I wonder what the new radio 10 code will be for declining a hot vehicle pursuit because my battery is under 20%.
Ford shows off all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup for police use
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
Endymio
Posts: 2,661 +2,682
There were commercially produced electric cars in the 1890s ... and all the experts at the time called them the "superior technology" to gas-powered vehicles. In NYC in 1900, a third of all vehicles on the road were electric: a far higher percentage than today. We've had quite a while to get the kinks out of this 'new' technology.
Ultraman1966
Posts: 194 +116
Seeing as we've maxxed out your carbon budget in reality, that's already a choice we'll make if we don't want to see severe ecological collapse.
AlaskaGuy
Posts: 868 +848
What's a 'carbon budget'?
Ultraman1966
Posts: 194 +116
AlaskaGuy
Posts: 868 +848
I read the link and tbh I don't give much credence to the climate change scam artist pushing the fear mongering on the sheep. When the elite that are pushing the green energy agenda stop flying in private jets and purchasing ocean front homes then I might think twice about it but until then ....Not sure if you're being serious?
Carbon budget - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You have often pretended to shed tears for the process and mining needed to make the batteries needed for EVs. And yet, I have zero doubt that you own a computer and cell phone. Maybe a laptop, or really any handheld electronics.
That alone should have taught you that just because you recognize and acknowledge a problem doesn't mean there isn't a period of transition needed to finally break away from the current norms. Even the ones you cherry-pick for your disgust.
And I think you will find that despite all the overwhelming evidence of human interactions causing the out of wack cycles that the planet is currently seeing, the people involved with trying to fix what we can, when we can, don't need you to give them any "credence".
I just think it's a shame that as conditions improve, people like you will still get to benefit from the actions of the people that actually did the work.
Endymio
Posts: 2,661 +2,682
During the Earth's Silurian Period, atmospheric CO2 suddenly and inexplicably rose from near-zero levels to nearly 5,000 ppm (12 times higher than today's levels). During the subsequent Carboniferous, the earth's climate was so warm that seasonal variation essentially didn't exist, with tropical temperatures throughout the Arctic. Yet the early Carboniferous was the Earth's healthiest and richest period of biodiversity, seeing a literal explosion of plant and animal life.
When atmospheric CO2 dropped -- again inexplicably -- to end of the Carboniferous, the Earth's climate became unstable, with severe glaciation and an environmental collapse that caused a major extinction event. Cold, but not nearly as cold as the previous Cryogenian Period, the "Snowball Earth" event that saw glaciers from the poles all the way to the equator.
Yet these cycles weren't "out of whack", right?
Ultraman1966
Posts: 194 +116
Not sure what you're referring to, whilst there are scam artists out there, the link is citing many dozens of papers authored by hundreds of different scientists. Are they all part of a mass conspiracy and you alone are clearly too smart to it?
Ultraman1966
Posts: 194 +116
Human life and the biosphere which our current civilisation depends on did not exist in those periods. There have been multiple examples in past history where local climate change has lead to some form of collapse. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019...izations-that-fell-because-of-climate-change/
If you're going to cite Carboniferous era, need I remind you that back then, the O2 levels were 35% of total atmosphere? Do you know what would happen to your body if that much sustained level of O2?
I don't even know which fallacious argument you're trying to trumpet here. Is it that climate change at present is entirely natural or that it doesn't matter if we do keep pushing out more CO2 because it is a long way short of that 5000ppm marker?
I can assure you facts never changed Endys opinion before, so I can't imagine they will now. You can show him every corresponding graph in existence that bring together temperatures and CO2 levels and how it has effected our climate cycles, and what you will get are dubious climate stats from one day a long, long time ago. He isn't worth it.
Endymio has perfected the art of the forum filibuster.
Last edited:
Endymio
Posts: 2,661 +2,682
Stuff and nonsense. Are you trying to suggest we can't grow corn and wheat if the planet warms a couple of degrees? Or that pigs, chickens, and cows will die? Actually, warming means the exact opposite. Longer growing seasons, less cold and frost damage (cold weather today does more than 50X the crop damage as hot), and an increase in the airborne fertilizer known as CO2 means those plants and animals will not only survive, but thrive even more so than they do now. Which helps to explain why, despite 150 years of global warming, world food production has risen every single decade of that time.
The average temperature of the planet today is about 57F, whereas the vast majority of the plant and animal species upon which we depend thrive at something much closer to room temperature. The basic atmospheric dynamics of the greenhouse effect predicts that most warming will occur in the polar regions, whereas the already-warm tropics will see little to no increase (see: polar amplification). End result: longer growing seasons, faster growing plants, and more food for all. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
This is all particularly ironic from the perspective of those of us who lived through the '60s and '70s, and remember all the environmentalist scare stories about impending global starvation. By the year 2000, the entire planet was predicted to be experiencing continual famine, with incessant wars over food. Yet despite the fact that world population has more than doubled, our biggest problem is overeating and obesity. And yet here you are, still trying to convince us we're all about to starve to death.
I won't get into all the fallacies in that absurd fearmongering link. But if we assume it IS correct, it means that just in the last few thousand years, there have been four severe climate shifts, devastating enough to wipe out entire civilizations. Yet this fifth one must, MUST be entirely artificial in origin, eh?
Endymio
Posts: 2,661 +2,682
Yes, and it only took 60 million years of unrestrained global plant growth to accomplish that feat. If you or I happen to live that long, we'll worry about it then. Clearing a few forests, if nothing else, would prevent it. Remember, you chaps are still claiming that clearing the Amazon will result in the world lacking oxygen in a few years time.
Appeal to Authority
The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when a person used a person's position of authority as evidence or an excuse for a position that is undeserving. For example, if a person were to say "Of course 2+2 = 6, my Geography teacher told me so." In this case, the Geography Teacher has a position of...
This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the CAGW debate. If you ask a physicist to explain how gravity slows time, or ask a molecular biologist how a gene transmits information, neither would even THINK of replying "because hundreds of all agree it does". They'd cite very clearly the reasoning behind their beliefs, and -- far more importantly -- they would list the countless falsifiable predictions their theory has successfully made in the real world.
While we can all maybe have a beer later and discuss why Endy is using data that is 425 million years old as a helplessly weak explanation in reference to today's climate patterns, I thought I might post some info about the period with which he speaks. So here is a bookmark I made in an unrelated discussion long ago, which I'm sure totally by coincidence he very consistently and carefully quoted to match his drivel. The problem is that, as we expect from him, what he decided to post is not even half the story, and does not support the point he was appearing to make. This is a long read, but is worth it to see how Endymio tried to piece this together to snowjob everyone.
Silurian Period | Definition, Timeline, Map, Events, Fossils, Animals, & Facts
Silurian Period, in geologic time, the third period of the Paleozoic Era. It began 443.8 million years ago and ended 419.2 million years ago, extending from the close of the Ordovician Period to the beginning of the Devonian Period. During the Silurian, continental elevations were generally much
www.britannica.com
Again, what happened to the planet approximately 425 million years ago has NOTHING to do with what has happened in the last million.... or the last 100.
You have seen this before, yet you won't recognize it, because it is actually relevant. This data from NASA and is one of the cycles I was talking about to AlaskaGuy.
The entire article explains this graph and provides very relevant info:
A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org
As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.
earth.org
Last edited:
lripplinger
Posts: 454 +252
If you go watch TFL's "Amps to Alaska" series, they saw a 10% reduction in range on their F-150 Lightning, simply from putting on a mild BFG all-terrain tire. I'm sure Police departments that might buy this will do something similar. Then once you add all the other stuff they will need, I wonder how much further that will reduce the range even more.
I'm hoping you aren't so uninformed that you think those same tires won't drop the mileage of a smoker. My 2019 Ram with a 6.4 Hemi dropped from 16 to a little under 14 MPG with the BFG all terrain T/A KO2 tires I put on it. 13% drop.
EDIT To fix the mileage.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Adobe Firefly and Photoshop receive new AI enhancements, hilarity ensues
- Daniel Sims replied
