Hybrids and Electrics aka Hippie cars

[Sam48]

ignore

 

[Sam48]

@niky

HFS is hard to argue with because he doesn't give a logical reason for why he disagrees with me.

 

[niky]

@niky

HFS is hard to argue with because he doesn't give a logical reason for why he disagrees with me.

Well, these look remarkably like logical arguments...

They do, generally. And on the road, torque is more useful than power.

Partly true, but remember that here in the UK you generally pay less in road tax on diesels than you do on petrol, and the difference is in the hundreds sometimes thanks to the government's latest. So that difference quickly diminishes.

Plus, economy is now no longer the only appeal of diesel. Their power and torque characteristics are favourable even if you've had to spend more to get them.

Diesels produce different atmospheric pollution to petrols, but not necessarily more of it. As for noise, modern diesels are no noisier than petrols, even on the outside. Modern cars are pretty quiet as a rule, I'm often amazed at how quiet a line of cars at a traffic light is. Go back ten years and cars were so much noisier.

Though I'd like to point out modern diesels are still noisier than petrols, from the outside... though better noise insulation now makes the difference in noise level on the inside hardly noticeable.

Modern diesels are quiet, yes. But some gassers... well... last time I started up a VQ-engined Nissan (not the high-perf 3.5 or 3.7, the smaller lump available in Asia), a friend was standing by the engine bay. We were inside a showroom, mind you... no traffic noises... nothing but the distant hum of central ventilation. Well... I started the engine while he was standing by the open hood. Two minutes later, he walked around the side and asked me to start it up. Didn't know the thing was actually running!

Which sort of kills the dubious argument that electrics are too silent. Most non-performance cars nowadays are so much quieter than the background noise level of the city or even the suburbs that it's perfectly possible for people to step out in front of them without hearing them coming.

Which is a good argument for the removal of exhaust noise limits, actually.

 

[JimInPT]

If I can run Al Gore's Pious off the road, over a cliff and into a massive boulder followed by a gigantic electrochemical explosion and release of toxic waste, I'll be happy. I'll be happier if I can do it with a Hummer. Are you listening, PD?

 

[Sam48]

Well, these look remarkably like logical arguments...



Though I'd like to point out modern diesels are still noisier than petrols, from the outside... though better noise insulation now makes the difference in noise level on the inside hardly noticeable.

Modern diesels are quiet, yes. But some gassers... well... last time I started up a VQ-engined Nissan (not the high-perf 3.5 or 3.7, the smaller lump available in Asia), a friend was standing by the engine bay. We were inside a showroom, mind you... no traffic noises... nothing but the distant hum of central ventilation. Well... I started the engine while he was standing by the open hood. Two minutes later, he walked around the side and asked me to start it up. Didn't know the thing was actually running!

Which sort of kills the dubious argument that electrics are too silent. Most non-performance cars nowadays are so much quieter than the background noise level of the city or even the suburbs that it's perfectly possible for people to step out in front of them without hearing them coming.

Which is a good argument for the removal of exhaust noise limits, actually.

I said me.

 

[homeforsummer]

Perhaps you forgot to include my entire quote. hmmmm... page 4

If I chose not to include your full quote it's because I chose to remove any elements that were irrelevant, or drivel. Probably a mixture of both. Given that you only posted once on page four I'm actually at a loss as to what I've missed...

Your trying to hard, just listen to someone else's opinion for once instead of just bashing us with all your liberal ideas.

Here gentleman we have a perfect example of the term "liberal" used in a derogatory way when the poster is unable to provide a well-balanced or informed response.

As Niky has pointed out, I've not actually shown bias to any particular propulsion, be that electric, diesel or otherwise - I've just stated the facts in a very general way. I've defended them, but that's because I'm not too myopic to see their benefits. I've also not brought politics into this at all, unlike yourself.

And it's you're. If you're going to attempt to argue with me at least make an effort to use correct grammar. If non-native English speakers on this forum can manage then surely you can too.

@niky

HFS is hard to argue with because he doesn't give a logical reason for why he disagrees with me.

Okay, since you've categorically failed to provide adequate evidence despite the fact that I questioned your take on global warming at least three times and since you insist that I'm not using logic (when I am - and bear in mind that you are in the wrong by not substantiating your claims, which goes against the very first point in GTPlanet's Acceptable Use Policy), I'll show you exactly where you're wrong.

You said:

Co2 cools the atmosphere because co2 is heavier than oxogen. So when a car emits co2, the co2 simply stays on the earth. When the sun's rays penetrate the atmosphere, the rays themselves hit the oxygen(plus other atmospheric chemicals) first, then as the rays get closer to the earth, the rays hit the co2, which effectively slows down the rays (because co2, like I stated before, is heavier and denser than oxygen), and in the process doesn't allow the full blast of the suns rays to get to the ground. This is why co2 cools the earth.

This is inaccurate. Perhaps you've misunderstood something, but it looks more like a half-assed explanation concocted to support your views rather than something based on solid evidence.

You're partly right that CO2 is denser than many of the gases in our atmosphere, and for this reason it sits closer to the Earth's surface. However, you've failed to understand it's correct role.

The Sun emits a certain amount of energy in the form of heat and a proportion of this heat makes it through our atmosphere past clouds, aerosols and atmospheric gases to reach the Earth's surface. Some of this energy is absorbed by the surface. Just under 30% is reflected. Heat absorbed by the surface is also radiated. A significant proportion of this reflected and radiated heat is absorbed and reflected back by greenhouse gases like CO2. You'll find a pretty diagram on page 4 here (pdf file) to illustrate this.

Cars emit CO2, as you mention. This CO2 is released into the lower atmosphere, and stays there, as you mention. This just creates more greenhouse gas for reflected and radiated heat to try and break through. Sure, some will be reflected, but energy from the sun's heat is much greater than that reflected and radiated because the Earth's surface is naturally cooler. This means that the sun's heat can penetrate through the CO2 on it's way to the surface much more easily than heat radiated or reflected can, which is why CO2 warms the Earth.

But all this aside, I don't look at the whole "global warming" thing from a scientific stand point, I look at it from a business stand point. It's a form of TAXATION. Follow the money.

Firstly, global warming isn't a "form of taxation", it's a climatic condition which unscrupulous political parties have chosen to use as a motive by which to tax people. On this, I'd agree with you that it's a bad thing. However, there's so much more to the pursuit of producing electric cars than simply complying with government policy.

Electric cars are inherently more efficient than petrol ones, even without the century of development that ICE cars have had. An electric motor is inherently more efficient than a petrol or diesel, and doesn't lose as much energy through heat or noise. It also requires less maintenance with effectively one moving part that doesn't need to be continually lubricated.

There are also, as if it needs to be repeated, no tailpipe emissions. Not just CO2, but no CO (Carbon Monoxide), no hydrocarbons, no nitrogen oxides (NOx) and no particulates. And before you start on the "but they're fueled by electricity produced using coal" bandwagon it's worth bearing in mind that the production of fuels for use in ICEs uses a vast amount of energy given that it needs to be searched for, drilled for, transported, refined, transported again and then pumped through fuel stations that operate around the clock.

Any other non-political advantages? Well, range and performance are improving all the time, as is battery technology although admittedly this one is a struggle. That said, you can put those batteries anywhere you like in the car. And electric motors are relatively small. For this reason you can maximise space inside the car, for luggage, optimise crash structures etc...

None of the above is political, it's just all common sense as to why electric cars have (and deserve) a future in mass motoring.

Don't get me wrong, I love petrol cars as much as the next guy. I've loved cars since I can remember. I like nothing more than going for a top-down blast along a great road and I sure as hell use all the revs. But to dismiss the electric car as "useless", "rubbish" or "irrelevant" is plain, good old-fashioned stupid. And to try and justify that stupid with inaccuracies is even worse.

Logical enough for you?

 

[Sam48]

If I chose not to include your full quote it's because I chose to remove any elements that were irrelevant, or drivel. Probably a mixture of both. Given that you only posted once on page four I'm actually at a loss as to what I've missed...





Here gentleman we have a perfect example of the term "liberal" used in a derogatory way when the poster is unable to provide a well-balanced or informed response.

As Niky has pointed out, I've not actually shown bias to any particular propulsion, be that electric, diesel or otherwise - I've just stated the facts in a very general way. I've defended them, but that's because I'm not too myopic to see their benefits. I've also not brought politics into this at all, unlike yourself.

And it's you're. If you're going to attempt to argue with me at least make an effort to use correct grammar. If non-native English speakers on this forum can manage then surely you can too.



Okay, since you've categorically failed to provide adequate evidence despite the fact that I questioned your take on global warming at least three times and since you insist that I'm not using logic (when I am - and bear in mind that you are in the wrong by not substantiating your claims, which goes against the very first point in GTPlanet's Acceptable Use Policy), I'll show you exactly where you're wrong.

You said:



This is inaccurate. Perhaps you've misunderstood something, but it looks more like a half-assed explanation concocted to support your views rather than something based on solid evidence.

You're partly right that CO2 is denser than many of the gases in our atmosphere, and for this reason it sits closer to the Earth's surface. However, you've failed to understand it's correct role.

The Sun emits a certain amount of energy in the form of heat and a proportion of this heat makes it through our atmosphere past clouds, aerosols and atmospheric gases to reach the Earth's surface. Some of this energy is absorbed by the surface. Just under 30% is reflected. Heat absorbed by the surface is also radiated. A significant proportion of this reflected and radiated heat is absorbed and reflected back by greenhouse gases like CO2. You'll find a pretty diagram on page 4 here (pdf file) to illustrate this.

Cars emit CO2, as you mention. This CO2 is released into the lower atmosphere, and stays there, as you mention. This just creates more greenhouse gas for reflected and radiated heat to try and break through. Sure, some will be reflected, but energy from the sun's heat is much greater than that reflected and radiated because the Earth's surface is naturally cooler. This means that the sun's heat can penetrate through the CO2 on it's way to the surface much more easily than heat radiated or reflected can, which is why CO2 warms the Earth.



Firstly, global warming isn't a "form of taxation", it's a climatic condition which unscrupulous political parties have chosen to use as a motive by which to tax people. On this, I'd agree with you that it's a bad thing. However, there's so much more to the pursuit of producing electric cars than simply complying with government policy.

Electric cars are inherently more efficient than petrol ones, even without the century of development that ICE cars have had. An electric motor is inherently more efficient than a petrol or diesel, and doesn't lose as much energy through heat or noise. It also requires less maintenance with effectively one moving part that doesn't need to be continually lubricated.

There are also, as if it needs to be repeated, no tailpipe emissions. Not just CO2, but no CO (Carbon Monoxide), no hydrocarbons, no nitrogen oxides (NOx) and no particulates. And before you start on the "but they're fueled by electricity produced using coal" bandwagon it's worth bearing in mind that the production of fuels for use in ICEs uses a vast amount of energy given that it needs to be searched for, drilled for, transported, refined, transported again and then pumped through fuel stations that operate around the clock.

Any other non-political advantages? Well, range and performance are improving all the time, as is battery technology although admittedly this one is a struggle. That said, you can put those batteries anywhere you like in the car. And electric motors are relatively small. For this reason you can maximise space inside the car, for luggage, optimise crash structures etc...

None of the above is political, it's just all common sense as to why electric cars have (and deserve) a future in mass motoring.

Don't get me wrong, I love petrol cars as much as the next guy. I've loved cars since I can remember. I like nothing more than going for a top-down blast along a great road and I sure as hell use all the revs. But to dismiss the electric car as "useless", "rubbish" or "irrelevant" is plain, good old-fashioned stupid. And to try and justify that stupid with inaccuracies is even worse.

Logical enough for you?

I'll admit my answer was mostly wrong, but it's a political science. And you seem to like to copy and paste. Anyone who would care to look back to page 3 to where this post is now will notice you quoting me many times, most of which where answered with a short answer that made me look like I had no idea of what I was talking about. And yes my entire quote/post does matter. You chop off the my main part of the post so as to make yourself look better when you answer it. So how else am I supposed to make my point without it?.

Are you from the UK?

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll admit my answer was mostly wrong, but it's a political science.

