[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I do NOT know about that specific situation. But, logically, we know that gasoline is a very inflammable liquid that can explode in some situations. That has NOT changed since 1900 - the beginnings of ICE cars and trucks. Electric vehicles are in their infancy - their developmental INFANCY. Same way with their batteries. They will be improved greatly until they never catch on fire. Gasoline engines STILL catch on fire EVEN after 125 years of safety development. That's why Electric Vehicles are superior to gas.
......Plus advantages of lower center of gravity, fewer moving parts, no pistons, greater acceleration, and ultimately (after a few years) much better safety and lower maintenance.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well, one benefit would be to breathe cleaner air and thus live longer. Also, the less noise from an EV is better for quality of life. The batteries in an EV make the vehicle have a lower center of gravity than an IC vehicle. Lower center of gravity allows a vehicle to BRAKE faster........maybe (?) that could save someone's life.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

There is a COST to people's lungs when they breathe polluted air. That is a main reason why EVs should be encouraged by the government and society. Oil probably has a better use in medicines and other uses besides ICE fuel.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

And that defines the problem to be solved ahead in the future. We as a country and a modern society need to work TOWARD more clean, green energy. I understand that nuclear energy has made great strides in safety. There is much research going on.

Then why won't you purchase an EV?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

Agreed. Plus we are producing almost twice as much per capita vs. china

CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer

Look, dumping trillions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere every year is simply not a good thing. The question is, do we want to be a leader or do we want to follow a country like china and just keep on polluting? When did china become our moral compass?

Joe

The US is the moral compass of the world (whether we like it or believe it). The US needs to accept and welcome that honor. To keep it simple, the US needs to constantly do the RIGHT thing in the eyes of the world - as much as possible. That is why each US citizen needs to support clean air and low CO2 pollution production - it gives the world a good example of our doing the RIGHT thing.
.......If a person can not afford a Tesla, maybe those that cut their own lawns (all over the US) can decide to buy an electric lawn mower rather than a gasoline one. Every little bit of lower pollution helps and it sends a message. Electric automobiles are in their infant stage and the price will likely come DOWN and battery technology will improve in only a few years.
......Lower pollution has significant advantages to citizens (even if just for selfish individual reasons). Clean air over the US means better health and longer life through fewer LUNG problems. You would be helping YOURSELF and your next generation - not JUST decreasing Global Warming.
......People that CAN afford a Tesla or other EV will enjoy the benefits such as a quieter engine, lower center of gravity, therefore better acceleration, better braking, better cornering, and lower maintenance. The engine is revolving smoothly in a circle instead of the use of pistons going in an up and down motion and THEN having to be converted to circular motion. The EV also can "pat themselves on the back" for being part of a developing, in infancy, new industry. Which also has the MINOR advantage of preventing the devastation of the earth through excessive CO2 production with the increasing worldwide HEAT problems. July was the highest temperature month recorded worldwide (since the keeping of temperature records).

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

Weird...I didn't see it before I posted.

I couldn't access the graphs but it seems like he is going back millions of years whereas ice cores are only going back 800,000...so maybe it's possible that CO2 levels are higher than in the last 800,000....but apparently much lower than in eras before then?

I guess my take home on post 196 is "if CO2 is going to cause tremendous global warming then why did we have an ice age with CO2 levels 10X higher than current?" I'm not sure what to make of that.

Ever feel like you are either buying into big oil's misinformation or getting duped like sheep by the shadowy global elite?

Joe

There is an interesting scientific article published recently by S. Rattabvong about Antarctica's ice slowly melting since 1970 at a rate of 13% of its mass per decade. "Sea ice can reflect SOME of the incoming solar radiation back into space." "The loss of Antarctic ice is and will affect the whole earth". "And the effects in Antarctica are approaching a TIPPING point resulting in permanent change." This is a VERY long scientific article, but it relates to worldwide consequences of individual decisions about buying electric or gasoline engine vehicles, lawnmowers, golf cars, and bicycles.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Even if they are better, what percentage of American's can afford an EV?? Unless you live and work in very affluent parts of the country (NY, Boston, Cape Cod, the Hamptons, Washington DC, LA, Seattle, and apparently the Villages) the vast majority of people can't buy one.

But if the threat of climate change is truly existential, the government should use our tax dollars to buy one for every American that wants one. If we are all going to die within 10 years unless we all drive EVs, buying one for every American seems like a bargain. We can print the money and worry about paying it back later.

