Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[JeremiahJohnson]

Does anybody really care about climate change now? Seems like a lot of neurons are being wasted over gender stuff now. I wonder if climate change is becoming "so yesterday" now.

Well, stand by. The whole VW thing...I'm sure someone will make the EPA answer up why we're forcing auto makers to push diesel and gas engines to be so inefficient in the name of clean air. VW clearly showed us power and fuel economy - over 50mpg in a nice sized car - can be had, easily, if the regs were different. Anyone drive a VW Jetta TDI?! I have - NICE! There are three in the parking lot here at work and all three easily get over 50mpg. Shouldn't the fuel economy feed into the regs? ppm - per mile perhaps?

 

[rhino]

Well, stand by. The whole VW thing...I'm sure someone will make the EPA answer up why we're forcing auto makers to push diesel and gas engines to be so inefficient in the name of clean air. VW clearly showed us power and fuel economy - over 50mpg in a nice sized car - can be had, easily, if the regs were different. Anyone drive a VW Jetta TDI?! I have - NICE! There are three in the parking lot here at work and all three easily get over 50mpg. Shouldn't the fuel economy feed into the regs? ppm - per mile perhaps?

Hush, you! Considering all factors when making decisions for the Big Picture reeks of logic! We simply can't have that.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Hush, you! Considering all factors when making decisions for the Big Picture reeks of logic! We simply can't have that.

Well you know...blah, blah,...global economy...blah, blah, overseas competition...blah, blah...carbon footprint...

consider manufacturing capability, technology capability, cost and impact to all those things combined?

An actual "green" approach would be to consider it all - you may end up with a vehicle that lasts twice as long (vehicle recycling cut in half), goes twice as far (as we've seen with VW), but in the long run - full life cycle considered - is less of a polluter.

 

[rhino]

Along those lines, I was watching an episode of "Top Gear" where two of the knuckleheads are touring the British countryside in a pair of electric cars. The range was abysmal and it takes 14+ hours to recharge from normal household current.

They estimated that replacing the battery packs would be about 7,000 GBP (about $10,700 US).

If you recharge them each time before they are 1/2 depleted, maximum service life is 10 years. Conservative estimates are more like 5 years.

If you deplete the batteries to almost nothing each time, maybe 3 years.

So you have a vehicle that (without government subsidies) will cost a lot more than a gas, diesel, or CNG powered vehicle, has negligible range, and will have large battery replacement costs.

And then what do you do with the spent batteries? And what of the environmental impact of manufacturing them in the first place?

 

[chipbennett]

Along those lines, I was watching an episode of "Top Gear" where two of the knuckleheads are touring the British countryside in a pair of electric cars. The range was abysmal and it takes 14+ hours to recharge from normal household current.

They estimated that replacing the battery packs would be about 7,000 GBP (about $10,700 US).

If you recharge them each time before they are 1/2 depleted, maximum service life is 10 years. Conservative estimates are more like 5 years.

If you deplete the batteries to almost nothing each time, maybe 3 years.

So you have a vehicle that (without government subsidies) will cost a lot more than a gas, diesel, or CNG powered vehicle, has negligible range, and will have large battery replacement costs.

And then what do you do with the spent batteries? And what of the environmental impact of manufacturing them in the first place?

Not to mention: requires more coal to be burned, to create the electricity used to (re)charge the batteries.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not to mention: requires more coal to be burned, to create the electricity used to (re)charge the batteries.

Shouldn't there be a rim-shot in there somewhere? kidding.

Batteries are what I do. Believe me the government subsidies (that we all are paying for) are more than the car. It's ridiculous. Worse yet is this EPA reckoning that doesn't take a holistic approach to anything. We could actually reduce their precious carbon footprint with some - dare I say it - common sense regulation. The service life of a vehicle must be taken into account. The total footprint of the vehicle has to account for something. A vehicle that last twice as long and gets twice the mileage must be doing something right!

 

[jamil]

Along those lines, I was watching an episode of "Top Gear" where two of the knuckleheads are touring the British countryside in a pair of electric cars. The range was abysmal and it takes 14+ hours to recharge from normal household current.

