Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Dotini]

Let's just not financially support families with more than 2 kids at all.

Sure, it's not particularly nice. You know what else isn't nice? World population growing even further past sustainable numbers.

Nice? As in good or bad?
Surely there is no such thing as all good or all bad. That would be dualism, which is a religion.

----

If world population is not sustainable, then it will not sustain. That means it will fall, or maybe crash. Is there any sign of that?

 

[Enemem]

Global warming/climate change is the least of your worries. Fukishima was the tipping point. So long and thanks for all the fish.

 

[R.S]

Again, the issue with just banning things is that it annoys people who happen to like those things. You just need to look at the lightbulb thread elsewhere in this subforum to see the sort of irritation people have when a product they like (or are familiar with) is phased out - even if it's being phased out by something more reliable, longer-lasting and more electrically efficient and more luminescent like LEDs.

Ah but the difference between the petrol cars we are soo attached to and electric cars is soo huge. New technology is not always better value or more appealing to the consumer.

It cannot always be as easy as in the time we have grown up, as I say we have had a free ride and not been paying a real price for what we use.

Electric car
-potentially costs more
-slow recharge
-boring performance
-no sport heritage
-boring sound
-low range
-towing caravan?

These new products need help to be appealing, that might mean making these things silly cheap (and paying for it in taxes), or making the dirty technology very expensive.

If world population is not sustainable, then it will not sustain. That means it will fall, or maybe crash. Is there any sign of that?

Yes human population is being sustained at a cost to the natural environment. The evidence is absolutely crystal clear.

Just think about the over fishing of fish stocks around the world and what that does to the ocean's food chain. These systems have been balanced over 100's of thousands of years, we are tearing them apart in 100 years, a rate that the balance of nature cannot repair itself.

Do you want to do something about that now whilst beautiful things still exist?
Or do you want to act when there is nothing left, wait until the evidence is visible outside your window; no trees left, no animals left, no birds chirping, oceans destroyed and lifeless, screwed up weather systems, no bees left, oceans risen up 3 meters - no beaches, no surfing, half the cities in the world flooded, air outside that cannot be breathed, all plants dead, soil parched infertile and turned to dust - ever heard of the mid-west dust bowl?.

Perhaps we want to live in an environment like in Mad Max and still be fighting over petrol, that's pretty exciting.

Humans are sustaining themselves at the cost of the natural environment, there is no doubt. You cannot keep taking more and more forever.

Not necessarily will we see thee effects in our lifetime but if we care about our children, grandchildren etc we should be putting what we can in place now to avoid a collapse of the Earth's nature systems in the future.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah but the difference between the petrol cars we are soo attached to and electric cars is soo huge. New technology is not always better value or more appealing to the consumer.

It cannot always be as easy as in the time we have grown up, as I say we have had a free ride and not been paying a real price for what we use.

Electric car
-potentially costs more
-slow recharge
-boring performance
-no sport heritage
-boring sound
-low range
-towing caravan?

These new products need help to be appealing, that might mean making these things silly cheap (and paying for it in taxes), or making the dirty technology very expensive.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, other than your last line which largely makes sense.

The difference between current internal combustion vehicles and electric vehicles isn't that big at all. Aside from cost (which is a decreasing gap) and range (which is also a decreasing gap, albeit slower), the average electric car is pretty much on par with its combustion counterpart. Range aside they're no less practical, no slower (many are quicker, if anything) and the speed of recharging is hugely overplayed. Since the vast majority of current users plug in overnight or at work, "recharging speed" is about ten seconds, since that's the time it takes you to plug and unplug it at either end of the charge.

Do they need financial help to be competitive? Possibly, but already less so than they did in 2010 when the first proper production ones arrived. Should they have financial help to be competitive? The sensible answer is no. They need to be competitive to be competitive. And that day isn't really that far away. Financially, by the end of the decade. On battery technology, it depends.

The biggest issue with EVs is that most people still aren't aware of them in any capacity. People know what an electric car is, but only a small proportion are actually aware of how good some of today's products actually are, much less the existing incentives towards them.

