Man-made We're screwed

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

nwdiver93 | 13 April 2013


Ideological banter isn't above anyones head. TeslaRocks analysis was spot on. Brian Hs AGW denial is based on politics not science. Come to think of it... I've yet to meet anyone whose AGW denial wasn't based almost entirely on ideological ground.

Kind of like I've never meet anyone that insisted the earth is <6000 years old that wasn't a religious nut-job.

Tesluthian | 13 April 2013

Seriously, I think Brian has a lot of information and criticisms that he should collect and write a digital book with links and especially as many citations as he can muster. Highlight his supporting citations if they have been scientifically published and peer reviewed. This seems to be the biggest complaint, that Brian's citations and ideas lack publication.

Brian in his book could recommend scientific studies and papers. He can sell his book on Amazon, iBooks etc, and send copies to parties he'd like to suggest to do studies and papers. The scientific method can stand debate, and is healthier in integrity for it. Brian's complaints seem to center a lot on methodology , data collection, etc. There's plenty of entities with money to fund such studies, but bad logic won't hold up in a published paper versus trying to influence public opinion with general discussion.

Personally I think "False Dilemma" fallacy, scarcity of creative solutioning, and lack of compromise is what's preventing good public policy from being developed that could be both Eco-green & Econo-green (as in wealth generating) as well as get us off foreign oil and have health cost savings and benefits.

chicago.ev | 14 April 2013

Let's be a little sensible here. Because of human activity there is more atmospheric CO2 and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. However, I do like the spirit of Brian's arguments. It is healthy to question the consensus. When I was a kid we'd be playing ball on the street as the trucks passed us by spraying DDT- the consensus back then was that DDT was a wonder chemical.
This idea that by driving an EV one is having a positive effect on the global environment is bogus. It is a big help for your local air quality, but not on a global environmental level. Most of the electricity charging the vehicle is coming from coal or nat gas. If one is in N Illinois where electricity is primarily generated from nuclear power then there is a clear benefit to greenhouse gas emissions, but the environmental benefits of nuclear power generation is a whole different discussion.
If you really want to discuss greenhouse gases then why not pay a little more attention to CH4? It is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. The livestock industry is more responsible for detrimental greenhouse gas emissions than any other industry. I really enjoy red meat so I am definitely a hypocrite to be still eating it- albeit much less than previously in my diet.
I commute 200mi per week. 100mi in a Leaf and 100mi on a bike. It sucks riding a bike in cold weather, but it saves a lot of money and it definitely helps the environment. I was planning on trading in my Leaf for a Model S but am not so sure anymore. Tesla seems like a car for wealthy people who want to believe that they are saving the planet by buying a luxury wehicle.

nwdiver93 | 14 April 2013

OK... here's the thing... It is healthy to question the consensus on climate change if you're a climate researcher examining ice cores as your full time job. This questioning is performed by forming a hypothesis that makes a prediction that is testable and falsifiable. You then test your hypothesis and release your findings for peer review.

The "not ok" way to question the consensus... the way the get yourself labeled as "crazy" or "a crank" is to call 97% of published research by actual scientists "BS", post cherry picked graphs that fit your narrative then go on a political rant before retreating under your bridge to sulk.

The scientific method isn't perfect. It has been wrong in the past it WILL be wrong in the future and it might be wrong about climate change. It's all a game of numbers, the best science can do is tell you where the odds are. If you had a pair of dice and had to bet everything on one roll would you bet on 2 or 7? That's a crude representation since there IS a real answer but by it's nature science is NEVER 100%. There IS a concentration of CO2 that WILL render this planet uninhabitable. Is it 400? 450? 500? When pressed the scientific community has said 350 ppm is a safe long-term number to ensure no significant consequences.

We're now @ ~397ppm and climbing; The clock is ticking and the "crazy cranks" aren't making things easier.

"...let's say there's a 99% chance that CO2 is no problem and a 1% chance we're going to cook the planet; I don't think we want to take that 1%..." - Elon Musk

shop | 15 April 2013

@nwdiver: "Link to one study...that refutes one of the following.

1) CO2 causes NET warming
2) CO2 levels are rising
3) Human activity is causing CO2 levels to rise."

I wouldn't dispute any of the above. The real questions are:

1) In simple models of greenhouse gases, an increase of CO2 will cause earth mean temperature to increase. But there are many interrelated factors that cause earth mean temperature to fluctuate. Will CO2 increase ACTUALLY increase mean earth temperature or is there s negative feedback loop occurring or are there other factors which might decrease earth mean temperature causing overall temperature to stay level or decrease? Certainly if you look at 20th and now 21st century CO2 levels versus temperature, the last 20 years or so, CO2 and temperature are NOT positively correlated, so something else is going on.

2) Assuming there will continue to be a positive correlation and the last 20 years is some anomaly, will the temperature rise be something manageable like .7 degrees C over 200 years? Or, as FLAWED COMPUTER MODEL SUGGEST, there is a positive feedback loop and a tipping point is built into the earth's climate system and once a certain level of CO2 is reached, the climate runs away and we are all cooked? The reason I say the climate models are flawed is because they are by definition - no computer model can 100% accurately model the earth's climate as the earth's climate is too complex for modeling. Anyone who listens to weather predictions a few days out can attest to that. So all we have are climate scientist's model that predict disaster and those models are just a theory. Also we do have evidence in the past from ice cores and other data that the earth used to have A LOT more CO2 in it than it does now, and the earth managed to survive then with a diverse biosphere and in particular without runaway thermal feedback loops.

It is this second point that is the real sticking point. Small potential rises in earth's mean temperature are not a cause for alarm and will only have the effect of making more northern lands available for agriculture (while making more southern lands hotter). But climate scientists (at least the ones that grab headlines and get grant funding) like to paint doomsday scenarios where the earth will reach a tipping point and truly catastrophic temperature rises will occur. EVEN WHEN there is actually historical evidence against this occurring.

chicago.ev | 15 April 2013

Again, how do electric cars have any impact on greenhouse emissions on a global level? I drive one because it eliminates emissions locally and because it eliminates the transporting of crude oil across the oceans to a degree. That is the environmental benefit. Also, the fact that my source of electricity is generated by nuclear power ensures that my vehicle does have an impact on greenhouse gas emission.
The vast majority of EV's will be powered by fossil fuels. If the wealthy purchasers of Tesla cars really want to impact the planet, then take one less vacation per year, eat a lot less red meat, move to a location where you can commute to work on a bicycle, live in a smaller home.
I just don't believe that policies like electric vehicles and ethanol really impact greenhouse gas levels.
EV's are fun to drive and they have some environmental benefits, but nowhere near as many as advertised.

shop | 15 April 2013

@chicago.ev - there are a few more environmental benefits than what you stated. First, recognize that EVs are more energy efficient. An ICE engine only converts 30% of gasoline's energy into movement, rest into heat. Electric motors are 80% efficient. Second, electricity generation at the utility is less polluting than burning it in a car, even with transmission line losses. Third, a lot of our fossil fuel electricity generation is via natural gas, so that's a lot less polluting than gasoline. Fourth, if a lot of EVs start being used, utilities will find their capacity factor going up a lot since there will be a lot more energy draw from midnight to 6am, by far the lightest usage time. This helps two ways, first it allows more use from the distribution infrastructure, and second, it will encourage more nuclear electricity generation since nuclear plants are great for steady baseline energy load, and the if the energy demand becomes more even, nuclear will become more economical. And then you do have what you mentioned, less local urban pollution which is a biggie if you live in a large city.

