Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: SanchoPanza

If it's so easy to predict future weather, why can't they be accurate for the next 36 to 48 hours?

There is a distinction between short term weather forecasts (days/weeks) and long term temperature predictions (years/decades). The former is usually dealing with relatively large fluctuations in temperature from one day to the next (some times 10 to 20 deg. or more) while the latter is only dealing with smaller changes (0.25 to 2 deg.). When the observed data is averaged out over a long time these large fluctuations generally disappear and then you can make good predictions that can be validated. Of course complications can arise by extreme weather events such as El Nino, volcanoes, or solar activity and there may be environmental feedbacks that aren't being modeled correctly that can all potentially throw off the accuracy of your predictions. But the match with the overall trend that temperature is rising can still be seen which is what you would expect to find given our knowledge of the physics of the system.

Quote: SanchoPanza

If it's so easy to predict future weather, why can't they be accurate for the next 36 to 48 hours?

To make an analogy this is the equivalent to asking if math can so accurately predict the long term effects of wagers why can't they predict the result of the next bet. Even if you disagree with the models to argue that the inaccuracy of predicting the next days weather makes them invalid is like saying statistics is invalid because they say banker has a better chance of showing up then player in baccarat but I just played a hand and it was player.

Quote: Twirdman

To make an analogy this is the equivalent to asking if math can so accurately predict the long term effects of wagers why can't they predict the result of the next bet. Even if you disagree with the models to argue that the inaccuracy of predicting the next days weather makes them invalid is like saying statistics is invalid because they say banker has a better chance of showing up then player in baccarat but I just played a hand and it was player.

To make an analogy between random games like craps and, presumably, baccarat goes only to say that even day-to-day weather forecasting is nothing more than a crapshoot. With not a whit of science, despite all the expenditures on fancy research and machinery. That makes forecasts of era megatrends look even more ludicrous.

Quote: SanchoPanza

To make an analogy between random games like craps and, presumably, baccarat goes only to say that even day-to-day weather forecasting is nothing more than a crapshoot. With not a whit of science, despite all the expenditures on fancy research and machinery. That makes forecasts of era megatrends look even more ludicrous.

I think it should be the other way round.

Quote: paisiello

I don't agree. I think you can have two or more different models based on the same laws of physics but with different parametrizations and all still be valid. One model might be better than the other at matching the empirical observations during certain intervals of time but the important thing is that they give correct predictions about the overall trend- which they do.

Sorry but I completely disagree. The earth's climate system can't have a climate sensitivity of 2.2C to a doubling of CO2 and at the same time have a climate sensitivity of 4.4! It's just not possible. One of them or both of them is wrong but through tuning they have been able to capture past temperature history.

Going forward one or both of the model projections will diverge from actual temperature.

Quote: PBguy

The earth's climate system can't have a climate sensitivity of 2.2C to a doubling of CO2 and at the same time have a climate sensitivity of 4.4! It's just not possible. One of them or both of them is wrong but through tuning they have been able to capture past temperature history.

If both models are tuned to successfully capture past temperature history using different sensitivity numbers then why cannot they also successfully capture future trends? It seems then a contradiction to say that there is no possibility of both being able to successfully project future trends.

Quote: SanchoPanza

If it's so easy to predict future weather, why can't they be accurate for the next 36 to 48 hours?

That's the truth. I was in Vegas last week and checked
the forecast for the days I would be there every day for
the two weeks prior to leaving.

It changed every day, drastically sometimes. It
went from low 50's to mid 60's, back and forth. What
a great profession, no accountability.

Quote: paisiello

Quote: PBguy

The earth's climate system can't have a climate sensitivity of 2.2C to a doubling of CO2 and at the same time have a climate sensitivity of 4.4! It's just not possible. One of them or both of them is wrong but through tuning they have been able to capture past temperature history.

If both models are tuned to successfully capture past temperature history using different sensitivity numbers then why cannot they also successfully capture future trends? It seems then a contradiction to say that there is no possibility of both being able to successfully project future trends.

Because they can't both be based on actual physics.

