Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate facts to warm to

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#41
I hear you, and I think George Carlin was very funny and witty too.

But, I see too many people with mindsets of:

#1: Since we don't understand it, don't worry about it.
(Ignorance is not bliss in the long run)
#2: Since we don't really know how to control things don't even try.
(We should try to learn. That is what we do. Rarely do we get things right the first time but eventually we tend to persevere)
#3: Everything on this planet was put here for us to consume.
(That is a short sighted view)
#4: My actions are too insignificant to matter.
(If we all feel that way then nothing gets done)

Sometimes those who worry the most are the most optimistic as they think change can make a difference. Many of those who chose not to change have a pessimistic view that we can't fix things so just let them collapse on their own when the time comes.

Many resources we consume are not really renewable/recyclable/reusable. The world population is growing and using up the last of many hard or impossible to replace resources. We found a bounty of materials on this planet that have proven to be quite useful to us, but we haven't been very careful to take a long term view to conserve resources.
Sure we will adapt, but future generations will have to make do with what we decide to leave them.

Just as one little silly but relevant example, think of the future when we have extracted all the liquid helium and released it into the atmosphere so we have no more.
Helium Supplies Endangered, Threatening Science And Technology
Next On The Endangered List: Helium?
The coming helium shortage | Energy Bulletin
Wired 8.08: A Helium Shortage?

"Save the planet" isn't about protecting the globe. It is about protecting us and the useful materials we have available to us.

Oh well, sorry about the detour into the ramblings of my personal viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
#42
Almost everything can be recycled. Most of the time it's not economical, especially without cheap energy. If recycling were profitable garbage collection would pay you for your recyclables.

It has always paid to recycle aluminum. Back in the '80s some people made a rather paltry living collecting aluminum cans for recycling. They drove around in rusty old cars full of cans, digging in dumpsters. Some of these people made a reall mess. I think part of the community recycling movement was sparked by revulsion at dumpster diving.

Japan went to war with us at least partly because FDR cut off scrap iron sales. He was trying to discourage their imperialism in the Pacific.

If we had cheap electricity many shortages would go away. I almost think the opponents of nuclear power see shortages as a feature, not a bug.

As for helium, the sooner we start scoop mining Neptune, the better!
 
#43
An Inconvenient Truth was shown on network TV for the first time here last night. It was interesting, but it didn't tell me anything new (it might have done 3 or 4 years ago). I warmed to Al Gore a lot more because of it.

However, guess which Japanese car manufacturer took the entire first ad break - featuring among other things a car "that emits only water"? They even had the continuity announcer introduce it as a "special advertisement for doers everywhere". Grr.

The next time this film is shown, I want to see a full length ad for Model S in that spot :smile:
 
#44
Dave,

Yes that piece is several years old now so not much seems new. But also that piece was made to appeal to the masses. And by that I mean the non - eco activist masses. Those that are in the know do not need it. Those that aren't do need it. I have to say it did warm me up to Al Gore as well. I wish it came out BEFORE he ran for President. I think that would have changed the world dramatically.
 
#45
From Martin's blog:
...I was once again blown away by Al Gore’s presentation at TED, where he showed that the rate of loss of ice at the north pole and the whole Arctic Ocean is much, much faster than the worst case of the various scenarios of the IPCC. I gave a presentation for Tesla’s employees in the middle of 2006, talking about what might be an appropriate response to the possibility that global warming was a real threat. I still have a copy of the slides. In it, I predicted that the arctic ocean might possibly be ice-free by 2050. Boy was I wrong. Looks like it will occur by 2015...
Click to expand...
 
#49
TEG,

after reading this thread I realize that we have more in common than I previously thought. I support your views on climate change, and of human stewardship of our planet as a whole.

I strongly disagree with the POV proffered by GC, which seems to be: "We're all going to die, so why worry?". That's a truly pessimistic worldview. Here's a Carlin quote from Life is Worth Losing:

"I look at it this way... For centuries now, man has done everything he can to destroy, defile, and interfere with nature: clear-cutting forests, strip-mining mountains, poisoning the atmosphere, over-fishing the oceans, polluting the rivers and lakes, destroying wetlands and aquifers... so when nature strikes back, and smacks him on the head and kicks him in the nuts, I enjoy that. I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it's natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse."

Even as a comedy routine, that's pretty dark stuff... Perhaps he was just trying to provoke people into thinking about the consequences of human activity... I don't know.

Most people are unaware of the complex and intricate web of living things that we are dependent on for our continued existence, and as a result they believe that humanity could continue to thrive on a barren planet. Because of this, they place very little value on the natural world. Unfortunately, I think many people will only discover the importance of this relationship between humanity and the rest of nature when it is too late.

BTW, I was aware of colony collapse disorder, but I hadn't heard about the chloramphenicol in Chinese honey.

All the best,

Chris H.
 
#50
Yes, GC could get pretty dark. He was always a grouch. Then he realized that cocaine only makes you feel "like you want more cocaine!" Bummer.

Here are some of my problems with the AGW crowd:

1) They claim that everything is different, now. Didn't we hear that before the internet and telecom bubbles burst? Didn't we hear it from Wall Street when they said mortgage backed securities were safe?

When somebody tells you that everything is different, grab your wallet in one hand and his throat in the other. Squeese both as hard as you can. Your money will stay in your wallet better that way.

2) The remedies proposed all make money for the proponent.

3) The remedies proposed would make the developed world poorer without changing the amount of CO2 in the admosphere, at the very least because they ignore the developing world. If I were in the developing world I would ignore the remedies.

