Are human activities influencing the climate?

Tayschren

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Hello me,pleased to meet you

Pleased to meet you sir

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Not really, Human CO2 is just an additional input of CO2 into a system that only has a limited capacity to sequester CO2.

Most of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is recycled, that's why it's called the carbon cycle a small amount of new CO2 is emitted naturally each year through Volcanic activity. Before humans, the additional CO2 from Volcanic activity was about balanced by the long term sequestration of CO2 in sediments on land and under the sea and through chemical and biological processes.

Now humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the air beyond the capacity of the planet to sequester it, so concentrations in the air and oceans are going up.


Vapour pressure refers to evaporation and condensation of a particular gas/liquid, CO2 doesn't evaporate from the oceans. It diffuses between the atmosphere and the oceans (and transfers through mechanical agitation via wind and waves). The rate of diffusion depends on the Partial Pressure and the transfer coefficient. This basically means that the atmosphere equalises the ratio of CO2 in the air with the CO2 in the surface water of the oceans

When humans increase the CO2 in the air, about 30% of it goes into increasing the CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which changes the partial pressure between the atmosphere and the sea, and cause increased diffusion of co2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.


Unless the rate of deep ocean sequestration increases by the same amount as the additional CO2 entering the oceans from the atmosphere, then the additional co2 emitted by Humans will cause additional CO2 to be emitted by the Oceans.
So while an individual CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 4 years on average before it's taken up by the ocean or chemical or biological processes, the fact most of the CO2 is recycled, and only a small percentage of the CO2 gets sequestered each year means that the effective residence time is the speed at which the biosphere can sequester additional CO2 rather than how long it takes for individual CO2 molecules to get absorbed.

I read the new paper and the error is that Ed assumes that nature is capable of sequestering any amount of additional Co2 at the rate we add it in. In reality, Biological processes had been able to take up about 40% through additional growth, (but this is slowing down now) and ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide has not increased as this relies on downwelling currents which are relatively stable but take a long time (hence why this is part of the slow carbon cycle)

Ed's choice of 4 years as a residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is in contrast with the expert opinion of most other atmospheric scientists who recognise that carbon cycles through the system, and it is only when it is sequestered long term, that we can consider that it is no longer resident.

Of course it's much more complicated than my explanation, and much much more complicated than the 'berry model', but long story short, An additional 4% of CO2 every year is much more than natural processes can deal with, so CO2 concentrations have been accumulating in the oceans and the atmosphere, and there is no plausible source other than Humans emissions

Why not post that on his site so he can reply if he wishes?

It's a painless process, but one that you should do if you believe you can disprove his theory.

But I wouldn't start with "not really".

Most people here won't know if what you say is correct or not, and I suspect those that do are not going to correct you if you have made an error because they agree with the policies of sustainability, green energy and the new economic wealth transfer goals put forward by the UN to try to stem migration.


One thing I read on his site was:

"For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level."

Everyone can guess what the "correct" equilibrium level should be, but nobody knows.

Why is 280ppm the correct level?
Why is 400ppm wrong?

Why isn't 700ppm correct?

It has changed over millenia, which reading was wrong? None.

There are cries of "we're killing the planet"

The science of simply looking at a temperature chart and a co2 concentration chart and trying to prove a link isn't working and hasn't worked, because there are too many unknowns.

Leave out the unknowns and there is little known. Far too little upon which to enact policies which have the potential to potentially collapse civilisation and the current economic model.

The last two are from the UN.

Master of the Omniverse

dense wrote: »

Why not post that on his site so he can reply if he wishes?

It's a painless process, but one that you should do if you believe you can disprove his theory.

But I wouldn't start with "not really".

Most people here won't know if what you say is correct or not, and I suspect those that do are not going to correct you if you have made an error because they agree with the policies of sustainability, green energy and the new economic wealth transfer goals put forward by the UN to try to stem migration.


One thing I read on his site was:

"For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level."

Everyone can guess what the "correct" equilibrium level should be, but nobody knows.

Why is 280ppm the correct level?
Why is 400ppm wrong?

Why isn't 700ppm correct?

It has changed over millenia, which reading was wrong? None.

There are cries of "we're killing the planet"

The science of simply looking at a temperature chart and a co2 concentration chart and trying to prove a link isn't working and hasn't worked, because there are too many unknowns.

Leave out the unknowns and there is little known. Far too little upon which to enact policies which have the potential to potentially collapse civilisation and the current economic model.

These last two points are actually the whole point of the carbon based climate change farce.This is the end game.Once these two objectives are reached,then they can roll in the n.w.o.Make no mistake,the u.n. is the head of the snake and they are telling us this is what will happen.Where the **** were the u.n. in rwanda,and where the **** were the u.n . In the yugoslavian ethnic cleansing?They allow and want countries to fail.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Why not post that on his site so he can reply if he wishes?

It's a painless process, but one that you should do if you believe you can disprove his theory.

But I wouldn't start with "not really".

Most people here won't know if what you say is correct or not, and I suspect those that do are not going to correct you if you have made an error because they agree with the policies of sustainability, green energy and the new economic wealth transfer goals put forward by the UN to try to stem migration.

I posted on his thread for the laugh, but I don't expect to change his mind.
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/fork-road-climate-change-debate/#comment-43246

One thing I read on his site was:

"For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level."

We have ice core records that go back further than the last ice age that show concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated between about 170ppm and 290ppm across multiple ice ages.

This appears to be the natural range over the last few million years.

Everyone can guess what the "correct" equilibrium level should be, but nobody knows.

Why is 280ppm the correct level?
Why is 400ppm wrong?

Why isn't 700ppm correct?

It has changed over millenia, which reading was wrong? None.

Have you ever heard of daisy world?
Its a very simple model where the world is populated by only two things, white daisies and black daisies. The white daisies cool the world and the black daisies warm it. The model shows how the system will find an equilibrium where it becomes stable. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Daisyworld

Humans are adapted to the conditions we see now. If we destablise the equilibrium by changing the CO2 concentration to one that generates a hotter world, we will force the planet to find a new equilibrium, one that might not be so hospitable to human civillisation

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

I posted on his thread for the laugh, but I don't expect to change his mind.
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/fork-road-climate-change-debate/#comment-43246

We have ice core records that go back further than the last ice age that show concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated between about 170ppm and 290ppm across multiple ice ages.

This appears to be the natural range over the last few million years.

Have you ever heard of daisy world?
Its a very simple model where the world is populated by only two things, white daisies and black daisies. The white daisies cool the world and the black daisies warm it. The model shows how the system will find an equilibrium where it becomes stable. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Daisyworld

Humans are adapted to the conditions we see now. If we destablise the equilibrium by changing the CO2 concentration to one that generates a hotter world, we will force the planet to find a new equilibrium, one that might not be so hospitable to human civillisation

I find it annoying that climate change is completely limited to the carbon debate.There is so much more than this going on,yet this is the limited hangout that we are supposed to believe.Youre wasting your time akrasia,if you focus on this one thing,because the reason this is being pushed is to control populations and to make money.Who stands to gain from electric cars?Who gains from trading carbon credits?We definitely dont,its going to be the same limited number of people.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I find it annoying that climate change is completely limited to the carbon debate.There is so much more than this going on,yet this is the limited hangout that we are supposed to believe.Youre wasting your time akrasia,if you focus on this one thing,because the reason this is being pushed is to control populations and to make money.Who stands to gain from electric cars?Who gains from trading carbon credits?We definitely dont,its going to be the same limited number of people.

Ofcourse the powers that be are very concerned about the planet,thats why we have nuclear power stations dotted around the globe,this one factor has completely ****ed our planet ,forget about co2,you ever encountered the problems faced by people trying to decommission or dispose of this stuff.We are completely ****ed .And the reason being we believe these psychopaths,I should not include myself in this,I saw the reality of this growing up near to military underground bases,and remember the classic drill at school where we were required to hide under our desks as protection from being nuked.So dont worry about co2,we are ****ed anyway.As einstein said,its a helluv a way to boil water.

Doctor Jimbob

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Ofcourse the powers that be are very concerned about the planet,thats why we have nuclear power stations dotted around the globe,this one factor has completely ****ed our planet ,forget about co2,you ever encountered the problems faced by people trying to decommission or dispose of this stuff.We are completely ****ed .And the reason being we believe these psychopaths,I should not include myself in this,I saw the reality of this growing up near to military underground bases,and remember the classic drill at school where we were required to hide under our desks as protection from being nuked.So dont worry about co2,we are ****ed anyway.As einstein said,its a helluv a way to boil water.

There have been much fewer deaths as a result of nuclear power than fossil fuels.

Nuclear incidents tend to be big and dramatic, so they make headlines.

Master of the Omniverse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There have been much fewer deaths as a result of nuclear power than fossil fuels.

Nuclear incidents tend to be big and dramatic, so they make headlines.

Jimbob you are missing the point.This stuff is around for a very very very long time.Whats the half life of uranium?Let me guess,4.5 billion years.So it takes that long to reduce its radioactivity by half.Mind you , other types of uranium have a half life of 700 million years,so thats not too bad.How many generations will have to deal with this stuff?So we get 50 years of expensive electricity,and then spend the next minimum700million years paying the price.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Jimbob you are missing the point.This stuff is around for a very very very long time.Whats the half life of uranium?Let me guess,4.5 billion years.So it takes that long to reduce its radioactivity by half.Mind you , other types of uranium have a half life of 700 million years,so thats not too bad.How many generations will have to deal with this stuff?So we get 50 years of expensive electricity,and then spend the next minimum700million years paying the price.

And they want to scare us with climate change?Its ****ing ridiculous.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Humans are adapted to the conditions we see now. If we destablise the equilibrium by changing the CO2 concentration to one that generates a hotter world, we will force the planet to find a new equilibrium, one that might not be so hospitable to human civillisation

That suggests that humans have done with evolving and adapting and that our past adaption cannot be replicated or be improved upon.

It is unlikely that we have finished adapting and likely that future adapting will benefit from modern technology.

IF the planet is currently still finding its own equilibrium (as it has in the past) humans will need to adapt again. There is no guarantee that they will be able to of course.

We have no reason to believe that this place is going to be indefinitely hospitable to us, unless we have some sort of belief that it has been ordained to be.

We know from the past that it wasn't as hospitable.

Out of interest do you believe that the planet was designed for us/humans to be here, just as we are, (generationally,) indefinitely?

dense

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

dense wrote: »

Why not post that on his site so he can reply if he wishes?

It's a painless process, but one that you should do if you believe you can disprove his theory.

But I wouldn't start with "not really".

Most people here won't know if what you say is correct or not, and I suspect those that do are not going to correct you if you have made an error because they agree with the policies of sustainability, green energy and the new economic wealth transfer goals put forward by the UN to try to stem migration.


One thing I read on his site was:

"For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level."

Everyone can guess what the "correct" equilibrium level should be, but nobody knows.

Why is 280ppm the correct level?
Why is 400ppm wrong?

Why isn't 700ppm correct?

It has changed over millenia, which reading was wrong? None.

There are cries of "we're killing the planet"

The science of simply looking at a temperature chart and a co2 concentration chart and trying to prove a link isn't working and hasn't worked, because there are too many unknowns.

Leave out the unknowns and there is little known. Far too little upon which to enact policies which have the potential to potentially collapse civilisation and the current economic model.

These last two points are actually the whole point of the carbon based climate change farce.This is the end game.Once these two objectives are reached,then they can roll in the n.w.o.Make no mistake,the u.n. is the head of the snake and they are telling us this is what will happen.Where the **** were the u.n. in rwanda,and where the **** were the u.n . In the yugoslavian ethnic cleansing?They allow and want countries to fail.

They want a simplified new world structure where global rules and control is the norm, China of all places is held up as an example of how to do things right.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-a-back-door-to-communism-and-the-united-nations-admits-it/

The (Australian) Green Party has been pretty vocal about creating a new world order, striving NOT to call it that, for obvious reasons,

"In that pursuit, let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value."


https://greensmps.org.au/articles/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration

Master of the Omniverse

dense wrote: »

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

They want a simplified new world structure where global rules and control is the norm, China of all places is held up as an example of how to do things right.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-a-back-door-to-communism-and-the-united-nations-admits-it/

The (Australian) Green Party has been pretty vocal about creating a new world order, striving NOT to call it that, for obvious reasons,

"In that pursuit, let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value."


https://greensmps.org.au/articles/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration

If china is being held up as an example,then will the norm be live organ harvesting for those that object I wonder?

Subcomandante Marcos

Jesus christ you're replying to your own posts at an alarming rate.

Master of the Omniverse

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Jesus christ you're replying to your own posts at an alarming rate.

Not many will enter the ring with the Master.

cfuserkildare

Someone needs help Desperately methinks!!

Master of the Omniverse

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Someone needs help Desperately methinks!!

If anyone is genuinely stressed or upset with my posting then I will leave the forum.

Mountainsandh

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

If anyone is genuinely stressed or upset with my posting then I will leave the forum.

I like your posting, a bit crazy but entertaining, and I like to collect ideas from everywhere, not just the Daddy serious scientists

Edit : well duh, apologies for following, on kindle you can't see thread title when you post.
Ironically, whether going by conspiracy theories or science, whether geoengineering or accidental, the answer to the OP is the same when you think about it, the question is more how insignificant, or major the influence.

dense

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I like your posting, a bit crazy but entertaining, and I like to collect ideas from everywhere, not just the Daddy serious scientists

Edit : well duh, apologies for following, on kindle you can't see thread title when you post.
Ironically, whether going by conspiracy theories or science, whether geoengineering or accidental, the answer to the OP is the same when you think about it, the question is more how insignificant, or major the influence.

I like your thinking;)

Heh heh, yes, the question basically asked whether you agree that mankind is manipulating the climate, and 80% who voted said yes.

They seem to believe we can direct it to behave as we decide.

They also seem to believe that man and his actions are not natural but alien to the planet.

That essentially we are aliens and that our actions are alien to earth and we have accidentally done something that we can reverse, if we'd all just pull together under a new global socialist dogma.

Now that's really crazy.

cfuserkildare

Ha. Ha, Ha,

Not Distressed in the slightest little bit.
Just a little light banter that would be understood by those who know me better. ;-)

cfuserkildare

Ha. Ha, Ha,

Not Distressed in the slightest little bit.
Just a little light banter that would be understood by those who know me better. ;-)

However, your direction seems to tie in with what I have been saying for Many years:-

Physically humanity may have developed here, But if Human Intellect is natural, then Why are we the only advanced species??
( Slightly Off Topic I know, But still )

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Not many will enter the ring with the Master.

No one wants to play chess with a pigeon.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

That suggests that humans have done with evolving and adapting and that our past adaption cannot be replicated or be improved upon.

It suggests nothing of the sort. I said that we're adapted to our current climate. Human civilisation has flourished during a warm stable climate. Sudden changes in the order of 2 to 6 degrees of global warming in one century would be far far too fast for biological evolution to cope, and would present enormous challenges technologically. Especially if there is economic and political instability which there is likely to be as mass migration, famines, wars and natural disasters ravage the planet.

It is unlikely that we have finished adapting and likely that future adapting will benefit from modern technology.

IF the planet is currently still finding its own equilibrium (as it has in the past) humans will need to adapt again. There is no guarantee that they will be able to of course.

Exactly, so why on earth would we run headlong into a crisis of our own making.

The planet changes slowly using natural forcings. We are causing rapid change and putting the biosphere under huge strain.
( ps. Why use 'they' for humans... What species are you)

We have no reason to believe that this place is going to be indefinitely hospitable to us, unless we have some sort of belief that it has been ordained to be.

So what, we should still maintain it for our own sake and the sake of future generations, even just the humans that will be born before you die could be devastated by the needless consequences of our inaction on climate change.

We know from the past that it wasn't as hospitable.

So was the bit of land on which your house is currently built. But would you prefer to maintain your house, or let it fall apart and live in a damp mouldy cold and run down ruin?

Out of interest do you believe that the planet was designed for us/humans to be here, just as we are, (generationally,) indefinitely?

Of course not

Akrasia

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Ha. Ha, Ha,

Not Distressed in the slightest little bit.
Just a little light banter that would be understood by those who know me better. ;-)

However, your direction seems to tie in with what I have been saying for Many years:-

Physically humanity may have developed here, But if Human Intellect is natural, then Why are we the only advanced species??
( Slightly Off Topic I know, But still )

Nature doesn't select for higher cognitive intelligence. It selects for animals and plants that are good enough at surviving in their habitat thst they can procreate.
Advanced cognitive ability may confer a long term survival disadvantage if the brain uses too many resources in times of famine.
Humans have done well because we are excellent problem solvers, but
there is the Fermi paradox, which wonders why the universe doesn't seem to be teeming with life.

Carl Sagans conclusion was that perhaps advanced civilisations tend to destroy themselves before they gain the maturity to control the power of their advanced technology.

Humans are on a mission to prove Sagan right.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Sudden changes in the order of 2 to 6 degrees of global warming in one century would be far far too fast for biological evolution to cope, and would present enormous challenges technologically.

Wherever wild temperature predictions are seen, there should also be the following calming qualifiers, from the panel that is responsible for the predictions:

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations."

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi16fLp9o7XAhXpD8AKHbt6B5QQFggOMAE&usg=AOvVaw25LRMGfySU5fsG7B0mNLA0

That means that it is not possible to predict future climates accurately because 98% of the current 114 climate models don't work properly.

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Nice sentiment,however if you think we are all looking at a possible utopia due to fake climate change.........me thinks not so.

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The end game is "full spectrum dominance",doesnt sound like the type of utopia that I want to be subjected to.Feel free dr fuzz,heaven on earth is just around the corner,all thanks to the n.w.o.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Wherever wild temperature predictions are seen, there should also be the following calming qualifiers, from the panel that is responsible for the predictions:

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

Yes, we can not accurately predict what climate any particular part of the world will experience with certainty, because there are a lot of uncertainties in the models, but the probability of severe negative consequences increases rapidly the faster the global climate heats up.

"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations."

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi16fLp9o7XAhXpD8AKHbt6B5QQFggOMAE&usg=AOvVaw25LRMGfySU5fsG7B0mNLA0

That means that it is not possible to predict future climates accurately because 98% of the current 114 climate models don't work properly.

No, it means that the timescale between 98 and 2012 is not long enough to draw strong conclusions from that dataset.
Why not post that quote in context

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the
observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial
degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally
forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1, Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller
warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. The
difference between models and observations may also contain contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic and aerosol forcings
used by the models and, in some models, from an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic
forcing (the latter dominated by the effects of aerosols). {WGI 2.4.3, Box 9.2, 9.4.1, 10.3.1.1}
For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend (very high confidence)
(Box 1.1, Figure 1c). Furthermore, the independent estimates of radiative forcing, of surface warming and of observed heat storage (the
latter available since 1970) combine to give a heat budget for the Earth that is consistent with the assessed likely range of equilibrium
climate sensitivity20 (1.5–4.5 ºC)21. The record of observed climate change has thus allowed characterization of the basic properties of the
climate system that have implications for future warming, including the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response
(see Topic 2). {WGI Box 9.2, 10.8.1, 10.8.2, Box 12.2, Box 13.1}

Also, the data ended in 2012, they didn't know back then, but you do know now, that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record, so their confidence that the slowdown being a part of natural variability has been verified by the subsequent rapid uptick in warming.

xckjoo

Does anyone with knowledge in this area have any comments of the environmental impact of producing new (greener) products vs prolonging the life of the existing (CO2 emitting) product (e.g. buying a Tesla vs sticking with your 1998 Ford Fiesta)? It never seems to be discussed when people talk about moving to "Green Technology". Is it a case of prioritizing reduction of CO2 over other environmental factors?

