BS: Global warming - the myth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM

My excitement at scoring 300 made me forget my " 's "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 12:04 AM

The other day they told us that our northern Pacific ocean up here in southeast Alaska has warmed an official four degrees. Doesn't sound like much - but we're getting all kinds of new critters in our waters.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:03 PM

I saw a blurb about how great a Prius is. It gets 45 MPG!!!

In the 70's I had a Volkswagen Rabbit diesel hatchback company car. It never got less that 45 MPG no matter how you drove it. It usuallly got around 50 MPG and sometimes 54 on a trip.

If gas keeps going up I am getting one of those new VW bugs with a diesel engine.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 01:44 AM

We have a Prius & I've been getting 45 -53 mpg on the highway, it's supposed to do better in city driving but I hardly do any city driving so I don't know how it does with that.

Amos, that bill might as well be written on toliet paper for all it's worth & you're right! The hoax is that we're doing something about it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 02:27 AM

Dickey, some friends of mine have a VW diesel station wagon. They get 52-54 mpg. And it seems that one no longer has to wait for the diesel plug to warm.

I used to have a 1981 Mitsobishi-made Plymouth Champ hatchback- I routinely got 42 mpg. The lowest I ever got with it was 36 but it was when I had four people in it and we crossed the Cascade range.

I really liked that car - it had the usual four gears and then another three or four *lower*- I used to say that I could climb a wall with that car.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:04 AM

While looking up info in the old Rabbit I found out that VW made a "Lupo" that had 61 hp compared to the 49 hp of the rabbit, yet it got 99 MPG.

It was not built to pass American crash tests so they were never imported.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:30 AM

Here ya go, 157 MPG with no batteries.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM

Prius Politics

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A15

My younger son calls the Toyota Prius a "hippie car," and he has a point. Not that Prius drivers are hippies. Toyota says that typical buyers are 54 and have incomes of $99,800; 81 percent are college graduates. But, like hippies, they're making a loud lifestyle statement: We're saving the planet; what are you doing?

This helps explain why the Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. The Prius's advantage is its distinct design, which announces its owners as environmentally virtuous. It's a fashion statement. Meanwhile, the Civic hybrid can't be distinguished by appearance from the polluting, gas-guzzling mob.


Syndicate/Subscribe
Select Method (may require registration) XML (raw feed)BloglinesGoogle Homepage/Google ReaderMy AOLMy MSNMy YahooNetvibesNewsburstNewsGatorPluckRojo



Michael Gerson:
The Price Of Peace In Uganda

Robert J. Samuelson:
Prius Politics

Ruth Marcus:
Pretty Formidable in Pink

Suki Kim:
Asia's Apostles

Regina E. Herzlinger:
Who Killed U.S. Medicine?


Today's Editorials



Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Grasping Reality with Both Hands: Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal
Brad DeLong--Economics Only
Dyspepsia Generation


Full List of Blogs (4 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook




The Prius is, I think, a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Prius politics is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians pander to "green" constituents who want to feel good about themselves. Grandiose goals are declared. But measures to achieve them are deferred -- or don't exist.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the champ of Prius politics, having declared that his state will cut greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (about 25 percent below today's levels) and is aiming for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. However, the policies to reach these goals haven't yet been formulated; that task has been left to the California Air Resources Board. Many mandates wouldn't take effect until 2012, presumably after Schwarzenegger has left office. As for the 2050 goal, it's like his movies: make-believe. Barring big technological breakthroughs, the chances of reaching it are zero.

But it's respectable make-believe. Schwarzenegger made the covers of Time and Newsweek. The press laps this up; "green" is the new "yellow journalism," says media critic Jack Shafer. Naturally, there's a bandwagon effect. At least 35 states have "climate action plans." None of this will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from present levels.

Even if California achieved its 2020 goal (dubious) and the United States followed (more dubious), population and economic growth elsewhere would overwhelm any emission cuts. In 2050, global population is expected to hit 9.4 billion, up about 40 percent from today. At modest growth rates, the world economy will triple by mid-century.

Just to hold greenhouse gas emissions steady will require massive gains in efficiency or shifts to non-fossil fuels. The McKinsey Global Institute predicts that, under present trends, worldwide energy use will have risen 45 percent from 2003 to 2020. China will have accounted for a third of the increase, all developing countries for four-fifths. Even after assuming huge improvements in energy efficiency (better light bulbs, etc.), McKinsey still projects an increase of 13 percent in global energy demand.