4) The climate varies in cycles. Each cycle is longer than a human life span. It's really tough to judge trends when you die before you collect enough data points.

5) The climate has at least twice been much warmer within historical times than it is now.

The Romans grew grapes in England near what is now the border with Scotland. All the vinyards in England these days are in the south. England is not known for its wine production. Admittedly the ancients had much different standards in wine than we do.

North Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire. Not just the Nile delta, all of the southern coast of the Mediterranean.

Later, during the Medieval Warm Period, there were dairy farms in Greenland. The name wasn't just real estate hype. Customer complaints took the form of an axe to the head back then. They called what is now Laborador and Nova Scotia Vinland.

After the Medieval Warm Period came the Little Ice Age. The Dutch brought supplies along the frozen canals to the siege of Amsterdam. Later there were long distance skating races on the canals. Henry Knox brought cannon down the frozen Hudson river to the siege of Boston during the American Revolution. The Napoleanic wars were fought during the tail end of the Little Ice Age.

All of this happened long before the industrial revolution.

6) The modelers don't make their data and algorithms public.
 
#51
bobw said:
6) The modelers don't make their data and algorithms public.
Click to expand...

I've got too much on today to answer every one of those points (believe me, they can be), but I'll start off with this:

Two minutes using Google Scholar found a couple of papers for you to get going:

http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/125/5/pdf/i1520-0493-125-5-875.pdf

They're getting on a bit, but it's a starting point. Many more are available in the scientific press. You can go into any library and request them if you don't want to pay the online subs for the journals.


If you want datasets, plenty are available. Here, for example, is how to get them from the European Space Agency's Earth Observation satellites: ESA Earthnet: How to Access


One of the major climate models is the UK Hadley Centre's HadCM3:

Met Office: Climate Change

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Models 'key to climate forecasts'

This turns up a lot more info, including descriptions and input data. If you want to take that line of research further, I can probably get you a contact there.


It may not be in the mainstream press, but that is far from saying it isn't public. Just get any peer-reviewed journal in this field and you'll find pages of the stuff.
 
#52
bobw said:
4) The climate varies in cycles. Each cycle is longer than a human life span. It's really tough to judge trends when you die before you collect enough data points.
Click to expand...

Um, aren't they working off of historical data from many, many lifetimes ago?
Like glacial core sample and such.
You don't only get to work off of your own dataset. There is so much historical data that can be considered.
 
#53
Bob,

I'm not going to answer you point-by-point because I believe that would be a futile exercise that would achieve nothing. I'm pretty sure it would not change your mind regardless of how thorough my responses were. Instead, let me give you something to think about.

First of all let me concede that absolute proof of anthropogenic global warming does not exist at this point in time. The evidence that we have so far would best be described as "circumstantial", but that does not mean that AGW is not yet occurring. Absolute proof will not exist until after significant, and perhaps catastrophic, GW occurs. At that point it will be far too late for humanity to take any action to correct the problem (for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that global food production will plummet, and we will be starving). There is also the possibility that we will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what is believed to have occurred on Venus:

NASA - TROPICAL ‘RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE’ PROVIDES INSIGHT TO VENUS

So my question to you is "Should we wait until we have absolute proof of AGW before we do anything, or should we anticipate the problem, and it's effects, and try to mitigate the problem while we still have the capacity to do so?".

I suspect that the real reason that many people choose to ignore, or deny, the possibilty of AGW is because they realize that if they do accept it, they will have to make changes in the way they live their lives. They may have to curb their consumption a little, or be a bit more conscientious about their energy use. The other big factor is the influence of the fossil fuel industry, which, for obvious reasons, wants to maintain the status quo. The FF industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and bogus "research" to create the impression that GW is a minor problem that can be dealt with at a later date, or that it is a fallacy created by left-wing crackpots with a political agenda, or that it is a "normal" part of naturally occurring climate cycles. Anything that will create some doubt or delay meaningful action on the issue. And, of course, there are lots of people who prefer to believe this misinformation because it is more palatable to them.

Bob, I notice that your avatar is an image of the Rocket eBook, one of Martin's earlier creations. This leads me to believe that you have some respect for Martin. I don't know how far that goes, but let me direct you to an interview that Martin did in the early days of Tesla Motors (at approx. -2:20):

Interview with Tesla Motors CEO on Yahoo! Video

Anyway Bob, I realise that it's unlikely that I'm going to change your mind about this issue, but hopefully you will give some thought to the consequences of failing to act on the information that we already have about GW.

All the best,

Chris H.
 
Last edited:
#59
I find this to be a great, easily understood, source for global warming info.
Click to expand...
And I find this to be yet more bullshit.
A single evidence is good when it confirms their story and bad when it counters it? Utter bollocks. I'm holding for my wallet. The sole outcome of this hoax are additional taxes and even more government at our throats.

People are loosing Jesus and finding a new good - Nature. Repent sinners!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CXCRaffle
Vendor 7th Annual Climate XChange Raffle - with a new twist!
Replies
5
Views
3K
EVents
PeterK
PeterK
T
Repair that building instead of tearing it down
Replies
7
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
ItsNotAboutTheMoney
I
MontyFloyd
the Solar (PV) BOOM economy.
Replies
7
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
MontyFloyd
MontyFloyd
TomB985
  • Article
EV6 to a Model Y
Replies
345
Views
36K
Model Y
yellowr6
Y
Y
2021 Model S LR 1-month Observations and Issues
Replies
9
Views
3K
Model S
OnePunchman
OnePunchman
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu