Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Comments 3051 to 3100:
-
PSBaker at 23:42 PM on 23 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Not sure about that … tire pollution is significantly worse with EVs & gains are modest.
EVs will never deliver the sort of transport reductions needed.https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-losing-tread
https://theecologist.org/2020/oct/05/unsustainability-electric-carModerator Response:[BL] Links activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
Also note that "link only" comments are discouraged by the Comments Policy. You should be providing additional information on what you expect readers to see at the link, and how it relates to the discussion.
-
Evan at 23:37 PM on 23 November 2022SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets
Charlie Brown, thanks for your thoughts and comments for other analogies. I dealt with your suggestion 2) in a separate analogy (read here), which I agree is an excellent example of the greenhouse effect.
We try to keep these analogies as simple as possible to reach the broadest analogy. Hence, we do not deal with all of the detailed radiative effects to which you refer. But we keep modifying and hopefully improving these analogies, so perphaps more of your suggestions will show up in future renditions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:32 PM on 23 November 2022Over half a dozen handy handbook translations published!
Eddie:
I agree on "redirecting". It should match the syntax of "by affirming the value". To use "redirect", you'd need to introduce a subject in the sentence - e.g., "but then you should redirect..."
Toward vs. towards is not an issue. From Wiktionary:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/towards
Usage notes
Although some have tried to discern a semantic distinction between the words toward and towards, the only difference in practice is dialectal. Toward is more common in American English and towards is more common in British English, though each form may be found in both varieties.
-
EddieEvans at 22:15 PM on 23 November 2022Over half a dozen handy handbook translations published!
Maybe it's me — I don't know.
Under "How to talk to a conspiracy theorist," I wonder if there's a better way to write the "Affirm critical thinking:
Conspiracy theorists perceive themselves as
critical thinkers who are not fooled by an official
account. This perception can be capitalized on
by affirming the value of critical thinking but then
redirect this approach towards a more critical
analysis of the conspiracy theory.56"It sounds convoluted to me, not simple enough. Then there's a possibility for a grammar check, "redirect" to "redirecting," and "toward" instead of "towards"more critical analysis . . . .
-
lalith at 12:14 PM on 23 November 2022Are clean technologies and renewable energies better for the environment than fossil fuels?
This articler assumes that once a wind turbine is installed it will be there forever. However, it has a finite life of around 20years after which a new unit will be required so mining will need to increase. And perhaps to fossil fuel levels.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:50 AM on 21 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Yes, the U Chicago link to MODTRAN I gave above does not allow you to enter in an arbitrary temperature profile. You can choose "Locality" from a pre-set list, and a variety of pre-set values for cloud and precipitation conditions. This will alter the temperature profile displayed on the right - but the online interface has its limitations as far as user preferences go.
The stratospheric cooling in response to increased CO2, illustrated in figure 16 of Manabe and Wetherald 1967 (linked in previous comments, but included here again for convenience) is largely due to more CO2 in the stratosphere emitting more IR at the same temperature, so the same outward IR flux to space can be accomplished at lower temperatures.
-
BaerbelW at 05:16 AM on 21 November 2022The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations
Since mid-November, three more translations of the Debunking Handbook 2020 have been published: Slovak, Albanian and Macedonian.
-
Charlie_Brown at 05:02 AM on 21 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw
Good clarifications, thank you. I should have said “Emitted radiant energy intensity as a function of wavelength depends only upon the composition and temperature of the emitting source.”
Also, thank you for the references to Manabe’s work and to the BAMS paper. Manabe’s approach demonstrated the effect of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming from CO2 doubling. Since MODTRAN uses a specified atmospheric temperature profile, this version of the model can’t be changed to show this effect. One always needs to be mindful of the purpose and limitations of any model that is used.
Those who deny that “CO2 is a strong emitter as well as a strong absorber” should be reminded of Kirchhoff’s Law that absorptance equals emittance, although precisely only when there is thermodynamic equilibrium. This is a very good approximation in the atmosphere, but it means that any slight imbalance between photon absorptance and emittance will be manifested as a temperature change. Conservation of energy is rigorous, but not conservation of photons. This is one reason why tracking the path of photons emitted from the surface is problematic. The simple fact is that CO2 in the tropopause absorbs and emits radiant energy based on the cold temperature at that altitude. -
Bob Loblaw at 01:22 AM on 21 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Further minor note:
The radiative-convective model work of Manabe et al does include both IR radiative transfer and solar radiation. This is necessary for a proper energy balance model. The stratospheric heating seen in the above figures is largely due to ozone absorption of UV radiation.
MODTRAN, as linked to earlier in comments, focusses on IR radiation.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:58 AM on 21 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown:
One minor clarification. You say "Radiant energy intensity as a function of wavelength depends only upon the composition and temperature of the emitting source."
Yes, this is correct for radiant energy emitted locally, but when it comes to measuring radiant energy at a point, you get both the locally-emitted energy plus any energy at that wavelength that was emitted elsewhere and has been transmitted through the atmosphere to that point - i.e., it has not been absorbed by the intervening atmosphere. At some wavelengths, where atmospheric absorption is large, it will be mostly locally-emitted. At wavelengths where atmospheric absorption is small, it will be mostly transmitted from elsewhere.
The complication that you refer to in terms of what is seen at any particular height in the atmosphere is that it includes both components (local emission plus transmission). From measurements of radiant energy alone you cannot know how much is from each. For that, you need models that incorporate temperature, all gases and their emission spectra, etc.
And, as you state, models such as MODTRAN will do that for you - but they are not energy balance models. You need to specify the temperature profile (and cloud profile, and gases) and then you can get the profile of radiative energy (upward and downward fluxes, absorption and emission rates).
If that radiative energy transfer does not balance (local absorption and emission are not equal), then locally you will have either heating or cooling. At that point, you can iteratively warm or cool that layer (and all other layers), recalculate the temperature profile, recalculate the radiative transfer, etc until you find a temperature profile that is at equilibrium.
And people have done this. Classic early references are from roughly 60 years ago (and have been linked to earlier in this long comments thread).
If you only consider radiatve transfer, the atmosphere would stabilize at a much steeper temperature gradient than exists. If you adjust for this (Manabe et al's "convective adjustment") you get a very good fit to actual global mean temperature. Figure 1 from Manabe and Strickler shows these two scenarios clearly, as well as the iterative process of radiative calculations, determining heating/cooling, radiative calculations, etc:
An interesting paper appeared in BAMS earlier this month, looking at the historical importance of this early work by Manabe.
Certain stubbornly-ignorant self-proclaimed experts that have repeatedly invaded this thread seem to lose sight of the fact that the atmosphere also emits radiation in the wavelengths that are strongly-absorbed. It's easy to deny that the Greenhouse Effect exists if you deny that CO2 is a strong emitter as well as a strong absorber.
Moderator Response:[BL] Due to a recently-noted bug in the SkS code, the link to this comment, as it appears in "Recent Comments" will take you to the wrong page. For the convenience of anyone trying to follow the thread, here is the correct link (note the p=27 part):
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=82&p=27#139813
-
Charlie_Brown at 07:27 AM on 20 November 2022SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets
The blanket analogy is fine for those who are not familiar with radiant energy transfer. For those who do know a little about it (think night vision goggles), there are other analogies that could be used that are not based on thermal conduction heat transfer. 1) Smudge pots used in fruit orchards on cold, clear nights. Increasing CO2 would be akin to thickening the smoke layer. 2) The effect of cloud cover on cold, but otherwise clear, nights. Similarly, increasing CO2 would be akin to thin clouds vs. thicker clouds. 3) Mylar space blankets instead of fabric blankets. Increasing CO2 would be akin to filling in holes changing the material to reduce the emissivity. There are weaknesses in the analogies, but they can help to convey the message about global warming. Resolving the weaknesses can be educational. A technical description necessarily involves emissivity as a function of wavelength. The Advanced description in “Is The CO2 Effect Saturated” is excellent. The Basic description also is very good because it includes the critical effect of cold temperature at high altitude with a very nice graphic image. The 27 pages of 668 comments are tedious to work through because they contain a lot of misinformation mixed in with some very good information, and it takes quite a bit of critical thinking to sort through what is accurate and important. I will post my additional comment there, at risk of making repetitive points and being lost in the mix.
-
Charlie_Brown at 07:25 AM on 20 November 2022CO2 effect is saturated
It is easier to interpret radiant energy leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) toward space than to track it after being emitted from the surface. Radiant energy intensity as a function of wavelength depends only upon the composition and temperature of the emitting source. In other words, the emitted energy in the 14-16 micron band that is emitted to space comes from CO2 in the tropopause near the lower stratosphere. There are sufficient CO2 molecules in this layer to bring the emissivity to 1.0 and the temperature is about 220K. The TOA is the system boundary for the global energy balance. At most other wavelengths, CO2 has an emissivity of 0, so IR emissions are due to another substance which may or may not be emitting at a different temperature. That is why it is easier to explain IR loss to space by looking at the downward from the TOA instead of trying to track IR leaving the surface, which gets absorbed and re-emitted and re-absorbed and re-emitted again.
I see several previous references to MODTRAN in this thread. Great. It is an easy-to-use free, public access online program for modeling radiant energy in the atmosphere. The hardest part to grasp is that it is not an energy balance model that calculates the surface temperature, but a radiation model that calculates the radiant energy flow for a specified surface temperature and atmospheric temperature profile. Much can be learned from using it, including the saturation effect for CO2 and CH4, effect of water vapor and water vapor feedback, and radiant energy flow upward and downward through the atmospheric, and the importance of the atmospheric temperature profile for the greenhouse effect. Note that the saturation effect can be observed as widening the 14-16 micron trough with increasing CO2, while the depth of the trough is set by the emission temperature. While the saturation effect tends to be logarithmic, it has not plateaued for CO2. For CH4 at 18. ppm, any saturation effect has barely started. That is what makes CH4 such a powerful greenhouse gas.
