Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 Next
Comments 20851 to 20900:
-
SemiChemE at 15:00 PM on 13 March 2017Models are unreliable
I'm new here, but here's a quick intro, I'm a chemical engineer with approximately 20 years experience in the semiconductor industry. A significant portion of that time involved computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of reacting flows. Thus, I'm quite familiar with the capabilities and limitations of CFD models. All GCMs are at heart, large-scale CFD models.
@1003 - The video gives a nice overview of the climate models for the layman, but I can't help but think the scientists are downplaying many of the model limitations.
Yes, for most of the phenomena of interest the basic physics are pretty well understood, but to model them on a planetary scale, gross simplifying assumptions must be made due to computational limitations. The skill of the model is intimately tied to the accuracy of these assumptions and that is where the model can easily go astray.
Dr. Judith Curry gives a pretty good summary for the layman of some of the most salient model limitations in an article linked here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/21/curry-computer-predictions-of-climate-alarm-are-flawed/
The bottom line is that while some of the approximations are extremely accurate, by necessity the models for some processes are quite crude. This latter set, varies from model to model depending on the specific model purpose and is one reason for the spread in reported model results. It is these crude approximations that ultimately must be tuned to fit the available data, but with such tuning comes the ever present risk of getting the right answer for the wrong reason, in which case there is no guarantee that the model will be useful for future predictions.
If we had several earths to experiment on, we could run multiple experiments with different forcing conditions and sort out the various contributions of different effects, but since we have only one earth, we don't have any way to completely distinguish the impact of the various forcings (eg. CO2 levels, solar radiation, cloud formation, SO2 and aerosols, Natural variability, etc...) from each other. This means we have to make educated guesses about the various sensitivities. Over time, these guesses will get better, as we get more data to compare them to and we better understand the various sources of natural variaton (eg El Nino/La Nina).
However, at the moment, we really only have about 40 years of reliable, high-density data (the satellite era) and we're trying to decouple the impact of increasing CO2 from a natural variability signal that also seems to have a 30-60 year period. Dr. Curry contends that the due to such factors, the IPCC has over-estimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, possibly by as much as a factor of two.
If true, this means that climate change will happen much more slowly and to a lesser degree than originally predicted.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:34 PM on 13 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #10
Um, a 5055% chance of an El Nino?
Moderator Response:[JH] A little dash will do it! Thanks for catching this glitch.
-
SemiChemE at 12:45 PM on 13 March 2017Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
How does Green-house-gas driven warming effect the diurnal temperature cycle and what impact would that be expected to have on weather?
My understanding is that one would expect night-time lows to rise more than day-time highs. I believe this has been observed and stated as evidence for AGW. Thus, the difference between daily highs and lows should actually be reduced by AGW, which in turn presumably would tend to moderate extreme weather events (winds and precipitation).
Of course, I'm not a weather expert, so I may be missing some important effect. For example, the changes in surface temperatures may be different from those at higher altitudes, driving cloud formation.
-
David Kirtley at 11:27 AM on 13 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Another issue which sometimes comes up as an "argument" against EVs is that us hippies are not paying our fair share of fuel taxes which go towards roads, etc. David Robert's had a recent post on this: Buying an electric vehicle? A growing list of states will charge you extra yearly fees.
Here in Missouri we already have a "yearly fee" of $75.00. But I wondered if that amount really covers my "fair share" and offsets what I would normally pay in fuel taxes at the gas pump, so I made another table:
For each month, the number of gaIlons is the amount I avoided using by driving the EV instead of the ICE car. It looks like Missouri is getting $26 more from me because of the EV. And the Feds are out $52.
I don't really mind paying $75 for the sticker each year, but I think there is probably a better solution(s) for collecting "taxes" to pay for roads. Especially since the Feds are left holding the bag in Missouri.
-
bogfetto at 23:07 PM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 12 March, 2017
Moderator Response:[DB] The user is a sock puppet of a previously banned user, which was also a sock puppet of another previously banned user. Posting rights rescinded.
[JH] The person behind the bogfetto screen has retuurned as beardface. All of his/her posts will be summarily deleted.
As time permits, I will also delete all of bogfetto's prior posts.
-
Paul D at 20:49 PM on 12 March 2017How Green is My EV?
