Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But then you have to factor in the costs of extracting, refining and transporting the petroleum to the gas station, and from there into the car.

But it's being extracted anyway. The majority of the electricity used to charge the batteries of an electric car comes from fossil fuels and what's more, it must come from fossil fuel. There is no other way to meet the energy needs of a modern society that requires constant growth just to survive. Unfortunately for electric vehicles, not only does the generation of electricity rely on fossil fuels but additionally the delivery of that energy is very inefficient.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

IF an infrastructure is needed? Oh, Eric, an infrastructure is always needed for anything more complicated than heading out cross-country on foot.

Well I meant I guess, that I think it will be built as needed; not something to worry about.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

First, I think the overall temperature IS climbing - as expected...

Every report I've seen is that it is climbing MORE than expected.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

But it's being extracted anyway. The majority of the electricity used to charge the batteries of an electric car comes from fossil fuels and what's more, it must come from fossil fuel. There is no other way to meet the energy needs of a modern society that requires constant growth just to survive. Unfortunately for electric vehicles, not only does the generation of electricity rely on fossil fuels but additionally the delivery of that energy is very inefficient.

Well, I guess it is no surprise to see you say that, since you don't believe humans should survive, and probably won't. The one thing we can be sure of, is that we won't survive (at least in civilized form) if we continue to use fossil fuels. They will run out, and they will ruin the planet. And soon. So we'd better switch soon, unless we want to adopt your prescription for saving the Earth (no more humans on it). And btw, if a modern society requires constant growth to survive, then maybe we'd better go post-modern. Constant growth is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Every report I've seen is that it is climbing MORE than expected.

Not every report. I recently posted one that said it was climbing less than expected.

James50

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are missing the most important question Badger: What is the difference in energy efficiency between the power generated via internal combustion (that is the electrical power plant is the engine in the car) and power generated at a remote power plant, then transmitted, then stored in batteries local to the car. Which is the more efficient process for generating and using electricity? An internal combustion engine that burns fuel directly local to the vehicle, or a a vehicle that requires electricity to be generated at a remote plant (first loss of energy efficiency) then transmitted via power grid lines (second loss of energy efficiency), then transmitted through your house electrical system (third loss of energy efficiency), then stored in batteries inside the vehicle to be used later (fourth loss of energy efficiency).

See the difference?

Electrical vehicles are dreadfully inefficient once you factor in the entire process of delivering energy to the vehicle in question. More inefficiency means more waste which ultimately means even more fuel consumed per unit of energy created. The only purpose electric cars really serve is to ease the consciences of a few guilt-riddled, naive people with extra money to burn.

Electric cars themselves are a bit of a euphemism. All cars are "electric" when it comes right down to it. Again, the ultimate discussion should be how is the electricity generated and at what efficiency is that electricity delivered.

Great point. Never considered that before.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I thought the IPCC report was a good start on that. If it didn't say so, it certainly implied so. They forecast extreme weather because so much more of it is already happening because of GW.

Forecast is the key word, no disagreement. They didn't say current weather patterns are tied to GW.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Weather disasters are the most pressing threat we face from global warming. That is clear from the IPCC report.

Agreed, that is what it said about "future decades."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have already posted a lot of data on GW. There are many links on the subject of extreme weather.


Here's a report on US worst-ever weather disasters in 2011:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...disasters.html

From the article, which by the way was US only, not worldwide:

Scientists blame an unlucky combination of global warming and freak chance. They say even with the long-predicted increase in weather extremes triggered by man-made climate change, 2011 in the U.S. was wilder than they had predicted.

For example, the six large outbreaks of tornadoes cannot be attributed to global warming, scientists say.

"The degree of devastation is extreme in and of itself, and it would be tempting to say it's a sign of things to come, though we would be hard-pressed to see such a convergence of circumstances occurring in one single year again for a while," said Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Another factor in the rising number of billion-dollar calamities: "More people and more stuff in harm's way," such as in coastal areas, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said.

This reads like the US experienced a weather anomaly in 2011.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here is one about 2011 being a record-breaking year for extreme weather:
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.c...ther-extremes/

This is an opinion piece, c'mon Eric you can find better sources than this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More on the USA from scientists:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-rep...ring-extremes/

We had a bad spring in the Midwest. This is your most compelling source.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, I guess it is no surprise to see you say that, since you don't believe humans should survive, and probably won't. The one thing we can be sure of, is that we won't survive (at least in civilized form) if we continue to use fossil fuels. They will run out, and they will ruin the planet. And soon. So we'd better switch soon, unless we want to adopt your prescription for saving the Earth (no more humans on it). And btw, if a modern society requires constant growth to survive, then maybe we'd better go post-modern. Constant growth is unsustainable.

Oh it will take more than that to get rid of humans and switching to more renewable sources of energy (short of some miraculous discovery) won't stop the population from crashing severely. What you won't see in the near future (relatively speaking) is an earth populated by 9 billion of them. I think we both know we won't move away from fossil fuels, because we can't. No politician, political movement, philosophy or spiritual movement will tell 6 billion people that they need to disappear even if it's that's the reality. Nature and its laws though, are inescapable even for an arrogant species that believes it has been chosen and protected by higher powers.

How would you solve the math Eric? By force? Scorn? Astrology maybe?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Forecast is the key word, no disagreement. They didn't say current weather patterns are tied to GW.

No, obviously, they based their forecast on what is already happening. What is happening is that extreme weather is being caused by global warming.

Agreed, that is what it said about "future decades."

Well then, we'd better prepare then. We need to switch off of fossil fuels now.

YOu took one quote from the article that supported your "agnosticism." But there was also this:

"Scientists blame an unlucky combination of global warming and freak chance. They say even with the long-predicted increase in weather extremes triggered by man-made climate change, 2011 in the U.S. was wilder than they had predicted."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz1h921q1R4

and this:

"What we're seeing this year is not just an anomalous year but a harbinger of things to come," with heat waves, droughts and other extreme weather, Lubchenco said Wednesday at an American Geophysical Union science conference in San Francisco.

The number of weather catastrophes that pass the billion-dollar mark when adjusted into constant dollars is increasing with each decade. In the 1980s, the country averaged slightly more than one a year. In the 1990s, it was 3.8 a year. It jumped to 4.6 in the first decade of this century. And in the past two years, it has averaged 7.5."

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh it will take more than that to get rid of humans and switching to more renewable sources of energy (short of some miraculous discovery) won't stop the population from crashing severely. What you won't see in the near future (relatively speaking) is an earth populated by 9 billion of them. I think we both know we won't move away from fossil fuels, because we can't. No politician, political movement, philosophy or spiritual movement will tell 6 billion people that they need to disappear even if it's that's the reality. Nature and its laws though, are inescapable even for an arrogant species that believes it has been chosen and protected by higher powers.

How would you solve the math Eric? By force? Scorn? Astrology maybe?

You truly live in a world of your own. When we reach 9 billion, will you wake up and see reality? I'm sure it will be within your lifetime. We are already at 7 billion.

Not only is "we both know we won't move away from fossil fuels" false, but neither of us knows this. I don't "know" this because I know it is false, and that it can be done in about a decade or less. You don't "know" this because you are flat wrong, and you don't know the facts. I suggest you move your gun out from under your bed, and make room there for a few more books, and read a little more.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Great point. Never considered that before.

And as things stand, you never will meaningfully be able to. There's system upon system of subsidies, penalties, and limited-liability keeping us as far away from being able to make a full true accounting as possible.

I've noticed something about this discussion, and others.

Whenever someone suggests we have too many people for too few resources, certain others crash in with technothriller fantasies along the lines of "Oh, you want to kill off X billion people!" with speculations as to how it would be done. (The Nazi model was actually quite labor-intensive and clumsy. I could write a paranoia-thriller myself, along the lines of a cultured plague, but it's been done.)

Let me rephrase the issue in terms of a higher probablilty level:

Too many people chasing too few resources is likely to lead to hard times. Hard times have been known to lead to population crashes. We have a model for how that plays out right under our noses, in our own era: Russia in the 1990s. How it works is this:

The oldest, weakest, sickest members of society die off for lack of things like health care that would have been available in more prosperous times. As times get harder, more of them die for lack of things like air conditioning in the summer, heat in the winter, or even food and shelter. Or from neglect when their families are unable to care for them.

Meanwhile, women and families decide they can't afford another child with times as hard as they are, and the birthrate drops. Both of these are proven factors and well documented.

On the speculative end, some people may turn to crime as a way to beat the hard times, and if crime increases, the cops crack down. Perhaps there are riots and popular uprisings, ditto. Or perhaps a war starts, with all the ensuing casualties. These are all crap shoots, but have happened in previous Fourth Turnings.

So - nobody is planning on shooting billions of people any time soon, let alone advocating it. Instead, these are warnings, if dimly perceived and confusingly phrased - if the crash does come, these things will happen.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

On the speculative end, some people may turn to crime as a way to beat the hard times, and if crime increases, the cops crack down.

FWIW. Crime is decreasing in the US. Crime Rates in US decline.

The incidence of crime nationwide decreased again, according to our just released Crime in the United States report. Overall, the estimated volume of violent crimes in 2010 dropped 6 percent compared to the 2009 figure, the fourth consecutive year it has declined. For the eighth consecutive year, the volume of property crimes went down as well—2.7 percent.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Every report I've seen is that it is climbing MORE than expected.

Not every report. I recently posted one that said it was climbing less than expected.

James50

Too much; too little. I suspect that we're well inside the variabilty envelope. After all, climate is basically static, at least in the short term. Think of it as a two decade moving average, and you'll be close.

Addressing Criticisms of the UAH Temperature Dataset at 1/3 Century

Way too much to post here, but if you are interested, read the whole thing and please don't tell me that every study says that actual warming exceeds the model predictions.

The first issue I want to address deals the relationship between temperature trends of observations versus model output. I often see such posts refer to an old CCSP document (2006) which, as I’ve reported in congressional testimony, was not very accurate to begin with, but which has been superseded and contradicted by several more recent publications. These publications specifically document the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with altitude.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You truly live in a world of your own. When we reach 9 billion, will you wake up and see reality? I'm sure it will be within your lifetime. We are already at 7 billion.

Not only is "we both know we won't move away from fossil fuels" false, but neither of us knows this. I don't "know" this because I know it is false, and that it can be done in about a decade or less. You don't "know" this because you are flat wrong, and you don't know the facts. I suggest you move your gun out from under your bed, and make room there for a few more books, and read a little more.

Falling back on your old gun control spiel already Eric? I expected more from a philosopher. I shall have to send San Jose State University a letter regarding their failure to educate their philosophy majors in the practice of rationality. You haven't answered the question. Please tell the class how you Eric, will force a full transition from fossil fuels in a decade and not kill a few billion people in the process. I am dying to hear these "facts" as you call them. What are your plans? Do they include magic?

And yes, in 100 years (short of a miraculous energy discovery) there will not be 9 billion people living on earth (there will be far fewer). You can bet on it. There is a prediction made without the aid of planets.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Falling back on your old gun control spiel already Eric? I expected more from a philosopher. I shall have to send San Jose State University a letter regarding their failure to educate their philosophy majors in the practice of rationality.

He He. Sounds like a worthy project. Don't forget to include a gun in the package.

You haven't answered the question. Please tell the class how you Eric, will force a full transition from fossil fuels in a decade and not kill a few billion people in the process. I am dying to hear these "facts" as you call them. What are your plans? Do they include magic?

Hey, whatever works! I have posted so much on GW and alternatives already, that I suggest you look back. I will post more later. But for example, it only would take an area of 100 square miles of thermal solar heating to power the entire USA if not the world. And we have windmills that could do it too. What if our roofs each had solar panels and windmills on them? And what about tidal? Geothermal? Algae? And of course electric cars? The means are there; it only takes more investment and tax credits spearheaded by a wise government, and higher standards. Obama has made a start, but it needs to be continued, which it won't if Republicans are put in power.

And now the energy companies invest all their dough in oil and coal, which will cost more and more, and soon. What if they invested this in alternatives? The change could happen virtually overnight. I would think an energetic, imaginative people would be inspired by this challenge, like we were in the 60s. Sadly, we're not the same people anymore. Too many cynics like you? Too many Xers? Too many burned-out disillusioned Boomers and greedy Silents? Whatever it is, we just don't got it as a nation anymore.

But my astrology indicators say, we will! We just have to wait till the 2020s, and I guess for more Millennials to come of age.

And yes, in 100 years (short of a miraculous energy discovery) there will not be 9 billion people living on earth (there will be far fewer). You can bet on it. There is a prediction made without the aid of planets.

which is why it will certainly be wrong! Al Gore predicted we would reach 9 million in our lifetime not in 100 years. I'm sure that's the consensus of those who have studied the matter. Population grew by 1 billion over the last 12 years or so. What's to prevent that from continuing?

In the starting post of this thread back in 2006, I expressed my views on global warming or climate change. I have to say my views broadly have not changed at all since then.

As of November 2011 the mean global C02 level was 390 parts per million. I obtained these figures from the NOAA website http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. They are absolutely frightening for example since 1960 the level of C02 in the earth’s atmosphere has gone from 320 to 390 parts per million. Also the rate of growth in C02 has increased sustainably as well. The measures which have been enacted so far aren’t doing much to reduce the level of growth in C02 emissions.

Thus I am afraid unless radical action is taken soon we would have reached a point of “no return”. Already greenhouse gas levels are at the highest levels in millions of years and they could easily reach levels recorded during the Eocene/Oligocene boundary (about 760 ppm) by the end of the century. Even before greenhouse gas levels reach that level, there will be climatic disruptions (which would likely be quite sudden) which would wreck havoc on our society which requires relatively stable temperatures in order to function.

This radical action that would be needed is namely reduce net greenhouse emissions immediately to zero and ideally “excess” carbon be removed from the atmosphere. However I dont believe political leaders anytime soon are going to take the sort of action needed.

Originally Posted by Tristan

This radical action that would be needed is namely reduce net greenhouse emissions immediately to zero and ideally “excess” carbon be removed from the atmosphere. However I don't believe political leaders anytime soon are going to take the sort of action needed.

From a turning theory perspective, it isn't apt to happen short of an obviously impending disaster. What did it take for the south to give up its slaves? What did it take before a mandate for the New Deal to replace the notion that the government had no responsibility or power to manage the economy? What did it take to move the US from isolationism to being the world's policeman?

Denialism is not unique to global warming. It is chronic. If each crisis brings about a major transformation in values and policies, such changes cannot take place until there is clearly a crisis present. For as long as it is possible for people to delude themselves into thinking no values or policy change is necessary, the delusion will continue. Values only change with a very large scale equivalent of a two by four to the head.

Originally Posted by B Butler

From a turning theory perspective, it isn't apt to happen short of an obviously impending disaster. What did it take for the south to give up its slaves? What did it take before a mandate for the New Deal to replace the notion that the government had no responsibility or power to manage the economy? What did it take to move the US from isolationism to being the world's policeman?

Denialism is not unique to global warming. It is chronic. If each crisis brings about a major transformation in values and policies, such changes cannot take place until there is clearly a crisis present. For as long as it is possible for people to delude themselves into thinking no values or policy change is necessary, the delusion will continue. Values only change with a very large scale equivalent of a two by four to the head.

Hello & Welcome, and may I say that I agree full-heartedly.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Hello & Welcome, and may I say that I agree full-heartedly.

~Chas'88

Not sure I really deserve the welcome. Maybe a welcome back. I'm Bob Butler 54 posting under another name. I changed my e-mail address, and lost my old account in the confusion.

Ahh. Welcome back then.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Not sure I really deserve the welcome. Maybe a welcome back. I'm Bob Butler 54 posting under another name. I changed my e-mail address, and lost my old account in the confusion.

I wondered about that. Welcome back.

I was downtown at the National Mall yesterday, checking out the new Martin Luther King memorial. What was creepy was that a few trees had cherry blossoms that were starting to bloom. On New Years Day!

Originally Posted by B Butler

From a turning theory perspective, it isn't apt to happen short of an obviously impending disaster. What did it take for the south to give up its slaves? What did it take before a mandate for the New Deal to replace the notion that the government had no responsibility or power to manage the economy? What did it take to move the US from isolationism to being the world's policeman?

Denialism is not unique to global warming. It is chronic. If each crisis brings about a major transformation in values and policies, such changes cannot take place until there is clearly a crisis present. For as long as it is possible for people to delude themselves into thinking no values or policy change is necessary, the delusion will continue. Values only change with a very large scale equivalent of a two by four to the head.

Well said Bob Bulter, however sometimes I genuinely fear for the worst.