Doeshedare

xckjoo wrote: »

Does anyone with knowledge in this area have any comments of the environmental impact of producing new (greener) products vs prolonging the life of the existing (CO2 emitting) product (e.g. buying a Tesla vs sticking with your 1998 Ford Fiesta)? It never seems to be discussed when people talk about moving to "Green Technology". Is it a case of prioritizing reduction of CO2 over other environmental factors?

When I was studying supply chain management 10 years ago there was a lot of work done on Life Cycle Analysis (or Assessment). Maybe its moved on since then. I own 2002 diesel golf with 450,000km on it and often spend the time idling on the M50 pondering the question you ask!

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

Does anyone with knowledge in this area have any comments of the environmental impact of producing new (greener) products vs prolonging the life of the existing (CO2 emitting) product (e.g. buying a Tesla vs sticking with your 1998 Ford Fiesta)? It never seems to be discussed when people talk about moving to "Green Technology". Is it a case of prioritizing reduction of CO2 over other environmental factors?

There was a report into this by the Union of Concerned Scientists USA
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
(Look at page 40 for the relevant info)

It takes about 10 tonnes of CO2 to manufacture a car and an average car will emit about 4 tonnes of CO2 a year, so the CO2 cost of manufacture worth about 2.5 years of driving

If you stick with your older car for 10 years, you'll have produced 40 tonnes of C02, but if you bought a Tesla and somehow charged it with your own Solar panels, you'll have produced only 12 (allowing 2 tonnes for recycling and refurbishment of the batteries over a 10 year timeframe) tonnes of Co2 over the same 10 years (although currently the EV will be getting a lot of it's electricity from coal fired powerplants, so until the grid switches more to renewals, the impact of individual driver choices is lower)

Those figures depend on the specific efficiency of each car. A fiesta will be less polluting than a range rover.
I think people who are considering buying a new car are the ones who need to seriously consider an EV, at the moment, it's probably greener to keep an old vehicle maintained and on the road, but if in the market for a new car, an EV is a much less polluting choice.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

There was a report into this by the Union of Concerned Scientists USA
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
(Look at page 40 for the relevant info)

It takes about 10 tonnes of CO2 to manufacture a car and an average car will emit about 4 tonnes of CO2 a year, so the CO2 cost of manufacture worth about 2.5 years of driving

If you stick with your older car for 10 years, you'll have produced 40 tonnes of C02, but if you bought a Tesla and somehow charged it with your own Solar panels, you'll have produced only 12 (allowing 2 tonnes for recycling and refurbishment of the batteries over a 10 year timeframe) tonnes of Co2 over the same 10 years (although currently the EV will be getting a lot of it's electricity from coal fired powerplants, so until the grid switches more to renewals, the impact of individual driver choices is lower)

Those figures depend on the specific efficiency of each car. A fiesta will be less polluting than a range rover.
I think people who are considering buying a new car are the ones who need to seriously consider an EV, at the moment, it's probably greener to keep an old vehicle maintained and on the road, but if in the market for a new car, an EV is a much less polluting choice.

Thanks Akrasia. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. I would have thought the CO2 output from producing a new car would have been higher so good to know.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, the data ended in 2012, they didn't know back then, but you do know now, that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three hottest years on record, so their confidence that the slowdown being a part of natural variability has been verified by the subsequent rapid uptick in warming.

Can I believe anything you write?

One minute you're doubting there was a slowdown and you were going with 40 peer reviewed papers that say there was no slowdown and the next you're citing the slowdown as a measure of your confidence in climate predictions.

I think you're making this up as you go along.
It's garbage.

Master of the Omniverse

dense wrote: »

Can I believe anything you write?

One minute you're doubting there was a slowdown and you were going with 40 peer reviewed papers that say there was no slowdown and the next you're citing the slowdown as a measure of your confidence in climate predictions.

I think you're making this up as you go along.
It's garbage.

There is manipulation of data that has been discovered regarding recorded temp worlwide .Weather stations presented one set of data,which was then amplified to fit in with with the climate change agenda.Nasa was also using misleading data.Weather stations who had temp data amplified were paraguay and across south america,from canada to siberia,what was discovered was actually a global cooling,which ofcourse would tie into our current solar minimum.It has been predicted that a lack of solar activity will loosen the usual tight polar vortex which may result in it coming down further into canada,america and europe,giving us colder winters.Notice how the media and science heads dropped the term global warming and started using climate change.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Can I believe anything you write?

One minute you're doubting there was a slowdown and you were going with 40 peer reviewed papers that say there was no slowdown and the next you're citing the slowdown as a measure of your confidence in climate predictions.

I think you're making this up as you go along.
It's garbage.

look, you're the one who half quoted the IPCC. Their explanation for why the models up to 2012 showed more warming than they recorded, is that it is natural variability.

This has been vindicated by the recent surge in warming.

There is argument over whether the slower than expected warming for those years counts as a hiatus, or if its an expected feature of climate that there will be peaks and troughs even in a warming trend.

The deniers said in 2013 that global warming is over. 2014, 2015 and 2016, hottest years on record. Some end...

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

look, you're the one who half quoted the IPCC. Their explanation for why the models up to 2012 showed more warming than they recorded, and it is natural variability.

This has been vindicated by the recent surge in warming.

There is argument over whether the slower than expected warming for those years counts as a hiatus, or if its an expected feature of climate that there will be peaks and troughs even in a warming trend.

The deniers said in 2013 that global warming is over. 2014, 2015 and 2016, hottest years on record. Some end...

Hottest fake data years.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

look, you're the one who half quoted the IPCC. Their explanation for why the models up to 2012 showed more warming than they recorded, and it is natural variability.

This has been vindicated by the recent surge in warming.

There is argument over whether the slower than expected warming for those years counts as a hiatus, or if its an expected feature of climate that there will be peaks and troughs even in a warming trend.

The deniers said in 2013 that global warming is over. 2014, 2015 and 2016, hottest years on record. Some end...

You really need to sort our Your own position on it, but of course, your difficulty is that you don't know which set of disagreeing scientists to believe.

Which must be a bit awkward, given you think "the science is settled" and the debate is over.

You don't know who to believe, but you want others, the soft headed reality-TV generation, to believe that the science is settled.

cfuserkildare

Another minor observation,

How much extra CO2 and Hydrocarbons are being produced because of the continuous Slow down/Speed up caused by Speed-bumps?

Can anyone dig out this information?

Are the NRA here in Ireland Actually making things worse for the environment??

Facts before comments please??

dense

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Hottest fake data years.

A lot of adjustment, the grey areas above have NO data to start with.

What is it? 20% of the earth with no data?

The excuse will be that it doesn't matter, because no one lives there.

Master of the Omniverse

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Another minor observation,

How much extra CO2 and Hydrocarbons are being produced because of the continuous Slow down/Speed up caused by Speed-bumps?

Can anyone dig out this information?

Are the NRA here in Ireland Actually making things worse for the environment??

Facts before comments please??

Fact:I am actually contributing to global warming as I am now laughing my bollox off ,breathing in and out at a greater than usual rate therefore venting more co2-in a shorter space of time.Should we ban laughing as the ultimate antidote to climate change?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

A lot of adjustment, the grey areas above have NO data to start with.

What is it? 20% of the earth with no data?


The excuse will be that it doesn't matter, because no one lives there.

Ah, so that's where global cooling is hiding, in the small gaps between the mountains of evidence that the world is warming.

This is known as the divine fallacy, or god of the gaps. Your faith that you are right is not supported by evidence, so you are forced to latch onto any uncertainty and assert that the evidence for your position is in what we don't fully understand

Oh, and by the way, that is nowhere near 20℅ of the earth. The map projection of the poles is misleading, and we do have temperature data for the poles, they're the fastest warming places on earth, especially the arctic, and this century, antarctic warming has really accelerated

Subcomandante Marcos

dense wrote: »

A lot of adjustment, the grey areas above have NO data to start with.

What is it? 20% of the earth with no data?

The excuse will be that it doesn't matter, because no one lives there.

I don't think you understand the difference between a map of the earth and the actual earth.

You know that the size of things on the map isn't actually how big they are, right?

Like you're aware that South America and Africa are actually a lot bigger, Eurasia and North America are a lot smaller than they look?

Ad you know that the grey areas on the map aren't even close to as large as they appear on the map?

Please say you understand this basic concept before you go rabbiting on again?

Akrasia

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

I don't think you understand the difference between a map of the earth and the actual earth.

You know that the size of things on the map isn't actually how big they are, right?

Like you're aware that South America and Africa are actually a lot bigger, Eurasia and North America are a lot smaller than they look?

Ad you know that the grey areas on the map aren't even close to as large as they appear on the map?

Please say you understand this basic concept before you go rabbiting on again?

You'll have to break it to them gently, i don't think these guys know that the world isn't really flat

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

You'll have to break it to them gently, i don't think these guys know that the world isn't really flat

Its a little sad how the deluded are attracted to each other

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

I don't think you understand the difference between a map of the earth and the actual earth.

You know that the size of things on the map isn't actually how big they are, right?

Like you're aware that South America and Africa are actually a lot bigger, Eurasia and North America are a lot smaller than they look?

Ad you know that the grey areas on the map aren't even close to as large as they appear on the map?

Please say you understand this basic concept before you go rabbiting on again?

I understand that there is no data for the grey areas on the map.

That what it says in the bottom right corner of the image.

Do you want to dispute that or are you just here generating lines of text for the craic?

pitifulgod

dense wrote: »

I understand that there is no data for the grey areas on the map.

That what it says in the bottom right corner of the image.

Do you want to dispute that or are you just here generating lines of text for the craic?

You've claimed 20% of globe which is incorrect. Akrasia has also outlined how we do have plenty of data on key locations. I suspect if we had 100% globe, you'd obsess over some other inconsequential point...

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I understand that there is no data for the grey areas on the map.

That what it says in the bottom right corner of the image.

Do you want to dispute that or are you just here generating lines of text for the craic?

You said the grey areas were 20% of the world. They are not

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I understand that there is no data for the grey areas on the map.

That what it says in the bottom right corner of the image.

Do you want to dispute that or are you just here generating lines of text for the craic?

Also, the map itself says it uses the GHCN and the ERSST data

Do you honestly expect that the Global historic Climate Network (mainly made up of local weather stations scattered around the world) or the ERSST data which are long term temperature readings from commercial and scientific naval vessels would include data from antarctica and the frozen parts of the Arctic?

There are other temperature records of the Arctic and Antarctic, but these are not included in these particular datasets.

You post a piece of data that supports global warming theory that you clearly do not understand and then try use straw man hand wavey arguments against it.

If you have evidence to support your own position, post it. Stop posting evidence that contradicts your position and making snide comments about it that show how little understanding you have on the topic.

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, the map itself says it uses the GHCN and the ERSST data

Do you honestly expect that the Global historic Climate Network (mainly made up of local weather stations scattered around the world) or the ERSST data which are long term temperature readings from commercial and scientific naval vessels would include data from antarctica and the frozen parts of the Arctic?

There are other temperature records of the Arctic and Antarctic, but these are not included in these particular datasets.

You post a piece of data that supports global warming theory that you clearly do not understand and then try use straw man hand wavey arguments against it.

If you have evidence to support your own position, post it. Stop posting evidence that contradicts your position and making snide comments about it that show how little understanding you have on the topic.

It was the GHCN that was found to be making one way adjustments,then these were being used by GISS and the NCDC,who used the warming trend data to predict temperaturez in places where there are no weather stations.This was an article published by the london telegraph.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

It was the GHCN that was found to be making one way adjustments,then these were being used by GISS and the NCDC,who used the warming trend data to predict temperaturez in places where there are no weather stations.This was an article published by the london telegraph.

Here it is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html