Can you cite a scientific paper showing that extreme events chance of happening is increasing?
Here’s a quick one from Scientific American:
you have to click through the sponsor’s link to read the entire article:
For example, the international World Weather Attribution project found links to human-induced climate change in four of the five extreme weather events they modeled from 2016, including coral bleaching in the Pacific Ocean, spring rain storms across Europe, summer flooding in Louisiana, and extreme Arctic warming, but not cold air outbreaks at the end of the year across the United States.
As for Hurricane Harvey in Houston? The models suggest that human-caused climate change increased the rainfall during the storm to levels that were three times more likely and 15% more intense than without the human activity.
More than 80% of people living in the United States report having experienced an extreme weather event in their lifetimes and the severity of those experiences are only set to increase. Our extreme weather preparedness plans already must not only include efforts to mitigate the occurrence of extreme weather but also adapt to changes in climate that are now inevitable.
This Patrick Michael made a lot of predictions too. Here are a collection of them below. Note that I don’t think making any one stupid prediction make the entire argument wrong (once again, not the way science works) but this guy doesn’t seem to learn from data.
Science isn’t based on a mob mentality. Regardless, I think the question you need to be asking (which I think you actually are) is whether this is normal. To have a year or two of several large storms, then no large storms in the area for 10 years, then 11 years later, several large storms in the same year, etc. Whether that’s normal or not I don’t know. But if FL previously had one storm per year like clockwork, then starts to have these waves of storms, that may be evidence of something.
However, you can’t just say “FL didn’t have a crazy storm for 10 years, therefore global warming isn’t a thing” just as you correctly point out that you can’t say “FL had 5 crazy storms in two years, and therefore global warming is a thing.” 5 crazy storms followed by 10 years of nothing could be very good evidence of global warming. Or it could be irrelevant to the question of global warming. You have to have a handle on context, especially when you’re talking about climate change.
The climate models have been way off. See Climate change models may not have been accurate after all as study finds most widely overestimated global warming
A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming.
Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth’s temperature rose.
The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.
As for Harvey–see this Wikipedia article on Texas Hurricanes (BTW–Wiki is known to be heavily tilted towards the warming
side Scroll down to see
June 25, 1954 – The first Hurricane Alice of 1954 makes landfall south of Brownsville as a hurricane. Damage on the coast close to where Alice made landfall remained minimal. However, the resulting flood caused by the remnants of Alice were considered a 1 in 2000 year event. The storm caused high rainfall totals, peaking at 24 inches (610 mm) northwest of Del Rio. A bridge on the Pecos River collapsed due to the heavy rains. In the town of Ozona alone, the floods caused $2 million in damages.
So I am not buying it. Weather is much too complex to be able to make flat statements that extreme events are increasing.
With the earth being billions of years old, climate must be thought of on an epochal time basis. This is difficult for us mere humans, most of us not being alive for even a measly hundred years. The difference in scale between epochal time and our lifetimes sort of messes with the mind.
I, too, am unable to do the epochal thing. I can do the eyeblink thing, though. Labelling 10,000 years as the eyeblink it is on an epochal basis, my chart will show you the warming these last 10,000 years. And most people concede this given so much melted ice recently, over that span.
But, again, 10,000 years is sort of a joke. So my chart does a little better, but not really all that much better. It takes you back 400,000 years. That’s it. That’s as far as I can go. Sorry.
Anyway, you can see the warming and cooling cycles, several of them, over that interval of time. What is 400,000 years? Is that 10% of earth history? I dunno. Whatever. I’m not trying to say 400,000 years is the be all and end all. It is what it is . . . no more. You shoot for epochal time and you come up short. At least I do. Maybe you can do better.
So you see the warming and cooling at intervals, Very, VERY roughly, of 100,000 years. Right now we are in a time of earth warming and I gotta tell you my reaction: Thank God Almighty!
Because this chart is in degrees Centigrade, not in Fahrenheit. Think about that as you look at it. When you see minus 5 and minus 8, or whatever, that is REALLY cold conditions. Good heavens, it’s no wonder there were all the ice ages! Thank God I will be long dead - I hope - before such cold intervals as those return. And they will return. You can take THAT to the bank. Why?
Because the principal determinant of earth climate is a nearby star we refer to as the “sun”. And stars are foreboding things. Secondary determinant? Earth processes, i.e., the earth itself. Core temperature of this planet is actually hotter than the surface of the sun! This is important, but it didn’t melt all that ice recently. The sun did that.
So do creatures living on the earth’s surface influence our climate? You bet they do. But the impact from us creatures is of at most quaternary or quinary significance. Anyway, here is your 400,000 year temperature chart. Be happy you were born when you were:
I’m agreeing with DaveHanson here that debating climate change among ourselves does not do us much good. It does not matter what we think or even what the scientists think and whether they are right. What really matters is what the politicians think and they are all in on it in most places around the world. The current administration here in the U.S. is an outlier but the deep state endures. They will be here long after the administration is gone.
As I mentioned in my post above, the Greens have had and will have a huge influence on our economy. The Obama administration fought a war on coal and nearly bankrupted West Virginia but decided they liked electric battery powered cars and now Tesla is a $50 billion market cap company with a market cap greater than General Motors or Chrysler or Ford. The Trump administration backed drill baby drill and now the oil patch economies are booming and the US is not only oil independent but we are actually producing enough to sell to other countries. The natural gas produced by fracking is so cheap that it is widely used here for power generation and, by switching from coal to gas plants, we have actually reduced our carbon dioxide emissions by more than the countries who remained in the Paris Climate Accord.
In the climate change area, the government is heavily into picking winners and losers and as investors it pays for us to be aware of that. If you’d invested in Tesla back in the day you would have made a lot of money but if you invested in Solyndra or A123 you would have lost everything. So which are the next Teslas or which are the next losers?
It should be at least noted that these companies are investing in greener energies, so even if we eventually do go to greener energies, these companies will have the infrastructure to scale up and take advantage of that, before many other companies can (even those which may be devoted solely to green energy). So even going forward, these companies may be safe investments, and I’m inclined to believe that the US isn’t going to adopt green energy across the board until the oil companies, etc know they’re ready and have the infrastructure to decimate any potential competitors in that space.
No, they’re asking for a relaxation because Trump and Perry are making the decisions, and they think they can get them relaxed. Whether that’s good or not for society may ultimately be debatable, but whether car manufacturers can meet the guidelines is not.
You said States and car manufacturers asked to relax fuel standards because those standards aren’t realistic.
He said you are wrong, the standards are realistic. A bunch of cars that exceed those standards already exist.
I’m guessing the states are asking because they are run by corrupted assholes, and car manufacturers are probably asking because they are behind the times on technology or don’t want to invest in their manufacturing facilities as much as they might have to to meet those standards.
Not even in sunny places? Not even with a battery? Why not?
I’m agreeing generally with your point. I’m also pointing out that even if we do push into greener energies, these companies are ready for it. Great investments regardless of policies? Not sure. But if your question stemmed from the thought that I was disagreeing with you, I wasn’t.
You made the statement that manufacturers are asking for relaxed regulations because they aren’t realistic. I’m saying that that statement is false. They’re asking because they think they will succeed. You used this statement seemingly as evidence that solar companies won’t be good investments in the future. I don’t know whether they will be or not, but I know the statement you made to support it is incorrect. If “because they aren’t realistic” is not really a relevant part of your statement and you think that’s still evidence for your point, that’s fine, but if that clause is important to your conclusion, then you need to provide some other basis.
Sure you could try to sell a car like this one that gets 15,000 MPG. Of course it only carries one person in a reclining position and doesn’t go above 15 miles per hour.
The Obama administration’s one size fits all policy was misguided. Different states have different requirements. For example a car for a metrosexual in Rhode Island who just pops over to the Whole Foods to buy quinoa and radicchio would not be suitable for rancher in Montana who has to transport feed for his cattle and heavy equipment to repair the windmills on his property. There’s a reason that the Ford F150 pickup truck is the highest selling model of any vehicle in the United States. Some people need larger vehicles.
Hence the reason states are asking for exemptions. Not because they are “assholes.”
P.S. insulting people who disagree with you is not very persuasive and is against forum rules.
