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.
Similar results where carbon emissions result in increased temperatures which require increased air conditioning which requires increased electricity which results in further fossil fuel emissions!
I think the world generally spends more energy heating than cooling, don't we? I'm pretty sure that's true for the USA, at least.
So elevated temperatures actually reduce our energy demands somewhat, right?

Of course, I think the theory is that AGW also causes more extreme weather, and more extreme weather would cause more heating and cooling costs.
 
I think the world generally spends more energy heating than cooling, don't we? I'm pretty sure that's true for the USA, at least.
So elevated temperatures actually reduce our energy demands somewhat, right?

That may be true for the country as an average, but as an individual in North Texas, I spend far more on A/C than I do on heating. A warmer climate just raises costs.
 
In a good mood today? I'll fix that! Time for dismay:

How the U.S. Exports Global Warming | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Tigerade, thanks for that (it's truly disgusting how we, the public, have abdicated our responsibilities to hold our politicians to account).

A few further updates:

Leading Scientists Explain How Climate Change Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought

"Leading Scientists Explain How Climate Change Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought"

Scientists have long predicted that climate change would bring on ever-worsening droughts, especially in semi-arid regions like the U.S. Southwest. As climatologist James Hansen, who co-authored one of the earliest studies on this subject back in 1990, told me this week, “Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change.”

Why does it matter if climate change is playing a role in the Western drought? As one top researcher on the climate-drought link reconfirmed with me this week, “The U.S. may never again return to the relatively wet conditions experienced from 1977 to 1999.” If his and other projections are correct, then there may be no greater tasks facing humanity than 1) working to slash carbon pollution and avoid the worst climate impact scenarios and 2) figuring out how to feed nine billion people by mid-century in a Dust-Bowl-ifying world.
Remarkably, climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West, especially California. As it turns out, Arctic ice loss has been much faster than the researchers — and indeed all climate modelers — expected.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3223791/climate-change-california-drought/
 
I disagree.

I don’t see how not voting is supposed to be the solution. And he does not offer an alternative to representative democracy. It’s clear that he doesn’t like the Tories. Nor do I. Within the UK Labour Party there currently exists a left-wing, democratic socialist grouping of Labour Party Members of Parliament in the House of Commons – the Socialist Campaign Group. If they were in power in the UK instead of the Tories, the UK would be something different entirely. Saying that there isn’t an alternative as Brand does in this segment just isn’t true.

In the last UK election the turnout was 65%. What would have happened if those 35% that did not vote instead would have voted for Labour? Labour would have won with a landslide.

- - - Updated - - -

Such an election result would open up for a scenario where the Socialist Campaign Group could break out of Labour and form a stand alone party.

- - - Updated - - -

If people like Brand do not advocate for people to go and vote, then that does not increase the likelihood of the change that he is asking for, and the status quo that he complains about just continues.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

I don’t see how not voting is supposed to be the solution. And he does not offer an alternative to representative democracy. It’s clear that he doesn’t like the Tories. Nor do I. Within the UK Labour Party there currently exists a left-wing, democratic socialist grouping of Labour Party Members of Parliament in the House of Commons – the Socialist Campaign Group. If they were in power in the UK instead of the Tories, the UK would be something different entirely. Saying that there isn’t an alternative as Brand does in this segment just isn’t true.

In the last UK election the turnout was 65%. What would have happened if those 35% that did not vote instead would have voted for Labour? Labour would have won with a landslide.

- - - Updated - - -

Such an election result would open up for a scenario where the Socialist Campaign Group could break out of Labour and form a stand alone party.

- - - Updated - - -

If people like Brand do not advocate for people to go and vote, then that does not increase the likelihood of the change that he is asking for, and the status quo that he complains about just continues.

I understand and see that. But I think what he is saying is that not only are the people broken, but so is the system. So it doesn't matter if better people are voted in, the system will shaped them anyway. It's just like with Obama - I voted for him twice thinking he would get some things done and he couldn't because of the people and the system (corporate lobbyist). We have to get the people to rally and stand up to the system, before the people will change. Just my interpretation.......
 
While I would normally never bring up an article from RushLimbaugh.com, I think this is a good opportunity to fine-tune your critical thinking skills:

Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Basically, after doing my best to suffer through this unintelligible drivel, I think the crux of his argument is that the polar vortex is "made up by leftists" and scientists who study this professionally "have no idea what they are talking about". Oh the irony.

NASA's JPL explains the polar vortex using data from the AIRS instrument from the Aqua spacecraft orbiting the earth:

Polar Vortex Behind U.S. Big Chill Explained - YouTube

NASA JPL said:
About AIRS

The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, AIRS, in conjunction with the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit, AMSU, sense emitted infrared and microwave radiation from the Earth to provide a three-dimensional look at Earth's weather and climate. Working in tandem, the two instruments make simultaneous observations all the way down to the Earth's surface, even in the presence of heavy clouds. With more than 2,000 channels sensing different regions of the atmosphere, the system creates a global, three-dimensional map of atmospheric temperature and humidity, cloud amounts and heights, greenhouse gas concentrations, and many other atmospheric phenomena. The AIRS and AMSU fly onboard NASA's Aqua spacecraft and are managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, under contract to NASA. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

More information about AIRS can be found at airs.jpl.nasa.gov.

Al Roker from NBC News shows his college textbook from 1959 that shows the polar vortex definition:

Al Roker Tells Polar Vortex Doubters To - YouTube

From NASA:

Arctic Ozone Watch: Facts about the polar vortex


What is the Polar Vortex?

The stratospheric polar vortex is a large-scale region of air that is contained by a strong west-to-east jet stream that circles the polar region. This jet stream is usually referred to as the polar night jet. The polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.
2011-02-22_LNH.png

And here is a good set of maps with temperature anomalies:

Arctic Change: Climate Indicators - Stratospheric Air Temperatures

polarvortex.PNG


Here's a scientific paper from 2005 that talks about the polar vortex:

http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/ReprintsYLY/n173limpasuvan_2005.pdf

Here's a book from 1996 that has a section on the polar vortex:

Arctic and Environmental Change - Google Books

Here's a small section from the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1992, mentioning the polar vortex:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JGR....97.7859S

And here's a section of Science magazine in 1991 that mentions the polar vortex:

The Dynamics of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex and Its Relation to Springtime Ozone Depletions

And from the Geophysical Research Letters in 1997:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24.2693C


So why am I showing you all of this? Why not just laugh at and ignore Rush Limbaugh's erroneous claim that the term "polar vortex" is made up by leftists? It's because the man has millions of listeners who are being fed misinformation about science. I think the answer of that is to.. somehow replace the misinformation in their heads with the correct information. It's not enough just block a punch from pseudo-scientists, you have to fight back using the best scientific evidence you can find. I think the end goal should be educate as many people on science issues as possible, so we can create a sort of consciousness that is aware of our place in the world as well as our impact on it.
 
Last edited:
we’re in for a period of global cooling

s a war on for your mind!



Here’s another anomaly. For the first times in decades, Lake Superior, the largest body of fresh water in the world, is predicted to freeze over this winter. A sheet of ice will form over the surface of the three-quadrillion-gallon lake. The mean thickness of the ice, reports the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, will be over 10 inches.


And then somebody at the IPCC leaked a report last year that had scientists reversing their convictions on global warming. Some now believe we’re in for a period of global cooling, not warming.
 
s a war on for your mind!

Here’s another anomaly. For the first times in decades, Lake Superior, the largest body of fresh water in the world, is predicted to freeze over this winter. A sheet of ice will form over the surface of the three-quadrillion-gallon lake. The mean thickness of the ice, reports the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, will be over 10 inches.


And then somebody at the IPCC leaked a report last year that had scientists reversing their convictions on global warming. Some now believe we’re in for a period of global cooling, not warming.

6uv3b.jpg


I will go ahead and respond to your ridiculous citation with a rebuttal... just to maintain the quality of this thread.

First of all, anyone reading that article should first notice that it's an overt example of cherry picking.

But let's go ahead and address it. Scientists do not dispute that record lows, or freezing cannot happen with increasing global average temperature.

Does cold weather disprove global warming?
record-highs-lows.jpg


Record lows are still possible. They are just happening less frequently then they have before, and record highs are gradually happening more frequently than before.

I really don't get this persistent idea that somehow if it's cold somewhere, it disproves global warming.

For example, there is snow and ice outside here in Georgia. It happened a couple weeks ago as well. But I could never be so dense as to mistake variation for trend.


And then somebody at the IPCC leaked a report last year that had scientists reversing their convictions on global warming. Some now believe we’re in for a period of global cooling, not warming.

If InfoWars were a serious news website, which it isn't, then they would have made an effort to source that claim. It sounds too much like the some people say tactic. The unsource claim is very unsatisfying to me. Tell me the actual scientists who reversed their position, endorse the idea that the world is actually cooling, and what their actual arguments are, and the evidence behind the arguments. And if you can't source your claim.. then..
 
And then somebody at the IPCC leaked a report last year that had scientists reversing their convictions on global warming. Some now believe we’re in for a period of global cooling, not warming.

"Somebody". Quite the credible source. Nice of them to include absolutely no link or reference of any kind. Google didn't pop it up either, except for that article itself.

Now they're just making stuff up.
 
BBC News - Wavier jet stream 'may drive weather shift'

The jet stream, as its name suggests, is a high-speed air current in the atmosphere that brings with it the weather.

It is fuelled partly by the temperature differential between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes.

If the differential is large then the jet stream speeds up, and like a river flowing down a steep hill, it ploughs through any obstacles - such as areas of high pressure that might be in its way.

If the temperature differential reduces because of a warming Arctic then the jet stream weakens and, again, like a river on a flat bed, it will meander every time it comes across an obstacle.

This results in weather patterns tending to becoming stuck over areas for weeks on end. It also drives cold weather further south and warm weather further north. Examples of the latter are Alaska and parts of Scandinavia, which have had exceptionally warm conditions this winter.
 
Bill Nye is on Meet the Press this morning to talk about climate change. I don't know why they are bringing him on instead of a climate scientists, but whatever. This has been a sticking point for a long time (Sunday morning talk shows have not spent any time on climate change).

*sigh* I watched the segment. Why the heck did they invite Marsha Blackburn on? She said something along the lines of "Global warming is real, but if the United States cuts off it's arms and legs to stop it, there is nothing we can do about it. The problem is in the developing world."

Republicans need to stop with that strawman argument. Nobody is saying that only the United States needs to reduce emissions to mitigate global warming, all countries have to do it. And the reason that developing countries are using so much fossil fuel is because they learned from us to do that. We need to lead by example and guide the world away from a high emission scenario. The path of leadership includes taking the bull by the horns and rising to the challenge, not cowering away from it like Marsha Blackburn just did.
 
Last edited:
Bill Nye is on Meet the Press this morning to talk about climate change. I don't know why they are bringing him on instead of a climate scientists, but whatever. This has been a sticking point for a long time (Sunday morning talk shows have not spent any time on climate change).

*sigh* I watched the segment. Why the heck did they invite Marsha Blackburn on? She said something along the lines of "Global warming is real, but if the United States cuts off it's arms and legs to stop it, there is nothing we can do about it. The problem is in the developing world."

Republicans need to stop with that strawman argument. Nobody is saying that only the United States needs to reduce emissions to mitigate global warming, all countries have to do it. And the reason that developing countries are using so much fossil fuel is because they learned from us to do that. We need to lead by example and guide the world away from a high emission scenario. The path of leadership includes taking the bull by the horns and rising to the challenge, not cowering away from it like Marsha Blackburn just did.

Wow. Yeah, plus, just like from the Rolling Stone article, we are still exporting it to other countries. So her point is even more off.
 
Secretary of State John Kerry labels "those who denied the evidence of climate change as 'shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues.'"

Kerry calls climate change a weapon of mass destruction, derides skeptics


It's remarkable to hear a politician speak in blunt terms:
“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” Kerry said. “President Obama and I both believe we don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”
 
Yeah. Finally. Now ’all’ that remains is to start to get the emissions to begin to decrease…

It will not be that simple. Remember that also if emissions will decrease in 2050 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be 450 ppm in the best case (today such a CO2 concentration is 400 ppm). Such a concentration couldn't be that bad for average temperature of the Earth but would affect very negatively the ocean acidification issue.
So IMO apart from the reduction of emissions also a way to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has to be developed and implemented.
 
While I am an amateur investor, my investment strategy is based on companies that produce products which further a "solar electric future". If we can prosper while doing the right thing for environment, we can change the world.

Agree that we should invest all our money in the so called "green economy". But remember this: it's not enough. Strong efforts in Research and Development are needed to decrease CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited: