Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Comments 2901 to 2950:
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:28 AM on 10 January 2023IPCC overestimate temperature rise
To follow-up eclectic's comment @ 68:
The Seim and Olsen paper "The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment" appears to be this one:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608
scirp.org is Scientific Research Publishing, which is on Beall's list of potentially predatory publishers. Not exactly a reputable journal.
The two authors are listed as "former..." affiliations with medical backgrounds.
Google scholar lists two citations, both (self?) published by Hermann Harde (a well-known climate science "contrarian" that never writes anything worth reading).
As eclectic says, trying to refute atmospheric physics with a lab experiment is a fool's errand.
I have not bothered reading the "paper" in detail. All meta-signs point to it being rubbish. In the bits I read, they confuse re-radiation by CO2 as "backscatter", and in the abstract they refer to "temperature ... increased ... about 0.5%". Anyone that uses % to measure temperature change is not worth reading, and they clearly have no understanding of the physics and terminology of radiation transfer.
-
MA Rodger at 01:43 AM on 10 January 2023IPCC overestimate temperature rise
pbarcelog @67,
The Rutger snow cover data is not the easiest data to rattle out the impacts of climate change. While the arguments of your "retired engineer" may be something else, the point I would make is that snow cover is not necessarily a good measure of rising tempertures alone as it also requires snowfall which can also be a big variable. And we do have perfectly good instrument for actually measuring temperature, these being called thermometers.
The basics is that it is only the months March to June which show big trends in snow cover. See Rutgers monthly graph webpage and toggle through the months. There are also trends in July and August but through these months snow cover is almost max'ed out. Through the autumn & winter months, the trend is for more snow so more snow cover.
I did a while back write out a few paragraphs on the trend in snow cover and its illusiveness. It's posted about halfway down this webpage.
-
Eclectic at 00:02 AM on 10 January 2023IPCC overestimate temperature rise
Pbarcelog @67 ;
Probably best to look to whatever underlying point your engineer friend is trying to make. Just as hurricane statistics vary considerably over decades, so too does snow cover vary ~ but neither of these measurements do "disprove" the major global warming observed.
It seems he is trying to cherry-pick one or other of whatever observations he can find, which . . . what? . . . show there is no warming and therefore no human-caused effect on climate? If that is his game (to convince himself at some emotional level of "no AGW") . . . then he is simply failing to look at the big picture. He is deceiving himself. And he is also failing to look at the paleo evidence of major climate changes produced by alteration in greenhouse gasses.
Does he have Conspiracy-type doubts that the past 170 years of thermometer measurements are all false, and all the climate scientists are wrong? If the planet is not warming, then why is the sea level continuing to rise?
He may feel that 0.2 Watts or 1.0 Watts is a tiny number . . . but the evidence keeps showing that the world is warming ~ whatever his (rather ill-informed) opinion might be about clouds.
The warming effect of increased CO2 level is only denied by the nuttiest of non-scientists ~ and they have zero evidence to back up their ideas of "no greenhouse effect". The effect of CO2 has been known for roughly a century. Basic physics explains it, and decades of observations confirm it.
(Please note that laboratory experiments cannot re-create the necessary full-depth atmosphere that produces "greenhouse" . . . so I have not bothered to review the "Backscatter Radiation" experiment you touched on ~ but if you feel there is something of great note & importance demonstrated in the experiment, then please discuss it in more detail, and preferably with a direct link to the paper.)
-
pbarcelog at 20:24 PM on 9 January 2023IPCC overestimate temperature rise
Hello everyone, I am trying to confront scepticals but there is people giving me a hard time. One retired engineer is arguing with Rutger's data set of snow coverage for the northern hemisphere, also the article:
The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment Thorstein O. Seim1, Borgar T. Olsenand "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" from Nature, because he states that 0.2w/m2 is almost negligible and clouds are order of mangitude more relevant.
Anyone familiar with that data and articles? What is the explantion to a stable snow cover for the last decades? The explanation to Seim's experiment and the relevance of the 0.2w/m2?
Thanks a lot, if you share your arguments with me I will guarantee they are well used in LinkedIn
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:05 PM on 9 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
michael sweet,
I hope this helps you understand Doug Cannon's 'perspective'. (I am open to correction of the following by Doug, as long as it is also consistent with what has been presented).
Doug's argument appears to depend on the belief that any (all) electricity for EVs must come from fossil fuel generation (and that would be without carbon capture and storage).
From that perspective, if any EV (or plug-in hybrid) has to be charged with electricity from a system with a mix of generation that includes fossil fuels, then the EV (no other electricity uses), must be tagged with the fossil fuel level of emissions. The reduced intensities of any mixed generation do not apply to EVs - even if all of the EV demand exceeds the amount of fossil fuel generation.
Therefore, from that perspective, if there is a case where an EV is being charged from a grid that only has fossil fuel generation for a minor amount of rapid-start natural gas generation to meet transient peak demand, then all EVs everywhere must been considered to be charged by fossil fuel generation.
In addition to the points already made above, that perspective excludes consideration of the following (such considerations would be seen to be digressions):
- adequate amounts of electricity generation could be achieved without continued or expanded use of fossil fuel generation.
- carbon capture added to existing fossil fuel generation systems would reduce the harm done while the system is run to its natural end of life.
- other electricity uses that are less essential, like non-essential EV use, are responsible for continued fossil fuel generation.
- the shift to EVs in regions that currently do not have any fossil fuel generation will not require 'new fossil fuel generation facilities'. Any required additional generation will be able to be met by new renewable generation.
- already existing EVs being charged in regions with existing fossil fuel generation are not responsible for the continuation of existing fossil fuel generation. The reason/blame for continued fossil fuel generation in already well developed nations, especially over-developed ones, is a lack of responsible leadership action to end the fossil fuel use because the fundamentally flawed considerations of popularity and profitability are allowed to harmfully compromise the actions of leaders (political and business leaders).
Initially I also mistook the problem to be 'how the analysis was being done'. But it is clear that the conceptualization of the issue is the problem. No matter how rigorously a flawed concept is evaluated the result will be flawed.
-
michael sweet at 08:18 AM on 9 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon,
You have completely left out the CO2 from the manufacture of the vehicles. Your estimates of carbon emissions by electric vehicles is incorrect. Your calculations are in error. I do not have time to review your incorrect calculations and find more of your errors. It is a waste of time if you leave out major contributions to the problem. The reference at Carbon Brief, and the references that Rob Honeycutt linked at 39 all conclude that driving an EV reduces carbon pollution by a lot.
Your original post at 15 stated:
"It would be good to have an unbiased source determine whether “driving using electricity is cleaner than gasoline even with the current mix in the United States”.
Multiple different posters have shown that multiple unbiased sources conclude that "using electricity is cleaner than gasoline even with the current mix in the United States". It appears that you are completely closed minded to any data that disagrees with your incorrect calculations.
There are a great many proposed renewable energy projects awaiting approval. If they are approved in a reasonable time frame the amount of renewable energy will increase much faster than you project. Since fossil fuels have increased in cost, smart investors will install renewables to make more money. The EIA has always been grossly wrong with their estimations of future renewable installations.
