Hydrogen powered commercial vehicles.

[Coolcats]

They are trying to sell you a paper on Tesla marketing.

Tesla do not have a marketing dept. They do not spend on advertising.

I suspect these people are trying to put a value to Musk's social media activities and the cost of their launch events and special events like battery day.

Social media is one element Gromett, so who put together the Tesla branding? Why has a Tesla garage opened near me with marketing signage all over it?

this is what the press says:

Tesla China steps up marketing on Model 3 as competition heats up​

whilst looking at this site I was ‘pushed’ an advert saying I could ‘snaffel’ up a model 3 if both the article and the push advert is not marketing Then it has to be unicorn thought transfer.

 

[olley]

I wasn't wrong. I was quite careful in my statement.

His post doesn't show that they have a marketing dept, or a media dept. It also doesn't prove they advertise.

These are the exact words I used. I chose them carefully.


They did have a very light weight PR dept until the middle of last year. But they disbanded that.

Tesla dissolves its PR department — a new first in the industry

Electrek can confirm that Tesla has dissolved its PR department — technically becoming the first automaker who doesn’t talk to...

electrek.co

Coolcats link was from 2018. In 2018 they did have a PR dept and this could quite rightly be attributed to marketing. It no longer exists.

If you put on a show like battery day that would be classed as marketing and has a cost and is advertising. So whether or not he has a pr section he still advertises.

 

[Gromett]

I am a sceptic, not a denier. The better view seems to be that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator of warming not the cause. From ice cores.

Cause and effect in this case are quite clear. If you are saying that CO2 levels are rising because of warming. Then you have show where the warming is coming from.
The fact we are pumping out massive amounts of CO2 and we know CO2 causes warming gives us a cause and effect that are rational, logical and relatively easy to prove.

Even with the most powerful supercomputers our weather predictions have a high degree of uncertainty beyond about 5 days. Why we should expect leaders to base their climate change "emergency" policies on computer modelling of the climate (see also the much-criticised recent epidemiological modelling) is irrational and reeks of groupthink. We are heading towards de-industrialising and making the West economically much weaker, for the benefit of the highly polluting Chinese and Indian economies that effectively have an amnesty under the Paris Climate Accord. This is geopolitics, not science.

Your example of weather prediction is not a reasonable comparison. The Macro and the Micro have different levels of accuracy when it comes to predictions and modelling. We can simulate a river flowing through a set of mountain valleys pretty damn accurately, but we can't predict where a single molecule of water or a paper boat on that water would go. Climate change is like the river simulation, weather prediction is like the paper boat. For the paper boat we can predict reasonably accurately where it will go in the next short period of time but the accuracy falls off the longer the time period. However, the accuracy of where the water will go remains very accurate. I am not saying climate change predictions are accurate however. I don't think they are even close. However, I don't know which direction they are wrong in. There are good arguments to be made that the increases may not have the effects on the scale or timeline predicted. But there are also good arguments we may already be too late.

If we genuinely wish to have a greener planet Earth, the current 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 level is a bit low. It should be in the range 500-1000 ppm for more plant growth, higher crop yields, and greater food security for humanity, with a bit to spare. I would argue that 500 ppm is a rational goal in the short to medium term. That's what I meant by my sub-optimal point.

That is a strange argument. If we increase the CO2 and warm the earth then a lot of the prime farm land will flood. It is not a rational goal. I don't know where you are getting these ideas from but this one is pretty out there.

My current expectation is we are heading into a solar grand minimum, and a potential mini ice age. In which case, we are going to regret the current decarbonising policies which will become meaningless. If that overmighty billionaire Gates gets his way and fills the upper atmosphere with fine chalk dust to block sunlight, that will bring it on sooner. Disastrous famines ... millions or even billions of deaths ... but of course (they) want to decrease the human population by 90% as part of the Great Reset.

If you are talking about events like the Maunder minimum and the so called little ice age. I think you will find these are not confirmed as related. This was a localised event (Europe) and is hypothesised to have been caused by volcanoes. I don't have enough time to get into the nitty gritty on this. But solar minimums are unlikely to have been the cause. The little ice age in Europe started before the Maunder Minimum and ended well after it. The little ice age started in the 1300's and the Maunder minimum start in the 1600's Temperatures in the northern hemisphere were no different on average during the Maunder minimum than they were in the previous 100 years.

I think bill gates is a bit of a plank on this subject. We are a long way away from needing to consider any form of atmospheric engineering on that scale. It would be stupid to do that until everything else has failed and we are heading to a definite catastrophic situation.

As for 90% population decrease and great reset. Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me sorry.

 

[Gromett]

If you put on a show like battery day that would be classed as marketing and has a cost and is advertising. So whether or not he has a pr section he still advertises.

