From the New York Times, the loss of natural ecosystems on land used to grow biomass may outweigh the benefits of biofuels in reducing greenhouse gases.
From the New York Times, the loss of natural ecosystems on land used to grow biomass may outweigh the benefits of biofuels in reducing greenhouse gases.
78 responses to “Land Use Impacts May Tip Biofuels into the Red”
I think the biofuel I eat to power me on my bicycle is still safe though. ;)
“I think the biofuel I eat to power me on my bicycle is still safe though. ;)”
Yea but you still produce methane gas and sh**!
You’re increasing global warming!
“I think the biofuel I eat to power me on my bicycle is still safe though. ;)”
Yea but you still produce methane gas and sh**!
You’re increasing global warming!
“I think the biofuel I eat to power me on my bicycle is still safe though. ;)”
Yea but you still produce methane gas and sh**!
You’re increasing global warming!
“I think the biofuel I eat to power me on my bicycle is still safe though.”
Well, it depends on what you eat. I used to get an organic food box, (back before an Organic Grocery store moved in 2 blocks from my house,) and they give me things like fresh kiwis in the middle of winter, and they had little labels on them: “Product of New Zealand.” And Kiwis don’t last very long, I have a hard time imagining them lasting the 2 weeks of so that it would take on a ship, so they were most likely flown here… Looking at the CO2 produced by the jet, and the calories in a kiwi, (they are mostly water,) and well, my bicycle would be producing more CO2 than a Hummer per mile… (Since I figured that out, I’ve started eating a lot of potatoes in the winter.)
Yeah it looks like “BioFuels” aren’t such a good deal after all. The green loonies lose again!
1. The crops they primarily use for BioDiesel cross polinate with other food bearing crops, making them less productive.
2. The land could have well been used for something else besides fuel production. How ethical is it to increase the price of food due to biofuels production?
My biofuels stocks were all in the tank so I sold all of them after reading all the bleak assessments on this industry. The economy is headed to worst times than we’ve had since World War 2. People will just stop driving because they won’t have jobs to go to nor have the money to pay for anything. Time to hunker down and learn frugal living skills!
It doesn’t help having our government agencies advancing policies which cost enormous sums, delivery little or no benefit and have horrible unintended consequences.
The biofuels tank is nothing but part of the global warming BS and all the useless and costly policies it is perpetuating.
It is inevitable that human caused global warming will wither away as the instrument of these policies. It simply isn’t so. And it’s not that difficult to figure out when one is genuinely interested, resourceful and open minded.
Peak oil is another withering notion created in a similar pandamonium.
Oil will be around long after other emerging technologies and energy sources become the primary source for our needs.
The automobile aint going anywhere and all the clamor about it’s imminent declining use is as phony as the Global Warming nysteria.
John E.
I’d suggest your read that biased source Royal Dutch Shell on the future of oil
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell-en/our_strategy/shell_global_scenarios/two_energy_futures/two_energy_futures_25012008.html
That’s right, they say that by 2015 the oil industry will not be able to keep up with demand. That is in seven years.
I’d suggest that you 1. invest in a spell checker and 2. think a bit more deeply about what is and is not “nysteria.”
Peace.
Hawthorne you have to be kidding.
You global warming hysterians refute ever scientist who debunks the IPCC as being working for big oil.
And then hold up that Shell Oil company piece as credible evidence of running out of oil?
And even that piece only says
“After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.”
“Probably” will not be able to keep up.
Holy smokes, get real.
What’s Shell’s interest in saying that?
Do you suppose Shell would like to drill in a few more places?
I’d suggest that you quit worrying about me using my spell checker and fugure out if you hate BIG OIL or think they are a credible source.
Think a bit more deeply period.
John E.,
So the oil companies, who have been in denial of both peak oil and global warming finally come clean. And what do you have to say? “Holy smokes, get real.”
Indeedd, my friend. Indeed.
btw. I love big oil- my stock has done quite well, thank you. that short term gain, however, does not make me blind to the future.
So Greg, what do you consider a “green loony?” Surely someone who went to the trouble of buying stock in biofuels would qualify, right?
So Greg, what do you consider a “green loony?” Surely someone who went to the trouble of buying stock in biofuels would qualify, right?
Nah, I was just being usual cynical me making that remark. Despite my being conservative on almost every front I am a big time environmentalist. The other day I dug up a paper I wrote in 1991 when I was in high school titled ‘If I were president…’ “I would propose development in alternative energy. Our country has vast resources and we need to learn how to harness them. Currently the Middle East has a stronghold on our liveds by our dependance on their oil. Shoudl a crisis arise we’d all be at their mercy…..” So I was thinking about this as a sophomore in high school long before “global warming” was at the forefront of the news and gas was very cheap (under $1 a gallon in Oregon). Still I think biodiesel and ethanol are a big farce. We should be focusing on wind, solar and have truly electric vehicles.
“green loonies”
“You global warming hysterians”
Rule 2?
I still think that a viable alternative to oil should be pursued EVEN IF global warming were to be proven a farce AND the oil supply was endless. The exhaust pollutes the air and we all have to breathe it.
John E –
As has been pointed out, please see Rule #2. I’m surprised you have to be reminded of this, as you were just told the distinction a couple of days ago.
Please keep it on-topic, and do not toss insults out our fellow commenters.
“The biofuels tank is nothing but part of the global warming BS and all the useless and costly policies it is perpetuating. ”
John E, you’ve lost what little credibility you had with me now.
I suggest you watch this video, because it describes people like you.
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming.html
^ Al, that was an awesome video! Thanks, you made my day. :)
That’s a video of a crakpot who can’t tell the difference between a unicorn and the jackass he is. Right off the top he rants that 30 years ago we were warned of global warming when we being warned of a new ice age coming.
His nonsense becomes laughable when he asks “what good is your money when there’s no air”. No air?
I didn’t catch the part how the video describes people like me. He didn’t mention anyone even close.
His imaginary version of loony GW deniers fits himself much better.
The blind GW belivers who resist simple questions and curiosity are robbing themsleves of the truth. ON their way to forming their opinion, everyone I know who doesn’t buy the GW alarm has looked at both the IPCC/Gore case and most of the challenges from skeptics.
In stark contrast, many I have engaged from the GW club have not looked at the opposing science at all. Instead chosing to deny it exists, that big oil fabricates it all if it does exist and no real experts are skeptics. And if there are they too are bought off by big oil.
Now who’s nuts?
The IPCC/Gore case is as much a fantasy as this guy’s video. Only worse. He’s just a nut job on YouTube and Al Gore is a global con man.
Viable alternative to oil, gas and coal are being pursued EVEN as more clean burning means of using them advance also.
Clean burning fossil fules that do not pollute should be acceptable while ttechnology advances other sources of energy.
CO2 is not pollution and not warming the planet.
Global warming is being proven to be a farce AND the remaining oil/gas/coal supplies are also more vast than GW farce advocates claim.
No one is in favor of polluting the air and water.
Yet we have biofuels/ethenol advancing when it is being shown to cost more in dollars and the environmental impact than it saves.
We must find a way to allow valid science to overriding political correctness and avoid these huge mistakes.
I mean come on folks, if the biofuels push is a net loss is that not a HUGE blunder?
John E,
Are you ranting, or attempting to convince others of something? If the latter, then you are really falling flat on your face. Like other extremists of your particular bent, you pretty much undermine everything reasonable you say with the extreme and ridiculous statements you follow them up with.
For example, you start with something reasonable, like “It doesn’t help having our government agencies advancing policies which cost enormous sums, delivery little or no benefit and have horrible unintended consequences.”
Then you continue with gems like “You global warming hysterians” and “He’s just a nut job on YouTube and Al Gore is a global con man”.
But just keep ranting, as long as it makes you happy with yourself. You really boost your reputation.
Right off the top he rants that 30 years ago we were warned of global warming when we being warned of a new ice age coming.
John E. — you rail against ranting and then open up your own diatribe “right of the top” with an oft-repeated falsehood about the state of climate research 30+ years ago.
Warnings of a carbon-dioxide influenced “greenhouse effect” were around even in the late 1960’s (see this blog for evidence of that).
There were some mentions in the popular press here and there about the possibility of a coming ice age, and a few scattered scientific articles. But even in the 1970’s, the scientific world and the popular press were coming around to the notion of climate change which included warming “greenhouse effect” with increases in CO2 emissions as a potential culprit.
In popular culture, the 1973 SciFi/Thriller movie Soylent Green depicted a dystopian world with runaway population, pollution, and high temperatures caused by a “greenhouse effect”. No ice age depicted here. (Fortunately, at least for Western society, many of the movie’s dystopian predictions have not come to pass. But it is a useful glimpse of what pop culture was thinking at the time.)
For information on what the peer-reviewed scientific press was stating at the time, as well as a glimpse at some early calls for increases in climate research, see this Real Climate article, which concludes:
And, a personal anecdote: When I was in elementary school in the mid-to-late 70’s, when teachers spoke of environmental issues, the “greenhouse effect” was mentioned with the caveat that some scientists wonder if we might be headed for another ice age. However, the “greenhouse effect” was the dominant scientific view at the time.
Shortly after the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant began commercial operation in 1976, I visited the plant with my father (who was there in relation to work he did with the state for radiological health/safety issues) and spent a good deal of time in the visitors center. One of the exhibits pointed out how nuclear plants don’t output CO2 (as well as other pollution issues), so CO2 emissions were a concern of industry at the time, at least in a PR sense.
