Earth's energy imbalance: global warming 'proved' again 03 May 05

Greenhouse gases are like looking at a patch of trees while the Earth’s heat balance is looking at the whole forest plain and simple.

Ironically, the urban heat islands which skeptics (Norbert) use to show how the temperatures are higher than they should be to predict future warming are also a source of warming which adds something to the total heat imbalance of the earth.

The earth’s heat balance sensitivity is such that a 2 percent increase or decrease in solar radiation from the sun can be a difference between no ice at all and having a frozen planet instead! (source: Dr. Weart’s Essays).

Albedo affects the earth’s heat balance greatly. It is the measure of the earth’s ability to reflect excess solar radiation back into space. Melting ice which reflects 80 percent of solar radiation is replaced by ocean which can reflect as little as 5 percent of the solar radiation (depends on sun angle). In climate science, this is called a positive feedback loop.

In addition, man-made surfaces also contribute a positive feedback loop by creating dark absorbing surfaces such as dark pavement, dark parking lots, dark roofs, and, believe it or not, dark solar panels!

Yes, I said it! Solar panels which help mitigate greenhouse gases also absorb more solar energy than the surrounding surface and this fact has to be included in the total analysis if we move into the paradigm of looking at the problem as the earth’s heat balance rather than one component of it called greenhouse gases. See my point!

The USA has 150,000 square miles of road surface including parking lots which have a lower albedo than the surrounding land. Many rooftops also have a dark color as well. This is affecting the problem in significant ways and only an idiot would not see that if reducing our albedo is causing a major problem than simply increasing the albedo artificially will correct this!

Increasing the reflectivity of man-made surfaces can do even more than carbon reductions and can also help reduce carbon further and even prevent the need for more power plants if significant reductions in urban heat islands are accomplished.

This is because the lower urban temperatures will reduce electrical demand during peak loads when cooling is required. If it does not prevent building another power plant, it will at least reduce the likelihood of blackouts! Remember, GW/CC may also raise summer-time temperatures in the future exasperating the heat island effect even more!

I found an interesting website which mentioned many geo-engineering ideas. Many are debatable but making our pavement and roofs more reflective seems to me to be a good no-brainer idea and it should be included in any Kyoto-type plan.

In other words, projects increasing ground reflectivity should also be a mechanism as well as greenhouse gas management in restoring the earth’s heat balance which is the real problem raising earth’s average mean temperature. Greenhouse gases are just one component of this.

Another heat source influencing surface warming includes the actual heat output from burning fossil fuels. Maybe this is very small, but it is can be easily assessed. It may need to be included as another heat source when looking at our total energy usage on the planet.

The site below has many ideas that you may find interesting and some are understandably debatable. I did copy a section from that website which highlights my focus in this post (please note that I only endorse appropriate measures to increase land albedo at this time and that the other ideas mentioned in this website essay may have merit but may need more analysis in my opinion):

http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

• Relevant excerpt below from my cited website! *

  “A mere 0.5 percent change in Earth’s net reflectivity, or albedo, would solve the greenhouse problem completely. The big problem is the oceans, which comprise about 70 percent of our surface area and absorb more light because they are darker than land.

• End of Excerpt

Final thought*: We have to think about actually solving our problems instead of whining about the future while only developing limited plans which we all know are incomplete and will ultimately fail.

I believe we can insure (if we really want to) that the world of the 22nd century to be a much better world than the one we know today.

All the very best!

Dan

This may be an ignorant question but I’ll ask it anyway.

As it seems glaciers are melting, penguins trapped and dying (injected humor) and temps are rising, would the melting glaciers have any impact on ocean temps and balance out the water temp rise?

Also, related, I was looking on various sites and was surprised at how little the glaciers actually comprise the amount of total water on earth. I’d have to look it up again but it was a very small percentage of the total water (maybe 2-5%?). From a cursory view, it would seem that the ocean levels wouldn’t go up that much.

Is this true or am I just way off?

Last ignorant question, I still hold to the belief that raising the water temp is a lot harder than raising the air temps. Try holding your hand over a stove and place a pot of luke warm water on the next burner over. Which gets hotter faster? Something else (like underwater volcanoes) must be heating the water. (IMHO)

Since this urban heat effect is such a strong concern of skeptics, they can all start working very seriously on solving it & promoting measures to solve it. They don’t even have to believe in AGW to do so. And no harm done to whatever it is they are trying to protect or promote. So, skeptics, don’t fear that you’ll have to give up your SUVs or change your stocks from oil to wind, just make sure the roads you drive on & the roofs on your mege-inefficient homes are light-colored! See, there’s something for everyone to do.

I think ice going into water would be having a cooling effect (perhaps masking the true ocean warming from GW)-Dan Kellog covered this in an earlier blog-and it isn’t only the melting glaciers that will raise sea water, but also the warming water that expands as it warms. Perhaps that’s even the bigger concern – I don’t know. I am a bit confused, however, when I read a wide range of projection re sea rise—from a few centimeters in 100 years to several meters. One I read was 10 meters (or maybe it was 10 feet), but this seems impossible to me. Is there that much above surface ice in the world (coupled with sea expansion from warming)?

would the melting glaciers have any impact on ocean temps and balance out the water temp rise?

Freshwater has a different density than seawater. The melting glaciers, e.g. from Greenland, change the circulation of the oceans also. I say this to introduce the complexity of your question.

The total volume of this water has been modeled to go down past S America to the Antarctic, BTW.

But the direct answer is that the volume of the melting glacier water is such that it is far too small to balance the gained heat in the oceans. At this time, I can’t find the file in my head that has the numbers to show this.

From a cursory view, it would seem that the ocean levels wouldn’t go up that much.

Lynn gets at it with thermal expansion.

I still hold to the belief that raising the water temp is a lot harder than raising the air temps.

Yup.

Something else (like underwater volcanoes) must be heating the water. (IMHO)

Nope.

Look at the time scale of the energy imbalance. There has been heating of the oceans on the scale of decades.

HTH,

D

If anyone is interested. Here is a piece written which counters the energy balance argument from a guy at MIT…

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/04/earths-energy-balance.html

Boiled down, I got out of it was the assumptions on this model were flawed and therefore the conclusions of the model are also flawed. Most was beyond my time or energy level now though….

Question: Would the melting glaciers have any impact on ocean temps and balance out the water temp rise?

Answer: The direct answer is no Jim.

Your thoughts are logical but you are looking at it in the wrong way. The actual glacial ice near the water-ice interface is already at the freezing point of water. Since the water is already at the freezing point, additional melt water cannot have any additional cooling effect on that water. Let me illustrate with a glass of ice water.

When you insert ice into a glass of water, it will lower the temperature of the water. When your ice and water reach the same freezing-point temperature, then the water cannot be cooled further. Heat is conducted through the glass and into the water which adds heat to the ice to melt it further. Please note that the temperature of your ice water only increases once all the ice is melted and when this occurs then, the temperature of your water increases even faster.

Try this simple experiment with a glass of ice water and record the temperature after stirring and again just when all the ice melted. Note how long this took. Then, record the temperature rise of the melted water each 15 minutes and see how long it takes to reach room temperature.

I once promoted using this procedure to my physics students, decades ago, to use their classroom knowledge to investigate the actual merits of those aluminum-can insulators used to keep beverages cold. Although this was a very easy and simple science fair project, the quality of their investigation and how they presented their results helped win them an award. Lynn, I pass this idea to you to use with your children and students.

