Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

pasiphae
reply to post by shells4u
 


droughts happen and always have but we're having such intense ones now along side flooding. where i live the lakes and streams are drastically lower than they were just a few years ago. we can't water our yards and trees are dying. i'd like to pretend global warming/climate change isn't real....... but it is and every year it gets worse.



Yep, here too in the Highlands of Scotland. The last 7 or 8 years the weather has just been *weird*, and it's getting weirder. I look out my window every day and see the effects of global warming.

I honestly can't get my head around the willful denying of reality going on in the heads of those who think it isn't a problem.




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Al, Al Gore is that you?

Knock it off Al everyone knows global warming is a farce. Don't you know it is now called climate change? That whole global warming thing just wasn't working out!



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Why not?

Global warming has accelerated for 3 or 4 decades, why not 3 or 4 more? What is going to change in order to change the rate of acceleration? Will we stop burning so many carbon fuels? Not likely.

If the Arctic is ice free in a few more summers, global warming is likely to increase in acceleration, not de-acelerate.



Cause these people are scientists, actually studying the phenomenon, while you're just a guy who likes to write sensationalist threads with baseless math.

There was no six-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the last decade, you just made that up.

A scenario considering the effects of a highly accelerated temperature rise on sea levels is also included in the draft.



IPCC

With its present topography, surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to exceed
accumulation for global mean surface air temperature over 3.1 [1.9–4.6]°C above preindustrial,
leading to ongoing decay of the ice sheet. The reduction in surface elevation as ice is lost increases the
vulnerability of the ice sheet; taking this into account, one study estimated a lower threshold of 1.6 [0.8-3.2]°C.

The loss of the ice sheet is not inevitable because surface melting has long time scales and it might re-grow to its original volume or some fraction thereof if global temperatures decline. However, a significant decay of the ice sheet may be irreversible on millennial time scales. In the 21st century surface melting is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet, while we have medium confidence that snowfall will increase.

The upper bound scenario: 0.48–0.82 m (0.56–0.96 m by 2100 with a rate of rise 8–15 mm
yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.


There has been only one decade in the last 30-40 years with accelerated warming, from the late 80's up to 1998, fueled by two strong El Nino events.

Since then global warming has significantly decelerated with a surface temperature rise 'indistinguishable from zero' for more than a decade. From your own source.


The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.

An IPCC draft says there is "medium confidence" that the slowing of the rise is "due in roughly equal measure" to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.

Read more: www.smh.com.au...



Why do you need to make stuff up?




edit on 16-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: tlc



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




There was no six-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the last decade, you just made that up.


In fact the 20 year trend in sea level change is about 3.2mm per year. That trend reversed ONE year (mid 2010- mid 2011) when the GMSL returned to the 2009 level. It then accelerated and recrossed the trend line by the end of 2011, overshot the trend line by as much as the 2010 'dip' before returning in the last few months to the trend line again.

I guess that means I agree with you that it hasn't accelerated 6 fold in the last decade. The upward trend seems to have been steady as all get out for at least the last 20 years. It did more than double for a year or so, but a year or so does not make a trend. Trends require decades of data points before they are judged relevant. The decades long trend is 3.2mm per year.

CSIRO: Historical sea level changes: Last two decades www.cmar.csiro.au...


There has been only one decade in the last 30-40 years with accelerated warming, from the late 80's up to 1998, fueled by two strong El Nino events.


This is, of course, bollocks. Since the 1920's every single decade has been hotter than the prevous decade (except for the period from 1940-1950 which has been attributed to post-war industrial pollution, volcanic eruptions, and a switch in data collection methodology).


Since then global warming has significantly decelerated with a surface temperature rise 'indistinguishable from zero' for more than a decade.


More bollocks I'm afraid. 1998 is the third hottest year on record. The rest of the top ten hottest years have occured since 1998. These are probably the hottest temperatures for the last several thousand years. The trend is not indistinguishable from zero, except on a year to year basis. Trends are not determined by year to year comparisons; trends are established over multiple decades. The FACT is that EVERY YEAR SINCE 2000 has been warmer that than every year other year in history except 1998.

El Nino and La Nina events alternate at more or less 3 or 4 year intervals. 1998 was an El Nino. So was 2010, the hottest year on record. So was 2005, the second hottest year on record. So was 1988, the hottest year in the 1980's. And 1973, the hottest year in the 70's. etc. etc. etc. Then again, 1992 was the coolest year in the 90's and it was a strong El Nino year too. What happened there? Oh, yeah, a little thing called Mount Pinatubo.

NASA: 2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998.

There is no "pause" and temperatures continue to rise.



Why do you need to make stuff up?


Well I wouldn't characterize poet1b's post as making things up. A bit of hyperbole about the sea level rise acceleration perhaps, but not just making things up. Poetic license maybe? Anyway, it is beyond question that if the Greenland melt accelerates, the sea rise rate will accelerate because of it. Six times is probably in the wrong ballpark, but still...

The question remains, however, why do you need to close your eyes to facts.

2013 is not finished yet and Australia has had the hottest summer and second warmest winter on record. ENSO (La Nina/El Nino) is neutral and expected to remain like that for at least a couple of months. The Indian Ocean Dipole may shift more rain, thus more cloud, thus more land cooling over the next couple of months. Calendar year 2013 may not end up the warmest on record in Australia, but it will be in the top bracket.

Australia's warmest 12-month period on record: September 2012 to August 2013: the last 12 months

The cliche is 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts'. There is legitimate debate over what needs to be done about Global Warming, if anything. There is no legitmate debate over the fact of Global Warming.


edit on 16/9/2013 by rnaa because: fix poet1b's handle
edit on 16/9/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Now shift to the northern hemisphere - the Arctic :
60% more ICE
and
record ARCTIC ice

not to mention that Colorado received more rain in the last week than I have ever seen in my 63 years.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I came into the office this morning and noticed the new Sept. edition of National Geographic laying by the fireplace. I picked it up and read the cover "RISING SEAS". "Mapping a World Without Ice".

The speak of global warming as if it is some fact... when in reality it is not fact.

It continues on page 42 talking about global warming and the rising of seas, thermal expansion,and so on. It goes on to say "since 1900 global sea level has risen about 8 inches and now rising an eighth of an inch a year- and accelerating".

On page 49 I read, "if sea level rises an average of 3 ft. by 2100, winds, currents, and melting ice sheets will distribute the rise unevenly and coastal cities will be especially vulnerable.

This political issue is being pushed on to people without ALL THE FACTS presented. They paint a picture that is not complete.. not by a long shot.

Now forgive me for being aloof... if you live on the coast there is always a risk of being wiped away from a storm surge or tsunami!!!

The future map of America (via the Navy) shows lots of changes.... how did they determine the changes? Is it just a guess because of the way our Earth operates? Change of climate and continental drift perhaps? How?

Do people REALLY think coastal cities will last forever?

The Earth changes... Greenland was once green....



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Let's take an example. Quite a few people commute 20 miles each way to work. In a car, that's a half-hour each way, or an hour a day spent in travel. On foot, with an average walking speed of 3 mph, that's almost 7 hours each way, or almost 14 hours a day spent in travel. If one works eight more hours a day, that's 22 hours spent getting to the job, doing the job, and returning home. Seeing that a day consists of 24 hours, that leaves 2 hours to sleep, eat, shower.... and people wonder why I use the word "fantasy" so much when discussing this subject.

Bicycles.. wonderful devices. Ever try to ride one through the pouring rain? How about the snow? Do you really care so little for humans that you would decree they must endure the ravages of nature, the illnesses that would be caused by such exposure, and the physical exertion, impossible for some people, associated with bicycling long distances?


