The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s. Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s. And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
You are however correct about one thing, CO2 isn't our only big problem
And that is my point. In fact, the connection between CO2 and global warming is rather tenuous, there are other, bigger forces at play. Some natural, some man-made. But by focusing on CO2 to the exclusion of all else, we're doing really the wrong thing. CO2 is easy to "monitor and control" (read: tax), but it's the wrong thing to focus on. Unfortunately, too many want to "do something" instead of "do the right thing" and thus we're where we're at.
I usually ignore ACs, but in your case, you're special (in the short-bus meaning of the word)...
Here is the same data for the last 4 quarters, with the most recent being March 31, 2018. This is for TESLA stock - meaning, everything that TESLA owns, and operates. This would include Solar City, etc. You cannot legally report only part of your corporate income or expenses - you have to report EVERYTHING that your company receives and spends.
Looking at the data, you'll see that for Q1 2018 (which ended 2 months ago, rather the FY2017 data I used above which ended 5 - not 8 - months ago), taking gross profit and subtracting sales, general and admin they had a $230MM loss. Looking at each quarter for the last 4 quarters, you'll see the same thing - losses. And you'll also notice that each quarter their interest expenses increase as they borrow more money to cover losses. So just the COGS is negative, and then their committed interest payments push it further into loss. They could completely cut all R&D engineering and capital expenses - cut it to $0 - and still lose billions each year.
Now, for special people, this may look all well and good! You're told that happy things are all that TSLA is about, and that it will make a profit. Yet it never does, and the facts are that it loses money on every vehicle sold BEFORE you account for things like R&D, capital expenses, and interest costs. The losses are quite high, too, being billions of dollars a year. Yet somehow it's going to turn around in the next 2 months (July)? Really? Someone likes fairy tales!
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2? Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2? Perhaps it's not CO2 that is the big culprit here - if the trends don't correlate, than the chance for causation is essentially nil.
They cannot become profitable by selling more with the same model that they have. They would need to redo their entire organization, and slash quite a bit of COGS expenditures, in order to turn a profit.
Here are the financials from Q4 2017. They have a $2.2 billion gross profit, but they spent $2.5 billion on sales, general, and admin. That is a $300MM loss BEFORE we even talk about R&D or interest expenses. Cost of goods sold - the cost to make and sell the product - is a net loss. That's before R&D, NRE, interest, and other operational expenses.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions exceed the amount that can be taken up or balanced out by natural sinks.[91] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.
That would imply that the remainder, 57%, would be from non-human sources.
No, the EPA as a Government agency has a responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the US Federal Government at the direction of the Executive branch in executing the laws as passed. It is the Congress (with the approval of the President, unless Congress can override a veto) that maintains responsibility to the taxpayers, not the departments.
Then you didn't look at his model. It matches the temperature record quite well (better than most of the IPCC as Dr. Roy Spencer has shown), and is based on the PDO. In other words, it is the PDO (and to a lesser extent the AMO) that drive the climate, not CO2.
The models claim that temperature correlates with CO2. But here is data that shows the two do not correlate. So which is right - the data or the model?
As Richard Feynman so clearly pointed out, if your model does not fit data, then it is wrong. The model proffered says that CO2 drives our climate. However, we see that even Phil Jones, lead researcher of the IPCC (and the IPCC itself) admit that the same heating occurred from 1975 to 1998, as occurred in 1910 to 1940 (very low CO2 output) and from 1860 to 1880 (essentially no CO2 output). So if the temperature changes are the same for essentially zero, very little, and a lot of CO2 output, then can we conclusively state that CO2 is the driver of temperature change?
It all depends on your frame of reference. You can pick a frame of reference where the earth is perfectly still. Granted, it's a non-inertial frame of reference which make celestial mechanics a bitch to deal with, but you can do it, and it will work.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff... An Earth-centered frame of reference is perfectly valid as the GP stated; the math is ugly, and the motions of the planets become extremely complex from an equation standpoint, but it is completely consistent and nothing "jumps" around. Unless you think Einstein is wrong?
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results.
Here is one, by Professor Don Easterbrook, based on the PDO. And his model nicely fits the data - including the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend and the pause/drop from 2000 to 2015 - that is available. In other words, it is the oceans (and the currents therein, that distribute the heat), not the atmosphere that drives things. Which makes sense, given the amount of heat that can be stored/distributed by each...
:Sigh:... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures
in Greenland were 2–3C warmer than present-day values... For all the simulated icesheet
histories, the ice sheet is approaching a steady state at the end of the 20th century
. So it was considerably warmer back in the time of the Pharaohs, and at least the Greenland ice sheet is approaching a stead state of size at this time. That would imply that things have changed significantly - cooler - over the last 5 to 8K years, no?
There is also this little bit of data which is what led Phil Jones, Director of the CRU of East Anglia and a primary contributor to the IPCC, to agree that:
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
. So if the heating over those periods - two well before the rapid rise in CO2 - are the same as the "big trigger" that caused the whole IPCC/global warming issue in the first place, then how do we know that it's because of CO2?
And Ford and GM actually make a profit, too... Having a debt with positive cash flow isn't nearly as scary as having a debt with a negative cash flow...
FCA (Fiat Chrysler) is up 400% over the last 5 years, and 200% over the last year. The smart auto money would have been to put it into a manufacturer not just turning a profit, but increasing their profit margin AND their sales, worldwide.
Well, first I know that's a wasted feature for the/. community, as climbing the stairs from the basement is enough exercise, thankyouverymuch... But this is a feature my Samsung Note 5 (and new Note 8) have had since the beginning. They're quite adept at determining when I'm walking versus sitting and rocking in a chair, or riding on my motorcycle. And it automatically counts your steps if you enable health tracking.
I'm saying that Nissan and VW and Chevy are able to sell lots of EVs for less than $30K, and still make a profit. Yet we hear from Tesla fans that the Model 3 is the best selling vehicle - and they lose money on them. Perhaps the issue is that Nissan and VW and Chevy aren't selling enough, so they still make profit, and Tesla sells to many, so they run a loss. A bizarro backwards world thing...
Slashdot Mirror
The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s. Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s. And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
You are however correct about one thing, CO2 isn't our only big problem
And that is my point. In fact, the connection between CO2 and global warming is rather tenuous, there are other, bigger forces at play. Some natural, some man-made. But by focusing on CO2 to the exclusion of all else, we're doing really the wrong thing. CO2 is easy to "monitor and control" (read: tax), but it's the wrong thing to focus on. Unfortunately, too many want to "do something" instead of "do the right thing" and thus we're where we're at.
I usually ignore ACs, but in your case, you're special (in the short-bus meaning of the word)...
Here is the same data for the last 4 quarters, with the most recent being March 31, 2018. This is for TESLA stock - meaning, everything that TESLA owns, and operates. This would include Solar City, etc. You cannot legally report only part of your corporate income or expenses - you have to report EVERYTHING that your company receives and spends.
Looking at the data, you'll see that for Q1 2018 (which ended 2 months ago, rather the FY2017 data I used above which ended 5 - not 8 - months ago), taking gross profit and subtracting sales, general and admin they had a $230MM loss. Looking at each quarter for the last 4 quarters, you'll see the same thing - losses. And you'll also notice that each quarter their interest expenses increase as they borrow more money to cover losses. So just the COGS is negative, and then their committed interest payments push it further into loss. They could completely cut all R&D engineering and capital expenses - cut it to $0 - and still lose billions each year.
Now, for special people, this may look all well and good! You're told that happy things are all that TSLA is about, and that it will make a profit. Yet it never does, and the facts are that it loses money on every vehicle sold BEFORE you account for things like R&D, capital expenses, and interest costs. The losses are quite high, too, being billions of dollars a year. Yet somehow it's going to turn around in the next 2 months (July)? Really? Someone likes fairy tales!
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2? Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2? Perhaps it's not CO2 that is the big culprit here - if the trends don't correlate, than the chance for causation is essentially nil.
They cannot become profitable by selling more with the same model that they have. They would need to redo their entire organization, and slash quite a bit of COGS expenditures, in order to turn a profit.
Here are the financials from Q4 2017. They have a $2.2 billion gross profit, but they spent $2.5 billion on sales, general, and admin. That is a $300MM loss BEFORE we even talk about R&D or interest expenses. Cost of goods sold - the cost to make and sell the product - is a net loss. That's before R&D, NRE, interest, and other operational expenses.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions exceed the amount that can be taken up or balanced out by natural sinks.[91] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.
