Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2006582 2-May-2018 14:56

MikeAqua:

When I said Tesla's were fugly I was mainly thinking about the X and 3. When I was in Honolulu last year I noticed the Tesla shop and had a look. Even the S is kind of ugly, compared to other cars at that price point. I don't have the design language to express why I think it's ugly sorry, other than to say it's a cacophony of varied shapes, some of them quite odd. I just looked at those cars and thought yuck.

I guess we should remember it's an American car, and it's been a long time since a beautiful car was produced in America

Setting aesthetics aside, Tesla have made a pigs ear of production. They are supposedly doing better now. But the NZ website is still saying reserve now ($1,500) for delivery in 12 to 18 months. Oh and you can't test drive one. WTF?

You are not wrong when it comes to Teslas management, it beats me how they are staying in business. I wouldn't invest in one of their cars as I have concerns as to their viability and when Elon Musk gets bored with his toy. I also know what you mean by the X and the 3 they are not great lookers and I think its the way they are dealing with the grill or lack there of. The areas I have the biggest issues with is the build quality, their pricing is in the upper price groups such Mercedes and BMW etc and higher but they feel cheap and not that well put together, the other area in the interior it looks low rent and teh huge "iPad" for a dash is ugly, wrong, fiddly and dangerous. Too much time taken off the road ahead even to turn on the wipers or to adjust the aircon.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2006609 2-May-2018 16:04

MikeB4:

I also know what you mean by the X and the 3 they are not great lookers and I think its the way they are dealing with the grill or lack there of. The areas I have the biggest issues with is the build quality, their pricing is in the upper price groups such Mercedes and BMW etc and higher but they feel cheap and not that well put together, the other area in the interior it looks low rent and teh huge "iPad" for a dash is ugly, wrong, fiddly and dangerous.

That's it - the grill is missing! In addition to the aesthetics issue you have noted I would add panel gaps inspired by the grand canyon.

Quarterly results announcement is due from Tesla tomorrow. Will be intersting

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2006674 2-May-2018 18:28

frednz:

tdgeek:

Put AGW aside. it doesn't really matter if the climate change is due to us or due to nature, its happening. So the pro vs anti argument isn't really relevant.

This is problematic, and its not a doomsday article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/30/antarctic-glacier-size-britain-threatens-flood-coastal-towns/

If climate change is solely "due to nature", then we can all relax a little and, for example, only buy an electric car when it actually suits our needs and is better than our existing petrol vehicles.

But if climate change "is due to us" or even partly "due to us", then we all need to buy electric vehicles this year, stop all air travel, stop going on cruises, sink all huge ships, get rid of all farm animals, and close down all natural gas and coal-fired power stations immediately.

No. Whatever the cause, humans will by what suits them, a very small minority will buy EV for green purposes. Humans are selfish.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2006676 2-May-2018 18:31

Batman:

frednz:

tdgeek:

Put AGW aside. it doesn't really matter if the climate change is due to us or due to nature, its happening. So the pro vs anti argument isn't really relevant.

This is problematic, and its not a doomsday article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/30/antarctic-glacier-size-britain-threatens-flood-coastal-towns/

If climate change is solely "due to nature", then we can all relax a little and, for example, only buy an electric car when it actually suits our needs and is better than our existing petrol vehicles.

But if climate change "is due to us" or even partly "due to us", then we all need to buy electric vehicles this year, stop all air travel, stop going on cruises, sink all huge ships, get rid of all farm animals, and close down all natural gas and coal-fired power stations immediately.

How is the lithium going to get the into the car and how is the car going to get to New Zealand?

Explain. By using CO2?

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2006713 2-May-2018 19:10

tdgeek:

Batman:

How is the lithium going to get the into the car and how is the car going to get to New Zealand?

Explain. By using CO2?

frednz:

If climate change is solely "due to nature", then we can all relax a little and, for example, only buy an electric car when it actually suits our needs and is better than our existing petrol vehicles.

But if climate change "is due to us" or even partly "due to us", then we all need to buy electric vehicles this year, stop all air travel, stop going on cruises, sink all huge ships, get rid of all farm animals, and close down all natural gas and coal-fired power stations immediately.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2006715 2-May-2018 19:16

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman:

How is the lithium going to get the into the car and how is the car going to get to New Zealand?

Explain. By using CO2?

frednz:

If climate change is solely "due to nature", then we can all relax a little and, for example, only buy an electric car when it actually suits our needs and is better than our existing petrol vehicles.

But if climate change "is due to us" or even partly "due to us", then we all need to buy electric vehicles this year, stop all air travel, stop going on cruises, sink all huge ships, get rid of all farm animals, and close down all natural gas and coal-fired power stations immediately.

You need to spell out your position rather than using four worders or others posts. Its a serious situation. If you believe in AGW or you dont. Either way, global warming is happening. Or it isnt?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2006723 2-May-2018 19:48

What I believe in doesn't matter, though I don't believe in anything. In my mind, there are possibilities, probabilities, and rarely absolutely certainty, whether it is the presence or absence of anything.

KiwiTT

123 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 7

#2008300 5-May-2018 06:54

Scientists gave a warning in 1992 and more recently in 2017. Shame that no one takes notice, while watching the world end in Infinite ways in full technicolour.

Desktop: Playtech Core i7-920 / Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate
Laptop: IBM T41 Pentium-M / Windows XP 32-bit Professional
Smartphone: Apple iPhone 5 64GB / iOS 6.1.0

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2008324 5-May-2018 09:26

KiwiTT:

Scientists gave a warning in 1992 and more recently in 2017. Shame that no one takes notice, while watching the world end in Infinite ways in full technicolour.