chicago.ev | 15 April 2013

those are some good points. there is also the negative aspects of mining etc required for battery production. if you take the energy conversion from the feedstock through the utility to the generation of electricity and through the grid for distribution to the home, you do lose quite a bit of thie efficiency. you certainly have that in the gasoline engine as well from extraction, refining,transport etc. of the fuel. I would assume that in general the EV does offer a much better impact overall and so your points are well taken. I still feel that eliminating a lot of the transport of fuel is one of the best reasons for having an EV. That said I would think that most environmentally conscious people would agree with my statement that changing ones consumptive behavior and locating close to the workplace are the more effective ways to impact the environment. I just have visions of big executives and politicians driving up to a private jet in their Tesla and feeling good about their impact on the environment.

nwdiver93 | 15 April 2013


I'm happy that you agree in an area where the scientific debate has ended. From the articles I have read there is still some debate on the climate sensitivity of the planet as would be expected since it's not a simple yes/no question. The study I linked to above discusses this in great detail.

Don't make the common mistake of confusing weather with climate. I'll let NASA explain that one...

You're correct that the climate models aren't perfect but every year they get better. The more we learn and the more simulations we run the higher the probability that the aggregate result is correct. European computer models accurately predicted the landfall of Sandy in New Jersey a full week before landfall. Just a few years ago 3 day notice would have been cutting-edge.

There is a near-zero chance our Fossil Fuel addiction will have no negative impacts. Best case we'll have at least a 1.5' rise in sea level by 2100.

A gradual rise in sea level is just the most certain effect. Far more catastrophic and more difficult to predict is the effect of climate change on weather patterns. Farmlands will become deserts and deserts will become farmlands. Humans can't migrate like they did thousands of years ago... we're kind of stuck within our national borders. Here's an amusing summary...

Bottom Line... Are we 100% certain of the effects? No, and we never will be. Why take the chance if we don't have to?

shop | 15 April 2013

@mwdiver93: "Bottom Line... Are we 100% certain of the effects? No, and we never will be. Why take the chance if we don't have to?"

Because the proposed and actual "solutions" to potential global warming have real costs. Costs as in people dying.

Just to take a concrete example, the $7500 federal tax rebate and California $2500 EV incentive reduces the ability for these governments to pay for all sorts of programs for the needy - from lunch subsidies, to medical care to social programs. Now on an economy wide basis, when you take money from one pot whose net effect will be to save lives in the year the money is used (social programs for the needy), and spend it on something else that may, 100 years down the road mitigate coastal flooding (EV tax breaks), that isn't a good tradeoff in my opinion.

You also have the economic argument that if increase the cost of everyone's energy from $0.04 per Kwh to $0.10 a Kwh, that money that people are now spending on increased energy costs has to be taken away from somewhere. For a rich person, that means a shorter vacation. For a poor person that might mean the difference between getting that flu shot or skipping it and then dying from influenza.

And then you have the whole, are you making any difference anyways argument. The US has actually managed to live up to the Kyoto accords greenhouse gas reduction target. AFAIK, it is the only major industrial economy to have done so. Yet CO2 levels continue to climb. Why? China. India. No matter what we do here, unless those two economies get on board, nothing we do will help. And in those economies, the cost of energy is even more sensitive to the number of people dying each year. Double the cost of energy in China now, and millions of extra people will be dead within one year.

So, the bottom line is that there is no free lunch. Yes, we can have a light environmental footprint, but the cost in human lives is very real today while the benefits are unproven and far off in the future.

JaneW | 15 April 2013

"I just have visions of big executives and politicians driving up to a private jet in their Tesla and feeling good about their impact on the environment."

A rather biased vision, may I say a little self-righteous?

How many Tesla owners do the other "green" things you mentioned?
How many have changed their consumption patterns (or didn't need to)?
How many have installed solar panels to charge their cars and houses?
How many live close enough to work to commute in a ranged electric car?

I don't know a single Tesla owner who thinks electric cars are a panacea.
Teslas are great cars and a blast to drive. They help the environment a little, certainly
more than the comparable ICE vehicles. And supporting Tesla may help drive us toward more
green usage in the future.

JaneW | 15 April 2013

You talk as if it's all a zero sum game. "take money from one pot " Give a $7500 tax break and there's not enough money for social programs? Can't do both?

Reasonable economic decisions in the richest country on earth can allow us to do both. It's a huge pot.
Maybe we could save enough for that by not attacking Iraq for a third time. ;)

China is polluting, so nothing we do will help? Illogical.
--They're polluting anyway, so we might as well, too?
--That thief is robbing banks anyway, so we might as well, too.

No sense in putting sand bags on the levies, they won't stop the rain.

There's no free lunch. So, dont take your sandwich out of a poor person's mouth so you can afford to give $5 to a charity. Bet you can do both. Bet the US can, too.

Nantang | 15 April 2013

The evidence for human contribution is solid, but even if it weren't, I respond to the assertion that periods of warming and cooling happen all the time throughout Earth prehistory with the following: so do mass extinctions! And, we're in one, right now. And, it's pretty obvious that we humans are not helping.

chicago.ev | 15 April 2013

@Jane W
I would say that there are many Tesla owners that are helping in many ways to create a better environment, but it is a luxury car. As such it currently is targeted to an upper-class buyer, and in general those of us in the upper-class tend to consume a lot more of everything, including energy. Nearly 20% of the human generated greenhouse gas effect comes from the livestock industry- so be different Tesla and offer a luxury car without leather! Not going to happen. The $7500 rebate for EV makes a huge impact on the purchase price of a Leaf, which I currently drive. It makes little impact on a $70,000 car--$62,400 is still a very expensive car which only the wealthiest of Americans can afford. So along with SHOP, I ask, why give this tax credit to the wealthiest Americans? We don't need it. It's similar to our renewable fuels program. The vast majority of American grain farmers are millionaires many times over due to this program and the cost of food globally has doubled in the last 7 years, putting the most vulnerable on our planet in terrible straights. Government policy at work.

nwdiver93 | 15 April 2013

No solution to fight climate change is going to be perfect. It's impossible to predict how removing the $7500 tax credit would hurt Tesla sales.

I reject the notion that fighting climate change must necessarily cost anything. It should be viewed in terms of an investment. To be sure there are solutions on the table which ARE costs... One example which is an investment is Solar PV. The cost has fallen so dramatically in recent years that even in solar poor areas like Seattle a system will return the cost of installation in <10 years before subsidies.

The target of any solution must be the people who can afford to modify their bahavior but choose not to. The vast majority of people I work with make $100k+ & have homes that can easily accomodate solar but don't for one very good reason... THERE'RE LAZY!!(Not speculation... we spoke) Like everything else in the universe they seek the path of least resistance; Why tie up ~$10,000 when you can just pay the local utility to keep burning coal? Plus, it takes time and effort to pick up the phone and find an installer. Sure, they'll get that money back in <4 years but what's solar going to do for them today?

Just spit-balling here but what if my county passed an ordinance that your electric bill is tied to the value of your home. <$100,000 house = $0.10/kWh; $400,000 house = $0.40/kWh. I would wager that my lazy co-workers would have solar on their homes shortly after their first electric bill. No extra Pain for the poor. No shorter vacations for the rich... Hell, they'll probably take MORE vacations since they'll be better off financially than they were before! Just some extra motivation to do what's right and cleaner air.

Brian H | 15 April 2013

your first comment is good, but then you lose the plot. Fact is, even draconian human emissions cuts would have only a fraction of a degree impact beginning in a century or so. Since there is a 1:1 connection between CO2 cuts and recession to date, that's hardly worth the candle.

The point about China is that it is not going to play, and its impact is dominant and growing fast. They aren't going to be shamed or inspired by our (your) noble example. The UK's and Australia's pols, e.g., seem to imagine that will happen. They are demonstrably deluded. It would be unwise to emulate them.

nwdiver93 | 15 April 2013

Slap Chinese imports with a carbon tariff.

JaneW | 15 April 2013

"The vast majority of American grain farmers are millionaires"

Ummm ... Average net cash farm income (NCFI) is forecast at $76,000 for all farm businesses for 2013.
"The point about China is that it is not going to play, and its impact is dominant and growing fast. They aren't going to be shamed or inspired by our (your) noble example. "

Obvious. We all know that.
Still not an excuse for doing nothing ourselves. It is separate from them. We have our own
work to do. And, done right, it can be a good business. We will continue to find ways to make more money while making things better -- very American.

Brian H | 15 April 2013

Nonsense. Pixie dust dreams. Punitive emission suppression causes considerable hardship, and has no demonstrable benefit. Imagining cheap substitutes is like the EPA mandates for a percentage of cellulose-derived ethanol in all gas, which no one has succeeded in getting out of the labs, or indeed ethanol in general, which adds more (fossil-fueled) emissions at source to the combustion total on use (equal or more), or its mandates to do CCS (Clean Carbon Sequestration), which no one has succeeded in doing at less than ruinous expense, etc. Human laws which attempt to override physics and economics laws have horrible unintended consequences. Food to Fuel agriculture mandates doubled grain prices, twice, to the world's poorest and killed uncounted millions. An FAO official called it a "Crime Against Humanity", the UN's #1 offense under international law. The AGW fakesters continue blithely on.

Most Believers like you are simply suckers to fast-talkers' hand-waving. But they know better, and are beyond dangerous. As one of the progressives' spokemen (Big Dog) said, "Politics is blood sport." They're playing for all the marbles.

nwdiver93 | 16 April 2013

"Punitive emission suppression causes considerable hardship, and has no demonstrable benefit."

Funny... they said the same thing about curbing sulfur emissions... until it worked!

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

chicago.ev | 16 April 2013

@Jane W. "grain farmers" have made a fortune on the back of the RFS. The government subsidizes crop revenue insurance for 80% of their production with crop prices at elevated levels. Grain prices have doubled over the last 6 years- and this has a real impact on the most vulnerable people in the world. Farmland prices have entered a bubble-phase in the past few years. The average price of Iowa/Illinois row crop farmland is now over $8000/acre. Even a family farmer who has a small amount of land, 320ac which is way below the median acreage owned by grain farmers in that region, has an asset worth over $2million.
Are dairy farmers getting rich? No. Are tobacco/peanut farmers getting rich? No Are grain farmers getting rich? Yes. They take a lot of risks in a very capital intensive and now high-tech industry and good for them.
But, I find it difficult to believe that many environmentally conscious Americans really believe that our ETOH program is a good thing

Brian H | 16 April 2013

Push a "climate scientist" to specify how much effect emissions control could have. It's fractions of a degree, in a century. At best, and at horrific cost. Trillions of dollars per degree. Assuming the AGW speculation is correct, which it is not.

Brian H | 16 April 2013

The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn’t, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.

Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.

Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.

Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.

Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist; Uhm… no.

Physicist; rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.

Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!

Physicist; see above.

Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!

Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.

Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!

Physicist; how much grant money?

Climatologist; Billions. Want some?

Physicist; Uhm…

Climatologist; BILLIONS

Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…

nwdiver93 | 16 April 2013

The Corn-based ethanol program was a boondoggle to begin with. It's primary purpose was to support farmers not lower emissions. Other farm subsidies are a completely separate issue and have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The vast majority of people I know that prefer government assistance in fighting AGW are not in favor of this kind of waste.

What I've not heard any specific opposition to is increased support for more efficient vehicles, solar, wind, nuclear and energy storage solutions thru a combination of standards(CAFE), Tax incentives and feed-in tariffs.

Many programs have been wildly successful; my favorite is CAFE since it makes it economically beneficial for an auto manufacturer to self-subsidize a more efficient vehicle while raising the cost to the consumer of a less efficient vehicle.

Absent the mandatory feed-in tarrifs in Germany it's very likely that the solar industry would only be a small fraction of what it is today. Germanys lust for solar allowed manufactures to reach the economies of scale necessary to bring cost down to the point that solar is now at grid parity in far more places that it's not.

