Forums

Case Closed on Man made Global Warming

Case Closed on Man made Global Warming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-warming-case-closed/2016/...

Different types of CO2( carbon isotopes)prove that man is responsible for the greenhouse gas causing Climate Change.

stevenmaifert | 2016年4月27日

Yep, just like CO2 emissions from the thrusters on visiting alien spaceships caused the global warming that ended the last ice age. There's a reason that article is on the WAPO opinion page.

Mike83 | 2016年4月27日

I see the excuses again. Now they have to learn about C14 and other isotopes.

slasher0016 | 2016年4月27日

General forum is that way --> This has nothing to do with model 3. There are plenty of discussions on AGW on the appropriate forum.

Mike83 | 2016年4月27日

I believe it is very important. This is in response to the other thread posted on the M3 on this subject which I have on order. You need not read it. Should there be any doubt that burning fuel doesn't cause Climate Change this should convince buyers that they are doing the smart thing.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月27日

@Mike. +1. This is a very important issue and at the heart of Tesla. The Model 3 brings in many new owners. Many buy for other reasons. However this is a useful opportunity to educate those joining the Tesla club. Feel free to censor this info on Foxnews but this is a significant part of Elon's mission so it belongs all over the forum

Mike83 | 2016年4月27日

Thank you.

As I have used Carbon isotopes in the lab and understand their beta emissions and half life; the results are conclusive that the carbon from burning fossil fuels is that same carbon in the Greenhouse layer. If the cancer is caused by smoking it would be delusional to say eating carrots causes cancer. Bugs Bunny would be pissed. ;-)

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月27日

If carrots cause cancer I would happily annoy Bugs Bunny and make him inhale exhaust emissions, LOL

Mike83 | 2016年4月27日

That wosey wabbit.LOL

bb0tin | 2016年4月27日

@Mike83
The isotope analysis showing that fossil fuels are the source of the extra CO2 was done decades ago. It was case closed way back then, but deniers will deny whatever the evidence to the contrary.

MarlonBrown | 2016年4月28日

Pretty intuitive to understand that pumping smoke into living organisms could destroy it faster. Now what It needs to be more intellingent and scientific is how we promote freedom and true capitalism to make companies like Tesla flourish. No rethorical and hypocritical talk of some global warming alarmist who may end up making the situation much worse with failed wishful thinking.

Mike83 | 2016年4月28日

Wow. This is conclusive and to deny this evidence is beyond ridiculous. They hid this data pretty well. The prosecution has overwhelming data against the fossil fuel companies. Politics is the only reason they are getting away with this for so long.

Tesla-David | 2016年4月28日

@Mike83, thanks for posting and it is highly relevant to this and all other Tesla forums. The skeptics/deniers continual attempts to deny the facts/science is really sad. Elon Musk has always been upfront on why he is pushing for the adoption of Electric Vehicle transport to displace the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles. I share his vision and passion on the necessity to address the AGW existential threat to Planet Earth..

carlk | 2016年4月28日

Proved once again science is always right, or at least closest to the truth.

bb0tin | 2016年4月28日

@Mike83
You said "They hid this data pretty well."
It was not hidden. It was in the public domain at least since 1984. I was aware of it over a decade ago myself.

Mike83 | 2016年4月28日

Unfortunately the news didn't mention anything about it. Scientists tend to be quiet since they are very busy working. But recently more have been speaking out against the flak of the fossil fuel lobbyists and Lamar Smith.
I also didn't know about it.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月28日

@Marlon. Tesla flourishes because of it's commitment to slowing climate change. So the facts do need to be addressed clearly. Yes that it has created a cool car brings on many other buyers. Certainly most of us are happy when people do the correct thing even for the wrong reason and I would be the last to condemn climate change deniers for buying Teslas. However Tesla's mission needs to broadcast up front. Remember one method to bring the car to the general public is through tax rebates and savings on gasoline. The tax rebates only exist because of the governments commitment to addressing climate change.

topher | 2016年4月28日

This has always been the most obvious piece of the chain of logic.
1) We burn carbon based fuels, which can really only produce CO and CO2, and release the output into the air.
2) The CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

What do you have to believe for 2 to not be caused by 1? That all the CO2 we produce is somehow magically disappearing, while at the same time, there is some natural source of CO2 that is pumping exactly the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere completely unnoticed? That's just silly.

