Electric Car thread

[Handlebars]

(...)the co2, marked increase after the 'industrial revolution- its a fact go check)

That is a correlation. Another correlation is that the warming occurred after The Little Ice Age.

 

[Handlebars]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

The world-famous paper on Quantifying the Consensus was a despicable cheat job. After the political group of turds started their project to show consensus in the actual literature, they found they had nothing to show of what they believed existed...that there was scientific consensus IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, with the UN IPCC finding of over 50% of global warming being due to human contribution. So they secretly convened and decided to cheat.
But they carelessly left their site open as the leaders announced the cheat they had to do, to their group of politically motivated volunteer readers. They got caught. It didn't matter.
The climate scientists themselves are corrupt and so are the journals and so is the media and all government agencies concerned, and so is the UN IPCC.
So the message went out world wide in headlines. NO repercussions. Almost all people are just believing in "The Science".
Declared method:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

After finding out that very few papers explicitly agree with the IPCC finding, here's the cheat announcement:

Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50% human influence’. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.

Get it? They were to show

...and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

but instead, they will give you

no specific quantification

So they just produced a 97% figure and simply lied about their method and it was a super media hit worldwide with climate scientists glorying in it, basking in it. Not a quantification of consensus with IPCC finding. Another cheat of the public trust is all.

The study group is mostly connected members of "Skeptical Science" website, of which Michael Mann, hockey stick fame, has a type of special access. Also a main connection to The Guardian.

 

[Handlebars]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That is from the NASA article. So obviously Earth would fry without those two major GHG's.
It's not as simple and clear-cut as the corrupt science and media and governments would have you believe.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about this here high level stuff we're dealing with, Darlin'.
Just stop doing what you're doing and do what we tell ya. Have some more crispy crickets and roach milk and be good now.

 

[procreator]

One of the biggest mistakes people make when hearing statistics is to confuse correlation with causation. Statistically speaking, correlation is a mathematical calculation of the agreement between sets of data. Causation is, well, the thing or things that causes there to be a relationship.

A famous, though tongue-in-cheek example which has been used for decades to illustrate the difference between the two is the comparison of stork population to human live births shown below. In this instance, there is a 62% correlation between the number of stork breeding pairs and the human birthrate. I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

The media is so quick to throw out numbers with no context. Elements of this context that need to be understood before interpreting the data are the sampling method, the statistical method, the hypothesis that the researcher was attempting to prove, etc.

Be wary whenever anyone makes a statistical claim. As someone famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Handlebars]

One of the biggest mistakes people make when hearing statistics is to confuse correlation with causation. Statistically speaking, correlation is a mathematical calculation of the agreement between sets of data. Causation is, well, the thing or things that causes there to be a relationship.

A famous, though tongue-in-cheek example which has been used for decades to illustrate the difference between the two is the comparison of stork population to human live births shown below. In this instance, there is a 62% correlation between the number of stork breeding pairs and the human birthrate. I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

The media is so quick to throw out numbers with no context. Elements of this context that need to be understood before interpreting the data are the sampling method, the statistical method, the hypothesis that the researcher was attempting to prove, etc.

Be wary whenever anyone makes a statistical claim. As someone famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

View attachment 139370

Or the correlation between shark attacks and ice cream cone sales.
People go splash around at the beach in summer and people buy ice cream cones in summer.

 

[Handlebars]

In the Little Ice Age conditions were dire. Crop failures, wild storms, disease was rampant, education was reduced or stopped, travel reduced, people were burned at the stake for weather witching.
As The Little Age receded and temperatures rose, things got better, crops were better, starvation receded, education improved, travel improved, glaciers melted, and so on and the industrial revolution MAGICALLY presented!

The Little Ice Age was a period of bitter winters and mild summers that affected Europe and North America between the 14th and 19th centuries. The cold weather is well documented in written records and supported by paleoclimatic records such as tree rings, glacial growth, and lake sediments.

 

[Handlebars]

I would argue there is no chance that the number of storks is the cause of the birth rate.

So you're saying that storks don't deliver the babies? I'd argue that the proxy evidence from millions of congratulations cards shows different.

 

[procreator]

 

[BigNerd]

EV good... ICE bad... next ICE age really bad.

Is that correlation?

 

[Handlebars]

EV good... ICE bad... next ICE age really bad.

Is that correlation?

No, that isn't a correlation.
But luckily Joetato just announced that by 3035 American companies will be producing all EV.

 

[Zekeer]

Be wary of your sources. One is a publication with a reputation for pushing fringe views, the other a partisan blog. Which is fine. But not evidence of rife disagreement on the topic among the scientific community.

I dunno, the scientists in my world seem to have a reasonable consensus on the science and the need for urgent action. It's a little chilling talking to some of them, actually. Given I'm never going to publish a peer reviewed study on the science I'll take my odds deferring to the majority.