The bit about walking and biking was sarcasm :/

As for the rest, I don't see why global warming is a hoax or alternative energy is naysayed to death just because we can't run tractors on solar yet. There's a lot we can run on solar, wind or other... but yet you still insist that it's the oil cartels behind the global warming hoax to gain more power than they already have? They're coming up with alternatives to their own lifeline then suppressing themselves with lobbying and smear campaigns? What?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jibajaba
 





Now shift to the northern hemisphere - the Arctic :
60% more ICE


60% more AREA than the previous year which was a record low.



and
record ARCTIC ice


The ice is thinner and broken up. It is nowhere near a record. Ice thickness used to be measured in METERS, now it is measured in CENTIMETERS.



not to mention that Colorado received more rain in the last week than I have ever seen in my 63 years.


Quite possibly so. Warmer air holds more moisture and there is more of it to come out when it does. This is just about the simplest bit of atmospheric physics you will ever see. Straightforward demonstration that Global Warming has real world consequences.
edit on 16/9/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





This is, of course, bollocks. Since the 1920's every single decade has been hotter than the prevous decade (except for the period from 1940-1950 which has been attributed to post-war industrial pollution, volcanic eruptions, and a switch in data collection methodology).


Try reading comprehension before you reply to a point no one has made. What was discussed was poet's claim of a accelerated warming rate in the last 3-4 decades. How fast is the planet warming, not if it is warming in general. Has the average rate of warming increased over a statistical significant period. It has not.

The planet is warming slower than previously projected and for the last 12-17 years (depending on the data-set used) surface temperature records shows no warming at all. For how long the records have to show no upward trend in order to become statistically significant is currently still under debate.

The rate of warming is a crucial point for every attribution and impact study, it is crucial to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic forcings. Every climate scientist understands this. That is why a analysis of the slow-down in global warming is now included in the next IPCC report.

Rate acceleration was the basic premise for poet's fictitious math. There is none.

If you want me to address the other points you've made, you can say so. If you want to dicuss things no one was arguing about, i'm not interested.



edit on 16-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: Enter Shikari knows best



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Just to echo what the others said, the 'extent' of sea ice might be up on 2012, but the 'thickness' is way down, therefore while it might look like there is more ice, there isn't actually, because the mass is way down.

This doesn't stop sensationalist Daily fail headlines screaming that there is more ice. There is not more ice.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74

The bit about walking and biking was sarcasm :/

Not when it is a real possibility. I doubt anyone who has to ride a bike right now because they already can't afford gas would think it was sarcasm. You do realize there are already people in this country in that position, right?

I find the fact that you take such things lightly to be highly offensive. Is the whole issue a joke to you, or just the part about people getting hurt?


As for the rest, I don't see why global warming is a hoax or alternative energy is naysayed to death just because we can't run tractors on solar yet. There's a lot we can run on solar, wind or other... but yet you still insist that it's the oil cartels behind the global warming hoax to gain more power than they already have? They're coming up with alternatives to their own lifeline then suppressing themselves with lobbying and smear campaigns? What?

Simply put, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants it to be true, regardless of how desperately you or anyone else dreams about or writes about or prays about some miraculous form of energy appearing to suddenly remove our dependence on oil, it just isn't going to happen that way.

Wind: Great, it works, but any time you remove energy form a system, you decrease the energy of that system. How many windmills will it take before we realize the climate really is shifting because we affected the prevailing wind patterns?

Solar: Despite decades of research, millions of innovators, vast sums of money that would fund several smaller countries for decades, it don't work. Period. It works fine for low-power, DC-based, isolated systems that are difficult to hook up to conventional power, but that's all. And tractors will never run on solar energy, at least not in our lifetime. The necessary amount of power simply isn't available; the sun isn't strong enough.