If world population is not sustainable, then it will not sustain. That means it will fall, or maybe crash. Is there any sign of that?

That's a very odd, black and white thing to say given your dualism comment a couple of lines before.

Population doesn't just hit a predetermined limit and then give up. It's a slow process over the course of time and one that could cause decades of escalating problems before it does not "sustain". It's taken all of history to hit 7 billion people. It'll take another 35 years before we've added another 3 billion to that. We in the western world may be able to shrug it off for a while, but I'd be surprised if that extra 3 billion people doesn't cause a few problems along the way - and it'd take an equally long time for population to fall to truly manageable levels again unless some kind of unforseen global disaster takes place.

 

[cnd01]

I have zero interest in electric cars especially American ones when they cost me money as a taxpayer(looking at you Chevy and UAW), and they're much more expensive than an internal combustion engine car that is an equal sized vehicle. Not to mention that the processes of manufacturing the batteries for electric cars are WORSE for the environment than burning gasoline, and how are we going to get the required amounts of Lithium for the batteries as well as the REE(rare earth elements) necessary for a world full of electric vehicles http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...to-the-environment-than-gas-powered-vehicles/

 

[The Stig Farmer]

how are we going to get the required amounts of Lithium for the batteries as well as the REE(rare earth elements) necessary for a world full of electric vehicles

Asteroids

Seriously, when it makes enough financial sense they'll do it. Only reason the tar sands in Canada are getting dug up and refined.

 

[niky]

I have zero interest in electric cars especially American ones when they cost me money as a taxpayer(looking at you Chevy and UAW), and they're much more expensive than an internal combustion engine car that is an equal sized vehicle. Not to mention that the processes of manufacturing the batteries for electric cars are WORSE for the environment than burning gasoline, and how are we going to get the required amounts of Lithium for the batteries as well as the REE(rare earth elements) necessary for a world full of electric vehicles http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...to-the-environment-than-gas-powered-vehicles/

All locally manufactured cars, as well as cars sold under domestic (and some foreign) nameplates have cost you, as a taxpayer, money. BMW has borrowed government money, Toyota has, Ford has... everyone.

-

From the link you yourself provided:

Everyone should instead read the more recent NAS study from 2013,Alternative Vehicles and Fuels, which concludes that, while the environmental costs of an electric vehicle depends on many things, how you power it is still the most important.

And that's the long and short of it. Over a vehicle's total cradle-to-grave lifespan, the cost of running it and providing the energy to run and maintain it, far outweighs the cost of building it... both in terms of energy capital and cold hard cash.

-

Granted, EVs barely break even on the curve against gasoline cars, but they are not "worse for the environment"... not completely. Not in all ways.

They're not the future, though. But they will form part of it.

 

[cnd01]

All locally manufactured cars, as well as cars sold under domestic (and some foreign) nameplates have cost you, as a taxpayer, money. BMW has borrowed government money, Toyota has, Ford has... everyone.

-

From the link you yourself provided:



And that's the long and short of it. Over a vehicle's total cradle-to-grave lifespan, the cost of running it and providing the energy to run and maintain it, far outweighs the cost of building it... both in terms of energy capital and cold hard cash.

-

Granted, EVs barely break even on the curve against gasoline cars, but they are not "worse for the environment"... not completely. Not in all ways.

They're not the future, though. But they will form part of it.

That's true. I'm not saying we should ditch EVs, but I'd dare say that it's not the "fix-all" to the environment. I think a steady mix of gasoline engines along with the developing natural gas engines that are quickly emerging(both of which should be hybrids) are what will prevail unless EV technology becomes competitive in terms of sticker price on the vehicle.

 

[R.S]

There have been tests/ studies on hydrogen fuel cells and some groups have come up with methods to reduce cost (trading expensive elements for cheaper more available ones that work better) and also increasing density via various methods.

