Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 351 to 400:

  1. At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

    The sceptics claim that the CO2 warming effect is already saturated or is close to being saturated is clearly false. It seems to originate with the assertion that the surface receives about 3.7 W/m2 more energy each time CO2 is doubled ie: a logarthmic curve. This means eventually it would take a huge volume of additional CO2 (presumably over a long time period) to add an extra 3.7W / m2. Which they suggest means the effect is essentially then saturated, but without specifying a precise number (how convenient of them).

    I see that the article mentions that this assertion about a logarithmic relationship may have been proven false by He et al. 2023, (?) and it also depends on emissions trajectories and other factors, but assuming the logarithmic relationship is simplistically true a look at radiative forcing versus CO2 concentration below and a bit of maths and its obvious the warming effect is not saturated and we are not yet near saturation:

    skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html

    My back of envelope maths: In 1960s CO2 was 320 ppm ppm so doubling would be 640 ppm at around roughly year 2100 assuming BAU emissions. This coincides with the IPCC warming projection of 3 - 5 degrees C by 2100.

    The next doubling is from from 640 to 1280 is a larger volume of CO2 and would presumably take longer to around year 2300 assuming the same BAU CO2 growth trend and other things being equal. Projections of warming by the IPCC by 2300 are not surprisingly around 8 - 10 degress C for this further doubling of CO2. Such a quantity of CO2 is large but may possibly be feasible given reserves of fossil fuels and uncertainties arount that.

    The next doubling from 1280 to 2560 would lead to something like 15 degrees C and is a huge volume of CO2 that would take many centuries and would almost certainly exhaust reserves of fossil fuels, and most probably well before 15 degrees is reached. We could say this is the point of saturation in a practical sense. Its of no comfort because we would have had at least 5 degrees of warming and probably more, and not even factoring in tipping points.

    Someone check my maths its very rough, but the sceptics claims are clearly false and meaningless.

  2. Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook

    Ben@1 and nigelj@2, I tend to agree with both of you, but would defer to someone with deeper knowledge of the IPCC than I have.

    My understanding is that Ben is correct in terms of historical IPCC predictions, but that Nigel is correct in terms of the latest report, which now does include more extreme predictions than previously included.

    But the other message that I keep hearing in videos and reading in text is that the climate is responding/changing faster than many climate scientists expected, and by my reading, this sentiment is not refleccted in the IPCC reports.

  3. Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook

    Ben Laycock @1

    I disagree that the IPCC only include the most conservative estimates of warming and SLR. Firstly the  most conservative estimates for warming are roughly 3.0 degrees C by 2100 at BAU (business as usual emissions) and on SLR are roughly 0.6 M this century. The IPCC sixth assesssment report also includes warming projections of up to 5 degrees C and and SLR projections of 1 - 2 metres this century ( which look very possible to me). So clearly the IPCC does not include only the "most conservative" estimates.

    You can google the IPCC reports. They are free to download.

    A small number of scientists like James Hansen have written studies with higher estimates of warming and SLR but they are not included as the IPCC presumably decided the science was not quite convincing enough. The IPCCs job is to review all the science and decide which is most credible. That also includes reviewing studies claiming the planet is about to enter a long cooling period. They dont include those because they lack any credibility.

    However IMO the Summary for Policymakers could do a better job of highlighting the worst case scenarios and their implications.

    Its true the IPCC do lean a little bit conservative on the science generally. However this is how science has worked for decades and its to help avoid mistakes and loss of credibility. It may be frustrating at times but the alternative sounds worse to me. Policy makers also presumably realise there is a certain conservative leaning or reticence and take that into account.

    And remember there is nothing reassuring about SLR projections of up to 2 metres this century. This is obviously very serious and if anyone can't figure that out I doubt that a higher estimate of 3 metres would make much difference to them. 

    I agree that we have to be cautious interpreting the meaning of low possibility high impact events like 5 degrees warming this century or 2.0M SLR. Firstly as you say they can still happen. Secondly they are assigned a low possibility of occurence but that is probably a "conservative" leaning evaluation or probability. Thirdly the impacts are so incredibly serious that even although the possibility is low we need extreme caution and should therefore be mitigating the climate problem. There are many activities that have a low possibility of harm but very serious outcomes, that sensible people avoid like driving on worn tires that are just slightly below warrent of fitness standards.

  4. One Planet Only Forever at 07:38 AM on 8 January 2024
    Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

    Ben Laycock, Some observations and feedback ...

    The evidence appears to clearly indicate that it is incorrect to believe that "... every single government ... is ... blissfully unaware that economic growth is the primary driving force of the climate catastrophe."

    There is enough evidence from the COP interactions, and so much more, to establish a consensus understanding (a legitimately justified 'common sense' as opposed to a harmfully misled developed 'common sense among a portion of the total population') that people wanting to benefit from harmful unsustainable developed perceptions of advancement, success and superiority are the fundamental problem, not just regarding climate change impacts.

    The 'government representatives' acting for the benefit of harmful unjustified pursuers of benefit are likely 'well aware of how harmfully misleading they are being' when they fight against more rapid ending of fossil fuel use. Even the 1.5 C target limit of harm done was a harmful compromise. But, because of the unjustified success of harmful pursuers of personal benefit since 1990, the more justified compromise of 1.0 C limit of harmful impact was 'no longer an available option' in 2015.

    As for the solution being 'crash the economy', in addition to the points made by Eclectic and Rob Honeycutt, I offer the following thoughts. I agree with crashing the economy if:

    Crashing the economy is => Leadership actions to increase awareness and improve understanding of what is harmful and how people can be more helpful to others, especially to future generations.

    That type of leadership would result in:

    • a very rapid ending of harmful unsustainable developed aspects of the economy (stuff that should be excluded from measurements of economic success). The rapid ending would be assisted by leadership encouraging a reduction of unnecessary harmful activity, especially by the richest.
    • a very rapid increase in the development of less harmful more sustainable economic activity (with the harmful impacts properly and fully subtracted so that there is no misunderstanding regarding the value or merit of an economic activity while harmful activities are cleared out of the system)

    That 'crashing of those aspects of the economy' would be Good for the future of humanity. And it would most negatively affect the people who want to be more harmful and less helpful (also a Good Thing).

    Of course, if the status quo powers continue to get their way, including being able to significantly compromise leadership actions, the harm suffered would most likely be severely experienced by those less powerful who do not deserve to be penalized - you know - the undeniable status quo history of humanity. And those less powerful 'easy to harm' people include the future generations of humanity (They have no vote, marketing, or legal power).

  5. One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 8 January 2024
    Climate news to watch in 2024

    An additional point,

    When comparing the results of actions by nations the 'history of per capita impacts by nation' should be presented along with the presentation of total national impacts. China's per capita impacts are still significantly lower than USA per capita. And that presentation would also highlight the impact risks of a nation like India developing up to the higher per capita levels 'the supposed more advanced nations are setting as the examples to be aspired to'.

    Also, the national total and per capita impacts should include the impacts of all consumption in the nation and other actions that the population of the nation benefit from, especially the impacts of imported items. A nation should not be able to mislead about how harmful the actions of its population are by having the harm ignored or excused because it occurred outside their borders.

  6. One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 8 January 2024
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    PollutionMonster,

    Take as long as you need. I appreciate it will take some time. Learning by putting in the extra effort to read books (and full research reports, and magazine length articles) from sources that you learn are biased but are not significantly misleading is one of the recommendations by Timothy Snyder in On Tyranny. (Note: All presentations can be claimed to be biased, which includes a non-misleading bias towards increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and how to be more helpful to others).

    I will be interested to see your feedback regarding increased awareness and improvement of understanding on this issue. I am always open to improved understanding and better explanations based on all of the available evidence.

  7. Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

    Ben... I think crashing the economy wouldn't be a wise approach to avoiding disaster. You can't rationally trade one form of human catastrophe for another. Crashing the economy would potentially be as bad or even worse than the path we're currently on.

    I would note there are no researchers (that I am aware of) suggesting crashing the economy as a solution to the climate change crisis. My suggestion for you is to consider the idea that deployment of carbon-free energy is operating on a exponential scale. That could actually bring us in line with zero carbon goals, if we can achieve that. Probably the bigger concern is resource limitations to carry out exponential deployment of renewables.

  8. Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

    Ben L  @1&2 ,

    you are very Droll.  (Is that "plan D" ?)

    If plan C  =  Crash the economy

    and plan B  =  Blowing past 3 degrees

    . . . do you not have a plan A  = Acceptable political compromise?

     

    or are you hell-bent on plan G . . . the Genghis-Khan method?

    (Asking for a Friend.)

  9. Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

    We must crash the economy!

  10. Cranky Uncle with Dr. John Cook

    I have collated some important climate data that might come in handy when trying to counteract disinformation.
    It is not rocket science, but it is science.
    As Cranky Uncle might say, it is just plain common sense.
    Every single government in the whole world, bar none, is desperately trying to increase economic growth, blissfully unaware that economic growth is the primary driving force of the climate catastrophe. We point the finger at the evil fossil fuel merchants and their enablers in government, but they are just struggling to keep up with our insatiable demand for more stuff!
    Since 1990 global clean energy generation has increased 1000 fold, but our emissions have been going up at the same time, by 60% since 1990. We have burnt more fossil fuels since we learnt about climate change than all the rest of history put together! Our emissions have been rising by about 10% every year since 1950, though the rate has slowed a bit lately, which is encouraging.
    The reason they keep going up is because the global economy keeps growing. The economy grows by about 4% per anum. So clean energy must replace emissions at the same rate, just to break even. Clean energy generates 17% of our global energy needs. So to replace 4% of
    CO2, it must increase by 18% every single year. If we are to achieve Zero Net Emissions by 2050 we must reduce our CO2 by another 4% p.a. every single year for nearly 30 years. That means increasing clean energy by another 18% p.a. So we must increase our clean energy by 36% every year. Last year we our clean energy went up 10%, a shortfall of 26%. So this year that 26% gets added onto this years target, bringing it up to 62%. Next year it will be 88%, and so on.
    If you know anyone who thinks that is even remotely possible, please refer them to a psychiatrist!
    There is only one solution to this predicament.

    Ben Laycock

     

  11. Scientific Consensus with Dr John Cook

    Whilst it is reasurring that the information in the IPCC reports is reached ia consensus, it can gie us a false sense of security because only the most conservative estimates are included. The most alarming possibilities are left out because they are deemed unlikely. So the possibility of global temperatures reaching an insufferable 4 degrees higher is not something we should be concerned about because it is not very likely to happen.... until it does!

  12. It's waste heat

    Please note:  a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on January 6, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  13. PollutionMonster at 21:12 PM on 5 January 2024
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    @ One Planet Only Forever 123

    Reading a bunch I am now using a reference management software called Zotero to try to keep track of everything, though I am still new and making mistakes. The Sks website can be difficult to navigate with so many articles with almost identifcal names and topics.

    I am still investigating and understanding the sources you mentioned earlier the Taylor and Francis Group for example. I am also going through the all sources of the books you mentioned trying to read the primary source, often the books mention other books in their work cited.

    I will get back when I am finished.

  14. One Planet Only Forever at 04:20 AM on 4 January 2024
    Climate news to watch in 2024

    Having read the entire article it is clear that the term 'pollution' regarding 'global heat-trapping' is implied to be an annual rate value. That 'short-hand' makes it less clear that the required end objective is the rapid ending of the ‘addition of global heat-trapping pollution’ with a 'now almost certain' need for increased unproductive corrective effort to be expended 'by others in the future' to 'remove excess pollution' and attempt to ‘repair climate change caused damages and adapt to the more harmful climatic future created by excess accumulated global heat-trapping pollution'.

    However, the accumulated pollution is the continuing problem. And even the best actions by a Democrat controlled USA government are likely to be 'more harmful and less helpful than they could be' because the USA leadership is significantly compromised by the popularity and profitability of being more harmful, by protection of the incorrect and unsustainable developed perceptions of 'living a better life'.

  15. One Planet Only Forever at 03:47 AM on 4 January 2024
    Climate news to watch in 2024

    I have not finished reading the article. But the following statement triggered a need to comment.

    "Despite all that bad news, many countries are making progress toward reducing their climate pollution, and the outlook for 2024 is encouraging. In fact, 2023 may turn out to be the year in which global heat-trapping pollution peaked and began to decline."

    The first part of the statement is consistent with all the available evidence and is encouraging news.

    The second part of the statement appears to be incorrectly over-optimistic. A more realistic statement would appear to be: In fact, 2023 may turn out to be the year in which the rate of increase of global heat-trapping pollution peaked and began to decline."

    That revised statement is encouraging news. But it is not a certainty.

    Improvement is occurring. But the the problem continues to get worse due to resistance of correction by people who have developed impressions of advancement and superiority based on unjustified and harmful over-consumption and the related unsustainable harmful desire for 'more personal benefit faster'.

  16. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    Just Dean @11,

    I would not agree that the Holocene paper Osman et al (2021) co-authored by Tierney is the sole reason behind what has become the “Holocene temperature conundrum.” Other studies also found an absence of a Holocene Thermal Maximum, eg Kaufman et al (2020) or Bova et al (2021), or a very weak one, eg Kaufman & Broadman (2023), or regional differences, eg Cartapanis et al (2022).

    Chen et al (2023) [ABSTRACT] characterises it as a model-proxy thing with these methods needing to sharpen their game if the conundrum is to be resolved.

  17. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    Just Dean @11 :

    Yes, the Osman study shows a slightly different "shape" to the subsequent millennia following the Holocene Optimum of (very roughly)  7,000 years ago.  And yes, that is of innate interest, but it makes little difference with respect to the rocket-like rise of global temperature which is progressing during the current industrial era.

    In golfing metaphor, it is the consideration of how past holes were played . . . compared with where the ball is sited right now ~ and what we need to do playing the ball right now.

    With or without climate models, we know enough about the angle of the grass slope & the wind's strength/direction, to make a reasonable judgement on how to strike the ball.  Lack of Will, is our problem.

  18. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    Eclectic @10. 

    I have been following Dr. Tierney's work for sometime. I think Dr. Tierney's work is underappreciated.  I think the combination of proxy data with modeling is cutting edge for paleoclimatogy.  For instance, I think her paper in Nature with Osman may ultimately redefine the shape of the "hockey stick," REF .  

    Also, look at the quality of the fit for the Cenzoic age, this research really might start to constrain the climate models for predicting future temperatures for different emission scenarios.

  19. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    Just Dean @9 :

    Thanks for the J.Tierney video reference [not yet viewed by me].

    I note the name Osman listed in the video credits, and also note that the video is marked as having had 135 views in 2 months.  So, not yet setting the the world on fire [apologies to Secretary-General Guterres of the U.N.].

    Just Dean ~ broadly speaking, the paleo record conforms with the present-day understanding of the climatic actions of CO2.   Is there a special point that you are wishing to make, regarding the paleo climate?

  20. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    I am also leery of single author papers.  

    If you are interested in the some of the latest thinking in correlations between ancient CO2 and T, I recommend this presentation by Dr. Jessica Tierney, REF .  

    If you are interested in just the bottom line, you can skip to the time marker around an hour into the presentation.  If you look at her plot of GMST vs CO2 (ppmv) introduced at 1:04:08, you might imagine how if you wanted to play fast and loose with the data and do some cherrypicking you could make the correlation look fairly poor.

  21. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    I took about a couple of minutes of that video.

    The quantity of FUD regarding EVs is astonishing until you consider what is going to happen to the FF industries in just a few years and how much money is being pushed into the doubt industry.

    I've no real skin in the game - no children - but what looks like the future isn't pretty so my investment in an EV three years ago is probably altruistic!

    Take care, y'all and HNY!

  22. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    If I'm not mistaken, WJ Davis' PhD and primary area of research is sports physiology.

  23. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    Just Dean @6 :

    The 2017 study you link [by W. Jackson Davis] is quite bizarre.  And overall, is a waste of time for anyone to read.

    Red flags can be seen in the Author's voluminous Conclusions.  Such as his statement:  "... that other, unidentified variables caused most (>95%) of the variance in [temperature] across the Phanerozoic climate record"  <unquote>

    Variables unknown to modern science, apparently?

    In his final paragraphs, he seems to have a political axe to grind.  Indeed, his whole extensive paper shows much Motivated Reasoning ~ a triumph of weakly-based statistical analysis over logical analysis.

    I rate his paper as 10/10 for length and 0/10 for scientific substance.

  24. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023

    I was looking for recent articles on paleoclimatogical data for CO2 vs Temperature and happened to this posting about the work of W. Jackson Davis. Based on a previous work of his claiming that CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes in ancient climates, REF , I would definitely advise caution when considering his works.

  25. One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 1 January 2024
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    I hope next year (or this year for those already there) continues to see sustainable improvements from leadership.

    I can wrap up this year with a positive perspective regarding the hoped for response to the growing need for direct air carbon capture.

    The segway to that positive perspective from my comment @19 will be the following NPR article: “The rules of the road are changing, but not fast enough for everyone”. The story is a tragic result of the systemic problems developed by competition for perceptions of status based on popularity and profit. The system developed to promote faster motorized personal vehicle use - contrary to the convenience and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

    The developed dangerous and inadequate transportation infrastructure, from the perspective of cyclists and walkers, is the result of pragmatic politicians compromising the undeniable safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists to appeal to the popular and profitable interests of ‘motorized personal vehicle enthusiasts’ wanting to go faster. A similar pragmatic political compromising has been delaying the reduction of harm from fossil fuels to the detriment of many current day people and the future generations of humanity.

    The positive perspective is that harmful compromising by leaders is becoming less excusable and harder to hide.

    The transition away from leadership that pragmatically harmfully compromises the development of sustainable improvements and corrections of harmful developments, including the development of direct air carbon capture and the reduction of need for that action by transitioning away from fossil fuel use, is happening slower than it should ... but it is happening.

  26. CO2 effect is saturated

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on December 31, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  27. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    I have this notion of getting a VW ID.Buzz when they come to the US. I want to do a wrap on it with images from Hieronymus Bosch's paintings... therefore making it an "Hieronymus Bus." That, or a "VW Bosch."

    And I will end 2023 on that note. ;-)

  28. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Michael @21 :  no problem at all, with the spelling mistake.  The classic term Eclectic often gets mangled by Autocorrects which were programmed without a Classics education !   Probably it's an Oxford English versus Merriam thing.

    Now, if the Autocorrect had substituted Celtic for Rangers . . . well, them thar would have been Fighting Words . . . in Glasgow.  (Excuse such a feeble football joke, which is only justified by today's date being on the cusp of Hogmanay.)

    Back on topic ~ For context, I am saddened that Santa didn't give me a Tesla Model Y with an LFP battery [the Long Range model with 4wd . . . when Elon gets around to that combo ].   Mind you, even that EV would fall a bit short of my "local" Supercharger non-network.  But I am hopeful things will be a lot better in 10 years.

    Meanwhile, I am trying to understand Santa's symbology in leaving a lump of coal on my mantelpiece.  Was it a hint?  An SkS insult?

    Happy New Year to all !

  29. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Eclectic,  sorry about the incorrect name, autocorrect spelling.

  30. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Celtic @16:

    my Tesla has a computer screen between the front seats that usually displays a road map.  If I press a button and say "show superchargers" it will show the ten closest Tesla suoerchargers.  It says how many are in use or free,  what the power of the station is and if I have enough charge to get to them.  A warning comes on screen if I try to drive with low charge.  If I go on a long trip the car will tell me where I need to stop to charge for the entire trip.

  31. One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 31 December 2023
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    I agree with, and I am entertained by, the comments.

    I am adding what I hope is educationally entertaining.

    In my travels through developing regions of Asia decades ago I saw workers at 'fuelling stations' pedalling a stationary bike to pump fuel.

    Pedalling a stationary bike to 'fuel up an EV' would be more effective than a hand pump. However, it likely would take significantly less pedalling energy to pedal-power a smaller lighter vehicle than pedalling to 'refuel an EV'.

    A key 'efficiency' consideration is the 'reduction of energy demand'. Delving into that thought process leads to appreciating that 'less technology use is often more efficient, no matter how efficient the technology becomes'. The obvious easy way to limit climate change harm is to get people to significantly reduce unnecessary energy use.

    Technology that helps people sustainably be less harmful and more helpful to others can and should be developed. But the developed marketplace systems of competition for perceptions of status (perceptions of living and being better than others) clearly motivates a focus on 'meeting the wishes and interests of those perceived to have higher status’ to the detriment of 'the needs of people who live less than basic decent lives'.

    I agree that things like battery technology needs to be improved, in addition to promoting the understanding that less personal vehicle driving is an important part of the transition to a sustainable improving future for humanity. The following CBC article highlights aspects of the 'Battery problem' "The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about"

    The article mentions the following problems:

    • the lack of plans for recycling of batteries, the harm of waste rather than recycling
    • the environmental impacts of obtaining raw materials
    • the ways that some indigenous populations impacted by mining may be tempted to support the environmental damage if they get to have perceptions of higher status (the common harmful developed affliction and addiction among people immersed in competition for perceptions of status)

    An issue that is not mentioned is the benefit of developing less demand for batteries. In addition to the need for full recycling of batteries to be developed now with the cost of recycling being fully paid up-front by the buyer and user of a battery (and the understanding that less demand makes it easier to achieve full recycling of the used batteries). In addition, the full costs of truly neutralizing all other impacts associated with batteries, like obtaining raw materials to make batteries, should be paid up-front by the buyer and user.

    Having to pay up-front for all of the costs of 'sustainable' battery use would powerfully motivate the 'sustainable' improvement of technology. Without that 'high and full cost up-front' the marketplace can be expected to develop 'more harmful - less sustainable' things that are perceived to be improvement because they win the competition for popularity and profit.

    Admittedly, that systemic change would result in a much higher cost for batteries. But that 'cost signal' (something that the economic-political systems failed to have, and continue to inadequately have, regarding fossil fuel use) would provide the added benefit of reducing the amount of battery demand. However, that systemic change would be a 'big win for the future of humanity’, admittedly to the detriment of people like JC (initially pointed to by prove we are smart) who have tragically been tempted to try to earn 'click bait money' by entertaining 'personal motorized vehicle enthusiasts'.

  32. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob H @ 17 :

    Actually, for emergency use, a hand-pumped EV charging station might come in useful (especially in cold climates).

    The muscular gentleman in your photo could well achieve 0.05 KW of DC charging . . . which would take yer average Tesla battery from 20% to 80% in around, ahh, six weeks?  A tad longer, if a few hours of nightly sleep were included . . . and also ignoring any parasitic drain in the car's electrics.

    OTOH, might be quicker & easier simply to push the Tesla to the next town.  On a sealed flat road, that is.

  33. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Ah, yes... 

    This makes me want (as a joke) to install a hand pumped EV charging station that looks similar. :-)

  34. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob H  @ 15 :

    a discursive note : I recall my father's old road maps of the country ~ in the remoter regions, some towns had the notation "Motor Spirit" . . . and presumably the other towns/settlements were spiritless, and had none of that new-fangled gasoline.

    Myself, I've encountered one small town [ 40 years ago ] where I had to hand-pump the Spirit up into a high glass bulb marked with gallon levels, before releasing it down the hose into my tank.  Them were the good old days.  No worrying about the electric power being out, for those pumps.

    Perhaps the new electronic maps today should show: "Rapid DC Charging with All Credit Cards" versus "Good Luck Finding Anything Wot Works For Ya" .

  35. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Just had another thought. It might be interesting (mildly) to map arguments made against the transition from horses to automobiles in the early 1900's, to the arguments made against the transition from ICEV's to EV's today. 

    In particular, I believe there was a serious problem in the early 1900's with available fueling infrastructure and general availabibity of auto fuel, whereas hay for horses was available, quite literally, everywhere. That maps well to the grid and recharging issues of today.

    I mean, how the heck did people ever solve those near insurmountable problems of the day? (sarc)

  36. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob Honeycutt @12

    "What's exciting to me about EV's is more that the current limitations are spurring so much innovation."

     History shows humanity is ingenious at solving technical challenges. Its almost spooky how such problems all seem to have solutions and how technology just keeps improving. Its like its pre-ordained somehow. Moores law is another example.

    So it seems plausible that batteries will improve further and very substantially, until hard limits are eventually reached. Even moores laws has ultimate limits. Agree with your other points as well.

  37. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob H  @ 12 :  Fair enough, and well-stated.

    Electric Vehicle technology is advancing at three times the pace I might have expected (from 20 years ago).   And battery tech is crucial.

    This electrification does add to the tendency for more electrification of the domestic house, where water-heating & space-heating are such a large segment of the total energy used.

     

    OPOF : the "JC"  [John Cadogan]  Youtuber is making a living by generating clicks  ~ his "channel" is for entertainment essentially, if that is what you are seeking.  His advice and assessments of vehicles and their engineering is reasonably informative.  I think he also enjoys crossing swords with that slice of his viewers who have bizarre and/or rather unscientific ideas (especially re engineering and basic Newtonian physics).

    A mix of entertainment and education, in an idiosyncratic style.  Aimed at car enthusiasts.

  38. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Personally, I'm still not getting much of what PWAS is trying to say. His longer post was brief on description and punctuated with links to chase. I tend only to chase links when I want to validate what someone is stating. If they aren't clear in what they're saying I merely skip the chase.

    I can easily see how an auto mechanic with a YouTube channel would get pissy about EV's, since wide adoption of EV's is a professional existential crisis. I'm also highly suspicious of the motivations of YouTube "creators" since their inherent monetary motivation is going to be to rile people up to the greatest extent possible. It's unfortunate that so many in the public use these kinds of videos to supposedly "inform" themselves.

    [Aside: The general aviation community recently has been beset with a number of incidents related to YouTube content creators in order to generate views and followers. One of the most egregious is the case of Trevor Jacobs, who staged an emergency engine out and bailed out of his aircraft over mountainous terrain, and now faces probably about 10 years in prison. Explained here.]

    Long term I don't worry too much about these kinds of squabbles because I think, ultimately, the better technologies are going to win. EV's, in their current iteration, are not perfect. ICEV's, as far as I can see, have reached their efficiency limits. In the meantime, you have universities around the world racing to develop new chemistries for cleaner, longer lasting, more energy dense battery technologies.

    What's exciting to me about EV's is more that the current limitations are spurring so much innovation. The complaints leveled against EV's are related to what was emerging technology 10-15 years ago and just getting to market and reaching economies of scale today.

    Think of it like solar panels. A few decades ago it would have seemed absurd that you could fully and competitively power a home with solar cells if you were only looking backward at the technology that had been developed over the previous decade. The scientists and engineers who blew the lid off that were the one's who bothered to eagerly look ahead to the challenges.

     In essence, these nay-sayers are driving their vehicle backward complaining about the road already gone by. My suggestion would be to, instead, turn around and look at where the car is going.  

  39. One Planet Only Forever at 02:35 AM on 30 December 2023
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob Honeycutt, nigelj, and Eclectic,

    Thank-you for sharing your observations regarding John Cadogan. I am not inclined to spend time watching raging rants that are emotionally triggering but likely unjustified.

    prove we are smart @5,

    Thank-you for providing more relevant details in response to Rob’s request. That was more helpful than pointing to the video.

    Michael Sweet,

    Thank-you for adding your perspective. Where a person lives should be expected to influence their choice of the available options to help limit the harm done by fossil fuel use. About 10 years ago I evaluated the situation where I live (Alberta, Canada) and chose to buy the most efficient hybrid available. At that time it was likely that Alberta’s grid would be substantially powered by coal until 2030, maybe longer. An efficient hybrid was easy to prove to be less harmful than an EV powered by that grid (note that even though I could pay a premium to buy wind generated electricity that scheme was a scam. It would not increase the wind power generation and reduce the coal fired generation). I also continue to limit my driving because the hybrid still causes climate impacts. Decades ago I chose to live where I could walk or bike for necessities or enjoyment and where I had convenient access to public transit.

    Following up on Eclectic @10,

    Based on your helpful evaluation of JC it would appear that JC would responsibly be advocating for people to severely limit their driving until there is more renewable electricity and better EVs. He would also be advocating for people to ‘vote for’ better public transit, higher-density more walkable communities, and better infrastructure for bicycle and scooter commuting. If JC is not doing those things, then what is he doing other than pursuing popularity by unhelpfully complaining?

  40. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Rob H  @9  :

    Not the same guy, is my bet.  Tho' cannot be absolutely sure.

    I will still put in a good word for "JC" [John Cadogan]  and I've seen quite a number of his videos over the years.

    His humorous style is . . . as Americans would say . . . Down To Earth.  Definitely not recommended for your maiden aunt ~ nor for your local EV dealer.   May be he will be less anti-EV in future years, as costs & battery range & battery safety take giant strides for the better.  But for the present, he can make a good case for avoiding EV's until the charging availability improves greatly.  Review situation in 15 years !

    And if you can put up with all the chaff, you will find a goodly amount of wheat mixed in.  # Unique style ~ an acquired taste.

    IIRC,  Cadogan (an engineer) was initially somewhat in the AGW-denier camp ~ but in more recent years he seems to have swung over to the mainstream science camp.  And he does advocate EV's for their beneficial effect on city air quality & human health.  (And even now, he is often scathing about Volkswagen corporate deception with their past diesels.}

  41. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Nigelj... "Its just more material from the same guy."

    I'm kind of curious if our PWAS is the same guy.

  42. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Prove we are smart @5

    Regarding the video:

    .www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU

    Its just more material from the same guy. Again I'm not going to tolerate that incessant stream of foul language and insults so I didn't watch it in full. I skipped though it very, very quickly stopping at a few random points:

    He talked about "entitled twats" driving Ev's. Its just an unsubstantiated, empty appeal to hate, emotion and envy. Plenty of ordinary people are driving EVs and who cares who drives them, since its reducing emissions that matters. The same entitled twats would be driving ICE cars.

    He stated that building smaller houses would reduce emissions more than taking an ICE car off the road. This is not good argument not to build EVs, because just building smaller homes wont fully solve the climate problem.

    He complained about extra tire wear due to the weight of EVs. But its is a trivial issue. "A Tesla Model 3 Performance with AWD weighs 4,065 pounds — 379 pounds more than a BMW 330i XDrive.". Yes the EV is heavier but not hugely so therefore extra tire wear is trivial and pollutants from the tire wear are trivial. Refer for weight comparisons:

    www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/americas-new-weight-problem-electric-cars/He

    He mentioned that cars are only a small part of the transport fleet so why bother with Ev's. It's illogical reasoning along the same lines as his comments about houses. And we are starting to develop electric trucks etc,etc (eg Tesla)

    These sorts of talking points have been long since debunked, so Im not prepared to go through the entire video for probabaly more of the same in a giant gish gallop.

    I agreed with a couple of his criticisms of EV's and his factual statements about how much of the grid is renewables, etc,etc, seem correct, but his arguments agains't renewables and EV's I listed above lack basic logic and understanding.

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 05:12 AM on 29 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    A follow-on to my comment @18,

    If CO2 is injected to produce oil with the end result hoped to be trapped CO2, then the long period of pressure testing to prove that the CO2 is truly trapped can only begin after the ending of the oil extraction ... and sampling for CO2 coming out with the oil, and capturing it for reinjection, is required during the oil extraction.

  44. One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 29 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    michael sweet @17,

    Agreed that the use of CO2 to scrub oil off of rock formations, a possible benefit of CO2 injection to increase the production of oil as presented in the article, would almost certainly mean that CO2 comes out with the oil. But, to be fair, CO2 injection can potentially lock-away CO2 while producing more oil from an oil deposit.

    Here are potential stages of oil production:

    • Natural pressure of the trapped oil deposit forces oil to the surface when it is drilled into – the ‘gusher’.
    • Pressure drops as the oil flows out.
    • A pump-jack increases the rate of extraction by ‘lifting’ oil out of the well – like a water well pump.
    • As more oil is removed the rate of flow to a well point pump-jack declines.
    • Injecting gasses like captured CO2 can increase the pressure in the oil deposit and force more oil out of the well locations. Current operations inject CO2 captured from the exhaust of burned fossil fuels. This process potentially traps the injected CO2 in the rock formation that the oil was trapped in.

    So oil can be produced by injecting and trapping CO2. But scrubbing oil off of the formation that the oil is in would mean CO2 comes out with the oil.

    However, CO2 thought to be trapped in an oil deposit may not be truly trapped. Accurate pressure monitoring over a long time frame would be required to prove that the CO2 is staying where it was put. And until the completion of that pressure testing it is uncertain that the ‘claimed to be trapped’ CO2 is properly trapped. If a pressure test fails, the pressure drops, then the ‘carbon removal’ action plan is failing. And there would be little that could be done to keep the rest of the ‘believed to have been locked away’ CO2 from leaking out.

     

    Who will pay for removing it and locking it away? Everybody essentially pays for the profit obtained, or pays for the government subsidy (worse when the government subsidizes the obtaining of profit - nobody should profit from publicly funded harm reduction like CO2 removal).

    It would be nice if the ones who benefited most from the developed total current problem paid the most to limit the harm done ... but the current systems have a histry of making the least fortunate, who do not deserve to be penalized, suffer the most harm. Refer to the lead article in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 for a detailed presentation of concerns regarding free-market development of Carbon Capture.

  45. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Prove we are smart @5. Thank's for the comments and links. Looks like useful information.

    "Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."

    The entire first five minutes of the video (might have been a bit less, I wasnt timing it) was devoted to sarcastic, insulting, generalised comments about EVs and their drivers. There was not one specific factual claim about the actual technology. I decided I wasn't going to risk yet more of this.

    "We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem..."

    Ok, but they are stating the obvious about needing more renewables. The same EV critics who say the problem is that renewables aren't expanding fast enough are sometimes the same people who criticise or oppose renewables. They contradict themselves. Their aim in most cases doesn't seem like true scepticism. It is just to throw mud at anything to mitigate the climate problem.

    "Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels.

    Yes ok, but this is better than cars burning petrol which is 100% fossil fuels. The grid will also have to expand due to the extra demands, but thats obvious.

    IMO its also a logistical exercise like this: Would you deploy millions of EVs In Australia at day one when the grid is all fossil fuels? No this wouldn't make sense because it would put too much demand on the grid and there is no benefit.

    Do you wait until the grid is entirely renewables before deploying any EV's? No because you then have a long delay while Evs are scaled up and with climate change time is an issue and you miss out on some benefits of Evs.

    So you phase EV's in gradually while the grid gradually moves to renewables and gets larger (but preferably faster than it is) . So the critics dont have much of a point.

    Will get back to you on the video.

  46. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    The OP is an interesting story.  My daily experience with a 2023 Tesla model 3 is very different.  My brother has a 3 year old Kia which is more similar to the OP.  Some bullet items:

    1) I rarely use public chargers, less than once a month.   I average 90 miles a day.  Going to a gas station is so 20th century!  If you live in a house you install a charger.  As electric cars become more common apartments will install chargers.

    2) My brother's 3 year old Kia takes twice as much time to charge as a new Kia.  At home that does not matter.  All new cars charge much faster than even a few years ago.  I expect in 5 years my 2023 Tesla will be slow.

    3) One big reason I bought a Tesla is the Tesla charging system is bigger than all other systems combined and has much faster chargers.  For driving anywhere in Florida I do not think about charging until I have less than 50 miles to go.  There are always superchargers about every 10 miles near major highways.  If you drive through the country you have to pay more attention.  The car warns me if I try to drive past the last charger on my GPS route.  I never use non-Tesla chargers, they are too slow.  The Tesla system is reported to be open to other cars next year.

      If I drive four hours I stop for food and charge while eating.  If I eat fast the car is full when I finish eating.

    4). My brother has made several long trips like the OP and he plans like the op.  Every year it is easier.  When I have traveled in the rural West I had to watch the gas gauge all the time.

  47. prove we are smart at 23:49 PM on 28 December 2023
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Ok, I believe in keeping an open mind with most things these days.

    RH@2, I agree, it wasn't a "review". You know, I will often just click on various parts of a video, to be sure I have the right tone of it- judging a book by its cover,I learnt long ago.

    Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."

    By the way, the "you" in my moniker is for any replies I read on this blog site- I have learnt a lot following yourself and others replying to many with inaccurate info.

    I reckon at least you got the patronising, piss-taking, swearing and taking ages to get to point right with JC If you could have toughed it out,( I'm sure against your better judgement) we might have agreed with some of his observations and disagreed..

    I"m not agaist EV cars, far from it but a smart person can check out many sources of info and recheck again from others to get the big picture and not a green washed fervour towards the complicated issue of EV cars.evse.com.au/blog/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-an-internal-combustion-hybrid-and-electric-car-emit/

    "We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem."www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/electricity-generation

    Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels. There is a lot to do and time is running out-( a familiar comment) for us as we are already behind the 8 ball. www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-battery-recycling-australia-environmental-harm/

    These and a few other issues are mentioned by our smart arse mate Mr Codogan-don't ask him about EV fires..  In truth, I believe hybred cars are better during this transition, ask Mitsubishi and Toyota-at least for Australia,www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicles-worse-for-environment-than-petrol-cars-report/

    You wrote.."There is a group of people on the hard left of politics and academia who dislike EVs (and sometimes wind and solar power) because they are the product of the capitalist society and industrial society and because rich people drive them and profit from their manufacture. You see this in internet discussions sometimes.

    While unrestrained greed and laissez faire capitalism is not my thing, their reasoning seems shallow and emotive. It is a fallacy of perfectionism - where a perfect, implausible socio- economic utopia is prioritised, and more realistic attainable compromise solutions are discarded."

    Your talking to a guy who has worn many hats, and speaks simply because of all the fake people and their entitled behavior, here is another one, see if you can stomach the guy and tell me are his facts correct?..www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU

  48. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    OPOF:

    In addition to the flaws you discuss about the Stratos plant, as you described in post 16 it is "being built in the midst of oil fields"  The carbon will not be stored, it will be used to extract more oil from the ground!!!

    Oil companies are not storing carbon when they are using it to extract more oil, the carbon dioxide comes back out of the ground with the oil.  This is a completely false story, Occidental fooled the reporter.  I guess that you could claim that Occidental is showing how to air capture the carbon. 

    We will have to wait until the plant is built to evaluate how much energy it takes to capture the carbon and at what cost.  My bet is that it will be too expensive and take too much energy, but that is simply speculation at this time.  

    Even if you thought that using the carbon to extract more oil is storing it, as Nigelj pointed out, the number of plants needed to make a dent in carbon pollution is enormous and the number of plants being built is very small.  The scale of extraction plants is way too small to make any significant difference.  

    Who will pay for carbon that is permanently stored?  Not the fossil fuel industry.

  49. One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 28 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    Regarding nigelj's @1 astute point about the scale of the direct air carbon capture challenge:

    The NPR article I pointed to in my comment @14 is about Occidental Petroleum's Stratos carbon capture plant which will be 0.5 Mt/year. The article introduces the plant as follows:

    "The Stratos plant — being built in the midst of oil fields — is playing a key role in scaling up the technology, which is not fully proven yet. Once it's up and running, the billion-dollar facility will be 100 times bigger than any direct air capture plant ever built — and yet, even if it works perfectly, it will take a year to remove less than 10 minutes' worth of global emissions."

    Later in the article it provides more details about the scale of the global challenge, with my inserts in [square brackets]:

    "Some climate advocates agree that Oxy's doing something extraordinary for the planet. Others, however, are raising alarms about why.

    The International Energy Agency calculates that the world needs to remove 80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year through direct air capture by 2030, and more than 1 billion metric tons per year by 2050, to meet the world's goal of holding warming beneath 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    That assumes the world also cuts emissions sharply and restores vast expanses of forests and wetlands, which also remove carbon dioxide from the air.

    Getting to that scenario would require about a thousand giant direct air capture plants twice the size of Stratos, each capturing a million metric tons per year

    But the slower the world acts [to reduce fossil fuel use], the bigger the numbers get. [DAC used to offset 'unnecessary', but popular and profitable, climate impacts develops the need for even more 'unnecessary' DAC]

    The IEA described one possible future where cutting emissions more slowly would mean that the world would need to capture more than 3.3 billion metric tons per year from the atmosphere. Some projections call for much more than that."

    And near the end the following statement is made:

    "The Stratos plant may be the biggest of its kind, but even when run perfectly, it would end up taking a full year to capture what the world releases in 7 1/2 minutes today [the 'less than 10 minutes' bit].

    Pulling carbon dioxide out of the sky the way Oxy plans to do also requires enormous quantities of energy.

    And carbon removal has simply never been done at the scale Oxy envisions. In a report this fall, the International Energy Agency warned that relying on this kind of technology to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is unacceptably risky because if technologies fail to deliver, there's no backup option.

    "Removing carbon from the atmosphere is costly and uncertain," Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, said this fall. "We must do everything possible to stop putting it there in the first place.""

  50. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    One thing is for sure, hate-filled rants are good for generating views on your monetized YouTube channel.

    You got further than I did, Nigelj. I got barely 60 secs in before I decided the piece was less about substantive discussion and more about driving clicks.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us