Drifting well away from the original point.

He said this;

Given that Tesla Hypermarketing department have done their job ‘Tesla’ seems to be the company you refer to.

I responded

Telsa doesn't have a marketing or media dept. They don't advertise at all.

I was accurate and on point.

They do NOT have a marketing dept, nor do they have a media/PR dept. They don't advertise at all.

Saying they have a hypermarketing dept was way off base.

I am done on this silly argument.

 

[Coolcats]

They do NOT have a marketing dept, nor do they have a media/PR dept. They don't advertise at all.

Saying they have a hypermarketing dept was way off base.

I am done on this silly argument.

Gromett really don't wish to wind you up, Most organisations do not have a Marketing department they outsource their activities to marketing agencies in the same way that many companies outsource their manufacturing distribution or sales activities (car dealerships being an example). Tesla have a Marketing Director her name is Shannyn Sneed.

If Tesla had no need for Marketing they would not have a Marketing Director or be in business neither would they have articles in magazines and as olley pointed out the side shows showing off technology. What I will say is that Shannon does here job very well, there are other companies that do not pay for adverts but like Tesla they do Market their products very well.

Someone somewhere will for example be monitoring Tesla twitter (there is technology such as a twitter sniffer to detect negative or positive posts) whether that individual or company is directly employed doesn't really matter but it will be part of Tesla Marketing strategy.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[olley]

You said and I quote "They don't advertise at all." If they didn't no one would have heard of them
Advertise verb
describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance. If that doesn't describe Battery Day then I don't know what does.
Its the same with twitter he's always on there talking about SpaceX which is very nice but its still advertising. I don't know if he uses twitter for Tesla.

Now stop trying to wriggle off the point.

 

[olley]

Gromett really don't wish to wind you up, Most organisations do not have a Marketing department they outsource their activities to marketing agencies in the same way that many companies outsource their manufacturing distribution or sales activities (car dealerships being an example). Tesla have a Marketing Director her name is Shannyn Sneed.

If Tesla had no need for Marketing they would not have a Marketing Director or be in business neither would they have articles in magazines and as olley pointed out the side shows showing off technology. What I will say is that Shannon does here job very well, there are other companies that do not pay for adverts but like Tesla they do Market their products very well.

Someone somewhere will for example be monitoring Tesla twitter (there is technology such as a twitter sniffer to detect negative or positive posts) whether that individual or company is directly employed doesn't really matter but it will be part of Tesla Marketing strategy.

Looks like a different company Coolcats
https://www.teslaforecast.com/about-tesla/management-team/

 

[Coolcats]

Looks like a different company Coolcats
https://www.teslaforecast.com/about-tesla/management-team/

Link Removed indeed another Tesla, oh well I suspect Shannon would be delighted to be thought of as a Marketing Genius at Tesla

 

[Gromett]

Gromett really don't wish to wind you up, Most organisations do not have a Marketing department they outsource their activities to marketing agencies in the same way that many companies outsource their manufacturing distribution or sales activities (car dealerships being an example). Tesla have a Marketing Director her name is Shannyn Sneed.

If Tesla had no need for Marketing they would not have a Marketing Director or be in business neither would they have articles in magazines and as @olley pointed out the side shows showing off technology. What I will say is that Shannon does here job very well, there are other companies that do not pay for adverts but like Tesla they do Market their products very well.

She has marketing director as her title from when she started. This is what she now does.

Shannyn represents TESLA, Inc. at industry meetings and events throughout the United States, and coordinates our continued support and meeting sponsorship of all five American Power Dispatchers Association (APDA) regions.

So not really marketing anymore. She also doesn't head the none existent marketing dept.

 

[Gromett]

You said and I quote "They don't advertise at all." If they didn't no one would have heard of them
Advertise verb
describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance. If that doesn't describe Battery Day then I don't know what does.
Its the same with twitter he's always on there talking about SpaceX which is very nice but its still advertising. I don't know if he uses twitter for Tesla.

Now stop trying to wriggle off the point.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

You said and I quote "They don't advertise at all." If they didn't no one would have heard of them
Advertise verb
describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance. If that doesn't describe Battery Day then I don't know what does.
Its the same with twitter he's always on there talking about SpaceX which is very nice but its still advertising. I don't know if he uses twitter for Tesla.

Now stop trying to wriggle off the point.

Tesla doesn’t need to advertise Gromett does it all for them. Theirs is the only way. I do notice nothing is ever mentioned about Tesla build quality only how far or how fast. I pass two most days, don’t know what number they are. They are pretty poorly screwed together but to be fair they don’t come from a car building background. I would however, if spending bmw money expect a better made car. Here’s a rare thing though one of them isn’t white, it’s blue.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Cause and effect in this case are quite clear. If you are saying that CO2 levels are rising because of warming. Then you have show where the warming is coming from.
The fact we are pumping out massive amounts of CO2 and we know CO2 causes warming gives us a cause and effect that are rational, logical and relatively easy to prove.