I will be watching hydrogen fuel cell technology before even cnosidering at li-ion battery cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think a steady mix of gasoline engines along with the developing natural gas engines that are quickly emerging(both of which should be hybrids) are what will prevail unless EV technology becomes competitive in terms of sticker price on the vehicle.

You mean... exactly what is happening at the moment?

Regular engines are getting more efficient all the time. Diesel is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. (it's already popular in Europe and the Asian subcontinent), natural gas is looking increasingly popular and hybrid technology is filtering into pretty much everything.

I'm not saying you're among these people, but I cannot understand the ZOMG WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THESE EVs? sort of attitude as if they're rendering regular vehicles inoperable. They're still only a tiny proportion of the market, they still have some shortcomings that make them unsuitable for many people (though in my experience, lack of education on them is one of the main issues for most) and if they ever become the dominant type of vehicle, it'll be because they'll become better than what we currently have in every way.

Incidentally, I do wonder whether most people are just looking for an automotive scapegoat most of the time. For a while it was dirty, smelly, polluting diesels... until they became as quick as regular cars. Then it was hybrids, which represented the evil greenies... until electric cars came along and hybrids became the lesser of two evils for car guys. Once you remove politics from the equation it's basically just good old-fashioned human fear of the unusual.

 

[cnd01]

You mean... exactly what is happening at the moment?

Regular engines are getting more efficient all the time. Diesel is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. (it's already popular in Europe and the Asian subcontinent), natural gas is looking increasingly popular and hybrid technology is filtering into pretty much everything.

I'm not saying you're among these people, but I cannot understand the ZOMG WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THESE EVs? sort of attitude as if they're rendering regular vehicles inoperable. They're still only a tiny proportion of the market, they still have some shortcomings that make them unsuitable for many people (though in my experience, lack of education on them is one of the main issues for most) and if they ever become the dominant type of vehicle, it'll be because they'll become better than what we currently have in every way.

Incidentally, I do wonder whether most people are just looking for an automotive scapegoat most of the time. For a while it was dirty, smelly, polluting diesels... until they became as quick as regular cars. Then it was hybrids, which represented the evil greenies... until electric cars came along and hybrids became the lesser of two evils for car guys. Once you remove politics from the equation it's basically just good old-fashioned human fear of the unusual.

Diesel would be the best solution; however, economic policy and the damn EPA in America has rendered diesel not any better than other options.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd say that for some buyers in the U.S, diesel is as useful as anything else. Bit more expensive to buy and fuel up with, but the UK is no different in that regard and half the country still buys diesels. There just aren't many options, with relatively few diesel models available.

I've always had slight reservations about diesel's true cleanliness, since it's particularly bad on smog-causing NOx and various-illness-causing particulates, but the very latest models really do reduce those somewhat - several Euro6-compliant engines over here list particulate matter as essentially zero, the same as gasoline engines. I'll have to dig into it further to see if they really are as clean as people are claiming right now (for many years they haven't been, despite people claiming otherwise in a dig against hybrids) but they may finally be environmentally viable as well as economically viable.

The only problem then is longer-term reliability, which still puts me off diesels. They're so chock-full of emissions equipment these days that when anything goes wrong it's usually pretty expensive. Petrols, even turbocharged ones, are still a bit better in that regard. It's a shame, since traditionally diesels were the ones you could count on to do hundreds of thousands of miles without a single issue.

I suppose the other problem for car enthusiasts is that they just aren't as fun as gasoline cars, unless you get your kicks solely from straight-line performance and low-down torque. I don't, so I'd rather have something that you can rev a bit harder and enjoy more of the experience.

 

[Joel]

I wonder if a transition to diesel engines in SUV's and similar vehicles would be a help. I don't know the specifics of how much better or worse for the environment they are in an aggregate sense, but diesels seem very well suited to bigger vehicles like trucks and suv's/luxobarges.

My mom drives a Golf TDI, and she gets very good mileage to the tune of 6L/100km in mixed driving (which unfortunately is around 8.5 in city driving when you get the turbo involved), and I've personally got under 6 on long distance trips at 120km/h if it was cool enough to not use A/C.

