Ship of Fools: No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control

Thread: No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020200

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

GOP Congressman: God Will ‘Take Care Of’ Climate Change If It Exists

Senate Environment Committee Chairman: God, Not Man, Drives Earth's Climate Patterns

‘Only God controls the weather’, Danny Healy-Rae tells climate change debate

I do wish people with power over the rest of us would keep their religious beliefs to themselves and either educate themselves or seek the advice of experts when making policy.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
GOP Congressman: God Will ‘Take Care Of’ Climate Change If It Exists

Said congressman never read Genesis or heard of the story of Noah, I guess.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
GOP Congressman: God Will ‘Take Care Of’ Climate Change If It Exists
Said congressman never read Genesis or heard of the story of Noah, I guess.

Or read Pope Francis' Encyclical on the subject.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm worried about climate change. But no where near as worried as I am about some of the people in charge.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Isn't there a Yiddish curse consigning all these idiots to retirement in Florida, just as climate change makes Florida uninhabitable?

[Devil]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Of course God's in control. And God says "Stop putting shit in the atmosphere or I'll fuck up your climate. Repent now, or repent later: your call."

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Isn't there a Yiddish curse consigning all these idiots to retirement in Florida, just as climate change makes Florida uninhabitable?

IJ

If there isn't, there should be! Maybe a Ship contest to confect one?
Probably not limited to Yiddish.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I'm sure I've seen one somewhere - maybe even on board the Ship?

[Help]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I don't think it is about people needing to keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

I think it is more about stupid and ridiculous ideas that your God will save you from your own stupidity. Or save us all - corporately - from our own stupidity.

TBH, I think he is screaming things more suited for a heavily bleeped late night C4 show.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's not freaking religion. It's politicians co-opting religion because they see it as the best way to get their constituents to fall in line.

I rather suspect these folks would need new underwear if they ever heard from the God they keep invoking.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And God says "Stop putting shit in the atmosphere or I'll fuck up your climate."

Wildfires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, avalanches . . . his arsenal is endless. Not that he's been sending any of these our way in recent months, now, has he, Mr. Congressman?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If God can sort out climate change, He can sort out cancer. But, he doesn't seem to do so on a regular basis. Or, sorting out poverty, famine and war.

He can't even seem to sort out stupid people getting elected to high office.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The curse will unto the 100th and 1000th generation.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" 1Samuel15-3

The question is, of course, who the Amalekites are today. Everyone? The poor of the world? Pacific islanders? Bangladeshis? Americans? Do we wait and watch? Do we get out our swords?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

God helps those who help themselves.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
God helps those who help themselves.

And those who accept help when offered from others. Who's thinking about the Christian struggling in the raging torrent who refuses help from a man with a lifebelt, then a boat and finally a helicopter, all because "God will save me".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A quote from Blish's best novel 'A Case of Conscience' about a head in the sand character. "Agronski wanted nothing to change and was now, unchangeably, nothing".

Plus the Sir Humphrey warning. "Courageous and farsighted policies nor only lose you the next general election but the one after that".

Future generations are going to curse this generation for our inability to produce courageous and farsighted policies to cope with both the climate change time bomb and the demographic time bomb. They do not deserve what is coming their way.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This is the link you're thinking of. It's the first curse but the rest are fun too!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Now wouldn't God perhaps expect us, made in his image, to use all our arts, devices and stratagems to do something about it ourselves? Didn't someone say that God has no hands here on Earth but ours?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks, Brenda - they are all, indeed, delicious!

Another worrying thought is that those morons who assure us that God will save us from climate change probably think that he'll do the same regarding the fall-out if Baby Trumpling decides to nuke North Korea... [Ultra confused]

Given that they think Baby Trumpling is the Saviour Of The Universe, or whatever.

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There are those who maintain that Crooked Don is God's representative. (One must presume their God enjoys fumbling in women's crotches.) Another group argues that Li'l Donny is a judgment upon us all, like the Assyrians or plagues of locusts. In either case, we are clearly not expected to be able to do anything about it.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I rather incline to The Judgement Upon Us All version...

[Help]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would like to see Trump drop the agreement and face the consequences -

Which should be the other 197 countries slapping tariffs on the US as they would to pariah states. Climate change is likely to be more destructive than any war, so countries which choose to ignore it should suffer the strictest penalties imo.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Hit 'em in the pocket? That might just penetrate into what Trump supporters think of as their 'minds'.

IJ

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Bannon is smiling.

They are going to make America small, petty, narrow-minded and no more a leader among nations than Tuvalu.

I agree with Boogie. (Though not necessarily applying sanctions on states which do not follow the White House and continue to work for the accord.)

[ 01. June 2017, 19:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

So he's done it, with cheers from the crowd. But he will negotiate to re-enter with terms fair to the US.

Just like May.

Can he do this, just like that? Instantly?

[ 01. June 2017, 19:39: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

From BBC news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/0

I don't often swear, but....

Fucking miserable bastard. May he burn in a VERY hot Hell. Soon. Very soon.

Americans, can no-one do anything to prevent this unspeakable man from wrecking the world one way or another?

IJ

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The other leaders of the world have been laughing at us, and they won't be doing that now.

Really?

Though crying may be fitting.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I really don't like using the word 'hate,' especially about people. But when I read this announcement, my immediate reaction was, 'I HATE Donald Trump!' He is absolutely, totally despicable. Yes, I knew that already, but he has removed all doubt whatsoever.

[Mad]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

God helps those who help themselves--not Biblical Algemon Sidney actually wrote this phrase. Some classical Greek writings also imply this in tragedies of which only fragments now remain. In his Philoctetes (c.409 BC), Sophocles wrote, "No good e'er comes of leisure purposeless; And heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act." And in the Hippolytus (428BC) of Euripides appears the speech, "Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."

I am reminded of a story in which a man decided to take over an overgrown lot next to his house. He pulled out all the weeds, put in new flower beds and even planted a community vegetable garden.

As he was doing this a parson would walk by every day and admire the progress being made.

Finally, the parson stopped and talked to the man. "Look's like you and God have done a great work here," The parson remarked.

The man looked up, and replied, "Well, God wasn't doing very well before I came along."

[ 01. June 2017, 20:09: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The guy's smiles are so artificial.

And there's a global conspiracy against America, which Paris was enabling. (I assume he is not including the other nations of the continent in this.)

But he can't force American citizens and businesses not to follow climate saving practices, can he? Send the NRA round to enforce gas-guzzling cars and disconnecting the roof PV units? Force Exxon, who argued against him, to give up on renewables?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The good part is that I think it is correct to say that other parties which agreed targets at the Paris climate agreement are now no longer required to continue with it with the US leaving.

The EU agreed set CO2 reductions by 2030, I'm pretty sure those were dependent on other parties agreeing to also reduce emissions via Paris. In one sense, it is hard to understand how or why others would continue with an agreement which wouldn't have the intended effect anyway. Sheesh, what a mess.

One has to wonder whether the Sustainable Development Goals are now under threat, given that so many of those are dependent on the Paris climate deal.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I rather suspect these folks would need new underwear if they ever heard from the God they keep invoking.

Lamb Chopped, that gets thereof these.
[Overused]

The argument 'God will take care of climate change if it exists' is spectacularly bad theology.

Presumably the people who argue that maintain that individuals must take moral responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, particularly those that are poor and probably black.

Can't they see that this applies just as much to the great ones, except that the consequences are so much greater.

I know that this is an unpopular view. Many people may accuse me likewise of spectacularly bad theology. But I don't think it's possible to make sense of any theology of human history unless one accepts that most of the time, God does not intervene to steer it. He does occasionally, when it's a question of the meta-narrative of salvation history, but most of the time, he doesn't.

It looks as though free will is even more important to God than we realise.

Free will means that if the big important people take bad decisions or do wickedness, their free will prevails. They do inflict suffering on millions of ordinary people. God does not intervene to parry the blows. They also bear personal responsibility for the consequences for the millions.

Free will, though also means that those who seek high office or are born to it, have an even greater responsibility than the rest of us to seek to do good. If you are important enough, your good actions can benefit many people even including those who come after one has gone.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I wonder if President Egregious Fuckwit Bastard I ever contemplates his own mortality?

IJ

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Bush set the tone for America's attitude to pumping out pollutants a while back. He also played the God card over Iraq in 03 so it's a familiar pattern when it comes to ducking out of fuck ups. No change there.

At least it sounds as if China is coming to the table, but then the smell of politics is often greater than the smell of pollution.
Mind you, apart from the very poor Countries it is a case of those without sin casting the first stone over environmental protection.

Noticeably absent from our mainstream Parties' manifestos this time.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The argument 'God will take care of climate change if it exists' is spectacularly bad theology.

Presumably the people who argue that maintain that individuals must take moral responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, particularly those that are poor and probably black.

Can't they see that this applies just as much to the great ones, except that the consequences are so much greater.

I know that this is an unpopular view. Many people may accuse me likewise of spectacularly bad theology. But I don't think it's possible to make sense of any theology of human history unless one accepts that most of the time, God does not intervene to steer it. He does occasionally, when it's a question of the meta-narrative of salvation history, but most of the time, he doesn't.

It looks as though free will is even more important to God than we realise.

Free will means that if the big important people take bad decisions or do wickedness, their free will prevails. They do inflict suffering on millions of ordinary people. God does not intervene to parry the blows. They also bear personal responsibility for the consequences for the millions.

Free will, though also means that those who seek high office or are born to it, have an even greater responsibility than the rest of us to seek to do good. If you are important enough, your good actions can benefit many people even including those who come after one has gone.