Your example of weather prediction is not a reasonable comparison. The Macro and the Micro have different levels of accuracy when it comes to predictions and modelling. We can simulate a river flowing through a set of mountain valleys pretty damn accurately, but we can't predict where a single molecule of water or a paper boat on that water would go. Climate change is like the river simulation, weather prediction is like the paper boat. For the paper boat we can predict reasonably accurately where it will go in the next short period of time but the accuracy falls off the longer the time period. However, the accuracy of where the water will go remains very accurate. I am not saying climate change predictions are accurate however. I don't think they are even close. However, I don't know which direction they are wrong in. There are good arguments to be made that the increases may not have the effects on the scale or timeline predicted. But there are also good arguments we may already be too late.


That is a strange argument. If we increase the CO2 and warm the earth then a lot of the prime farm land will flood. It is not a rational goal. I don't know where you are getting these ideas from but this one is pretty out there.


If you are talking about events like the Maunder minimum and the so called little ice age. I think you will find these are not confirmed as related. This was a localised event (Europe) and is hypothesised to have been caused by volcanoes. I don't have enough time to get into the nitty gritty on this. But solar minimums are unlikely to have been the cause. The little ice age in Europe started before the Maunder Minimum and ended well after it. The little ice age started in the 1300's and the Maunder minimum start in the 1600's Temperatures in the northern hemisphere were no different on average during the Maunder minimum than they were in the previous 100 years.

I think bill gates is a bit of a plank on this subject. We are a long way away from needing to consider any form of atmospheric engineering on that scale. It would be stupid to do that until everything else has failed and we are heading to a definite catastrophic situation.

As for 90% population decrease and great reset. Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me sorry.

Less than 4% of the annual atmospheric CO2 output is man made. The rest is natural. As you pointed out there are natural checks and balances to keep it at roughly the same level of ppm. If that 4% CO2 is the cause of global warming / climate change, however improbable that appears to be, there ought to be conclusive evidence of causation, not correlation. It will cost the UK an estimated £trillion to achieve the net zero carbon target even though the annual UK CO2 emissions account for a tiny fraction of that global 4% and all our reductions would be offset by China in a handful of months anyway. Because apparently the UK needs to be the global leader in the war against the alleged climate change emergency. That's incredibly costly virtue signalling. The PRC must think we are gullible soft idiots.

I never said that there won't be climate change. It is occurring regardless and always will. If sea levels do rise the causes will be complex and even if higher CO2 levels are a component (doubtful) that would be a relatively small one because the concentrations are so tiny. In return we should see a re-greening of arid areas and a halt to desertification including the Sahel region. I expect there will be more arable land area created if CO2 levels rise. Why are we still developing good farmland for housebuilding ... !

Are you saying that we need not be concerned about an impending solar grand minimum? This will have a much bigger temperature lowering effect than anything short of a supervolcanic eruption. I understand that the Chinese government is quite worried and planning for it.

At least we agree on Bill Gates. Like UN Agenda 21 (now 30), and the UN's Global Compact on Migration, The Great Reset is all part of a real conspiracy that is out in the open. Also referred to as Build Back Better (spouted by Boris though I wonder if he fully undertands what it is really about). Even Prince Charles promoted The Great Reset in a speech. He probably fancies it as a new Utopia, and naively assumes Royals like him automatically belong to the technocracy that will become the rulers in that post-democratic system. You can buy the book if it is in stock. Last time I looked it was sold out. You need to read up on it and make yourself aware of the rapid changes and trends towards that goal, actually happening today, because you are young enough to have to live under it and be happy - I may be long gone by the time it fully takes effect though most of it is supposed to happen by 2030, though that seems optimistic. Still, a lot can happen in 10 years.

EDIT - on the subject of rising sea levels it may have escaped your notice that the same Billionaire class who support the climate change emergency legislation and stand to increase their wealth massively in the 4th industrial revlution that goes with it, are still buying fantasy beachfront mansions at ludicrous prices. Hard to explain, that.

 

[Gromett]

Less than 4% of the annual atmospheric CO2 output is man made. The rest is natural. As you pointed out there are natural checks and balances to keep it at roughly the same level of ppm. If that 4% CO2 is the cause of global warming / climate change, however improbable that appears to be, there ought to be conclusive evidence of causation, not correlation. It will cost the UK an estimated £trillion to achieve the net zero carbon target even though the annual UK CO2 emissions account for a tiny fraction of that global 4% and all our reductions would be offset by China in a handful of months anyway. Because apparently the UK needs to be the global leader in the war against the alleged climate change emergency. That's incredibly costly virtue signalling. The PRC must think we are gullible soft idiots.