The only thing is, the alternative would be a gas powered economy car and my experience with the Corolla is that I get better mileage in city driving at around 7.5L/100km, and comparable mileage on the highway at around or slightly under 7, granted I can only drive around 110km/h but that's more to do with gearing. The marginal fuel savings don't seem worth it with the higher entry cost of the diesels, my mom plans to keep her car for a long while and does rural highway driving at 80-100km/h so it should work out, but for most drivers it doesn't make sense and I'm not sure that the marginal saving on diesel works in an environmental perspective relative to a gas economy car.

The diffrence to me seems to be with bigger cars, my dad went from a Buick Enclave to a VW Touareg TDI, and has seen substantially better mileage. The Enclave was a pig, thing pushed 15L/100km, while the Touareg can do 9L/100km in the same sort of situations despite being heavier.

I think that could be part of the solution, if we could get trucks and escalades under 10L/100km instead of 15 it could be worthwhile, and diesels seem to be able to do it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think that could be part of the solution, if we could get trucks and escalades under 10L/100km instead of 15 it could be worthwhile, and diesels seem to be able to do it.

Absolutely. The biggest gains come from the least efficient vehicles.

Swapping an already-efficient 35 mpg Corolla for a 40 mpg Jetta TDI (probably inaccurate to the actual vehicles, but just illustrating a point) is a 5 mpg improvement, that's only a 14 percent difference.

Getting a big inefficient truck to jump from 10 mpg to 15 mpg is still a change of only 5 mpg, but it's also a 50 percent improvement. The fuel savings are much, much bigger over the same mileage.

And since in North America at least so many people drive big inefficient trucks, it's arguably more important to improve their gas mileage than it is with regular passenger cars. Getting all the F-Series drivers into a model that's 2 mpg more efficient (as the new model is next to the old) is much more productive than getting a handful of Corolla drivers into a Prius that's 10 mpg more efficient.

For trucks, diesel is probably the best way of going about it. They'd have to meet the same standards passenger cars do for it to be an environmental pollution benefit, though. Saving a bit of crude oil at the pumps is of little use if you're spewing thousands of tons of unburnt fuel into the atmosphere instead.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Except that diesel causes cancer and therefore is no sort of solution at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

 

[homeforsummer]

Except that diesel causes cancer and therefore is no sort of solution at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Yes and no. While this was previously my view too, it's less conclusive as diesels themselves get cleaner. If you reduce the quantity of particles that cause cancer, then the risk is reduced. In that very report it notes that the problem is mainly for those exposed to industrial diesel machines for longer periods of time, rather than modern, cleaner diesel vehicles with various emission controls.

The other issue is that petrol vehicles still emit particulates - they're just much smaller than the PM2.5s that diesels typically emit that are often quoted as causing issues.

To be clear, I'm still suspicious of the cleanliness of diesels. But I'd have to see something a whole lot more conclusive than the WHO's report to dismiss them entirely.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

"Siberian Holes Could Be 'Visible Effect' of Global Warming, Experts Say"

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...ble-effect-global-warming-experts-say-n174331

 

[Dotini]

For reasons not well understood, global warming will be taking a break until 2030 or so. Some of these reasons are briefly discussed.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...study-says-but-will-end-in-2030/#.U_ijT6VAt4M

 

[Imari]

Does this mean that people can finally admit that we still don't really understand global climate that well? Or will I still be pilloried as an apologist/denier/clubber of baby seals?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Does this mean that people can finally admit that we still don't really understand global climate that well? Or will I still be pilloried as an apologist/denier/clubber of baby seals?

Do not use if seal is broken, you know the rules.

I don't think the petrochemical effect on climate change can be denied but it's also true that we have a very narrow set of figures for overall "global performance" when it comes to the meteorological/astronomical cycles that are beyond biological effect.

 

[Imari]

Do not use if seal is broken, you know the rules.

I don't think the petrochemical effect on climate change can be denied but it's also true that we have a very narrow set of figures for overall "global performance" when it comes to the meteorological/astronomical cycles that are beyond biological effect.