So please, at least get the history right before declaring others to be “global con men”.
The sad part is you really might have something positive to contribute, and people like me and others here might actually take some value from what you have to say – but the fact that you bury it in so much crap means that I think it’s worthless.
Bob,
I never said histry 30 years ago was limited to ice age predictions. But that was certainly a prediction. I’m perfectly aware of the greehouse gas theory history. But thanks for refresher lesson.
That said, the current science and basis for the IPCC/Gore case is fatally flawed. As much so as the biofuels blunder.
As for rants, they are in the eyes of the biased,and that video is nothing but a rant.
No substance at all.
The truly sad part there is nothing positive one can contribute when biases, such as the GW alarmism, resists and obstructs all challenges.
I have yet to witness any recogintion of value in any contradicting and opposing contributions.
Delivered in any way shape or form.
The nature of the biased beast, or believer, is not tolerant or receptive. Least of all open to persuasion.
I happen to think narrow mindedness casues focus on the percieved tone versus the substance and thereby avoiding challenges and persuasion.
It’s easy to dismiss as worthless what one doesn’t want to hear regardless of the tone or rant.
The facts remain.
In my last post the substance was not in percieved rant or the history of greenhouse versus ice age 30 years ago.
But rather other germane point you didn;t comment on.
Such as the video of a crakpot’s imaginary version of who GW deniers are.
And who really looks at all the current data.
GW belivers who resist simple questions and curiosity and fail to look at both the IPCC/Gore case and most of the challenges from skeptics.
Those who I have engaged from the GW club have not looked at the opposing science at all.
Or brushed through and brushed off a little of it at most.
Instead chosing to deny it exists, that big oil fabricates it all if it does exist and no real experts are skeptics. And if there are they too are bought off by big oil.
Viable alternative to oil, gas and coal are being pursued EVEN as more clean burning means of using them advance also.
Clean burning fossil fules that do not pollute should be acceptable while ttechnology advances other sources of energy.
CO2 is not pollution and is not warming the planet.
Global warming is being proven to be a farce AND the remaining oil/gas/coal supplies are also more vast than GW farce advocates claim.
Ethonol in our gas is proving to be more harmful than beneficial.
Human caused Global warming itself is falling apart, yet have a Governor and other politicians pushing full steam ahead with policies grounded bad science and producing bad outcomes.
Biofuels/ethenol are advancing when it is being shown to cost more in dollars and the environmental impact than it saves.
The default position should not and cannot be
that bad policies from bad science should continue even if “global warming were to be proven a farce”.
Now I understand clearly that many here are proud of their support for environmental policies, urban planning, rail transit and other associated green policies. I don’t wish to dismiss or denigrade those fine intentions.
BUT, when we have a system that continually comitts huge sums to sounding good policies which are derived from bad science and that produce a net loss versus benefit it’s not good.
Returning to the bio-fuel question, I believe bio-fuels are supportable with the caveat that their application is best in plug-in hybrid drivetrain vehicles.
The plug-in hybrid is the cross between battery and internal combustion operated vehicles, and is arguably the best of both worlds, the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Hydrogen fuel cell technology does not offer near as many benefits and advantages in vehicle application.
The plug-in hybrid offers only a limited distance of driving on zero-emission battery operation. If we assume that electricity will remain less expensive than all future potable fuels, plug-in hybrids offer an economic incentive to drive less, and when necessary the means to drive further distances utilizing any potable fuel, including hydrogen.
The more immediate problem with automobiles is managing their numbers (traffic congestion and hazard), and constructing viable economies less based upon long-distance travel and transport. With the plug-in hybrid, households are more apt to support and build nearby local economies – services, institutions and amenities which become acccessable without having to drive.
Households with plug-in hybrid vehicles gain the means to choose between driving or powering their essential household electric appliances. Add rooftop photovoltiac solar panels, and such households can become self-sufficient when located in communities that become walkable, bicycle-able (sic?) and served with mass transit.
blah blah blah. Whatever. Bio-fuels in this scenario have the potential to exceed 1000mpg in a GMC Suburban.
The facts remain.
You haven’t posted any. All you’ve done is assert, insult, and complain about an external video rant. Granted, Al came close to Rule #2 by saying the video was about “people like you”.
The topic here is biofuels and studies about biofuels’ negative impacts.
If this site was chock full of people who deny science and problems, then why was the link to the biofuels article posted here? Because we are aware of various issues and want to learn more.
What is really striking, though, is that you are agreeing with the reports which say biofuels have problems, while simultaneously denying that GW exists … if you read the original article you’ll see the thrust of the report regards net CO2 emissions. If you don’t think GW is a problem, then you shouldn’t care about the outcome of the study, because CO2 emissions due to biofuel production would be moot.
I’ve reviewed the links to various global warming skepticism articles you’ve posted here in the past, and I’ve found other scholarly articles refuting those skeptical claims. The very best I can concede to you is that there are a minority of respected scientists who deny various subsets and sometimes the entirety of core GW theory. However, the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies conclude that GW exists and that human-produced CO2 emissions are a significant component.
To the degree that I can follow the literature given an undergraduate level of science training, I’m opting (until really strong evidence to the contrary comes forward) to plan for the future based on the prevailing scientific consensus. (“Prevailing scientific consensus” has not been 100% right throughout history, but it’s going to take more than a few hotly-disputed skepticism articles to sway me.)
I never said histry 30 years ago was limited to ice age predictions.
Then what was your point? If you’re trying to say that prevailing public and scientific opinion was opposite and/or wrong back then, so therefore we shouldn’t believe what the majority of climatologists tell us now, you’re arguing from a faulty premise.
In fact, if anything, the truth is that opinion was split at the time with a significant minority speculating about cooling rather than warming, and that over time scientists migrated overwhelmingly to the warming theories.
You exact quote was:
History shows that we WERE warned about warming 30 years ago. In fact, the first warnings came out FORTY years ago. The research was in it’s early stages, and there were contradictory theories and opinions, but it was there.
Bob R. Says: I’ve reviewed the links to various global warming skepticism articles you’ve posted here in the past, and I’ve found other scholarly articles refuting those skeptical claims.
JK: Bob, you don’t find the truth by taking a vote. It only takes one fact to upset a whole theory. That is the reality. Now lets look at sone UNDENIABLE facts, any one of which disproves the man caused, runaway global warming panic:
1. In Antarctic ice core records, CO2 rise occurs an average of 800 years AFTER temperature.
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas – water vapor is the most effective one.
3. Man only emits a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.
4. CO2 rose for about 20 years in mid century while temperatures dropped.
5. Solar cycles match this temperature drop AND matches the last 500 years better than CO2 variations.
6. The word’s highest quality temperature record, the USHCN, maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor and warmer, Jim Henson, shows that 1998 was tied with 1934 for the warmest year in the thermometer record. The record shows cooling since then.
7. Current rates of warming are less than has been seen in the past.
8. Current temperatures are less than have been seen in the past.
9. When they drilled through the Greenland ice, they found trees – from around 500-1000 AD.
Any one of the above UNDENIABLE facts is enough cause to question global warming panic. The best evidence that we have shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s climate.
BTW, RealScience is a site set up to defend Al Gore’s fraudulent hockey stick against the, ultimately successful, criticism of Steve McIntyre. It cannot be relied upon for both sides. I suggest you add these to your information sources: junkscience.com, icecap.us, climateaudit.org, CO2Science.org, science and public policy.org, climate-skeptic.com, WorldClimateReport.com, iceagenow.com. The proper use of all of these sites if for leads to quality journal articles which you then obtain and find out what’s in them. If you actually do this you will see that you have been lied to by the warmer’s – their case is mostly gone.
You mention the ice age scare of the 70s. Here are a few more UNDENIABLE FACTS:
NYT, Feb 24, 1895 – Prospects of another glacial period.
NYT, Oct 7, 1912 – Sees Glacial age coming.
NYT, May 15, 1932 – Melting Polar Ice Caps…
NYT, Feb 20, 1969 – Expert says arctic ocean will soon be ab open sea.
NYT, May 21, 1975 – Scientists ask why climate is changing; major cooling ,may be ahead
Harpers, Sept 1968 – Cover story – the coming ice age.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 – the cooling world.
The reality is that people cycle from one disaster scenario to another as the climate goes through its natural cycles. The difference his time is that the Feds have provided billions in research grants and a few political activists, with doctorate degrees, got the attention of a the press and a foolish politician who is making millions off of the scam.
Bob R. Says: However, the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies conclude that GW exists and that human-produced CO2 emissions are a significant component.
JK: Again this is not a vote. Only one FACT kills a whole theory.
I’ll end with a quote that tells the whole story:
I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are… Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.
Thanks
JK
Instead of arguing whether GW is or is not a problem, how about replying to my brief dissertation on bio-fuels in the plug-in hybrid drivetrain? Are all of you trying to discourage debate? Bio-fuels in the plug-in hybrid? blah blah-blah? blah-blabbedy blah? blabbedy-blabba blabba?
[Moderator: Casual Godwin’s law issue deleted with author’s permission.]
Wells: If the current generation of biofuels don’t give us anything over regular fuels*, (which is what this thread was originally about,) then why are biofuels in plug-in hybrids better than regular fuels in plug-in hybrids?
Don’t get me wrong, I think plug-in hybrids are better than regular engines, but that isn’t the issue here…
(And I personally would prefer woodgas to either regular or bio liquid fuels.)
*There are certain reasons for biofuel usage, in particular, particulate reduction and fuel system cleaning, but…
The point is, and this is what the video was trying to point out, if they keep cutting down the tree’s, even for synfuels, we are all going to be in trouble!