Robert Llewellyn (Red Dwarf) has a good Youtube channel that covers EVs and renewable energy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/fullychargedshow
He used to drive a Nissan Leaf, but now has a Tesla.
Lets not forget electric bikes which have had a much greater rate of success than cars. Pensioners and other 'reluctant' cyclists now use electric cycles to get to work.
On the issue of electric motor vehicles the positives out weigh the negatives and there is a much bigger issue in general regarding the electrification of the energy system. This enables all sorts of advances in technology. Electric motive power is generally revolutionising many areas of transport and technology. This includes use of electric drive in ships and the beginnings of electric flight.
If you also factor in superconducting motors and generators, sodium-ion battery developments and numerous other ongoing advances, then the negativity regarding renewables and EVs is larger misplaced due to lack of knowledge or ignoprance.
EV positives:
1. Energy used to move the vehicles is low carbon and this energy represents the greatest carbon footprint over the vehicles life time. The issue of manufacturing emissions is one that is both insignificant and resolvable through evolving improvements.
2. Particulate pollution is reduced. Diesel emissions are a growing problem and EVs are the only solution that tackles both carbon and particulate emissions.
3. EVs accelerate very quickly which is a selling point. They do so because the energy transfer is very efficient.
4. They are very reliable, this is important since modern cars are almost impossible to maintain for the average person, so less trips to a car servicing garage, the better.
5. The batteries last longer than the cars themselves and can be used in the second hand energy market (grid balancing, smoothing).
There is a bigger picture out there and its electric. -
michael sweet at 12:29 PM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Interesting picture of a cloud showing at least five atmospheric layers that are not mixing.
-
michael sweet at 12:08 PM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
This picture shows at least three layers of the atmosphere that do not mix. This disproves the wild claim that the atmsosphere "moves freely"
Heat is ony transferred slowly by wind and thermals through the troposphere. Uninformed people think it is fast because they do not consider how big the Earth is. Wind takes days to cross even the distance across a single ocean. It takes weeks and months to transfer energy to the Arctic from the equator. The Atmosphere has many layers that do not freely mix. IR transfer of heat is much faster than thermal transfer. IR heat is blocked by CO2, causing greenhouse warming.
Bogfetto,
Please provide data to support your wild claim that the atmosphere "moves freely" at a rate that is significant to release of energy from the top of the atmosphere. I have provided data showing that the atmosphere does not freely mix to a significant extent.
Moderator Response:[JH] Bugfotto has relinquishd his privilege of posting comments on this site.
-
Cid_Yama at 10:36 AM on 12 March 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
Maybe someone can delete the 2 prior posts.
Link is to a paper released December 2016, that is a good follow-up to your article -Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of highCO2 concentrations? - dated 17 November 2014.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Dayton @440, that is not an improvement of the analogy. Specifically, the air between the shirt and the skin quickly obtains the same temperature as the skin, which does not occur in the atmosphere. A better defense of the analogy is to point out that there is a temperture gradient within the fabric of the shirt, with the inner most layer of the shirt being skin temperature, and the outermost layer being room temperature. That is, as bogfetto points out, because of the restricted circulation of air within the shirt - but such restricted circulation is not necessary to set up a temperature gradient, and thereby an insulating effect. Specifically, the troposphere also has a distinct energy gradient which is a product of the inefficiency of energy transfer within the atmosphere. Absent convection, it would be even more inefficient and the surface temperature would be higher (as shown by Manabe). If the atmosphere were perfectly efficient at transfering energy, as appears to be assumed by bogfetto, then the temperature of the atmosphere would be constant with altitude.
-
Cid_Yama at 10:13 AM on 12 March 2017Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
In response to the questions posted by posters:
Chronic Respiratory Carbon Dioxide Toxicity: a serious unapprehended health risk of climate change
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:08 AM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
bogfetto, you claimed "The atmosphere is air that moves freely."
But the atmosphere does not move freely into outer space. Only trivial amounts of atmosphere escape to space. So outer space is the equivalent of the shirt. The atmosphere is the equivalent of the air inside the shirt. The atmosphere insulates the surface from the cold of space. The air trapped inside the shirt insulates the skin from the cold of the air outside the shirt.
-
Chris Snow at 08:51 AM on 12 March 2017How Green is My EV?
