Shit is becoming real (Electric car thats rechargeable in 3 minutes)

General Discussion

  1. Photon440

    Photon440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

    Messages:
    11,493
    Likes Received:
    12705
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Location:
    Surrey, B.C. Canada
    Local Time:
    1:19 PM
    The problem with graphs like that is that they are so narrowly focused. Yes, they correctly show the 300 ppm line, and the 400 ppm line, but they don't go all the way up. If you're going to show parts per million, then show from zero to a million, it's simple. If you have a graph the size of a football field (100 yards long)divided into a million parts then the 300 ppm line is at the very first inch at the bottom. 400 ppm means that, over the football field sized graph, the line has risen 2/5 of an inch more. It seems less dramatic when you include the whole picture and almost invisible if you place the whole graph on a sheet of paper.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Cojohnso1

      Cojohnso1 Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      1,362
      Likes Received:
      1211
      Joined:
      Feb 25, 2019
      Location:
      Minnesota
      Local Time:
      3:19 PM
      300 is bad. 400 is WAY beyond. And it's getting worse? We have not had this level in what? The past has never seen this level of acceleration? So science really don't know the short term consequences.

      But there is an idea of the long term. And its not good. Funny. We burn fossil fuel that was created millions of years ago. Thus raise atmospheric green house gases. With the result of terraforming the climate to that of millions of years ago? I think karma has a VERY long memory?
       
      Last edited: May 12, 2021
    • Richard Cranium

      Richard Cranium FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

      Messages:
      34,461
      Likes Received:
      90663
      Joined:
      Feb 20, 2012
      Location:
      Maskachusetts
      Local Time:
      3:19 PM
      • Like Like x 2
      • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • Slap Stick

        Slap Stick Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        6,152
        Likes Received:
        6781
        Joined:
        Jan 15, 2017
        Location:
        Missouri
        Local Time:
        3:19 PM
        Please show scientific observed scientific proof of your claims.
         
      • slepr1

        slepr1 Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        1,717
        Likes Received:
        1657
        Joined:
        Jul 19, 2014
        Location:
        Stoney Creek, Ontario
        Local Time:
        4:19 PM
        IMO, Believing in climate change can be like believing in religion or ufo's. All three demand allot of funding and based on science, legend or hear-say. With 4300 different religions in the world, ice melting in our Arctic's, 100 thousands ufo sightings, people are going to believe what they want, regardless of proof.

        I dislike when I'm forced to pay for any kind of speculation. Unfortunately one way or another I'm paying for all 3.
         
        • Like Like x 1
        • Cojohnso1

          Cojohnso1 Well-Known Member

          Messages:
          1,362
          Likes Received:
          1211
          Joined:
          Feb 25, 2019
          Location:
          Minnesota
          Local Time:
          3:19 PM
          I just did. Direct atmospheric measurements with same trace elements as that from burning of fossil fuels.

          Slap. I can say the "sky is blue" But if you can't or won't look up? Nobody can help you.
           
          • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
          • Slap Stick

            Slap Stick Well-Known Member

            Messages:
            6,152
            Likes Received:
            6781
            Joined:
            Jan 15, 2017
            Location:
            Missouri
            Local Time:
            3:19 PM
            But what was that data compared to?
            It doesn't prove burning fossil fuels causes global warming. One can see the sky is blue. That is observed scientific proof. But saying burning fossil fuels causes global warming doesn't prove it. What caused the end of the Ice Age?
            In any scientific experiment you must first establish a theory. The THEORY is burning fossil fuels causes global warming. So how to prove it? Over the same time period you don't burn fossil fuels and compare results.
            And if you think Man is causing it, you take Man out of the equation.
            It cant be done, therefore it is impossible to prove Man is the cause.
            All you are doing is saying theory is fact. You have no observed empirical data. That isnt science. That's an agenda.
             
            Last edited: May 12, 2021
            • Like Like x 1
            • Agree Agree x 1
            • Photon440

              Photon440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

              Messages:
              11,493
              Likes Received:
              12705
              Joined:
              Mar 14, 2012
              Location:
              Surrey, B.C. Canada
              Local Time:
              1:19 PM
              Did you know the world is covered with naturally occurring coal fires? Mostly started by lightning, a burning coal seam is pretty much impossible to put out. There are over a hundred of them burning in the USA. Indonesia has thousands of coal fires. China has estimates of 200 million tons of coal burning each year due to natural coal fires. Australia's 'Burning Mountain' is thought to be on fire for the past six thousand years. Even if governments mandated a total stop to fossil fuels tomorrow, the burning would still continue.
               