That would imply that the remainder, 57%, would be from non-human sources.
No, the EPA as a Government agency has a responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the US Federal Government at the direction of the Executive branch in executing the laws as passed. It is the Congress (with the approval of the President, unless Congress can override a veto) that maintains responsibility to the taxpayers, not the departments.
Then you didn't look at his model. It matches the temperature record quite well (better than most of the IPCC as Dr. Roy Spencer has shown), and is based on the PDO. In other words, it is the PDO (and to a lesser extent the AMO) that drive the climate, not CO2.
The models claim that temperature correlates with CO2. But here is data that shows the two do not correlate. So which is right - the data or the model?
Not really needed, if you remember the quote from Einstein. One simple experimental result that shows your model is wrong is all it takes.
As Richard Feynman so clearly pointed out, if your model does not fit data, then it is wrong. The model proffered says that CO2 drives our climate. However, we see that even Phil Jones, lead researcher of the IPCC (and the IPCC itself) admit that the same heating occurred from 1975 to 1998, as occurred in 1910 to 1940 (very low CO2 output) and from 1860 to 1880 (essentially no CO2 output). So if the temperature changes are the same for essentially zero, very little, and a lot of CO2 output, then can we conclusively state that CO2 is the driver of temperature change?
Feynman has another great segment on this very thing where you make a vague and unverifiable model, and thus you cannot be proven wrong; but the model should be discounted entirely to begin with.
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff... An Earth-centered frame of reference is perfectly valid as the GP stated; the math is ugly, and the motions of the planets become extremely complex from an equation standpoint, but it is completely consistent and nothing "jumps" around. Unless you think Einstein is wrong?
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results.
Here is one, by Professor Don Easterbrook, based on the PDO. And his model nicely fits the data - including the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend and the pause/drop from 2000 to 2015 - that is available. In other words, it is the oceans (and the currents therein, that distribute the heat), not the atmosphere that drives things. Which makes sense, given the amount of heat that can be stored/distributed by each...
:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
Low UID doesn't seem to matter much, either...
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 2–3C warmer than present-day values... For all the simulated icesheet histories, the ice sheet is approaching a steady state at the end of the 20th century
. So it was considerably warmer back in the time of the Pharaohs, and at least the Greenland ice sheet is approaching a stead state of size at this time. That would imply that things have changed significantly - cooler - over the last 5 to 8K years, no?
There is also this little bit of data which is what led Phil Jones, Director of the CRU of East Anglia and a primary contributor to the IPCC, to agree that:
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
. So if the heating over those periods - two well before the rapid rise in CO2 - are the same as the "big trigger" that caused the whole IPCC/global warming issue in the first place, then how do we know that it's because of CO2?
Check the financial statements, and back out engineering and capital expenses. They still lose money.
And Ford and GM actually make a profit, too... Having a debt with positive cash flow isn't nearly as scary as having a debt with a negative cash flow...
The BAIC EC outsells the Teslas by a large margin and the Nissan Leaf continues to be the best selling EV in the world.
TSLA loses money on each car it sells BEFORE you account for NRE and capital expenses.
FCA (Fiat Chrysler) is up 400% over the last 5 years, and 200% over the last year. The smart auto money would have been to put it into a manufacturer not just turning a profit, but increasing their profit margin AND their sales, worldwide.
Well, first I know that's a wasted feature for the /. community, as climbing the stairs from the basement is enough exercise, thankyouverymuch... But this is a feature my Samsung Note 5 (and new Note 8) have had since the beginning. They're quite adept at determining when I'm walking versus sitting and rocking in a chair, or riding on my motorcycle. And it automatically counts your steps if you enable health tracking.
True, it's no Oildale, but at least it's not Stockton!
How many of those indictments were related to the Trump Campaign or Russian collusion? HINT: it's a number less than 1.
What about selling an autopilot which does not automatically pilot?
He also didn't have a military-grade assault weapon.
I'm saying that Nissan and VW and Chevy are able to sell lots of EVs for less than $30K, and still make a profit. Yet we hear from Tesla fans that the Model 3 is the best selling vehicle - and they lose money on them. Perhaps the issue is that Nissan and VW and Chevy aren't selling enough, so they still make profit, and Tesla sells to many, so they run a loss. A bizarro backwards world thing...