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.
How about we let you send loads of cash to your favorite oil companies.

Also if you look at any scientific data the REALITY is we are causing climate change.

And no science is not abotu consensus. But when 97% of papers have data supporting postion 1 and 3% are expousing other theories I will go with the 97%.

Just because there are groups that maintain people are abducted by aliens, or that the earth is flat or that eating 2 Big Mac meaks a day with fries will cause one to lose weight does not mean I will believe them.

Read the studies and look at the data.

97%??

Keep up the self delusion that AGW is settled opinion because it sure isn't science.

I read the studies and looked at the data. No warming in the last ten years...

It's not the data that has you deceived, its the false computer models that don't account for water vapor.

The computer models can't even accurately predict what has happened, yet you are trusting them to be correct 100 years out?

:)

I assume you are voluntary sending in your carbon tax to move the process along. After all, if higher taxes is the right thing to do, why do t you lead by example.
If enough of you guys do it maybe you scrape enough together to sequester your own CO2 emissions.
 
elon.jpg

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/301649-tesla-ceo-musk-reframe-climate-argument
 
97%??

Keep up the self delusion that AGW is settled opinion because it sure isn't science.

I read the studies and looked at the data. No warming in the last ten years...

Kaivbal, you are right not only has global warming stopped but the prices of oil are dropping like a rock. With all the new drilling in ND I need to sell my Tesla and buy an SUV before I lose my shirt.
Oil.JPG


In just a few years we will be back to $20/barrel of oil. Not sure how I missed this as one can plainly see this is a great new trend to cheap oil!

And PS We built a solar house, drive an electric car and and are now installing solar panels so our home and are car are CO2 free. If you are right then I just get free power and fuel for the next 30 years. If the scientists are right I can truely say I have done all I could, to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Notice how Kaivball hasn't engaged with any of the points I have made?
Nor has he responded to the poor quality of his data. I've seen this behavior many times before from deniers, they spam with large volumes of text and links that prove nothing and usually turn out to be easily countered. Their posts usually include "LOL" and "LMAO" as if the implied derision helps make their point. Rarely do you find one that will actually take part in a reasonable back and forth debate and provide any sort of credible data. I'm sure it's some sort of syndrome that could be profiled.
 
Yesterday it was warming, today it's cooling.

That's the crap,you get when you have "consensus science"

Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

So rather than discuss the points you already raised, you shift to another misleading article?

Here is the NASA article your article implies it is based on:
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earths Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

Here they are talking about upper atmosphere effects. There is no change to how CO2 acts. It absorbs energy and radiates heat. This has a different result in the lower atmosphere than the less dense upper atmosphere.
I really would recommend an introductory lesson on how green house gasses actually work. It would help you form valid arguments and read opinion pieces with a more critical eye.
If you Google Richard Alley he has a bunch of good information out there and is very good at explaining these scientific concepts in an easy 'everyday' way.
He is one such video: Human Role in Climate Change - YouTube

You are, of course, welcome to ignore that, just as the article you mentioned ignored most of the NASA article they referenced including the footnote:

Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”
 
"The Economist" is very much a capitalist, free-market, conservative-thinking beast. In October 2011, it published an article about a new effort to analyze the raw temperature data to see whether or not the world is actually warming. Please note that the research was conducted by several scientists who were not well-acquainted with climate scientists -- at least one, Dr. Muller, called himself a skeptic if I recall correctly -- and it was funded by many people, notably including a $150,000 grant from the Koch brothers. So if there's one thing one cannot accuse them of, is "tree-hugger" status. :)

This is cutting-edge research and is currently undergoing peer review. Nevertheless, their stated findings are extremely interesting and well summarized in the opening tagline for the article: "A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming." This new analysis concludes that the Earth has warmed 0.91*C warming in the last 50 years; and with 6*C being the difference between our current climate and an ice age, a change of almost 1*C in that short a time is a very big deal indeed. There is less than a 2% difference between their results and the results of others before them, again showing the solidity of the data.

For more details: The Economist: "The Heat Is On"
 
With reference to the articles quoted by Kaivball (post #208) and Zythryn (post #209) I would like to say that actually CO2 resonates at the infrared frequency, meaning to say that CO2 prevents infrared rays to pass through. This principle works both for infrared rays coming from the Earth and for infrared rays coming from the Sun.
So infrared rays coming from the Sun are prevented to get the Earth from CO2 and don't affect Global Warming. This is the meaning of the above mentioned article.
But main thing is that on the contrary infrared rays emitted from the Earth are not allowed to go into the space and are trapped within the atmosphere raising the Earth's temperature and causing Global Warming.
 
Last edited:
As an additional note, I would be remiss not to note that the global average temperature at the Earth's surface has hardly increased at all. CO2 levels have continued to rise, but temperatures have not. No one knows why this is so, and anyone who claims to draw firm conclusions at this point in time is a liar and a cheat... we simply do not know.

I believe we are seeing a "phase change" period. If you take a solid and heat it until it melts, its temperature does not increase linearly. It heats up as a solid; then, at the temperature where it melts, it absorbs the heat you are giving it by changing phases from a solid to a liquid; then, when it's done melting, the liquid's temperature continues to rise. The same thing happens when you make any phase change in matter: temperature changes temporarily pause during the change. At this point in time, the Earth's surface temperature may not be increasing because melting ice is absorbing a great deal of energy. Or, entirely different changes could be absorbing that energy... we have very little knowledge of what goes on in the deep sea more than 700m down.

Someone, like one or two people in this thread for example, can latch on to this one fact (a very real one) and claim there is no climate change. That would be foolish... this is definitely a puzzle that needs to be solved, but it is not -- to anyone in the scientific world -- an invalidation of climate science. We must investigate and find out, because what we care about the most is trying to get the best answer we can to the question of what the climate will do over the long term, say 100 years. It is that question on which we stake our survival.
 
As an additional note, I would be remiss not to note that the global average temperature at the Earth's surface has hardly increased at all. CO2 levels have continued to rise, but temperatures have not. No one knows why this is so, and anyone who claims to draw firm conclusions at this point in time is a liar and a cheat... we simply do not know.

I thought temperatures had been rising.
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


and I thought that was evidence that the models were working:
30 years ago, scientists predicted that the climate would warm due to GHG. It warmed. 20 years ago, scientists predicted that the climate would continue to warm. It warmed. 10 years ago, scientists predicted that the climate would continue to warm. It warmed. Now, scientists predict that the climate will continue to warm.

Do we really need to wait to see if they're right about 2013-2023 before we say that the GHG hypothesis is more than just a flawed computer model?
 
As an additional note, I would be remiss not to note that the global average temperature at the Earth's surface has hardly increased at all. CO2 levels have continued to rise, but temperatures have not. No one knows why this is so, and anyone who claims to draw firm conclusions at this point in time is a liar and a cheat... we simply do not know. [...

I thought temperatures had been rising. [...

You are right! The belief that it hasn't warmed since 1998 is ranked #9 on the list of global warming and climate change myths!

"It hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points."


TRANSCRIPT:

Global warming over the last 16 years

Mankind has continued to warm the planet through greenhouse gas emissions over the past 16 years. However, a persistent myth has emerged in the mainstream media challenging this fact. Let us examine what has been happening.

Here are observed global temperatures for the past 130 years from NASA. The last 35 years show a significant increase in global temperature. However the rate of warming is not uniform - there is a lot of variation from year to year.

Some of the variation comes from natural causes. Major volcanic eruptions inject small particles into the upper atmosphere, which trigger a strong cooling effect over a few years. Ocean cycles such as El Nino also affect temperature: El Nino years tend to be warmer and La Nina years cooler.
The longer term warming trend arises from greenhouse gas warming driven by human emissions.
Is there any evidence for a slow-down in greenhouse warming over the last 16 years?
In order to detect a change in the human contribution to climate change, we have to first separate out the natural contributions.
First, we remove the cooling effect of the volcanoes, along with the smaller effect of changes in solar activity.
Next we remove the pattern of warm and cool years caused by El Nino and La Nina.
What is left is the human contribution to climate change, plus some wiggles due to weather.
So is there any evidence of a change in the rate of human-caused warming over the last 16 years?


Last 16.png


No. The human contribution over the last 16 years is the same as before. Human-caused greenhouse warming, while partially hidden by natural variations, has continued in line with projections. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control we will see faster warming in future.

For more information, visit sks.to/16years

"There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon."

Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg


Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Last updated on 10 January 2013/..."

Sources:

What has global warming done since 1998?

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon."

View attachment 22518

Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Last updated on 10 January 2013/..."

I reported this graph posted by SwedishAdvocate because I would like to point out the importance of the fact that oceans are warming.
As it is very well known 8 meters of hot water in the upper side of oceans are enough to generate hurricanes. From the graph it can be inferred that already today in the oceans there are much more than 8 meters of hot water.
The fact that oceans are getting warmer is also confirmed by the following video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html

at minute 7 where there is also a graph showing that most of the energy is stored in the first 200 meters of the upper side of oceans.
 
Last edited:

Uh, yeah right. You look at a little noise in the measurements and draw completely unsupported conclusions. Here's the whole graph from the Met Office:

graph.jpg


It's going UP.

Yesterday it was warming, today it's cooling.

That's the crap,you get when you have "consensus science"

Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

That article is a total load of nonsense. Even the most cursory examination shows that the research has been taken completely out of context. The effects of a solar storm (a phenomenon that lasts maybe a day) on the upper extremes of the atmosphere have absolutely nothing to do with global warming or the greenhouse effect.
 
The effects of a solar storm (a phenomenon that lasts maybe a day) on the upper extremes of the atmosphere have absolutely nothing to do with global warming or the greenhouse effect.

I agree with you Doug. As it is can be inferred by this article about solar storm linked by Zythryn:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

CO2 sends back in the space the infrared radiation emitted by the Sun. But, as I also say in my post #212, the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth is still trapped within the atmosphere causing Global Warming.
 
Last edited:
I fun to see how now everybody critic’s sciences...Even economist critic’s science! Never seen that before! The fact is that, those people are just taking elements out of context so it can match their ideology.

It is obvious that human have a global impact on earth, we already experience it with acid raid, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, etc. And we now have disrupted all biogeochemical global cycle.

How can 40% rise in CO2 concentration result in nothing? This is just physic. It add 1,8 W m-2 of energy that end up in warming. Also, CO2 concentration are rising in ocean and when CO2 dissolves, it react with water to form other chemical species witch release hydrogen ion (H+) that increase acidification. Can’t denied basic chemistry…
 
Yesterday it was warming, today it's cooling.

That's the crap,you get when you have "consensus science"

Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

How do you feel about things like germs causing disease? It is supported by over 99% of scientists but may not rise to the level of evidence you require. Everyone has different levels of proof they need.

The burden of proof should be on the 1% of 'scientists' that you support that say that climate change is a hoax, not the other way around same as any other scientific principal. Anyone can fund a 'study' to say what they want. It is the countless scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that have no obvious biased funding source that mean more than a study funded by a biased source like an oil or gas company.

Either way, even if it is a hoax if it gets us off of foreign sources of energy and towards more sustainable sources of energy then maybe those 99% of deluded scientists from your standpoint will have helped us out after all.
 
Last edited: