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.
Looks like they are planning on 100% carbon-free replacement:
PG&E to Replace Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant With 100% Carbon-Free Resources
"On Tuesday, utility Pacific Gas & Electric announced a plan to replace Diablo Canyon’s 2.3 gigawatts of generation capacity, about 8.6 percent of the state’s electricity production, with a host of zero-carbon emissions resources over the next nine years. That will include lots of new solar and wind power, as well as other greenhouse-gas-free energy resources. But it’s also going to take a lot more energy efficiency, as well as demand response, energy storage, and other reliable demand-side resources."

It's a little like Spinal Tap "goes to 11". You assign your renewables progress to Diablo, while the natural gas hums along behind you. Those fossil plants will still be around. A watt to replace nuclear, is a watt that can't be used to replace gas. Without nuclear, most of the other 50% that isn't renewable in 2030, will be natural gas. Even more when Diablo shuts in 2025.

When talking about CO2, we have to be careful when we talk about "100%" of electricity. Can we cognitively ignore the natural gas plants they don't include? EPA does similar when they define carbon intensity as CO2/TWH for each state, and then deduct each state's nuclear and hydro TWH from the denominator (of their rate-based method). You, or I, might grade by how many tons did state 'X' emit. EPA is effectively asking "Has your ratio of natural gas to coal gone up?". If nuclear shuts down, it doesn't matter because it's out of their "100%". Follow?

In the end, nature sees what they did there. It counts every ton, sinks ~45% of it in the ocean and warms things up a little. A nuclear disaster has its effects, too, but to mistake the policy preference for natural gas' CO2 over nuclear risk is something Lovins, and others, should stop helping people do.
 
Last edited:
It's a little like Spinal Tap "goes to 11". You assign your renewables progress to Diablo, while the natural gas hums along behind you. Those fossil plants will still be around. A watt to replace nuclear, is a watt that can't be used to replace gas. Without nuclear, most of the other 50% that isn't renewable in 2030, will be natural gas. Even more when Diablo shuts in 2025.

When talking about CO2, we have to be careful when we talk about "100%" of electricity. Can we cognitively ignore the natural gas plants they don't include? EPA does similar when they define carbon intensity as CO2/TWH for each state, and then deduct each state's nuclear and hydro TWH from the denominator (of their rate-based method). You, or I, might grade by how many tons did state 'X' emit. EPA is effectively asking "Has your ratio of natural gas to coal gone up?". If nuclear shuts down, it doesn't matter because it's out of their "100%". Follow?

In the end, nature sees what they did there. It counts every ton, sinks ~45% of it in the ocean and warms things up a little. A nuclear disaster has its effects, too, but to mistake the policy preference for natural gas' CO2 over nuclear risk is something Lovins, and others, should stop helping people do.
Of course, electricity is fungible.
It is significant that the new generation that they will install to replace the capacity will be 100% renewable.
When the SONGS nuclear plant was closed in 2012, the PUC let them replace the capacity with natural gas plants. They won't be able to do that with replacement capacity for Diablo.
There are also hard limits on the total amount of fossil fuel in California's energy mix which will ensure that they must install renewables and phase out natural gas.
Yes, there is natural gas electricity in California but they won't be adding to it when they replace capacity from Diablo.
There is no policy preference for natural gas over nuclear. Both are problematic and will be phased out.
It's 100% fossil fuel free replacement capacity.
 
Statement: I am all against petrol for transportation, coal for electricity, etc. Plain waste and destruction and it should end.

That said, I don't believe man-made climate change. I do believe in pollution and TTIP being wrong.

We learned in school that glacials come and go. Is this not valid anymore? If glacial still come and go, how are we to know the last one is still going or next one coming? Or interglacials? Mini glacials?

Climates have changed since long before man came here to litter the globe, destroy mineral stores. We all have heard of cold blooded animals who used to live where now it's way too cold for them.

Earth: sphere of molten/boiling lava, 12,000km cross, with a thin crust that's being cooled by the vacume of space.
Sun : a live star, in close unobstructed range, just 8 light minutes from Earth. On the sky we see stars that don't exist anymore, and haven't been for a long while. The sun has cycles. Seasons, of you will. Just not aligned with our Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter. On top of these predictable seasons, the sun has moods and tempers and gets "gassy" at time. All we can do is take what's being thrown our way. Only a few kilograms of air between us and the sun.
CO2: the patsy that didn't get to have a say. Plant food with a side of sun. Human breath.

There were times in the past when there was actually more CO2 in the air than today. Those times were pre-industrial. Was that also man-made global warming, before the fact? CO2 time travel? Fossil records indicate is was warm on Earth back then. "Warmer" scientists proved correct, or do high temps cause faster growth of everything, more CO2 being released by organisms, to feed plants and trees to grow even more?

I can see the combustion of petrol leads to more heat than movement. But heat flies into the vacume of space, eventually. Else we'd be cooked much sooner than today.
 
Statement: I am all against petrol for transportation, coal for electricity, etc. Plain waste and destruction and it should end.

That said, I don't believe man-made climate change. I do believe in pollution and TTIP being wrong.

We learned in school that glacials come and go. Is this not valid anymore? If glacial still come and go, how are we to know the last one is still going or next one coming? Or interglacials? Mini glacials?

Climates have changed since long before man came here to litter the globe, destroy mineral stores. We all have heard of cold blooded animals who used to live where now it's way too cold for them.

Earth: sphere of molten/boiling lava, 12,000km cross, with a thin crust that's being cooled by the vacume of space.
Sun : a live star, in close unobstructed range, just 8 light minutes from Earth. On the sky we see stars that don't exist anymore, and haven't been for a long while. The sun has cycles. Seasons, of you will. Just not aligned with our Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter. On top of these predictable seasons, the sun has moods and tempers and gets "gassy" at time. All we can do is take what's being thrown our way. Only a few kilograms of air between us and the sun.
CO2: the patsy that didn't get to have a say. Plant food with a side of sun. Human breath.

There were times in the past when there was actually more CO2 in the air than today. Those times were pre-industrial. Was that also man-made global warming, before the fact? CO2 time travel? Fossil records indicate is was warm on Earth back then. "Warmer" scientists proved correct, or do high temps cause faster growth of everything, more CO2 being released by organisms, to feed plants and trees to grow even more?

I can see the combustion of petrol leads to more heat than movement. But heat flies into the vacume of space, eventually. Else we'd be cooked much sooner than today.
Go to realclimate.org for answers. They have been readily available for at least the 10+ years I have been following AGW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwdiver
That said, I don't believe man-made climate change. I do believe in pollution and TTIP being wrong.

It's pretty basic accounting and thermodynamics;

Accounting
Q1: Are we releasing enough CO2 by burning fossil fuels to raise CO2 by ~2-3ppm/yr?

A1: YES! Earths atmosphere is 5.1E18kg and we're adding >2.9E13kg of CO2 per year or ~5.6ppm. So we adding more than enough CO2. The remaining balance is acidifying the oceans.

Thermodynamics
Q2: Is a higher CO2 concentration capable of heating up the planet?

A2: YES! The electromagnetic properties of CO2 have been well understood since ~1896!

In fact... EVERY periodic climate has been DRIVEN by CO2. Milankovitch cycles trigger natural climate change but CO2 is the dominant forcing agent. A slight warming of the oceans causes CO2 to come out of solution and collect in the atmosphere causing more warming.

Fun Fact: The surface of Venus actually receives energy from the sun than Earths surface since Venus has permanent cloud cover but the Surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Why? CARBON DIOXIDE!

Here's a great 7 part series.

Global Warming physics explained in 1 image;
Different molecules have a different opacity to different wavelengths of light. Like the glasses... CO2 is transparent to visible light (where we get most of our energy from the sun) but opaque to IR (where the Earth radiates energy to space). Global Warming is incredibly obvious if you understand basic physics.... and don't have an ideological reason to reject it.

sig08-004_Sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
The bag insulates heat a whole lot better than the transition from atmosphere to vacume of space.
Where does hot gas go to when we release it? It adds to the volume of the Atmosphere. And plants get to ea the CO2. Are humans taking good care of green life? No, not at all. Rising CO2 levels may well be contributed to a lack of green life to take advantage of it. Then again, we are not seeing super trees and animals emerging as in the old days.
An ICE car emits like twice as much heat as an EV uses alltogether? Why don't people worry about this, and so mcuh about the plant food in the exhaust gasses? The atmosphere as a whole will have a certain specific heat, ignoring details such as the underlying lava and exposure to a nearby mature star. If the insulative effect of the atmosphere is considered so high, and we accept that CO2 is human breath and plant food, the heat coming off hydrogen cars should be considered evil as well.

It's all not as clear cut as it's being made out to be. And us all (by virtue of ignorance and lemming behavior) making Al Gore a carbon trading billionaire is a thing everyone into climate should really think about. Is it a necessary evil? Or part of the motive to push for global warming rather than the earlier explored global cooling? They were going to scare the heck out of us that we're creating a new ice age. And make up pay taxed for that.
Why exactly do the billions flow to Al Gore and friends, and not to reforrestation? Hamburgers and ski slopes seem to be a higher priority than CO2 capture. Even Greenpeace (UN's defacto propaganda outlet, as their founder) thinks forest fires emit huge amounts of evil CO2. Guess what, forest fires are part of Mother Earth. And need to be offset by new forests to be sprouted. Are we having more regrowth of forrests than we have fires? 8 billion people exhailing CO2. And the pigs and cows we grow, with intend to eat. A very CO2 intensive way to eat.

Focusing on CO2 (inert) makes it easy to forget actual toxins being put into our drinking water, commercial food and drugs, ambient air, etc, etc.

So, is the last glacial still going or is the next one coming? Can anyone claim we killed the next ice age? Would they like one?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: dhrivnak
The bag insulates heat a whole lot better than the transition from atmosphere to vacume of space.

There's 3 types of heat transfer. Convection, Conduction and Radiation. You're getting them confused... The bag doesn't prevent radiative heat transfer in the IR wavelength any better than a window blocks light. Earth already traps all it's air with gravity. The only way for heat to escape is radiation. CO2 is pretty effective at blocking IR radiation.

If the decline of 'green life' is why the earth is warming then why is the moon colder than the earth?

No one worries about the heat emitted by cars and nuclear power plants because the combined heat of everything we burn is <0.1% of the heat re-radiated by increased CO2. You need to think critically... don't just settle for a passing thought... run the numbers.

So, is the last glacial still going or is the next one coming? Can anyone claim we killed the next ice age? Would they like one?

Another Ice Age is pretty much impossible now... but we don't want to roast the planet either.

'Physics is true, Everything else is debatable' - Elon Musk
 
Last edited:
I might add that I am not entirely opposed to geoengineering to combat climate change, but I consider it a bad option. Anytime we try to do something big like that with nature, there always seem to be negative side effects. Using a recent example, like the whole spraying for Zika killing the honey bees.
 
The bag insulates heat a whole lot better than the transition from atmosphere to vacume of space.
Where does hot gas go to when we release it? It adds to the volume of the Atmosphere. And plants get to ea the CO2. Are humans taking good care of green life? No, not at all. Rising CO2 levels may well be contributed to a lack of green life to take advantage of it. Then again, we are not seeing super trees and animals emerging as in the old days.
An ICE car emits like twice as much heat as an EV uses alltogether? Why don't people worry about this, and so mcuh about the plant food in the exhaust gasses? The atmosphere as a whole will have a certain specific heat, ignoring details such as the underlying lava and exposure to a nearby mature star. If the insulative effect of the atmosphere is considered so high, and we accept that CO2 is human breath and plant food, the heat coming off hydrogen cars should be considered evil as well.

It's all not as clear cut as it's being made out to be. And us all (by virtue of ignorance and lemming behavior) making Al Gore a carbon trading billionaire is a thing everyone into climate should really think about. Is it a necessary evil? Or part of the motive to push for global warming rather than the earlier explored global cooling? They were going to scare the heck out of us that we're creating a new ice age. And make up pay taxed for that.
Why exactly do the billions flow to Al Gore and friends, and not to reforrestation? Hamburgers and ski slopes seem to be a higher priority than CO2 capture. Even Greenpeace (UN's defacto propaganda outlet, as their founder) thinks forest fires emit huge amounts of evil CO2. Guess what, forest fires are part of Mother Earth. And need to be offset by new forests to be sprouted. Are we having more regrowth of forrests than we have fires? 8 billion people exhailing CO2. And the pigs and cows we grow, with intend to eat. A very CO2 intensive way to eat.

Focusing on CO2 (inert) makes it easy to forget actual toxins being put into our drinking water, commercial food and drugs, ambient air, etc, etc.

So, is the last glacial still going or is the next one coming? Can anyone claim we killed the next ice age? Would they like one?
I can't find a legitimate source to the claim that Al Gore is a climate trading credit billionaire. I did find the claim on some of the lunatic fringe right wing web sites, and a couple of the oil company sponsored climate change denier web sites.
 
2009
Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda

2013, excting oil money related deals
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

$300M and counting, albeit not exctly all from carbon trading
Al Gore Net Worth

You could wonder how ethical it even is for the carbon trading to be somehow allowed to generate profits for anyone.

When Al Gore did the rounds saving the polar bear from the very last patch of sea ice, the East Anglia University data and model of global warming were found to be flawed, and exposed to be intentionally fraudulent. Slaps on the wrists were given.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

We have always been educated on shifts in climates. It's been going on for a while.
Fossilized Tropical Forest Found — in Arctic Norway

Since the global warming scare, it seems all online sources with anything related to climate, are now drenched in carbon level retoric.
I was looking for dinosaur climates, as their fossils are found basically anywhere, and they were reptiles needing heat. Now we can read they died off due to carbon rise and "resulting" heat. But, they and plantlaife (?) were on the up again when exygen levels rose. Because if you're a modern scientist, plants eat oxygen.

As usual, the best leads are not IN the "scientific" article, but below it...
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Billion collected in carbon taxes. How many forests have been planted to eat all that scorching CO2, turn it into oxygen?
It's a big business, but what does Earth see of it?

If anyone can explain where we are in relation to the most recent and the upcoming ice age, and why we are to expect FLAT temperatures and FLAT CO2 levels, that'd be much appreciated. There is no proof I'm aware of that either were ever stable. Perhaps we should blame the sun more than the exact composition of our atmosphere? When if the atmosphere has it's obvious traits, it can't shield us from solar season influences. And I've not found evidence of climate "scientists" to account for any of that.

Taking matter from the crust, and making it self-combust for phyical movement is insanity with the state of technology we have reached. But would the Earth heat up more from the residual CO2 exhausted or 80% of the BTU having been nearly transferred into raw heat?
If we quit combustion of oil, petrol, coal, wood for just a single week, would CO2 levels drop? I'm not sure. Plancton and cows keeps on farting, people keep exhaling. But that's A HECK OF A LOT of pure HEAT not being reflected back off the atmosphere, whether CO2 plays a big role in that or not.

There's more than just CO2
Nitrogen Gas Vs. Carbon Dioxide
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Imagine we'd succeed to bring CO2 levels down. Would that even be benificial for mankind? A good chunk is genuinely hungry while other stuff themselves. We need vegetation to do better. And CO2 would vastly help. And that's well documented in fossil records.
 
2009
Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda

2013, excting oil money related deals
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

$300M and counting, albeit not exctly all from carbon trading
Al Gore Net Worth

You could wonder how ethical it even is for the carbon trading to be somehow allowed to generate profits for anyone.

When Al Gore did the rounds saving the polar bear from the very last patch of sea ice, the East Anglia University data and model of global warming were found to be flawed, and exposed to be intentionally fraudulent. Slaps on the wrists were given.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

We have always been educated on shifts in climates. It's been going on for a while.
Fossilized Tropical Forest Found — in Arctic Norway

Since the global warming scare, it seems all online sources with anything related to climate, are now drenched in carbon level retoric.
I was looking for dinosaur climates, as their fossils are found basically anywhere, and they were reptiles needing heat. Now we can read they died off due to carbon rise and "resulting" heat. But, they and plantlaife (?) were on the up again when exygen levels rose. Because if you're a modern scientist, plants eat oxygen.

As usual, the best leads are not IN the "scientific" article, but below it...
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Billion collected in carbon taxes. How many forests have been planted to eat all that scorching CO2, turn it into oxygen?
It's a big business, but what does Earth see of it?

If anyone can explain where we are in relation to the most recent and the upcoming ice age, and why we are to expect FLAT temperatures and FLAT CO2 levels, that'd be much appreciated. There is no proof I'm aware of that either were ever stable. Perhaps we should blame the sun more than the exact composition of our atmosphere? When if the atmosphere has it's obvious traits, it can't shield us from solar season influences. And I've not found evidence of climate "scientists" to account for any of that.

Taking matter from the crust, and making it self-combust for phyical movement is insanity with the state of technology we have reached. But would the Earth heat up more from the residual CO2 exhausted or 80% of the BTU having been nearly transferred into raw heat?
If we quit combustion of oil, petrol, coal, wood for just a single week, would CO2 levels drop? I'm not sure. Plancton and cows keeps on farting, people keep exhaling. But that's A HECK OF A LOT of pure HEAT not being reflected back off the atmosphere, whether CO2 plays a big role in that or not.

There's more than just CO2
Nitrogen Gas Vs. Carbon Dioxide
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Imagine we'd succeed to bring CO2 levels down. Would that even be benificial for mankind? A good chunk is genuinely hungry while other stuff themselves. We need vegetation to do better. And CO2 would vastly help. And that's well documented in fossil records.
Reading some of those old articles must be pretty sobering for someone of your belief system. Those goalposts do keep moving, don't they?

On Al Gore's net worth, here's a snippet from Bloomberg originally (is that a good source, or do you prefer one of the clearly biased sources you used?):

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900 percent increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation,” said Derek Baine, an SNL Kagan cable analyst in Monterey, California.

Gore also had his share of flubs, most of them in his efforts at green-tech investing. An investment firm he helped to start took stakes in two carbon-trading firms that fizzled and also racked up tens of millions in losses in a solar-module maker.

Source.

Genuinely, you seem like a smart man or woman. I enjoy reading your analyses in other places on TMC, but you seem to want to use odd arguments here. "The climate has always been changing" means nothing, and you know that. The question is more about attribution. Of the changes we see, how much is attributable to anthropogenic sources? Dismissing the changes as something that's "always been happening" is a hand-waving exercise that tries to distract from the reality of the climate models.

Al Gore's net worth means nothing, and you know that too. Even if he has made a killing from spreading the word about the science, and he takes a giant rocketship from place to place while living in an oil heated 50,000 square foot mansion in Antarctica, it means nothing relative to the science. It's a distraction and provides those who want to dismiss this argument with an easy reason to do so. But it's not reasonable, is it?