Calif. considering ban on sale of internal combustion engine?

Related:
Create New Tag

9/29/2017 6:51 PM

Even if you don't believe in global warming there are plenty of other VERY good reasons to switch off of fossil fuel.

|

9/29/2017 7:00 PM
Edited Date/Time: 9/29/2017 7:01 PM

I would prefer if California suceded from the US

|

Tomac and/or Anderson for 2020.....

9/29/2017 7:01 PM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Even if you don't believe in global warming there are plenty of other VERY good reasons to switch off of fossil fuel.

Name three

|

Tomac and/or Anderson for 2020.....

9/29/2017 7:47 PM

Same source NASA and the 97% guys use. Thousands of temperature recorders around the world. The accuracy of the data and final numbers seems that it could fluctuate quite a few degrees because there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies with many of the recordings. But I'm just going off the same info the experts are using.
The point is global average temps being used for a baseline come out at about 57-58ish degrees and the increase from that over 150 years is a couple degrees Farenheit even with the manipulation that some of the climate scientists have got caught in.

|

9/29/2017 7:56 PM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Even if you don't believe in global warming there are plenty of other VERY good reasons to switch off of fossil fuel.

BobPA wrote:

Name three

Only 3? Sure no problem:

1) Energy independence. Being dependent on resources from outside countries is risky and a threat to national security.
2) Using non-renewable resources pollute the air that we breath.
3) Non-renewable resources by definition are limited. It is a fact that we will eventually use up all of the liquid dinosaurs (oil) and coal if we keep using it, even if it takes another 1000 years to do it. What if we find some magnificent use for oil that we can’t even comprehend today, but since our ancestors burned it all up in their cars we have none left? Why use it if we don't have to? Save it for a rainy day.

|

9/29/2017 8:03 PM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Even if you don't believe in global warming there are plenty of other VERY good reasons to switch off of fossil fuel.

Exactly. Burning coal and gas puts off all kinds of poisons and toxins that can be seen and measured without debate.
But our Govt is promoting the idea that we are going to cause rising sea levels and untold atrocities sometime in the next 20 or 50 or 90 years and that we need Govt intervention and spending of trillions immediately so we can hold global temps from rising by 2 degrees over the next century. It might already be to late.
Am I the only one that thinks that is suspect. Like you said there are reasons not to burn fossil fuels. Why the global warming hysteria ?

|

9/29/2017 8:10 PM

Agreed. I'm actually not 100% on the global warming train but to me that's not even one of the most important reasons for kicking the habit.

|

9/29/2017 8:17 PM

Let's see it.

|

9/29/2017 10:03 PM
Edited Date/Time: 9/29/2017 10:09 PM

The climate change argument won't be solved in this conversation.
But the more important thing is that anti-climate change is international policy. The tide has turned on that particular debate.

And to clarify- I follow this for a living, and the proposal to be introduced in the CA Legislature next year is to ban the sale of gas-powered automobiles by 2040. Our MX bikes are safe for a long time. But there is no doubt where things are headed.

|

It's impossible for a corporation or government to love you or care about you.

9/29/2017 10:59 PM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Even if you don't believe in global warming there are plenty of other VERY good reasons to switch off of fossil fuel.

BobPA wrote:

Name three

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Only 3? Sure no problem:

1) Energy independence. Being dependent on resources from outside countries is risky and a threat to ...more

Who can argue with that.

|

9/30/2017 5:27 AM

I wished I never took a second look at this thread, some people are being complete a ignormaus and making abusurd claims. Its starting to piss me off.

|

9/30/2017 6:32 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/30/2017 7:32 PM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Only 3? Sure no problem:

1) Energy independence. Being dependent on resources from outside countries is risky and a threat to ...more

Cars and motorcycles are just one segment of internal combustion engines ....you all are forgetting others.

The USA is not energy dependant...there is enough oil and gas in just western Texas to last decades.

Internal combustion engines ARE an important part of renewable energy!

Natural gas, for example, burns very clean. So clean in fact that on rich burn engines CO and NOx emission levels are so low they barely register on a meter.

Internal combustion engines are used to burn methane from landfills and digesters (sewage plants) and in turn produces electricity..without these internal combustion engines the methane will be released into the atmosphere or crudely burned off.

As nutty as CA is, I can assure you there are lots of internal combustion engines being packaged and started in state as we speak to produce electricity off natural gas..and to pump natural gas out of the ground.

Nothing has produced (and will continue to) more wealth and raised the standard of living for more people on this earth than fossil fuels...

|

9/30/2017 6:40 AM

This is an article on one of my very close customers...they are taking local food scraps and other biproduct of food manufacturing to feed a digester which in turn produces methane. This methane is burned in a couple 1MW engine/generator packages. The electricity is then sold back to WE Energies to power 1500+ homes.

http://archive.jsonline.com/business/potawatomi-project-will-use-food-waste-to-make-energy-b99127156z1-229382841.html/

Photo

|

9/30/2017 7:21 AM

I actually should be driving at least a hybrid ,they have charging stations at work so technically i could be getting free charges everyday . I just don't enjoy a a long drive in a gas sipper ,i've done it for so many years and i'm really enjoying bombing entrance /exit ramps in a 300HP go cart.

|

9/30/2017 6:31 PM
Edited Date/Time: 9/30/2017 6:46 PM

BobPA wrote:

Name three

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Only 3? Sure no problem:

1) Energy independence. Being dependent on resources from outside countries is risky and a threat to ...more

Brad460 wrote:

Cars and motorcycles are just one segment of internal combustion engines ....you all are forgetting others.

The USA is not ...more

How much of the country can be run off of landfill methane? I would guess an extremely tiny percentage. Regarding more types of vehicles than cars and motorcycles, the *only* vehicle that cannot be powered by electricity directly is a rocket. Luckily rockets can and often are powered with renewable energy, Hydrogen and Oxygen, which can be made with electricity and water. Plenty of people can and will get rich by moving us from non-renewable energy to renewable energy. I don't see people getting rich off of oil as a good reason for continuing to use it. smile Solar energy is finally crossing the threshold where it is becoming cheaper than gas, and it will continue to get cheaper. Fossil fuel's days are numbered. Yeah, it'll be decades before a complete reversal but decades isn't a long time in the grand scheme.

|

10/1/2017 8:08 PM

OK, so I said I would bring this back here from the other thread. The graphs really are unimportant and not any kind of smoking gun or proof of any thing one way or another. Just info and nobody is really disputing the info. Also there is a lot of other stuff to consider, debate, whatever. Some charts are showing ocean temps or surface temps or both. CO2 levels, etc.
But what is being sold in my opinion is a theory that's been hi-jacked and used to exploit us for political and financial reasons but that's another discussion. Like VOID said above there are good reasons to move away from fossil fuels other than global warming.
So here are some charts and a few questions and thoughts that don't square with me.

The first three charts show the exact same thing. An increase in avg global temps of 1.4 deg. F since 1880. Scales are different but they show same thing. You see chart same as mine with straight line.

Fourth chart is 2,000 year period and shows about 0.6 deg Celsius increase over that period. I think .75 deg C is what most charts show.

So 1880 is the point of the industrial revolution and also about the time they had accurate thermometers I guess.

So here is what sticks out to me.

1. Global temps have been rising since the little ice age about 400 years ago. So for about 300 years before we burned fossil fuels it was just natural increase but we are responsible for everything after that ?

2. Today and probably for a number of decades there have been temperature recorders around the world and likely
pretty well coordinated for the most part as far as info. But back in 1880 and for some time after its not like they had these thing set up ready to go around the world so I really question accuracy of temp reading into the early 20th century.

3. We are talking about a 1.4 deg increase over the last 130 years. The temp at the starting date is critical right. What if they chose 1872 or 1895 what where the temps in those years. The point is that the 1.4 deg increase could be hugely different with a different start date not to mention the potential for inaccurate global readings in those early years.

4. The theory of how when and how much global temps are going to ruin us has sort of evolved over the last 30 years but basically you were right before when you said its the rate at which temps ( and CO2) are increasing. At least that's the prediction of the models.
So what they say is that looking back over hundreds of thousands of years of temps from ice cores, ocean sediment, tree rings, etc. What they found was that coming out of ice ages or cold periods the earth temps rose about 4 deg. C in something like a 5,000 period on avg.
OK. So based on that they are looking at a period from 1880 to present and saying temps rose 0.6 or 0.7 deg Celcius in the last 130 years. Their models assume temps can only go up at the same rate so we will be at about a
5 deg Celsius increase in 100 years.

So even though the last chart for a 2,000 year period only shows about a 1 deg Celsius deviation from the avg. They say temps will keep going up at some exponential rate based on some recent rate they cherry picked as far as I can make out.

Anyway I have a lot of other questions but Im to tired and anyone who has read this has surely lost interest by now.


Photo


Photo



Photo





Photo

|

10/1/2017 8:32 PM

Thanks for the info, analysis and effort.

|

"If you are going through HELL, keep going."-Winston Churchill
"A man needs a little madness or else he never dares cut the rope and be free"-Zorba
Blur the technicolor

10/1/2017 9:25 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/1/2017 9:30 PM

I'm not quoting for the sake of page length...

I appreciate the response but your graphs, the last one in particular, leaves off some crucial data of which it reinforces what I have been saying. In the last 17 years (of which was been omitted from that graph) the temperature anomaly has only continued to rise to a height that hasn't been experience in the last 2,000 years.

Apologies for the roughness of the addition but if you were to adjust it to recent levels it would look more like this...

Photo

Now if you go back to my original argument of, "the earth has never experienced this big of a change this fast", it is impossible to ignore the impact that humans have had in heating it up. In what took the earth roughly 1000 years to increase .8 degrees we have, since the industrial revolution, heated the earth 1.4 degrees in roughly 200 years (a rate 8.8x faster than earth does without human intervention) to a level the earth has yet to experience.

I'd love to say we're arguing over a the difference of a degree and pass it off as no big deal but given that it takes far less a degree to turn ice to water, and the earth shows no sign of cooling, it's a bigger cause for concern than I believe most chose to accept.

And while yes, I'm just a guy posting in the non-moto section of a motocross form, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to believe that you know better than the 97% of climate change focused scientists that believe this because you have hunch that they're greedily trying to exploit it to move us away from fossil fuels. I don't fault you for it but I can't imagine discrediting the work of so many people, working specifically on this issue, with such a simple swoop on a concept that appears to be so simple... we've basically left our car running in our garage with us still sitting in it. Eventually that reaction is going to have a devastating reaction.

FYI, the industrial revolution started in 1760, and if you look at the graph, that is the exact point in which the earth started it's most recent and most drastic ascent (not 300 years before it as you claim).

|

10/1/2017 10:10 PM

akillerwombat wrote:

I'm not quoting for the sake of page length...

I appreciate the response but your graphs, the last one in particular, leaves ...more

Damn Millennials get your facts straight wink I highly recommend you watch this,... btw we running out of oil

|

10/1/2017 10:43 PM

The extinction of the dinosaurs was totally human caused. I saw it on that movie 'jeeursarcastic park'.

|

"If you are going through HELL, keep going."-Winston Churchill
"A man needs a little madness or else he never dares cut the rope and be free"-Zorba
Blur the technicolor

10/1/2017 11:57 PM

akillerwombat wrote:

I'm not quoting for the sake of page length...

I appreciate the response but your graphs, the last one in particular, leaves ...more

I just grabbed the first graph and threw it together. If you go to the NOAA website I believe it is, they talk about the pause or lack of any significant warming over the last 15 or so years and also make a bunch of convoluted reasons why there hasn't been any warming.
There is all kinds of issues and dicrepincies with the credentials, lack of peer review, ridiculous reasons for recalculating the data to point it in the right direction, etc when it comes to the 97% scientists.
But yes we are literally talking about less than 1 deg and when you consider all of the inaccuracies from the data and the calculations to get to the final numbers to put out as accurate fact the dicrepincies could be nearly as much as the increase in temps.
There are also all kinds of reputable scientists that disagree with the science that is being put out on this.
When scientists and politicians get toget her and say the science is settled . That's a big problem.

|

10/2/2017 8:16 AM

You guys are both arguing for the same thing, moving off of fossil fuel in favor of renewable energy. I don't think it's worth fighting over your personal reasons why, as there are plenty of good reasons to get behind. Focusing on the end goal is what is important.

|

10/2/2017 8:54 AM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

You guys are both arguing for the same thing, moving off of fossil fuel in favor of renewable energy. I don't think it's worth ...more

Totally, and I love that we're on the same page, but it's a fun conversation to have and I think we're both doing it pretty respectfully.

|

10/2/2017 10:52 AM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

You guys are both arguing for the same thing, moving off of fossil fuel in favor of renewable energy. I don't think it's worth ...more

akillerwombat wrote:

Totally, and I love that we're on the same page, but it's a fun conversation to have and I think we're both doing it pretty ...more

Ok hold on there Killer. I wouldn't say we're on the same page. I knew I shouldn't have started posting graphs and arguing numbers. I would say we intersect at the idea that if there is a better way to produce electricity , drive our cars, etc that does less damage to the environment then of course we should pursue it as long as the plan doesn't exploit money away from taxpayers or cause other reprocutions.