I trusted you when you said 96% I took you at your word. The actually figure is 94% not that this changes your argument.

It is not improbable it is all but confirmed. The science is in and it is as conclusive as science can get. Atmospheric carbon was at < 300ppm for millions of years until the 1960's when it started to rise rapidly. Caused by our continued high output and the fast carbon sinks being saturated. We are currently close to 390ppm almost a 25% increase in less than 60 years. We know it is us that is doing it by the ratios of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. We also know it was caused by fossil fuels that caused it by the C13 to C12 ratio. Both of these are indisputable proof that it is us causing it and that it is happening fast.

The earth through natural processes produces around 440GT of CO2 per year and absorbs 440GT per year through things like photosynthesis. This has been naturally balanced for millions of years. Our output of close to 27Gt per year is not an insignificant amount.

As for China not doing it. I have no respect for that country at all. However, they are taking big steps to reduce their CO2 emissions. Their percentage of renewable energy continues to rise and they are investing heavily in electric vehicles, wind and solar. They continue to build coal plants which is not good but they are on course to reverse this in the next decade with a reducing amount of CO2 from 2030. They aim to be carbon neutral 10 years after us in 2060. They have a bigger country to deal with and a lot more population under the povertry line so they need the economic growth. Not an excuse but you can understand it from their point of view.

As for our contribution won't make any difference. That is wrong. Everyone needs to contribute and even the US is going big on it now. The 1st countries to do it may pay a small price for being early adopters. But they will gain a technological lead and establish new companies in the sector leading to more high tech jobs. For every high risk dirty coal mining job there will be a new job in the green sector. Whether that is designing new wind turbines or becoming an electrical engineer the jobs will be safer, healthier and cleaner.

I never said that there won't be climate change. It is occurring regardless and always will. If sea levels do rise the causes will be complex and even if higher CO2 levels are a component (doubtful) that would be a relatively small one because the concentrations are so tiny. In return we should see a re-greening of arid areas and a halt to desertification including the Sahel region. I expect there will be more arable land area created if CO2 levels rise. Why are we still developing good farmland for housebuilding ... !

I don't know where you are getting this from. If CO2 levels continue to rise, temperature will rise. This is indisputable. When temperatures rise glaciers and the ice at the poles will melt raising sea levels by quite a chunk over a century or two. This will not just be a few houses washed away in the east of England. It will be devastating loss of farm land across vast swathes of the populated world. As for re-greening of desert area. That is wishful thinking and even if it does happen it won't happen as fast as we lose farmland in place like India and Bangladesh would have most of it's farm land destroyed with only a few meters of sea level rise. New York, London and many other major cities would require massive flood defenses costing many trillions of £. That expense would be far more than cost of going green now and over the next 30-60 years.

Are you saying that we need not be concerned about an impending solar grand minimum? This will have a much bigger temperature lowering effect than anything short of a supervolcanic eruption. I understand that the Chinese government is quite worried and planning for it.

Yes I am saying I am not concerned about any grand solar minimum. I also don't know why you say it is impending. Scientists cannot predict the next one. It has also been fairly conclusively confirmed that it doesn't have that great an impact on the average global temperatures. As I stated in my last post on this subject the last big one called the Maunder minimum had very little effect on average global temperatures. The temperatures stayed roughly in line with the average for the preceding 80-100 years.

 

[Gromett]

SpeedyDux

What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.

Even if a Grand Solar Minimum were to last a century, global temperatures would continue to warm. The reason for this is because more factors than just variations in the Sun’s output change global temperatures on Earth, the most dominant of those today is the warming coming from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age' - NASA Science

“Pink elephant in the room” time: There is no impending “ice age” or “mini ice age” if there’s a reduction in the Sun’s energy output in the next several decades. Through its lifetime, the Sun naturally goes through changes in energy output. Some of these occur over a regular 11-year period of...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[jongood]

You mean like it does at the moment?

I get what you re saying but tbf we already have renewables in the mix, solar and wind and HEP although unbelievably not much in the wettest place in Europe - actually where you are

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jongood]

Depends on the tiles you got. If is retrofit, best option is GSE roof integrated, Viridian, or if you are re roofing, I would go for the solar tiles by solar mass. They are large flat interlocking tiles that look like slates. They called stonewall. The gse roof integrated comes with plastic trays portrait or landscape, that takes. ordinary panels. This gives the choice of panels, micro inverters for partial shade or optimisers from solar edge. There is of course the BiPV that jongood posted, its stick on to substrate CIGS.