So what are you saying ? That you believe the climate issues are man made ? By who and how ? And do you honestly believe man can predict the climate 50 years from now . When they screw up the weather weekly .
Don't get me wrong : Is see earth quakes increases , storms worsening , climate patterns changing in areas . Floods, droughts etc. I agree all that is true . But when we know our Govt has been cloud seeding for decades . Or if we remember 3 grade biology class . Anyone with basic knowledge . Should know 2 things . C02 is a Good thing . The second is that Earth Worship goes back to ancient times . And that's all this Climate Chaos nonsense is =Earth Worship Which doesn't work . If it did all the Child sacrifices being made should take care of it right ??? You know that's part of earth worship .

 

[tomjasz]

As I scientist myself, I can confidently state this: Science says nothing but scientists do.

"Rocket scientist"?

 

[Readytoride]

And now for a lighter post...

Yesterday while driving my electric car on the local highway I noticed a Rivian (electric) truck behind me. Said so to my hubby who eagerly checked the rear view mirror on his side. He reads the Rivian forums every day and is learning everything he can about the vehicle before we get ours which is the planned longest range model (sadly won't be until sometime in 2024).

As the Rivian moved out to pass, I stuck my hand out the window with a thumbs up, and then gave the driver a friendly wave as he passed. They already knew they were passing an electric car (my license plate says so even though my Leaf is rather stealth looking), but were obviously tickled to be recognized for what they were driving. I got big waves and smiles from both the driver and passenger as they cruised by.

It was a nice moment shared by complete strangers. It made me think that sometime in the future it will be the reverse - the antique and vintage ICE cars (those that are carefully and lovingly restored, not the rusting, toxic spewing rattletraps that should be sitting in a scrapyard already) will get the looks and smiles because they will be rare.

 

[Mulezen]

I read recently where Rivian has delayed the long range trucks… supply chain issues and their behemoth partners Amazon and Mercedes needs are the reasons for the delays. Amazon drivers are apparently happy with their Rivian delivery vans. Rivian’s partnership with Mercedes includes an interest in another company with a solid state battery advanced enough to be designing a production facility.

 

[procreator]

"Rocket scientist"?

Toilet paper, actually.

Before you laugh, consider which you'd be willing to give up (permanently) first: Smart phone, e-bike, laptop, or toilet paper?

PS - They don't make Sears catalogs anymore.

 

[WattsUpDude]

Not sure if it’s coming to the USA, but it looks like there’s a 500 Abarth E car coming out.

I sold my Abarth shortly after we got the Bolt since it didn’t fit our life anymore (2 young kids and a long commute). But as a hot hatch fan, I’m looking forward to more diversity when it comes to future E cars.

 

[Mulezen]

Not sure if it’s coming to the USA, but it looks like there’s a 500 Abarth E car coming out.

I sold my Abarth shortly after we got the Bolt since it didn’t fit our life anymore (2 young kids and a long commute). But as a hot hatch fan, I’m looking forward to more diversity when it comes to future E cars.

The Koreans are coming on strong

 

[Sparky731]

A very intriguing suggestion within a letter to the editor in the WSJ the other day: the idea of a transcontinental EV race akin to the 1909 endurance challenge.

The race would be between actual production vehicles, not just the experimental EVs that raced in 1968. Multiple classes.

Surely Tesla would win most aptly per the Tesla charging station network.

The interest would be in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th etc. places. It would be a great marketing opportunity.

 

[WattsUpDude]

A very intriguing suggestion within a letter to the editor in the WSJ the other day: the idea of a transcontinental EV race akin to the 1909 endurance challenge.

The race would be between actual production vehicles, not just the experimental EVs that raced in 1968. Multiple classes.

Surely Tesla would win most aptly per the Tesla charging station network.

The interest would be in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th etc. places. It would be a great marketing opportunity.

This is relevant
Out of spec

 

[procreator]

The Koreans are coming on strong

I fully expect there will be a whole new set of players in the EV landscape. The big motor companies are heavily capitalized and cannot pivot on a dime. They are optimized to design and build vehicles around gasoline-powered drivelines. While they have some EV offerings, newcomers can come in with fresh ideas and not tied to the historical ways of designing and building vehicles. I am old enough to remember when the Detroit big three tried putting diesel engines in gas-powered cars in the 1980's. An unmitigated disaster.

Companies like Tesla can design an EV from scratch and capitalize around building it. There are and will continue to be others like Tesla who have fresh ideas and the courage to execute them. Of the existing ones, only the nimble ones will survive, unless the gov't deems them "too big to fail" and bails them out as they have in the past.

I also predict that there will be a convergence of technology, especially concerning battery design. The economics of each company designing its own battery and figuring out how to dispose of or recycle it are too difficult. Companies will get together and agree on various technologies, and then concerted development will occur. We have seen this with cell phones (e.g., 4g, 5g) and a host of other technologies.