In math you can come up with a formula that gives you the right results in a specific case. But if the formula isn't correct then it won't give you the right results in ALL CASES. Which means it's not CORRECT. The same goes for climate models.

Quote: PBguy

Because they can't both be based on actual physics.

Why not?

Quote: PBguy

In math you can come up with a formula that gives you the right results in a specific case. But if the formula isn't correct then it won't give you the right results in ALL CASES. Which means it's not CORRECT. The same goes for climate models.

I think you are under the mistaken impression that these models are based on 100% accurate input attempting to give exact predictions to the 10th decimal place. These are mathematical models with many assumptions and approximations made. They are not mathematical formulae that give specific single values to compare with today's temperature reading. They are only attempting to approximate the overall trends in the climate which they have successfully done to date.

Quote: paisiello

Why not?

I think you are under the mistaken impression that these models are based on 100% accurate input attempting to give exact predictions to the 10th decimal place. These are mathematical models with many assumptions and approximations made. They are not mathematical formulae that give specific single values to compare with today's temperature reading. They are only attempting to approximate the overall trends in the climate which they have successfully done to date.

Do you understand what climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is? Why it's important?

Either the climate models are based on physics or they aren't. If they aren't based on physics then they're simply equations. If they're simply equations then there is no way to expect them to have any predictive skill.

"All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

The first inkling that something had changed with the sun was the recognition of an abnormal sunspot cycle. Then, astronomers noted that all the planets were heating up-even little Pluto on the outskirts of our solar system.

While climatologists on Earth massaged the data to make it seem like man-made global warming was real, major climate changes were occurring on Mars.

During the peak of the global warming debate, the prestigious National Geographic Magazine published a ground-breaking article by Habibullo Abdussamatov in 2007, "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says."

Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, stated that solar activity caused the climate change on Earth and that observations of Mars revealed the shrinking of the carbon dioxide ice caps at the Martian South Polar region.

In that article, Abdussamatov explained: "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars." The scientist, accurate in past predictions, has recently pronounced his belief that Earth will enter a "little Ice Age: as early as 2014 and lasting as long as two centuries. The last one occurred between 1650 and 1850 and accounted for many crop failures, outbreaks of famines and mass migrations.

Abdussamatov contends, "Long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."

If his theory is true—and the International Space Station will be testing parts of it over the next six years—then use of hydrocarbon technology should not be diminished, but increased. Only through technological applications in growing economies would humanity be able to "to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century," he asserts.

Whereas global warming would be a good thing (despite the gloomy forecasts) a mini-Ice Age could be disastrous: growing seasons would be shortened, more energy must be extended to stay warm, and food shortages may lead to breakouts of regional warfare.

"Observations of the sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is not guilty." The Russian scientist is concerned about this move towards an extending cooling period. He states, "and as for what lies ahead in the coming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged temperature drop." -Source
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13459

------------------------------------------------------------



Currently, scientists don't really know how CO2 affects climate. Since we haven't had any real warming for over 17 years now, it appears that the two may not be linked. Most warming predictions have been wildly off target.

On the geological timescale, it's always getting warmer or cooler.

Quote: Keyser

"All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

The first inkling that something had changed with the sun was the recognition of an abnormal sunspot cycle. Then, astronomers noted that all the planets were heating up-even little Pluto on the outskirts of our solar system.

While climatologists on Earth massaged the data to make it seem like man-made global warming was real, major climate changes were occurring on Mars.

During the peak of the global warming debate, the prestigious National Geographic Magazine published a ground-breaking article by Habibullo Abdussamatov in 2007, "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says."

Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, stated that solar activity caused the climate change on Earth and that observations of Mars revealed the shrinking of the carbon dioxide ice caps at the Martian South Polar region.

In that article, Abdussamatov explained: "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars." The scientist, accurate in past predictions, has recently pronounced his belief that Earth will enter a "little Ice Age: as early as 2014 and lasting as long as two centuries. The last one occurred between 1650 and 1850 and accounted for many crop failures, outbreaks of famines and mass migrations.

Abdussamatov contends, "Long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."