They estimated that replacing the battery packs would be about 7,000 GBP (about $10,700 US).

If you recharge them each time before they are 1/2 depleted, maximum service life is 10 years. Conservative estimates are more like 5 years.

If you deplete the batteries to almost nothing each time, maybe 3 years.

So you have a vehicle that (without government subsidies) will cost a lot more than a gas, diesel, or CNG powered vehicle, has negligible range, and will have large battery replacement costs.

And then what do you do with the spent batteries? And what of the environmental impact of manufacturing them in the first place?

I think you just found a need for more subsidies.

 

[rhino]

I need a government subsidy for knives and flashlights.

 

[chipbennett]

How long until Climate Change Scammers blame this one humans, too?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ter-show-the-shrinking-of-the-great-red-spot/

 

[chipbennett]

The propaganda machine is hard at work, claiming a loss of arctic ice:

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

The reality:

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record Growth | Real Science
NSIDC Demonstrates How To Construct An Arctic Ice Scam | Real Science

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The propaganda machine is hard at work, claiming a loss of arctic ice:

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

The reality:

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record Growth | Real Science
NSIDC Demonstrates How To Construct An Arctic Ice Scam | Real Science

What I read was Exxon Mobil was tracking the warming climate and the shrinking ice to track impacts to their company bottom line - nothing much about how sure they were that CO2 was causing it, but rather that the trends were there. And, indeed, through about 2009 averages were shrinking. So, the savy company would be wise to prepare for impacts to infrastructure, etc. BUT, I don't see anything about cause only reality. Also, don't see anything about what's going on now. Have they changed their mind since the upswing in ice since 2009 and the downturn in temperatures since well before that? Anyone covering the rest of the story?

 

[chipbennett]

What I read was Exxon Mobil was tracking the warming climate and the shrinking ice to track impacts to their company bottom line - nothing much about how sure they were that CO2 was causing it, but rather that the trends were there. And, indeed, through about 2009 averages were shrinking. So, the savy company would be wise to prepare for impacts to infrastructure, etc. BUT, I don't see anything about cause only reality. Also, don't see anything about what's going on now. Have they changed their mind since the upswing in ice since 2009 and the downturn in temperatures since well before that? Anyone covering the rest of the story?

You'll notice that the propaganda article uses a range of 1984 - 2013 as the data range. Gosh: why could that be?

 

[JollyMon]

Rising sea levels put over 400 US cities 'past the point of no return' study claims | Daily Mail Online



Maybe this is just me.... but if you state we are "past the point of no return", yet suggesting extreme actions could prevent this from happening..... doesnt that mean we are NOT past the point of no return.

 

[chipbennett]

Rising sea levels put over 400 US cities 'past the point of no return' study claims | Daily Mail Online

And then, there's reality:

Sea Level Idiocy At National Geographic | Real Science
Saving Manhattan! | Real Science

 

[pudly]

But it was peer reviewed! By others that get their salary based on producing research confirming global warming!

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Somebody do the math, QUICK!


2.33mm/year X (.03937 inch/mm) X 1 foot/12 inches X b years = 5 feet

Solve for b,....

about 654 years.

I doubt homes last that long and I believe there's plenty of time for humans and animals to escape the rushing tide water.

 

[pudly]

But think of the slugs! How will they outpace the onrushing waters? Oh, they are much faster than that? Never mind.

 

[chipbennett]

Somebody do the math, QUICK!


2.33mm/year X (.03937 inch/mm) X 1 foot/12 inches X b years = 5 feet

Solve for b,....

about 654 years.

I doubt homes last that long and I believe there's plenty of time for humans and animals to escape the rushing tide water.

[video=youtube;OdctnPIR5kA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdctnPIR5kA[/video]

 

[Hoosier8]

Well, the Paris COP-21 (crap on parade) meeting is coming up and you will hear more and more dire warnings leading up to it but it will be an effort in herding cats as those economies that need energy will not be as willing to go along.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Well...I suppose it would be disingenuous of me to presume to know what's going to happen in over 6 centuries with only one century's worth of data upon which to rely. There could be some sort of periodicity to it...the real answer is "at least" 654 years.......perhaps never.