Electric vehicles vs Climate Change

[neptronix]

Riding your electric bicycle out of fear of your carbon output doesn't sound very fun to me.
An electric vehicle is superior and should provide a superior experience over anything with an exploding stinkbox in it. THAT should be the reward.

Build a shockingly fast, long range, and smooth EV.. one that a fossil fuel FANATIC could pin the throttle on and come back shaking in a combination of fear, excitement, and internal mental crisis because they just realized what they've been missing out on all these years... :lol: :lol:

This is John Wayland ( plasma boy aka the creator of white zombie ), liveforphysics, Elon Musk, etc's attitude..

It will get people on our side than moralizing about carbon dioxide footprints...

 

[tomjasz]

The bicycle is the lowest carbon input. Nothing is more efficient for distance traveled and calories expended. I find nothing wrong with someone embracing the fact that their EV reduces their footprint. It's a benefit that will introduce more users. Just not in your sphere of influence. But we are here.

 

[arkmundi]

Riding your electric bicycle out of fear of your carbon output doesn't sound very fun to me....

Who said anything about not having fun? For awhile I had both an eBike and the Ford Escape Hybrid, ostensibly one of the greener cars. It only took me a year to be riding my eBike more than the car. And another year to go car-free. It was, in this order: 1> costs were much much lower, 2> lots more fun, and 3> the low-carbon life-style, reaching net-zero. Part of the fun was making the thing in the maker spirit. Any having a diatribe with you Neptronix, of course.

The bicycle is the lowest carbon input. Nothing is more efficient for distance traveled and calories expended. I find nothing wrong with someone embracing the fact that their EV reduces their footprint. It's a benefit that will introduce more users. Just not in your sphere of influence. But we are here.

Amen to that.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

We certainly live in interesting times, I'm probably one of the older posters here and today is at least as interesting as at any other time in my life, I'm all agog to see what comes next.

I've been thinking for a considerable time now that it's a race to see if science and technology can save us before it kills us.

Good thread...

 

[Dauntless]

http://www.amazon.com/Powerhouse-Inside-Invention-Battery-World/dp/0670025844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428795255&sr=8-1&keywords=powerhouse

 

[Arlo1]

This is a good thread. I think it might run a long time. I don't agree with Luke for the first time in a long time. But he has been wrong before like when he told me to go brushed because controllers didn't exist that I needed. Or about all wheel drive electrics... He said AWD is slower but he was thinking about ICE type setups and not seeing the advantages I was thinking then came Rimac and now P85D... Point is I love Luke and the world is a MUCH better place because he and others are here. But sometimes we have the wrong info or beliefs. I am not saying I know for sure we are making a big difference. I am saying its a VERY DANGERIOUS EXPERIMANT. I Drive Down the I5 to see Luke or a mutual friend Doug and see Lanes 6-7 cars wide in each direction in spots all burning Fuel at the rate of around 3 gallons an hour. We are talking Something like 1,000,000 cars in a 60 mile stretch burning ~ 3,000,000 gallons of fuel an hour Not just pumping it out in the form of C02 and water vapour but also turning it all into heat. As well all the energy required to make and transport that fuel which produces Heat C02 and water vapour. I have seen cities like Edmonton Calgary and Vancouver all submersed in smog and most of it is from the millions of gallons of fuel per hour being burnt. As we implemented air care other strict rules for car emissions the smog almost went completely away. All of this is leading to increased cancer rates and other problems. I have read research that proves we have raised the temp of the planet and this is from people who stand to gain nothing from saying this they also say if we stop right now. It will take ~40 years for things to quit warming from what we pumped into the air and oceans.
Luke I will try to find the picture. But whats more likely a bunch of scientist who make very little and have little funding and nothing to gain by saying we are causing some damage to be lieing or big oil/ government or any big money making industry to be paying for false propaganda to try to prove we are not causing any problems. Like you said follow the path of money Which industry has been proven to Lie for monetary gains!

Man kind might wipe our self's out with C02 or war or artificial intelligence and that sucks but I really don't think its ok to wipe out other animals or species on this planet at the same time.