I agree with the post except for the government printing money part. Right now EVs are priced beyond the means of the average American. A large part of that problem is that EVs are in their INFANCY as far as their technical development goes. They are like car BABIES just learning how to walk. If we could see 20 years into the future, I believe, all problems that we have with EVs will have been resolved. And the INHERENT advantages of EVs will be understood and accepted by most Americans.
.......In 20 years the high volume of sales will bring down the price to the point that the average American can AFFORD one. All new innovations go through a cycle of non-acceptance and then if they are superior, they become widely accepted. How long this will take for EVs is anyone's guess.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

There is an interesting scientific article published recently by S. Rattabvong about Antarctica's ice slowly melting since 1970 at a rate of 13% of its mass per decade. "Sea ice can reflect SOME of the incoming solar radiation back into space." "The loss of Antarctic ice is and will affect the whole earth". "And the effects in Antarctica are approaching a TIPPING point resulting in permanent change." This is a VERY long scientific article, but it relates to worldwide consequences of individual decisions about buying electric or gasoline engine vehicles, lawnmowers, golf cars, and bicycles.

13%/year for 5 decades-----65% or about 2/3 of the Antarctic ice is gone???? What are you smoking and where can I get some??????

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

13%/year for 5 decades-----65% or about 2/3 of the Antarctic ice is gone???? What are you smoking and where can I get some??????

Wrong equation. It isn't a loss of 5*.13=.65%, it is a maintenance of (1-.13)^5=50%. So that statement says Antarctica has lost an amount of mass equivalent to 50%.

Other papers agree that Antarctica is losing mass and that the rate is increasing.

However, still other papers counter that while the loss of mass is significant, there is also a gain of mass due to snowfall. Some of those papers claim the gain of mass is larger than the loss of mass which would mean the mass of the ice cover on Antarctica is increasing, not decreasing.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

So the interesting point about the data collection for global warming is the "high temp" versus "the average high temperature".

So the difference is the length of time or number of days at or above a certain temperature which makes the average higher, even though the high temperature never changes. .

point in time versus average. .

so this graph from a Senior Research Associate at the Univ. of Miami Rosenstiel School.

and its the duration and count, not the actual high temp at a point in time, which is causing part of the data communication issues.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Wrong equation. It isn't a loss of 5*.13=.65%, it is a maintenance of (1-.13)^5=50%. So that statement says Antarctica has lost an amount of mass equivalent to 50%.

Other papers agree that Antarctica is losing mass and that the rate is increasing.

However, still other papers counter that while the loss of mass is significant, there is also a gain of mass due to snowfall. Some of those papers claim the gain of mass is larger than the loss of mass which would mean the mass of the ice cover on Antarctica is increasing, not decreasing.

Thank you, I'm aware of the math but I was being lazy. Nonetheless, the claim that Antarctica has lost 50% of its ice since 1970 is completely idiotic. Start moving the decimal point about 2 places.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Wrong equation. It isn't a loss of 5*.13=.65%, it is a maintenance of (1-.13)^5=50%. So that statement says Antarctica has lost an amount of mass equivalent to 50%.

Other papers agree that Antarctica is losing mass and that the rate is increasing.

However, still other papers counter that while the loss of mass is significant, there is also a gain of mass due to snowfall. Some of those papers claim the gain of mass is larger than the loss of mass which would mean the mass of the ice cover on Antarctica is increasing, not decreasing.

And there are those papers that state the the decrease in ice is, in part, due to underwater volcanos...

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The US has the world's largest economy. We have the greatest military. China has pollution and their economy is sinking. Russia's currency is sinking. We take great pride in being able to lead the world. It helps if the world sees the advantages of capitalism over communism.

Interesting take since the same folks who are pushing the Climate Change narrative are the ones who are also pushing Socialism aka Commie-Lite.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Interesting take since the same folks who are pushing the Climate Change narrative are the ones who are also pushing Socialism aka Commie-Lite.

And don't forget "Global wealth re-distribution"----aka I work, you reap the benefits of my labor. Well, they can kiss my grits.

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Even if they are better, what percentage of American's can afford an EV?? .

Figure I'll put some data here, it might help somebody. We got the cheapest Tesla we could get 2 1/2 weeks ago, came in at $42,500 including tax, plates, and whatever else you have to pay on top of the purchase price. We'll get $7500 back on taxes in April so we are at $35,000 plus charger, install, and some floor mats for a grand total of $36,000 all in.

Joe

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

Figure I'll put some data here, it might help somebody. We got the cheapest Tesla we could get 2 1/2 weeks ago, came in at $42,500 including tax, plates, and whatever else you have to pay on top of the purchase price. We'll get $7500 back on taxes in April so we are at $35,000 plus charger, install, and some floor mats for a grand total of $36,000 all in.

Joe

How much of the $7500 that YOU got back in taxes did I pay?????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

13%/year for 5 decades-----65% or about 2/3 of the Antarctic ice is gone???? What are you smoking and where can I get some??????

If you reread what I wrote, it is 13% per decade. Anyone interested could look up the article. I just quoted parts of it. There is a lot of science squeezed into that one article.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

13%/year for 5 decades-----65% or about 2/3 of the Antarctic ice is gone???? What are you smoking and where can I get some??????

It is per decade, not per year.