Carbon credits are not levied based on efficiency or on method of production. They are levied across the board. Example: only power companies that use fossil fuels will be required to purchase them, but those same companies will hike prices on all power produced, regardless of process, to cover their costs. There will be no price difference between power produced by nuclear, water, or coal plants. What will happen is that when the number of carbon credits run out, the power companies will be forced to lower energy production. That means a further increase in price, or it will mean a rationing of power. Daily blackout times in the United States? Maybe, but more likely a brownout on homes using more than average power based on smart meters already being installed.

How does this tie into the oil-dollar peg? Simple. Tying the cost of oil to the dollar means the dollar is the default International Reserve Currency. If that fails, then tying the dollar to the use of oil also keeps it as the International Reserve Currency. As long as the dollar is required to get or use energy, the IRC status is secure. Of course, that's after Phase Two... Phase One is to get the carbon credit scam in place, which has already occurred in many developed countries. Once it is in all the major powers, the UN can step in and demand it everywhere in the name of Global security (or whatever they choose to call it). Then Phase Two is to either use the dollar's status to have it implemented as the currency standard for carbon credits, or implement the Amero instead of the dollar, still maintaining Western control over the use of energy and still maintaining the US currency as the IRC and maintaining our financial status.

Do you not find it interesting that these reports about how we are all doomed to freeze in a fiery flood come out when our plans in the Middle East go awry?

As a final point, the oil cartels really do not care if you are using alternative energy. They already own stock in all the working alternative energies; where do you think the money for those hugely expensive wind turbines came from? Anything they don't own stock in is simply because it doesn't work, and I promise you they are laughing hysterically at every claim that solar power or hydrogen will be the power source of the future. They know better; I know better; the entire energy industry knows better. Only a few who prefer to listen to wild claims and propaganda instead of educating themselves in reality think they know different.

They also know that as long as such gullibility exists in the world, their future is secure.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Interesting... Polar Ice increases by 60% in the same year that US Co2 emmisions decreased by 800 million tons.



Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.


A Fracking Good Story

Coincidence? Yes... overall global CO2 emmisions actually increased.

but.... the 60% "increase" is decpetive. It's only 60% more than last year, which was the lowest extent of ice ever recorded. Polar ice is still well below the average between 1981 and 2010.



Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.13 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

We still have a problem whether you see it or not...



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
When things like climate change start, they increase by a perpetual means which means that the more they change the faster it goes. It is already too late to reverse this trend, it is possible to slow it down though. We already messed up. On the lite side, at a certain point it should quickly reverse sending us into an ice age. That will be a little farther down the road. It already should of reversed though, that is the strange part.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

MamaJ
I came into the office this morning and noticed the new Sept. edition of National Geographic laying by the fireplace. I picked it up and read the cover "RISING SEAS". "Mapping a World Without Ice".

The speak of global warming as if it is some fact... when in reality it is not fact.

It continues on page 42 talking about global warming and the rising of seas, thermal expansion,and so on. It goes on to say "since 1900 global sea level has risen about 8 inches and now rising an eighth of an inch a year- and accelerating".

On page 49 I read, "if sea level rises an average of 3 ft. by 2100, winds, currents, and melting ice sheets will distribute the rise unevenly and coastal cities will be especially vulnerable.



Do people REALLY think coastal cities will last forever?

The Earth changes... Greenland was once green....


You do not seem to think about things globally or even nationally do you. You make it seem like a few people may lose their beach homes. First think small what do you think would happen if the Mississippi river backed up? 3 ft sea level rise affects more than just the coast. You have storm surges, tides, leves that would need to be rebuilt. That is just nationally. Globally have you ever considered all the countries usually heavily populated ones that sit dangerously close to sea level.

You think it wouldn't affect your way of life? Wars have been started for land before.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 




I do think globally, why are you assuming I'm not?

I never made it seem like a few people would lose beach homes, I actually stated COASTAL CITIES. Big difference.


The changes have effected me and those I love.... assuming gets us nowhere except running in circles.

