Local or Global?

Global warming dissident Bjorn Lomborg needles the fans of electric vehicles and hybrids:

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

He goes on to suggest that the lifetime production of greenhouse gases may actually be higher for supposedly “green” vehicles than it is for those using conventional internal combustion engines. It would, perhaps, be indelicate of me to point out that if you reduce the amount you drive to, say, a couple of thousand miles a year it doesn’t matter much whether it’s in a fully electric all-weather golf cart or an SUV. Either way you reduce your production of greenhouse gases. Our problems are zoning, other forms of subsidy, and the lifestyles those make possible, not how our vehicles are powered.

However, I have a question. I recognize there’s a hot dispute about whether anthropogenic global warming is actually occurring but there’s somewhat less dispute over whether production of greenhouse gases influences local climate change. Here’s my question. If that’s the case, doesn’t centralizing greenhouse gas production, as Dr. Lomborg notes takes place in the production of hybrids and electrical vehicles, indisputably contribute to local climate change? Does it matter where that localized climate change is? I’ve always suspected that industrialization of the tropics was a very bad idea.

63 comments… add one
  • jan Link

    When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

    They should put this information on all the electric car stickers being sold. After all, global warming minds would like to know this, wouldn’t they?

    One question I have about electric cars is, what about the disposal of all those defunct batteries? How does this effect our environment?

  • TastyBits Link

    @jan

    I like the sticker idea. We have mpg and energy stickers. I am going to predict it never happens. Why ruin the dream?

    Batteries are a nightmare. Leaking batteries in an expensive electric car should be fun.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    I think concrete is the problem. It creates a giant heat sink, and this affects the local weather.

    I think the deforestation of the tropical climates is having a greater effect than is realized.

  • Drew Link

    Reposted

    Dave

    As an investor almost exclusively in manufacturing businesses, and knowing how energy intensive so many manufacturing businesses are, this is a topic that draws my attention like flies on……well.

    I simply do not understand the cross purposes of the left at times. Well, actually, I do when it comes to blind ideology or “hurray for our side.” They want “good paying manufacturing jobs” but also want to kill cheap energy to look chique. (my words)

    I don’t come across this global warming is a myth worldview lightly. Its not political. I may not be a climatologist or cosmologist, but I’m steeped well enough in science to know codes of conduct for peer review, scientific method and shaky data. (Check that – crappy data) This global warming thingy is a travesty. A pure travesty.

    Even if you were to conclude that AGW had some basis in fact you would have to admit it is a very long term and third or fourth order effect. And a sensible person would prioritize, and ask “do I need a vibrant manufacturing component in my economy right now, given our economic and budget realities, or should I declare the sky is falling?” If my objectives is the financial and social health of the nation my priorities, it seems to me, would be the former. If I simply needed a thinly veiled excuse to regulate for power and extract taxes, the latter.

    I think everyone knows where I stand. And I do think that sometimes these issues serve as, if not IQ tests, tests of a degree of worldliness.

  • Drew Link

    Afterthoughts:

    “After all, global warming minds would like to know this, wouldn’t they?”

    Partypooper. You know those self important elites, especially in California, right?

    “It would, perhaps, be indelicate of me to point out that if you reduce the amount you drive to, say, a couple of thousand miles a year it doesn’t matter much whether it’s in a fully electric all-weather golf cart or an SUV. ”

    Maybe this is what you meant, but I’ve always noted that the guy driving a Prius to get ice cream on Saturday night just because the family has an ice cream jones going on is a pure hypocrite. My new car is a 2013 Boxster S. (It even shuts off at stoplights) Gets about the mileage of a midsized. But I’ll drive so few miles a years that even if I drove a Hummer my carbon footprint would be tiny. Who’s an environmentalist now??

    “If that’s the case, doesn’t centralizing greenhouse gas production, as Dr. Lomborg notes takes place in the production of hybrids and electrical vehicles, indisputably contribute to local climate change? Does it matter where that localized climate change is?”

    Interesting concept, but that’s beyond my pay grade. I’m dubious, though. In my previous world of chemical processing and understanding the science of fluid flow in reactors (or winds in an atmosphere) it would seem that, long term, mixing effects would dominate. That said, consider 10pm at night in southern FL, where clouds keep heat in you still neeed a fan…vs Scottsdale, AZ, where 15 minutes after sundown the heat radiates out and you need a sweater. Hmmm.