You state what I have come to understand over the past decade. It isn't as we might want to have it, but it seems to be true, from the experience of things, and seeking of confirmation beyond personal experience. It is both a magnificent opportunity and a terrifying possibility. It is things like climate change which have me understand more and more that human decisions necessarily involves theology, theodicy, ethics, philosophical contingency and the location of responsibility with us, not God, who, as it seems has decided to be a spectator for much of what we do.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I rather suspect these folks would need new underwear if they ever heard from the God they keep invoking.

The "people of the Book" God (even with all our doubts, hope, love, anger, and disbelief)? Or the one they've made up, but maybe don't believe in?

I'm thinking the last(?) Narnia book, with two Calormen soldiers who supposedly follow the god Tash, who was very nasty.

One had truly been looking for goodness, for Aslan (though not knowing it), and poured all his love into his worship. Aslan understood that, and said that the man's worship was really directed to him, and IIRC the man went to Aslan's country.

But there was another soldier, rather cold-hearted IIRC, who went through the motions of worshipping Tash. Someone said, "How, then, shall it be for him if he has called on a god in whom he does not believe, and finds him real?" And this soldier met Tash, up close and personal.

I hope anyone who's used Trump, given him fake devotion, and has read that Narnia book (or will come to read it soon) will keep that in mind.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm a bit confused. I am referring to people whom I have some reason to suspect are invoking the name of a God they do not actually believe in. If they did, they would have more sense (fear? respect? whatever) than to use his name to adorn criminal stupidity.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re the stated possibility that T might renegotiate and go back to the accord:

Reportedly, there are White House folks on *both* sides of the climate issue. (Gee, must be a fun place to work--not.) And Ivanka is for staying with the accord.

Trump has said she's the one who gets him to do good things. I wonder if the possibility of going back was at her request? Or to appease her?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm a bit confused. I am referring to people whom I have some reason to suspect are invoking the name of a God they do not actually believe in. If they did, they would have more sense (fear? respect? whatever) than to use his name to adorn criminal stupidity.

Sorry. Let me try again.

What I was trying to say is that they may be referring to the God we usually refer to here, and that would be one problem. If they met that God, and She expressed displeasure, they might indeed need new pants. The Creator of all things exists and She ain't happy--though She still loves them.

OTOH, they may have basically made their own God, with accretions of politics, greed, and wish fulfillment. With punishing the US with storms and terrorism for having LGBT folks, uppity women, Muslims, etc. If that God existed (similar to the IMHO worst of the OT God) and they met It, they might also need new pants, a cleaning crew, and lots of Lysol. If you make up something nasty, and it becomes real...
[Paranoid]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Maybe these people remember the bit where Satan tells Jesus to throw himself off a high tower becase God will save him, and forgot which one is the bad guy in that story.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Also kind of like Job's friends. "It's *your* fault. Repent. Trust God, and everything will be ok. Just be righteous."

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If Christianity has any meaning at all - and to be honest, I regularly think it is all gibberish - then the important thing must be about how the rich and powerful treat the poor and weak.

Unfortunately I don't think this is all on Trump. He's a symptom of a deeply spiritually bankrupt mentality amongst a powerful elite who think they can follow their own agenda and to hell with everyone else.

It says American jobs and economy matter - the fact that you're poor, or weak, or battling floods, or living with failed crops, or having to find ways to look after refugees etc don't matter.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

He'll soon become an irrelevance - renewable energy technologies are moving at an incredible pace, especially in the USA.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He'll soon become an irrelevance - renewable energy technologies are moving at an incredible pace, especially in the USA.

Indeed, and a lot of the impetus is coming from States, and more local levels of government, and private industry. IIRC California currently generates about 30% of it's electricity by renewables, and is heading towards exceeding 50% by 2030. Las Vegas, that beacon (almost literally) to consumption of electricity has made substantial investments in renewables. Like everywhere else individuals and businesses, through either ethical choices or simply to save money, are progressively improving energy efficiency and investing in less polluting technologies - creating markets for efficient and clean technologies that US businesses have been among the leaders in supplying.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He'll soon become an irrelevance - renewable energy technologies are moving at an incredible pace, especially in the USA.

That's all well and good, but the damage he and his band of buffoons can do right now worries me as it might tip the scales to more extreme weather and temperature rises more than we expected. Or am I misinformed/too worried?

I haven't read much news on this latest announcement though from what colleagues tell me it does seem some states are promising to push ahead with their clean energy targets despite this. States' independence may prove very beneficial.

[edit: schpeling]

[ 02. June 2017, 08:48: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He'll soon become an irrelevance - renewable energy technologies are moving at an incredible pace, especially in the USA.
That's all well and good, but the damage he and his band of buffoons can do right now worries me as it might tip the scales to more extreme weather and temperature rises more than we expected. Or am I misinformed/too worried?

It's a worry, but it isn't the end of the world. Put simply, I don't think he has the power to wreck things that much. As you note, many States will act on their own anyway and simply ignore the Federal government. And, many individuals and businesses will do the same. Basically the economics alone is almost at the tipping point where it's cheaper to install new renewables capacity than new fossil fuel capacity, even without any government subsidies, even more so for a small demand (eg: a business or individual will save installing their own wind/solar compared to buying off the grid, if their property is suitable, over the mid-term) - we're not there yet, but it won't be long. Most States recognise that there is employment opportunities in renewables, and an economic benefit to them to invest in renewables (the same is, of course, true of the US as a whole ... it's just that Trump has bought into the fake news that it isn't).

Added to which, it will take time for the US to extracate itself from the international treaties (even if it doesn't get held up within the US legislature), so there's not going to be much of a change overnight. The only thing that could happen quickly is that the US stops making further payments to the fund to help developing nations (which, incidentally, Trump could have done without pulling out of the Paris accords completely), but the US has already contributed a third of what was asked for anyway and it won't change the global climate trends (it'll just mean more poor people in developing countries will die).

Meanwhile India and China are ahead of their targets for reducing carbon emissions.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

yeah I think that's right about states in the USA. They are a mixed bunch though.

I think this move by Trump is clearly a backwards step and one that is damaging, especially to the United States. It is having the useful effect of highlighting that there is a large amount of consensus on the topic elsewhere in the world. Trump and those who think like him are in the minority and can be worked around.

I think Merkel might be busily working to make it crystal clear to President Trump that his leadership is optional.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Decent batteries to store renewable energy are rapidly on their way too. These will make a huge difference to small communities and businesses breaking their dependence on the grid.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You have to understand the psychology of Crooked Don. For him it is all about the win. Almost the first thing that happened on his website was a banner, "Promise Kept". He had promised bluecollar voters to terminate the Paris Agreement.

That is all that is important. There is no there, there. He was able to notch up a check mark in the win column. That it does nothing, has no effect, will give not a single coal miner a job, and is monumentally stupid? Means nothing to him. There is no space in his mind for that.

It is easy for our enemies now, to get him to do stuff. All you have to do is phrase the desired action as a 'win' for him and he bites on the lure. I even saw this advice in a foreign diplomat's advice to his team.

We are so toast.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

Electric trains will become standard across the civilised world for moving between cities, and electric buses and trams for moving within them.

Producing more of what we need, nearer to where we need it, is the next step. Fabbing things has taken longer than we anticipated, and the same for vertical farms. But it's coming. The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

My brother has just fitted air- con to two brand new battery powered full sized buses, for Glasgow (I think).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed.

"Almost there" is a bit of an overstatement, although there's certainly progress. What is required is something that matches gasoline for convenience, which means a range of >300 miles, and a recharge time of two minutes or thereabouts.

What Tesla has right now is the ability to provide ~170 miles of range in half an hour. An enforced half-hour stop every two hours on a long drive is a deal-breaker. It's fine for a commute pattern (drive half an hour or an hour, plug in car for the day, drive home, plug in overnight) but not good enough for long-distance.

(And that's with a new battery pack - if you routinely rely on fast charging, because you do a lot of long-distance driving, you'll see the battery pack limit your charge rate further.)

Tesla claim that they will be able to increase the charge rate by a factor of something like 3-4 in the next several years. I'd guess that that was going to start pushing up against some pretty hard edges in battery chemistry.

Probably you can't get acceptably fast charging without exchangable battery packs (swapping out your discharged battery for a freshly-charged one at the "gas" station) and the logistics of that are non-trivial.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

It always seemed to me that requiring electric cars to have a range of 200-300 miles was more a psychological requirement than an engineering one. Along the lines of 'an internal combustion engine car can travel ~300 miles before refueling, therefore anything with significantly less range between charges is an inferior option'. In practical terms the average driver doesn't drive anywhere near 200 miles in a typical day so there's nothing particularly important about that specific distance for most drivers. People don't want cars that can drive 200 miles or 300 miles, they want cars that can drive an unlimited distance, which is more a function of refueling/recharging infrastructure than vehicle range.

That said, the fact that the 200 mile range is a psychological requirement makes it no less real.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think the problem is that powering up an electric car is going to take longer than refuelling with petrol unless one continually replaces the battery. If you have to do that every 200 miles, it is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That said, the fact that the 200 mile range is a psychological requirement makes it no less real.

<translator hat on>

The term for that is Range Anxiety.

<translator hat off>

It would appear to be a bit easier to top up with a jerrycan of fuel than to get a battery recharge in the middle of nowhere. Although after yet another tanker drivers' strike here last week...

[x-post]

[ 02. June 2017, 14:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the problem is that powering up an electric car is going to take longer than refuelling with petrol unless one continually replaces the battery. If you have to do that every 200 miles, it is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly.

