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.
Exactly. No one is saying the earth was not as warm or warmer in the past, they are saying the rate of change is unusual, that rate is probably being influenced by humans, and we have no idea where it may end. All those should provide cause for concern.

Agreed. But even if it's not true, the environmentally friendly things that many folks are doing are a positive, not a negative. I really don't understand why folks are against them (other than those few who own companies that exploit environmentally unfriendly technologies). Even from a selfish perspective, a reduction in air pollution will go a long way to reducing health care costs. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and EVs all go a long way to reduce air pollution.
 
Agreed. But even if it's not true, the environmentally friendly things that many folks are doing are a positive, not a negative. I really don't understand why folks are against them (other than those few who own companies that exploit environmentally unfriendly technologies). Even from a selfish perspective, a reduction in air pollution will go a long way to reducing health care costs. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and EVs all go a long way to reduce air pollution.
In my conversations (as an executive of a renewable energy company), the pushback comes along two lines:
  • Cost. Why should the utility pay $200/MWh to the offshore wind farm rather than $50/MWh to the natural gas generator? Does that $150/MWh premium actually produce enough positive outcomes to justify the extra cost?
  • Local impact v. global answers. One may like the idea of a wind farm in principle, but when someone proposes to build one along the ridge line near one's house, one is opposed. Or, as I'm finding out, crabbers simultaneously complain about the number of crabs without shells (making them very susceptible to predation) because of ocean acidification, but oppose ocean-based renewable energy because it slightly infringes on their operations. In short, people are unwilling to make local sacrifices for a greater good.
 
The answer – as you, Elon and others – have written about previously seems to be a shift in taxation. Tax CO2-emissions so that the sustainable alternative becomes economically favorable. The increased tax revenue gathered this way could then be offset somewhere else. This IMO, is what every voter should demand of their political representative.
 
The treeline varies by climate. Warmer=higher.

The treeline has been higher in the past than in modern times, so the climate has been warmer.

The treeline has also been lower than modern times, so the climate has been colder.

This means that the current climate is inside Historical margins.
 
The treeline varies by climate. Warmer=higher.

The treeline has been higher in the past than in modern times, so the climate has been warmer.

The treeline has also been lower than modern times, so the climate has been colder.

This means that the current climate is inside Historical margins.
But how about the rate of change?

Has the earth warmed this fast anytime before?

Have the sea-level rise been this fast anytime before?


The sea level rise (scroll down to the second half of the page):

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ACECRC ::


- - - Updated - - -

Even the current sea-level rise of ~23 centimeters becomes a problem for example when something that was previously regarded as a regular winter storm in Sweden/Denmark makes the sea-level rise more than 2 meters! …Similar, but on a smaller scale, to “Superstorm Sandy” that hit New Jersey and NYC…
 
Last edited:
The treeline varies by climate. Warmer=higher.

The treeline has been higher in the past than in modern times, so the climate has been warmer.

The treeline has also been lower than modern times, so the climate has been colder.

This means that the current climate is inside Historical margins.

And does this also mean the current climate is not going to keep warming, beyond historical margins? Does this mean man is not making it worse, and accelerating it beyond the coping abilities of existing life forms?
 
1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”


2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. — Maurizio Morabito

Whoops! Those were all about global cooling, not global warming. My mistake. You see, that was the fashionable doomsday story for alarmists to go on about back in the early seventies and it essentially worked the same way. Mankind is causing the earth to cool and scientists agree we’re all going to die! Now, it’s mankind is causing earth to warm and scientists agree we’re all going to die! See? It’s very easy to get those two confused. Now, back to your regularly scheduled doomsday prophecies:


4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

I’m impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have 10 years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Former Vice President Al Gore said we only have 10 years left 3 1/2 years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al’s betting Armageddon kicks in January 2016 — unless he’s just peddling glib generalities. — Mark Steyn


5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming:

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres [of sea level rises] in the next century…do you really think that?

Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.

It is possible, no, actually.

Now Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Russian Academy of Science reassures Williams about global warming:

If all ice on the earth melted, the level of the oceans would rise by 64 meters. Many coastal cities would be under water, and so would the Netherlands, a significant part of which lies below sea level. However, the Dutch and the rest of the planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years


6) The UK faces a “catastrophe” of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse.”