If the amazon goes, kiss the atmosphere with O2 in it goodbye, and then kiss our sweet asses goodbye.
UNDENIABLE facts
Not true. You’ve been shown disputes of these assertions dozens, if not hundreds of times, but you do not budge from repeating them again and again whenever the GW topic comes up. As John E. said so eloquently, “The nature of the biased beast, or believer, is not tolerant or receptive. Least of all open to persuasion.”
But for those who haven’t played along with these assertions before, let’s take a look:
1. In Antarctic ice core records, CO2 rise occurs an average of 800 years AFTER temperature.
In some records after some rare types of events, yes, but that’s not the whole story and it’s not something that’s been ignored by climate scientists. For a good summary, see this article: The lag between temperature and CO2.
See also this article: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas – water vapor is the most effective one.
While it is true that Water Vapor provides the most impact in the natural greenhouse cycle (nobody denies this, by the way), you ignore the cumulative effect of CO2, which stick around much longer, and how it and other gases interact, and the role of water vapor in forming a positive feedback loop.
See this recent article in Slate: Is Global Warming Caused by Water Vapor?
3. Man only emits a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.
The point is that the balance is being tipped. Prior to the industrial revolution, the carbon cycle was in balance. Given the rapid amount of additional CO2 beyond previous long-term cycles which we have been releasing in recent generations, we have far exceeded the ability of the earth to soak it right up. The recorded levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have shot way up.
See this New Scientist article: Greenhouse gases hit new high
4. CO2 rose for about 20 years in mid century while temperatures dropped.
Unlike the assertions of some skeptics, climate scientists consider all inputs. A variety of factors have been considered for the effects on global temperatures in various decades, with CO2 being just one. CO2 is a major factor, but just one in a complex system.
The following is a somewhat snarky blog post, but I think it condenses the argument down nicely to two paragraphs: What About Mid-Century Cooling?
5. Solar cycles match this temperature drop AND matches the last 500 years better than CO2 variations.
Here’s a study published in the journal, Nature: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate
And here’s an article from New Scientist: Sun’s activity rules out link to global warming
6. The word’s highest quality temperature record, the USHCN, maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor and warmer, Jim Henson, shows that 1998 was tied with 1934 for the warmest year in the thermometer record. The record shows cooling since then.
“Science advisor and warmer”? What, does this guy give Al Gore a blanket when he gets chilly?
In your assertion, you conflate a single north-American hot year with a trend. The point is about moving averages. Further, the 1934 average you refer to was for North America, not globally.
See this Physorg.com post: 2007 was tied as Earth’s second warmest year
7. Current rates of warming are less than has been seen in the past.
What do you mean, exactly, but “current rates” and “the past”, here? There are a number of articles on this subject, but if you’re making a specific claim you’re going to have to narrow it down here. Are you perhaps referring to this widely debunked Daily Telegraph article?
Here’s an article which seems topical enough, but until we have your definitions here, it’s hard to tell what periods or trends you are talking about. (Hey, I guess not knowing exactly what you’re talking about counts as “UNDENIABLE”, so score one for JK. ;-) )
From NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels
But perhaps you really were clinging to that Telegraph article. Here’s one of many hundreds of refutations of it: Warming Stopped in 1998
8. Current temperatures are less than have been seen in the past.
Another slippery definition of “the past”. Can you be more specific? After all, at one time in “the past”, the earth cooled from molten rock and didn’t support life at all.
Other warming and cooling periods in “the past” have been associated with mass migrations and mass extinctions. Of primary concern is the _rate_ of change and it’s impacts on existing economies and cultures.
What on earth is your point with this assertion, and how would it disprove that the current warming trend is strongly influenced by human activity?
Of course the earth was warmer in “the past”.
Or do you mean _very_ recent, such as 2003 vs. 1998, as refuted above, etc.?
9. When they drilled through the Greenland ice, they found trees – from around 500-1000 AD.
There was a recent study which found DNA from trees, beetles, and spiders ranging from approx 450,000 to 800,000 years ago: Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core
This study has raised some questions marks about models predicting ice amounts, location, and melt rates over geologic history, but as one of the scientists involved said regarding past sea level rises during warm periods, the water “must have come from some melting of ice somewhere else.”
Legitimate questions deserving of further study, for sure, but not “UNDENIABLE” evidence which disputes human-caused global warming.
I’ve Googled around a bit for scientists drilling the ice and finding trees from 500-1000AD but couldn’t specifically find what you’re referring to, or how such a discovery would totally invalidate current climate theories.
In conclusion:
JK, we’ve been over this before, and I’m not the only one who’s been over it with you. At the very best, you’ve got a couple of items which are debated in some quarters and may have some impact on climate models, but nothing has been presented which is “UNDENIABLE” that refutes the scientific consensus.
I’ve just spent much of the afternoon reading your claims, attempting to find the original sources for those claims, and articles refuting those claims, giving full consideration to what I’ve found, and posting as many links and excerpts as I could here. I really do try to keep an open mind about these things.
Now can we talk about biofuels?
[Moderator Note: Formatting updates have been added for clarity.]
HOLY COW BOB!
I WANT YOU FOR MAYOR!
BOB RICHARDSON FOR MAYOR!!
[Moderator: Discussion of Godwin’s Law violation removed.]
ok bob, you have my permission to remove that post!
lets continue our quest to reduce our dependency on foreign oil please.
lets continue our quest to reduce our dependency on foreign oil please.
I agree.
Bringing it into a local level, TriMet has done a lot to promote the use of B20 biodiesel in its bus fleet.
Fine, except that the environmental benefit of biodiesel has now been largely questioned by numerous sources.
TriMet continues to refuse to purchase hybrid-electric busses, claiming that they are “testing” them. Testing? Transit agencies across the U.S. are snapping them up! King County Metro has over 250 of them in service (which would equate to over 1/3rd of TriMet’s fleet), and another 600+ on order. A large number of these hybrid busses also burn B20 biodiesel giving you the best of both worlds (notwithstanding the question of whether biodiesel is a positive choice for the environment).
Vancouver, BC’s Coast Mountain Bus Company is also heavily invested in alternative fuels, including hydrogen fuel cell busses. Both Seattle and Vancouver also use pure-electric trolley busses (however both of those cities have a far greater amount of hydroelectric in their local generation mix, while Portland obtains a large amount of its power by burning natural gas and coal).
Portland could do well to reduce its dependence on “foreign oil” simply by making a long overdue investment in bus service – by providing reliable, frequent bus service to the entire metropolitan region, using energy efficient hybrid busses, high capacity articulated busses, and trolley busses on certain routes like the 14 and 15 lines.
Unfortunately, Portland is not seriously interested in doing anything with regards towards improving public transit, so we’ll be the greenest highway city where everyone drives a Prius, but everyone is still stuck in traffic while we fight to build wider freeways to accomodate those Priuses.
Before this gets out of hand, can Bob or Jim just link back to one of the previous 37 threads in which you have had the same argument?
we’ll be the greenest highway city
I think its amusing that Portland thinks it has the bragging rights of being the “green” city.
Here’s why I think they’re not….
1. The dump millions of gallons of raw sewage into the river every year. The rebuttal: We’re fixing it. The rebuttal to that: The big dig was commenced after the feds FORCED them to clean up their act. They would still be doing it had the feds not forced them into compliance. (Other cities are still doing it too, esp. SALEM CORVALLLIS and EUGENE).
2. The largest “green” development is in the most unlikely place: the MIDDLE EAST. (Now I can’t remember where I read that story, either in my NY Times or The Economist). Portland’s efforts pale in comparison to what is being done on a much grander scale in other places. I would like to see Portland do something bold like mandate solar panels on top of large structures like malls, city buildings, Metro, etc. and then other cities follow suit.
3. Portland doesn’t even have an electric car dealer, Salem has the only one in Oregon.
BioFuels CAUSE global warming….
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=green+development&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Portland doesn’t even have an electric car dealer
http://eco-motion.com/
BioFuels CAUSE global warming….
Greg, have you forgotten so soon that the New York Times article was the one which precipitated this entire discussion?
At last, the circle is complete.
The largest “green” development is in the most unlikely place: the MIDDLE EAST.
GT, no disrespect, but did you notice we’re not Dubai? We’re not building the world’s greatest suspension bridge, nor the world’s tallest tower.
Dubai and other cities are going excessive, we don’t need to aim that high. We can do a lot of small things to make things better.
How about work with PGE to help subsidize CFL’s out of the electric bills collected, like other cities have worked for?
Eliminate “standard” bulbs, and we’ve just made better use of the energy created, freeing some up for MAX, plug-in hybrids, flat screens, whatever! It’s a win/win! (Er, or, something?)
It seems that electric cars could be feasible in areas that have large sources of alternative energy: wind on the NW coast and Great Lakes, wavepower in BC and Alaska, solar in the Southwest. The trick is getting the weight of the vehicle down (while retaining safety) and getting the performance of the batteries up. Looking at the vehicles at EcoMotion gave me a thought:
Some of the systems used 48volt wheelmotors. Now if you had a large 12volt battery situated at each of four wheel motors, i.e. 4x12v, wired in series, these might power a lightweight vehicle around town and the batteries placed away from the center would provide the needed ballast. A removeable diesel generator mounted low would provide added ballast and recharge the batteries for longer trips. I could see a two passenger fiberglass sportscar with a tubular frame as an attractive vehicle. For example there are kits for Austin-Healey, MG, Ferrari.
I know this is a primitive concept compared to proposed electric technologies. But there is energy to be saved in making a vehicle light–as long as you can keep it from being blown off the road or crushed by a heavier vehicle. There is plenty of free energy on the Oregon Coast—a plug-in hybrid could be recharging at the curb!
Was goodwin a nazi himself?
And bob I also used the ‘born agains’ as the example of “brainwashing” so goodwins law doesnt apply to my statement.
It was nazi’s AND born agains, as being victims of propaganda by witch they become CRYSTALIZED in their points of view, thereby people with contrary positions are wasting breath and/or key strokes in discussions with these sort of people.
Was goodwin a nazi himself?
And bob I also used the ‘born agains’ as the example of “brainwashing” so goodwins law doesnt apply to my statement.
It was nazi’s AND born agains, as being victims of propaganda by witch they become CRYSTALIZED in their points of view, thereby people with contrary positions are wasting breath and/or key strokes in discussions with these sort of people.
Was goodwin a nazi himself?
And bob I also used the ‘born agains’ as the example of “brainwashing” so goodwins law doesnt apply to my statement.
It was nazi’s AND born agains, as being victims of propaganda by witch they become CRYSTALIZED in their points of view, thereby people with contrary positions are wasting breath and/or key strokes in discussions with these sort of people.
“The big dig was commenced after the feds FORCED them to clean up their act.”
IIRC, it was precipitated by a lawsuit brough by citizens (green loonies, the lot of ’em) to compel the City to comply with the Clean Water Act.
Let me ask you this, Greg: would you have supported the very large increase in sewer rates necessary to complete the CSO project, had it not been through a mandate? Why is it that I see some parallel universe in which good Libertarians like yourself decry the big, bad hand of City Hall squeezing out families in order to build a “gold-plated storm drain?”
A little consistency would be nice.
In answer to Matthew’s question, “If the current generation of biofuels don’t give us anything over regular fuels, then why are biofuels in plug-in hybrids better than regular fuels?”, I guess my brief dissertation was unconvincing.
Bio-fuels do give us ‘something’ over petroleum-based fuels. Unlike ‘finite’ petroleum, they’re renewable, they recapture the CO2 they emit in crop rotation, their emissions are cleaner.
Because a hybrid drivetrain strictly regulates engine speed and load, emissions are even further reduced and fuel economy improved.
In the plug-in hybrid, any fuel can remain in the tank whenever battery operation is the main propulsion, particularly for short distance and low-speed trips.
If we can fairly assume electricity will remain less expensive than any fuel, plug-in hybrids thus create an economic incentive to drive less, which comes closest to dealing with the biggest problem automobiles present: we drive them too much, too far, for too many purposes and construct economies around them which make them monopolistic and inequitable, addictive, and culturally destructive.
Plug-in hybrids affect land-use and development patterns. If we are to build the bio-fuel industry, the best application is in plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Wells, good news: You’ve changed my mind. Bad news: Not about biofuels, (I’ve heard about studies like this a few years ago,) but now I don’t like plug in hybrids anymore either.
“Bio-fuels do give us ‘something’ over petroleum-based fuels. Unlike ‘finite’ petroleum, they’re renewable,”
They are renewable, but if we plant them, (instead of food,) it causes the price of food to go up, which results in poor farmers burning down rain forests so they can plant food and make a living… If your only goal is being able to drive after peak oil, then indeed that is a good thing, but the rain forest is nice, and I imagine the people that will starve to death at higher food prices are nice too, but they will be gone. This isn’t a “spoil our view” anti-wind farm argument, this is a “we are going to kill 2 Billion people and destroy a lot of species” if we do this, kind of argument.
“they recapture the CO2 they emit in crop rotation,”
Uhmm, no. Did you read the article at the top of this thread? That is the entire point. They don’t, at least not in a time span of being able to do anything about global warming, (those rain forests had a lot of carbon in them.)
plug-in hybrids thus create an economic incentive to drive less,
And regular cars don’t? I mean, they create a what is known as a “hard knee” in the cost/distance curve, where each additional mile driven is more expensive after a certain point than before a certain point, but the cost per additional mile (after the battery has run low) is exactly the same as what people are paying now anyways, so all this does is make short trips cheaper and the first few miles of a long trip cheaper as well. Assuming electricity is free, what this means that someone who could afford a 5 miles commute with a regular car can now afford a 15 miles commute with a plug in hybrid.
we drive them too much, too far, for too many purposes and construct economies around them which make them monopolistic and inequitable, addictive, and culturally destructive.
But plug in hybrids doesn’t do anything to fix that situation, in fact they do exactly the opposite: They make it easier to drive short distances, the very trips that we should be trying to convince people to walk/bike/take public transit for. People that want to drive 100 miles to go visit their relatives are one thing, but a very different (and smaller) problem than the people that drive half a mile to go to the grocery store. Nobody shouldn’t drive for that trip, (with an exception for semi-trucks full of food,) regardless of if it is in a plug-in hybrid, or a regular old ICE car, based on the parking impacts alone.
But as I said, you’ve changed my mind. Plug in hybrids are now on the list of things that I consider “indulgences” right up there with bio-fuels and carbon offsets.
Let me ask you this, Greg: would you have supported the very large increase in sewer rates necessary to complete the CSO project, had it not been through a mandate? Why is it that I see some parallel universe in which good Libertarians like yourself decry the big, bad hand of City Hall squeezing out families in order to build a “gold-plated storm drain?”
I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal state worker!
My point was that the City of Portland, well knowing that it had a huge problem on it’s hand did NOTHING about the problem until it was FORCED to. My point was that if Portland were so “green” like they brag they are, then this issue should have been tackled back in the 70’s. I also acknowledged that OTHER cities are also facing the same problems so we’re not really that “green”, now, are we? Also, families are fleeing Portland because of a myriad of outlandishly high costs. Sure, out of staters from Maryland, Massachusetts and California (and other places) think it’s a “good deal” but many long time Portlanders are moving into the outlying areas. I love Portland but the political buffonery leaves much to be desired.
Well Matthew, I think you’re just being contrarian. The LA Times published an article titled “The 500 MPG Solution”, regarding plug-in hybrids. This is truly efficient fuel use, but only possible when typical driving distances are kept short and driving overall at a minimum. And the means for households to have a choice about electricity use is like icing on a cake. That you should reject this argument favoring plug-in hybrids is not very credible.
Plug-in hybrids also offer quite a few important safety features that vehicles with standard drivetrains cannot. Do you likewise reject the importance of vehicle safety standards? Tell us that in your opinion, hybrids are unsafe because they’re too quiet and we can end the discussion.
I am still unconvinced that Global Warming is real. Did anyone see the news about record cold in Minnesota, the recent snow in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and southern China? Areas that have never had snow on record! Moreover, if we were really having a global warming crisis they could build something to sequester the CO2 from the air. Come on, we’re the best country in the world we can fix the problem!
“”The 500 MPG Solution”, regarding plug-in hybrids.”
Since you didn’t post the contents of the article, a summary, or a link, I’m going to have to guess what it is about based on the title… (If only you could be counted on to read the titles in this thread in the first place, you wouldn’t be advocating biofuels for them.)
“This is truly efficient fuel use, but only possible when typical driving distances are kept short”
If the driving distances are kept short, then what is the point of a car in the first place? Bike, Walk, Take Public Transit, Move, Densify, etc, etc… (Why didn’t the LA Times write a piece telling people to do that? I can only guess that it might have something to do with the fact that many of their ads, (like most papers) are from car dealers.) Short trips create all sorts of problems anyways, parking is a big one, and once you throw in the parking, you’ll never get the density to support anything but an automobile based culture…
“and driving overall at a minimum.”
No, driving between charges at a minimum. You can still make the 5 trips a day in a car, as long as you plug in between them. I imagine that if plug in hybrids catch on that most places would put outlets in their parking lots. Why? If you have a 10 mile range before you have to use the fuel-based engine, then you’ll tend to shop at stores within 5 miles of your house so that you can make the round trip. But if you can charge at the store too, then you can shop 10 miles from you house, and then use the store’s power to get back home. And there are 4 times as many customers within 10 miles of a store as within 5, and the stores would like 4 times as many customers, so they’ll put in charging stations. Plug in hybrids therefore do nothing to slow down car usage, in fact they do exactly the opposite, in order to get the value from the car that you bought, you need to drive it more.
About 2 years ago, I almost bought an electric car, (they are regularly for sale, used, on craigslist, there was a Ford Ranger EV (60 mph, 60 mile range,) a few days ago,) for exactly the reasons you are arguing, (except for instead of 500 mpg, it was going to be infinity mpg.) Why didn’t I? In order to get $8k (the purchase price) worth of benefit out of it, I needed to drive more. And driving more isn’t the solution, (no matter how the car is actually powered,) the only solution for most of the problems that cars cause is to drive less.
Don’t be confused by the fact that plug in hybrids are better for the same trip than a regular car. Indeed they are. But if they cause people to drive significantly more, then plug in hybrids are worse than regular cars.
“Plug-in hybrids also offer quite a few important safety features that vehicles with standard drivetrains cannot. Do you likewise reject the importance of vehicle safety standards?”
There is an interesting disconnect about car safety. We insist that cars be perfectly safe at all times, when we are in them. But at the same time we’ve created cars with huge blind spots and poor control, so that they are a danger to the people around them, in more ways than one. As such, I have to ask, name a safety feature will keeps millions of people in Bangladesh from drowning as global warming causes the sea levels to rise? (Hint: I’ve mentioned several in this thread already, and you won’t find them being used in any car ever made.)
