Thứ Sáu, 6 tháng 1, 2017

Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change? part 2

  • Aug 6, 2016
    Chopr147
    Certainly seems as if your point did not make it across here :) Too many emotions for some to have an intelligent debate.
    And I am an uninformed, uneducated idiot according to neroden for being an evolution denier. But that's another debate.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    PtG62901
    I suspect we will see a movement to believe that Creationism and Evolution can both be true, and the Bible supports that easily. The Earth was created 6000 years ago, Dinosaurs and humans at the same time people are clearly wrong. Like Flat Earth and Sun Revoling around the Earth, the Church will change eventually.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    deonb
    Try buying another Tesla. Maybe that will help.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    ohmman
    There can be an intelligent debate about evolution. It revolves around tiny portions of the theory, minor methodologies, and some assumptions. None of it revolves around whether or not it's a solid theory. That debate is not an intelligent one. That's not to say that people who have that debate are not intelligent, it just means that their own cognitive biases are so strongly opposed to the concept that they cannot formulate the appropriate argument. They certainly could be brilliant in other fields.

    Or, it's possible you've just run the long game on all of us and that was your closer. If so, a long slow clap to you, my friend.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    djplong
    My opinions on climate change didn't change because of Tesla. They changed for a variety of reasons, but there WAS one fact that pushed me across the line.

    Scientists had long agreed that volcanoes were the primary drivers of long-term climate change (space mountain impacts notwithstanding). When I found out that volcanoes average 5-6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, that sounded like a lot. Then you hear that human activity throws SIX TIMES THAT AMOUNT every year and, yeah, that's convincing.

    This debunks the "man can't affect nature because nature is so vast" argument in one tidy statistic.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    ggr
    It's not six times, it is more like a hundred times. maybe it's six times as much as the volcanos put out a long time in the past though.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    Tony8489
    My sentiments have evolved in the same direction as the OP's.

    The article Understanding the Global Warming Debate, raises a key point I have supported since I began to study the issue several years ago: The warming effect of CO2 is "settled science" but the large positive feedback models are not. Thus the satellite temperature graph in the article:
    [?IMG]

    That same graph longer term, compared to the climate model projections:
    [?IMG]
    When the observations show a rate of temperature rise only half as much as the models, with the later years below the confidence range of the models, that should lead fact-based observers to question the models.

    The past two years have changed the narrative though. Here's the extension of that first graph:
    [?IMG]
    The 2015-16 El Nino spike is higher than the one from 1997-98 and would be inside the range of the projections.

    The more commonly used surface temperature data from NASA can be found here: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
    2015 was a breakout 0.13C above the prior record high temperature year, similar to 1998 being a 0.15C breakout above the then prior record high. The monthly temperatures during the first half of 2016 are all record highs by similar breakout margins as 2015.
    [?IMG]

    As the El Nino dissipates temperatures rate to retreat some. But for now the models don't look like they are overprojecting temperatures by nearly as much as when the article Understanding the Global Warming Debate was written.

    I still think the feedback mechanisms are not well understood and that the point where the temperature change becomes catastrophic is a long way down the road. The technological changes such as those being pioneered by Tesla are desirable for many other reasons mentioned in this thread, as well as being good insurance against the worst case climate scenarios (Elon's 1% experiment quote).
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    335eye
    Climate scientists are really good at filling out grant renewals.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    Odebek
    All scientists are good at grant applications, that is how they fund research. If you are not good at it, you are probably not doing research.
    �
  • Aug 6, 2016
    S'toon
  • Aug 7, 2016
    erthquake
    If you factor in feedback loops (less ice/snow to reflect sunlight, melting permafrost that releases CO2 and CH4), I don't think catastrophe is that far down the road. The longer we wait to do something on a massive scale, the bigger the ship gets and the smaller the rudder with the wind pushing us toward the rocks.