We bought a second hand Leaf just over a year ago and, since we live in the UK where fuel costs are much higher (currently around £1.18/litre or around £5.40/gallon) the savings are much greater. Assuming that all the extra electricity we have used over the past 12 months is due to recharging the car, we've saved over £1,200 compared to the previous year when we had our ICE.
As we're with a 100% renewable energy supplier, our only direct fossil fuel use is the natural gas we use for heating and cooking. That was around 9000 kWh last year, which gives annual CO2 emissions of around 1.7 tonnes of CO2. That's for a family of four.
From our experience, I'd say that massively increasing the renewable energy generating capacity and moving to EVs will go a long way to reducing CO2 emissions to the level that we need to. It will also have other benefits such as cleaner air in towns and cities and less noise.
There are still a few annoyances though. The range can be a pain sometimes but I expect the next generation of EVs to have a much greater range. Also, we need more recharging points, especially where we live!
There are no insurmountable problems to reducing CO2 emissions; what is lacking is leadership in tackling the issue.
-
Eclectic at 08:49 AM on 12 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Tom @32 , my apology for not making my statement clearer.
When I said "these few", I was referring to the "very tiny" number of climate-knowlegeable scientists (such as Curry and Christy, for example) who are "lukewarmers" in the sense of bending over backwards to minimise the importance of the present-day global warming process.
Mr Warren Meyers quite evidently does not fit that description, though he seems to wish to masquerade as lukewarm. His advocacy/sophistry fails to be scientifically logical. He would benefit from some self-examination, as to why he (as an intelligent man) is striving to be in denial about the very straightforward findings of climatological science and about the major global warming changes that have already occurred in the physical world.
The effect of denialism is much the same, regardless of whether the intention is anti-scientific advocacy or semi-scientific Lukewarmism.
As you imply, Tom :- those who aim to be "semi-scientific" are really aiming to be semi-pregnant.
-
sauerj at 05:03 AM on 12 March 2017How Green is My EV?
nigelj @15: I think nomorewoo is talking about battery life. I have read 5-10 years, or ~100,000 mile lifespan. At a cost of $10k to replace them (LINK), this is an important point in terms of determining the true net life-time CO2 emission differences.
Similar to Dave's study, I did a similar but "theoritical" analysis based on my state's Indiana power. IN's power fuel mix has an even higher lbsCO2/kwh footprint than MO. I came up with the following theortical results.
EV: 3.2 lbsCO2/kwh (power delivered to the wheels). Based on 1) 62% EV "grid-to-wheels" efficiency for grid+batteries+motor inefficiencies (link). And, 2) for the CO2/kwh factor, I derived the weighted avg IN power to be 1.85 lbsCO2/kwh (based on 77% coal (2.1), 19% gas (1.22), 4% non-carbon (zero); sources: IN fuel %split #'s & CO2 by fuel type). Then, 3) I applied a mine-to-PP for coal (or well-to-PP for gas) extraction/refinement scale-up factor of 1.09 (I assumed the same # for both coal & gas) which increased this 1.85 to 2.01 lbsCO2/kwh (exactly the same # as Dave has here but I clarify that this is for IN power & does include what I think is appropriate factor for the coal&gas extraction+refinement CO2 scale-up factor). Source for this 1.09 "extraction+refinement" scale-up factor is HERE (math=1205/(1205-100)). ... Final complete math: (2.01lbsCO2/kwh)/(61%grid-to-wheel eff) = 3.2 lbsCO2/kwh (to wheels)
ICE: Range of values depending on ICE eff: 3.5 lbsCO2/kwh to 4.4 lbsCO2/kwh (power delivered at the wheels). Based on 1) ICE "petro-to-wheels" efficiency varies from 17% to 21% (link). And, 2) based on 19.0 lbsCO2/petro-gal w/10%Eth (link). Then, 3) I applied a well-to-station extraction+refinement scale-up factor of 1.28 which increased this 19.0 to 24.4 lbsCO2/gal (which is a bit more than Dave used here but I clarify that this does include what I think is appropriate factor for petro extraction+refinement CO2 scale-up factor). Source for this 1.28 "extraction+refinement" scale-up factor is HERE (math=(95/74)). ... Final complete math: (24.4lbsCO2/gal)/(range: 17%-21% petro-to-wheel eff)/(112000btu/petro-gal)*3412(btu/kwh) = 3.5 to 4.4 lbsCO2/kwh (to wheels)
Dave's real-life study resulted in EV/ICE CO2 ratio of 0.68. I calculate the range of EV/ICE CO2 ratios to be 0.74 to 0.92 depending on the fuel efficiency of the ICE. The ICE efficiency site that I used (here) does not correlate its ICE eff #'s w/ mileage #'s so it is hard to correlate Dave's 30mpg to the petro-wheel %eff #. However, I would expect that Dave's 30 mpg hybrid to be on the high-end of what this site would consider available ICE efficiencies (i.e. therefore closer to 21% eff), thus I would have expected an EV/ICE-hybrid CO2 ratio to be closer to 0.92.
My calculations are all theoretical; Dave's are real life. One thought for possible real-life study issues: 1) It would have been ideal if the Leaf's power consumption was truly metered and not based on Nissan "book" numbers. Lastly, 2) Was the hybrid's driving "route & style", in determining its average ~30mpg factor, similar in terms of power duty compared to the driving "route & style" of the Leaf? I assume the car weights are similar, but what about avg speed & hill differences? Was the load duty on the hybrid possibly "worse" than the Leaf's?
Jim Eager's point (@6) is right in. Same logic would apply to WA state residents, where the weighted avg mix for its power is only 0.47 lbsCO2/kwh (vs 2.01 in IN). So, in WA the EV's would only emit 0.76 lbsCO2/kwh (power delivered at the wheels). Resulting in an EV/ICE CO2 ratio of only 0.17! This would result in ~$256 monthly savings if a $100/UStonCO2 tax was applied to all FF carbon, making it very attractive for everyone in WA to switch to EV's.
------------------------
It's too bad that net comparison calculations like this are so difficult. This difficulty is only because energy cost does not include the external cost of CO2 emissions. If it did (at a rate that is equal or more than the external cost of CC impacts), then this net comparison calculation would be plainly transparent to us (& directly to our pocket books). And, all the difficulty to figuring the assorted costs here (including coal extraction, petro refining, the 17%-21% ICE efficiency factor (LINK), the 62% EV efficiency factor (LINK), the 40% efficiency of the typical power plant rankine cycle, battery life cycle, etc, etc). All of those net calculation complications would be transparent & real making it plainly obvious to our personal & industrial balance sheets as to what is the right choice (and, most convincing, the profitable choice). If only energy costs included CO2 external cost ...
Micro pursuits like this are important to us individually, but macro pursuits (i.e. changing energy policy) are more important because it is these that will make for truly substantial carbon emission reductions. A plug here to promote enacting Carbon Fee & Dividend (especially the least burdensome revenue neutral flavor, i.e. as advocated by Citizens' Climate Lobby) and then serious carbon emission reductions will start to happen. If energy is priced sustainably positive, then the right technologies will take off because they will become the profitable ones. Consider joining your local CCL chapter!
-
Tom Curtis at 04:37 AM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
bogfetto @433:
"Give me a source supporting a claim that heat is transferred from the freezing fluid to the hotter surface. In what other situations do you experience heat coming from low temperature fluids?"
In the theory of the greenhouse effect, all heat (ie, net energy flow) is from:
1) The Sun to the Earth's atmosphere and surface, with the vast majority going to the surface;
2) From the Earth's surface to the atmosphere and to space, with the majority going to the atmosphere; and
3) From the atmosphere to space.
In each case, the net energy flow is from a warmer to a colder object. If you do not think this is the case, you simply do not understand the theory. Period. This is so important that I would put it in all caps were that not forbidden by the comments policy.
And if you do not understand the theory, learn to understand it before you pretend to criticize it!
You will certainly doubt my claim about the direction of energy flow in the greenhouse theory. Very well. Here is the Earth's energy budget as determined by NASA:
It shows energy flows from the Sun, to and from the surface, to and from the atmosphere, and to space. Sum the energy flow across any boundary between the Earth and the Atmosphere, and the Atmosphere and Space and you will find the incoming and outgoing energy are approximately equal, with only a 0.6 W/m^2 net imbalance. Sum the energy flows between any warmer and colder object, and you ill find more energy flows from the warmer to the colder object than the reverse.
