EV Tires Causing Increased Pollution

[timbop]

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.

Oh boy. Yeah, let's use a few terms from geology and throw in a brief description of photosynthesis and call it "science".

Firstly, you're assumption that the atmospheric carbon since the era of hominids is relatively constant is deeply flawed. In fact carbon has been getting sequestered inside the planet for hundreds of millions of years - until very recently. There were no fungi, microbes, or insects that could digest lignen for roughly 100 million years after trees evolved 380 mya. When they died they got buried over, taking their carbon with them and turning into coal. Other plants dying in the right conditions turned to oil, as well as uncountable microfauna whose shells have become limestone over the eons took more carbon with them. At the end of the permian severe volcanic activity caused by the shifting plates ended up releasing a lot of that carbon from coal, at which point the atmosphere got a sudden dose of CO2 and other gases, which contributed significantly to the greatest mass extinction in earth's history. The acidity and chemistry of the oceans changed abruptly in geologic terms, causing more than 90% of ocean life to perish.

Fast forward 250 million years, and we've been releasing a lot of that sequestered carbon, en route to doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2.

While it is absolutely true that the climate does naturally vary, owing to volcanic activity, perturbations in the earth's orbit and axis, solar activity, etc. It is also abundantly clear that CO2 has an impact as well. We're releasing pent up carbon at a rate faster than any since the end of the permian, and we can stop doing so if we have the will.

As for the rest of your assertions... well, suffice it to say that they're misinformed

Sponsored

 

[timbop]

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:


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.

The point of no return I was referencing was with respect to 1.5C warming, although I didn't word it properly to explain that. We actually could have kept it below 1 degree in the 90's if strong and swift action was taken. At this point 1.5C is just about guaranteed, but 2C is potentially avoidable. That's what we need to aim for. If we do nothing it will go beyond 2C, and then the shit really hits the fan. I apologize for not explaining myself more clearly.

Regardless if I'm wrong and we replace imported oil that funds terrorism in the middle east with domestic renewables, is that a bad thing? If the vast majority of those who spend their lives researching the problem are right and we do nothing, what will our grandchildren say about us?

 

[timbop]

The point of no return I was referencing was with respect to 1.5C warming, although I didn't word it properly to explain that. We actually could have kept it below 1 degree in the 90's if strong and swift action was taken. At this point 1.5C is just about guaranteed, but 2C is potentially avoidable. That's what we need to aim for. If we do nothing it will go beyond 2C, and then the shit really hits the fan. I apologize for not explaining myself more clearly.

Regardless if I'm wrong and we replace imported oil that funds terrorism in the middle east with domestic renewables, is that a bad thing? If the vast majority of those who spend their lives researching the problem are right and we do nothing, what will our grandchildren say about us?

Putting it in perspective, the longer we wait and the less we do the consequences get worse - that's why we still need to do something. 1C is already done, but 2C is not - and at 2C things start to get much worse

If you lend your Brother in law $20k and he loses it and says he can't pay you back, do you lend him another $20k the next time he has a "sure fire thing" because you already lost that other $20k so stop worrying?

There's more than 1 "tipping point" involved. Greenland is probably going to melt, but the antarctic not necessarily. If we go above 2C and a lot of the antarctic could also go.

 

[RedStallion]

The point of no return I was referencing was with respect to 1.5C warming, although I didn't word it properly to explain that. We actually could have kept it below 1 degree in the 90's if strong and swift action was taken. At this point 1.5C is just about guaranteed, but 2C is potentially avoidable. That's what we need to aim for. If we do nothing it will go beyond 2C, and then the shit really hits the fan. I apologize for not explaining myself more clearly.

It's funny you would write that when in fact the "Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

 

[mkhuffman]

The point of no return I was referencing was with respect to 1.5C warming, although I didn't word it properly to explain that. We actually could have kept it below 1 degree in the 90's if strong and swift action was taken. At this point 1.5C is just about guaranteed, but 2C is potentially avoidable. That's what we need to aim for. If we do nothing it will go beyond 2C, and then the shit really hits the fan. I apologize for not explaining myself more clearly.

Regardless if I'm wrong and we replace imported oil that funds terrorism in the middle east with domestic renewables, is that a bad thing? If the vast majority of those who spend their lives researching the problem are right and we do nothing, what will our grandchildren say about us?

Actually, we have enough oil in the USA to be oil independent from the Middle East. We don't need their oil. That that argument doesn't work for me.

I just don't agree with your assertions about the role of CO2, and how much the planet is actually warming. The main reason I don't agree is because I don't trust the scientists who are providing the information you believe to be true. I don't believe them. They are liars. And there are plenty of well regarded scientists who disagree with you. In fact, some agree there is man made warming, but don't agree regarding the severity.

The science is far from settled, and I think it is a huge mistake to drive up electricity and fuel costs to chase an impossible goal. The people who are hurt by global warming influenced policies are not people who can afford a $62k MME GT. They are people who can barely afford a used car. Those people will never get ahead, and they will be driven into poverty just so some politician can say they reduced CO2, which I believe doesn't do squat to stop global warming.

 

[Mach1E]

It's funny you would write that when in fact the "Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

Obviously that’s because I bought an electric car!

It’s working!!


The problem with all these temperature change measurements is they should be measured in centuries and millennia, not years.

It’s been hotter, and colder and hotter and colder and hotter again.

And, yeah, some of the hotter now seems to be our fault.

I think there is one thing we can ALL agree on though- polluting less is a good thing. They should focus on that fact alone instead of fear mongering future theories of doom and gloom.

 

[woody]

Oh boy. Yeah, let's use a few terms from geology and throw in a brief description of photosynthesis and call it "science".

