[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

As you say, "MAYBE". But not positivel.

Correct. I'll go as far as to state "a DEFINITE maybe"

The problem is that those that know or should know have an agenda, and that leaves a lot of room for speculation. Heck, we can't even trust the data, or agree what the data they are showing us really means. So, I come back to the line I've used a bunch of times----We have warmed to the point that 2 miles of ice covering NY City has melted over the last 20,000 years. Did Fred Flintstone have a SUV??? Was Bedrock powered by a coal burning power plant? Did their cows fart more??? Or, maybe, just maybe, the last 20,000 years of global warming have absolutely nothing to do with the activity of humans. And that is just the latest 100-150,000 year cycle that has recurred over a dozen times in the last 4 million years

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Correct. I'll go as far as to state "a DEFINITE maybe"

The problem is that those that know or should know have an agenda, and that leaves a lot of room for speculation. Heck, we can't even trust the data, or agree what the data they are showing us really means. So, I come back to the line I've used a bunch of times----We have warmed to the point that 2 miles of ice covering NY City has melted over the last 20,000 years. Did Fred Flintstone have a SUV??? Was Bedrock powered by a coal burning power plant? Did their cows fart more??? Or, maybe, just maybe, the last 20,000 years of global warming have absolutely nothing to do with the activity of humans. And that is just the latest 100-150,000 year cycle that has recurred over a dozen times in the last 4 million years

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

Anything is possible. After all, ONCE I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

Sorry, don't watch Fox, but I'm sure they're not the only media outlet telling "big lies". But you may have solved the issue and like minded anthropogenic climate change supporters might agree----70 million years ago Earth was about 10 degrees warmer----I propose that dinosaur farts contribute much more to global warming than cow farts. Just as good an explanation as Fred Flintstone driving a SUV

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

My guess.............it will never be paid.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Anything is possible. After all, ONCE I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

Yes, you were mistaken. It was a lot more than once. But, then, we are all only human and suffering for our mistakes is often how we learn our hardest lessens.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Yes, you were mistaken. It was a lot more than once. But, then, we are all only human and suffering for our mistakes is often how we learn our hardest lessens.

And the winner of today's takes the joke literally award goes to...........^^^^^^^^^

PS---as far as mistakes goes, it's "lessons".

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And the winner of today's takes the joke literally award goes to...........^^^^^^^^^

PS---as far as mistakes goes, it's "lessons".

"Always blame auto-correct for misspellings. "
Lesson 1 of "Trying to Save Face".

[blueash]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's Sunday, so I'll say Amen. However, here's what the scientists at the United Nations' climate change office (IPCC) said in 2001: “In climate research and modeling … the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Once again the author of this thread and so many others is either ignorant of what the IPCC said, or is deliberately lying to this audience with his veneer of knowledge. He has picked a few words and thinks we are all too sheeplike to check it out. The term the IPCC used was "climate states" not "climate" They do NOT mean the same thing.

If you care you can read what real experts have said about the climate science deniers have done to twist the meaning of the IPCC report and ignore context

Fact check: Climate models reliable, IPCC statement misrepresented

Funny how the OP says that the IPCC is terrible, how the UN is terrible on climate issues, and only on this issue, one sentence that he misuses, then the IPCC report is great evidence of something something.

Here is a correct intelligent assessment of the 2001 IPCC report including more of the exact language used:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential."

In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do. Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.

[blueash]

Dr. James Hansen, said we should be at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than we now are.

No one challenged the OP on his assertion that Professor Hansen was off by 5 degrees C in his prediction of global temperature increase in his statements in the 1980s. Note his did not include any links or any graphs, he just threw it out there to say.. oh that Hansen was so wrong. In his testimony before Congress in 1988 Hansen presented three outcomes. One was if the nations of the world did nothing to slow the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, call that worst case scenario, or A

Next he presented a most likely scenario that something but not enough got done and he guessed what the CO2 level might be in future years and how that would impact temperatures, scenario B

Next he presented a best case if every industrial nation acted as if this were an emergency and how such actions would lessen the future temperatures, scenario C

His work was published and you can read the article from Journal of Geophysical Research

He details the conditions he used to produce scenarios A, B, and C. At that time there was no inkling of fracking or electric cars, or the benefits of the Montreal, Paris and Kyoto accords, or more efficient ICEs. He also had primitive computers compared to what is now available. None the less, his graph is below. Note that in his worst case scenario, no changes and no actions, his predicted temperature increase was... wait for it... the OP says he told us 5 degrees...
His worst case scenario, not most likely was an increase of 1.5 degrees C by 2019 which is the end date of his graph.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by blueash

