And, since we will run out of oil anyway, why risk the future of all life on Earth simply to delay sustainable energy?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2013
I don’t have time to respond right now — I’m getting ready to go down to La Jolla for the ISDC. I may write something on Sunday. Anyway, feel free to discuss in comments.
[Update a while later]
FWIW, I retweeted to Elon with this link.
Those who would deny climate change should ask themselves what happens if they are wrong
I have. The answer is a global average temperature a few degrees higher than it otherwise would be. Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.
Mr. Musk, I’m sure you would agree that the underlying “problem” is quite simple: too many people. And the solution to that is also quite simple, and inarguable. The past 50 years have demonstrated clearly that as people move out of poverty, they stop making as many babies. By restricting energy, through preventing pipeline construction, or through taxing carbon, or through market-corrupting taxpayer-financed gifts to so-called green energy enterprises, billions of people who are mired in poverty will remain there. And so will their children. As one who spends so much of his time and energy focused on the future, I’m surprised you’re so incapable of doing so on this subject.
The answer is a global average temperature a few degrees higher than it otherwise would be.
How much warmer can it get before the effects are catastrophic?
Much warmer than there is any current credible evidence it will get.
How warm is that?
The low-end estimate of climate sensitivity is 2ºC of warming for going from 280ppm (the pre-industrial level) to 560ppm (expected by 2100, barring steep emission reductions). If we burn the fossil fuel deposits we know about today (i.e. not counting ones we expect to discover in the future) we’ll get close to 2,000 ppm, for a low-end estimate of at least 10ºC of warming.
Would 10ºC be catastrophic?
The low-end estimate of climate sensitivity is 2ºC of warming for going from 280ppm (the pre-industrial level) to 560ppm (expected by 2100, barring steep emission reductions)
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention.
barring steep emission reductions
Define steep.
Rand’s link points to a paper that puts forward a low-end climate sensitivity estimate of 1.7-2.6ºC rather than 2-4.5ºC. So let’s take that lower estimate: it forecasts warming in the range of 6.5-13ºC if we use known fossil fuel reserves.
Is 6.5ºC catastrophic? Is 10ºC? Is 13ºC?
a low-end climate sensitivity estimate
Rather, an estimated range of climate sensitivity.
Even if CO2 significantly controlled temperature at 2 degC per doubling (which it doesn’t) and even if we controlled CO2, (which we don’t), it is presumed to be a logarithmic effect, so 2000 ppm would only produce 5.7 degC change.
Rand’s link points to a paper that puts forward a low-end climate sensitivity estimate of 1.7-2.6ºC rather than 2-4.5ºC. So let’s take that lower estimate: it forecasts warming in the range of 6.5-13ºC if we use known fossil fuel reserves.
Using all known fossil fuel reserves buys you a lot of civilization and would occur over many centuries or even millennia – time spans which are easy for a fluid human society to adapt to. So no, I don’t think it would be catastrophic.
People forget that the span of time over which a change occurs is primarily what makes it catastrophic. It matters whether everyone dies in 6 months or 120 years. The former is pretty much an extinction while the latter is business as usual.
time spans which are easy for a fluid human society to adapt to
How fluid is the poorest third of humanity? If the land they currently scratch out a living on stops being suitable for agriculture, is the rest of the world going to hand them better land, and free relocation?
Hey, Jim, I know you’re too busy groveling before the Cathedral, but I have a question. What makes an idea “scientific”?
How fluid is the poorest third of humanity?
The most fluid of all. They have nothing to move aside from themselves.
I expect it depends on what you mean by catastrophic. If you mean a rise in sea level by a few inches, I think the answer is pretty much “who cares”. If you mean unstoppable runaway greenhouse leading to the seas boiling and the Earth turning into Venus, I don’t think there’s anywhere near a consensus.
Oh no its going to be an apocalypse just like 2012 end of the Mayan calendar.
In the history of the world, those selling apocalypse have never turned out to be correct. The historical record is strewn with end of times cults who have been proved wrong time and again. Will global warming be the first psychological fearmongering about the end of the world and humanity to be correct?
The future is always uncertain, weather and climate will always change, it is the utmost arrogance and hubris to think humans can change these constants in life’s equation.
The world isn’t going to end. Populations will not be wiped out by drowning and fire tornados. Evolution isn’t just a fad. The future is not something to be irrationally afraid of. If you dance for Gaia, she will not save you.
