Global Warming - Page 7

"They gathered from a few articles and by talking with carmakers that all the current big hybrid makers (Toyota, Honda, Ford) believe that their battery packs will last for the life of the vehicle."~ http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005...we_be_wo_1.php

It should be noted that the technology is improving all the time too.

The mayor of London thinking green with 100,000 new electric cars-

"London mayor Boris Johnson announced today his intent to make the city the electric car capital of Europe. He said he wanted to introduce 100,000 electric cars to the capital's streets and to build an infrastructure of 25,000 charging points in public streets, car parks and shops". ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...johnson-london

Sure! Why shouldn't a battery last 10+ years? Don't all your laptop and car batteries last that long?

How does 500,000 km on just one Prius battery sound to you?~ http://www.caradvice.com.au/14639/to...taxi-champion/

http://www.caradvice.com.au/15946/to...rid-batteries/

Not only that but as a poster (Quincy) from that thread points out- "There is a total of just 22 moving parts in its drivetrain– No heat-generating torque converter, no clutch, no CVT belts. The single-gearset Power Split Device transmission experiences no gear-shifting wear-and-tear a normal car does. Transmission fluid change every 60,000 miles.
The Prius uses regenerative braking. You don’t need to change its brake pads or rotors until 100,000 miles."

Like something out of Toyota's sales brochure.

Seems there are other folks with less than stellar battery lifespans.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...d_hybrids.html

In California, Toyota guarantee their battery to 150,000 miles and so if it was faulty before then, Toyota would have replaced it for free. The Australian failure rates of their batteries are way lower than for conventional gas cars.

Besides why do you care anyway, you'd, no doubt, never be seen dead in one. Too green, too slow, etc... etc....etc....

That's irrelevant - the topic was "how green" they are, and having to deal with a ton of CO2 per vehicle weight per year v. the tons of coal burned to generate the electricity for pure electric vehicles, the gas or diesel for the hybrids, AND the tons of toxic materials from a battery recycle program is the issue.

To that end, it doesn't even matter what the lifespan of the battery is, every hybrid or electric vehicle produced will undoubtedly need to have it's battery disposed of. Since the 3rd world is where the sludge from electronic recycle programs end up, I'm just guessing that the 3rd world is where the sludge from battery recycle programs will end up. Since that's the target of the monetary redistribution program the UN wants to impose as it's solution for reducing carbon emissions, I figure it's relevant.

There is only 2 current technologies that offer ecological improvements over a gas engine, and those techs are fuel cell and hydrogen fuels, and my money is on hydrogen if you want to be green.

What sludge?

Toyota recycles all the contents from it's batteries and has done since their inception.

Toyota Statement-

"Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride 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 and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery."

The electrolyte in NiMH needs to be separated from the metal and then disposed, nickel metal is toxic, and nickel sulfide fumes are carcinogenic, and all are part of battery recycle processes.

"We recycle batteries!" != "green", by any stretch of the imagination. Recycle by-products are nasty stuff.

How do you think recycling occurs? Even recycling a totally safe metal like gold requires methods that generate tons of toxic materials. We won't even start with the ecological damage caused in the mining processes of materials used in batter manufacturing process...

There's no free lunch, no matter how hard you try to suggest there is.

Any reasonable person will know that the goal is to replace one evil with a lesser. The only danger we face is NOT TRYING. Traditionalist and other feeble minded will oppose anything that did not exist before their birth. That would be progress We can't have that.
You are free to invent a battery that is less toxic. I'll be happy to invest in your company. You are obviously an expert.

Any reasonable person knows that determining the ecological impact of an emergent technology is incredibly complicated and more prone to being misrepresented by advocates than an established technology. Therefore, the determination of which technology is actually the lesser of evils takes more than a consensus from it's disciples.
Is this an intentional non sequitur? Were you really trying to be funny or do you just not understand?

Unfortunately there are those who distort the ecological impact of existing technologies to justify their profits. i.e. Global warming deniers who have no qualifications other than ideology and pay checks from the oil and coal industry.
No one knows what impact Toyota's batteries have. There are 200,000 mile Priuses on the road which still have the original battery. Mine has 113,000 and my original break pads are at 85%. Like you said: to really calculate the impact of new technology is daunting.
I am advocating invention.
I just don't understand how prejudice will help.
Oil is not the answer, coal isn't either. Nickel at least can be recovered. It's in everything from jewelery to cookware.

Your wrong on so many levels. Battery technology is far greener than it was, no more heavy metals, cadmium, mercury, lead etc, much simpler recycling, longer life and on and on....

