The EV fact thread

[ChipChop]

If the current rate of change is extrapolated over a typical timeframe of previous warmer events, the planet's temperature will rise to 175C.
If the rate of change is of no concern, why did Exxon-Mobil spend $millions suppressing and opposing the data?

Sounds very much like a COP meeting soundbite of doom. A statement that ignores earths historic climate variability.

The IPCC favourite the Hockey stick graph missed out the medieval warm period because it chose to use temp data from a different geographical region. Valid because earths temperature naturally varies by region. Natural climate variability in this case being used to support a position on anthropogenic human caused climate change.

Include average temp data for the region where the medieval warming period occured and the case for anthropogenic climate change becomes somewhat different but the case for earths climate variability becomes stronger.

 

[Bellow]

Sounds very much like a COP meeting soundbite of doom. A statement that ignores earths historic climate variability.

The IPCC favourite the Hockey stick graph missed out the medieval warm period because it chose to use temp data from a different geographical region. Valid because earths temperature naturally varies by region. Natural climate variability in this case being used to support a position on anthropogenic human caused climate change.

Include average temp data for the region where the medieval warming period occured and the case for anthrpogenic climate change becomes somewhat different but the case for earths climate variability becomes stronger.

No, I'm taking temp variability over the centuries and applying that to the current increase and if the variability is true and its timeframe applied to the current rise, it won't peak before reaching 175C.
So, to continue the 'it's what nature does' argument, when in history was the planet ever at 175C?

 

[MeQ]

Add me to the own cash list.

This is hardly a good representation considering there’s a single digit number of EV drivers on here?

If you go on some actual EV groups you’ll see plenty of people have bought with their own money.

+1

 

[ChipChop]

No, I'm taking temp variability over the centuries and applying that to the current increase and if the variability is true and its timeframe applied to the current rise, it won't peak before reaching 175C.
So, to continue the 'it's what nature does' argument, when in history was the planet ever at 175C?

Using what data? Data produced to support the position of anthropogenic climate change supports that position. That is it's function.

 

[Bellow]

Using what data? Data produced to support the position of anthropgenic climate change supports that position. That is it's function.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Using what data? Data produced to support the position of anthropogenic climate change supports that position. That is it's function.

Use the data which you believe is correct.

 

[molgrips]

What you have to remember is that scientists don't want any of this - just like the rest of us they would love to drive big engined cars and fly away on holiday. But, having literally done the research, they have realised there's a problem with it. They don't get any kind of kick out of telling everyone about it.

Yet we are now apparently in a climate emergency despite change being the default for earths climate since time in memoriam. That means prior to human influences.

There are a few differences between then and now:

1. The world's population is much much bigger now than it was then. That means that there are more people having to live off the land which can only produce so much. The earth is more stressed, so small changes could cause catastrophe. Hundreds of millions of people have moved into areas that are marginal, and when the climate changes they will have to move out. Well off people in the West shit themselves every time there's a war on and people need rescuing, but that's nothing compared to what's coming.
2. The climate is changing much more quickly than in the past, so animals, plants and people don't have as much time to adapt.
3. We can't do anything about volcanic activity or the changing solar cycles, but we CAN do something about our profligacy.

 

[markjay]

So at the most 2 of us paid with their own cash? So what would happen to EV sales if all of the tax advantages were removed overnight? Do you think that a majority of those that moved to driving EVs would continue to do so come the next company car change over?
Strangely, I believe that they would.

Once you've had an EV, you know what it's like and the consideration for your next car becomes a logical case of pros and cons.

It's those that never had an EV that are likely to resist change due to not wanting to take a risk on the unknown.

 

[markjay]

Sounds very much like a COP meeting soundbite of doom. A statement that ignores earths historic climate variability.

The IPCC favourite the Hockey stick graph missed out the medieval warm period because it chose to use temp data from a different geographical region. Valid because earths temperature naturally varies by region. Natural climate variability in this case being used to support a position on anthropogenic human caused climate change.

Include average temp data for the region where the medieval warming period occured and the case for anthropogenic climate change becomes somewhat different but the case for earths climate variability becomes stronger.

I don't disagree because personally I don't know much about the science of climate change.

From reading online, at current 99% of scientists and academic researchers seem to believe that (a) the planet is getting warmer, and (b) the climate change is significantly affected by human activity.

From reading online again, the main objection to the above is based on the claim that other than the 1% of scientists who disagree with the consensus, all the others are in the pockets of multinationals and other globalised commercial organisations.

On the balance of probabilities, I find the view of the 99% to be the more plausible one, but again I have no solid proof either way.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Reading through this thread, and the one about EVs and battery damage, I got to speculating how many of the pro EV posters used their own money to buy their cars and are GENUINELY concerned about the environment, and how many are driving them as company cars with tax benefits and feel the need to justify their choice. How would that translate across the national EV ownership?
For the avoidance of all doubt, I am ambivalent towards EVs and would probably buy one if I could afford a used one that met my specification expectations.