It will continue to change peoples lives all the time. Its called LIFE. The only constant in life is change.

Space weather is actually to blame in my opinion and it really doesn't matter what we do... the climate and atmosphere will change. It's inevitable.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


The main thing we seem to disagree on is whether human actions influence the weather globally. I believe we do some believe we do not. The key word I am using is "influence" because there are natural trends in the climate however we have excellerated them to where the earths organisms will not have adequate time got adapt. I have seen this first hand diving the reefs around the globe.

I have a theory that some people find that hard to except and it seems that those people are generally the same ones who do not believe in evolution therefore do not believe in adaptation therefore they do not consider the ramifications of excellerated climate change at an abnormal pace. It may be worth starting a thread over to test that theory.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Again, I never stated humans do nothing to contribute to atmosphere changes, however after countless hours of studying the matter for myself I came to find Space Weather is a bigger factor and frankly bigger than I ever imagined.

I believe in evolution but perhaps not on the same level as you and it's really neither here not there in regards to this topic and thread.

Climate change is something the Earth has literally experienced over the course of it's existence. This is evident by history.

I welcome you to read this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Not when it is a real possibility. I doubt anyone who has to ride a bike right now because they already can't afford gas would think it was sarcasm. You do realize there are already people in this country in that position, right?


Yep, I'm one of them.



I find the fact that you take such things lightly to be highly offensive.


Yes my post history on this subject is quite indicative that I take such things lightly. (Sarcasm)



Is the whole issue a joke to you, or just the part about people getting hurt?


Considering that I believe the planet will recover from what we're doing to the climate fine but humanity won't... the determination with which I post on the subject, I think it's pretty clear that I don't find people suffering funny at all. Don't mistake the manner in which I respond to your condescension for amusement.



Simply put, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants it to be true, regardless of how desperately you or anyone else dreams about or writes about or prays about some miraculous form of energy appearing to suddenly remove our dependence on oil, it just isn't going to happen that way.


I have endless faith in humanity's innovative capacity. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that we are going to have to figure out an alternative to eventually, be it 50 years or 500 provided we last that long.



Wind: Great, it works, but any time you remove energy form a system, you decrease the energy of that system. How many windmills will it take before we realize the climate really is shifting because we affected the prevailing wind patterns?


What? We are not capturing wind thus removing it from the climate. Just simply allowing it to turn turbines and generate power. How... I don't even...



Solar: Despite decades of research, millions of innovators, vast sums of money that would fund several smaller countries for decades, it don't work. Period. It works fine for low-power, DC-based, isolated systems that are difficult to hook up to conventional power, but that's all. And tractors will never run on solar energy, at least not in our lifetime. The necessary amount of power simply isn't available; the sun isn't strong enough.


I think you overestimate how much has been invested in research or development. Not to mention the cronyism that pocketed hundreds of millions with nothing to show for it and before you start hopping up and down with exactly's a bunch of assholes behaving badly doesn't warrant turning your back.



Carbon credits are not levied based on efficiency or on method of production. They are levied across the board.


It's an idea that needs to stop being pitched and a method that needs to be done away with. It worked in the past with emissions that damaged the ozone layer but this is a different ball game with much different players. Getting the people that essentially control the world to play by any rules other than their own is just not going to work. Circumvention is our only option.



Of course, that's after Phase Two... Phase One is to get the carbon credit scam in place, which has already occurred in many developed countries. Once it is in all the major powers, the UN can step in and demand it everywhere in the name of Global security (or whatever they choose to call it). Then Phase Two is to either use the dollar's status to have it implemented as the currency standard for carbon credits, or implement the Amero instead of the dollar, still maintaining Western control over the use of energy and still maintaining the US currency as the IRC and maintaining our financial status.


Pure inanity. The UN only has as much power as the United States is willingly to lend it and member nations are not required to participate in any kind of carbon program. Any agreements that a nation has with the UN on anything to do with carbon emissions, pollution emissions, green programs etc... are voluntary and not even a requirement for membership. The best part about the UN is that it holds no authority whatsoever, a nation can leave the UN at anytime it chooses. Now you could argue that the US can fight many wars through the UN should this fantasy of yours ever come to light but it is going to be no small thing if the UN begins trying to wield power in the manner you are suggesting, nations will pull out of it like it was a sinking ship.



Do you not find it interesting that these reports about how we are all doomed to freeze in a fiery flood come out when our plans in the Middle East go awry?


Climate reports come out on a near daily basis.



As a final point, the oil cartels really do not care if you are using alternative energy. They already own stock in all the working alternative energies; where do you think the money for those hugely expensive wind turbines came from?


Oh I'm sure they own plenty of stocks in renewables as well as having their own back-up plan to stay in the energy business if we burned the last drop of oil and vapor of natural gas tomorrow but I don't think they've invested a dime more than they've had to and purely for utility requirements per state.

As for those hugely expensive wind turbines? They cost 3-4 million installed. A land oil rig costs between 10 and 15 million and costs over 10K a day to operate.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74

Yes my post history on this subject is quite indicative that I take such things lightly. (Sarcasm)

Perhaps I worded that a bit harshly. Please forgive me.

The problem is that brick wall you mentioned that I keep banging my head against. It does get frustrating at times. You'll see why as I continue...


I have endless faith in humanity's innovative capacity. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that we are going to have to figure out an alternative to eventually, be it 50 years or 500 provided we last that long.

I have great faith in humanity's ability to innovate as well. Look at what we have accomplished in the last two decades alone. But all of these innovations have taken place within the framework of physics. We can accomplish miracles within that framework, but nothing outside it.

Maybe the fact that so many people expect the impossible is a result of our own abilities. When we can take a problem and by looking at it from another angle solve what originally appeared to be impossible, it can lead people to believe that nothing is impossible. The truth is that not everything is possible; physical laws cannot be breached.


What? We are not capturing wind thus removing it from the climate. Just simply allowing it to turn turbines and generate power. How... I don't even...

Ah, here's a great explanation of those physical laws not being able to be broken. And a reason I feel like I am banging my head against a wall.

Wind turbines do not generate power. Wind turbines take kinetic energy from moving air masses (wind) and convert it into electrical energy. As the wind encounters the vanes of a turbine, the air is slowed and the decrease in energy is transferred to rotary motion of the vanes, which can then be transferred into electrical energy by generators. Nothing generates power.

The slowing of the winds means there is less energy left in the winds. Now, that is not to say that wind turbines are damaging the environment; I have seen no data to suggest they are making an appreciable difference and do not expect to. However, there is a point at which enough turbines would decrease the energy of the prevailing wind patterns to enough of an extent to affect climate. I do not know where that point is, and don't think anyone else does either, but it is sufficient for my point to say that such a point does indeed exist. If we exceed that point, we will affect the climate.


I think you overestimate how much has been invested in research or development. Not to mention the cronyism that pocketed hundreds of millions with nothing to show for it and before you start hopping up and down with exactly's a bunch of assholes behaving badly doesn't warrant turning your back.

Actually, my position on solar power is not based on historical successes or failures; I mention those to try and not bang my head on a brick wall any more than necessary. But, if you insist...

Solar energy, based on present technology, relies on semiconductor layers displacing positive holes from one layer to another due to the energetic collision of photons with semiconductor matrices. This imbalance causes electrons to flow to re-establish a voltage balance, producing electricity. The efficiency is at present around 50% (I believe), while a few inventors have declared unverified results above that. Regardless of the efficiency, the ability of the solar cell is still limited to the amount of solar energy it encounters, which is at a fairly fixed level.

In addition, the direct conversion produces DC low-voltage power. We use AC high-voltage power for transmission, in order to minimize line losses. The cost of converting between low-voltage DC and high-voltage AC, maintaining the true sine wave necessary for many electrical needs, is high, and does not respond well to the economies of scale. As the power conversion increases, the cost and complexity increases faster while the efficiency rate decreases. That's why solar works so well for low-voltage lighting: there is no conversion, no transmission of power, and the amount of energy needed for low-output lighting is less than the readily available energy from the sun.

I did not start dismissing solar power over Solyndra... I laughed at Solyndra, just as I earlier mentioned those in the know laughing, because they were working on something that was simply not possible within our present technology and based on physical laws. I began to dismiss solar power when I tried to design a solar power generator for my home and realized the inability of solar power to provide such.

Solar cells are also expensive for the power they produce over a lifetime, but I will concede that is a situation where innovation may make a change to the dynamic.


It's an idea that needs to stop being pitched and a method that needs to be done away with.

100% agreed, and that is my largest concern with Global Warming Theory. If it were not true that acceptance of the theory entails acceptance of the political scams that accompany it, I would be much less vocal about these threads.

That is not the case, however. At this point in history, the sole purpose of global warming reports is to perpetuate the political agendas that start with carbon credits. I do not see that dynamic changing any time soon, because as long as people believe in global warming and cry for action to prevent it, governments have a cash cow staring them in the face. Let the political agendas be removed from the scientific analysis, and you will see Al Gore, Barrack Obama, and James Hansen never speak of it again.


Pure inanity. The UN only has as much power as the United States is willingly to lend it and member nations are not required to participate in any kind of carbon program.

Key phrase: whatever power the US decides to give it. If that power aids the United States in accomplishing a goal, do you think for one moment they will not utilize the UN to achieve their goals?

As for nations not being required to comply, I remember a day in my own lifetime when no one was required to buy insurance, no one was required to wear seat belts, no one was required to have cars inspected, no one was required to wear a motorcycle helmet, and no one was required to pay for garbage disposal. Back then, occasionally someone would mention how those things could be done, and everyone else would laugh... "that's not possible!."

Today it's reality.

Things change... power can be increased, consolidated, leveraged, and used for personal agendas. Never say political change is not possible, because it is possible if the people allow it.


Climate reports come out on a near daily basis.

Climate reports do not garner widespread public attention and media support on a near daily basis.


Oh I'm sure they own plenty of stocks in renewables as well as having their own back-up plan to stay in the energy business if we burned the last drop of oil and vapor of natural gas tomorrow but I don't think they've invested a dime more than they've had to and purely for utility requirements per state.

Do you think they are required to invest in certain companies?


As for those hugely expensive wind turbines?

That's still a lot of cash to front for a new turbine.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


That's a very interesting thread. I skimmed over it to get the gist and I will go back for a closer examination later. These things need to be addressed from your posts though.

Religion is certainly part of the debate even in your thread you referenced biblical observations from 4000 years ago and your stance seems to be that it all out of our hands. I completely disagree on that matter. I believe we can effect and do effect the weather through emissions, deforestation, and even possibly through manipulating the surface area of the globe by the colors we use which increase thermal absorption. I.e. black top roads and such. It all adds up. I hold some hope that once some land mass is lost to flooding the earth may self correct some due to the reflectivity of the water. That is just a side theory and I haven't looked into it.

I don't believe in taking a passive stance on the issue or leaving it in gods hands.

Back to the issue of religouse influence with climate deniers. Just last year a congressman who sat on the science board of all things and was quoted that global warming was a hoax because "the bible said after the flood god will never again". I could have stopped after bible but you should see the point I am making with that. People in power influencing something in the realm of science armed only with their belief in religion. That is insane.

That congressman isn't alone there are many others with like minds. My favorite for his ignorance is Jim Inhofe for saying the two greatest hoaxes On America has been climate change 2nd only to seperation of church and state.

So that is the mindset of those in power here in the US that claim climate change isn't real armed with open bibles and closed minds.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join