The reality vs the hype?

[tetranz]

Originally Posted by move on

More than half.

Wow. That's a lot.

[Marine359]

Originally Posted by move on

More than half.

Curious how many is “many”. If the number is half, is there a document, a poll, or some other verifiably true source that might validate that? Please post it because I’d like to read it and get educated. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

[carybosse]

Originally Posted by Craig1960

I agree it's not going to be the magic bullet but it is a move in the right direction. As far as how they get the point across, I don't know how you can without some grandstanding because that's the only way to get some people's attention.


If anyone doesn't think mankind isn't contributing to climate change and can't help make things better then I don't know if anyone can get through to those people.

Well, since we are supposed to follow the science, I don't think grandstanding was taught in any of the science, technology or engineering classes I took. But then, that was a long time ago, I guess I am just a dinosaur. The COVID science should have enlightened me.

In my lifetime, the global climate change went from a point where we were going to freeze to death to global warming, to now we just say climate change and that is accepted as fact.

Does mankind impact climate? I bet so. Should we use our resources carefully. YES. Should we recycle when it makes sense? Yes. Should we turn off the lights and what ever we can do to conserve energy? Of course.

I personally see things like water pollution, the overflow of waste, some of those things as more critical. I think the earth has had hot & cold cycles for as long as you want to think geological history has existed. Ice ages come & go.

An interesting statistic I read, BC (Before Covid) was that people who didn't buy into the global warming hype were much more likely to recycle than people who screamed about it constantly. It was an interesting, because I could see it in my own family. I recycle consistently. My daughter, who should be of the generation up in arms, rarely recycled, and our granddaughter who lectured us on the world ending in less than 10 years, who argued we all needed electric vehicles before there were really any to be had, was worse. I would open the kitchen garbage can up after their visits and find soda cans and water bottles filling it up. Another daughter who is a school teacher filling the minds of the little ones with all of the science of climate change, is constantly filling up the garbage with styrofoam big gulp cups and never putting anything in the recycle pile.

Personally, I am more concerned with actions than words.

[tetranz]

Originally Posted by carybosse

I think the earth has had hot & cold cycles for as long as you want to think geological history has existed. Ice ages come & go.

How do you know that there has been ice ages before?

[carybosse]

Originally Posted by tetranz

How do you know that there has been ice ages before?

Geologist tell me - follow the science. I sometimes wonder if I believe their wild stories of geological history, I think a lot of it is pure conjecture, but it does seem from the various research they provide that there has been some pretty major fluctuations in climate over the eons.

[tetranz]

Originally Posted by carybosse

Geologist tell me - follow the science. I sometimes wonder if I believe their wild stories of geological history, I think a lot of it is pure conjecture, but it does seem from the various research they provide that there has been some pretty major fluctuations in climate over the eons.

"Major fluctuations" suggests that you're thinking about the magnitude of previous changes.

Another very important metric is the rate of change. Without that we're missing a key piece of information.

Talking about previous ice ages doesn't mean much if you don't consider rate of change. There is plenty of good information from reliable sources about this.

[carybosse]

Originally Posted by tetranz

"Major fluctuations" suggests that you're thinking about the magnitude of previous changes.

Another very important metric is the rate of change. Without that we're missing a key piece of information.

Talking about previous ice ages doesn't mean much if you don't consider rate of change. There is plenty of good information from reliable sources about this.

Very true.

While not scientific in nature, I believe for every action, there is a reaction. I think the "warming" we see now will result in changes that eventually cause a cooling. Will those changes be the elimination of 40% of out population? Who knows. When I don't think COVID was a major effort by the Chinese to rule the world, I wonder if COVID was part of that natural reaction of the Planet Earth to control the climate.

[atreis]

Yes, the earth has been through many warm/cold spells in the past, usually accompanied by massive extinction events. The earth will do fine. Personally though, being human and a bit biased towards humans, I'd rather it remain broadly habitable for us humans since we've not really managed to get off of it in any sustainable way yet. Whether the current global warming is natural or not, if we can do something about it and help humanity to continue to thrive, I think we should.

[move on]

Here is a representation of data from the Vostok ice core. This data has convinced many people that the idea of CO2 induced global warming is false. If you look closely you will see that a rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2, not the other way around as is claimed by the IPCC. What does this mean for the future of electric RVs? If the data is true it means that EVs are not going to help save the planet.

[Craig1960]

Originally Posted by move on

Here is a representation of data from the Vostok ice core. This data has convinced many people that the idea of CO2 induced global warming is false. If you look closely you will see that a rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2, not the other way around as is claimed by the IPCC. What does this mean for the future of electric RVs? If the data is true it means that EVs are not going to help save the planet.

You don't need to be a scientist to know what we're doing is making things worse. Just look at the smog over most major cites in the world. Rising temps don't create smog. EV's won't save the planet but it will make things a little more comfortable until a better solution is found or until our demise maybe.

[move on]

Originally Posted by Craig1960

You don't need to be a scientist to know what we're doing is making things worse. Just look at the smog over most major cites in the world. Rising temps don't create smog. EV's won't save the planet but it will make things a little more comfortable until a better solution is found or until our demise maybe.

Smog is a local phenomenon. So is a forest fire. I don't like either one but they are manageable. Thankfully the pollution they cause usually dissipates quickly.
I do agree though that EVs can have a benefit in certain cities. Los Angeles, for example, sits in a valley with stagnant, hot, dry air hanging over it making it hard for the pollutants to be recycled by nature. In this case an EV is useful because it keeps the emissions out of the city and instead puts them into the stack at the power plant in the countryside.

[Craig1960]

Originally Posted by move on

Smog is a local phenomenon. So is a forest fire. I don't like either one but they are manageable. Thankfully the pollution they cause usually dissipates quickly.
I do agree though that EVs can have a benefit in certain cities. Los Angeles, for example, sits in a valley with stagnant, hot, dry air hanging over it making it hard for the pollutants to be recycled by nature. In this case an EV is useful because it keeps the emissions out of the city and instead puts them into the stack at the power plant in the countryside.

Smog is becoming global not local and is just one indication of what we are doing to make things worse. If it wasn't for the pollutants we are putting in the air the smog wouldn't be there. As for the stacks of the power plants putting it out there, that's why they are trying other methods of generating the power like windmills, tidal power, solar and so on. Dams have been around for a long time too and I don't see any stacks sticking up there either.
And if your going to say the mining for some of the materials like used in the batteries they are doing the same for fossil fuels plus they burn afterwards so that is still worse.
It seems that because you and others don't believe it can't make a difference we should just carry on the way we have been. I believe without continously trying new things we will never have a chance at making it better.

[move on]

Originally Posted by Craig1960

Smog is becoming global not local and is just one indication of what we are doing to make things worse. If it wasn't for the pollutants we are putting in the air the smog wouldn't be there. As for the stacks of the power plants putting it out there, that's why they are trying other methods of generating the power like windmills, tidal power, solar and so on. Dams have been around for a long time too and I don't see any stacks sticking up there either.

And if your going to say the mining for some of the materials like used in the batteries they are doing the same for fossil fuels plus they burn afterwards so that is still worse.

It seems that because you and others don't believe it can't make a difference we should just carry on the way we have been. I believe without continously trying new things we will never have a chance at making it better.

Smog is not global. Even in those cities where it has traditionally been a problem the air is much cleaner now than it was a few decades ago. The reason for this is that modern advances in engineering have improved the combustion process in the automotive and process industries. Pollution is disappearing, unless you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

[saddlesore]

Originally Posted by move on

I think the German experience shows that wind power is a failure. The wind stopped blowing and now they are scrambling to restart their old coal mills. The problem with wind power is that you just can't build wind farms without also building a coal plant as standby.

France has got it right. They get 90% of their electricity from nuclear.

People talk about EVs but they are horrible energy gobblers. It's foolish to even think about electrifying transportation until we get our electric power grid in order. Once we have an overabundant supply of electricity then we can talk about adding load with inefficient EVs.

All well and Good Until................ The Earth Moves..... See Japan for References..