Sondra earlier in the thread brought up the Clear Air Act. We moved to San Dimas CA in summer 1968 and couldn't see past our neighborhood, we got sick from the brown air, eyes and lungs burned. Santa Ana winds blew in one day and we could see the San Gabriel Mtns, Mt. Baldy, it was really shocking. Anyway much of that smog was cleared up and an example of successful Gov. Intervention.

I've worked in the HVAC industry for 38 years. In early 90s EPA went after regulation of refrigerants. We had to get certified, pay a one time fee and purchase a reclaim unit, $900 or so. I didn't really know what kind of damage was happening but I did know refrigerant had some really nasty chemicals and we were dumping it all into the air. The regulation and cost were straight forward, reasonable, and very effective. Again good regulation in my opinion.

Today I see lots of regulation. Fees, certifications with yearly renewal fees, taxes, fines, etc happening that are out of control. And many do nothing other than collect revenue that is malinvested or used for slush funds, overpromised public employee pensions, and political pay offs.

Never seen before global warming and end times weather over the next century. BS. Theories based on predictions and models that are developed with the intention of proving a conclusion. Not good science.

When the Santa Ana winds blow again and we have fires again the Govener will go on TV again, and scold everyone for buying gasoline and causing global warming which caused the unprecedented fires. Then call for a gas tax again to save us from the fires. Then use the money to give a lifeline to the overpromised public pensions. And someone will come on here and scream about pay inequality and the greed of business owners not realizing what is really going on.

I know this will get some people twisted up but the best decision made on this climate stuff recently was Trump pulling the cord on this Paris deal. Before you react read past the headlines. It actually takes some reading and patients.

|

10/2/2017 11:19 AM

But beyond all that, you do believe moving off of fossil fuels and on to renewable energy is a good thing for the other reasons I mentioned right? That's the part you are on the same page about. It's a worthy goal for a number of reasons, and better if achieved sooner than later. Hey, if Global Warming just happens to be be real, well, we'll have solved that issue as well in the process.

|

10/2/2017 11:31 AM
Edited Date/Time: 10/2/2017 11:33 AM

akillerwombat wrote:

I'm not quoting for the sake of page length...

I appreciate the response but your graphs, the last one in particular, leaves ...more

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, but you you're confident ~ .0000000000000000000000000000000004% of a complete data set concludes the earth is warming faster? laughing

Next you're going to tell me the "science" is settled...another favorite term used by the global warming alarmists..Remember science is never settled- that's what makes it science.

|

10/2/2017 11:41 AM

My 10 year dream:

1. Leave for work in my electric vehicle
2. Solar panels charge my home battery pack and power my house during the day
3. I live off the battery pack and charge my car when I’m home in the evening.


Those concerned with viability of EV’s need to remember this revolution has only gained traction in the last 5 years (forget the late 1800’s) During this short time Tesla has achieved 340 Miles of range, 80% full charge in less than 30 minutes and built all this in a vehicle that is the fastest production vehicle in the world 0-60. It only took 5 years for a startup to dethrone 115 years of ICE evolution. In the next 5 to 10 years everyone will wonder why we didn’t get to this point sooner.

Like Sondra said, once you go electric and see first hand how much more convenient and enjoyable it is you will never want to go back.

|

10/2/2017 1:40 PM

tcannon521 wrote:

My 10 year dream:

1. Leave for work in my electric vehicle
2. Solar panels charge my home battery pack and power my house ...more

What alot of proponents of electric/renewables fail to recognize is that much of the good electric/renewable technology didnt exist 5 or 10 years ago. There is an attitude like "why havent we been doing this forever" but the reality is that it wasnt a good option. More left wing billionaires should have put their money into development a long time ago. When things work well and it makes sense to integrate them into your life laws wont be necessary.

|

10/2/2017 4:51 PM

tcannon521 wrote:

My 10 year dream:

1. Leave for work in my electric vehicle
2. Solar panels charge my home battery pack and power my house ...more

early wrote:

What alot of proponents of electric/renewables fail to recognize is that much of the good electric/renewable technology didnt ...more

Billionaires use who's money?! You mean tax payers money?

|

10/2/2017 5:31 PM

My 10 year dream:
1. Go to the racetrack.
2. Mix 2t oil and race gas.
3. Smell and hear performance off the line.

|

"If you are going through HELL, keep going."-Winston Churchill
"A man needs a little madness or else he never dares cut the rope and be free"-Zorba
Blur the technicolor