  • jan Link

    But, the left does not prioritize factual realities. Instead they hone their opinions around ideological visions and emotional claims of death-to-the-planet, even though extensive evidence abounds refuting their core theories, gleaned by serious-minded, credible climate skeptics.

    Bjorn Lomborg, who also wrote the controversial book ‘Cool it,’ believes in global warming. However, he at least suggests alternative means countering it, via sensible and non-harmful ways. Therefore, I give him a lot of credit for non-injurious ingenuity, even though I may disagree with his primary premise behind global warming.

  • Just as an example, I think that a lot of climate variability we’re seeing here in the States (which some are calling “climate change”) is due to fluctuations in the La Niña-El Niño phenomenon. That, in turn, is influenced by a big hot spot in the East China Sea.

    I think it’s Icepick who reminds us every so often that we’re witnessing the greatest migration in human history—from inland China to the areas adjoining the East China Sea. Coincidence?

  • My kvetch with the Warmists isn’t about whether global warming is happening or that it’s anthropogenic. Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that it’s happening and we’re causing it. The solutions they’ve proposed do almost nothing to solve the problem. Maybe even nothing.

    I’m beginning to reach the conclusion that they’re not even trying to solve the problem they say we have but to move the Overton window so they can put other policies in place that would otherwise be rejected out-of-hand. That may be astute politics but it’s lousy policy-making. There are all sorts of reasons that’s the case: total cost of investment, sunk costs, that one decision may preclude others.

  • Icepick Link

    That said, consider 10pm at night in southern FL, where clouds keep heat in you still neeed a fan…

    I assume you mean in summer. Hell, you’ll need that fan until about 4 AM, easily! Of course, I live in the interior of the state (to the extent we have one) and Drew is probably basing his experience from living near the coast.

    I think it’s Icepick who reminds us every so often that we’re witnessing the greatest migration in human history—from inland China to the areas adjoining the East China Sea.

    yep, that’s me.

  • jan Link

    It seems to me that so much of the public environmental clamor is from extremists, who find nothing wrong with let’s say killing the economy in order to implement their cause. It’s a ‘take no prisoners’ kind of philosophy, which can have substantial negative repercussions.

    There are people, though, having once been immersed in environmental projects, have come to reverse their more strident opinions in seeing the irrationality of their demands. One is Patrick Moore, an original co-founder of Greenpeace, who wrote a book in 2011 entitled Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout and The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.

    Although, now estranged from that organization, Moore continues on with environmental endeavors from a more rational perspective. He also is another AGW skeptic preferring what is called ‘Adaptation to global warming” over the harsher ‘climate change mitigation,’ which calls for all the mechanisms supposedly lowering the concentrations of greenhouse gases.

  • Drew Link

    ice

    More formally, all I’m saying is that of the heat conduction mechanisms: conduction, convection and radiation, convection might dominate the existance of local hot spots over time. But clearly, in the short run, cloud cover can prevent radiation of the heat of the day through back reflection, whereas in a dry place like AZ the heat will simply radiate out very quickly.

  • TastyBits Link

    Global warming has been occurring since the last ice age, and at some point, global cooling will start. This cycle will continue until the Earth is a dead planet. Man is powerless to do anything other than hang on for the ride.

    The data sets are beyond crappy. The original data is long gone. There was no configuration control, and numbers were changed as needed. The recorded data was massaged to correspond with the predicted results.

  • jan Link

    Drew

    I didn’t mean to cop your ‘battery disposal’ comment a few threads back — never saw it until a few minutes ago.

  • jan Link

    Totally OT, but couldn’t resist….

    Obama and Nixon are looking more and more alike. Cover-ups (Watergate vs Benghazi), secretiveness, lack of transparency, and now guns.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    I think there are some people who are “not letting a good crisis go to waste”, but I think a lot of the supporters do not have enough scientific background to understand what they believe. They rely upon commentary about commentary about the subject matter. In many cases, people have learned physics from Wile E. Coyote.

    Then there is the “do as I say” crowd. Carbon credits are today’s indulgences.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Tastybits, I’m agnostic on the science issues, but I think Dave’s issue (or at least mine) is that as a matter of policy or economics, the proposals being thrown around don’t actually help. Some of them substitute gasoline for coal; others will export CO2 to Chinese factories with worse pollution controls.

    Like you though, I don’t think this is largely a matter of ill intent. (1) I think people believe there is value in exemplar behavior in either encouraging others or improving a negotiating stance; (2) I think people tend to believe that the will is all that is needed and often don’t brook a lot of criticism — we put a man on the Moon because we had the will; (3) I think people have a lot of optimism about the ability of the market and technology to invent solutions if sufficient financial costs or regulations create the proper incentives.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Well, kids, those global warming denialists, the Koch brothers, financed a very large study on global warming. Their own well-compensated skeptical scientist and his crew decided it is taking place and it is anthropogenic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

    But why listen to that guy just because he’s an expert who began as a skeptic and was forced by his own careful analysis of data to the conclusion that it was all real? I mean, we’ve got a self-described business investor with a mining degree, after all. Surely Drew knows best.

  • steve Link

    1) I would love a sticker that includes the carbon used in production. Most of the left writers I read who cover the topic would like one also. (Strawman 1 down.)

    2) “The solutions they’ve proposed do almost nothing to solve the problem.”

    These almost always start with conservation. Even Drew seems to think that is a good idea, as do you. (Agree that zoning is a big problem.) I guess that leaves electric cars and solar panels? As Lonborg notes in the full article, they can currently save 24% in emissions. That needs to be better for them to be of use. Perhaps they shouldnt be pushed, but is it realistic to expect that they arrive fully and perfectly formed out of the heads of the designers?

    AFAICT, the claim that the left does not want cheap energy, that it just wants to regulate and tax it is paranoid claptrap. Where the left has been weak, has been on not wanting nuclear to expand and not pushing for better electrical infrastructure. Pushing for high speed trains in areas where they wont be used. Not advocating for enough basic research, which is what Lonborg suggests.

    “. I may not be a climatologist or cosmologist, but I’m steeped well enough in science to know codes of conduct for peer review, scientific method and shaky data. ”

    Me too, plus genius son is a physics major and one of best friends was a photo-chemist. I dont see what you see at all.

    Steve

  • michael reynolds Link

    Incidentally, a bit on Mr. Lomberg’s qualifications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

    Accusations of scientific dishonesty
    After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

    DCSD investigation
    On 6 January 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[8]

    Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. …In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg’s publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

  • michael reynolds Link

    I dont see what you see at all.

    If you can count on one thing from Drew its that he sees what he wants to see. Just the other day he argued at OTB that the good February jobs numbers somehow proved the March sequester wasn’t hurting employment. Which means he can validate his own intellectual prejudices even when it involves reversing the flow of time and causality.

  • michael reynolds Link

    As for the main topic, I’m not quite sure why reducing greenhouse emissions by 24% is a bad thing. Is it the number? Is there something bad about 24%? Because I think if we said unemployment is down by 24% or the deficit dropped 24% we’d be holding hands and singing hosannas.

    No one claims the Leaf is the be-all, end-all of anything. It’s a new technology, just finding its legs. Let’s see what improvements we can make in battery design and in lithium mining. Let’s see what the numbers look like when all that natural gas we produce in such abundance (during the energy-hating Obama years) starts subbing for coal in electricity generation.

    The notion that zoning is any kind of solution is bizarre. Are we going to solve the problem by massively uprooting entire cities and communities? Kind of don’t see that happening.

    I personally think, like Dave, that this ends up being an adapt-and-geoengineer thing, but even given that, is there some harm being done by spewing less smoke? I’d rather be chugging up a hill with my windows open behind a Nissan Leaf than a Lincoln Navigator.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @michael, I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay $7,500 for rich people to buy status vehicles. And I don’t buy the notion that doing so moves the technology forward. Improvements to battery design, etc. don’t require consumer testing. And if the design requirements of the rich-people’s-status-vehicles actually require more energy than is saved, its like burning money.

  • michael reynolds Link

    PD:

    I don’t think the Leaf, the Prius or the Volt are rich people status cars. I live around a bunch of rich people and they still seem to think German. More often than not 4+ liters of German.

    I don’t believe consumer testing is irrelevant. I can just about guarantee you that Nissan engineers know more about the practical uses and needs as they relate to the battery than they did before it went into the market.

    Back up and imagine that we’re talking about internal combustion engines a century or so ago. Cars then had very limited range. There were no gas stations on every corner. But you can imagine naysayers of the day pointing out that while horses could be fed from any pasture, these new-fangled automobiles would require vast investments, staggeringly improbably discoveries of new oil reserves, perhaps even the ability to move large amounts of oil by water — unthinkable!

    It’s a fun and useful aid to imagination to walk back what people at various times would have said at the introduction of new technologies. Airplanes, for example. “Shall we live cowering in fear lest one of these unstable contraptions fall out of the air on our heads?”

    Everything is impossible. And yet it frequently ends up happening anyway. Shift more electricity production to natural gas — eminently do-able with available technology and resources and you cut the greenhouse footprint of EV’s. Build solar-powered charging stations in some areas and you cut it still further. Or improve the electrical grid to make it more efficient. Again, no huge breakthrough required. Mr. Lomberg’s case against EV’s would begin to fall apart. Just like the argument that we’d all starve to death or have to sleep under the stars if we ever tried to cross the great plains in a car fell apart with the first Howard Johnson’s.

  • michael reynolds Link

    PD:

    Incidentally, you and I already subsidize regular-folk gas cars. It’s called the Pentagon. Whole fleets of ships and jets and billions in missiles and lots of men, all so we can keep oil cheap and flowing.

  • As for the main topic, I’m not quite sure why reducing greenhouse emissions by 24% is a bad thing. Is it the number? Is there something bad about 24%? Because I think if we said unemployment is down by 24% or the deficit dropped 24% we’d be holding hands and singing hosannas.

    There’s nothing wrong with it. But that’s not what’s being discussed. The reduction is 24% per vehicle replaced not 24% overall. We’re not going to replace the whole fleet for reasons I’ve been through before here. It will take us 20 years to replace the fleet. At the present rate of production of hybrids and EVs we’ll never replace the fleet. There isn’t much reason to believe that production is going to get a lot better.

    The policies that are being discussed are things like carbon credits, cap-and-trade. In Europe that’s done virtually nothing. What’s had a big impact in Europe (at the expense of jobs) is outsourcing heavy industry to China.

    What I mean when I say “zoning” is sprawl. The present approach is “massively uprooting entire cities and communities”. That’s what I’m criticizing. Forty years ago a lot of the Chicago metropolitan area (including where Drew lives) was farmland. Now much of that has been replaced with tract housing. Why? Zoning, subsidies, and the lifestyle that the subsidies promote.

    steve:

    If you oppose nuclear power plants, natural gas production, oil pipelines, and coal mining, you are objectively anti-cheap energy.

  • Incidentally, you and I already subsidize regular-folk gas cars. It’s called the Pentagon. Whole fleets of ships and jets and billions in missiles and lots of men, all so we can keep oil cheap and flowing.

    That’s the reason I’ve supported an increased gas tax for the last 35 years. Geopolitical reasons. As the Middle East wells become less productive and we produce more oil that’s becoming a less compelling argument.

  • Icepick Link

    What’s had a big impact in Europe (at the expense of jobs) is outsourcing heavy industry to China.

    Yeah, but I bet those highly efficient and pollution-free factories in China have created a net-reduction in carbon pollution, right?

    If you oppose nuclear power plants, natural gas production, oil pipelines, and coal mining, you are objectively anti-cheap energy.

    LOL

  • PD Shaw Link

    @michael, the $7,500 is directed towards people in the top 10% of income, if not the top 1%, nobody else can really benefit from a non-refundable tax credit for an expensive vehicle. According to Tom Coburn, 1,222 millionaires claimed it in 2009. A bunch of conservatives use the tax credit to buy golf carts that can’t be used on actual through-roads. And I don’t want to help buy Ed Begley a car either. He’ll buy it anyway.

  • steve Link

    Dave- Nuclear is pretty expensive now. IIRC, it is close to solar. I dont know many on the left who oppose natural gas production. Coal has its externalities. Oil pipelines are currently facing a bottleneck around Cushing. Which is all to say that I think the left has been wrong about some of its energy policies, but not all of them. The right ignores externalities for the most part, and Michael is correct that we spend a lot of money on our military to keep the oil flowing. Look at our participation with the Brits in overthrowing Mossadegh. All over worries they were going to nationalize oil. What is the long term cost of that intervention?