              • Like Like x 1
              • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
              • Cojohnso1

                Cojohnso1 Well-Known Member

                Messages:
                1,362
                Likes Received:
                1211
                Joined:
                Feb 25, 2019
                Location:
                Minnesota
                Local Time:
                3:19 PM
                That must be it. Naturally occurring fossil fuel burns? Are you kidding? Good luck with the "poke and hope" internet blog research. I would be embarrassed supporting nonsense. And denying overwhelming evidence.
                 
              • Slap Stick

                Slap Stick Well-Known Member

                Messages:
                6,152
                Likes Received:
                6781
                Joined:
                Jan 15, 2017
                Location:
                Missouri
                Local Time:
                3:19 PM
                Trouble is there is NO PROVEN tangible evidence. Only theories that have not been proven by conducting experiments in real time.
                 
              • Cojohnso1

                Cojohnso1 Well-Known Member

                Messages:
                1,362
                Likes Received:
                1211
                Joined:
                Feb 25, 2019
                Location:
                Minnesota
                Local Time:
                3:19 PM
                But there is. I've posted links explaining the data. But you obviously haven't read. Thus just chirping from the cheap seats? So anything further is a waste of everyone's time. You know there are more scientists that believe there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. Do you believe them? They, like the deny scientists are not the ones that actually collected and did the analysis. They read the results and in an attempt to get themselves a spot light refuted the findings. Offering no counter evidence. Just as you are Slap. Just denying because the results make you feel sad. But like the Covid pandemic? This increase in global temperature, as well as the virus, doesn't care what you believe. Or if it makes you sad. It cares about gaining momentum. Which you are helping.
                 
              • 70chall440

                70chall440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                Messages:
                2,845
                Likes Received:
                4131
                Joined:
                Feb 11, 2018
                Location:
                Yelm, Washington
                Local Time:
                1:19 PM
                What has always struck me as "interesting" is that the "scientists" who are adamant and vocal about this issue (those stating that mankind is responsible for climate change) are the same ones clamoring for grants, book deals, etc., in other words they seem to be profiting from being on that side. These same people scream "climate deniers" the second anyone doesn't agree.

                Like or not there are scientists who do not believe that mankind has or is affecting the climate, but they are virtually silenced by the scientific community and definitively the media. Why is this? I am sure some will say because they are wrong... but think about just for a moment, if you were scientist why on earth would you go against "proven" data as you know it will destroy your career and any chance of funding or sponsorship or even employment. I thought "science" was all about the facts and truth, if that was the case then shouldn't all thoughts and theories be open for discussion?

                Anytime someone is fanatical about something it is suspect and this is a prime example of that issue. I am not saying that mankind isn't contributing to climate change, what I am saying is that the evidence is absolutely not there. Scientists have not had the technology (and some say they still don't) to adequately determine what is going on.

                Let me provide several examples of this "rush to science";

                1. when I was a kid in the 70's we were all told that there was a coming ice age and that the earth was going to "freeze over" like never before. Fortunately we did not have social media and only several mediums to receive "news" (news papers and the nightly news) and so over time it was pretty much ignored and guess what... it proved to be BS.

                2. About the time the 2nd ice age deal faded then we were told that CO2 emissions had created a huge hole in the ozone and that we were all going to fry like bacon if something wasn't done immediately. Well of course this (along with SMOG) brought us increased emission standards, catalytic converters and the like (not saying this was a bad thing), but then several year ago "scientists" admitted that no such hole existed. As I recall, they even went so far as to admit that it never existed, rather that the technology of the time "indicated" that one was there.

                So here we are at the plate one more time, hard to believe anything coming out of anyone profiting from the information and that does include government agencies. Again, I am not saying that mankind or the burning of fossil fuels isn't a contributing factor to climate change, however I do have my suspicions that it may not be as we are led to believe.

                Despite the reluctance to believe the coal fires, they are a real thing along with massive forest fires, volcanos, etc. Perhaps all of this coupled with what mankind produces is having an effect but IMO the data is not mature and will not be for some time, but that is not going to stop people from profiting from it which is in fact what this is really about.
                 
              • 70chall440

                70chall440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                Messages:
                2,845
                Likes Received:
                4131
                Joined:
                Feb 11, 2018
                Location:
                Yelm, Washington
                Local Time:
                1:19 PM
                Oh lest I forget, any time something like this comes up there are all sorts of links provided that seemingly make the case for one side of the argument with the addition of comments about the lack of the counter argument. The problem here is that media does have a vote and when they take a side the argument is skewed. The countering data/information may be out there but finding it can be a challenge and for me personally I am not going to spend considerable time digging through the internet to prove the position only to hear "well that doesn't count" or "that has been disproven" etc.

                So believe what you will because no one is going to change anyone's mind these days on anything.
                 