They re actually designed for and stuck on to another Tata product, colorcoat urban, which is a galv version of a standing seam (zinc) roof but much easier to fit.

 

[tonyidle]

so how we could get the equivalent of low box in 4x4

That wouldn't be an issue. Max torque is available from an EV motor from zero rpm.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I trusted you when you said 96% I took you at your word. The actually figure is 94% not that this changes your argument.

It is not improbable it is all but confirmed. The science is in and it is as conclusive as science can get. Atmospheric carbon was at < 300ppm for millions of years until the 1960's when it started to rise rapidly. Caused by our continued high output and the fast carbon sinks being saturated. We are currently close to 390ppm almost a 25% increase in less than 60 years. We know it is us that is doing it by the ratios of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. We also know it was caused by fossil fuels that caused it by the C13 to C12 ratio. Both of these are indisputable proof that it is us causing it and that it is happening fast.

The earth through natural processes produces around 440GT of CO2 per year and absorbs 440GT per year through things like photosynthesis. This has been naturally balanced for millions of years. Our output of close to 27Gt per year is not an insignificant amount.

As for China not doing it. I have no respect for that country at all. However, they are taking big steps to reduce their CO2 emissions. Their percentage of renewable energy continues to rise and they are investing heavily in electric vehicles, wind and solar. They continue to build coal plants which is not good but they are on course to reverse this in the next decade with a reducing amount of CO2 from 2030. They aim to be carbon neutral 10 years after us in 2060. They have a bigger country to deal with and a lot more population under the povertry line so they need the economic growth. Not an excuse but you can understand it from their point of view.

As for our contribution won't make any difference. That is wrong. Everyone needs to contribute and even the US is going big on it now. The 1st countries to do it may pay a small price for being early adopters. But they will gain a technological lead and establish new companies in the sector leading to more high tech jobs. For every high risk dirty coal mining job there will be a new job in the green sector. Whether that is designing new wind turbines or becoming an electrical engineer the jobs will be safer, healthier and cleaner.


I don't know where you are getting this from. If CO2 levels continue to rise, temperature will rise. This is indisputable. When temperatures rise glaciers and the ice at the poles will melt raising sea levels by quite a chunk over a century or two. This will not just be a few houses washed away in the east of England. It will be devastating loss of farm land across vast swathes of the populated world. As for re-greening of desert area. That is wishful thinking and even if it does happen it won't happen as fast as we lose farmland in place like India and Bangladesh would have most of it's farm land destroyed with only a few meters of sea level rise. New York, London and many other major cities would require massive flood defenses costing many trillions of £. That expense would be far more than cost of going green now and over the next 30-60 years.



Yes I am saying I am not concerned about any grand solar minimum. I also don't know why you say it is impending. Scientists cannot predict the next one. It has also been fairly conclusively confirmed that it doesn't have that great an impact on the average global temperatures. As I stated in my last post on this subject the last big one called the Maunder minimum had very little effect on average global temperatures. The temperatures stayed roughly in line with the average for the preceding 80-100 years.

Whether natural CO2 (which we cannot control) is 94%, 96%, or 97% (all figures are available) is trivial except that the man-made contribution while not de minimis is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things and we should stop thinking of it as somehow evil.

You speak of "only a few meters of sea level rise" as if that is a given. All predictions of rising sea levels have so far been totally wrong. By now countries like the Maldives were predicted to be submerged, but that hasn't happened. Bangladesh floods every year, caused by the predictable monsoons. In the arctic the Polar Bear population doubled after the Eco Warriors' prediction that their population would plunge disastrously. All such predictions of imminent DOOM which are ongoing need to be treated with a very large pinch of salt, yet thanks to endless propaganda from e.g. the BBC over 60% in the UK believe them to be factually true and incontrovertible. Including the unproven runaway greenhouse effect theory. Hence all our major Political Parties are now in some kind of Green lockstep because they wish to please the gullible majority. It is almost a new religion. There is big money behind this movement so we should think harder about our priorities, and look at who really benefits and who will be losers.

Where we disagree most is on your view of what is indisputable. In my world there are degrees of uncertainty and probability. In other areas of science there seems to be greater willingness to question why the data diverges from predictions and they don't "adjust" the data retrospectively to make it fit. They don't dismiss or attack climatologist and geologist contrarians as "deniers" as if this is analogous to the Holocaust. There is also a tendency in the climate emergency community to follow "groupthink" when it comes to questions of climate change, including whether CO2 is a cause or a lagging indicator of average global temperature. At least on Fun debate is permitted.

