First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record

[metis]

Did you note the scientists who are skeptical and found the paper unconvincing and dubious....Dr Curry, Dr Trenberth, etc., these are names that carry weight....so bad mouthing them only shows your true colours as a closed minded agw alarmist...

There's a difference between being skeptical and falsehoods, and you have chosen to believe the politically-motivated propaganda and not what the vast majority of climate scientists have concluded. Secondly, I did not bad mouth either of the men above, so all you have done is to resort to lying in order to try and demean what I've posted. You have drawn one absolutely idiotic conclusion after another with what I have posted, only linked us to politically-motivated websites, and then lied to try and justify your position.

I've had enough of your dishonorable tactics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I assumed that when we talked about deniers we were talking about deniers. If you're just skeptical, that's fine, but we still should act as if it was true, because if it is true, we've done the right thing, and if it's not true, then we've still done the right thing.

Uh. To deny that AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming. I'm not sure how denial of AGW can agree to that CO2 contribute to warming. To me, denying AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with warming.

I'm confused about what you said there. You mean they do not accept humans as main cause?

There's no reason to spend money on reducing particulate pollution and global warming adaptation if pollution is considered a non-issue regarding global warming.

Obama is trying to push regulation into carbon pollution. The opponents are trying everything they can to stop these regulations because they believe it only costs money for something that doesn't have to be fixed. This is an example of how rejection of pollution is not regulating reduction in pollution, but rather resist the attempts to reduce pollution.

The majority of skeptics who actually follow the science...not the arm chair ones....they are not deniers of CO2 as having an effect....nevertheless the agw activists generally consider anyone who is not fully onside as a denier....

Yes, you are correct....sorry about that...it should read they do not accept humans as main cause..I will edit the original post...

Particulate pollution is a health issue....that's why it should be addressed...

 

[Ouroboros]

The majority of skeptics who actually follow the science...not the arm chair ones....they are not deniers of CO2 as having an effect....nevertheless the agw activists generally consider anyone who is not fully onside as a denier....

Can you mention some effects that the deniers are agreeing with the science on?

Yes, you are correct....sorry about that...it should read they do not accept humans as main cause..I will edit the original post...

I thought so, or the argument would've been very confusing.

Particulate pollution is a health issue....that's why it should be addressed...

You mean dust and dirt, like particles. So, can you explain again how denying pollution relating o global warming lead to the awareness or agreement on particulate pollution? I still don't see deniers of anthropogenic global warming being in the forefront of reducing pollution. So far, it seems to be the opposite. Do you have an example of a law, regulation, action, committee, anything from the deniers of anthropogenic global warming against pollution? Let's say some activist group that is publicly rejecting the human involvement and pollution for global climate change, but are working hard on reducing pollution in other areas.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting technical oddity....
If AGW is important to address, but other pollution isn't, then this opens up an opportunity to alter emissions measures on cars & trucks. Move from various compression ratio Otto cycle engines to Diesel cycle (both compression ignition & spark ignition....depending upon fuel). This would cut CO2 emissions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you mention some effects that the deniers are agreeing with the science on?

I thought so, or the argument would've been very confusing.

You mean dust and dirt, like particles. So, can you explain again how denying pollution relating o global warming lead to the awareness or agreement on particulate pollution? I still don't see deniers of anthropogenic global warming being in the forefront of reducing pollution. So far, it seems to be the opposite. Do you have an example of a law, regulation, action, committee, anything from the deniers of anthropogenic global warming against pollution? Let's say some activist group that is publicly rejecting the human involvement and pollution for global climate change, but are working hard on reducing pollution in other areas.

There is no canon on what exactly a denier believes....denier is a concept created by agw alarmists...and most of them use the term to describe anyone who questions the agw claims.. I've already told you that scientific skeptics accept that CO2 is a GHG...but that natural climate variation is a greater effect...

