GM is pulling back on EVs

[Burkey]

Hello; I will take this as you cannot address my questions so have resorted again to a personal insult. Seems to be the case when I rebut your claims.
Already have the "heads I win-tails you lose" gambit from Gregs. Now from you we have twisted definition of lying. " are going to consistently overstate warming, ". So, it is OK to consistently ovderstate whatever it is you hope to use to generate fear among the populus. Hey, we get it and have gotten it for some time. No ploy is too underhanded to use to get their way.

I can answer your questions but you constantly demonstrate a refusal to learn and no capacity to admit when you’ve been shown to be wrong. It’s futile.
You can choose to do more research or you can continue to make egregious errors based on your current misunderstanding.

I don’t know of a single climatologist claiming that warming will continue for 50-100 years post net-zero. They might exist, but I haven’t heard the claim.
.
I feel like that’s yet another piece of misinformation that the algorithm has fed to you. You swallowed it as fact, and then try to use as some sort of argument against the scientific findings, which is exactly what they’d hoped you’d do. Well done. Congratulations.

It‘s utterly ridiculous and I want no part of it.
Maybe stop creating a strawman?

In the meantime, here’s what scientists ACTUALLY have to say on that one topic.
Maybe stop creating a strawman or go and spend some time finding out what scientists are ACTUALLY saying instead of some hyped-up media commentators opinion.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

Now that you’ve taken the time to examine reality, are you willing to concede that you were wrong or are you just going to skip past it once more and move onto a new argument?

Choose wisely.
This is your last chance.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

I can answer your questions but you constantly demonstrate a refusal to learn and no capacity to admit when you’ve been shown to be wrong. It’s futile.
You can choose to do more research or you can continue to make egregious errors based on your current misunderstanding.

I don’t know of a single climatologist claiming that warming will continue for 50-100 years post net-zero. They might exist, but I haven’t heard the claim.
.
I feel like that’s yet another piece of misinformation that the algorithm has fed to you. You swallowed it as fact, and then try to use as some sort of argument against the scientific findings, which is exactly what they’d hoped you’d do. Well done. Congratulations.

It‘s utterly ridiculous and I want no part of it.
Maybe stop creating a strawman?

In the meantime, here’s what scientists ACTUALLY have to say on that one topic.
Maybe stop creating a strawman or go and spend some time finding out what scientists are ACTUALLY saying instead of some hyped-up media commentators opinion.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

Now that you’ve taken the time to examine reality, are you willing to concede that you were wrong or are you just going to skip past it once more and move onto a new argument?

Choose wisely.
This is your last chance.

All this and no real answer. Yet, I (we ) are supposed to swallow this word salad.

 

[Burkey]

All this and no real answer. Yet, I (we ) are supposed to swallow this word salad.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU MORON.
Jesus Christ, you’re thicker than two bricks.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU MORON.
Jesus Christ, you’re thicker than two bricks.

 

[Burkey]

Every man has his limits.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I went thru the link and will make a summary in case any do not wish to plow thru the entire link. Then a comment will follow. Seems I must be more careful with the language and do stand corrected. I find that the language used has been modified. To play their game for a bit the term I should have used seems to be at current “constant concentrations” rather than zero emissions. As I will submit later a distinction without mush of a real life difference.

Summary= 1) The NASA climate site currently predicts continued warming for decades to maybe centuries. This is not yet updated but likely will be to better support the agenda soon.

Summary 2) The new zero emissions language includes the imaginary notion that no co2 will ever be emitted and the “carbon sinks” will absorb/ lock up carbon already in the air.

My Comment: As my question as to what might happen if we went to zero emissions tomorrow is at best a thought experiment, any scenario is in effect imaginary. So if I reword the question to be what happens if CO2 concentrations stay at current levels it remains an imaginary situation. Even so the link states at constant concentrations warming of 4/10ths to 5/10ths centigrade over the next few centuries.

So as we can see all this is a run around and is not real. Co2 emissions will not go to zero any time in the next few decades. I posed a mind experiment sort of question based on an imaginary situation and this below is what has been presented. That so much effort went into the ‘answer’ should be telling especially when the attitude is it is OK to “consistently overstate warming” so as to ramp up the fear factor.

Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? - Carbon Brief

“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”

“The confusion around the impact of zero emissions is understandable. Even a NASA climate FAQ – last updated in 2007 – still says that “even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries”. (NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt tells Carbon Brief that this wording does not reflect more recent research and an update is in the works). “

“One common cause of confusion is the mixing up of two very different scenarios: a world where CO2 concentrations remain at today’s levels; and a world where all emissions are immediately cut to zero (or net-zero, which would have the same effect; what ultimately matters is the balance of CO2 sources and sinks, though the extent to which sinks are natural or anthropogenic can be a tricky question).”

“These “constant concentration” scenarios showed that there was additional warming “in the pipeline” as the oceans slowly warmed up to reach the same temperature as the atmosphere and brought the Earth back into radiative equilibrium. That is to say, where the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth from the sun is equal to the amount being reradiated back to space.”

“Models tended to suggest 0.4C to 0.5C or so of additional warming would occur over the next few centuries, if concentrations were kept at the same level.”

“However, a world of constant concentrations is not one of zero emissions. Keeping concentrations constant would require some continued emissions to offset the CO2 absorbed by the land and oceans. This would amount to around 30% of current global emissions, although the amount needed would fall over time.”

If emissions are cut to zero, on the other hand, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventually stabilising at a lower level.”

“In the very long run – over many hundreds to thousands of years – carbon sinks would become dominant and global temperatures would eventually fall – as long as anthropogenic CO2 emissions remained at net-zero. The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is determined by how rapidly sinks take up CO2; while about half of our emissions are absorbed relatively quickly, a portion of our CO2 emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere will still be around in tens of thousands of years.”