But we've got to start somewhere, right? Okay, here's what Congress should do: (a) gradually increase fuel economy standards for new vehicles by at least 15 miles per gallon; (b) raise the gasoline tax over the same period by $1 to $2 a gallon to strengthen the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and curb driving; (c) eliminate tax subsidies (mainly the mortgage interest rate deduction) for housing, which push Americans toward ever-bigger homes. (Note: If you move to a home 25 percent larger and then increase energy efficiency 25 percent, you don't save energy.)

I support these measures, because we should implement them anyway. We should limit dependence on insecure foreign oil. Tax subsidies cause Americans to overinvest in oversized homes. But practical politicians won't enact these policies, except perhaps for higher fuel economy standards. They'd be too unpopular.

Prius politics promises to conquer global warming without public displeasure. Gains will occur invisibly through business mandates, regulations and subsidies. That's why higher fuel economy standards are acceptable. They seem painless. It sounds too good to be true -- and it is. Costs are disguised. Mandates and subsidies will give rise to protected markets. Companies (utilities, auto companies, investment banks) will manipulate rules for competitive advantage. There will be more opportunity for private profit than public gain.

The government's support for ethanol is instructive. In 2006, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop went for ethanol; the share is rising. Driven by demand for feed and fuel, corn prices have soared. With food costs increasing, inflation has worsened. The program is mostly an income transfer from consumers to producers and ethanol refiners. Americans' oil use and greenhouse gas output haven't declined.

Deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases might someday occur if both plug-in hybrid vehicles and underground storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants become commercially viable. Meanwhile, Prius politics is a delusional exercise in public relations that, while not helping the environment, might hurt the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 03:03 PM

"Prius politics." That sounds to me like another of these bumper-sticker type of generalizations that replace the necessity of thinking. "Let's all sneer at people who buy hybrid cars, especially Priuses!"

My friend who owns a Prius bought it (he's had it for a couple of years now—it was one of the first ones out) for a combination of reasons. First, he liked small cars because they are peppy, maneuverable, and easy to park. Second, the fuel economy appealed to him. It was the most fuel-economical car on the market that was available to him at the time, and that he could afford. And third, he is very environmentally conscious, and he liked the idea of an electrically powered car, and the Prius looked like a good compromise until someone made a fully electrical car that a) had some range to it, and b) he could afford.

He doesn't give diddly-squat about his "image," or trying to make some sort of statement to other people.

People get on Arnold Schwarzenegger's case for advocating environmental responsibility when he owns two Hummers. But—in an interview with him that I heard a week or so ago, he said that he'd had the Hummers modified. One runs on hydrogen and the other runs on bio-diesel. He considers it an experiment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 01:10 PM

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

Sara Goudarzi
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Thu Jul 26, 8:35 AM ET


Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.

Building enough wind farms, damming adequate number of rivers and growing sufficient biomass to produce ample kilowatts to make a difference in meeting global energy demands would involve a huge invasion of nature, according to Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York.

Ausubel came to this conclusion by calculating the amount of energy that each renewable source can produce in terms of area of land disturbed.

"We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape," Ausubel told LiveScience.

Land grab for energy

The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment. For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy.

New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

You can convert every kilowatt generated directly into land area disturbed, Ausubel said. "The biomass or wind will produce one or two watts per square meter. So every watt or kilowatt you want for light bulbs in your house can be translated into your hand reaching out into nature taking land."

Small dent in landmass

Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel's analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.

"In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources," said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.

Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.

"Now there's 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S." Turner told LiveScience. "This represents a very, very tiny area. And that's just one technology."

"If you look at how much land area we've covered with roads, it's more than double that. So yeah, it's a large area, 100 miles by 100 miles, if you pack it into one thing, but if you scatter it across the country and compare it to all the other things we've already covered, it's not an egregious area."

Double use of land

Ausubel's analysis concludes that other renewable sources such as solar power and biomass are "un-green". According to his findings, to obtain power for a large proportion of the country from biomass would require 965 square miles of prime Iowa land. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 58 square miles, plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000-megawatt electric nuclear plant, a more environmentally friendly choice, Ausubel wrote.

However, new land doesn't have to be put into use just for a solar plant. Some scientists say already existing infrastructures could be doubled up for use to cover such an area.

"We could do with just rooftops of buildings and homes, land area we've already covered," Turner said. "We could meet 25 percent of our annual electrical demand by just putting solar panels on already existing rooftops of homes and businesses."

"Similarly, wind farms use up a lot of land area but they only really take up 5 percent of the land they cover," he explained. "The rest of it can be used for farming so it doesn't really impact the land area that much."

