Electric Cars

Apparently all Volvo cars by 2030 will be EV'S.
I,m guessing there will be exemptions for many years  for some vehicles to run on fossil,ie trucks,emergency vechicles  etc
I,m also guessing that families would have two cars,one fossil for long/interstate trips and an EV for the general day to day commute?


cheers moredeep

You can be sure that when the pollution in the above maps reaches America (It already has ) the environmentalists and greens will rise up as one demanding that all fossil fuel power plants in the states be shut down ASAP! when all the while the increasing pollution has nothing to do with the current U.S.A fossil fuel usage.

With those maps Adrian how much is contributed to crop/forest burning? it would be interesting to minus this factor
and see what the maps would look like.
I know India has a massive problem with stubble burning.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54930380


cheers   moredeep

Good question.

Ozone and dust is the least represented....Good. Don't want to breath in a lot of ozone.

The display refers to general air quality made up of
SO2....Sulphur Dioxide
NO2 ...Nitrogen Dioxide.
O3...Ozone
CO... Carbon Monoxide
PM 2.5.....Particulate matter 2.5 microns
PM 10.....Particulate matter 10 microns

Don't know how much of each is represented in the colour coding other than dust and ozone are least represented and that the other elements are sort of equally distributed.

Have a look here.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=41;-0;1&l=pm25

Yes mooredeep

I can see the ruling State Governments of Australia passing legalisation for two car families to have at least one EV or plug in hybrid.
With a plug in hybrid you have the option of running on electric only, ( short range ) say 60 km. There are many family second cars that
wear the title of Mum's Taxi, doing mainly short trips, like dropping off kids at school, shopping and visiting friends and family local distances
and districts. The average home with a solar system could provide re-charge from the panels rather than exporting surplus power to the grid
for the current low feed in tarrif rates. Wear and tare on internal combustion engines is considerable for many frequent short trips, this is
where running an EV or plug in hybrid would be of huge benefit.

With Australia's strong take up of rooftop solar on homes there is increasing grid imbalance issues on days of high sunshine and solar import.
Much thought and planning is required to create useful consumption of this generated power, rather than shutting Peak power producing units
like Hydro Generators and Gas turbines, to balance the demands of the grid.

Many modern appliances are coming out with smart technology that will enable connection via wifi to grid power demands and will be able to
turn on when there is low grid demand and high generating capacity in the grid: EV chargers, Hot water systems, Dishwashers and laundry
appliances.

Lots of flat batteries coming up...

That'll give the tow truck industry a boost i guess.

moredeep wrote:With those maps Adrian how much is contributed to crop/forest burning? it would be interesting to minus this factor
and see what the maps would look like.
I know India has a massive problem with stubble burning.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54930380


cheers   moredeep

At least the Indians are calling it what it is (pollution) and not something else that we can't discuss here..

adrian ss wrote:You can be sure that when the pollution in the above maps reaches America  (It already has ) the environmentalists and greens will rise up as one  demanding that all fossil fuel power plants in the states  be shut down ASAP! when all the while the increasing pollution has nothing to do with the current U.S.A fossil fuel usage.

Just can't get that bloody fossil to burn.

adrian ss wrote:You can be sure that when the pollution in the above maps reaches America  (It already has ) the environmentalists and greens will rise up as one  demanding that all fossil fuel power plants in the states  be shut down ASAP! when all the while the increasing pollution has nothing to do with the current U.S.A fossil fuel usage.

But the USA is still the worlds second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases!

Well I guess When you eliminate Asia, Europe and Africa combined  pollution output (Worst offenders) there is only a second place left.
Australia does not count coz our air is clean as.

adrian ss wrote:Well I guess When you eliminate Asia, Europe and Africa combined  pollution output (Worst offenders) there is only a second place left.
Australia does not count coz our air is clean as.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

Arghh those figures are contrived by the EV, Wind farm & Solar Energy & the Greens manufactuers.

The per capita figures don't count because there is bugger all people in Australia and therefore our air is always going to be way cleaner than the real high volume pollution contributors. Our input may be high per capita (which I do not believe to be the case) but our total volume world wide contribution and per Australian area is minuscule. We are just too good aye.

adrian ss wrote:Arghh those figures are contrived by the EV, Wind farm & Solar Energy  & the Greens manufactuers.

The per capita figures don't count because there is bugger all people in Australia and therefore our air is always going to be way cleaner than the real high volume pollution contributors. Our input may be high per capita (which I do not believe to be the case)  but our total volume world wide contribution and per Australian area is minuscule. We are just too good aye.

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2020

planetcare wrote:

adrian ss wrote:You can be sure that when the pollution in the above maps reaches America  (It already has ) the environmentalists and greens will rise up as one  demanding that all fossil fuel power plants in the states  be shut down ASAP! when all the while the increasing pollution has nothing to do with the current U.S.A fossil fuel usage.

