[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by Escape Artist

It already exists, it’s called a hybrid like a Prius. It’s a good common sense solution and compromise.

\

Not true. A Prius can run on Gas. This Ramcharger is always runs on electric. The generator and the gas tank simply charge the battery.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Nice chart but maybe needs some context.

Apes and humans did not exist 50,000,000 years ago when the earth was much warmer. Apes and gorillas appeared somewhere around 10,000,000 years ago and humans around 550,000 years ago. It is impossible to tell from this graph just what the temperature was at 550,000 years ago but it was clearly well into the blue range.

So sure, the earth has been much warmer, but man wasn't around to see it. I'm all for trying new things but warming the earth to prehistoric temperatures just to see what will happen doesn't seem like a good idea.

https://www.climate.gov/sites/defaul...118-1400px.png

When you measure in hundreds last 100 years or so make chart look like we’re going to burn in hail….. And you can see the chart trending down.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

https://www.climate.gov/sites/defaul...118-1400px.png

When you measure in hundreds last 100 years or so make chart look like we’re going to burn in hail….. And you can see the chart trending down.

I see a chart trending up. The rate is *possibly* slowing BUT 2023 isn't plotted yet. With five of the last eight years significantly higher than the trend, I would be concerned that the lower 2021 and 2022 might be the exception and the rate might have actually increased.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So sure, the earth has been much warmer, but man wasn't around to see it. I'm all for trying new things but warming the earth to prehistoric temperatures just to see what will happen doesn't seem like a good idea.

If you acknowledge that the earth has been much warmer, and before humans inhabited it, what makes you certain that the current warming is anthropogenic rather than just part of a cycle?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

If you acknowledge that the earth has been much warmer, and before humans inhabited it, what makes you certain that the current warming is anthropogenic rather than just part of a cycle?

I'm not sure. I see an increasing rate of warming coincide with an increasing use of fossil fuels and I wonder if they are related. Some are adamant that there is no relationship or even deny that there is any warming at all. Others are confident that there a causal relationship. I am not confident that man is causing the warming but I can't deny the correlation and am happy that we are taking steps to reduce our impact.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

WELL, Miami is scheduled to be under water by about 2050.

Well, that certainly qualifies as extreme Hybebole.

The global average sea level has risen about 250 millimetres (9.8 in) since 1880. Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year. This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.

Let's say 5mm per year for 26 yrs. That is 130 mm by 2050, or a little over 5 inches. And that on the high side especially with the intro of EVs

If Miami is scheduled to be underwater by 2050, it must be sinking.

Don't tell us the Miami is going to be under water despite removing the cause.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Well, that certainly qualifies as extreme Hybebole.

The global average sea level has risen about 250 millimetres (9.8 in) since 1880. Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year. This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.

Let's say 5mm per year for 26 yrs. That is 130 mm by 2050, or a little over 5 inches. And that on the high side especially with the intro of EVs

If Miami is scheduled to be underwater by 2050, it must be sinking.

Don't tell us the Miami is going to be under water despite removing the cause.

From the Climate.gov site. If you take the highest calculated rate (future could be worse than expected) and project to 2100 (73 years from now) you get about 7 feet of future sea level rise. Local rates may exceed the global rate. Along the Gulf of Mexico, like at Sarasota, sea level is supposed to be EXTRA BAD.
........That would be STEADY state sea level rise. Then when you take into consideration HIGH TIDES, storm surges, and Hurricanes, you have a very LARGE problem. By 2100 Sarasota could be washed away and Tampa could be a swamp.
.........Now, what if we add in population growth (or explosion) in the world. That means more cars, and large trucks operating. We can add more factories - therefore more pollution. Thus more HEAT reflected from the upper atmosphere.
.........Then, there is sure to be some more wars - maybe WW3 and more pollution given off.
..........The bottom line is that TODAY we need to build and BUY more EVs and E-golf carts and find some way to lower the projected world population numbers. Failure to do those things will SEVERELY hurt the next and future generations.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

From the Climate.gov site. If you take the highest calculated rate (future could be worse than expected) and project to 2100 (73 years from now) you get about 7 feet of future sea level rise. Local rates may exceed the global rate. Along the Gulf of Mexico, like at Sarasota, sea level is supposed to be EXTRA BAD.
........That would be STEADY state sea level rise. Then when you take into consideration HIGH TIDES, storm surges, and Hurricanes, you have a very LARGE problem. By 2100 Sarasota could be washed away and Tampa could be a swamp.
.........Now, what if we add in population growth (or explosion) in the world. That means more cars, and large trucks operating. We can add more factories - therefore more pollution. Thus more HEAT reflected from the upper atmosphere.
.........Then, there is sure to be some more wars - maybe WW3 and more pollution given off.
..........The bottom line is that TODAY we need to build and BUY more EVs and E-golf carts and find some way to lower the projected world population numbers. Failure to do those things will SEVERELY hurt the next and future generations.

I was using the highest actual rate and got 5" raise in 26 years, projected to 2100 would be about 15 inches.

Your doomsday projection must be assuming that all of the dollars spent TODAY for green energy does not work. If it did work, you would expect that the rate would be lower.

We are talking mm of sea raise per year i.e. 3mm a year for the last 100 plus years, not 1 inch plus per year .

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

From the article you linked:

Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Which is what I wrote.

The author then goes on to say he disagrees with the methodology of the Cook study. I'm sure Cook and others disagree with his disagreement.

Thank you for helping make my point...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Haters gonna hate (The old foggies with one foot in the grave won't get that one either)
I got odds that says no one will counter your post!!!!

I countered his post with actual facts...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Did you just make that up?

Just a moment...

This is my "shocked" face...

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Thank you for helping make my point...

Which was what?

The 97% number is backed up with data. It is a specific claim that is often misrepresented but it is accurate as stated. As with many other things, there are those that disagree with the data or the analysis. Having detractors doesn't make the number wrong, it just makes it controversial. Was *that* your point?

[MorTech]

"You spend the first three hours on the ground pedaling like mad to charge a small battery"

Two Big Macs and all-day-long pedaling might yield you one kilowatt...Or you could just give 10 cents to SECO instead

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

I was using the highest actual rate and got 5" raise in 26 years, projected to 2100 would be about 15 inches.

Your doomsday projection must be assuming that all of the dollars spent TODAY for green energy does not work. If it did work, you would expect that the rate would be lower.

We are talking mm of sea raise per year i.e. 3mm a year for the last 100 plus years, not 1 inch plus per year .

That last line ASSUMES that ocean level is rising at that constant rate (that you quoted). If people read the article that I quoted (and there are other science papers like that) they will see that they can forget CONSTANT RATE. We have recently in the last 8 years experienced GREATER heat REFLECTED FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE. ( my opinion.....probably caused by increased world population and greater use of fossil fuels like gas for cars and golf cars and equipment).
......In the article that I quoted there are graphs predicting ocean level rise. They are ALL INCREASING (NOT CONSTANT).
.......Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I will be dead by the time Miami and Sarasota are underwater. And it is NOT MY research that says this----------it is climate scientists. And yes, they are worried to a point of hysteria. AND that is because the average person IS NOT LISTENING.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

If you acknowledge that the earth has been much warmer, and before humans inhabited it, what makes you certain that the current warming is anthropogenic rather than just part of a cycle?

Because that is what scientists are telling us.