I think that's far too pessimistic, consider what is happening, for example, in China which is by far the planet's largest producer of greenhouse gases:

https://unfccc.int/news/china-meets-2020-carbon-target-three-years-ahead-of-schedule

At the end of 2017, China had cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 46 percent from the 2005 level, fulfilling its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 40 to 45 percent from the 2005 level by 2020.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2008333 5-May-2018 09:59

frednz:

KiwiTT:

Scientists gave a warning in 1992 and more recently in 2017. Shame that no one takes notice, while watching the world end in Infinite ways in full technicolour.

I think that's far too pessimistic, consider what is happening, for example, in China which is by far the planet's largest producer of greenhouse gases:

https://unfccc.int/news/china-meets-2020-carbon-target-three-years-ahead-of-schedule

At the end of 2017, China had cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 46 percent from the 2005 level, fulfilling its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 40 to 45 percent from the 2005 level by 2020.

True and they are building a small city that is supposed to be energy self sufficient. But in the meantime Australia mines and uses coal for power generation, China burns it heavily, the US isnt interested. Once this cheaper form is used up they off course will be interested. They should be on a path to equip solar anywhere it cam be used. Homes, businesses and industry. Every watt from the Sun is a watt that doesnt have to be created from fossil fuels. But no. Solar HW and PV remains a cool niche product, thats all. Oil has a 50 year life left according to BP.

oldbusdriver

45 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#2008352 5-May-2018 11:17

Lets all panic now at the increased plant production and an earth that has greened 14% due to the increased CO2

Don't forget that H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

And do some reading:

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/#sthash.T7BHmwBR.czzF9gMi.dpbs

oldbusdriver

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2008354 5-May-2018 11:31

oldbusdriver:

Lets all panic now at the increased plant production and an earth that has greened 14% due to the increased CO2

Don't forget that H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

And do some reading:

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/#sthash.T7BHmwBR.czzF9gMi.dpbs

Looks like a site not worth looking at. But yes, leaf cover is up, due to extra food, CO2, and extra temps. What you would expect in a greenhouse. Or greenhouse effect.

It therefore is insulating us, or giving us lower greenhouse data that what is happening, if the extra leaf cover is sucking some of it up. Much like smoke particles contribute to cooling as the larger smoke particles hold more water in the sky, and filter out heat. So we have two reasons where the actual heating of the Earth is more than what the data shows. When it gets too hot, and we are only talking a very small number of degrees, it hits a wall. The Amazon had a period where it got too hot in a heat wave, and it hibernated, and expelled stored CO2. In time, maybe 3 degrees I think, the entire equatorial belt will be like the Sahara.yes, tropical will shift North and South, so more great green areas, but the people have to squeeze in, as does agriculture, so the available green areas will reduce. Plus, the large green areas wont now be green they will be barren. The Amazon rainforest is reducing due to deforestation and heat.

kingdragonfly

11993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12891

Subscriber

#2019164 19-May-2018 20:40

From CNN

"GOP congressman asks if rocks are causing sea levels to rise

A member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology evinced skepticism about climate change during an exchange with a witness about rising sea levels.

Instead, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks offered an additional culprit: soil or rock deposits into the world's waters.

A study released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March documented accelerating sea-level rise driven by climate change.

E&E News reported on the comments of Brooks and others at the hearing, including California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher who said he was 'disturbed' that he heard people warning against questioning the link between human activity and climate change.

On Wednesday, at a hearing titled 'using technology to address climate change,' Brooks began by raising a broad question about rising ocean levels to the witness panel.

Philip Duffy, president of Woods Hole Research Center, said in response to the question that 'the last 100-year increase in sea-level rise, as I mentioned earlier, has clearly been attributed to human activities, greenhouse gas emissions.'

Brooks interjected and rephrased his question again, asking if there 'are other factors.'

'What about erosion?' Brooks offered during the exchange. He added: 'Every time you have that soil or rock, whatever it is, that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise because now you've got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up.'"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html

Besides taking huge donation from the oil industry, here's another reason why Republicans think they're experts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2019745 21-May-2018 12:56

Interesting point. We (people) have massively increased erosion (= sediment into ocean) and meteors land in the ocean too.

Intuitively I can't see either of those things causing the magnitude of change observed. But I'd be curious to see the numbers.

Because I'm a scientist and I like to see questions answered empirically, rather than dismissed because of who asked them.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2019782 21-May-2018 13:40

kingdragonfly: From CNN

"GOP congressman asks if rocks are causing sea levels to rise

A member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology evinced skepticism about climate change during an exchange with a witness about rising sea levels.

Instead, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks offered an additional culprit: soil or rock deposits into the world's waters.

A study released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March documented accelerating sea-level rise driven by climate change.

E&E News reported on the comments of Brooks and others at the hearing, including California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher who said he was 'disturbed' that he heard people warning against questioning the link between human activity and climate change.

On Wednesday, at a hearing titled 'using technology to address climate change,' Brooks began by raising a broad question about rising ocean levels to the witness panel.

Philip Duffy, president of Woods Hole Research Center, said in response to the question that 'the last 100-year increase in sea-level rise, as I mentioned earlier, has clearly been attributed to human activities, greenhouse gas emissions.'

Brooks interjected and rephrased his question again, asking if there 'are other factors.'

'What about erosion?' Brooks offered during the exchange. He added: 'Every time you have that soil or rock, whatever it is, that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise because now you've got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up.'"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html

Besides taking huge donation from the oil industry, here's another reason why Republicans think they're experts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

According to your graph, I must point out that every person who claim that *climate change science is 99-100% correct are dummies. Also, I could well be an expert as I am only 50-70% sure of the data.

*insert other topics here

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12