Firstly, you're assumption that the atmospheric carbon since the era of hominids is relatively constant is deeply flawed. In fact carbon has been getting sequestered inside the planet for hundreds of millions of years - until very recently. There were no fungi, microbes, or insects that could digest lignen for roughly 100 million years after trees evolved 380 mya. When they died they got buried over, taking their carbon with them and turning into coal. Other plants dying in the right conditions, as well as uncountable microfauna whose shells have become limestone over the eons took more carbon with them. At the end of the permian severe volcanic activity caused by the shifting plates ended up releasing a lot of that carbon from coal, at which point the atmosphere got a sudden dose of CO2 and other gases, which contributed significantly to the greatest mass extinction in earth's history. The acidity and chemistry of the oceans changed abruptly in geologic terms, causing more than 90% of ocean life to perish.

Fast forward 250 million years, and we've been releasing a lot of that sequestered carbon, en route to doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2.

While it is absolutely true that the climate does naturally vary, owing to volcanic activity, perturbations in the earth's orbit and axis, solar activity, etc. It is also abundantly clear that CO2 has an impact as well. We're releasing pent up carbon at a rate faster than any since the end of the permian, and we can stop doing so if we have the will.

As for the rest of your assertions... well, suffice it to say that they're misinformed

You are, of course, wrong on all points except fossil fuels derived from organic matter(petroleum, mostly from marine organisms[plants, algae, bacteria] and coal from land plants found in rain or "swamp" forests). Must of been some pressure in the mix. The mass extinction was a result of a catastrophic event which spewed massive amounts of toxic gases(sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen halides, etc.) with carbon dioxide and water vapor thrown into the mix.
The crocodilians survived, along with the Rodentia, etc. Gee, I wonder why?
Lots of mass extinctions. Various reasons. Even global cooling.
Water vapor and clouds are conveniently omitted from "climatology" models. And they are a major factor in climate.

Actually, we have enough oil in the USA to be oil independent from the Middle East. We don't need their oil. That that argument doesn't work for me.

I just don't agree with your assertions about the role of CO2, and how much the planet is actually warming. The main reason I don't agree is because I don't trust the scientists who are providing the information you believe to be true. I don't believe them. They are liars. And there are plenty of well regarded scientists who disagree with you. In fact, some agree there is man made warming, but don't agree regarding the severity.

The science is far from settled, and I think it is a huge mistake to drive up electricity and fuel costs to chase an impossible goal. The people who are hurt by global warming influenced policies are not people who can afford a $62k MME GT. They are people who can barely afford a used car. Those people will never get ahead, and they will be driven into poverty just so some politician can say they reduced CO2, which I believe doesn't do squat to stop global warming.

Of course the atmospheric carbon dioxide was much higher then, that is why the organisms found then were so massive and abundant.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is presently dangerously low. Ask any farmer. Eight billion people to feed?
You have a magic wand?

 

[woody]

The main reason I don't agree is because I don't trust the scientists who are providing the information you believe to be true.

Actually, we have enough oil in the USA to be oil independent from the Middle East. We don't need their oil. That that argument doesn't work for me.

I just don't agree with your assertions about the role of CO2, and how much the planet is actually warming. The main reason I don't agree is because I don't trust the scientists who are providing the information you believe to be true. I don't believe them. They are liars. And there are plenty of well regarded scientists who disagree with you. In fact, some agree there is man made warming, but don't agree regarding the severity.

The science is far from settled, and I think it is a huge mistake to drive up electricity and fuel costs to chase an impossible goal. The people who are hurt by global warming influenced policies are not people who can afford a $62k MME GT. They are people who can barely afford a used car. Those people will never get ahead, and they will be driven into poverty just so some politician can say they reduced CO2, which I believe doesn't do squat to stop global warming.

The main reason I don't agree is because I don't trust the scientists who are providing the information you believe to be true.
They are not scientists.

 

[mkhuffman]

They are not scientists.

Many are. But I do agree the news media and politicians bear a huge responsibility for promoting a catastrophic future that can only be prevented by reducing CO2 (and driving up the cost of everything).

 

[Mrn]

This is starting to look like a truth social discussion, or at least what I think they might look like?

Back to the more carbon from tires point, the EVs of today are transitional moves in the right direction. My dream transport is a self flying, solar energy powered EVTOL that flys over regreened paths that used to be asphalt roads. ????.

 

[azerik]

And killing more bugs and birds, thus harming the environment ?

Btw, I killed at least three birds with my Prius, so maybe hybrids are bad too.

A study in Chicago showed that the Prius kills more birds than hunters in the city.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Oh, we forgot about the Taliban!

 

[MG101]

I find it so strange to not think we need to reduce emissions. What's the down side? Cleaner air and water? And don't say cost. I see plenty of profiles here with well into six figures worth of cars in them.

Leave a place better than how you found it.

 

[mkhuffman]

I find it so strange to not think we need to reduce emissions. What's the down side? Cleaner air and water? And don't say cost. I see plenty of profiles here with well into six figures worth of cars in them.

Leave a place better than how you found it.

Cost. We are not the people these policies hurt. They hurt the working poor and lower. Do you care about them? They are not on this forum to defend themselves. They cannot afford the car you purchased. They matter to me.

 

[Mach1E]

Cost. We are not the people these policies hurt. They hurt the working poor and lower. Do you care about them? They are not on this forum to defend themselves. They cannot afford the car you purchased. They matter to me.

For sure environmentalism is a first world problem.

People don’t worry about the temperature of their grandkids if they can’t feed their kids.

Of course it’s cost.

Alternative energy is only “alternative” because of cost.

That said, if you’re one of the lucky people to have the means to pollute less…… it’s probably our duty to do so.

But keep in mind as you try to force these policies on others the impact it has on them and their finances (which are of more immediate concern).

Sponsored