Driving more than 200 miles at a stretch is already boring. Taking a half-hour break to recharge a vehicle's batteries every three or four hours may be inconvenient and slow your overall progress, but I don't think it's going to make an already boring process even more boring.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

My vehicle needs refuelling about every 130 miles, so I see the inside of petrol stations more than most.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's a psychological number, but still has meaning for longer distance driving. 200 miles is about 3h driving time assuming you can maintain the speed limit on motorways. Which is slightly longer than the recommended time between stops - so 200 miles is the distance you would like to put in on a journey before pulling over for a break, which is when you would also recharge the car, if it could be done in the 15 mins it takes to drink a coffee and visit the loo.

But, I agree that the market for electric cars is for commuting, school run, grocery run etc where you're unlikely to do more than 100 miles in an entire day. But, people will want their car for the occasional longer trip as well so even if that's only a couple of times a year the "I can't do that long drive to see mum in it" would be a factor in choosing a car.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

98% of all single-trip car journeys in the US were less than 50 miles. I imagine it'll be even more than that for the UK. We're in the realm of electric cars already.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Smart (I think?) apparently do an option where you can travel by train and then hire a car at your destination.

The biggest barriers to the large-scale deployment of electric cars (apart from the oil companies...) are competing standards and network coverage (specifically, linkage of growing city networks). Plus, depending on the country, geography. Small, rich countries can get a head start. I know government plans are well afoot for national coverage in France in the coming years. A set number of charging points will be coming into effect for new builds of all kinds over the next few years.

I do almost no driving except around town and the very occasional trip, rarely more than 250 km or so in one go.

I've already downsized to the smallest affordable car I could find with cruise control (a Hyundai i10) on the basis that I'd hire something if I had a really long trip to do or a lot of stuff to carry - but I invariably make long trips by train.

I'm seriously considering a Zoe next. But then I live in a city.

[ 02. June 2017, 14:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Electric trains will become standard across the civilised world for moving between cities, and electric buses and trams for moving within them.

I entirely agree about electirc buses/trams/light rail within cities. However, trains suffer a significant problem in the required infrastructure - unless there is already an existing line between A and B building one is a major undertaking. So, there will always be a need within the transport system for medium to long distance buses that can take passengers to places which are not served by a rail line. Added to which, intercity rail is notoriously expensive and will need to be a lot cheaper for it to be used by everyone (so, again, until that happens there will need to be the less expensive option of buses).

Though, we do need to start somewhere and take things stepwise. So, start with electrifying all rail networks. Re-introduce rail-freight terminals so that the long-distance road transport of goods is shifted to electric trains. And, electrify city buses. That would shift a lot of transport off of burning fossil fuels. Then, get people off of planes and onto trains.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In practical terms the average driver doesn't drive anywhere near 200 miles in a typical day so there's nothing particularly important about that specific distance for most drivers.

But nobody buys a car to just match their typical daily usage. People buy cars to match their maximum expected usage. That's why I see so many people commuting in minivans - it's because they also drive the kids and their gear to sporting events at the weekend or something.

quote:

People don't want cars that can drive 200 miles or 300 miles, they want cars that can drive an unlimited distance, which is more a function of refueling/recharging infrastructure than vehicle range.

True, but the range is relevant too - nobody wants to make frequent stops in a long journey. 300 miles isn't a bad match for the requirements of the human bladder - you're going to have to stop about that often anyway, and even if you didn't, at one stop every 300 miles, you're not adding much time to your journey.

If you had to stop every hundred miles, the overhead of pulling off the road into a charging station etc. would start to make a significant contribution to your overall journey.

So it's not just a psychological number.

Not so long ago, I used to spend a couple of days 600 miles away every couple of months. 600 miles isn't so far - it's easy enough to have a leisurely breakfast, throw some things in a bag, refuel and grab a sandwich at the half-way point, and make it to the hotel in plenty of time to walk to the bar for dinner.

Doing the same journey in a Tesla would take an extra hour and a half for recharging, plus probably half an hour of overhead for stopping, assuming that there were superchargers in the right places (currently, there aren't, but that's a question of market penetration rather than technology).

If they speed up the charge time to 10 minutes, you're still looking at an extra hour added on the the journey, which is significant in an 8 hour journey.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
600 miles isn't so far

Thus proving that you folks across the pond have a different idea of "far" to us squished-in Europeans. That's one end of France to the other!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thus proving that you folks across the pond have a different idea of "far" to us squished-in Europeans. That's one end of France to the other!

Well, sure - and I've driven across France in a day, too, although that was quite a long time ago.

But you're right - my metric for "far" has changed since moving to the US. "Far" now means a journey that is sufficiently long that I wouldn't want to drive it myself in a day (ie. either bring multiple drivers or break the journey at the midpoint). 600 miles or so is about my personal limit, although to be honest I'd probably push it to close to 800 rather than spend an extra night in a hotel, if I was travelling alone. (The kids don't have nearly so much tolerance for sitting quietly in the car; I'd not want to plan to drive more than 300 miles in a day with them along.)

For comparison, HGV drivers get to drive for 9 hours in a day with a 45-minute break at the half-way point. IIRC, bus drivers get to drive for 10 hours, with a similar break requirement. At highway speeds, that's pretty close to my 600 miles number.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Not so long ago, I used to spend a couple of days 600 miles away every couple of months. 600 miles isn't so far - it's easy enough to have a leisurely breakfast, throw some things in a bag, refuel and grab a sandwich at the half-way point, and make it to the hotel in plenty of time to walk to the bar for dinner.

Doing the same journey in a Tesla would take an extra hour and a half for recharging, plus probably half an hour of overhead for stopping, assuming that there were superchargers in the right places (currently, there aren't, but that's a question of market penetration rather than technology).

I'm not sure your math works on this. According to Tesla it takes ~40 minutes for one of their Superchargers to provide 200 miles worth of charge to their Model S. (46 minutes if you're driving a Model X. Both Tesla models currently available have ranges in excess of 200 miles.) So two stops at ranges of 200 and 400 miles would add up to about an hour and half. What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300? Do you save time by combining the bathroom break and the sandwich at the same time? (Ewww!) Eat the sandwich while driving? (Potentially messy, depending on the sandwich, and definitely unsafe.) I'm trying to figure out why time spent refueling and eating doesn't count when you're driving an internal combustion vehicle.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If they speed up the charge time to 10 minutes, you're still looking at an extra hour added on to the journey, which is significant in an 8 hour journey.

Again, not sure how you figure two stops of ten minutes each adds up to not just an hour but "an extra hour" when compared with a trip that includes a stop for gasoline, food, and bathroom break. Does that stuff take negative forty minutes?

I'm not disputing that the technology as it exists now would make long road trips of the type non-commercial drivers rarely make slightly longer in duration. I just think your math on this is sloppy.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300?

You're right - I didn't count that time. We'll allow the same 10 minute overhead for stopping, 10 minutes to grab and eat a sandwich, and another 5 for the two liquid operations. So an honest number is more like an extra hour (plus small change).

quote:
Again, not sure how you figure two stops of ten minutes each adds up to not just an hour but "an extra hour"

I was assuming three stops, charging for 30 minutes to gain 175 miles range (another advertised model S number). Then speed it up to 10 minutes charging plus 10 minutes overhead per stop.

quote:
I just think your math on this is sloppy.

Yes, it was sloppy - that's a fair call. With the assumptions I made, it should take an additional 40 minutes, not an additional hour.

If I was rich enough to keep a car purely for commuting purposes, a current electric car would seem to fit that need rather well. Trouble is, nobody I know is that rich. (Plus, of course, electric cars are currently not price-competitive with gasoline-powered ones.)

One could also consider the option of owning a commuting vehicle, and hiring a different car for long journeys, but the extra hassle involved with renting a car (car rental places are never open at the right times, plus they either have to deliver the car or I have to drive with someone else to the rental place so both the rental car and my own car can come back home) means that there would have to be a significant advantage to doing to.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son does this.

He lives in Heidelberg, Germany, and cycles everywhere locally - up to 50Km. If he needs a car he hops into one - which will be parked nearby. He locates them by app.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300?
You're right - I didn't count that time. We'll allow the same 10 minute overhead for stopping, 10 minutes to grab and eat a sandwich, and another 5 for the two liquid operations. So an honest number is more like an extra hour (plus small change).

<snip>

If I was rich enough to keep a car purely for commuting purposes, a current electric car would seem to fit that need rather well.

This is kind of interesting. The true make-or-break decision-point for you (aside from price) is an extra hour added to something you say you do (or did) "every couple of months". Well, two hours since I'm assuming a return trip as well. Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.

It just seems a slim justification to base a decision on something that would slow a trip you take (or took "not so long ago") "every couple of months" from an average speed of 75 mph (600 miles in 8 hours, including factoring in a food and fueling break) to having an average speed of merely 67 mph (an extra hour). Even 69 mph (40 minutes extra) is too slow of an average speed for you, but somewhere between 69 mph and 75 mph average speed (top speed faster to make up for breaks) the trip becomes worth it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He lives in Heidelberg, Germany, and cycles everywhere locally - up to 50Km. If he needs a car he hops into one - which will be parked nearby. He locates them by app.

Sure - and that works for him because his bike is much cheaper than a car (both in capital cost and operating costs) so it wins over the convenience of having your own car sitting outside your home.

When I lived in London, I lived like that, too. Car-sharing services didn't really exist yet, but I would cycle everywhere, and rent a car for the occasional long journey or heavy-stuff-hauling trip. It was much cheaper than owning a car.