Anyway, first, the car you posted is interesting, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that those are the only types of cars that would meet the fuel efficiency requirements. Regarding the need for a larger vehicle, Tesla has made a semi, so, that seems to refute the claim that you can’t make a larger and powerful vehicle fuel efficient.
Are you running a state? I didn’t insult everyone who disagrees with me or anyone on here. I was taking an educated guess that states are run by politicians who take money from vehicle manufacturers and oil and gas producers in exchange for pushing their agenda (as is tradition).
Also I thought the emission standards were granular enough to accommodate vehicles of various sizes and purposes.
Teslas and indeed all battery powered cars/trucks are NOT fuel efficient. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. So the energy to move the car has to be generated by a power plant, coal powered in many cases, transmitted over lossy transmission lines that lose the energy that heats up the cables, converted through a charger that loses energy to operate and then some of the energy is lost by the batteries as they discharge on their own just by sitting around without moving the car.
The Zero-Emission vehicle signs on battery cars are a joke to anyone who understands physics.
Large-scale power plants are more efficient than dinky ICE engines in vehicles. So even if you burned gasoline at a utility-scale plant to charge the electric vehicles, the generation portion would probably still be more efficient. Transmission and distribution accounts for only a 6% loss. If you want to actually compare you’d have to compare the efficiency of the power plants and battery storage/discharge vs the tiny ICE engines losses.
Aside from that, “renewables” made up 97% of net generation capacity additions in the USA last year , coal has decreased in recent years as plants are retired (we’ll see if the trend continues with the current administration calling to add subsidies to save these beautiful, “clean coal” plants. 2017 and 2018’s projections already show a highly negative change in the trend from the previous several years), so saying added demand that’s being filled for electric vehicles is coming from coal power plants is nonsense. NG is displacing retiring coal plants and renewables are accounting for nearly all of the increases in capacity.
Obviously electric vehicles produce heat. Zero-emission is referring to things other than heat. Saying that somewhere else there’s a cost to produce the power used to charge the batteries has nothing to do with local emissions from the vehicle itself. That’s like saying solar power from solar panels cause cancer because the sun is the source of the energy and the sun is emitting various ionizing radiation.
Transmission and distribution accounts for only a 6% loss. If you want to actually compare you’d have to compare the efficiency of the power plants and battery storage/discharge vs the tiny ICE engines losses.
You would also have to compare the energy lost during the charging of he battery and the loss of the battery over time.
Also, batteries last much less than ICE so you need to take into account the total energy used during the lifetime of the car: to produce the car, its engine, batteries if any and the source of the energy.
That is a misdirection. So-called renewables still account for only a few percent of the total annual energy produced by utilities. And that does not take into account the fossil-fuel plants that still have to be built and kept on standby because of the “renewables” intermittent nature and lack of dispatchability.
I left out hydroelectric power, which is substantial but most greens would like to get rid of. And almost no new dams are being constructed because of opposition by the greens.
has nothing to do with local emissions from the vehicle itself.
Depends on what you mean by “local emission.” The emissions of carbon dioxide by the power plants used to produce the energy, which the greens say is a global quantity that affects the environment wherever it is produced, to charge the batteries are certainly not zero. Also, the battery cars are exporting the other emissions like nitrous oxides from the area where they are driven to the area where the energy is produced.
The argument was about whether it was realistic to create vehicles that met the fuel efficiency regulations. In support of your claim that it wasn’t realistic for vehicles to be produced that met the regulations, you stated that some people need large, powerful cars. In rebuttal to that statement I used the tesla semi as an example of a vehicle that would meet the even light duty truck fuel efficiency regulation requirements.
You then start going off on a different argument about the efficiency of the batteries. Whether a vehicle meets the rules and whether it’s actually fuel efficient may be two different questions. Which is fine, but we were talking about the regulations, not actual fuel efficiency.
If you want to compare “fuel efficiency,” can you compare a tesla model x to a gas vehicle? How many mpg would the gas vehicle have to get to be more “fuel efficient” than a model x? Can this question be answered?
I put fuel efficiency in quotes since I’m willing to accept whatever your definition of that is, as long as it’s uniformly applied to electric and standard.