 

[arkmundi]

Love that graphic! Thanks. :?

 

[neptronix]

The thing you posted above have actually happened before multiple times in science.

One example is with diet.

It wasn't a conspiracy to ruin the economy. It was heavy corruption from industry on the part of governments, dieticians, and researchers.

Another example is with the pharmaceutical industry. Corrupt as all get out.. anyone that tells you xyz medications aren't the way to go is often economically ostracized and demonized.

Always be skeptical and examine the evidence from both sides. When large sums of money are involved, it's easy for the masses to be duped.

That being said, i have no doubt that climate is changing. It has changed before, too. When you find multiple layers of fossilized dead plant material in places like Siberia and Antarctica, that tells us something. But climate is certainly changing faster than we have ever seen.

Climate change or no, i love my EVs and don't want anything else.

 

[ziltoid81]

Nice thread.

I dont think converting a normal car will change anything.
We need to think what amount of energy we are consuming and what is really necessary.
It was mentioned before, we transport 1.5 to 2 tons of dead or not needed material to get 60 to 130kg from point a to b.
Besides this, the means of transportation are just a little part of our massive energy waste.

The theoretical higher efficiency of an e motor means nothing, or will change nothing, if we need to waste even more ressources and energy to produce the needed battery for it.
But even when we find a perfect solution for this, its our overall energy and ressource consuming lifestyle.

But this is a problem in general, the human behaviour. ......

The most EVs are not a replacement for a car, its an addition.
So the users will generate an even bigger ressource footprint......not only CO2.
But its hip to own an EV.

I sold my car and use my ebike to commute, and im not sure if im really this greener now.
Surely i waste less energy for my commute, but now i produce battery waste.

Its also interesting that in a forum like ES where science, physics and facts are very important, there are obviously people who deny all these things when it comes to global warming.
Hilarious but also interesing. :wink:

I will come back to human behaviour again.
We have to realise that this forum stands for a very little minority, so the majority out there dont even think about their ressource and energy footprint.
Its hip to talk about it, but when its time to change our personal behaviour, then beeing green sucks and someone else can do it.
The problem is, we will not be alble to hold or maintain our lifestyle, not forever and not for everyone.

I hope my english wasnt too bad.....

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

Nice thread.

I dont think converting a normal car will change anything.
We need to think what amount of energy we are consuming and what is really necessary.
It was mentioned before, we transport 1.5 to 2 tons of dead or not needed material to get 60 to 130kg from point a to b.
Besides this, the means of transportation are just a little part of our massive energy waste.

The theoretical higher efficiency of an e motor means nothing, or will change nothing, if we need to waste even more ressources and energy to produce the needed battery for it.
But even when we find a perfect solution for this, its our overall energy and ressource consuming lifestyle.

But this is a problem in general, the human behaviour. ......

The most EVs are not a replacement for a car, its an addition.
So the users will generate an even bigger ressource footprint......not only CO2.
But its hip to own an EV.

I sold my car and use my ebike to commute, and im not sure if im really this greener now.
Surely i waste less energy for my commute, but now i produce battery waste.

Batteries are greatly recyclable, I don't think battery waste is a large issue with EVs, particularly one as small as a ebike.

Its also interesting that in a forum like ES where science, physics and facts are very important, there are obviously people who deny all these things when it comes to global warming.
Hilarious but also interesing. :wink:

In the USA and evidently Australia climate change, what is driving it and in what direction have become issues of tribal marking, at this point neither side of the great majority of people has a clue as to the actual science as so well and clearly outlined by MikeB. People's eyes glaze over when you start talking anything technical and explaining something like the thermodynamics of the hydrologic cycle is a real exercise in frustration. I run into it with electric bikes, astronomy and a number of other technical subjects I know something about.

After all, in America you have a well known and influential political commentator who quite literally does not know that the tides have a well established set of causes.

[youtube]a5dSyT50Cs8[/youtube]

I will come back to human behaviour again.
We have to realise that this forum stands for a very little minority, so the majority out there dont even think about their ressource and energy footprint.
Its hip to talk about it, but when its time to change our personal behaviour, then beeing green sucks and someone else can do it.
The problem is, we will not be alble to hold or maintain our lifestyle, not forever and not for everyone.

I hope my english wasnt too bad.....

Your English is very good, far better than I speak anything other than English.

People will change their behavior when they are forced to do it and when they are able to do it, having the place one spends free time a long way from one's work space implies a lengthy commute, most people are going to want the most comfortable means of making that commute. America at least is just too big and spread out for public transport to be particularly feasible at the moment except in the more dense cities and suburbs. I suspect self driving electric cars and smartphones may greatly reduce the need for private ownership of cars in the relatively near future, you just whistle up a car with your smartphone and it arrives within five minutes, takes you where you want to go and is off to collect the next ride or go charge as conditions require.

I can see a day when far more people use something like an ebike/trike for strictly local low speed transportation in good weather and then call for a self driving electric car for longer trips or bad weather.

 

[arkmundi]

After all, in America you have a well known and influential political commentator who quite literally does not know that the tides have a well established set of causes.

Neil deGrasse Tyson @ youtube]a5dSyT50Cs8[/youtube]

Neil is great and has taken over the mantle from Carl Sagan as the best of the science popularizers. Cosmos was a very fun watch and hopefully, in every school in America, the bastion of ignorance when it comes to these things.

People will change their behavior when they are forced to do it and when they are able to do it, having the place one spends free time a long way from one's work space implies a lengthy commute, most people are going to want the most comfortable means of making that commute. America at least is just too big and spread out for public transport to be particularly feasible at the moment except in the more dense cities and suburbs. I suspect self driving electric cars and smartphones may greatly reduce the need for private ownership of cars in the relatively near future, you just whistle up a car with your smartphone and it arrives within five minutes, takes you where you want to go and is off to collect the next ride or go charge as conditions require.

I can see a day when far more people use something like an ebike/trike for strictly local low speed transportation in good weather and then call for a self driving electric car for longer trips or bad weather.

Love that particular vision and don't expect I'll see it my lifetime, though maybe. Its not because we couldn't do that, even today. Its because of that cesspool called market politics, where the car manufacturers get to nix the Google self-driving car, because it would hurt their sales. And we all know that GM, et.al. will always get bailed out and given subsidy and tax breaks and whatever else they want, because ..... {add your reason here}.

As far as lifestyle is concerned for the carbon footprint conscious - urban, car-free and eBiking. Most of us live in cities and can get around without a car. eBikes just makes it faster and more enjoyable. We have to get to the point where we declare the internal combustion engine antiquated and no longer relevant. Its feasible today.

Part of the equation is a decent accountable public transportation authority. Which we have, here in Worcester, and Boston, and all of Massachusetts. Our heavy rail, light rail, bus and subway systems all allow my eBike. Buses have front racks. Trains are carry-on. So I can get anywhere with the combination of eBike + public transit.

But it is New England and we just finished the worst winter on record. Lots of snow. Didn't slow me down a bit. Just layer up and out I go. Only thing that stops me is a blizzard, but that stops everybody, even the buses.

At what point in time do people stop making excuses and get on with the hard work of making their low-carbon lifestyle a reality? I just see the whole climate denial thing as one big excuse for people who want to fricking do what they want and burn us all to hell. Alcoholics are big time deniers too. So are addicts of all ilk. No mam, my meth habit is not hurting me one bit - need it to function!

 

[Ch00paKabrA]

The entire history of humans burning things doesn't cumulatively add up to a statistically significant amount of anything.

There are single wetlands areas that release more greenhouse gas in a year than all human activity does.
If we wanted to limit greenhouse gas, we would dredge and/or drain the wetlands areas, burn the rainforests, etc.

But, we don't want to limit greenhouse gases, and the earth is currently in a cooling trend right now to begin with, so let things cycle and bounce around a bit. Things shift around a bit, things die, other things thrive, life goes on.


