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.
And for the 10th time, temperature changes happen ALL THE FREAKING TIME in the earths history.

Again shrieking about strawman? Protip: no one here claims current temperature or CO2 level never happened before in Earth's history. Claim is about reason of current change.

no explanation is needed to explain temperature changes that fall inside the range of normal natural variability.

Again lying about unprecedented nature of how fast current change is occurring? :rolleyes:
 
Children and young adults are looking to their future and are concerned about the Climate Crisis and are asking for Climate Action.
Older fossil adults are stuck in the past thinking about how things have been and are projecting that into the future.
Are adults being selfish, self centered and greedy not caring about what kind of future they will leave for their children and grandchildren? Seems like 40 years ago parents and teachers stopped teaching the "Golden Rule" and ethics.
It is time to divest from fossil fuels. Drive an electric car, bus, truck or boat. Utilities need to move to safer, cleaner and cheaper wind and solar power to generate electricity. Buildings need to be built that are energy efficient, air sealed, super insulated, triple pane windows, with solar panels, battery storage and an electric vehicle charger. We all need to make changes in our lives that contribute to the solution and not make the problem worse.
 
Yes, there were major temperature swings and climate changes in the history of earth. There are two problems with bringing that up as an argument:

1. Those natural changes were 100-1000 times SLOWER than the current one caused by humans.
2. Even those slower changes resulted in mass extinction of 90%+ of species including all of those at and near the top of the food chain.

Evolution can react to changes at a certain speed dictated by the life-cycle of the species. Bacteria have life cycles measured in hours, humans and large mammals have life cycles measured in decades. So, some bacteria species may have a chance to survive the extinction level event we are causing, but not humans or any species big enough to see with the naked eye.
Yes, there were major temperature swings and climate changes in the history of earth. There are two problems with bringing that up as an argument:

1. Those natural changes were 100-1000 times SLOWER than the current one caused by humans.
2. Even those slower changes resulted in mass extinction of 90%+ of species including all of those at and near the top of the food chain.

Evolution can react to changes at a certain speed dictated by the life-cycle of the species. Bacteria have life cycles measured in hours, humans and large mammals have life cycles measured in decades. So, some bacteria species may have a chance to survive the extinction level event we are causing, but not humans or any species big enough to see with the naked eye.
Did the temperature increase from 1919 to 1940 happen as quickly as this latest one?
 
Yeah, I decided to go all in since your team does it on every post.

Thanks for keeping track of ME though. :rolleyes:


Want to ask what your desired policy going forward for global energy production is based on your belief that human activity does not play a significant role in what is happening insofar as the climate change that may or may not be happening. Do you think we should maintain business as usual? Should we continue to mine fossils at an increasing pace to satisfy the growing demand? More nuclear with better designs? Do renewables have a role?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
temp 1919 to 1940.PNG
1998 to 2019 temp.PNG
Did the temperature increase from 1919 to 1940 happen as quickly as this latest one?
 
Yeah, I decided to go all in since your team does it on every post.

Thanks for keeping track of ME though. :rolleyes:
Please do me the same favor. I always appreciate being kept in check. Based on how you presented yourself early in this thread (and others), I assumed you also cared about having a solid argument. Too bad to hear that you're just going to say things now without concern for validity or logical soundness.
In case you've forgotten:
But there is no need to resort to ad hominem here.

we should be able to discuss actual arguments and science, agree?

I appreciate your debating on the merits of the arguments instead of attacking the messenger. That sharpens both sides of a debate is is really the only way to gain understanding of complex issues.

And straight to ad hominem again.

I think trying to stick to the facts and letting them attack us a deniers, stupid, uneducated, etc works to strengthen our own credibility and undermines theirs.
 
Last edited:
And for the 10th time, temperature changes happen ALL THE FREAKING TIME in the earths history. Mostly completely independent from CO2 changes. Get that through your skull.

And NEVER for NO reason. Get that through your skull. The year without a summer was caused by a volcano emitting SO2. Physics isn't magic. Things don't just magically change. There's always a reason.

If I hated humans I would be denying AGW. AGW is the quickest way to snuff out the species next to nuclear war and allow the planet to heal.

For the 14th time..... what's causing the rise today if not CO2? This IS NOT inside the range of 'natural variability' not on a global scale.

That is a sh*t-ton of thermal energy being added; WELL outside the range of 'natural variability'. A ~40% rise in CO2 fits almost perfectly because math and physics. What else could it be???????

Screen Shot 2019-07-14 at 11.02.12 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Why ocean acidification could make some geoengineering schemes irrelevant - Resilience

The idea of runaway ocean acidification has now joined the idea of runaway global warming as a threat so large that it stands almost co-equal in its danger.

Part of the problem with ocean acidification is that geoengineering schemes for lowering Earth’s temperature by reducing the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface won’t affect ocean acidification. And recent research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technologysuggests that there is a tipping point in acidification beyond which the process becomes self-reinforcing and could lead to a mass extinction.

But those geoengineering schemes which block a portion of sunlight do nothing to prevent the ongoing acidification of the oceans. This occurs as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean waters. The dissolved carbon dioxide turns into a mild acid, carbonic acid, which interferes with the formation of shells of marine life and many other life processes in the ocean. When those shells fail to form, carbon dioxide previously removed from the water by their formation instead increases in a self-inforcing manner. The greater the concentration gets, the worse the effects will be on marine life. It’s difficult to predict how mass death in the world’s oceans would affect land species like ourselves, but it is highly doubtful it would be anything but negative.

The study cited above demonstrates the possibility that beyond a certain concentration, the carbonic acid triggers a cascade of change in ocean chemistry similar to that believed to have occurred during previous mass extinction events. Given the current pace of acidification, the world’s oceans are likely to reach this trigger point by the end of the century.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brando and jerry33
Want to ask what your desired policy going forward for global energy production is based on your belief that human activity does not play a significant role in what is happening insofar as the climate change that may or may not be happening. Do you think we should maintain business as usual? Should we continue to mine fossils at an increasing pace to satisfy the growing demand? More nuclear with better designs? Do renewables have a role?

Thanks.
Want to ask what your desired policy going forward for global energy production is based on your belief that human activity does not play a significant role in what is happening insofar as the climate change that may or may not be happening. Do you think we should maintain business as usual? Should we continue to mine fossils at an increasing pace to satisfy the growing demand? More nuclear with better designs? Do renewables have a role?

Thanks.
No policy is needed. Solar is already cheaper than gas without subsidy. Battery costs are coming down as well. Once they get to around $80/kwH solar plus battery is the best route from a purely economic standpoint.
I'm not a big fan of wind power because to the bird/bat kill rates.
And even though I don't think the CO2 is a large problem, burning limited resource fossil fuels is not desirable. Real pollution comes out of those tailpipes. Much of the world gets oil from the middle east and that is a problem because of political systems and instability.
So I'm totally looking forward to my kids having less pollution in the cities, noise pollution included.
I also like that solar and batteries decentralizes the power grid, which is a great thing.
Tony Seba explains the coming shift to solar pretty well.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Brando and jerry33
Why ocean acidification could make some geoengineering schemes irrelevant - Resilience

The idea of runaway ocean acidification has now joined the idea of runaway global warming as a threat so large that it stands almost co-equal in its danger.

Part of the problem with ocean acidification is that geoengineering schemes for lowering Earth’s temperature by reducing the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface won’t affect ocean acidification. And recent research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technologysuggests that there is a tipping point in acidification beyond which the process becomes self-reinforcing and could lead to a mass extinction.

But those geoengineering schemes which block a portion of sunlight do nothing to prevent the ongoing acidification of the oceans. This occurs as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean waters. The dissolved carbon dioxide turns into a mild acid, carbonic acid, which interferes with the formation of shells of marine life and many other life processes in the ocean. When those shells fail to form, carbon dioxide previously removed from the water by their formation instead increases in a self-inforcing manner. The greater the concentration gets, the worse the effects will be on marine life. It’s difficult to predict how mass death in the world’s oceans would affect land species like ourselves, but it is highly doubtful it would be anything but negative.

