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.
#1,281
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965.
A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.
"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."

​
Click to expand...
 
#1,283
Your posts reminded me that I had addressed the history of the science in a recent presentation, excerpts from the first few slides follow (note in particular that Alexander Graham Bell recognized that this would be a problem in 1917 and also identified the solution - solar!):

Climate Change 101 – The Basics
•Increasing levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and other greenhouse gases (collectively GHGs) block the escape of infrared energy from earth, creating an energy imbalance which warms the planet
•The key elements of the science are evidence that:
1.GHGs interfere with the transmission of infrared energy (but not the incoming visible spectrum energy)
2.GHGs in the atmosphere interfere with the emissions of infrared energy from the planet thereby increasing the equilibrium global temperature
3.Human activities, principally the combustion of fossil fuels, are releasing significant volumes of GHGs in the atmosphere
4.Manmade GHGs are remaining in the atmosphere where they are increasing the concentrations of GHGs (and thereby creating an energy imbalance and increasing the equilibrium temperature)
•The science is simple and well understood.

•The discovery of the greenhouse effect is generally credited to the renowned French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier, who calculated, in the 1820s, that the incoming energy from the Sun could not account for the warmth of the Earth and argued in 1824 that it could best be explained by the greenhouse effect
•He also suspected that human activities could affect the climate
•In 1864 John Tyndall further advanced the work begun by Fourier by demonstrating that GHGs such as methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapour strongly block infrared radiation
•In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth’s temperatures by around 5-6 degrees Celsius
•By 1917 Alexander Graham Bell was expressing concerns about the greenhouse impacts of the burning of fossil fuels and went on to advocate the use of alternate energy, such as solar energy
•Scientific debate with respect to persistence of manmade GHGs in the atmosphere came to a consensus by the end of the 1950s as studies demonstrated that oceans had a limited capacity to absorb CO2 and the Keeling curve demonstrated that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact rising, year-by-year

•Despite the growing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, during the 1960’s and 70’s early evidence of global warming were masked by the cooling effects of aerosol particulate pollution
•By the early 1980s, environmental legislation had decreased the emissions of aerosols and it became clear that CO2 levels were progressively increasing without offsetting cooling from aerosols
•The development of a clear scientific consensus led to the organization in 1985 of a joint UNEP/WMO/ICSU Conference which concluded that greenhouse gases "are expected" to cause significant warming in the next century
•Widespread international concern about the seriousness of threat of manmade climate change led to the establishment, in 1988, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and, in 1992, of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and thereafter to the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol

•Global average CO2 emissions approximately 5 tonnes per capita per year
•Current CO2 emissions approximately 35 billion tonnes per year
•Canadian average CO2 emissions approximately 20 tonnes per capita per year
•EU average CO2 emissions approximately 8.6 tonnes per capita per year
•EU 15 reduced GHGs by 15% relative to 1990 (EU Kyoto commitment 8%)
•Atmospheric CO2 levels 398 ppm (up 42% over pre-industrial levels)
•Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing by more than 2 ppm per year
•Global energy imbalance approximately 0.6 Watt per square metre
•Global energy imbalance is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per year
•Only 1% of energy in atmosphere (93% oceans, 3% ice and 3% land)
•1 degree C temperature increase to date ~ 4 degree C increase by 2100
•0.2 m sea level increase to date ~ 1 m increase forecast by 2100
•Each 1 degree C temperature increases water capacity of atmosphere by 7%
•Each 1 degree C temperature increases water capacity by 5000 billion Tonnes

2013 was the 37th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average
June 2013 was the 340th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average

 
#1,285
tigerade said:
One thing that strikes me as impressive... is how they manage to have hundreds of comments denying AGW within an hour. It's as-if the climate denial movement has an entire standing army ready to flood the comment boards on any article with the words "climate change" or "global warming" in it.
Click to expand...

They do. A lot of bots or script assistance too.
And which led to Al Gore's blunder to create a simple quasi-AstroTurf tool. These tools are common but only effective when they are covert. One of Gore's tool flaw was to provide stuff ready to copy and paste that the denier camp could also see - immediately killing the reputation of the innocent schill and denouncing climate change arguments as so weak as to need AstroTurfing. Al served it right into their hands.

There was an interesting paper shown at AAAS discussing the "anti natural" patterns of behavior that bots & scripts enable and how to detect those in real time. But it's an arms race.
 
#1,286
tigerade said:
Great presentation! A lot of fascinating notes. I have never heard the one about Alexander Graham Bell.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Alexander Graham Bell was a brilliant individual, in the same category as an Elon Musk, a relevant passage from his online biography states:

A single invention, the telephone, would have been enough to guarantee Bell’s place in history. But the scope of his interests and significance of his visionary insights continue to impress, and enlighten. In a paper in 1917, on the depletion of natural resources, he stated that the unchecked burning of fossil fuels would lead to a “sort of greenhouse effect” and global warming.
Click to expand...

See: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=7894

See also: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/97245.aspx
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/03/04...eat-facts-about-alexander-graham-bell/#!BAQIb
http://solarenergycanada.org/tag/fossil-fuel/

Even a cursory investigation of the development and the basics of global warming science makes it absolutely clear that there is no meaningful doubt whatsoever about the science. It is clear, it is simple and there is no cogent argument to the contrary. Which is why every science academy on the planet is in agreement with the science.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[SUP][5][/SUP]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[SUP][6][/SUP]
  • "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[SUP][7][/SUP] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[SUP][7][/SUP] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[SUP][7][/SUP]
  • "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[SUP][8][/SUP]
  • "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[SUP][9][/SUP]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[SUP][10][/SUP] which in 2007[SUP][11][/SUP] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
Click to expand...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
 
Last edited:
#1,287
RichardC said:
Even a cursory investigation of the development and the basics of global warming science makes it absolutely clear that there is no meaningful doubt whatsoever about the science. It is clear, it is simple and there is no cogent argument to the contrary. Which is why every science academy on the planet is in agreement with the science.
Click to expand...
Oh, good, so that means it's time for me to close this thread? ;-)
 
#1,289
Robert.Boston said:
Oh, good, so that means it's time for me to close this thread? ;-)
Click to expand...

Yup, that's right, we're done. (If only!)

If our politicians and the public would investigate the issue, learn about the science and take action in the public interest that would be true (and probably is, in some far off parallel universe).

Unfortunately, in this world, lavish funding of denier lobbyists, political contributions and PR organizations have made denialism a very profitable (in the short run, for a few) line of business. There is no comparable war chest funding the dissemination of the valid scientific evidence, with the result that the public is understandably confused, and indefensible (from a public interest perspective) political inaction prevails.
 
#1,290
Shocking News: British Columbia's Carbon Tax actually seems to be working (Who would have thought?)

How British Columbia Enacted the Most Effective Carbon Tax in North America - Chris Mooney - The Atlantic Cities

If the goal was to reduce global warming pollution, then the BC carbon tax totally works. Since its passage, gasoline use in British Columbia has plummeted, declining seven times as much as might be expected from an equivalent rise in the market price of gas, according to a recent study by two researchers at the University of Ottawa. That's apparently because the tax hasn't just had an economic effect: It has also helped change the culture of energy use in BC. "I think it really increased the awareness about climate change and the need for carbon reduction, just because it was a daily, weekly thing that you saw," says Merran Smith, the head of Clean Energy Canada. "It made climate action real to people."


It also saved many of them a lot of money. Sure, the tax may cost you if you drive your car a great deal, or if you have high home gas heating costs. But it also gives you the opportunity to save a lot of money if you change your habits, for instance by driving less or buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle. That's because the tax is designed to be "revenue neutral"—the money it raises goes right back to citizens in the form of tax breaks. Overall, the tax has brought in some $5 billion in revenue so far, and more than $3 billion has then been returned in the form of business tax cuts, along with over $1 billion in personal tax breaks, and nearly $1 billion in low-income tax credits (to protect those for whom rising fuel costs could mean the greatest economic hardship). According to the BC Ministry of Finance, for individuals who earn up to $122,000, income tax rates in the province are now Canada's lowest.
Click to expand...
 