Why do you seem to believe that 300ppm average is some kind of optimum level? CO2 sank to around 240ppm in the last mini ice age. If CO2 were to drop to 180ppm plants stop respiration and die, and we will become extinct. Plant life will thrive better above 500ppm. CO2 is good. Maybe we should take the view that the goal of humanity should be to push climate change in a direction that makes more of the Earth green, CO2 absorbing and oxygen-producing by nature. More habitable. And if sea defences are need for coastal cities? I am no fan of urban anthills for living. Well, if you prefer, rebuild them inland, preferably in barren areas. Las Vegas, anyone?

 

[Coolcats]

That wouldn't be an issue. Max torque is available from an EV motor from zero rpm.

Probably not, if Max Tourqe was available all the time you would throw the EV straight off the road particular in the wet. An example is my Track/Road car does not produce Max Torque lower in the rev range even though it could it is in the upper top 1/3 of the rev rage (revs to 8,500). If the torque came in lower most drivers would be Careering off in all different directions or spinning off the road ( Been there done that, but it was Oil on the exit of a roundabout and I was only 1/3 throttle, its when things get interesting and you have that moment you know not to hold on to the steering wheel) .

So what you will find is that the electronic wizardry will limit the torque available this is an example:

 

[Gromett]

Probably not, if Max Tourqe was available all the time you would throw the EV straight off the road particular in the wet

Available doesn't mean you need to use it. If you are having problems I suggest it is because you have some lead in your right foot.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Whether natural CO2 (which we cannot control) is 94%, 96%, or 97% (all figures are available) is trivial except that the man-made contribution while not de minimis is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things and we should stop thinking of it as somehow evil.

I agree, the natural bit doesn't matter. That is natural and in balance. As for human contributions being insignificant. Totally disagree and the evidence proves it is not insignificant.

You speak of "only a few meters of sea level rise" as if that is a given. All predictions of rising sea levels have so far been totally wrong. By now countries like the Maldives were predicted to be submerged, but that hasn't happened. Bangladesh floods every year, caused by the predictable monsoons. In the arctic the Polar Bear population doubled after the Eco Warriors' prediction that their population would plunge disastrously. All such predictions of imminent DOOM which are ongoing need to be treated with a very large pinch of salt, yet thanks to endless propaganda from e.g. the BBC over 60% in the UK believe them to be factually true and incontrovertible. Including the unproven runaway greenhouse effect theory. Hence all our major Political Parties are now in some kind of Green lockstep because they wish to please the gullible majority. It is almost a new religion. There is big money behind this movement so we should think harder about our priorities, and look at who really benefits and who will be losers.

All predictions of sea level rises by a specific time have been wrong I agree. But the principle that sea levels rise when temperatures rise is incontrovertible. I don't look at polar bears.

Here is my view. I don't know fast CO2 will rise. I don't know that x ppm causes y temperature rise. I don't know if 1.5°C or 2°C or 3°C is the problem level or when it will happen. I take all predictions of time line and levels with a pinch of salt.
I don't put much faith in predictions of either time or levels... I DO however know and this has been proven. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 cause temperatures to rise. Higher temperatures cause the ice caps and glaciers to melt. When they melt sea levels rise and quite dramatically. It is humans that are causing CO2 levels to rise rapidly. In many natural systems there is inertia so effect can be delayed for quite a while after cause. This delay is very hard to measure. The problem in this case is that the longer the delay the faster the change will come when it does eventually happen.

There is a tipping point as well. For instance when the temperature rises beyond a certain level the permafrost in places like Russia will melt which will result in massive amounts of methane and CO2 to be released. This will have a cascading effect. The sea will reach a point where it can't absorb any more CO2 and what we pump out will then stay in the atmosphere rather than being stored in the sea. When the ice caps do melt they will lower the amount of heat reflected back into space. Each of these things will happen very close to each other causing a rapid acceleration of heating and sea level rise.

I don't know when this will happen, I don't know at what level CO2 needs to be to cause it and I don't know how fast it will happen. All that science can be absolutely sure about is that it WILL happen if we keep increasing the levels of CO2 at the rate we are.

Where we disagree most is on your view of what is indisputable. In my world there are degrees of uncertainty and probability. In other areas of science there seems to be greater willingness to question why the data diverges from predictions and they don't "adjust" the data retrospectively to make it fit. They don't dismiss or attack climatologist and geologist contrarians as "deniers" as if this is analogous to the Holocaust. There is also a tendency in the climate emergency community to follow "groupthink" when it comes to questions of climate change, including whether CO2 is a cause or a lagging indicator of average global temperature. At least on Fun debate is permitted.

I am not convinced about the concensus on the 1.5°C stuff or the timescale. The catastrophists are most certainly wrong. The deniers are most certainly wrong. Somewhere in the middle is likely to be the right answer. If we have moved CO2 from 300ppm to almost 400ppm in 60 years. I suspect that moving up to 500ppm will not take the same 60 years as the ocean will not continue to suck it in at the same rate over that period. Whether 2050 to save us is the correct years to target is highly debatable. I just don't know.