-
Doug Cannon at 05:33 AM on 9 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Michael Sweet #40
Your reference in Carbon Brief Is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
The data regarding the hybrid compare closely to mine: 55mpg vs mine of 52mpg
(Go to unitjuggler websitewww.unitjuggler.com/convert-fuelconsumption-from-gperkmgasoline-to-mpg.html?v
and you can convert their 99grams/km equivalent at the tail pipe to 55mpg. I did it the long way using 20.3 lb CO2/gallon and 12,500 miles/year to get 2.2 metric tons CO2 per year. From the Carbon Brief reference it works out to just under 2.0 metric tons CO2 per year from a hybrid's exhaust).
The Carbon Brief data for EV's assigns an average mix of fuels in each geographic area to generate the charging electricity. That gets to the basic proposition I began with:
In the U.S with a constant demand over the next few decades, natural gas pegged at its optimum capacity factor and solar and wind operating at their maximum, as we add more solar and wind we can continue to reduce coal year after year.
But, if we add a demand from EV charging, some of the coal that would otherwise be reduced will have to continue in order to meet that demand. The EV charging demand is directly responsible for that coal useage and that leads to the 4.08 metric tons of CO2 resulting from an EV annually.
If you don't agree with the premise or the logic then you would have no reason to examine references And we'll just drop it
But if you agree you can do your own calculations;
1. eia Electric Power Monthly, Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors) 2012-October 2022www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
2. eia U.S. Energy Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Energy Consumption:Electric Power Sector, December 14, 2022www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11_9.pdf
From those two can compute metric tons of CO2/kwhr for coal at .001012
3. eia Annual Energy Outlook 2022. page 15
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_ReleasePresentation.pdf
Best case for renewables per eia.Any other references I have merely relate to the digressions that have come up in this thread; not to the basic issue per above..
-
MA Rodger at 02:02 AM on 9 January 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
gerontocrat @2,
I have a couple of graphs of the Antarctic SIE anomaly I keep updated (graphs 3a & 3b here, unfortunately not available for 'hot' linking) based on the JAXA daily data. Antarctic SIE year-on-year was pretty static until 2013-16 when it had an icier period, this followed by 2017-20 when it had a meltier period. Then mid-2021, the meltier times returned with the end-2022 and start-2023 suggesting interesting times ahead.
One annual measure I keep tabs on is the number of days when all-time lows for time-of-year. Ranked by number of record days, it looks like this:-
2017 … 107
2022 ….. 78
2016 ….. 65
2019 ….. 59
1986 ….. 20
2018 ….. 11
2002 ….. 11
2023 ....... 7 (to 7th Jan)
2001 ……. 7 -
gerontocrat at 00:22 AM on 9 January 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
The Antarctic sea ice area has behaved in a very different way in the last 10 years or so. You can see that from the 2022 annual average sea ice area graph which you can see at
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1759.msg355482.html#msg355482
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
EddieEvans at 22:58 PM on 8 January 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1
Scientists Report a Dramatic Drop in Antarctic Sea Ice
Decades ago I became overconfident that at least the Antarctic remained safe from melting. Somewhere I had read that the Antarctic would take a couple more centuries before the effects of the new climate change would begin to melt the Antarctic, but I misplaced my confidence.
https://youtu.be/m-cyN_sREVc
Moderator Response:[BL] The snipped link is the same as the link behind "Scientists Report..." It is not necessary to add it twice.
-
michael sweet at 09:13 AM on 8 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon,
This 2020 fact check from Carbon Brief shows that fully electric vehicles release less CO2 over their lifetime than the most efficient ICE cars and plug in hybrids. They find that even if 100% of the electricity is from coal burning plants that electric cars release less CO2. Since Our World in Data says about 21% of USA energy was generated by renewable sources in 2021, electric cars are even better for the environment than the 100% coal case. Your efficiencies in post 29 for ICE engines are much too high. How could a variable engine stopping and starting and pulling a variety of loads possibly be more efficient than a fixed engine running at the optimal speed and optimal temperature 100% of the time? Your estimates of ICE efficiency are about double or more what I have seen. I think you are comparing peak efficiency of ICE engines to average efficiencies of electric vehicles. ICE engines do not run at their peak efficiencies most of the time.
In general, making your own calculations is a waste of time. You have not considered the CO2 released by the manufacturing process, which is greater for electric cars than ICE vehicles. Your estimates of highway CO2 emissions are much too high for electric and way too low for ICE vehicles. The Carbon Brief article cites numerous peer reviewed articles that you can read to find your mistakes. I am closed minded to posts that have obvious, gross calculation errors. Please cite reliable sources for your claims.
In the end we have to have a completely electric transportation system. That means all cars fully electric and all electricity renewable energy. Any ICE or plug in cars sold now will have to be removed to reach that final goal. Everyone should copy Finland and sell only electric cars sooner rather than later.
-
michael sweet at 08:12 AM on 8 January 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Max Green,
This argument against renewables is very old. It was originally raised around 2005. Mark Jacobson and his team at Stanford did a detailed Peer-Reviewed analysis that showed that all the materials for a compeltely renewable energy system were available except for rare earth metals needed for the wind turbines. Since then, wind turbines have been developed that do not use rare earth elements in their turbines. In addition, the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels have become much more efficient that Jacobson estimated so that even less metal will be used. I note that large amounts of metal are now being used to drill for fossil fuels.
Reading your popuilar magazine article I see that the Simon Michaux reference is just to a seminar he presented, not even a conference poster. Seminars are sim[ply his opinion of things he has no experience in, unreviewed by anyone. He states that a lot of materials are needed. For one thing he calculates that:
"Globally, 15,635,478 Hornsdale-type stations will need to be built across the planet and connected to the power grid system just to meet a 4-week buffer system"
Jacobson et al 2022 in an extermely detailed, peer reviewed analysis, finds that only 4-8 hours of buffer system are required. Other energy researchers find similar results as Jacobson. Why should I pay attention to an unreviewed talk to graduate students by someone who has no experience with the topic and that calculates 150 times more storage than the peer reviewed literature?
If you look at all the materials needed for a total renewable energy system in the future there are issues with some materials. If you do the same calculation for a fossil system there are some materials that will run out. If you demand 100 times the required materials for the renewable system than are actually needed than it makes the renewable system look bad.
Simon Michaux is simply full of BS.
-
Eclectic at 19:01 PM on 7 January 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
CORRECTION @24 :
I need a better brain and better envelope.
The (Wiki-based) figures I gave as 10% of cultivated land biomass annual production, would need 100% mass conversion "in the factory" ~ and would approximately match world gasoline consumption. To additionally match diesel & jetfuel usage, would need an additional 15% on top of that 10% of cultivated biomass. (The cultivated biomass here uses the whole plant hydrocarbon resource, excluding the edible section of the crop. Also excluded is forestry biomass harvest.)
So roughly 25% of cropped land, excluding trees. Formidable: and high-tech required too. Solar, wind, and nuclear fission/fusion . . . can't come soon enough.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:52 PM on 7 January 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Max... In addition to what Eclectic says, I think Dr. Michaux's overarching point is that we need to not forget the big savings we achieve from basic improved efficiencies.
Efficiency is kind of the ugly step-sister of solutions. But she's also the one who is most effective at addressing the core problems.
-
Eclectic at 12:21 PM on 7 January 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Max Green @23 ,
thanks, yes, an interesting article by Dr Michaux, alleging that petroleum oil cannot be replaced as a major energy resource for our modern world. His figures (presumably correct) are quite dire, and demonstrate that we have no real alternative than simply continuing as we are, until our industrial civilization falls off a cliff.
This is not really a new calculation ~ there have been earlier analyses of various bottlenecks or constraints pointing to the impossibility of achieving a sustainable advanced technological society.