No, it's actually science. Whether it's abused or not by governments has nothing to do with the science itself and has nothing to do with electric cars. If anything, the continuing success of petroleum-fuelled cars has more to do with governmental policy as they enjoy rather high income from taxing it...

And you seem to like to copy and paste.

If you're referring to the scientific part, I didn't copy and paste a word. I read up on the subject and then put it into my own words. I've done no differently than I have in probably a hundred essays and exams over the last six or seven years.

If you're referring to my quoting of your posts, I do it to enable people to read my posts easily.

Anyone who would care to look back to page 3 to where this post is now will notice you quoting me many times, most of which where answered with a short answer that made me look like I had no idea of what I was talking about.

As I mentioned before, you were doing a pretty good job of that yourself. All I was doing was asking you to provide sources for your dubious science. I realise you've not been around GTP for too long a time, but you've been here long enough to be aware that if you make a claim, you should be ready to back it up if someone asks. You failed to do this.

And yes my entire quote/post does matter. You chop off the my main part of the post so as to make yourself look better when you answer it. So how else am I supposed to make my point without it?.

Whether I chop about your post or not matters not, given that I don't do so to deliberately make you look foolish. If I've chopped off something, it's because I'm not responding to it. Had you made yourself concise in the first place then I wouldn't need to remove the bits that aren't relevant.

And yes, I'm from the UK.

 

[Sam48]

And yes, I'm from the UK.

So you have things like emissions tax, congestion charges, and speed cameras right?

 

[homeforsummer]

So you have things like emissions tax, congestion charges, and speed cameras right?

Yes. If you're going where I think you're going with this, yes, it probably does have an influence on my opinion about electric cars, diesels and the like, but on the other hand it's still a personal view - I know plenty of other UK users here who dislike diesels and electrics. That said, the science isn't an opinion. It's just science.

Incidentally, congestion charging and speed cameras don't affect me. I live in a county where they don't exist and I go to university in a county that only has a handful of them.

 

[SCUD77]

some electric hybrids are good for the game (the citroen gt is a giggle) but some will be as pointless as the model t ford that was in gt4 they just waste space that could have been used to make the game better.

 

[homeforsummer]

some electric hybrids are good for the game (the citroen gt is a giggle) but some will be as pointless as the model t ford that was in gt4 they just waste space that could have been used to make the game better.

There's always one...

No car in the game "just wastes space". If it's in the game it's because PD were able to get a licence to put it in the game. The Model T in GT4 wasn't taking precious space away from something "better", because chances are that something "better" was something that PD were unable to acquire a licence to replicate in the game.

Likewise, if the something "better" was improved weather effects or similar, I highly doubt that the inclusion of one "pointless" car or even several "pointless" cars was the reason the feature wasn't included - it's more likely to be down to their technical capabilities.

If only a handful of people in the world like a particular car in the game, it still merits inclusion and it enriches the variety of the game 👍

 

[Sam48]

Yes. If you're going where I think you're going with this, yes, it probably does have an influence on my opinion about electric cars, diesels and the like, but on the other hand it's still a personal view - I know plenty of other UK users here who dislike diesels and electrics. That said, the science isn't an opinion. It's just science.

Incidentally, congestion charging and speed cameras don't affect me. I live in a county where they don't exist and I go to university in a county that only has a handful of them.

If everyone drove electric cars, then the government would have to find a new way to tax people. Think about it, no global warming, no tax!? Surely not. That's what global warming is there for. Without the invention of global warming there would be no emissions tax. I know your gonna bombard me with scientific facts, but the truth is there is no science behind this, just a greedy government. Infact, Back in the 70's it was global cooling (you can google that), and they where right. But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money. Yes the entire post matters.

 

[bullie77]

Re: Global warming

I don't where any of you got the idea that CO2, by itself, cools or heat the atmosphere, or is in fact harmfull. Yourselfs produce CO2 by simply breathing. What IT IS HARMFULL to the environment is that a number of different gases, man made or over-produced by man action, is concentrating in abnormal amount on the atmosphere (amongst which you find CO2, but also others as CFC's, Freon, etc.) are blocking the natural radiation of heat from the Earth (received from the Sun), acting like a "blanket" that keeps a significant amount of that heat on Earth. Similar to the effect you would get on a flower green-house (thus the name green-house effect gases).

There are many sources for this abnormal concentration of gases in the atmosphere being that cars are one of them (CO2 produced by burning petrol, since the extraction, through the transformation process turning it into gasoline, and burning it in the engine), specially important due to the increasing number of cars through out the last century, and specially on the new-developed countries such as China, India, Brazil, etc... where there is a potentially huge car market.

But there are other sources for this problem, such as house heating and electricity production from burning coal.

 

[homeforsummer]

If everyone drove electric cars, then the government would have to find a new way to tax people. Think about it, no global warming, no tax!? Surely not.

I'm not too ignorant to realise this...

"There are only two certainties in life: death and taxes" (Benjamin Franklin)

What that has to do with me living in the UK I'm not sure...

That's what global warming is there for.

No it isn't...

Without the invention of global warming there would be no emissions tax.

Global warming isn't an "invention". It's a theory based on a substantial quantity of scientific evidence.

I know your gonna bombard me with scientific facts, but the truth is there is no science behind this, just a greedy government.

No science. Really? I'm afraid to inform you that the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Nature does too. The only issue up for debate is whether mankind contributes to it enough to make a difference, and even with regard to that there's fair evidence to support the theory that mankind has contributed to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere - not to mention thousands of other pollutants.

Infact, Back in the 70's it was global cooling (you can google that), and they where right.

As you can probably imagine, technology in the 70s wasn't as advanced as it is today. The global cooling theory was based on the best evidence they had at the time. This theory has now been disproven, and global warming is the accepted correct theory. The theory in the 70s was an anomaly based on a brief period of slower warming/cooling. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th Century...

Scientists are allowed to make mistakes, despite what you might believe.

But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money.

If you think that government funding of scientific research is a new thing you're severely mistaken. I'd also say it's an insult to hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world to accuse them of making up theories for backhanders...

Yes the entire post matters.

No, it doesn't...

Incidentally, I've found a timely extract from an article supporting some other good reasons for the development of the electric car:

it still makes sense to move to more efficient technologies. Aside from climate change, there is the issue of national security that results from relying on energy from countries that are politically unstable. There are also perfectly legitimate economic reasons to want to use less energy, especially in a time of financial problems. Finally, independent of whether the emissions from burning fossil fuels cause the atmosphere to warm up, we know pollution causes problems

Source: AutoBlogGreen

The national security issue is an interesting one. Maybe taxes wouldn't need to go up as much as you'd think if billions of dollars weren't needed to keep the military out in a corner of the world that just happens to be where most of the world's oil comes from...

Economic sense? Common sense. You spend less money fuelling and maintaining your car.

Pollution? Pretty obvious. Regardless of CO2 tax, an internal combustion engine kicks out plenty of other stuff that doesn't do a lot of good.

 

[bullie77]

If everyone drove electric cars, then the government would have to find a new way to tax people. Think about it, no global warming, no tax!? Surely not. That's what global warming is there for. Without the invention of global warming there would be no emissions tax. I know your gonna bombard me with scientific facts, but the truth is there is no science behind this, just a greedy government. Infact, Back in the 70's it was global cooling (you can google that), and they where right. But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money. Yes the entire post matters.

I'm really am surprised how would someone, on the eve of the year 2010, believe in such arguments.

 

[Stevisiov]

If everyone drove electric cars, then the government would have to find a new way to tax people. Think about it, no global warming, no tax!? Surely not. That's what global warming is there for. Without the invention of global warming there would be no emissions tax. I know your gonna bombard me with scientific facts, but the truth is there is no science behind this, just a greedy government. Infact, Back in the 70's it was global cooling (you can google that), and they where right. But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money. Yes the entire post matters.

Your hell bent on thinking that the government is inventing global warming in an effort to tax us. Global warming isn't an invention, is an observation, the question is how accurate of observation is it?

I am sceptical about how worried we should be about global warming, the truth is we don't understand enough about our climate to accurately call it. What's very important to note in this debate is that there are more reasons than global warming as to why we should seriously consider electric cars as a future of personal transport. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of hydrocarbon based ICE's, more so than most, but that doesn't change the fact that a technology based on a finite fuel source has an inevitable end. If we don't change our primary fuel source we will run out, why not change our fuel source so we have enough of the black gold for other industrial purposes too which it is fundamental, why not save a bit of the stuff so that we can use petrol cars on a recreational basis.

Not everyone has to have an electric car, I know that while petrol is around i will always want a petrol car, but electric cars for the masses which perform the to the standard of an ICE? How can that be a bad thing?

As it stands, electric's currently aren't up to the standard to give them mass appeal, as such petrol vehicles (and diesels) are still the best option, but that doesn't exclude the fact that decent electric cars exist that could and should be included in the car encyclopaedia that is gran turismo.

I actually find it quite fun to think about, I would love to own a Tesla in the game. The likes of a tesla would be good in sprint races, quick off the line, fast accelerating out of corners, low centre of gravity and I am intrigued as to the tuning options for an electric motor. It would quite accurately demonstrate the short fall of electrics too, when you have time to go for a cup of tea in the pits while your electric car is sat re-charging in an endurance race.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Pollution? Pretty obvious. Regardless of CO2 tax, an internal combustion engine kicks out plenty of other stuff that doesn't do a lot of good.

Yeah, if you dont think pollution is bad you haven't been to a major city in India (or similar place) where the photochemical smog is so thick the sun is dull even in the middle of the day, and after a day or two you blow your nose and your snot is black from all the crap you've been breathing.

 

[JAGUAR1977]

Yes governments are using Global Warming as an excuse to raise taxes, just as they do with cigarettes, that's why they never ban them outright.

Yes many scientist are only interested in providing theories that help their paymasters in the government.

That however doesn't mean hybrids and electric cars aren't a good thing, technology like this would develop regardless of Global Warming. Within a couple of years most Le Mans prototypes will have some form of hybrid power, while Mercedes are producing an all electric SLS with 525bhp in 2013.

 

[TouringDevotee]

If everyone drove electric cars, then the government would have to find a new way to tax people. Think about it, no global warming, no tax!? Surely not. That's what global warming is there for. Without the invention of global warming there would be no emissions tax. I know your gonna bombard me with scientific facts, but the truth is there is no science behind this, just a greedy government. Infact, Back in the 70's it was global cooling (you can google that), and they where right. But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money. Yes the entire post matters.

Here is your entire post, though I only want to address the final section, "But keep in mind this was before scientists received grant money from the government. I'll say again, follow the money. Yes the entire post matters."

People receiving funding in order to carry out research is nothing new and has literally been going on for thousands of years. We wouldn't be arguing on gtplanet.net were it not for research grants. In order to prevent abuse, there is this a process known as peer review. This is, to an extent, what is occurring in this thread.

Have you bothered to "follow the money" with regards to your own beliefs? This is why you've been asked, time after time, for sources. We'd like to follow the money as well, but you truly seem hell bent on preventing us from doing just such a thing.

 

[Sam48]

Let me put it like this. (I somewhat agree with Stevisiov) The whole global warming thing has been preached for about the last 40 some years. The earth has been around for billions of years. So scientist have decided that within this 40 years of research, that their is a climate crisis, when nobody even knows what the recorded temperatures were before 1910. For all we know the climate where living in now could be cooler than normal. Nobody knows.

Why do you think Europe has emission tax and people like me in the US don't.

 

[bullie77]

Why do you think Europe has emission tax and people like me in the US don't.

Perhaps because US didn't signed Kyoto, a few years ago.

 

[homeforsummer]

Let me put it like this. (I somewhat agree with Stevisiov) The whole global warming thing has been preached for about the last 40 some years. The earth has been around for billions of years. So scientist have decided that within this 40 years of research, that their is a climate crisis, when nobody even knows what the recorded temperatures were before 1910. For all we know the climate where living in now could be cooler than normal. Nobody knows.

Yes they do. There are statistics all over the place to back this up, you just seem completely intent on ignoring them so you can peddle dross about it being concocted by the government.

