The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[otoc]

Ya don't say. Whodathiunkit..? Even electric cars need to get their energy from somewhere...

GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions

This is such a pinhead approach to a problem by ignoring the fact that different issues exist. One is the design and manufacture of vehicles. The second is the energy source.

We need the R&D to commence on those two fronts. To say that we throw out one or the other without acknowledging both is pretty funny. But Whodathiunkit.

Bring on the electric cars. Energy sources that are non carbon based will follow, along with the fact that electric cars don't use much energy idling at a stop light or traffic jam indicates that emissions will be reduced.

[otoc]

Careful there Scooter, you may upset some of the lefties around here.

it is a liberal concept to read about science or a liberal concept to act in accordance to actual research? Just curious...

[kbohip]

^^^ Battery technology is just not there yet. The other bad thing about batteries is they are not exactly what you'd call good for the environment. Sooner or later they'll head to a landfill and begin polluting for hundreds of years. Not to mention the HUGE load all those charging electric cars will put on our already inadequate electric infrastructure, soon to be made even more inadequate by Obama if he gets his cap and trade wish. Windmills and solar panels ain't gonna keep a nation of electric cars going. Not in the least bit. Wanting something to happen and having the means to do it are to vastly different things that environmentalists have and will never learn.

[watertown28]

This is such a pinhead approach to a problem by ignoring the fact that different issues exist. One is the design and manufacture of vehicles. The second is the energy source.

We need the R&D to commence on those two fronts. To say that we throw out one or the other without acknowledging both is pretty funny. But Whodathiunkit.

Bring on the electric cars. Energy sources that are non carbon based will follow, along with the fact that electric cars don't use much energy idling at a stop light or traffic jam indicates that emissions will be reduced.

really?your just taking one source and place demand on another source

[Invictus]

We can use slow moving ocean and river waves for a new, reliable and affordable alternative energy source. A University of Michigan engineer has developed a device that acts like a fish that turns the potentially destructive vibrations in water into clean, renewable energy. This machine is named as VIVACE ( Vortex Induced Vibrations for Aquatic Clean Energy). It is the first known device that could draw energy from most water currents around the world, according to a statement from the University of Michigan. “There won’t be one solution for the world’s energy needs,” VIVACE developer Michael Bernitsas, a professor at the U-M department of naval architecture and marine engineering, said in the statement. “But if we could harness 0.1 percent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people.”

http://www.alternative-energy-news.i...ater-currents/

The problem of carbon emissions comming from power creation could be solved with solutions like the one provided above.

It all comes back to money and who has it as the reason why we dont pursue better alternatives.

[AMDScooter]

lol, and the rebuttal. Yes, agendas do make a difference...

^^ Ya.. about that "rebuttal" from the cultists over at realclimate...

More on RC Misinformation from Pielke Sr.

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II

Filed under: Climate Change Forcings & Feedbacks, Climate Science Misconceptions — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 8:42 am
There are comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes regarding why I did not comment further on Arctic sea ice trends. This is because I weblogged on it in June in my post

A Comment On A 1999 Paper “Global Warming And Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent By Vinnikov Et Al

I concluded that weblog with the text

“Until later in 2007, the sea ice areal extent continued to decrease in a manner which, at least visually, is consistent with the Vinnikov et al 1999 predictions (although the actual values of areal coverage differ substantially between the observations and the predictions, perhaps as a result of their formulation to compute areal coverage).

However, since 2006, the reduction has stopped and even reversed. Perhaps this is a short term event and the reduction of sea ice extent will resume. Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term, needs an explanation. Moreover, this data provides a valuable climate metric to assess whether the multi-decadal global models do have predictive skill as concluded in the Vinnikov et al 2009 paper.”

It should be recognized that the Vinnikov et al plots are not at the time of the September minumum. I agree completely that the minumum in sea ice coverage in the last few years has been at record low levels, and, currently, the sea ice is melting at a rate that is greater than average (see).

I also want to repeat what I wrote in my July 2 2009 weblog Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes”

By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs

Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation

House Testimony of Roger A. Pielke Sr. “A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits Effective Climate Policy”

[AMDScooter]

This is such a pinhead approach to a problem by ignoring the fact that different issues exist. One is the design and manufacture of vehicles. The second is the energy source.

Ignoring the fact? Odd.. it looks to me like that is exactly what the article does.

Plug-in electrics just trade one carbon source for another, one dictator for another, and deliver a lower-standard vehicle

I do love the exercise in otoc "logic" though. Pointing out that electric cars still need to get their power from somewhere is for "pinheads". But the MMGW cultists trying to force us all into electric powered enviroweenie shoeboxes are immune from your "different issues exist" rhetoric. Perfect otoc hypocrisy. The thrust of the article and GAO report is that electric cars will not reduce CO2.

We need the R&D to commence on those two fronts. To say that we throw out one or the other without acknowledging both is pretty funny. But Whodathiunkit.

I really hate to interrupt another of your famous strawman constructs... but perhaps you can point out to me anywhere in the article it states in any way, shape or form that:

we throw out one or the other without acknowledging both

Because I'm not seeing it.

Bring on the electric cars. Energy sources that are non carbon based will follow,

Lets follow that "logic". How about we make cars that run on ghost farts instead? Energy sources based on non carbon emitting ghost farts will surely follow right?

along with the fact that electric cars don't use much energy idling at a stop light or traffic jam indicates that emissions will be reduced.

