Okay, consider this an IOU for a future post on an analysis. I’m assuming you’d want an analysis of emissions relative to automobile use, correct? Wouldn’t an emissions based on fossil fuel consumption in general be more comprehensive?
Edit: In the meantime, reading this analysis that’s already been done may help establish a better understanding on the subject of quantifying emissions costs.
Also please understand that what you’re asking for is something whole analytical chemical organizations spend vast amounts of their funding on doing this analysis. To say that I alone will try to provide something anywhere close to the quality provided by these organizations is to exercise quite a bit of hubris on my part.
That said, my true rejection to Elo’s comment wasn’t that global warming isn’t hard to quantify. My true rejection is that it seems entirely careless to discard global warming from the discussion of the virtue (or lack thereof) of motor vehicles and other forms of transportation.
We are talking about the cost-benefit analysis of cars and similar motor vehicles (let’s define them as anything that moves and has an internal combustion engine). Your point seems to be that cars are not net beneficial—is that so? A weaker claim—that cars have costs and not only benefits—is obvious and I don’t think anyone would argue with it.
In particular, you pointed out that some of the costs involved have to do with global warming and—this is the iffy part—that this cost is easy to quantify. Since I think that such cost would be very-difficult-to-impossible to quantify, I’m curious about your approach.
Your link is to an uncritical Gish Gallop (“literature review” might be a more charitable characterization) through all the studies which said something on the topic.
Re update:
Cost is an economics question. Analytical chemistry is remarkably ill-equipped to answer such questions.
As to “careless to discard global warming”, well, I believe Elo’s point was that it’s hard to say anything definite about the costs of cars in this respect (keep in mind, for example, that humans do need transportation so in your alternate history where internal-combustion-engine motor vehicles don’t exist or are illegal, what replaces them?)
Cost is an economics question. Analytical chemistry is remarkably ill-equipped to answer such questions.
Analytical chemistry is well equipped to handle and acquire the data to show, definitively, that global warming is caused by emissions. To go further to say that we cannot use these facts to decide whether or not the automotive infrastructure isn’t worth augmenting because its too hard to make a cost-benefit analysis in light of the potential costs associated with global warming and air pollution is careless. Coastal flooding is a major cost (with rising oceans), as are extreme weather patterns (the recent flooding in Peru comes to mind), as well as the inevitable mass migrations (or deaths) resulting from these phenomena. I’m not aware of such figures, but this is a start.
keep in mind, for example, that humans do need transportation so in your alternate history where internal-combustion-engine motor vehicles don’t exist or are illegal, what replaces them?
Though I’m not asking for a replacement of motor vehicles (although electric cars come to mind), I am asking for augmentation. Why take the risk?
Analytical chemistry is well equipped to handle and acquire the data to show, definitively, that global warming is caused by emissions.
I was not aware that analytical chemists make climate models and causal models, too...
Coastal flooding is a major cost
You are confused about tenses. Coastal flooding, etc. is (note the present tense) is not a major cost. Coastal flooding might become a cost in the future, but that is a forecast. Forecasts are different from facts.
electric cars come to mind
Electric batteries do not produce energy, they merely store energy. If the energy to charge these batteries comes from fossil fuels, nothing changes.
I was not aware that analytical chemists make climate models and causal models, too...
They can. Though the people who came up with the infrared spectroscopy technique may not have been analytical chemists by trade. Mostly physicists, I believe. Why is this relevant? Because the same reason why infrared spectroscopy works also gives a reason for why emission cause warming.
You are confused about tenses. Coastal flooding, etc. is (note the present tense) is not a major cost. Coastal flooding might become a cost in the future, but that is a forecast. Forecasts are different from facts.
Coastal flooding damages infrastructure built on said coasts (unless said infrastructure was designed to mitigate said damage). That is a fact. I don’t see what the problem is here.
Electric batteries do not produce energy, they merely store energy. If the energy to charge these batteries comes from fossil fuels, nothing changes.
Agreed. So let me rephrase. Solar energy comes to mind. Given enough time, solar panels that were built up using tools and manpower powered by fossil fuels will eventually outproduce the energy spent to build it. This does change things if that energy can then be stored, transferred, and used for transportation purposes, since our current infrastructure still relies on such transportation technology.
This is what I mean by augmentation. Change the current infrastructure to support and accept renewable energy source over fossil fuels. We cannot do this yet globally, though some regions have managed to beat those odds.
They can. Though the people who came up with the infrared spectroscopy technique may not have been analytical chemists by trade.
You are confused between showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and developing climate models of the planet Earth.
Coastal flooding damages infrastructure
Yes, but coastal flooding is a permanent feature of building on the coasts. Your point was that coastal flooding (and mass migrations and deaths) are (note: present tense) the result of global warming.This is (note: present tense) not true. There are people who say that this will become (note: future tense) true, but these people are making a forecast.
Solar energy comes to mind
At which point we are talking about the whole energy infrastructure of the society and not about the costs of cars.
You are confused between showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and developing climate models of the planet Earth.
What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there’s a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?
There are people who say that this will become (note: future tense) true, but these people are making a forecast.
The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.
At which point we are talking about the whole energy infrastructure of the society and not about the costs of cars.
Indeed, so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure, and see where the results of that debate lead in terms of their impacts on the automotive industry? It is a massive industry, worth trillions of dollars globally, any impacts on energy infrastructure will have lasting impacts on the automotive industry.
What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there’s a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?
Look up a disagreement between two chaps, Svante Arrhenius and Knut Ångström :-)
Here is the argument against your position (there is a counter-argument to it, too):
water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the infrared spectrum, the main bands where each gas blocked radiation overlapped one another. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention CO2 itself) already made opaque?
.
The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.
Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?
so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure
What was his counter-argument? I can’t read German.
Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?
Well clearly we need to establish a time range. Most sources for weather and temperature records I’ve seen span a couple of centuries. Is that not a range large enough to talk about climate instead of weather?
Sure, but it’s a different debate.
Its a related debate, especially relevant if conclusions in the debate a metalevel lower are unenlightened.
The description of the link is entirely unfair. It provides a (relatively) short summary of the language of the debate, as well as a slew of data points to overview. To frame the source as you describe it is entirely an exercise in poisoning the well.
Ironic, since you just asked me to do my own analysis on the subject, yet you are unwilling to read the “one-guy organization” and what it has to say on the subject.
The merits (or lack thereof) of said organization has nothing to do with how true or false the source is. This is ad hominem.
Okay, consider this an IOU for a future post on an analysis. I’m assuming you’d want an analysis of emissions relative to automobile use, correct? Wouldn’t an emissions based on fossil fuel consumption in general be more comprehensive?
Edit: In the meantime, reading this analysis that’s already been done may help establish a better understanding on the subject of quantifying emissions costs.
Also please understand that what you’re asking for is something whole analytical chemical organizations spend vast amounts of their funding on doing this analysis. To say that I alone will try to provide something anywhere close to the quality provided by these organizations is to exercise quite a bit of hubris on my part.
That said, my true rejection to Elo’s comment wasn’t that global warming isn’t hard to quantify. My true rejection is that it seems entirely careless to discard global warming from the discussion of the virtue (or lack thereof) of motor vehicles and other forms of transportation.
We are talking about the cost-benefit analysis of cars and similar motor vehicles (let’s define them as anything that moves and has an internal combustion engine). Your point seems to be that cars are not net beneficial—is that so? A weaker claim—that cars have costs and not only benefits—is obvious and I don’t think anyone would argue with it.
In particular, you pointed out that some of the costs involved have to do with global warming and—this is the iffy part—that this cost is easy to quantify. Since I think that such cost would be very-difficult-to-impossible to quantify, I’m curious about your approach.
Your link is to an uncritical Gish Gallop (“literature review” might be a more charitable characterization) through all the studies which said something on the topic.
Re update:
Cost is an economics question. Analytical chemistry is remarkably ill-equipped to answer such questions.
As to “careless to discard global warming”, well, I believe Elo’s point was that it’s hard to say anything definite about the costs of cars in this respect (keep in mind, for example, that humans do need transportation so in your alternate history where internal-combustion-engine motor vehicles don’t exist or are illegal, what replaces them?)
Analytical chemistry is well equipped to handle and acquire the data to show, definitively, that global warming is caused by emissions. To go further to say that we cannot use these facts to decide whether or not the automotive infrastructure isn’t worth augmenting because its too hard to make a cost-benefit analysis in light of the potential costs associated with global warming and air pollution is careless. Coastal flooding is a major cost (with rising oceans), as are extreme weather patterns (the recent flooding in Peru comes to mind), as well as the inevitable mass migrations (or deaths) resulting from these phenomena. I’m not aware of such figures, but this is a start.
Though I’m not asking for a replacement of motor vehicles (although electric cars come to mind), I am asking for augmentation. Why take the risk?
I was not aware that analytical chemists make climate models and causal models, too...
You are confused about tenses. Coastal flooding, etc. is (note the present tense) is not a major cost. Coastal flooding might become a cost in the future, but that is a forecast. Forecasts are different from facts.
Electric batteries do not produce energy, they merely store energy. If the energy to charge these batteries comes from fossil fuels, nothing changes.
What do you mean by augmentation?
They can. Though the people who came up with the infrared spectroscopy technique may not have been analytical chemists by trade. Mostly physicists, I believe. Why is this relevant? Because the same reason why infrared spectroscopy works also gives a reason for why emission cause warming.
Coastal flooding damages infrastructure built on said coasts (unless said infrastructure was designed to mitigate said damage). That is a fact. I don’t see what the problem is here.
Agreed. So let me rephrase. Solar energy comes to mind. Given enough time, solar panels that were built up using tools and manpower powered by fossil fuels will eventually outproduce the energy spent to build it. This does change things if that energy can then be stored, transferred, and used for transportation purposes, since our current infrastructure still relies on such transportation technology.
This is what I mean by augmentation. Change the current infrastructure to support and accept renewable energy source over fossil fuels. We cannot do this yet globally, though some regions have managed to beat those odds.
You are confused between showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and developing climate models of the planet Earth.
Yes, but coastal flooding is a permanent feature of building on the coasts. Your point was that coastal flooding (and mass migrations and deaths) are (note: present tense) the result of global warming.This is (note: present tense) not true. There are people who say that this will become (note: future tense) true, but these people are making a forecast.
At which point we are talking about the whole energy infrastructure of the society and not about the costs of cars.
What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there’s a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?
The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.
Indeed, so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure, and see where the results of that debate lead in terms of their impacts on the automotive industry? It is a massive industry, worth trillions of dollars globally, any impacts on energy infrastructure will have lasting impacts on the automotive industry.
Look up a disagreement between two chaps, Svante Arrhenius and Knut Ångström :-)
Here is the argument against your position (there is a counter-argument to it, too):
.
Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?
Sure, but it’s a different debate.
What was his counter-argument? I can’t read German.
Well clearly we need to establish a time range. Most sources for weather and temperature records I’ve seen span a couple of centuries. Is that not a range large enough to talk about climate instead of weather?
Its a related debate, especially relevant if conclusions in the debate a metalevel lower are unenlightened.
Here
Noted, edited.
The description of the link is entirely unfair. It provides a (relatively) short summary of the language of the debate, as well as a slew of data points to overview. To frame the source as you describe it is entirely an exercise in poisoning the well.
The source is a one-guy organization which doesn’t even pretend it’s unbiased.
Ironic, since you just asked me to do my own analysis on the subject, yet you are unwilling to read the “one-guy organization” and what it has to say on the subject.
The merits (or lack thereof) of said organization has nothing to do with how true or false the source is. This is ad hominem.
I glanced at your source. The size is relevant because you told me that
...and the lack of bias (or lack of lack) does have much to do with how one treats sources of information.
If you’d filter out one-man firm as a source not worth reading, you’d filter out any attempt of an analysis on my part as well.
I am concerned about quality here, not so much who sources come from. This, necessarily, requires more than just a glance at material.