Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 Next
Comments 20601 to 20650:
-
william5331 at 06:41 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
For the sake of the argument, let's assume, as stated above that EV's are responsible for more carbon emissions into the atmosphere in their manufacture. This is only so if the source of the power to run the factories is from coal fired powere stations. If the factroies have their own solar power (Tesla for instance) or if the grid transfers over to renewable generation then this disadvantage falls away.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:28 AM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Hello Warren. Thanks for dropping by.
There is nothing remotely "totalitarian" about this article. All I'm doing is pointing out how you've grossly misinterpretted the science.
Even with your points put forth in this comment you're contradicting your original article. In your article you argue net negative feedbacks which would bring climate sensitivity below 1°C. But now you're arguing that human contribution makes up a "good chunk" of warming? These two statements are incompatible.
I'm very happy to hear that you argue for a carbon tax. I completely agree that is the most appropriate and politically viable approach to this issue.
Regarding your "disagreement" with the magnitude, you're really not in a position to agree or disagree. The data and research tell us what the relative likelihood of the climate sensitivity range. You are randomly selecting a climate sensitivity that fits your own ideological bent. That's not a rationally supportable position any more than someone selecting 6°C for climate sensitivity. And, understand, these two wildly different points (1°C and 6°C) hold an almost identical likelihood of being correct!
This is not a with-us-or-agin-us situation. It is purely a risk management issue.
-
coyote at 06:09 AM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Warren Meyer herea again. Thinking about it more, at some level I find this article weirdly totalitarian, particularly the last paragraph where I am described as doing nothing but polluting the climate discussion. This seems an oddly extreme response to someone who:
- agrees in the linked article that the world has warmed over the last century
- agrees in the linked article that a good chunk of that warming is due to manmade CO2
- agrees in the linked article that CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas will increase temperatures, acting alone, by about 1-1.2C per doubling
- argues for a form of carbon tax (in a different article: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/coyotes-bi-partisan-climate-plan-a-climate-skeptic-calls-for-a-carbon-tax-2.html)
- but disagrees on the magnitude of added warming from net feedback effects.
It seems that we have moved beyond "you are either with us or against us" and entered the realm of "you are either entirely with us on every single detail or you are against us".
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Nomorewoo @13,
You need to provide some proof of dramatic depreciation os electric vehicles.
However if you are right, it could be due to a couple of things. Firstly uncertainty about electric cars, and how they perform when old. This is foolish, as electric motors are very durable and also easy enough to replace. Secondly it could be worries about how much life is left in the battery.
The maths on the exact carbon content going into making electric vehicles etc etc, and how they compare with petrol will always be hard to analyse exactly. However a couple of things are obvious to me about electric cars:
1. Electric motors are more efficient than petrol by a big margin, and so are cheaper to run.
2. Emissions are definitely significantly lower. I'm not going to agonise over exactly how much.
3. Electric motors also tend to be very reliable and quiet.This is enough to convince me of the merits of electric cars.
-
coyote at 05:47 AM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Warren Meyer here. I am happy to argue about details of temperature measurement systems another time (or you can see my full response here: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/03/so-skeptical-science-is-correcting-me.html
However, it strikes me that the basic purpose of the article from oh so many years ago was lost here. I wrote this article based on my extreme frustration in the climate debate. I have no problem with folks disagreeing with me. But I was frustrated that the skeptic argument was being mis-portrayed and folks were arguing about the wrong things. Specifically, I was frustrated with both of these two arguments that were frequently thrown in my face:
- "Climate deniers are anti-science morons and liars because they deny the obvious truth of warming from greenhouse gasses like CO2"
In fact, if you read the article, most of the prominent climate skeptics (plus me, as a non-prominent one) totally accept greenhouse gas theory and that CO2, acting alone, would warm the Earth by 1-1.2C. What we are skeptical of is the very net high positive feedbacks assumed to multiply this initial warming many-fold (and believe me, for those of you not familiar with dynamic systems analysis, these numbers are very large for stable natural systems) . Of all the groups I have spoken to in the past, perhaps less than 1% were familiar with the fact that warming forecasts were a chain of not one but two theories, both greenhouse gas theory and the theory that the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by strong net positive feedbacks. And, that the majority of warming in most projections actually comes from this second, lesser-dsicussed theory. Even if the audience does not choose to agree with my skepticism over feedback levels, isn't this education of the public about the basic theory useful?
I actually can't tell if the author agrees with my framing of the theory in these two parts or not. Wikipedia seems to agree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity) for what that's worth.
The author accuses me of purposeful obfuscation, but for those of us who are skeptical, it is odd that alarmists seem to resist discussing the second part of the theory. Could it be that the evidence for strong positive feedbacks dominating the Earth's long-term-stable greenhouse gas theory is not as strong as that for greenhouse gas theory? Evidence for high atmospheric positive feedbacks simply HAS to be weaker than that for greenhouse gas theory, not only because they have been studied less time but more importantly because it is orders of magnitude harder to parse out values of feedbacks in a complex system than it is to measure the absorption and emission spectrum of a gas in a laboratory.
- "Climate deniers are anti-science morons and liars because there is a 97% consensus behind global warming theory.
Well, studies have shown a 97% agreement on .. something. If one is sloppy about the proposition being tested, then it is easier to get widespread agreement. The original study that arrived at the 97% number asked two questions — "do you think the world has warmed in the last century" and "do you think a significant part of this warming has been due to man". 97% of scientists said yes to both. But me, called a climate denier, would have said yes to both as well. Alarmists attempt to shut off debate with skeptics by citing 97% agreement with propositions that have little or nothing to do with skeptics' arguments. Try asking a large group of scientists if they think that the world will warm 3C per doubling of CO2 levels, the proposition with which I disagree, and I guarantee you are not going to get anywhere near 97%. This is simply a bait and switch.
By the way, I would advise the author to work on his reading comprehension scores. It is clear from the text he quotes near the end form me that I called the media scientifically illiterate, not the IPCC and researchers. The basic framework of greenhouse gas incremental warming multiplied many times by assumed positive net feedbacks is in the scientific literature and the IPCC — my frustration is that the feedback theory seldom enters the public debate and media articles, despite the fact that the feedback theory is the source of the majority of projected warming and is the heart of many climate skeptic's criticisms of the theory.
-
greg_laden at 03:54 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Here are my comments on the issue:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/10/should-you-buy-an-electric-car-if-you-live-in-a-coal-state/
Pluvial, I think the answer to your question is actualy very simple: Electric motors are a gazillion times more efficient than combustion based motors.
Regarding depreciation: That is pretty much a hippie-punching arguments. EVs have no known depreciation function. They are a new technology, and the market hasn't come close to making up its mind.
-
nomorewoo at 03:36 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Another thing that is missing from this analysis is the depreciation costs on EVs compared to those on ICEs. Based on my own research in looking for an EV or Hybrid, the EVs have drammatically higher depreciation costs (except for Tesla, but who can afford those anyway). I would really like to purchase an EV for the fuel cost savings and emission reductions , but on my budget I cannot afford it, considering how badly I would get hurt on the depreciation. A comparison of the depreciation costs of EV vs Hybrid vs ICE would be great.
-
PluviAL at 03:28 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
PluviAl at 11: That is spelled "Carbon Tax, or Tariff" and a much harder sell, but it needs to happen.
-
PluviAL at 03:25 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
I did not see a compensation for electrical transmission costs. Perhaps there is a mechanism in there to allow for it, which did not register with me. If not, this is an important part of the function. You would have to devide your electrical outcome by the delivery function. If line losses are say 20%, then your 286 must be devided by 0.8 giving you 357 CO2 emission lbs. That's still better than ICE, but not a viable solution for the planet, where another 75% of 9 billion people can drive cars.
We kid ourselves a lot about how the automotive urban structure is workable. It is luxurious, but it is not viable. I still feel the best solution for CO2, and overall environmental load on the planet per person, is to redesign urban profiles so as to reduce auto miles. That's a much harder thing to achieve, but that's where we should be aiming.
-
greg_laden at 02:58 AM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
This is a very nicely done and important article, thank's for doing all this work.
-
David Kirtley at 23:27 PM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Ogemaniac @5 - YMMV (heh!). The Leaf's range is about 80-100 miles on a full charge so that is a bit limiting, but it depends on one's needs. We live in St Louis, MO, a smallish, big-city where most everything is close-by. My commute is 12.5 miles one-way, my wife's is about 10 miles one-way (although she often has to drive around to meetings on some days). So the Leaf is a perfect vehicle for about 90-95% of our needs.
Jim @6 - Yes, in areas powered by fewer fossil fuels EVs would have an even smaller carbon footprint than mine. Which is why I thought my situation would make a good "test-case" to see if EVs are worth it. You have NO coal in your energy mix?! Amazing!