Going nuclear

Ausubel thinks that a better alternative to renewable energy resources would be nuclear power, which would leave behind far less waste than other alternatives

"There are three legs to the stool of environmentally sound energy policy—one is improved efficiency, second is increased reliance on natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration and the third is nuclear power," he explained.

"Nuclear power has the proliferation issues, which are serious but the environmental issues are small. With nuclear energy the issue is to contain radioactivity, which has been successfully done."

Turner agrees that nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint, but he thinks that the waste issue associated with this technology is very serious.

"It's unconscionable to dismiss the issue of nuclear waste," Turner said, "because you have to store that waste for hundreds of thousands of years and nuclear wastes are particularly damaging to the environment and have social impacts also."

Similarly, Gregory A. Keoleian, co-Director for the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan, thinks more in-depth analyses are needed before dismissing renewables and considering nuclear power as a viable option.

"I think the characterizations made that 'renewables are not green' and 'nuclear is green' sound provocative, but they do not accurately represent these technologies with respect to a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and analysis," Keoleian told LiveScience. "The treatment of renewable technologies [in this study] is shallow and the coverage of the nuclear fuel cycle is incomplete."

To capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources, scientists believe there need to be more studies and discussions.

"We have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of money and a finite amount of energy, and we need to be very careful about the choices we make as we build this new energy infrastructure," Turner said. "I'd like to see something that will last for millennia and certainly solar, wind and biomass will last as long as the sun shines. "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 01:41 PM

Nevermind increased mileage. That will only slow down the rate of growth in our energy consumption. We ultimately need fewer people driving fewer miles. That means population control--too late for that, probably--and a whole new approach to "getting there." We need to go fewer places, stay closer to home, and we need to put more people in larger capacity vehicles, like buses and trains. Oh, and there are two more ways to get around: YOUR LEGS! Walking is a good start, and maybe the final stop for many people. But cycling is pretty effective. In fact, a person on a bicycle is the most efficient traveler of all vehicles and animals.

Of course, with the American process of building residences further and further out from centers of commerce, all of this will be pretty problematic, especially with the minimal political support it currently enjoys. For example, we are (locally, in Maryland, USA) about to build a multi-billion road that will suck up virtually all of our transportation dollars for the next few decades. And by the time it is done, people will have finally woken up to the fact that we need to drive less. At least I HOPE they will. We are fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:39 AM

Gore's climate film has scientific errors

An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film....
Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."

The title the GUARDIAN used for the article focuses upon the errors. "Gore's film basically right" could also have been a correct title line.
I am pleased that the judge agrees with me that Gore's information about hurricanes is erroneous.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 10:55 PM

This is a party question, which means that there will be a good many crackpots & hired liars even among the experts, and for many, perhaps most, people the first response to any statement will not be "Is this likely to be true?" or "Is this relevant?", but "Which side is this person on?". That makes the task of a nonexpert, who must nevertheless form an opinion, difficult.

It is also clear that, politics aside, there is a lot of noise on the signal. There have been warmer & cooler days, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, eons, and so on, and most of it has nothing to do with human enterprise or folly. In particular, only 14,000 years ago (I think it was), the ice came down to New York & St Louis, and the sea was so low that there was no English Channel and the Thames flowed into the Rhine. Since then, clearly, there has been a good deal of global warming, which has made it easier for our species to propagate. If it goes on, tho, it may well make it harder, and then it will make sense to try to do something about it, without arguing a lot about how much of it is our fault.

Very likely, we have done *something* to help it along already. No question we have put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Regardless of how little or how much we are contributing to current changes, it is high time we started watching what we are doing very carefully, because we are getting to be important on the surface of this planet. In that effort, neither the idolization of business nor the idolization of nature will be helpful. More actual evidence may be.

In that connection, I see some plausibility in Freeman Dyson's complaint that we are putting too much effort into necessarily crude computer modeling and too little into gathering data. Some of what we don't know yet may be good news (negative feedback loops that stabilize things), and some may be bad (positive feedback loops that may lead to runaway). Dyson says, for example, that no-one has modeled the release of methane due to the melting of permafrost, because we don't know enough about it. But if it turns out to be important, it may be catastrophic. We might have to do something about it right away -- I can't imagine what, but maybe someone can.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM

Positive proof of global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:00 PM

Ah yes, bobad. It can still be explained by the simple scientific formula we all learned in college:

The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat as long as the mass of the ass remains constant.