The Earth is warming. There are no two ways about it. The Earth is in a period of natural warming anyway as we're apparently still coming down from the last ice age, but since the start of the industrial revolution we've been doing our "bit". The only thing up for debate is how much humans are contributing to that natural warming. That bit is as yet unknown.

With regard to not knowing what's happened pre-1910 with regards to the climate, I'm guessing you've not heard of Paleoclimatology before? Scientists are able to measure the concentration of particles in air from virtually any period in history as long as they're able to find ice for that period. Funnily enough, this is how they can find out the concentrations of CO2 in the air over thousands of years...

Are we in a "climate crisis"? That's up for debate too, but it's worth bearing in mind that the last time our planet was this warm the population was very different (there are some good estimates here). Not to mention a great deal smaller, and a great deal more self-sufficient.

Society can't afford the human cost a disaster caused by climate change would cause today because we rely on each other on a global scale now. Tens of thousands of years ago, if a society on one side of the world got wiped out by a Tsunami it made absolutely no difference to someone on the other side of the world. Yet just over 8 years ago a couple of planes crashing into a couple of towers and killing a few thousand people affected the economy across the globe. Now imagine a natural disaster affecting hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people. It's gonna have an affect, isn't it...

Why do you think Europe has emission tax and people like me in the US don't.

I don't know, but I'm sure that if you told us there'd be some mumbo-jumbo reason for it...

 

[Sam48]

Perhaps because US didn't signed Kyoto, a few years ago.

Nope, it's because European governments followed the money, and became socialist. In America we don't have global warming related taxes because we are capitalist. I can't describe really the rest. You'd have to step back and look at everything differently to understand this. This really doesn't belong on GTP but I'm trying to make a point.

I look at this global warming thing from a business stand point. HFS looks at it from a scientific stand point. which makes it kinda hard to argue. anyway.

 

[Sam48]

With regard to not knowing what's happened pre-1910 with regards to the climate, I'm guessing you've not heard of Paleoclimatology before?

I have, but it's not very accurate.

 

[homeforsummer]

I have, but it's not very accurate.

But it's accurate enough to make educated guesses and estimates based on interpolation. If it wasn't accurate at all then it wouldn't be a science.

Talking of interpolation, the link I posted on estimated population was quite interesting. Best estimate for population around the last ice age is between four and six thousand people. Or between a third and a half more than were killed on September 11th 2001.

I think we're beginning to veer off-topic a little, anyway. I keep forgetting this thread is in the GT5 section and not in Opinions and Current Events...

 

[Azure Flare]

won't use the prius type, but I will use the tesla and other similar models if they are there.

I was thinking the same thing

 

[Raitziger]

You'd have to step back and look at everything differently to understand this. This really doesn't belong on GTP but I'm trying to make a point.

Yes you made it very clear, that you value nature with money we europeans don't. We have higher taxes so that we can have cheap healthcare for everyone. We pay for something we value, quite simple really So all this cost us money? In reality most of our "socialist" economies have been growing faster USA.

USA capitalist system has of course been doing well in two things, making world go warmer and creating quite nice deficit.

 

[Imari]

But it's accurate enough to make educated guesses and estimates based on interpolation. If it wasn't accurate at all then it wouldn't be a science.

Talking of interpolation, the link I posted on estimated population was quite interesting. Best estimate for population around the last ice age is between four and six thousand people. Or between a third and a half more than were killed on September 11th 2001.

I think we're beginning to veer off-topic a little, anyway. I keep forgetting this thread is in the GT5 section and not in Opinions and Current Events...

Err, surely you mean 4~6 million people? That's what that website seemed to say about 10,000BC.

4~6 thousand is a miniscule number in terms of a world population, they'd be knocked out by one hungry tiger.

 

[Sam48]

Yes you made it very clear, that you value nature with money we europeans don't. We have higher taxes so that we can have cheap healthcare for everyone. We pay for something we value, quite simple really So all this cost us money? In reality most of our "socialist" economies have been growing faster USA.

USA capitalist system has of course been doing well in two things, making world go warmer and creating quite nice deficit.

If anyone of you (European person) lived in the US for just a few months you'd understand what freedom is, and how bad your government really is. We've gone way off topic.