 

[sk47]

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU MORON.
Jesus Christ, you’re thicker than two bricks.

Hello; While you were throwing out insults and more name calling i was going over the link. Guess i touched another nerve.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; While you were throwing out insults and more name calling i was going over the link. Guess i touched another nerve.

You’re not touching nerves.
It‘s more akin to playing chess with a pigeon to be honest

I can’t even read your first paragraph without facepalming. Look at the very first error you made in your reply. I can’t quote you properly so I’ll do it this way:

“I find that the language used has been modified. To play their game for a bit the term I should have used seems to be at current “constant concentrations” rather than zero emissions.”

What ore you even talking about? We aren’t aiming for zero emissions and that wasn’t the point. The aim is NET-zero. They aren’t the same thing. Either you don’t understand the difference or you’re deliberately using the wrong terms.

Which one is it?

It makes it impossible to form a proper response when you can’t even accurately describe simple concepts.

Then, to make matters worse, you conflate ”constant concentrations” with “zero emissions” as if the two are the same thing, which they aren’t. Concentrations are the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere, emissions are what were injecting into the atmosphere, not all of which remains in the atmosphere, courtesy of carbon sequestering.

All of this is from the first paragraph.

Can you now see why you’re the most frustrating person on here by a LONG way?

You used to be a science teacher. Please start acting like it.

 

[sk47]

You’re not touching nerves.
It‘s more akin to playing chess with a pigeon to be honest

I can’t even read your first paragraph without facepalming. Look at the very first error you made in your reply. I can’t quote you properly so I’ll do it this way:

“I find that the language used has been modified. To play their game for a bit the term I should have used seems to be at current “constant concentrations” rather than zero emissions.”

What ore you even talking about? We aren’t aiming for zero emissions and that wasn’t the point. The aim is NET-zero. They aren’t the same thing. Either you don’t understand the difference or you’re deliberately using the wrong terms.

Which one is it?

It makes it impossible to form a proper response when you can’t even accurately describe simple concepts.

Then, to make matters worse, you conflate ”constant concentrations” with “zero emissions” as if the two are the same thing, which they aren’t. Concentrations are the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere, emissions are what were injecting into the atmosphere, not all of which remains in the atmosphere, courtesy of carbon sequestering.

All of this is from the first paragraph.

Can you now see why you’re the most frustrating person on here by a LONG way?

You used to be a science teacher. Please start acting like it.

Hello; More word salad and redefining the terms. I had been using zero carbon, but you fail to note that and then you add a link which uses the term constant concentrations so I modify. Now you go for net zero terminology.

Point being the NASA prediction of ongoing warming is still on the books and is currently valid. “even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries”.

Net zero means an equal amount of carbon is locked up as is being emitted. Is this not the same as constant concentrations? But regardless carbon emission will continue in China and India for some time to come for sure and likely many other places.

My question a few days ago was about the predictions of what would happen if we stopped emitting the next day? An imaginary thought experiment at best. You provided a link with one answer form NASA.
I get that since this line of argument must be damaging to the agenda, some modifications are in the works to confuse the issue in hopes this negative argument can be squelched. Carry on.

 

[Gregs24]

And the bold is why a BEV will never work for me in MN.

A couple of times a year, once in our lovely winter, I make a trek to a favorite resort spot in northern MN for a getaway, which is 238 miles door to door one way. During that winter trek it can be well below zero, -25 or worse at night. Since I'm averse to freezing to death, I'll not rely on a BEV. It would be bad enough during the summer months unless I hauled a gas generator with, which I'm sure everyone who goes there for peace and quiet would want to listen to.

Urban commuting, maybe, but it could be sketchy also with the cold and weather we get here.

But having a car facility that you need twice a year is not really a good reason for the car? A lot of people in cities in the UK have small cars that they use all the time (or no car and use public transport) and then hire a car for the odd long journey / holiday. This saves a lot of money and also emissions.

 

[Gregs24]

Good share. If there was any bias there I must’ve missed it. As you said, he seemed pretty reasonable in his presentation.
The question I’m left with is how on Earth did Ford arrive at the Mach-E design? The people responsible for approval need to find new jobs. Gross.

Interesting story there. If you laser scan a Jaguar iPace and Ford Mustang Mach E they are almost identical in hard points. It was no accident!

Matt is a very good presenter

 

[Gregs24]

He was very well balanced in talking the plus and minuses on EVs.

Todays EVs will definitely fair better in more temperate weather. I also think with the evolution of batteries in cold climate will affect them less and less. What I don’t see around is public charging. That in itself will always be an issue, and being that at times it will take 4+ hours to get a full charge, people will need to plan accordingly on long range trips.

But again in some countries rapid charging is very much a thing where 4 hour charges are not a thing. US infrastructure needs to catch up, but we have covered this already.

 

[Gregs24]

You used to be a science teacher. Please start acting like it.

I seriously doubt he was - his ability to comprehend even very basic scientific theory is very poor.

 

[Gregs24]

Now that you’ve taken the time to examine reality, are you willing to concede that you were wrong or are you just going to skip past it once more and move onto a new argument?

Choose wisely.
This is your last chance.

He never does - he just rambles on with his own agenda and NEVER accepts he is wrong. he has been called out so many times - he is just a troll. Maybe he is Chinese ?

 

[Strokerswild]

But having a car facility that you need twice a year is not really a good reason for the car? A lot of people in cities in the UK have small cars that they use all the time (or no car and use public transport) and then hire a car for the odd long journey / holiday. This saves a lot of money and also emissions.

Merely an example. Said vehicle is also driven daily and makes frequent trips of 100+ miles hauling loads in the same poor weather conditions in the example.

Sponsored