Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Electric Vehicle Emissions 27-50% Greater Than Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

Not my wheelhouse exactly but this seems like quite an interesting study. They claim that with a “cradle to grave” analysis electric cars actually generate more greenhouse gas than gasoline powered cars. A lot of you are well informed on this issue…does this make any sense??

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/11/driv ... W7rtb.dpbs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

https://www.google.com/search?q=smart+m ... e&ie=UTF-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Woodsrider]

Electric Vehicle Emissions 27-50% Greater Than Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

Not my wheelhouse exactly but this seems like quite an interesting study. They claim that with a “cradle to grave” analysis electric cars actually generate more greenhouse gas than gasoline powered cars. A lot of you are well informed on this issue…does this make any sense??

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/11/driv ... W7rtb.dpbs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes and no. It really depends on where the electric car gets its charge. Generally speaking, there is a point, usually calculated in miles driven, where an electric car produces less CO2 than a gasoline or diesel vehicle. But that point varies depending on dominate energy sources. Obviously, alternative energy and cogeneration reduces that mileage point, while conventional fossil plants increase that point. From what I have read, that mileage point varies from 30k miles to 60k miles. Once you drive an electric car past the break even point, it is better for the environment.

[Coydog]

SO... what does the HIGHEST QUALITY DATA say about warming (I understand this is only for the USA and only for the short period it has existed)?????

Look for yourself:

Is the USA ACTUALLY getting warmer???? NOAA's BEST dataset says....NO!!!

Here's what it actually says:



Based on this sample - USCRN 2005-2017 - the computed least squares temperature increase is 10.6 degrees F per century. However, because the sample is so small (for climate time scales), the uncertainty in the regression slope is large, with a range of +- 8.4 degrees F. So the smallest increase is 2.2 degrees F per century and the largest increase is a whopping 19.0 degrees F.

Either way, this particular data says it is warming, though with very large uncertainty as to the degree of warming due to the small sample size.

BTW, regressing the entire CimDiv dataset, 1895 to present, returns a more sane trend of 1.5 += 0.3 degrees per century - much tighter uncertainty.

[madhatter]

global cold and snowy today with a zero pct chance of AGW legislation being passed...

[PeteH]

global cold and snowy today with a zero pct chance of AGW legislation being passed...

No AGW legislation at the national level, but certainly at the state the and local level. They are taking up the slack from the federal efforts. Here's is some of what Vt. has been and is up to: http://www.revermont.org/wp-content/upl ... 2017-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lot's of news lately of governors and mayors in both red and blue states pledging to Paris accord at the state and local level. Vermont's Republican Governor Phil Scott joined a climate commission with other states and within the state has setup a Climate Action Commission. He has already signed climate related legislation into law and is likely to continue to.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

SO... what does the HIGHEST QUALITY DATA say about warming (I understand this is only for the USA and only for the short period it has existed)?????

Look for yourself:

Is the USA ACTUALLY getting warmer???? NOAA's BEST dataset says....NO!!!

Here's what it actually says:



Based on this sample - USCRN 2005-2017 - the computed least squares temperature increase is 10.6 degrees F per century. However, because the sample is so small (for climate time scales), the uncertainty in the regression slope is large, with a range of +- 8.4 degrees F. So the smallest increase is 2.2 degrees F per century and the largest increase is a whopping 19.0 degrees F.

Either way, this particular data says it is warming, though with very large uncertainty as to the degree of warming due to the small sample size.

BTW, regressing the entire CimDiv dataset, 1895 to present, returns a more sane trend of 1.5 += 0.3 degrees per century - much tighter uncertainty.

Do you ever READ a post before you respond?? Your graph is NOT USCRN (at least if the label at bottom of the graph is correct.) The label says it is NCDC data NOT USCRN.... so it is likely "homogenized data"....which was the point of the whole post...

"what does temperature data look like if you DO NOT homogenize??"

That is the point of the USCRN data set.

Don't know where the rest of the babbling came from but the label on your graph gives voice to the fraud....unless your graph is "mislabeled?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/14/ ... ture-data/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the best trend line through the USCRN data set :

uscrn-trend-plot-from-ncdc-data.png (15.91 KiB) Viewed 511 times

[Mister Moose]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

The case that DANGEROUS warming / flooding / weather ...is CAUSED by increased industrial release of CO2 has become weaker in every way.

There appears to be nothing (except increase in atmospheric CO2) in our current earth climate system which is out of the range of perceptible normal natural climate variation...and even that may be illusory.

Svensmark's ideas on the role of solar activity modulating galactic gamma ray incidence and thus cloud cover and thus climate...are becoming more sophisticated and better supported by evidence.

With the current change in US governance the "climate consensus" is terrified that the bottomless pipeline of funding granted EXCLUSIVELY TO PROVE CO2 CAUSES WARMING... may soon end. This would be good for science. Funding should not funnel exclusively toward one family of hypotheses. Let's get some true diversity back into climate science funding (one of the key reasons Judith Curry quit!)...and let the best theories be found.

[madhatter]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

what has happened:




withdrawal from paris acccord

removal of restrictions on coal

removal of climate change from national security policy





what hasn't happened

cap and trade

complete meltdown of polar ice caps

virtually anything al gore said...

AGW zealots on this forum have not quit skiing...


that's just for starters...sux we don't have that tax though or we probably could ski all year in VT...

[Coydog]

Do you ever READ a post before you respond?? Your graph is NOT USCRN (at least if the label at bottom of the graph is correct.) The label says it is NCDC data NOT USCRN.... so it is likely "homogenized data"....which was the point of the whole post...

"what does temperature data look like if you DO NOT homogenize??"

That is the point of the USCRN data set.

Don't know where the rest of the babbling came from but the label on your graph gives voice to the fraud....unless your graph is "mislabeled?"

1) My graph is USCRN - it is exactly the same data displayed in your original post, USCRN 2005-2017. Instead of ranting about labels (ncdc is part of the URL, not the dataset) and regurgitating silly denialist websites, try performing the analysis yourself.

2) The graph you recently posted only uses data through May 2015. Although the regression line from the WattsUp post is slightly incorrect - something you should be able to verify yourself - the trend in this interval is indeed negative. However, the uncertainty is huge. The trend for the segment is -3.3 +- 11.6 degrees F per century, (-0.0027 += 0.009 degrees F per month), thus the uncertainty in the trend is larger than the trend itself! Add in the subsequent data (June 2015 through November 2017) and you obtain the positive trend as I've shown with smaller uncertainty, but probably still too large for meaningful statistical purposes. Use all available data and the uncertainty shrinks to statistically viable levels.

3) Even the math-challenged knuckleheads at WattsUp inadvertently show this WattsUp - USCRN Revisited. Perhaps to be expected, their trend line is incorrect - this time a bit more so. Still, they show a negative trend for data through May 2015 and a positive trend through 2017.

[Coydog]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

It's gotten warmer.

[madhatter]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

It's gotten warmer.

yup teens yesterday and 34 this morning....

[Coydog]

yup teens yesterday and 34 this morning....

34 +- 50 according to WattsUp.