How about work with PGE to help subsidize CFL’s out of the electric bills collected, like other cities have worked for?
Dave, both PGE and Pacific Power are REQUIRED by STATE LAW to collect a “public purpose charge” which is a 3% (for PGE) fee on your electric bill. A portion of this fee is passed through to the Energy Trust of Oregon which provides a large number of energy conservation programs, funding by your electric bill.
One of the programs they offer is an online home energy audit; by completing it (it takes about ten minutes) they will mail FOUR CFL light bulbs free of charge.
Another program is the 99 cent CFL program that is running at Fred Meyer and other retailers.
I’ve already gotten and installed my four free CFLs (plus purchased a bunch others; plus I still have my free CFL that PGE mailed me about seven years ago), plus purchased a new energy efficient appliance and received a rebate from the Energy Trust of Oregon for it; plus will be obtaining a Department of Energy Tax Credit for it as well.
It’s too bad that TriMet can’t use my dollars in as wise of a manner to purchase new, energy efficient busses.
Eric, thanks for letting me know. I had not heard about that before, but I’ll look into it, it sounds like a great deal. I feel kind of dumb I paid full price at FM for one the other day.
Back to the topic, I agree it seems there’s things better than biofuels that TriMet can do, like upgrading more buses to hybrids, or powering station lights with solar.
Even if they charged $.05 more per fare for a fleet upgrade fund (for both buses and trains, as equipment is in need) they could replace things a little sooner at least. That, or get rid of Fareless Square.
Even if they charged $.05 more per fare for a fleet upgrade fund (for both buses and trains, as equipment is in need) they could replace things a little sooner at least. That, or get rid of Fareless Square.
TriMet already has that, too.
Except they used that money and spent it on MAX; while I get to ride an 18 year old, inefficient, obsolete, polluting bus, that TriMet won’t retire for another two years (unless the bus suffers a major mechanical, of which a number of 1400s already have).
Matthew, I take your point about fuel efficiency leading to more short-distance driving and more driving overall, as has happened over the last 30-40 years though CAFE increased from 16mpg to 27mpg. But, the plug-in hybrid does not offer inexpensive driving as much as a choice about how electricity may be used, either for driving or for household use.
Furthermore, increases in average driving has occurred more because of land-use and development patterns that separate home from all other elements of society, jobs, services, entertainments, etc. Some trips are simply too far to walk or bike, and this development pattern makes mass transit impractical to arrange.
The plug-in hybrid encourages short-distance trips, thus altering the development pattern to bring home closer to the other elements of social and economic structure, eventually making it more possible to walk and bike and arrange mass transit.
You can google “500 mpg Solution” and find many follow-up articles, though the LA Times version may no longer be available on google.
Safety features of hybrids should not be casually dismissed. Electric motor propulsion is not inclined to be overpowered. Their brake systems add advanced regenerative braking. The batteries lower vehicle center-of-gravity, improving stability and handling. Hybrids need not be as ‘vulnerably’ lightweight as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Hybrids are not merely ‘just another car’. Plug-in hybrids can only achieve 500 mpg fuel economy when their daily use is kept at a minimum, probably their most important safety advantage. Their design reduces their use.
I don’t discuss the dire consequences of global warming as much as the means to direct development to withstand any inclement weather. Why are mobile homes permitted in tornado country? Why build in flood zones? Why build homes on hillsides where the only practical access is private autmobile?
GT In Salem says:
“I am still unconvinced that Global Warming is real.”
Well, the Earth COULD get a LOT hotter than it presently is. It has been that way in past aeons. Do we want to find out what it would be like?
OTOH, it could get a lot colder, not good either. This happened in the early 1800’s due to volcanic explosions putting particulates in the air. However, the volume was about a hundred times that of the Mt St Helens eruption(s). Apart from that the price of petroleum fuels is likely to continue to rise over the long run–so why shouldn’t we get weened off of them as soon as we can?
As far as other comments on transportation choices:
I don’t think having a highly energy efficient vehicle means that every trip, then, will be by that vehicle simply because it is convenient. People may still opt for the bicycle or walking for the exercise value. They may opt for the public transit if it is affordable, timely and pleasant. Weather conditions will be a factor and also the health of the person(s).
From what the auto shows indicate I think certain trends look obvious 1. Personal vehicles will remain popular 2. Fuel efficiency is a growing concern 3. Overall afordability will be important 4. Stylish designs will win out over plain Jane, utilitarian concepts 5. Gas guzzlers will lose out–except in niche markets.
I think the SUV era is dead. But cars, of some sort, will remain in demand.
“Furthermore, increases in average driving has occurred more because of land-use and development patterns that separate home from all other elements of society, jobs, services, entertainments, etc. Some trips are simply too far to walk or bike, and this development pattern makes mass transit impractical to arrange.”
But that land use it the result of the fact that it is easy to drive. 1/4 of the building space on my lot is garage, and 1/3rd of my lot is the driveway to get to that garage. Land use and transportation go hand in hand. If you make it less easy to drive, then the land use won’t be spent accommodating the automobile, but actually accommodating people, and then you won’t have to drive in the first place. But if you make it even easier to drive, then you make the land use problem worse, not better.
“The plug-in hybrid encourages short-distance trips,”
No it doesn’t, in fact it does the opposite. Right now, electricity costs about 2 cents a mile for an electric car. In a hybrid car, the gasoline runs about 6 cents a mile. If you can afford a $1 (round trip) commute right now, that means you can work 8 miles from your office. If the plug in hybrid gives you 10 miles of electric travel before you have to kick in the gasoline, that means the same $1 gives you 12 miles, (if you can’t charge at work,) 15 (if you can but you have to pay for it,) or 16 (if you can charge at work for free.) As such, it actually encourages longer trips by making it cheaper to drive, which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. If only you pick one thing to disagree with me on about this post, this is the one you need to disprove.
“thus altering the development pattern to bring home closer to the other elements of social and economic structure, eventually making it more possible to walk and bike and arrange mass transit.”
8 miles each way is bikable now, (I do it everyday,) it takes half an hour. 16 miles, not so much. And if you want a stepping stone towards making it possible to walk, bike, and use transit, actually spend the effort on making it easier to walk, bike, and use transit, not on preserving the automobile for another generation.
“Electric motor propulsion is not inclined to be overpowered.”
We could do the same thing for gasoline engines with a few very simple laws. The Coast Guard actually has laws about maximum motor power for a boat for safety reasons, (with a simple exception process for racing,) it is past time for cars to have similar laws.
“Their brake systems add advanced regenerative braking.”
Which is great for fuel economy, but how does that help safety?
“Hybrids need not be as ‘vulnerably’ lightweight as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.”
Most fuel cell vehicles are hybrids. (Long story: but fuel cells have awful surge performance, so to get the same performance out of a straight fuel cell car as you would out of a hybrid fuel cell car would require 2-3 times the amount of cells, and given that fuel cells are much more expensive than a battery, and they both produce electricity anyways, a battery is the only way to get a fuel cell car anywhere close to economical.) So this argument doesn’t really apply. In any case, I’m not advocating hydrogen anyways. At the very best, it is a scam by petroleum companies to get government grants to find new ways to use fossil fuels, but more likely is that our government would rather hold a false carrot out, than to be honest and tell people that they will have to change their lifestyles to deal with peak oil/climate change.
“Their design reduces their use.”
No it doesn’t. The opposite is true, and repeating that over and over again doesn’t change that.
Well, the Earth COULD get a LOT hotter than it presently is.
Well, I think that’s great. Maybe if the ice melts up north, and on Greenland and Antarctica then they can grow food crops for the world’s booming population. Another benefit, I won’t have to fly to my condos. in Kailua and Manzanillo to escape the dreadful cold in Oregon.
“and on Greenland and Antarctica then they can grow food crops for the world’s booming population”
Except that a bunch of land near the equator gets turned into desert at the same time, so we lose all the farm land that is currently near where the population currently lives. And those places don’t have good soil, (for some reason, being under a glacier tends to result in rocky, nutrient-poor soil,) and it doesn’t change the fact that they also don’t get the right day lengths for any of the food crops that we currently grow…
And then there is the water issue.
Matthew, you and I disagree almost entirely on plug-in hybrids. All your arguments are weak. A daily 8-mile bicycle trip is impossible for most people even in good weather. Fuel cell vehicles are more closely related to a battery operated electric car than a hybrid. Regenerative braking is additional braking power. Electric motor propulsion has a flat torque curve which makes them comparatively weak, but good for towing.
Automobile-related businesses and industries oppose plug-in hybrids for the very reason I’m trying to argue, that they encourage shorter trips. Say you’ve got a plug-in hybrid and rooftop photovoltiac panels charging their batteries; do you leave the car parked to run household appliances, or drive it? This is a choice that these business interests, including the electric company, surely do not want their customers to have as an option.
Anyway, I’m done arguing. Please just drop it. You haven’t overturned my argument the least and never will. The plug-in hybrid is an invaluable technology, especially in an emergency grid failure and to promote solar power.
“All your arguments are weak.”
You didn’t actually respond to the part that I asked you specifically to respond to. You just keep repeating your viewpoint that “plug-in hybrids encourage short trips” over and over again, and when I point out it’s problems you just repeat it some more… So I guess my response to that is: at least I have some.