Attn moderators: I have no strong interest in playing whack-a-mole on these issues again with somebody who cannot bother actually learning the theory they purport to criticize. Would you please restrict bogfetto's responses to just this issue until such time that he acknowledges the simple truth, or proves he is incapable of doing so by excessive repetition. At your discretion, I will shift the discussion to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thread, where it is far more on topic.
Moderator Response:[JH] Bugfotto has relinquishd his privilege of posting comments on this site.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:22 AM on 12 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Bogfetto @429:
1)
"If the altitude of emission is increased, it means that a larger volume absorbs heat from the surface. Your argument is based on that this increase in volume is caused by an increase of a powerful heat absorber."
First, while the second sentence is entirely ungrammatical and difficult to interpret, if I interpret it as saying, "Your argument is based on [the fact] that this increase in volume is caused by an increase of a powerful heat absorber" your claim is false, and you have not understood my argument, or its basis at all. It is clear that it misrepresents my argument in that I limit the discussion to situations in which the mean altitude of radiation to space is lower than the tropopause. If it rises to the tropopause (and assuming the temperature structure with altitude remains constant), further increases will initially have no effect in temperature, and then reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature. That despite the fact that the volume of gas below the mean altitude of radiation to space will continue to increase. In practise, the same increases in CO2 that increases the mean altitude in radiation to space will also cool the stratosphere, and sufficient CO 2 increase to raise the mean altitude of radiation to space into the current stratosphere may well cool the stratosphere sufficiently that it has a declining temperature with altitude, in which case that will result in further surface warming.
This discussion should make it very clear that my argument is based on the temperature of the mean altitude of radiation to space, something laid out very specifically in my article on the topic. I suggest you move further discussion of that particular point to that article, and make sure you read it before you do.
I will note that on rereading my comment from which you took the quotation, it was very clear and very specific. Your misinterpretation has no justification in the text, and is based entirely on your attempt to shoe horn that discussion into your very rudimentary grasp of physics. If you are going to persist in that behaviour, save us all some time and end the discussion now.
2)
"The only way to increase temperature of a radiating body, is to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it."
If you have a radiant filament (such as in a light bulb) fed with a constant power source, and with a constant resistance, but place that filament in a gas that gradually corrodes its surface, thereby reducing emissivity, the filament will increase in temperature over time even though the amount of energy radiated will remain constant. That is a common place experience in cold climates where low emissivity films are placed over windows to increase the internal temperature while decreasing the power used in heating.
This is an analog the the greenhouse effect in which the increase in CO2 reduces the effective emissivity of the Earth over time in the IR bandwidth while not reducing the emissivity in visible light bandwidths (and therefore not decreasing the incoming energy). The result will be that:
When we compare the quasi-eqilibrium states before and after the introduction of the increased CO2:
1) The IR radiation to space will be the same in both cases (ignoring albedo feedbacks);
2) A reduced proportion of the IR radiation to space will come from CO2 because the CO2 will be radiating to space from a higher, and hence (typically colder) altitude;
3) Therefore the IR radiation from other components of the system, particularly the surface, will have to increase to compensate for that shortfall;
4) The only way for them to increase will be through a rise in temperature.
In the interval between when the first quasi-equilibrium state is perturbed by the addition of CO2 and reaching the second quasi-equilibrium state:
a) Total IR radiation will be decreased (ignoring albedo feedbacks);
b) The resulting energy imbalance will result in an increase in temperature over time; and
c) The time between the two quasi-equilibrium states will be a function of the heat capacity of the system (most of which is in the ocean) and the cumulative energy imbalance in the interval todate.
-
ubrew12 at 03:32 AM on 12 March 2017How Green is My EV?
"I... calculated an emissions break-even... what MPG would an ICE car need to... break-even with the EV in... CO2... This worked out to...45 MPG"
This scales directly with the assumed lbs CO2 released per gallon of gasoline burned. Per my comment (ubrew12@8), that may actually be closer to 36 lbs CO2/gal than the 18 lbs CO2/gal you used, due to refining, transportation, and other costs. In that case, a 'break-even vehicle' would have to get closer to 90 mpg to match the performance of your EV. I dare say such a vehicle is not to be found, not even in advanced hybrid vehicles. 90 mpg is twice what most motorcycles are getting.