The short answer to the question about downward IR is that it comes from radiated energy from GHG in the lower atmosphere. To fully understand the upward and downward flow of IR, try exercising MODTRAN at different altitudes and switch between looking at the spectrum upward and downward. -
EddieEvans at 00:39 AM on 19 November 2022A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial
Yep, that's it! It's been so long that I could not remember; now, how do I find someone to appreciate this vast store of fossil fuel deception documents? [Shortened link]
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
Bob Loblaw at 00:18 AM on 19 November 2022A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial
Eddie:
Is there anything useful at https://www.climatefiles.com/?
-
EddieEvans at 21:13 PM on 18 November 2022A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial
I can no longer find the "Fossil Fuel Files" website. I used to find it with a simple google search, but no more. Was it taken off for copyright violations? It was a great resource; I wanted to place its content on Youtube.
I have one June 6, 1978 document written by J.F. Black, Scientific Advisor, Products Research Division, Exxon. "The Greenhouse Effect."
Does anyone here know what became of the website?
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:21 AM on 18 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Per Eddie's remarks, we have an EV that does the vast bulk of our mileage. It can handle dimensional items up to 118" (~3m) with the hatch closed and can comfortably do a 190 mile (305km) roundtrip I routinely need to cover, in winter, mostly at 70mph (112kph) and without the driver freezing, w/~40 miles (64km) reserve range on returning to driveway. And it's a delight to drive, makes me feel a little bit too much like I'm 16 years of age again. So lots of bullet points covered there.
For other needs we have a 1997 Ford Ranger. It goes through about 40 gallons of gas per year, at about 25MPG (10km/l) for above trip case. I've not done the math, but I suspect the current embodied carbon in replacing it with the most plausible EPU candidate (Ford F150 Lightning) may be problematic; the choice would not necessarily be a win over the geriatric Ranger.
There are two other problems.
For us, $40k is not a dealbreaker. But as a practical matter and in the context where a lot of PUs are used (think solo operators running a yard care concern, etc.) that's a huge lift, essentially impossible.
But here's another dealbreaker: none of the current EPUs will hold a 6' (1.8m) dimensional item in the bed with the gate closed, the lowest bar of legitimate PU cargo specs*. All of them are centered as designer accessories first, tool second. This is like having to use a tack hammer where one needs a framing hammer, or (given the toy-like nature of such an implementation) a kid's plastic hammer instead of the real deal. And that's a shame, because for the legitimate use case of many PUs, EPUs otherwise offer distinct advantages, and have range more than ample for a typical day's work.
Eventually this will get sorted and we'll probably even see -proper- EPU models with what used to be the correct treatment: an 8' (2.4m) bed. But right now, conflicted objectives, still catering to urban cowboys having PUs with no scratches or dirt in the bed. A lot of cost and a lot of dead weight are concentrated on useless appurtenances, things that are completely irrelevant to the original use case of PUs, hardware as psychological reassurance, ending up with the worst possible analogy to designer handbag.
All that said, the more EVs, the better for the planet, with the stipulation that fewer vehicle miles of all kinds are also going to be necessary. We're habituated to automobiles, but in truth if we can't feed or house ourselves with jumping into a car, our "convenience" item is substantially a prosthetic device, a very large and inefficient wheel chair.
*"just leave the gate open" isn't responsive to how that actually unpacks in practice. As usual, "just" is way too economical.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:36 AM on 18 November 2022New reports spell out climate urgency, shortfalls, needed actions
prove we are smart,
Nicely selected trio of items.
A major root of the problem is the ability of misleading marketing to be popular and excuse understandably harmful unsustainable pursuits of benefit. It can cause people to demand the freedom to be more harmful and less helpful.
That harmful unjustified popularity can compromise (contaminate) politics to the point where even leadership contenders who want to do more to limit harm done justifiably fear losing the ability to be influential if they are 'too honestly helpful'.
As an example, Danielle Smith just won the leadership contest for the UCP in Alberta. Since the UCP are already the majority (the next election is next year), she is now Premier of Alberta (like the way that Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak became PM of the UK). An unnerving thing about Danielle Smith becoming a powerful person is that she believes 'conspiracy theory nonsense' (about COVID, Global Warming, and many other matters). And in a recent interview she essentially said that she would question any developing consensus understanding, especially a scientific one (can't seem to find a link to the interview or a report that clearly mentions it, but an internet search of "Danielle Smith misleading" finds plenty of examples to ponder).
The powerful popularity of the science of marketing abused to promote harmful misunderstanding develops damaging, hard to correct, results.
-
prove we are smart at 22:29 PM on 17 November 2022New reports spell out climate urgency, shortfalls, needed actions
To my mind although here in Australia we elected a new govt because of the main issues of climate change and corruption, but the people really only want small changes to fix the increasing co2 problem. With 90% of the carbon budget used up-it's big changes and quickly to keep worst tipping points away, am I optimistic to think people can change their growth is good or their relentless consumerism ways. Take a sobering look around at your local tip to see why the biosphere is collapsing.
Here's what an informed young person thinks, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufERA6HzP6E
Here's how right wing climate change denialist twist the narrative,www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1zF1nH0H5k
Here is perhaps why after 27 Cops, the word greenwashing has entered our vocabulary, www.youtube.com/watch?v=69DFis2WgMQ
Such a complex issue and so many competing view points- the science is damning and still co2 goes up though more slowly.
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 17 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
This caught my attention the other day:
"Long charging times are one of the biggest headaches for electric vehicle (EV) owners today, ranging anywhere from 10 hours with a home charger to roughly 30 minutes with a high-powered public one."
"However, a new paper from the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) suggests that quantum technology could allow future EV owners to be able to charge their cars in just three minutes, according to a press release from the organization. That’d put it at roughly the same speed as filling up a car with a tank of gas — an extraordinary jump toward mass adoption and away from range anxiety."
futurism.com/the-byte/quantum-charge-electric-cars
"How quantum batteries could lead to EVs that go a million miles between charges"
thenextweb.com/news/how-quantum-batteries-could-lead-to-evs-that-go-a-million-miles-between-charges
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:02 AM on 17 November 2022New reports spell out climate urgency, shortfalls, needed actions
Regarding 'Adaptation': It may help to declare that a required adaptation is:
The rapid adaptation to a reduction of "non-essential" energy use by the people who have over-developed to become the highest energy users, in parallel with wealthier people also more rapidly adapting to paying more for the least harmful energy possible.
The belief that 'everyone should constantly experience perceptions of improvement of their life' is tragically flawed. It leads to the nonsense economic beliefs that require unlimited constant 'growth of perceptions of prosperity'. The result is harmful over-consumption being seen as a sign of advancement and superiority.
Pursuit of 'perceptions of improvement' has developed unjustified excuses for harmful unsustainable activity that developed popularity or profitability.
The actions of the highest consuming, highest harmful impacting, people are Too Much. The adaptation of that group to setting the example of being less harmful and less consumptive is Too Little, Too Slow.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:22 AM on 17 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
EddieEavans,
Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted to be sure you weren't encountering a lack of ability to find a specific performance feature because the product development focus had shifted away from ICE to EV.
I agree with scaddenp's comment (they correctly sensed what your issue was). I would add that I support the limiting of the use to necessary uses (something that also aligns with JavaTom's comment)
I am also likely to delay buying a new vehicle because so many now have very expensive front windshield replacement costs. I bought a hybrid a while ago without the fancy windshield mounted stuff that is now 'standard features'. I bought the hybrid rather than an EV because I live in Alberta, a region that had, at the time, a high emissions electricity generation system (lots of coal burning).
Alberta's grid has improved since I bought my hybrid. But Alberta still has some coal generation as base-power and a lot of natural gas generation. So, I am pretty sure that burning gasoline in my hybrid (I get 50 to 60 mpg) still produces a little less emissions than an EV plugged into the Alberta grid.
However, the Alberta grid emissions should be significantly better by 2030 (no more coal burning and a significant increase of wind and solar by then).
In spite of an EV in Alberta likely being better after 2030, I may see if my hybrid can run for a very long time (30 or more years). Being driven as little as possible should help it last longer. And a nice thing about a hybrid is that reduced battery capacity should not seriously affect the performance.
So, if you 'need' a replacement truck soon, you may want to look into getting a hybrid truck (note: the extra cost compared to a new ICE will be recovered through less being spent for fuel).
-
JavaTom at 04:02 AM on 17 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
EV are better than ICE cars but even better would be to reduce the need to for personal vehicles. Building more & better public transit ( electrified, of course! ) within and between cities would reduce the strain on the environment caused by mineral extraction as well as accelerate the transition to a low-carbon transportation system.
-
EddieEvans at 18:56 PM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
I am sorry for yesterday's confusing post: "I'm not finding an Ice machine (internal combustion) that can replace my Ford Ranger, 2006." I should have written, "EV to replace my ICE machine." There is no pickup EVs to buy; the Ford pickup EV will not be available for years because of demand. The Cybertruck will cost too much, even if it does become available. Fortunately, I don't need to drive every day, unlike other people that would buy an EV pickup but cannot find one. The market let conscientious consumers down as well as the planet.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Michael Tomsa-Musatin
"The initial !PCC report in 1990 was an absolute political lie...not one time did we get even near the median or high predicted temperature in the next 30 years, only once in 1996 did we spike momentarily into the low mean average predicted temperature,..."
The 1990 IPCC report was more accurate than you think. The report stated: "Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPC C Business-as-Usual (Scenario A ) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors;"
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
The prediction was 0.3 degrees per decade. Last 30 years has been 0.2 degrees c per decade. The 1990 IPCC report did state quite large uncertainty bars per decade (0.2 - 0.5). Taking those into account the 1990 IPPC projections have proven accurate enough.
Warming was predicted to be "likely" 1 degree c from 1990 - 2025. From 1990 - 2022 it has been 0.75 degress c (NASA GISS). We are not yet at 2025, but it looks like we are getting fairly close to the model prediction of 1 degree. Remember the models stated the rise would not be steady. And there were error bars.
Moderator Response:[PS] This topic https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html is where any discussion of IPCC FAR should take place. Michael covered nothing ontopic so no further discussion here please. Graphs badly in need of update, but further graphs available at https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
-
sailingfree at 07:21 AM on 16 November 2022Models are unreliable
I frequently point freinds to this excellent site, and hope you can make a minor change for the sake of readers' convenience. That would be to add a "last page" or "latest comment" button to the bottom of the comments pages.
I am motivated, so I am willing to scroll through the whole article, scroll through the comments to the page bottom, and click on the last listed page. But repeating that four more times to get to comment 1310 on page 53 is getting tiresome.
An alternative is to sort the list of comments from latest to oldest.
Thank you for considering this change.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks for the suggestion. I have passed it on to the technical team.
[BL] That partially relates to a bug discovered previously, where the "what page is this on?" link in Recent Comments assumes 50 comments per page, but blog posts such as "CO2 is Saturated" only have 25 comments per page. As a result, when you try to follow the link on Recent Comments, you end up on a page only half way to where you expect to be.
As a work-around until we fix the bug, you can see a "page" number in the link. You can edit that manually.
For example, the last link to "CO2 is Saturated" on the Recent Comments page (now #81) is from MA Rodger, and the link is as follows:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=82&p=14#139699
...but his comment is actually #668 on page 27:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=82&p=27#139699
Since the comment in question is not on page 14, following the first link puts you on page 14 (not a specific comment). Changing the page number to the second link gets you to the correct comment.
In this case, seeing page 14 in the incorrect link could be page 27 or 28 for the correct link. But at least you can narrow it down. The correct page will be either {wrong page x 2} or {wrong page x 2} -1.
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Eddie, it is a pain that technology and price points arent moving faster but for some there can be reasonable compromises. If you need the capabilities of Ranger on daily basis (eg you are farmer or contractor), then you need it and not much choice. But you may be able to use alternatives when those capabilities not needed. eg have very small car or an electric as second "go-to-town" vehicle. Other people buy Rangers for towing boat or caravan and in those situations, it can be far cheaper to own a small vehicle for daily use and hire when needed, than to take on cost of ownership (wtih depreciation) of something like a Ranger.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:12 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Michael Tomas-Musatin @4,
There is more to understand about every point you are trying to make. And the increased awareness and understanding makes a significant difference.
As an example: "the fact that they need coal burning power plants to charge" is missing the following understanding presented by Forbes in 2018 (read here) comparing ICE vehicle use to the emissions from charging an EV. The poorest regions in the USA at the time had the EV impacts equivalent to a 35 mpg ICE vehicle (Hawaii, except Kona at 49 mpg) and 38 mpg (small MROE region west of Lake Michigan). The USA average at the time was 80 mpg.
-
Michael Tomsa-Musatin at 04:36 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
The issue with EV's is lithium strip mining for one, the fact that they need coal burning power plants to charge, there is no infrastructure, the batteries are too expensive, the vehicles do not charge efficiently in the home at all, the list goes on. I care about clean air and clean water, that is why I like emissions to be controlled...not based on some fantasy that C02 is the boogey man that will sink the Titanic. The initial !PCC report in 1990 was an absolute political lie...not one time did we get even near the median or high predicted temperature in the next 30 years, only once in 1996 did we spike momentarily into the low mean average predicted temperature, so 99.9% of the "science" was either a bald face lie, or the PhD who published it is an absolute failure at science, as his predictions were fantasy. Anyone care to start by discussing the first IPCC report of 1990? Then we can step through to now?
Moderator Response:[PS] Comments policy violations. (accusations of deception, politics, offtopic, sloganeering) .
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:59 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
EddieEvans,
It is not clear what you are talking about.
"I'm not finding an Ice machine (internal conbustion) that can replace my Ford Ranger, 2006".
2023 Ford Ranger (ICE) models appear to be available.
-
EddieEvans at 00:18 AM on 16 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
I'm not finding an Ice machine (internal conbustion) that can replace my Ford Ranger, 2006; at my age, it makes no sense to change, other than climate's moral imperative, which is a steep price to pay for a guy in his last decade. So I figure that other baby boomers in my shoes feel the same way, and we're in a small minority by the looks of it. Had Musk kept to his word and come out with the Cybertruck at the presented price for one motor, I would have taken the leap in the beginning. Now it's out of reach and not even available.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:54 PM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Now, to expand a little on that zero-d model from comment # 21. I mentioned that a gradual increase in radiative forcing wlil be different from an instananeous step change of 4W/m2. We can look at that using the same model. We will do three new simulations, to add to the Ocean Mixed Layer one from comment #21, making four simulations:
- The original instantaneous 4 W/m2 step change.
- A scenario where we gradually increase the radiative forcing over 2500 days.
- A scenario where we increase it over 5000 days
- A scenario where we increase it over 10000 days
In each case, we keep the same heat capacity (ocean 60m depth - middle line from comment #21). We also keep the same final radiative forcing: 4 W/m2 at the end of the "ramping up" period (1, 2500, 5000, or 10000 days).
Here is the temperature evolution:
...and here is the radiative imbalance:
Note that the temperature evolution over the 10,000 day period is quite different if we spread the forcing over a longer period. In the fourth line, when full radiative forcing is not reached until day 10,000, we still have a ways to go before reaching equilibrium. The system has responded fully to the forcing that was added 30 years ago, but not to the recent forcing.
You will note that the imbalance graph only reaches 4W/m2 for the 1-day (instantaneious) step change. That is the difference between the radiative forcing and the radiative imbalance - they are not the same thing.
- The forcing is an input, and is always expressed relative to the pre-change conditions (day 0).
- The imbalance is the net difference between the forcing and any adjustments in the outgoing radiation related to how the system has heated up. Since we do not reach 4W/m2 forcing until day 2500 (or 5000, or 10000), the system has had a chance to adjust to the forcing that happened before that day.
In the 5000-day ramp-up, we reach 4W/m2 of forcing on day 5000, but the system has already achieved about 2.4W/m2 of adjustment, leaving only 1.6 W/m2 imbalance.
Again, the temperature evolution over time is different. You need to consider this when interpreting the temperature evolution with respect to time lags, forcing etc.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:26 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
To illustrate my comment at 18, about time lags, let's consider a very simple case, where we can treat the earth as a zero-dimensional point with an instantaneous addition of CO2 to cause a 4 W/m2 imbalance in the global radiation balance. (This is a number typically associated with a doubling of CO2.)
This imbalance represents a positive energy input that will warm the system. It will not warm it instantaneously, though - we need to account for the heat capacity. (Yes, a point can have a heat capacity, just like calculus tells us a line can have a slope at a point.)
We will consider three heat capacities:
- Just the atmosphere.
- Oceans, but just to a depth of 60m (the mixed ocean layer)
- Oceans to a depth of 2000m.
The low heat capacity of the atmosphere would allow rapid heating. Each addition of ocean mass slows the heating.
This is what we'd see as heating rates for those three scenarios:
We see that if the atmosphere was the only thing heating, we'd be done in less than a year. We see the system reaching equilibrium, with a warming of about 3C. (I have tuned the model's albedo and water vapour feedbacks to get that 3C result.)
Adding the ocean mixed layer slows things down quite a bit, but we still reach equilibrium in roughly 10,000 days (about 30 years). Adding deep oceans really slows things down - we're still far from equilibrium at the end of the graph.
As the system heats, the radiative imbalance decreases. Those values are in the following graph. Atmosphere-only equilibrates quickly; ocean versions more slowly.
The shape and relative position of the three lines in each graph would not change if you did a 2W/m2 initial imbalance, or changed the model sensitivity - it depends on the heat capacity used.
Of course, the real world is more complex. You are not heating a single mass, and the atmosphere, land and oceans have transport between them (and transport to different parts within them). You can't include that in a zero-D model, though.
More importantly, we are not dealing with an instantaneous increase in CO2. It is gradually increasing. We can add those things sequentially over time, though:
- In year one, we add some CO2. The atmosphere reacts quickly, but the oceans react slowly. We still have some warming waiting "in the system".
- In year 2, we add more CO2. Again, the atmosphere reacts quickly, the oceans more slowly - and we also have the heating still going on from year one's "ocean lag".
- In year 3, we get another increase in CO2. Another rapid atmosphere warming, and some slower ocean arming from this year's CO2, plus a one-year lag form last year's ocean heating, and a two-year-lag from the first year's ocean heating.
- ...and so on.
What you can't do is assume that the temperature rise after 30 years is just the year one CO2 value after a 30-year ocean lag. CO2 has been increasing since then, with 29, 28, 27, 26 etc. years of heating since it was added.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:11 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
This discussion has been helpful. It has clarified the understanding, still being improved, regarding the delay of global average temperature increase relative to an increased CO2 impact.
That should help correct/improve the misunderstanding that wayne started with.
It also presents an example of 'helpful misunderstanding' vs 'harmful misunderstanding'. Misunderstanding can be helpful if the resulting actions reduce harm done, but for a reason that is not the best understanding. However, even 'helpful' misunderstandings should be improved, even if the result is less anxiety to be less harmful. The challenge is doing that in ways that do not make the potential for harm appear to be less of a concern, resulting in people unjustly benefiting from more harm being done.
The 'helpful' potential of wayne's misunderstanding would be wayne believing that there is an immediate need for:
- the biggest most-harmful consumers to end their over-consumption of energy.
- richer people to pay the required extra costs to use the least harmful renewable energy.
- richer people also need to help the less fortunate be less harmful as they develop to live basic decent lives (live like the examples set by the supposedly more advanced humans).
That 'helpful' misunderstanding should be tempered by learning that the need for change is urgent (an emergency ... not yet a total disaster). The required change does not have to happen immediately. But the required adaptations remain the same, just able to be done through the next few decades with more adaptation happening earlier.
A 'harmful' misunderstanding would be that 'it is already too late so why bother' or 'the required corrections won't happen so there is no need for people to try to be less harmful'. 'Harmful' misunderstanding could lead a person to vote for leaders who harmfully argue against the aggressive actions required to achieve the understood 'required adaptations by the richer, more harmful consumers, and more harmful pursuers of profit'.
Less harm done is better. So it is never too late to improve awareness and understanding of what is harmful and the ways to be less harmful and more helpful. But the longer the people who don't want to be less harmful and more helpful 'have the freedom' to not 'face the required adaptation consequences' the more severe the 'required adaptation consequences should be for them'.
The popularity of 'harmful misunderstanding' has set-up this harmful fossil fuel use development to not end well.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:29 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Further to Daniel's post #17, there is also a discussion of Ocean Time Lags in the SkS analogy series, written by Evan.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:50 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @ 15:
No, the 2020 temperature is not due to the 1990 CO2 level plus lag. The 2020 temperature is due to the 1990 CO2 level, plus lag, plus the short-term effects of every year of CO2 increase since 1990. It includes:
- 29 years of lag from the 1991 CO2 level...
- 28 years of lag from the 1992 CO2 level...
- 27 years of lag from the 1993 CO2 level...
- 26 years of lag from the 1994 CO2 level...
- etc.
You clearly have not thought this out.
..and we could have gotten here a lot more quickly if you had been explicit about how you arrived at your viewpoint from the beginning, instead of making me ask a bunch of questions trying to find out how you came up with your incorrect interpretation.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:22 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
"how can there be any carbon budget left if we are at 1.2C already and have to subtract the negative aerosol forcing and deal with the time lag of 30 yrs?"
Wayne at #1 atop this thread refers to the archaic and outdated idea of a multidecadal lag between cause and effect of our CO2 emissions (originally discussed here at Skeptical Science). Much research shows otherwise (that peak warming from our CO2 emissions is reached in less than a decade), so much so that it is the consensus position of the AR5 and the AR6. A better summary discussion of that concept can be found in this post here at Skeptical Science. The semimythical multidecadal "lag" is sometimes used as a ruse to delay taking needed action to transition away from fossil fuels.
-
Evan at 22:44 PM on 14 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
For those of us driving EV's in Minnesota there is an added benefit. My understanding is that most of our gasoline comes from the Alberta Tar Sands (read here). Hence, driving an EV in Minnesota not only eliminates GHG emissions while driving the car, but prevents all of the environmental and GHG-emissions issues associated with burning gasoline extracted from tar sands.
-
MA Rodger at 18:36 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne @1,
I roll back to your initial question as there has been a lot of stuff inbetween which hasn't got you anywhere.
In terms of carbon budget, the most simplistic calculation (this ignoring any consideration of aerosols etc) would be that emissions halve by 2030 at which point atmospheric CO2 will have peaked due to the natural draw-down into the biosphere/oceans. And with CO2 the main driver of AGW and AGW running at +0.25ºC/decade, the +1.5ºC limit is not impossible.
But things aren't that simple.
The climate scenario SSP1-1.9 adds in the other drivers of AGW and that does show that AGW would peak close to the +1.5ºC limit. In terms of CO2, note that SSP1-1.9 includes negative emissions post-2050 which will draw-down and sequester all the CO2 we emitted post-2007.
The aerosols do pose a problem for scenarios like SSP1-1.9 as their forcing is not well quantified but they are factored in.
So SSP1-1.9 shows we do have a chance of having a chance at keeping AGW below +1.5ºC but as was said at COP27, that chance of a chance is on life support and the life support machines are "rattling."
-
wayne19608 at 12:07 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob thats because the temperature isnt from 1990 its from 2020 otherwise you arent taking into account the lag in carbon cycling
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:01 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Well, that's a little better, Wayne, but you are still leaving out important details.
Skeptical Science has a trend calculator, available in the Resources menu.
https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Regardless of which global temperature trend I choose there, I see no more than 0.6C warming from 1900 to 1990 (choosing "1900" to guess at your "pre-industrial" term).
So let's try this one more time:
- Give a specific reference to where you are getting CO2 concentrations from.
- Give a specific reference to the source of the temperature data that you are using.
- Give specific dates, not vague terms such as "pre-industrial".
Your 1990 CO2 values seem reasonable, based on figure 2 of this SkS post.
Your 1990 temperature increase value seems wildly out of whack. (The anomalies in the above graph are not referenced to 1900. The trend calculator consistently shows different data sets giving about -0.4C in 1900, making 1990 about 0.6C warmer.)
-
wayne19608 at 11:44 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob @ 11
280 ppm CO2 plus 70 ppm CO2 gives you 350 ppm CO2 which covers the time period from pre industrial to 1990. 350 ppm CO2 plus 70 ppm CO2 covers the period from 1990 to 2020ish which nicely includes the 30 year time lag. That first 70 ppm of CO2 has resulted in a 1.2C (or 1.1C) increase in temperature but the next 70 ppm CO2 from 1990 to 2020 is suppossed to be limited to a 1 in 2 chance of less than 0.3C(or 0.4C)?
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:11 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @11:
I have no idea where you get 70ppm leading to 1.2C warming. I have no idea what the "following 70 ppm" refers to.
Here are a few hints that might help:
- Give a specific reference to the article you are talking about. In your first comment, I had to guess that it was the Carbon Brief article.
- Give specific quotes or descriptions of the part of the article you want to discuss.
- Give an explicit indication, in your own words, of the part that you either do not understand or disagree with.
- Give an indication of what your current understanding is (or lack thereof), and explain how it differs from the article you are looking at.
- Pose clear questions, based on the above.
Without this information, you are leaving the readers guessing. The SkS web site is rather old in design, and has not yet implemented a "read commenter's mind" function. (We don't expect to have such a function any time soon.)
Leaving things vague is inviting misunderstanding. Brevity is not your friend.
-
wayne19608 at 10:39 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob @9 Im referring to 70ppm resulting in an increase of 1.2C(or1.1C following One Planet) versus the following 70 ppm increase being limited to 0.3C(or0.4C). Not where the misunderstanding is coming from so not sure how to fix it
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne,
The past few years have been 'weak la nina'. The history of ENSO can be seen in the NOAA ONI values.
Though the ONI is not the only factor determining ENSO events (there is also the SOI and other factors), the ONI values indicate that 2019 was the end of a weak el nino event. And that el nino condition may have been reflected in the higher 2020 value (note that 2020 was a little warmer than 2019). The weak la nina condition started in 2020 and continues through today. And ENSO isn't the only 'variable influence' causig temporary global average values to peak above or below the 'long term average line'.
The point remains that the 1.2 C warmer global average of 2020 does not represent the value of average warming as shown by 2021 and 2022.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:45 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @8:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
-
wayne19608 at 07:23 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob are we saying that as CO2 concentration goes up its influence on temperature decreases?
One planet are we not currently in the midst of an extended la nina that we can expect to sooner rather than later switch to an el nino with concurrent increases in temperature?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne,
Please restate your concern more clearly, with the following in mind.
Regarding how much warmer than pre-industrial things currently are:
I have read the following Nature news report from August 2021 "IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years". It includes the following:
"Earth’s global surface temperature has increased by around 1.1 °C compared with the average in 1850–1900 ..." (based on IPCC reporting).
I see other items stating that the average for January to October 2020 indicated a likely annual average of 1.2 C warmer. But that is just one year, and likely a peak year. Reviewing the Global averages in the NASA/GISS data set the average for 2021 was about 0.2 C cooler than 2020. And 2022 appears on track to be about 0.1 C cooler than 2020.
Regarding the challenge of limiting future impacts to the amount that limits warming to 1.5 C:
As nigelj pointed out, the evaluation states the required reduction. It does not declare it will be achieved. It is a warning that without a significant correction of behaviour by the highest consuming and impacting portion of the global population.
It is undeniable that the lack of responsible adaptation by the highest impacting portion of the population through the past 30 years, failing to lead the development of sustainable ways of living, has developed a massive problem that the 'highest consuming and harmfully impacting' portion of the population continue to resist helping to limit.
Admittedly, the required adaption to reduced energy consumption in parallel with a transition to renewable more expensive energy systems is not 'advantageous' to those who developed perceptions of superiority based on more harmful consumption. The adaptation to the higher costs of the less harmful alternatives in 1990 should have been paid for, especially by those who were wealthier. The parallel adaptation to reduction of energy use would have off-set the higher energy costs, reducing the total cost of the required adaptation.
Understandably, the failure of responsible adaptation leadership through the past 30 years has created the far more dramatic required 'adaptation' today. And undeniably, the currently more fortunate people who benefited most from continued, and increasing, fossil fuel use through the past 30 years should be facing the 'greatest required amount of adaptation' as well as the costs of 'loss and damage' resulting from their lack of 'responsible leading by example'.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:08 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne: "...I cant follow the logic..."
Well, that's a convincing argument....not. You really are not giving a critique of the article, other than an argument from incredulity. How am I supposed to discuss that with you?
-
wayne19608 at 05:43 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Nigelj I just cant reconcile those numbers with a 1.2C increase over 70ppm up to 1990 and another 70ppm in the last 30 years is going to somehow be under 0.3C and this is without further emissions or the removal of negative forcings with reduced natural capital to fall back on. I need help to square that circle
-
nigelj at 05:33 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @3
"Thanks Bob I read the article but quite frankly I cant follow the logic that sees us limiting warming to another 0.3C"
The logic was spelled out pretty clearly: "This means that if we start reducing emissions steeply now and by the time we reach net-zero levels we have not emitted more than 580GtCO2, our best scientific understanding tells us have we expect a one-in-two chance that warming would be kept to 1.5C. "
Doing it will be another thing. Challenging would be an understatement.