Neither does a Prius... but it also still relies on good ole gas to produce the power for it's electric motor and charge it's batteries. But full electric and hybrid vehicles still suffer a similar issue:

The GAO also points out that electric cars would have the US trading one set of dictators for another in order to power our cars. The batteries for electric vehicles are lithium-ion, and for the experimental production levels in the US at this moment, we have enough lithium resources to keep pace. However, once we start building electric cars in mass numbers, we will quickly run through our proven stores of lithium. We would most likely have to do business with Hugo Chavez lackey Evo Morales of Bolivia, where half of the world’s proven stores of lithium reside. Even if we didn’t buy directly from the leftist leader, Morales has the ability to set the global price — just as Saudi Arabia and OPEC do with oil.

[otoc]

^^ Ya.. about that "rebuttal" from the cultists over at realclimate...

More on RC Misinformation from Pielke Sr.

Love the Nazi strategy scoot. When you either stop using the term cultists to describe scientists in the majority or use the term uniformly for any scientist in the field regardless of position I'll take the time to respond.

[AMDScooter]

Love the Nazi strategy scoot.

So I'm a Nazi now? Think the granite IQ just cracked.

When you either stop using the term cultists to describe scientists in the majority

Ah.. there it is again. The wholly baseless and never evar backed up with empirical data "con~census" or "majority" claim. 55 signatures on an IPCC report is hardly a "majority". I'm sure your realclimate cult leaders have a computer model to prove it somewhere though..

or use the term uniformly for any scientist in the field regardless of position I'll take the time to respond.

Are you threatening to ignore me?? Again?? Promises.. promises..

[AMDScooter]

In related.. "realclimate" news...

RSS June - "Worse Than We Thought"

Lucia was quick off the mark with RSS June results. RSS June was 0.075 deg C (reference 1979-1998). The graph shows somewhat of a decline from earlier in the year.

In a joint statement, realclimate authors Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf and Eric Steig noted their disappointment with market performance. However, Rahmstorf observed that, if these results were embedded in a 15-dimensional manifold, the results were still "worse than we thought". Michael Mann said that the decline in June RSS values was disinformation from fossil fuel interests and issued a fatwa on those responsible. [Note to realclimate readers - this is a satirical comment; they did not really make the above statements.]

[AMDScooter]

How the hopenchange administration addresses MMGW...

“Put nothing in writing, ever”

Mark Tapscott reports on what should be the defining quote of the Hopenchange Administration. Climate Czar Carol Browner got a little too much into czar character when she told the Auto Industry Task Force to leave no record of the negotiations, or for that matter, no record of anything at any time. How many of those who voted for Barack Obama’s campaign figured on hearing this?

Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner’s conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner “intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.”

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act.

If this broke federal law, then Congress should demand Browner’s resignation. Even if it didn’t, the intent of the law is to keep both the people and Congress informed of executive-branch development and enforcement of policy. Browner’s admonition didn’t intend to keep information from the people, though, but from hostile members of Congress.

Democrats howled when •••• Cheney met in private with energy producers (as well as environmental groups) when developing the Bush administration’s first attempt at energy policy in 2001. They took the Bush administration to court to release the records of the meetings, and they griped about it for years afterward. Eventually they strengthened the law on transparency, which directly relates to Browner and the AITF, which exercises unprecedented power over private-sector manufacturers.

If we needed transparency at any time, we need it even more in the Age of Czars, whose power is almost unchallengeable within the system. The Obama Hope and Change response? “Put nothing in writing, ever.” That must be the new translation of Vero possumus, right?

[otoc]

^^^ Battery technology is just not there yet. The other bad thing about batteries is they are not exactly what you'd call good for the environment. Sooner or later they'll head to a landfill and begin polluting for hundreds of years. Not to mention the HUGE load all those charging electric cars will put on our already inadequate electric infrastructure, soon to be made even more inadequate by Obama if he gets his cap and trade wish. Windmills and solar panels ain't gonna keep a nation of electric cars going. Not in the least bit. Wanting something to happen and having the means to do it are to vastly different things that environmentalists have and will never learn.

electric cars are not ready for primetime in the numbers you allude to so to describe it in terms of present infrastructure or technology really doesn't do the future justice for the the future will not be pegged in the present.

[otoc]

In related.. "realclimate" news...

RSS June - "Worse Than We Thought"

again, great nazi tactic. Let's use sarcasm and jokes to justify a point.

[otoc]

really?your just taking one source and place demand on another source

no, I'm describing a changing paradigm in technology with time since there are no full electric cars on the market at this time and when the first models come out, the impact is negligible. If you are saying that in the future the same technology and infrastructure will exist, then perhaps you will be correct. But I doubt it.

[otoc]

So I'm a Nazi now? Think the granite IQ just cracked.



Ah.. there it is again. The wholly baseless and never evar backed up with empirical data "con~census" or "majority" claim. 55 signatures on an IPCC report is hardly a "majority". I'm sure your realclimate cult leaders have a computer model to prove it somewhere though..



Are you threatening to ignore me?? Again?? Promises.. promises..

blah bah blah scoot. Did I call you a nazi? Not from your quote of my comment. Tactics dude.

And htf can anybody ignore you with your constant flurry of posts on every subject separated by only a few minutes. You are great at viral replication of one view and pardon me if I don't have the time to spend in response to c&p.