At best, Ron may be right that plug-in hybrids won’t cause significantly more driving, (given that at $3/gallon at 25 mpg, driving is still fairly cheap in price compared to the amount of time it takes,) but they definitely do nothing to discourage driving in the first place.
“The plug-in hybrid is an invaluable technology, especially in an emergency grid failure and to promote solar power.”
Solar panels are great. I’ve got 2 kw of them on order right now. And right now everyone can choose between generating their own power, or buying it from the electric company, and most people seem pretty keen on buying it from the electric company, so I’m not sure how plug in hybrids would change that…
Being able to deal with grid failure is great, but unless you equip your car with an specially made inverter to take the power from the (250ish volts in the Prius) battery, plug in hybrids don’t help much with that. (And you can buy a battery about as big as the one that would be in the average plug in hybrid, that will be 12V and therefore work with off the shelf inverters, for about $350. Far less than you’ll pay for the specialty inverter.) In any case, right now people could use their cars, (with off the shelf inverters,) to generate power during a power outage, and, (for the most part,) they don’t, so why would people rush out and order a specialty inverter with a couple month lead time for even more money than what they could (but aren’t) doing right now?
And those are questions you need to answer: If people won’t do ‘it’ now (where ‘it’ is: drive less, install solar panels, have a power supply in a blackout,) then what would change their mind when the economics are even less in their favor? When you can answer that question with more than a sound bite, then you will be done arguing.
Bob R. Says: But for those who haven’t played along with these assertions before, let’s take a look:
JK: WOW – 2600 words. I’ll answer in about 1500 words.
1. In Antarctic ice core records, CO2 rise occurs an average of 800 years AFTER temperature.
Bob R. Says: In some records after some rare types of events, yes,
JK: Thank you, but it is not some rare events – it an average of 800 years for those cores. Here is how your source, RealClimate described it:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
The site then goes on to say that CO2 could have continued the warming. Well, so could have the original, unknown, cause. (You don’t suppose it could be the sun do you? – go outside, feel the warmth – that is the sun, not CO2)
Did you happen to notice that we are about 400 years after the little ice age and thus, possibly, within the error bands of that 600 year lower limit. In other words our current CO2 rise may well be the result of coming out of the little ice age.
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas – water vapor is the most effective one.
Bob R While it is true that Water Vapor provides the most impact in the natural greenhouse cycle (nobody denies this, by the way)
JK: Thank You.
3. Man only emits a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.
Bob R The point is that the balance is being tipped. Prior to the industrial revolution, the carbon cycle was in balance.
JK: Prove it – peer reviewed source please.
4. CO2 rose for about 20 years in mid century while temperatures dropped.
Bob R A variety of factors have been considered for the effects on global temperatures in various decades, with CO2 being just one.
JK:Peer reviewed source please.
5. Solar cycles match this temperature drop AND matches the last 500 years better than CO2 variations.
Bob R Here’s a study published in the journal, Nature: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate
JK: Your answer addressed solar output, not solar cycles (actually cycle length) which was my claim. For instance, it has been known for over 200 years that there is a relationship between the price of wheat and sunspots. William Hershel reported that finding to the Royal Society in 1801. (Herschel, W., 1801, Philosophical Transactions, 91, 265.) A rational person might suspect the link involves climate.
More recently, Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, showed that the solar cycle length DOES match that drop in temperature in the 194x – 197x period (Science, 254, 698-700, 1991)
Fig 11 of Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate K.Lassen, Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html shows 500 years of excellent match of solar cycles and temperature. CO2 DOES NOT. Also Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).
Also: denmark.dk/en/menu/AboutDenmark/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ClimateResearch/CosmicRaysAndClimate/
And: Camo & Tung; Geophysical research letters vol. 34, 2007GL030207
6. The word’s highest quality temperature record, the USHCN, maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor and warmer, Jim Henson, shows that 1998 was tied with 1934 for the warmest year in the thermometer record. The record shows cooling since then.
Bob R In your assertion, you conflate a single north-American hot year with a trend.
JK: That single year was the headline used to scare people: 1998 was the warmest year in….
Bob R Further, the 1934 average you refer to was for North America, not globally.
JK: Sorry, but the USHCN data set is the highest quality available. Are you trying to convince us that the world temperature is careening out of control while the USA is unaffected? Laughable. You also forget that the other very high quality data (satellite) shows only slight (not alarming) warming in the Norther hemisphere and none in the Southern. Even the GISS that you seem to like has recently turned down BIG time. Notice the 3/4 degree drop from Jan 07 to Jan 08: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Bob R “It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature,” said Hansen.
JK: You BET!! – only Jan 07 was exceptional (data error?), the rest of the year shows cooling big time. IBID (You always need to look into Hansen’s claims – his lies like Gore.)
7. Current rates of warming are less than has been seen in the past.
Bob R You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire length. This puts us about 1 oC above the temperatures in the first 3 centuries of that record.
JK: Is that a genuine question? If so, you really have been listening to fools – 500 years age was the little ice age – the coolest time in 2000 years.
8. Current temperatures are less than have been seen in the past.
Bob R Can you be more specific?
JK: Again is that a genuine question? Do you not know that we have several, thought to be good, records going back thousands to millions of years. Vostok Ice Core Data, ODP Site 677, North Atlantic Ocean, Tree lines, pollen, glacier extent? Most show that current temperatures are less than they were earlier in our current inter-glacier time. There was a Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Minoan warm period, Egyptian Old Kingdom warm period, etc., most warmer than currently. See “Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP and GRIP Greenland ice cores”, Nature 366, 1993, pp. 552-554 If you are unaware of these records, you absolutely need to learn more, otherwise, please quit playing with us.
9. When they drilled through the Greenland ice, they found trees – from around 500-1000 AD.
Bob R There was a recent study which found DNA from trees, beetles, and spiders ranging from approx 450,000 to 800,000 years ago: Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core
JK: I can’t find my reference either, but I did find the rest of your quote – you left out this part:
Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate…..According to most scientific theories to date, all of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.. sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
You may also want to know that some Alpine glaciers were 300 meteres above there present location in Roman times:
: “Between 1900 and 2300 years ago the lower tips of the glaciers lay at least 300 metres higher than today. At the time of the Romans they would hardly have been recognised as glaciers for the simple reason that their lower reaches lay above the Alpine passes that were used at the time and would not have been an obstacle.“ This would also explain why, in the otherwise very detailed accounts, the Roman chronicles contain hardly any mention of glaciers. Schlüchter says, “These findings call for a fundamental revision of the prevalent view of a relatively strong coverage of the Alps with glaciers since the ice age. Because for long periods the Alps were greener than they are today.”
archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html
Bob R Legitimate questions deserving of further study, for sure, but not “UNDENIABLE” evidence which disputes human-caused global warming.
JK: I did not claim that these dispute human caused global warming. I said that they disproves the man caused, runaway global warming panic:
Bob R JK, we’ve been over this before,
JK: And you still deny my point: We may be warming but there is no case for panic. The most dramatic and alarming claims have bee proven false: The hockey stick is in error and probably a fraud. Using the best available data 1998 was tied with 1934 as the warmest year in the 400 years since the little ice age. (You keep coming back with second rate data from the GISS or rest of the world, a bunch of web sites with no links to peer reviewed stuff and treat a web site run to support the, probably fraudulent, hockey stick is a primary source.) Further we have been warmer than now in the recent past: Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warm periods.
Bob R. Now can we talk about biofuels?
JK: Sure. Biofuels have always been suspect to a reasonable person because the analysis constantly show only a moderate decrease in fossil consumption because of their high fossil fuel content. Some claimed a slight gain and others a slight loss. This plainly shows that we really don’t know and we should not commit national policy until we know.
Thanks
JK
We may be warming but there is no case for panic.
Nice bit of back-tracking there … you’ve previously stated that Global Warming “will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.”
That’s a pretty strong claim, what with “biggest” and “all times” and all that.
I’m glad you’re coming around just a tad.
I agree we shouldn’t panic and that small reasonable steps are a good way to get started as the science continues to move along, so that drastic steps won’t be so drastic if the time comes.
But instead, a great many rhetorical foot-draggers continue to insist that even the most modest steps (the ones which have any serious chance of passing into law and treaty) will be a disaster for the world economy.
After all, JK, you’ve published an article in your December party newsletter (link may not be permanent) which panics readers into thinking Al Gore wants to take our freedoms away: “They claim we must act fast and, by the way, give up our freedoms!” Now that’s what I call PANIC rhetoric!
The plug-in hybrid encourages short trips, Matthew, an argument I have presented ad nauseum. Your lack of faith in humanity and what is possible does not improve your argument against sustainable technology. It’s one thing to be concerned about our degrading environment, and quite another to devise and engineer comprehensive solutions. Just because you have not understood my argument, does not make it a sound bite. I would continue this discussion, but your contrarian attitude is unfairly dismissive. Good luck conducting future debates.
“Your lack of faith in humanity and what is possible does not improve your argument against sustainable technology.”
I’m looking at that, and thinking, well, yes, I don’t have a lot of faith in humanity or technology, but where did I bring that up? And then I realized: I’m having what is fundamentally an economic argument against someone that hasn’t looked at it that way.
Lets start off with an unrelated example: Say you are renting an apartment (2 bedroom, $1000/month just because it keeps the math simple,) and your landlord decides to cut your rent 60% (to $400.) He also tells you that there are some other units in the building that are available, a 1 bedroom at $300, a 3 bedroom at $700, and the 5 bedroom plus private parking space at $1000. Do you stay or move to a different one, and which one?
Most people move to the 3 bedroom unit. (Their logic is that “they get more apartment for less money.”) Some people move to the $1000 one, but the majority don’t. A few people stay in in the 2 bedroom unit. Nobody moves to the 1 bedroom unit. Anyone that was willing to move to the 1 bedroom unit in the first place would have done it back when rents were $1000…
This is very basic supply and demand. If you lower the price of something, (in that case, apartments,) then people, (on average,) consume more of it. #1 Do you agree with that?
Assume that instead of apartments, you are talking about driving. If you lower the cost of driving, then the exact same theory that said that people will move into bigger apartments above says that people will drive more when driving is cheaper. At the moment it doesn’t matter how you exactly you lowered the price of driving, all that matters is the question of: Will people drive more if driving is cheaper. I say that they will drive more. #2 Do you agree with that?
Now: Do plug-in hybrids increase or decrease the cost of driving (compared to non-plug-in hybrids)? I say that they make driving cheaper, by quite a bit for short trips, but also by a little bit for long trips too. #3 Do you agree with that?
If you agree with all three of the conclusions above, then you should agree that plug-in hybrids will result in more driving. #4 If you don’t agree with my logic, then tell me were it doesn’t make sense.
Keep in mind that the only statement that depends upon how plug-in hybrids actually work is #3. For the rest of the statements, plug-in hybrids can make babies laugh and run on litter found on the side of the road, or they can run on crying babies and litter their bodies on the side of the road, and it doesn’t matter to the argument in the slightest.
Matthew, your argument is incomplete. It’s not enough to assume that the less expensive it is to drive, the more people will drive. This is the evidence of your lack of faith in humanity.
As I’ve already stated often, the plug-in hybrid may run household appliances, an economic incentive to use the electricity for household purposes, thus drive less. The same incentive applies with the less expensive electricity encouraging short-distance driving. As fuel prices inevitably rise, long-distance drives when unavoidable are still possible with the plug-in hybrid vehicle, but more expensive, not less expensive.
The plug-in hybrid is the car that need not be driven. Short-distance driving supports and builds local economies, and guides growth whereby more trips can be made without having to drive. It’s not all that complicated.
The technology that we must encourage automobile manufacturers to pursue is plug-in hybrids. They won’t because a safer car lasts years longer. (No Ka-ching) Financiers and insurance brokers don’t support plug-in hybrids for the same reason. Private utility companies don’t support plug-in hybrids because they’re a mere step away from public power. Local and regional economies will eventually replace the global economy, something WalMart and Big Box retail surely oppose. Pick your fights carefully. Opposing plug-in hybrids is exactly what Big Business wants. Who’s side are you on?
Bob R.: We may be warming but there is no case for panic.
Nice bit of back-tracking there … you’ve previously stated that Global Warming “will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.”
JK: What backtracking?
1. Global Warming “will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.”
2. We may be warming but there is no case for panic (ie: we are within historical norms for warming.)
Where is the backtracking?
Bob R.: That’s a pretty strong claim, what with “biggest” and “all times” and all that.
JK: Yep, right up there with eugenics and Lysenko, each of which caused millions of people to die. As will the warming fallacy if we actually implement the measures being thrown about by the believers (except for nuke power.)
Bob R.: I’m glad you’re coming around just a tad.
JK: Coming around? How, in what way? Certainly not to Al Gore’s “chicken little” garbage. In fact, the more I learn, the more I can even make a credible case that we are not as warm as we were in the 1930’s (based on uncorrected errors in the data) and that we may be heading into big time cooling (based on solar cycles.)
A nice example of your GISS data quality is here: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/
Bob R.: I agree we shouldn’t panic and that small reasonable steps are a good way to get started as the science continues to move along, so that drastic steps won’t be so drastic if the time comes.
JK: Please name some “small reasonable steps” that won’t hurt people? (Increasing people’s costs is a hurt. Dictating how they live, where they live and how they travel is a hurt.)
Bob R.: But instead, a great many rhetorical foot-draggers continue to insist that even the most modest steps (the ones which have any serious chance of passing into law and treaty) will be a disaster for the world economy.
JK: They probably will be a disaster – Europe has a carbon tax around $30A per ton, which would increase to about $300A per ton. That will price a lot of low income out of driving and thus loose their jobs, or cause them to waste hours on transit. It will lower everyone’s standard of living. Then there is the effect on the price of electricity – it will more than double in cost. Don’t you think we should be sure before we hurt people?
The only thing that, I know of, that is win-win is nuclear power, and our Luddite class oppose that.
Bob R.: After all, JK, you’ve published an article in your December party newsletter (link may not be permanent) which panics readers into thinking Al Gore wants to take our freedoms away: “They claim we must act fast and, by the way, give up our freedoms!” Top Officials See Bleaker Outlook for the Economy
JK: Please stick to what I actually wrote. Here it is:
Al Gore says We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html)
Ross Gelbspan , author of The Heat Is On has a proposal: … an end to the free-market fundamentalism that has blinded much of the American public… http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/10/165845/92
They claim we must act fast and, by the way, give up our freedoms! Well. I agree that they have to act fast: Their case for global warming is dissolving before their eyes:
JK: You will note that “They” is not specific to Al Gore, unlike your false claim. Further the Gelbspan quote does qualify as taking away our freedom, because you cannot stop the free market without taking away freedom.
JK: I DO hope you paid attention to the graph in that article – it makes a much more rational case for the real cause of warming than the CO2 hypothesis.
JK: You quoted me: “They claim we must act fast and, by the way, give up our freedoms Please compare that to Al Gore’s statement: a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. Who is the alarmist?
One last item, from last time:
Bob R You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire
One last item, from last time:
Bob R You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire length. This puts us about 1 oC above the temperatures in the first 3 centuries of that record.
JK: I am still wondering – did you not know that there are longer records that show past temperatures were warmer than current times?
For a prime example of the bad data, that Gore et.al. relies on, don’t miss this: climateaudit.org/?p=2731#comments
Thanks
JK
Wells Says: … the biggest problem automobiles present: we drive them too much, too far, for too many purposes and construct economies around them
JK: Why are any of these a problem? They are just activities of people enjoying their freedom to travel. Are you suggesting that we restrict freedom to travel, freedom to live where they want?
Wells Says: which make them [economies] monopolistic and inequitable, addictive, and culturally destructive.
JK: Can you prove any of these wild claims? Peer reviewed stuff only please.
Wells Says: Plug-in hybrids affect land-use and development patterns.
JK: Yeah, they have the potential to improve people’s standard of living, by allowing longer commutes to lower cost housing further out. Why is improving people’s standard of living a bad thing?
Thanks
JK
Matthew Says: If the driving distances are kept short, then what is the point of a car in the first place? Bike, Walk, Take Public Transit, Move, Densify, etc, etc…
JK: Why would we want to waste time on transit, bikes or walking when we can save time by driving. Further, driving costs less than the real cost of transit.
Matthew Says: Short trips create all sorts of problems anyways, parking is a big one, and once you throw in the parking, you’ll never get the density to support anything but an automobile based culture…
JK: Only about 5% of the people live in densities that support transit. Why do you think that most people want to
live in high density? How many people have you heard say “I just couldn’t find the right TOD, so I had to settle for this house on a ½ acre lot in a crime free neighborhood with good schools?”
Matthew Says: Plug in hybrids therefore do nothing to slow down car usage, in fact they do exactly the opposite, in order to get the value from the car that you bought, you need to drive it more……the only solution for most of the problems that cars cause is to drive less…..But if they cause people to drive significantly more, then plug in hybrids are worse than regular cars.
JK: Just what is the problem you have with people freely traveling where they want, when they want and how they want. Why do you want to tell others how to live. I’ll bet you wouldn’t like Bush telling you how to live.
Thanks
JK
“Pick your fights carefully. Opposing plug-in hybrids is exactly what Big Business wants. Who’s side are you on?”
This is a violation of the last part of Rule 3.
And it is really irreverent to the discussion anyways: who is on which side of a situation doesn’t automatically make the situation right or wrong, the situation itself does that in the first place. If big business thinks puppies are cute, you don’t automatically think they are ugly, do you?
But I’ll answer it just the same: Since I don’t own a car, have a solar hot water heater, have solar electric panels on order, and have only been in a WalMart once in my life, (I was with my grandfather, in LA,) and generally try to avoid the global economy as much as possible, (for instance, last week I moved my checking account from a large multinational bank, to a bank that stretches all the way from St Johns to NE 60th,) and last week was advocating on this very blog that PGE be taken over by the city, I can assure you that I’m not on the side of Big Business.
“As fuel prices inevitably rise, long-distance drives when unavoidable are still possible with the plug-in hybrid vehicle, but more expensive, not less expensive.”
So you disagree with the long trip portion of #3. (It really is a lot easier to talk about this when I don’t have to guess about what exactly your problem with my argument is.)
Lets say that a regular hybrid uses “c” dollars of fuel (gas, diesel) to drive a mile. A plug in hybrid uses “a” dollars of fuel (electricity) to drive a mile, but only for the first few miles (the number of miles is “b”.) After those few miles in the battery are up, the plug in hybrid also uses gas or diesel and since it is also a hybrid, 3a: it also uses the same “c” dollars of fuel to drive a mile as the regular hybrid.
So do you agree with all of this:
3b: c > a (gasoline/diesel is more expensive than electricity per mile)
For a trip of “x” miles, where x <= b (so entirely on the electric range of the plug-in hybrid) the cost of the trip is:
a*x for the plug-in hybrid
c*x for the regular hybrid
So now we can ask: Is a*x larger or smaller than c*x?
c*x ? a*x
Divide by x, (x is positive.)
c ? a
c > a (from 3b above) so (3c:) it is cheaper to drive the plug-in hybrid for a short trip than a regular one.