Guess what Jim, the same laws of physics governing your glass of ice water also govern the glacier ice. Once the heat melts the glacier ice, then there is less ice and less ice surface area to absorb that heat plus there is an additional increase in dark surface area which absorbs even more heat. This extra heat melts additional ice and this positive feedback continues until all the ice is melted or an equilibrium temperature is reached at a high latitude or high altitude.

Quantitatively, the amount of heat needed to a melt a quantity of ice at its freezing point is 44 times that required to raise the same quantity of water 1 degree Fahrenheit and 80 times the heat to raise that same quantity of water 1 degree Celsius (a Celsius degree = 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees)!

Question: I … was surprised at how little the glaciers actually comprise the amount of total water on earth. … it was a very small percentage of the total water (maybe 2-5%?). From a cursory view, it would seem that the ocean levels wouldn’t go up that much.

Answer: The direct answer is Yes they would Jim!

Jim, without getting too bogged down in calculations, the ocean depth can be measured in miles or kilometers and a quick Google gave me the average ocean depth of 3.8 kilometers.

Since we are basically adding only height to our container, what is 2 to 3 percent of 3.8 kilometers equal? Jim it would be an increase of 76 to 114 meters using your numbers of 2 to 3 percent. That would convert to 249 feet to 274 feet!

Now based on your numbers, they must include Antarctica and its ice cover can also be measured in miles or kilometers. Antarctica’s ice is continent wide and is so thick that it covers whole mountain ranges! In fact about 90 percent of all ice is in Antarctica.

I have posted geo-engineering ideas of increasing albedo of dark land surrounding some glaciers as being within reach of our ability of slowing or the process down or stopping it but even my imagination is limited to stop an event concerning Antarctica. We are only human beings and we can only do so much. At some point we have to live within our ecological limits as Mark would agree is our best long-term solution.

Question: I still hold to the belief that raising the water temp is a lot harder than raising the air temps. Which gets hotter faster?

Answer; Jim the direct answer is you are absolutely correct!

In fact, the heat capacity of water is very high and the density of liquids is greater than that the density of gases which is the main reason. The same volume of air weighs much less than the same volume of water because it contains less mass. The difference in which rises faster, water or air, in temperature is similar to the difference between a full water container and an empty one! The more mass, then the longer it takes for that mass to absorb energy and rise in temperature.

Jim, think of the oceans, ice, and land masses. Think of how much mass this really is! It takes time for all that mass to heat up. Decades! I call this thermal inertia and it can work for us and against us with respect to the earth. On the bright side, even if runaway conditions occur, the earth’s thermal inertia slows it down and if by chance we have a geo-engineering idea to save the day, then we have a chance to reverse direction and restore balance.

I DO NOT recommend this as a way to solve problems because implementing some geo-engineering ideas can have unknown ecological side effects.

The prudent thing for us to do is never allow ourselves to be in this predicament!

Question: Something else (like underwater volcanoes) must be heating the water. (IMHO)

Answer: The direct answer is No Jim.

Volcanoes can heat water locally where they exist but it is wishful thinking to believe we “must” have many of these volcanoes dispersed all over the planet warming the water from the bottom up. The warming is occurring at the water surface and GW/CC is mostly a surface thing!

Jim, I hoped I answered your questions and do find a thermometer and do that experiment while watching TV and during a commercial break then check the temp. Getting a “hands on” feel about these concepts I find is a useful exercise.

An ancient Buddhist proverb says:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear!”

You are ready Jim! Asking the right questions are how breakthroughs happen!

Since others provided answers for you as well, it seems that you are truly ready because so many teachers are now appearing!

All the best, Dan

Read my response to Jim, Lynn for more detail!

You are correct about the thermal expansion of the oceans as making another contribution to sea level rise.

In fact, water expands when its temperature goes up. In my response to Jim, I mentioned that the average ocean depth is 3.8 kilometers or 3800 meters.

Since the sides of our continental container remains essentially constant, the only direction for the oceans to go is rise as the heat conducted from the water surface is absorbed by the waters below.

The coefficient for the thermal cubic expansion of water is 0.00011 per degree Fahrenheit. If we take the first 1000 meters of the ocean surface and multiply this by this coefficient, then we have 0.11 meters or 11 centimeters which is about 4 inches.

Since there is a heat gradient, this number would be less and at least cut in half to around 2 inches or so. The nature of this thermal expansion is much more complex than this simple exercise but you get the picture I think! I do not know how far down the actual thermal gradient really goes and it could be much less than a kilometer but this was a nice round number to illustrate the concept at least!

With regard to thermal inertia, as I discussed in my response to Jim, think of 1000 meters of ocean depth world-wide. Now add the fact that the oceans cover 70 percent of the earth’s surface! Now, think of the heat which would have to be absorbed to raise that mass of water just 1 degree! That’s a lot of heat!

All the best,

Dan

The article suggests that the uncertainties may be off but it does not prove that human-caused GW/CC is not happening and it did agree that we have warmed in the last century!

I am not qualified to go any further with this unless I take the time to study it at that level. I do not have that time either.

My focus is about solutions regarding energy and I will be aware over time about further developments in climate science.

One day, and one way or the other, all the controversy will be over about this subject.

Later,

Dan

Lubos is a crank and not even a climatologist. You can go to sci.environment to get a flavor for his mindset.

HTH,

D

He seems to know numbers pretty well and argues from that stand point. Math is math and whether he is a climatologist or not would not matter if the math does not add up. If he is so off then you can blog him at that link.

I’ll just wait ‘til he publishes his reply in Science, thanks. You can’t chase these guys everywhere.

D

Please provide links to a few of your publications in Science Magazine. Or, provide us with a link to your blog.

It seems to me that Motl has placed his analysis on his blog along with his name and address. He has provided a logical critique of the latest Hansen offering in an understandable format. You have offered nothing in rebuttal of his arguments, only ad hominem attacks on Dr. Motl. How is that productive? Why should anyone believe you?

You are an anonymous, self-proclaimed expert. You haunt several websites offering critical, often sarcastic and cruel assessments when others propose arguments with which you disagree. You seldom offer anything original.

I don’t see that you have the moral high ground here.

Sir, how’s your re-reading of that see-oh-too piece from which you lifted your argument below? Does it read any different now, knowing that they cherry-picked?

Anyone can post on the web. If Lubos’ argument is so logical, it can be printed in Science. I’ll wait for that.

BTW, I have not proclaimed my expertise – you may want to point out where I have done so to make your argument look like something other than making stuff up. You may be smarting because your argumentation depends upon web sources that cherry-pick. It is certainly not original to continually point out argumentation from web sites. I am anonymous on these boards due to a virus attack in 2002, sent by a reader of TCS. It was blocked, fortunately.

D

You posted the following text, “Sir, how’s your re-reading of that see-oh-too piece from which you lifted your argument below? Does it read any different now, knowing that they cherry-picked?” What does it mean?

You wrote, “BTW, I have not proclaimed my expertise – you may want to point out where I have done so . . . “

For example, in your recent answers to Lynn’s question you wrote,

“Freshwater has a different density than seawater. The melting glaciers, e.g. from Greenland, change the circulation of the oceans also. I say this to introduce the complexity of your question.

The total volume of this water has been modeled to go down past S America to the Antarctic, BTW.

But the direct answer is that the volume of the melting glacier water is such that it is far too small to balance the gained heat in the oceans. At this time, I can’t find the file in my head that has the numbers to show this.”

Are those not the pronouncements of a certified expert? I really liked the part where you introduced Lynn to the complexity of her question. That is a show of extreme hubris.

Just considering the source of that opinion about Dano!

Dan

Is Science the premier journal for climatologists?

If so are you going to provide an oped piece to his argument?

He has a blog site. You don’t have to chase him anywhere. You can make your argument of how wrong he is over there… The link is provided in above posting.

I get your example of water volume and water exapnsion as temp goes up but doesn’t your example include all water and not just surface water? It would seem the water temp measurements are surface based. Water at depth is near freezing and does not change below the thermoclines. Therefore the water would not exapnd as much as in your example because not all of the water would increase in temperature.

I’m still not convinced that something else is not causing any rising ocean temps (something internal to the earth). The sun raising temps is like me trying to heat water in a pot with a flashlight. The air raising water temps is like me trying to use my breath to heat the pot of water. It does not add up in my mind anyway.

Is Science the premier journal for climatologists?

No. It is the premier journal for natural science, however, and climatology is a discipline within the natural sciences, if this is what you mean.

If so are you going to provide an oped piece to his argument?

Do you mean to say: “If Lubos gets his response published in Science will you reply?” Sure, why not.

He has a blog site. You don’t have to chase him anywhere. You can make your argument of how wrong he is over there… The link is provided in above posting.

My point is that if I replied to every contrascientist proclamation, I’d get nothing done. Sorry if I was unclear.

Best,

D

In the past few months I have keeping an eye on Esso (a brand of ExxonMobil), and it looks as they are gearing-up their PR efforts. In today’s (UK) Guardian they provided a full-page advert.

Their headline is “Energy and the Environment” & although they do talk about Climate Research, I couldn’t see an explicit reference to Global Warming.

I think this issue is hotting-up for them (as well as for our poor old planet!) as they clearly want to say that they are NOT responsible.

In the advert, they provided the following link -

esso.co.uk/energychallenges

My example was only meant as an illustration and I chose the 1st 1000 meters of the ocean surface of an average ocean depth of 3800 meters and a temperature rise of one degree F and then cut the result in half assuming a linear thermal gradient whereby the midpoint of 500 meters below the surface was a half degree F going to zero at 1000 meters below. I did not include “all” the water but maybe too much of it just to make a point.

The truth is that I do not know the actual thermal gradient and the actual temperature rise. I did a wild-ass guess just to illustrate a point. My result was only 2 inches of ocean rise based on my calculation. If 4 degrees F and 250 meters were used, then the results would still be the same.

Now, the formula is correct and I applied it in a reasonable way. It just depends on the actual thermal gradient and the temperature rise at the surface and how fast it approaches zero in the depths and the aspects of the gradient being linear or not. It may be less than two inches. It could be an inch or a few millimeters. I do not know.

The only main point from this quick calculation, and only for your benefit, is that it is clear that thermal expansion has a small effect as compared to melting glaciers which I also commented on. Nothing significant has changed here.

Now, I just did a quick Google which gives actual numbers and please read it as I was in the ball park so to speak as the 100-year effect is exactly 2 inches! Not bad for a simple engineer just doing a wild-ass guess! See site below for more details on thermal expansion.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03t.html

On the other heat sources, I have to counter that we are looking at temperatures near the ocean surface and if you have a heat source at the bottom of the ocean, it may not reach the surface to affect its temperature. Also, it is freezing down there, is it not? Not much heat from water near freezing!

Sun’s energy, Short answer: This does approach an ignorant question. Your physics acumen is very low. Without the sun, the earth would be near absolute zero in temperature Jim and we would have no plant life or wood, or even the fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. We would have no wind either.

Also, the solar constant going through space to reach the earth’s surface is 1370 watts per square meter which is equivalent to your hair dryer on high continuously 24/7 on an area the size of the floor space under your refrigerator! Now this value reduces to 342.5 watts per square meter for the entire earth’s surface and a part of that energy will hit the earth’s oceans.

When this energy hits the oceans, then the oceans absorb nearly all of it. FYI, The actual heat imbalance calculated is “only” 0.85 watts per square meter so how much energy is this extra heat on the ocean surface? Answer in megawatts below:

The actual ocean surface is 361,740,000 square kilometers or 361,740,000,000,000 square meters! Using Mark’s posted value of 0.85 W/m2, let’s calculate the total heat imbalance “only on the oceans” in megawatts:

Extra Ocean Heat = (0.85 W/m2 X 361,740,000,000,000 m2) / 1,000,000 MW/W

Extra Ocean Heat = 307,479,000 MW

So, Jim, your energy from the sun in just this heat imbalance alone is a third of a billion megawatts of extra heat energy! It approaches half a billion megawatts when you include the land surface! And, I am just talking about the heat imbalance alone!

Now the uncertainty factor of +- 0.15 W/m2 translates into “Oh, give or take 54 million megawatts”!

Any more questions “Grasshopper”?

Best,

Dan

PS

For those in the UK, the term “Grasshopper” is from the old American TV show, “Kung Fu”, which is also a martial art. The name “grasshopper” was provided by the master teacher to the main character (hero) who instructed him during his youth about various philosophies.

The hero always had flashbacks to his youth when confronting an overwhelming challenge. The flashbacks provided him a lesson learned from his old master teacher which enabled him to know how to meet that challenge head on!

In his flashbacks, the hero returned to his innocent youth when he always asked the master teacher questions from an eager and curious mind. This name is applied to Jim in the same light!

I have been seeing these ads over here in the USA quite often and the steam recapture they talk about in their ads is from a cogeneration plant after looking at your posted website.

The cogen idea was an easy one for them but it is still good that they do this. A lot of energy is wasted in power-plant waste heat and its potential energy is greater than all the electricity produced.

At a quick glance, they are doing prudent measures on increasing energy efficiency in their operations and this is a good thing for them and also for the planet.

They are not wrong to share that in their PR campaign and that their challenge is great to secure more oil and gas. This is also very true!

However, their focus can misleed others on GW/CC issues and Peak Oil issues when they fail to mention them. This may give many a false sense of security but we already know that!

Best,

Dan

If I may interject, Dan, then I’ll go away.

Jimbo:

I’m still not convinced that something else is not causing any rising ocean temps (something internal to the earth).

Simple, then: show the hot water plume spreading from plate margins and warming the oceans. Finding the mechanism you suspect should be there – buried in the data we already have.

The sun raising temps is like me trying to heat water in a pot with a flashlight.

That would be a good analogy if the flashlight emitted the same range of wavelengths of light as the sun – i.e. flashlights don’t cause sunburn.

The air raising water temps is like me trying to use my breath to heat the pot of water.

Blow for a few decades.

It does not add up in my mind anyway.

Understanding phenomena outside of our limited scalar perceptions is difficult. Hence the Platonic and Cartesian methods of scientific inquiry. The next step is to get scientists to effectively communicate their findings so we all can understand them.

HTH,

Thanks for the indulgence.

Best,

D

With regard to the ocean’s heat, the ocean temperature readings are being taken in many locations. Any possible effects from internal heat would be localized just like geothermal energy is localized on the land (i.e. volcanoes, hot springs, etc.)

In addition the heat gradient is going from warm at the top to cooler as you go down to greater ocean depths. If the heat were internal then it would be going from the bottom up, then the top would be cooler and the bottom hot, plain and simple.

Heat transfers from hot to cold and not the reverse. In other words, placing an ice cube in your coffee would melt the ice because the heat is going from hot to cold. The ice would never make the coffee warmer. This would violate the laws of physics and this is the same thing when suggesting that heat is transferring from the cold bottom to the top warmer surface making it warmer.

The heat source responsible for making the surface waters warmer is the Sun plain and simple. The Sun’s energy is lower at the poles than at the equator due to the angle of incidence or the Sun’s angle. The Sun is higher in the sky in summer months and as one should know, it is more intense directly overhead at noon at the equator.

Since the sun’s energy is not distributed evenly, the equatorial surface waters would be warmer than the surface waters at the poles. This is what is observed world-wide at beaches in the higher latitudes than latitudes closer to the equator. This suggests the warming of the surface of the ocean is being done by our Sun.

If the surface warming was being done by internal heat, then this would be distributed evenly all over the planet according to the internal heat theory and hence the surface waters should be warmer at the poles and at the equator equally.

Further evidence for this very basic fact of life resides in the fact that the day is warmer than the night because the sun shines during the day and not at night. Also, the sun’s energy is warmer at noon and early afternoon than when its angle is lower like morning for instance.

If anyone thinks the thermal inertia of the earth permits daily variations of internal heat, then I would say that this would violate the laws of physics as well!

For those that still do not understand, then they should go outside on a sunny day and stand in the sun and in the shade. They should feel the heat and touch the ground and how it feels. They should walk barefoot on the parking lot pavement that is in the sun and the part that is in the shade and feel the difference!

For some people, they simply have to let their body teach them what their brain cannot!

Maybe this will help!

All the very best!

Dan

I think the whole of the petro chem industry was shaken up when Lord Oxburgh the chairman of Shell (see “some like it hot” for reference to the company) announced he wants to take up a post within a climate change charity when he leaves the oil giant.

He was quoted as saying “I am so concerned at the potential destruction from global warming that I want to devote more of my time to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fules”

WOW someone from the death star has joined rebel camp.

Still remains to be seen. Trying to spell cynical correctly for a change (I still think it is better with an S at the begining) I wouldn’t be supprised if the charity that he goes to is not a Nuclear lobbying charity. How do we get these in the UK. Answers on a post card to the usual address.

My point is, The industry were really shaken by his comments and there was tones of analsys in the middle pages of the sunday broad sheats.

They have to respond some how.

Laters,

I am off to cast my vote. Interesting for all of you political followers. Mr Blair (he’s the bloke incharge of George W Bush) said before this election campaign that “Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind that we face” however, has not mentioned it once (to any reall effect) in the run up to this election. He is however, behind the new runway at stanstard airport (seven miles of green belt redevelopment) and the continued subsidies on aviation fuel to get more cheap airline tickets in the hands of the electorate.

Buy now while stocks last.

Ian.

Even if it comes from those opposed to GW science.

I’ve noticed that when oil companies do public service ads re energy efficiency/conservation, they tend to focus on all the things we can do to reduce our electric bill, with no mention of how to reduce oil consumption. That’s fine.

We just need the electric companies to come out with their ads about how we can reduce our gasoline bills – like by buying plug-in electric cars. In fact, I wonder why GE hasn’t come out with a plug-in electric car (GE is also into nuclear power & uranium). Imagine plugging you car (& city busses) in at night, when electricity consumption is low (& wasted, since they can’t shut down the plants/reactors).

I understand the middle mysterious button on the Prius is a disabled plug-in option (that work in Japan & Europe, but not in the U.S.). Without augmentation I think a Prius has a range of 10 miles on a charge (without converting to petrol), and it can be souped up with extra batteries (they even have a slot for those) to get maybe 20 or 30 miles.

Here an EV company to check out: http://www.universalelectricvehicle.com/index.htm

I am waiting until the last minute to vote, in the vain hope one of the parties makes a pledge to make britain carbon neutral. I am an optimist. With time to waste!

I have trawled through the main parties manifestos on the environment issue: counter-intuitively, the tory propositions seem most suitable. Only problem is-its easy to say the right thing when you know you dont have a snowballs chance.

Ron Oxburgh has been going thru something of a transformation for years now; he stated in June 2004, that he was “very worried for the planet” and that “no one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of CO2 that we are at present” and now, as you point out, Ian, he’s gone completely native. welcome brother Ron!!

The same sort of thing happened to some labour ministers when they were educated on the situation(particlulary Patricia Hewitt), and labour then appeared to be tackling the issue. Their GW policies are now failing.

And that vote-monkey Blair, well he’ll tell you he believes anything, even in WMD, (even when hes the only one with the Intelligence documents. sorry drifting off the point here.)

He also: 1) tried to wriggle us out of our NAP commitmemnts to the EU carbon trading scheme. 2) has no policies/targets to reduce congestion/traffic emissions (unlike his old nemesis Ken Livingstone) 3) is encouraging the deregulation of the UKs road system (=more roads) 4) has failed to generate public transport investment, even though there has been a huge demand for it (ie soaring nos of people using it) 5) Has not even mentioned the problem of short-hop flights (which is the real thorn for his emissions targets) 6) has not introduced enough incentives/loans/cash for piloting renewable energy schemes (other than wind which will not reslove the problem anyway)

“Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind that we face”. Nice words Tony.

We need something that speaks louder.

Here are some websites for people interested in electric vehicles.

http://www.eaaev.org/ http://eaaev.org/eaachapters.html

When I was in IL I knew someone from the Fox Valley EV Assoc (they meet the 4th Friday of each month). He told me they convert regular cars to electric – cars with dead engines or they sell the ICE engine. He said there were guys in the club who had no mechanical experience whatsoever when they joined, and that the EV engines are sort of like sewing machine engines. Their maintenance & electricity consumption makes them much cheaper, but the cost of replacing batteries brings the price back up. I had the impression the cost would be about the same as having a internal combustion engine car.

Even if the electricity comes from fossil fuels, the GHGs emissions are reduced by 1/3 to 1/2 (& of course, one could supplement that with alternative energy), and the other pollutants are extremely reduced.

Anyway, for those interested there are chapters in various states & Canada. The TX chapter is too far for me, and I’m still way too busy. When I retire in a few years, perhaps I get into it. Though I’d really appreciate it if I could buy one locally, or a plug-in hybrid.

Here is an EPA site re electric vehicles: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00034.htm

could you tell me where you got this info from;

“if the electricity comes from fossil fuels, the GHGs emissions are reduced by 1/3 to 1/2 (& of course, one could supplement that with alternative energy), and the other pollutants are extremely reduced”.

It would be very useful to me.

thanks in advance

kind regards

Brendon

Demystifying Climate Science (A Simple Physics Lesson)!

I will assume at face value that the 0.85 W/m2 posted by Mark is correct and use that number to calculate various aspects of heat transfer to water in particular. The variables and properties of water used are defined at the end of my post.

Question: How many days does it take to heat the 1st meter of ocean 1 degree Celsius using the heat imbalance influx of 0.85 W/m2 assuming all this extra heat energy were simply absorbed by that 1st 1-meter layer?

Answer: Let T = time, and D = 1 m (ocean depth 1 meter = 3.3 feet), then

T = (d)(sp)(D)/Ei

T = ((1000 kg/m3)(1 m) / (0.85 J/sec/m2))[Days / 86400 sec]

T = ((1000 kg/m3)( 333,000 J/kg)(1 m) / (0.85 J/sec/m2))[Days / 86400 sec]

T = 4534.31 Days (12.4 years)

Question: What if the heat influx was only 10 percent of this 0.85W/m2 or 0.085W/m2 instead?

Answer: 124 years

Final Important Note: Earth’s surface thermal inertia flux is composed of water evaporation, ocean absorption of heat, land absorption of heat, melting ice, and finally the atmospheric absorption of heat and all in this order (I believe). The earth’s heat imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 must be absorbed by these factors I mentioned and the portion that is imparted to the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the air near the surface. The extra water vapor will increase the 0.85 W/m2 to a higher number. The decrease in land albedo or reflectivity will also increase the 0.85 W/m2. With a higher heat influx and less places for the heat to go (i.e. less water to evaporate because the air gets saturated, less ice to melt, the ground and ocean surfaces are at a higher temperature and cannot absorb more heat, … then the final outcome will be a rise in air temperature and a faster rise in the future than is occurring today!

All this my friends may be an oversimplification of complex climate mechanisms but the basic aspects of physics are being applied in that complex model to refine the simple analysis I have just shared. No matter what the complexities are, all these complexities are simply the laws of simple physics being refined at higher levels to determine better all the precise mechanisms! By knowing these, we can make predictions at some level.

Final Question: What climate mechanisms provide a negative feedback which would tend to cool the planet or keep it in equilibrium when faced with a heat imbalance warming it?

The answer to this question seems to be more the big unknown in certain areas but particles that reflect solar energy back into space in the atmosphere would prevent heat energy from reaching the surface. Volcanoes and coal power plants emit sulfates which do this. Plane contrails may reflect back this energy and certain types of clouds will do this while other clouds have a net warming effect. Also, a reduction in “greenhouse gases” can reduce the heat energy absorbed by these gases in the atmosphere.

The level of uncertainty with clouds and some of these negative feedback loops may need more analysis so we can see more clearly the total picture. Although the earth’s climate obeys simple physics, this physics is still complex to know the interplay of many factors.

Norbert and others are correct to point out that the climate is a complex system constantly in motion and the earth’s thermal inertia creates delaying effects and natural cycles which make it difficult to know the future on how fast events will occur. The negative feedback mechanisms are not understood enough for contrarians to be able to nullify the science. Nothing Norbert proposed has been able to do this effectively.

Even comparisons made to past geological periods and events 1000 years ago may not take into adequate account the differences in land mass configurations, forest cover, albedo, etc. Land changes have an effect. The warming trend in the past noted by Norbert did not have the carbon in the atmosphere that we have today when the Little Ice Age which followed it way back then (assuming that proxy data assertion is correct).

Our temperature measurements of today coupled with better science and the current makeup of our atmosphere, land mass, ecosystems, oceans, and atmosphere are what we have to work with today and the most relevant. The purpose of any climate models is to help us get a better picture of all these factors. The best focus is the current one and the most relevant thing we know from the past is that climate can change, ice ages did happen, and stable conditions as we know are not the norm. No matter what combination of climate changes we are experiencing from man and nature, climate change will affect the land, the ecosystems, and us! So which part is created by us may be totally irrelevant at some level. What becomes most relevant is how it ultimately affects us and what we can do to influence events in a positive way and mitigate all negative results.

It would be an incorrect assumption to assume that mankind has not altered the chemistry of the land albedo, atmospheric chemistry, and ecosystems in significant ways. Ecosystems play an important role and I have left out their contribution in my analysis to keep it simple enough but plants are a major part of the atmospheric carbon cycle and how carbon dioxide is managed. Plants help evaporate water vapor into the air which is another greenhouse gas. Plant-life on the land has a different albedo than bare ground. Plants actually reduce solar energy (and heat) a bit while they absorb carbon dioxide out of the air. The heat energy content of a forest from burning it is equivalent to this chemical storage of heat energy from photosynthesis.

Concerning future predictions, the more quality measurements we take and the more data is compiled over time, then the more certain we will be of our future and what happens in our future will confirm our present predictions. In the meantime, we have to make decisions because the thermal inertia of the earth will absorb heat energy and basically keep it there for quite a long time. Even if the heat imbalance becomes negative and we emit more energy than we are taking in, it will take a century or more to get back to where we once were in world-average temperatures.

I invite questions, comments, and review of my simple physics analysis from Dano, Nobert, Mark, and others for my purpose here is to help demystify this complex science into more understandable elements so people are less confused! I hope what I shared added clarity and less confusion. I did my best. Doing this exercise helped me as well.

I also want to emphasize emphatically that although our carbon dioxide releases are always a main focus, it is better to analyze GW/CC from the heat imbalance perspective since this focus includes ALL climate factors and that makes it more useful. When that 0.85 W/m2 number reduces, then we are making progress and slowing things down. When it increases, then we accelerate the warming. When it goes up very quickly, then we are in a runaway scenario.

The carbon levels or even current temperature increases cannot help give us this insight so the heat imbalance number becomes a magic number to watch in terms of our progress to mitigate GW/CC! This number is most important for a solution focus while the average global temperature may be more suited for Mark’s work of determining several of levels of doom from increased temperatures if we fail to solve this problem!

Thank-you, and to all my very best,

Dan

Information that I used below for those who are curious about my calculations below:

Water Facts

d = 1000 kg/m3 (density in kilograms per cubic meter)

sp = 4180 J/kgC (specific heat in Kilojoules per kilogram degree Celsius, or the amount of energy in Joules needed to heat a kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius)

Hf = 333,000 J/kg (Latent heat of fusion, heat required to melt a kilogram of water at its freezing point of 0 degrees Celsius)

Hv = 2,260,000 J/kg (Latent heat of vaporization, heat required to evaporate a kilogram of water)

Earth Facts (assumed heat imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 to be correct)

Ei = 0.85 W/m2 (Energy Imbalance in watts per square meter)

Od = 3,800 m (Ocean’s average depth in meters)

Other Important Notes:

J = Joule (A Joule is a unit of energy), W = Watt (A watt is energy per unit time, One watt = one Joule per second)

Despite your disparaging comments, I have come to enjoy your contributions even if I disagree with some of your conclusions and you certainly debate well but: “he has placed his analysis…. with his name and address” and “You are anonymous…. offering critical, often sarcastic and cruel assessments when others propose arguments…etc”

Sound like someone we know?

If you are going to throw that in as a criticism of Dano’s style then just review some of your own more barbed submissions.

I find that the maintenance of your own phantasm-like obscurity is entertaining (and I sometimes suspect that you are in fact a creation of Mark himself acting as an ‘agent provocateur’ to keep the debate liveley) but if you are going to engage in guerilla-like ambushes of people’s more impassioned statements then don’t be surprised if others use the same tactic!

anyway, hope you’re well

all the best

Colin

He’s used ‘hubris’ on you.

He did to me a while back and I had to have therapy.

cheers

Colin

Fascinating link Peter.

I read the page on Energy Efficiency and thought about what it was trying to say. Then I read it again, substituting the word ‘alcohol’ for energy and ‘Drukenness’ for Global Warming.

Suddenly the message became a lot clearer!

“We sell lots of alcohol/energy. The world is totally addicted and will consume 50% more in 25 years time. Drunkenness/GW is a serious problem, but everone’s so pissed, we’ll have to think about what to do about it for a looooooong time, and then, maybe a lot more, and then… hell we’ll just have another drink/tankfull!”

I think an Anti Social Behaviour Order is called for.

kind regards

Colin

Hello Brendan.

Thoroughly recommend www.evuk.co.uk as a UK site with loads of world-wide links and related articles on what is and is not a truly zero emissions vehicle.

Also check out the amazing American TZero battery supercar on www.acpropulsion.com: this shows the real potential for the future of the car.

Loads of stuff on the latest batteries and technology and all the politics on why EV’s are being deliberately suppressed by the oil companies and motor industry.

An enjoyable read, and I’m investigating the cost and practicality of buying a kit car and fitting an ac motor system in it.

kind regards

Colin

My job is to find the holes in the argument, and to point out how the Indy-fundeds cherry-pick and game the information.

I adopted poor norb’s very own technique from about December. He didn’t like that, backed off, now he’s crying foul. Don’t worry about my mental health, sir.

Cheers, Colin.

D

Hi Dan

I enjoyed that; it has been well over a year since I finished my climatology module, and the cobwebs have clearly taken over, even so, I never went into the physics in such depth. Thank you.

Some questions tho’, which i think maybe you dealt with, but needs clarification, for me anyway.

1) How long has this solar energy input been measured, in this manner?

2) Knowing that the solar flux, by definition varies, so should the imbalance; so what do the historical measurements tell us? Could this be an almost Gaian form of breathing? Or is this imbalance also anomalous along with the GHG concentrations?

3) Finally, tieing in with above; as solar inputs are on the rise (according to my sources) would not a positive solar energy imbalance be expected?

apologies if these are explained in your posting: I have been up the whole night watching the election.

Kind regards Brendon.

Great questions! My entire post centered on the number of 0.85 W/m2 as a constant imbalance which of course is not true. My knowledge of the imbalance is only from what Mark posted for us and I did read his cited sources.

It appears that the ocean data was compiled over a ten year period and so the calculation of this energy imbalance is based on a very short time frame. I think the longer historical data may be insufficient for a precise calculation. It seems that our knowledge of the imbalance calculations will grow over time as we build historical data.

This imbalance would only be partly anomalous with the GHG concentrations because ground albedo and the solar influx would have a role to play plus all those clouds. I like the heat-balance focus of the earth focus because it is a much better representation of GW/CC than a component of it like carbon dioxide alone. If we were able to lower carbon levels and let the north ice cap melt, then the extra heat absorbed from reduced albedo would still place us out of balance.

The earth’s heat imbalance promotes more solutions other than carbon dioxide since all climatic factors are being looked at when this number is created. Having that number to work with helped me create my previous post. Carbon emissions should be a part but not all of the focus.

The solar inputs would be so relevant to plot alongside the imbalance because other than the earth itself, only the sun is a main variable which needs to be taken into consideration when looking at how much of this imbalance is from solar variations of solar energy.

BTW, I have no formal training on climate science and most of what I have learned has been on the Internet, Mark’s book, and other sources promoted on this blog. The discussions here do help. I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I taught high-school physics, geometry, and algebra. I make up my own questions and do simple calculations sometimes to aid my own understanding.

I share what I discovered on this blog to facilitate more constructive dialogue with people like you and others. My main interest is in solving the problems that affect us all. Like you Brendon, I care deeply about the future!

Congrats on your elections! I trust they went well. I was happy to see Blair win only because I think there was too much focus on him going along with our government concerning Iraq.

Blame Bush, not Blair! We have handled it poorly! I was against that war from the very beginning. I HATE war! We have 12,000 wounded and more amputees than Vietnam. 2005 has already cost us more than 2004! Whatever your involvement, we truly are suffering in both financial and human terms.

In my opinion, Blair’s decision to go with us to Iraq was partly do to very close ties with our country over the many years in regard to collective security issues such as WWI, WWII, the Falkland Islands, etc. Despite the good relations developing between the UK and the European Union, I would hate to see relations between our 2 countries deteriorate.

Bush is one human being out of 300 million other human beings who call themselves Americans. It is a wrong assumption to view our leadership as representing all of us. If the Brits did not decide to go with us in Iraq, then our formal relations may have suffered but it may have affected relations between our people and that would not be good.

Americans I believe have a very favorable affectionate attitude toward the British. I know of no one born here that ever said anything bad about the UK or its people. The bond between our two people, in my opinion, is far more important than the war in Iraq!

I think world circumstances may force our culture into adjusting. We need to and in that light we need the UK to help facilitate that process. I value my relations with you and others on this blog from the UK. Our collective energy and climate problems make national boundaries obsolete. What happens here in the USA is very important for the whole world and we need your influence and that may increase in the future.

Just my opinions!

BTW, your question about “could this be an almost Gaian form of breathing?” I have to read up on “Gaian” since I heard this term in Mark’s debate. I think it has to do with a belief that the earth’s collective biosphere creates a way to regulate climate as if the earth were a conscious being.

At some level, this makes sense I guess but climate stability has not always been consistent as many ice ages and other geological events from nature seem to suggest that Gaian can sometimes be in a bad mood and either “cold as ice” or “hot as hell”! Based on the heat imbalance, I think she is rather “hot” about our relations to her!

Best Regards,

Dan

Top message…

I am in total agreement with you. I feel that that our governments are fully aware of what is going on. I just dont think they have the will and there is too much uncertanty within the green community.

You only have to read through these posts and occasionally you see heated disagreement, those disagreemnts are allways a fantastic excuse for political procrastination.

All enviromental initiatives are going to be expencive and are not obvious vote winners.

Apart from the basic stuff that really should be done. I still cant believe that it is legal for none energy efficiant light bulbs to be sold in this country.

However, I digress. Why not wind?

Cheers Ian.

thanks for that Colin. I would be very interested to hear how your “clean” kit car turns out, and what the economics of it are. Sounds like you are pioneering something interesting there.

How do you think the economics of a clean engine should be measured against an oil powered car?

mpg vs battery charging costs(or miles per gallon of hydrogen)

Investment costs of each type of vehicle (i imagine clean cars are more expensive??) so this seems skewed in favor of gas engines, just because of their market dominance.

Is there some recognised means of identifying which mode has the economic edge?

any help would be much appreciated.

regards Brendon

thanks Dan

...so this is a new method of measuring solar enrgy inputs, and from your posting, it sounds that this is a high enough imbalance to be concerned about. But according to the ongoing natural variability of the climates forcings, the fact that it is a positive imabalance is to be expected. (we have a period of relativley low volcanic activity, and increasing solar activity).

I, too, like this method of measuring what is really happening to the biosphere, as opposed to just the atmosphere (as GHGs tend to-CO2 vegetative growth effects excepted). But the short record for this measurement does perhaps hinder how much light it might shed on what exactly 0.85 W/m2 means for the planet.

Your maths seem to supply one way of working with this.

I was wondering if it could be calibrated, for example against an existing crops growth, for example european grapes, (as their is a long historical proxy for this). Measure the speed of growth now, and sugar levels, as compared with the historical record. GHG levels are known to have fluctuated little, prior to 1890, so (with the exception of known volocanic activity) wouldnt the historic energy imbalance also be estimated to some degree of reliability?

Could not that tell us how anomalous this imbalance is?

I am not for a second volunteering!!! Way beyond me. But I have studied historical climate records generated using such a method, so could it be done? Dano or someone else may know.

anyway thanks for that.

regards Brendon

See mine and other postings from a little while back.

I dont have the stats now, but wind can only provide a limited percentage of the UKs energy needs (according to my info).

It also creates environemntal negatives and energy production consistency issues.

I just see a different future. A cocktail of clean energy sources; local areas using their intrinsic potential (solar/wind/biomass/geotherm etc); micropower, not grid; & maybe, just maybe; freedom from international energy cartels. Nice dream eh?

I dont have any great issue with turbines because of the way they look. there were some good postings on this a while back. I liked the pylon argument, they went up everwhere, & people bit it coz they love electricity, so the same should follow for turbines (might take a while though).

Regards Brendon

Hi Brendon,

The evuk.co.uk links page will give you access to all kinds of information about technological developments.

There are of course, the basic economic points that battery electric vehicle propulsion has only had a tiny fraction of the R&D spend that Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) development has been given and is in early stages. Production of suitable components for conversions, kits or new builds is small-scale so the unit costs are very high at the moment meaning that the real performance kit is being used in limited edition top-end price vehicles: see the article about the Venturi Fetish, launched at the Milan motor show.

There were four TZero prototypes, the last one had the latest Lithium Ion batteries, and computerised battery and traction management system, a high performance Ac motor developing 180Kw (about 220bhp I think) regenerative braking and a microprocessor controlled inverter that not only charged the batteries from the mains, but could turn surplus battery power back into grid quality 50Hz ac. So your car becomes a peak-demand power buffer for your house, during the evening and recharges on off-peak power overnight. THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GRID: don’t say anything, just think it through.

The TZero does 0-60mph in 3.7 seconds, has a top speed of 108 mph (140 with overdrive) and will go 250-300 miles on a single charge. Standing quarter mile at 13 seconds. Recharge time 3 hours. No milkfloat. All four prototypes have been sold for $250k each.

The power components ( minus batteries) are available as a kit for about £15k plus shipping, which, when you add the cost of a typical UK kit car at about £4-5k plus other donor car components the total comes in at about a £22-23k build cost. Too high for my budget at the moment.

Most of the components I have found in the UK for conversions are based on Lead acid cell batteries and DC brushless motors of about 40Kw capacity which will only give about a 40mile radius and 45mph top speed. But I’m sure there are a lot of suppliers of suitable kit designed for other applications that I haven’t found yet.

I know that Professor Phil Mawby at Swansea University has been doing a lot on EV research and we had a chat at a conference about 18 months ago, but I haven’t found out what advances they’ve made recently.

Also the US race-car builders ProDrive who have a factory in Wallingford, Oxfordshire, are apparently bringing out a new 2-seat, high performance city car which will use the AC propulsion units from the TZero.

The economics look attractive. Petrol around here is about 84-86p/litre £3.80-3.85/gallon but as we know will probably climg by 20% or more by the year-end so lets estimate that the £5 gallon willbe with us sometime next year.

Assuming an average annual usage of 12,000 miles, my current vehicle will use 330 gallons at 36.5mpg average. That’s £1650 in fuel @ 13.7p per mile. A plug-in EV will run on 1.1-1.2p per mile so my annual fuel bill would be £145.58 !! saving over £1500. Then there is the road fund tax, or rather the lack of it, another £180 per year, and insurance is about £100, saving another £145 a year. So I’m saving £1,825 a year. Let’s further assume that I’m going to build something that I actually enjoy driving, so I’ll keep it for say 7 years and that all costs will escalate at at least 10% per annum hereafter with no changes in taxation. That gives us a saving of (£17,314-£1,381 = £15,933) so for a £16k build cost, I would get payback in seven years. I also buy electricity from NPower juice allegedly from the North Hoyle off-shore windfarm so it would be truly zero-emissions. If I could build an unusual and attractive vehicle (eccentric Brit!), that would go 300 miles on a 3 hour charge at up to 80mph for that price, then I’ll give it a go. I think a lot of other people would as well. If you have to pay the London congestion charge, you could save a further £1,100 per year giving you payback in 3.5-4 years, you would be making a profit for the second half of your car’s life!!

If I find out more about suitable components that can be married up, I will let you know.

all the best for now

Colin

I am all in favor of proxy data to help us understand past climate from a historical perspective. I think that it helps us understand at some level the natural variability since man-made changes can be assumed to be less in magnitude over a longer time-frame than they are today with our highly accelerated use of fossil fuels and accelerated land changes.

The problem I see with using this proxy method in the heat-balance analysis is that the precision of those proxy methods may be less reliable then current methods of employing satellite data and advanced ocean temperature measurements.

However, your point about the short time frame of advanced modern methods is also very relevant because we may not have enough understanding of natural variability to aid how we use that imbalance number to help make policy decisions.

So, maybe, if it can be done at some credible level, a graph of heat imbalance by proxy means similar to the hockey stick temperature graph may add some insight. However, since the hockey stick became controversial, so may this graph as well.

I think we have a dilemma here. We may never have enough certainty for some people. I do like your ideas and it still seems worthy to plot such a graph. We need all the insight we can gain.

I do tend to lean toward the current time frame and future monitoring because like I said in one of my posts, the Little Ice Age which supposedly followed a previous warming period, did not have the carbon buildup we have now.

What happened in the past was on a different earth with a slightly different atmospheric chemistry and land albedo. In that way, our current conditions may be even more relevant than comparing past proxy data with the present since the variations in the earth’s atmosphere and land can add more uncertainty to the value of those comparisons.

Good questions as always. I hope our dialogue raised the level of discussion even higher.

At the end of the day, it seems only an emergency will make people and governments take notice and when effective action may be possible from the emotion of fear. Until that happens, all our energy and climate issues will be argued over and over. I have mentioned the word “thermal inertia” when discussing climate on this blog. Now, I think we need to define another word called “cultural inertia” which for me seems a greater problem in the way of progress.

Maybe, it is not more analysis of climate and energy issues but an analysis of what it will take to overcome this “cultural inertia” preventing viable solutions from happening. Maybe, we need to imagine the paradigm shift which will result from the inevitable emergency and the opportunities of influence which may be available during that future event.

Maybe we should be preparing ourselves for that time with the available time we have now while we are still in the “eye” of the hurricane which is all we know since great climate-change experiences of the distant past were not recorded and passed down by our primordial ancestors! They did survive and we still carry their genes so in that we have hope!

All the very best,

Dan

they’d be a lot cheaper to manufacture, because they are much more simple. The only problem has been range & recharge time, but with the new battery technology (which is a bit costly at this point) the range & recharge time can about match an ICE car. And after driving 300 miles, would one want to rest & walk around for about 15 minutes (the recharge time).

The real point is that most people drive less than 40 miles a day (range on low end EVs) on their daily commute & shopping errands. Once in a way, if they plan a longer trip they can rent an ICE car or have it as their 2nd car in a 2-car family.

From talking to EV club members in IL I got the impression that it costs several thousand dollars to do a conversion from scratch – and you could buy, say, an old Honda civic whose engine had blown out for a cheap price, so it can be done on the cheap, but then the range & recharge time would be poor, but perfectly OK for 90% of our driving days.

I got the “less pollution” figures from a club member, & I think it was 1/3 less CO2, and much less other pollution (due to better source control of energy companies than ICE cars).

Hi Lynn,

totally agree with you about the possibility of doing an EV conversion on a traditional small car. The Honda Civic is recommended because there’s enough room in the engine bay to fit all the bits and the gearbox is ideal for the job, and very robust.

The point I was making was that technology is advancing in control systems, ac motors, battery controllers and batteries themselves at such a pace that I think we are close to being able to buy maore advanced conversion kits that would achieve a lot more.

I know you have often railed at the iniquitous behaviour of the oil/motor industry combine and it is no different here. I now have first hand evidence that the focus for development funding is for hybrids and fuel cells, and no one is interested in battery technology in the UK. One of the reasons is, I believe, that as a high taxation economy, there has been a major shift from income-based taxes to consumption based taxes: 85% of our fuel cost is taxation! The only problem is that if there was a massive influx of EV’s that used no petrol/diesel, there would be an enormous shortfall in tax revenue to the UK government. Dependency culture again.

British history is littered with inventions and inventors whose ideas ‘did not fit’ at the time and which were subsequently exploited and developed by other countries to their benefit: two examples being Frank Whittle and the jet engine and the British Railways tilting advanced passenger train of the 1970s. I’m afraid it’s a national trait that we seem to despise innovation and success. It seems that the Chinese have no such inhibitions so I look forward to being able to purchase equipment from them in due course.

You are right again about the majority of journeys being very short, but we know that most people are not that well organised and, outside urban areas, if the highways get littered with EV’s whose owners have forgotten and tried to go too far, then it will set the uptake of the concept back a long way. When we have vehicles that can out-perform ICE cars, can be recharged in a short space of time and have additional benefits then more people will buy them and major manufacturers will have to start making them.

I followed a brand new Prius hybrid into work last week and very impressive it was to, whispering silently along: but it looks and behaves like a conventional vehicle, which is why there is a growing waiting list at the dealers. We are not far away from battery technology doing the same, so I am going to bide my time for now.

Kind regards

Colin

Just reading your conversation with Colin.

Electric vehicles would be very efficient in converting electricity into mechanical energy and in the recharging process but the emissions depend on the source of electricity.

Your electricity would come from wind power so your vehicle would be truly no emissions.

If your electricity came from a gas power plant then it would be at a higher the energy efficiency than an ICE and about half the emissions since gas produces less carbon than gasoline for the same heat output.

If your electricity came from coal, then the energy efficiency will be similar to gas but your emissions may be roughly the same with a gasoline engine with respect to carbon and coal emits other “stuff” as well.

Since Keith posted that insightful post about the downside of nuclear, I wonder about all the energy and emissions used to build large power plants, small ones, wind turbines, etc. so that the amortized energy and emissions can be assessed over the lifetime of these capital investments.

BTW, I have read a few chapters of Natural Capitalism and I am very impressed with the book so far. The chapter on vehicles was especially insightful since it is true we transport more weight around than necessary. I often thought about that when I rode my bicycle thinking that here is a vehicle which weighs less than me while I see all these “tanks” driving around.

As the authors mentioned, we do have a problem with mass inequity in introducing lighter vehicles and they did make a good point about race-car drivers having relative safety in their light vehicles traveling at high speeds.

But then again, those are specialty vehicles and the driver’s wear protective clothing plus helmets. They all travel in the same direction which helps as their momentum is in the same direction. And, they have no mass inequity as all their vehicles are light.

It seems we would have to go through a gradual transition downward in vehicle weight over time. I say this because the problem of collision between 2 vehicles of unequal mass was not elaborated on in the book and remains a problem for people who opt for ultra-light vehicles (in comparison to the norm on the roads)

Just for the blog, I will do some calculations that may help. Let us say we had a head-on collision between a vehicles weighing 1000 pounds with one weighing 3000 pounds. What is the relative speed experienced by each driver if each were going at a speed of 40 mph?

Using the conservation of momentum equation for the light vehicle we have the velocity equivalent of impact as:

Vl = 40 + [3000 (40) – 1000 (40)]/4000 = 60 mph

The heavier vehicle experiences the opposite:

Vh = 40 + [1000 (40) – 3000 (40)]/4000 = 20 mph

So the lighter vehicle experiences a 60 mph collision while the heavier vehicle experiences just a 20 mph collision.

This is a major problem in making lighter vehicles truly safer amongst those behemoths on the highway. Intuitively, people knew that a heavier vehicle was safer and this had something to do with their purchase of them on a psychologically basis. Parents would want to protect their children for example.

What may accelerate this transition to lighter vehicles on the road would be leverage from higher gasoline prices plus leverage from insurance companies focused on reducing mass inequities. If ultra-light vehicles entered the highway, then the collective mass inequities of all vehicles would incur more personal injuries among the light vehicles.

To reduce mass inequity and the greater liability to auto insurance companies, these companies could adjust the personal liabilities in that part of their formulation and charge higher rates for heavier vehicles but they may have to charge higher rates for ultra-light vehicles as well. The medium number could be ratcheted down over time as more lighter vehicles are being driven on our highways.

Since the damage that heavier vehicles cause can be higher (i.e. they can damage more than one vehicle), then their liability should be higher.

It appears that there is a vested interest for the auto-insurance industry to encourage a reduction in collective mass equity by encouraging the reduction of the most numerous heavy passenger vehicles on the road through their fee structures.

As always, it is a pleasure. Thanks for pushing the book “Natural Capitalism” on Mark’s site. I am enjoying the positive focus of the authors which is refreshing to read.

Their insight as to the low efficiency of vehicles because of their weight is very valid and if we can lighted things up, it would vastly increase fuel efficiency.

Motorcycles have a relatively inefficient ICE but look at their gas mileage? It is higher than hybrids but no safety as most collisions are fatal.

All the best,

Dan

since my estimation was already low from the first post I ever read from him, and since then, he has never rose high enough to be able to “fall”!

I just wish Norbert would not avoid my hard questions which I posted before. See below the questions our friend Norbert is avoiding:

My Question to Norbert: …. So would you PLEASE go back to Robert Cameron’s post concerning the IPCC statements and then proceed to Mr. Cameron’s link to the specific IPCC section he is commenting about and then read my additional comments since I went to that same link. Original Post below:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1290.html

Original Robert Cameron Post Below:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1269.html

My Question: Norbert, where do you think that plus or minus 0.15 W/m2 uncertainty number came from? Do you think James Hansen et al simply made that number up because they do not know what they are doing? Original Post below:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1351.html

Oh Colin! I have been catching up on reading this blog and still have not finished reading your conversation with Lynn on EVs.

I did post some comments included an assessment of the vehicle chapter in Natural Capitalism which is a very refreshingly positive and enthusiastic book highly welcomed over the gloom and doom rhetoric we often hear. It will be a slow read as I am enjoying the book and do not want to rush it.

My assessment did add some balance as they did not elaborate enough about the vehicle weight inequity by introducing ultra-light vehicles on our roadways. I provided simple momentum calculations to illustrate the problem we have. I offered an idea whereby auto-insurance companies could help leverage a gradual scale-down of heavy passenger vehicles over time.

My Original Post below:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1370.html

Take Care, and all the very best!

Dan

I like your economic analysis. Taking notes!

Take Care,

Dan