The Free-Market is a powerful tool but it's still just a tool. The external cost of carbon must be put on the shoulders of the consumer for the free-market to work against AGW without government intervention. The issues with AGW are a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. The Free-Market solution is to privatize the commons so the owners are motivated to preserve it in their own self-interest. Ok... how the hell do you privatize the atmosphere?

Tesluthian | 16 April 2013


It's great that acid rain pollution was reversed and had unintended benefits such as health savings. Success needs to be recognized.

But when each half of the country works to opposing goals you also risk silly solutions. For example, some warming advocates have advocated pumping sulphur into the air to get the cooling parasail affect that helps cool the planet if warming becomes too serious. And the green crowd was probably for corn ethanol before they were against it. And corn ethanol is not all bad, if I was a poor corn farmer in Africa, I rather get twice the price of corn, rather than half. Plus corn purchased from local producers keeps more money in the local poorer economies.

So for corn alcohol, I wouldn't expand it, but I wouldn't eliminate it either and keep looking for improvements or better solutions, eg switchgrass. Other breakthroughs are possible. So why punish risk takers who produced the corn alcohol ? And our American farm community is one of the economic sectors supporting the weak struggling economy, so the whole corn alcohol initiative was worth trying. Just like reducing sulphur was worth doing, only it worked out much faster, and turned out to be both ecolo-green as well as a little econo-green.

Other solutions should appease both camps but with compromise. For example let's take France, they get most of their electricity from nuclear power. Germany wants to be all green and no nukes. They should make an agreement for France to double their nuclear power plants to sell electricity to Germany. This will allow both countries' electricity to be cost efficient and carbon free. Funding should be from a financial transaction tax in France to provide the building funds. (financial institutions were one group that help cause global recession).

This large infrastructure project will help revive the French economy and their French stock market who will see the benefit of being taxed for the project.

Let's look at this type of solution characteristics and positives. This is an example of creative solutioning, it is carbon green and econo-green. Made possible by compromise. It's not a single sided, right or left, solution and solves multiple problems. It's wealth generating, it doesn't eliminate jobs, takes advantage of low interest rates and excess labor in France/Spain. It helps these countries get off oil and make electric vehicles more green. It's also synergistic, will help these countries economies recover, which will also help European and world economies recover. And most of all, it doesn't ecourage "False Dilemmas" .

And this solution example is based on sound logic, not convoluted partisan logic I hear for example "We have to cut expenses now to balance the budget. If that were true, no company would ever go bankrupt, they'd just cut expenses. If your small business Income is 10k/mo, and your fixed expenses 20k/mo, and optional expenses 5k/mo, your not going to cut your way to a profit. You have to increase income and give that more immediate priority.

Equally flawed partisan logic; but, also sounds deceptively true, is a statemade made by the left, (slight paraphrase)"For every dollar we give away in unemployment , etc, we get back $1.70 in economic activity." If that were true, all we have to do for economic prosperity is put everyone in the country on unemployment. The deceptive part is "economic activity" which is not tax revenue. So yeah I bought a Starbucks coffee for $1.70 with my unemployment check, but Starbucks only paid 50 cents in tax revenue on that purchase. Both of these examples are designed to win arguments for a course of action, not solve problems.

The type of management we have now in this country solving our problems is like a corporation, who has half of their board of directors shorting their stock, and the other half of the board has stock options. Not exactly a good system to overcome problems.

nwdiver93 | 16 April 2013

"The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change."

If this is true then how did Venus, the second plant from the sun get a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun?

Also, roundly and repeadedly debunked by every paleo-climate study ever published.

nwdiver93 | 16 April 2013

Spotted this Gem in the pile of garbage Brian left..

"The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere"

Do deniers really think this is true? Brian, do you really think this is true?