Thank you kindly.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月28日

@topher. It sounds so simple to most of us. Yet we have non believers and deniers among us.

Badbot | 2016年4月28日

If you need to hide science facts you can just sweep them under the flat earth!

Nexxus | 2016年4月29日

And speaking of the earth, let's put this context in a 3D spatial frame. The earth's avg. radius is 3959 miles and about 100 miles of atmosphere would give us a radius of 4009 miles. The volume of a sphere is 4pi x r^3/3 = 269,896,205.032.5mi^3 for earth with the atmosphere and V = 259,923,241,563.7mi^3, so the volume of earth's atmosphere is V1 - V2 = 9,972,963,468.8mi^3. Divide this by roughly 7 Billion people and you get 1.42471mi^3 per person on the planet. Not quite 1 1/2 cubic miles per person. How much will you breath in in a lifetime? Maybe 1/3 of this, maybe not. It depends on overall exertion vs. resting, but still, if we fill it all up with pollution and CO2, there will be less oxygen and breathable air for all of us.

Still think humans haven't had an effect on earth's atmosphere over the last 150 years or so?

Think this planet is going to support 9B or 10B people by 2052, when it can't support the 7B we have now?

The volume/person is decreasing all the time. Not to mention the water and food resources. Good luck to the next generations down the line!

SamO | 2016年4月29日

SolarCity = Sustainable energy production

Tesla Motors = Sustainable transportation

Tesla Energy = Sustainable energy storage

Hi_Tech | 2016年4月29日

If it's "case closed", then please don't keep bothering everyone creating new threads on the same topic.
Please feel free to share your opinions on the many other threads that have already been created.

Mike83 | 2016年4月29日

Thus, no matter how the fossil fuel interests attempt to spin it we have irrefutable evidence that the Carbon source causing Climate Change comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The Carbon isotope footprint proves this. It isn't volcanoes, sunspots or other excuses that cause this. Taking responsibility for the Damages is up to them.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月29日

@Hi-Tech. It is indeed case closed. Unfortunately there are many among us who don't understand it yet including some who want to shut down any discussion on it. So when people stop denying it then we will stop discsussing it.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月29日

@Hi-tech. While the case is closed the full solutions have not been imposed.

bb0tin | 2016年4月29日

You said "then please don't keep bothering everyone creating new threads on the same topic."
As I said to another poster, you are not our master.
I also note that you have not put forward a proposal for a bet. It seems you really aren't prepared to stand behind your words.

Octagondd | 2016年4月29日

Evangelism and judgement of individuals or groups is off putting and counter productive, no matter the ideology.

Maybe that is not the intent.

I don't know all the facts and am on board with Tesla's philosophy as well as the concepts of climate change. I just don't think these posts are helpful to the community. It is almost as if someone wants to drive a wedge between the various political factions that make up the Tesla culture.

mantin | 2016年4月29日

The real question: is there global warming - as compared to "climate change". The change in semantics was because for the last 17 years there has been no climate change. And, to examine the temps reported by the US, he temps have been artificially changed to reflect the results desired. Just look at the temp charts through 1990 issued then and the newly revised charts for the same periods that are published now. The difference is not because the temps changed, only the charts. But, supporters of "climate change" need factual support, even if not factually accurate. Too bad. Science used to be believed, like in the 1930's when we were entering a new ice age.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月29日

@mantin. Yes there is global warming. Read through the threads and the data is there. The recent conference was about ways to limit the temp rise. Climate change is a consequence.
Breaking news. Science didn't stop in the 1930s. Sequenced the human genome in the last few decades. Just discovered gravity waves. Space travel has happened. Need I go on.
Any new religious breakthroughs lately??? Or wherever you get your "factual" info from.

@Octagondd. Breaking news. Musk, Tesla, Solar City is all about the philosophy of climate change. Glad you are onboard. It's not us that are driving the wedge. It would be the climate change deniers that are driving the wedge.

Octagondd | 2016年4月29日

I don't see how useful this is to this community. It is either preaching to the choir, or intentional trolling or both. There appears to be no intent from anyone to discuss any of the issues and I hear the general forum has many posts on the topic already. Each side is slinging mud and sadly more of the mud seems to me to be coming from the "believers." Why call someone a denier? What position does that put them in other than defensive? How does a left hook open the communication in a discussion? Why use sarcasm or sarcastic rhetorical questions in response? What is the intent of these posts and the comments in them?

Admittedly, I have only been here since signing up for M≡, but I have not seen a Post started by the opposition calling out the "believers." I have only seen "believers" starting posts. Of course, the bait is on the hook and the opposition comes out to defend. So, what is the point?

Drdpharris | 2016年4月29日

@Octagondd -- The point being made is that the time for discussion is over ... the science is in. It is no longer a matter of 'opinion'. AGW is happening. The only discussion is how to best to mitigate a worsening situation, and our energies should be focused on that and not reiterating old arguments.

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月29日

@octagondd. Much as this annoys you, Tesla and the environment go together. This is a non-moderated forum and many of us have been around for a lot longer than you. Tesla's impact on the environment was the prime reason I bought my Model S. Vin 77xx, April 2013, 87000 miles. We welcome everyone aboard but that does not stop us from being cheerleaders for our cause. This posting is totally appropriate. It's case closed. If any newbie owners or Tesla forum voyeurs have different opinions feel free to post. Remember no moderation so go ahead. However if you want to have an intelligent discussion it would be nice to provide corroborating science. So far have seen none. We have had multiple objections to climate change deniers being called climate change deniers and now we are being criticized for even discussing climate change but no decent science to refute it. I therefore conclude case closed.

So welcome to club Tesla. Hope you really get to enjoy a cool car and maybe even make your contribution to the environment.

bb0tin | 2016年4月29日

Octagondd
I suggest you read some of the threads from beginning to end including this one https://forums.teslamotors.com/node/55374
The science has been presented, ad nauseam, for years. We are now experiencing ever increasing suffering and death due to Climate Change, and it is going to get a lot worse. Given the enormous change that is required to happen, and the rapidity that is required, it is not productive to carry on for more decades in the same vein. Climate Change deniers are exactly that, and are trying to actively perpetuate that mass suffering and death. Their delicate feelings for themselves are outweighed by the lives of those millions who are suffering, and billions who will suffer.

Mike83 | 2016年4月30日

Americans are already being affected by Climate Change. Here is a great article on it and some ways to help combat the warming. Cap and Trade is also suggested.

http://patch.com/california/malibu/report-climate-change-already-affecti...

topher | 2016年4月30日

@SCCRENDO
My point was that there are a lot of places in the chain of logic that deniers can attack AGCC, and that people putting CO2 into the air is one of the hardest to deny.

@octagodd
"Why call someone a denier?"
A denier is characterized not by which side they are one, by the lack of attempting to create a consistent worldview. If I explain something to a someone and the agree I have made a point, or can't refute it, and they say, 'but what about...' they are a denier.

Examples can be seen above if you need more clarification.

Thank you kindly.

warren_tran | 2016年4月30日

There is greater benefit in reducing energy used by industrial and commercial building then reducing co2 from normal car emissions.

http://www.enenergy.net/_blog/enenergy/post/volumes/

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月30日

@warrentt. From the DOT website. Need to address industry and transportation. Also electricity can be cleaned up.
http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html

SCCRENDO | 2016年4月30日

Btw. I would say that the source you quoted has a vested interest and their own agenda
http://www.enenergy.net/about-us/enenergy.html

bb0tin | 2016年4月30日

@warrentt
Transport emits twice as much GHG as buildings in the US, for instance. It varies quite a lot per country though. Transport is not just 'normal cars'. It includes trucks, buses, ships, planes etc. Buildings emit GHG in their construction as well as day to day running. However, it is correct that reducing building energy use is one the quickest, easiest and cost effective methods to reduce GHG emissions. Since we need to get to zero or negative emissions, every source needs to be tackled. It is not an either/or situation.