You'll note that people seem to accept that arriving back from work late and driving around the local busy streets trying to find a free public parking space is normal for city dwellers. They live in the city, right? Block of flats etc.

It is generally acceptable that most people will need to live in a house far away from the city centre in order to have private off street parking.

And yet, when it comes to charging EVs, the idea that you need to do it in the street on a public charger is an issue.....?

Yes . It is an issue when we ae being told that it is the answer to people living in high density housing is lamp post charging. The latest wheeze is for all of the now 'redundant' green BT boxes to be converted into EV chargers , cue BT dumping these boxes at no cost to themselves (re cycling ) but to the taxpayer, only to strangely 'find' that 90% of them are not in an 'optimum' position to be used as EV charge points.

PS: (non EV fans) if you have one of these soon to be 'EX' BT boxes on the road outside your house be prepared to lose a few (previously) perfectly legal parking spaces for no good reason.

 

[markjay]

Yes . It is an issue when we ae being told that it is the answer to people living in high density housing is lamp post charging. The latest wheeze is for all of the now 'redundant' green BT boxes to be converted into EV chargers , cue BT dumping these boxes at no cost to themselves (re cycling ) but to the taxpayer, only to strangely 'find' that 90% of them are not in an 'optimum' position to be used as EV charge points.

PS: (non EV fans) if you have one of these soon to be 'EX' BT boxes on the road outside your house be prepared to lose a few (previously) perfectly legal parking spaces for no good reason.

Your forum makes kind of betrays you........ PETROL Pete!

 

[ChipChop]

What you have to remember is that scientists don't want any of this - just like the rest of us they would love to drive big engined cars and fly away on holiday. But, having literally done the research, they have realised there's a problem with it. They don't get any kind of kick out of telling everyone about it.



There are a few differences between then and now:

1. The world's population is much much bigger now than it was then. That means that there are more people having to live off the land which can only produce so much. The earth is more stressed, so small changes could cause catastrophe. Hundreds of millions of people have moved into areas that are marginal, and when the climate changes they will have to move out. Well off people in the West shit themselves every time there's a war on and people need rescuing, but that's nothing compared to what's coming.
2. The climate is changing much more quickly than in the past, so animals, plants and people don't have as much time to adapt.
3. We can't do anything about volcanic activity or the changing solar cycles, but we CAN do something about our profligacy.

What i prefer to remember when considering the at all costs push for reducing atmospheric co2 is earths atmosphere is composed of a mere 0.04% CO2. At 0.02% CO2 plant life on earth will die. Fingers crossed someone somewhere is keeping track so CO2 levels are not reduced too much.
Points 1 and 2 are alarmist in nature and appear as presented to be junk-science.
Point 1. re-migration? is a politically motivated point so irrelevant to this argument. Good rhetoric no doubt for confirming policy decisions made long ago (blame co2).
Point 2. conveniently ignores the medieval warming period and other historic period of climate change and your point regarding plants not having time to adapt to change could not be more wrong. Plant life thrives in environments rich in co2, perfect for feeding earths growing population. See use of CO2 pumps (pictured below) used in argicultural greenhouses.
Point 3. i appreciate your nod to natural climate variability made in part of point 3. The relevance of which was demonstrated by New years eve's very strong X5 class solar flare that 99% of climate scientists prefer to ignore (not anthropogenic so not interested). Luckily the CME radiation from the X5 flare is unlikely to impact earth which is good as the associated aurora has greenhouse effects aka aurora heats the upper atmosphere.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Point 2. conveniently ignores the medieval warming period and other historic period of climate change

You put too much emphasis on this.....it was a tiny blip due to freak conditions and circumstances. No one doubts that the climate naturally changes over the millennia....its how much faster humans are causing it to happen compared to normal that's the issue.

Sure...plants like CO2.....but what will kill them is the sudden changed in temperature and rain quantity which they would normally have had much longer to evolve with and try and survive.


Obviously I realise that your wealth of knowledge on global cahnges far exceeds several thousand climate scientists.....so perhaps you are right!!! I'll admit that once I had views similar to yours......but the facts got in the way!!!

 

[ChipChop]

I'll admit that once I had views similar to yours......but the facts got in the way!!!

Feel free to share those facts. I am all ears.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Really?......google it.....climate change being accelerated by man is beyond all doubt. The number of people qualified in the right field that say otherwise are miniscule and their theory's seem pretty easy to disprove with even basic knowledge.