That petrochemical emissions have an effect certainly can't, although it's hardly revolutionary thought to say that changing the composition of a system changes the behaviour of the system.

The magnitude of that effect and how an extremely complex system responds to that seems to still be pretty up in the air (if you'll pardon the pun), as far as I can tell. And as you say, there are a bunch of other factors that are also poorly understood, and we don't know much about their magnitudes, how they vary and how the system responds to them either.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Imari, "up in the air", I see whatcha did there

Regardless of how the cycle may progress without us it's still clear to me and, as I understand it, to the majority of science that we still need to curtail our carbon emissions from agriculture and industry.

I still agree that all the things we "see changing" are not necessarily a function of the above. They could easily be part of a much larger-and-longer cycle than we have any idea about.

 

[Imari]

Regardless of how the cycle may progress without us it's still clear to me and, as I understand it, to the majority of science that we still need to curtail our carbon emissions from agriculture and industry.

I don't know about need to. It couldn't hurt to reduce emissions of carbon, just like it couldn't hurt to reduce emissions of all sorts of things. Unnecessary polluting is unnecessary, and should be avoided. There's no need to drive Jay Leno's Tank Car to work when an econobox would do just as well.

The problem is though, because it's not clear how large an impact these things have, it's not clear how much we should care as a society. If the sun is going to flare up and toast us all in fifty years anyway, why should we care about three degrees of carbon related warming? If we're at the top of the cycle and it's going to start getting colder again, should we be thinking about ways to keep it warm so that we can maintain longer growing seasons and the like? If we're on the edge of runaway feedback, should we be pushing for regulation and control even more seriously, at gunpoint if necessary since we're potentially talking about the survival of humanity?

This is the problem with not understanding the whole system. It's very hard to give sound advice. I think the whole thing is more media circus than science and has been for some years. It's very difficult for anyone to do proper science in the field any more, because so many of the people involved have agendas to push, instead of purely being motivated by increasing their knowledge.

Which comes back to my original point, saying "I don't know" hasn't been an acceptable option with regards to climate science for years either. You're either on one side of the fence or the other, and anyone vehement about the climate from either side of the debate will immediately attack anyone who believes that there is more to learn and refuses to be drawn into taking a stand.

That's me. I see some interesting stuff that shows correlations between carbon dioxide and warming, and I seen some interesting stuff that shows that that could have been a statistical anomaly and actually there hasn't been much at all going on recently. I see a huge wealth of climate models that are constantly being tweaked to match historical data, but few of which if any accurately predict future events before they happen. I see a lot of things that don't inspire confidence in the predictive powers of this particular field of science, yet.

Which is why I asked the question if it's alright yet to sit on the fence and say we don't know yet. As far as I can tell, the world is not going to burst into flames overnight, and I have reasonable confidence in the human race that if there is actually a clear and present danger to our overall survival, we'll mostly pull together and deal with that 🤬.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's a well-known fact that the sand is wet because the seaweed, now the sea appears to be farting too. Not those lugubrious leg-lifters but a more subtle seepage.

Matt McGrath, Beeb.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know about need to. It couldn't hurt to reduce emissions of carbon, just like it couldn't hurt to reduce emissions of all sorts of things. Unnecessary polluting is unnecessary, and should be avoided. There's no need to drive Jay Leno's Tank Car to work when an econobox would do just as well.

The problem is though, because it's not clear how large an impact these things have, it's not clear how much we should care as a society. If the sun is going to flare up and toast us all in fifty years anyway, why should we care about three degrees of carbon related warming? If we're at the top of the cycle and it's going to start getting colder again, should we be thinking about ways to keep it warm so that we can maintain longer growing seasons and the like? If we're on the edge of runaway feedback, should we be pushing for regulation and control even more seriously, at gunpoint if necessary since we're potentially talking about the survival of humanity?

