Hydrogen power

[roubaixtuesday]

As you seem reluctant to shift from the policy document to the science and data,

Ah at last we're getting somewhere. You finally provide some hint of what your position actually is, though it's a shame it had to be dragged out of you.

Your link is to Pielke Jnr, and climate damages.

As you are aware from your mastery of the subject, Pielke researches (amongst other things) damages from extreme weather and proposes that these are declining, with the (unproven) implication this will continue into the future.

You will also, of course, be well aware that this is an extremely controversial position, and by no means mainstream science.

Climate impacts are, again, as you are well aware, covered by working group II

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

And Mitigation in WG III

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf

Far from ignoring Pielke, his work is referenced in both reports (you knew that, of course).

His work is, however, an outlier, and highly controversial (again, you already know this, given your mastery of the subject). Just for example, here's several world experts commenting on his work:

https://issues.org/climate-scenarios-reality-pielke-jr-ritchie-forum/

So no, the IPPC reports do not fail to represent the science. They fail to give undue prominence to outliers in the science. You're now claiming that unless the IPCC cherrypick your preferred science, they're not representative. That's the exact opposite of your original claim.

So now we at least have some inkling of what your claim is, we can see it's false.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Ah at last we're getting somewhere. You finally provide some hint of what your position actually is, though it's a shame it had to be dragged out of you.

Your link is to Pielke Jnr, and climate damages.

As you are aware from your mastery of the subject, Pielke researches (amongst other things) damages from extreme weather and proposes that these are declining, with the (unproven) implication this will continue into the future.

You will also, of course, be well aware that this is an extremely controversial position, and by no means mainstream science.

Climate impacts are, again, as you are well aware, covered by working group II

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

And Mitigation in WG III

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf

Far from ignoring Pielke, his work is referenced in both reports (you knew that, of course).

His work is, however, an outlier, and highly controversial (again, you already know this, given your mastery of the subject). Just for example, here's several world experts commenting on his work:

https://issues.org/climate-scenarios-reality-pielke-jr-ritchie-forum/

So no, the IPPC reports do not fail to represent the science. They fail to give undue prominence to outliers in the science. You're now claiming that unless the IPCC cherrypick your preferred science, they're not representative. That's the exact opposite of your original claim.

So now we at least have some inkling of what your claim is, we can see it's false.

Ho hum, my prediction was pretty much spot on. You've even tried to misrepresent my comments yet again just for good measure.

So, given you seem to hold quite an arrogant position, where you assume greater knowledge and understanding than other people, you'll have no problem finally responding to the points I actually made in that initial post, because they are fundamental to any measures aimed at protecting the environment and future generations.

The mistake you and others seem to make, is a rather blinkered view that anyone mentioning things outside of the usual narrative, must be a climate denier, and then get very binary, protective and precious in their replies. It doesn't lead to an interesting or informative discussion.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Ho hum, my prediction was pretty much spot on. You've even tried to misrepresent my comments yet again just for good measure.

So, given you seem to hold quite an arrogant position, where you assume greater knowledge and understanding than other people, you'll have no problem finally responding to the points I actually made in that initial post, because they are fundamental to any measures aimed at protecting the environment and future generations.

The mistake you and others seem to make, is a rather blinkered view that anyone mentioning things outside of the usual narrative, must be a climate denier, and then get very binary, protective and precious in their replies. It doesn't lead to an interesting or informative discussion.

So, found out again you ignore the post I made and obfuscate some more.

You've claimed the IPPC misrepresent the science, and it actually turns out what you want is them to represent an outlier view. The opposite of your claim.

You keep on referring to an initial post and whining that nobody responded to it.

I did respond to it, here

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/hydrogen-power.296092/post-7147400

Quit whining.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

So, found out again you ignore the post I made and obfuscate some more.

You've claimed the IPPC misrepresent the science, and it actually turns out what you want is them to represent an outlier view. The opposite of your claim.

You keep on referring to an initial post and whining that nobody responded to it.

I did respond to it, here

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/hydrogen-power.296092/post-7147400

Quit whining.

So, found out again you ignore the post I made and obfuscate some more.
Quit whining. Right back atcha.

You seem to confirm my view on your arrogance as you pompously describe your post that offers nothing to support its claim, and doesn't relate to the post you're responding to anyway.

You seem to feel the need for a 'win' so you can continue happily in your ignorance, and as I'm as bored of you as most people are liable to be of this pointless exchange, I'll leave you to it. There are far better academic sites I use for serious conversations on the topic. No doubt you'll wrongly assume they are conspiracy sites, but as I mentioned, I'm very comfortable with my opinion.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

So, found out again you ignore the post I made and obfuscate some more.
Quit whining. Right back atcha.

You seem to confirm my view on your arrogance as you pompously describe your post that offers nothing to support its claim, and doesn't relate to the post you're responding to anyway.

You seem to feel the need for a 'win' so you can continue happily in your ignorance, and as I'm as bored of you as most people are liable to be of this pointless exchange, I'll leave you to it. There are far better academic sites I use for serious conversations on the topic. No doubt you'll wrongly assume they are conspiracy sites, but as I mentioned, I'm very comfortable with my opinion.

It's very odd.

You say you want "serious conversations", but repeatedly refuse to give any source for your claims.

You repeatedly complain nobody had responded to a post of yours that had indeed been responded to, almost immediately.

But please, give us a link to the "academic sites" you use for "serious conversations" on this. I'm sure we could learn a lot from them.

 

[FishFright]

It's very odd.

You say you want "serious conversations", but repeatedly refuse to give any source for your claims.

You repeatedly complain nobody had responded to a post of yours that had indeed been responded to, almost immediately.

But please, give us a link to the "academic sites" you use for "serious conversations" on this. I'm sure we could learn a lot from them.

We are not supposed to learn anything else it wouldn't take multiple pages to fail to get a single link.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

It's very odd.

You say you want "serious conversations", but repeatedly refuse to give any source for your claims.

You repeatedly complain nobody had responded to a post of yours that had indeed been responded to, almost immediately.

But please, give us a link to the "academic sites" you use for "serious conversations" on this. I'm sure we could learn a lot from them.

Yaaay, despite the evidence to the contrary, I'm more than happy to say that you are 100% right.

Enjoy your win, I hope it doesn't feel too hollow.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Yaaay, despite the evidence to the contrary, I'm more than happy to say that you are 100% right.

Enjoy your win, I hope it doesn't feel too hollow.

Just sorry to miss out on the "academic sites" for "serious conversations" you've sadly chosen to keep to yourself.

Terrible missed opportunity for learning, that.

 

[gbb]

And I wonder why I've kinda lost heart in this thread....

 

[albion]

And I wonder why I've kinda lost heart in this thread....

I gave up reading 3 pages back.

 

[cougie uk]

Interesting article in the Guardian today.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-batteries-in-the-race-for-zero-emission-cars

 

[icowden]

Interesting article in the Guardian today.

I love these articles.

Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars?​

Answer: No.

I've seen this article regurgitates several times. It argues that for larger vehicles such as busses and lorries, hydrogen could be the way forward as EV batteries have issues with range and charging time. It overlooks that there is a race on at the moment to provide the best battery. Now that EV purchase is rapidly increasing, the holy grail is the best battery.

 

[cougie uk]

It's almost like Toyota are just focused on the faster filling time of hydrogen - and ignoring pretty much everything else.

 

[GuyBoden]

Even the community living next to the Ellesmere Port oil refinery don't want Hydrogen gas boilers.

Will the Hydrogen gas boiler trials in Whitby and Redcar trial even go ahead?

https://www.independent.co.uk/busin...smere-port-after-local-protests-b2373192.html

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I've seen this article regurgitates several times. It argues that for larger vehicles such as busses and lorries, hydrogen could be the way forward as EV batteries have issues with range and charging time.

For urban buses at least, rather than intercity coaches, it's very hard to see a case for hydrogen.

When I was last in Gothenburg I came across this bus charging station. You can easily imagine a few at route terminus etc could significantly reduce the range required and therefore cost of batteries for buses, which are perfect for batteries given the stop/start nature and regen braking.

Gothenburg public transport is quick, cheap, easy and convenient.