What do you think of climate change?

[Theo520]

Even with coal and transmission losses, an electric motor is on par with the most efficient car engines in their small high efficiency sweet spot. Mind you this is through out the rev band and minimal to no drivetrain losses. Now you know why all modern locomotives are electric, even the “Diesel” ones.

It’s not that simple.
Diesel Electric is ideal for trains because their require a wide range of torques due to frequent load changes

On the other hand, ships (freighters) tend to be diesel because it’s more efficient for them. They run at constant power output, and if speed changes are needed, they are done changing the propeller. This allows for a simpler drive train…

 

[Theo520]

This really just gets down to the same arrogance. If someone dismisses scientists as “just human”, they should recognize themselves as “just human”, albeit with far less knowledge of this than the scientists, making them an even less reliable source. Sure, there’s a point where skepticism is healthy, if it encourages genuine seeking of information (heck, that’s what drives scientists!), but it turns to arrogance when someone just dismisses the scientists off-hand because “they’re just human”, all while failing to recognize the irony of that statement.

The scientists who are ‘skeptics’ are not questioning the basic physics of GHGs. They question the very complex computer models that weave together a story of how CO2 increasing causes thousands of feedbacks to amplify the warming.

The scientific method also confirms their skepticism, the various models have not proven accurate against measurement in the past several decades.

 

[Guinness]

Strawman. The closest you can get are concerns about mass extinctions and Earth not being able to sustain the current (or projected) human population, but those are far crys from “uninhabitable”.

It’s climate change alarmists that keeping making apocalyptic predictions about the Earth being “uninhabitable” so if it’s a strawman, it’s one the alarmists set up. In any case, I’ve never heard of a “strawman argument” being described as accurately quoting your opponents statements back to them.

 

[goout]

I personally am on board with just about all of this.

 

[Ender]

There’s a difference between saying humans are responsible for global warming and saying humans are the primary cause of global warming, which is what I took issue with.

On a literal level this is certainly true, but at the level of implication it is not. In normal conversation when we say someone is responsible for a specific condition we do in fact mean he was the primary contributor, but this brings up another real concern: if AGW is true then why is there so much dissembling in proving it?

Phaster has claimed: “…the basis that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere,… actually is provable using science”

If that was actually true then why have the proponents of AGW found it necessary to use underhanded methods to make their point? and this citation is an example. You have repeatedly claimed that the article you cited was not claiming man was the primary cause of global warming despite the fact that that is how most people understand the 97% consensus. You seem content that they would say something innocuous while implying something of monumental significance. Perhaps you can think of an example where “Fred is responsible…” doesn’t mean “Fred is the primary cause…”.

Then again, your distinction is refuted by the article itself:

Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative.

 

[ZMystiCat]

This really just gets down to the same arrogance. If someone dismisses scientists as “just human”, they should recognize themselves as “just human”

I wasn’t talking about the scientists being skeptical in that comment.

Strawman. The closest you can get are concerns about mass extinctions and Earth not being able to sustain the current (or projected) human population, but those are far crys from “uninhabitable”.

I was talking about what scientists are saying in that comment and those before it, so bringing in alarmists is still irrelevant.

(Minor side rant: Please make sure you understand the context in which the conversation is taking place! I feel like half of my comments here have been in reference to exaggerations or taking things out of context.)

On a literal level this is certainly true, but at the level of implication it is not.

You inferring something does not mean that it was implied.

 

[Guinness]

I was talking about what scientists are saying in that comment and those before it, so bringing in alarmists is still irrelevant.

Not all scientists are saying the same thing. Some are quite alarmist in their predictions. Like these guys:

Climate Impacts | Union of Concerned Scientists

These are your guys, so if you don’t like the message their sending, you need to get a handle on them. They’re the folks getting all the news coverage, not the “moderate” climate change advocates.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

First they were calling it “global warming.” Then we had a few really bad winters, so they changed it to “climate change.”

I think there are a number of people in this country, including at the highest levels (maybe especially at the highest levels) who hate this country for whatever reason. I think the whole thing is about de-industrializing America and de-militarizing America, so that we are not the most powerful country anymore and will never be able to return to that position again.

