Global warming and Spark EV

[nmikmik]

I have taken a liberty of extracting these last two posts from "2015 Spark no longer 21-kWh and now 19 ???"
I am personally really interested in both topics, just not in the same thread. Please feel free to continue your discussion here.

Given the number of times the media and "scientists have been caught slanting data to support " global warming". There is too much blind faith in the cult of global warming. Slanting the numbers or picking and choosing only the data that supports the theory does occur. Some folk turn a blind eye as they figure "the end justifies the means".
Some people have become very wealthy via promoting and taking advantage of a "green" agenda.
It's a real temptation to get on a power trip with a cause that can not be questioned such as "save the earth". Some folk like playing the martyr role and "do with out" to "save the earth" . There is even a small cult of people in western civilization . That make a point of "saving the world" by not owning a fridge or freezer. They are not Amish either.

Planet earth has undergone countless temperature swings before mankind had any influence. There are frozen buried jungles in arctic regions. There is also evidence of ice age glaciers being halfway across continental USA.
Earth's source of heat is the sun. If anybody hasn't noticed. The sun has several short and long term cycles in which it's output significantly changes.

Facts are facts...cults are different. Most scientists aren't of the ilk you speak of and having been in the climate science and engineering industry, I can assure you our effect on the planet is real, concern is warranted, and the direction we are going in is not a good one. I don't believe in doomsday scenarios as far as climate goes but it won't take much to destroy the very delicate balance of life we now enjoy (harvests, ocean life, etc). A few bad years and millions of people will be in trouble.

The planet has gone through many changes but the rates of change have been slow. Nothing in recorded or date history has ever caused such an equivalent rapid rise in CO2 density in such a short period of time as we have seen in the last 250 years or less...coinciding directly with the industrial age and high emissions.

What we are seeing now is the Earth trying to adapt to the high concentrations of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere....a stable system that has been disrupted by a large input. We will see the oceans absorbing much of it...acidifying the oceans. We will see temperature extremes....areas getting warmer and areas getting cooler. The system is a feedback system and has the possibility of going unstable or settling to a new stable point...one which isn't favoured by us for a good quality of life.

So far the power trips of corporations and companies to trash the planet has far outpaced any power trip from any green movement. So let's not overhype the green peoples' impacts as something it isn't.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

I burned a record amount of firewood 2013-2014 to keep warm during our longest and coldest winter in decades.
CO2 doesn't mean beans in the grand scheme of things. There are several other gasses being vented one way or another into the atmosphere. Just how exactly we are going to stop methane from rising for the ground and vented from various animal or insect hind parts? Then my favourite, the volcano. Ever see the troubling figures on what those natural phenomena spew ? At least one earth wide mass extinction in the past was due to volcanoes, no humans involved.
There are wooly mammoths in the Arctic deceased from something that killed them quick. Some still have the grass in their mouths they were chewing when struck down.
The USB fob saved more trees than any greenpeacer ever did.

At least one earth wide mass extinction in the past was due to volcanoes, no humans involved.
The USB fob saved more trees than any greenpeacer ever did.

I don't find the usual climate denier arguments believable, but I fully agree that natural phenomena can and does affect climate, just as we humans are affecting climate with dumping CO2 into the atmosphere that has been sequestered for millions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

The final explosive eruption of volcano Krakatoa was heard 3,000 miles away; caused at least 36,417 deaths; 20 million tons of sulfur released into the atmosphere; produced a volcanic winter (reducing worldwide temperatures by an average of 1.2°C for 5 years); and was the loudest explosion in recorded history.

Global climate[edit]
In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[9] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the “water year” from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[10] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[11] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[12] but many scientists doubt this proposed causal relationship.[13]

The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[14]

Global optical effects[edit]
The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterward, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets half way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[15] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

 

[xylhim]

Glad this post is coming up in its own topic, because it is very important, especially to the EV community.

