Ecological Transition: EVs will replace all ICE cars

[Pete in Panama]

The preliminary effect of global warming are both clear and measurable.
This will not improve unless we behave differently.
To continue as we are and expect a different result is the definition of stupidity.

Some agree to that and others don't.

When I look at the actual observations I don't make the same conclusions. You can say I'm a bad person but my being bad does not change the temperature of the earth. What I see is that we don't have a clear and present threat, but rather a dispute over what's happening.

 

[Pete in Panama]

These are the result of scientific research that's been done for two centuries and counting...

Over the past two centuries (and counting) many people have had many different opinions on what's happening. Right now there are many different opinions held by many different groups.

The causation now is different as we now well know.

As a scientist, now retired, I go with the science, not politics and not someone's whim.

When you say "the science", you're talking about an established body of understanding accepted by what, the majority of scientists?

Two concerns come to my mind. One is the fact that right now there are many opinions floating around. You can say that all the "good" scientists agree w/ you and all others are "bad" unscientific criminals. There are many w/ impressive scientific credentials who would disagree. For example, I'm a scientist retired from a meteorological branch of the federal government, yet both you and I don't seem to share the same opinion on this.

My other concern is that there've been many times in history --recent history too-- where the "established body of understanding" turns out to be wrong.

 

[metis]

Over the past two centuries (and counting) many people have had many different opinions on what's happening.

When 97% of the world's climate scientists say that this climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane levels, I don't think there's really much debate left on the issue of most causation.

When you say "the science", you're talking about an established body of understanding accepted by what, the majority of scientists?

See above.

For example, I'm a scientist retired from a meteorological branch of the federal government, yet both you and I don't seem to share the same opinion on this.

Well, then I guess something else is influencing your opinion. For example, I have seen many being twisted by politics on this and often other areas of research, and some others because of business influences. I rely on neither of those.

My other concern is that there've been many times in history --recent history too-- where the "established body of understanding" turns out to be wrong.

Which is why I don't much use the term "facts" but more on "evidence", and the overwhelming evidence in this era of global warming is really quite clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some agree to that and others don't.

When I look at the actual observations I don't make the same conclusions. You can say I'm a bad person but my being bad does not change the temperature of the earth. What I see is that we don't have a clear and present threat, but rather a dispute over what's happening.

The opinions of ignorant people do not count when it comes to matters of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Over the past two centuries (and counting) many people have had many different opinions on what's happening. Right now there are many different opinions held by many different groups.When you say "the science", you're talking about an established body of understanding accepted by what, the majority of scientists?

Two concerns come to my mind. One is the fact that right now there are many opinions floating around. You can say that all the "good" scientists agree w/ you and all others are "bad" unscientific criminals. There are many w/ impressive scientific credentials who would disagree. For example, I'm a scientist retired from a meteorological branch of the federal government, yet both you and I don't seem to share the same opinion on this.

My other concern is that there've been many times in history --recent history too-- where the "established body of understanding" turns out to be wrong.

Really? Can you cite some recent science that was well accepted and went through peer review that was shown to be wrong? And just in case, citation needed.

 

[Pete in Panama]

When 97% of the world's climate scientists say that this climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane levels, I don't think there's really much debate left on the issue of most causation....

This is something that many good people say, yet I'm still at a loss as to where that "97% of the world's climate scientists" number comes from. All I've been able to see is a lot of controversy as to who's saying what. Where are u getting the "97% of the world's climate scientists" and what exactly are they all agreeing on?

... Well, then I guess something else is influencing your opinion. For example, I have seen many being twisted by politics on this and often other areas of research, and some others because of business influences. I rely on neither of those.....

The only opinion of mine that I remember saying here is that I have not yet seen what the clear and present danger that you're talking about.

The closest we've gotten is your is your statement that "climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane levels". You never said how much CO2, how much "climate change" nor what the "climate change" is. My opinion is that I don't yet know what you're saying here, and I don't understand why this is "twisted" by politics. I've never said anything about my political views --mainly because I'm not a member of a political faction. Let's please set partisan politics aside here because it's not a concern of mine.

... Which is why I don't much use the term "facts" but more on "evidence", and the overwhelming evidence in this era of global warming is really quite clear.

It's good that we're going w/ evidence. When you describe the climate change that you're concerned about please share the evidence that you've found to support your understanding.

 

[Pete in Panama]

The opinions of ignorant people do not count when it comes to matters of science.

On the surface that makes sense, but my experience is that the opinions of slow people can be valuable and there are many reasons:

1. The slow person may be seeing something I'm not aware of.
2. The slow person is a human being and all humans have a vote.
3. A slow person may be coming up w/ a superior approach that smart folks have overlooked.
4. Once in a while, however rarely, the slow people can be right.

Of course, it's also true that morons are usually wrong --not always-- just "usually".

 

[Pete in Panama]

Really? Can you cite some recent science that was well accepted and went through peer review that was shown to be wrong? And just in case, citation needed.

huh, you're serious? how about:

1. If You Say 'Science Is Right,' You're Wrong - Scientific American
2. 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
3. The Disturbing Resilience of Scientific Racism | Science| Smithsonian
4. 8 Times Scientists Were Wrong About Scientific Theories

these and more at this link.