"my avoided CO2 was 1644 pounds, or about ¾ of a metric ton of CO2." You can be prouder than that. I calculate 6681 lbs CO2 avoided, or 3 metric tons annually.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:07 AM on 12 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
I would almost call Warren a climate denier with a hedge. Any argument of near or below 1°C is abundantly rejected within the scientific literature. Saying you agree with radiative physics, but reject all other physics, doesn't buy you a ticket to the lukewarmer club.
I would go even further to state that, such rhetorically hedged statements like Tom just recounted ("might not be high, but might be neg") border on the irrational. It's certainly not a scientifically nuanced point at all. It's a statement designed to defend a cognitive position against scientific facts.
It's the 'Global temperature changes all the time, always has... but feedbacks are negative and climate sensitivity is below 1°C' argument.
I don't see that as lukewarmer in the least. That's just straight up denial packaged up to sound sciency.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:37 AM on 12 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Eclectic @31, Steven Mosher, as much as anyone, has a right to define the term, "luke warmer". And he has done so at WUWT:
"Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.
1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per
doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
3. over/under line. The over under line is 3C. That is, if offered a bet that the climate sensitivity
is either ‘between 1 and 3 or over 3, we take the under bet.ballpark:
less than 1.2 5%
1.2 to 3. 50%
3 to 4.5 45%
4.5+ 5%So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics."
In contrast, Meyer wrote:
"Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius. After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks."
The suggestion that ECS might be less than one removes Meyer from the Luke Warmer camp. (I have discussed his misrepresentation of the nature of climate feedbacks above.)
-
Eclectic at 23:29 PM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
coyote / Warren Meyer @25 ,
some very good points have been made in reply to you — so I will just add some general observations :-
Firstly, there are very few denialists as intelligent and well-spoken as you are. Exceedingly few. Seemingly even fewer than the very tiny [single figures?] number of climate-knowledgeable scientists who dispute the consensus view about the severity of the present global warming problem. These few could be called "lukewarmers", because they only dispute the degree of AGW. But the consequence (and possibly intention?) of their actions is to reinforce denialism by the science-ignoring groups. *Judging by scientific publications and the expressed position given by the world's peak scientific bodies, it is a fair assessment to describe the "consensus" as well over 99% (rather than the oft-repeated 97% which is really a figure from a decade ago). And in the subsequent decade, the physical evidence supporting the mainstream science has grown even stronger than you were thinking, back in 2012.
Secondly, I enjoyed reading one of your climate-related "coyote blog" articles a few years ago (sorry, I cannot recall which one — but it was lengthy and published in several parts). The initial third of your article was rigorously well-argued, and was impressive and persuasive. Unfortunately, things went downhill from there. The middle part became less rigorously correct, and might be described (colloquially) as getting quite flaky. And the final third was quite atrocious in its large amount of logical faults. It seemed that you had used your utmost "Motivated Reasoning" to convince yourself (and readers) that black was white.
I sincerely hope you will achieve better in the future: though that will require you to overcome your inner emotional bias. The so-called Motivated Reasoning is a powerful force, mis-directing you away from the very clear conclusions reached by mainstream science. Perhaps you enjoy being a maverick despite the scientific evidence being so strongly (or rather, so entirely) against you — or perhaps there is a gaggle of more interesting inner forces!
-
MA Rodger at 23:16 PM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
coyote @25 is actually a cut&paste of part of a web-page from the commenter's website. What he doesn't bring here is the start of this web-page. In it he is suggesting that the climate forcing since pre-industrial is incompitable with the temperature record given IPCC ECS values. As well as some seriously trivial stuff, he presents two graphics to demonstrate how models cannot be (entirely) trusted. Thus the commenter tells his flock with emphasis "There are good reasons to distrust models. ... There are also good reasons to distrust climate models and forecasts" and less-forcefully "These forecast failures are not meant as proof the theory is wrong, merely that there is good reason to be skeptical of computer model output as somehow the last word in a debate."
The first graphic shown compares the trends from Hansen (1988) Scenario A & B (but not Scenario C) with HadCRUT4 & UAH TLTv6.0. The second is the second-order-draft AR5 Fig1.4 (below), a graphic oft annotated by denialists and so it could perhaps do with some sensible annotating for once - pehaps with a plot of the temperature record 2012-16. Suitably adjusting GISS & NOAA for a 1961-90 anomaly, by 2015 they and HadCRUT are showing respectively anomalies of +0.76ºC, +0.78ºC, +0.76ºC, which are smack the centre of the AR4 projection. Of course 2016 was warmer still, but that was an El Nino year.
-
michael sweet at 22:24 PM on 11 March 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Bogfetto,
When you make posts with many questions if in impossible to answer them all in detail. Please ask one question at a time so that they can be answered. After the first misconception is cleared up we can then move on to the next misconception.
I will take a single example form your post to Tom Curtis. You claim:
"The only way to increase temperature of a radiating body, is to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it. And an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body, never by a decreasing temperature (and decreasing intensity) in a colder body heated by the hotter radiating body."
When I got out of bed this morning it was cold. I put on a cold shirt. My surface temeprature increased even though my rate of heat production remained the same. This is experimental evidence that your clain that " an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body" is incorrect.
It appears that you have a basic misunderstanding of how heat is transferred. I suggest you reread the posts you have questioned, and the OP, and ask questions about what seems off to you. Ask about one or two imortant items first. As those misconceptions are cleared up you will start to understand the basics. When you have the basics incorrect it is impossible to understand how the atosphere works.
-
John Mason at 19:33 PM on 11 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
I agree it's confusing, Rob!
As a geologist I view the whole thing as a pathway between weathering and precipitation. Importantly, as shown by the following weathering equations:
Silicate weathering:2CO2 + 3H2O + CaSiO3 = Ca2++ 2HCO3– + H4SiO4
Carbonate weathering:
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 = Ca2++ 2HCO3–
the weathering of limestone only involves one mole of atmospheric CO2 whereas silicate weathering involves two. In both cases though, when it comes to the reprecipitation part, a mole of carbon goes into the reservoir and a mole of CO2 is released. So only in silicate weathering is there a net removal of atmospheric CO2; limestone weathering is net neutral.
-
Rob Painting at 19:02 PM on 11 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
As far as the IPCC definition is concerned, and it's been there for a while, the formation of limestone adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So it cannot be considered a sink.
On the other hand, weathering, the dissolution of limestone, does remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This process satisfies the IPCC definition of a sink.
It's confusing as hell to non-experts given that the ultimate fate of much of that carbon, over geological timescales, is to end up in limestone sediments, but we shouldn't attempt to reinterpret what constitutes a sink.
-
Jim Eager at 14:09 PM on 11 March 2017How Green is My EV?
David, yes, Ontario now generates zero of its electricity from coal. The last coal fired generating plants in the Province (Naticoke and Thunder Bay) were closed in 2013 and 2014, and several new peaking power gas plants eliminated the import of coal generated power from the US Midwest during seasonal periods of peak demand (e.g. summer air conditioning season). Quebec, British Columbia and most of the smaller provinces also produce zero from coal power, but Alberta stil burns coal and a few provinces burn oil. Combined it means well over 63% of Canada’s population is able to make very robust CO2 reductions by using EVs.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 11 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Rob Honeycutt @12, at a quick perusal, 7 of the 49 tweets include all caps (8,11,14,26,35,36, and 49). That, however, is irrelevant. The tweets are not comments at SkS, so the moderation policy at SkS does not apply. Further, it is not apparent to me that you can use any textual method to increase emphasis on twitter other than by all caps (but I don't tweet and may be entirely wrong about that).
I will go further. I have a serious objection to twitter in that the short character count per message makes any serious discussion impossible. Even the creative method of using a 49 tweet sequence leaves you using short sentences that do not convey any reasonable level of subtlety. Doug Mackie in his responses here appears to be treating this comments section as a twitter account. His responses have been too short to make a reasonable assessment of his objections beyond the mere fact that he objects. They have been rude, and inflammatory to boot.
On top of that, I struggle to see his objection to the content of the tweets. Atmospheric CO2 would be astronomically higher if the carbon locked up in carbonates were free to bond with oxygen in the atmosphere. That is what the tweet he objects to says. It seems incontrovertible. Even on the narrower point of whether adding calcium carbonate to the the ocean by weathering will draw down CO2, he appears to be arguing against the science. Where I discussing this with a denier, I would probably attribute the nature of his posts (as long on bombast as they are short in length) to that fact. As it is, I remain perplexed both as to the nature of his objections, and they way he has argued his point, including his final denunciation.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:56 AM on 11 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
Doug... Please read the comments policy. This has been a long standing policy here on the website, going back as far as I can remember. And a quick look and I don't see anywhere all caps is used for SkS tweets.
-
Doug Mackie at 11:48 AM on 11 March 2017To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
You are jerks to use CAPS in tweets but not allow in comments. I no longer wish to be assoc with sks. Please remove OA not OK series by me
Moderator Response:[GT]
Doug. The policy on SkS restricts ALLCAPS as shouting. However you have the option of using bold as an alternative method which says 'this is a bit more important than usual but I don't want to yell at you'
Seemingly Twitter hasn't caught up yet. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:54 AM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
I'll add here... Warren, the frustrating part of what you (and many other skeptics) are doing is, you're asking people to accept your small minority position as absolute. You're asking people to not consider the low probability high end potential, while at the same time you say we must accept your very low probability low end potential.
That is a recipe for disaster.
What the scientific community is saying is, given the balance of all the available research, here is the low end probability, here is the high end probability, and in the middle are our best estimates where thing likely are.
That's not taking an absolute position on any side. It's an act of constraining the probability to a range within which we can take appropriate action.
As I stated in my original article here, you can't just pick and choose the answers you like and exclude those you don't. You must look at the full body of evidence and act within the limitations of our knowledge. That is what risk assessment is.
Based on that, there are no two ways about this. The entire likely range of climate sensitivity is an argument for strong action.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:14 AM on 11 March 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
coyote @25:
1) "... most of the prominent climate skeptics ..."
I am uncertain how you quantified that "most". Certainly the folks at Principia Scientific do not. Nor do those behind the arrogantly named Galileo Movement in Australia. Even among those who do accept the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, many accept a distorted version of the theory in which the only relevant component is the back radiation at the surface, whereas in the actual theory the most important component is the effect on the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), and consequently on Earth's overall energy balance.
Incidentally, the theory as regards to the OLR is sufficiently stunningly confirmed, and follows so directly from basic and well confirmed laws of physics that it is, for all intents and purposes, settled science. Further, the 1 - 1.2 C direct impact of a CO2 doubling from that follows directly from that very well confirmed part of the theory.
2) "What we are skeptical of is the very net high positive feedbacks..."
I am skeptical on what basis you consider the feedbacks to be very high. In AR5 Chapter 9, feedbacks are treated as feedbacks on the radiative forcing. As a result they are dominated by the planck feedback of -3.2 +/- 0.1 (units of W m-2 oC-1, 90% confidence interval). Compared to that the 1.6 +/- 0.3 water vapour feedback, or the 1.6 +/- 0.9 total feedback excluding the Planck feedback are not "very high". Figures from IPCC AR5 Chapt 9, table 9.5; figure for total excluding Planck feedback determined by adding the values and summing the uncertainty in quadrature.) Nor are they at significant risk (despite the large uncertainty from the cloud feedback) of making the total feedback (including the Planck feedback) net positive, the precondition of a runaway greenhouse effect.
You may be more familiar with the feedback presented as a response to an initial temperature increase, but in that case the response necessary for a runaway effect is in infinite positive feedback, so again, the approximate doubling to quadrupling of the initial temperature response is not "very high".
3) "... isn't this education of the public about the basic theory useful ..."
Educating the public with a string of "false facts" is never useful. Even getting one basic fact right is unhelpful when it is introduced out of context and surrounded by a cloud of untruths.
In this instance, the consensus surveys do not use questions that delve into feedbacks and planck responses, but can be resolved at a purely emprical level. Further, that the temperature response to a doubling of CO2 is in the order 1.5-4.5 oC (66% confidence interval) can be determined solely on an empirical basis. That it is also predicted on a theoretical basis (ie, by the Global Circulation Models) is just icing on the cake. When historical records since 1850 (including ice core records) show a linear response by temperature to CO2 forcing gives a linear response of 0.58 +/- 0.02 C/(W/m^2) (r^2:0.811), then an effective climate response of 2.15 +/- 0.7 C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 is a matter of empirical observation. When the energy imbalance at the TOA remains unclosed with that temperature responce, that the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 will be larger than that is again a matter of empirical observation. (Note, those uncertainties are for the calculations alone, uncertainties from the data will significantly increase the uncertainty range, but not change the observed sensitivity.)
-
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.
Prev 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 Next
