U.N. Panel Reaffirms That Climate Change Is “Irreversible”

[Zarathustra[H]]

And everyone knows that the electricity that powers the electric car comes out of a black hole (0 emissions) and the batteries for the cars consume no resources to manufacture.

It's not a matter of absolutes, but rather a matter relative emissions.

Yes, an electric car still results in CO2 emissions both from a production perspective and from a use perspective (all that power has to be generated somehow), but it is a much more efficient way to use resources and you get much more milage out of the same emissions than with a traditional vehicle.

First off, operating energy:

The electricity used to charge an electric vehicle in the U.S. today is ~20% nuclear and ~13% renewables. Thus only ~67% of that electricity is generated using fossil fuels.

Let's consider efficiencies:

A typical gasoline engine is rarely more than ~30% efficient at extracting the chemical energy in the fuel and turning it into motion. Large scale efficient coal and gas plants can reach as high as 70% (depending on when they were built and what technology they use).

If we think of this from an emissions perspective (100% = no emissions), a gasoline engine averages ~30%, the electric mix going into an electric car is 100% for ~33% of the mix, and 70% for ~67% of the mix, which equals ~80% efficiency.

And electric car owners can even improve on this number by installing their own solar panels and paying extra to get their power from renewable sources, if they so please.

Now there are some transmission losses and battery charging inefficiencies, but even after all that is said and done generating the same movement with a gasoline car is MUCH less CO2 efficient than with an electric car.

Now, we also add in the effects of being able to reclaim some otherwise lost kinetic energy using regenerative breaking, and other similar technologies, and this figure improves even more.

So yes, an electric car is MUCH more CO2 efficient in operation, despite its electricity coming in part from fossil fuels.



Now lets talk energy used in production.

It is true that producing a new car DOES consume a lot of energy. This is - however - true wheter the car produced is an electric vehicle or a conventional vehicle. The battery on an electric vehicle does consume a lot of resources to produce, but on the other hand, and electric vehicle is also much simpler, requiring fewer moving parts and a less complex design. When all is said and done, an electric vehcile - all else being equal - will actually consume slightly less energy to produce than a gasoline car (though the difference isn't very large)

So, yeah, you could claim to be saving the environment by driving an old clunker, as you haven't contributed to the energy required to produce a newer vehicle, but that argument isn't as strong as it used to be, with manufacturing becoming more efficient and more and more recycled materials going into new cars, and you'd be in an older, less safe car. Eventually every car needs to be replaced, and when you do, the more energy efficient route to go, IS electric.

So, going with an electric vehicle isn't as fantastic for the environment as some would claim. There are still fossil fuels used in production and operation, but the important part is that it is relative. That fossil fuel use is much LOWER than with a conventional vehicle, and this figure will only improve as more and more renewable energy enters the U.S. electricity production mix.

However if you use the same electricity to heat your house during the winter you're a polluter of the worst kind.

Again, a matter of things being relative.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people should freeze their butts off in the winter, but using efficient heat generation (and electricity is one of the least efficient ways to heat ones home. believe it or not, burning natural gas is much better, especially in very cold climates) does help, as does having decent insulation.

Minding ones temperatures as to not be wasteful is also a good idea. Setting thermostats to heat no higher than 58F when away or at night when sleeping, and no higher than 68F when awake and at home, is a very good idea.

These things don't just save on CO2 emissions, they also save a shit ton of money, especially if you live in a colder climate.

Here in new England, costs for a typical family average ~$1,200 a year just for heat in the winter.

Who doesn't like to save money?

I for one, would much rather have some upfront costs (even if financing them on a predictable monthly bill) and reduce the variable long term costs incurred by cold winters, and saving money is just a bonus.

People on here are very fond of talking about responsible poeple saving their money and investing rather than spending it. Investing in insulation and efficient heating can give you MUCH more of a return on your investment than you could ever expect from putting your money in the market, especially if in a colder climate.

 

[SilverSliver]

Ships burn what is known as bunk oil. It is oil that is so low grade that it can be used for little else other than industrial level heating. The amount of tonnage that is transported by ship it is kind of amazing that it only contributes to 4% of global emissions.