Please understand that I'm not saying science is bad, in fact it's because human beings are willing to risk mistakes that the growth of knowledge is possible. At the same time we need to remember that science is alive, it moves forward, and it's capable of changing direction.

 

[Pete in Panama]

What makes you think that solar has heavy costs? ....

Let's get together on this. My understanding is that the electricity we're talking about comes from solar panels and the average cost is about $3 per watt (from here) and the average home uses about 30kWhours per day (from here).

Replacing that would mean $3 x 30,000 watts/2 (really sunny hours/day) = $45,000, add to that the 60 deep cycle batteries = $6,000 and the 5kW inverter $10,000, then say another $5,000 installation + misc. --then assume that everything has to be replaced every 5 years --it's easily ten times what grid power costs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is something that many good people say, yet I'm still at a loss as to where that "97% of the world's climate scientists" number comes from. All I've been able to see is a lot of controversy as to who's saying what. Where are u getting the "97% of the world's climate scientists" and what exactly are they all agreeing on?The only opinion of mine that I remember saying here is that I have not yet seen what the clear and present danger that you're talking about.

The closest we've gotten is your is your statement that "climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane levels". You never said how much CO2, how much "climate change" nor what the "climate change" is. My opinion is that I don't yet know what you're saying here, and I don't understand why this is "twisted" by politics. I've never said anything about my political views --mainly because I'm not a member of a political faction. Let's please set partisan politics aside here because it's not a concern of mine.It's good that we're going w/ evidence. When you describe the climate change that you're concerned about please share the evidence that you've found to support your understanding.

The 97% claim comes from the percentage of peer reviewed papers on climate. Peer review is a crucial step in the scientific method these days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's get together on this. My understanding is that the electricity we're talking about comes from solar panels and the average cost is about $3 per watt (from here) and the average home uses about 30kWhours per day (from here).

Replacing that would mean $3 x 30,000 watts/2 (really sunny hours/day) = $45,000, add to that the 60 deep cycle batteries = $6,000 and the 5kW inverter $10,000, then say another $5,000 installation + misc. --then assume that everything has to be replaced every 5 years --it's easily ten times what grid power costs.

You appear to be mixing terms. How did you come up with the figure of $3.00 per watt? And houses would not need deep cycle batteries. Your methodology is terribly flawed. Houses generating solar power is just one source so why you focused on just houses is beyond me. Houses can still be hooked up to the gird. When they need more power they would tap into the gird. When they had excess power that would go back into the grid. They would not get full retail prices for the energy that goes back in, but they would still earn money back. That would be much wiser than using batteries for a house.

It would help if you avoid strawman arguments. It is almost always possible to come up with a bad way to use a product. Try instead to use steelman arguments. Or at the very least see what is proposed and work on the numbers from that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

huh, you're serious? how about:

1. If You Say 'Science Is Right,' You're Wrong - Scientific American
2. 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
3. The Disturbing Resilience of Scientific Racism | Science| Smithsonian
4. 8 Times Scientists Were Wrong About Scientific Theories

these and more at this link.

Please understand that I'm not saying science is bad, in fact it's because human beings are willing to risk mistakes that the growth of knowledge is possible. At the same time we need to remember that science is alive, it moves forward, and it's capable of changing direction.

No, you were given a challenge. You did not meet it. Go back, reread my post and find specific examples.

EDIT: Just for fun I looked at your #2 article. I could not see any of them that met my challenge.

 

[metis]

This is something that many good people say, yet I'm still at a loss as to where that "97% of the world's climate scientists" number comes from.

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[5] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[3] -- Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

The closest we've gotten is your is your statement that "climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane levels". You never said how much CO2, how much "climate change" nor what the "climate change" is.

Global Carbon Dioxide: 2020-2021 – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

 

[Pete in Panama]

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[5] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[3] -- Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia...

Whoa, you're saying some studies find it's NOT 97% but rather 99% or 100%!! Imagine, not one single scientist in the entire world (and elsewhere) that disagrees w/ AGW.

Just don't look at any skeptic websites.

btw, you started out saying "97% of the world's climate scientists say that this climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane" and now you're saying "the finding of 97% consensus that humans are causing recent global warming in published climate research". You see the difference between what the world scientist say, and what's published in selected as climate research?

...Global Carbon Dioxide: 2020-2021 – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Interesting, but there was nothing there that said exactly what kinds of change in the climate was caused by how much C02 --all I got was it was (somehow) bad.

If we were serious, we'd just say that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect trapping x amount of calories of heat raising the x amount of isolated mass (a calorie has to raise the temp of an isolated mass) x amount of degrees consistently over the past 300 years. We'd focus on AGW because that's what CO2 does. We're not serious. Political yes, but not scientifically serious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whoa, you're saying some studies find it's NOT 97% but rather 99% or 100%!! Imagine, not one single scientist in the entire world (and elsewhere) that disagrees w/ AGW.