But the USA is still the worlds second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases!

Define this 'greenhouse gas'???

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and U is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stephan-Boltzmann law: r=C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, C is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

There are three theories of science that are denied by the Church of Global Warming.

*You can't create energy out of nothing.
*You can't trap heat.
*You can't trap light.
*You can't reduce entropy in any system.
*No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Not CO2 not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

butch wrote:

planetcare wrote:

adrian ss wrote:You can be sure that when the pollution in the above maps reaches America  (It already has ) the environmentalists and greens will rise up as one  demanding that all fossil fuel power plants in the states  be shut down ASAP! when all the while the increasing pollution has nothing to do with the current U.S.A fossil fuel usage.

But the USA is still the worlds second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases!

Define this 'greenhouse gas'???

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and U is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stephan-Boltzmann law: r=C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, C is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

There are three theories of science that are denied by the Church of Global Warming.

*You can't create energy out of nothing.
*You can't trap heat.
*You can't trap light.
*You can't reduce entropy in any system.
*No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Not CO2 not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Global warming and the greenhouse effect do not contradict any of the above laws!
The warming energy comes from the sun The earth absorbs some of suns vis and UV light and re radiates some of this absorbed energy as infra red which is trapped by greenhouse gases in the troposphere resulting in the earth warming as less of the absorbed heat can be radiated into the stratosphere. The greenhouse theory of global makes some predictions ALL of which have been verified!

https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator34.html
https://skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm


Fundamentals of Climate Change
(PCC 587): Radiation
DARGAN M. W. FRIERSON
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT  OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dargan/587/587_2.pdf

You are still denying science.. You refuse to learn..Is the math beyond you? You are now free to debate yourself.

butch wrote:You are still denying science.. You refuse to learn..Is the math beyond you? You are now free to debate yourself.

You are the one that is wrong! I don't need to do the maths to understand that AGW does not violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics or ANY other laws of physics.
Let me pose a question to you.What explanation do you have for the following satellite and balloon observations: the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling.

interesting topic fella's,please keep it nice

cheers   moredeep

planetcare wrote:

butch wrote:You are still denying science.. You refuse to learn..Is the math beyond you? You are now free to debate yourself.

You are the one that is wrong!  I don't need to do the maths to understand that  AGW does not violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics or ANY other laws of physics.
Let me pose a question to you.What explanation do you have for the following satellite and  balloon observations: the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is  cooling.

There is no Global Warming science.
The Earth and it's atmosphere is a single entity, you can't separate the two as you are trying to do. In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable global warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If you believe you have Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because every link you have posted has been a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

butch wrote:

planetcare wrote:

butch wrote:You are still denying science.. You refuse to learn..Is the math beyond you? You are now free to debate yourself.

You are the one that is wrong!  I don't need to do the maths to understand that  AGW does not violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics or ANY other laws of physics.
Let me pose a question to you.What explanation do you have for the following satellite and  balloon observations: the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is  cooling.

There is no Global Warming science.
The Earth and it's atmosphere is a single entity, you can't separate the two as you are trying to do. In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable global warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If you believe you have Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because every link you have posted has been a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

You have not provided an explanation as to why  satellite/balloon data show that the troposphere (the lower atmosphere to the earths surface and including the earths surface) is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling.
Here is just some recent evidence to show why global warming is occurring.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D. R. Feldman,
W. D. Collins,
P. J. Gero,
M. S. Torn,
E. J. Mlawer &
T. R. Shippert 
Nature volume 519, pages339–343(2015
Abstract
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

moredeep wrote:interesting topic fella's,please keep it nice  

cheers   moredeep

I'm trying my best...

cold shower or a stiff drink butch:lol:
take a deep breath and count to ten b4 you engaged your qwerty

cheers   moredeep

ps butch,you could do both together


cheers   moredeep

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
Nature volume 410, pages355–357(2001)
Abstract
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

cold shower for you as well planetcare,relax, take a deep breath too and think of England for a while


cheers   moredeep

moredeep wrote:cold shower for you as well planetcare,relax, take a deep breath too and think of England for a while


cheers   moredeep

I will keep giving members here all the very best climate science (with links and references) and evidence to support AGW( by the greenhouse effect) so they can be informed and make up their own mind on the issue.
For Butch.
Greenhouse gas definition
A greenhouse gas is a gas that is transparent to visible light but not infra red .
cheers

fellas, now don't get me started. Stop arguing amongst yourselves as to who's more in the right or wrong & let mother nature take its course.    
After all, It has always been mans destiny, through his own selfish, gluttonous, greed, to take out & consume more & more, hence bringing about our own demise.
So don't worry, be happy        

Kon

I took Adrians bait... that's all.

I was going to suggest that all three of you take a cold shower together,but I need to get some sleep tonight instead of having nightmares


cheers   moredeep