18 wheelers going to natural gas would be such a better rate of return for less emissions.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

18 wheelers going to natural gas would be such a better rate of return for less emissions.

IMHO, banning long haul trucking all together, and shifting that tonnage to rail, using smaller box trucks for local transit to and from rail stations would result in an even better rate of return.

that, and it would make the highways a much more pleasant place to be.

 

[Ruoh]

Anyone that thinks mankind has not impacted the global environment is a fool of the worst sort.

 

[gdonovan]

Anyone that thinks mankind has not impacted the global environment is a fool of the worst sort.

Impacted and the cause of "global warming" are entirely two different arguments.

 

[Draax]

Impacted and the cause of "global warming" are entirely two different arguments.

... and both arguments have been settled with a 97% consensus.

 

[SilverSliver]

... and both arguments have been settled with a 97% consensus.

Actually no they have not. Scientific consensus is that we have impacted, simply because we can throw some chemistry into the mix and we know how what we are dumping into the atmosphere can effect the atmosphere.

At what rate would warming have occurred naturally is not known and can only be guessed. We know that the earth has gotten hotter, faster and slower than it is now but we can only guess at which end of the spectrum the natural course would have been.

 

[Ruoh]

I hope you all have seen Soylent Green, because that's not an unlikely outcome at this point. People need to learn to consume less, be it energy or food.

 

[Draax]

Actually no they have not. Scientific consensus is that we have impacted, simply because we can throw some chemistry into the mix and we know how what we are dumping into the atmosphere can effect the atmosphere.

At what rate would warming have occurred naturally is not known and can only be guessed. We know that the earth has gotten hotter, faster and slower than it is now but we can only guess at which end of the spectrum the natural course would have been.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Who should I believe? ... some random Hard poster who likely has nothing to do with the study of the climate .... or NASA, 18 scientific associations, science academies, government agencies, and intergovernmental bodies.

 

[GearChoices]

The republican/right-wing argument:
We are not sure how much of global warming is caused by humans and how much is caused by nature. Therefore, since some, or maybe even the majority of it, might be caused by nature, we should not make any effort to slow it down by reducing our contribution to it. Since it will cost me money, let's just contribute it to it as much as we want since it will likely only be my children and further descendants that will suffer the serious consequences before we have time to technologically advance and/or make other preparations to deal with it.

Can always count on them to put things into perspective for people that are too silly to put SOME things above short-term money/profit.

 

[GearChoices]

Can always count on them to put things into perspective for people that are too silly to put SOME things above short-term money/profit.

Edit: Can always count on them to put things into perspective for people that are so silly as to put SOME things above short-term money/profit.

 

[Ruoh]

Since it will cost me money, let's just contribute it to it as much as we want since it will likely only be my children and further descendants that will suffer the serious consequences before we have time to technologically advance and/or make other preparations to deal with it.

Bingo.

 

[SilverSliver]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Who should I believe? ... some random Hard poster who likely has nothing to do with the study of the climate .... or NASA, 18 scientific associations, science academies, government agencies, and intergovernmental bodies.

The 800 thousand paleoclimate study shows that we are on track with several previous warming trends. They only cite the 20x normal when comparing the past 10 years to the previous 2000 years. Considering there was a little ice age in the middle of that, hardly a fair comparison.

Our paleo data ( geologic record, tree rings, ice cores ) is averaged over hundreds, if not thousands of years. It is simply impossible to tell if the warming or cooling trends were always gradual, as our data acquisition method is inherently smoothed.

Do warming periods tend to be gradual until a 'tipping point' is reached and warming accelerates? I think we are seeing this effect with the methane locked in the permafrost/ice starting to be a problem. It's thermal dominoes.

Does the same thing happen on the cold side -- is it gradual until some sort of thermal tipping point? Hard to say.

 

[Krenum]

Climate change is inevitable. Fact.

Although all this talk about climate change does give us a reason to talk and sign pay checks.

