Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
- Thread starter Liar Loan
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I think today was the hottest day of the year. I don't remember it being this hot in the summer this year.
So because it was hot 55 years ago, that means we should not be concerned about the climate?
Why does environment concerns skew political?
Is someone going to say there was a drought here thousands of years ago so we shouldn't be concerned about the drought now?
Whoa, if you start poking around land use, you?re going to get a whole bunch of answers nobody likes.
And I do mean nobody as in both sides of the Climate change issue don?t like the land use answers.
Thanks for the explanation.
I agree... greenhouse gases and urbanization are at the crux of global warming and while it's not disastrous as so-called predictions, it's a concern everyone should be worried about.
While I appreciate the move to EVs... there is still the worry about what battery manufacturing and disposal will do to the planet.
And I find it nice that many schools and buildings with huge parking lots are putting up solar panels. Instead of offshore drilling, we should be focusing on offshore hydropower (I admit to not knowing the cost or impact of this technology).
I trust that we will get there despite the political gaming...science finds a way... fossil fuels made it possible to get where we are now... and we will move beyond that... I just question why people say it's not an issue now.
morekaos
Well-known member
Well, like Build Back Boondogle they are going to get..dick. ;D ;D >
COP26 climate summit enters final hours as negotiators urged to take radical action
Multiple pledges have been made throughout the summit, including deals to phase out coal, cut methane emissions and end deforestation. But activists have accused government ministers and corporations of so-called greenwashing and claimed the agreements to come out of COP26 so far aren?t enough to address the climate emergency.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/12/cop26-live-updates-as-climate-summit-enters-final-day.html
COP26 climate summit enters final hours as negotiators urged to take radical action
Multiple pledges have been made throughout the summit, including deals to phase out coal, cut methane emissions and end deforestation. But activists have accused government ministers and corporations of so-called greenwashing and claimed the agreements to come out of COP26 so far aren?t enough to address the climate emergency.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/12/cop26-live-updates-as-climate-summit-enters-final-day.html
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
All I know is I don't recall a 95 degree day in November in Irvine.
CalBears96
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
I think today was the hottest day of the year. I don't remember it being this hot in the summer this year.
morekaos
Well-known member
Another big fat nothing burger??we agree to try?to endeavor to?hope to?maybe someday?cut?.something.? Cue panic porn? ;D ;D >
'It's a good deal': John Kerry hails pact struck by nearly 200 nations at COP26 - but critics slam a last-minute compromise to 'phase down' rather than 'phase out' coal power that lets China and India off the hook
ontentious compromise benefits major coal users such as China and India
Last minute change watered down vow to phase out coal power worldwide
China accounts for half of the world's coal consumption, and India 11%
Still, Biden's Climate Envoy John Kerry hailed it as 'a good deal for the world'
Climate activists were infuriated by the last-minute change in Glasgow Pact
India, backed by China and other coal-dependent nations, pushed for the tweak
[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10197777/Rested-negotiators-hope-climate-talks-line.html[/url]
'It's a good deal': John Kerry hails pact struck by nearly 200 nations at COP26 - but critics slam a last-minute compromise to 'phase down' rather than 'phase out' coal power that lets China and India off the hook
ontentious compromise benefits major coal users such as China and India
Last minute change watered down vow to phase out coal power worldwide
China accounts for half of the world's coal consumption, and India 11%
Still, Biden's Climate Envoy John Kerry hailed it as 'a good deal for the world'
Climate activists were infuriated by the last-minute change in Glasgow Pact
India, backed by China and other coal-dependent nations, pushed for the tweak
[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10197777/Rested-negotiators-hope-climate-talks-line.html[/url]
morekaos
Well-known member
WOLF!!!...
Sierra Nevada snowpack could largely vanish by 2040s as climate warms, scientists say
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sierra-nevada-snowpack-could-largely-vanish-by-2040s-as-climate-warms-scie/
The End of Snow?
By Porter Fox
Feb. 7, 2014
The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn?t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter ? and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks ? like the melting of the methane-rich permafrost of Arctic Canada.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html
Sierra Nevada snowpack could largely vanish by 2040s as climate warms, scientists say
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sierra-nevada-snowpack-could-largely-vanish-by-2040s-as-climate-warms-scie/
The End of Snow?
By Porter Fox
Feb. 7, 2014
The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn?t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter ? and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks ? like the melting of the methane-rich permafrost of Arctic Canada.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html
morekaos
Well-known member
..of course it is....
Scientists studying microplastics in Antarctica discover that 89 per cent of samples analysed came from the paint on their OWN SHIP
University of Basel-led experts studied microplastics in the remote Weddell Sea
The team collected a total of 113 samples of water from the surface and beneath
They filtered out 770 microplastic particles, 47% of which was from marine paint
101 particles resembled fragments of the researchers' vessel, the RV Polarstern
Detailed analysis of these found that 89% had indeed come from the ship
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...Antarctica-89-samples-analysed-came-SHIP.html
Scientists studying microplastics in Antarctica discover that 89 per cent of samples analysed came from the paint on their OWN SHIP
University of Basel-led experts studied microplastics in the remote Weddell Sea
The team collected a total of 113 samples of water from the surface and beneath
They filtered out 770 microplastic particles, 47% of which was from marine paint
101 particles resembled fragments of the researchers' vessel, the RV Polarstern
Detailed analysis of these found that 89% had indeed come from the ship
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...Antarctica-89-samples-analysed-came-SHIP.html
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Soylent Green Is People said:
So because it was hot 55 years ago, that means we should not be concerned about the climate?
Why does environment concerns skew political?
Is someone going to say there was a drought here thousands of years ago so we shouldn't be concerned about the drought now?
sgip
Well-known member
I was answering your original post - about how you don't recall that hot of a November. Yes, it has been that hot in November but as you noted some time ago.
Although not in the original reply - what should be considered here is if the number of consecutive days of heat is caused by man made climate change, or could it possibly be because Irvine has changed from predominantly agricultural fields in 1996 to predominantly oceans of asphalt and concrete?
The heat sink effect in OC is similar to that in Phoenix AZ and should be considered part of the overall warming caused by man. It's easier to mitigate the heat issue by undergrounding parking areas or covering freeways with solar panels, plus other measures not yet taken.
Although not in the original reply - what should be considered here is if the number of consecutive days of heat is caused by man made climate change, or could it possibly be because Irvine has changed from predominantly agricultural fields in 1996 to predominantly oceans of asphalt and concrete?
The heat sink effect in OC is similar to that in Phoenix AZ and should be considered part of the overall warming caused by man. It's easier to mitigate the heat issue by undergrounding parking areas or covering freeways with solar panels, plus other measures not yet taken.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Soylent Green Is People said:
Whoa, if you start poking around land use, you?re going to get a whole bunch of answers nobody likes.
And I do mean nobody as in both sides of the Climate change issue don?t like the land use answers.
sgip
Well-known member
Truth.
I drive a convertible. Whenever I have the top down and pass under a major bridge the temperature under that cement mass is 10-15+ degrees warmer than the ambient temperature - day or night. Those things absorb so much sun they act as heat storage again either day or night. Can't convince me that at least some of the general warming is being driven by infrastructure retaining all that energy. It's a part of the issue, but not all of it.
I drive a convertible. Whenever I have the top down and pass under a major bridge the temperature under that cement mass is 10-15+ degrees warmer than the ambient temperature - day or night. Those things absorb so much sun they act as heat storage again either day or night. Can't convince me that at least some of the general warming is being driven by infrastructure retaining all that energy. It's a part of the issue, but not all of it.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Soylent Green Is People said:
Thanks for the explanation.
I agree... greenhouse gases and urbanization are at the crux of global warming and while it's not disastrous as so-called predictions, it's a concern everyone should be worried about.
While I appreciate the move to EVs... there is still the worry about what battery manufacturing and disposal will do to the planet.
And I find it nice that many schools and buildings with huge parking lots are putting up solar panels. Instead of offshore drilling, we should be focusing on offshore hydropower (I admit to not knowing the cost or impact of this technology).