I burned a record amount of firewood 2013-2014 to keep warm during our longest and coldest winter in decades.
CO2 doesn't mean beans in the grand scheme of things. There are several other gasses being vented one way or another into the atmosphere. Just how exactly we are going to stop methane from rising for the ground and vented from various animal or insect hind parts? Then my favourite, the volcano. Ever see the troubling figures on what those natural phenomena spew ? At least one earth wide mass extinction in the past was due to volcanoes, no humans involved.
There are wooly mammoths in the Arctic deceased from something that killed them quick. Some still have the grass in their mouths they were chewing when struck down.
The USB fob saved more trees than any greenpeacer ever did.

So with respect to your comment on animals releasing CO2, this release is balanced by the amount of CO2 captured by the plants that were required to grow in order to keep those animals alive. In other words, non-human animals that are living on this planet now are carbon neutral. The amount of CO2 that comes out is what is needed to go in to sustain the cycle. On the other hand, humans certainly aren't carbon neutral. We're extracting and burning the decayed remnants from phytoplankton buried millions of years ago (oil), or worse yet, ancient fern forests originally around from the CARBONiferious period 350 million years ago (enphasis placed on the carbon, this time period saw CO2 concentrations 4x what they were today). During that time, plant life flourished and was able to soak up a whole lot of CO2, and release a ton of O2 as well (there were dragonflies the size of pterodactyls, due to the increased O2 concentration).

Flash forward to today, and we are digging up these ancient fern forests, found as coal deposits, and releasing the CO2 they held onto in a matter of about a century. On the geologic timescale, releasing this amount of greenhouse gases at one time is analogous to some sort of super volcano event, except the gases released don't cool but warm the planet.

Mass extinctions have occurred at least five times in the history of our planet, with over 50% of species going extinct each time; the Great Permian Extinction wiped out about 98% of all species on Earth! The causes range from asteroid impacts, to continents colliding or splitting apart, dramatically altering the climate. Certainly humans would endure if we are the cause of the next mass extinction (which by some accounts, we're currently headed towards). But would a world plagued by severe drought, storms, invasive species, spreading diseases, etc. be a world in which you'd like to live?

One thing all EV drivers should be on board with is the greatly reduced carbon footprint from using these vehicles. Let's not forget that the cost of adapting to climate change will be significantly more costly than the cost to mitigate against further temperature increases (see: http://spark.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation for an explaination between the two strategies).

You don't have to be on board with the "save the whales/rain forest" brand, but the evidence of rapid climate change due to humans is overwhelming. It's going to cost us a lot of money to deal with the problem, why not get a head start on the solution? People in the West often don't like scaling back their lifestyle in an attempt to make amends with the planet, but what if we were forced to scale back instead of given a choice? This is another problem with the adaptation strategy; when the sea level rises, you will have to move.

Oh and one last thing, the Woolly Mammoths (along with a lot of other megafuana) were put to extinction most likely by human hunters, and likely not climate change: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2649787/Was-hunting-blame-wiping-woolly-mammoth-Study-finds-direct-link-poaching-extinction-large-Ice-Age-animals.html

 

[nmikmik]

We (humans) tend to get more and more intrenched in whatever we already believe to be true to begin with.

This 10 minute video is worth watching to help separate emotions and logic.

http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-wit...ebate-completely-obsolete-plus-epa?g=2&c=ufb3

I also recommend just thinking of CO2 in terms of environment, as the air we breath in. I am sure most of us experienced smog filled cities like LA or even worst. Here is a chart of air quality in Beijing:
http://qz.com/197786/six-years-of-bejing-air-pollution-summed-up-in-one-scary-chart/
So far the human race is moving toward settling in these mega cities. Christian Science Monitor predicts that over 70% of us will live in urban area by 2050.
http://populationmatters.org/2014/newswatch/growth-megacities/
What air would you rather have you children breath? Exhaust from a Mustang or from a Spark?

 

[buickanddeere]

I wasn't talking about CO2 but methane being vented from termite, hoofed herbivore and vegetarian digestive tracts. Methane per mol contributes more to global warming than CO2 does per mol.
As for global warming or cooling. Is anybody not aware that the earth's heat source is that hydrogen fusion thingy about 93 million miles away? The hydrogen fusion occurs with short,medium and long term cycles in infrared, visible and UV output just to name just three types of radiation. Earth will warm and cool, following the variation in fusion output.
Lets just go now and plug our EV's into the electrical grid powered by fossil fuels such as coal, heavy oil and natural gas.
I'm into EVs to cut the gasoline costs down during local commuting. Saving "Joe Average" commuter $100-$200 each month will sell more EVs than any save the world speech.
It's still going to take a sharp pencil and several years to break even on a Spark EV vs a gasser EV. Getting stuck a few times with a low battery pack will wipe out months of savings.
I just went through the EPA comparison chart between the Spark EV, ICE Spark, a diesel Cruze and a Buick Encore AWD for winter driving here. Figuring cost per mile, there isn't very much to save when comparing between all four.

 

[nmikmik]

I wasn't talking about CO2 but methane being vented from termite, hoofed herbivore and vegetarian digestive tracts. Methane per mol contributes more to global warming than CO2 does per mol.
As for global warming or cooling. Is anybody not aware that the earth's heat source is that hydrogen fusion thingy about 93 million miles away? The hydrogen fusion occurs with short,medium and long term cycles in infrared, visible and UV output just to name just three types of radiation. Earth will warm and cool, following the variation in fusion output.
Lets just go now and plug our EV's into the electrical grid powered by fossil fuels such as coal, heavy oil and natural gas.
I'm into EVs to cut the gasoline costs down during local commuting. Saving "Joe Average" commuter $100-$200 each month will sell more EVs than any save the world speech.
It's still going to take a sharp pencil and several years to break even on a Spark EV vs a gasser EV. Getting stuck a few times with a low battery pack will wipe out months of savings.
I just went through the EPA comparison chart between the Spark EV, ICE Spark, a diesel Cruze and a Buick Encore AWD for winter driving here. Figuring cost per mile, there isn't very much to save when comparing between all four.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.
Are you saying there is a global warming and methane and such are causing it to get worse than the CO2 emissions or you are saying the 93 million miles away thingy is causing temperature changes?
I think I do understand what you are saying here, "CO2 doesn't mean beans in the grand scheme of things. There are several other gasses being vented one way or another into the atmosphere." but I still don't understand if you prefer the CO2 exhaust over no exhaust of the EV?

BTW, not all but many EV drivers are willingly or unwillingly converting to solar power, so net carbon footprint is minimized.
You didn't watch the video, did you? :ugeek:

 

[buickanddeere]

I'm saying CO2 doesn't make one iota of difference in the grand scheme of global cooling or warming. A couple of decades ago we were warned about an Ice Age immediately looming ahead.
Speaking of Iceages. There has been four ice ages in very recent geological history. I doubt mankind had anything to do with any of those.
The sun and earth have been going though thermal cycles since they began to exist.
I'm amazed that the less technical the person, the more they are concerned about climate change.
Anybody who has setup PID controls for a process loop will understand system oscillations occurs more often and with greater magnitude with every complexity added.
Given how complex the earth, sun and local solar system is. It is the height of arrogance to be so certain about human effects on earth's climate.

 

[xylhim]

I'm saying CO2 doesn't make one iota of difference in the grand scheme of global cooling or warming.

So CO2 concentration correlates poorly with temperature increases/decreases?
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

 

[buickanddeere]

I'm saying CO2 doesn't make one iota of difference in the grand scheme of global cooling or warming.

So CO2 concentration correlates poorly with temperature increases/decreases?
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

Has anybody noticed that proponents of global warming tend to also be the very same persons who stand to gain financially and raise their social status. Huge bucks in carbon credits, consulting, engineering, promotion etc.
There are layers of glacial ice where the core samples showed CO2 rising as the ice sheet advanced during the ice ages.
CO2 is just one very minor factor in earth's climate.Those who worship exclusively at the alter of carbon are missing the big picture. As an analogy, that is similar to my Amish neighbours building an entire lifestyle around three select verses out of the entire bible with 10's of thousands of verses. 2 Corinthians 6:17, Romans 12:2 and Exodus 20:4 iirc. My apologies to those offended but it was a handy and relatable reference.
The sheer volume of each of the other gasses besides CO2 that have radiative properties and degree of radiativity each of the gasses possess. CO2 isn't a significant concern.
As stated before. If you want to be concerned about something. A minor concern to seeping methane, CO & N2O as "greenhouse gasses". A venting volcano is a significant concern.The main player in earths temperature is varying output of that hydrogen fusion thingy.
The way to promote EVs is that they are an economical source of transportation as a 2nd or 3rd vehicle for running about or regular "short range commuting". Or the primary vehicle for folks who usually take transit or walk. And want a low cost, low maintenance vehicle on standby. The rising price of fossil fuel and low maintenance costs will promote EV's before "saving the world".

Courtesy of wiki

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only (per IPCC documentation)

The following table has its sources in Chapter 2, pg 141, Table 2.1. of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.[1]

Mole fractions: μmol/mol = ppm = parts per million (106); nmol/mol = ppb = parts per billion (109); pmol/mol = ppt = parts per trillion (1012).
Mole fractions and their changes Radiative Forcing
Species 2005 Change since 1998 2005 (W m–2) 1998 (%)
CO2 379 ± 0.65 μmol/mol +13 μmol/mol 1.66 +13
CH4 1,774 ± 1.8 nmol/mol +11 nmol/mol 0.48 -
N2O 319 ± 0.12 nmol/mol +5 nmol/mol 0.16 +11
CFC-11 251 ± 0.36 pmol/mol –13 0.063 –5
CFC-12 538 ± 0.18 pmol/mol +4 0.17 +1
CFC-113 79 ± 0.064 pmol/mol –4 0.024 –5
HCFC-22 169 ± 1.0 pmol/mol +38 0.033 +29
HCFC-141b 18 ± 0.068 pmol/mol +9 0.0025 +93
HCFC-142b 15 ± 0.13 pmol/mol +6 0.0031 +57
CH3CCl3 19 ± 0.47 pmol/mol –47 0.0011 –72
CCl4 93 ± 0.17 pmol/mol –7 0.012 –7
HFC-125 3.7 ± 0.10 pmol/mol +2.6 0.0009 +234
HFC-134a 35 ± 0.73 pmol/mol +27 0.0055 +349
HFC-152a 3.9 ± 0.11 pmol/mol +2.4 0.0004 +151
HFC-23 18 ± 0.12 pmol/mol +4 0.0033 +29
SF6 5.6 ± 0.038 pmol/mol +1.5 0.0029 +36
CF4 (PFC-14) 74 ± 1.6 pmol/mol - 0.0034 -
C2F6 (PFC-116) 2.9 ± 0.025 pmol/mol +0.5 0.0008 +22

The older data from 1998 has been left for reference.
Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm−2) Specific heat at STP

(J kg−1)
Carbon dioxide Carbonic anhydride (CO2) 365 μmol/mol 87 μmol/mol 1.46 0.819
Carbon Monoxide Carbonic Oxide (CO) 11.1 μmol/mol 46 nmol/mol 0.89 1.013
Methane Marsh gas (CH4) 1,745 nmol/mol 1,045 nmol/mol 0.48 2.191
Nitrous oxide Laughing gas (N2O) 314 nmol/mol 44 nmol/mol 0.15 0.88
Tetrafluoromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80 pmol/mol 40 pmol/mol 0.003 1.33
Hexafluoroethane Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 3 pmol/mol 3 pmol/mol 0.001 0.067
Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur fluoride (SF6) 4.2 pmol/mol 4.2 pmol/mol 0.002 0.074
HFC-23* Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14 pmol/mol 14 pmol/mol 0.002 0.064
HFC-134a* 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 0.001(C2H2F4) 7.5 pmol/mol 7.5 pmol/mol 0.001 0.007
HFC-152a* 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5 pmol/mol 0.5 pmol/mol 0.000 0.04

 

[nmikmik]

I'm saying CO2 doesn't make one iota of difference in the grand scheme of global cooling or warming.

So CO2 concentration correlates poorly with temperature increases/decreases?
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

Has anybody noticed that proponents of global warming tend to also be the very same persons who stand to gain financially and raise their social status. Huge bucks in carbon credits, consulting, engineering, promotion etc.
There are layers of glacial ice where the core samples showed CO2 rising as the ice sheet advanced during the ice ages.
CO2 is just one very minor factor in earth's climate.Those who worship exclusively at the alter of carbon are missing the big picture. As an analogy, that is similar to my Amish neighbours building an entire lifestyle around three select verses out of the entire bible with 10's of thousands of verses. 2 Corinthians 6:17, Romans 12:2 and Exodus 20:4 iirc. My apologies to those offended but it was a handy and relatable reference.
The sheer volume of each of the other gasses besides CO2 that have radiative properties and degree of radiativity each of the gasses possess. CO2 isn't a significant concern.
As stated before. If you want to be concerned about something. A minor concern to seeping methane, CO & N2O as "greenhouse gasses". A venting volcano is a significant concern.The main player in earths temperature is varying output of that hydrogen fusion thingy.
The way to promote EVs is that they are an economical source of transportation as a 2nd or 3rd vehicle for running about or regular "short range commuting". Or the primary vehicle for folks who usually take transit or walk. And want a low cost, low maintenance vehicle on standby. The rising price of fossil fuel and low maintenance costs will promote EV's before "saving the world".

I get it buickanddeere, you are very technical and can understand all the stuff you are referencing, hopefully.
I don't, but I do know from my personal experience - the ICE exhaust stinks, literally and figuratively speaking, even if it uses catalytic converter. Let's say that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the global warming or anything weather related per say. Could you please answer the following question;
Do you prefer breathing the car exhaust or not?
As far as promoting the EV, I am afraid you are wrong. The way to promote (sell) anything is to appeal to human emotion, not the wallet. I suspect this is the reason why gas guzzler trucks and SUVs are so popular with auto buying public that rarely if ever uses these vehicles as they were intended.
Same probably applies to the electric or hybrid vehicles. If it would have been just a shear economic appeal, i.e. dollars per mile driven, very rarely someone would purchase an EV or Prius. The brake even point of a hybrid is what, a decade? Yet people are still buying a lot of them. I suspect because yes they want to save the planet, if not from the global warming, at least from been unable to breath the air in the city they live in.

 

[xylhim]

The sheer volume of each of the other gasses besides CO2 that have radiative properties and degree of radiativity each of the gasses possess.

Courtesy of wiki

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only (per IPCC documentation)

The following table has its sources in Chapter 2, pg 141, Table 2.1. of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.[1]

