Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

From the Albuquerque Journal (06.07.07, pages A1 & A10)

Quote:

....................

This is exactly the kind of long range global computer simulation that is known to yield meaningless, and utterly unreliable results by serious scientists. Moreover the reasons for this - both theoretical and practical - are well-understood and widely published. Those tempted to belierve this kind of fraudulent self-promotion and propagandizing should recall that the current wave of cold weather now covering the northeastern U.S. (I'm in Washington now) was not predicrted as recently as two weeks ago. Given that, why should any thinking person rely on a similar numerical extrapolation reaching out more than a century?

The most interesting feature of the article is the silence of impartial scirentists who know better than to spout such nonsense.

..........

At least the last part here can be addressed: nobody trained in the sciences would doubt that the very basis of all science is the repeatable experiment. So why do so many of us keep quiet? I've some idea on why the lesser academics do, but I can explain the silence of those of us working in private industry: why fight any fashionable lunacy, if we can use it to our advantage?

Suddenly all manner of manufacturers of equipment as diverse as cars, solar panels, washing machines, nuclear reactors, or women's cosmetics can sell their stuff as "enviro-friendly" certifying that it protects against AGW-induced evils about to befall the user unless he ditches his old model and buys the new ones!

Elementary, my dear George. On a related topic I hope all the prediction experts here study this article - approximated in one dimension only, whereby the IPCC "scientists" claim accuracy in at least 4 (four) dimensions:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN000119000004001979000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Quote:

The use of polynomial chaos for incorporating environmental variability into propagation models is investigated in the context of a simplified one-dimensional model, which is relevant for acoustic propagation when the random sound speed is independent of depth. Environmental variability is described by a spectral representation of a stochastic process and the chaotic representation of the wave field then consists of an expansion in terms of orthogonal random polynomials. Issues concerning implementation of the relevant equations, the accuracy of the approximation, uniformity of the expansion over the propagation range, and the computational burden necessary to evaluate different field statistics are addressed. When the correlation length of the environmental fluctuations is small, low-order expansions work well, while for large correlation lengths the convergence of the expansion is highly range dependent and requires high-order approximants. These conclusions also apply in higher-dimensional propagation problems.

Walter, who knows better, continues to paste this GW propaganda here. Now Thomas, at his Bavarian best, sticks his libertarian finger in my eye! What's with you guys?? I'm a patient, fairly easy-going friend. Do I deserve this??

.... and before Foxfyre crushes Hamburger for posting in foreign languages, what he said is "a full tummy doesn't study willingly"

LOL, thanks. But I grovel at the feet of people who can converse in more than one language. I don't crush them.

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

LOL, thanks. But I grovel at the feet of people who can converse in more than one language. I don't crush them.

thanks , foxfire !
and , of course , i also have the advantage of being able to mix a little english into my german , which has astonished more than one person in germany .
and has puzzled me on occasion when i received an unexpected reply
hbg

georgeob1 wrote:

Walter, who knows better, continues to paste this GW propaganda here. Now Thomas, at his Bavarian best, sticks his libertarian finger in my eye! What's with you guys?? I'm a patient, fairly easy-going friend. Do I deserve this??

I was being ironic, and the eye I was sticking my libertarian finger into was Walters. He deserved no better, the damn Catholic with his neo-apocalyptic horror story.

My apologies for being so dense.

CNW Marketing Research Inc., an Oregon-based auto research spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. They call it a dust-to-dust analysis of the environmental impact of a car.

You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.
The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the ""Dust to Dust"" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.

And you may do a doubletake after reading this:

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.

Basically, when considering all relevant variables such as materials, fabrication, plastics, carpets, chemicals, shipping, and transportation, gas mileage turns out to be significantly less relevant than many people assume.

What I like about this study -- and of course it''s just one study -- is that it looks at the total cost/impact of creation, ownership, and disposal. It''s easy for the media, the public, car dealers, and car manufactures to focus almost exclusively on miles per gallon. However, as is usually the case, reality points in a different direction than what''s convenient.
SOURCE WHERE I FOUND THIS

But the beat goes on. . . .

If ocean temperatures DO drop in the next 5 to 10 years, how do you think the hype re global warming will look then?

The bumper sticker however might actually mean that he was an idiot for waiting so long to get that hummer.

Quote:

CNW Marketing Research Inc., an Oregon-based auto research spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. They call it a dust-to-dust analysis of the environmental impact of a car.

You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.
The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the ""Dust to Dust"" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.

And you may do a doubletake after reading this:

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.

Basically, when considering all relevant variables such as materials, fabrication, plastics, carpets, chemicals, shipping, and transportation, gas mileage turns out to be significantly less relevant than many people assume.

What I like about this study -- and of course it''s just one study -- is that it looks at the total cost/impact of creation, ownership, and disposal. It''s easy for the media, the public, car dealers, and car manufactures to focus almost exclusively on miles per gallon. However, as is usually the case, reality points in a different direction than what''s convenient.
SOURCE WHERE I FOUND THIS

And here's a line to the CNW Research site:
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
_________________
--Foxfyre

collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage.

Remember that post from a few months ago about a Hummer being greener than a Prius? Well, the outfit that compared those two iconic vehicles, CNW Research, has gotten its study picked up in England (where the comparison is between a Jeep Cherokee and a Prius) and Toyota is responding by calling the study "Recycled Rubbish?".

I was skeptical of the Hummer = green claim at the time, and people certainly got to talking in the comments about the post. Now Toyota steps in and says CNW is wrong on a lot of fronts, from simple factual errors to larger methodical mistakes. It's important to remember that Toyota isn't an objective bystander in the debate, but I've got to their claims make sense to me.

You can read Toyota's entire argument after the jump.
Recycled Rubbish?

CNW Marketing Research Inc. - Study on Hybrid Efficiency
A number of UK publications have recently re-presented the results of an old study by a North American marketing research agency, CNW Research Inc. This study makes some surprising and uncorroborated claims about the total environmental impact of vehicles over the complete lifecycle (i.e. production - use - recycling).

The media have picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Jeep Cherokee is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid saloon. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.

The "results" of the CNW study

As with any model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, the assumptions are sound, and the data accurate. The CNW study makes several assumptions which undermine the conclusions arrived at. Without a scientific peer review, it is impossible to comment on any of these factors.

What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.
There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.

In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling programme in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information.

Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers have been using life cycle assessment for many years to evaluate various advanced vehicle technologies. Toyota, along with many others, believes that the best way to judge the environmental impact of a vehicle is to do a full evaluation of all the inputs and outputs in every stage of its life. The lifetime energy use is just one of the many things to look at.

The environment and the role of the car in CO2 emissions are rightly a very important subject for debate. Toyota welcomes such debate. However, the debate is not helped by sensationalistic reporting of an uncorroborated and unrepresentative piece of marketing research carried out in North America.

I don't think any of us dispute the fact that increased CO2 levels are either a cause of or a result of global warming. The primary conflict is whether this is a normal cyclical phenomena or something humankind actually has any significant control over.

You must have overlooked that I linked the site of the research group cited in my post that you criticized, Maporsche. I used that post because it neatly condensed the information being communicated. I didn't check their links to their research, but it is likely those will take you to the methodology used for their study.