Global Warming

[carlosMM]

I find global warming is full of holes!

bring evidence!

 

[Pikachu]

Wind power is going to kill millions of migratory birds (including Federal protected endangered species)

You are very selective in choosing studies that you can exaggerate to suit your agenda. The myth that wind farms are particularly dangerous to birds originated at one single wind farm: the Altamont Pass in California.

That wind farm is located so wisely that it blocks a pass that happens to be an important migratory route for birds. As the pass is blocked, the birds are forced to fly close to the wind mills to get through, and of course that leads to some fatal accidents. Even so, a study only found 182 birds killed by this wind farm over a period of two years. Many of them were of endangered species though. That’s why this few bird deaths got so much attention.

The Altamont Pass has about 7000 wind turbines, so 182 bird deaths over two years don’t seem to be a very high casualty rate, but compared to studies of other wind farms it is quite high. (Most studies of other wind farms have only found a few killed birds if any at all).

Fossil fuels do also kill birds by the way. For example about 3000 birds were massacred by a coal plant in Florida in just one single evening according to a study from the Florida Ornithological Society. That’s more birds killed in one evening by this one coal plant than what the most dangerous wind farm in the world would kill in 30 years!

Birds get killed by all kinds of stuff people build, and of course wind farms kill some birds too, but wind farms are not much more dangerous to birds than coal plants. I just wanted to put your observation into a broader perspective.

Why do you care so much about birds anyway?

 

[10Seven]

No, they don't. The spike we had in the last century is actually smaller than the last two the planet experienced (which occured before cars or factories even existed).

Your intention is entirely incorrect.

While the current temperature increase is lower than the total - the speed of increase is very much beyond norm.

The difference is so great that it's significance is evident.

For some comparison, roughly, the difference between Earth mean temperature circa 1920 and that of the previous ice-age was only 4 degrees. The period of time over which this 4 degree change took place was one of thousands of years - as is evident from climate changes shown in the Equatorial region. Thus, while the current increase of over 1 degree is significant, the period of time in which that change has taken place is more so.

Again, increase in temperature shows a direct correlation to 'green-house' gases and a few related.

Finally, as to the absurd question as to whether 'global warming' is a fact, one might simply consider the Pentagon report of 1 or 2 years previously.

 

[10Seven]

You are very selective in choosing studies that you can exaggerate to suit your agenda. The myth that wind farms are particularly dangerous to birds originated at one single wind farm: the Altamont Pass in California.

Whether or not birds are killed by wind-turbines is largely a factor of gearing. Newer designs appear to be using, increasingly, a higher gear ratio - with blades subsequently spinning slower - and, thus more easily avoided by birds. Many developers appear to be finding that this has the affect to decrease overall maintenance costs.

I would suggest that rather than spending more money on coal 'technology' and oil exploration - which shows dramatic increases in cost and decrease in yield - by far better to invest on a larger scale in 'better' forms of energy conversion.

Afterall, there is a huge abundance staring us in the face - it could be said, accurately, that our reliance on fossil fuels is now a hinderance, in it's desperation to remain dependant.

 

[10Seven]

For interest, I was involved in a project and proposal for a renewable energy conversion facility - based on tidal power.

It was based on existing technology and had the conservative potential to provide electricity for an existing 2 million people, includuding industries - of course this is approximate, and give or take 10%, as I don't have the figures at the moment.

By comparison, it's projected, and generous costing was approximately 10% of another company's proposal for a new dam - which would only have provided power for around 100k people.

Over the period of 'life-time' - where that of the tidal was measured against the life-time of the dam - it was found that the tidal one would cost less than half - which included maintenance, and even the construction of a completely new tidal converter.

Ultimately, while the project remains eminantly viable, it faced immense problems with fossil fuel lobby groups, local interest groups, and simple predjudice against anything 'new'.

It's ecological impact was found to be to light - with the design allowing the current ecology to continue with little impact - issues such as whale migration were considered, for instance, and methods to alleviate predjudice to this migration. Another factors considered was also such as temperature fluctuations caused by the slowing of tidal flow.

 

[MattII]

Greenhouse gasses may play some part in theories of suspected global warming, but other things that have an effect are salinity, continental drift, stellar radiation output and the earth's own changes (rotation, angle, strength of magnetic protection, etc.).

 

[10Seven]

Again, increase in temperature shows a direct correlation to 'green-house' gases and a few related.

quote yerself is cool

EDIT: Also, there are no stellar events recorded the last hundred years which could be cause for global warming on the current scale - apparently this is considered pretty concrete, as, while there have been a few they are not considered to be reasonably affective.

 

[carlosMM]

Greenhouse gasses may play some part in theories of suspected global warming, but other things that have an effect are salinity, continental drift, stellar radiation output and the earth's own changes (rotation, angle, strength of magnetic protection, etc.).

Matt, there's WAY more effects on climate. Let's take a simple compariosn: how long yourc ar is gonna last does not only depend on how you drive. It will leave the state of 'safe for me to use' one day, no matter what you do.

But if you drive it into a brick wall @ 60 mph, I bet you that your driving is the deciding factor.

And that is what we are doing to our climate. It WILL change, and it WILL leave the area of 'comfy to human and civilized societies with high energy and food needs' one day. But atm we make sure it will leave this area much sooner and way more violently than by 'itself'.

 

[BasketCase]

Global warming is full of holes. The Earth was once this warm naturally.

 

[Scuffer]

The Earth was once a firey ball of molton rock, but I doubt you would endorse anything that tried to repeat it.

 

[carlosMM]

Global warming is full of holes. The Earth was once this warm naturally.

As has been shonw about 15 times in this thread already, this is NOT a valid critizism. It seems you capacity for obstinate fact denial is greater than your logical abilities

 

[carlosMM]

The Earth was once a firey ball of molton rock, but I doubt you would endorse anything that tried to repeat it.

I bet he would, just out of spite (j/k)

 

[gene90]

a) Iceland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheet melt. Very high.

Really?

And is this melting caused by a rise in temperature, decrease in precipitation, or both? And is this decrease in thickness uniform, or are there not some areas where thickness is increasing?

b) Global mean atmospheric and ocean temperatures rise in excess of 1 degree.

Which is not higher than historically documented changes.

a) Global mean temperature increases significantly exceed change recorded in previous natural temperature changes.

Wrong. See the charts in my first post.

b) Increase in temperature exhibits direct correlation to increase in 'green-house' gas emitions - see industrialisation and emitions.

Wrong. I have consistently challenged GothMog to plot the correlation between CO2 emission and temperature and nothing has happened.

c) The affects of said green-house gases are, frankly, a no-brainer. Simple chemistry, simple ecology.

If only Earth systems were that simple, eh?

d) Ice core samples recently taken from Antarctica seem to confirm growing evidence and theory that the current increase in temperatures is abnormal - in that far from increase, we are actually due for a period of decrease in temperature.

This "decrease" in temperature we are due for is commonly referred to as an "Ice Age".

 

[gene90]

In my normal work I was given a preprint of an article soon to come out by J Hansen (director of NASA Goddard) on their most current coupled climate model runs.

Yes, more model runs.

Does it really not bother you that when I ask you to test your models, you use other models to test them with?

I still believe that GW is non-falsifiable, and my opinion of the theory is continuing to drop.

 

[Scuffer]

Can you describe an experiment where it would be possible to directly test for global warming?

If not, do you believe that if it is not possible to test something then it must be false?

 

[gene90]

Untrue - the rise is a lot steeper than previous ones, and this time there are no other factors to explain it.

No, Carlos, please allow me to translate what you said above into reality:

The rise is steeper according to our data, and this time the only way we can force our models to work is to include an anthropogenic component.

Hey Carlos, there's a really smart mantle modeler at Los Alamos. He is a Creationist, meaning that he spends his weekends trying to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old. He supposedly has a model that actually can do this. Does that mean that Earth actually is 6,000 years old, or does that just mean that he stuffed his variables just right to get a consistent result, and he should go into the field to constrain it first?

 

[gene90]

Can you describe an experiment where it would be possible to directly test for global warming?

I would like to see a statistical analysis of global temperature, using multiple proxies and/or remote sensing data, to show with a 99% confidence interval that the last 20 years are warmer than any time in the previous 5,000.

I would further like to see CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years plotted against derived global temperature (using multiple proxies) such that the regression coefficient is 0.7 or higher.

Finally, I would like to see global predicted temperatures published by five (5) models currently in existance, for the next ten years, with the agreement from the modelers that if the predicted temperature change does not occur, the models will each be discarded.

If not, do you believe that if it is not possible to test something then it must be false?

It is not necessarly false if it cannot be tested. It is necessarly not science.

 

[carlosMM]

gene: are you denying that the CO2 rise in the last 150 years is significantly steeper than any rise we can see from ice core and otehr data?


btw: creationists are never scientists. I BET that if you check his variables, there is cheating in htere.

Are you trying to imply that the VAST majority of researchers (all that agree man makes the warming) CHEAT?????

 

[gene90]

gene: are you denying that the CO2 rise in the last 150 years is significantly steeper than any rise we can see from ice core and otehr data?

Yes. See the charts previously posted.

EDIT: No, actually, I originally misread you and thought you were making a reference to temperature.

There have been greater rises in CO2 than the one today, but we lack the resolution in the ice record to know how steep they are. Therefore, this is a meaningless question.

btw: creationists are never scientists.

Wrong. Creationists acting as creationists are not scientific, but some are perfectly useful when working from the old-earth model.

I BET that if you check his variables, there is cheating in htere.

What if I check your variables, Carlos? (Your accusation, not mine)

By the way, once again you are operating under fallacious logic. (Poisoning the well fallacy).

Are you trying to imply that the VAST majority of researchers (all that agree man makes the warming) CHEAT?????

The word "cheat" never appeared in my post.

You accused somebody else of cheating, and then pinned the accusation on me. Good work.

EDIT: "Cheat" implies deliberately falsifying data. This is not the same as "being wrong" about something. I'm not accusing anyone, the Creationist, or you, of "cheating" because I don't have any evidence for such an accusation. I just think both of you are misleading yourselves in the same way.

 

[gene90]

True.False - the cause is well known and is human-caused increase of green house gas levels.

False.

There is no way you can derive a cause-and-effect relationship with the data you have.

All you have are software models, which may or may not reflect reality.