Mike83 | 2016年5月1日

Solar photovoltaic panels localized on home rooftop and minigrids provide a strong reduction of greenhouse gases and DISTRIBUTION COSTS.
Electricity generation using coal and gas produces a large carbon footprint.
More Solar panels and wind could provide all the energy needed along with Battery Storage like the PowerWall and Powerpacks.

Remnant | 2016年5月1日

@ Octagondd (April 29, 2016)

<< So, what is the point? >>

Indeed, this is a Tesla BEV forum. Est modus in rebus. The believers' crazy tack is over the edge and, if it were true that it's rooted in "science", it would be unnecessary. Science and reason would naturally impose themselves onto the course of any civilized debate.

Instead, the quasi-psychotic fervor of the "climate change" zealots in these forums suggests weakness rather than the strength of a sentient stance they brazenly overstate.

Mike83 | 2016年5月1日
mantin | 2016年5月1日

If you guys were really serious about "climate change", then you would support reducing the cow population by 5%, which would produce a reduction equal to all CO2 production by humans. Cows produce 55% of co2 production per year. Amazing that such a simple solution saves 3 trillion a year forecast to reduce auto emissions etc for biofuels. Just amazing. And of course, reducing red meat production and thus human consumption would reduce heart disease significantly also saving numerous lives. Or maybe, as H. L Mencken said: "Every complex problem has a very simple solution, which is invariably wrong!"

KevinR.co.us | 2016年5月1日

Wait...we need to hear from the true intellectuals on this....

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/sarah-palin-anti-climate-change-movie-...

warren_tran | 2016年5月1日

You guys Understand that the process to make solar panels is not that environment friendly?

In long term, yes it does provide some benefit but there are some other alternative such as wind/tidal source.

There are project currently in the work to make nuclear reactor much smaller and safer (Oregon state university) and that could be an option to solve our energy crisis.

bb0tin | 2016年5月1日

@mantin
Your cow numbers are nothing like the real numbers. You think that the world's scientifc and politcal people are unaware of cows? Do some research. But yes, we do need to reduce our red meat consumption, as has been mentioned many times on this forum.

bb0tin | 2016年5月1日

@warrentt
You said "You guys Understand that the process to make solar panels is not that environment friendly?"
What a fatuous comment. Do you know that the manufacture of medicine, ICE cars, coal/gas plants, toilet paper rubber duckies and virtually every single product made by man is not environmentally friendly?
As for solar panels, they prevent far more emissions in their lifetime than they emit in their production. But don't let that simple truth stop you posting your ignorant garbage. Just what do you hope to achieve by making such posts? Letting the world know how stupid you are I guess.

warren_tran | 2016年5月1日

@bb0tin so I guess you act like a child calling me stupid. What part of my statement is ignorant garbage?
I guess stating fact is not allow around here. You should do research on how solar panels are made before start calling me name.

warren_tran | 2016年5月1日
bb0tin | 2016年5月1日

@warrentt
Yes, you are stupid.That is an evidence based conclusion based on a) the content of your post b) why you would post such a post
Did you read the link that you posted?

The article you provided says Solar manufacture can be chemically safe as long as manufacturers install the right equipment. This situation applies to any industry. Pick some industry at random and I will be able to come up with a list of design issues, accidents and neglect causing chemical poisoning. Responsible PV manufacture is clean.

The energy expended in manufacture is recovered in about a year of power generation, and much less depending on the type of PV used.

The CO2 emitted in manufacture is 1/10 - 1/20th that emitted by the average grid to produce the same energy. So PV is an order of magnitude less in emissions that the average power generation it replaces.

So, what fact(s) have you stated which doesn't equally apply to just about any industry? Really, I am interested.

Finally, what is the purpose of your post? To say that we should not use solar PV? Cannot be that, because that is ludicrous, both for economics, energy security, pollution and Climate Change. It must be to demonstrate your stupidity. Before you get more offended, the solution is not for me to to stop calling you stupid. The solution is for you not to make such stupid posts in the first place. What useful information did you think you were adding to the thread? I see zero. I only see your ignorant stupid opinion.

Pages