              • Photon440

                Photon440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                Messages:
                11,493
                Likes Received:
                12705
                Joined:
                Mar 14, 2012
                Location:
                Surrey, B.C. Canada
                Local Time:
                1:19 PM
                It isn't just the media who has a vote and takes a side. Governments know full well (as does just about any weather scientist, whether for or against the theory that mankind has changed the climate) that the major insulating, greenhouse causing gas is not CO2, methane or any other carbon molecule, it is water vapor by a very wide margin. Until you can put a tax on water vapor, it won't gain traction in the media or government circles.

                Just in case people are terrified of "the greenhouse effect", it is real, and it is necessary, and it is naturally occurring. Without it, we would be in a permanent ice age with average temperatures aprox. 40 degrees lower than they are with the effect. Historical data has shown warmer cycles every 1500 years of recorded history, and we're ramping up into another one. It's also provable and not a theory that ocean water, as it warms, will release more CO2 because colder water will dissolve more of that gas than warm water.
                 
                • Agree Agree x 1
                • Photon440

                  Photon440 FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                  Messages:
                  11,493
                  Likes Received:
                  12705
                  Joined:
                  Mar 14, 2012
                  Location:
                  Surrey, B.C. Canada
                  Local Time:
                  1:19 PM
                  I wonder who remembers that this was supposed to be about an electric car?
                   
                  • Agree Agree x 4
                  • Richard Cranium

                    Richard Cranium FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                    Messages:
                    34,461
                    Likes Received:
                    90663
                    Joined:
                    Feb 20, 2012
                    Location:
                    Maskachusetts
                    Local Time:
                    3:19 PM


                    Actually, between (your examples) 1 & 2 was the acid rain scare that was going to make water undrinkable and kill all the fish. The ozone hole came afterwards.

                    Next came global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. Weren't we were supposed to be enjoying the pleasures of beach front property 20 year ago?
                     
                    • Agree Agree x 3
                    • Richard Cranium

                      Richard Cranium FBBO Gold Member FBBO Gold Member

                      Messages:
                      34,461
                      Likes Received:
                      90663
                      Joined:
                      Feb 20, 2012
                      Location:
                      Maskachusetts
                      Local Time:
                      3:19 PM

                      Still waiting for some facts that back this whopper up.
                       
                    • moparedtn

                      moparedtn Ed on the Ridge FBBO Gold Member

                      Messages:
                      10,710
                      Likes Received:
                      17644
                      Joined:
                      May 14, 2011
                      Location:
                      On the Ridge, TN
                      Local Time:
                      4:19 PM
                      There ya go.
                      Thread's over, y'all drive safe on the way home...
                       
                      • Like Like x 1
                      • Agree Agree x 1
                      • Slap Stick

                        Slap Stick Well-Known Member

                        Messages:
                        6,152
                        Likes Received:
                        6781
                        Joined:
                        Jan 15, 2017
                        Location:
                        Missouri
                        Local Time:
                        3:19 PM
                        The only data you have provided only puts forth a THEORY. It doesnt PROVE the theory.
                        The data is collected by observing what is in the here and now, and a theory is formed stating the burning of fossil fuels is causing it. Where is the data to compare it to? That hasnt been done. To prove a theory you must have two sets of data-one that provides the theory, and another that proves or didproves the theory. To do that you must stop the burning of fossil fuels over the same period of time we have burned said fuels and then compare. THAT HASNT BEEN DONE.
                        To solve for X you must remove X from the equation. To prove burning fossil fuels causes global warming you must stop burning fossil fuels. That is the only way to prove it.
                        When Edison was inventing the light bulb he had to perform observed experiments to prove what worked. He couldnt just produce a light bulb and sell them without proving they worked.
                        Scientists had a theory they could make an atomic bomb but once they built one what did they do? They tested it multiple times to prove the theory before they actually used one. Look at the so called vaccines. They rushed it to market and are finding they dont work. It they had been tested before marketing them they would know this. We haven't tested the theory of the cause of MMGW.
                        Merely saying X causes Y doesn't prove it.
                         
                      • Slap Stick

                        Slap Stick Well-Known Member

                        Messages:
                        6,152
                        Likes Received:
                        6781
                        Joined:
                        Jan 15, 2017
                        Location:
                        Missouri
                        Local Time:
                        3:19 PM
                        But what hasn't been proven is Man being the cause. Since this has happened over the ages without Man's presence, why do we now say Man is the cause?

                        As for electric cars? They arent yet practical, efficient, nor has the environmental effects of building them or the generating of their "fuel" has been taken into account.
                        There is no exhaust from the end product, but what about from the manufacture and fuel supply?
                         
                      1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
                        By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.