Brian H | 16 April 2013

Believers should note that the Economist, which has been by editorial dictat purely AGW-pushing since forever, has just bailed.

nwdiver93 | 17 April 2013

Well done Brian... you finally provided a link to a relatively respectable source. I can't speak for everyone but I'm proud of the progress you've made :) I hope you learned something from that article, it agreed unequivocally with the three statements I made previously. Does this mean you've finally moved on from the idiotic is AGW real isn't AGW real debate? Somehow I doubt that but as always I remain cautiously realistic.

How much of a threat is AGW? Now there is a question around which there is legitimate scientific debate! Some studies say <1C this study says 8C by 2100.

As with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

This threat of AGW isn't just with higher temperatures but the weather pattern changes these shifts bring. It's been observed that the Jet Stream is more erratic with higher polar temperatures to the point that it can actually curve back on itself. One such curve pushed Hurricane Sandy into New Jersey. Could Sandy have still made landfall without AGW? Sure; but we know from observation that AGW INCREASED the probability of a Hurricane making such an unusual hard left turn.

That's just one of many examples of how AGW is a threat that needs to be confronted.

Brian H | 17 April 2013

Your condescending post is out to lunch. I was aware of all this material long ago, just bringing it to the heavily blinkered attention of you Believers. The Economist still has a way to go, but at last it is acknowledging some home truths about the (C)AGW nonsense.

The Arctic Sea article is wrong on so many levels I'm not going to respond, other than to note that sea ice coverage there touched all-time (recent history) highs several times this winter. Not that it makes a smidgeon of difference. For numerous technical reasons.

nwdiver93 | 17 April 2013

"I was aware of all this material long ago..."

So you're continued denial of reality is based on what?

"The Arctic Sea article is wrong on so many levels I'm not going to respond"

Interesting tactic in a scientific debate...

JaneW | 17 April 2013

Headline of that Economist article:
May be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away

Conclusion of that article:
As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.

Since CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.

Brian H | 17 April 2013

Reality has disproven the fundamental hypothesis. Accelerating global emissions beyond the highest projections have had no effect on temperatures for almost 2 decades. FAIL.

Brian H | 17 April 2013

NASA is selling the meme.

Those are the First, Second, Third and Fourth IPCC reports vs. reality. Their guesses/claims are not improving.

kenliles | 17 April 2013

What a testament, that Tesla can sell a car to the few flat-earthers still wandering around....
The ol' dinosaurs really pine for those Jurrasic-era temps before they go extinct.
But without knowing it, fork over their money to hurt their cause. Gotta love it.
Elon was right, just make the best car and they won't know what hit 'em

nwdiver93 | 18 April 2013




Where did you find that graph? (Line of best fit still shows upward trend for observations) The NASA data has nothing to do with guesses/claim it's Data collected from satellites. NOAA data is collected from monitoring stations.

Tesluthian | 18 April 2013

@BrianH ,

Beautiful chart, my compliments if you did that yourself. Only problem is its basically it's a 20 yr chart. As statistical types know, just like the stock market, long term trends outweigh shorter term trends. I did well in college statistics, a lot of statics requires interpretation, so lets try some statistical methodology analysis using a 100 years of statistics from the DJIA and see how different 20yr and 100 predictions hold up.

From 1900 to 2000 the DJIA is a 200 bagger, (see link below to DJIA chart) The market went from roughly 50 points (year 1900)to 11,500 (year 2000).

Basically this is a methodology critique of both sides. If you just looked at the DJIA chart from 1962 to 1982 its flatish and the 2000 yr prediction is around 1000 points for the DJIA., (instead of 11,500 DJIA '2000), off by a factor of ten.

If you take DJIA yr 1930 to 1950, its descending, and you get a year 2000 DJIA projection under 100 pts vs year DJIA yr 2000 of 11,500 points.This is off by a factor of over a 100.

So much for 20 yr charts.

If you like hockey sticks, project out the 20 th century DJIA growth rate of 200 times from 1900 to 2000; that means by 2100, the DJIA will be over two million using the 100 year growth rate ! Extrapolate, that's 1,000,000 DJIA by 2050, and a 500,000 DJIA by 2025 ! Sounds incredible, but how will we know if this is true ? Probably have to wait till at least 2050 or beyond.