But once you decide you need to own some kind of car (in my case, the weather isn't compatible with year-round bike commuting here - at least for me - and whilst we do have a bike trailer for the little kids, pulling them anywhere is a serious workout), the economics change.

The difference between the capital and operating costs for a car that meets 90% of your needs vs one that meets 100% of them is usually not very large, and is usually smaller than the extra cost to rent something to cover that last 10%.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.

Who on earth ever makes a special trip to a filling station? I don't think I've ever done that. (My usual stop is a gas station on a corner I turn on my way to work. It adds an inconsequential time to my commute once every three weeks. I can't think of anywhere I ever drive that doesn't have a decent gas station within a couple of blocks of my normal route.)

But there's a real difference here. A large number of short delays do not add up to one large delay. If you tell me that my journey to work will take two minutes longer each way because there's a new traffic light, I'll grumble a bit, but won't actually care. If you tell me that I'll be an hour late once every three weeks, then I'll care a lot, even though it's the same total amount of time.

quote:

It just seems a slim justification to base a decision on something that would slow a trip you take (or took "not so long ago") "every couple of months" from an average speed of 75 mph (600 miles in 8 hours, including factoring in a food and fueling break) to having an average speed of merely 67 mph (an extra hour).

But it's not about the average speed at all. It's not the average that counts - it's the integral. Taking an extra hour for a longer journey is a real thing - it means I have to get up an hour earlier in the morning, for example. A few minutes on a short journey gets lost in the noise.

There's certainly also a psychological factor about enforced annoyingly-frequent breaks.

Thirdly, this all assumes the best case - that you arrive at the charger and there's a free station. Having to wait a couple of minutes until a gas pump is free isn't a big deal. Having to wait half an hour (or 10 minutes...) until someone vacates a charging station is a different matter. So depending on the capacity of the charger network, perhaps there's a risk of a greater delay.

Fourth, this assumes that you remembered to charge your car overnight. Perhaps I didn't plug the car in because the charging station is in the garage, but the kids were constructing something in the garage, so I left my car on the driveway overnight (this happens not infrequently in my house - YMMV). Randomly stopping to get gas in the middle of any errand is usually not a problem. Randomly stopping for even a "short" 20 minute emergency charge is more of a problem. Perhaps this last is unlikely enough that I shouldn't care.

None of these is an insurmountable problem, but each one adds a modest amount of guaranteed inconvenience and a larger amount of uncertainty.

So we gain modest inconvenience and larger uncertainty and range anxiety with an expensive car whose operation is a bit better for the environment. It's not really a great sales pitch.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.
Who on earth ever makes a special trip to a filling station? I don't think I've ever done that.

Really? Most people who go to filling stations do so for the express purpose of fueling their vehicles. Very few just happen to be there for other reasons and decide to fill up their tank.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(My usual stop is a gas station on a corner I turn on my way to work. It adds an inconsequential time to my commute once every three weeks.

Fifteen minutes by your previous estimates. Five for fueling and a ten minute "overhead for stopping". Whether that amount of time is "inconsequential" is a matter of personal judgment.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
None of these is an insurmountable problem, but each one adds a modest amount of guaranteed inconvenience and a larger amount of uncertainty.

Which is more or less my point. You were portraying an infrequent ("every couple of months") delay of half an hour or so on a long trip (something that could be just as easily provided by traffic or road conditions) as an insurmountable obstacle, making your "every couple of months" trip not worth taking.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fifteen minutes by your previous estimates. Five for fueling and a ten minute "overhead for stopping". Whether that amount of time is "inconsequential" is a matter of personal judgment[.

The 10 minute overhead was for leaving the highway, negotiating the junctions, driving at rather slow speeds to the gas station, and the reverse process. My usual commuting stop is at a gas station on a corner at which I turn, at a traffic light. The overhead associated with pulling in there is zero.

quote:
Which is more or less my point. You were portraying an infrequent ("every couple of months") delay of half an hour or so on a long trip (something that could be just as easily provided by traffic or road conditions) as an insurmountable obstacle, making your "every couple of months" trip not worth taking.

Let's remember that the "half an hour or so" is for hypothetical future technology that Tesla believes is achievable, but does not currently exist.

And yes, it's on the same scale as a delay caused by bad traffic, but electric cars aren't somehow immune from traffic jams. Whatever allowance you make for traffic / weather delays with your gas-powered car is the same as the allowance you have to make for gas/weather delays with your electric car. The refuelling delay is on top of that - it's a guaranteed extra time.

But you finish by asking the wrong question. It's not whether an extra hour (or whatever) makes the journey not worth doing - it's how an electric car compares with a gas car for the journey, and without going to a battery-replacement refuelling scheme, it seems unlikely that the electric car will ever be anything other than measurably worse for that kind of journey.

The question then becomes whether its other benefits make the damage to long journeys worthwhile. There are various estimates about when electric cars become price-competitive with gas cars, but the realistic ones (that look at the normal car market, not the luxury market) suggest that in 20-30 years time, the production cost of battery packs might have reduced to the point that a standard electric car was a net win over its gas equivalent. Exactly when this happens depends on your driving patterns: people who commute 60 miles each way and charge at home will see the gains first; people who travel mostly over short distances with the occasional long trip will be the last to find it economical to switch.

Can an electric car ever become hassle-competitive with a gas car? We've addressed the long journey aspect (where I think the answer is always no, but there's scope for making it less bad). For short journeys, not having to stop for gas is clearly a benefit, although we seem to disagree about how significant that benefit is.

Can electric cars be made to require significantly longer intervals between services? That doesn't seem impossible to me, and would be a real benefit - rather more significant than the gas station thing.

Generally-speaking, if you offer someone a more environmentally-friendly option that costs them more money and doesn't work as well, then only a few dedicated environmentalists are going to take it up. Once the money and the functionality become comparable, many people will select the green option. If it's cheaper, almost everyone will buy it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Back on the original thread topic, it's the conservative Christian base that Crooked Don is playing to here.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The mistake that the interesting, but tangential to this particular thread, discussion about electric cars is founded on is at the moment fundamental. I'd love to have an electric car if it would do what my present car does, but cheaper, more environmentally friendlily and more reliably. At the moment, though, it wouldn't. All the attempts to persuade us that the inconveniences are just that, and are surmountable, only work if you're really committed, a believer in the cause.

As far as the rest of us are concerned, the enthusiasts are telling us we should be made to reorganise our lives to suit their requirements. For most people, it's hard enough to organise their lives to what they need to do, yet alone to fit in with what someone else has decided that ought to want as well.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think I fantasised earlier about what might be done if individuals set up to make their own renewable energy - Trump sending round the militia to force people to disconnect their PV panels and turbines.

And then I find here States alliance to support Paris discussion that four states, Oklahoma, Indiana, Michigan and Wyoming are passing laws which make the use of such technology uneconomic.

Why? In the land of the free, etc...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

And reading further, the idiots putting those forward did not succeed.
Than goodness

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There is another sucky downside to purely electric cars if you live in a place where power outages are common. We get an average of one a week (short, I'll admit) and lengthy ones (several hours) maybe 5 or 6 times a year. We get one a few days long maybe every 7 years or so.

None of this is horrendous (unless its in extreme weather, which I'm afraid it usually is). However, the current routine annoyance of resetting all the clocks etc. in the house morphs into skepticism when I think about having to charge a car on a reliable basis.

Yes, we live in a suburb close to a major city. The problem is not rural (lack of) infrastructure. It may be aging infrastructure, I'm not sure.

Right now we keep a supply of wood in the backyard in case we have to use the fireplace for heat. Oh, and emergency candles. A shedload of candles. But I draw the line at keeping an emergency camel in the backyard.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, we live in a suburb close to a major city. The problem is not rural (lack of) infrastructure. It may be aging infrastructure, I'm not sure.

The nature of infrastructure is that it's designed to deal with an expectation of demand - building for higher demand is more expensive, so you don't do it unless you have good reason to expect it. That's almost universally true - when this town was planned in the late 50s the planners were slated for planning on one car for every three households, who would have thought there's be more than half that number?

There are two options - completely rebuild the infrastructure, or change the demand. In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure. Renewables coupled with battery storage does this very well, and is significantly cheaper than rebuilding the infrastructure for a central generation model.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Probably not coping so well now, but we had an infrastructure (of a different sort) planner with foresight in Bradfield who planned Sydney's Harbour Bridge in the 1920s to be 48.8m wide, so it now allows 2 train lines and 8 lanes of traffic [it had trams once] -- the thing wasn't paid off until the 1980s but I'm guessing if the penny-pinchers had their day it'd be 1 or 2 lanes each way instead of 4. And Sydney would have a few more bridges.

Classic short-sighted thinking was a 2 lane each-way tunnel in Sydney which got congested from the moment it opened.

[ 02. June 2017, 22:20: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure.

This is the oft-stated support for net metering for rooftop solar. Whilst on the face of it being able to force the utility to buy power from you at retail prices looks silly, having distributed solar generation does reduce the peak loads on the grid (and like always, you have to size things for your peak).

When lots of people have solar, this stops being true, but for a market with a modest amount of rooftop solar, the signs are at least correct.

Whether net metering comes close to matching the magnitude of the benefit to the utility, I don't know, but at least it's simple for people to understand.

(Lamb Chopped: demand is way up. Houses are bigger than they used to be, there are more houses than there used to be, more people have central air conditioning,... Heavy users of electric power often have power-shedding agreements with the utility, where they pay a lower price per kWh in return for agreeing to reduce their load (to some specified power level) in ~10 minutes if the power company calls up. IIRC, if the power company actually has to invoke this, they pay quite a lot more money...

[ 02. June 2017, 22:24: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Forgot to thank Crœsos and Leorning Cniht for their exchange...

I've always thought I needed a car that could do at least 650 kms as I often drive that far, and am not one to stop unless I have to [yes, I know the advice but I find I am fine -- most times I stop once for a meal at the 450 km mark]; but, especially as I get older, while the thought of an extra hour or so annoys me (being an impatient sort) I'm sure I could cope if I thought about it. And if it's better for the environment...

Now they only need to add refuelling stations along the major highways in Oz which is a task in itself.

Are they quite prevalent in the US and Europe? Do you often find your charger is taken? My friend in San Jose has a charger at home which does his day trips, but what about longer ones...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We live on a street which was made for horses (if that) and our services doubtless date back nearly as far. Three months ago one of the big transformers in our backyard went up in flames at midnight--I couldn't get hold of the electrical company, so had to call the fire department, and of course it was out by then and they thought I'd lost my mind. They kept trying to get me to say it had simply arc'd and crackled. But I watched it, and we had a sheer sheet of orange flame for about a minute, as large as a bedsheet and almost as regular in shape.

Come to think of it, a camel might be safer than electrical.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Re electric cars.
Not practical in some climates. The batteries just don't hold up in really cold weather. I'm coming to the opinion that cars themselves are a problem. Suburban neighbourhoods are designed in many places to essentially require them: no stores, parks or other places to walk. Basically flawed by design. If you do manage to walk somewhere, streets are often dangerous to cross, and you have to cross parking lots full or cars.

Bicycling is also fraught with problems in car-priority cities. Car drivers place cyclists in danger, want them to behave like cars in some situations, and clearly want them to not behave like cars in others.

I think generally discouraging car travel would help enormously. More congestion charges, and I wouldn't be adverse to a per mile or per km travelled fee for cars to discourage use.

There are environmental and public health benefits to discouraging cars. Too many people are in bad physical condition and could use with walking. Children don't even walk to schools in many places. Or they don't walk to transit. Or they do not cycle.

We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen. I see no reason that this sort of car pooling shouldn't be readily available for all. Flat fee, subsidized, in this city. Such as this is completely reasonable for a public policy reason of discouraging car travel, which is already subsidized with road construction costs, subsidies to fossil fuel companies etc.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure.
This is the oft-stated support for net metering for rooftop solar. Whilst on the face of it being able to force the utility to buy power from you at retail prices looks silly, having distributed solar generation does reduce the peak loads on the grid (and like always, you have to size things for your peak).

When lots of people have solar, this stops being true, but for a market with a modest amount of rooftop solar, the signs are at least correct.

Which is another example of the infrastructure not being ideal, but what we have. Put simply, the power network is designed to take power generated in a small number of large power stations and distribute it to a large number of small users. Which doesn't cope well with a large number of small generators distributing to a large number of small users. Which is why I said batteries are needed, because that removes the redistribution side of the load on the network. Within a small neighbourhood a local network can be created with renewable generation and battery storage which supplies the needs of the properties participating, with additional power from the main grid as needed. This reduces demand on the aging infrastructure of the main network, but doesn't add the problems of feeding power back into the network. Most new domestic renewables installation in the UK (at least) now either include a battery making each home a very small version of that neighbourhood network, or "feedback" power only as far as their neighbours (because the transformers that step down the grid voltage to domestic voltages are very inefficient at stepping it back up, so feedback works best if the power generated is kept within that lower voltage section of the network).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen.

Demand Responsive Transport or something like it. This has a hard time getting off the ground so long as people still have their own car for the sort of reasons Leorning Cniht has mentioned.

The nearest I've seen to it is the Dolmuş share taxi system in Turkey: small networks of Peugeot vans that operate set routes round a city with regular (or sometimes ad hoc) stops - really practical and friendly. When I got back home I wondered about the practicalities of such a system here and instantly ran up against problems of regulation of all sorts plus the need for a critical mass of people without their own cars. It might happen over time though.

[ 03. June 2017, 09:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Leorning Cnit:

quote:
True, but the range is relevant too - nobody wants to make frequent stops in a long journey. 300 miles isn't a bad match for the requirements of the human bladder...

Small children. People with urinary tract infections. Old men with prostate cancer. Pregnant women.

There are more of them around than you might think, and that's before you take into account people like my husband, who likes to break the monotony of long journeys by visiting tourist attractions along the way.

Also you are making the common mistake of confusing distance travelled with journey time. Maybe in the wide-open spaces of America you can travel 300 miles before you need a loo stop, but in more crowded countries it depends on where you are and how good the roads are.

And your bladder is not the only consideration. My Other Half and I always have rest stops every one and a half to two hours on long journeys (sometimes more often than that if negotiating the traffic is particularly traumatic). That's every 80-130 miles or so, assuming the driver is trying to keep to the speed limit and there are no holdups. Nowhere near 200 miles, let alone 300.

[Yes, I know the speed limit on motorways is 70, but I've never experienced a journey on a motorway where I was able to do 70 all the way without slowing down for anything. I have therefore assumed a maximum theoretical speed of 65 mph and even that is probably over-generous.]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

On my regular journeys south to visit my mum - just shy of 300 miles - I usually stop 3 or 4 times. I just don't have the mental stamina for driving extended periods. And while it would be nice to think I could knock off the distance in 4 and a half hours, it's never taken less than 6, even with just stopping to swap drivers.

Extending it to 7 hours isn't an issue.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen. I see no reason that this sort of car pooling shouldn't be readily available for all.

We have that too -- "Dial-a-Ride," it's called. Primarily to get the elderly to medical appointments. The only trouble is, it's fairly punctual picking up and delivering people to their appointments, but sorely lacking in getting them home again.

My father's lady friend took Dial-a-Ride to a medical appointment one time and ended up waiting the entire afternoon to be picked up again. She was still waiting at closing time. The receptionist ended up giving her a lift home.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Small children. People with urinary tract infections. Old men with prostate cancer. Pregnant women.

Doesn't matter. You size infrastructure for peak demand, not average. The fact that there exist people who would not want to drive 300 miles at a stretch without stopping - either because they need to urinate more frequently, or because they like stopping at tourist attractions - is irrelevant. When you're choosing a car's design range, you don't want to aim for the average, or you'll irritate half of the people. You aim for something that will accommodate almost everyone.

quote:

Also you are making the common mistake of confusing distance travelled with journey time. Maybe in the wide-open spaces of America you can travel 300 miles before you need a loo stop, but in more crowded countries it depends on where you are and how good the roads are.

Well, sure. I was assuming highways without excessive traffic. Yes, if you're going somewhere on smaller roads, or in traffic, then it's different. But almost every time I drive a few hundred miles in one go, it's mostly on highways. YMMV.

quote:
And your bladder is not the only consideration. My Other Half and I always have rest stops every one and a half to two hours on long journeys

That's great - you should do whatever you need to do to complete a journey safely and as pleasantly as possible. For some people, that will involve lots of stops, and for others, it won't.

The reason I'm invoking the bladder is that it pretty much imposes a maximum time between stops. People's desire for frequent coffee, popping in to local tourist attractions or whatever will vary considerably. You've told us how often you like to stop; my preference is for much less frequent stops. That's OK - people differ. But most people aren't going to be able to go more than 4-5 hours during the day without emptying their bladder, so that places an upper limit on the range needed in a car. Unless you do something crazy, more or less everyone is going to have to stop about that often.

Assuming, of course, that the refueling process is quick, and that it's easy to find a refueling station, then there's no real advantage to a range of much more than 300 miles.

Most gas-powered cars seem to size the fuel tank to get somewhere between 300 and 400 miles on a full tank. (There are a few that have a longer range.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Virtually all highways in the U.K. have 'excessive traffic' unless you travel at 3am!

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I skipped over some posts, so apologies for the repeat if indeed I am repeating what was said above.

One thing about advances in technology is the changeover cost. A base model Toyota Corolla hatch petrol would cost me $25,000 on road today. I might be able to negotiate a trade in of $6-7,000 on my present car. I'd still have to borrow to buy the new car, and I don't want to. I work in a low income job and I would prefer to spend the money on other things, like booze.

I do have a small environmental conscience, in that I vote and do stuff for the Greens around election time, but it doesn't really motivate me. Social justice does that. But if I'm not looking forward to having to buy an electric car, how many more of the teeming millions simply won't do it without a very large carrot or a plank of wood?

[ 04. June 2017, 02:11: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

I do have a small environmental conscience, in that I vote and do stuff for the Greens around election time, but it doesn't really motivate me.

One should also consider the environmental impact of throwing away a perfectly good car in order to buy a more efficient one. Depending on how much you drive in a year, it may not even make environmental sense to replace your car, quite aside from the financial considerations.

I gather that the emissions associated with the manufacture of a car are on the same scale as its lifetime tailpipe emissions.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm thinking it probably has to cost more to drive and park than public transit to change behaviour, to get people to stop driving. Rough calculation suggests it would have to cost 33 cents per km (20 cents per mile) to equal costs of transit here. Either charge that, or somehow make the cost of driving high enough to discourage use. I haven't included fuel costs as raising that doesn't seem to alter behaviour.

We have to get cars to stop being the main transport method. Electric cars operate more cleanly, but manufacturing and sourcing all the parts and materials is a pollution source.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I'd love to catch the bus. Though if I ever had to work past 17:13 I'd be stuffed and need to pay for a taxi as the buses stop then.