BBHY and ubrew @ 7 & 8 - I hadn't considered that there may be even more emissions involved in gasoline production. But, I wanted to be as "generous" to the ICE condition of my comparison as possible...I didn't want to be accused of tipping the scale towards my EV. ;)
-
Tom Curtis at 22:13 PM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Doug Mackie, chemistry tends to be a mystery to me, so I am asking for you to clarrify some points. To begin with, according to David Archer, after the initial uptake of a pulse of CO2 by the ocean, there is a period of about 5000 years in which the "reaction with CaCO3", which significantly draws down the atmspheric CO2:
While 5000 years is a long time in historical terms, it is still a relevant human time scale.
My understanding is that the same process will return the ocean pH to approximately preindustrial levels.
Further, as I understand it, the chemical reaction involved is:
CO2 + CaCO3 + H2O <-> 2HCO3- + Ca2+
Looking at the equilibrium chart for carbon species in the ocean, it appears to me that the reaction draws down CO2 from the atmosphere be drawing down the pool of aqueous CO2/H2CO3, with the additional effect of shifting the equilibrium balance towards reduced CO2/H2CO3 relative to HCO3- due to the shift in pH:
While I am unsure that that is the precise mechanism, it appears this reaction is sufficiently useful at drawing down CO2 that it has been proposed as a method to reduce atmospheric CO2 artificially.
As I said, chemistry tends to be a mystery to me, so I may well have got one or more points wrong on this. Could you explain to me where I am in error, preferably in a comment longer than a tweet and without all caps.
-
ubrew12 at 22:12 PM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Per BBHY@7, one source I found has a DOE estimate that 6 kWhr of power is lost in refining one gallon of gasoline. If from coal, that's 12 lbs of CO2. Add in transportation and storage, and its likely the 18 lb CO2/gal used above should be doubled, to 36 lbs CO2/gal of gasoline. In the pilot episode for Robert Llewelyn's TV series on EV vehicles, "Fully Charged" he made the same claim (that actual CO2 from gasoline is more than twice the CO2 from combustion alone. Comparison at 6.5' into this episode).
-
John Mason at 19:04 PM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Doug, fossil fuel combustion is a process that yanks gigatons of carbon out of the slow carbon cycle. I struggle to see why you view that as an irrelevance.
-
John Mason at 19:02 PM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Chris - yes I think you'll find I've made that abundantly clear. LIPs and human combustion of fossil fuels are rare instances of very rapid perturbations of the slow carbon cycle. Even periods of vastly enhanced weathering of mafic rocks are slow compared to a) the Siberian Traps or b) anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion, although they can be significant nevertheless. Ref. the "weathering goes crazy" tweet and the ones giving figures for the Traps and manmade emissions. The point being that the slow carbon cycle goes along fine and dandy - unless it gets messed with by something of a dramatic nature.
-
BBHY at 17:41 PM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Good analysis!
But... I've seen this often (almost always, actually) in EV comparisons. While you have a good start, you are missing something important.
Using a figure of 18 lbs of CO2 for gasoline only takes into account the final end product.
So basically this follows the electricity all the way back to the source, but then assumes that gasoline magically flows from the ground, fully refined, right at the local filling station. In reality there are CO2 emissions from the drilling, pumping, transport, and refining. To be really fair, even natural gas flaring, (burning off the un-wanted by-product of oil extraction) and oil spills should be accounted for.
Those emissions are not well documented, so they are difficult to include, but they are real. For instance, refining using about 3 KWh of electic power per gallon of gasoline, which would power the EV about 10 miles. If the oil came from tar sands then that figure is double or triple. If the electric power for the EV came from coal, you can also assume that the power for the refinery also came from coal.
-
Doug Mackie at 16:14 PM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Slow carbon irrelevant to CC & OA. Deceptive to jiggle ‘sink’ definition & talk basalt, original tweet limestone. Why you DENIALIST TACTICS?
Moderator Response:[JH] All-caps snipped.
Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.
-
Jim Eager at 10:55 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Great to know that even in a jurisdiction where 80-90% of electrical generation comes from burning coal the EV wins, but remember - and be sure to point out - that the CO2 savings will be much higher where nuclear, hydroelectric and even natural gas account for a higher proportion of generation. For example, here in Ontario 61% comes from nuclear, 24% from hydro, 9% from nat gas & oil, 6% from wind, less than 1% from solar and biofuel, and a big fat zero from coal. Buying and operating an EV here will obviously keep much more CO2 out of the atmosphere.
-
Ogemaniac at 10:12 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Are there any spillover effects, where having a range-limited Leaf forces you to use the Escape when, if you had a small hybrid ICE vehicle instead of the Leaf, you would use the latter instead? I know there would be for my family, and it is a major reason that I have no interest in an EV at this time. We use our Prius for a lot of our long trips, which while few in number make up a disproportionate share of our miles driven. If we had to use our big vehicle instead, emissions would obviously go up, and I would guestimate by an amount comparable to any savings the Leaf has over the Prius.
-
scaddenp at 09:21 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Interesting report David. According to the report, EV are 15% higher emissions to manufacture than corrosponding gasoline vehicle, but this is more than offset by the lower emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle.
-
David Kirtley at 08:21 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Mark @1 - Perhaps someday!
Boost @2 - I haven't had a chance to look through this report from the UCS: Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave, but their blog post about it says: "We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."
-
chriskoz at 08:10 AM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
John Mason@4,
You know better than me that Slow Carbon Cycle, no matter how far back we can look into the past has never had the sequestering rate (maily silicate weathering) nearly as fast as to make any difference in the current antropogenic release, the release comparable to largest LIPs on record.
Therefore, there is no point talking about silicate weathering in th econtext of carbon cycle balancing we are facing in antropocene: it will never help us. All CC perturbtions in geo-history were fast releases (LIPs) and slow drawdown (increased weathering). Increased drawdowns (changes in weathering rates) never matched the changes in releases (LIPs), weathering were always slower by a factor of 100.
-
Boost230 at 08:01 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
How about an article that reviews the carbon impact of building an EV compared to a regular gas or diesel vehicle to really determine whether it is truly green? That is something brought up a lot to discourage EVs And I don't know what the difference truly is.
Thanks
-
PluviAL at 05:45 AM on 10 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
I hang around Skeptical Science and learned a lot from the pill size tweets, so I think this is a really good idea, although I seldom use tweeter.
-
Mark Schaffer at 03:14 AM on 10 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Time for you to get a solar PV system and a Tesla Powerwall installed on your home.
-
citizenschallenge at 23:58 PM on 9 March 2017Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
Speaking of communicating clearly - what responsiblity do scientists have in that regard? Specifically I've spent a lot of time looking at Fyfe 2016 and it is about a poorly and counter-productively written as I can imagine - but better not call them on it. All ya get is hurt feelings and slammed doors, no matter how carefully or constructively one constructs their arguments.
Fyfe et al. 2016: stamp collecting vs informing and clarifying. Examining a failure to communicate
... and a question of perspective.
Alternately, Behold Seepage in Action.(Skipping my introduction here)
Fyfe 2016 introduction:
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming (b) slowdown or hiatus (a)(e), characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming (c), has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims (d).
_______________________________________________________The problem >>>
Why the labyrinthian phrasing? Simplify wording. Clarify meaning.
(a) Creates a false equivalence between “slowdown” and “hiatus” - hiatus means STOPPED! But, Global Warming never stopped!
(b) Creates a false equivalence between “global warming” and “global mean surface warming.”
(c) Furthermore: “early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming” - implies “surface” warming slowdown (or faux hiatus) is a symptom of a “global” warming slowdown.
(d) “Evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” Given the paragraph's convoluted wording one could easily conclude this is saying: the “hiatus” (that is global warming stopping) is not contradicted
… which is exactly what the contrarian PR machine was hoping they could twist any science into. Why make it so easy?
(e) Why even use the politically charged term “hiatus” beyond a footnote? What possible purpose does it serve other than to fatally wound clarity and invite gross misinterpretation?
This paper seems a textbook example of “seepage” in action. Or as I would phrase it, unconsciously adapting the contrarian’s script. Please keep this in mind as you continue.
_______________________________________________________________________
Fyfe: ¶1 A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)1 — indicates that the so-called surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus,
__________________________________________________________
“sometimes referred to...” ? What purpose is there in reinforcing the faux “hiatus” meme?
_______________________________________________________________________
Fyfe: was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing (volcanic and solar) superimposed on human-caused warming2.
__________________________________________________________“internal decadal variabilities” - that would be heat transport?
Why not get explicit and point out that Atmospheric Physics are what's causing Global Warming - not Heat Transport between the oceans and the surface?
_______________________________________________________________________But that's just the beginning highlights. For the entire exercise in futility visit: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/fyfe2016-stampcollecting-vs-informing.html
-
John Mason at 19:17 PM on 9 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Doug, the Slow Carbon Cycle is called just that for fairly obvious reasons. Yes it does mostly operate on geological timescales, but there is evidence for periods of highly enhanced weathering. These are considered to be preserved in the Sr isotope record e.g. in the run-up to the Hirnantian glaciation/extinction (ref below). The complex process of Ca-bearing silicate weathering by atmospheric CO2 dissolved in rainwater through to deposition of carbonate sediments is an overall remover of carbon, locking it up within limestone. Since Ca-silicate weathering and limestone deposition are both ongoing processes worldwide, there is a continuous flux of carbon from the air into the lithosphere. The quantity of carbon thus stored away in limestones is phenomenal. You will note that I talk about carbon as opposed to carbon-bearing species, as regardless of your points it cannot be denied that the process begins with carbon in the form of CO2 and its interactions with water and calc-silicates:
2CO2 + 3H2O + CaSiO3 = 2HCO3 – + Ca2+ + H4SiO4and ends with calcium carbonate deposition:
2HCO3 – + Ca2+ = CO2 + H2O + CaCO3
2 moles of carbon (as CO2) at the start; 1 mole returned as CO2 at the end, 1 mole locked away in calcium carbonate. Overall, that whole bit of the Slow Carbon Cycle results in a net loss of atmospheric CO2.
That's the process going one way. But perturbations of the Slow Carbon Cycle in the opposite sense can occasionally be much more rapid - the Siberian Traps magmas cooking a thick oil/coal-rich sedimentary basin sequence being one example. Mankind's burning of the fossil fuels is another. The point is that the Slow Carbon Cycle both stores and releases carbon continuously, but great big carbon burps can occasionally occur, for which the consequences tend not to be pretty!
Ref: Young, S.A., Saltzman, M.R., Foland, K.A., Linder, J.S. and Kump, L.R. (2009): A major drop in seawater 87Sr/86Sr during the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian): Links to volcanism and climate? Geology, October 2009, v. 37, p. 951-954. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:47 PM on 9 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
OMFG :-(
Nice catch Tom. -
Doug Mackie at 12:32 PM on 9 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Weathering basalt so slow it is OBFUSCATION to mention. Weathering limestone releases bicarbonate; insignificant to CC on human time scale
Moderator Response:[JH] All-caps snipped.
Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.
-
Doug Mackie at 12:30 PM on 9 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Calcification (formation limestone) removes 2 bicarbonate & releases 1 CO2 in ocean. Not realistic to imply bicarbonate precursor to a GHG
-
Doug Mackie at 12:27 PM on 9 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Dancing around a definition like this and introducing something not previously discussed (basalt) is EXACTLY what deniers do. SHAME!
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 9 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
While not directly related to climate science, it is a fair indication of the quality of science reporting by The Australian Newspaper that they reported today that Isaac Newton discovered the laws of thermodynamics. C.P.Snow would be rolling in his grave.
This atrocity of fake facts should at least illustrate the quality of reporting in The Australian with regards to science in general, even when they find The Australian's reporting of climate science so genial to their prejudices.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 9 March 2017Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
Much depends on where you live.
I live in a temperate climate region, and face costs from sea level rise, more storms and floods, reflected in insurance policies and rates. I face lower heating costs in winter, but these would not be that much lower, and I would have to buy air conditioner in summer. I think on balance I will be significantly worse off due to climate change. The costs of climate change also seem to me to be insidious and hidden.
Of course the billions in tropical and arid climate zones are even worse off. It would not be humane to ignore this.
People in Canada and northern parts of Russia would maybe do ok. This probably partly explains their rather climate science sceptical attitude.
-
barry1487 at 01:27 AM on 9 March 2017The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
UAHv6 has finally been published. Kevin C has updated his temp trend app to include it. Could we have that updated at the SkS app, too?
-
chriskoz at 20:34 PM on 8 March 2017Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
To further elaborate on Gavin's point about these models'simplistic approach, I must once again bring the article about Samson 2011:
co2-limits-economy-advanced.htm
If the models consider the impact on the emitting nations themselves, they are simply bogus because impacts disproportionately affects non-emitting (e.g. African) nations.
-
sidd at 16:10 PM on 8 March 2017Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
One difficulty I have with integrated assessment models is that they seem to underestimate the unnerving possibility of sea level rise increasing by a factor of ten and remaining elevated for half a millennium. And Dr. Schmidt is quite correct about the self referential bit. Personally I find reading Tol exhausting. Given his history of erroneous results, I find myself compelled to check every claim, and too often the claims rest on previous work by Tol and so on.I am glad there are more competent people checking his work.sidd -
chriskoz at 12:12 PM on 8 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #9
A big report from Australia. Climate Council (former gov Climate Commission now defunct thanks to current govs' denialist attitude):
Angry summer is the new normal
In it, the usual critique of "Clean Coal" nonsense put forward by Malcolm Turnbull. But one point worth quoting here is:
Despite Australia's commitment to decrease its production of greenhouse gas emissions at the Paris international climate change talks in 2015, our emissions rose by 0.8 per cent last year.
I note that the rise of emissions coincides with the carbon tax repeal by "CO2 is only a trace gas" & "Coal is good for humanity" Tony Abbott. In the couple previous years, following the carbon tax introduction by previous, lefty govs, the emissions were falling slightly. The so called "Direct Action" (paying the pulluters for their largely token promisses) introduced by Tony, and cherished by the "Clean Coal" Malcolm, does not generate any news, means as if it did not exist. The only implied news comes herein and confirms that "Direct Action" is not working, the expected outcome.
-
michael sweet at 11:23 AM on 8 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Chriskoz,
I think that we are not very different in our thinking. I look at the glass as half full now. Perhaps since Australia has so much coal, and does not have as much renewable energy as the USA does, you are more skeptical than I am. It is best to have skeptical opinions reviewed to keep enthusiasts in line.
Without seeing any calculations, I doubt that cars can contribute more than a few percent of needed power at night. On the other hand, if cars were charged during the solar maximum during the day it would dramatically lower night time need for electricity. This graph from Thinkprogress
Appears to show that the largest grid operator in California got about 9,000 Megwatt from utility solar power on March 3, 2017. The top of the demand curve has been knocked way down by distributed solar. Comparing demand at 19:00, after the sun goes down, to the graph I posted at 24, it appears that the peak demand at 14:00 was reduced by at least 4000 Megwatt by distributed solar. Total peak demand was probably about 28000 Megwatt and solar provided half of that power for several hours. Hydro and nuclear baseload would have provided much of the remaining power. California will get several hours more direct sun in June than in March.
It is still very early days installing solar. Only a few years ago solar cost twice utility power. Now you save money by installing solar on your roof. With another few years of installing solar, during the solar peak there will be no demand for baseload power. That is not even considering wind. It will be very interesting to see a similar graph on a windy day this summer. Utilities will have to lower electricity cost during the solar peak to incentivise users to charge electric cars durig the day instead of at night.
It is discouraging to have electric cars running on coal power. We have to take the long view. Both the cart (electric cars) and the horse (WWS power) have to be built at the same time.
Every method of storing electricity for windless nights reduces the final cost of the grid, even if it is a small contribution. Car batteries will not do it all but they can reduce the final cost.
Jacobson likes Hydrogen (manufactured by electrolysis during periods of high wind/solar) as the primary energy storage. The hydrogen could be stored in current natural gas facilities. Fuel cells (still in scale up from lab models) would be the most efficient method of generating the electricity. Many other methods of energy storage are being considered. Grid interconnections will allow transfer of excess wind or solar from one area to other areas. It is difficult today to predict what methods will end up being the most economic.
Moderator Response:[RH] Adjusted image size.
-
chriskoz at 09:24 AM on 8 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
michael sweet@24,
ATM, I have only time to quickly acknowledge your response, thanks.
This topic can be discussed at length. Briefly, I agree with all point you make. They confirm my opinion that, contrary to how this OP was written, EV batteries cannot be and will not be the main source of grid backing. They will play only a supplementary part, and a small one. The main part must be played by all the storage options you describe, that can be far more secure to start with.
From the cother commenters I see that the way EV batteries are currently used, they are big source of energy drawdown at night while they are driving during the day: the opposite to what they should do. Consumers are absolutely opposed to exploiting their batteries the required way and don't want to discharge them to the benefit of the grid because it shortens their lifetime. So they stick to the stigma of "running EVs on coal", even though no doubt the majority of them don't like to be seen that way. It comes down to the economic insentives: if the price of the so called "off-peak" nightly tarrif (for energy generated mainly from coal in my state of NSW) was higher, much higher than the daytime energy, then those EV battery owners would do everything to charge it at day from their solars and sell the charge at night. This is the main, crucial incentive, a link to the renewable grid. A cheap, and most importantly, a secure coupled storage is another link. I don't see EV batteries to take that role as currently they are not cheap (and I don't see them becoming cheaper over time because their production require mining of rare minerals) and they are simply consumers rather than producers. We have short moments when people let them be producers when the price of energy spikes very high, like on Sandy aftermath: the energy prices went to essntially infinity. But we're not talking about disaster management here: rather about the main grid operation. I arguee once again, that for grid sustainability, we need fundamental shift of economic incentives for a large energy consumer like the EV battery fleet, to become energy producer in order to balance the grid. And that applies to other consumers cappable of energy storage, e.g. house solar batteries. In looks obvious to me, that house solar batteries (as opposed to EV batteries) have much much higher chance of becoming this "missing link" in zero energy grid in OP sense, because they can be far more reliable to start with. But I would still argue that the electric battery technology will be only a minor player in the big picture of balancing grid operations: a cheaper storage is required, and with a good energy density, although I doubt humanity ever be able to compress renewable energy on the required scale to the levels compressed in FF. But tha latter is not really required to achieve zero emissions.
-
BILLHURLEY13951 at 05:50 AM on 8 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
Also, I've had some luck by admitting I firmly beleive man has caused Global Warming - but if we differ on that, so what? It's still a problem! And it's exacerbated by more GHGs.
Often the other side, pauses and rethinks their entire conclusion (which is what we want - right?)
OK, I say: "If a tornado is heading my way, I won't sit there until I figure out how it started. "
Is that maybe a good way to argue?
-
BILLHURLEY13951 at 05:43 AM on 8 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
Great topic. Americans opinions on CC are broad but shallow. IE since it's a distant problem, God or technology (or both) - will come thru for us so it's not an immediate concern. But it is a 'concern' and we need not forget it.
That's my experience listening to most serious voters here in Texas. The majority don't dispute the problem. Just the solution (the ones they hear anyway) turn them off.
But there is a overwhelming problem. The biggest mismatch seems to be a lack of understanding for biodiversity, the "web of life" relationships and basic science stuff (when an individual link stops working- the chain weakens).
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 8 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
Stephen Baines @2, you make the point regarding the narrow majority believing we are altering the climate, but the larger majority wanting renewable energy. You appear to say the numbers might suggest people may accept the science, but be relutant to openly admit we are altering the climate because they don't want to be seen as identifying with the liberal elite, but find it easier to say they support renewable energy. It's a good point.
They may also be unwilling to accept that humanity has potentially done something wrong, or have religious convictions that humans could not possibly alter Gods creation (I say this respectfully), but are still able to support renewable energy. It's a peculiar and contradictory mental state, but entirely possible, because humans are knownfor being able to hold contradictory views in their head,without being bothered by the tension of this. I read a psychological article on this somewhere.
However we also have the situation where only a narrow majority believe we are altering the climate, but a bigger majority want carbon emissions cut. This is harder to explain, and suggests they are confused, or half sceptical, and are kind of "betting a dollar both ways".
-
PluviAL at 03:00 AM on 8 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
Right on, M. Sweet, this is what jumps out from the maps at me too. Regions strongly affected can be won over with message targeted at their cultural concerns.
Once on board, the Senate will move to rapid action, because it is strongly controlled by the rural parts of the nation: 2 Senator represent 38 million Californians, whereas an equal number of 2 senators represent the scant population of Wyoming.
The presidency will go the same way too because of the electoral college system distortion.
-
fpjohn at 01:27 AM on 8 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
It strikes me that those more inclined to acceptance of CC and regulation of CO2 emissions are geographically distributed in regions increasingly subject to drought and coastal or regional flooding. Perhaps direct experience is the relative demographic parameter?
yours
Frank
-
michael sweet at 20:50 PM on 7 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
I have seen reports that white, non-organic farmers are aware that the weather is changing. For political reasons they do not talk about climate change, they say "unusual weather we have been having lately". SInce it is for political reasons that they do not argue for changes, more data is unlikely to change their minds. It is not clear to me why they would notice weather changing, which is critical to their business success, but not take action to preserve the weather we have.
A new message has to be developed to reach this important group of people who already know that the weather has changed. Since you have experience with these groups of people, can you suggest a message that will counter the fossil fule story? Perhaps the next severe drought in the Midwest will convince them to take action.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:35 PM on 7 March 2017Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
stephen baines @80, thankyou. I must reject the accolade, however, in that I have not kept up with the last 20 years of philosopy of science, so it is not really a review. Philosophy Now has this summary of the more recent developments in philosophy of science:
"The first of these questions is the one with which the likes of Popper and Kuhn wrestled in the past (see previous page), but the debates have moved on. As David Papineau, of King’s College London, remarks, “Nobody works with Popper’s assumptions any more.” These days, the debate is between instrumentalists (not of the musical variety) and realists. Instrumentalists argue that scientific theories do not tell us what the world is really like but they do allow us to make predictions about the world. Scientific theories are instruments for making predictions about the world. Their opponents, who are called realists, believe that scientific theories in fact describe the world and that the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions is an indication that it is successfully describing the world.
Bas van Fraassen takes the position that what scientists are trying to do is to describe the way the world really is, not merely to make mathematically accurate predictions. However, he agrees with the instrumentalists that one can never know the truth of such claims and can only judge theories on how good they are at making predictions. He calls this position ‘constructive empiricism’."
-
stephen baines14492 at 14:48 PM on 7 March 2017Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
That's a great succinct review Tom!
Applying the strict Popperian criteria of falsifiability in a blanket sense to complex topics like climate change is a common trick of all science skeptics. It's also common trick used by those challenging evolution, who claim that every uncertainty or gap concerning the mechanisms which give rise to new species, adaptation or novel traits should be taken as disproof of decades of research supporting central role of evolution in biology.
The other trick is to claim that consensus formed through years of testing and rejecting alternative hypotheses results in an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as if the previous testing never occurred. It's an effective attack (on purely rhetorical grounds) when targeting those unfamiliar with the history of disciplines in question. It plays well in the atmosphere of cultural division that we now see.
-
wili at 14:47 PM on 7 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
Interesting in the first map where (outside of the NE) you find rural counties with relatively high percentages understanding climate science: predominantly Black counties in the deep South; predominantly Latino communities in, for example, Texas; predominantly Native American counties in say Arizona and South Dakota; centers of organic farming such as SE Wisconsin and thereabouts. So...it's white, non-organic farmers and their communities we have to work on, it seems. Any ideas?
-
stephen baines14492 at 14:32 PM on 7 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
I have a slightly different take. I'm not sure people are that skeptical of scientists - trust is at 71% afterall, which is darn high. But what they think scientists believe is different from what scientists actually believe, and not by a small amount. While 53 % thought climate change was human caused, a marginally smaller fraction (49%) think scientists agree with that proposition. People have an imaginary scientist in mind when they trust them!
Three possible explanations non exclusive explanations.
1. We and the press have done a terrible job at emphasizing the degree of consensus about the issue. The simplistic equal time approach of most journalism is a factor. Also, obviously, the intense counter PR by fossil fuel companies.
2. The fact that "climate change" has become a code word in the culture wars pitting so called "coastal elites" against small town "common folk." (As I supposedly come from both, I hate those terms!). That is part of a larger PR campaign, it's true, but one that amplifies pre-existing divisions in US society - and maybe across the Western World. But it may explain why people are fine with approaches that address anthropogenic climate change without having to admit to it.
3. People like to believe their position is right and claim science supports it to buttress their case.
The degree to which each hypothesis is correct may suggest different approaches to addressing the problem.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 7 March 2017Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Synthetic Organic @77, it is impossible that falsifiability be "the very definition of science" given that as a criterion, it was not invented till the 1930s in Austria by Karl Popper. A great deal of what is still considered some of the best science peceded that invention, including the discovery of relativity (special and general) and of quantum mechanics. That science was carried out by people who had never heard of falsifiability, let alone imagined that "it was the very definition" of the activity they devoted their lives to.
The key point here is that Popper was just one philosopher of science, who proposed what he considered to be a non-falsifiable methodology of science. That is, by his own words, his theory of the method of science was not scientific.
More importantly, his proposed methodology was not agreed to by all, or even most, philosophers of science, and was shown to be methodologically inadequate, and false as a description of the actual methodology of science by his student Imre Lakatos. That was also shown by Thomas Kuhn, and arguably (although his thesis is far too strong) by Paul Feyerabend.
There is a lot of confusion on this point, both because many scientists are indifferent philosophers of science (although a rare few are very astute), and because Naive Falsificationism (which Popper also rejected) is often seized upon by pseudoscientists as a criteria to (incorrectly) reject genuine science, and also by disciplines of disputable scientific merit (economics, psychology) in attempts to show that they really are scientific.
Prev 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 Next
