Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Sounds like a great deal when you consider the cost of climate disasters and the $3 trillion gulf wars cost

$4.5-Trillion: The Price Tag of A Fossil Fuel-Free U.S. | OilPrice.com

Decarbonizing the U.S. grid and replacing fossil fuels with renewables could cost US$4.5 trillion in investments over the next 10 to 20 years, Wood Mackenzie analysts have calculated.
As a case study of the August 14th, 2003 grid collapse and blackout in North East US and portions of Canada
http://asrc.albany.edu/people/facul...wer outage/availability of PV resource-04.pdf
It's been pointed out that somewhere between 200 - 500 megawatts of dispersed PV could have mitigated the cascading failures or completely stopped them.
Estimates of losses were roughly $8-11 Billion (memory)
So if $20/watt PV installed prior, no blackout and still producing 16 - 17 years later, and obviously its decreased in cost about 70-80%+ since then
Perez.page

upload_2019-6-27_17-48-31.png
 
Local production (roof tops, parking lot covers) as the cost of transmission is higher than cost of production.
Production costs trend down and transmission costs are rising:

Electricity prices reflect rising delivery costs, declining power production costs - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Sadly, consumer prices always seem to increase. Power Company profits continue.
Which is why going off grid makes economic sense for some, if they can afford the upfront costs.
 
I was responding specifically to his comments on CO2. The chart shows that there is NOT a direct correlation between CO2 and Temperature in the Earth's history. Even during the past 150 years. For example: CO2 increased 25 ppm between 1940 and 1980. But the global mean temperature DECREASED during that time period. Then , from 1980 to present CO2 levels increased by something like 50 ppm, and GMT increased. You would say, ahh, see, that is proof that the temperature increase was caused by CO2. And I would say then what happened in the 40 years prior. What you see here is a correlation. Repeat after me kids: Correlation does not equal causation. ;)
CO2 is but one factor other pollutants can have the opposite effect such as SO2 which reflects sunlight and cools the earth. It also causes acid rain so we and other countries moved swiftly to minimize SO2 starting in the late 70’s. That was masking the warming effect of growing CO2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Seems almost all glaciers are melting.
Most of the Ocean is warming - Much of the coral is therefore bleaching.

So it seems obvious to me, the "earth" is warming.
Seems only geologist can give a "picture" of the past climates beyond ice cores.
Weather is far too complex to gain much knowledge, right?

Wonder how fast the glaciers can/will melt? interesting times, good luck to all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonWatch
No flights, a four-day week and living off-grid: what climate scientists do at home to save the planet

No flights, a four-day week and living off-grid: what climate scientists do at home to save the planet

We need to reduce our capacity and urge to consume’

Month after month, there is research showing that climate change is happening faster than we thought. We’re in a car hurtling towards the edge of a cliff, we’ve got our foot on the accelerator, and we’re just talking to each other, faffing about. If anything, some of us are even putting the foot further down. What we need to do is stop the car and get out. That has become increasingly clear to me in the last couple of years, which is why I’ve made changes to my own lifestyle.

Your average soap bottle has about five different types of plastic, and unless each bit is dismantled, it’s not completely recyclable. The little pump is made from one type of plastic, the pipe is made from another, and then you’ve got the spring. We’ve got so used to going into the supermarket, putting something into our baskets and coming home, but we haven’t considered what happens at the end of its life.

At the start of this year, I decided to go plastic-free in the bathroom.

It’s important that everybody goes close to vegetarian, and ideally vegan. Not just that: it’s also important that we stop eating so much. The average European eats 3,500 calories a day, which is too much. The planet has had to provide all those unnecessary calories. It’s not just about climate change: if you look at land use change, biodiversity loss, fertilisers in the ocean creating dead zones, the massive extinction and loss of insects due to pesticides – these problems are all driven by food.

In July 2018, I came across Prof Jem Bendell’s Deep Adaptation paper, which was going viral online. Here was someone with credibility and a good track record who, having studied the science, was saying that we’re no longer looking at mitigation, we’re looking at adaptation; that societal collapse is inevitable.
 
Is societal collapse inevitable?

Prof Jem Bendell’s Deep Adaptation paper,
https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
Abstract
The purpose of this conceptual paper is to provide readers with an
opportunity to reassess their work and life in the face of an inevitable near-
term social collapse due to climate change.
The approach of the paper is to analyse recent studies on climate change
and its implications for our ecosystems, economies and societies, as
provided by academic journals and publications direct from research
institutes.
That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near-term collapse in
society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. The paper reviews
some of the reasons why collapse-denial may exist, in particular, in the
professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to
these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.
The paper offers a new meta-framing of the implications for research,
organisational practice, personal development and public policy, called the
Deep Adaptation Agenda. Its key aspects of resilience, relinquishment and
restorations are explained. This agenda does not seek to build on existing
scholarship on “climate adaptation” as it is premised on the view that social
collapse is now inevitable.
The author believes this is one of the first papers in the sustainability
management field to conclude that climate-induced societal collapse is now
inevitable in the near term and therefore to invite scholars to explore the
implications

The result of these five questions is an article that does not contribute to
one specific set of literature or practice in the broad field of sustainability
management and policy. Rather, it questions the basis for all the work in
this field. It does not seek to add to the existing research, policy and
practice on climate adaptation, as I found that to be framed by the view
that we can manage the impacts of a changing climate on our physical,
economic, social, political and psychological situations. Instead, this article
may contribute to future work on sustainable management and policy as
much by subtraction as by addition. By that I mean the implication is for
you to take a time to step back, to consider "what if" the analysis in these
pages is true, to allow yourself to grieve, and to overcome enough of the
typical fears we all have, to find meaning in new ways of being and acting.
That may be in the fields of academia or management - or could be in some
other field that this realisation leads you to.

Rather than building from existing theories on sustainable business, this
paper is focusing on a phenomenon. That phenomenon is not climate
change per se, but the state of climate change in 2018, which I will argue
from a secondary review of research now indicates near term social
collapse. The gap in the literature that this paper may begin to address is
the lack of discussion within management studies and practice of the end of
the idea that we can either solve or cope with climate change.

I am aware that some people consider statements from
academics that we now face inevitable near-term social collapse to be
irresponsible due to the potential impact that may have on the motivation
or mental health of people reading such statements. My research and
engagement in dialogue on this topic, some of which I will outline in this
paper, leads me to conclude the exact opposite. It is a responsible act to
communicate this analysis now and invite people to support each other,
myself included, in exploring the implications, including the psychological
and spiritual implications.
 
If the sources do not give the clue, a little arithmetic should:

1000 Cal excess presuming the least weight gain possible
9 Cal per gram to store fat

1000*365/9000 = ~ 40 Kg of fat per year weight gain
Assuming that people convert all of their excess calories to fat instead of passing them through an inefficient digestive process.
(Also, people are getting fatter every year.)
Again, all of the studies I found use food diaries of what people actually eat.
 
How inefficient ? IIRC ~ 90% for American diets


How much fatter ? IIRC it is ~ 0.5 Kg/year
Looks like somewhere between 10% and 90%

Research says humans assimilate between 10% and 80% of the food we eat, with the average somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. The undigested food is excreted, recycled back into the Earth. Well, that’s a very large range. How much YOU assimilate fluctuates constantly and is pretty hard to measure. The primary factors are: how well you chew your food, the nutrient-density of the food, the type of food (i.e. starches, proteins, fats), whether it is raw or cooked, the level of life force in the food, enzymes present, your intestinal flora, the health of your organs, your emotional state, stress level, and the amount of toxins, empty calories, or useless material to be eliminated. Other important factors are your metabolism rate, exercise and activity level, the quantity of food you eat, your age, the time of day, your internal body temperature, and the temperature of the food consumed.

https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-calories-from-food-are-actually-absorbed-when-we-eat

Digestion and Absorption

How Much Nutrition Do You Absorb from Food?
 
You can do better than quora. Just think about it for a moment. If average bioavailability was e.g. 50% then the 1600 - 1800 Cal intake for steady state for a large fraction of the population would be 800 - 900 Cal per day metabolism. Hopefully you remember enough of your medical school studies to know that is not a reasonable number.

Start from BMR:
Ravussin, E; Lillioja, S; Christin, L; Bogardus, C; Bogardus, C (1986). "Determinants of 24-hour energy expenditure in man. Methods and results using a respiratory chamber". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 78 (6): 1568–1578.
 
Last edited:
No, because the range does not matter here; the average population based energy bioavailability is the figure of merit.

For example -- 95%
If you read the references... or just Googleit... you'll find that there is a lot of individual variation in how much nutrition is absorbed. It really does vary from 10 to 90% based on age, sex, weight, the specific food eaten, climate, etc.
If you can find something that says everybody always absorbs 95% of the calories they eat all the time, please provide the reference. Otherwise, I think we have wasted enough time of this sidetrack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. J
If you read the references... or just Googleit... you'll find that there is a lot of individual variation in how much nutrition is absorbed. It really does vary from 10 to 90% based on age, sex, weight, the specific food eaten, climate, etc.
If you can find something that says everybody always absorbs 95% of the calories they eat all the time, please provide the reference. Otherwise, I think we have wasted enough time of this sidetrack.
3500 Cal a day is an average, therefore you want to compare with average energy bioavailability.
 
Seems almost all glaciers are melting.
Most of the Ocean is warming - Much of the coral is therefore bleaching.

So it seems obvious to me, the "earth" is warming.
Seems only geologist can give a "picture" of the past climates beyond ice cores.
Weather is far too complex to gain much knowledge, right
Wonder how fast the glaciers can/will melt? interesting times, good luck to all.
Glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. Steadily. This happens EVERY time an ice age ends, and continues until the next glacial period.
What is interesting is when they melt, what they reveal. ;)Mendenhall Glacier melting reveals ancient forest | Daily Mail Online