If his theory is true—and the International Space Station will be testing parts of it over the next six years—then use of hydrocarbon technology should not be diminished, but increased. Only through technological applications in growing economies would humanity be able to "to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century," he asserts.

Whereas global warming would be a good thing (despite the gloomy forecasts) a mini-Ice Age could be disastrous: growing seasons would be shortened, more energy must be extended to stay warm, and food shortages may lead to breakouts of regional warfare.

"Observations of the sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is not guilty." The Russian scientist is concerned about this move towards an extending cooling period. He states, "and as for what lies ahead in the coming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged temperature drop." -Source
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13459

------------------------------------------------------------



Currently, scientists don't really know how CO2 affects climate. Since we haven't had any real warming for over 17 years now, it appears that the two may not be linked. Most warming predictions have been wildly off target.

On the geological timescale, it's always getting warmer or cooler.

Good post.....I spent last summer on Mars and I can tell you it was unusually hot....

Quote: PBguy

Do you understand what climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is? Why it's important?.

This is something that can be estimated based on empirical data. Climate models have given values that agree with these estimates. It's important because a high climate sensitivity causes more and larger climate changes.

Quote: PBguy

Either the climate models are based on physics or they aren't. If they aren't based on physics then they're simply equations. If they're simply equations then there is no way to expect them to have any predictive skill.

It was already stated before that they all are based on the same physics. Differences between models arise because of the slightly different ways they treat various Earth properties, different parametrizations, different assumed conditions, and different assumptions about future emissions. All these different models all agree on the same fundamental result which has been validated: an increase in CO2 emissions results in an increase in temperature.

Quote: PBguy

Do you understand what climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is? Why it's important?

Either the climate models are based on physics or they aren't. If they aren't based on physics then they're simply equations. If they're simply equations then there is no way to expect them to have any predictive skill.

By that definition, astronomy, engineering, and geology are not sciences either.

Climatology is based on observational history, chemistry, biology, physics, geography, math, and astronomy.

Climate modelling is based on matching historical observations to physical models. All of meterology is based on predictive modelling. Of course equations are used in computer models, but because you don't have every single observation from every single point in space, it is impossible to apply these equations when the current conditions are unknown, so you have to make assumptions about conditions in between actual observation points.

The same is true in meteorology. Climate scientists have perhaps a handful Ocean surface temperature and wind readings from ships and buoys. They have to use this data + satellite data to build together a three day forecast for the west coast. And there are 2,138 surface monitoring stations in NOAA's network covering over 3,000,000 square miles. And that's giving surface observations only... never mind what's going on above the surface. For that NOAA has to use weather balloons, and there are only 91 stations in the USA that release these every day.

That introduces uncertainty.

Folks on this site claim that it's impossible to predict what number will appear on two dice even given the initial conditions. Imagine what weather forecasting is like.

Using the argument that "they're simply equations" completely shows your lack of understanding of the science behind climatology.

Now, when engineers design bridges, "they're simply equations" too.

Quote: Keyser

"All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

The first inkling that something had changed with the sun was the recognition of an abnormal sunspot cycle. Then, astronomers noted that all the planets were heating up-even little Pluto on the outskirts of our solar system....

While climatologists on Earth massaged the data to make it seem like man-made global warming was real, major climate changes were occurring on Mars.
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13459

------------------------------------------------------------



Currently, scientists don't really know how CO2 affects climate. Since we haven't had any real warming for over 17 years now, it appears that the two may not be linked. Most warming predictions have been wildly off target.

On the geological timescale, it's always getting warmer or cooler.

Wow, that's funny. Where's the evidence showing the NUMBER of watts/meter squared increased in 2007?

Oh, there is none.



Or



It's well known that the solar cycle goes with sunspots and that a variance of 0.2% in the solar output cycling every 11 years is a secondary influence to climate at best.

So I call bulls**t.

Quote: Keyser

-Source
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13459

Very poor source. Not credible in the least.

Quote: Keyser

Currently, scientists don't really know how CO2 affects climate.

Not true at all. We have a definite knowledge on how CO2 affects the climate.

Quote: Keyser

Since we haven't had any real warming for over 17 years now, it appears that the two may not be linked.

Not true at all. It was already shown that there has been heat energy being put into the system in the last 17 years and there has been similar pauses in the last 50 years. Also, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Quote: Keyser

Most warming predictions have been wildly off target.

Not true at all. It was already shown that models have been able to successfully agree with the overall trend of increasing temperature over the last 100 years.

Quote: Keyser

On the geological timescale, it's always getting warmer or cooler.

The observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Quote: boymimbo

Wow, that's funny. Where's the evidence showing the NUMBER of watts/meter squared increased in 2007?

Oh, there is none.



Or



It's well known that the solar cycle goes with sunspots and that a variance of 0.2% in the solar output cycling every 11 years is a secondary influence to climate at best.

So I call bulls**t.

Are you aware of the change in UV over the solar cycle?

Quote: boymimbo

By that definition, astronomy, engineering, and geology are not sciences either.

Climatology is based on observational history, chemistry, biology, physics, geography, math, and astronomy.

Climate modelling is based on matching historical observations to physical models. All of meterology is based on predictive modelling. Of course equations are used in computer models, but because you don't have every single observation from every single point in space, it is impossible to apply these equations when the current conditions are unknown, so you have to make assumptions about conditions in between actual observation points.

The same is true in meteorology. Climate scientists have perhaps a handful Ocean surface temperature and wind readings from ships and buoys. They have to use this data + satellite data to build together a three day forecast for the west coast. And there are 2,138 surface monitoring stations in NOAA's network covering over 3,000,000 square miles. And that's giving surface observations only... never mind what's going on above the surface. For that NOAA has to use weather balloons, and there are only 91 stations in the USA that release these every day.

That introduces uncertainty.

Folks on this site claim that it's impossible to predict what number will appear on two dice even given the initial conditions. Imagine what weather forecasting is like.

Using the argument that "they're simply equations" completely shows your lack of understanding of the science behind climatology.

Now, when engineers design bridges, "they're simply equations" too.

An engineer would never come up with two different equations for the structural integrity of a bridge with 100% difference in parameters and then claim both are accurate. You sound like you know little or nothing about climate models.

Quote: PBguy

An engineer would never come up with two different equations for the structural integrity of a bridge with 100% difference in parameters and then claim both are accurate.

Actually not true. If you're designing to the American standards you use the AASHTO code and if you are designing to the European standards you use the Eurocode. Both are based on well established physics/mechanics but follow different prescriptive requirements for design purposes. Both designs are able to provide a structure that performs within a specified level of safety and so both can be said to be "accurate".

Quote: PBguy

An engineer would never come up with two different equations for the structural integrity of a bridge with 100% difference in parameters and then claim both are accurate. You sound like you know little or nothing about climate models.

I know about UV radiation. It increases significantly with sunspots. Some people think that large increases in solar UV increases cloud cover and acts as a cooling effect. Except there's no proof as the temperature record follows sunspot activity prior to the current age.

And I'll take my degree in Astronomy and Physics with my post-graduate work in Meteorology and tell you that I know quite a bit about climate models. Hence my explanation about what goes behind the "science" in climatology.

It's good to see some decent debate however based on pseudo-science.

It's a hot and balmy minus 29 in Great Falls this morning. Wind Chill is at minus 47. I got my patented winter gear on. I'll be walking out the door in a few minutes. Nothing stops me from getting to the casinos.

Quote: mickeycrimm

It's a hot and balmy minus 29 in Great Falls this morning. Wind Chill is at minus 47. I got my patented winter gear on. I'll be walking out the door in a few minutes. Nothing stops me from getting to the casinos.

Good god Mickey. Stay warm and stay safe. I've lived in places with weather like that before, and all I can say is, never again.

Quote: paisiello

This is something that can be estimated based on empirical data. Climate models have given values that agree with these estimates. It's important because a high climate sensitivity causes more and larger climate changes.


It was already stated before that they all are based on the same physics. Differences between models arise because of the slightly different ways they treat various Earth properties, different parametrizations, different assumed conditions, and different assumptions about future emissions. All these different models all agree on the same fundamental result which has been validated: an increase in CO2 emissions results in an increase in temperature.

Yes the range in the models is from 2.2C to 4.4C. That's quite a spread. Apparently you can estimate it from empirical data within a 100% spread. Not what I'd call a high degree of certainty!

Of course more recent peer-reviewed science indicates it could be even lower than 2.2C - although the lowest value used in models is 2.2C the latest IPCC report estimated it could be as low as 1.5C.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/

That leaves us with an estimated range of 1.5C to 4.5C. Apparently empirical data in this case just gets us within a fairly large range.

My county in south Alabama had a Junuary all time record of 19 days with temps below 32f. Mean temp for the month was also an all time record, beating the old record by an amazing 6.2 degrees.

Quote: PBguy

Yes the range in the models is from 2.2C to 4.4C. That's quite a spread. Apparently you can estimate it from empirical data within a 100% spread. Not what I'd call a high degree of certainty!

The point is that it will rise and it will happen within the next 60 to 80 years if CO2 emissions stay at the same rate. This graph from the IPCC 2007 shows the uncertainties involved but doesn't detract from the long-term certainty of global warming:

Quote: PBguy

Of course more recent peer-reviewed science indicates it could be even lower than 2.2C - although the lowest value used in models is 2.2C the latest IPCC report estimated it could be as low as 1.5C.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/

That leaves us with an estimated range of 1.5C to 4.5C. Apparently empirical data in this case just gets us within a fairly large range.

I hope you read the entire article. The larger uncertainty doesn't mean global warming goes away. In fact there may be reasons to think that the projections are underestimating the true temperature response. The models for example don't take into account positive feedbacks such as ice melting.

Quote: paisiello

The point is that it will rise and it will happen within the next 60 to 80 years if CO2 emissions stay at the same rate. This graph from the IPCC 2007 shows the uncertainties involved but doesn't detract from the long-term certainty of global warming:




I hope you read the entire article. The larger uncertainty doesn't mean global warming goes away. In fact there may be reasons to think that the projections are underestimating the true temperature response. The models for example don't take into account positive feedbacks such as ice melting.

Nice strawman there. I never said anything about "global warming going away". You said we could measure climate sensitivity empirically yet we have a range from 1.5C to 4.5C. That's not exactly narrowing it down. There is a HUGE difference in impact on the earth if sensitivity is 1.5C rather than 4.5C. You seem incapable of understanding that. Maybe we'll figure it out someday but until then we're supposed to trust that these models have some degree of skill.

Quote: PBguy

Nice strawman there. I never said anything about "global warming going away". You said we could measure climate sensitivity empirically yet we have a range from 1.5C to 4.5C. That's not exactly narrowing it down. There is a HUGE difference in impact on the earth if sensitivity is 1.5C rather than 4.5C. You seem incapable of understanding that.

There are no straws here. Only strong empirical evidence for the imminent global warming that we are facing. Read the article that you yourself referenced.

Quote: PBguy

Maybe we'll figure it out someday but until then we're supposed to trust that these models have some degree of skill.

We have figured it out. The models have been validated as explained previously. You're expecting some level of precision that cannot possibly exist and is not necessary anyway for the purpose of showing that the temperature is rising as we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere. To do nothing, hoping that we will have only the lower bound estimates, is irresponsible to the future generations that will have to deal with the reality of its effects.

Quote: paisiello

. To do nothing, hoping that we will have only the lower bound estimates, is irresponsible to the future generations that will have to deal with the reality of its effects.

Not to mention the polar bears.

Quote: treetopbuddy

Not to mention the polar bears.

No mention of polar bears here (Knutti and Hegerl 2008):



But I'm sure that they will be affected as well. We're going to see 450ppm CO2 probably in the next 30 or 40 years. We'll probably hit around 800ppm by the end of the century if CO2 emissions don't change (IPCC 2001):

Is this something that we want to really gamble with?

I would agree with you, but when the IPCC widens the range instead of narrowing it, it gives the skeptics some ammunition.

Their damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If you read the referenced Scientific America article, the IPCC already had the lower bound of 1.5C in their previous reports. So they were just reverting back to a previous number. Nothing really new. And I'm sure it will continue to change in subsequent reports as we get more data. The range of uncertainty may even increase when models start incorporating positive and negative feedbacks.

Quote: paisiello

Their damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If you read the referenced Scientific America article, the IPCC already had the lower bound of 1.5C in their previous reports. So they were just reverting back to a previous number. Nothing really new. And I'm sure it will continue to change in subsequent reports as we get more data. The range of uncertainty may even increase when models start incorporating positive and negative feedbacks.

Yes nothing new yet none of the computer models use a sensitivity that low!

Quote: treetopbuddy

Not to mention the polar bears.

Polar bears have survived significantly warmer periods that current or projected.

Quote: PBguy

Yes nothing new yet none of the computer models use a sensitivity that low!

I think you are still not understanding what the computer models are doing. The climate sensitivity is not a parameter that is used directly in the models but rather is estimated from the output. Refer to the graph posted previously which shows the range they have projected.

Quote: PBguy

Polar bears have survived significantly warmer periods that current or projected.

Except they haven't had to deal with such rapid changes before. They won't have time to adapt. It's the reason they are on the endangered species list. Here's a study that projects that drastic declines in the polar bear population by the end of the 21st century:
Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis

Quote: paisiello

Except they haven't had to deal with such rapid changes before. They won't have time to adapt. It's the reason they are on the endangered species list. Here's a study that projects that drastic declines in the polar bear population by the end of the 21st century:
Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis

1-2C is hardly a "drastic" change. If their population declines because the sun is warming the earth then that just means some other species will increase to take their place, nature is like that.

Quote: AZDuffman

If their population declines because the sun is warming the earth then that just means some other species will increase to take their place, nature is like that.

Yeah, but if you're subsisting on polar bear meat, you would have to change to caribou.

What about the children? Growing up in a world without polar bears can only scar them for life. Stop the CO2 now people!

Quote: AZDuffman

1-2C is hardly a "drastic" change.

Most client scientists project greater than this: 2.5 - 3.5C per the Scientific American article that was referenced previously.

Quote: treetopbuddy

What about the children?

LOL

Quote: treetopbuddy

What about the children? Growing up in a world without polar bears can only scar them for life. Stop the CO2 now people!

I remind you that you are the one who brought up polar bears, not me. I understand you don't really care about wild life but for those that do the IPCC has referenced a report that estimates that 25% of the world's mammals are at a significant risk of extinction:
Current Status of Endangered/Extinct Animals

Here again is the graph that I referenced previously that you seem to have missed. It outlines some other key impacts from temperature rise:



Surely some of these would be a concern even for you?

I havent read all 80 pages. But for total electric cars.....there are inefficencies.

For example the electricity that is generated to "charge up" you car can be furnished by burning coal.

secondly, when coal burns, and is turned to electricity, and then the electricity is used to charge a battery......energy is lost in the process...compared to gasoline directly burning to run a motor. There is some energy efficiency lost in each transfer....from coal to electricity...from electricity to battery.

Maybe there is a study as to how much coal has to burn, and how much polution is generated in order to produce electricity topower a car for 30 miles compared to the polution of direct burning of gasoline in a standard car for a 30 mile drive

and then also is the polution from burning coal vs polution from burining gasoline equivalent in the consequences to health and environment?

Quote: LarryS

...is the polution from burning coal vs polution from burining gasoline equivalent in the consequences to health and environment?

You're absolutely right. One thing you didn't mention is the cost of mining, manufacturing, and disposing of lithium batteries (although this is generally small compared to the billions of tons of coal mined for each year in the US alone).

The only way electric vehicles will reach their full potential to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to have the power grid generate the majority of its electricity by non-fossil fuels.

Quote: paisiello

Except they haven't had to deal with such rapid changes before. They won't have time to adapt. It's the reason they are on the endangered species list. Here's a study that projects that drastic declines in the polar bear population by the end of the 21st century:
Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis

A great example of stating an uncertainty as fact. Polar bears are smart and opportunistic hunters. You ASSUME they "won't have time to adapt". The actual reason they are on the endangered species list is because environmentalists knew they needed a "poster animal" for climate change and knew it had to be one that the public would feel sorry for. It was completely and utterly calculated that they needed an animal like the polar bear not something ugly that people wouldn't care about. Getting polar bears listed as a threatened (not endangered) species was completely planned and not based on science.

Quote:

YOUNG: Lieberman is a cosponsor of a bill calling for limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He called the polar bear petition a wake up call for action on global warming. The Center for Biological Diversity's Suckling says he's glad to have the polar bear as a poster child.

SUCKLING: There's nothing wrong with that and anything that helps people emotionally connect with the environment and feel like we need to take action is a good thing in my book.

YOUNG: Suckling doesn't expect the administration to add the bear to the threatened list, at least not without a fight.

SUCKLING: We're gonna have a court battle over whether or not the best science says that global warming is happening and that it's threatening wildlife and we look forward to that because one of the problems the conservation movement has faced over the past few decades is this constant denial of global warming.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=05-P13-00008&segmentID=6

You can find other sources to verify that Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity specifically chose the polar bear because of it's public appeal and not because of the science.

Just one example of how climate change is politicized.

How many standard deviations above the mean is the current global warming trend? Anyone?

It's my belief that there simply isn't any real statistical relevance to it.

(I'm not talking about the number of new record highs or lows either.)

Quote: PBguy

A great example of stating an uncertainty as fact. Polar bears are smart and opportunistic hunters. You ASSUME they "won't have time to adapt".

I didn't assume anything. I stated it as an obvious fact because how else do you explain the results of the study which projects a drastic decline in numbers?

Quote: PBguy

The actual reason they are on the endangered species list is because environmentalists knew they needed a "poster animal" for climate change and knew it had to be one that the public would feel sorry for. It was completely and utterly calculated that they needed an animal like the polar bear not something ugly that people wouldn't care about. Getting polar bears listed as a threatened (not endangered) species was completely planned and not based on science.

Not true. This contradicts the claim of the study I referenced. Also, even if some environmental group is tryng to use it as a poster child, it doesn't change the findings of the study or other studies projecting similar declines in population.

Quote: PBguy

You can find other sources to verify that Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity specifically chose the polar bear because of it's public appeal and not because of the science.

Your own quote contradicts this. Also your claim is contradicted by the referenced study which specifically states that the "projections were instrumental in the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act."

The polar bears are already adapting and eating eggs and young birds on the many island rookeries in the Arctic. Unfortunately the bird populations are dropping because of it. The bears however are doing just fine.

Quote: kenarman

The polar bears are already adapting and eating eggs and young birds on the many island rookeries in the Arctic. Unfortunately the bird populations are dropping because of it. The bears however are doing just fine.

Source? I provided mine. The least you could do is the same. And please make it a credible one.

Quote: paisiello

Source? I provided mine. The least you could do is the same. And please make it a credible one.

I have to get up early and am ready to go to bed so I don't have time to get the link. But you can easily find it. Yesterdays Quirks and Quarks show on CBC Radio 1. An interview with the scientist doing the research.

kenarman's source?

The paper states that polar bears are adapting by eating birds, land animals, and plants, reverting back to the hunting habits of their cousins the brown bear. Polar bears are however best at eating seals and marine life and are far more successful at doing that as their white colors blend in with their icy surroundings. So, despite the adaptations, they suffer -- the population of the subspecies in the study has declined by over 20%. It takes 4 dozen geese nest's to get the same nutrition (and weight) as one ring seal. So that particular population is stressed.

I do want to note that the folks in the science community need to be careful when talking about a specific species and attributing their entire plight to climate change. In the case of polar bears, it's been kind of the poster child for Global Warming here in Canada. And certainly polar bears have been stressed due to climate change - the quick change in sea ice cover has forced the southern polar bears to have shorter hunting seasons and to adapt. But they are adapting.