No one challenged the OP on his assertion that Professor Hansen was off by 5 degrees C in his prediction of global temperature increase in his statements in the 1980s. Note his did not include any links or any graphs, he just threw it out there to say.. oh that Hansen was so wrong. In his testimony before Congress in 1988 Hansen presented three outcomes. One was if the nations of the world did nothing to slow the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, call that worst case scenario, or A

Next he presented a most likely scenario that something but not enough got done and he guessed what the CO2 level might be in future years and how that would impact temperatures, scenario B

Next he presented a best case if every industrial nation acted as if this were an emergency and how such actions would lessen the future temperatures, scenario C

His work was published and you can read the article from Journal of Geophysical Research

He details the conditions he used to produce scenarios A, B, and C. At that time there was no inkling of fracking or electric cars, or the benefits of the Montreal, Paris and Kyoto accords, or more efficient ICEs. He also had primitive computers compared to what is now available. None the less, his graph is below. Note that in his worst case scenario, no changes and no actions, his predicted temperature increase was... wait for it... the OP says he told us 5 degrees...
His worst case scenario, not most likely was an increase of 1.5 degrees C by 2019 which is the end date of his graph.

The OP’s cult will believe what ever he says, who would ever think to fact-check.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

Everybody drink!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Or, maybe, just maybe (and far more likely), you could be wrong. The one thing the world has never seen before is the kind of habitat destruction and pollution that 8 billion industrialized, mechanized and organized humans can cause. But, if you keep your head down and your eye on the ball and believe only what Fox (admitted purveyor of big lies) tells you, you will be just fine.

My liver can't take this much longer...

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

My liver can't take this much longer...

Sure it can. Just add a couple dashes of Tabasco.

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The graphic shows where energy is "wasted" in both gas and electric vehicles. Some of this is the same - both types of vehicles have auxiliary electrical losses. Some of the losses are specific to the type - electric vehicles have losses in charging the battery while gas engines waste a lot of energy as heat. Overall, there are more losses in gasoline vehicles. According to the chart:

Gasoline vehicles: 12% - 30% efficient
Electric vehicles: 77% - 100% efficient

So let's say a power plant burns gasoline to make electricity. There will certainly be some loss generating that electricity and transporting it to your home. Once there, more than 77% of the energy is efficiently used for moving the vehicle and less than 23% is lost due to inefficiencies.

In order for the two vehicles to be equivalent, in order for them to use the same amount of gasoline, the gasoline powered electrical plant would need to be only 30% efficient. I don't know how efficient power plants are but I assume it is more than 30%.

But let's say the power plant is only 30% efficient and the same amount of gas is used to move both electric vehicles and gas vehicles a certain distance. I know that at $3/gal my gas cart costs six times as much per mile as my electric cart. Does this mean the electric company pays only $0.50/gal for the gas it uses to generate electricity? Probably not.

If the power company can generate electricity at 1/6 the cost of gasoline then some combination of these must be true:
1. The electric company is charged less for gas than I am.
2 The electrical plants are more than 30% efficient so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance
3. Electricity is generated from more than just gasoline so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance.

I suspect it is a combination of all three but that #3 is the primary reason. But in any case, I know that running my electric cart is less expensive and if either #2 or #3 are true then I am also using less gas for that electric cart.

Automobiles are different than golf carts and I am only one person but hopefully the savings are even more in automobiles multiplied by thousands of owners.

I appreciate the thoughts and I'm not sure why the electric golf cars....and "real" cars for that matter....cost less to run.

I found a blog with some efficiencies of different types of power plants and oil powered plants are between 38-45% efficient.

Between the Poles: Energy Efficiency of Fossil Fuel Power Generation

So I guess my analysis goes as follows....

Oil to make the electricity=40% efficient, then 60-73% of that is efficient in the EV so 24-30% efficient in the car

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars

Oil into an ICE car=12-30% efficient

Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles

Which suggests an inefficient ICE car vs the EV , the EV is 2X more efficient but in an efficient ICE car it's the same.

I feel like I understand a little more....if we compare the inefficient ICE car then the EV looks pretty good at half of the emissions. But if we compare efficient cars of both types it looks like a wash. Unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible.

What's your take?

Joe