I trust that we will get there despite the political gaming...science finds a way... fossil fuels made it possible to get where we are now... and we will move beyond that... I just question why people say it's not an issue now.
morekaos
Well-known member
This is the argument I have been advocating forever...adapt. There is little we can do about changing trajectory no matter what you believe. Really, I believe the only clean way is Hydrogen if they can ever solve the storage issues. Electric vehicles are a mirage for now...we live in LALA land so people here think its the way, but reality is a biatch...for a plethora of reasons...
Electric Vehicles On Collision Course With Reality
* I?m pro-electricity, but I am adamantly opposed to the notion that we should ?electrify everything? including transportation.
* EVs are cool. They are not new. The history of EVs is a century of failure tailgating failure. In 1911, the New York Times said that the electric car ?has long been recognized as the ideal solution.? In 1990, the California Air Resources Board mandated 10% of car sales be zero-emission vehicles by 2003. Today, 31 years later, only about 6% of the cars in California have an electric plug.
* The average household income for EV buyers is about $140,000. That?s roughly two times the U.S. average. And yet, federal EV tax credits force low- and middle-income taxpayers to subsidize the Benz and Beemer crowd.
* Lower-income Americans are facing huge electric rate increases for grid upgrades to accommodate EVs even though they will probably never own one.
* This month, the California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3 million new public EV chargers by 2030. The likely cost to ratepayers: about $13 billion.
* Meanwhile, blackouts are almost certain this summer and electricity prices are ?absolutely exploding.? California?s electricity prices went up by 7.5 percent last year and they will likely rise another 40 percent by 2030. This, in a state with the highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America. How is racial justice or social equity being served by such regressive policies?
* I also talked about resilience, saying ?Electrifying everything is the opposite of anti-fragile. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one basket. It will make the grid an even-bigger target for terrorists, cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will reduce resilience and reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster, equipment failure, or human error.?
I also highlighted the myriad supply-chain problems with EVs. Citing work done by the Natural History Museum in London, I said that electrifying half of the U.S. motor vehicle fleet would require in rough terms:
* 9 times the world?s current cobalt production
* 4 times global neodymium output
* 3 times global lithium production
* 2 times world copper production
I concluded by saying:
Oil?s dominance in transportation is largely due to its high energy density. That density and improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids assure that oil will be fueling transport for decades to come.
Powerful lobby groups want Congress to spend billions on electrification schemes that will impose regressive taxes on low-income Americans, reduce our resilience, and increase reliance on China. That?s a dubious trifecta..
https://principia-scientific.com/electric-vehicles-on-collision-course-with-reality/
Electric Vehicles On Collision Course With Reality
* I?m pro-electricity, but I am adamantly opposed to the notion that we should ?electrify everything? including transportation.
* EVs are cool. They are not new. The history of EVs is a century of failure tailgating failure. In 1911, the New York Times said that the electric car ?has long been recognized as the ideal solution.? In 1990, the California Air Resources Board mandated 10% of car sales be zero-emission vehicles by 2003. Today, 31 years later, only about 6% of the cars in California have an electric plug.
* The average household income for EV buyers is about $140,000. That?s roughly two times the U.S. average. And yet, federal EV tax credits force low- and middle-income taxpayers to subsidize the Benz and Beemer crowd.
* Lower-income Americans are facing huge electric rate increases for grid upgrades to accommodate EVs even though they will probably never own one.
* This month, the California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3 million new public EV chargers by 2030. The likely cost to ratepayers: about $13 billion.
* Meanwhile, blackouts are almost certain this summer and electricity prices are ?absolutely exploding.? California?s electricity prices went up by 7.5 percent last year and they will likely rise another 40 percent by 2030. This, in a state with the highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America. How is racial justice or social equity being served by such regressive policies?
* I also talked about resilience, saying ?Electrifying everything is the opposite of anti-fragile. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one basket. It will make the grid an even-bigger target for terrorists, cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will reduce resilience and reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster, equipment failure, or human error.?