Just don't look at any skeptic websites.

btw, you started out saying "97% of the world's climate scientists say that this climate change is mostly caused by higher CO2 and methane" and now you're saying "the finding of 97% consensus that humans are causing recent global warming in published climate research". You see the difference between what the world scientist say, and what's published in selected as climate research?Interesting, but there was nothing there that said exactly what kinds of change in the climate was caused by how much C02 --all I got was it was (somehow) bad.

If we were serious, we'd just say that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect trapping x amount of calories of heat raising the x amount of isolated mass (a calorie has to raise the temp of an isolated mass) x amount of degrees consistently over the past 300 years. We'd focus on AGW because that's what CO2 does. We're not serious. Political yes, but not scientifically serious.

Science is done through published research. Did you forget the challenge that you failed?

Your last paragraph does not make any sense.

Do you know how we know that people are the cause?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Science is done through published research.

OK, let's first agree that you've changed your story from "all scientists" to the ones publishing findings of grants funded by governmental agencies. For details/explanation let's think about scientific publishing.

It has to come from someone who got a grant to do research on a particular topic selected by the donor. In the U.S. most grants come from the NSF which u can see at nsf.gov because it is a governmental organization whose head is named by the President. The government has an agenda which is called a policy. So we're not poling scientists, we're checking publications funded by governmental agencies.

However, another definition of science is that of an method of inquiry, and this is why I keep going back to looking at AGW, asking what isolated mass is heating up by what change of degrees as shown by what temperature measurements over what period of time.

The only "consensus" we have on that is that it's really bad & we have to raise taxes. We know the temperature of the entire surface of the sun to 4 significant figures but the temperature of the earth is obfuscated w/ anomalies and regions. Many don't see the "science" there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's first agree that you've changed your story from "all scientists" to the ones publishing findings of grants funded by governmental agencies. For details/explanation let's think about scientific publishing.

No, the claim was always all climate scientists. Why would it matter what non experts said? And please, no conspiracy theory nonsense.

It has to come from someone who got a grant to do research on a particular topic selected by the donor. In the U.S. most grants come from the NSF which u can see at nsf.gov because it is a governmental organization whose head is named by the President. The government has an agenda which is called a policy. So we're not poling scientists, we're checking publications funded by governmental agencies.

Once again, please do not make yourself look foolish. No conspiracy theory nonsense allowed. And this is from far more than just American scientists.

However, another definition of science is that of an method of inquiry, and this is why I keep going back to looking at AGW, asking what isolated mass is heating up by what change of degrees as shown by what temperature measurements over what period of time.

Sorry, you do not even know enough to ask proper questions.

The only "consensus" we have on that is that it's really bad & we have to raise taxes. We know the temperature of the entire surface of the sun to 4 significant figures but the temperature of the earth is obfuscated w/ anomalies and regions. Many don't see the "science" there.

No, far from that. You have no understanding of this at all. Now you are only admitting that you don't know how to do this work. Why assume that others are as ignorant as you?

Do you understand yet why you failed the simple challenge that I gave to you?

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, the claim was always all climate scientists. Why would it matter what non experts said? And please, no conspiracy theory nonsense.



Once again, please do not make yourself look foolish. No conspiracy theory nonsense allowed. And this is from far more than just American scientists.



Sorry, you do not even know enough to ask proper questions.



No, far from that. You have no understanding of this at all. Now you are only admitting that you don't know how to do this work. Why assume that others are as ignorant as you?

Do you understand yet why you failed the simple challenge that I gave to you?

So it looks like we're reaching our impasse, but I want to thank you for taking time to get into this w/ me, I really want to understand what so many very good people believe. Unfortunately our convo's getting bogged down in trivia and the main issues (what temps are we measuring showing what mass is how much hotter) are being ignored.

My take is that the real obstacle here is that the issue has long since become politicized. Instead of a nuts'n'bolts scientific issue everyone's sunk into an "us-verus-then" quarrel. Instead of research moving forward we got people being vilified. Don't get me wrong though, politics is good because it's what people do & people are good. Likewise science is good too & it's science that I'm interested in now.

So we can call it a day and I DO thank u for ur time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it looks like we're reaching our impasse, but I want to thank you for taking time to get into this w/ me, I really want to understand what so many very good people believe. Unfortunately our convo's getting bogged down in trivia and the main issues (what temps are we measuring showing what mass is how much hotter) are being ignored.

My take is that the real obstacle here is that the issue has long since become politicized. Instead of a nuts'n'bolts scientific issue everyone's sunk into an "us-verus-then" quarrel. Instead of research moving forward we got people being vilified. Don't get me wrong though, politics is good because it's what people do & people are good. Likewise science is good too & it's science that I'm interested in now.

So we can call it a day and I DO thank u for ur time.

I would suggest that you learn what science is, how it is done, and why it is so extremely reliable when one follows those rules. Remember your failure when it came to finding cases where modern science was wrong.

And no, you have become a science denier. You have to rely on conspiracy theories. You do not rely on skeptics, there do not appear to be any skeptics left when it comes to AGW. You have forgotten, or else never knew, that skeptics follow the evidence. The sources that you follow are science deniers as well.

How do I know this about you? Because you never discuss the evidence.

 

[Shaul]

One way or another I still want a Studebaker.