#1,293
Building integrated photovoltaic solar panels (where every glass surface begins to produce electrical power from natural and artificial light) could rapidly help pave the off ramp from fossil fuels to a renewable future. There are a number of companies advancing the technology, including New Energy Technologies Inc. See: http://www.newenergytechnologiesinc...ow-capable-of-generating-electricity-on-glass

The idea is simple: Replace conventional building materials with elements that incorporate solar cells. Cells are built into glass, wall panels or roof tiles to become part of the building, instead of add-ons or attachments. Formerly passive structural components now produce power, cutting down on a building’s outside electricity consumption – and, eventually, lowering energy costs. ...

That’s clearly part of the motivation at TD, which has installed solar panels in one form or another at 94 branch locations across North America.“We are committed to be an environmental leader,” so high-profile solar installations that are noticed by customers and employees are important, says Jacquelynn Henke, vice-president of innovation at TD’s enterprise real estate division. “They are easy to see. That gives us the opportunity to start a conversation about the environment …[and] it gives a sense of engagement.”

While the Mississauga branch is the first example of BIPV at one of TD’s Canadian buildings, Ms. Henke said, the technology is already widespread in the bank’s U.S. operations, where several branches have solar panels integrated into canopies over their drive-through lanes.

While the PR value is crucial, energy cost savings are also important, she said. On average, the solar-panel-equipped drive-through canopies generate 12 to 18 per cent of each branch’s electricity needs. And now that the construction has been standardized, they are actually cheaper to build than the non-solar canopies.
Click to expand...

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/solar-powers-new-wave/article16925532/
 
Last edited:
#1,294
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to release, on Monday, the second in its current round of three reports on the causes, consequences of and solutions to climate change.

The first report, which was released last September, confirmed that human activity is the "dominant cause" of climate change, and warned that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The forthcoming report will outline the effects of climate change on the various continents and oceans, including damage to food crops, melting glaciers, and spreading, and the increasing risks as the temperatures continue to warms.

See: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-climate-change-report-human-natural-systems

The scientists are also endeavouring, in this forthcoming report, to summarize the key risks in plain language terms for the public.

A boiled-down version of what the scientists say the warmed-up future holds for Earth if climate change continues:
1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.
2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.
3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.
4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.
5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.
6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.
7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.
8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.
Click to expand...

See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...asons-to-worry-about-global-warming-1.2591456

While this will undoubtedly be a good effort, stay tuned for the barrage of disinformation that will predictably be released (in an effort further confuse and befuddle the public) by those with commercial interests in the continued dumping, at no cost to them, of carbon into the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
#1,295
Robert.Boston said:
Oh, good, so that means it's time for me to close this thread? ;-)
Click to expand...

If this were a purely scientific discussion, I would almost say yes. The physics behind greenhouse theory are pretty solid (solar light passes through greenhouse gases, the light comes back towards space as heat, greenhouse gases reflect the heat). If that weren't true, then how would human life on earth be possible? The planet would be an ice ball. We also know that there is a strong correlation between higher greenhouse gases in the past and a warmer planet, because we can verify that via tree rings, ice cores, etc. So that's that. Then there is the issue of prediction, and I admit that climate models are an evolving science, the impact of a warming planet is not totally ambiguous. The really tricky question is what will be the human adaptation strategy. That will be interesting seeing human species adjusting to more change in 100-200 years then it saw in the previous 1.5 million.
 
#1,296
The Difference Between Climate Science And Climate Politics

The Climate Progress web site has published some compelling graphics and materials on the chasm between the science and politics of climate change in the US.

See: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/27/3419542/climate-science-vs-climate-politics-graphic/

The same web site had previously noted that:

160 elected representatives from the 113th Congress have taken over $55.5 million from the fossil fuel industry that is the driving force behind the carbon emissions that cause climate change. They deny what over 97 percent of climate scientists say is happening — current human activity creates the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat within the atmosphere and cause climate change. And their constituents are paying the price, with Americans across the nation suffering 419 climate-related national disaster declarations since 2011.
Click to expand...

See: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/

interestingly, President Obama has set up a web site to call out the deniers in both the House and the Senate with a view to holding them accountable.