Pollution...think Chinese smoke stacks...cars exhausts, etc., this is mainly particulate pollution and does not cause global warming...the CO2 content is invisible and is a GHG. Some skeptics are active against particulate pollution....but since most of the environmentalist orgs are rabid agw believers and conflate the two issues...it is problematic wrt skeptics joining.. Personally, while I would like to see all pollution that affects the health of life on earth reduced....I am not up to speed as to the state of play wrt what is happening about it...my interest is climate change...

 

[Ouroboros]

There is no canon on what exactly a denier believes....denier is a concept created by agw alarmists...and most of them use the term to describe anyone who questions the agw claims.. I've already told you that scientific skeptics accept that CO2 is a GHG...but that natural climate variation is a greater effect...

Pollution...think Chinese smoke stacks...cars exhausts, etc., this is mainly particulate pollution and does not cause global warming...the CO2 content is invisible and is a GHG. Some skeptics are active against particulate pollution....but since most of the environmentalist orgs are rabid agw believers and conflate the two issues...it is problematic wrt skeptics joining.. Personally, while I would like to see all pollution that affects the health of life on earth reduced....I am not up to speed as to the state of play wrt what is happening about it...my interest is climate change...

I understand. The AGW skeptic can have views and opinions about pollution that reaches beyond AGW in particular. With that, I'm not going to argue the issue any further. I think we've beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting technical oddity....
If AGW is important to address, but other pollution isn't, then this opens up an opportunity to alter emissions measures on cars & trucks. Move from various compression ratio Otto cycle engines to Diesel cycle (both compression ignition & spark ignition....depending upon fuel). This would cut CO2 emissions.

Interesting point.

Question for you. Is it possible that any of the issues of global pollution and how it affects the world been part of pushing the industry to produce more efficient engines, hybrids, and electric cars? Or are the reasons to these new engines and inventions something else?

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting point.

Question for you. Is it possible that any of the issues of global pollution and how it affects the world been part of pushing the industry to produce more efficient engines, hybrids, and electric cars? Or are the reasons to these new engines and inventions something else?

I see the following reasons for more efficient power sources in cars.....
- Government fuel economy standards
- Consumer demand
- Public relations
- Competition
AGW doesn't appear to be a motivating factor in the companies.
First & foremost, they must survive, & that means selling what the customer will buy while keeping government off their backs.
Note: Cutting some kinds of pollution is sometimes at odds with efficiency, which results in increased CO2 emissions, especially during the 1970s.

 

[Ouroboros]

I see the following reasons for more efficient power sources in cars.....
- Government fuel economy standards
- Consumer demand
- Public relations
- Competition
AGW doesn't appear to be a motivating factor in the companies.
First & foremost, they must survive, & that means selling what the customer will buy while keeping government off their backs.

Elon Musk (Tesla) has made comments regarding global warming. At least when it comes to Space-X. Perhaps his view that drives him behind Space-X was the same as for making the Tesla?

Ah. Found it.

At 36 seconds in. Elon Musk explains why he wanted to make an electric car. He uses the term "global warming."

 

[Revoltingest]

Elon Musk (Tesla) has made comments regarding global warming. At least when it comes to Space-X. Perhaps his view that drives him behind Space-X was the same as for making the Tesla?

Ah. Found it.

At 36 seconds in. Elon Musk explains why he wanted to make an electric car. He uses the term "global warming."

It's interesting that he says the car doesn't add carbon emissions.
This is prevarication because while the car itself has no tailpipe emissions, it does have smokestack emissions (in electricity generation).
Thus, I say he's pushing a marketing/public relations angle.
The $100,000+ sports car market is so small that it would never affect AGW in any measureable way.
Moreover, if he didn't say such things he just might lose his @$10K/car governement subsidy.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's interesting that he says the car doesn't add carbon emissions.
This is prevarication because while the car itself has no tailpipe emissions, it does have smokestack emissions (in electricity generation).

Sure. That's why he also have SunCity. A couple of the charging station (if I understand it right) are solar powered.

Thus, I say he's pushing a marketing/public relations angle.

Perhaps. The video is from 2006. I'm not sure he even had the company off the ground at that point, and no subsidiaries either.

The $100,000+ sports car market is so small that it would never affect AGW in any measureable way.

True. But he started it with that vision to prove that cars can be made pollution free. Hence, also his interest in SolarCity.

Moreover, if he didn't say such things he just might lose his @$10K/car governement subsidy.

As I said above, I think this video (2006) was before he got any.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. That's why he also have SunCity. A couple of the charging station (if I understand it right) are solar powered.

A solar power station here is independent from electricity the car uses.
It will nonetheless pull it from the grid, & the US burns a whole lotta coal.

Perhaps. The video is from 2006. I'm not sure he even had the company off the ground at that point, and no subsidiaries either.

Do you really mean "subsidiaries"?

True. But he started it with that vision to prove that cars can be made pollution free. Hence, also his interest in SolarCity.

It isn't pollution free.
The power comes from the grid.

As I said above, I think this video (2006) was before he got any.

Were I in the market for a spendy sports car, the Tesla would be a compelling choice.
But from a public policy standpoint, I think it's wrong to heavily subsidize a product which has little benefit.

 

[Ouroboros]

A solar power station here is independent from electricity the car uses.
It will nonetheless pull it from the grid, & the US burns a whole lotta coal.

It will, but the plan for SolarCity in relation to Tesla (if I understand it right) is to have a whole series of power station that are off the grid.

Do you really mean "subsidiaries"?

No. I meant subsidies. That's what happens after a glass of wine. Be warned. It messeses ups the gramafication and wordification.

It isn't pollution free.
The power comes from the grid.

With the new battery plan for houses, and the solar panels, the idea is to get off the grid: Tesla and SolarCity Team Up to Create New Off-the-Grid Solar Power Storage System Tesla and SolarCity Team Up to Create Off the Grid Solar Power Storage System – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Were I in the market for a spendy sports car, the Tesla would be a compelling choice.

They're working on a less expensive version. Model 3. Estimate, last time I saw, about 35,000, which is only a few thousand more than the average car on the market (average I think was 33,000, but I'd have to look it up).

But from a public policy standpoint, I think it's wrong to heavily subsidize a product which has little benefit.

Sure. Just like the car makers got a couple of billions to save them from crashing a few years back in bailouts. Over 9 billion was it? Tesla, subsidies, I doubt it gets that high, does it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. Just like the car makers got a couple of billions to save them from crashing a few years back in bailouts. Over 9 billion was it? Tesla, subsidies, I doubt it gets that high, does it?

Note that Ford didn't need saving. It planned well ahead, unlike Chrysler & GM.
But bailouts are a separate matter. And doesn't gov claim to have been paid back?
Heavy gov subsidy of Tesla continues.
There are better areas where subsidy would create more conservation per dollar.....
- Removing tax penalties for capital expenditures on real estate energy saving upgrades.
- Encouraging fuel efficient cheap cars & trucks.
- Increasing fuel tax.....er.....uh....this would actually increase revenue.
- Ending the ethanol debacle.......more tax savings.
- Subsidize LED lighting to replace fluorescent, incandescent & halogen.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First Five Months Of 2015 Were The Hottest Ever Recorded | IFLScience

Nuff said. Or is this not yet enough evidence of global climate change.

Climate changes. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it. Now, if you can tell me why CERN is investigating the effect of solar flux in relation to GCR affects on cloud coverage to understand why leading scientists argue that the bulk of warming can be explained by this, why NASA gave medals to the two scientists who are most qualified in the world to understand the satellite records (as they developed the methods to use MSU readings as proxies), or even something so basic as why we are never presented with surface temperature data only surface temperature simulations, then by all means let us discuss how serious this problem is (and it is). Until then, sensationalist BS like this is no better than "denialist' BS.

 

[Revoltingest]

Climate changes. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it. Now, if you can tell me why CERN is investigating the effect of solar flux in relation to GCR affects on cloud coverage to understand why leading scientists argue that the bulk of warming can be explained by this, why NASA gave medals to the two scientists who are most qualified in the world to understand the satellite records (as they developed the methods to use MSU readings as proxies), or even something so basic as why we are never presented with surface temperature data only surface temperature simulations, then by all means let us discuss how serious this problem is (and it is). Until then, sensationalist BS like this is no better than "denialist' BS.

I'm glad yer back!
Nuthing beats healthy skepticism towards all sides, particularly when there's so much yet to learn.

 

[Ouroboros]

Note that Ford didn't need saving. It planned well ahead, unlike Chrysler & GM.
But bailouts are a separate matter. And doesn't gov claim to have been paid back?

Sure. But it was money spent on bonus packages for the management to congratulate them for poor jobs and overproducing cars that people didn't buy.

Heavy gov subsidy of Tesla continues.

Sure. But GM and Chryster are getting more ZEV credits than Tesla. Tesla is only the double of what Ford gets. So if Tesla is so bad for taking that money... then why are the other ones doing it too?

Zero Emission Vehicle Credits

Tesla 276 k.
Ford 167 k.
GM 654 k !!!
Chrysler 415 k !!!
You can see the whole list in the link above (granted, it's 2012 numbers)

Ford is getting 900 k credits for NEVs, something that Tesla does not.

There are better areas where subsidy would create more conservation per dollar.....
- Removing tax penalties for capital expenditures on real estate energy saving upgrades.

Sure. I don't see it as either or. It helps in all areas. Solar panels is a growing industry and especially here in SoCal, it's large enough that it has had positive effects on the power grid. (Don't remember the number, but they were quite substantial.)

- Encouraging fuel efficient cheap cars & trucks.

Uhm... Isn't that what these electric and hybrid cars are about? Tesla is working on a van. And I don't remember which company, but there are work going on for SUV, and trucks.

Hybrids and electrics are very expensive today though, even with the ZEV credits.

But since you're against electric cars, what would you suggest being a "fuel efficient" car? What technology or invention could be used to make that happen that hasn't been done already?

- Increasing fuel tax.....er.....uh....this would actually increase revenue.
- Ending the ethanol debacle.......more tax savings.
- Subsidize LED lighting to replace fluorescent, incandescent & halogen.

Those things can be done without removing the incentive for producing and selling electric cars. It's not an either-or here.

The thing is, if AGW is true, we have to do everything we can. Not just whatever we feel like. But really, everything. Why? Because the alternative is worse. If AGW isn't true, then we have at least made every effort to improve the situation of pollution.

Here's another Tesla news: First Solar-Powered Tesla Supercharger Nearly Ready | CleanTechnica
In other words, free charging stations for the Tesla owners. Completely solar charged.

 

[metis]

The movement to green is going to have its ups and downs, much like with our space program decades ago. The point is that we need to try, and other countries need to as well and many are. When it comes to research, there's not many guarantees that can be promised, but for the sake of human well-being and our planet, we need to keep pressing on. Even money poorly spent still gets circulated throughout the economy, but money wisely spent obviously can bring many more benefits.

Press on, but wisely so.

 

[Ouroboros]

Climate changes. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it. Now, if you can tell me why CERN is investigating the effect of solar flux in relation to GCR affects on cloud coverage to understand why leading scientists argue that the bulk of warming can be explained by this, why NASA gave medals to the two scientists who are most qualified in the world to understand the satellite records (as they developed the methods to use MSU readings as proxies),

You mean, solar activity as the explanation to global warming?

This is what I read on NASA's website about global warming and the sun:

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

• If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

or even something so basic as why we are never presented with surface temperature data

Can you explain what NASA GISStemp is then? I thought that was a record of surface temperature data, but I could be wrong. It sure sounds like from their explanation that it's a database of measurements of surface temperatures.

only surface temperature simulations, then by all means let us discuss how serious this problem is (and it is). Until then, sensationalist BS like this is no better than "denialist' BS.