However CO2 as a lagging indicator is not debatable it is proven fact. If you think CO2 is rising because temps are rising you don't understand the science I am afraid. Look into C14 levels and the ratio of C13 to C12. These are pretty conclusive that it is humans causing it.

Why do you seem to believe that 300ppm average is some kind of optimum level? CO2 sank to around 240ppm in the last mini ice age. If CO2 were to drop to 180ppm plants stop respiration and die, and we will become extinct. Plant life will thrive better above 500ppm. CO2 is good. Maybe we should take the view that the goal of humanity should be to push climate change in a direction that makes more of the Earth green, CO2 absorbing and oxygen-producing by nature. More habitable. And if sea defences are need for coastal cities? I am no fan of urban anthills for living. Well, if you prefer, rebuild them inland, preferably in barren areas. Las Vegas, anyone?

I never said 300ppm is optimum. There is no optimum level. At different levels different things happen. However, humans have evolved and civilisation has developed entirely with CO2 at the 300ppm level. Increasing CO2 levels will cause sea level rises and as a huge chunk of human civilisation has developed in coastal cities then that is a bad thing. Secondly modern fish have evolved to live in the sea at 300ppm. The acidification that occurs due to rising CO2 levels will have massive effects on the seas ecological systems. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as evolution will take care of this over time. Lots of species will die out and others will evolve into new species to manage it. But is it desirable?

 

[Coolcats]

Available doesn't mean you need to use it. If you are having problems I suggest it is because you have some lead in your right foot.

It is not available Gromett, even the nice man from Lotus is explaining this, the Evija with up to 500Bhp per wheel (2,000 Bhp) there is no way on this earth tyres have been invented that you could lay max torque down (even the Bugatti Veyron only had 1,000 bhp).

 

[Gromett]

It is not available Gromett, even the nice man from Lotus is explaining this, the Evija with up to 500Bhp per wheel (2,000 Bhp) there is no way on this earth tyres have been invented that you could lay max torque down (even the Bugatti Veyron only had 1,000 bhp).

Huh?

 

[Coolcats]

Huh?

It’s simple the vehicle will not allow you to just use all the torque or power unless the conditions are right. The electronic wizardry stops that from happening. Pretty sensible really. You could feel the stystems limiting power in my old Evora if conditions were deteriorating

 

[Gromett]

It’s simple the vehicle will not allow you to just use all the torque or power unless the conditions are right. The electronic wizardry stops that from happening. Pretty sensible really. You could feel the stystems limiting power in my old Evora if conditions were deteriorating

Just because max torque is available doesn't mean you have to use it. It is all about the throttle position. An electric motor produces torque in relation to how much you press the peddle. If you don't want max torque don't press the peddle all the way down.

An ICE engines torque is related to it's rpm and power band and has to be delicately handled and needs to be in the right gear. An electric motor is much simpler.

I am not sure which bit of the word "available" you are struggling with sorry? Having max torque available doesn't mean max torque has to be used.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

An electric motor produces torque in relation to how much you press the peddle. If you don't want max torque don't press the peddle all the way down.

actually not quite correct Gromett a modern EV as in the case of the Evija the throttle does not act as a simple on off switch, firstly it depends what mode has been selected (see the lotus video) then it depends upon the feed back from all the sensors and it is this that ultimately controlled the amount of power and torque that goes to the wheels. Therefore the amount of power available at any one time depends upon all inputs to provide the optimum output to save the nut behind the wheel all cleaver stuff

 

[Gromett]

actually not quite correct Gromett a modern EV as in the case of the Evija the throttle does not act as a simple on off switch, firstly it depends what mode has been selected (see the lotus video) then it depends upon the feed back from all the sensors and it is this that ultimately controlled the amount of power and torque that goes to the wheels. Therefore the amount of power available at any one time depends upon all inputs to provide the optimum output to save the nut behind the wheel all cleaver stuff

I was exactly and precisely correct.

An electric motor produces torque in relation to how much you press the peddle.

Do you actually read what I say or just jump to the meaning you want?

I NEVER said it was a simple on off switch. I said the torque is proportional to the how far the pedal is pushed down. Nothing more nothing less.

As usual you say one thing then when I respond you go off in a totally different direction.

I give up.

 

[Coolcats]

I NEVER said it was a simple on off switch. I said the torque is proportional to the how far the pedal is pushed down. Nothing more nothing less.

I give up.