In the history of the world, those selling apocalypse have never turned out to be correct.
Actually there have been a number of apocalypses, there just weren’t people around to predict them. People are new to the scene.
it is the utmost arrogance and hubris to think humans can change these constants in life’s equation
CO2 levels of about 300ppm were a “constant” in life’s equation for millions of years, but we’ve gone to 400ppm in a century, and we’re on pace to hit 550ppm before this century is out. We have enough fossil fuel reserves to get to 2,000ppm. That isn’t hubris, it’s simple observation.
The world isn’t going to end
Of course not. But that’s no reason to be complacent about less-than-world-ending problems.
The alternatives now are to destroy civilization (and kill 90%+ of the current world population), start working towards a carbon-free future, or go on as we’ve been going. So far the various governments have been paying lip service to 2 but doing some combination of 1 and 3. I’m pretty sure we won’t be able to adopt a viable non-carbon energy source until governments stop paying attention to the environmentalists.
What I dint’ see in any of this discussion so far is the effect of technological advances that allow you to use fossil fuels without adding all the (silly) world destroying CO2.
technological advances that allow you to use fossil fuels without adding all the (silly) world destroying CO2
So far those technologies are more expensive than just using energy sources that don’t emit greenhouse gases.
So, Jim, by Elon’s logic, we must do something about the ‘possible’ effects of global warming because some of us who don’t believe humans are the root cause may be wrong.
Well, I guess you don’t mind if the US rounds up a couple hundred thousand Islmaic folks from Iran, Yemen, etc and put them in a much bigger Gitmo, right? After all, these folks ‘might’ nuke a whole city. Also, all you folks who say Islam is just a religion of peace, what if you are wrong????
I don’t find Elon’s tweet very persuasive, at least in isolation. Anyone taking a policy position should consider the ramifications if they are wrong, but that usually doesn’t settle the argument.
But you seem to think so in this case.
Jim, you are using an imagined fear of the end of the world as support for programs that will do nothing to stop the imagined problem.
All of the climate prediction models have been wrong. A logical person would take that to mean there are serious flaws in the methodology, at the very least, if not with the entire theory.
What if you and the other apocalypse mongers are wrong Jim?
Those who would accept climate change should ask themselves what happens if they are wrong.
And evidence is piling up that the warmist perspective is in error. With the “remedies” pushed being economically ruinous, deaths in the millions and suffering in the billions would result.
Delos David HarrimanElon Musk is just playing the field, and hoping to whip up support in the marketplace for his ventures. Who knows what he really believes?I think if you look at Musks’ investments, he’s beat very hard on both peak oil and global warming. 1) Solar city: Is aimed at disrupting the electricity market. 2) Tesla is aimed at disrupting transportation 3) SpaceX is aimed at dealing with the failure of the prior two and a need to evacuate to Mars.
“…what happens if they are wrong…”
That reasoning could be used to justify anything. Maidens were sacrificed to volcanoes on such a basis.
“…since we will run out of oil anyway…”
The Sun will become a red giant someday. But, we are not panicking over it. The day of reckoning for oil keeps getting pushed out farther and farther. When and if the time comes to really worry about it, we can take action then. And, we will be in a much better technological position to do so if we wait.
If Musk is serious about CO2 emissions, he should be investing post-haste in the only form of energy production that emits no CO2 and is reliable and scalable: nuclear. For the current generation of reactors, re-institute fuel reprocessing. But the priority should be to finish solving the full-scale engineering challenges of the molten salt reactors, specifically the liquid thorium fluoride reactor, and get them into general usage. Start small, with systems in the hundred megawatt or so range, then scale up to full-size gigawatt units. Truly limitless energy.
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 emissions do not produce negative externalities in the way that ground level ozone, lead, mercury, dioxin, fecal coli-form bacteria, particulate matter and fertilizer runoff produce negative externalities. Rising CO2 levels could be a feature or a bug depending on other factors which effect climate and depending on how man chooses to adapt.
The historical record is on the side of CO2 being a net positive. In last 100 million years, CO2 levels were once higher than 2000 ppm. In earlier periods, with much higher CO2, the earth was warmer,wetter, ecologically more diverse, less desertified and had much less ice. Declining CO2, over the last 100 million years, corresponds closely with a colder, drier, desertifying and frozen planet. Given a choice between the former climate and the latter, I choose the former.
So barring any conclusive proof, that humans will be harmed in either the near termor long term by CO2 I say delay solar(which is no more sustainable than anything else) energy as long as possible.
The problem with Solar electric schemes is that they also change the climate by changing the albedo of the ground over which the panels lie. No one has yet studied the long term adverse effects of these albedo changes by solar panels. There is some study of albedo effects of black carbon on climate. Solar panels likely would have a similar effect to black carbon. It is ironic that those who fan fear of black carbon also push solar energy.
In last 100 million years, CO2 levels were once higher than 2000 ppm. In earlier periods, with much higher CO2, the earth was warmer,wetter, ecologically more diverse, less desertified and had much less ice.
That climate wasn’t suitable for mammals, much less 7 billion large mammals who like to raise and eat billions of other large mammals.
No one has yet studied the long term adverse effects of these albedo changes by solar panels
Even the most ambitious solar energy plans would cover far less of the earth’s surface than is already covered by darkly colored roads and buildings.
That climate wasn’t suitable for mammals
What? No mammals? That means no humans. How did the climate change without humans?
Oh right, Jim’s an idiot.
If a bunch of birds the size of office buildings could thrive, homo sapien sapiens could too. That they were not present is not an indictment of the suitability of the climate but your understanding of evolution and the historical timeline.
Really? Humans rely on evaporative cooling. That wouldn’t have worked very well in the Jurassic.
Growing up in El Paso I did rely on evaporative cooling:) Living in sweltering Houston, I rely exclusively on refrigerated air. I have utilized technology to cope with the difference in climate.
Would you still live in Houston if the average temperature was 10ºC hotter?
Yes because panting is “more effective” than using your entire skin surface to remove heat. I wonder how the Dinosaurs survived in such hot climates.
Jim’s “knowledge” about the giant birds is rather lacking, isn’t it. I guess with that level of ignorance, I won’t be able to get an answer from him about what makes an idea “scientific”.
We will never know Jim because humans were not around then. You were saying humans were not around at that time because of climate when evolutionary process is the reason. Growing humans from whatever we were before takes some time afterall.
“Even the most ambitious solar energy plans would cover far less of the earth’s surface than is already covered by darkly colored roads and buildings.”
And, take about as long to construct (centuries) and amount to diddly in our future energy budget. The main effect of such a construction would be the horrendous environmental impact.
Jimmy, here you go.
Note that the average global temperature was around 25°C during most of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Also note that CO2 over 1,000 ppm for that period, and pegging 2,000 ppm for a good 50 million years. Yet the temperature remained 25°C.
Data, please? Note that human beings have thrived quite nicely in hot climates across the globe for thousands of years, with summer temperatures in the 90s {F} / 30s {C}. Despite Jim’s position, we have yet to see mass suffering or death in regions such as Southeast Asia, central Africa, or Brazil.
The historical evidence is that -even with CO2 at 3 to 5 times current levels- the global average temperature almost never exceeds 25°C.
human beings have thrived quite nicely in hot climates across the globe for thousands of years, with summer temperatures in the 90s {F} / 30s {C}
That’s in a world with global average temps around 14ºC. Jack the average up to 25ºC and those 30º places become 41º places. Mumbai’s record 41º becomes 52º. Do you think we’ll have thriving cities of 18 million people with 52ºC (126ºF) temperatures?
Jim, that is not correct. The heating the models show is the poles and high latitudes becoming warmer.
Hot places stay the same, cold places warm up – that is what the models predict.
Ever hear of Baghdad? It gets that hot in places like Iraq and people have lived there for thousands of years. The same applies to many famously hot places like India and much of Africa. If it gets hotter, people adapt like they’ve always done. Imagine the adaptations humans had to make at the end of the last major ice age about 12,000 years ago. They had none of our technology yet they adapted and thrived. BTW, how did that climate end without humans causing it?
Mammals existed 100 million years ago. Large mammal like synapsids also existed before the Dinosaurs dominated the land.
“The problem with Solar electric schemes is that they also change the climate by changing the albedo of the ground over which the panels lie.”
So you are willing to believe humans could alter earth’s climate negatively by putting solar panels on roofs and surfaces, but, we couldn’t possibly be altering Earths climate by injecting 35 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Masochist.
As the bear said to the hunter – “You’re not really here for the hunting, are you?”
Oddly enough, this contains not one word about CO2, so bag that bogus argument. By various estimates we now have as much as 200 years of proven reserves of oil at current rates of use. So, what Musk wants is for us to be shivering in the dark while hoping to find a more environmental solution. Pointless and masochistic at best.
I though Musk was an intelligent man. This statement is just confused and ignorant. How did he get from running out of oil to risking all life on Earth? Read literally I can only conclude that “all life on Earth” runs on oil. Time to take may cat down to the 76 station for a fill up or something.
“And, since we will run out of oil anyway, why risk the future of all life on Earth simply to delay sustainable energy?”
This is verging on a null statement with nothing but emotional appeal; no referent facts. Also, it works as a Mad Lib: You can just enter any two words for “oil” and “sustainable energy”
And, since we will run out of _______ anyway, why risk the future of all life on Earth simply to delay ________?
1: ValuRite Vodka
2: getting sober
1) Doritos
2) going to Taco Bell
1) kittens
2 lols
Well played. But the CO2 part is embedded with the climate denier comment, see this quote: “The thing they’ve got to do is try to put a tax on carbon,” he said, inducing cheers.
Elon wants to tax mouth breathers, so your cat might have to pay up or quit emitting carbon.
Elon Musk is clearly a smart, driven guy. I assume he means human driven climate change for which there isn’t a whole lot of evidence. A small temperature rise as the little ice age ends which happens to co-incide with industrialization and burning of hydrocarbon fuels. Just build the friggin rockets, Elon, you are better at that than anyone else and ditch the electric car scam and the enviro horse crap.
I think Elon really believes that Earth will boil and become like Venus before the end of the century.. if we don’t change our ways.
He’s said so on various occasions, and has the sincerity of madman when he does so. It actually motivates his push for Mars colonization.. and yes, he thinks Earth will become less hospitable than Mars this century.. if we don’t change our ways.
The guy is a loon, and this is one of the reasons it annoys me that every single interview with him is fully of softball questions and ass kissing.
I think electric cars are important but not for the reasons Elon advocates. I think the major benefit is the more diverse energy supply leading to lower cost per mile. The car is also more energetically efficient in generating power. Not to mention it has zero emissions which is particularly important in countries with major urban centers with deficient electric mass transport infrastructure like the US. Their use would improve air quality in those urban centers. But this has nothing to do with CO2.
Oil is getting a lot more expensive and the new resources are not a solution to that problem by themselves.
The global warming scam I could care less about. Plus the arguments he presented are clear falsehoods and fallacies. Since we are going to run out of oil eventually we should just stop using it now? The universe is going to end up in heat death because of entropy, perhaps we should just quit bothering and slit our wrists while we are at it. Those who are in favor of increased energy prices from stupid carbon taxes perhaps should instead consider the amount of people dying in the winter because they cannot afford their heating bill anymore.
If you want people to stop using petroleum based fuels in cars just keep working on making your electric cars more affordable and less cumbersome and stop blaming the rest of the world for just trying to live their lives with a modicum of comfort.
I think Tesla is important, but not for the reasons Elon advocates. They’ve managed to bring innovation back to the US car industry by fighting government regulations.
See http://www.shitelonsays.com/transcript/computer-history-museum-presents-an-evening-with-elon-musk-2013-01-24#quote_1831546638
Electric cars are more efficient at moving the energy stored in the battery to the wheels. But you still can’t write off the inefficiencies of converting a fuel source to mechanical energy. All an electric car does is move the inefficiencies from under the hood of the car to the power plant. Not to mention the transmission line losses. A power plant can in fact produce energy at a lower cost per BTU. But that’s only because it uses a fuel source that doesn’t receive the same level of heavy taxation from the gov’t the way gasoline does. If all our cars were suddenly switched to compressed natural gas you can bet your sweet bippy that the same taxes that currently increase the cost of gasoline would be slapped onto whatever fuel source used to replace it with. Also, natural gas doesn’t require the same level of refinement that gasoline does so there’s lower over head. Gasoline is like the prime cut of beef out of a cow. Sure we can all survive on rump roast but there’s no denying the advantages of Filet Mignon. The problem is the butcher knows this so there’s a premium on it in terms of price.
Elon is an eminently respectable businessman and visionary. He is advancing the US space program into its next phase: the private sector, where it belongs. I look forward to the day when Bill Whittle and I can do side by side 1/6th G cannonballs into the pool at the Earthlight Hotel’s recreation dome, and Elon’s vision can make that happen. But being a visionary in one thing does not make someone a visionary in everything. Concepts like “renewable” and “sustainable” energy may as well be called “Fantasy Energy”. One would think that Elon would be all over LFTR’s (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) as a truly sustainable energy source, but I guess he’s too busy worrying about the hoax of man-made global warming.
Bottom line: The oceans have more than 30 times the concentration of CO2 than the atmosphere. We are coming out of the “Little Ice Age”, which (duh!) means the Earth and its oceans are getting warmer. As I’m sure we all remember from high school chemistry, warm liquids hold less dissolved gas than when they are cold. CARBON DIOXIDE IS AN INDICATOR OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT THE CAUSE.
(Apologies for caps and bold, but that one has been building for a while and it feels good to vent.)
Some people have come to the conclusion that Elon doesn’t know any better how to create a reusable launch vehicle than anyone else, and that without that, space will remain the domain of large organizations (like governments, pharma, etc) and maybe the occasional wingnut who wants to blow half his fortune on a joyride.
Some of us are happy to accept this doubt and just wait and see which of the various companies working to build RLVs will ultimately be successful, if any.
“Those who would deny XXXX should ask themselves what happens if they are wrong.”
where XXXX is an element of the set {‘climate change”, “Christ is our Lord,”
“there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet,” etc, etc…}
Pascal’s Wager. Yawn. Religious argument – not scientific.
Why doesn’t this work as an argument to become a Christian and also become a Muslim? Why aren’t more people who think climate change is a problem using the same argument to justify Christianity?
Does the contradiction say something about the validity of the argument? Hint: It does.
As for the second tweet. We’ve been about to run out of oil since its was discovered. But if they’re serious. why aren’t such people outraged at the profoundly stupid waste that was Solyndra? There was no chance the technology could work, it was pure stupid.
Why are people people who think we need to be searching for sustainable energy not willing to apply high school level reasoning to the problem? I think it is because they are not serious.
It is NOT like Pascal’s wager. Becoming a Christian is essentially a very low or a cost-free choice.
Being wrong about our response to the climate, however, is not without cost.
BTW, Freeze warning tonight where I live.
Coldest spring in my lifetime…..but TORNADOS=GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Pascal’s wager is based on a false dilemma; however, there’s likely no real consequence while you’re alive for switching (unless you used to be Muslim).
Climate alarmists point to some scary scenarios, but so far there’s no indication that any of them have any more basis in reality than the need to beat a drum during a solar eclipse to drive off Fenrir. Certainly not driving off Fenrir has dire consequences.
On the other hand, being wrong about the urgency to lower carbon footprints has very immediate economic penalties.
Becoming a Christian is essentially a very low or a cost-free choice.
Going through the motions certainly is.
“Becoming a Christian is essentially a very low or a cost-free choice.”
Unless you want to get on the Disney monorail and have pre-marital sex.
Unless you want to get on the Disney monorail and have pre-marital sex.
I didn’t get that. There are negative consequences to doing that whether you are Christian or not. Namely, getting arrested and fined for public indecency.
You’re expecting a coherent thought from bob?
The question here is whether going through the motions of being religious would hold you back from doing something you enjoy (and, in the thread on one-way tips to Mars, Trent comically but rather oddly brought up the notion of having sex in a Disney theme park, so I was joking that this might be an activity he is into.)
Neal Stephenson humorously described the counter-argument here:
http://www.euskalnet.net/larraorma/crypto/slide66.html
(Skip ahead to the, say, 12th paragraph)
Unless you want to get on the Disney monorail and have pre-marital sex.
Well bob, which gender are you having sex with? If it isn’t the prescribed one, you might find yourself bound, half-buried, and terminated from multiple blows to the head by rocks.
Do you think that’s why there’s no Disneyland in Tehran?
Question to people who suck the Cathedral’s dick (I’m looking at you Jim), what makes global warming catastrophism “scientific”?
Intellectual ants really should try to stay away from scientist’s feet.
Eagles > windmills.
Rather ironic that the people who hate urban sprawl want to cover the surface of the planet in windmills and solar panels. The same people who think that you can ignore how a battery is made and claim an electric car will save the world from fire tornados.
Hey, the dystopian future of candlelit discussions about food shortages, power shortages in a covered with the remains of collpased windmills, and hunting tasty rats in the ruins of abandoned solar farms, isn’t just going to write itself. What would make such an advanced and prosperous society fall into misery and decay? “A new green religion swept the land, wiping out all in its path in the name of preserving the future, and now we sit here preserved for all eternity in misery and squalor.”