I also highlighted the myriad supply-chain problems with EVs. Citing work done by the Natural History Museum in London, I said that electrifying half of the U.S. motor vehicle fleet would require in rough terms:
* 9 times the world?s current cobalt production
* 4 times global neodymium output
* 3 times global lithium production
* 2 times world copper production
I concluded by saying:
Oil?s dominance in transportation is largely due to its high energy density. That density and improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids assure that oil will be fueling transport for decades to come.
Powerful lobby groups want Congress to spend billions on electrification schemes that will impose regressive taxes on low-income Americans, reduce our resilience, and increase reliance on China. That?s a dubious trifecta..
https://principia-scientific.com/electric-vehicles-on-collision-course-with-reality/
morekaos
Well-known member
oh and this on how this fad is marketed to the public...
Oh, and how deeply have EVs actually penetrated our transportation industry? This is revealing.
EVs still account for less than one percent of the 276 million registered vehicles in the U.S. Of all the EVs on U.S. roads, about 42 percent of them are in California.
By contrast, states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming each have less than 1,000 registered EVs. Furthermore, in 2020, fewer than 300,000 EVs were sold in the U.S.
For comparison, Ford Motor Company sold nearly 800,000 F-series pickup trucks last year.
As a result of the ?green? energy fad, blackouts are already fast on the way to becoming the new normal.
Oh, and how deeply have EVs actually penetrated our transportation industry? This is revealing.
EVs still account for less than one percent of the 276 million registered vehicles in the U.S. Of all the EVs on U.S. roads, about 42 percent of them are in California.
By contrast, states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming each have less than 1,000 registered EVs. Furthermore, in 2020, fewer than 300,000 EVs were sold in the U.S.
For comparison, Ford Motor Company sold nearly 800,000 F-series pickup trucks last year.
As a result of the ?green? energy fad, blackouts are already fast on the way to becoming the new normal.
sgip
Well-known member
Until a cost effective way to recycle lithium is found, EV batteries are the next Nuclear Power Plant waste - no State will want to take them and you shouldn't put them in landfills.
I'd like to see the California Aqueduct have some kind of solar component. Many miles of Aqueduct could be partially shaded with solar panels. Evaporation loss could be cut, plus there's hardly a planning and permit cost given a right of way has already been established. Small steps can eventually add up to a benefit, but relying on natural gas/coal fired Tesla's is not going to get the job done.
I'd like to see the California Aqueduct have some kind of solar component. Many miles of Aqueduct could be partially shaded with solar panels. Evaporation loss could be cut, plus there's hardly a planning and permit cost given a right of way has already been established. Small steps can eventually add up to a benefit, but relying on natural gas/coal fired Tesla's is not going to get the job done.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Recycling lithium and using other elements for battery tech is coming... science will catch up to usage.
And to me, it's fine if those that have the means move to EVs until cost makes it more attainable for everyone else. It's just like smartphones, the early adopters who could afford it made it possible for everyone else to catch up... that's how it is with all advances, technology or otherwise.
Look at Tesla for example, those $100k+ Model S and Model X units paved the way for the more accessible Model 3s and Model Ys... and those will set the course for the Model 2s. Yes, fossil fuels will still be around, but that doesn't mean we don't do anything... and there are alternatives to EVs like CNG, Hydrogen etc etc.
You can be stubborn like Toyota was or embrace it like everyone else has (Toyota BTW has a good strategy now, focus on cost rather than range). It's all about finding solutions, not pointing out the hurdles.
And to me, it's fine if those that have the means move to EVs until cost makes it more attainable for everyone else. It's just like smartphones, the early adopters who could afford it made it possible for everyone else to catch up... that's how it is with all advances, technology or otherwise.
Look at Tesla for example, those $100k+ Model S and Model X units paved the way for the more accessible Model 3s and Model Ys... and those will set the course for the Model 2s. Yes, fossil fuels will still be around, but that doesn't mean we don't do anything... and there are alternatives to EVs like CNG, Hydrogen etc etc.
You can be stubborn like Toyota was or embrace it like everyone else has (Toyota BTW has a good strategy now, focus on cost rather than range). It's all about finding solutions, not pointing out the hurdles.