What about the long trips?
The cost is still:
c*x for the regular hybrid
But for the plug-in hybrid, it uses battery power (a) until it runs out after (b) miles, and then kicks over into the gas/diesel (c) for the rest of the trip (x-b), so the cost is
a*b+c*(x-b)
So, solve:
c*x ? a*b+c*(x-b)
Distribute the term in the second expression:
c*x ? a*b+c*x-c*b
Rearrange some the terms in the second expression
c*x ? a*b-c*b+c*x
Subtract out c*x
0 ? a*b-c*b
Divide by b (b is positive)
0 ? a-c
Add c
c ? a
And from 3b
c > a
So putting the “>” sign in for the “?” back at the top:
c*x > a*b+c*(x-b)
So regular hybrids are more expensive than plug in ones for long trips. And since we already showed that they are more expensive for short trips too, which means that plug-in hybrids are cheaper for all trips. (That is #3)
Note: it doesn’t matter how expensive oil gets, if c is .06 like it is right now, or 60, the results are the same, plug in hybrids are still cheaper to drive for all trips than regular ones. If electricity becomes more expensive than oil, (if a >c), then plug in hybrids are more expensive than regular ones, but again, for all trips. (In which case, nobody would buy a plug-in hybrid at all.)
“As I’ve already stated often, the plug-in hybrid may run household appliances, an economic incentive to use the electricity for household purposes, thus drive less.”
No, most people would simply buy more electricity (with the money they saved on gas) in that situation. And who told you that the electric companies were against this anyways? I’m fairly sure that the electric companies would love it. They make more money the more power they sell. They make about 10% profit, by state law, and if they have to build more power plants to power our cars, then that means they make more money.
“It’s not enough to assume that the less expensive it is to drive, the more people will drive.”
You can’t use terms like “economic incentives” in one sentence, and then claim that the laws of supply and demand aren’t true! If you make it less expensive to drive, people will drive more, if you make it more expensive, people will drive less. That is what is called an economic incentive. Most people that want to convince people to drive less are in favor of a carbon tax or congestion charges, or something like that that makes driving more expensive. You are the only person I’ve ever met that has claimed that making driving cheaper will make people drive less.
“This is the evidence of your lack of faith in humanity.”
This is evidence that I think that most people do what is in their personal best interests. And yes, that is pretty much my problem with humanity.
Matthew Says: If the driving distances are kept short, then what is the point of a car in the first place? Bike, Walk, Take Public Transit, Move, Densify, etc, etc…
JK: Why would we want to waste time on transit, bikes or walking when we can save time by driving. Further, driving costs less than the real cost of transit.
Matthew Says: Short trips create all sorts of problems anyways, parking is a big one, and once you throw in the parking, you’ll never get the density to support anything but an automobile based culture…
JK: Only about 5% of the people live in densities that support transit. Why do you think that most people want to
live in high density? How many people have you heard say “I just couldn’t find the right TOD, so I had to settle for this house on a ½ acre lot in a crime free neighborhood with good schools?”
Matthew Says: Plug in hybrids therefore do nothing to slow down car usage, in fact they do exactly the opposite, in order to get the value from the car that you bought, you need to drive it more……the only solution for most of the problems that cars cause is to drive less…..But if they cause people to drive significantly more, then plug in hybrids are worse than regular cars.
JK: Just what is the problem you have with people freely traveling where they want, when they want and how they want. Why do you want to tell others how to live. I’ll bet you wouldn’t like Bush telling you how to live.
BTW, there is VERY LITTLE relationship between daily vehicle miler per capita and population density. People living in densities of 11 people per sq mile (100 acre farms) drive about the same as people living in densities triple that of Portland. Of course this is because people no longer have to go downtown to work. In fact down towns are irrelevant to most people. They are essentially obsolete. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
Thanks
JK
Matthew, I’m sticking with my argument, period, done, end of story. You’re going way overboard trying to make the contrary argument logical. I’ve already explained it, ad nauseum. You don’t agree. Fine. By the way, Economics 101 is total BS. Competition does not result in better products and lower prices. Invisible hand of the market? Yeah, right. Like Billy Crystal said in Princess Bride, “Have fun storming the castle.”
JK, you really need to improve your quoting style. You’re attributing things to me which I did not say — they are items which I quoted earlier, in a clear and referenced way. It gets hard to follow.
I’m not going to continue this with you here because this is not primarily a “debate the existence of Global Warming” thread. To sum up: You said that you had “UNDENIABLE” (in all caps, no less) proof, and I showed you multiple sources which refute the assertions that you posted.
You keep moving the goal posts and obfuscating and backtracking and distracting. You’ve got dedication and perseverance, I admire that, but you can’t back up your original, clearly stated, claim.
Like Billy Crystal said in Princess Bride, “Have fun storming the castle.”
You do realize, of course, that the characters in that movie were ultimately _successful_ at storming the castle.
Like Inigo Montoya said in the Princess Bride: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Sigh.
“I’ll bet you wouldn’t like Bush telling you how to live.”
If you seriously thought that people had a problem with that, then why are you telling people how to live in this thread right here? Are you just trying to make enemies? My problem isn’t that I don’t like being told how to live, it is that I don’t like being told how to live that isn’t intelligent for the long term. In other words, I don’t like bad advice. And it doesn’t matter if it is Al Gore, or G W Bush telling me the advice, if it is bad, I don’t like it, and if it is good, I do. In other words, the message is much more important than the messenger, (although I’ve learned over time that some messengers tend to be better on average than others.) As such, if Bush wants to tell me that I should bicycle more, (hey, it could happen, Bush is a big bicyclist after all,) I’d think that was great. But what Bush seems to be telling me to do is max out my credit cards on worthless junk. And that is ultimately a bad idea, which is why I’ve got a problem with it…
You seem to be suffering from the same problem as Wells in that regard, so I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Who is on which side of a situation doesn’t automatically make the situation right or wrong, the situation itself does that in the first place.
The situation, Matthew, is when we all think we’re right and our opponents wrong, we end up in a stalemate. You make some defendable points, so does Jim Karlock, so do I. When stalemate is reached, it’s better to conclude so rather than go on and on at length. Your incomplete argument will never convince me that plug-in hybrid technology doesn’t offer invaluable advantages. I do not need to prove that you are wrong on that point. You may never convince some political ideologues to admit to any advantage or benefit in rail transit systems, nor do you need to. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve spent framing your argument, but the best argument is the simplest one.
Bob R. Says: JK, you really need to improve your quoting style. You’re attributing things to me which I did not say — they are items which I quoted earlier, in a clear and referenced way. It gets hard to follow.
JK: If I distorted the meaning I apologize, I was probably just trying to shorten the overall message.
Bob R. Says: To sum up: You said that you had “UNDENIABLE” (in all caps, no less) proof,
JK: Here is what I actually said (in italics here):
Now lets look at sone UNDENIABLE facts, any one of which disproves the man caused, runaway global warming panic: (you really need to be more careful about misquoting me.)
Bob R. Says: and I showed you multiple sources which refute the assertions that you posted.
JK: You did not disprove any of the facts , instead you mostly tried to argue that these facts were not important.
Lets review my facts:
1. In Antarctic ice core records, CO2 rise occurs an average of 800 years AFTER temperature.
–You answer was mostly off topic, finally saying that Hansen anticipated this 17 years earlier (then why did Al Gore imply that CO2 that caused the temperature rises in that big chart of his which is based on the same ice cores?)
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas – water vapor is the most effective one.
–You affirmed this fact.
3. Man only emits a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.
—You did not address this fact.
4. CO2 rose for about 20 years in mid century while temperatures dropped.
— You did not argue against this fact, rather you offered several explanations.
5. Solar cycles match this temperature drop AND matches the last 500 years better than CO2 variations.
– You ignored this fact and offered articles about solar intensity (the real link is now thought to be cosmic radiation affecting cloud formation.)
6. The word’s highest quality temperature record, the USHCN, maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor and warmer, Jim Henson, shows that 1998 was tied with 1934 for the warmest year in the thermometer record. The record shows cooling since then.
— You did not address this fact. You observed the obvious that this is USA only record (the US in USHCN)
7. Current rates of warming are less than has been seen in the past.
—- you offered a non peer reviewed NASA web page and a laughable attack on a Bob Carter article. At least you actually addressed the original claim. BTW thanks for the Bob Carter link – saved me the time to find it.
8. Current temperatures are less than have been seen in the past.
—-You offered no refutation.
9. When they drilled through the Greenland ice, they found trees – from around 500-1000 AD.
—-I slightly screwed up here. It was plant remains at the edge of the retreating Greenland ice cap that dated A.D 800 – 1014AD, not at the bottom a bore hole. see: agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22C13A-04%22
In summary, you did not even try to refute 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8. The only claims that you even tried to offer facts against were 7 and 9. In most cases, you only tried to show that the stated fact was irreverent, while being unable to actually refute the fact.
So, your claim of I showed you multiple sources which refute the assertions that you posted. is simply incorrect.
PS: When the temperature history is revised for the most recently discovered errors, it probably will be conclusively shown that the 1930s were far warmer than recently and the whole CO2 thing will blow up, putting egg all over many faces.
For an example of how bad our temperature records are see: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2741#comments
Thanks
JK