Gromett, Torque is not proportional to how far the pedal is pushed down

I guess I was trying to explain EV's are really not that simplistic, most modern throttle peddles even on ICE cars are no longer connected directly but via a potentiometer that indicates to the engine management system that more power is desired, the management system decides whether you can have it or not as the case may be. Also consider on a old fashioned car where the throttle cable is directly connected with my foot flat on the floor at 2,000 rpm I will not be getting full power. So what I am saying an EV may have the potential to provide maximum power or torque however in many instances this will not be provided as optimal conditions will not have been met according to all sensors (one of which is the potentiometer), wet or icy roads etc or sensing wheel speed (Spin etc) .

Therefore the maximum Torque is not just proportional to how far the peddle is pushed down, but to a verity of conditions provided by the management system..

tonyidle was spot on in terms of an electric motor can provide max torque, but not when a vehicle management system is involved to manage the power delivery for safety and performance reasons.

Even my VW transporter will limit power to the driven wheels if I start to loose traction no matter if my foot is flat on the floor.

I really am not trying to be obtuse

It seems my posts are upsetting you and I do not wish to do this

 

[tonyidle]

Probably not, if Max Tourqe was available all the time you would throw the EV straight off the road particular in the wet. An example is my Track/Road car does not produce Max Torque lower in the rev range even though it could it is in the upper top 1/3 of the rev rage (revs to 8,500). If the torque came in lower most drivers would be Careering off in all different directions or spinning off the road ( Been there done that, but it was Oil on the exit of a roundabout and I was only 1/3 throttle, its when things get interesting and you have that moment you know not to hold on to the steering wheel) .

So what you will find is that the electronic wizardry will limit the torque available this is an example:

Of course it's limited. But whatever is required is, or can be, made available.

 

[Gromett]

Gromett, Torque is not proportional to how far the pedal is pushed down

I guess I was trying to explain EV's are really not that simplistic, most modern throttle peddles even on ICE cars are no longer connected directly but via a potentiometer that indicates to the engine management system that more power is desired, the management system decides whether you can have it or not as the case may be. Also consider on a old fashioned car where the throttle cable is directly connected with my foot flat on the floor at 2,000 rpm I will not be getting full power. So what I am saying an EV may have the potential to provide maximum power or torque however in many instances this will not be provided as optimal conditions will not have been met according to all sensors (one of which is the potentiometer), wet or icy roads etc or sensing wheel speed (Spin etc) .

Therefore the maximum Torque is not just proportional to how far the peddle is pushed down, but to a verity of conditions provided by the management system..

tonyidle was spot on in terms of an electric motor can provide max torque, but not when a vehicle management system is involved to manage the power delivery for safety and performance reasons.

Even my VW transporter will limit power to the driven wheels if I start to loose traction no matter if my foot is flat on the floor.

You have moved the conversation yet again. This all started with glenn2926 asking the perfectly reasonable question of the lack of gearbox and the 4 x 4 diesel engine currently used.

Battery cars don’t seem to have gearboxes so how we could get the equivalent of low box in 4x4 vehicles I’m not sure.

To which I responded.

As for lack of gearboxes that is an advantage. Not sure if you are aware, but an electric motor produces almost maximum torque at 0 RPM and this continues pretty much up their whole rev range. Diesel engines produce maximum torque at 1,500–2,000 but this falls off rapidly above that narrow range which is why Diesels need a gear box to keep the engine running in that maximum torque range. Add to this an electric motor of equivalent power produces more torque than a diesel engine.

The 4x4 question is easily answered. Remember a diesel 4x4 has a single engine powering all 4 wheels. An electric 4x4 has 2 motors and has much better control over each wheel. Also the electric motor can automatically change the power going to each wheel in milliseconds something just not possible in a diesel engine without complicated clutch mechanisms.

Tony made a similar point with this;

That wouldn't be an issue. Max torque is available from an EV motor from zero rpm.

You then went off at some really weird tangent stating that

Probably not, if Max Tourqe was available all the time you would throw the EV straight off the road particular in the wet.

Max torque is available all the time in an electric motor, it will only throw you off the track if you use it inappropriately and/or the traction control system doesn't work.

My point was that the lack of a gearbox is not an issue for the situation where a 4 x 4 would use a low ratio gearbox because an electric motor has close to max torque available at zero RPM. An ICE engine only has max torque available at specific RPM which is why you need a gearbox.
An ICE engines RPM is proportional to how much you press the throttle. But the Torque varies over that RPM range.

The Low box on a 4 X 4 is to reduce RPM and increase Torque. As an EV has maximum torque pretty much across it's entire rev range it doesn't require the gearbox.

Traction control is an optional add for both ICE and EV.

It seems my posts are upsetting you and I do not wish to do this

Your post that misrepresented what I actually said it what angered me. You said I said something I didn't. I am sure that would make you angry as well if the roles were reversed?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}