Global warming?

[glatt]

Well, that ice chart is depressing, so I'm going to post some excellent news instead.

You may have seen this already, but President Obama yesterday implemented new regulations that require US automakers to make cars that get 54.5 MPG by 2025. Of course, the Republicans are opposed to this, but the automakers are happy because it gives them some certainty, and car buyers will get better fuel economy, our dependence on foreign oil will be reduced just as we are competing more with China and India for access to limited oil supplies, and it may even help slow down the rate of global warming a teensy little bit.

A fleet average of 54.5 mpg. That's outstanding! I can't wait.

[footfootfoot]

I'm attaching a .txt file of this article by Bill McKibben as it is several pages. He's been on the front lines of climate change research and sound science for decades. Opening paragraph:

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is

by Bill McKibben


If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe...

.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by glatt

A fleet average of 54.5 mpg. That's outstanding! I can't wait.

A lot can happen in 13 years. Please don't hold your breath. I hate to sound cynical but considering that the moon landing was accomplished in 9 years with technology from nearly 50 years ago, I think that this is really just a placating gesture.

The president of the US (either party) is merely a figurehead who does what he's told.

Seriously.

What we need is not a fleet of marginally more efficient cars, but a genuine mass transit system, local stores, and a reduction in consumption.


eta: maybe you were being sarcastic, but I can't recall you being anything other than sincere in the past.

[glatt]

Oh yeah, but it's a big deal that this went through, considering that it was just a few years ago that the government was giving tax breaks to people for buying Hummers.

I've been bothered for decades at the gas guzzlers produced by the USA, so the see the auto industry embrace a number that high as a requirement is amazing.

[Undertoad]

All each manufacturer has to do is add one all-electric car to their fleet.

MPG of that car = infinity, therefore fleet average = infinity

But global warming footprint of that car may >= footprint of all other cars... if power for it is generated with coal

[glatt]

I don't quite understand what this means, but:
CAFE

For the fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) [22] as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles.[23] The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg.[12] However, the total increase in a manufacturer's average fuel economy rating due to dual-fueled vehicles cannot exceed 1.2mpg.[24] Section 32906 reduces the increase due to dual-fueled vehicles to 0 through 2020. Electric vehicles are also incentivized by the 0.15 fuel divisor, but are not subject to the 1.2 mpg cap like dual-fuel vehicles.

MPGe

Fuel economy estimates for window stickers and CAFE standard compliance are different. The EPA MPGe rating shown in the Monroney label is based on the consumption of the on-board energy content stored in the fuel tank or in the vehicle's battery, or any other energy source, and only represents the tank-to-wheel energy consumption. CAFE estimates are based on a well-to-wheel basis and in the case of liquid fuels and electric drive vehicles also account for the energy consumed upstream to produce the fuel or electricity and deliver it to the vehicle. Fuel economy for CAFE purposes include an incentive adjustment for alternative fuel vehicles and plug-in electric vehicles which results in higher MPGe than those estimated for window stickers.

I think this means the MPGe for electric vehicles will be very high, like in the neighborhood of 100 MPGe, but won't be infinity.

[footfootfoot]

OK, fuck the cars, they're not important. what about this? What do you make of this? or are 54mpg cars a much easier sound bite to wrestle with?


Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is

by Bill McKibben


If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe...

[glatt]

I didn't know this was the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, but I believe it. The planet is warming.

The odds of that happening by simple chance are not important. It's history. We know it happened. The odds, in hindsight, are 100%.

We've got global warming.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

The odds of that happening by simple chance are not important. It's history. We know it happened. The odds, in hindsight, are 100%.

"By chance" is the operative word. If someone's playing craps, and they keep rolling 7s, there's a point where, while it is theoretically possible that it's just a lucky streak, you have to assume that it's a weighted set of dice.

The odds of the warming happening by chance are good for convincing the subset of deniers who (a) are convincable, and (b) haven't moved on to "OK it's happening, but it's a natural cycle" or "OK it's manmade, but warm weather will be lovely". So a very small set.

[footfootfoot]

The temperature of the earth has increased by a degree. That is huge. Consider the difference in the growth of yeast, for example, at 10°C it is dormant, at 11°C it begins to grow.

Consider all the other bacteria, viruses, and insect life that are held in check by minute temperature differences, or conversely are able to survive.

It's not about finding a perpetual motion machine or an alternative source of energy, it's really about finding an alternative to using or requiring so much energy. Increasing gas mileage is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

eta: I thought I'd add this lovely graph

[Lamplighter]

June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States.

Isn't this jibber-jabber ? I think McKibben would know better.

If my yard temp breaks a record at 102 degrees, it's not surprising
when my neighbor's yard breaks a record at 102 degrees.
Likewise, for my neighbor across town, in then next town, in the next state, ...

Likewise for the AC bill, fires in Colorado, a hurricane next week in Louisiana, etc.

It takes something that is averaging the overall effects to mean anything,
such as long term measurements, the advance or retreat of glaciers,
invasions or losses of species of animals or plants in significant areas, etc.

Only the ilk of TV weathermen make claims about today's weather
having anything connected to the cause/effect of global warming.
That's just job security.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

OK, fuck the cars, they're not important. what about this? What do you make of this?

You seem upset. I'm not upset anymore. My suggestions were dismissed by the greater Cellar population years ago. Que sera sera. Care for one of my Prosacs?

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

eta: I thought I'd add this lovely graph

Is that showing that bleu cheese may become extinct? Arrrgh!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Isn't this jibber-jabber ?

Incomplete science reporting, actually.

Every year, there are a certain number of record highs, and a certain number of record lows. That 3,215 number isn't useful unless compared to the number of record lows. I couldn't find that for June, but over the course of the year so far:

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, America has broken more than 40,000 high temperature records in comparison to fewer than 6,000 low temperature records. In total, 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June alone.

No individual weather event can be directly tied to global warming, but the aggregate can.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You seem upset. I'm not upset anymore. My suggestions were dismissed by the greater Cellar population years ago. Que sera sera. Care for one of my Prosacs?



Is that showing that bleu cheese may become extinct? Arrrgh!

No, I'm not upset, it was more of a, you know, "OK, fuck the cars, they're not important. what about this? What do you make of this?" kind of tone. not a "OK, fuck the cars, they're not important. what about this? What do you make of this?" You know?

More conversational in a vulgar sort of way.

Oh, and you can take my Bleu cheese when you scrape it from my cold, stale cracker.

[footfootfoot]

And Lamp, I'm surprised at you to excerpt a single sentence from a nine page essay and use that to discount what the author is saying.

What's next?

Planets don't overheat from legitimate CO2 emissions?