While the bus seems expensive per trip or week-on-week, if I factor in car insurance [compulsory third-party and accident] and maintenance it would be cheaper. Perhaps if I lived in a big city I could get away with it, if I could afford the rent[!], but out here I need a car to get to most places anyway-- or give up on my bushwalking as public transit tends not to take you to the start of trails. Not sure if I'm being selfish here in wanting to indulge in such a recreation -- we do carpool in the bushwalking club.

Back to not needing to worry... I do not have kids but I worry enough about my nieces and the world they, or their children, will inherit. What upsets me most is I refuse to believe most high-profile holding-office deniers are that stupid to doubt it...I can only think they could care less about future generations [which is worrying if they have children] or they have so much faith in industry and innovation that they know they'll be safe, come what may -- and stuff those on low-lying islands or lands at risk of desertification or whatever. I know the distant poor and in danger are always harder to worry about than the neighbour on your doorstep, but to so utterly dismiss others seems so inhumane.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The Weather Channel went after Trump on climate change (Pop Sugar)! [Big Grin]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

We have to get cars to stop being the main transport method. Electric cars operate more cleanly, but manufacturing and sourcing all the parts and materials is a pollution source.

I think you'll find that cars are the most efficient transport method in areas of low population density.

If all the world were a city, then we'd be better off with no cars and some form of public transport.

The issue for transport systems is partly the need to cope with all types of journey - rural-to-rural, rural-to-city, city-to-rural, within-city, between-city. And those annoying intermediate-density suburban areas (where so many people end up living) that are neither one thing nor the other...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Sure Russ, cars are efficient if you leave out all other costs including environmental damage and costs of roads. BTW, I do know a little about sparse population. I'm living in in Saskatchewan which is 8 times bigger than Ireland, with 1/6 of the population, for a density of 1.9 people per square mile versus Ireland's 73.4 (if wikipedia has correct numbers).

We are in the process of doing it all wrong in Saskatchewan. The provincial gov't (a conservative one, Sask Party) shut down the provincial bus company last week because it did what conservatives gov't do, rack up deficits and shovel money at friends at everyone's expense. The total subsidy of $17 million to the Sask Transportion Company (bus company), is just about enough to build about 4 miles of highway. Which is really stupid. Link if interested.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sure Russ, cars are efficient if you leave out all other costs including environmental damage and costs of roads.

'cause where you're from, buses fly?

So before your right-wing government destroyed your bus service, how often did your bus service run? (This one's a real question.) I'm curious, because I don't see how enough people can want to go to the same places at the same time to make a bus service rational in such a rural area.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I do rather like the press reports that Trump finally decided to leave the Paris climate agreement because he wanted to get back at Macron for his handshake.

That's so incredibly stupid that it is believable.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So before your right-wing government destroyed your bus service, how often did your bus service run? (This one's a real question.) I'm curious, because I don't see how enough people can want to go to the same places at the same time to make a bus service rational in such a rural area.

Some routes daily, some others weekly, some in between. The real losers are those who live in rural areas, need medical transport to places where treatment is provided, elderly who cannot drive, courier services for businesses - farm machinery parts is a big deal among other things.

The point is that some services are not rational in terms of making a profit. And that rationality ≠ making money in all circumstances. If it was, then we wouldn't have electric, natural gas, phones (land and cell), internet, water, sewer, mail. We've always subsidized rural basic services.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

We really need a thread on one dumb quote? or is this about more demonising those that dissent. Of course that's a silly thing to say. But it's funny how these are the kinds of quotes that people like to use to deface those that disagree.

The climate changes, so far we've seen nothing noteworthy in our small swatch of careful study over about 50 years. (before that we didn't really collect that much data and instruments weren't even calibrated).
Of course we have harmed the planet with pollutants, but I think it is highly interesting that so many are brainwashed into believing that CO2 is what is really going to kill the species.

It's ridiculous. Yes, we are that dumb - all of us.

It is well known that the sun is putting out more radiation over the last 100 years, but that doesn't get publicity. No, instead politicians are fear mongering so they can control the feeble minded population.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

It is so fashionable to talk about greenhouse gasses that people will say nonsense like that.

".... even if there WERE a link".

Just ponder the full fledged pinheadery of that statement. It demonstrates the outright rejection of all contrary evidence

Why do people put in qualifiers to their articles like that? They know that if they don't support the POLITICS of climate change, they don't get funding!

Climate change is simply a narrative now, it's a vehicle for funding technology innovation. It's a way of galvanizing people toward a common cause that feels good and is blended with other things are are responsible and natural.

Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Bullshit.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Aijalon:
There is a convergence of evidence from multiple data sourses: pollen, tree rings, ice cores, coral, glacial and polar ice melting, sea-level rising, plant and animal shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the rate of temperature increase. It all converges on the same conclusion. To say a single thing may be out of line with the others doesn't mean much. Convergence of data is the evidence. For you to overrule the consensus, you will have to explain all the data, not just your two little points.

And about the sun, the data don't support your point. Link.

[ 05. June 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is well known that the sun is putting out more radiation over the last 100 years, but that doesn't get publicity. No, instead politicians are fear mongering so they can control the feeble minded population.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

Yep, so well known you can apparently only cite a non-scholarly article from over a decade ago to support this "well know" fact. Here's a link to an article by the Union of Concerned Scientists which, interestingly enough, cites the same article being cited by your space.com article. (It's footnote [1]):

quote:
The second hypothesis relies on the fact that changes in solar activity also change the flow of small, charged, highly energetic particles (known as galactic cosmic rays) that travel through the atmosphere toward Earth [1, 2]. These particles in turn create more ions (charged atoms or molecules) from air molecules in the atmosphere, and it has been suggested [3] that these ions might modify cloud formation, causing large changes in weather and temperatures below.

So far, there is no convincing evidence that either of these ideas adequately demonstrate a causal links between small changes in solar irradiance and the relatively large, measurable changes in Earth’s surface temperature over the past century.

Of course, we don't have to rely on forensic evidence of high energy particle residue in meteors (a partial data set by definition) to check for a recent correlation. Solar irradiance has been measured directly by satellites for the last four decades, so we can see the correlation for ourselves, or the lack thereof.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is so fashionable to talk about greenhouse gasses that people will say nonsense like that.

".... even if there WERE a link".

Just ponder the full fledged pinheadery of that statement. It demonstrates the outright rejection of all contrary evidence

Yeah, like the fact that the radiative heat-trapping properties of certain gases has been known since the nineteenth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Why do people put in qualifiers to their articles like that? They know that if they don't support the POLITICS of climate change, they don't get funding!

Yep. Exxon, BP, and other fossil fuel megacorps just can't compete against the massive funding of scientific grants!!! Interestingly, this climate change conspiracy you posit would be one of the most successful in human history: thousands of people doing primary research all coming up with the same generally-agreeing results without any defectors, leaks, or accidental posting of the real data.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose 1995 (the year mean CO2 levels were at 360 ppm) as your baseline? It would seem more straightforward (and honest) to use the starting point of the data set (316 ppm in 1959) as your baseline, but maybe you've got a reason (aside from "+10% sounds a lot less scary than +28%").

And arguments from very small numbers is not terribly convincing except to scientifically illiterate laymen. For example, the LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of exposed persons) for hydrogen cyanide is somewhere between 100 ppm and 300 ppm, yet no one ever says "That's impossible! That's only one hundredth of one percent." Well, I suppose they might if they were defending themselves in a cyanide poisoning liability suit, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take them at their word or conclude that since it was such a small number the amount of cyanide was therefore "insignificant".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The climate changes, so far we've seen nothing noteworthy in our small swatch of careful study over about 50 years. (before that we didn't really collect that much data and instruments weren't even calibrated).

In addition to what others have said in response to your post, I'd point out that although we only have a few decades of instrumental data (as you note) we have proxy data that has allowed us to reconstruct the climate over several 10s of thousands of years. So, we know that the current rate of warming exceeds that of the start of the current interglacial and that current temperatures exceed the maximum of the last few interglacial periods. We also know that CO2 concentrations are greater than at any time over the last million years, and almost certainly several 10s of millions of years.

quote:
Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

As noted, the actual increase over modern historical periods is more like 20-40% (it really does depend on what you consider to be the baseline). But, to call that insignificant misses how atmospheric chemistry affects IR radiation transmission. Most of the gases in the atmosphere are transparent to IR, it's as though they weren't there. So, what's important is the amount of CO2, methane and water vapour, and some trace components such as CFCs.

As an analogy if you're used to drinking beer containing 3% alcohol and switch to beer with 4% alcohol you will notice the effect after a few pints. Even though the increase in alcohol content is small compared to the total volume of beer consumed.

quote:
If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Of course, deforestation and other practices (eg: draining of peatlands) has contributed to global climate change. But, we can easily test whether it's the dominant effect. CO2/CH4 originating from contemporary sources (eg: burning forests) contains a modern 14C concentration. Fossil fuels contain no 14C. If we examine 14C concentrations in the atmosphere then a dilution below what should be present must have come from fossil sources. Guess what? If you do that experiment you find a lot less 14C than you should. We recently published a paper on 14C in tree rings near a new expressway that was suddenly closed (because it went through the Fukushima exclusion zone) - 14C concentrations dropped when the highway opened, then rose again when it was closed in 2011.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.

The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.

And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this? Sure, the planet is warming up a degree F (give or take some error), I'm good with that, I don't even think warming is bad - that's not the question.

Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.

The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.

Look, I'm all for not poisoning the earth and the water. but

The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point.

Actually, we should go into the ice cores. Because they record the natural cycle in CO2 concentrations, as well as the historic record. Which would give a more realistic base line of around 280ppm - the concentration before the start of the industrial revolution, and also the maximum of the previous four interglacial periods stretching back 400,000 years.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.

Look, I'm all for not poisoning the earth and the water. but

The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

Kindly listen to the vast majority of scientists who know what they're talking about rather than spouting further rubbish. You don't know what you're talking about, the more you type the more that becomes evident.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

from the IPCC synthesis report 2014

quote:
Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

If you can show me where scientists reported that we'd draw our curtains one morning to find a dead cow floating past at sill height, then fine.

They're reporting sea level rises in the time frame of decades to centuries. Perhaps they should be more alarmist, because once that shit goes down, our grandkids will be digging us up and hanging our remains.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take a position of "the world started in 1995" seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.

A thought suppression so pernicious it's managed to exert its insidious mind control on almost all of the Earth's climate scientists, and yet somehow manages to get published on the internet and is still up eleven years later? I have to say as "thought suppression" goes that seems pretty small beer.

In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this?

Pretty much, yeah. It's not that scientists are never wrong. (For starters, they often disagree with each other.) It's that in the history of science there has never been a major scientific consensus overturned because scientists all happened to forget about a well-known phenomenon until they were reminded of it by laymen. Your basic proposition is that the entire scientific community has forgotten about clouds. That one day they're all going to listen to you and say "OMG! We completely forgot clouds were a thing! How could we forget that?"

Let's just say I find this scenario implausible.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.

This bit seems to be "it's complicated and I don't understand it, therefore no one understands it". That and throwing out a Gish gallop of other things you likely don't understand particularly well either.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.

"Econsystem" is too good a Freudian finger fail to not point out. At any rate, let's make this a little more specific. As Alan Creswell pointed out a baseline CO2 level for Earth in recent millennia seems to be about 280 ppm. In 1959 it was 316 ppm. In 2016 it was 404 ppm and shows no sign of either leveling off or decreasing. Your argument, as near as I can make it out, is that current levels of CO2 provide a negligible effect on climate. Please show us your work. You claim to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is "a minor contributor" to global temperature increases. How minor? And, more importantly given that the trend towards higher CO2 concentrations is continuing, at what concentration would you consider it to be an actual problem worth addressing?

Again, please show your work. I'm pretty sure that between Alan and myself we'll probably be able to follow the math.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The point is that some services are not rational in terms of making a profit.

Oh, sure. I was thinking in terms of "frequent enough to meet people's needs, and containing an average of more than one or two passengers." Because if you're only moving one or two people about, it's not rational to do it with a large bus.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

Please explain why you consider that "insignificant"? I'm suspecting it's the typical schoolboy "it's a small number so it can't matter" argument, and unfortunately for you, that's really not how the planet works.

quote:

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Certainly deforestation contributes to the increase of CO2. Everybody agrees with that. It's not the largest contribution, but it's a decent-sized chunk of the man-made CO2 emissions.

What's your point here?

Alan has pointed out that the change in atmospheric carbon-14 tells you how much long-sequestered (fossil fuel) carbon we're burning. There's a lot of science here, and it's all consistent.

Atmospheric C02 is increasing - there are a large number of different ways of measuring that. We are causing it (burning fossil fuels, deforestation, etc...) That's not in doubt by anyone sensible.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Mexico City and other cities in Central and South America employ small buses known as combis, each holding from 5 to 15 passengers. I took the combi frequently during a stay in Mexico City a while back. It's certainly not the epitome of comfort and convenience but it served its purpose.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
if you're only moving one or two people about, it's not rational to do it with a large bus.

But, it may not be irrational to do it with a small bus. Especially if that bus can serve other purposes as well. A common example would be a postbus - combining a bus service (once or twice a day) with mail delivery and collection. Though the UK has all but eliminated this service, despite it's popularity with users in rural areas as Royal Mail deemed them unprofitable.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

What about pedal-powered vehicles?

"TU Buscycle - the human-powered bus, from Sustainable Engineering Research Unit" (YouTube). And many other PPVs on that page.

Or solar?

"The World’s First 100% Solar Powered Bus" (EnergyMatters). It's in Oz, BTW.

Lots of other links out there. I searched on "pedal-powered bus" and "solar-powered bus".

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.
Yeah, I'm not sure I can take a position of "the world started in 1995" seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.
A thought suppression so pernicious it's managed to exert its insidious mind control on almost all of the Earth's climate scientists, and yet somehow manages to get published on the internet and is still up eleven years later? I have to say as "thought suppression" goes that seems pretty small beer.

In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this?
Pretty much, yeah. It's not that scientists are never wrong. (For starters, they often disagree with each other.) It's that in the history of science there has never been a major scientific consensus overturned because scientists all happened to forget about a well-known phenomenon until they were reminded of it by laymen. Your basic proposition is that the entire scientific community has forgotten about clouds. That one day they're all going to listen to you and say "OMG! We completely forgot clouds were a thing! How could we forget that?"

Let's just say I find this scenario implausible.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.
This bit seems to be "it's complicated and I don't understand it, therefore no one understands it". That and throwing out a Gish gallop of other things you likely don't understand particularly well either.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.
"Econsystem" is too good a Freudian finger fail to not point out. At any rate, let's make this a little more specific. As Alan Creswell pointed out a baseline CO2 level for Earth in recent millennia seems to be about 280 ppm. In 1959 it was 316 ppm. In 2016 it was 404 ppm and shows no sign of either leveling off or decreasing. Your argument, as near as I can make it out, is that current levels of CO2 provide a negligible effect on climate. Please show us your work. You claim to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is "a minor contributor" to global temperature increases. How minor? And, more importantly given that the trend towards higher CO2 concentrations is continuing, at what concentration would you consider it to be an actual problem worth addressing?

Again, please show your work. I'm pretty sure that between Alan and myself we'll probably be able to follow the math.

I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

The mass assumptions about various aspects of the sun affecting earth centuries ago can only be viewed with a certain level of error considered. There is no way to know what solar weather was like in the past, but we can just make big assumptions.

yet the act that is put on is that science is just flawless and exact. Then we're told that a half degree of warming is killing us.

I am just standing back and looking objectively at this. I is basically politically induced mass hysteria. It's a like mass hypnosis. I guess you can't see it, you're one of the hypnotized ones.

Math just doesn't help us in the discussion here. The assumptions behind the math are the point here.

Posting the article as I did - again - was simply to demonstrate the thinking process of scientists truly inquisitive enough to question the "facts" of climate change as expressed.

Climate Change is a policy, not really a true science.

Sure sure, we have satellites and we are getting better about measuring things, but in a global experiment of tenths of a degree I just don't believe that in the recent past a few decades back that any of this was ever a real problem.

There is the unpublished research that doesn't agree with presumption behind all this as well. They just keep crunching new numbers and when they find one that agrees with the big big problem, they praise it as groundbreaking.

It's an inflated problem that enables the politicians to stuff regulations down our throats - and you like it! It's rather amazing actually.

The planet is warming up!
The greenhouse gas keeps us warm...
hmmmm.
must be carbon dioxide - has to be.

Boom.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

Excuse me for asking, but you know that you are trying to debate physics with a nuclear scientist and someone with a doctorate in planetary geophysics, do you?

And, of course, not only that but thousands of climatologists whose job it actually is to make these predictions. You lack credibility here and you certainly lack credibility in the wild.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

This, and your subsequent comments about science not being exact are not at all the same thing. The politicians show way more disagreement than those who do science. Most of the politicians who disagree are illiterate in science and are either mostly American or American politicians who dispute climate science get the most press.

First, that scientists do not all agree isn't relevant. Some scientists have been providing expert commentary because they've been paid to do it, on the side of saying the data do not fit with warming. The money has been largely American and largely fossil fuel companies.

Second, science is about explaining data. The data do consistently show from multiple independent sources as I posted above that the planet is getting warmer. No-one is going to accept "alternative facts" on this.

You have an unusual understanding of science. Your comments about unpublished data - How did you then learn about it? Is it unpublished because it did not pass peer review? Are you alleging data suppression and a conspiracy to suppress data contrary to climate change? Which seems very odd, because the documentation is rather clear the shows that companies and people who profit from fossil fuels are the ones putting out data, e.g., Koch brothers, Exxon. Some of it since the 1980s.

quote:
Aijalon:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

This is demonstrably false. The data converges from independent data sources. Things as diverse as ice cores, coral, carbon which is contained in rocks, changes in the ecology of plants (where they live over millennia).

[ 06. June 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

Given that you're posting on a thread that started out by citing several politicians who disagree with science, yeah it's funny. Not "funny ha ha" more "funny how Aijalon keeps just making shit up and ignoring everyone else's points". So yeah, it's "funny" that when it's pointed out that you're mis-representing the work of Dr. Usoskin you pretend that it hasn't happened and just continue to repeat the same point as if it's still valid. Your linked article even says:

quote:
The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.

"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If you want to claim there's scientific disagreement on this subject, how about citing some actual scientific disagreement?

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

It's fairly amazing how you can pivot from "I'm not a scientists" to "let me give you my analysis of the robustness of this scientific data set". You're either not qualified to make that determination, in which case you need to provide some kind of citation that actually agrees with your claim, or you are qualified, in which case show your work.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I am just standing back and looking objectively at this. I is basically politically induced mass hysteria.