See: http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/#/

To my mind the apparent, overt politicization of this issue is both unfortunate (as it has unnecessarily made a key issue of public policy into the subject of a partisan dispute) and also inaccurate as it does not reflect the reality that a number of Democrats are also deniers, and are apparently also beholden to fossil fuel interests.

See: http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2014/mar/10/democrats-not-united-climate-change/

John Kerry's recent speech provided a cogent and powerful discussion of climate change, as reflected in the following articles:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/politics/kerry-climate/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/16/john-kerry-climate-change_n_4798963.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International...nge-weapon-mass-destruction/story?id=22542524
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm
 
Last edited:
#1,298
The results of this survey on the causes of Climate Change are quite troubling!

The Weather Network asked the following question and received the following results:

If climate change is indeed happening, do you think it is:
Click to expand...
  • Caused mostly by human activities - 16836 Votes (56%)
  • Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment - 8678 Votes (29%)
  • None of the above because climate change isn't happening - 3966 Votes (13%)
  • Other (let us know in the comments) - 712 Votes (2%)
Click to expand...

Roughly 42% of those surveyed believe either that climate change isn't happening or isn't manmade.

See: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/po...is-indeed-happening-do-you-think-it-is/24296/

Of greater concern are many of the comments, a sample follows:
BS - At what time, during earths history, has the climate not been changing. I simply do not see how this climate change is different than any other that the earth has experienced over the last million years. Anyone ever hear of the ICE AGE? And I don mean the movies. It can only take "modern" man to look further into something that is occurring naturally. Step back and adapt people. We really don't have a choice, do we???5 hours agoPolicy|Report abuse

RD - The problem is to many cows and pigs I mean with all there farting out methane gas. LOLOLO kill the cows oh can't do that the animal rights nut jobs would be upset.
5 hours ago

SS - Global warming, for the most part isn't happening except in as much as it is part of climate change. Climate change is a natural occurrence on our planet earth and we have to adapt to it.
5 hours agoPolicy|Report abuse

RY - Global Warming is for morons who want to pay more taxes. Even if the temperature was going up it's for the better. The average temperature of the Earth is only 0 Celsius. We're better off terraforming the atmosphere by circulating the cold clean polar air into the equator and the equator air into the Poles. P.S. No more Green tax - If people want to believe in something they should pay for their own beliefs themselves

dj - One more side note, does plant life not live off of what they are calling the major problem carbon. Deforestation could have an impact on this as well imo.
6 hours agoPolicy|Report abuse

dj - It is my opinion that not one of these phenomenon is to blame but a portion of all, and lets not forget that the sun, you know the giant ball of light in the sky, goes through cooling and warming periods which would also effect the weather patterns here on earth. We are being very narrow minded to believe that only one variable could cause the effects we are seeing.
Click to expand...


All on the same day that the IPCC released its latest report on the subject.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf


What do others make of this?
 
Last edited:
#1,299
RichardC said:
The Weather Network asked the following question and received the following results:
Click to expand...


As an ex teacher, this is to be expected. A lot of people only learn from electronic media. About half of all programming is advertisements. Many people are not comfortable reading.

Actually understanding, or learning, about anthropomorphic climate change, does not happen.

And people don't want to change their opinions. Grampa drove a pickup, I drive a pickup. Climate change is normal. A guy at the bar says that scientists say man has nothing to do with it, and that plants need more CO2. My friend read this article on how we will all adapt anyway. It is our right to burn oil and gas, so we can be superior. Other nations are inferior and deserve to die.

And so on. I am afraid it will never change. Luckily, I am old, and will get to duck out of this before too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tps5352
TV Show Recommendation: "Electric Cars - Pros and Cons" (PBS)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
SO16
S
wipster
Climate change
Replies
48
Views
4K
TSLA Investor Discussions
Dikkie Dik
Dikkie Dik
vitesse
CO2/warming correlation - how to respond?
Replies
64
Views
4K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
Raffy.Roma
Raffy.Roma
MountainPass
Vendor Tesla Model 3 Tires – Choosing the Right Tires for Your Needs
Replies
54
Views
34K
Model 3
3sr+buyer
3
TheDriveway
Vendor A Tire Guide for Model 3 Owners
Replies
4
Views
13K
California
mpgxsvcd
M
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu