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.
can anyone point to research or articles that suggest that climate change is not effecting tornadoes? a friend insists that while the research is clear about the link between green house gases, climate change and super storms hurricanes like sandy, that there is no evidence suggesting a link to tornadoes. ...I find it hard to believe tornadoes would be any different.

After the disaster happened in Oklahoma I listened carefully to a climate expert speaking at the Italian television on this subject. She told that tornadoes are caused by a huge difference of temperature between the upper layers of atmosphere and ground.
This circumstance has also been confirmed by an article that I read one hour ago on an Italian newspaper.
To this concern I would like to point out that in the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc&feature=youtu.be

at minute 20 it is stated that because of Global Warming in the last 30 years the temperature in the troposphere is raising.
 
Last edited:
All people who say they don't trust the computer models are bit odd. How you suppose models e.g. mathematical functions be calculated, -on paper? All the current tech from automobile to building safety, current medicine to airplanes are modeled with computers (CAD + solid simulation, molecular modeling).

If you don't trust the computer models, you're better to write Tesla Motors, so they can stop using S.A.'s SIMULIA (or other similar products). And stop driving your Model S. Coz it's totally product of the computer models.

Physics and testing tells how good our models are, and the computers are the only way calculated them.

I would agree with you in part, but also disagree in part. The basic physics underlying global warming (namely the interference of greenhouse gases with the emission of infrared heat energy from the earth) has been understood for approximately 200 years and the approximate impact on the earth's temperature has been understood for more than 100 years. There is no real scientific debate about any of:

(i) the mechanism by which human emitted greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) warm the planet;
(ii) the fact that human combustion of fossilized stores of carbon (in the form of coal, oil and gas) is increasing the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases;
(iii) that the man-made GHGs are persisting in the atmospheres for decades or centuries;
(iv) that the GHGs are causing a net energy imbalance (meaning that the earth is retaining more energy than it is releasing into space); and
(v) that the planet is heating as a result.

It is also very clear that changes to incoming solar radiation are not a viable explanation for the changes in temperatures. Increased temperatures also increase the total amount of energy in the oceans and atmosphere which increases both the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and the potential for extreme weather events. All of this can be determined without the use of computers from basic physics. Although there remains some uncertainty concerning details about the manner in which heat may be sequestered in the ocean and somewhat delay increases in the temperature of the atmosphere, the temporary cooling effects of short lived particulate emissions such as sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, and other such details, these variables principally affect the time frame over which the full impact over which global warming will be felt, rather than the warming itself.

Computerized climate models, which I agree are becoming increasingly sophisticated and reliable, attempt to model, in a more granular and detailed fashion the implications of the physics on the planetary systems with a view to predicting the rate at which climate change will be experienced and the manner in which global warming will impact different areas of the planet. While the computer models are important and powerful tools they are by no means required in order to demonstrate or prove the sound scientific basis for man-made global warming.
 
No, it was directed at Raffy - which is why I quoted him in my reply. Click the >> next to your quote of my post and follow from there.

I was doing a recommendation in general to everybody (not in particular to Kaivball) to try as much as possible to avoid to enter personal political views in the debate on global warming and on the contrary to focus the discussion on data in order to better deal with environmental problems.
 

I think that the key of this article is in these sentences:

Researchers still aren't sure how small changes in the Sun's output nudge Earth's climate in one direction or another. To find the answer, they need to monitor our climate and keep a finger on the Sun's "pulse" for many decades running.

This means that, if from one side from the above linked article it looks like solar activity affects climate changes on Earth, from the other side it's not simple to formalize the relationship between solar activity and Temperature Anomaly on Earth with a formula. It takes decades from now on.
 
I think that the key of this article is in these sentences:

Researchers still aren't sure how small changes in the Sun's output nudge Earth's climate in one direction or another. To find the answer, they need to monitor our climate and keep a finger on the Sun's "pulse" for many decades running.

Did you not see where they showed sunspot data past the last ice age?


The insistance was that increase in tornado activity was soley due to C02 emissions. My point was that there are many more variables and I find it far reaching to attribute this solely to C02. I just intruduced another variable.
 
@Lloyd
In this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc&feature=youtu.be

there are record of solar activity from 1979 and of sunspot from 1610. Since in the article that you linked the last little ice age is before 1450 I have not any records about sunspot before 1450.
Anyway I agree with you that there are many variables that can contribute to Global Warming also if I think that CO2 is the main responsible.
To this concern I would like to point out my post #161 where it is stated that in the last 30 years the temperature of the troposphere raised. As we know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere raised in the last decades.
 
Last edited:
Did you not see where they showed sunspot data past the last ice age?

That wasn't the last ice age. That was the so-called "Little Ice Age", which coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a 70 year gap starting in 1645 where there we no sunspots. We're just talking about cold winters not glaciation!

The "Anti" side makes it seem like this is all a revelation or something, but it's been known about long before the current concerns about global warming.
 
...] I just intruduced another variable.

Look what I found! But this may actually very well have been brought up before in this thread. I honestly can’t remember.

Anyways: Turns out your new variable is ranked #2 on the list of global warming and climate change myths!

So why not go look at what the science says? And you get to select a level: Basic, Intermediate or Advanced!


And here are the links:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
 
Last edited:
I just intruduced another variable.
Sunspot activity has well known temperature effects. In fact since we were recently in a slightly extended period of lower sunspot activity, which correlates with lower temperatures, that might explain why we have seen less warming than was expected in the last few years, even though warming did occur. What is concerning is that the low sunspot activity may have been masking some of the effects of global warming, and if sunspot activity increases as expected we could suddenly see more drastic climate warming once again.
 
Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:

Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.

Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.

It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.

Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century? - Forbes
 
"As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."
Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.
"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."