The study cited above demonstrates the possibility that beyond a certain concentration, the carbonic acid triggers a cascade of change in ocean chemistry similar to that believed to have occurred during previous mass extinction events. Given the current pace of acidification, the world’s oceans are likely to reach this trigger point by the end of the century.

Thanks for bringing this to the fore. I have been nuts about this for years. A common response I get whenever I bring it up....is pure ignorance. People have no idea what I am talking about. Even people who are concerned about the overall climate issues.

This will impact everything around us before the temps have the chance to climb along to final highs along with the sea levels. I have not even seen good estimates as to the point of no return for the issues of ocean acidification. It is a real wild card that no one has a handle on. We might already be there and contrary to the conservative projections made on other global warming issues for the end of this century, I fear this is something that could play out very dramatically over the next decade or two.
 
No policy is needed. Solar is already cheaper than gas without subsidy. Battery costs are coming down as well. Once they get to around $80/kwH solar plus battery is the best route from a purely economic standpoint.
I'm not a big fan of wind power because to the bird/bat kill rates.
And even though I don't think the CO2 is a large problem, burning limited resource fossil fuels is not desirable. Real pollution comes out of those tailpipes. Much of the world gets oil from the middle east and that is a problem because of political systems and instability.
So I'm totally looking forward to my kids having less pollution in the cities, noise pollution included.
I also like that solar and batteries decentralizes the power grid, which is a great thing.
Tony Seba explains the coming shift to solar pretty well.

Interesting. So in the end, you believe a shift away from fossils and heavily into renewables on an economic and political basis has multiple positives. Would you agree with this?
 
And even though I don't think the CO2 is a large problem,

The difference between 180ppm and 280ppm CO2 was the difference between a mile of ice over NYC and no ice. What do you think 280 to 500 will mean? If it wasn't CO2 that DROVE most of that shift what was it? Orbital shifts were the trigger which is why temperature leads slightly but that can't explain the magnitude. Only the rise in CO2 can explain the magnitude. If it wasn't CO2.... what was it??????
 
And NEVER for NO reason. Get that through your skull. The year without a summer was caused by a volcano emitting SO2. Physics isn't magic. Things don't just magically change. There's always a reason.

If I hated humans I would be denying AGW. AGW is the quickest way to snuff out the species next to nuclear war and allow the planet to heal.

For the 14th time..... what's causing the rise today if not CO2? This IS NOT inside the range of 'natural variability' not on a global scale.

That is a sh*t-ton of thermal energy being added; WELL outside the range of 'natural variability'. A ~40% rise in CO2 fits almost perfectly because math and physics. What else could it be???????

View attachment 429544
Did you look at the charts I posted above? Do you have an answer for why the GMT increased so rapidly from 1919 to 1940? A period where man made CO2 emissions were negligible. During those years CO2 increased from 303 to 311. In the other chart (1998 to 2019) the GMT increased much slower, during a time when CO2 levels increased from 366 to 410ppm.

Also, CO2 levels were already on the rise 50 years prior to man made emissions being significant. How would you explain that?
 
Did you look at the charts I posted above? Do you have an answer for why the GMT increased so rapidly from 1919 to 1940? A period where man made CO2 emissions were negligible. During those years CO2 increased from 303 to 311. In the other chart (1998 to 2019) the GMT increased much slower, during a time when CO2 levels increased from 366 to 410ppm.

Also, CO2 levels were already on the rise 50 years prior to man made emissions being significant. How would you explain that?

Yeah. You're reading atmospheric temperatures which can fluctuate with cycles like La Nina and El nino. ~93% of the thermal energy added by AGW of going into the oceans. To get an accurate view of the real magnitude you have to measure the oceans. That 7% slice can exchange energy with the ocean. We could have global cooling (in the atmosphere) for a few years if there's an upwelling of deep cold water but the NET energy still rises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: traxila