Global warmed up: Study finds temperature data systematically fudged upward

[lowfast]

I just test drove a Tesla. Enjoy your antiques while you can. Until you do the test drive, you can live in bliss-filled denial. No other US based car manufacture has the balls to innovate like this car.
The "sales" experience was a welcome change. The employees had no incentive to sell me a car. They did not even ask. The kid's job was to describe it, show me, and ask if I had any questions. I want one more now. I can't walk into another Ford dealership after this. Good god if I hear "what can I do to get you to buy this car today" again. Now to start gathering up some pennies...

Go to Six Flags and ride the Mr. Scream (the electric-propelled roller coaster). That will give you an idea of how this car feels.

I have found most highend car dealerships to be no pressure. They know the clientele are intelligent people who will not be pressured nor care about what monthly payment the dealers can work out for them.

[mschmoyer]

I just test drove a Tesla. Enjoy your antiques while you can. Until you do the test drive, you can live in bliss-filled denial. No other US based car manufacture has the balls to innovate like this car.
The "sales" experience was a welcome change. The employees had no incentive to sell me a car. They did not even ask. The kid's job was to describe it, show me, and ask if I had any questions. I want one more now. I can't walk into another Ford dealership after this. Good god if I hear "what can I do to get you to buy this car today" again. Now to start gathering up some pennies...

Go to Six Flags and ride the Mr. Scream (the electric-propelled roller coaster). That will give you an idea of how this car feels.

[Gasser64]

Well of course since someone else is doing it, that makes it ok for everyone. I did say that I really don't care where the power comes from, as I'm not one of "those" people. And I'd fully agree that they tech isn't quite there yet, but give it 10-15 years. This conversation is probably pointless until that time but hey, there are some electric cars out now so we'll be talking about em.

Not sure why electric cars would somehow be related to communism. All I'm talking about is the free market. A better technology or company comes along, that offers a better product or service, and the other ones either adapt or they die. Either way suits me just fine. I like it because its like nature. Survival of the fittest.

[AnthonyS]

Way more than twice the rare earth metals mined to bring you your electric car. So at least dont argue it's about saving the planet or environment. Those earth movers in China run high sulphur diesel and don't have squat for emission controls. But you have your shiny new feel good e car. It's bullshit just like all the bullshit enlightened retards cling to.

Today your touting e cars. Next it'll be universal basic income.

One day the tech will be there; today it is not.

[Gasser64]

Even 20 percent efficiency for a gasoline ICE is only under certain conditions. Defining efficiency of an electric motor is also hard to do since it is very dependent on exactly what and how you are measuring it. Are you including the efficiency of the main bus when you are making that high number claim?

Talk to any EE on the planet and ask the what the weakest link in any design is and they will tell you that it is the capacitor or battery. By design a battery or capacitor has to be able to discharge energy quickly and that is also their downfall. Electric cars are a dead end tech brought about by wishful thinking from fools with no engineering background. Until electricity is made totally from solar electric cars will never do what is expected from them.

I AM SAYING THIS LOUDLY JUST TO BE CLEAR. THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTRIC CARS IS NOT THE CAR. IT IS THE POWER SOURCE THAT CHARGES THE BATTERIES.

Unfortunately none of that really pans out if you look at it in terms of price. I'll take $1.16 per gallon vs $2.25 or whatever it is right now, any day. That's your fuel cost, less than half. If you like paying double that's fine, but I'm a little bit more money conscious than that. Of course I don't own an electric car, but given the choice between the two, at that fuel cost, I'm going to take the one that's cheaper. The electric cars are in such early stages that the only conversations we're going to be able to have are going to be based on the hypothetical.

Although I'm sure we can easily find someone who has owned a tesla or a leaf for 5 years, and ask them what their vehicle maintenance cost has looked like. I'm sure the gas car won't come out as the winner in that situation either. Lastly the "fuel" for the car coming from coal doesn't really bother me, as I'm not one of those people who's convinced that we need to pay another 25% of our income because coal burning exists. So we have:

1. Half the fuel costs

2. Less than half maintenance costs

3. Potentially powered by the sun or other renewable someday (like thorium hopefully)

4. Much more quiet car to drive

5. Nearly instant torque so more powerful automobile.

What's the problem again?

[Broncojohnny]

You'll comment on the merits of things that will likely never happen, but skate right past posts that ask real questions about how economics of these pie-in-the-sky plans would actually play out?

Liberals don't care about actual results, only intent.

[SS Junk]

[svauto-erotic855]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...-of-38-percent

So according to that article, yeah I was wrong. Its less, at only about 20% instead of 25%. Also I said the electric motor, not the entire car. The electric motor is 86% efficient, and some extra awesome models are higher than that. Of course you can't count the entire car when talking about engine efficiency. For electric or IC.

Next, that old argument about how its only going to get better with time. Eventually it will. You're not going to stop progress unless there is some kind of apocalypse. The electric cars, like gas cars, will only get better and better as the years tick by. Battery technology isn't just going to come to some kind of a dead halt. (although in this case its more like a replacement)


http://www.hybridcars.com/supercapac...ng-in-seconds/

Even 20 percent efficiency for a gasoline ICE is only under certain conditions. Defining efficiency of an electric motor is also hard to do since it is very dependent on exactly what and how you are measuring it. Are you including the efficiency of the main bus when you are making that high number claim?

Talk to any EE on the planet and ask the what the weakest link in any design is and they will tell you that it is the capacitor or battery. By design a battery or capacitor has to be able to discharge energy quickly and that is also their downfall. Electric cars are a dead end tech brought about by wishful thinking from fools with no engineering background. Until electricity is made totally from solar electric cars will never do what is expected from them.

I AM SAYING THIS LOUDLY JUST TO BE CLEAR. THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTRIC CARS IS NOT THE CAR. IT IS THE POWER SOURCE THAT CHARGES THE BATTERIES.

[Gasser64]

A gasoline ICE is not 25% efficient. An electric car may get 86% of its stored power converted into work but I seriously doubt it. The problem for electric anything is that they are only as efficient as what ever is charging their batteries. Every time energy change form it loses about 70% and that is why you are better off simply burning the fuel in an ICE that is directly moving the car vs trying to charge a battery and then using the stored juice in the battery to move the car.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

So according to that article, yeah I was wrong. Its less, at only about 20% instead of 25%. Also I said the electric motor, not the entire car. The electric motor is 86% efficient, and some extra awesome models are higher than that. Of course you can't count the entire car when talking about engine efficiency. For electric or IC.

Next, that old argument about how its only going to get better with time. Eventually it will. You're not going to stop progress unless there is some kind of apocalypse. The electric cars, like gas cars, will only get better and better as the years tick by. Battery technology isn't just going to come to some kind of a dead halt. (although in this case its more like a replacement)

http://www.hybridcars.com/supercapacitor-breakthrough-allows-electric-vehicle-charging-in-seconds/

[AnthonyS]

A gasoline ICE is not 25% efficient. An electric car may get 86% of its stored power converted into work but I seriously doubt it. The problem for electric anything is that they are only as efficient as what ever is charging their batteries. Every time energy change form it loses about 70% and that is why you are better off simply burning the fuel in an ICE that is directly moving the car vs trying to charge a battery and then using the stored juice in the battery to move the car.

Plug your car into the outlet in your garage and burn coal to save the world! Brilliant...... if you're an idiot.

[svauto-erotic855]

I'm of the mind that will be solved with technology. The better it gets, the less wasteful we are. We'll hit a certain point, where very little ever gets wasted. The electric cars are a prime example. 86% efficiency vs 25% energy efficiency is a big step in the right direction, and will have a big effect on that waste you're talking about. A lot less energy wasted there. And that's just one area of improvement. Almost all areas are improving, and there will come a day where no more improvements in terms of waste, are needed.

A gasoline ICE is not 25% efficient. An electric car may get 86% of its stored power converted into work but I seriously doubt it. The problem for electric anything is that they are only as efficient as what ever is charging their batteries. Every time energy change form it loses about 70% and that is why you are better off simply burning the fuel in an ICE that is directly moving the car vs trying to charge a battery and then using the stored juice in the battery to move the car.

[Mysticcobrakilla]

Oh shit, we have red text again!

[Strychnine]

Anyone still think that Trump pulling our wallet our of the Paris Accord is the worst thing in the world?

'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord

Matt McGrath - Environment correspondent
8 August 2017


Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found. Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy. However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.

Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.

These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme.


Bottom-up records
Among the key provisions of the Paris climate deal, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, is the requirement that every country, rich or poor, has to submit an inventory of its greenhouse-gas emissions every two years. Under UN rules, most countries produce "bottom-up" records, based on how many car journeys are made or how much energy is used for heating homes and offices. But air-sampling programmes that record actual levels of gases, such as those run by the UK and Switzerland, sometimes reveal errors and omissions.

In 2011, Swiss scientists first published their data on levels of a gas called HFC-23 coming from a location in northern Italy.

Between 2008 and 2010, they had recorded samples of the chemical, produced in the refrigeration and air conditioning industries, which is 14,800 times more warming to the atmosphere than CO2. Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere. "Our estimate for this location in Italy is about 60-80 tonnes of this substance being emitted every year. Then we can compare this with the Italian emission inventory, and that is quite interesting because the official inventory says below 10 tonnes or in the region of two to three tonnes," said Dr Stefan Reimann, from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology. "They actually say it is happening, but they don't think it is happening as much as we see.

"Just to put it into perspective, this greenhouse gas is thousands [14,800] of times stronger than CO2. But Dr Reimann told Counting Carbon: "We still see 10,000-20,000 tonnes coming out of China every year." "That is something that shouldn't be there." "There is actually no Chinese inventory for these gases, as they are banned and industry shouldn't be releasing them anymore." China's approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions. Its last submission ran to about 30 pages - the UK's, by contrast, runs to several hundred.

Back in 2007, China simply refused to accept, in official documents, that it had become the largest emitter of CO2. "I was working in China in 2007," said Dr Angel Hsu, from Yale University. "I would include a citation and statistics that made this claim of China's position as the number one emitter - these were just stricken out, and I was told the Chinese government doesn't yet recognise this particular statistic so we are not going to include it." A report in 2015 suggested one error in China's statistics amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013.

The BBC investigation also discovered vast uncertainties in carbon emissions inventories, particularly in developing countries. Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas after CO2, is produced by microbe activity in marshlands, in rice cultivation, from landfill, from agriculture and in the production of fossil fuels. Global levels have been rising in recent years, and scientists are unsure why. For a country such as India, home to 15% of the world's livestock, methane is a very important gas in their inventory - but the amount produced is subject to a high degree of uncertainty "What they note is that methane emissions are about 50% uncertain for categories like ruminants, so what this means is that the emissions they submit could be plus or minus 50% of what's been submitted," said Dr Anita Ganesan, from the University of Bristol, who has overseen air monitoring research in the country. "For nitrous oxide, that's 100%."

There are similar uncertainties with methane emissions in Russia, of between 30-40%, according to scientists who work there. "What we're worried about is what the planet experiences, never mind what the statistics are," said Prof Euan Nisbet, from Royal Holloway, University of London. "In the air, we see methane going up. The warming impact from that methane is enough to derail Paris."

The rules covering how countries report their emissions are currently being negotiated. But Prof Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research, in Oslo, said: "The core part of Paris [is] the global stock-takes which are going to happen every five years, and after the stock-takes countries are meant to raise their ambition, but if you can't track progress sufficiently, which is the whole point of these stock-takes, you basically can't do anything.

"So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress."

"So, that would be like an Italian town of 80,000 inhabitants not emitting any CO2." The Italian environment agency told the BBC its inventory was correct and complied with UN regulations and it did not accept the Swiss figures. Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

[Gasser64]

I like your alternative and 100% agree on the contributions. Huge waste of money.

I'd say its more than a huge waste of money. As far as I'm concerned its an evil act committed by evil people. A direct subversion of the will of the people. Bribery. I want all campaign contributions of any kind banned, with painful, unnecessarily harsh penalties for breaking the rule and taking (or attempting to give) any form or fashion of a contribution. Something that will make it not at all worth it to risk taking a bribe. If this were accomplished, they'd be beholden only to the people, and the people are going to then have all the power to keep unruly corporations in check. Which in my estimation will work out great, because you don't want to harm the corporation because that's where you work. But you also want them to behave themselves.

However, I don't think this solves anything on the resource waste front, it just moves dollars from lobbyists back to corporations. Sure, more jobs, more economy is good, but it doesn't help with Americans being so damn wasteful.

I'm of the mind that will be solved with technology. The better it gets, the less wasteful we are. We'll hit a certain point, where very little ever gets wasted. The electric cars are a prime example. 86% efficiency vs 25% energy efficiency is a big step in the right direction, and will have a big effect on that waste you're talking about. A lot less energy wasted there. And that's just one area of improvement. Almost all areas are improving, and there will come a day where no more improvements in terms of waste, are needed.

With the cars they've just got to keep a close eye on the battery disposal and recycling process. So they don't kill their own efforts at trying to dial way back on pollution.

[bubbaearl]

i know corporation . he's an old fat bald white dude who rolls around naked in his money . i'm so tired of this leftist greenie shit about corporations and big business. every one of them who bitch have a 401 that is heavy with corporate stock . just like that fool al gore and his energy sucking mansions .
hell at least gw has his ranch house pretty much green .