But if I was predicting the DJIA for 2025, I'd say 50,000 is entirely possible, it's only a triple. But that's only if we don't screw up the economy even more with bad one sided, unsynergistic solutions and public policy.

So much for 100 yr charts and predicting out from that. You'll need good luck predicting anything with just a 100 years of statistical data as well. For me, if Phoenix, Az hits 150 degree highs (30 degrees higher than current all time highs), I'll say the Warmers are onto something. Until then I suggest multi-tasked solutions to solve multiple problems and objectives that are both econo & ecolo green.

Here's the DJIA link covering the whole 20th century:

Feel free to submit for other scientific paper inclusions and review.

Brian H | 18 April 2013

At the time the original AR reports were created, the IPCC agreed 10 yrs outside the error bars would invalidate them. They then revised that to 15, then 17. The jig is up. You don't get to retroactively change that.

nwdiver93 | 19 April 2013

Nonsense. Pixie dust dreams. Continued use of fossil fuels causes considerable hardship, and has no demonstrable benefit.

nwdiver93 | 19 April 2013

Ahhh... JK. Why would I resort to random banter that adds nothing of substance when I have facts on my side?

Here you go...

If you're the "published" and "peer-reviewed" type...

JaneW | 19 April 2013

Brian:"NASA is selling the meme." NASA? Why? NAS, too. Why? NOAA, too. Why? Conspiracy?

Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to ruin us and rob us blind?

37% of Americans think that global warming is a hoax
28% of people believe in a sinister global New World Order conspiracy, aimed at ruling the whole world through authoritarian government.
21% say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM
28% believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks
51% say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination

Please note, all. Brian pushes out a statement. You refute it. He does not come back and argue that point, he jumps to some other point. Just keeps running.

nwdiver93 | 19 April 2013

Yep... Duane Gish may be dead but his debate tactics will live on forever in people like Brian. Sadly the "Gish Gallop" is here to stay :(

alcassfast | 19 April 2013


Yes, but what does NASCAR say?

Brian H | 19 April 2013

Not conspiracy, just politics. Keeping the Narrative going is becoming increasingly difficult, however. Nature keeps giving the raspberry to the model outputs and projections.

Sudre_ | 20 April 2013

By Brian's thought process Tesla stock is pointless to long term invest in because it is not going up. The trends we have seen lately are just the bulls making it appear to be going up. The stock is actually going down. Look it's simple....

Friday the stock opened at $47.98. It continued to drop in the morning until around 10am. At a little after 3pm it was below 47.98.... see it's going down not up.
Nothing in that statement is wrong... I just left out all the high points of the day and the closing price. We don't know the closing temp of global warming yet but even Brian's pretty graph shows temps are higher now than they were in 2000 yet he concludes over the long term temperatures are dropping.
Depending on when you cherry pick your samples that is. Time for Brian to short some Tesla stock.

In the early months of 2012 if I recall correctly there was a point the shares were above $39. In July of 2012 shares were only a little above $35 at a few points. In March of 2013 it was below $35 a few times. Clearly the stock is going down. If you put that data against a graph of what the bulls wanted to see it is clear the stock price is dropping. There is no effect on the stock from people buying shares in the long run it will go down sooner or later.

Brian H | 20 April 2013

Nature isn't playing stock market gains to accrue supporters and Believers. No need for those human games.

If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off. Bad move. The turkeys are coming home to roost.

Brian H | 20 April 2013

typo: "... stock market games to ..."

nwdiver93 | 20 April 2013

"If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off"

.... What? Where the hell do you get this crap? Again... Fox News is not a scientific journal.

"In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale" -Journal Nature

The IPCC 4th assessment is predicting a 1.1C to 6.4C rise this century due to anthropocentric effects. Their first assessment predictions are trending towards the low end of their prediction in terms of temperature but still within the error bars. They dramatically UNDERESTIMATED other effects such as sea level rise and loss of arctic ice.