Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[madhatter]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... l-s-prices" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what do you do when you've just burned through a record $1.2 billion of cash in one quarter, expect to burn an additional $2 billion in capex in the second half of the year and haven't a prayer of generating positive earnings at any point in the near future? Well, you slash your product prices, of course.

Apparently this is exactly the strategy that Elon Musk has decided to pursue with his Model X after quietly slashing its price tag from $82,500 to a far more affordable $79,500 last night. Tesla explained the price cut via the following statement:

“When we launched Model X 75D, it had a low gross margin. As we’ve achieved efficiencies, we are able to lower the price and pass along more value to our customers.”
But it wasn't just the base MSRP on the Model X that got a price cut, as electrek points out, Tesla also decided to cut prices on the their Model S and throw in their $5,000 premium package for free.

All dual Motor Model S vehicles also got a slight $1,500 price drop, but the Model S P100D and Model X P100D were the most affected by last night’s changes.

Tesla updated the options of the vehicles to add more premium features as standards.

The “$5,000” Premium Package is now being absorbed into standard features for top versions of Tesla’s vehicles. Here’s the Premium package and the new standard features on a Model S P100D:

Of course, as we recently pointed out in our review of Tesla's 2Q 2017 earnings, this is probably the exact right move for a company burning through roughly $13 million in cash every single day. Here are some of the highlights from our recent earnings review:

One month after Tesla stock tumbled when the electric car maker announced that it had missed Wall Street estimates for the second quarter, delivering only 22,000 vehicles instead of the 22,912 expected, moments ago Tesla reported adjusted, non-GAAP Q2 earnings which beat expectations, with an adjusted loss of $1.33, better than the -$1.88 expected, which curiously was identical to the -1.33 loss in Q1.


One month after Tesla stock tumbled when the electric car maker announced that it had missed Wall Street estimates for the second quarter, delivering only 22,000 vehicles instead of the 22,912 expected, moments ago Tesla reported adjusted, non-GAAP Q2 earnings which beat expectations, with an adjusted loss of $1.33, better than the -$1.88 expected, which curiously was identical to the -1.33 loss in Q1.



Tesla continued to burn cash, and in the second quarter it outdid not only itself but Netflix too, with a record cash burn of -$1.16 billion - or roughly $13 million per day - almost double what it burned in Q1. In Q3, Tesla's CapEx was $959 million, a number which is set to surge as the Model 3 launch continued well into into Q3: Tesla expects it will burn another $2 billion in CapEx in the second half.


One month after Tesla stock tumbled when the electric car maker announced that it had missed Wall Street estimates for the second quarter, delivering only 22,000 vehicles instead of the 22,912 expected, moments ago Tesla reported adjusted, non-GAAP Q2 earnings which beat expectations, with an adjusted loss of $1.33, better than the -$1.88 expected, which curiously was identical to the -1.33 loss in Q1.



Tesla continued to burn cash, and in the second quarter it outdid not only itself but Netflix too, with a record cash burn of -$1.16 billion - or roughly $13 million per day - almost double what it burned in Q1. In Q3, Tesla's CapEx was $959 million, a number which is set to surge as the Model 3 launch continued well into into Q3: Tesla expects it will burn another $2 billion in CapEx in the second half.



Understandably, the cash burning behemoth was proud to announce that it had more than $3 billion in cash on hand at the end of Q2. There is just one problem, and this wasn't announced in the letter: Tesla also $3.9 billion in accounts payable and accrued liabilities, as the company drains all net working capital sources of cash it can find. Meanwhile, accounts receivable actually declined. This was the first quarter in which payables and accrued were nearly $1 billion more than cash and equivalents!

All that said, Tesla investors don't really seem to care about cash burn. And, since lower prices will undoubtedly result in a couple extra sales throughout the year, albeit at a cash loss, we're quite certain that investors will applaud this latest move by Musk...genius if we understand it correctly.

[Woodsrider]

I know I shouldn't, but I'll take this bait. So, if a small increase in atmospheric temperature occurs from an increase in CO2 concentration, would you not agree that the vapor pressure of water will increase causing more water vapor in the atmosphere trapping more heat, thus increasing the vapor pressure further and so on and so on? The vapor pressure of water verse temperature is exponential.

Ah... something resembling a scientific dialogue! Nice.

If the combustion of hydrocarbons "causes" an increase in atmospheric CO2 (the current increase MIGHT actually be caused by out-gassing from the oceans)...it MIGHT... then the increase in CO2 MIGHT "cause" an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Again this purported link in your climate claims is NOT well-supported by the data:
* the increase in CO2 from 1945-1980 was accompanied by a DECREASE in ATMOSPHERIC temperature (NEGATIVE correlation!!)
* from 1980-2000 there is indeed CORRELATION of CO2 increase with ATMOSPHERIC temperature increase. Wow!!!
* from 2000- present there is poor correlation. The ATMOSPHERIC temp is quite flat in the face of steady increase in CO2.
* There is NO "hot spot" in the troposphere as predicted by IPCC. Surface warming (GISS/ HADCRU) EXCEEDS atmospheric temp.

In any case even if these IPCC claims were robustly supported by data the subsequent claims are not.

IN THEORY...some increase in atmospheric temp would load the atmosphere with more H2O. I have allowed, because it seems sane, that H2O is a powerful "greenhouse gas." The dynamics of the earth system demonstrate this.

Summer nights in the desert can be quite cold. Lots of direct sun in the day leads to warmth which is then LOST at night because there are no SIGNIFICANT "greenhouse gasses" in the desert. About the same amount of CO2 as everywhere (it is a "well-mixed" gas) but almost NO water... so... almost NO "greenhouse effect." It gets really cold in a desert at night because CO2 doesn't do jacksh!t to warm the planet.

Alternately HUMID summer nights PROVE the power of the important "greenhouse gas"... H2O. The energy from the sun delivered during daylight hours is retained in the system because H2O powerfully absorbs outgoing IR. So humid summer night remain (painfully) warm. When humidity drops the "greenhouse effect" diminishes dramatically. (Hopefully that will happen tonight in New England!)

So I have no current reservations with the claim that more H2O in the air CAN cause more warming.

BUT... water has another dramatic impact in the atmosphere. Increased H2O in the atmosphere can lead to increased CLOUD COVER.
Increases in cloud cover have dramatic impacts on energy flow in the earth climate system. You already know this. No matter what the temperature of the air mass when the sun shines brightly, unobstructed by clouds, on a summer day the earth system absorbs MUCH MORE solar energy. Alternately when clouds form the incoming solar energy is reflected ( across virtually the entire spectrum) back into space by the albedo effect from the tops of the clouds.

This cools the earth climate system.

So.. we agree that there MIGHT be a causal chain linking combustion of hydrocarbons to slight increase in temperature and atmospheric H2O.

But... the IPCC group chooses to FOCUS on the potential "greenhouse effect" of potential increased atmospheric H2O and IGNORES (virtually) the impact of increased CLOUD COVER on the evolving climate system.

And that omission is proving to be ridiculous.

The real science of this has progressed well beyond the initial(and clearly flawed) claims of the IPCC. Real scientists have investigated BOTH of the potential impacts of increases in atmospheric H2O and the likely conclusions are emerging. The key factor which is still not well understood is the dynamics of cloud nucleation. If there is lots of humidity but few clouds the impact should be to increase warming (as claimed by the IPCC)

BUT... if there is an increase in cloud nucleation...the earth system would have increased cloud albedo, reflecting significant solar energy and COOLING the earth. This is a well established theory (mostly attributed to Svensmark) with lots of supporting data. If you also include the role of oceans in thermal capacitance it seems quite capable of explaining the major dynamics of the earth climate system ( including ice ages!)

I do not claim that "the science is settled" and these ideas about climate are proven and definitive but they seem much more compelling than the IPCC claims. The only reasons someone might prefer the flawed IPCC narrative might be that either they:
* had never fully considered the role of clouds in climate,
* they were activists encouraged to ignore these factors or...
*they had the delusional idea that a "consensus" in science is never wrong.

What makes you think there will be an increase in cloud nucleation? Plus you are neglecting the warming by clouds. Clouds do not just reflect energy out to space, they trap energy too. The estimated effects of net cooling vs. net heating is accounted for the IPCC Report.

[frankieski]

I have been reading the posts and replies in this thread...and I find all of this discussion very informative.

I am in the car business (unfortunately)... A service director at a new car dealership. Originally from Rhode Island and for the last 12 years, in Florida. I recently moved back to Rhode Island and hope to see some of you this year on the slopes.

While I understand both "sides" of the concern, there is only one fact that seems to be apparent everywhere on the globe. UV radiation seems to be getting worse. My mother passed because of cancer. Cancer is everywhere around us. One day we are told it is from the food and drink we consume, red meats, fried potatoes...next day heated plastics, and thousands of other reasons. My next statement has no scientific proof. However, it seems logical given all the data that is presented that I read in all of your posts. And, it appears that some of you are well educated. So, I believe someone here may provide support of my next statement. I believe the larger concern of human life isn't how many degrees the earth warms... if clouds will cool the earth...or, if CO2 causes warming. I believe the bigger concern is radiation from the sun. I have no scientific evidence except that the results seem alarming.

(Here's a very basic observation. I have been using 30 spf sun block as long as I can remember. Just 12 years ago, when I moved to Florida, I could go out all day to the beach, on the boat, and have a little tan at the end of the day. Each year, my exposure shortens. Sitting on the beach or a boat now, I can feel like I am getting burned after an hour.)

I believe our concerns with Global warming are significant. But I also believe that all objects on this earth are subjected to a "possible" (again I have no evidence) increase in solar radiation caused by a decreased layer of protection in our atmosphere. I know the effects of solar radiation on the human body. I can only imagine the effects of solar UV radiation on everything else in this world... outside of the clouds, oceans, temperature, water vapor, etc.... how about everything else... life, reproduction, plants, defects in current DNA in all life. We could talk about all the luxuries of life, communications, electronics, and skiing down Tuckermans in June. But, I believe The harmful rays of the sun are going to get us way before the earth warms.

[Woodsrider]

I have been reading the posts and replies in this thread...and I find all of this discussion very informative.

I am in the car business (unfortunately)... A service director at a new car dealership. Originally from Rhode Island and for the last 12 years, in Florida. I recently moved back to Rhode Island and hope to see some of you this year on the slopes.

While I understand both "sides" of the concern, there is only one fact that seems to be apparent everywhere on the globe. UV radiation seems to be getting worse. My mother passed because of cancer. Cancer is everywhere around us. One day we are told it is from the food and drink we consume, red meats, fried potatoes...next day heated plastics, and thousands of other reasons. My next statement has no scientific proof. However, it seems logical given all the data that is presented that I read in all of your posts. And, it appears that some of you are well educated. So, I believe someone here may provide support of my next statement. I believe the larger concern of human life isn't how many degrees the earth warms... if clouds will cool the earth...or, if CO2 causes warming. I believe the bigger concern is radiation from the sun. I have no scientific evidence except that the results seem alarming.

(Here's a very basic observation. I have been using 30 spf sun block as long as I can remember. Just 12 years ago, when I moved to Florida, I could go out all day to the beach, on the boat, and have a little tan at the end of the day. Each year, my exposure shortens. Sitting on the beach or a boat now, I can feel like I am getting burned after an hour.)

I believe our concerns with Global warming are significant. But I also believe that all objects on this earth are subjected to a "possible" (again I have no evidence) increase in solar radiation caused by a decreased layer of protection in our atmosphere. I know the effects of solar radiation on the human body. I can only imagine the effects of solar UV radiation on everything else in this world... outside of the clouds, oceans, temperature, water vapor, etc.... how about everything else... life, reproduction, plants, defects in current DNA in all life. We could talk about all the luxuries of life, communications, electronics, and skiing down Tuckermans in June. But, I believe The harmful rays of the sun are going to get us way before the earth warms.

You are not wrong. We depleted the ozone level and UV radiation has gotten much stronger. Especially in the mid to high latitudes. Skin cancer has gone up dramatically as well. But you can protect yourself from UV radiation.

[Bubba]

I have been reading the posts and replies in this thread...and I find all of this discussion very informative.

I am in the car business (unfortunately)... A service director at a new car dealership. Originally from Rhode Island and for the last 12 years, in Florida. I recently moved back to Rhode Island and hope to see some of you this year on the slopes.

While I understand both "sides" of the concern, there is only one fact that seems to be apparent everywhere on the globe. UV radiation seems to be getting worse. My mother passed because of cancer. Cancer is everywhere around us. One day we are told it is from the food and drink we consume, red meats, fried potatoes...next day heated plastics, and thousands of other reasons. My next statement has no scientific proof. However, it seems logical given all the data that is presented that I read in all of your posts. And, it appears that some of you are well educated. So, I believe someone here may provide support of my next statement. I believe the larger concern of human life isn't how many degrees the earth warms... if clouds will cool the earth...or, if CO2 causes warming. I believe the bigger concern is radiation from the sun. I have no scientific evidence except that the results seem alarming.

(Here's a very basic observation. I have been using 30 spf sun block as long as I can remember. Just 12 years ago, when I moved to Florida, I could go out all day to the beach, on the boat, and have a little tan at the end of the day. Each year, my exposure shortens. Sitting on the beach or a boat now, I can feel like I am getting burned after an hour.)

I believe our concerns with Global warming are significant. But I also believe that all objects on this earth are subjected to a "possible" (again I have no evidence) increase in solar radiation caused by a decreased layer of protection in our atmosphere. I know the effects of solar radiation on the human body. I can only imagine the effects of solar UV radiation on everything else in this world... outside of the clouds, oceans, temperature, water vapor, etc.... how about everything else... life, reproduction, plants, defects in current DNA in all life. We could talk about all the luxuries of life, communications, electronics, and skiing down Tuckermans in June. But, I believe The harmful rays of the sun are going to get us way before the earth warms.

You are not wrong. We depleted the ozone level and UV radiation has gotten much stronger. Especially in the mid to high latitudes. Skin cancer has gone up dramatically as well. But you can protect yourself from UV radiation.

The ozone layer was negatively impacted by chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerants and aerosols. They have been phased out per international agreement and, I believe, recent studies have shown the ozone layer to be stabilizing if not improving.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

What makes you think there will be an increase in cloud nucleation? Plus you are neglecting the warming by clouds. Clouds do not just reflect energy out to space, they trap energy too. The estimated effects of net cooling vs. net heating is accounted for the IPCC Report.

OK. Let me clarify some of what "cloud nucleation " is. In the atmosphere various factors impact the events that lead to the formation of clouds. Of course clouds do not form under normal conditions in deserts because there isn't enough water vapor to form clouds. As water vapor increases there is more available water for cloud formation but this is impacted by a variety of other factors. Cloud nucleation events are the formation of small particulate assemblies in the atmosphere which are large enough to serve as a collecting point such that water molecules congregate around them and form the water droplets clouds are made of.

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Why is this so variable? No one is sure. Certainly high humidity CONTRIBUTES to cloud formation but does not CAUSE it (much like CO2 can contribute to warming but does not cause it) because under some circumstances they are not tightly correlated.

What other factors besides high humidity can contribute to cloud formation? No one is certain. Svensmark has been working on this for quite a while and his research supports a role for cosmic rays in cloud nucleation. His ideas have been tested at CERN and the results supported his claims (with the caveat that other factors in atmospheric chemistry also seem to play a role( something like "pollutants" help encourage cloud nucleation events)).

So as I have repeated endlessly here the picture is quite complex and not fully resolved. Under certain circumstances ( high gamma incidence in a slightly dirty atmosphere) clouds form very easily with adequate humidity.

Your claim that clouds trap energy too....is quite useless. We are obviously talking about the NET energy flux due to the component and the clouds we are talking about, with high albedo, cause a NET energy LOSS to the climate system. Cloudy days cool the planet relative to sunny days. That is very clear. Energy reflected from the tops of clouds NEVER enters the rest of the earth climate system and is lost to space.

As for your representation that the IPCC does a decent job modeling the impact of clouds on climate is simply misinformed. Not surprised. You are always anxious to assume your heroes MUST have covered all that because they are scientists...right? Nope.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The ozone layer was negatively impacted by chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerants and aerosols. They have been phased out per international agreement and, I believe, recent studies have shown the ozone layer to be stabilizing if not improving.

Yeah. Whole ozone debate has almost nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 issues debated here.

But not an expert on this...

[Woodsrider]

What makes you think there will be an increase in cloud nucleation? Plus you are neglecting the warming by clouds. Clouds do not just reflect energy out to space, they trap energy too. The estimated effects of net cooling vs. net heating is accounted for the IPCC Report.

OK. Let me clarify some of what "cloud nucleation " is. In the atmosphere various factors impact the events that lead to the formation of clouds. Of course clouds do not form under normal conditions in deserts because there isn't enough water vapor to form clouds. As water vapor increases there is more available water for cloud formation but this is impacted by a variety of other factors. Cloud nucleation events are the formation of small particulate assemblies in the atmosphere which are large enough to serve as a collecting point such that water molecules congregate around them and form the water droplets clouds are made of.

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Why is this so variable? No one is sure. Certainly high humidity CONTRIBUTES to cloud formation but does not CAUSE it (much like CO2 can contribute to warming but does not cause it) because under some circumstances they are not tightly correlated.

What other factors besides high humidity can contribute to cloud formation? No one is certain. Svensmark has been working on this for quite a while and his research supports a role for cosmic rays in cloud nucleation. His ideas have been tested at CERN and the results supported his claims (with the caveat that other factors in atmospheric chemistry also seem to play a role( something like "pollutants" help encourage cloud nucleation events)).

So as I have repeated endlessly here the picture is quite complex and not fully resolved. Under certain circumstances ( high gamma incidence in a slightly dirty atmosphere) clouds form very easily with adequate humidity.

Your claim that clouds trap energy too....is quite useless. We are obviously talking about the NET energy flux due to the component and the clouds we are talking about, with high albedo, cause a NET energy LOSS to the climate system. Cloudy days cool the planet relative to sunny days. That is very clear. Energy reflected from the tops of clouds NEVER enters the rest of the earth climate system and is lost to space.

As for your representation that the IPCC does a decent job modeling the impact of clouds on climate is simply misinformed. Not surprised. You are always anxious to assume your heroes MUST have covered all that because they are scientists...right? Nope.

Dude you really need to get off your high horse. I know exactly what nucleation is and how it affects the phases of water. You also are wrong about how clouds affect atmospheric temperature. You can't cherry pick the clouds you want so they fit your results. Different clouds have different effects. I'm sure you have noticed that on overcast evenings, the heat and humidity lingers through the night. While on clear nights the air cools.

Now try answering the question which you completely avoided. Why would there be additional nucleation?

[Mister Moose]

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Pretty sure you don't need nuclei for condensation to occur, and hence clouds. What happens when you cool an airmass (devoid of nuclei) below the dewpoint?

[Woodsrider]

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Pretty sure you don't need nuclei for condensation to occur, and hence clouds. What happens when you cool an airmass (devoid of nuclei) below the dewpoint?

The vapor super cools. It is an interesting phenomenon. Water vapor in the atmosphere can exceed saturation without condensing. But toss a spec of dust in it an you get a cloud. But yes MM you are correct, you don't need nucleation. But it helps.

[Mister Moose]

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Pretty sure you don't need nuclei for condensation to occur, and hence clouds. What happens when you cool an airmass (devoid of nuclei) below the dewpoint?

The vapor super cools. It is an interesting phenomenon. Water vapor in the atmosphere can exceed saturation without condensing. But toss a spec of dust in it an you get a cloud. But yes MM you are correct, you don't need nucleation. But it helps.

Right, but in the exception. You can have super cooled vapor or liquid, but both are very unstable, and are not at all the norm outside the lab.

An interesting sorta demo of this is take a clear plastic bottle of seltzer and chill it to only 30ish degrees in your freezer. Or easier and better, leave it in your car on a 30ish degree cloudy day. When you twist off the cap and release the pressure, the CO² concentration in the water decreases rapidly, the liquid now is below its freezing point, the water is super cooled and unstable, and boom, instant slush. You don't usually see instant ice formation like that. The clear bottle lets you see it happen better than say diet coke.

[Woodsrider]

So formation of clouds is dependent on cloud nucleation events occurring. Sometimes this occurs with moderate humidity and at other times even high humidity atmospheres do not have adequate nucleation events for cloud formation.

Pretty sure you don't need nuclei for condensation to occur, and hence clouds. What happens when you cool an airmass (devoid of nuclei) below the dewpoint?

The vapor super cools. It is an interesting phenomenon. Water vapor in the atmosphere can exceed saturation without condensing. But toss a spec of dust in it an you get a cloud. But yes MM you are correct, you don't need nucleation. But it helps.

Right, but in the exception. You can have super cooled vapor or liquid, but both are very unstable, and are not at all the norm outside the lab.

An interesting sorta demo of this is take a clear plastic bottle of seltzer and chill it to only 30ish degrees in your freezer. Or easier and better, leave it in your car on a 30ish degree cloudy day. When you twist off the cap and release the pressure, the CO² concentration in the water decreases rapidly, the liquid now is below its freezing point, the water is super cooled and unstable, and boom, instant slush. You don't usually see instant ice formation like that. The clear bottle lets you see it happen better than say diet coke.

It's actually the norm in the atmosphere. Low pressure, high volume, widely spaced molecules in constant motion. they need something polarized to seed the cloud. Water vapor can actually reach 400% saturation before condensing without nucleation. But once it's nucleated the cloud becomes self propagating.

[freeski]

Al Gore's new movie isn't doing very well. Al blames this on the cool summer much of the nation has seen. Of course Al blames the cool summer on Manbearpig.

[madhatter]

Al Gore's new movie isn't doing very well. Al blames this on the cool summer much of the nation has seen. Of course Al blames the cool summer on Manbearpig.

hey he's super cereal ya know...

[biged]

I just thought it was a factor of getting older and had nothing to do with the sun. Maybe that is why the kids don't play outside anymore.