Mole fractions: μmol/mol = ppm = parts per million (106); nmol/mol = ppb = parts per billion (109); pmol/mol = ppt = parts per trillion (1012).
Mole fractions and their changes Radiative Forcing
Species 2005 Change since 1998 2005 (W m–2) 1998 (%)
CO2 379 ± 0.65 μmol/mol +13 μmol/mol 1.66 +13
CH4 1,774 ± 1.8 nmol/mol +11 nmol/mol 0.48 -
N2O 319 ± 0.12 nmol/mol +5 nmol/mol 0.16 +11
CFC-11 251 ± 0.36 pmol/mol –13 0.063 –5
CFC-12 538 ± 0.18 pmol/mol +4 0.17 +1
CFC-113 79 ± 0.064 pmol/mol –4 0.024 –5
HCFC-22 169 ± 1.0 pmol/mol +38 0.033 +29
HCFC-141b 18 ± 0.068 pmol/mol +9 0.0025 +93
HCFC-142b 15 ± 0.13 pmol/mol +6 0.0031 +57
CH3CCl3 19 ± 0.47 pmol/mol –47 0.0011 –72
CCl4 93 ± 0.17 pmol/mol –7 0.012 –7
HFC-125 3.7 ± 0.10 pmol/mol +2.6 0.0009 +234
HFC-134a 35 ± 0.73 pmol/mol +27 0.0055 +349
HFC-152a 3.9 ± 0.11 pmol/mol +2.4 0.0004 +151
HFC-23 18 ± 0.12 pmol/mol +4 0.0033 +29
SF6 5.6 ± 0.038 pmol/mol +1.5 0.0029 +36
CF4 (PFC-14) 74 ± 1.6 pmol/mol - 0.0034 -
C2F6 (PFC-116) 2.9 ± 0.025 pmol/mol +0.5 0.0008 +22

The older data from 1998 has been left for reference.
Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm−2) Specific heat at STP

(J kg−1)
Carbon dioxide Carbonic anhydride (CO2) 365 μmol/mol 87 μmol/mol 1.46 0.819
Carbon Monoxide Carbonic Oxide (CO) 11.1 μmol/mol 46 nmol/mol 0.89 1.013
Methane Marsh gas (CH4) 1,745 nmol/mol 1,045 nmol/mol 0.48 2.191
Nitrous oxide Laughing gas (N2O) 314 nmol/mol 44 nmol/mol 0.15 0.88
Tetrafluoromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80 pmol/mol 40 pmol/mol 0.003 1.33
Hexafluoroethane Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 3 pmol/mol 3 pmol/mol 0.001 0.067
Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur fluoride (SF6) 4.2 pmol/mol 4.2 pmol/mol 0.002 0.074
HFC-23* Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14 pmol/mol 14 pmol/mol 0.002 0.064
HFC-134a* 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 0.001(C2H2F4) 7.5 pmol/mol 7.5 pmol/mol 0.001 0.007
HFC-152a* 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5 pmol/mol 0.5 pmol/mol 0.000 0.04

The radiative forcing of methane is significantly more than CO2, but as you posted, the concentration of methane is 3 orders of magnitude lower than CO2; so the forcing due to methane is significantly less. In any event, humans are also responsible for releasing methane into the atmosphere through industrial processes. So you're absolutely right, methane is another greenhouse gas that increases the infrared heat capture of the planet. However, to get more to the point (especially after the information you just posted), are you still convinced that humans have no impact on our climate; that release of any greenhouse gases through our activities is negligible compared the wobbling of Earth's Axis or the output of the sun?
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif

 

[buickanddeere]

Certainly true that emotion over rides logic probably nine times out of ten for nine out of ten people. There is a 1/10 of the population that makes 9 out of 10 decisions on logic.
Yes people tend to purchase what they want instead of what they need if.........they can afford it. There is a significant portion of the population that drives commuter econoboxes because it's all they can afford. That is a EV target group, a large group. Even myself I slam the persons who drive a dually diesel pickup strictly as a commuter vehicle. My pickup only moves to actually haul a load in the box or to pull a trailer.
Persons who are active on this forum and those in particular who actually open the wallet and purchase an EV. They don't represent mainstream society.
As for the solar output vs earth temperature graph. It proves my point. Earth's temperature follows the sun's output with the usual lag time given thermal cycles.
The kicker is however the accuracy of the measuring earth's temperature at approx 1980. These readings were not taken only at the top of Mount Everest, the Northpole, Southpole and the middle of each ocean. The readings were taken in areas that used to be remote but have had urbanization and localized micro climates imposed. For example, note the temperature difference between Toronto International Airport, Toronto Island Airport and downtown Toronto at Young and Eglington streets. Just a few miles apart.
Many of these same temperature recording sites have had their readings contaminated by human activity, concrete, asphalt, changes in humidity, redirection of wind etc. Unfortunately many of these temperature readings are no longer reliable.
There will be some very minor influences from CO2, with some limited from the other radiative gasses. The kicker is going to be some solar flares and volcanic eruptions. Neither of which an EV is going to affect.
The odor of ICE exhaust ? The odoriferous components have been reduced exponentially over the past few decades. The reduction in sulfur in gasoline and diesel alone has reduced odor and emissions. Fuel injection and diesel emissions up to Tier II have been beneficial. Unfortunately the vehicle hating EPA have meddled with diesels forcing Tier III and Tier IV. The difference in emissions is minimal but the cost in design, manufacturing, maintenance and reduced fuel efficiency. Have impaired a highly efficient power source for transportation, working farm land and construction machinery.
As for smoke, fumes, odors and degree of objectionably. That is rather subjective across age, gender, heritage, area of origin and individual personal experience.
Ozone from around electric motor contacts, slip rings or commutators can be quit tangy and even objectionable. For something really nasty, how about a venting battery or burning electrical insulation? Small children and tobacco smokers probably top the list of foul odors.
I do believe in responsible and making minimal mess and effect upon the earth but even a near zero imprint is impossible. I've been in some 3rd world countries and newly industrialized nations with no concerns and lax controls.Where there is more to gain with "them" cutting pollution than "us".
A lot of people are suspect of the subculture of eco zealots . The eco zealot is often pictured standing hand in hand singing love and peace songs while wearing white robes. Before they retire to a vegan tofu buffet at their cottages . With not a sign a highway, vehicle, tractor, farm, industry, power line etc in sight.
Somewhat resembling the classic coca-cola ad some decades ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

 

[xylhim]

Certainly true that emotion over rides logic probably nine times out of ten for nine out of ten people. There is a 1/10 of the population that makes 9 out of 10 decisions on logic.

Yes, like the Koch brothers funding millions of dollars to anti-climate change think tanks that help spread misinformation about the defining problem of our time.

As for the solar output vs earth temperature graph. It proves my point. Earth's temperature follows the sun's output with the usual lag time given thermal cycles.
The kicker is however the accuracy of the measuring earth's temperature at approx 1980. These readings were not taken only at the top of Mount Everest, the Northpole, Southpole and the middle of each ocean. The readings were taken in areas that used to be remote but have had urbanization and localized micro climates imposed. For example, note the temperature difference between Toronto International Airport, Toronto Island Airport and downtown Toronto at Young and Eglington streets. Just a few miles apart.

So do you think temperatures on average are increasing on the planet? If you claim that increased solar activity is causing the planet to warm, but no accurate, unbiased records exist of the global average temperature, how then can you believe that anything is causing a change in climate?

Many of these same temperature recording sites have had their readings contaminated by human activity, concrete, asphalt, changes in humidity, redirection of wind etc. Unfortunately many of these temperature readings are no longer reliable.

Heat islands created by urban sprawl, along with different readings attributed to different measuring devices (glass thermometer vs thermocouple, etc), techniques (human observers vs. computerized recordings), are factored out or "homogenized" to extract the effects of temperature change due to non-climate factors. (Read the intro to this paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/89/2012/cp-8-89-2012.pdf).

In addition, even if the algorithms used by climatologists were off in removing biases in temperature fluctuations across the planet, other data collected of our upper atmosphere (that is not influenced by the greenhouse effect) has shown no significant temperature increases since measurements began to be recorded. In fact, the stratosphere has been getting cooler, while the troposphere continues to increase in temperature: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/assessments/assess_98/fig7.gif

Also, sunspot activity, associated with increased solar activity, has gone down slightly while lower atmosphere temperature continues to increase: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/720px-temp-sunspot-co22.png

There will be some very minor influences from CO2, with some limited from the other radiative gasses. The kicker is going to be some solar flares and volcanic eruptions.

Solar wind (which can be influenced by solar flair activity) has hit a lull as of late, while temperatures and CO2 continue to climb: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191.gif

As for volcanic eruptions, I could only hope for some of those, as what consequence do you believe that would have on our atmosphere in terms of temperature?

I've been in some 3rd world countries and newly industrialized nations with no concerns and lax controls.Where there is more to gain with "them" cutting pollution than "us".

First world countries have the biggest per capita impact on the environment, and utilize the most resources, especially in the United States. The amount of land required to supply the needs of an individual is quantified using a global hectare; Western societies require a much greater land area to support our lifestyle: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Human_welfare_and_ecological_footprint.jpg
The degradation of the environment in third world countries is exacerbated by the West's pillaging of resources in these areas, along with the desire for the third world to industrialize. We all can't live like we do though, as it is estimated that would require four plant Earth's to sustain us all.

A lot of people are suspect of the subculture of eco zealots .

This subculture you refer to exists, but these aren't the people driving around in EVs. I would like to imagine EV drivers are pragmatists that know while humans have an impact on our environment, there are smarter ways to go about conducting our business. Elon Musk has the right idea of starting Tesla and Space X though; the former will help mitigate our current climate crisis, but the latter will be important to help us get off this planet if the proprietors of misinformation on global climate change reign supreme.

 

[buickanddeere]

There is that aspect of human nature to seek out what we want to see and hear. That tendency has been around since the dawn of recorded history. I don't have a solution for that either.

 

[nmikmik]

There is that aspect of human nature to seek out what we want to see and hear. That tendency has been around since the dawn of recorded history. I don't have a solution for that either.

Interesting that you mention this... The same applies to the human nature that makes us to refuse to see what's in front of us becasue we are already convinced that there is only ONE truth, of course - OURS... The solution for this condition would be to try to have an open mind and at least attempt to listen.

 

[buickanddeere]

There is that aspect of human nature to seek out what we want to see and hear. That tendency has been around since the dawn of recorded history. I don't have a solution for that either.

Interesting that you mention this... The same applies to the human nature that makes us to refuse to see what's in front of us becasue we are already convinced that there is only ONE truth, of course - OURS... The solution for this condition would be to try to have an open mind and at least attempt to listen.

Lets agree to disagree on the CO2 being a significant warming issue? I'm on board with everything else.

 

[nmikmik]

Deal,
I agree to disagree all day long, but... :twisted:
I was actually hoping to get you and maybe others to agree that car exhaust etc. is bad for the air we end up breathing, regardless of global or non-global warming. If not, oh well

 

[buickanddeere]

Deal,
I agree to disagree all day long, but... :twisted:
I was actually hoping to get you and maybe others to agree that car exhaust etc. is bad for the air we end up breathing, regardless of global or non-global warming. If not, oh well

Given fumes, dust, vapours, mold, smoke and compounds form other sources. Exhaust from an emission vehicle is cleaner than the air many people breath at work or where they live.
I could never understand how some people take a cigarette out of their mouth to complain about pollution?
How did the California bason's unique entrapment problem come to burden the rest of the world? The natives called the region " the valley of smokes" before it was discovered by explorers. California is not the Center of the Universe.
Of course you are sensitive to polluted air from the days of coal power plants, burning trash and out of tune motor vehicles. Lots of hydrocarbons from the ground , insects and trees.
Vehicle tailpipe emissions today are minimal in NOX, HC and CO. CO2 is a natural compound we all breath out.
EVs are charged with utility power which is coal by a majority so no gain there.
As for charging with PV ? Daytime workers don't have PV cells to charge with at work. PV cells loose power in late afternoon and evening. Zilch when dark. PV's are toxic to manufacture. They are not made of pixi dust in fairy land and delivered by unicorns.
Everybody purchases the cheapest PV cells.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650