Great article with great visual aids.
@Azdcmoney i'm a night owl :)
You have not understood climate change. Rising average temperature does not mean that temperature is higher every day and everywhere. When complex system is rapidly pushed, it will oscillate back and forth, until new balance is found. New balance is likely very different than old one. Average temp will be higher, but distribution of heat and rain might be very different from current.
Oceans have enormous heat capacity. That slows down climate change. It also means that CO2 releases during last decades do not yet have full effect. Even if we completely stop CO2 releases now, warming will continue decades.
For climate 50 years is very short time.
Part of sea level rise is caused by warming of water. That will stop when warming stops. Glaciers continue to melt until climate has cooled close to normal temp. So sea will keep rising much longer.
Only one example: Bangladesh, population 150 M, with 70% of the total area only about 1 meter above sea level. Where could they go? So in future: "100 000 000 poor Muslim textile workers and farmers seeking new home. Who will/must take them?"
If you had done your research you would know that Climate Change includes snowfall where it normally doesn't fall due to the change in weather systems. The shifting and weakening jet streams is causing weather systems to get into a 'locked in' state. The unusual snow supports Climate Change, rather than refutes it. Climate Change science is complicated and interwoven. It cannot be discussed, with anymerit, without doing a lot of research first.
Since we can't perform a double-blind experiment with the earth, the only test of climate change theory is its ability to make accurate predictions. It's failed miserably at this, and what's worse, its priests are never held accountable for their failed prognoses. The IPCC predicted snowless winters in England by 2010; in 2008, Al Gore claimed the North Pole would be ice-free in five years. There are innumerable other examples.
At the very least, existing climate change models are wrong. Maybe we shouldn't base policy on the predictions models that we know are wrong.
OK, far afield from the original topic, so I'll shut up now.
You have not understood climate change.
Actually no. I've been reading up on the subject for some years now. As noted in my previous reply, at the very least the existing climate change models are wrong, since they have a crappy record of making accurate predictions. My conclusion is that "climate change" is whatever its adherents want it to me, and that definition changes frequently.
Remember in the 1970s when climate scientists were assuring us that we were entering a new, mini-ice age? There was serious talk about spreading carbon black on glaciers to promote warming.
Nissan is selling much more cars than Tesla. Without Tesla people would still repeat: "Electric cars have no future outside cities, because range is small. It is not possible to make practical long range EV." So Tesla is EV leader!
Tesla is growing very rapidly. In my opinion, growth is more likely too fast than too slow. Making 20 000 - 40 000 mid priced cars per year is not much. 40 000 premium cars/year is so large market share, that every car manufacturer must take an action. They cannot ignore EV any more.
Tesla is not yet large enough to make an affordable vehicle. Simply impossible.
Perhaps big oil is twisting things to their advantage. Perhaps they have somehow subverted the press. They certainly have done things in the past worthy of condemnation. As have most all large corporations ay one time or another. As have most all large organizations of most any kind. They share the one thing that makes this possible, they are made up of people.
The same is true of the Dealer Associations.
I may have a belief they are acting purely is their self interests with a complete lack of concern for the greater good. The article may or may not align with our beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that it did not credibly defend it's position.
You don't have to agree or disagree with the article's general theme or position to see the deficiencies.
Nature was taking us towards next ice age. It would have come in few thousand years. Perhaps we have canceled it now. Mini-ice age is a possibility. We should have sunspot max now or at least very soon. Sun is still fairly passive. So mini-ice age could start soon. We cannot predict sun so we know more after a year. Mini-ice now would be good in short term. It would cancel global warming we are causing. I'm afraid we would continue to add CO2 to atmosphere, so when mini-ice age ends, we would be in a big trouble.
Man made global warming is a scientific theory. Theories are tested by an experiment. We are making that experiment now. Unfortunately we have only one climate to test it. It would be much better to test it in mars first.
Tsernobyl reactor was considered so safe that it did not need pressure proof building around it. It had an interesting design feature: When shutting down, its power output first increased. Similarly designed car would first accelerate when driver press brake, then slowly stop. Reactor had safety system to prevent this feature causing an accident. Then somebody wanted to make an experiment. He started by switching that safety system off. Was that an acceptable experiment?
Most scientists agree that increasing CO2 will lead to worse disaster for nature (extinct species) and for us (deaths by storms, floods,...) than Tsernobyl. Still many want to continue this experiment.
Interesting to note that without "Big Oil" Mrs. Davidson would be unemployed as her sport/profession would not exist. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
That is an excellent article!
The problem we have today with climate change deniers is that those same people feel that science is opinion even though we live in a scientific society and scientific age. In the 70s and 80s, scientists recognized and publicized information about ozone depletion. It was affectionately called the "hole in the ozone layer". As a society, we felt the issue was compelling enough to ban the products that were a primary cause in ozone depletion - CFCs. We were intelligent back then.
The difference between then and today is that every low information person out there thinks they know more about this issue than actual scientists. We have consistently dumbed down science and brought up an uneducated population in the last 20 to 30 years. When I was in high school, I was required to take Physics and Calculus. Today, kids barely understand basic algebra at that level. They think physics is something you do at the gym.
We should all be coming together behind the recognized climate change data, however "politics of the dumb" and the efforts of subversive, shady, conservative political organizations such as ALEC endeavor to turn back the clock of progress... and to what end? Funneling more money into the hands of the few? That is surely an admirable and lofty goal that will propel our society forward, don't you think?
If anyone wants to watch a chilling prediction 15 years ago from someone I hope we can agree is one of the finest, most respected and recognized scientists of our time - Dr. Carl Sagan - have a look:
Everyone who values science and who believes in a scientific world should find Dr. Sagan's words chilling in today's day and age.
I like the picture of Leilani and her car. AND you can do this with the car on and not pass out from carbon monoxide.
Since you made a slurring and slanderous indirect reference to me, I'll return the favour. Evidently you think by shuffling stereotypes around, so I'll make a guarantee and wager that I know more about science in general, and any and every particular science from biology to astrophysics to paleobiology, than you do.
DRamsey has it pretty much right on.
bb0Tin and jkf have it pretty much right off.
Allegations about "dirty fracking" have been disproven by every EPA or court investigation, but are lodged like stones in the minds of the ignorant.
You said "Since we can't perform a double-blind experiment with the earth, the only test of climate change theory is its ability to make accurate predictions."
I am going to do a double-blind test on you. I will bindfold you and place you in a room. I will also blind-fold myself and place myself in the same room...with a gun. I will then start shooting in your general direction. If you are sensible and ask me to stop, I will protest. I will dismiss your concerns about the bullets that you hear being fired and heading your way. I will dismiss all evidence and reasoning that you use with the statement "until you can tell when and where each bullet will hit, I don't belive that you are in danger".
As stupid as the above should appear, it is the same reasoning that you are using. Climate Change is real or not real. It is not decided by theory. It is explained by theory. It is decided by evidence and there is copious evidence from many thousands of studies, from scientists all over the world, accumulated over decades, covering many different physical affects. There are simple statistics such as the record high temperatures in the USA are now double the record lows, where they used to be equal. That the cost of climate disasters are now 3X what they were a few decades ago, but the non-Climate related disasters are not. I could list as least 10 different lines of evidence on different physical systems. If you interested in these statistics and physical evidence then vlikerize buffoon and read the thread..
But back to the topic. You stating an opinion as fact has no merit unless you follow it up with evidence.
The evidence just keeps on coming. This is from this morning describing the record warmest November we just had:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/15/3065961/faux-pause-warmest-n...
Note that the link includes a link to the data.
The answer was hidden right in plain sight and It’s so obvious in such a way that could not figure out.meaning of your license plate!
Thanks Leilani for explaining your license plate puzzle. Very interesting indeed!!!
"Warmest XX on record" is pure statistical stupidity. There is about a .7°C/Century longterm trend since the 1800s, the Little Ice Age, coldest period since the Big Ice Age in 10,000BC. The latest year or decade is at the highest point, still lower than the 10K-yr average. Duh! Flattening at the peak leaves you still at the same level.