 

[Steveml63]

We bought our two EVs with our own money.
The Tesla is now 14 months old and has covered 34,411 trouble free kms- with zero servicing cost. Tyres are still 50% tread left and the only upcoming cost will be for a Tesla mobile service engineer to come to our place to change the cabin air filter (this will cost around £40, I believe).
The BMW iX is now 9 months old and has covered 20,607 trouble free kms - with zero servicing cost (it comes with a 999,999km full service contract that includes all parts and labour). The app shows that its first service is due December 2024 - and this will be free of charge. Tyres still have 50% tread left.
For both cars - they are currently running the very expensive “Electric” version of tyres that have a layer of foam inside them to reduce road noise.
When these need replacing - we won’t be using these expensive tyres. We will use the normal size, speed & load rating tyres that are around half the price of their “Electric” versions. The car stereos on both cars will be louder than the road noise from standard tyres!
We might get a few km less range with standard tyres - but as the Tesla Superchargers are free here - I don’t care.
The BMW costs around £4 for 400km range on our home charger - so again, I don’t care if we get a little less range.
In the time that we have had the Tesla - we have had around 20 free Over the Air software updates that have really improved the driving experience (as well as some toys, games are other nonsense stuff!).
The BMW has only had one OTA update just after we got it - and I believe we might need to book that in to the dealer to update it to the latest version that I have seen mentioned on the iX forums.

 

[Will]

We bought our two EVs with our own money.
The Tesla is now 14 months old and has covered 34,411 trouble free kms- with zero servicing cost. Tyres are still 50% tread left and the only upcoming cost will be for a Tesla mobile service engineer to come to our place to change the cabin air filter (this will cost around £40, I believe).
The BMW iX is now 9 months old and has covered 20,607 trouble free kms - with zero servicing cost (it comes with a 999,999km full service contract that includes all parts and labour). The app shows that its first service is due December 2024 - and this will be free of charge. Tyres still have 50% tread left.
For both cars - they are currently running the very expensive “Electric” version of tyres that have a layer of foam inside them to reduce road noise.
When these need replacing - we won’t be using these expensive tyres. We will use the normal size, speed & load rating tyres that are around half the price of their “Electric” versions. The car stereos on both cars will be louder than the road noise from standard tyres!
We might get a few km less range with standard tyres - but as the Tesla Superchargers are free here - I don’t care.
The BMW costs around £4 for 400km range on our home charger - so again, I don’t care if we get a little less range.
In the time that we have had the Tesla - we have had around 20 free Over the Air software updates that have really improved the driving experience (as well as some toys, games are other nonsense stuff!).
The BMW has only had one OTA update just after we got it - and I believe we might need to book that in to the dealer to update it to the latest version that I have seen mentioned on the iX forums.

A few questions:

How many new battery packs?
How many times have you had to queue for the chargers?
Do you eat lentil soup and wear sandals with socks (?)
Has it burst into flames yet?
Do you get sunburnt (not wet!) from having to plug it in?
Is the world flat?

 

[ALFAitalia]

 

[Steveml63]

A few questions:

How many new battery packs?
How many times have you had to queue for the chargers?
Do you eat lentil soup and wear sandals with socks (?)
Has it burst into flames yet?
Do you get sunburnt (not wet!) from having to plug it in?
Is the world flat?

No to all the above!
But it’s very satisfying beating every other car from the lights in the Tesla Model 3 Performance (there are very few real world cars on the road that can beat a fast EV from a standstill - especially if they don’t use launch control)
And it actually goes round corners at a good pace!

 

[markjay]

Really?......google it.....climate change being accelerated by man is beyond all doubt. The number of people qualified in the right field that say otherwise are miniscule and their theory's seem pretty easy to disprove with even basic knowledge.

People doubt the science. Happens all the time... You have to keep in mind that the scientific method that is responsible for the giant leaps that mankind has made in technology and medicine only occurred in the fast couple of hundred years. Gallielo had to retract his books, in spite of his meticulous observations. Religious leaders rejected Darwin's evolution theory (and some still do to this date), etc. Scientific thinking is not native to the human brain - we have (with some difficulty) developed it over the fast 200 years, and even so the majority of the population are still incapable of it. Just look at what's happening outside of the academia and research institutes - in politics, commerce, day-to-day discussions etc - people just make up facts as they go along, and when they hear facts (whether true or false ones) they will only accept those facts that agree with their preconceived ideas. Just have a look on YouTube... and before the Internet, this how humanity carried on, people believing in all sort of things - and this is why progress have been so slow until the way of thinking of people like Kepler and Newton became accepted as the way forward. I reckon that these days only around 20% or so of the population have been trained in scientific thinking, and they are the people who develop that tech and meds for all of us - including the 80% who keep thinking like our ancestors while enjoying the benefits to society created by those scientists who they distrust.