This is the problem with not understanding the whole system. It's very hard to give sound advice. I think the whole thing is more media circus than science and has been for some years. It's very difficult for anyone to do proper science in the field any more, because so many of the people involved have agendas to push, instead of purely being motivated by increasing their knowledge.

Which comes back to my original point, saying "I don't know" hasn't been an acceptable option with regards to climate science for years either. You're either on one side of the fence or the other, and anyone vehement about the climate from either side of the debate will immediately attack anyone who believes that there is more to learn and refuses to be drawn into taking a stand.

That's me. I see some interesting stuff that shows correlations between carbon dioxide and warming, and I seen some interesting stuff that shows that that could have been a statistical anomaly and actually there hasn't been much at all going on recently. I see a huge wealth of climate models that are constantly being tweaked to match historical data, but few of which if any accurately predict future events before they happen. I see a lot of things that don't inspire confidence in the predictive powers of this particular field of science, yet.

Which is why I asked the question if it's alright yet to sit on the fence and say we don't know yet. As far as I can tell, the world is not going to burst into flames overnight, and I have reasonable confidence in the human race that if there is actually a clear and present danger to our overall survival, we'll mostly pull together and deal with that 🤬.

What does that post remind me of... oh that's right... me! This is a post of mine from 2010.

We've been researching the climate for more than 50 years - we've been studying it since the dawn of humanity. For thousands of years man has tried to predict the weather - and for thousands of years he has failed. Our climate models are still infantile compared to what they need to be. I attended a talk at a research lab that is doing a great deal of climate science by one of the worlds leading climate scientist during which he explained that we don't know if clouds contribute a net positive or negative influence on temperature.

They don't even know the sign.... clouds....

That's basic stuff. It reflects heat back into space and it traps heat in to the surface. You'd think if we understood things to the degree that so many people claim that we'd have figured out such a basic variable.

Now, maybe in the last year we've finally tackled the cloud problem and figured out the friggin SIGN of their influence - but I rather doubt it. I'm stunned at the level of trust in climate scientists predictions when virtually none of them are validated AFTER the fact, and when so many simple variables in the atmosphere are a mystery.

For the record I'd like to remind readers that I am not a denier of global warming. I'm simply a skeptic. I do not have an opinion on whether human beings are raising the temperature of the planet. I'm simply not yet convinced that scientists studying the matter have as firm a grasp as they claim.

 

[Imari]

It's a well-known fact that the sand is wet because the seaweed, now the sea appears to be farting too. Not those lugubrious leg-lifters but a more subtle seepage.

Matt McGrath, Beeb.

Holy ****, reporters sometimes.

From that very story:

The scientists have observed streams of bubbles but they have not yet sampled the gas within them.

However, they believe there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence pointing to methane.

How about you get back to us when you've done the basic legwork and actually know what you're dealing with, instead of spinning a pretty tale based on some bubbles you saw, hmm, Professor Skarke?

Also, a box of internet cookies to @Danoff for saying what I was trying to say better than I could say it, four years ago.

 

[Dotini]

Strange red and orange glows over Kamchatka.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nge-orange-red-lights-spotted-dead-night.html

 

[Blake]

Telling billions of people in the developing world that they are not allowed to use natural resources the way we have is simply not fair.

It might not be fair, but our account is overdrawn.

We’ve been living beyond our means for a long time. At some point, we have to start paying interest on our debts.

 

[Danoff]

It might not be fair, but our account is overdrawn.

We’ve been living beyond our means for a long time. At some point, we have to start paying interest on our debts.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Liquid]

Bit late to the party on this, I was going to put this in the FPT....

...for the hilarity of what Congressman Barton said. But then some legwork told me what he said was basically true. He really did claim that:

"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."

Wind power on the scale needed to drastically alter the actual atmosphere on a global scale is imsurmountable. He may be technically correct in saying that wind is finite, but it's not finite in a way compared to fossil fuels. And he used god as part of his reasoning: [Citation Needed].

Anyway, not that I believe wind power is the be-all and end-all to our energy problems, but I found this particular reasoning rather incredible.