The original study (Cowtan and Way, 2013) making the revision claim has been widely and thoroughly debunked. And Romm and Ramstorf have records of serial alarmist error which are almost unmatched.
And this year was even lower.
Brian, are you scientist? There are an overwhelming majority of people who are trained in this profession who assert to the contrary of what you say. You know more than me? Sure, that might indeed be. But the conclusions you seem to draw from what you do know seem to be rather insipid, especially when considering scientist's opinions.
Prepare for ice age? Tell you what, in a billion years, the earth's crust will be metalized by a red giant sun. Start digging a hole now, Brian! Don't need to worry about the present, no?
I didn't read the article from the NRDC as they are too extreme and selfish to be trusted. Even though I don't disagree that methane may trap more c02, the net effect is still lower GHG emissions. I have no problem with regulating fracking including provisions to limit methane emissions even though it's possible that it's being overstated:
Fracking May Emit Less Methane Than Previous Estimateshttp://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-fracking-emits-less-methane-tha...
I'll reiterate my main point: fracking has greatly benefited our economy (we'd go into an a recession instantly if it was halted nationally) while at the same time helping the environment, making the U.S. stronger by lessening dependence on unfriendly countries and it will enable us to help our friends at the expense of our enemies. Rooftop solar in particular costs taxpayers money and only benefits the few who use enough power to make it cost effective. Those on the bottom end of the economy pay for it but get no benefit. Extremists like the NRDC only care about their agenda even if it hurts 90% of the population. The good news is that in a few years most people will have viable EV choices, wind and solar (at least utility scale) will be at grid parity and the smart grid will be well on it's way to being implemented and not just a dream. Don't hurt so many people until then by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Volkerize buffoon. BrianH does not engage in factual discussion but cherrypicked data or rhetoric. But for the record, it is currently accepted that the number of tornadoes is not well predicted by the models, so no argument there. Pity that the temperature, ice melt, deluges, droughts, ocean acidity etc are all going the wrong way.
"There are an overwhelming majority of people who are trained in this profession who assert to the contrary of what you say."
What percentage of these people have some vested interest in supporting the GHG/climate change viewpoint? Do they receive funding or grants for research to study the effects of climate change? I'd note that one leading advocate, Al Gore, has done very well for himself.
FWIW I think the GHG issue in the U.S. will become a non-issue as EVs in general and Tesla in particular continue to improve and succeed in the marketplace and as wind, solar, nuclear and the smart grid improve, with dramatic changes over the next 3 years. You should be concerned nearly exclusively with China and India if you are a GHG/climate change believer.
Brian may be partially right. I am not an expert in global warming but read a lot with an open mind. Apparently global warming does not increase the number of tornadoes and hurricanes but it does increase the severity. Not much of a source for comfort.
@redshift Only 97% of scientists believe in global warming. The other 3% are most likely on someone's payroll.
Brian if you wish us to take you seriously perhaps you should at the very least state your scientific credentials. I get the same impression as bi0tin that you make up things as you'll along. I see that in many opinions you express. While you may be very knowledgable in many fields and appear to be a strong supporter of Tesla you seem to have some very strong opinions on a car you don't even own.
I really don't care who is 100% right. No one can be 100% right. All I know is we have only one chance we better not blow it. It takes billions of years of evolution for us to get here. There were millions of species that did not make it. Don't forget the process is still going on.
@ Brian H,
I don't believe you are in a position to dispute the findings of those much more qualified than you. This is exactly what I mean by people thinking science is opinion. It's absolutely not opinion when you look at it objectively, but opinion gets in the way when you view climate change as nothing more than a political talking point.
Forget about climate change altogether. You know that brown ring around your city? That's called smog. Again, forget about global climate change for a moment. That brown ring of smog, primarily caused by coal fires and transportation emissions, is not healthy. It contains carcinogens that have been shown to cause cancer, acid rain, etc. We can all agree that this smog is not healthy for anyone, right? Air is supposed to be clear, not brown.
Cleaning up the grid, moving to sustainable transport and sustainable energy overall will help remove this brown ring around your city. Moving in that direction makes our air healthier to breathe. We all want that, right? So this discussion really has nothing to do with whether or not your politics allow you to "believe" in a global climate change. If you agree that cleaning up the air is a good thing, then you are automatically in support of green and sustainable energy as well as transportation. If global warming is real - and it is - the planet's climate will benefit as well.
So why not focus on an area where we all can agree? Cleaning up the air by cleaning up our vehicle emissions is a good thing for everyone, especially our children.
If BrianH can't agree with that, I'd be flabbergasted.
Apologies for piling on Brain H, but perhaps he should just give this topic a bit of a rest for a while. After all, in 200 years we will all know who was right, at the time when it really mattered to change the course of history ... oh, wait.
For the record, I am on the side of caution in the case of global warming by human agency. Once we tip over the iceberg, well ... there won't be much of a come-back for LOOOOOOOONG TIME. Like, eons. Like, the remainder of human history. Like, let's all hope someone has an escape route to Mars. Or SOMETHING. Any ideas?
/Soap box mode off
"hope someone has an escape route to Mars"
Elon is working on it! He want's to die there, just not on impact.
WE all knew that. Just forgot to add the proper smiley :-)
And as Elon always says, rocketry is, ironically, the only exceptional use for fossil fuel vs electric.
Ok, I accept your point about regulating to reduce methane emissions from fracking, but for me the potential to contaminate groundwater resources will never sway me to support fracking. We can live without oil but we can't survive without freshwater, and that is a resource in jeopardy from this activity that needs more attention and action.
Regarding the broader issue of climate change I stand with the science and observations documenting the gradual warming of our planet including melting glaciers, diminishing ice packs in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, ocean acidification, increasing fires, massive storm events (Sandy, Haiyan, etc.) droughts, etc. This recent article by Dr. James Hansen documents the facts and problem much better than I ever could (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648).
Bb0tin, how do you like your car? How long have you been driving? If you do not mind I would love to know what you do for a living. Your opinions appear to be Western European, is this right. Thanks
I love my Tesla S...it's just that it is only on paper at the moment as I am in New Zealand and we will not get delivery until 2014. I have been following Tesla from the beginning and never thought I would have the opportunity to actually get one myself. I have been driving for 40 years; in the early days sometimes irresponsibly due to lack of thought about the possible consequences for others (hence my comment in another thread about snow tires). I earn a crust as a computer programmer and try to apply the same fact based reasoning I use for my work to other problems as well.
bb0tin, thank you... You have the best wines on the planet, in my opinion. Pinot Nior and Sauvignon Blanc are my favorites.. I thought you were from a wonderful place .
New Zealand is a pretty cool place to live, but unfortunately we have to fight harder and harder to keep it like that. Our small population had let us get away with practices that have now caught up with us eg: 60% of our waterways are now considered unsafe for swimming. We also currently have a right wing government who cares little for the environment :-(
Mel & bb0tin - get a room!
bb0tin, sorry to say we are killing our estuaries and rivers here in Florida. The federal government , big sugar along with people the do not want to upgrade there septic tanks all share the blame.
The people trying to clean things are both right and left wing.
"What percentage of these people have some vested interest in supporting the GHG/climate change viewpoint?"
There might indeed be as there might be a few people on both sides with vested interests. Both sides. But, for the majority % quoted in the article to be all having vested interest is quite incredulous and goes against common sense.
Science is not political. However, in this country, its become so twisted now, that science is confused with politics, conspiracy theories, even religion.
In my worst german accent 'I am vorking on getting a vroom' ;-)
"You should be concerned nearly exclusively with China and India if you are a GHG/climate change believer"
Sure, I am worried. We can only show them the way, really. Beyond that, there is zilch we can do.
As someone once said,"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."
How about we leave the eff'n oil in the ground.
Even if there was no link between our use of oil and climate change, we'd be better off using renewable sources of energy.
Beyond climate change there are geopolitical considerations. We're giving money to regimes who don't like us. We spend billions maintaining a military presence in unfriendly places to ensure the flow of oil.
There are health issues associated with car and diesel exhaust like lung cancer which kill thousands of Americans every year. With fewer people smoking, air pollution has been named as the leading cause of lung cancer by the World Health Organization.
This thread long ago left the subject of the original post on my Huffington Post article, but I just wanted to say "kia ora" to the kiwis on the board. I am married to a New Zealander from north of Auckland. JAFA ;)
Not as far off topic as we sometimes get. Let me add my voice to complement you on a great article. Most on this forum are already believers in Tesla. But this is also an opportunity to sway some who frequent this forum who are on the fence and are looking for answers. I for one would probably never had seen your article if it wasn't linked to this forum. That we digress is also ok. While one would think most Tesla owners would also be environmentalist not all are. Part of the reason we all got on Brian H. He is supposedly a strong Tesla enthusiast, yet seems to deny global warming. So I for one am not upset at the digression.
@Leilani...I hope to see your MS on the road when I go back to my alma mater (Davidson College) for a reunion soon. I'm assuming there aren't that many on the road in NC yet...
@jchangyy i have yet to see another MS in the wild here! i know there are some here, i just haven't seen one yet!
@SCCRENDO You are right. It still a good thing long as they contribute to the environmental cause whether knowingly or unknowingly. That's just what Elon said what he wanted to do. He's selling the car to car lovers not just to people with environmental concerns. Mission accomplished.
Brian: How do you explain this?
On 19 September 1991, over 5000 year old body, named Ötzi, was found from mountain ridge between Italy and Austria. Body was in so good condition that it must have been under ice over 5000 years. It was found 1991, because ice melted. So it is now warmest in last 5000 years.
We kiwis do get around don't we. I believe there is another kiwi who has posted on this forum, but I am expecting the S to be as lonely as yours when it arrives.
@Leilani. To get back to the original topic, kudos for the excellent article and for the license plates. I was wondering if you have ever been pulled over by the police regarding our tags? Also, wanted to say how impressed I was with your TeslaLive talk. Great to have someone out there in your profession spreading the word on living sustainably.
I spent 10 days in your beautiful country in 1990, and found all the kiwis we met to be very warm and welcoming. I hope to come back there again someday for a longer visit.
The article is nicely written. Thank you Leilani.
There is evidence. Texaco-Chevron bought the IP for NimH batteries for automative grade from GM and stopped Panasonic from producing them when they were making the original Rav4EV and any OEM from building an EV, which used to be the most advanced batteries available. Thank goodness for Li-on. Oil and OEMs have a vested interest to go against EVs.
Dramsey hasn't passed the, "we aren't the center of the solar system yet" or "the earth isn't round it's square". You don't need to see the earth from outside to know that it isn't in the center as Galileo proved. You connect the dots which is what the article explains. Anybody can say there's no evidence. A 2 year old can say NO. lol. Yet, he doesn't provide evidence that oil and ICE are not in bed together.
I provided one piece of evidence, now please provide evidence that they are not trying to stop the EVs.
HIstory repeats. Apple stores had to go through obstacles before they could sell direct. Compare the critics' comments in 2000 and you'll find very very very very very very similar negative comments as today's Tesla stores.
Nobody can prove to me that smog doesn't affect your health negatively. Global warming or not, exhaust fumes aren't good for the air or people. So ice cars has had their time. Debate GW all you want, you can't tell me pollution doesn't affect us or the environment. EVs are here to stay and we have to overcome the thinking of the past with that of the future.
I agree with her support for Tesla and Electric Vehicles. However, I don't think she is a good spokesperson for Tesla. Does she race EV cars? My understanding is she raced Indy and Nascar, both of which are combustion engines and gas guzzlers. How can she call herself an environmental activist and make money off of wasting fossil fuels for sport and contributing to polluting our environment? Why is Tesla associating itself with her?
PX, you put these same comments under the general discussion, you really do not need to put them everywhere. Once is enough.