I'm confused. The link Monk gave was an article about the highest temperatures recorded. Are you saying that the heat records we're having currently are just temperature simulations?

I'm also confused from your response to that article since the article is mostly about that we're having heat records. Now, if the explanation to global warming isn't anthropogenic, but caused by the sun, radiation, or something else, does that mean that global warming and heat records aren't happening? Does the explanation and cause to global warming negate that we're having a global warming? Your response sounded like that. Perhaps you can explain what you meant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But it was money spent on bonus packages for the management to congratulate them for poor jobs and overproducing cars that people didn't buy.

You don't have to convince me to oppose bail-outs.
But this ugly history with giving my tax money to failures doesn't justify huge subsidies to Tesla either.

Sure. But GM and Chryster are getting more ZEV credits than Tesla. Tesla is only the double of what Ford gets. So if Tesla is so bad for taking that money... then why are the other ones doing it too?
Zero Emission Vehicle Credits

Tesla 276 k.
Ford 167 k.
GM 654 k !!!
Chrysler 415 k !!!
You can see the whole list in the link above (granted, it's 2012 numbers)

Ford is getting 900 k credits for NEVs, something that Tesla does not.

I should make it clear that there are more dysfunctional subsidies out there than just Tesla.
This situation is not self-justifying.

Silly analogy time....
I oppose invading Iran.
The fact that we've invaded other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) doesn't convince me that a pre-emptive attack on Iran is worth doing.

So how should we view subsidies?
I say we should get the greatest benefit per dollar.
Consider Tesla....
Tesla and Its Subsidies | National Review Online
Tesla Motors - Annual Report
With a large operating profit loss on the Model S, it's real value is in generating fed ZEV credits.
(It reminds me of how Cadillac used to be in the air conditioner business....they built cars just to create a market for their AC option.)
The subsidy is in the neighborhood of $40,000 per car (combining company ZEV credits & customer tax credits).
If this taxpayer burden were applied to cheap cars (eg, Prius, Volt), there would be far great benefit to society.
But Teslas are exciting sexy playthings for the rich & famous, so politicians fall under that spell.

Sure. I don't see it as either or. It helps in all areas. Solar panels is a growing industry and especially here in SoCal, it's large enough that it has had positive effects on the power grid. (Don't remember the number, but they were quite substantial.)

We don't have unlimited resources. We cannot do everything.
The issue is what we do with the money allocated.
Whatever money is given to Tesla & its customers, that same money could do more good elsewhere.
Example:
Allowing businesses to expense conversion from fluorescent to LED lighting would reduce fossil fuel usage more.
But gov says it can't afford to give us this.

Solar panels are an entirely independent issue.
If they're worth doing, then they're worth doing for general applications (eg, toasters, TVs), & not just electric cars.
If Musk gets involved in these, it doesn't change the economics & environmental impact of Tesla's cars.

Uhm... Isn't that what these electric and hybrid cars are about? Tesla is working on a van. And I don't remember which company, but there are work going on for SUV, and trucks.

Hybrids and electrics are very expensive today though, even with the ZEV credits.

But since you're against electric cars, what would you suggest being a "fuel efficient" car? What technology or invention could be used to make that happen that hasn't been done already?

I'm not against electric cars.....Hell, I like'm.
But we need other technologies too.
Electrics are great for short haul low demand driving.
Batteries (& all conceivable new technologies) are costly, & don't have the energy density to handle long distance or trucking applications.
There are additional ways to cut pollution & fossil fuel use....
- Lighter weight materials, eg, Ford's new aluminum bodied trucks, HSLA steels.
- Engine technology: higher compression ratios, Atkinson cycle, diesel, semi-adiabatic designs, infinitely variable transmissions, electric traction drive, Stirling cycle hybrids, etc, etc.
- Better aerodynamics.
- More car pooling.
- Higher fuel taxes (This drives conservation.)
- Fuel cell powered electrics.
- More hybrids.
- Higher housing/business density to enable more public transportation. This also helps open land conservation.
- I'll come up with more if you need.