You don't seem to be able to grasp the progress. Of course there's mining, of course there's pollution but this technology is advancing and so is nuclear, wind, wave, solar etc. Combining these technologies, to get us away from CO2 fossil fuels is what's really important here. Tesla's new battery cells are lithium, another step forward and there will be many more. If you don't think there worth it fine, but they are. "Disciples" include big business and governments, it's the Non-Disciples, notably "Bush Heads" who are the problem, adamant that there's nothing in life to make them feel better than a V8, except a V12. Go figure.

Remember first off, that recycling the entire battery is a last option. Reconditioning batteries will extend there life by about another six years by Toyota for $750. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...tery-pack1.htm

Tesla~ (note that they don't anticipate having to recycle their batteries any time soon!) http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=66

Something for those clinging to conspiracy, enjoy!~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

Yes, a lot of people have forgotten the pain of the nature， just for their benefit。

old news (April 09) vs news (Sept 09).

Global warming, where people are talking environmental changes over periods of hundreds and hundreds of years, and you think a couple of months are significant, in places on opposite sides of the earth?

You read that in a 2001 issue of the LA times?

This has already been discussed in these CC threads at PO.
Scientists are fully aware that wind patterns are changing and sometimes that results in colder winds therefore colder temperatures in some areas. Likewise warmer winds in other areas and warmer temperatures. The idea that the Antarctic isn't under substantial threat from warmer temperatures is absurd and this is yet another case when denialist's use a well known phenomenon of changing weather patterns to argue that there's nothing to worry about and try and make everyone arguing otherwise out to be a bunch of liars misleading the public!!!



"Satellite measurements of the Pine Island glacier in West Antarctica have revealed that the surface of the ice is dropping at a rate of up to 16 metres a year and since 1994, has lowered by as much as 90 metres.
Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that the rate of ice melt would see the glacier disappear within 600 years. Now, the data suggests it could be gone in little more than 100. If the Pine Island glacier collapses, it would have major implications for rising sea levels and could be followed by the rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet."
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...years-ago.html

Denialists are running this show, Hands.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

What was the problem for many users? Read from the paper:
If they don't like the data, they make the NOAA remove it. Yuppers, that's denialists at work.

This is really great proof of man made global warming. Obviously the northern hemisphere produces far more green house gases than the southern hemisphere.

So you think co2 has regional influences?

Ever looked at global weather patterns?

The data your referring to was proved to be inaccurate and on top of that only shows any kind of noticeable differences in temperature from about 1970 and earlier (actually, there's really hardly any noticeable difference from 1950 onwards).

The fact is that the same NOAA also openly states on the same web page- "According to Environment Canada, temperatures across Ontario were well below average, with an overall anomaly of 2.2°C (4.0°F) below average. Several locations experienced their lowest temperatures since 1992, and three locations set new low mean temperatures. Pickle Lake set a new monthly low mean temperature for the month of July as temperatures dropped to 14.4°C (57.9°F), surpassing the previous record of 14.5°C (58.1°F) set in 1965. Ridgetown and Elliot Lake also broke their monthly low mean temperatures which were first set in 1891 and 1996, respectively."
That's hardly trying to only portray the warming side of global warming!

Interesting that satellite data from 1985 to present has an effect on temperature "from about 1970 and earlier". Damn those satellites are good!

Also I'd sure like to see citation for where it was proved inaccurate. Well, unless you insist that anything that shows the warming trend isn't what IPCC claims is automatically wrong...

That's not my understanding at all. The data that was dropped was used to show temperatures over a hundred years and like I said the only real differences were from about 1950 and earlier. I will try and and link to the graphs, but their on a different mac in history. I'll post them in twenty mins or so.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/...s-between.html

That's not even right Taskiss. Version 3 REPLACED VERSION 2!

Here's the correct difference- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...st/ersstv3.php

"The extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) was constructed using the most recently available International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) SST data and improved statistical methods that allow stable reconstruction using sparse data. This monthly analysis begins January 1854, but because of sparse data the analyzed signal is heavily damped before 1880. Afterwards the strength of the signal is more consistent over time. The ERSST analysis will be updated as new data become available.

Currently, ERSST version 2 (ERSST.v2) and version 3 (ERSST.v3) are available. ERSST.v3 is an improved extended reconstruction over version 2. Most of the improvements are justified by testing with simulated data. The major differences are caused by the improved low-frequency (LF) tuning of ERSST.v3 which reduces the SST anomaly damping before 1930 using the optimized parameters. In the ERSST version 3 on this web page we have removed satellite data from ERSST product. For more information about the differences between ERSST.v3 and ERSST.v2 please read Summary of Recent Changes in the Land-Ocean Temperature Analyses."

v3 to v3b was when the data was removed.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

I'd ballpark that removing the data results in a 20% increase in global warming since 1880.

From version 2. Read it, from your source-

"Please Note: Effective with the July 2009 State of the Climate Report, NCDC transitioned to the new version (version 3b) of the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) dataset. ERSST.v3b is an improved extended SST reconstruction over version 2."

~ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

On that same page:

They removed the data starting in v3b, and they did it because "caused problems for many users", no other reason was suggested. It's not 'cause it's inaccurate, it's because it caused folks problems.

Well at least your admitting you didn't understand what the data was and that it was used for analysis back to 1880 instead of 1985!

Anyway your 20% mark is equally wrong. Go back to the NOAA page. The only real differences are before 1945, after that the data is very close. One thing I would just caution you about is that graphs cannot always be overlaid onto separate graphs, because the data, in one way or another is referring to different facts. Especially notable is the difference in time when using satellite data. All very confusing and above my level, but try not to take too many bloggers cellotaping graphs on top of one another necessarily as gospel differences.

REALLY! NOAA don't think so and nobody else thinks that!

Got proof?

They laid it out pretty clearly as to why in the link you provided to NOAA by Smith et al.- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...EA.temps08.pdf

If you scan down to the first graph in the right hand column you'll see how the new analysis is really only changing the results prior to 1950.

No, the data being removed only caused the data from 1985 on to be different. Data is data, the analysis changed, but the data doesn't... unless you have a problem with it, of course

I didn't overlay the graphs, I used the "Smoothed w/37 month filter" graph. The reason I used these graphs is because they were the only ones that I could find.

Best I can tell, Bob Tisdale is an alias for someone who doesn't want to be identified. Too bad he's the only one I can tell who compares the data and posts the results. Still, the admission that data is being withheld from the analysis because "users" have problems with it and not because there are inaccuracies is telling.
v3b came out in July, 2009. How does a paper from 2006 explain why they removed the data in the latest version?

You're all over the map here Hands.

The data wasn't changed. Only the analysis of it was changed. Only the interpretation of that data was changed. No data was removed! They also give a peer reviewed paper by Smith et al. as to why the interpretation of that data was changed. And even to a lay person like myself I find the reasons given compelling.

The Smith paper is from May 2008. That doesn't to me seem like an inordinately long period of time to make official changes.

I'm all over the map!!!!!LOL

I hear you, but what you're saying conflicts with what the NOAA says.

I would have thought that you'd understand this by now. The only data that was removed is the data that is an interpretation from the original data. The original data has not been removed and will never be removed.

"Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

I think you need to speak to the NOAA, not to me. It's pretty clear what they've written.

It certainly is, if you can understand it. There were areas where they had only very sparse data and that data was not used, because they considered it to be too inaccurate. So yes you could say they removed "some" data-

"In Smith et al. (2005) the global average was modified to exclude data from regions with sparse sampling to minimize
damping of global-average anomalies.☛ Other improvements were also considered and tested. Here a set of improvements and their effect on the reconstruction are evaluated. Of the improvements, the two that have
the GREATEST INFLUENCES on global averages are BETTER TUNING of the reconstruction method and inclusion of BIAS-ADJUSTED SATELLITE DATA since 1985."
~ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...EA.temps08.pdf

So in other words they "removed" data that was considered inaccurate from areas that were poorly monitored. Hardly the basis of a great conspiracy story! Not only that but other factors had a major role in effecting the update that are established peer reviewed science.

From the same NOAA, Smith et al. paper-

"Changes in the Niño-3.4 SST anomalies between
ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3 ARE VERY SMALL AFTER 1950.
Earlier in the record the two are also highly correlated,
but there are times when the ERSST.v2 anomaly is
greatly damped from a lack of sampling (Fig. 8). These
times include years before 1880 and around 1918,

Simulated data from models and observations are
used to improve the tuning of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operational sur-
face temperature analysis. Errors from excessive damp-
ing are reduced in the improved analysis (merged.v3).
This is especially important in the ocean component of
the analysis (ERSST.v3). Compared to SR05, the great-
est improvements occur in the nineteenth century.
However, there are some sparsely sampled regions in
all periods that are improved by the new tuning. In
addition, global averaging of the analysis is optimally
tuned to exclude undersampled regions responsible for
excessive damping of global averages."