hardly mention this issue because of a perceived threat to human dwellings and by extension humans in general along with the individual ego. The same goes for agriculture. In the US alone, millions of acres of wildlife habitat and elbow room for people are degraded or destroyed every year by development and agricultural intensification. Yet this is completely ignored by media and policymakers. Even professionals who work in conservation are timid to discuss habitat destruction out loud. Human conversion of land to farms and cities is just taken as an inevitability or inviolable right, even while numerous options for better use of land area exist....

This I completely agree with - well said.

And somewhat related, I was reading today that one of the contributing factors they believe led to the destructiveness of the recent Maui firestorm was the conversion of agricultural land to non-native grasslands. They're now realizing that this was a mistake and quite possibly a gross oversight, so much so that they're already completely rethinking how they're going to replant it - with early indications being tp return it to native plants and flora (more akin to the original rain forest).

 

[Lasse]

... And it's far easier to build out EV infrastructure in Scandanavia. I'm simply trying to get across that any logistical challenges in Europe pail in comparison to North America.

And there is no need of infrastructure and transports in order to have petrolum and diesel cars up and running? And before you answer - check up percentage off grid people in Canada. And check up the CO2 emissions if you compare a system with road traffic based on oil compare with a system there you first convert oil to electricity and use EV for the whole transport system.

By the book urbanization rate in Canada 2021 - 81.65% - Sweden 2022 - 88.49 - US around 82.66 % (2020) We do not differ especially much.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

LOL, my senior project was hilarious!

I can see that on your posts :)

return it to native plants and flora (more akin to the original rain forest).

It will be a great CO2 sink near the epicenter for all important atmospheric CO2 measurements in the world

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Reefering1]

That wasn't my only comment, it is relevant to my point, and I don't have to agree to anything.

So you won't even agree that you don't agree? And who isn't willing to hear anything but their own point?

 

[Lasse]

I disagree, when you add enough zeros to the right, it starts to matter.

Especially if you take the zeros from the other side of the keyboard :)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I´ll just say

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Kato]

I'm pretty sure remote areas of Scandinavia can be just as lacking as northern America. (no offense to either countries)

I don't ever think 100% conversion to EV is doable. But to get the cars in cities to EV where the infrastructure is there will do a whole lot for the planet.

It is just not possible to have EVs function properly in remote cold places

Agree. It doesn't have to be 100%. Its not one or the other. The boating industry will likely end up with some artificial co2 neutral fuel. Same with bigger planes. Both of them require a fair amount of engery to produce though, so does not make sense for cars.

Another prediction I'll make is that in the future, electricity will be close to free of charge cost wise.

Though 30 years ago, no one would have predicted that an EV can go 700km (which is the best in class today under normal testing conditions). It will likely continue to go up.

 

[Kato]

Fun story. Someone rear ended my EV (moron). Going to the shop for 2 weeks for body work. Got a fossil loaner car. So I go to the gas station again after 8 years of absense. Seems I have to refuel every week, which is close to me charging every week (at home). I simply did not know how much money I'm saving. It's probably 50% on fuel. Gas prices are high.

I usually only charge on windy days (lots of wind power in the country....and pay by the hour so the difference during the day can be 2x). All app controlled so car charges during the night when the 'price is right'

Perhaps if things are cheaper, one can live with a few differences between an EV and fossil car.

 

[Reefering1]

Agree. It doesn't have to be 100%. Its not one or the other. The boating industry will likely end up with some artificial co2 neutral fuel. Same with bigger planes. Both of them require a fair amount of engery to produce though, so does not make sense for cars.

Another prediction I'll make is that in the future, electricity will be close to free of charge cost wise.

Though 30 years ago, no one would have predicted that an EV can go 700km (which is the best in class today under normal testing conditions). It will likely continue to go up.

Propane burn clean and we have had it a long time(think forklifts running inside buildings with people inside (clean) . Internal combustion engines will run on propane, all of them, in current form. Only change would be the fuel delivery system(tank, lines, injectors). Then we can all drive, our current vehicles(with little modification) without emissions.. why is nobody trying to make that happen? Is it because they rather rebuilt the entire grid, start new mining operations, mandate and sell new cars? Propane, r290, is also a clean refrigerant that isnt promoted

 

[Kato]

Propane burn clean and we have had it a long time(think forklifts running inside buildings with people inside (clean) . Internal combustion engines will run on propane, all of them, in current form. Only change would be the fuel delivery system(tank, lines, injectors). Then we can all drive, our current vehicles(with little modification) without emissions.. why is nobody trying to make that happen? Is it because they rather rebuilt the entire grid, start new mining operations, mandate and sell new cars? Propane, r290, is also a clean refrigerant that isnt promoted

Why pick a fuel that emits co2 when you don't have to? But I think you're saying its a good idea for older cars (no need to scrap them) and I agree with that. Where I live gas has a certain percentage of carbon neutral ethanol (15 percent). Problem is its often produced from food. But why not use electricity for new vechicles when it can be produced very cheaply now with little to no co2 footprint.

Not sure if you know, but wind power is now become incredibly competitive. Like coal likely wont be competitive in the next 12 months.

 

[Reefering1]

.. another funny story. A few months back, in my area, a Tesla was in a accident. After firefighters arrived, it caught fire. They couldn't get it out so they pushed it in a retention pond

 

[Reefering1]

Why pick a fuel that emits co2 when you don't have to? But I think you're saying its a good idea for older cars (no need to scrap them) and I agree with that. Where I live gas has a certain percentage of carbon neutral ethanol (15 percent). Problem is its often produced from food. But why not use electricity for new vechicles when it can be produced very cheaply now with little to no co2 footprint.

Not sure if you know, but wind power is now become incredibly competitive. Like coal likely wont be competitive in the next 12 months.

I agree they should make the grid clean as possible. You ever see a picture of the mining operations that go into making those batteries? Do you know what it cost consumers to replace those batteries in about 10 years(10-30k each)

 

[blaxsun]

And there is no need of infrastructure and transports in order to have petrolum and diesel cars up and running? And before you answer - check up percentage off grid people in Canada. And check up the CO2 emissions if you compare a system with road traffic based on oil compare with a system there you first convert oil to electricity and use EV for the whole transport system.

By the book urbanization rate in Canada 2021 - 81.65% - Sweden 2022 - 88.49 - US around 82.66 % (2020) We do not differ especially much.

I think it's great that Sweden and much of Europe has a head start with respect to EVs. Last year in Canada we saw 1.4 million new vehicle sales; just 55,000 of those were EVs or hybrids (4%).