    Also, it looks like the satellites have been underestimating the temperature calculations based on the radiance data they collect:

    How accurate are satellite measured temperatures of the troposphere?
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    335eye
  • Aug 7, 2016
    ohmman
    This is probably true. I don't think the word skeptic is appropriate, though, because it implies scientific thinking. This is one reason many scientific skeptic communities have a strong distaste for the term "climate skeptic". What's a good term, or should there even be one?
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    335eye
    How about CC Entrepreneur? In a democratic society the virtue of fundamental research cannot be reserved to the scientific community because when the federal govt provides funding it has engaged in coercion, it has taken money away from citizens therefore the scientists take on the burden of justifying the good they are doing, and anyone who still believes that in today's world scientists are happy to be proven wrong and made joyfully unemployed by being debunked is kidding themselves. This scam began in the fifties with the atomic program.
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    PtG62901
    Really, are you kidding? It is a global conspiracy to make more money, by people who are smarter then we are, who choose to make less money? That does not make any sense.
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    335eye
    Good for your self esteem to think this way. Plenty bought into the Soviets as a bastion of human rights. All I'm saying is the good research can be done privately, cut the fat, and eliminate the unholy alliance while increasing credibility. Same scam happens in defense with contracts for already obsolete nonfunctional weaponry and fleets. Biology is another welfare for scientists program.

    So I've had my say you be the judge. Thanks for the comments. I'm done. Can't wait for my Model X to arrive next month.
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    Odebek
    Not sure anyone would disagree here... but the output of that research is usually Intellectual Property for the company that funded the research vs disclosure of the results to further understanding.

    I think it is safe to say that good research and bad research can be funded either publicly or privately, so the source of the funding should not be used to judge the quality of research; maybe we should be looking at the actual data and the research protocol, maybe even test it to see if it can be replicated? Oh wait, that is called Science!
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    Zapped
    .. and this is where the Computer Model comes in. Unfortunately when it comes to replicating the result there is not short term experiment that can replicate our climate... the model is a bit of a black box. This may be where the issue is for average person. The climate is changing no doubt, but the idea that humanity is fully and solely responsible and in control of our climate is a difficult concept for many.

    We certainly are responsible pollution (toxic fumes, garbage, etc) , which we can control.
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    PtG62901
    I already put this article in the thread Overvaluing confidence, we�ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas, but you should read it. This Donald Trump thing about accusing me of your problem, is a non-starter. You have confidence, but little knowledge on all of these issues, so you are parroting something you heard somewhere. The problem is you aren't correct.

    If you say there are lots of problems, everything could be done better, hey, I agree. But, that the government should stop funding research? That isn't going to end well for the USA.
    �
  • Aug 7, 2016
    Tony8489
    That's the reason I tried to look at the actual temperature record vs. what the models project. The actuals have diverged below the projected for most of the 21st century, but have risen sharply the past two years. One could argue that's mostly due to El Nino, but the projections will look more credible than they did in 2012-13 unless temperatures retreat considerably after the El Nino is done.
    The problem is putting numbers on the feedback effects. The key issue is that it's difficult to model the most important feedbacks, water vapor (positive) and clouds (negative).
    Since the satellite and surface data sets differ somewhat, that's why I referenced both. But even the surface temperature data is far below projected from 2000-2013, choosing that time period deliberately to avoid El Nino/La Nina start/end points.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    tigerade
    Here is another good video:


    Even though many of us consider ourselves rational thinkers, we do have to realize our brains are a product of evolution (more focused on personal interest and survival). We are steered much more by our emotions and personal biases than we think. It really does take training to be able to look at evidence in a dispassionate and objective manner. I like the analogy of the cowboy and the elephant. We think we are cowboys, but we are much more an elephant. And with that, climate change could be an unsolvable problem.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    EV-lutioin
    Unless you totally disregard all data and science (which would be odd for a Tesla supporter), you have to admit that levels of CO2 and the temperature of the planet are both increasing; I don't think anyone refutes this data. The next piece of the puzzle is to find solid evidence to support the connection between increasing greenhouse gases and global temperature increases. This connection is easily reproducible in the lab and, of course, there is an abundance of evidence that the planet was historically warmer during periods of increased greenhouse gases. Now the last piece of the puzzle (and this is where your Tesla becomes important) it to make the connection between increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and human activity. While there are many factors that can cause greenhouse gases to increase on Earth, there is solid evidence that humans add tremendous amounts of these gases to the atmosphere each day (just look at the tailpipe of your ICE). So if you are able to charge your Tesla with solar or wind energy then you are decreasing your greenhouse gas output and you are leading the way toward a lower greenhouse gas future. I just looked at my July power bill and it was -$60 last month, so I was able to produce more solar power than my Model X and my home uses in month. I know a tremendous amount of energy went into producing my solar panels and my Tesla, but I am confident that the same scientific expertise that created this amazing technology and is informing us about climate change will lead us to a brighter future.... if we listen.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    heysteveh
    I am trying to keep an open mind about climate change. The above statement should be heeded by both sides as they discuss/debate. If you want to convince me of "climate change", don't hit me over the head with "the warming effect of CO2" because that's not what I question. Instead, talk to me about the accuracy of climate models, what role natural sources of warming play, and the relevancy of different climate feedbacks... and do it in layman's terms :)

    For me, the above statement is where the discussion should be focused. Thanks to Tony8489 for his study/graphs that help bring that focus.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    Earlian
  • Aug 8, 2016
    adiggs
    I understand the sense of what you're getting at, and I agree with it. However, you're conflating financial cost with energy production, and the two are not necessarily the same. A big factor is what state you're in, and what program you are participating in.

    I don't have my specific numbers handy, but my example is directionally accurate.

    We're in Oregon and have a 10kw system in PGE's Solar Payment Option program (feed-in tariff). We've got about 12 years left on a 15 year contract that pays us .39/kwh we produce. We buy electricity from PGE at ~0.11 / kwh. Over the course of the year, we'll generate about 12,000 kwh, while consuming about 20-22,000 kwh.

    Financially, we'll generate about $4800 worth of electricity, where we would have been spending about 1/2 of that if we were just buying the power. July is one of our best months, with probably $400 coming back to us in addition to an effectively 0 electric bill (free electricity AND a check in the mail!)

    Energy production wise, we overproduce in some months (but not by much), and underproduce our consumption by a lot in most months. Overall, the system will generate about 50-60% of our total household and Roadster energy consumption for the year (I wanted to get closer to net zero, but the program limit is 80% or 10kw - we couldn't go bigger).

    Over the course of the year, we'll take more money in from the power company than we send out, and our energy production is maybe 60% of our usage. Having a net negative electric bill doesn't necessarily mean you're net zero or similar on the production side, and where that lands is VERY dependent on your state and utility programs that encourage or discourage this.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    adiggs
    I'm in agreement that research needs to continue into the feedback loops, to better understand how this will level out. The question is what one is arguing for in terms of behavior today.

    Some people making this argument (and I don't believe this is you), do so with the intention of freezing action and maintaining the status quo (burn baby burn). Sort of a "do nothing, because we don't know everything today" argument.

    Some people making this argument are genuinely interested in further increasing our understanding of the mechanism and feedback loops at work, while simultaneously agreeing with the fundamental premise that assuming all will be well when we know more is poor risk management strategy (at best) - that we need to take action today to minimize our dependence on further research proving out that we were fine all along. They are taking action to the degree they are able to reduce their own contribution to carbon emissions today, while pursuing further understanding. Because we all know - there's more on the frontier to be discovered, always (thus the first argument is really an invitation to never do anything).


    One problem is that it can be hard to distinguish between these two people. This is one reason why this topic can be nearly impossible to discuss - it's a topic that inspires passion / scares people, and that can get in the way of dialogue.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    EV-lutioin
    Well, I see your point, but while the actual effects of rising global temperatures involve many complex models, one thing is certain, rising global temperatures will cause changes to Earth systems. Some places will be drier, some wetter, some more windy, some less. In some places the ocean will rise in others it will not. I would not get to caught up in the accuracy of any particular model.... they are models after all, but I would consider that any significant change to Earth systems can be catastrophic for the people on the ground. For example, in my valley we grow 80% of the worlds almonds because we happen to be in the narrow sweet spot where it is economically feasible to grow them, but any significant change in temperature or precipitation and... bam! we are out of business.... no more almonds, billions of dollars of investments down the drain. And a couple degrees average annual temperature change is all it takes to make things wacky in the agricultural world. Stability is what keeps markets healthy and keeps people confident in the future... uncertainty is poison to prosperity.
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    Mknac
    I don't understand why more people don't support global warming. Warm weather is great. When the icecaps melt who knows what we'll find there ancient civilizations, alien bases, or minerals! ;-)
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    fallen888
    For me it's the other way around actually - global warming/climate change, etc. is what prompted me to go electric/green and choose Tesla.

    Something about leaving this planet in better shape for my kids. You know.. that nonsense. ;)
    �
  • Aug 8, 2016
    ohmman
    Me too. I have an ex-girlfriend who lives in Greenland and hates the cold. I bought a Tesla to make sure she stays cold*.


    *This is a joke. I don't have an ex from Greenland, nor am I that petty. Just in case you're reading this more literally than I intended...
    �
  • Aug 9, 2016
    N5329K
    Most discussions about climate change (except on a Tesla-focused site) follow a similar trajectory.
    1. Global warming (or weirding) doesn't exist, or remains unproven, or dependent on fallible models of complex stuff we poor little humans could not possibly comprehend.
    2. Then, as data accumulate, "OK, the climate is changing but the climate is always changing and we humans had nothing to do with those changes, and probably not this one, either."
    3. Followed by, "OK, the jury is still out but if we are responsible, maybe there's enough positives (more arable land in the subarctic) to outweigh the negatives (bye bye Miami).
    And when all else fails,
    4. It's just a theory!"
    These are the same sorts of arguments a little kid makes when mom comes home and discovers the cookie jar is empty.
    "It's not empty"
    "Maybe it is empty but I didn't do it!"
    "It'll be easier to stick to your diet now, mom."
    And when all else fails,
    "It's just a theory!"
    On that subject, there's this:

    Robin
    �
  • Aug 11, 2016
    ShockOnT
    It cracks me up when people talk about climate scientists "lining their pockets with grant money".
    Hello?!
    Saudi Sheikh vs Climate Scientist, which do you think has the Bentley?
    Oil Company vs University, which do you think can buy the most TV time?
    �
  • Aug 13, 2016
    335eye
    Nobody is saying they're lining their pockets. Duh. They are keeping their claim on the swag. They're keeping their jobs going when most should be 86'd. So much of CC funding is welfare for scientists. Not to say there aren't the cream of the crop real good ones, those are the exception. This happens across many govt funded agencies, bloating and voting.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2016
    ohmman
    Do you have researcher friends who giggle about this with you? The ones I know are serious about their work and about their funding.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2016
    ShockOnT
    They do say that, I'm quoting directly.
    If you're a scientist looking to make money you go into:
    - biotech
    - pharmaceuticals
    - geology (mining and petro)
    - agro-science
    - material science (eg. batteries, plastics)
    There's plenty of 'swag' for our brightest minds, we are lucky some of them have an interest in climate science or we'd be going into the future without data, without the ability to estimate risk.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2016
    Skotty
    The former Aral Sea is another good example for anyone who questions whether or not man can affect the vastness of nature.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2016
    JohnSnowNW
    [?IMG]

    I can't believe no one has posted this yet. Also, seriously this.
    �
  • Aug 14, 2016
    callmesam
    At the close of the SolarCity (SCTY) Q2 2016 Results - Earnings Call, Elon Musk's final words were:

    I mean there is a lot of focus on this month or that month or this quarter or that quarter, but I think it's worth raising � lifting our gaze a little bit to think longer-term to a year, or two years or several years out and ultimately to where do we � what do we want the world to look like and are we going there as fast as possible. I think really in any rational person would we have reason, science and that it's important for the world to transition to sustainable energy generation and consumption sooner rather than later.

    In fact, even if you just assign a probability, instead of saying it's black and white. What is your probability about going to a sustainable energy that non-CO2 generating energy is good versus bad? Even if you think it's like � if you take the position say, well we think it's 1% likely, but hypothetically that massively increasing the CO2 � massively increasing the CO2 in the ocean's atmosphere is bad.

    Well, okay we're 1%, but you only have one planet. So even if you think it's highly unlikely, that global warming is real and that there's only a small chance, that it's bad. We should still accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. And anyone who thinks that it is a 100% certain that global warming is fake and that's massively changing the chemical composition of the ocean's atmosphere is fine, is a bloody fool, obviously. So that's what this is all about, this is about trying to accelerate, where we know we need to get to anyway. And not unlike small potatoes, put some pieces away, but in a very big macro scale way.

    [?IMG]
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    335eye
    Just throw this out there, it's from a group that doesn't deny CC, they're just studying sun spots and radiation level fluctuations..

    Global Warming Extremists Try To Silence Science � Again

    EXCERPT
    "No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

    With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy."

    Are these deniers run a muck? Could be.. who knows.. maybe not.. whenever you claim your science is settled you muddy it up for everyone, so a reasonable person can't believe anything anymore.
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    ohmman
    I find it interesting that there's no author listed (at least that I could find) on that IBD piece. If it's a collaborative piece, they'll generally say "Editorial Board".

    Regardless, that group that "doesn't deny CC" is actually the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Worth reading up on this group before you state that they're just happy scientists. They're sided completely with the Global Warming Policy Forum, which is a lobbying group, and they themselves are pretty dogmatic.

    That in itself doesn't make their claims false - but it does make your claim false. As far as sunspots, there's a lot of research that has continued to go into it. And I'll throw this out there.

    TvsTSI.png
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    Snerruc
    I don't understand this thread. I assume the vast majority of Tesla people are believers in climate change. Do you think owning a Tesla makes you less likely to believe in climate change? As for me, it has no effect on my thinking. It's just a car.
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    callmesam
    Buying a Tesla makes you realize that burning gas isn't the pinnacle of technology. Once you realize that burning gas is terribly inefficient, then it's not much of a leap to be open to solar/batteries and an array of sustainable technology that's simply better than the stone age solutions offered by the carbon lobby.
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    Saghost
    The OP's premise was that people who didn't pay attention to or care about climate change were buying Teslas and might then be drawn to more careful analysis and/or greater concern about climate change.

    I think it's probably true for a segment of the population, but I think there's a larger group that got their Tesla because they were concerned - and as this thread shows, there's a significant fraction that bought the Tesla for other reasons and still aren't that concerned/interested.

    The genius of Tesla's approach (making EVs more interesting/appealing than ICE cars) is that those people are now driving sustainable cars, whatever their thoughts on the matter. "The stone age didn't end due to a shortage of stones." :)
    �
  • Aug 15, 2016
    LastGas
    As a veteran of controversies on the Internet, I have never found an adequate way to respond to someone who takes the position that a scientific consensus is really a conspiracy. I don't mean that as a put down, because this happens all the time. Belief in conspiracy theories is really a mind set, and probably one strengthened by neurophysiology (see Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain"). And once humans get an opinion, confirmation bias sets in to make them tend to believe evidence that agrees with them, and to discount evidence against. Everybody does this. The result, however, is that opinions are hard to change, particularly after people invest a lot arguing for a particular position.

    I can see how the original poster went wrong, and the fallacies in his statement, but he's not going to and I know from experience that nothing I could say will make any difference. I suppose I COULD talk about my trip to the Andes and the retreating glaciers. Probably the best example I could give is the controversy over the question of whether smoking causes lung cancer. Nobody would doubt that now, but back in the day people bucked the scientific consensus with great confidence.

    Human beings are full of biases and errors in judgment--that's why there is so much variation in beliefs about things that should be easy to decide. Climate change is one of those things that should be settled, but never will be.

    Enjoy your Tesla.
    �
  • Aug 18, 2016
    fallen888
  • Aug 21, 2016
    electricity
    If 98% of scientists believe there is climate change , I believe there is climate change. I like to view things in a logical way.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)