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was “no plan B”. — October 19, 2009


7) Meanwhile, the Director of the Goddard Institute, James Hansen, recently sent a letter to President Obama saying that Obama has “only four years left to save the earth” from “runaway warming.” He told the London Observer in February that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” Hansen maintains that recent warming has pushed the planet close to a “tipping point” for runaway warming. What recent warming? Three hundredths of a degree C over 30 years, with temperatures still declining, doesn’t seem worth ruining the world’s economies. — April 20, 2009


8) While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met (James) Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989. — Author Rob Reiss talks with Salon’s Suzy Hansen


9) A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. — Friday, 16 September 2005


10) According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
 
…/ Even the current sea-level rise of ~23 centimeters becomes a problem for example when something that was previously regarded as a regular winter storm in Sweden/Denmark makes the sea-level rise more than 2 meters! …Similar, but on a smaller scale, to “Superstorm Sandy” that hit New Jersey and NYC…
And this is what that looked like about two weeks ago in the center of Sweden’s third largest city Malmö. Notice the ‘newest feature’ of this restaurant that was built not that many years ago (guessing ~ten at the most) – the ‘aquarium effect’…


1.jpg

Image Credit: Tomas Leprince | Extremt högt vatten kan orsaka evakuering | Kvällsposten

2.jpg

Image Credit: Tomas Leprince | Extremt högt vatten kan orsaka evakuering | Kvällsposten

3.jpg

Image Credit: Tomas Leprince | Extremt högt vatten kan orsaka evakuering | Kvällsposten

4.jpg

Image Credit: Bengt Arvidsson | Årstiderna red ur stormen - Malmö - Sydsvenskan - Nyheter Dygnet Runt


- - - Updated - - -

And this sea-level rise also makes coastal erosion worse. Here’s a spot on the northeastern shoreline of Jylland, Denmark. The very same storm that caused the temporary sea-level rise in Malmö above also 'ate' ~10 meters of this part of the Danish shoreline. And that was just one storm…

a.jpg

Photo credit: René Shütze/Ekstrabladet | Se hur sommarhuset rasar rakt ner i havet | Kvällsposten


b.jpg

Photo credit: René Shütze/Ekstrabladet | Se hur sommarhuset rasar rakt ner i havet | Kvällsposten


c.jpg

Photo credit: René Shütze/Ekstrabladet | Se hur sommarhuset rasar rakt ner i havet | Kvällsposten



Sources (in Swedish):

Extremt högt vatten kan orsaka evakuering | Kvällsposten

Årstiderna red ur stormen - Malmö - Sydsvenskan - Nyheter Dygnet Runt

Se hur sommarhuset rasar rakt ner i havet | Kvällsposten
 
Last edited:
This means that the current climate is inside Historical margins.

Apart from the damages that Climate Change/Global Warming is already doing (see for instance last post of SwedishAdvocate but I could also quote other damages) and since I like to address this thread in a very technical way I wish to give you a strictly scientific answer to this matter of Historical margins.
As you say it's true that the current climate is inside Historical margins. To this concern I also want to add that we could still be inside Historical margins when the Temperature Anomaly will rise 1 degree Celsius. But we will NOT be anymore inside Historical margins when the Temperature Anomaly will rise 2 degree Celsius.
And with the trend of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the latest years this could happen very soon (something like 2050) if mankind doesn't manage to decrease CO2 emissions.
 
The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
 
I thought I could sum up a little context for anyone new to this thread:

Starting at post #24 here:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion - Page 3

…this thread is basically one big back and forth between Kaivball and the rest of us in this thread. Argument for argument TMC members have debunked everything Kaivball has posted to this date. But as you can see she (?) is still ‘going strong’.

To Kaivballs credit though, this has actually forced me to learn all the basics about Man-Made Climate Change. I now understand basically what it is that is happening. And it is mostly thanks to other members on TMC directing me at these ~five online resources:

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined | www.skepticalscience.com

The Science of 350 parts per million | 350.org

Where is global warming going? | www.skepticalscience.com

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

The "Do The Math" Movie - 350.org


I also understand why the FUD[SUP]1[/SUP]-machine (figuratively speaking) previously actually at times through various media outlets ‘succeeded’ by ‘instilling hope’ in me that maybe Man Made Climate Change perhaps wasn’t happening at the rate I at the other times thought it was. Basically it was because I didn’t know that only 2.3% of Man Made Global Warming ends up in the atmosphere.

But now I know that the bulk of it – 93.4% ends up in the ocean. See the third link above.

_____________________________
[SUP]1[/SUP]FUD=Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
 
Last edited:
While this as bought us some time has it not added significantly to the acidification of the oceans? And so there could be some negative consequences with that. I have yet to see any study where that is good thing.
That part refers to the warming – the temperature rise. 93.4% of it ends up in the ocean. Only 2.3% of it ends up in the atmosphere.

And you are of course referring to the CO2-emissions which has added significantly to the acidification of the oceans, and that is as you rightly point out also a substantial problem. I am not that versed (?) in this area though…
 
Interesting...

[A bunch of who knows what… (My edit.)]

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso


CO2 Science
So the authors are:

Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso and Craig Idso.


Some ’intel’ on the Idso clan:

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial – No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family) | Mother Jones

Sherwood B. Idso | DeSmogBlog

Keith Idso | DeSmogBlog
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Keith Idso

Craig Idso | DeSmogBlog
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Craig Idso
Climate misinformer: Craig Idso | skepticalscience.com


So in other words: Not even remotely worth the alternating current lighting the pixels on your screen...
 
Ocean acidification issue

In the following picture the chemical equation showing how CO2 combines with water in the oceans is reported (ocean acidification). Such a chemical equation demonstrate the double damage done by CO2 to the oceans. In fact the consumption of carbonate ions impedes calcification and the formation of bicarbonate ions increases the acidity of the oceans (Oceans Ph lowered).
The picture has been took by this article that I report for reference:

What is Ocean Acidification?
 

Attachments

  • oareaction_med.jpg
    oareaction_med.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 124
Or, as I'm finding out, crabbers simultaneously complain about the number of crabs without shells (making them very susceptible to predation) because of ocean acidification, but oppose ocean-based renewable energy because it slightly infringes on their operations. In short, people are unwilling to make local sacrifices for a greater good.

Ocean acidification is the disaster that everyone is ignoring. This alone is a major reason to roll back CO2 emissions. We're going to destroy the ocean ecosystem, and destroy our own fisheries in the process.
 
Ocean acidification is the disaster that everyone is ignoring. This alone is a major reason to roll back CO2 emissions. We're going to destroy the ocean ecosystem, and destroy our own fisheries in the process.

You are right Doug. To this concern I would like to report this paragraph took by Wikipedia:

Coral reefs are underwater structures made from calcium carbonate secreted by corals. Coral reefs are colonies of tiny animals found in marine waters that contain few nutrients. Most coral reefs are built from stony corals, which in turn consist of polyps that cluster in groups. The polyps belong to a group of animals known as Cnidaria, which also includes sea anemones and jellyfish. Unlike sea anemones, coral polyps secrete hard carbonate exoskeletons which support and protect their bodies. Reefs grow best in warm, shallow, clear, sunny and agitated waters.
Often called "rainforests of the sea", coral reefs form some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth. They occupy less than 0.1% of the world's ocean surface, about half the area of France, yet they provide a home for 25% of all marine species,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] including fish, mollusks, worms, crustaceans, echinoderms, sponges, tunicates and other cnidarians.[SUP][4][/SUP] Paradoxically, coral reefs flourish even though they are surrounded by ocean waters that provide few nutrients. They are most commonly found at shallow depths in tropical waters, but deep water and cold water corals also exist on smaller scales in other areas.
Coral reefs deliver ecosystem services to tourism, fisheries and shoreline protection. The annual global economic value of coral reefs is estimated between US$ 29.8-375 billion. However, coral reefs are fragile ecosystems, partly because they are very sensitive to water temperature. They are under threat from climate change, oceanic acidification,

- - - Updated - - -

Then, to better understand how the lack of calcification damages the Coral reefs, I would like to report this paragraph took from the article linked in my previous post #817:

Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.
 
I like this video a lot. A very nice visualization of the big picture.

Climate change the state of the science (data visualization) - YouTube

Interesting video. Actually I knew that we had 500 Gtons of Carbon (rather than 250 like the video says) available as threshold to get a rise of Temperature Anomaly of 2 degrees but this doesn't change too much the issue of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In fact there are also other very important aspects related to such an issue like Ocean Acidification.