 

[Ender]

You inferring something does not mean that it was implied.

Please. Plausible deniability seems to be all that’s left for the AGW side. And as I said: the article you cited explicitly stated that the IPCC - to which “many studies simply defer[ed]” - claimed “most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans.”

So which is your position: is it that of the IPCC, that man is in fact the primary cause of warming, or are you admitting that there isn’t a 97% consensus among scientists that this is true?

 

[edwest211]

Stop the fear-mongering please.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Support-Texas-renewable-energy-future-13838335.php

 

[Sbee0]

I believe man made climate change is real. It’s a worldwide phenomenon that requires global cooperative attention and a global solution using leading edge technology…and it cannot be solved solely by raising taxes and implementing more big government programs on the people of the USA while other countries continue to pollute as they please.

 

[MPat]

On a personal level, I’ve at least had an undergraduate-level exposure to it, but it isn’t exactly some hidden knowledge that required going to college to discover.

That was not what I was asking about.

The question was: did you learn that from “raw” scientific publications or from activists and science popularisers?

This really just gets down to the same arrogance.

Furthermore, I don’t see the average person questioning photosynthesis or the Earth rotating around the sun based on a “scientists are human” argument. It’s really only brought up in these cases where they might have a political (or in the case of evolution religious) reason for doing so. That makes me very skeptical that this is some genuine searching and not some politically-motivated skepticism.

So, after a couple of paragraphs we have discovered that, at least, it is not “just” arrogance.

And… are you sure that in making claims “This really just gets down to the same arrogance.” you do not risk ending up arrogant yourself…?

For that’s my point: there is a way to think about it that seems to be much safer.

As for political motives - they work both ways, both for non-scientists and for scientists. And politically motivated scientist is not that much more trustworthy than politically motivated non-scientist.

Also - what results have climate scientists actually achieved? Botanists have better results, that also seems to explain why they are trusted more.

Thus, to reiterate: try to avoid ascribing arrogance to the ones with a different opinion. It is not very safe. Feel free to apply that same “precautionary principle” here.

Fossil fuel plants 37 to 60% efficient.

Internal combustion engines are more like 20%.

And the transmission lines etc.?

The whole point is to look at the whole chain.

And if we take the source you gave, Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles gives efficiency of 12%–30% for gasoline and Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars gives 72%–94% for electricity. The lower bound for the chain ignoring the numbers that haven’t been given is 0.37 * 0.72 = 0.27, thus already lower than the higher bound for gasoline.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

w/ climate change there are lot’s of unknowns,… risk analysis suggests the wise choice is to use "the precautionary principle,…"

If the Precautionary cost is both massive and largely ineffective, the small/unknown risk of AGW doesn’t warrant it.

The Green New Deal will cost the US many TRILLIONS yet have little impact on Climate Change. Heck, the US could cut all CO2 emissions and barely impact global CO2 levels

since you mentioned the RCP 8.5 pathway earlier, specifically said,… “Most published climate change research is about the impacts rather than the underlying science” and just brought up “the green new deal,…” perhaps you might not have considered using the precautionary principle approach as I look at the system and include another underlying field of study that is going to play critical role in what happens to humanity

prior to 2007/08 people gave little thought to economics or finance, the thinking being the guys in charge know what they are doing

actually if one looks at the system as an “investor” I’d say we’re in big trouble on the state and national levels

TinyURL[dot]com/InvestorWarning

and if you want an eye opening laugh, check out the BILLION$ in unnecessary portfolio debt in my hometown,… all because no one seems to be able to understand basic middle school math concepts

TinyURL[dot]com/13thCheck

though I’d bring up the specific example in my home town, because its a textbook example of the mismanagement being fractal,… in other words the problem here, to some degree exists at all levels of government and no one want to talk about the portfolio screwup or can understand basic math

if it were up to me I’d want to create an RCP 10.0 model to inform the public of the risk of how economics/finance is going to affect the “climate change” issue and vice versa

the nightmarish scenario here is,… given how interconnected everything is, suppose in the future the global economic and finance system is in the same state Venezuela is in today,… AND suppose humanity needs to build various infrastructure to address adverse symptoms of “climate change”

in this nightmarish scenario there does not seem to be any viable response, hence its basically game over,… so that is why people need to start talking and educating themselves now about the existing problems w/ in the system, while we still have an ability to alter course

 

[edwest211]

What do you suggest people know about? Do they know about existing/planned CO2 mitigating technology?

 

[Theo520]

prior to 2007/08 people gave little thought to economics or finance, the thinking being the guys in charge know what they are doing

actually if one looks at the system as an “investor” I’d say we’re in big trouble on the state and national levels

I feel that’s a strawman and that there has been no real shift in knowledge of economics or finance circa 2007. Some accurately predict, some fail, and others get caught up in a bull market euphoria as we saw with the internet boom. Alarms were regularly rung about overpriced stocks being driven by hot air.

When finance does real risk assessment, one method is to evaluate three scenarios and weight them: low impact/cost, high impact/cost and a most likely scenario. While weighting each scenario is tweaked, most of the weighting is on the most likely scenario. It’s frankly unscientific to put all your focus on the low probability scenarios, at the top or bottom and ignore the most likely outcome.

Regarding city debt and mismanagement, that is nothing new and I agree a reckoning will eventually come to town.

 

[phaster]

What do you suggest people know about?

sounds cliche, but the first step toward fixing a problem is admitting one exists!

the second step toward fixing a problem is, making other people aware of key facts about the “issue” which include

that,… the basic science of “climate change” isn’t that difficult to understand, yet few actually know the basics!

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

that,… its a natural reaction human reaction be in denial of the predicament humanity faces AND if you think about it, we’re sort of like lab rats experimenting on our own destiny!!

“Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate. It therefore becomes of prime importance to attempt to determine the way in which carbon dioxide is partitioned between the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere and the lithosphere.”

history.aip[dot]org/climate/Revelle.htm

that,… political mercenaries employed by talentless career politicians and various corporations like the status quo, so they will use propaganda and play mind games, to hide the truth!!!

The most notorious of Luntz’s memos focused on global warming denial in which he urged Republicans to use only the term “climate change” as it was less threatening than "global warming."

rationalwiki[dot]org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

note: that talentless career politicians play on both sides of the aisle

…it’s possible to persuade conservatives to invest in green energy if you avoid talking about climate change and focus instead on “energy independence” and avoiding wars in the Middle East over oil.

“Democrats and Republicans can very much agree on that,” said Scheufele, who added that climate change had “become a divisive term for all intents and purposes.” (Ironically, it was Luntz who popularized the term climate change as a Republican alternative to “global warming.”)

businessinsider[dot]com/political-language-rhetoric-framing-messaging-lakoff-luntz-2017-8

 

[edwest211]

This isn’t helpful. What concrete steps can be taken now? And I’m talking about big business here, not politicians.

 

[CurtisHouse]

Climate changes four times a year. Other than that, it’s not my expertise. As usual, I’m sure people are using it to make exorbitant amounts of money but that could be said with just about any cause in the world that media endorses.

 

[phaster]

Your Right, we can never be as intelligent as those people but we should have common sense and try to change things the best we can, according to how much money we have. The problem is that the company that makes hybrid cars won’t sell cars for cheap. We do these companies want to profit from climate change, why? should it be cheaper so more people will buy the cars?

I’ve never bought a new car in my life,… always purchased a used vehicle because it didn’t seem like a $mart idea to buy $omething new and have it in$tantly depreciate right after you drive it off the lot

having said that,… keeping in mind “climate change” kinda have my eye on something unconventional and electric to run every day errands

Arcimoto | The Everyday Electric
arcimoto[dot]com/vehicle/

 

[phaster]

This isn’t helpful. What concrete steps can be taken now? And I’m talking about big business here, not politicians.

really wish I knew the answer to that question, so I could share it with the world and fix this mess