Tweet
-
-
I can not stop jerking off to this gif.Originally posted by SBFORDTECH View PostMagnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
Well, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-nhf091517.phpOriginally posted by mschmoyer View Post
I mean, that's a giant difference when we're talking about the budgets of entire nations.Dr Richard Millar, lead author and post-doctoral research fellow at the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon Investment Initiative at Oxford University, said: 'Limiting total CO2 emissions from the start of 2015 to beneath 240 billion tonnes of carbon (880 billion tonnes of CO2), or about 20 years' of current emissions, would likely achieve the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.'
'Previous estimates of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget based on the IPCC 5th Assessment were around four times lower, so this is very good news for the achievability of the Paris targets,'
We had this:
Originally posted by mschmoyer View Post
And now we have this:
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.
An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook. Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement. They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.
According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above
Professor Michael Grubb, University College London:We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought
The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model. “When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.
Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees. The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”. Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China.
Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted. China has now acquired more than 100 gigawatts of solar cells, 25 per cent of which in the last six months, and in the UK, offshore wind has turned out to cost far less than expected. Professor Michael Grubb, from University College London, had previously described the goals agreed at Paris in 2015 as “incompatible with democracy”.
But yesterday he said: "We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris." He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because “The White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions".
“The smaller constituencies - cities, businesses, states - are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind.”
The new research was published as the Met Office announced that a “slowdown” in the rate of global temperature rises reported over roughly the first decade of this century was now over. The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere. However, that cycle has now ended.
Claire Perry, the climate change and industry minister, claimed Britain had already demonstrated that tackling climate change and running a strong economy could go “hand in hand”. “Now is the time to build on our strengths and cement our position as a global hub for investment in clean growth,” she said.
#redtextLast edited by Strychnine; 09-21-2017, 06:13 AM.Comment
-
Climate Change. Officials from the former Obama White House are starting to speak out against the corrupt administration now that it is safe to come forward. It?s about time!
The most recent official to come forward is Steven Koonin, the former Undersecretary of the Department of Energy. He is accusing President Obama of fabricating scientific evidence proving ?climate change?.
?What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I?d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,? Koonin told the Wall Street Journal.
According to Koonin, multiple departments responsible for environmental science either misrepresented data or completely fabricated results to justify the policies of the Obama administration.
Scientists at NASA and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) colluded with press officers to create misleading press releases that supported the former president?s agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at*https://www.usapoliticstoday.com/off...-change-obama/
Sorry for all of ? marks. I copied this from somewhere else.Comment
-
Road to electric car paradise paved with handouts.....
Comment
-
I still don't see why they can't settle this once and for all by simply checking the farmer's almanac. And here it is:Originally posted by cyclonescott View Post
You can check all the recorded temperatures you want, way back to a time when there was no way in hell there was enough industry to be having any effect at all on "climate change". Here in my area of TX, its not any hotter than its ever been. Or colder. Its just... staying inside the same range it always has. Its obviously all bullshit.WHComment
-
Tesla posts big loss, delays Model 3 production goals
Tesla Inc. reported its biggest-ever quarterly loss as the company delayed by months a production goal for its critical Model 3 sedan.
The Silicon Valley automaker Wednesday pushed back its 5,000-per-week production goal for the car — from the end of this year, to late in the first quarter of 2018. The Model 3, with a starting sticker price of about $35,000, has been plagued by production problems. The main bottleneck is at Tesla battery plant in Nevada, known as the Gigafactory. Tesla also reportedly is encountering problems with welding and assembly at its Fremont, California production facility.
It sold just 222 Model 3s from July through September.
Tesla on Wednesday attributed the increased losses — $619 million for the third quarter — in part to the production problems, although it expressed confidence in the long-term viability of the car.
“We continue to make significant progress each week,” CEO Elon Musk said in a live webcast from the Gigafactory during which he sought to reassure investors. “We see no fundamental problems with our supply chain or any of our production processes. Obviously there are bottlenecks. There are thousands of processes in creating the Model 3, and we will move as fast as the slowest and least lucky process among those thousands.”
Tesla lost nearly twice as much money during the period from July to September as the $336.4 million loss it reported in the second quarter.
In anticipation of the company’s third-quarter results, shares of Tesla stock fell 3.2 percent Wednesday in regular trading to $321.08 The quarterly earnings report came out after markets closed, and by 7:30 p.m. in after-hours trading the stock price dropped an additional 4.6 percent to $306.24.
Tesla had said previously that it expected to achieve a production rate of 10,000 Model 3 vehicles per week in 2018. Musk downplayed the reduction of the target Wednesday, saying, “I think in the grand scheme of things, this is a very small shift.
“The Model 3 is a 10-year program, so we’re talking about a few months out of a 10-year program.”
Musk issued $1.8 billion in bonds during the third quarter to finance the car’s launch. Tesla reported having a $3.5 billion cash balance heading into the final quarter of the year, up $494 million from the cash balance that Tesla reported in July.
Tesla has touted the Model 3, which starts at about $35,000, as a “compelling, high-performance and long-range electric vehicle that is also affordable.” Tesla said it sold 25,915 Model S and Model X vehicles in the third quarter, in addition to the handful of Model 3s it delivered.
By comparison, General Motors Co. sold 6,710 all-electric Chevrolet Bolts in the third quarter, with an additional 2,781 in October. The two electric cars for the mass market are seen as direct competitors.
Tesla said the main bottleneck has been in the battery module assembly line at the Gigafactory, where cells are packaged into modules.
“The combined complexity of module design and its automated manufacturing process has taken this line longer to ramp than expected,” the company said.
The automaker fired hundreds of employees last month in job reductions the company attributed to performance reviews. Musk bristled at suggestions that the firings were related to Tesla’s recent financial performance.
“These are really ridiculous, and any journalists who have written articles of this respect should be ashamed of themselves for lacking journalistic integrity,” he said. “Every company in the world does annual performance reviews.”
Kelley Blue Book executive analyst Rebecca Lindland said Tesla’s problems go deeper than the Model 3. But she predicted investors will remain loyal.
“Tesla continues to be thought of as a tech company, not an auto manufacturer,” she said. “So while production of the Model 3 lags and becomes a balance-sheet liability, it’s having minimal impact on the stock price. Many investors are likely taking a long-term view and will stick with Tesla despite the recent spate of lawsuits about production delays and performance-related firings. Clearly, there’s more than just production hell going on behind the scenes at Tesla right now.”Comment
-
-
Really interesting article from Wired on how global climate "agreements" around the world are hinging on one unproven, and basically non-existent technology, that should never have been included in any decision making...
Link: The Dirty Secret of the World's Plan to Avert Climate Disaster
Cliff's Notes
BECCS stands for Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (grow crops to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, use those crops as feedstock for electricity production, capture 100% of the CO2 from the burning and pump it underground. In theory it's a negative-carbon process.
The UN report envisions 116 scenarios in which global temperatures are prevented from rising more than 2°C. In 101 of them, that goal is accomplished by sucking massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—a concept called “negative emissions”—chiefly via BECCS. And in these scenarios to prevent planetary disaster, this would need to happen by midcentury, or even as soon as 2020. Like a pharmaceutical warning label, one footnote warned that such “methods may carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale.”
Indeed, following the scenarios’ assumptions, just growing the crops needed to fuel those BECCS plants would require a landmass one to two times the size of India, climate researchers Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters wrote. The energy BECCS was supposed to supply is on par with all of the coal-fired power plants in the world. In other words, the models were calling for an energy revolution—one that was somehow supposed to occur well within millennials’ lifetimes.The plausibility of the Paris Climate Agreement’s goals rested on what was lurking in the UN report’s fine print: massive negative emissions achieved primarily through BECCS—an unproven concept to put it mildly.In a recent paper, engineers Mathilde Fajardy and Niall Mac Dowell, of Imperial College in London, explore best- and worst-case BECCS scenarios in excruciating detail. In worst-case scenarios (say, burning willow grown on grasslands in Europe), it’s possible to never even achieve negative emissions. You spend too much carbon transporting crops, preparing land, and building a plant. And even in best-case scenarios (using fast-growing elephant grass on marginal cropland in Brazil), you still need land use on par with Anderson’s multiples of India and water use on par with what we currently use for all agriculture in the world. “If you extrapolate the amount of agricultural production to the scale you would need, it’s going to be a disaster,” Lackner told us.The models assumed BECCS on a vast scale. According to an analysis that British climate researcher Jason Lowe shared with Carbon Brief, at median the models called for BECCS to remove 630 gigatons of CO2, roughly two-thirds of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted between preindustrial times and 2011. Was that reasonable?
Not for James Hansen, who wrote that reliance on negative emissions had quietly “spread like a cancer” through the scenarios, along with the assumption that young people would somehow figure out how to extract CO2 at a cost he later projected to be $140–570 trillion this century.Anderson (of the India calculations) pointed out that the few 2°C scenarios without BECCS required CO2 emissions to peak back in 2010—something, he noted wryly, that “clearly has not occurred.” In a scathing letter in 2015, Anderson accused scientists of using negative emissions to sanitize their research for policymakers, calling them a “deux ex machina.” Fellow critics argued that the integrated assessment models had become a political device to make the 2°C goal seem more plausible than it was.Whether the IPCC’s scenarios are political cover or research guides for policymakers depends on who you ask. But either way, this gap is undeniable. It can be explained in part by the fact that BECCS is a conceptual tool, not an actual technology that anyone in the engineering world (apart from a few outliers like Karlsson) is championing. At a recent meeting in Berlin, one climate researcher called BECCS “the devil child,” which got laughs
And then it's noted that even though this technology, which is no where near the scale needed, is our only real hope, world leaders are not talking about it, are not funding it, are not planning for it...
Marrakesh, then-Secretary of State John Kerry released an ambitious report outlining how the US might “deeply decarbonize,” slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. In the report, negative emissions and BECCS are star players, but so are two scenarios—one envisioning a limited role for BECCS and one entirely eliminating the use of BECCS. Emily McGlynn, who led that part of the report, says the goal could be achieved without any negative emissions technologies—it’s just more expensive.
When asked how we should read the results of any integrated assessment model, controversial as they are, McGlynn sighs. “The most important of the IPCC’s projections is that we’re screwed unless we can figure out how to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, because we haven’t acted fast enough,” she says. “I think that’s the most important part of the story.”
Still, negative emissions are not mentioned in the Paris Climate Agreement or a part of formal international climate negotiations. As Peters and Geden recently pointed out, no country mentions BECCS in its official plan to cut emissions in line with Paris’s 2°C goal, and only a dozen mention carbon capture and storage. Politicians are decidedly not crafting elaborate BECCS plans, with supply chains spanning continents and carbon accounting spanning decades. So even if negative emissions of any kind turns out to be feasible technically and economically, it’s hard to see how we can achieve it on a global scale in a scant 13 or even three years, as some scenarios require.
So just think about where all those US dollars were really going to go (???) next time someone mentions the Paris AccordComment
-
scam.... possibly scamolaComment
-
Comment
Comment