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    @PD Shaw

    Carbon based fuels are NFL linebackers. Nuclear is a Vince Lombardi Green Bay Packer linebacker. Alternative energy is an 8th grade linebacker. There is no financial incentive to allow the 8th grader to replace the NFL linebacker. The only way the 8th grader can play on an NFL team is to cripple the NFL players.

    Thermodynamics is not influenced by money or power (political).

    Pollution is a separate issue, but technology can work here. Using fuel cells, an electric vehicle would emit clean water, but it would likely use natural gas rather than hydrogen.

  • TastyBits Link

    @michael reynolds

    WTF!!

    When I make the argument that something will come along to replace jobs with new types of jobs, we cannot use history as a guide, but energy production is different.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Tasty:

    It’s not black and white. Yes, history can be a guide. Except when it isn’t. You’re most likely right about jobs and I’m quite possibly wrong. I think the reverse is true for energy, but you could be right on both and I could be wrong on both.

    My approach on the weight of history is to remind myself that usually what has happened continues to happen, but not always by any means. If you were sitting in Rome during the years of empire what were the odds that slavery would be abolished? It had never been abolished before. It hadn’t even been objected to. The question of slavery’s future would probably never have come up. They could have confidently made an argument that slavery was an enduring fact of life.

  • Nuclear is pretty expensive now.

    Mostly regulatory costs and costs of litigation.

  • Andy Link

    I think it’s pretty well established that carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing and that the increase is anthropogenic. It’s quite a bit less certain as to what effect that will have long-term on global temperature and it’s even less certain what the practical effects will be. The catastrophic predictions are potentially possible but there’s no way to know – the people predicting such outcomes are guessing. In short, I think the error-bars are probably a lot wider than what the warmists or their opponents believe.

    Furthermore, global energy production has a shit-ton (technical term) of inertia and I don’t see any realistic prospect that we, the human race, can change that anytime soon. I’m especially skeptical of the liberal belief that “green energy” will become a viable, significant and economically competitive source of energy if only the government would throw enough money at it. That might happen, but it’s a big, risky bet. If the bet doesn’t pan out, then we’ve just spend a crap-load (another technical term) of money to do essentially nothing. The so-called green energy movement still doesn’t have an answer for what would constitute a base-load electricity source. Most of them don’t like nuclear, what else is there? Not that the so-called conservatives in this country have any answers besides throwing government money at oil/gas production.

    Oh, and then there’s the rest of the world, like China. I’m sure they will be happy for us to spend the big R&D bucks (assuming they are well spent and actually produce something) so they can commoditize the technology and sell it back to us. It’s already happened with solar panels and LED’s; Solyndra failed because of Chinese competition, despite government loan guarantees….

    I’m with Dave on zoning, but I think it’s a chicken-egg problem. Sprawl is the result of (relatively) cheap gasoline and (irony alert) the massive investment in infrastructure to support the necessary automobile-based transportation. Regardless, merely holding the human-carbon output stead will require extraordinary measures on a global-scale. Actually reducing it? A complete fantasy IMO.

  • Andy Link

    “Dave- Nuclear is pretty expensive now.”

    In addition to what Dave said, nuclear has a very big public image problem. It also has very high capital costs which makes it risky over the long term. But as Ezra Klein and other incessantly point out, the government can currently borrow at negative interest rates. Then there’s the waste problem.

    This is from a guy married to a nuclear engineer who is pro-nuclear. Nuclear was about to make a comeback when Fukishima happened. Not it will probably be another couple of decades at least….

  • TastyBits Link

    @michael reynolds

    If you are willing to increase the use of natural gas, you can lessen the use of coal and oil. It does not produce as much energy per unit, but technology could close the gap. Hybrid vehicles using gasoline/diesel/natural gas to produce electricity for a motor is an area that could be developed. Locomotives use a diesel-electric engine, and they are fuel efficient. Fuel cell technology is another promising area of development.

    When something better comes along, the transition will be faster than most people imagine. Two areas for government funded research are NASA and DARPA. Both need high energy output per unit.

    Slavery as an energy source is very inefficient. Machinery caused the need for slaves to diminish, and the workers need to be a higher quality. The US South could not imagine a world without slaves. In the plains states, there were no slaves, and machinery was developed to do the work. In the South, Jim Crow allowed sharecroppers to replace slaves.

  • Icepick Link

    Oh, and then there’s the rest of the world, like China. I’m sure they will be happy for us to spend the big R&D bucks (assuming they are well spent and actually produce something) so they can commoditize the technology and sell it back to us.

    I’m sure the Chinese won’t mind the US spending a huge amount on R&D into alternate energy even if it’s all wasted on administration and kick-backs.

    Incidentally, I’m a global warming agnostic. But I sincerely hope the worst case scenarios are true. The only way we’re going to get all the goddamned Yankees out of Florida is to submerge it under water. I plan on being the last man in the state, and going down with the limestone. Glug-glug-glug….

  • Andy Link

    Ice,

    Time to buy future beachfront property in Mt. Dora.

  • Drew Link

    “Surely Drew knows best.”

    Drew doesn’t know best, but he knows when even the finest minds on the planet don’t have sufficient enough or accurate enough data to draw conclusions.

  • Drew Link

    As a follow on, I must say when Michael has been reduced to citing the Koch bros and questioning the honesty of the OTHER side of the debate…..we have reached the theatre of the absurd.

    As for steve –

    I was ready to cut him some slack. He does have some scientific cred, as opposed to an un-named author….But then unfortunately, I saw this:

    “As Lonborg notes in the full article, they can currently save 24% in emissions.”

    Unfortunately, this is what he really said:

    “Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin.”

    That’s 90,000 miles over which to amortize the lower operating CO2 emissions to overcome the intial carbon footprint. And since coal fired plant electricity is still some 40-45% of generation, that suppossition won’t hold – and 90,000 miles is a truely rare event……. this is at best an opium den pipe dream, and, let me be charitable – no let me not be – a bald faced distortion. Just a bald faced distortion. Most would simply say completely dishonest on its face.

    steve loses his cred. Michael, you were making a point about the honesty of the AGW apologists??

    But since boys will be boys. Let’s change directions. Lets stipulate AGW. Is there anyone here who can provide a credible alternative (especially to current boneheaded policy) that will materially reduce emissions that does not involve destruction of the economy?

    This ought to be good. I can hear Michael now…..consider a frictionless, perfect sphere, and a perfect government…..why, 1000 years from now we could…..

  • jan Link

    Well, kids, those global warming denialists, the Koch brothers, financed a very large study on global warming. Their own well-compensated skeptical scientist and his crew decided it is taking place and it is anthropogenic.

    I read the Guardian piece Michael posted, and it did lend more credence to the warmists position, in that their research went back further, to 1753 rather than the mid 1800’s, included considerably more weather stations than previous studies had, and was “completely automated to reduce human bias.” However, with this being said, there is still room between skepticism and a total affirmation of why this is happening, in just how Muller phrased his conclusions:

    Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

    Saying “it appears likely,” remains a wobbly assessment.

    Also, the Koch brothers, who are skeptics not denialists, co-financed this project. A little less than half was also funded by Bill Gates. And, what this indicates to me is that the Koch Brothers are looking for genuine answers, rather than just ‘maybes’ or even “it appears likely,” to make the case for GW, one way or the other.

  • Drew Link

    jan

    Temp measurements that go back too far suffer from “location bias.” They measured near population, and not everywhere. (Think about what Dave posted earlier.) In addition, remember, some data gathering was sloppy because long ago no one was thinking “gee, I need to be more careful, because they will want to know about global warming 150 years from now.” In addition, some excellent data comes from core sampling, showing wide variations in historical climate conditions, far before CO2 could have an effect. Lastly, the AGW-ists had a big “whoopsie” with their hockey stick projections and are now doing the “rationalization shuffle.”

    Whatever the truth ultimately turns out to be, the notion that “the science is settled” is absurd. However, the absurdity of the current hysterical claims is in fact settled.

  • steve Link

    1) Paper on the urban heat island effect. Note that like a lot of these papers, they make their data available to others and invite them to use it to see if there is a problem.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/#more-14688

    2) The average car today is lasting over 150,000 miles, well past 90,000 miles.

    http://business.time.com/2012/03/20/what-you-only-have-100k-miles-on-your-car-thats-nothing/

    3) California gets just 1% of its electricity from coal. Idaho is lowest at 0.49%.

    http://statemap.americaspower.org

    If you drive your electric car in California, it will be quite easy to meet Lonborg’s criteria.

    Next?

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    The historic temperature record certainly is problematic – at least until the advent of reliable satellite-based temperature data. Whether or not global temperatures rose over the past century or two doesn’t really mean anything. The warmists obviously hope it will show a correlation between the industrial revolution and increased global temperatures. If they can show that, it’s evidence, but not proof. But, as Drew points out, there are a lot of problems with the data, the changing locations of the stations / instruments over time, the number of stations, and the models that use this data to fill in the gaps. When you’re talking a degree or two Celsius over long time scales, the data is probably too dirty to tell us anything.

    Regardless, that doesn’t mean global warming/climate change doesn’t exist. We are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That, at least, is undeniable. On one side you’ve got the warmists who predict doom. On the other side you’ve got denialists to predict nothing. Frankly, I don’t think any of them knows what’s going to happen. We’re living the experiment and we (or our ancestors) will find out what happens.

  • Icepick Link

    Time to buy future beachfront property in Mt. Dora.

    Pine Hills, baby! The land’s cheaper here.

    If you can find some of the maps of predicted coastlines for Florida if the waters rise you will see that certain parts of the interior will actually be submerged sooner than some areas along the coasts. Basically the ST John’s River will flood first, so places like Sanford and Deland will be among the earlier set of casualties.

  • Icepick Link

    Time to buy future beachfront property in Mt. Dora.

    Also, this sounds like a Lex Luthor plot. Naaaaah, couldn’t be….

  • steve Link

    My response to Drew is stuck in moderation.

    Steve

  • sam Link

    “Regardless, that doesn’t mean global warming/climate change doesn’t exist.”

    It seems to me that the important fact, that the planet is warming, gets lost in the argument over causation. There’s a Buddhist story about the Buddha and one of his students. The student kept asking him questions like, “Who created the universe?” “Is the universe eternal or not?” “Is time a thing?” The Buddha’s concerns were soteriological, not metaphysical, and so he said to the student: “Your questions put me in mind of man who is shot with a poisoned arrow. Before he will allow aid to be administered, he wants to know who shot him; what kind of wood the arrow shaft is made of; what kind of feathers are on the arrow; what the arrow-head made of; and so on. Before he can get the answers to his questions, he dies.

    At the end of the day, it’s not that important what’s causing the warming, since I doubt we can do anything about that. But if it the warming is real, and what I’ve read it is, then what we have to be concerned with is how can we prepare for and ameliorate its effects.

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: However, I have a question. I recognize there’s a hot dispute about whether anthropogenic global warming is actually occurring …

    There may be a hot cultural dispute, but there’s very little controversy in the scientific community over the reality of significant anthropogenic climate change.

    Dave Schuler: … but there’s somewhat less dispute over whether production of greenhouse gases influences local climate change.

    The local changes follow from the global changes.

    It’s cumulative CO2 that is causing the climate problem, not local emissions. CO2 is well-mixed in the lower atmosphere, and even if it was somewhat higher in some areas, that effect would not be that significant as it would mix with the rest of the atmosphere before accumulating significantly. However, as the Earth’s surface warms, it will disrupt local climates, for instance, less summer sea ice in the Arctic will change weather patterns across Europe and Asia.

  • jan Link

    We’re living the experiment and we (or our ancestors) will find out what happens.

    This is the most reasonably correct conclusion of the thread.

  • Zachriel Link

    Andy: The warmists obviously hope it will show a correlation between the industrial revolution and increased global temperatures. If they can show that, it’s evidence, but not proof.

    Climate science is not based on simple correlation, but causative models. Amplification of greenhouse warming due to CO2 was figured out a century ago.

  • Drew Link

    steve

    You tell me you are science savvy, then you comment that the average car is driven 150,000 miles……………but once again fail to point out a scientific reality. The battery won’t go 150,000. And since the production is a big chunk of the carbon footprint………..

    C’mon, man. Who you crappin’ ??

    Also, one common theme I see in AGW arguments is: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore CO2 causes global warming.

    Cholesterol is a risk factor in heart disease, not all people with high cholesterol get heart disease. I could come up with a million of those. The science is not settled. The data is incomplete, historically poor, sometimes manipulated and not at all indicative of causation or first order effect.

    Finally, I note no one chose to answer my query about what to do about it given the near term effects on our economy, where real short term issues exist, or the inability to control it vis-a-vis China, India……..

    This global warming thing is just simply feel good bar room talk…

  • steve Link

    1) Judging by the Prius, the life expectancy for the battery is well over 100,000 miles, with some drivers reporting not changing until they hit 350,000 miles.

    ” Hanson says today’s Prius batteries are designed to last “the life of the car,” which Toyota defines as 180,000 miles.”

    2) I was relying upon Lonborg. He made the claim for 90,000 miles. I should have double checked, but I was pretty sure they were expected to last at least 100,000 miles.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/26/assaulted-batteries.html

  • steve Link

    My longer response to Drew with other citations, eg noting that in California only 1% of electricity is derived from coal. has been hung up in moderation. Too many links I guess. (Or did it post and I am just not seeing it?)

    Steve

  • I freed your comment from moderation limbo early this morning. It is, unfortunately, now in “Previous comments” hell.

    I think that life expectancy for hybrid and EV batteries is an interesting subject and one that there isn’t a huge amount of data on. My WAG is that it’s very dependent on ambient conditions, i.e. a Prius’s battery will last longer in Tokyo than in Nome. It might also be dependent on miles driven per day.

  • Icepick Link

    Judging by the Prius, the life expectancy for the battery is well over 100,000 miles, with some drivers reporting not changing until they hit 350,000 miles.

    Wow, the Prius wasn’t introduced into this country until 2000, IIRC. They’re driving their cars three times as much as I have my eleven year-old Camry. I wonder how their carbon footprint compares to mine? But hey, they love the smell of their own farts, so it doesn’t really matter how much carbon they’re actually USING, does it.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I seem to recall reading about temperature having significant, measured impact on charge retention, so it wouldn’t surprise me that environmental factors play a role. This would be one benefit of having some vehicles on the road to obtain real world data, but again that doesn’t require a subsidy for the 1%.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I meant top 10%. (G.M. believes the average Volt purchaser makes $175,000 per year, which would be about 5%)

  • jan Link

    Drew,

    Just curious…do you happen to listen to a late night radio show? This regards the apparent synchronicity of a comment I just read that you made on this thread, to one syncing with one of mine, made much later on a different thread.

  • steve Link

    ” I wonder how their carbon footprint compares to mine? But hey, they love the smell of their own farts, so it doesn’t really matter how much carbon they’re actually USING, does it.”

    Lots of sales people put in those kinds of miles. If you want to live with the fantasy that those are all just liberals deliberately driving their cars that much because they have a Prius, feel free.

    Dave- As I noted elsewhere, Toyota expects them to last 180,000 miles. They have a lot of money tied up in this, including warranty money. Battery failure rate has been reported to be very low.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    I think the battery issues have more frequently been raised about the ability of a battery to keep holding a charge over time than outright failure. The Nissan Leaf is warrantied to maintain 70% of its original charge for five years or 60,000 miles. I believe the battery is warrantied against other problems for 8 years or 100,000 miles. I’ve also read that climate is an issue and the batteries don’t work as well in the cold.

  • Icepick Link

    If you want to live with the fantasy that those are all just liberals deliberately driving their cars that much because they have a Prius, feel free.

    Yeah, I’m sure that they’re all just a bunch of salesmen.

  • Andy Link

    Of course the 90% solution is to go with diesel, which is pretty common in Europe. I’m looking at the Consumer Reports mileage figures (based on actual testing of real-world driving conditions, not EPA estimates which can be wildly inaccurate), and the Volkswagon TDI diesels are just as fuel efficient as most hybrids. And they are significantly better than a Chevy volt running on its gas engine (it can run on electricity for 25-50 miles, then switches to a small gas engine which only get about 32mpg). So, for anyone doing a lot of miles, a diesel is a much more efficient choice. The Prius is a clear front-runner, however, about 10-15% better mileage than other hybrids and the diesels.

    Finally, I think there is a right way and a wrong way to provide incentives. Subsidizing gasoline and infrastructure for cars incentivizes more driving and less effficient vehicles. Turning around and subsidizing “green” alternatives is exactly the wrong thing to do – the subsidies work at cross purposes and the “green” alternatives will never be able to compete without subsidies. Best to put the cart before the horse rather than dump a bunch of money at a technology that might not be economically viable.

Leave a Comment