CBDunkerson wrote: Two-thirds of the US population lives on 3.5% of its land mass (i.e. in cities). Ergo, your statement about 'only people in urban areas' in no way contradicts my statement about 'the vast majority of people' Two-thirds is, mathematically, a majority. Calling it a "vast majority" is like... well, referring to rising sea levels as "Water World."
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Yeah, it's more like a 'clear majority' or an 'overwhelming majority', not a 'vast majority'.
In any case, we can agree that the number is likely more than half of driving-age Americans.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tesla Launch is Not What it Seems
SA wrote: In our view, considering the rushed ramp, Model 3 is not ready for production and an acceptable quality Model 3 may not be produced until H1 2018 if not later.
Model 3's current vector suggests there will be a huge disconnect with not only the pricing but also customer's ability to get rebates (more on this later).
In our view, the $35K Model 3 is a stopgap to make it appear that Tesla has met its goal of delivering on a $35K car. Sometime in H1 2018, we expect Tesla to discontinue the $35K Model 3 as it has discontinued the 40 kWh Model S in the past. We expect the company to replace the $35K model with a $40K model which offers a few more features and a slightly longer range than 220 miles. Such a move also may let Tesla claim marketing advantage over the 238-mile range of GM (GM) Bolt.
To get to respectable gross margins, we expect Tesla Model 3 pricing needs to move into the $40K to $80K band with ASPs close to $50K. The trade off, however, would be that Model 3 demand will plummet and the company's manufacturing utilization will be abysmally low.
Tesla also runs the risk that its charging hardware, and hence the Model 3, will be obsoleted by Europe's 350 kW charger network by the time Model 3 makes it to Europe.
With Tesla likely reaching the dreaded 200,000 BEV shipment level in the US market by Q1 2018, the juicy $7,500 federal tax rebate is at risk. By the time Tesla ramps Model 3 to meaningful volumes, this credit is likely to be halved, leaving Tesla at a competitive disadvantage.
Summary
Tesla Model 3 launch was in-line with our expectations and inconsistent with the bull narrative.
The cars that were demonstrated at the launch were $50K+ cars and not the $35K car that Tesla has been promising for many years now. There is also little doubt that the car is not in production by any stretch of imagination.
On the upside, Model 3 is a nice-looking car with good acceleration that many drivers love. But the challenge for Tesla has always been how long it will be before Tesla can resolve quality issues, how many cars Tesla can sell, and if there is any money to be made with the sale of these cars.
Model 3 launch suggests, as we have been warning investors for quite a while, that Tesla will fall short of expectations in all these areas.
Rational thought suggests that investors will be running for exits at least until the company is past the "production hell."
Our View: Sell short.
"Bull narrative" LOL, I love that.
Buy a Model 3 if you want. It won't be $35,000 for anyone reading this post. You'll be lucky if you get something you want for $42k including the Tax Credit (if any).
Earth likely to warm more than 2 degrees this century
UW wrote: A study using statistical tools shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement.
The new, statistically-based projections, published July 31 in Nature Climate Change, show a 90 percent chance that temperatures will increase this century by 2.0 to 4.9 C.
"Overall, the goals expressed in the Paris Agreement are ambitious but realistic," Raftery said. "The bad news is they are unlikely to be enough to achieve the target of keeping warming at or below 1.5 degrees."
Published original report behind a paywall here
So there's an 82.3% chance of exceeding 2.5°C.
Did I read that right? Accredited, credible scientists saying exactly what I've been saying this whole thread through?
:|
I'd be happy about being so deliciously right but I'm the one here who likely gets to see the working out of these craptastic consequences due to the laziness and greed of my fore-bearers (and me... gotta be honest here, as I'm sure I'll contribute my share. Not nearly as much as Al Gore or Bill Gates, but still I'll be part of the problem and not the solution overall).
Earth Almost Certain to Warm by 2 Degrees Celsius
SA wrote: Even if all human emissions immediately ceased, the atmosphere probably contains enough carbon to push up temperatures by about 1.3 C by the end of the century, according to the second study.
And that might understate the effect of today's greenhouse gases.
The amount of warming caused by CO2 might have been masked over the years by accompanying aerosol emissions. So as emissions fall and aerosols wash out of the air we might find ourselves on track for even more warming than we realized, said Robert Pincus, a scientist with the University of Colorado, Boulder, and NOAA's Physical Sciences Division.
The findings are dire, but they should inspire action rather than hopelessness, said Adrian Raftery, a professor of statistics and sociology at the University of Washington and author of the study on temperature forecasts. "The consequences of not [acting] are even higher with these results than they were before, when we could think about 1.5 degrees as being in the realm of possibility; which I think, realistically, it's not".
The research finds that the median warming is likely to be 3.2 degrees Celsius, and further concludes that there's only a 5 percent chance that the world can hold limiting below 2 degrees Celsius and a mere 1 percent chance that it can be limited below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That will come as bad news for vulnerable small island nations in particular, which have held out for a 1.5 degree target, along with other particularly vulnerable nations.
The upshot of all the latest research, however, is that while limiting warming to 2 degrees is seeming unlikely, and 1.5 degrees nearly impossible, staying within something like 2.5 degrees still seems quite possible if there's concerted action.
What's that quote from the Joker in Suicide Squad? Seems uncannily appropriate here.
CB, Ball is in your court.
Here's another particular example of those largely unaccounted for consequences of AGW.
A crater formed in Siberia's permafrost is growing at an alarming rate
BBC Earth wrote: This ground ice contains a lot of organic matter, including plenty of carbon that has been locked away for thousands of years.
"Global estimations of carbon stored in permafrost is [the] same amount as what's in the atmosphere," says Günther.
There is no indication that the erosion of this crater will slow down any time soon.
As more permafrost thaws, more and more carbon is exposed to microbes. The microbes consume the carbon, producing methane and carbon dioxide as waste products. These greenhouse gases are then released into the atmosphere, accelerating warming further.
This is what we call positive feedback," says Günther. "Warming accelerates warming, and these features may develop in other places...
Warnings of new Arctic explosions at some 700-plus sites in Yamal due to thawing permafrost
Well that blows.
:|
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"Had to end sometime." — Richard B. Riddick
Kirth, again, adding SUVs to the mix does change things... but was not the initial point of dispute.
Irontruth, while you are generally correct that automated vehicles will cause massive job losses (e.g. you leave out all cab drivers, pizza delivery drivers, mail truck drivers, et cetera) I don't see where you are getting "reduced demand" from. If a truck is automated then, unlike a human, it can drive 24 hours per day 7 days per week... at a lower cost per mile. That will INcrease demand significantly. Indeed, a lot of rail and air cargo transport will shift over to trucking.
That increased demand will, in turn, result in increased need for maintenance workers, logistics, loading/unloading, et cetera... partially offsetting the job losses from drivers.
Hopefully, the rest of the losses will be covered by channeling the revenue increase from automation in to some kind of guaranteed employment program... but I'm not optimistic.
QB, the Seeking Alpha article you link is citing their opinions... which have a clearly evident bias. It seems highly implausible that Tesla will quickly discontinue their flagship vehicle / raise prices. Electric vehicle costs are decreasing, Seeking Alpha's claim that this trend will suddenly reverse is entirely illogical.
Quark Blast wrote: Accredited, credible scientists saying exactly what I've been saying this whole thread through?
...
CB, Ball is in your court.
Nothing in that paper conflicts with anything I have ever said.
Basically, you are crowing about being 'right' on issues that weren't in dispute. Yes, the sky is blue. You got that one right. Well done.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I can't figure out what you were trying to say with your second and third points. People won't buy EVs because they are sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance? This is actually dead-on true for a large percentage of drivers. Most of the people who commute around Houston, for example, insist on driving the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable. More than one of my co-workers has seen my tiny car and very earnestly explained to me that I *NEED* a 3/4 ton truck (at minimum), extended cab preferred, and that my very survival is at dire risk until I get one. And these are educated scientists -- the hicks are even worse. It's an image/lifestyle thing -- if these people could legally drive Abrams tanks downtown, they would all totally do that. So, yes, the reality is that, to a very large proportion of drivers, size does matter.
Excellent point, and one that's often overlooked. There is a psychological angle to many consumers' choices; SUVs were consciously designed to appeal to people's very worst instincts of insecurity and aggression, ironically marketed as "safety." The book High and Mighty: The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way explores this mentality. Some SUV drivers even request more 'aggressive' and 'dangerous'-looking grills, or idly wish they could get front-mounted spikes to ensure that they destroy anything that gets in their way.
Even at the egotistical-teen level, you can see this in any town. Many young drivers prefer to have no muffler, or even remove it, to ensure a maximum of engine noise from their Power Machine.
Short form: If you want to ensure that no conservative ever buys an electric car, simply slap a 'liberal' label on it. No amount of logical arguments based on safety, cost savings, personal convenience, or long-term species survival will compare with the emotional high of buying something liberals hate. And the applicability to why anti-climate conspiracy theories are so popular should be obvious.
Calybos1 wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I can't figure out what you were trying to say with your second and third points. People won't buy EVs because they are sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance? This is actually dead-on true for a large percentage of drivers. Most of the people who commute around Houston, for example, insist on driving the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable. More than one of my co-workers has seen my tiny car and very earnestly explained to me that I *NEED* a 3/4 ton truck (at minimum), extended cab preferred, and that my very survival is at dire risk until I get one. And these are educated scientists -- the hicks are even worse. It's an image/lifestyle thing -- if these people could legally drive Abrams tanks downtown, they would all totally do that. So, yes, the reality is that, to a very large proportion of drivers, size does matter.
Excellent point, and one that's often overlooked. There is a psychological angle to many consumers' choices; SUVs were consciously designed to appeal to people's very worst instincts of insecurity and aggression, ironically marketed as "safety." The book High and Mighty: The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way explores this mentality. Some SUV drivers even request more 'aggressive' and 'dangerous'-looking grills, or idly wish they could get front-mounted spikes to ensure that they destroy anything that gets in their way.
Even at the egotistical-teen level, you can see this in any town. Many young drivers prefer to have no muffler, or even remove it, to ensure a maximum of engine noise from their Power Machine.
Short form: If you want to ensure that no conservative ever buys an electric car, simply slap a 'liberal' label on it. No amount of logical arguments based on safety, cost savings, personal convenience, or long-term species survival will compare with the emotional high of buying... See "Rolling Coal" for the extreme version.
This begs the question, will we soon see a "ELECTRIC Vehicle: FOR MEN" branding campaign?
Gark the Goblin wrote: This begs the question, will we soon see a "ELECTRIC Vehicle: FOR MEN" branding campaign? I don't personally see a lot of gender influencing preference in the whole huge truck thing -- not that I've done a census or anything, but it seems about equal, just by casual observation.
CBDunkerson wrote: QB, the Seeking Alpha article you link is citing their opinions... which have a clearly evident bias. It seems highly implausible that Tesla will quickly discontinue their flagship vehicle / raise prices. Electric vehicle costs are decreasing, Seeking Alpha's claim that this trend will suddenly reverse is entirely illogical.
Quark Blast wrote: Accredited, credible scientists saying exactly what I've been saying this whole thread through?
...
CB, Ball is in your court.
Nothing in that paper conflicts with anything I have ever said.
Basically, you are crowing about being 'right' on issues that weren't in dispute. Yes, the sky is blue. You got that one right. Well done.
What Seeking Alpha is getting at is that Tesla needs cash flow now. So, for now, the Model 3 is priced well below profitability. Soon the price on a base Model 3 will rise or (and more likely) they will no longer offer the base Model 3. When only upscale Model 3s are available the price will be around $50,000.
$50k is not an entry level vehicle price. But neither is $42k and that's what most Tesla Model 3 buyers will at least be getting theirs for, and not by choice.
As for your "nothing in this paper conflicts with anything I have ever said". Seriously?
I've been constantly saying global warming will be +2.5°C over pre-industrial temp. I've been citing evidence on this thread the whole way through.
And I can tell you this - you have been disputing my 'amateur' opinion at every turn. You, and thejeff and others have been decrying my "cynical hipster" attitude as well.
Clearly though I wasn't cynical enough. As the paper I cite so clearly lays out:
There's an 82.3% chance of meeting exceeding 2.5°C!!
Of course, if you die before things start to turn really bad (say sometime between 2050 and 2080), all this talk is merely academic. For my part, I hope it's not academic.
Behold! Words of Wisdom from a fellow cynical hipster.
The Uninhabitable Earth
NY Mag wrote: {T}he many sober-minded scientists I interviewed over the past several months — the most credentialed and tenured in the field, few of them inclined to alarmism and many advisers to the IPCC who nevertheless criticize its conservatism — have quietly reached an apocalyptic conclusion, too: No plausible program of emissions reductions alone can prevent climate disaster.
...
Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015.
...
Precipitation is notoriously hard to model, yet predictions for later this century are basically unanimous: unprecedented droughts nearly everywhere food is today produced. By 2080, without dramatic reductions in emissions, southern Europe will be in permanent extreme drought, much worse than the American dust bowl ever was.
...
There are now, trapped in Arctic ice, diseases that have not circulated in the air for millions of years — in some cases, since before humans were around to encounter them. Which means our immune systems would have no idea how to fight back when those prehistoric plagues emerge from the ice.
...
You don’t worry much about dengue or malaria if you are living in Maine or France. But as the tropics creep northward and mosquitoes migrate with them, you will. You didn’t much worry about Zika a couple of years ago, either.
As it happens, Zika may also be a good model of the second worrying effect — disease mutation. One reason you hadn’t heard about Zika until recently is that it had been trapped in Uganda; another is that it did not, until recently, appear to cause birth defects. Scientists still don’t entirely understand what happened, or what they missed. But there are things we do know for sure about how climate affects some diseases: Malaria, for instance, thrives in hotter regions not just because the mosquitoes that carry it do, too, but because for every degree increase in temperature, the parasite reproduces ten times faster. Which is one reason that the World Bank estimates that by 2050, 5.2 billion people will be reckoning with it.
...
{I}n the aftermath of the 2008 crash, a growing number of historians studying what they call “fossil capitalism” have begun to suggest that the entire history of swift economic growth, which began somewhat suddenly in the 18th century, is not the result of innovation or trade or the dynamics of global capitalism but simply our discovery of fossil fuels and all their raw power — a onetime injection of new “value” into a system that had previously been characterized by global subsistence living. Before fossil fuels, nobody lived better than their parents or grandparents or ancestors from 500 years before... After we’ve burned all the fossil fuels, these scholars suggest, perhaps we will return to a “steady state” global economy. Of course, that onetime injection has a devastating long-term cost: climate change.
...
Some of the men who first identified a changing climate (and given the generation, those who became famous were men) are still alive; a few are even still working. Wally Broecker is 84 years old and drives to work at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory across the Hudson every day from the Upper West Side. Like most of those who first raised the alarm, he believes that no amount of emissions reduction alone can meaningfully help avoid disaster. Instead, he puts his faith in carbon capture — untested technology to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which Broecker estimates will cost at least several trillion dollars — and various forms of “geoengineering,”
...
Jim Hansen is another member of this godfather generation. Born in 1941, he became a climatologist at the University of Iowa, developed the groundbreaking “Zero Model” for projecting climate change, and later became the head of climate research at NASA, only to leave under pressure when, while still a federal employee, he filed a lawsuit against the federal government charging inaction on warming (along the way he got arrested a few times for protesting, too). The lawsuit, which is brought by a collective called Our Children’s Trust and is often described as “kids versus climate change,” is built on an appeal to the equal-protection clause, namely, that in failing to take action on warming, the government is violating it by imposing massive costs on future generations; it is scheduled to be heard this winter in Oregon district court. Hansen has recently given up on solving the climate problem with a carbon tax alone, which had been his preferred approach, and has set about calculating the total cost of the additional measure of extracting carbon from the atmosphere
...
Several of the scientists I spoke with proposed global warming as the solution to Fermi’s famous paradox, which asks, If the universe is so big, then why haven’t we encountered any other intelligent life in it? The answer, they suggested, is that the natural life span of a civilization may be only several thousand years, and the life span of an industrial civilization perhaps only several hundred. In a universe that is many billions of years old, with star systems separated as much by time as by space, civilizations might emerge and develop and burn themselves up simply too fast to ever find one another.
...
And yet, improbably, Ward is an optimist. So are Broecker and Hansen and many of the other scientists I spoke to. We have not developed much of a religion of meaning around climate change that might comfort us, or give us purpose, in the face of possible annihilation. But climate scientists have a strange kind of faith: We will find a way to forestall radical warming, they say, because we must.
It is not easy to know how much to be reassured by that bleak certainty, and how much to wonder whether it is another form of delusion; for global warming to work as parable, of course, someone needs to survive to tell the story. The scientists know that to even meet the Paris goals, by 2050, carbon emissions from energy and industry, which are still rising, will have to fall by half each decade; emissions from land use (deforestation, cow farts burps, etc.) will have to zero out; and we will need to have invented technologies to extract, annually, twice as much carbon from the atmosphere as the entire planet’s plants now do.
Some of his points are rather pointless. For example, his warning of how ozone/smog will affect people's health. He cited the 2013 situation in China, a year in which 1/3 of all deaths were directly attributable to air pollution, but that situation becomes increasingly unlikely to ever occur again. People won't continue to live like that. Some bad things people seem to just get use to (like all the really bad TV programming that nonetheless gets good enough ratings to be renewed), but air pollution like that is too much to tolerate. By 2030 I bet China never sees another year of air pollution like that.
Funny thing though about reducing air pollution. It reduces aerosols as well, and as pointed out in previous link, you can add about another +0.5°C to global warming as the "sunscreen" gets washed out of the global atmosphere and the sunlight penetrates to the ground better. Enforced pollution controls will increasing global warming. LOL!
On Tesla, SeekingAlpha (among others) has been recommending short selling Tesla for a while. If you followed that advice in the past, you probably lost a substantial chunk of your money. Maybe they finally got it right this time around though. If you want to bet that they did, the options are there. In any case this topic seems like a footnote.
On statistical warming predictions, I tend to agree that things will tend to the worst if we ultimately do not go substantially further than the Paris agreement. And I will say that the current administration makes it easy to be pessimistic on that front.
Regarding words of wisdom from a cynical hipster, I'm not qualified to evaluate some of that and for other items I am no more qualified than others here. One claim for which I probably am more qualified, the one about a purported lack of preindustrial economic growth, looks bogus. The Industrial Revolution took off from the top of a long period of substantially slower, but in aggregate and over time very significant, preindustrial economic growth. No real difference in prosperity over 500 years? BS.
Quark Blast wrote: Soon the price on a base Model 3 will rise or (and more likely) they will no longer offer the base Model 3. When only upscale Model 3s are available the price will be around $50,000. This prediction continues to strike me as absurd. At that price point they'd have no hope of competing against the existing Chevy Bolt... let alone the next wave of even less expensive EVs.
Read up on 'economies of scale' if you don't understand why costs don't generally go up as production increases.
Quote: As for your "nothing in this paper conflicts with anything I have ever said". Seriously?
I've been constantly saying global warming will be +2.5°C over pre-industrial temp. I've been citing evidence on this thread the whole way through.
I said something about MY past positions. You 'disputed' that by saying something about YOUR past positions.
Can you really not see the flaw in your argument?
Quote: Clearly though I wasn't cynical enough. As the paper I cite so clearly lays out:
There's an 82.3% chance of meeting exceeding 2.5°C!!
How can you not realize that you are contradicting yourself?
IF that statement is true then there would be a 17.7% (100 - 82.3) chance of warming below 2.5°C... directly contradicting your statement above that warming would be 2.5°C or more, and similar past claims;
Quark Blast wrote: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C" Further, even if we ignore that and set aside the fact that your 82.3% figure does not actually appear anywhere in the study in question... the percentage odds of various amounts of warming in that study are based on the assumption that future emissions reductions will be no more rapid than past reductions.
See 'economies of scale' again for why that remains as unlikely as the last half dozen times you've based your position on such an assumption.
This graph may help.
Note the text in the upper left box;
"Global carbon intensity fell by an average of 0.9% per year from 2000 to 2013. In the last year, global carbon intensity fell by 1.2%."
So the reduction rate in the last year measured (i.e. 2013) was greater than the average rate. The rate increased.
The red dotted line, like the paper in question, assumes that the rate will drop back down to the average and stay there. The solid orange line assumes that the rate of improvement will continue to increase sufficiently to limit warming to 2°C.
To me, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that we will continue to see improvements... indeed, since 2013 we already have seen increases in energy efficiency, electricity storage, and renewable deployment. I see no reason to believe that this trend will suddenly reverse.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: As for your "nothing in this paper conflicts with anything I have ever said". Seriously?
I've been constantly saying global warming will be +2.5°C over pre-industrial temp. I've been citing evidence on this thread the whole way through.
I said something about MY past positions. You 'disputed' that by saying something about YOUR past positions.
Can you really not see the flaw in your argument? A flaw that is only there if first I take your statement/understanding of the situation at face value.
You are very consistent at chopping up statements made by people who disagree with you. You chop them up with no regard for the flow of the argumentation given. Given your clear fluency in the English language I can only conclude you do that on purpose. Too bad.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Clearly though I wasn't cynical enough. As the paper I cite so clearly lays out:
There's an 82.3% chance of meeting exceeding 2.5°C!!
How can you not realize that you are contradicting yourself?
IF that statement is true then there would be a 17.7% (100 - 82.3) chance of warming below 2.5°C... directly contradicting your statement above that warming would be 2.5°C or more, and similar past claims;
Quark Blast wrote: "we've already emitted enough gas to warm the planet by at least 2.5°C" You cite that quote like I didn't also say this:
Quark Blast wrote: I don't care if ONE paper published in Science or ONE lecture at Yale says, "we are headed for 2.0°C 2100" or "we are headed for 3.0°C by 2100". I'm taking all the expert lectures I've watched and published papers I've read and collectively they average out to a rise in global temperature of no less than 2.0°C above pre-industrial times and given current trends (and NO I'm not talking Trump here) more likely a 2.5°C increase. Or this:
Quark Blast wrote: Depends on which expert you ask and when. The reason I float the answer between 2.0°C and 2.5°C is that the 2.0°C is firm but some of those firm estimates were a decade ago or so when the outlook for coal and other sources were better than they seem to be today. So, 2.5°C is not unreasonable and since I'm cynical I expect the higher value to be achieved by the year 2100 - at a minimum. On the very same page, and in close proximity, to the small (out of context) portion you quote from me.
Also, I can't help it if you're bad at math.
These numbers are statistical probabilities. To help you out I'll make it clear that an 82.3% chance of exceeding 2.5°C leaves room for the actual value to be less than or equal to 2.5°C.
However, a few of the things you so handily ignore are:
1) The likelihood of it being <2.0°C is too small to seriously consider.
2) Stopping all anthropogenic additions to atmospheric CO2 will still see a +1.3°C year 2100. No other factors considered!
3) But stopping all anthropogenic additions to atmospheric CO2 will also so cut back on particulate pollution that that alone will add 0.5°C...
4) Thus making the current likely temperature increase floor right at +1.8°C.
Remarkable isn't it? That I've been right all along and yet you refuse to see it. Even when I cite dozens of rigorously vetted scientific studies (and I have cited less than 1 in 20 of the ones I have actually read) you still take pains to mis-quote me so that you can say I'm "wrong".
But hey!... Internet... What did I expect?
CBDunkerson wrote: Further, even if we ignore that and set aside the fact that your 82.3% figure does not actually appear anywhere in the study in question... See my qualifier above... namely that I can't help it if you're bad at math. I took the values given in the paper cited and rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent to get 82.3% for the mean likelihood of a +2.5°C year 2100. If I had the original data and could crunch the numbers for myself I expect there might be an additional 0.1% error. So if you want to be pedantic and criticize me on it you can quote me as "contradicting myself" with a value of 82.2%. But only if you want to. Please feel free to take the high road on this one.
CBDunkerson wrote: the percentage odds of various amounts of warming in that study are based on the assumption that future emissions reductions will be no more rapid than past reductions.
...
To me, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that we will continue to see improvements... indeed, since 2013 we already have seen increases in energy efficiency, electricity storage, and renewable deployment. I see no reason to believe that this trend will suddenly reverse.
I never said it will reverse.
It will proportionally slow down from the current slope/trend. As the world works out what it means to segue into a post-industrial age there are going to be major disruptions over large portions of the global economy. Venezuela isn't the only country that will have a meltdown over the next decades. Brazil is doing a bang-up job of devastating the Amazon jungle. You know that portion of the Earth that creates 1/3 of our oxygen? China is setting itself up for a bigger "housing bubble" than our 2008 debacle. These and dozens more are "little oopsies" that have a global reach.
To hit the target for global warming that you so optimistically want would require coal mining to have stopped on a global scale about 20 years ago.
Consideration re "economies of scale" DB work both ways.
Coriat wrote: On Tesla, SeekingAlpha (among others) has been recommending short selling Tesla for a while. If you followed that advice in the past, you probably lost a substantial chunk of your money. Maybe they finally got it right this time around though. If you want to bet that they did, the options are there. In any case this topic seems like a footnote. As it happens, this article hit the feed just today and it answers your question I think.
Tesla seeks $1.5 billion junk bonds issue to fund Model 3 production
Reuters wrote: Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) said on Monday it would raise about $1.5 billion through its first-ever high-yield junk bond offering, as the U.S. luxury electric car maker seeks fresh sources of cash to ramp up production of its new Model 3 sedan.
The debt offering marks Tesla's debut in the junk-bond market and the company will start road-shows on Monday, IFR reported, citing lead bankers on the deal.
So far, Tesla has been raising money through a combination of equity offerings and convertible bonds, which eventually convert into shares. In March, the company raised $1.4 billion through a convertible debt offering.
Following the announcement, Standard & Poor's reaffirmed its negative outlook for the automaker and assigned a "B-" rating for the bond issue - deep into junk credit territory. S&P also maintained its "B-" long-term corporate credit rating on Tesla.
"We could lower our ratings on Tesla if execution issues related to the Model 3 launch later this year or the ongoing expansion of its Models S and X production lead to significant cost overruns," S&P said in a statement on the bonds.
Moody's assigned a junk "B3" rating to the bond issue and said the company's rating outlook was stable.
The rating agency said the overall company's "B2" rating was supported by the fact that if Tesla ends up in serious financial trouble, its brand name, products and physical assets would be of "considerable value" to other automakers.
"The major challenge facing the company during the next twelve months will largely be the considerable execution risks associated with the rapid ramp-up in production of a totally new vehicle," Mood's senior vice president Bruce Clark said in a statement.
The automaker's debt load increased significantly last year when it bought solar panel maker SolarCity.
Tesla has resorted to selling "junk bonds". As long as the hype keeps up it might make the step that Amazon did. If the hype dies down or Chevy, BMW, Nissan, etc. step up enough soon enough, we could see Tesla sold on the chopping block in three to five years.
Coriat wrote: On statistical warming predictions, I tend to agree that things will tend to the worst if we ultimately do not go substantially further than the Paris agreement. And I will say that the current administration makes it easy to be pessimistic on that front. I've said elsewhere that the current regime might add the equivalent of another 8 weeks unfettered CO2. It's bad press but by the year 2100 it won't be measurably bad for the planet.
Coriat wrote: Regarding words of wisdom from a cynical hipster, I'm not qualified to evaluate some of that and for other items I am no more qualified than others here. One claim for which I probably am more qualified, the one about a purported lack of preindustrial economic growth, looks bogus. The Industrial Revolution took off from the top of a long period of substantially slower, but in aggregate and over time very significant, preindustrial economic growth. No real difference in prosperity over 500 years? BS. I think the idea there was that this is a global prosperity rise. It might have taken until the 1960's to get to the bulk of the more remote populations on this planet but it was like nothing that has ever come before or (perhaps) since.
I didn't think I had asked a question on Tesla, but if I had I'm sure the junk bond stuff would have answered it. :p
Does your eight-week figure come from anything specific?
I'm fine with arguing that the Industrial Revolution was something special. However, the point I'd make against the quoted material is that the societies in which the Industrial Revolution took place were already on a trajectory of continuous intensive growth before the Industrial Revolution (albeit slower). Preindustrial Germany, England, Netherlands, etc. resembled subsistence economies very little, and these economies were not in a steady state before the Industrial Revolution.
(Incidentally, preindustrial USA doesn't look like much of a subsistence economy either - we were engaged in global shipping here in the north and growing cash crops for the European market down south, among other activities characteristic of non-subsistence economies.)
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I said something about MY past positions. You 'disputed' that by saying something about YOUR past positions.
Can you really not see the flaw in your argument?
A flaw that is only there if first I take your statement/understanding of the situation at face value. So... you are disputing things I haven't said?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Quote: However, a few of the things you so handily ignore are:
1) The likelihood of it being <2.0°C is too small to seriously consider.
I 'ignore' this because it is false.
The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.
And again, the values in that study are based on an assumption that carbon intensity (i.e. emissions per GDP) reductions will follow a "linear trend"... which is inconsistent with the observed reality of an accelerating trend. In short, all it is saying is that we are very unlikely to avoid 2°C IF we don't continue to increase the rate at which we decarbonize.
Quote: Remarkable isn't it? That I've been right all along You have been correct about things which were never in dispute. In this case, that it is very unlikely we will avoid 2°C warming if we don't increase the rate at which we are decarbonizing.
Quote: I never said it will reverse. Your entire position requires that it do so.
If carbon intensity reductions continue on their current accelerating trend then they will never return to the slower linear trend which you (and the paper you are citing) have based projections on.
Quote: It will proportionally slow down from the current slope/trend. Which... would be a reversal. Given the series;
1,2,3,5,8,13
...we get an average of 5.3. The paper you are citing then assumes all future values in the series will be 5.3. You are now suggesting that it would instead slowly revert back towards 5.3 (e.g 12,10,8,6). Either way, your position requires that the trend of accelerating reductions reverse. Even just staying at the current rate (i.e. 13 in all future years, rather than 5.3) would yield radically different results... let alone continuing acceleration (i.e. 21,34,55,etc).
Quote: As the world works out what it means to segue into a post-industrial age Wait. What "world" are you talking about here? I'd been assuming that we were discussing the Earth planet, but your statement above clearly doesn't fit in that case.
Industrialization (on Earth) continues to accelerate.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CB - I cite multiple sources and you pull numbers from one as if I made my point using that one source.
So I repeat:
QB wrote: You are very consistent at chopping up statements made by people who disagree with you. You chop them up with no regard for the flow of the argumentation given.
Given your clear fluency in the English language I can only conclude you do that on purpose. Too bad.
And quoting myself again:
QB wrote: Depends on which expert you ask and when. The reason I float the answer between 2.0°C and 2.5°C is that the 2.0°C is firm but some of those firm estimates were a decade ago or so when the outlook for coal and other sources were better than they seem to be today. So, 2.5°C is not unreasonable and since I'm cynical I expect the higher value to be achieved by the year 2100 - at a minimum. Looking at what I posted just recently one more time:
1) The likelihood of AGW being <2.0°C is too small to seriously consider.
2) Stopping all anthropogenic additions to atmospheric CO2 will still see a +1.3°C year 2100. No other factors considered!
3) But stopping all anthropogenic additions to atmospheric CO2 will also so cut back on particulate pollution that that alone will add 0.5°C...
4) Thus making the current likely temperature increase floor right at +1.8°C.
For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target.
No, there isn't.
Why?
Because the 5% chance estimate does not take into account item 3) above. And as you can see, current CO2 load {item 2) above} plus item 3) gives us a floor of +1.8°C over preindustrial average temperature.
As you well know there are more factors contributing to atmospheric CO2 load than those. Start factoring in the minimum contribution for all these other issues (permafrost melting, forest clearing, increased wildfires, continued use of coal for several more decades, general population increase, etc.) and we'll be lucky if we only see a +2.5°C rise.
So I repeat:
QB wrote: I can't help it if you're bad at math.
Coriat wrote: Does your eight-week figure come from anything specific? No, it is a back of the envelope estimate. Trump and his crü have a thing for ignoring anthropogenic contributions to climate change but that doesn't mean the 50 states will follow along. Even Texas is what, the 5th largest wind power entity in the world today? Not bad for a "red" state. Major companies (international companies) won't change their plans because of Trump and crü. Nor does it mean any other country will change their trend because of Trump. Trump has some influence with the EPA but all told his efforts against the general global trend will be a sub-1% negative impact by 2100. There are just too many other issues and his "agenda" will be lost in the chaos of global climate change.
Coriat wrote: I'm fine with arguing that the Industrial Revolution was something special. However, the point I'd make against the quoted material is that the societies in which the Industrial Revolution took place were already on a trajectory of continuous intensive growth before the Industrial Revolution (albeit slower). Preindustrial Germany, England, Netherlands, etc. resembled subsistence economies very little, and these economies were not in a steady state before the Industrial Revolution. They were on that trajectory true but if there hadn't been rapid replacement of wood, water (and wind) power with coal, and then especially the rapid development of oil and natural gas, the Pre-industrial trend you spot would have long since fizzled out. Trees don't re-grow that fast. Water power is about as fully harnessed today as it can be and it's what % of our energy budget? ~3.5% last I checked. Coal would already be effectively "gone" if it weren't for the rise of oil and natural gas.
Quark Blast wrote: For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target. More fiction.
<plonk>
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target. More fiction.
<plonk> From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.
CBDunkerson wrote: I 'ignore' this because it is false.
The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.
So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?
Oh that's right, QB wrote: You are very consistent at chopping up statements made by people who disagree with you. You chop them up with no regard for the flow of the argumentation given.
Given your clear fluency in the English language I can only conclude you do that on purpose. Too bad.
You seem like you want to engage in discussion but really you favor the non sequitur mode of hand waving and gibe slinging. I'm not sure why though? It's not like you're going to be around to see how right/wrong you are. The worst of the AGW effects will be playing out long after 2050 and while statistically it looks good for me to make it well past that date, the worst of the effects will be coming in circa 2080 to 2100 and then hanging around for another few centuries (barring carbon sequestration tech that actually works on a human time scale at a planet atmosphere scale).
There will be no Tesla "magic" to save us from ourselves. It could be much worse but people are selfish and greedy and there's money to be made in Green Tech. Lots of it. Unfortunately there's still lots of money to be made off of fossil fuels. As the two balance out and tip towards the green in the coming years we (humanity) will see an end result of +2.5°C atmospheric temperature over the preindustrial average by the year 2100.
Could it be less than that? Sure, in the sense that it's not logically impossible.
The better question is will it be less than that? And we have a definitive answer - only in some other instantiation of this world among the Many-Worlds.
My (mutant, killer Crab) grass is enjoying the Climate Change, but my lawn mower is begging for mercy.
Electric vehicle grid energy storage trial in Denmark
This is something I have been predicting for a while now. As EVs proliferate it will quickly become a no-brainer to dual purpose their batteries for grid stabilization.
This is one of the great advantages of the 'informational technology' nature of the emerging 'clean infrastructure'... the components feed in to and improve each other;
EV batteries can store and dispatch electricity... thus covering gaps when intermittent renewable power like wind and solar are unavailable... which allows more clean power and thus reduces the CO2 emissions involved in charging EVs... and so on.
Wind, solar, EVs, self driving technology, grid storage, charging infrastructure, et cetera... the more of each is deployed the more they support greater deployment of the others. Over the course of the next decade these pressures will inevitably lead to explosive growth of one after another of these new technologies.
Quark Blast wrote: They were on that trajectory true but if there hadn't been rapid replacement of wood, water (and wind) power with coal, and then especially the rapid development of oil and natural gas, the Pre-industrial trend you spot would have long since fizzled out. Trees don't re-grow that fast. Water power is about as fully harnessed today as it can be and it's what % of our energy budget? ~3.5% last I checked. Coal would already be effectively "gone" if it weren't for the rise of oil and natural gas.
Given the other part of your post, I trust that you will understand if I give the eight-weeks estimate no further attention.
I don't see any convincing reason to agree with the above re lack of growth. That trend of preindustrial slow growth in Western Europe was extremely long - the better part of a millenium - and despite occasional interruptions by war, plague, or other disasters natural or otherwise, the economies of the region consistently returned to slow, but intensive, growth. It's not clear that anything special would have happened in recent centuries to reverse that, Industrial Revolution or not.
It is true that trees and the like take time to grow, but you just do what the preindustrial merchants in fact did - if trees run out where there are lots of people and not a lot of trees (say England or Holland), then you go get trees from where there are lots of trees and not nearly enough people to use them as fast as they can grow. Timber trade routes such as the Baltic or trans-Atlantic (from New England and then Canada) didn't require steam engines to be viable or profitable. And incidentally, robust interregional or intercontinental trade like this is another sign of a non-subsistence economy.
You can come up with potential problems that would put a brake on preindustrial economies, but if you actually study preindustrial economies you can also often see them being solved. To stay on the timber one, for example, and look at another aspect of it, if you go to backcountry India, as I have, you can even today see where the East India Company cut down forests of slow-growing trees and replanted with fast-maturing varieties (particularly pine).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target. More fiction.
<plonk> From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.
CBDunkerson wrote: I 'ignore' this because it is false.
The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.
So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?
Actually, he does not need to agree with the citation. His claim is that your sources do not try to say what you try to say. If the sources are right or wrong is, for this matter, entirely uninteresting.
If you state that the sun explodes in 10 days and your source says that the sun explodes in 10 years, you can't use this source as a proof for your position, regardless of when, or even if, the sun will actually explode.
You're pointing out the flaws in an argument from someone who doesn't even know what they're arguing for.
When challenged, over a year ago, to state his case simply, concisely and without sarcasm, he replied with only sarcasm.
I have since figured out what he actually is trying to prove. He just routinely fails (as everyone pointing out the flaws in his argument shows). His point has nothing to do with climate change.
Sören Mogalle wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target. More fiction.
<plonk> From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.
CBDunkerson wrote: I 'ignore' this because it is false.
The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.
So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?
Actually, he does not need to agree with the citation. His claim is that your sources do not try to say what you try to say. If the sources are right or wrong is, for this matter, entirely uninteresting.
If you state that the sun explodes in 10 days and your source says that the sun explodes in 10 years, you can't use this source as a proof for your position, regardless of when, or even if, the sun will actually explode. So, that only lowers the annoyance factor of him not getting the point.
My point was that the 5% did not consider the +0.5°C increase we will get when all the pollution is "washed" out of the air.
Green energy is clean energy after all.
The overall point he seems to dismiss (indeed he repeats a similar theme in his latest post showing he doesn't get it - CB "Over the course of the next decade these pressures will inevitably lead to explosive growth of one after another of these new technologies."), is that somewhere in the late 1990's it became too late to reasonably hit the +1.5°C AGW target. Now we're too late for the +2.0°C target and I expect to hit the +2.5°C or slightly higher.
The +2.5°C value was what I estimated from reading the literature and listening to TED Talks and recorded lectures from major universities around the world. The peer reviewed analysis - Earth likely to warm more than 2 degrees this century - so happened to agree with my take. I wasn't surprised but it is always nice to be backed up like that.
So at this point, if you disagree with my conclusion, you get to go argue with the experts at the universities and research institutions.
Coriat wrote: Quark Blast wrote: They were on that trajectory true but if there hadn't been rapid replacement of wood, water (and wind) power with coal, and then especially the rapid development of oil and natural gas, the Pre-industrial trend you spot would have long since fizzled out. Trees don't re-grow that fast. Water power is about as fully harnessed today as it can be and it's what % of our energy budget? ~3.5% last I checked. Coal would already be effectively "gone" if it weren't for the rise of oil and natural gas. Given the other part of your post, I trust that you will understand if I give the eight-weeks estimate no further attention. Okay.
Coriat wrote: I don't see any convincing reason to agree with the above re lack of growth. That trend of preindustrial slow growth in Western Europe was extremely long - the better part of a millenium - and despite occasional interruptions by war, plague, or other disasters natural or otherwise, the economies of the region consistently returned to slow, but intensive, growth. It's not clear that anything special would have happened in recent centuries to reverse that, Industrial Revolution or not.
It is true that trees and the like take time to grow, but you just do what the preindustrial merchants in fact did - if trees run out where there are lots of people and not a lot of trees (say England or Holland), then you go get trees from where there are lots of trees and not nearly enough people to use them as fast as they can grow. Timber trade routes such as the Baltic or trans-Atlantic (from New England and then Canada) didn't require steam engines to be viable or profitable. And incidentally, robust interregional or intercontinental trade like this is another sign of a non-subsistence economy.
You can come up with potential problems that would put a brake on preindustrial economies, but if you actually study preindustrial economies you can also often see them being solved. To stay on the timber one, for example, and look at another aspect of it, if you go to backcountry India, as I have, you can even today see where the East India Company cut down forests of slow-growing trees and replanted with fast-maturing varieties (particularly pine).
Oil was estimated to be worth in excess of 1 billion free slaves working 24/7 for the whole of the 20th Century. If you think burning trees will get you that kind of industrialization, then we don't have enough overlap in our paradigms to have a conversation on this particular topic.
Quark Blast wrote: Sören Mogalle wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target. More fiction.
<plonk> From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.
CBDunkerson wrote: I 'ignore' this because it is false.
The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.
So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?
Actually, he does not need to agree with the citation. His claim is that your sources do not try to say what you try to say. If the sources are right or wrong is, for this matter, entirely uninteresting.
If you state that the sun explodes in 10 days and your source says that the sun explodes in 10 years, you can't use this source as a proof for your position, regardless of when, or even if, the sun will actually explode. So, that only lowers the annoyance factor of him not getting the point.
My point was that the 5% did not consider the +0.5°C increase we will get when all the pollution is "washed" out of the air. But that is the entire point. You say that the study supports your position, only to immediatly tell uns that they don't consider this and that. It seems that the study actually does not support your position.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You know, I am real tired of all the negativity. I actually agree with it, but that does not change that it needs to stop. Yes, we have a serious problem here. VERY serious. But let us try to do something about it. Pool ideas. Maybe it will help. Maybe it will not. OTOH, if we don't do anything than it will not help. All I have to say is that from this point forward, I would like to hear some ideas as to what we can do to make things better. We already know that it is more than an 95% chance that we are screwed. Let's try to push things to the (less than) 5% chance that might just be there. But if you don't want to help, then stop posting. Right now. Because you are officially part of the problem.
Sharoth wrote: We already know that it is more than an 95% chance that we are screwed. Let's try to push things to the (less than) 5% chance that might just be there. Again, the study citing a 5% chance (of less than 2C warming) was doing so based on an assumption that future progress in addressing emissions will proceed at the same rate as past efforts.
In reality, emission intensity reductions have been accelerating and logically will continue to do so.
In short, the 5% figure had nothing to do with how likely we are to take action to address the problem. Rather, it looked at the uncertainty range around warming projections and found that if we DON'T do more to address the problem then there is little chance of avoiding significant warming... just another analysis confirming what we already knew. NOT the conclusion that we CAN'T stop warming which it was falsely claimed to represent.
Quark Blast wrote: Oil was estimated to be worth in excess of 1 billion free slaves working 24/7 for the whole of the 20th Century. If you think burning trees will get you that kind of industrialization, then we don't have enough overlap in our paradigms to have a conversation on this particular topic. This seems like a non sequitur. I am at a loss as to what I have said that your quoted post is intended to address, and I would appreciate clarification. I thought that we were disagreeing about whether or not preindustrial economies were subsistence economies incapable of sustained growth, not whether or not wood is as useful as coal for actually industrializing.
China Deadline for Automakers to End Sales of Fossil-fuel-powered Vehicles
Bloomberg wrote: “The implementation of the ban for such a big market like China can be later than 2040,” said Liu Zhijia, an assistant general manager at Chery Automobile Co., the country’s biggest passenger car exporter that unveiled a new line for upscale battery-powered and plug-in hybrid models at the Frankfurt motor show last week. “That will leave plenty of time for everyone to prepare.” So this might make a difference. Depending on the year they pick to cut off fossil fueled vehicles. China's move into solar made a global impact (helped not insignificantly by Germany). However I'm thinking 2040 is a little late. 2050 is definitely too late. 2030 is much better but still too late to beat a +2.0°C year 2100.
I also wonder what Texas and Florida are going to do.
How many new cars will be sold? Half a million or more? How many will be EVs or hybrids?
Several hundred thousand houses (a million?) need to be rebuilt or at least re-roofed. Plus how many hundred thousand large buildings? How many of these will be solar panel enabled? What incentives will these states (or FEMA loans) use to encourage solar panel installation during reconstruction?
Natural disasters are a terrible way to improve efficiencies in the system but it would be lame not to take advantage of the situation once it has occurred.
Sharoth wrote: You know, I am real tired of all the negativity. I actually agree with it, but that does not change that it needs to stop. Yes, we have a serious problem here. VERY serious. But let us try to do something about it. Pool ideas. Maybe it will help. Maybe it will not. OTOH, if we don't do anything than it will not help. All I have to say is that from this point forward, I would like to hear some ideas as to what we can do to make things better. We already know that it is more than an 95% chance that we are screwed. Let's try to push things to the (less than) 5% chance that might just be there. But if you don't want to help, then stop posting. Right now. Because you are officially part of the problem. Plant trees. As many as you can in the areas that are available.
Start where the rains are already fairly stable. Spread that green belt of forest ever inwards. Forests generate their own moisture when dense enough. So in turn the water cycle at a local level tends to support more trees the more trees there are.
By doing this, you're helping to repair the carbon sponge we've been cutting down.
At least as an individual this will help in some way.
You could also invest in renewables if the money is there. Personally I don't have that kind of cash, but I can and do regularly spend cash in trees and plant them around the place.
As a voter, you can push for lobbyists who wish to see an end to land clearing and retain greater amounts of forested land as carbon sinks.
For food production, we need to stop harvesting large land animals. Smarter farming is needed rather than traditional farming. I have no idea how an individual can change that.
When I was teaching, I was in the unique position of being able to influence around 200 students a year through education of the science and introducing the concepts of alternatives. As such, those students influenced their parents. But man, I received some serious push back when I was teaching out west in an area that was cattle and sheep land. I got physically threatened by one old farmer who said science should keep its nose out of practices that had worked for generations. He couldn't reconcile those same practices with the sorry state the land was in and the steady decline of the sheep industry in the region.
Now days, they have a tech college out there that's teaching all land owners how to better manage their properties and change what works for the land,rather than try and force the land to work for them. It's less destructive, which keeps plant life in better condition. It also suggests a lesser reliance on traditional meats.
Sadly, a total shift in what we eat away from the Methane mega plants that are cattle, is not likely to happen in my lifetime.
Finally, as an individual, you can embrace the alternate energy systems out there. Go solar, try hybrid cars, etc. Like all things, it takes critical mass to finally break a market.
That's all I've got. But at least there are things we can do.
Hey I was trying to be positive in my latest post too! Now would be the perfect time to implement incentives/requirements to "go green" in areas that have to rebuild anyway. Retrofitting green tech when construction is over is more costly by far than incorporating it at the start of a building project.
Relating to what Wrath posted:
WWI 2009 Report
Their analysis claims at least 51% of GHG emissions are attributable to livestock production worldwide. So an individual transitioning to a vegetarian or vegan diet would be doing (per capita) a great deal of good with that alone.
Quark, I'm not even suggesting we go so far as give up meat.
In Australia, we have Kangaroos and Emus.
They breed well and require far less land use in order to provide the same meat out out as cattle and sheep.
They are both adapted to the environment in this country. This means water requirements are also far less than for cattle and sheep. We wouldn't need open bore systems any more in order to keep our stock alive.
Both Kangaroo and Emu meat is better protein standard than beef and sheep.
However, they have a unique taste. A taste which most Australians seem to not like compared to steak or lamb. So, there's no real market for it at the moment.
However, like most tastes, when you start consuming both Emu and Kangaroo, after a short period of time it becomes something you are used to.
For instance, I know people who used to love steak. For various reasons they gave it up for a few months to a year. Now they can't stand even the smell of it!
So in my country at least, we could quite easily convert farming over to Kangaroo and Emu production. This would free up large amounts of land currently used for grazing in order for it to be used in plant based food production or reclamation to natural vegetation state. Both of which will in fact benefit the climate in the fact they act to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and will mitigate emissions.
Also, algaes are an amazing source of high quality protein! They just tend to taste like ass. It takes very little land and water to generate high yields of algae to create protein powder. I'm fairly confident it would take little in the way of research to create additives to make them taste good too.
Again, Algae acts as a massive carbon sponge.
These things are possible. In fact, they've been possible since I left uni 20 odd years ago. It just takes a shift in market to make it happen.
Given the current trend around the world in terms of worry over global climate, I imagine that market shift won't be too far off actually.
On the topic of renewables/green energy.
100% Is Possible
Bill McKibben wrote: Environmental groups from the Climate Mobilization to Greenpeace to Food and Water Watch are backing the 100 percent target, differing mainly on how quickly we must achieve the transition, with answers ranging from one decade to around three. The right answer, given the state of the planet, is 25 years ago.
blah, blah, blah... big oil will fight renewables at every turn blah, blah, blah...
{G}rowth in new rooftop {solar} installations has already come to what the New York Times has called “a shuddering stop,” because of “a concerted and well-funded lobbying campaign by traditional utilities, which have been working in state capitols across the country to reverse incentives for homeowners.” Instead of cutting residents a break for helping solve the climate crisis, in state after state utility corporations—led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Edison Electric Institute (whose political advocacy efforts ratepayers actually underwrite)—are passing legislation that pre-empts “net-metering” laws, which let customers sell their excess power back to the grid. Energy consultant Nancy LaPlaca puts it this way: “Utilities have a great monopoly going and they want to keep it.”
blah, blah, blah... all politicians fall prey to this garish puke of bank blah, blah, blah... other countries are doing awesome stuff blah, blah, blah...
These are all good signs—but, set against the rapid disintegration of polar ice caps and the record global temperatures each of the last three years, they still amount to too little. It’s going to take a deeper level of commitment—including turning the U.S. government from an obstacle to an advocate over the next election cycles. That’s doable precisely because the idea of renewable energy is so popular.
"25 years ago". That would be the year 1992. So I would like to apologize to everyone who's read my previous posts. All along I've been saying the year 1995 is when humanity should've got our global warming act together. I was totally wrong. 1992 it is! ...er ...rather was.
But too late is too late so what're ya gonna do? Hope you die before the year 2100 or that you won't have any progeny to see that time or that you and yours are (like Al Gore's) stinking rich enough that it'll still be alright if you don't look past the end of your nose.
Solar in the West is taking a beating too as the externalities of global trade take hold. Lots of jobs lost to China and elsewhere and a general disruption in the solar market will see actual shrinkage in the growth rate of solar in 2017. Bonkers right? Not even the Big Cheeto's fault.
None of that sounds very positive. Sorry Sharoth, better to face the facts as they are. It's easier to deal with reality that way.
I couldn't yet find anything worthy of linking but some comments on a YouTube video and someone's Facebook page both had the idea that I did re to all the now missing roofs/buildings in Texas and Florida. Great sunshine states both of them. Incorporate solar with the rebuilding people. This qualifies as a "no brainer".
As for Wrath's point that despite the enormous CO2 contribution from meat production (to say nothing of the water wastage) people aren't going to veg out to save the planet. Similarly they aren't going to stop buying their (largely) unneeded big ### trucks and SUVs either.
Maybe Tesla should have designed the Model 3 as a SUV instead of a mid-sized luxury touring sedan?
See? I'm full of great ideas. Elon! Hire me! I've not even got started unpacking my brilliance. :D
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The main reason why people deny global warming/climate change is purely financial.
Edit:
I deleted the long winded explanation because I felt it was too political and didn't want to break the TOS on the forums.
Basically put:
There are some companies that have a lot of money, who make a lot of money, who would stand to make a lot less money if we did things to stop climate change. Thus, we don't, because they have money and money equals influence and power.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: The main reason why people deny global warming/climate change is purely financial. Fossil fuel profits are the main reason global warming denial EXISTS.
The main reason that large numbers of people buy in to this denial is that they don't want to admit that the 'other side' is right. For far too many people, 'tribalism' trumps reason.
From a purely scientific view it is entirely appropriate to take the view that human beings have evolved to our current state and thus any actions we have undertaken (or will undertake) are a product of our evolution..... including human induced climate change.
Thus we shouldnt have any concerns regarding climate change because ultimately the equation ALWAYS balances out in the end.... the fact that it could result in the extinction of mankind and countless species is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things.
Not a popular opinion or a moral one.... but then popularity and morality are entirely human constructs as well. The bio-history of Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, morality or other such lefty wish wash....
I do like playing Devils Advocate...... ;)))
Bring it.....!!
doc roc wrote: From a purely scientific view it is entirely appropriate to take the view that human beings have evolved to our current state and thus any actions we have undertaken (or will undertake) are a product of our evolution..... including human induced climate change.
Thus we shouldnt have any concerns regarding climate change because ultimately the equation ALWAYS balances out in the end.... the fact that it could result in the extinction of mankind and countless species is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things.
Not a popular opinion or a moral one.... but then popularity and morality are entirely human constructs as well. The bio-history of Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, morality or other such lefty wish wash....
I do like playing Devils Advocate...... ;)))
Bring it.....!!
In the bigger scheme of things climate change is irrelevant because eventually the Sun will expand and Earth will boil away. Eat Arby's.
But so what? The same argument could be applied to absolutely anything humans do. Not limited to "lefty wish wash". It's quite possible and reasonable to want to preserve the Earth and its biosphere in decent shape on a generational timescale, even if our devastation will fix itself on a geological one and be wiped away on a stellar one.
doc roc wrote: From a purely scientific view it is entirely appropriate to take the view that human beings have evolved to our current state and thus any actions we have undertaken (or will undertake) are a product of our evolution..... including human induced climate change.
Thus we shouldnt have any concerns regarding climate change because ultimately the equation ALWAYS balances out in the end.... the fact that it could result in the extinction of mankind and countless species is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things.
Not a popular opinion or a moral one.... but then popularity and morality are entirely human constructs as well. The bio-history of Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, morality or other such lefty wish wash....
I do like playing Devils Advocate...... ;)))
Bring it.....!!
From a purely scientific view playing devils advocate is irrelevant because eventually our species will be extinct regardless of whether you play devil's advocate or not.
An argument that can be used to justify any position has no value, because it can be used to argue against itself.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
doc roc wrote: From a purely scientific view it is entirely appropriate to take the view that human beings have evolved to our current state and thus any actions we have undertaken (or will undertake) are a product of our evolution..... including human induced climate change.
Thus we shouldnt have any concerns regarding climate change because ultimately the equation ALWAYS balances out in the end.... the fact that it could result in the extinction of mankind and countless species is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things.
Not a popular opinion or a moral one.... but then popularity and morality are entirely human constructs as well. The bio-history of Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, morality or other such lefty wish wash....
I do like playing Devils Advocate...... ;)))
Bring it.....!!
While I'm really grateful for all the hard work you've done on my behalf, I'm just not sure this is working out.
For one thing, being my advocate is not a game. It's not something you should be "playing" at. I need someone ready to work at being Devil's Advocate.
Second, while I can appreciate the whole nihilism thing you're going for, I'm really leveraged into tempting humans right now. If climate change wipes them out, I'm going to be paying out the nose for a reorganization/refit to handle the sins of the cockroach-men or whatever comes next. Do you know how to tempt cockroach-men to sin? I sure as hell don't (pun intended). Garbage maybe?
So, I'm letting you go. But no hard feeling, eh champ? Be sure to see Diane in HR for your exit interview.
The Devil wrote: doc roc wrote: From a purely scientific view it is entirely appropriate to take the view that human beings have evolved to our current state and thus any actions we have undertaken (or will undertake) are a product of our evolution..... including human induced climate change.
Thus we shouldnt have any concerns regarding climate change because ultimately the equation ALWAYS balances out in the end.... the fact that it could result in the extinction of mankind and countless species is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things.
Not a popular opinion or a moral one.... but then popularity and morality are entirely human constructs as well. The bio-history of Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, morality or other such lefty wish wash....
I do like playing Devils Advocate...... ;)))
Bring it.....!!
While I'm really grateful for all the hard work you've done on my behalf, I'm just not sure this is working out.
For one thing, being my advocate is not a game. It's not something you should be "playing" at. I need someone ready to work at being Devil's Advocate.
Second, while I can appreciate the whole nihilism thing you're going for, I'm really leveraged into tempting humans right now. If climate change wipes them out, I'm going to be paying out the nose for a reorganization/refit to handle the sins of the cockroach-men or whatever comes next. Do you know how to tempt cockroach-men to sin? I sure as hell don't (pun intended). Garbage maybe?
So, I'm letting you go. But no hard feeling, eh champ? Be sure to see Diane in HR for your exit interview. "See Diane in HR"??!!...
OMG, we're already in Hell! AHHHH!!!
Irontruth wrote: From a purely scientific view playing devils advocate is irrelevant because eventually our species will be extinct regardless of whether you play devil's advocate or not.
An argument that can be used to justify any position has no value, because it can be used to argue against itself.
Depends on how you define "species" and what constitutes the "human species".
And for the record (@thejeff), the Sun going nova will be the last thing that kills us. Ourselves seems the most likely option with Big Rock from Space™ being the runner up.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: From a purely scientific view playing devils advocate is irrelevant because eventually our species will be extinct regardless of whether you play devil's advocate or not.
An argument that can be used to justify any position has no value, because it can be used to argue against itself.
Depends on how you define "species" and what constitutes the "human species".
And for the record (@thejeff), the Sun going nova will be the last thing that kills us. Ourselves seems the most likely option with Big Rock from Space™ being the runner up. Oh, we'll be long dead - barring some serious space diaspora.
That'll be what finishes off the planet though.
|