And it is true that we currently are relying on fossil fuels to supply around 79 - 84% of overall energy used. A formidable challenge (which we are very unlikely to overcome by 2050 or even 2060, the declared target dates).
However, he seems to be relying heavily on the idea that electricity must be stored in (largely) the Tesla-type batteries or similar. And on the idea that the recycling of valuable elements will not be ramped-up and improved. He also seems to disregard the possibility of organically derived hydrocarbon fuels (ethanol, n-butanol, and longer-chain hydrocarbons) being used in fuel cells, jet engines & conventional piston engines.
(My naive back-of-envelope scratchings would suggest that if 10% of cultivated land biomass, ~1 billion dry tonnes annually . . . were converted with 10% of biomass efficiency into liquid hydrocarbon . . . then this would approximate annual petroleum usage. Which should be adequate, unless we wish a large increase in energy which cannot be supplied by nuclear fission/fusion or more solar PV panels. )
Dr Michaux is a pessimist, but I am an optimist in these matters.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @34... "That drops the thermal efficiency of a Tesla to about 40 MPG when comparing it's energy use ICE or hybrid."
No, that does not reduce the "thermal efficiency" of a Tesla to 40 MPG.
First off, you're completely making up numbers here and applying random terminology.
"The most efficient fossil/steam plant in the U.S. Is designed for 40% thermal efficiency but only achieves 38% in operation. The rule of thumb is a further loss of 10% in transmission (i.e. 3.8%)."
These are more made up numbers, again. GTCC plants reach 60% efficiency. Regardless, this is irrelevant to MPG and MPGe since that is a measure of the vehicle, not the source of energy.
Moreover, you seem to be having this strange fantasy that somehow an EV is just a vehicle where the gas tank is at the FF power plant, and that's not an accurate way to analyze it.
You really don't have to make up stuff or need to do your own back-of-the-envelope estimates (which are invariably going to be wrong) because there are serious people who do these kinds of life cycle analyses. Here. Here. Here. And there are many more.
-
Max Green at 10:30 AM on 7 January 2023Renewable energy is too expensive
Hi guys,
I love your work here. I've been reading some really positive plans for renewables - and then came across this. Does anyone have a peer-reviewed response to Prof Simon Michaux? He is an Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland - with a PhD in mining engineering. Dr. Michaux's long-term work is on societal transformation toward a circular economy. Does the world have enough metal to replace oil? According to him - not even close.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/08/23/is-there-enough-metal-to-replace-oil/
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:15 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @35... "One report last year listed 26 coal plants either closing early(21) or switching to gas(5)."
Cite that report, please.
"In their best case for renewables eia projects this growth in renewables can allow us to meet a flat demand with no added natural gas plants through 2050 and beyond."
Projections for renewables growth have been notoriously bad. Don't forget that renewables are now scaling exponentially.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:06 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @34... "MPGe is a good way of comparing different EV's. And the manufacturers like it because it makes them look good. But it's not an apples to apples comparison to ICE or hybrids."
This is just a silly statement, at best, as well as being offered without rational support.
MPG and MPGe specificly make EV's and ICEV's comparable. Your assertion that "It assumes the kwhrs just appear out of nowhere..." makes clear that you're saying these things out of desire rather than based in any fact. Based on you logic you could also say that the energy from gasoline just magically, out of nowhere, appears at the pump.
MPG and MPGe are measures of the efficiency of the vehicles, themselves, and you very much can clearly quantify the energy contained in electricity vs liquid fuels.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:38 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon,
You may be unaware that your argument leads to the conclusion that energy use in the US, and other over-developed nations, needs to be reduced, not be allowed to increase.
The argument you present, especially the answers provided to the questions I asked in my comment @21, are not consistent with an understanding of what is required to limit harm done to future generations. It is especially inconsistent with the knowledge learned from the item I linked to in my question 3.
Rapidly ending fossil fuel use to limit the overshoot of climate impacts is ‘needed not desired’. A parallel requirement is the ‘need’ for rapid removal of the excess emissions, even if that is unprofitable. Your proposed future with an increased number of fossil fuel burning personal vehicles will almost certainly result in a peak climate impact that far exceeds the 1.5 C value, especially if the coal and gas burning electricity generation is not regulated to be rapidly replaced by less harmful energy generation. It is easier for regulation to shut down fossil fuel electricity generation than to end the use of existing fossil fuelled vehicles. So the path you propose, new vehicles being gasoline burning rather than battery electric, is more likely to result in more climate change harm than is ‘necessary’ (also note that the CO2 impacts of producing gasoline have to be counted). And there would be the added future harm of the ‘need’ for more unprofitable removal of unnecessary excessive impacts.
The reduction of ‘unnecessary’ energy use, especially by the highest per capita energy users, is a very effective action to limit the climate change harm. I fully support that action, even if the belief about the need for it is due to a misunderstanding about the possible future of electricity generation and consumption.
I am skeptical of your claim that EVs would be the consumers of any remaining extended coal fired electricity generation. I can argue that other electricity uses, not EVs, are the cause/consumers of unnecessary fossil fuel generation like:
- cryptocurrency
- 5G or streaming of data like HD video streaming on phones
- use of AC when daytime highs/overnight lows do not make AC use ‘essential for health’.
- unnecessary EV use.
Believing that the future of increased energy demand in the USA will require continued significant fossil fuel use leads to the logical understanding of the need to rapidly curtail unnecessary energy consumption, and limit the fossil fuel use in that reduced energy consumption to ‘essential needs that cannot possibly be met without fossil fuel use’ (continuing developed desired, but understandably harmful, ways of living is ‘not essential’).
The governing objective to limit harm done cannot be bypassed by beliefs that harmful unnecessary developed desires are justified by the benefits believed to be obtained. Therefore, the conclusion to ‘reduce energy use’ also applies to people who want to believe that all energy generation and use can be done without fossil fuels. All artificial energy systems will be harmful in different ways and to different degrees. Limiting harm done, not excusing harm done, is the logical governing objective. And that logically leads to the conclusion that ‘energy consumption, and other material consumption, should be limited to limit the harm done'.
-
Doug Cannon at 05:55 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Regarding the idea that coal plant closures will be based on scheduled end of life retirements, that is not true. One report last year listed 26 coal plants either closing early(21) or switching to gas(5). The impetus is due to regulation and its associated cost, not necessarily CO2 regulation. The other reason for reduction in coal is the fracking revolution. To date the economics of gas over coal has been the major reason we can reduce coal.
But the other important reason is the addition of renewables which will continue to grow. In their best case for renewables eia projects this growth in renewables can allow us to meet a flat demand with no added natural gas plants through 2050 and beyond. Additionally, we can reduce use of coal by half and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 500 million metric tons. This has little to do with economics. It is driven by the desire to reduce CO2 emissions. It's actually costing more. The amortized cost per Mwhr for renewables is more than the reduction of the variable cost of existing coal plants. But it's worth it considering the climate change risk.
I'll repeat this one more time: Any added load during this period extends the use of coal. I suspect that if it weren't for the EV issue most people would accept this logic. If some bit coin miner wanted to add 20 terawatthours to mine coins I think most would be opposed because it would require extending coal that could otherwise be reduced. But for some reason there's an EV love affair that allows some to believe that the whole mix of electrial generation can somehow make things look better.
Sayonora. -
Doug Cannon at 04:54 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Rob
MPGe is a good way of comparing different EV's. And the manufacturers like it because it makes them look good. But it's not an apples to apples comparison to ICE or hybrids. It assumes the kwhrs just appear out of nowhere without considering the source of the energy. If the source is from a traditional fossil/steam powered central station the thermal efficiency of that source is probably closer to 33% at best. The most efficient fossil/steam plant in the U.S. Is designed for 40% thermal efficiency but only achieves 38% in operation. The rule of thumb is a further loss of 10% in transmission (i.e. 3.8%).
That drops the thermal efficiency of a Tesla to about 40 MPG when comparing it's energy use ICE or hybrid. But of course fossil/steam plants don't use gasoline so we would have to look at the btu equivalent for coal. Then we would need to convert all that to CO2 emitted.
All of that gets a bit a hairy, but I avoided that by determining the CO2 emissions per kwhr produced for each fuel, gas or coal. The result for coal is .001012 metric tons per kwhr. The other data is pretty straight forward and results in annual emissions of 4.08 metric tons of CO2 for EV's. But that should increase to 4.5 metric tons to account for transmission losses. That compares to 2.2 metric tons for non plug-in hybrids based on the CO2 emissions in a gallon of gasoline. Even cutting MPG by a third for hybrids from my 52MPG would still make them cleaner than EV's -
Charlie_Brown at 03:46 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon @15 has a point. EV’s will increase electricity demand, which should be met by increasing renewable energy else the advantage of EV’s is reduced. However, given the opportunity to increase renewable energy, the first priority should be to shut down fossil energy. The problem is that economics and contractual obligations do not allow simple substitution of large, capital-intensive power plants. Changing the dynamics of the power supply infrastructure to accelerate would require strong incentives.
Some studies, including the EEA Report cited by Philippe Chantreau @16, use the current regional energy mix for their evaluation. EEA Report Section 4.5: “Due to the high carbon intensity of coal, WTW GHG emissions of typical BEVs charged exclusively with coal-generated electricity are at least as high as for an equivalent ICEV.” The ICCT White Paper (Bieker, 2021) reported in the ARS Technica article cited by Philippe does include projections for energy mixes that decarbonize over time.
Innovative approaches can help. EEA Report Box 4.2: “Flexible charging of BEVs can help to balance supply and demand in all cases, either by shifting demand to off-peak periods where supply is less flexible or by absorbing excess generation where supply is variable.” California has a situation where solar meets most of the demand in June when days are long and relatively cool, so added solar generation could be used during the day for charging EVs. Maybe build employee parking lots covered by panels. However, in August, days get shorter and hotter and demand for air conditioning increases. Then it may be better to reduce peak demand by charging EVs at night, though solar is not available without storage. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:48 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
To put a fine point on this... Think of it this way: In 2034 no one is going to build any coal plants where in 2035 somebody walks in and says, "Okay boys, time to shut 'er down!" The industry has the time, skills, and ability to do proper forecasting of costs and energy demand to know how to best utilize their investments.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:28 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @25... You state, "We plan to add 50 Twhrs of renewables during the year. What do we do? We cut back coal by the equivalent the of 50Twhrs of CO2. That's basically the model we've been following for years except that the addition of natural gas has allowed us to cut back coal even more."
Again here, you make erroneous assumptions. This is not "basically the model." As I stated in a previous thread, coal is phased out at end of life. The operating costs of a coal plant at the end of its useful life, after paying off all capital expenditures, is very low. Those plants continue to be used as long as the cost of fuel allows them to sell electricity competitively against other sources.
What's happening is, almost no *new* coal plants are being built. The phase out of coal is a function of scheduled facility retirements. The replacement of coal and NG is a function of investors building out renewables *instead of* coal and NG.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:16 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @29... I'm curious, why do you think the MPGe for a Tesla is 124, whereas a comparable ICEV sedan is gets about 30-35 MPG? And why do you think even a small PriusC gets only around 50 MPG.
I'm asking because everything I've read on this subject has been very clearly stating that EV's have lower carbon emissions regardless of the source of the electricity. Nothing I've read has ever stated that the better strategy to carbon emissions reductions would involve transitioning from ICE to hybrid and then later to EV's, rather than just trading straight to an EV on your next vehicle purchase.
Given the high efficiency of EV's and the fact that the grid is rapidly shifting to renewables, the simple logical thing to do is get an EV.
-
Doug Cannon at 00:01 AM on 7 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Rob Honeycutt #28
No, I've taken it into account except for the transmission loss. Best thermal efficiency coming out of fossil electrical generation plant approaches 40%. But that's all taken into account when considering actual watts generated per lb of CO2 emitted, which I did.
According to MDPI,gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of between 30% and 36% while diesel engines can reach a thermal efficiency of almost 50%. But, again, that's all taken into account with mpg.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:08 PM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug... I get the sense you're forgetting the relative efficiencies of electric over thermal energy, both with vehicles and source electrical generation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:05 PM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon @25,
The reality of my Alberta comment actually contradicts the mental experimentation you have presented.
Less than 10 years ago the expectation for the future generation of electricity in Alberta was that it would be far more gas and coal burning than it has actually turned out to be. And that has also been the reality throughout the USA. By 2035 it is likely that the few regions with poor electricity generation in the 2018 Forbes report will have improved electricity generation that makes the most efficient hybrids more harmful than an EV (just like the case I presented about Alberta).
-
Doug Cannon at 12:36 PM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
to Bob and Philippe
Thanks for your explanation.
I got a little longwinded.
-
Doug Cannon at 12:34 PM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
One Planet...#21
To repeat one of your Paragraphs
“I live in Alberta, Canada. Several years ago I was looking into buying an EV. Tesla was the only EV with a decent range. I was thinking about being less harmful, not saving money. But I did not buy the Tesla. At the time, the Alberta electricity generation included a lot of coal generation. And the government intentions indicated coal might be burned until 2040. And the burning of natural gas was going to be the major replacement for coal. I did my homework and determined that the most efficient hybrid available at the time would produce far less harmful emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity.”
That's exactly the point. And it's what is happening in the U.S. The same logic applies in my support of hybrids.
Do a mind experiment: It's 2035 in the U.S. . We're producing electricity at the rate of 4800 terawatthours per year........1500 Twhrs from renewables at their resource constrained maximum, 1700 Twhrs from natural gas at it's optimum capacity factor of 86% and 700 Twhrs from coal The balance by nuclear, hydro, etc., essentially “base loaded”. The demand is constant. We plan to add 50 Twhrs of renewables during the year. What do we do? We cut back coal by the equivalent the of 50Twhrs of CO2. That's basically the model we've been following for years except that the addition of natural gas has allowed us to cut back coal even more. The eia
Now do another mind experiment with a twist. All factors are the same except the demand increases by 20 Twhrs due to the addition of charging for EV's. What do we do? We only cut back coal by 30 Twhrs because we need the other 20 Twhrs for EV charging. So we forego CO2 reduction by the equivalent of 20 Twhrs.
That CO2 from coal has to allocated to EV's because that is why we have to extend the use of coal.In answer to your questions:
1. Yes. That is why I support a strategy that minimizes CO2 emissions which is the use of non plug-in hybrids in lieu of EV's until we get the electric industry cleaned up.
2. I'm not proposing that we prolong the use of fossil fuel. The reduction in the electricity sector will more than compensate for some continued useage in the transportation industry.
3. I understand it very clearly and that's why I'm willing to consider a quicker way to end fossil fuels regardless of the financial investment and ideological commitment to EV's. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:03 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Comments occasionally get lost if too much time goes by before clicking the submit button. I have lost a number of them like that, and sometimes for unknown reasons. It's an incentive to keep it short and to the point, in my opinion.
-
Doug Cannon at 10:06 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
I just submitted a reply to One Planet....and it disappeared even though I'm logged in. 2nd time this happened. Is there a delay or does it go through some filter because I'm persona non grata? Or is it just lost?
Moderator Response:[BL] No comments from you have been deleted. There should not be any delay before they appear.
As Phillippe has said, the web site will tend to log you out after a time period. Typing does not affect this - you will not know you have been logged out until you click "submit" and find that your post has disappeared. This is most likely if you spend a long time preparing a comment (i.e., when it will frustrate you the most. This is not "by design".)
Keeping a copy of your text on the clipboard will help. You can then log back in and paste it. Or open a new window/tab on a Skeptical Science page to see if it has you still logged in. If not, log in via that other window, and then Submit should work.
You will only become persona non grata if you repeatedly violate the Comments Policy. It exists to guide you.
-
Eclectic at 07:38 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug @20 ,
the small Prius type cars are certainly quite good, but that is not where the bulk of the market is. Nor is likely to be, in future, it would seem, owing to the perversities of fashion & human nature.
You may indeed have the impression you're preaching to closed minds, but I think you are confusing closed with skeptical minds. Skeptical minds see a lot of holes in your thinking. You seem rather unaware of the holes.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon @20,
Please explain your belief better than "They propose the same theory of lying to ourselves about using the mix of fuels to generate electricity as do many other reports. It just doesn't work that way."
I live in Alberta, Canada. Several years ago I was looking into buying an EV. Tesla was the only EV with a decent range. I was thinking about being less harmful, not saving money. But I did not buy the Tesla. At the time, the Alberta electricity generation included a lot of coal generation. And the government intentions indicated coal might be burned until 2040. And the burning of natural gas was going to be the major replacement for coal. I did my homework and determined that the most efficient hybrid available at the time would produce far less harmful emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity.
Things are different today. My hybrid still produces less emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity (which is similar to the worst US locations). However, the last coal burning in Alberta is expected to be ended by the end of 2023 (but that will be converting the last coal burners to burning natural gas - meaning less harmful but still very harmful).
The future, however, looks much better. The plan is for new electricity generation in Alberta to primarily be wind or solar. If the developments go as planned, by 2030 my very efficient hybrid will be more harmful than an EV powered from the Alberta grid.
You may be lacking imagination regarding the future of electricity generation.
Some relevant questions:
- Were you aware that the use of fossil fuels is causing harmful climate change impacts?
- If you were aware of that, how are you justifying more harm being done by the promotion of prolonged fossil fuel use?
- Do you understand the need to end fossil fuel use to stop making things worse for the future generations? (refer to Overshooting climate targets could significantly increase risk for tipping cascades which is the Story of the Week in the 2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52)
-
Doug Cannon at 06:09 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
One Planet Only Forever #17
Eclectic #19
The Forbes article is simply wrong. They propose the same theory of lying to ourselves about using the mix of fuels to generate electricity as do many other reports. It just doesn't work that way. If EV ideologists would use the same imagination in promoting non plug-in hybrids the debate would be over.
Here's a link to true mpg of hybrids
https://www.whatcar.com/news/true-mpg-most-efficient-hybrid-cars/n19166#2
Yes, they include small cars. But the weight issue is a bit of a red herring. EV's have a penalty of adding hundreds of extra pounds compared to hybrids.
Even theoretically adding 50% more fuel consumption puts Hybrids at 3.3metric tons vs 4.
Somehow I get the impression I'm preaching to closed minds.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.On a more serious note, using phrases such as "is simply wrong", "theory of lying to ourselves", "EV ideologists", "imagination", and "preaching to closed minds" gets you into inflammatory territory that is contrary to the Comments Policy. Please read it before commenting again.
-
Eclectic at 04:52 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon @15 ,
your quote "average modern hybrid gets 52mpg" may indeed occur at the tail of the bell curve distribution of everyday use. But that's probably not near what the present day average-weight vehicle achieves in average usage (which contains a large slice of metropolitan). Try recalculating your ideas using a 50% higher fuel consumption.
And then it gets complex as the next decade (or two) of technological change occurs. The non-plug-in hybrid could be a transitional benefit in the short term, and only for a segment of the population.
Philippe Chantreau's cited reports give a broader perspective. And in addition to that, we can reasonably expect further change in the situation regarding designs & resource uses.
-
Doug Cannon at 04:51 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Philippe #16
I'm familiar with your various references. I don't necessarily disagree with them. In fact some elements of them support my analysis.
But they don't directly relate to the issue. I would be more interested in your input regarding non plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Another obvious advantage that I didn't mention is the reduced demand on battery technology and production.
I didn't even go into the capital investment cost. We're paying a lot to replace fossil. The EV route over hybrid makes it even costlier.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:37 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Doug Cannon @15,
My comment @5 may help answer your question.
The 2018 presentation by Forbes linked to in my comment indicates that at that time the average US electricity generation impacts from BEVs would be equivalent to 80 mpg.
The impacts of vehicle production presented by Philippe @16 do need to be considered. But the generation in every region has been getting better since then, and is expected to continue to improve.
Note that only a very limited number of plug-in hybrid models perform better than 80 mpg equivalent. So even plug-in hybrids are questionable new vehicle choices in the USA, if being less harmful is the objective. And they become more questionable 'new vehicle choices' with each passing year of electricity generation improvement.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
I believe that this has been looked at already in details by multiple teams:
arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/
Overall impact is highly dependent on battery manufacturing processes, and the ones made in Asia have an overall higher adverse impact:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721079493
By far the most comprehensive analysis I have seen on the subjects is that of the EEA:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/electric-vehicles-from-life-cycle
From section 6.1, summary of key findings, climate change impacts: ". In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are 1.3-2 times higher than for ICEVs (Ellingsen et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016), but this can be more than offset by lower per kilometre use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source (Figure 6.1). Hawkins et al. (2013) reported life cycle GHG emissions from BEVs charged using the average European electricity mix 17-21 % and 26-30 % lower than similar diesel and petrol vehicles, respectively (Figure 6.1). This is broadly in line with more recent assessments based on the average European electricity mix (e.g. Ellingsen et al., 2016, Ellingsen and Hung, 2018."
The referenced papers are available, Hawkins et al (2013) is probably a little dated but not as European specific as others cited. Neugebauer, Zebrowski and Esmer (2022) has a variety of models that show benefits in most situations. Ellingsen and Hung (2018) is more specifically focused on the European generation mix. In general, CO2 emissions favor EVs, unless the EV would replace a still operational ICE car that is driven less than 5000miles/year. This holds even for generation mixes that are heavily reliant on coal.
-
Doug Cannon at 02:46 AM on 6 January 2023Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
It would be good to have an unbiased source determine whether “driving using electricity is cleaner than gasoline even with the current mix in the United States”. Data from eia supports the idea of non plug-in hybrids as being better for total CO2 emissions in the U.S.
The average modern hybrid gets 52mpg. Assuming an annual mileage of 12,500, that results in 2.22 metric tons of CO2 per year.Growth in electricity demand by 2050 is projected to be less than 1% per year. At a best case scenario, solar and wind could represent 36% of electrical generation by then. As a result there would be no need to add any natural gas units during that period. The use of coal would be further reduced in half so that annual CO2 emisions would be reduced by a half billion metric tons. Dozens of coal plants will be retired during that period.
Solar and wind connected to the grid will be operated at the maximums of their resource-limited capacity regardless of any changes in electrical demand. In the short term (hours) natural gas units will be used for short term variations in demand but will remain fairly constant over time. In the longer term coal will be reduced as much as practical as renewables are added. Any increase in demand will simply slow the reduction of coal. So as EV demand for electricity increases, instead of reducing coal a corresponding amount, we will need some of the electricity that would otherwise be reduced.
(i.e. the added renewables, instead of replacing coal, would be needed to support EV charging)The average usage for an EV is .2kwhr/km. A kwhr from coal produces .001012 metric tons.
Doing the math, an average EV results in 4.08 metric tons per year. Much worse than a hybrid which requires no new infrastructure for charging.We could lie to ourselves and claim that the mix of fuels used to charge would be the actual 36/64 coal/gas split. But that doen't reflect reality. Even so, that would result in 2.48 metric tons per year.
So, at least for the next few decades, we would be better off encouraging non plug-in hybrids until the clean electricity issue is resolved. I'm not optimistic that will happen. There's a lot of money and lobbying for EV's. And fossil electricity is pretty cheap compared to gasoline in spite of the low efficiency of fossil/steam power plants.
-
peppers at 21:04 PM on 5 January 2023We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Thank you moderator. Understood, Best D
-
MA Rodger at 20:45 PM on 5 January 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022
michael sweet @4,
This document 'Global warming in the pipeline' by Hansen et al does appear to need some rewriting in my view.
It explains it is the first of a pair (the second being 'Sea Level Rise in the Pipeline') and together they are perhaps akin to Hansen et al (2016) 'Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous' which was more a discussion document than a piece of science. But given 'Global warming in the pipeline' starts off with our understanding of the greenhouse effect back in the 1800s, its audience is probably not climatologists, so not a discussion document, although it does get a bit 'detailed' in places where a good understanding of climatology is required.At 48 pages, it covers a lot of ground and as-yet I haven't read very far through it, down to page 12 which covers the assessment of ECS. But it does read a little odd.
The Abstract tells us that "improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fastfeedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2"
The first thing that I felt odd was reference to Hansen et al (1984) 'Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms' but without a sign that this was such an old paper. The tempersture rise from the LGM used to calculate the ECS in Hansen et al (1984) is said to be +3.6°C, a value said to yield ECS=2.5 to 5°C. For me, that +3.6°C temperature increase is way below that usually quoted elsewhere for the post-LGM temperature rise.
And 'Global warming in the pipeline' indeed then presents higher estimates of the temperature rise from the LGM: +6.8°C (± 0.8) in Osman et al (2021), +5.9°C (± 0.3) in Tierney et al (2020) and +5.8°C (± 0.6) for land SAT from Seltzer et al (2021).
These are in keeping with values I've seen in literature for recent decades which usually sit +5°C to 6°C, perhaps the +6.8°C (± 0.8) in Osman et al (2021) a little higher than normal while some of those lower values have also persisted.
And using such LMGR temperature increases, 'Global warming in the pipeline' then calculates ECS concluding "Thus, while the LGM-Holocene climate change implies ECS =3.3-5.1°C for 2×CO2, the PGM-Eemian implies ECS ~ 4-6°C. We conclude ECS is at least approximately 4°C and is almost surely in the range 3.5-5.5°C."
What goes unsaid is that the literature used to source LGMR the temperature rise from the LGM also developes ECS values with ECS = 2.2°C to 4.3°C in Tierney et al (2020) (Fig 4 from this paper below, the RAE accounting for 'mineral dust forcing') with Seltzer et al (2021) concurring with the central value of this, 3.4°C. For 'Global warming in the pipeline' to ignore these ECS values is entirely unscientific as we now have two values for ECS derived from LGMR which are at odds with each other.
And the use of the PMG-Eemian temperature rise to calculate an ECS value is a novel and perhaps rather too adventurous as I don't know of such a use previously. 'Global warming in the pipeline' references Rohling et al (2017), a long paper which does not itself address ECS.
So that is not a good start for a work which presents such startling findings.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:24 AM on 5 January 2023We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Moderator,
I agree that discussing population and nuclear is not on-topic here.
The best location to discuss nuclear energy appears to be the following SkS Blog Post by scaddenp: Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
That post and comments provide a wealth of relevant information. My only comment regarding nuclear energy has already been stated: To be lasting improvements, solutions to the harmful unsustainable fossil fuel climate change impact problem need to 'not be harmful and unsustainable alternatives'.
I did not find a 'population' discussion location in SkS. Maybe there isn't one. And there probably shouldn't be one.
Discussion regarding global population and development is part of the bigger UN Development Programme. Climate science regarding human climate change impacts is a subset of that larger issue. There is lots of great information available from the UNDP, including the annual UNDP Human Development Reports (one of my favorites is the 2020 HDR).
-
peppers at 19:08 PM on 4 January 2023We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI One Planet,
Some really good and deep drilling down, and I appreciate the basic quest of common sense. As some of this line of thinking is not greatly established with data. We are noodling this out.
There is an urgent need to alter our dependence on fossil fuel. I am finding mere lifestyle change to be questionable though. That could slow or unlikely halt the co2 increase if we could apply ourselves. But a real knockout punch is nuclear. I hear even Gretha is talking nuclear.
I looked in to why the population has rocketed up to our current 8 billion.
NUmber one is medicine and health advancments. To drill down, number one of that is infant mortality decreasing and also life expectancy increasing overall. Specifically, upon the introduction of pennicillin in the early 1950's; worldwide life expectancy we went from 48 years in 1950 to about 69 now, going up in to the 70's for life expectancy soon worldwide. The links below also shows fertility rates dropping slowly, and specifically in USA while greatly increasing in Africa. This will present a shift from high producing locates to the low locates for co2 production over time, all else considered. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/main-factors-driving-population-growth/
As a landlord, I am very aware of the utility and products use of children and infants. One initially thinks, they are smaller, they use less! Far be it! As in population increase causing the increasing use of fossil fuels, which are the producers of co2, the children cause the adults to consume very large additional amounts of energy to care for thier babies. Every form of increased waste and product use comes in to play, right up to selling the small sedan and buying an SUV, with no concern about much of anything except the best for caring for the babies. We do become a bit crazy, about babies.
I think your premise of SkS's mission is correct, while we look to a solution the size of this sunami od human development. The increase of pressure of population is predicted to continue through this century, then abate. There is an overly simplified page from UCBerkeley about population increase:
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/population-growth/
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
Using the second link above, there is a highly useful chart built, where one can sort in many important ways. China emits twice our output of co2, and they are villified for it. However, they are at 1/2 the per capita than the USA. So they are 4 times larger than the USA and we emit 1/2 their level, as the USA is at 15.52 per capita and they are at a pretty low 7.38. If we cut our use down by 1/2, to 7.38, we would reduce global emissions of co2 by 7% and that reduction would exactly match the 7% we are expected to increase in population of adding the next billion in 14 years. Again, population is expected to balance about the end of this century and stop increasing (I have not explored why).
I do not know what would be the lifestyle change that can make emmisions drop by 50%. More gain would be possible with worldwide reductions. There are 15 countries higher emitting than the USA, including Canada and Australia (which must have pretty good PR depts as they sound like they are on cutting edge!). The higher emitters total about 1/3 our population so the USA is the earliest target for sure, where the largest gain could be seen. And if a true worldwide effort succeeded, there is a chance to slow, stop and also reduce.
But nuclear and continue using electric which is only a delivery method and not an energy source would do it. Nuclear would allow us to stop another problem, which is the villian making which is happening among the people. People are not getting it. For whatever reason. Note the shift of sedan sales flipping to SUV's about 2015, and now pickup trucks and SUV's sell double low emitting sedans. And shaming, goading, hampering, I hear mocking and debasing and endless ways of fracturing the peace being presented from all sides on this important topic.
If. If it is a formula of population growth, bought on by historic medical discovery and advances, this is not any persons fault. Continuing awareness is appropriate, but will not produce the goals desired without running in to political opposition ( kill babies, reduced family sizes, really dramatic lifestyle changes, etc). And there is damage to the global psyche when peoples feel attacked. I categories much of the inappropriate responses to the horror approach of this ( folks are not explaining the problem and then asking for cooperation, for instance), and one could find explainations of any one responding badly when cornered. But I dont think people caused this by wanton debauched lifestyles. They are growing a lot of babies, which use a huge new amount of energy.
Nuclear would be a response about on the scale of pennicillin coming on the scene, and handle this in the shortest time, with the greatest impact and stop this shaming and blaming of peoples as a response. This is urgent and important. We could feed the world with the surplus value of the current plans.
A large part of this treatise is just noodling. It helps me think about it to write as I go. I appreciate the chance to drop this here. This is just my opinion, forming. Thanks all, D
Moderator Response:[BL] This discussion is becoming increasingly off-topic. If the two of you wish to continue these discussions, please use the Search function to find a suitable place.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:15 PM on 4 January 2023We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @91,
The population issue may be better understood by performing the mental exercise of considering a case where the global population did not increase above 800 million.
If, by today, the 800 million developed to be as harmful ‘annually in total’ as the current most harmful 800 million are, then the magnitude of harm done so far, and rate of harm done, would be less than the current problem of the 8 billion today. More people being harmful, even if they are less harmful people, will produce harm more rapidly. But the continued increase of harm done at a lower rate would eventually produce a similar level of harmful results.
Once the harm being done was recognized (understandable) as something that had to be ended and undone (in spite of harmful efforts to promote misunderstanding, and ask questionable questions that have understandable answers, to delay the awakening of that understanding – prolonging understandably harmful misunderstandings that delay the reduction of harm being done), if each of the 800 million had developed a reasonably comparable level of harmfulness then they would all have a comparable responsibility for reducing their harmfulness. However, if the distribution of harmfulness was similar to the current distribution (refer to my comment @82 - the top 10% of the 800 million being as harmful as the top 1% of 8 billion, and the top 1% being like the current top 0.1%) then the common sense would be that the more harmful people, all of them, would need to more rapidly and more dramatically lead the learning and correction of behaviour.
The problem is the examples being set by the supposedly more advanced portion of the population, combined with the development of desires in more people to develop to live that way (as you say “they too want to live as full a life as possible” incorrectly believing that ‘desiring to be more harmful’ is ‘Living fuller’ or that ‘living fuller’ excuses the harm done). That harmful result is unjustified and relies on harmful misunderstandings like the following (refer to my comment @90 for an alternate presentation of the same point):
- those who are first to develop more harmful ways of living get to be more harmful
- harmfulness has to be accepted, because some people desire things that are understandably harmful
My point, unaltered by anything you have presented, is that unless there is a systemic ideological change that establishes the common sense that it is unacceptable for ‘desires’ to be obtained harmfully then any ‘solutions’ will likely be harmful and ultimately unsustainable.
Fundamentally the developed common sense understanding includes:
- the harmfulness of people continuing to ‘pursue desires (not needs)’ via harmful fossil fuel use is now undeniable because of climate science.
- the development and proliferation of misunderstandings about climate science, including questionable questions related to the need for the most harmful people to most rapidly limit their harmfulness, is undeniably harmful because it delays the limiting of the harm done.
- pursuing ‘solutions’ without acknowledging that only ‘meeting everyone’s basic needs’ is allowed to be harmful (with as little harm done as possible) will not produce sustainable solutions.
The problem is not solved by the development of new technology or 'other solutions' in a system that does not recognize the need for ‘desires beyond the basic needs of living’ to be harmless. The desire for people to maintain and increase developed perceptions of ‘fuller’ living does not justify the added harm done while they try to delay the understanding of the growing urgency for their desired harmful actions to be more rapidly ended.
Also, harmful climate change impacts due to fossil fuel use were the result of the pursuits of status through technology development competition in a system with success measured by popularity and profit. It is also common sense that some people harmfully resist learning about the harmful results of persistent and prolific presentations of misunderstandings regarding climate science. Even without the harmful delay of persistent misunderstanding, it is understandably unacceptable to ‘wait for the obviously harmfully inclined competition to end the harm it developed’. There is abundant evidence that limiting of harm done by activity related to fossil fuels (and other activities) has almost only ever happened through ‘regulation and restriction by Others who govern based on the pursuit of increased awareness and understanding of what is harmful’. Examples abound including: ending lead in gasoline, reduction of sulphur emissions, reduced particulate emissions, and improved fuel efficiency.
As for your point “I cannot censor others because I now want to call their opinion harmful misunderstandings”. That is a version of an already pointed out misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my presented points. One more time, stated a different way:
- the most serious population problem related to ‘climate science and understood to be harmful climate change impacts of human activity’ is the most harmful impacting portion of the population.
- the harmful portion of the population is not excused by claiming that ‘others want to be like them’.
- the small percentage who are most harmful are not excused by claiming that large numbers of other less harmful people are a bigger concern.
- continuing harmful activity that is unnecessary for decent basic living is not excused by claiming that harmless ways to do the desired things ‘will be developed’. Maybe they won’t be developed. Maybe harmful replacements, only a little less climate change harmful or harmful in other ways, will be used. Note that stopping unnecessary harmful activity would limit the harm done ‘and’ motivate the development of harmless ways to meet those unnecessary desires.
- it is harmful to maintain a misunderstanding that evades learning that fossil fuel use must be rapidly ended by the people who cause the most harm due to their harmfully over-developed ‘unnecessary’ fossil fuel use.
- the real root of the problem is the development of desires for over-consumption including energy over-consumption.
You say “Yet we have let 11 million (from lower per capita impact nations) in to our 15.52 per capita USA.” That is an argument against yourself. You have essentially stated that it is expected and OK for lower impact people to develop higher impact ways of living. Also, people moving to the USA would not be a problem if all of the USA, not just some portions of its population, were leading the awakening of the understanding of the need for a rapid transition away from the ideology that harmful ways of obtaining ‘desires’ are excusable.
In conclusion, I believe it is important for SkS to continue to raise awareness (awaken people) regarding the climate science understanding that results in people learning to be less harmful, including voting for representatives who will be less harmful and more helpful leaders. That includes efforts on Twitter until it becomes clear that there is no longer a significant number of people remaining on Twitter who are interested in developing the common sense understanding of the need to rapidly end fossil fuel use and curtail other harmful ‘desired activity’.
-
peppers at 10:25 AM on 3 January 2023We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI One Plant,
I really appreciate discussing this w you. Much of this topic of population is to be based in common sense. The new input taking us from 1 to 8 billion now, it happened all across the world. America tripled, China tripled adding a billion. The starving areas represent about a billion, just under I hope, and once they get past finding food security, they too want to live as full a life as possible. So I think there is a narrowing as new tech makes more available, more will step up wanting it and being able to access it. Many examples of tech/competition working toward that. And as we get back on track to solve world hunger, there is another original billion, as the number we started with in 1900 again, ready to add thier consumerism, for a better life, for the same reasons we chose it as well.
I think a larger solution needs considering, and atomic would fill that bill.
The fossil fuel is why the co2 has increased, and mostly its manmade. But we cannot undo 8 billion, going to 10 they say.
This is my opinion, and it is where all ideas begin, as opinions. I cannot censor others because I now want to call their opinion harmful misunderstandings. Thats the primary point I had. Its that you cannot say you are right and all others are wrong, because we cant do that. Its not aggresive or meant to down anywhere. But we have to keep thinking to work on anything, and freedom to think and express is very much desirable. If you say I am right and all else are harmful misunderstandings. Well.
Mexico is a per capita rate of 3.58 for Co2, Venesuela 5.89. Yet we have let 11 million in to our 15.52 per capita USA. Political is against us. Natural thriving is against. This is only for me Forever, but an approach that can address this has me running in to all these factors, as I try and understand it to formula a solution.
But this does not make me a harmful misunderstander.
Thanks tons, D
-
michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 3 January 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022
Hairy BUtler,
I read the Hansen et al preprint and Manns response. THe Hansen paper is long and technical. To evaluate the claims is beyond my pay grade, but I can summarize Hansen's claims.
1) Hansen et al claim that studies of Paleoclimate (the climate in ages past) are the best way to estimate climate sensitivity. The current estimate of the Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3C per doubling of carbon dioxide. The ECS is the equilibtium temperature from rapidly changing thngs like atmospheric temperature and the ocean surface. It has been 3C for a long time. Recent papers have made new estimates of the last glacial maximum (LGM) global temperature that are about 3C lower than older estimates were. This results in the ECS increasing to about 4 or 5C. Mann cites the old papers to contradict Hansen. If the ECS is really 4C instead of 3C than the expected warming is significantly greater. Scientists often argue about whether or not new estimates are correct. This can take years to resolve.
2) Hansen has felt for decades that aerosol effects on climate have been underestimated. Hansen claims that current Global Climate Models (GCM's) overestimate ocean mixing and underestimate aerosol cooling effects. He provides new data to support this claim. The net effect is to lower the calculated ECS. As more and more energy comes from renewable sources the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere will decrease. Since aerosols cool the Earth the net effect is greater warming than we have already experienced.
3) Hansen defines the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) as the final temperature reached when slow responding functions like the melting of global ice caps reach final equilibrium. This is significantly higher than the ECS, perhaps as high as 10C per doubling of carbon dioxide. The generally accepted wisdon is that ESS will take thousands of years to reach equilibrium. Hansen argues that It will be much faster. Perhaps as much as 80% of final heating in a centuary.
4) The net effect of higher ECS and ESS combined with higher aerosol effects means that there is a lot more heating in the pipeline (heating caused by carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere) than is currently believed to be the case.
5) Since Hansen expects warming to be greater than the current consensus, much more heating is already in the pipeline and that it will happen much faster than currently expected, he argues that governments need to act much faster to contain this emergency as soon as possible.
Hansen has made the argument for many years that aerosols are underestimated, ESS is higher than the current consensus and more warming is in the pipeline. He has new data in this paper to support his claims. This paper claims that the much more rapid increase in temperature he predicts will be obvious by 2050 and strong indications of his predictions will be measured in about 10 years.
Mann basically says that he doesn't buy Hansens' argument. Hopefully Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate will write a summary that will tell us the consensus view of what Hansen thinks is new data. I expect Dr. Schmidt to agree with Dr. Mann. I cannot evaluate Hansens claims, it is too technical.
In my view, Hansen is a great scientist who has been correct several times before when he stuck his neck out. He has also missed the mark on occasion. It is worrysome to have someone so talented make such a grim argument. This argument is not that different from his previous position but it has some new data to support his case. I imagine that this paper will be discussed a fair amount online but that the IPCC consensus will not change until it is 2050 and his forecasts have proven correct. Pray to whatever Gods you have that Hansen is incorrect.
If anyone else reads Hansen et al I am interested in your thoughts and/or additions on what I have posted here.
-
Hareaza at 09:06 AM on 3 January 2023Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions
Even if anyone is adamant that climate change is not anthropogenically induced, it is just one vertex in a multi-pronged polygon, so to speak. Even if scientists were to say all over the world tomorrow: “we we were wrong! Carnivores had it right all of this time! Mea culpa! mea culpa!”, you’d be still tragically wrong overall. See, as humanity becomes more and more numerous, more and more land has to be cleared for grazing animals, because most people eat bluish animal carcasses—the bright red you see at the store is because the meat is infused with carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen to make it look appealing, otherwise it turns darker, ‘deader’)—and this in turn brings a host of very negative consequences.
How anyone can be incapable of understanding that producing 60 billion land animals for consumption is unsustainable is beyond me.
But it is impossible for one’s mind to imagine this mind boggling quantity. So, I will help the reader visualize it. Imagine you have 1 billion dollars in the bank and suppose that every single second one dollar is spent. In order to spend your billion dollars, 32 years would have to pass. Now multiply this 60 times. That is what 60 billion means in numbers.
These 60 billion land animals need water, land, and food to grow before they’re killed for human consumption. There’s already scarcity or lack of access to in each of these areas. More people equals more meat consumed equals more of:
1. Zoonotic diseases
2. Methane emission
3. Ecosystem degradation
4. Effluent caused poisoning
5. Environmental inequality (poor countries give up their land to farm animals who end up on the dinner plate of wealthier countries instead of using it to feed their own citizens).
6. Deforestation
7. Mono-cropping
8. Heat/cool & transport cost & emissions
9. Food poison/pathogen
10. Water scarcity
11. Antibiotic resistance
12. biodiversity lossAnd all of this is not just a matter of crucial public interest, this also includes the immorality of inflicting bloodcurdling pain to animals. The suffering they go through is unspeakable. It is a true, on-going, endless animal holocaust.
-
Charlie_Brown at 03:20 AM on 3 January 2023CO2 effect is saturated
Searching for keywords in comments, I found that the Zhong & Haigh (2013) paper has been referenced several times in this thread, including in Jan 2019 @ 489, Sept 2019 @ 527, and others. I found excellent responses by MA Rodger and others to critiques about the paper by some who either didn’t understand the article or the physics, or just dismissed it with subjective superlatives. As I mentioned previously, it takes serious study to sort through the discussion. It helps to have a solid understanding of energy balances, fundamentals of radiant energy transfer, and basics of atmospheric physics.
I also found several references to Univ of Chicago’s free, online version of MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere. It is an excellent educational tool for self-study, and can be used to create the radiative forcing curves for CO2, as was done @609, and other GHGs (less rigorous than a line-by-line model using the HITRAN database, but still quite adequate for educational purposes). While learning about the greenhouse effect myself over the past few years, it was so helpful to me that I wanted to share it with my peer chemical engineers. To that end, I wrote an article for Chemical Engineering Progress, May 2022, “Introduction to an Atmospheric Radiation Model,” with Dr. David Archer (whose book is referenced in Zhong & Haigh) and Dr. Valerie Young as co-authors. It would be a good start for someone interested in learning-by-using the model. It offers background and step-by-step instructions for some example problems including the saturation effect. Unfortunately, Chemical Engineering Progress is not open access, but it might be found at the library or from a friend who is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