"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

I don't really understand how this happens. In another thread, I said basically the exact same thing and I was absolutely lambasted. Why is it that only one of you went after Luke (who resoundingly slapped him down)? Is it because he is so clearly more intelligent than most? Is it because he is always such a gentleman? Is it because he is such a widely respected member of this board and the electric community?

We have recently been inundated with claims that we are setting records for high temperatures. The latest was when NASA declared that 2014 was the hottest year on record. The Media went into a frenzy and reported it widely. It only took a few day for the cooler heads in the scientific community to debunk it and within a few weeks, NASA walked back on the statement stating that 2014 was not, in fact, the hottest year in recorded history. The media went silent. The effect is that there are still misguided souls out there that believe that 2014 was the hottest year.

Here is a comparison of old vs. new data:





One from 1990 and one from 2001; both from the IPCC. It would appear that as the science "advanced" that the information and conclusions got better. The only problem is that the graph on the right, the later version, was a complete fraud. The Hockey stick graph is now said to be wrong by EVERY ONE (including its author). So let's go back to the first graph by the IPCC:

1. The medievel warming period was warmer than our current temperatures.
2. Since the medievel warming period this is the THIRD spike in temperatures
3. The current warming trend happened on a more shallow slope than the previous 2
4. Both previous warming trends peaked and were followed by cooling periods

It appears that the current warming period has peaked and many actual climate scientists are predicting no further warming for the next decade - at least. These are former IPCC Assessment report contributors; Judith Curry from Georgia is one of them and there is no way that anyone can imply that she is a denier.

This also calls into question the conclusion that we are experiencing the warmest temperatures since we have not yet reached those of the medieval warming period.

This is not to say that after a respite, temperatures will not resume their tendency to rise. It is entirely possible that they will and it is entirely possible that humans are having a negative impact. What it does say is that trusting those who have used fraud in the past is a foolish proposition.

Just once it would be nice for an Anthropological Climate Change Proponent to admit they really have no clue what is going to happen next. But there is no money in that. Follow the money.

 

[Punx0r]

The information posted by Luke is interesting. 5% change in CO2 emissions due to man doesn't sound a lot, but if it turned out to have a significant effect due to a non-linear relationship to the climate I would find that believable.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

But there is no money in that. Follow the money.

There's far, far more money in the fossil fuel bidness, coal, oil, natural gas, fracking than there ever has been in big science and every sheckel of that money in the fossil fuel arena is invested in denying that human activities could possibly have any effect on the global climate.

Follow the money indeed. :lol:

Climate change really is the least of our worries with regards to CO2 production, the last time the oceans became as acidic as rapidly as they are at the moment 96% of marine life went extinct. As go the oceans so goes the rest of the biosphere given that ocean covers 71% of the surface of our tiny, tiny planet.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/th...is-acidic-it-drove-earths-greatest-extinction

The biggest extinction event in planetary history was driven by the rapid acidification of our oceans, a new study concl​udes. So much carbon was released into the atmosphere, and the oceans absorbed so much of it so quickly, that marine life simply died off, from the bottom of the food chain up.

That doesn’t bode well for the present, given the disturbingly similar rate that our seas are acidifying right now. Parts of the Pacific, for instance, are already so acidic that sea snails’ shells begin dissolving as soon as they’re born.

The biggest die-off in history, the Permian Extinction event, aka the Great Dying, extinguished over 90 percent of the planet's species—and 96 percent of marine species. A lot of theories have been put forward about why and how, exactly, the vast majority of Earth life went belly up 252 million years ago, but the new study, published in Science, offers some compelling evidence acidification was a key driver.

A team led by University of Edinburgh researchers collected rocks in the United Arab Emirates that were on the seafloor hundreds of millions of years ago, and used the boron isotopes found within to model the changing levels of acidification in our prehistoric oceans. Through this “combined geochemical, geological, and modeling approach,” the scientists say, they were able to accurately model the series of “perturbations” that unfolded in the era.

It's just stupid to perform a potentially deadly biological experiment when we are all trapped inside the very test tube where the experiment is being performed.

 

[Ch00paKabrA]

But there is no money in that. Follow the money.

There's far, far more money in the fossil fuel bidness, coal, oil, natural gas, fracking than there ever has been in big science and every sheckel of that money in the fossil fuel arena is invested in denying that human activities could possibly have any effect on the global climate.

Follow the money indeed. :lol:

Are you seriously implying that private interests have thrown more money at Climate Change "Research" (one way or the other) than all of the Governments combined? LOL indeed. The US Government is the largest contributor to AGW and the only way to get money from them and European Governments is if the foregone conclusion supports Catastrophic AGW.

It is good that there are now private interests involved. Now there can at least be a debate instead of one side throwing out their arguments (much of it riddled with fraudulent data) and declaring the debate is over. Just an FYI: the debate is not over until the proof is clear and I think that Luke's post had the effect of showing that the data is still open to interpretation.

The debate is NOT about whether the Climate is changing or not. It is and it has been for millenia

The debate is to what extent that change is attributed to Human activity. While there is a consensus that the climate is changing, there is no consensus as to Mankind's role in that change. The AGW crowd consistently misrepresents the data, the conclusions and the consensus.

Bottom line, is that there may not be anything we can anymore so it may just be time to try to adapt. China is the world's leading polluter with the US a close second and Russia and India coming in at an honorable mention. Nothing we do here in the US will matter because no one else cares.

It would be nice to actually have a debate without name calling but I think we all know that won't happen, Alinsky prohibits it and rules for radicals is the playbook of the AGW crowd.

As to the actual topic of this thread, EVs won't make a difference even if a solution to producing electricity cleanly can be found. I know about wind and solar but even if coal, natural gas, and oil were out of the picture EV's aren't going to do much. China is opening too many coal fired power plants for anything we, in the US, can do to keep up. It is sad because their air quality is so poor now. Maybe health costs will be the tipping point in that country.

I guess the bottom line is that Automobile emissions are such a negligible about of CO2 production that even if every car in the US switched to electric, it wouldn't make any difference.

However, to imply that there is more money going into denying Climate Change than promoting it is laughable at best, just plain sad at worst.

 

[ziltoid81]

My main concern or the main problem in this debate is the human behavior.
The majority is not willing to change their behavior of wasting ressources or energy.
Even me......if i wouldnt save money by commuting via ebike and without all the fun it brings, i'm not shure i would do it.
Or in other words, if my income would be doubled, would i still commute to work with an ebike?
At freezing temperatures, rain.......wind, im simply not shure, maybe i would go by car instead.

And nearly all other people i know, dont even think about it.
With out their cars they would commit suicide........

Years before, all here in germany making fun of the americans, who drive big trucks in the cities.
Now look on the streets in germany, lots of SUVs in cities without one hill.

So if there are no new laws to "force" the people to do something, the majority will change nothing.
But if youre a politician and say such things, you wont get a chance to do so, cause no one will vote you. :wink:

Humans are arrogant, lazy and selfish.....

Everyone can do an experiment, ask someone who owns a car why they hate their kids.......
Thats the reality......theire wasting their kids ressources.

 

[Jonathan in Hiram]

But there is no money in that. Follow the money.

There's far, far more money in the fossil fuel bidness, coal, oil, natural gas, fracking than there ever has been in big science and every sheckel of that money in the fossil fuel arena is invested in denying that human activities could possibly have any effect on the global climate.

Follow the money indeed. :lol:

Are you seriously implying that private interests have thrown more money at Climate Change "Research" (one way or the other) than all of the Governments combined? LOL indeed. The US Government is the largest contributor to AGW and the only way to get money from them and European Governments is if the foregone conclusion supports Catastrophic AGW.

It is good that there are now private interests involved. Now there can at least be a debate instead of one side throwing out their arguments (much of it riddled with fraudulent data) and declaring the debate is over. Just an FYI: the debate is not over until the proof is clear and I think that Luke's post had the effect of showing that the data is still open to interpretation.

The debate is NOT about whether the Climate is changing or not. It is and it has been for millenia

The debate is to what extent that change is attributed to Human activity. While there is a consensus that the climate is changing, there is no consensus as to Mankind's role in that change. The AGW crowd consistently misrepresents the data, the conclusions and the consensus.

Bottom line, is that there may not be anything we can anymore so it may just be time to try to adapt. China is the world's leading polluter with the US a close second and Russia and India coming in at an honorable mention. Nothing we do here in the US will matter because no one else cares.

It would be nice to actually have a debate without name calling but I think we all know that won't happen, Alinsky prohibits it and rules for radicals is the playbook of the AGW crowd.

Who is name-calling? If you think it was me please provide quotes documenting these vile offenses... On the other hand you seem to be implying that I am an Alinskite.

If we have a Permian extinction level ocean die off from acidification it's all over anyway, there will be no "adapting", the majority of the oxygen we use to maintain life and also to run our infernal combustion machines comes from photosynthesis in the 71% of the Earth's surface covered by water.

Actually I agree with you to an extent, it's already too late and nothing we do is going to change the course we are already set upon. Climate change could possibly be ameliorated by some massive geoengineering, up to and including moving the planet to a larger orbit (yes it can be done and is even surprisingly easy but far too slowly to be significant in less than millennia) but I'm aware of nothing that would indicate there is any hope of doing something significant against acidification.

As to the actual topic of this thread, EVs won't make a difference even if a solution to producing electricity cleanly can be found. I know about wind and solar but even if coal, natural gas, and oil were out of the picture EV's aren't going to do much. China is opening too many coal fired power plants for anything we, in the US, can do to keep up. It is sad because their air quality is so poor now. Maybe health costs will be the tipping point in that country.

I guess the bottom line is that Automobile emissions are such a negligible about of CO2 production that even if every car in the US switched to electric, it wouldn't make any difference.

However, to imply that there is more money going into denying Climate Change than promoting it is laughable at best, just plain sad at worst.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. I used to work in the oil bidness, I've been hundreds of miles out in the Gulf where you can stand on the helipad on one production platform and see quite literally hundreds of others all the way out to the horizon at the same time. Exxon, BP, Gulf Oil, Conoco, Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, Halliburton, Schlumberger and a vast number of other smaller businesses all depend on fossil fuel extraction to exist, they aren't going to stop unless and until someone physically interferes with them and the bigger ones more or less own or at least rent most of the the politicians both Democratic and Republican.

If I have to choose between believing Bill O'Reilly or Neil deGrasse Tyson then I'm sorry but I'm going to have to go with Tyson. Tyson at least knows what makes the tides go in and out while O'Reilly thinks he saw combat in the Falklands. :lol:

 

[neptronix]

Ocean acidification is a serious problem.
Global carbon has been twice what it is now, but the rise was a lot slower and allowed everything on this planet to adapt slowly to the change.

I dunno. Pray for high gas prices and peak oil. Oil is underpriced currently because the externality costs are simply not figured into it. The companies who have massive spills and destroy water don't have to do much more than a half ass job at fixing their wreckage. Exxon Valdez is still having an impact, FFS...

 

[tomjasz]

While there is a consensus that the climate is changing, there is no consensus as to Mankind's role in that change.

Oh there is consensus, it's just that one asshat has a bullhorn, and "we the sheeple" don't read anymore.

 

[arkmundi]

What does it take to convince libertarians and conservatives that climate change is a problem?

 

[neptronix]

Yes, most conservatives and libertarians are stupid about environmental issues.
That's why i like Walter Block. He convinced me that libertarianism and being conscious about my effects on the planet are not a paradox. But many libertarians are not aware of his ideas. There are a lot of libertarians that are as hardcore as me about reducing their impact on the planet though. They just keep it to themselves and don't show up at climate rallies.

But why is it in every conversation with a liberal, i find that BELIEF in anthropogenic climate change is more important than what someone is actually doing to remedy it? I've rarely had the 'what are YOU doing' conversation with a liberal. In every instance, i've found that they're not doing their part and i am.

I own a first generation Honda Insight and two ebikes.. i recycle, upcycle, have a house full of LED and CFL lights.. live in an apartment yet spent quite a bit of money increasing it's efficiency overall.. i optimize code heavily at my day job to reduce the energy usage of our company at the server level.. but if i mention that little 'L' word, it's assumed that i love the Koch brothers.

I guess people don't seem to have driect personal conversations anymore in the day and age of the internet. It's all about drinking whatever kool-aid you like and pointing fingers. Because that's more effective than spending time, money, and research in figuring out what you can do to solve a problem.

 

[Ch00paKabrA]

@ jonathan in hiram: No, I was not implying that you were name calling. That was an inference for a trio of ass-hats in another thread, one of which is here on this thread.

Also, Just because you worked in the oil industry does not necessarily mean that you are privy to the budgets of their research departments. What you will find is there is just as much money going into the catastrophic Climate scenario nonsense as big oil is putting out into countering it. then you have to add all of the money that the governments spend. Sorry Jonathan, you are way off base here. While Big Oil does spend a ton of money, it is chump change to what the US alone spends.

It seems that the question I posed was not answered: How can we be setting records if we haven't gotten close to the peak temperatures of the medieval warming period yet?

I know the answer. do you?

It is another chapter in the Rules for Radicals playbook. "Do not debate. Change the subject to one more favorable to your cause and debase your opponent."

this is why the debate is not over; because an actual debate never took place.

Arkmundi even though you are one of the most radical extremists on this forum, I will answer your question:

What does it take to convince libertarians and conservatives that climate change is a problem?

Stop lying.

The information thus far advocating Anthropologic Global Warming is constantly being found out to be fraud.

The Hockey stick graph deliberately and fraudulently removed the temps from the ENTIRE medieval warming period. It was the star of the mockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and the birth of the modern AGW movement. Basically, your whole movement was created based on a lie.

NOAA was recently caught changing historical temperature data to make the early 20th century appear cooler than it was so that temperature graphs would look more extreme. They were caught red-handed.

NASA making statement and then having to walk them back regarding record hot years.

The emails from climate-gate where it was stated by the authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report that the conclusion was to be predetermined and then the data was to be cherry picked to support the conclusion.

The vast discrepancies between the computer model predictions and actual data. (A statement from Judith Curry - an actual climate scientist, not a help desk dude posing as one or posing as a CIO).

This is not supposition. This is fact. This is why we don't believe you; time and again, you get caught in out-right lies. That is why more and more people are leaving your fold. If the problem is so severe, why do you need to lie?

For the record, conservatives and libertarians don't, as a general rule, state that the climate is not changing - We know that it is. They don't say it isn't a problem either - we know that it is. All they are saying is that people like you are NOT the people who are qualified to make policy. After interacting with you, I tend to agree. Also your phony exasperation is insulting as well.

Now, I just bought a new kit so I have better things to do than chat with you all. If you want to know how we can be breaking records when we aren't even close to those at the peak of the medieval warming period, then PM. I doubt I will receive any though.

 

[arkmundi]

Yes, most conservatives and libertarians are stupid about environmental issues ,,,, I've rarely had the 'what are YOU doing' conversation with a liberal. In every instance, I've found that they're not doing their part and i am.

I own a first generation Honda Insight and two ebikes.. i recycle, upcycle, have a house full of LED and CFL lights.. live in an apartment yet spent quite a bit of money increasing it's efficiency overall.. i optimize code heavily at my day job to reduce the energy usage of our company at the server level.. but if i mention that little 'L' word, it's assumed that i love the Koch brothers.....

In case you have not been thanked lately: Thank You! I find that political and/or religious persuasion has very little to do with what people do in their own lives to reduce their environmental impact. Simply put, people are habitually acculturated and that engram is difficult to change, from the inside. There has to be very conscious, concerted effort to change one's own behaviour. Talk to any addict. Go to an AA meeting and you'll see what I mean. In these situations the I word is sometimes mention - Intervention, tough love. A person close to the alcoholic, addict, or carbon-olic has to say something like you'll never see me again, I've had it with you. That sometimes works and the person in question may begin the process of taking responsibility for their mal-adaptations, because being ostracised or excommunicated is a very harsh wake-up moment. I'm wondering when Pope Francis in his encyclical, casting a moral envelope around the climate change issue, is going to put some teeth into. A statement like its not possible to be both a Catholic and have a heavy carbon footprint -they are incompatible. And then we're now taking your confessions in the confessional both about your carbon addiction. And then say one Our Father, Three Hail Mary's and for God's sake do something today to reduce your carbon footprint. :lol:

 

[Joe90]

interesting discussion,

one thing for sure is that human do have an impact on earth. Bacterias changed the environnement way more than us.
there were no O2. it´s a by product that many life form now strive on it.

There is hard evidence that we are causing species extinctions. Some birds here were by billions, yes billions and we simply hunted them to extinction... passenger pigeon

Human is just an animal no enough intelligent to behave and think in geological time. We are way too much for the control volume of the earth.

earth will certainly heal itstself, with or without humans. I wish intelligent life could go out and survive after the sun burn the earth.

If you beleive that burning fossile fuel, making babies, eating nice steak is the way to go. Do as you are pleased.
Why ? because, like you, it wont make a difference for me in my life time.

My reality is what i see, not what is happening. It would just be nice that others could experience beauties of the nature.
They just wont know any better and will eat corn instead of fuelling their suv with it.

 

[Nehmo]

.. it's a race to see if science and technology can save us before it kills us...

On that question, a couple of my interests have converged to give an disturbing answer.
I've always wondered, and wondered more as technology advanced, why we haven't detected yet another intelligent civilization. The math (some would use the term Drake equation) indicates that it's highly improbable we are alone, but, as Enrico Fermi would ask, Where are they?
We don't detect them.

(BTW, much of the thinking on this subject, including Fermi's, assumes advanced life will expand its territory to include solar systems beyond its original. That's not guaranteed nor is it even likely. But it doesn't really matter in terms of a civilization's development. Whether a civilization is on one solar system or many may be relevant to its detectability, but it's not philosophically relevant to if it exists. IOW, I don't believe there will ever be star trekers, but that doesn't matter in this discussion.)

Another subject that interests me is artificial intelligence (AI) and the inevitable advance of it to the point when AI software programs itself. (This is the pivotal point - not the point in popular fascination of reaching human intelligence.) Once software can write code for itself, it will evolve, and the evolution won't take the millions of years it took us. Nowadays, this event is sometimes referred to as the "singularity", which was derived from, but shouldn't be confused with, the astronomy/physics use of the same word.

Originally, SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) thinkers thought that once a civilization was able to produce radio transmissions or Detectable Electromagnetic Radiation (DER), it would continue to do so. Now, considering the current failure to detect DER, these thinkers have modified the concept to a speculation that a civilization will produce DER for only a limited period of time. After using radio for a while, a civilization will move on to a more advanced method of communication, perhaps a method using laser light. And since consequently the period a civilization uses DER is short, the SETI failure is explained.

Another possibility is that intelligence is self limiting. Life forms, as they evolve, encounter the Great Filter, something that makes intelligent civilizations rare, IOW, kills them off.
Leaving aside the arguments that we have already gone through the great filter, popular thinking has assumed the great filter to be something destructive, perhaps an extinction-level nuclear war. This is possible, of course, but self-programing AI, the singularity, is more than possible; it is inevitable.

As an aside here, I should note that "unfriendly AI" has already been well hashed over. But, from what I've read, unfriendly AI, doesn't include the concept that AI will decide there is no reason to exist in the enabled condition, that is, it will turn itself off with us in tow.

The singularity will kill us off because our descendent, AI, will decide to die.

So, you don't have to wait, Jonathan. You have the answer by looking at the sky.