Another finger fail too good to pass up.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It's a like mass hypnosis. I guess you can't see it, you're one of the hypnotized ones.

Seems like conspiracy theory thinking to me. You're "looking objectively at this". Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a pawn of the conspiracy.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Math just doesn't help us in the discussion here. The assumptions behind the math are the point here.

I disagree. Saying "don't look at the numbers" is one of the warning signs of someone trying to pull a fast one. I'm not expecting you to re-create a full and accurate climate model. A back of the envelope "Earth as a blackbody at solar wavelengths/grey body at thermal wavelengths" would be sufficient to give us a rough order of magnitude and see how change-sensitive such a system is.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Posting the article as I did - again - was simply to demonstrate the thinking process of scientists truly inquisitive enough to question the "facts" of climate change as expressed.

Except, as has been pointed out repeatedly to you, that article doesn't say what you claim it says!!! Your complete unwillingness to address this point is not something we'd expect from someone who is making a good faith effort to "look[] objectively at this". Usually when someone's stated evidence has been shown to be insufficient to their point (or in this case, completely contrary to their point) some effort is made to address the problem. Since you seem unwilling to do this I can only conclude that evidence isn't what drives your conclusions.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
There is the unpublished research that doesn't agree with presumption behind all this as well. They just keep crunching new numbers and when they find one that agrees with the big big problem, they praise it as groundbreaking.

Can you expand on this? What "unpublished research" are you referring to, and how, as a non-scientist, were you able to access it and assess its accuracy? Who exactly is "They" who keep doing all that math you say we shouldn't pay attention too? A few more details on this conspiracy you're suggesting would be helpful.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists

I am. So is Alan. So are others.

I had my first lecture in the science of global warming from someone in the Met Office in, I think, 1988. The data was a bit sketchy, and there was insufficient modelling as to potential effects. But it was enough to call it even then.

Literally everything we've found out since has confirmed those original conclusions, refining models and exploring the feedback loops.

You don't want to believe this because you don't want to believe it. That's okay. We don't want to believe that we're fucking up the climate that we depend on to feed ourselves and keep our cities above sea level. Unfortunately, we have to face facts. That's what we're doing.

Whatever reason you're using not to believe, accept that you have zero scientific evidence that you're right. Stop trying to argue this scientifically, because for you, this is not a scientific argument, but a theological/philosophical argument. Don't confuse the two.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Whatever reason you're using not to believe, accept that you have zero scientific evidence that you're right. Stop trying to argue this scientifically, because for you, this is not a scientific argument, but a theological/philosophical argument. Don't confuse the two.

And this is the problem, right here. Climate change is not something to be believed in. It's not an article of faith. It's a goddamned fucking fact, and anyone who treats it otherwise is supporting the destruction of the climate that supports life as we know it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree.

Except quite a few right wing politicians do disagree. This thread starts with someone quoting some of them.

quote:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

The problem is that if you don't give concrete examples here to justify your assertions it just looks like you're whistling in the dark.
You've already said you don't want to talk about the ice cores. Obviously if you don't want to talk about any of the evidence the left-over evidence will be sketchy.

quote:
yet the act that is put on is that science is just flawless and exact. Then we're told that a half degree of warming is killing us.

Well, no, it isn't. If you pay attention you'll see that climate scientists say that the data is consistent with anything between half a degree of warming, which might be a little uncomfortable, to two degrees, which is about the point things start to get serious, up to ten, which means a wholesale destruction of the earth's ecosystem as we know it.
So your statements here are based on misinformation.

That said, the data that is coming in tends to be more consistent with the more alarmist predictions.

quote:
I am just standing back and looking objectively at this.

The evidence for this seems sketchy and based on a few marginal data points.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

lately been betrayed by the firefox spell checker lines a bit. Some good finger fails for sure.... [Ultra confused]

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.
Excuse me for asking, but you know that you are trying to debate physics with a nuclear scientist and someone with a doctorate in planetary geophysics, do you?

And, of course, not only that but thousands of climatologists whose job it actually is to make these predictions. You lack credibility here and you certainly lack credibility in the wild.

Well okay boys. To Cheesy and all. No I didn't know what their professions were.

I don't have a go-to source by the way and personal research on all this ended back in the early 2000's so all your recent things you have to point out, I cannot say anything about it.

I stated the sun was hotter over the last century, that was based on a number of sources, such as NASA, and I never said that radiation was significant.

I posted the article just after typing the "100yrs" not because it inherently agreed with my statement - it just happened to pop up in google search. (funny that Google would present me with old old old articles when my search was not that precise, I suspect foul play by google, but then it is on me to get a true search going properly). So then I hastily posted THE QUOTE not because it agreed with my statement, but because it surprisingly and comically ended with a conclusion that amounts to this: "there is no data from the sun that would ever convince that it is the key to climate change".

The reason I disregard the IPCC, Paris, and all other climate change issues in general is because I long ago concluded it's bogus.

I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

I could post any number of articles, and most of those articles are later cleared up by some other study, because all the notice is given to the people hunting for climate change. Follow the money! Too much is invested in climate change now. It's a scarrrrrrrrry global problem! It's really part of the opression of the working class thought... but that's for another day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

That is an example of the system at work. There was a hiatus, then there wasn't. You may follow some of the links therein for what cites you like.

Some reasons why In the end, this is a silly discussion and Climate change is silly talk.

1) all the hysteria has calmed down and the world is doing nothing to really stop climate change because people actually understand it's hype because anyone can follow the money.

2) Climate change as viewed through a couple years or a few events is foolish. As one example the severity of weather events is tied to growth in human population centers and such things as monetary damages by weather... In other words, the more money and people inflation....the more SCARRRRY the weather seems to get.

3) Ok, planet is a little warmer as measured. No evidence exists to show that warmer is worse. Can't forget that one.

4) instrumentation is getting more and more precise and as they do this data is merged and force fit into older and more inaccurate data and manipulated for mass consumption - at a glance. The manipulation is evident in graphs such as those shown in the link above. Small slice cuts of the temperature rises SEEM to show drastic change in temperature that would indicate out of control temperature increases. But when viewed from farther back or zoomed out, one realizes that a half degree is really insignificant the face of all the fluctuation. In other words, the data is full of noise, but the presentation of the data is on one high note.

The wiki article above also points out that climate should be measured in 30 year increments, kind of nifty thought.

Last but not least..... the unpublished data. I would like to see it too. [Biased]

We only have a small window into the officially released data issues as we saw with climate gate and so on. There must be many many computer models that don't show any warming. Scientific consensus though, causes people to throw out results that contradict that consensus. Consensus isn't proof, but sadly these days it amounts to actionable proof.

Oh wait, there is no action on climate change, everyone is content to burn the planet down...I almost forgot. Why bother! Maybe it's just a fun subject, see you tomorrow with some unpublished articles!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm sorry. That's completely incoherent and nonsensical.

1. All the money was coming from the oil companies. They knew about this before governments did, and hid the data.

2. No one is doing this. Weather =/= climate.

3. This is the exact opposite of what shown.

4. You don't understand statistics. At all.

To repeat: this is not about science for you. This is about something else, and it'd be far more honest (and less headache inducing for the rest of us) if you just admitted it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I stated the sun was hotter over the last century, that was based on a number of sources, such as NASA, and I never said that radiation was significant.

That's new. A lot of climate denialists will dump a lot of irrelevant data into a discussion hoping that their random shit-stirring will derail the conversation, but they almost never just come out and admit that's what they're doing. Full marks for originality, if nothing else!

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So then I hastily posted THE QUOTE not because it agreed with my statement, but because it surprisingly and comically ended with a conclusion that amounts to this: "there is no data from the sun that would ever convince that it is the key to climate change".

Originality again! Most climate denialists take it as an affront that the data doesn't correlate with their preferred conclusion, but they don't typically admit that they feel they're owed a supporting data set.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

Translation: "I don't mean to insult your integrity, just your intelligence." There really is no polite way for saying "you're stupid because you disagree with my evidence-free assertions".

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Follow the money!

Good idea.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I don't have a go-to source by the way and personal research on all this ended back in the early 2000's so all your recent things you have to point out, I cannot say anything about it.

So why are you saying anything about it? There's been a lot of climate science in the last 15 years. The models are a lot better than they were 15 years ago. A lot of the vague "well, this might not be right" handwaving that might have squeaked by in a dim light 15 years ago is simply not tenable any more.

quote:
The reason I disregard the IPCC, Paris, and all other climate change issues in general is because I long ago concluded it's bogus.

You "long ago concluded it's bogus" based on prejudice and made-up claptrap, and now make the assumption that all the data and all the scientists are lying to you, because you don't like the answers.

Presumably you'll be here promoting Lysenkoism next week.

quote:

I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

And this simply isn't good enough. You don't get to argue science with platitudes. If you have different interpretations of the data, let's hear them.

quote:

Scientific consensus though, causes people to throw out results that contradict that consensus. Consensus isn't proof, but sadly these days it amounts to actionable proof.

More vague handwaving.

We don't "prove a scientific theory" - that's not how it works. We have a theory that fits the existing data, and we can use it to make predictions. We take more data, and it agrees with the theory. Great - the theory still works.

If the data doesn't match the theory, there's something missing from the theory. This doesn't mean that the theory is "wrong" - it might, like Newtonian mechanics, be a perfectly acceptable approximation almost all the time. But it does mean we have to add something to our theory.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

My governor: "Challenging Trump, Gov. Brown plans world ‘climate action summit’ in SF" (SF Gate).

Go get 'em, Jerry!
[Cool]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0