|
|
|
|
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:26:10 AM | Another thought which has been raised in a few areas about going "green"...
Anyone given any thought to changing weather patterns with all these windmills generating electric power?....
TANSTAAFL...
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 2/4/2009 10:44:54 AM | Lucky you weren’t walking on the street at the time.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…
Hi Nova,
Msg 334…
Borg: maybe my internal clock is off, but here is an event to place my trip for you: If you live in Vancouver you might remember the blackout that occurred that shut down several downtown blocks for a couple days? I was lucky enough to be in a hotel about 3 buildings down from the underground fire responsible for the blackout. Anyway, that's when I was in BC and the cabbie made the comment to me about the carbon tax. Maybe it was in May or June 2008. I've made a few trips in the last couple years, so I might have been confused. So was the cabbie looking for a large tip? Perhaps....that certainly would not surprise me.
The Event you speak of occurred on Monday, July 14, 2008. Operatives closer to Vancouver, BC have provided this link…
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080714/BC_downtown_vancouver_080714?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
This places you temporally after the introduction of the BC Carbon tax, but at 2.4 cents a litre the cabbie was “losing” a maximum of 3 or 4 dollars a day (although he or she wasn’t REALLY losing it either when one considers the savings he or she will gain from the concurrent tax reduction). There is also legislation that will require all new cabs entering fleets to be energy-efficient types (as if higher fuel costs if one doesn’t isn’t incentive enough). The cabbie was shilling for sure.
So far, the BC government has actually kept this a revenue-neutral policy (something that doesn’t seem to happen a lot).
Msg 334…
Anyway, a carbon tax to reduce consumption is one thing, but the real problems arise when companies who pollute buy carbon credits from countries where old-growth forest is cleared and crops are planted (you can buy credits from said countries to plant trees, but obviously removing the old growth is the bigger atrocity). I'm not sure how much that happens, but I have heard of it.
These indiscretions did indeed happen in the early 2000’s and such is the folly of allowing “old boys” clubs to act with impunity. That is the very same politics at work that spawn the doubt where there really isn’t any. Fortunately there is hope if humanity stands up “collectively” and says they have had enough of bullying from them.
More recent studies may help this along…
http://www.pacificforest.org/publications/pubpdfs/ForestCarbonReport-07Update.pdf
Your assessment that controlling demand via the management of population is on the mark. One of the methods humans can maintain and increase overall quality of life is by the careful meting of this aspect. The challenge is to effectively implement this in the areas where it is required without being accused of artificially reining the growth of these collective entities for “political” reasons.
The abuses of mitigation strategies (real or projected) are more indication that corporate entities need to be policed far more rigorously than they have been in the past. As in any arena (the global economy, federal government, local strata council, these forums, etc…), abusers are usually few but cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. Once these entities are dealt with, progress can happen that much more quickly and efficiently.
Let’s get back to the science…
.
.
.
Lucky you weren’t walking on the street at the time.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile” | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 2:42:45 PM | @ahoytheredave Msg 339
Although there appears to be no investigation, much less conclusions, into the climate impact of wind turbines, my technical background tells me that not only will they have an impact, that impact will result in drought.
There has been research and its come to the opposite conclusions. If anything, there is increased rainfall and it's being researched if wind turbines are a feasible solution to drought due to this.
I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet. Many people seem to bow down and submit to the idea "Might as well, it can't do any harm." Sorry if I find that concept flawed. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Please don't pave over me! I think for myself, please do the same. Parroting the opinions of others as some proof through shear volume is not thinking.
I have never seen Al Gore's movie and am not parotting his opinions, I have no clue what you are speaking about in reference to him being the father of the internet. I have no idea what you are ranting about or who these people are who are paving over you. You don't have to be sorry if you find a concept flawed, it would just be nice to know why and others can question that in case you are spreading false information.....like wind turbines cause drought and there has been no research into their climate impacts.
The alcohol mandates and biofuels are a direct result of the efforts to cut CO2 from fossil fuels and they are resulting in destruction of rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles.
Would you please provide the links to the research that says that the measures that are being taken are damaging to rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles? If there is damage, what is that compared to the damage being done by CO2? The information would be appreciated so I could get a better understanding of what you are talking about so I can actually think for myself.
It's just also important to note here I think that many countries are looking at multi-pronged solutions to these problems so there won't be just one source of energy. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 3:00:22 PM |
If there is damage, what is that compared to the damage being done by CO2?
LBP, CO2 isn't doing "damage", it's a plant fertiliser! The Green movement have been trying to paint it as a pollutant for several decades now, but that has more to do with their political philosophy (anti-technocracy) - they don't like industry and most of it is powered by carbon in one form or another.
Some other facts: artctic sea ice extent is now back where it was in 1979. Ok, the alarmists will now tell you "it's much thinner than it was then", but they have no idea whether this is normal or not, because they haven't been measuring it for very long. In any case, they talk about albedo - so the thickness of the ice really has no relation to the capacity of the ice to reflect the Sun's energy. 1ft of ice is just as white as 5 ft of ice.
Secondly, a recent paper spammed widely in the press about Antarctic warming (yes, according to this peer reviewed paper, the Antarctica is actually warming now!) - unfortunately for the publisher, the author and his reviewers, it turns out his data was in error (two temperature stations in Western Antarctica were spliced together by mistake - one of the stations was actually buried under the snow). None of the editors or "peer reviewers" spotted this basic mistake. As Wegman correctly pointed out, there is no robust mechanism for peer review in climate science. They don't even archive their methods (code) or data correctly, so interested parties cannot replicate their results without firing off DMCA notices to the funding bodies. Even then the archived data often doesn't correspond to the data listed in paper appendices. The whole area is a giant mess. I wouldn't trust a climate science paper as far as I could throw it.
You might also note that temperature hasn't increased since around 1998. This is interesting because (1) it wasn't predicted by the models, so the models are plain wrong and (2) it hasn't played very widely in the press, indicating to me at least a lack of objectivity in the esteemed organs we're supposed to trust to tell us what's actually going on (not to mention the curious lack of interest from the scientists themselves).
Don't even get me started on surface temperature station micro-climate issues affecting measurement - that's a whole other can of worms..... | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 3:16:01 PM | here is the graph you speaketh of within a longer time frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg inclusive of vostok.
And from the industrial revolution thingie majigger.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/greenhouse-warming-argument.htm
Erm whether its a trace gas or not is irrelevant. Tis the impacts re varying values have in relation to a correlation.... looks like mighty fine evidence to me.
Without delving into other factors and variability, which this barking mad slipper wearer has mentioned on earlier posts and similar threads often...of which you didnt bother reading...yawns
Whether you gleaned your info from "sceptical science sites" tells me a lot about you.
Much like that annual meeting of sceptics ( i forget the meeting name..of finest oil company funded sceptics) who have now backtracked pants-on-fire stuff. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 6:13:57 PM |
There has been research and its come to the opposite conclusions. If anything, there is increased rainfall and it's being researched if wind turbines are a feasible solution to drought due to this.
Cite please. I am guessing the wind energy industry itself. You cannot extract energy from a system without reducing its energy. The energy that powers many of the the wind turbines in the US also carries gulf moisture north. Each wind turbine slows the air to extract energy. Downwind, this slowed movement spreads vertically as well as horizontally. Anyone with any experience sailing will know this effect personally. I have been sailing inland since I was 10. Something as small as a tree can be felt a half mile away. In college, I worked on alternate energy projects based on wind power.
I have no clue what you are speaking about in reference to him being the father of the internet.
This needs no explanation.
Would you please provide the links to the research
Its not something I practice as virtually any side of any argument can be found on the internet. You claimed such earlier. I would suggest you research gulf dead zone and you will find both sides argued. The mechanism is the surges of nutrients from crop cycles that result in algae blooms. When the surge subsides, the algae dies and decays. This starves the water of Oxygen killing almost everything. And where do you think the Oxygen went in this process? In normal decay process, CO2 and CH4 are generated. Now research the size of the Mississippi river "dead zone".
I tend to try to understand the mechanisms, not quote someone else's observations and conclusions. It you prefer to pass off your own ability to think on others, that is your choice. To paraphrase an old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 7:05:38 PM |
Some other facts: artctic sea ice extent is now back where it was in 1979.
Really?
Got some data to back up this assertion?
Ok, the alarmists will now tell you "it's much thinner than it was then", but they have no idea whether this is normal or not, because they haven't been measuring it for very long. In any case, they talk about albedo - so the thickness of the ice really has no relation to the capacity of the ice to reflect the Sun's energy. 1ft of ice is just as white as 5 ft of ice.
I suppose you never took into consideration the observation that it takes significantly less time for 1 foot of ice to melt compared with 5 feet of ice?
And, I suppose you never took into consideration the observation that when 1 foot of ice melts earlier during the summer in the Arctic than 5 feet of ice there is, as a result, a reduced overall Arctic ice-based albedo effect during that period of time? | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:01:45 PM |
I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet.
As far as I can tell, Al Gore NEVER actually stated that he "invented" the Internet.
What Al Gore DID say was the following:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html
Of course, some people might choose to use the words "invent" and "create" interchangeably. However, these two words do have distinctly different meanings in the English language. And, as Vint Cerf-who is truely one of the major "inventors" of the Internet-has stated, "(Al Gore) has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported (the Internet's) continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
For more thoughts on this falsehood, and perhaps poorly-communicated role in the emergence of the Internet by Al Gore, please refer to the following links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore032199.htm
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:12:14 PM | And how do observations of climate change prove CO2 is the cause of the change? There are plenty of natural mechanisms that can explain accelerating polar ice melt along with records of such cycles long before man was doing wholesale environmental wreckage. There are also plenty of problems with the CO2 "green house gas" theory as well. Why choose to ignore these other mechanisms to attack CO2 with even more environmental wreckage?
The arctic is generally pretty cold. Whatever IR it radiates, is being radiated by water and is very long wave or deep IR. CO2 only absorbs three bands of short wave IR. Explain how fractional changes in CO2 causes faster ice melting when it is transparent to the IR being radiated?
Ocean currents are not propelled simply by heat but by temperature differentials. Where do you think it gets a heat sink to dump its tropical heat? The phase change of melting ice absorbs a lot of heat. As the ice melts, it accelerates the very currents doing the melting. At some point, the ice supply cannot support the current and it retreats away from the pole. Ice begins to form again. The end of the ice is preceded by accelerating change and the abrupt end of supply. New ice reflects solar heat and without ocean currents to bring heat, the ice forms quickly. This machine is not a sinusoidal function but a highly distorted waveform. Such waveforms generate a lot of harmonics that are also usually highly distorted. If one were to only see accurate data for a narrow window, say a few decades, one would likely see a "hockey stick" trend.
If you wish to debate these points, please do but citing some internet source or anecdotal observations of other mechanisms is not debating, it's dogma.
Most internet sources have some reason to exist and that is usually money. It could be grants or budgets for some bureaucracy that needs to sell a political "need to exist." Some, such as Al Gore, not only make millions SELLING the theory but has been praised with the Nobel prize and an Oscar. Not bad for the "inventor" excuse me "creator" of the internet.
| |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 9:16:01 PM | Some, such as Al Gore, not only make millions SELLING the theory but has been praised with the Nobel prize and an Oscar.
Gore unveils $300m climate ads
The recognition for his work in the Nobel prize and the Oscar had helped overcome scepticism about whether climate change is man-made.
By this point, Gore argued, the doubters - which include the vice-president,****Cheney - had been isolated as a fringe group.
"I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view," he told CBS. "They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/31/algore.uselections08.climate
If he truly believes that us doubters and skeptics are such a tiny, tiny minority... why would anyone spend $300 million to keep propagandizing the public?
Where does such a large fortune come from?
Could it not be better spent somewhere else? | |
|
| |
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 11:01:22 PM | Forget about the science and evidence.
What about MOTIVES?
To me, it seems the motives of the global warming people seem to be:
1) encourage less pollution
2) encourage better use of resources
3) encourage people to improve technology
4) were the same people ideologically who came up with recycling, better more efficient ways to use wood, etc.
5) were against asbestos
6) for tighter regulations on chemical dumping on rivers
Who stands to benefit if we have better technologies and more efficient ways to use fuel? All of us! Rich and poor alike all benefit from cleaner air and water.
What about the other side?
The nay sayers all seem to want to:
1) keep things the way they are, despite the inefficiencies
2) want to keep burning fossil fuels (which fund Muslim extremists, by the way) or do things exactly as they used to do.
3) don't seem to want a cleaner earth. Why?
4) seem to be the same bunch ideologically who were against recycling,
5) FOR more logging
6) seemed to naysay all the science about ASBESTOS. (remember that???)
Who benefits from the status quo? Terrorists and unscrupulous and dare I say, traitorous businessmen whose only allegiance is to money, not country. You, joe on the street, HOW do you benefit from this stance? Can you explain me that?
I could go on and on... WHY?
Why don't the second group want a cleaner earth? Whose interests are they protecting? | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/5/2009 1:47:27 PM | Something interesting to check out...
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx  | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/21/2009 6:58:46 PM | http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_13746.html
Here's another good one. It debates the el nino and la nina cycles when the sun is going to more intense solar cycles. They're usually 11 years between them.
We are now a lot more aware of the sun and it's relation to the earth through solar magnetic winds. Also when we get northern lights their are equal southern lights at the opposite pole due to these electromagnetic currents needing a complete pathway.
It wasn't specifically about global warming but some of the best footage of the sun and our environment is Solarmax:IMAX and it was amazing this movie took three years to make. Plus years before that they built a special camera to open the lens up to f1 to take the best ever pictures of the northern lights.
To give you an example how sensitive that is... at one point in the movie they light one of those giant star radio telescopes with just a single 40 watt lightbulb and it comes out as sharp and clear as can be. 40 watt lightbulb travelling hundreds of feet. Think about it. One of these isn't even that bright in your bathroom!
They also show the real life picture of solar winds going around the earth made by 4 satellites that clustered and gathered data just within that small cluster. Then they formed a bigger picture with it. After seeing that footage it is amazing to see all the protection the earth's environment gives us from gamma rays and UV rays and the general form of these solar winds is almost like a candle flame going sideways. Blasting away from the sun. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/22/2009 3:25:24 AM |
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film
you do realize that even the scientists featured in this "documentary" have stated they were edited to make it sound like they were saying something they're not right?
I mean seriously. You have to edit scientists and you call yourself a documentary? | |
|
| |
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/22/2009 10:50:23 AM | Things that don't make sense to me...
They are running adds that corn syrup is great, and why should it be an issue for its usage... Hmmm it has mercury in it, how, that is something I'd like to know, probably the "fertilizer" that is used... If Fertilizer can make a bomb big enough to blow a building apart, how can it be good to ingest???
I live in Vancouver Wa, we had a HUG run off of the snow, OR should I say the passes in Oregon, reason given, because of the heavy amounts of CO2 from the vehicles going over the passes...Thus little cities and towns down river were flooded..
I have a disorder that now afflicts millions...They call it Fibromyalgia, yet nothing is really known about it, we just know it popped up as a growing problem in the 80's and hasn't stopped.
There is NO REAL treatment, and if a person has it, it doesn't kill the person, but debilitates their body to extremely painful and exhausting proportions... One thing that helps is booting out all the artificial crap in foods, fluids, and eating fruit and veggies that aren't gwon in petroleum based products...
It isn't just global warming that CO2 is effecting, it is the people that live in the toxic environment... I often wonder what makes some people immune to these toxins, and others bodies are broken down from the...
No matter what, stop putting crap in the environment... | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/22/2009 12:50:15 PM | Probably Gentic's nexttyme.
30Years ago it was we were going in an ice age. 20 Years ago it was ozone. 5 years ago its global warming. To me it seems that solar patterns govern what happens most. Life has been extinguished many times on our planet. We are here only a short time in the earths history. We can respect what we live on by not changing what will happen by nature itself. Cutting down the rain forest for land is one of the worst things we can be doing. The earth can only support so much life. We better be worried about growing civilization up and not out. Expansion of humanity will only get bigger with new medical technology. There will not be enough land to grow food. If we could go almost nuclear That would be a huge step. But that has its problems too. Like water to make the steam to run the generators. Seems to me that personal energy production is the best way. We have so much land (Closed military bases) to make hydrogen cells. 25% hydrogen 25% electric 25% natural gas 25% petroleum base. Put the polluters out of business. What happens if we clean the greenhouse gases, then that throws us in an ice age? We will be screaming to put it back in. Shoot, two volcanoes will cool us down a few degrees. We better treat our planet better. Its the only one we have. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 3:39:19 PM | Thank you. We are continually provided with this info - if we choose to 'listen' - in terms of its ultimate effect on us ......... yet no-one emphasises the eco-systems/bio-diversity that will have been destroyed forever - meanwhile - long before we realise/act.
Our 'ignorance' is quite frightening and frequently compounded by 'politics' ........ It's quite 'shocking' ....... yet 'that' is the way of the world - profit/survival of the fittest - or the least concerned.
Sad. | |
|
| |
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/4/2009 5:17:43 PM | I have to admit that I'm beginning to be swayed by the arguments against global warming (as a man-made problem I mean)
I would still prefer we were safer than sorrier and as such I am still a proponent of cutting emissions and seeking out new , clean , and renewable sources of energy.
Nevertheless, while I haven't been convinced there's no man-made threat , I'm starting to see that I have been brow-beaten into accepting a certain belief about global warming in spite of the ambiguity of the evidence. I suppose that if it's the only way to get people to at least listen to the possibility that we're working our way into oblivion , the ends justify the means. Still, the more I read about it , the less able I am to commit myself to the belief that the world is heating up and it's entirely because of us. | |
|
| |
| |
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/26/2009 3:53:53 PM | this seems to be your response to every comment. You are quite 'right'.
The long and short of the situation is .........'we' are in complete control ....... if we 'choose' to exercise. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/26/2009 10:34:59 PM | Floods caused by global warming- major update
March 26 (Reuters) - Flooding in the upper reaches of the United States bordering Canada could affect the seeding of spring wheat in as many as 500,000 acres (200,000 hectares)across North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Montana.
Scientist say these floods are caused by global warming trend. Scientist said "This is a very strange trend for the United States" In report made March 25 leading global warming experts told us. "This new disturbing trend of global warming will be issued and new scientific name" When asked what the new name for this scientific phenomenon would be called the expert replied.."SPRING" | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
