EV Tires Causing Increased Pollution

[RedStallion]

Science says CO2 is a massive problem, so we gotta address that with urgency.

Nope, science doesn't say that, politicians do. What scientists know about CO2 is that it's effect on temperature is logarithmic and quite insignificant, but it has a significant effect on plant growth, which currently experience CO2 starvation.

Science is not a conspiracy.

Science is not -- climate scientology is.

Sponsored

 

[Socalsp3]

Nope, science doesn't say that, politicians do. What scientists know about CO2 is that it's effect on temperature is logarithmic and quite insignificant, but it has a significant effect on plant growth, which currently experience CO2 starvation.





Science is not -- climate scientology is.

we can hand pick the 1% contrarian scientists funded by oil industry all day

 

[hartmms]

Nope, science doesn't say that, politicians do.

I disagree, but whatever. Show me the study (multiple peer reviewed) that says I the increase of the rate of tire pollution due to BEV is a problem, we can start to worry about it. It would also mean we gotta address the trend of Americans purchasing heavier vehicles (SUV, trucks, etc).

 

[timbop]

"Environmental expert" Robert Kehoe (employed by the American Petroleum Institute) managed to generate enough disinformation about "naturally occurring lead levels" to delay lead being removed permanently from gasoline by 30 years.

Again, a preponderance of real evidence is not "balanced out" by a few corrupt dissenting opinions with marginal evidence.

 

[Jmmanley]

Are EV tires made of different compounds than tires for ICE vehicles? What about the F250 4 door full size bed that weighs more than the MME? Do they pollute? True they don't have the torque.

I wonder what the tire manufacturers would say.

.

I’m not sure where you got the facts from but don’t kid yourself, the F250 has considerably more torque than a MachE. I think the GT model is around 600lbs of torque vs the F250 at 1000+ lbs of torque at similar horsepower. A premium MME is around 300lbs of torque. Our MachE’s give us instant torque, true, but the F250 would drag a Mach E for miles and miles and miles once the turbo chargers kick in.
[

 

[mkhuffman]

C'mon man. No actual real study ever said NYC would be under water in 2000.

In the 1990's CFC's were outlawed because the ozone hole over the southern hemisphere was getting larger at an accelerating pace. Since the ban it has been getting smaller for decades.

In 1965 Clair Paterson raised the alarm that atmospheric lead levels were far higher than they were before 1900. Lead was banned in paint, gas, and other things - and now the atmospheric lead level has almost returned to pre leaded gasoline levels.

The fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was discovered in the 1800's. Scientific American published an article about its effect in 1938. Simple math based on the known amount of fossil fuels burned tells you how much UNnaturally occurring CO2 goes into the atmosphere from humans, and the correlation between projections from those values and observed conditions has been seen since the 1950's. The hottest 5 years ever recorded have happened in the last 10, with this year saying "hold my beer".

Millions of people die every year from natural causes. Does that mean that no one is murdered? Of course not; to find out if a death is murder or natural causes you have to look at the evidence. In this case our fingerprints are all over the murder weapon.

 

[RedStallion]

I disagree, but whatever. Show me the study (multiple peer reviewed) that says I the increase of the rate of tire pollution due to BEV is a problem, we can start to worry about it. It would also mean we gotta address the trend of Americans purchasing heavier vehicles (SUV, trucks, etc).

You are not looking for facts (while replying to my post I doubt you even watched a renowned scientist talking about his field of expertise), you are just being capricious because you want to validate your beliefs, no matter how wrong they can be.

 

[timbop]

"A senior UN environmental offical says entire nations COULD be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels IF THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND IS NOT REVERSED BY THE YEAR 2000"

That doesn't mean the flooding HAPPENS in 2000. That means runaway processes will not be able to be REVERSED if the warming trend continues beyond 2000. It's called a "tipping point"; once you get to the point of a positive feedback loop, you can't stop it. We are past there now: Greenland's ice sheets are warming too fast for the trend to be reversed for at least a century - IF WE'RE lucky. We won't be. Greenland's ice is melting far faster than originally expected, and as the reflective ice turns into absorbing water the process accelerates. Similar processes are happening in the Antarctic. Read beyond the headline and you'll see they say beyond 2000 if the temps go up by 3 degrees or more we will start to see major flooding. They did, and we are.

As the article further states, the nations that will be wiped out are flat islands like the Maldives - not the United States. The article also states that low lying countries like Bangledesh and Egypt are most at risk of major land loss.

The article doesn't EVER mention NYC being underwater, but it does say that protecting east coast cities from FLOODING could cost $100 billion. As per this article article, Miami alone is currently spending $100 million to contend with their flooding.

The article also goes on to predict that large tracts of US farmland will see drought conditions. Perhaps you're aware that some of the richest farmland in the west is experiencing years of record drought, and the record snow from this winter will only make a temporary dent in it?

 

[woody]

Science is a way of knowing.
"Climatology" is not science.
Fossil fuels are limited resources. Science.
Wind and solar power are renewable sources of energy (for at least another billion years on this planet). Science.
The Mesozoic had many times greater carbon dioxide levels than our current levels. This was as a result of large numbers of huge animals and healthy volcanic activity which resulted in abundant and large plant life. Science.
The carbon cycle is dependent on carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere which is done via 1) cellular respiration (the reverse of photosynthesis) 2) decomposition and 3) combustion. Science.
Carbon dioxide is a compound (gas) combined w/ water (di-hydrogen oxide) and light energy from the sun to produce glucose. Science.
The history of this plant is hot, very hot initially. Science.
The Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 mya until about 11,000 years ago), part of the Cenozoic Era (Age of Mammals) allowed a familiar species to evolve. Science.
Even George Washington took advantage of The Little Ice Age, methinks something to do w/ Delaware.
Global warming is hysteria as Mr. Happer states.
You may recall another recent example of non-scientific hysteria labeled corona virus.

 

[mkhuffman]

"A senior UN environmental offical says entire nations COULD be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels IF THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND IS NOT REVERSED BY THE YEAR 2000"

That doesn't mean the flooding HAPPENS in 2000. That means runaway processes will not be able to be REVERSED if the warming trend continues beyond 2000. It's called a "tipping point"; once you get to the point of a positive feedback loop, you can't stop it. We are past there now: Greenland's ice sheets are warming too fast for the trend to be reversed for at least a century - IF WE'RE lucky. We won't be. Greenland's ice is melting far faster than originally expected, and as the reflective ice turns into absorbing water the process accelerates. Similar processes are happening in the Antarctic. Read beyond the headline and you'll see they say beyond 2000 if the temps go up by 3 degrees or more we will start to see major flooding. They did, and we are.

As the article further states, the nations that will be wiped out are flat islands like the Maldives - not the United States. The article also states that low lying countries like Bangledesh and Egypt are most at risk of major land loss.

The article doesn't EVER mention NYC being underwater, but it does say that protecting east coast cities from FLOODING could cost $100 billion. As per this article article, Miami alone is currently spending $100 million to contend with their flooding.

The article also goes on to predict that large tracts of US farmland will see drought conditions. Perhaps you're aware that some of the richest farmland in the west is experiencing years of record drought, and the record snow from this winter will only make a temporary dent in it?

The closest thing I could find regarding the NYC claim was this in Salon:
" While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up." "

So the prediction was 2008, not 2000. Either way it was wrong.

You are saying we passed the tipping point in 2000 as the UN predicted? I seriously doubt that, but if we have, I guess it does not matter what we do now. It is too late anyway.

I am not saying there is no global warming, because the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles since the beginning. I am saying the alarmist predictions that have been promoted by the news media, politicians and many scientists have been wrong. And that has destroyed their credibility for me. When they predict we have 10 more years until the tipping point, what about the tipping point in 2000? Bah, they are liars.

Holy crap! Only four more years and we are toast!
https://previous.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/170413-carbon-cycle.html

Oh wait, maybe we missed it? We had 10 years back in 2007 also, seven years after the tipping point in 2000.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/10-years-to-save-planet-444816

I could go on, but this is a car forum. And I hate debating this stupid stuff. I just want to enjoy my car and share that enjoyment with others like you, Tim.

Maybe at the next tipping point in 2027 we can meet up for a beer to celebrate?

 

[Mach1E]

The closest thing I could find regarding the NYC claim was this in Salon:
" While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up." "

So the prediction was 2008, not 2000. Either way it was wrong.

You are saying we passed the tipping point in 2000 as the UN predicted? I seriously doubt that, but if we have, I guess it does not matter what we do now. It is too late anyway.

I am not saying there is no global warming, because the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles since the beginning. I am saying the alarmist predictions that have been promoted by the news media, politicians and many scientists have been wrong. And that has destroyed their credibility for me. When they predict we have 10 more years until the tipping point, what about the tipping point in 2000? Bah, they are liars.

Holy crap! Only four more years and we are toast!
https://previous.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/170413-carbon-cycle.html

Oh wait, maybe we missed it? We had 10 years back in 2007 also, seven years after the tipping point in 2000.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/10-years-to-save-planet-444816

I could go on, but this is a car forum. And I hate debating this stupid stuff. I just want to enjoy my car and share that enjoyment with others like you, Tim.

Maybe at the next tipping point in 2027 we can meet up for a beer to celebrate?

Yeah, you can only cry wolf so many times before you lose credibility.

If you want to know what people REALLY believe? Follow the $$.

I live 6 feet (exactly, had an elevation survey done) above sea level.

It’s my forever home.

My flood insurance? Only costs a few grand a year.

The insurance companies (whose job is risk mitigation) are betting billions of dollars that houses like mine are very unlikely to flood, even though I live in coastal Florida.

In fact, they’re betting that the only way I’m flooding is if a major hurricane hits directly here.

Which, since my premium is roughly 1% the cost of my coverage……. Is less than a 1 in 100 chance.

Oh…… and 6 feet isn’t even 6 feet. It’s about 3 1/2 feet above the highest high tide.

Myself (and the insurance companies) absolutely care about sea level rise. But a few inches in a few decades is all that’s really expected, and won’t really change a thing. Not in our lifetimes.

 

[A2Z]

I believe the original Emissions Analytics study (as opposed to the spin some articles have tried to put on it) concluded that, all else being equal, greater vehicle mass and more aggressive driving result in greater tire particulate emissions. That does not seem like surprising news.

Obviously, battery weight is one factor affecting tire particulate emissions, but only one of many and apparently not even the most important one. To that end, Emissions Analytics has also noted: "it is important to say that a gentle BEV driver, with the benefit of regenerative braking, can more than cancel out the tire wear emissions from the additional weight of their vehicle, to achieve lower tire wear than an internal combustion engine vehicle driven badly.”

To me, one issue with the study (and how I think BEV’s got dragged into it in the first place) is that the study compared tire particulate emissions from essentially identical vehicles identically driven, one being an ICE and one being a BEV. In that comparison, the BEV, being heavier, will have greater tire particulate emissions – no surprise -- but to me it is not necessarily true that a person who chooses not to buy a BEV will instead purchase an essentially identical non-BEV vehicle with identical tires and drive them identically and thereby proportionally reduce their tire particulate emissions. In my case, my Mach-E replaced a much heavier SUV and, as I get older, I drive more and more like my grandmother, so I think my own tire particulate emissions are in decline, BEV purchase notwithstanding.

My own understanding is that tire particulate emissions are influenced by a multitude of factors, such as tire properties and quality, road surface conditions, vehicle characteristics, temperatures, rain and relative humidity, and vehicle operations. And it seems quite possible that as tire technology improves and focuses on particulate emissions and perhaps on making particulates less harmful, numbers for all vehicles may improve. In the meantime, though, it seems heavier vehicles otherwise identical to lighter vehicles and driven identically will result in a higher level of tire particulate emissions.

I do not seek to disrespect anyone in this forum, but speaking only for myself, that was my takeaway.

 

[timbop]

You are saying we passed the tipping point in 2000 as the UN predicted? I seriously doubt that, but if we have, I guess it does not matter what we do now. It is too late anyway.

The goal originally was to try to keep warming below 1 degree C, and the 1.5 degrees C. Now it is to keep it below 2 C, because at that point it accelerates. We have just about hit the point that 1.5 C is going to happen regardless, but we can still keep it below 2 C if we start making the right choices now.

From what I understand you to say, rather than a "let's stop it before it gets too bad" you're willing to say "F* it, we'll just not worry about how messed up things get"? OK for you I guess.

 

[mkhuffman]

The goal originally was to try to keep warming below 1 degree C, and the 1.5 degrees C. Now it is to keep it below 2 C, because at that point it accelerates. We have just about hit the point that 1.5 C is going to happen regardless, but we can still keep it below 2 C if we start making the right choices now.

From what I understand you to say, rather than a "let's stop it before it gets too bad" you're willing to say "F* it, we'll just not worry about how messed up things get"? OK for you I guess.

I don't believe it is as bad as you do, and I don't think we can stop it by cutting CO2. So it isn't quite how you worded it.

But it seems you contradicted yourself. You posted we already passed the point of no return:

That doesn't mean the flooding HAPPENS in 2000. That means runaway processes will not be able to be REVERSED if the warming trend continues beyond 2000. It's called a "tipping point"; once you get to the point of a positive feedback loop, you can't stop it. We are past there now:

So then you posted that we can stop it? This is why I find the entire debate ridiculous. If we can't stop it after we pass the year 2000, then why are we saying we can stop it?

I don't think we can stop it. So we don't need to try. Surely we should be kind to our planet, but not at the expense of driving people into poverty.

 

[RedStallion]

The goal originally was to try to keep warming below 1 degree C, and the 1.5 degrees C. Now it is to keep it below 2 C, because at that point it accelerates. We have just about hit the point that 1.5 C is going to happen regardless, but we can still keep it below 2 C if we start making the right choices now.

From what I understand you to say, rather than a "let's stop it before it gets too bad" you're willing to say "F* it, we'll just not worry about how messed up things get"? OK for you I guess.

I understand that all the greatest climae scientists are gathered on this forum, but I just can't force myself to ignore the renowned scientists like the Nobel Laureate in Physics, John Clauser.

Sponsored