 

[SilverSliver]

Climate change is inevitable. Fact.

Although all this talk about climate change does give us a reason to talk and sign pay checks.

There is that too. I deny PARTS of dominant climate change theory but still believe that coal should go away as soon as possibly and widespread oil oil/gasoline usage should defer to natural gas usage until solar/wind/nuclear can take the lead. Despite me coming to the same effective conclusion as someone who believes in the Time magazine version of global warming, people rage on me so hard for not swallowing the hook all the way.

 

[gdonovan]

... and both arguments have been settled with a 97% consensus.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

At what rate would warming have occurred naturally is not known and can only be guessed. We know that the earth has gotten hotter, faster and slower than it is now but we can only guess at which end of the spectrum the natural course would have been.

Warming is not a cycle. Reiterating this lame argument is either a matter of extreme ignorance, or intentional misrepresentation.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Warming is not a cycle. Reiterating this lame argument is either a matter of extreme ignorance, or intentional misrepresentation.

Conclusion:

As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.

 

[m heisty]

IMHO, banning long haul trucking all together, and shifting that tonnage to rail, using smaller box trucks for local transit to and from rail stations would result in an even better rate of return.

that, and it would make the highways a much more pleasant place to be.

That isn't even remotely possible. Much of what is transported by truck these days is done so because it isn't possible to transport by rail or is less cost effective to transport by rail. The problem with rail is the initial infrastructure. Laying rail while less labor intensive than laying highway is actually much more difficult to do because of much more red tape. Rail is also highly regulated which increases the infrastructure costs. Road ways are also much more flexible. I think the biggest hurdle is actually the goods being transported. True raw materials are almost exclusively transported by rail to the closest distribution points. However it is not possible to lay rail road tracks to every business. I know you addressed that with box trucks but in reality those are less fuel efficient than an 18 wheeler. The system as it is today is remarkably efficient the issue is the underlying infrastructure not being built to what is needed 15 years from now but is built for what was needed yesterday.

 

[SilverSliver]

Warming is not a cycle. Reiterating this lame argument is either a matter of extreme ignorance, or intentional misrepresentation.

So the earth has never been hotter or colder?

My whole profession is based on climate changes on the geologic scale.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

So the earth has never been hotter or colder?

My whole profession is based on climate changes on the geologic scale.

No one is denying that the world has been hotter or colder.

There have been periods that have been hot and cold and each have had their attributable causes.

What I (and the article I linked) was stating, that there are not inherent cycles like a pendulum that go back and forth on their own. Every time there is a cold or hot era it is driven by some specific cause.

The current rise in global temperatures since the last half of the 20th century does not fit any of those attributable causes from previous periods of increased temperatures. The only one that fits (with a very high degree of statistical strength) is the effect of greenhouse gases.

It is possible that there is some new and unknown cause that could be driving this rise in temperature, but knowing what we do today, this seems highly unlikely.

 

[maverikv]

All right wing arguments about science:

We don't trust scientists because they have hidden agendas, so instead we will cite the one scientist no other scientists agree with who has an obvious agenda.

Solid.

 

[Retronym]

Which United States politician do I make a check out to, to fix it?

How much additional money has everyone here kicked in to uncle sam on top of your required taxes?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

All right wing arguments about science:

We don't trust scientists because they have hidden agendas, so instead we will cite the one scientist no other scientists agree with who has an obvious agenda.

Solid.

Yep, that's the U.S. for you. The laughing stock of the industrialized world.

Elsewhere they trust their academics, scientists and engineers, and treat them with the highest levels of respect, as they posses knowledge which can drive society forward.

Here we give more power to low-lives like lawyers, finance guys, marketeers and sales people, and make a point out of shunning knowledge, and faithfully trusting the way we want the world to be rather than what objective evidence tells us it is.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Which United States politician do I make a check out to, to fix it?

How much additional money has everyone here kicked in to uncle sam on top of your required taxes?

No major societal issue ever gets solved by the voluntary actions of individuals.

How many times have you heard the line "if only everyone would..."

Well, everyone won't, unless they have to.

I have no problem increasing my costs and taxes if they revenue goes to actual societal change, but I'm not going to do it on my own, and let the freeloaders who make 10 times more than I do stash their ill gotten gains in offshore tax havens.

Either everyone is in, or everyone is out.

 

[Retronym]

So nothing.
You've contributed nothing.

It saddens me to see people resort to violence against innocent people to fight their causes.

 

[Retronym]

For all the non-frauds out there, here is the link.

http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Unless you are under the misguided notion that the above would be an inefficient use of your money.

 

[Bomber18]

The question is about anthropogenic climate change, not climate change in general since I believe everyone agrees the earth naturally changes climate over time.

So at this point if this were a normal problem and not the emotional/political issue it has become you would ask how much of an effect do humans have on this and scientists would look at the model.

Here is the problem I as well as many others have with this. THERE ISN'T AN ACCURATE MODEL YET! You can't decide on solutions to a problem if you don't understand the problem.

Either way come up with an accurate model, figure out if it's even an issue or just natural cycles, figure out humans contributions, then figure out what changes can and should be made.

My gut feeling is we have much bigger egos and think we are more self important then we are so I wouldn't guess we have a substantial effect but if the data shows otherwise I won't be too hot and bothered by it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

So nothing.
You've contributed nothing.

It saddens me to see people resort to violence against innocent people to fight their causes.

Violence? What are you smoking?

I contribute by voting.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

For all the non-frauds out there, here is the link.

http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Unless you are under the misguided notion that the above would be an inefficient use of your money.

Every one of us in here could donate out entire paychecks for a year, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Small, mandatory, contributions from everyone can - however - have a massive effect, and politicians who pursue this get my vote.

 

[Retronym]

Violence? What are you smoking?

I contribute by voting.

You haven't contributed anything to fighting global warming, despite all the noise.

Global warming is either an issue that needs immediate intervention or it isn't.

Instead of sending your money voluntarily to fix the issue, you have held on to your money and called for the use of force against others to compel them to pay their money to fix the issue.

You aren't actually in favor of change, you are in favor of violence.
If you actually cared, you would have donated by now.

Does global warming magically wait until all sums of money are handed in at the end of the fiscal year?

What the hell are you waiting for?

Trying to solve global warming by voting is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The "right" politicians have to get elected, the political timing for actual tax change has to be optimal, the legislation has to pass through congress, everyone has to pay the tax, the money has to go through whatever committee to get used, etc.

In the mean time....GLOBAL WARMING.

 

[Draxanoth]

Every one of us in here could donate out entire paychecks for a year, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Small, mandatory, contributions from everyone can - however - have a massive effect, and politicians who pursue this get my vote.

So you support politician's who want to steal people's money to fight an irreversible disaster, by throwing it at companies who build inefficient alternative energy sources? That's some bulletproof big government logic right there.

 

[Retronym]

Every one of us in here could donate out entire paychecks for a year, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Small, mandatory, contributions from everyone can - however - have a massive effect, and politicians who pursue this get my vote.

How convenient.

Hold on to your monies!

 

[gdonovan]

The question is about anthropogenic climate change, not climate change in general since I believe everyone agrees the earth naturally changes climate over time.

So at this point if this were a normal problem and not the emotional/political issue it has become you would ask how much of an effect do humans have on this and scientists would look at the model.

Here is the problem I as well as many others have with this. THERE ISN'T AN ACCURATE MODEL YET! You can't decide on solutions to a problem if you don't understand the problem.

Bingo.

The same people who claim the end of the world is coming via climate change models can't forecast what the cloud cover will be next month.

The Earth and its systems are far to complex.

We can take the climate models and work backwards though and compare them to past climate. The usually don't agree though, climate change evangelists do their best to ignore these unfortunate facts.

Live with the smallest footprint possible and do what you can to live in a sustainable manner. Something a large number of climate change evangelists will NOT do so I have trouble taking any of them serious.

Al Gore has a huge mansion (uses more electric in a month than what I use in a year!) and a houseboat with twin diesels. Why should I buy anything coming out his piehole?

 

[Retronym]

Zarathustra[H], I've had a few moments to reflect.

Perhaps there is a walk or marathon somewhere you could attend?

This would allow you to keep holding your money but still get others to actually give to the cause?

 

[m heisty]

All right wing arguments about science:

We don't trust scientists because they have hidden agendas, so instead we will cite the one scientist no other scientists agree with who has an obvious agenda.

Solid.

So the fact that the federal government funds around 99% of all climate research can't have anything to do with it? The climatologist and meteorologists who founded The Weather Channel has said it many time. He presents the question to people. Why do we have so many scientific studies that say the same thing. Is it because that is the only possible answer, or it is because the groups that pay for the studies only give out money to people who support their point of view.

This is how it works. You want money to do a study, you have to put together a proposal outlining the goals and how these goals are to be reached. In other words if you say you are doing a study on how the climate is not warming you wont get funding.

 

[Draxanoth]

I don't even know why people still debate this, whether it's real or not is irrelevant, poison filled air is bad regardless of if it's heating up the planet.

The problem is, so long as the idiots of the world continue popping out an endless supply of progeny they can't support, the environment will continue to die. Do people even realize what the density of large carnivores is in the wild compared to humans? You could have 100% free Tony Stark power and it wouldn't be able to save the planet.

Overpopulation leads to population correction in all animal species, and in the case of humans it will likely be on a disturbing scale due to how long we can delay the inevitable. Only crazy people think you can have an unlimited population growth and magically avoid destroying your habitat.

 

[Phoenix333]

It's already freezing here at night and it's just now the beginning of November. The migrating birds all started south early this year, too. It's getting COLDER here where I am - not warmer - and I'll trust millions of years of migration instinct over half-baked human theories and poorly programmed computer models.

 

[maverikv]

It's already freezing here at night and it's just now the beginning of November. The migrating birds all started south early this year, too. It's getting COLDER here where I am - not warmer - and I'll trust millions of years of migration instinct over half-baked human theories and poorly programmed computer models.

Climate change doesn't mean its warmer all the time everywhere . . .

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You haven't contributed anything to fighting global warming, despite all the noise.

Global warming is either an issue that needs immediate intervention or it isn't.

Instead of sending your money voluntarily to fix the issue, you have held on to your money and called for the use of force against others to compel them to pay their money to fix the issue.

You aren't actually in favor of change, you are in favor of violence.
If you actually cared, you would have donated by now.

Does global warming magically wait until all sums of money are handed in at the end of the fiscal year?

What the hell are you waiting for?

Trying to solve global warming by voting is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The "right" politicians have to get elected, the political timing for actual tax change has to be optimal, the legislation has to pass through congress, everyone has to pay the tax, the money has to go through whatever committee to get used, etc.

In the mean time....GLOBAL WARMING.

So you support politician's who want to steal people's money to fight an irreversible disaster, by throwing it at companies who build inefficient alternative energy sources? That's some bulletproof big government logic right there.

Your world view is totally fucked up, man.

Equating taxation (or government action targeted at raising prices of harmful goods to disincentive their use) as violence is just plain irrational, irresponsible, and just plain nonsensical and insane.

As mentioned before. The individual is powerless to enact societal change on this level, other than to vote, and drive government policy that forces the issue. Relying on voluntarism to drive painful change, will never work.

Paying taxes, rather than violence, is a civic duty to keep our society functioning, and since it is impossible to opt out of its benefits, it is also impossible to opt out of paying it. A society - as a whole - must decide what its priorities are, what level of service to sustain and how to pay for it.

If you don't like that fact, tough. Just GTFO. I hear Ethiopia is a great libertarian anarchist paradise. Go there and enjoy it while you can, before someone ruins it and starts a functioning democracy...

This is inevitably what you wind up with when you don't have a government that levies taxes, provides security and directs national policy and expenditure.

I don't even think YOU believe in what you are saying, but if you do, put YOUR money where your mouth is, or stop trolling.