It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A really stupid global warming question

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude



Now the idiots who built a house 5 feet from the high tide mark deserve whatever they get, but the beaches in the northern NC coast seem to be changing slightly. And again, I have no idea if this has anything at all to do with anything else. I just live here, so I see it first hand.

That might be due to shore erosion by continuos wave action of the sea more than the claim of higher sea levels. No?

ETA: Especially as a result of storms and sometime earthquakes, Tsunamis as well, over time.


You are probably right about that, I am not sure of the why. And it certainly is beach erosion that is the issue.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

Thank you for that reply I agree with everything you said…



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

About the solar farms. Do you have any data on the profitability of them to date?


Well first off - it depends on where/what government/and whose "profitability" you're talking about.

Where I live in Ontario, Canada there is a very aggressive Feed-In Tariff program, which is paying out much higher electricity costs for renewables - although it is being largely scaled back now that the ball is firmly rolling on this industry.

The idea was to get people to invest in this movement enough to create an infrastructure - a manufacturing and construction base - to help it take off on its own. This also of course means jobs.

The initial costs were very high, but the industry was so small that it barely made any impact on the taxpayers subsidizing it either. Furthermore - the people "profiting" off of it were individuals and entrepreneurs themselves.

The power companies were being "forced" in the sense that they buy this electricity from those individuals at higher rates, but then they are reimbursed by the Gov't based on the 20 year contract that's signed between the individual and the controlling authority.

So under the current contracts for example - you can put solar panels on your roof and sell the electricity back to the grid at about $0.30/kWh - which is roughly double the market rate. But the only person profiting off of this is YOU.

As the industry grows the FIT contract prices come down, but so does the cost of installing and generating.

Ultimately the "profitability" of solar is a complicated, loaded question that is also very geographically dependent. But those people who usually complain about how heavily subsidized the industry is tend to conveniently ignore how heavily subsidized fossil fuels already are, and all the hidden costs they carry in the long term as well.

Meanwhile there are many places in the world where solar has already hit grid-parity:

Solar Power Is Now As Cheap As Grid Electricity In These European Countries

German bank reports solar power cost in India and Italy has reached grid parity

Solar industry celebrates grid parity



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
PS since you asked for data - here's a link to the current prices in Ontario (pdf file):

microfit.powerauthority.on.ca...


Again - this is what YOU get paid for generating this electricity.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ArtemisE
The future will be solar roads, not farms!


That will be a cool thing to see. I hope it's not as far off as my replicator. (I am in the office right now and need to replicate a cold beer)


It's already got prototypes we just gotta do it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Yes. You get it. Its what the Earth has done for millions of years, and will continue to go through these dynamic and sometimes catastrophic...but NORMAL...changes.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

How much C02 is normal, and how much it too much? And who makes that decision?


It depends how warm you like your planet. Most of us prefer to keep it as stable as possible to what we've been used to for the last 10,000+ years.

There is something called the Idealized Greenhouse Model. This is a relatively simple mathematical model (not a complicated supercomputer one), that is well established and accepted, even by skeptic scientists. It shows (again, based on the fundamental physics alone) that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1.2 C temperature rise. This is really not in dispute.

However that does not include feedbacks - which are a much more complicated topic and why the final tally on total temperature rise is more broad.

But again my point is - you can't write all this stuff off just because "climate changes naturally all the time".

It doesn't make the physics go away.


The issue here is the divide between the math and the real world. Math CAN be used to perfectly describe the real world, assuming you have EVERY single last variable accounted for, and have accurately translated natural happenings into mathematical formulas. Personally I don't feel we are ANYWHERE near that point right now, and probably won't be for awhile.

Not to even mention the methods to collect and interpret data have their flaws, and their own set of huge variables that we don't know the extent of. In order to truly believe the currently promoted view of climate change you have to trust that every single last person, experiment, data collection, every method, formula, every logical association and everything else involved with coming up with that conclusion were all correct and beyond question.

The conclusions are built off data built off ideas built off data build off models built of data built off ideas and so on. Any error gets compounded and the data more twisted the further up the chain you go.

Science has never been that good. Science is NEVER settled, that is the point, science is there is suggest the most likely conclusion based on current evidence, data, and ideas. As time passes you can find out that some evidence was skewed, interpreted incorrectly, falsified, same for data, ideas can be found to be missing concepts and complexity they should have been present to accurately describe the situation being examined.

I don't support the types of people who run around making authoritative statements about climate change being a hoax, because they don't know either, and generally they are basing their opinions on even less data and information than the other side.

But the same goes for the people claiming it's settled science, that it's a cold hard fact that humans are directly warming the globe at some alarming rate. They don't know, to say otherwise it to claim we have it all figured out, in which case lets stop studying the environment, weather, and global climate because there's nothing left to find, right? Why continue spending money studying this stuff if we already know everything?

Making simple comparisons (C02 in pop bottle in the sun) is great for demonstrating concepts, but has no value for proving the accuracy of those concepts. Salt draws moisture out of things, but if you put meat in salt water it actually makes the meat MORE juicy. Someone could go around all day talking about how salt couldn't possibly do that, because it actually dries things out, like drying out jerky. It doesn't make sense because you aren't looking at the overall more complex situation but instead focus and settle on only a small part of the equation.



edit on 1-7-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: network dude

Yes. You get it. Its what the Earth has done for millions of years, and will continue to go through these dynamic and sometimes catastrophic...but NORMAL...changes.



Yea except for the undeniable connection with the CO2 we are putting out. Lmao


Look at all the people who deny it and why. It's always because one scientist lied or it's happened before so it can't be our fault. They never give there own testable answer. They can't say why it's happened prehuman. Just like evolution they point to one possible flaw and act like it's proof the whole theory is a conspiracy to discredit Jesus! Lmao



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

Great reply. But you are making me hungry.

I like the way you think about this.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

How much C02 is normal, and how much it too much? And who makes that decision?


It depends how warm you like your planet. Most of us prefer to keep it as stable as possible to what we've been used to for the last 10,000+ years.

There is something called the Idealized Greenhouse Model. This is a relatively simple mathematical model (not a complicated supercomputer one), that is well established and accepted, even by skeptic scientists. It shows (again, based on the fundamental physics alone) that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1.2 C temperature rise. This is really not in dispute.

However that does not include feedbacks - which are a much more complicated topic and why the final tally on total temperature rise is more broad.

But again my point is - you can't write all this stuff off just because "climate changes naturally all the time".

It doesn't make the physics go away.


The issue here is the divide between the math and the real world. Math CAN be used to perfectly describe the real world, assuming you have EVERY single last variable accounted for, and have accurately translated natural happenings into mathematical formulas. Personally I don't feel we are ANYWHERE near that point right now, and probably won't be for awhile.

Not to even mention the methods to collect and interpret data have their flaws, and their own set of huge variables that we don't know the extent of. In order to truly believe the currently promoted view of climate change you have to trust that every single last person, experiment, data collection, every method, formula, every logical association and everything else involved with coming up with that conclusion were all correct and beyond question.

The conclusions are built off data built off ideas built off data build off models built of data built off ideas and so on. Any error gets compounded and the data more twisted the further up the chain you go.

Science has never been that good. Science is NEVER settled, that is the point, science is there is suggest the most likely conclusion based on current evidence, data, and ideas. As time passes you can find out that some evidence was skewed, interpreted incorrectly, falsified, same for data, ideas can be found to be missing concepts and complexity they should have been present to accurately describe the situation being examined.

I don't support the types of people who run around making authoritative statements about climate change being a hoax, because they don't know either, and generally they are basing their opinions on even less data and information than the other side.

But the same goes for the people claiming it's settled science, that it's a cold hard fact that humans are directly warming the globe at some alarming rate. They don't know, to say otherwise it to claim we have it all figured out, in which case lets stop studying the environment, weather, and global climate because there's nothing left to find, right? Why continue spending money studying this stuff if we already know everything?

Making simple comparisons (C02 in pop bottle in the sun) is great for demonstrating concepts, but has no value for proving the accuracy of those concepts. Salt draws moisture out of things, but if you put meat in salt water it actually makes the meat MORE juicy. Someone could go around all day talking about how salt couldn't possibly do that, because it actually dries things out, like drying out jerky. It doesn't make sense because you aren't looking at the overall more complex situation but instead focus and settle on only a small part of the equation.




I completely agree with you, but the fact co2 traps more heat isn't debateable... The exact time frame and consequences are because of he variables you mentioned, But not the base physics.

So if were starting from there. That means we are going to cook unless some unknown, undocumented process shows up to counteract it. Isn't that nuts? Knowing the physics and just hoping there's some unknown force that will fix it?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Among other variables is the paving of mass roads and parking lots world wide. Tarmacs on runways, cement bridges and overpasses, act like heat sinks soaking up all the suns heat and then re radiating it at night.

Imagine for a moment all the millions of vehicles running all day long over that pavement heating it up even more, the engines in thuse vehicles slowly cooling off after they are turned off. The compressors in uncountable refrigerators, air conditioners, and power plants.

All humming along burning off fuel being powered to dig, mine and pump more of the stuff to burn, spread around and forever add to the over all heat base of the surface of the earth.

Some say well thats only a small portion compared to desert heat or whatever, but I disagree. The paving of millions of mies of road is surely adding to the overall heat index in some fashion.

I know. Here in Silicon valley it used to be primarily orchard. It used to snow on occasion. Doesn't anymore.

Neither does it rain in the winter or spring like it used to either. I know this is because of mans activity creating one giant paved urban sprawl of this valley. Sometimes you see the heavy fog banks and or rain clouds lining the valley rim in the west, just hanging there as if afraid to venture and drop their life giving rain on the valley floor.

Theres a term called inversion layers and that is directly caused by the heat sink here and in other places like LA, that control the environment making it hot and oppressive. Add all that up world wide and you got a imposing factor I haven't heard added to the climate models.

Sorry if rushed, gotta go watch US get its ass kicked in soccer.

intrptr out…



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982


In order to truly believe the currently promoted view of climate change you have to trust that every single last person, experiment, data collection, every method, formula, every logical association and everything else involved with coming up with that conclusion were all correct and beyond question.


No you don’t.

I’m sorry but that’s an absolutely ridiculous statement and this sort of hyperbole is exactly what’s wrong with this debate, and kind of ruins the rest of your otherwise reasonable post.

The “currently promoted view of climate change” is based on 150+ years of science, starting from John Tyndall’s laboratory experiments on IR trapping gases in the 1860s. Since that time there have been plenty of mistakes made, questions raised, lessons learned, revisions introduced, etc. This is still very much ongoing today and always will be.

But what has also happened through that process is a very solid foundation of understanding has been built. That foundation is exactly what I keep trying to bring this discussion back to, because in every one of these global warming debates it gets conveniently ignored or steamrolled and derailed by off-topic rants about politics or smarmy scientists who apparently think they know everything already.

There are still many things we don’t know about climate change and no reasonable climate scientist has ever pretended otherwise. This is just another strawman perpetrated by phony skeptics who try to derail any sane discussion here altogether.

But the foundation is rock-solid. It is built off the very basic examples I've given so far and they are by no means trivial. It is also not some sort of house of cards that topples because somebody forgot to carry a 1 or something.

The process is straightforward – the Earth is fed energy by the Sun. This causes it to warm up to an equilibrium point at which the amount of energy escaping is equal to the energy coming in. If something traps that energy from escaping, then the Earth has no choice but to warm up to a new equilibrium temperature where outgoing energy matches incoming again.

The math on this is not complicated and it is extremely well established. Meanwhile do you know what this is:



Those are satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, taken over several years, showing less and less heat escaping at exactly the frequencies CO2 and other GHGs are known to absorb IR at. These are not computer models, but real world observations – ones that completely confirm all those little pop bottle experiments you can do at home.

This is no surprise to anyone because both observations are built on the same robust physics, and this is also why there is such a huge authoritative consensus on the basic premise behind man made climate change. Because it stands on a rock solid foundation of refined understanding. It is also backed up by numerous other real world examples and independent lines of evidence, only a few of which I've touched on so far.

Where there is a great deal of complexity and wild variability is in how this very proven effect will affect the specifics of our climate. Namely what places will get wetter, drier, warmer, colder even, and what sort of feedbacks will ultimately determine the final outcome. This is why simple global warming mutates into much more complicated climate change.

But again – no reasonable climate scientist has ever made an authoritative statement here. The IPCC themselves predict a climate sensitivity response somewhere between 2 – 4.5 C for a CO2 doubling. This is still a very broad range.

But that uncertainty does nothing to undermine the fact that we absolutely do know our emissions are having a tangible effect. To ignore this basic fact because we don’t know every single detail about the consequences is pretty ridiculous. But it’s something climate skeptics do day in and day out while making up all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify their denial "doubt".


...
If you go to the doctor, and he tells you that

a) Based on 150 years of solid science - there is a 97% chance you will get cancer if you continue smoking 17 packs a day.

BUT

b) We’re not entirely sure what part of your body that cancer will spread to, and we’re not sure if you will have 2 years to live or up to 4.5 years, because the math is very complicated.

Do you tell him to go kick rocks and keep smoking because there’s so many things we don’t know about b), that makes anyone who believes in a) just an arrogant SOB?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

That is a very solid post you made however can you please explain that graph? I have no idea what I am looking at or how to interpret it.


Honestly it is kind of hard to see. If you can take the time to explain it in layman terms I would greatly appreciate it.
edit on 1-7-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

AH, but the AGW excuse is that Global Warming (from, supposedly, anthropogenic CO2) was temporarily delayed by Global Hazing (from, supposedly, anthropogenic pollution of the atmosphere).


Yes, and with all the hype, all the the theories, the 'climate change' name from, ' AGW' which is still supposed to be the underlying factor, it's the CO2 levels which are the foundations of 'AGW' anything else is 'mix and match' from the sweet shop. If all the measurements of a heavier than air gas such as CO2..in the atmosphere are inaccurate, then so is the case for 'AGW' in it's extreme. That actually is the great debate, are the CO2 calculations..and they are calculations, same as the temperature ones are, are they unequivocally corrrect?
It's enough of a debate for NASA, since 2008/9 to be sending dedicated carbon measuring satellites into orbit, two failed, and only this year, first in January and now the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) which nearly left the ground today, but should be off tomorrow 2nd July.
To me, that's one heck of a debate going through four satellites just to prove, something that people on the ground are making a fortune out of, just by saying the whole thing is done and dusted. There's no doubt either that NASA as a group feel the need to get it right.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mc_squared

That is a very solid post you made however can you please explain that graph? I have no idea what I am looking at or how to interpret it.


Honestly it is kind of hard to see. If you can take the time to explain it in layman terms I would greatly appreciate it.


Sure no prob.

That graph is pretty much literally man made global warming happening right before our eyes.

It is a measurement of increases and decreases in brightness temperature of outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface, over the period from 2003-2012.

What that translates to in layman terms is measurements of heat energy radiating from the Earth out into space. Anything above the horizontal line is more heat escaping, while anything beneath is less. The "wavenumber" axis corresponds to different wavelengths in the spectrum of outgoing radiation.

Each greenhouse gas is known to absorb radiation at very specific wavelengths of this spectrum, because of the vibrational and rotational properties of the molecule itself. CO2 for example has a very strong absorption band between 540-800 cm-1.

What we see in that graph is a significant reduction in the amount of heat escaping at this very band - while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by about 15ppm over that time.

The graph was originally reproduced in this conference paper:

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS

But you can also find plenty of other research on the same subject here:

Papers on changes in OLR due to GHG’s


Conversely, there are also many measurements of incoming infrared radiation, which measure the heat energy being reflected back to the surface at these very same wavelengths. These graphs are essentially mirror images to the one above, but effectively showing the exact same results:



Source: Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

Again, man made global warming happening right before your eyes, no models or complicated math required



edit on 1-7-2014 by mc_squared because: bad bbcode



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Grimpachi

If you trust people and fear of questioning them because they are called "experts", then this is your decision. But as for me I prefer investigating if one degree is really that big a deal.


I asked if you have evidence to the contrary and you go on about trusting the experts. Am I supposed to trust that you know better than them?


Na grim but if the numbers don't fit the narrative then the NOAA has no problem changing them. This just adds to the trust issue. Source



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I understand what you are saying, but I understand why adjustments were made or at least I think I do. I have given my best understanding on the subject already in this thread.

Now you do realise your link is based off of a blog and that blog doesn't examine anything but asserts everything.

So essentially that is an opinion on someone else's opinion. The blog seems to claim vindication however their numbers do not line up with the adjusted numbers as they would have you believe.

I am a bit tired right now but maybe tomorrow I will look closer at it and do some digging to see if their claims hold any water.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I understand what you are saying, but I understand why adjustments were made or at least I think I do. I have given my best understanding on the subject already in this thread.

Now you do realise your link is based off of a blog and that blog doesn't examine anything but asserts everything.

So essentially that is an opinion on someone else's opinion. The blog seems to claim vindication however their numbers do not line up with the adjusted numbers as they would have you believe.

I am a bit tired right now but maybe tomorrow I will look closer at it and do some digging to see if their claims hold any water.


Yes but I thought he was a scientist, it is a convoluted topic for sure and trusting anyone is difficult. Tomorrow is a better idea it is late here as well.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
There has not been a temperature rise for the last 16 years, and with ice still on lake Superior at the beginning of June this year, perhaps the 'warming' has ended? in any case, with atmospheric CO2 at 400 parts per million, less than one percent, I just cannot fathom so little doing so much.
Volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, I wonder what effect that's had on the 'weather' ?
Remember after 9/11 when no aircraft flew for three days? how the air temperature rose because there were no aircraft con. trails? ( having the same effect as no clouds).
I don't think 'science' will ever properly understand 'weather', or 'climate' .



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaffI don't think 'science' will ever properly understand 'weather', or 'climate' .


Science is pushing back the limits of our knowledge every single day.

In the past, every person who has said "there will be a point past which we will not be able to go" has been wrong.
Given the content of your post, chances are that we already understand far more about "weather" and "climate" than you think.

With respect, you would probably see that if you lost the bias and actually did some research (hint: research isn't browsing through blogs that fit in with the opinion that you have already have).




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join