New proof of Global warming!

[shotgunslade]

The earth's climate has varied tremendously over the long history of the earth. There have been many times when there was no ice at all on the surface of the earth. There have been times when Pennsylvania was buried under hundreds of feet of ice. The issue is the rate at which these changes occur. There have been times when these major changes have occured very rapidly, in only a few years, or tens of years. When large climate changes occur that rapidly, or even as slowly as a couple of thousand years, the result usually is significant loss of biological diversity, as many species find the ecological slots they have so comfortably occupied no longer in existence. Usually major climate changes that take place on a scale of less than tens of thousands of years result in mass extinction events. Once these climate changes and their attendant extinctions have occured, there are many new vacant ecological niches created. Over time, meaning hundreds of thousands of years, diversity reasserts itself as natural selection favors mutations that move species into these vacant niches. After a period of relative climate stability, richly diverse and robust ecologies develop, and biological stability is re-established.

So, the important variable is the ratio between the biological adaptation speed limit which is pretty well fixed and very slow, and the speed and magnitude of climate change. Humans are not currently destroying the planet, even if we cause a major rapid climate change. We are, however, likely making it much less comfortable for ourselves. Periods of biological instability, marked by extinctions and adaptation to new niches aren't very pleasant for the species involved. We rely on many species to support our ecological niche. If many of these species become extinct, the shape of our niche may change significantly. In all likelihood, the new shape won't fit as well as the old one. No more tuna salad, or perhaps no more honey, or maybe no more maple trees. It is impossible to predict which species will flourish in a dramatically revised climate and which species will falter. Reasons for extinction may not even be directly related to weather or rainfall, but may involve the migration of parasites due to loss of natural controls or other reasons. It is a roll of the dice.

The vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including work by scientists who are not funded by "special interests" points to a rapidly warming climate that is not explainable by any mechanism other than the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Many studies have tried to isolate the effects of solar cycles, and other natural rhythms on atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. The great preponderance of these studies show that additional influences are required to explain recent temperature rises. The increase of carbon dioxide concentration over the last hundred years is a perfect explanation. Historically, high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been concurrent with high global temperatures.

There are actually very few climate change naysayers who have legitimate scientific credentials and no ulterior associations. Of Senator Inhofe's list of 400 prominent global warming skeptics, there are 44 TV weathermen, 20 economists, 84 individuals with no background in climate science at all, and a number who are at least partially supported by the fossil fuel industry. The peer reviewed literature is the place to look, and it paints a pretty clear picture.

[GreenMarine]

So I just came across this thread after nearly 5 months and figured I'd post alittle since I am between classes and don't feel like studying for my upcoming midterms... I am also going to post the links to some very interesting research (REAL research not people paid to provide falce info to the masses), videos and anything else I can think of at the moment...

Originally Posted by lhopp77

If you are directing these comments at me, maybe you should read some of my earlier posts. I fully agree that there IS Global Warming. I just question the panic and data generated by some of the Alley Gorey crowd.

The main question is--what do WE actually contribute to the warming and what can we do about it? Do our vehicular emissions really contribute as much as implied in the overall media madness. (Eventually fossil fuel availability will reduce this anyway.) I think the dumbest thing we ever did was to essentially stop nuclear power plant construction. I just support a more rational approach that is both realistic and achievable.

Lee

Nope, not directed at you, more directed at those who are so ignorant (notice I said ignorant and not stupid) regarding the differences between scientific research and made up numbers produced by people who are only out for their best interests...

One of the biggest things I have learned while in my fields here at NC State University is that EVERYONE has a price. Even the best environmental scientist can be bought by the oil companies. The most important thing is that YOU take the information you are given and further research it's source... So anything that I post up in this post, look into it. I can tell you that it is a fact because I believe it to be. But the only way that you should believe it to be is if YOU can prove it to yourself

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

I'm less worried about global warming than I am about canada not selling food to the US when they become the farmbelt "you must stop shooting people USA, and learn french!"

EXACTLY what we should be worried about!!! The most recient data produced by NOAA suggests that global CO2 output last year TRIPLED!!! But I can tell you where all of that came from... China and India and other developing countries... The US data actually shows that our CO2 production went DOWN slightly!! EXACTLY what needs to be happening ...

Regarding Canada and farming, if you want your children to be wealthy, go buy a few hundred Acres (hell, a few thousand, why not) in central canada and just hold onto it. THen watch "the bread basket of the world" slowly migrate north... No one can accurately predict how long it will take but I have heard as soon as 2050. That's just a number so it doesn't hold much weight with me, until I can see the data myself...

Here is the first link I am attaching... When you go here the video you will want to click on (right click and save as.) is the second from the left...

http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Models_.../IPCCtemp.html

This video is a compilation of data beginning in (I believe) 1900 and running until 2100... It represents actual recorded temperatures from the past until the present, and then the data is used to project the temperature change for the future... One thing to note about this video is that it starts off Blue all over. This might make you think that the earth was actually colder or something to that effect. Well this is partially true. Since "Zero year" is right around 2005, all the information is based off of the average temperatures from that year. When that year is reached you will see the entire globe go from blue to green all at once. That is meant to represent present day time. From there the computer simulates the changes that will take place... One thing to pay attention to is the Arctic Circle... The first time I saw this I was absolutely shocked...

Just incase anyone wants to debate who generated this data and it's validity, allow me to present some key facts. Global modeling is possibly one of the toughest things to model. The most powerful supercomputers in the world are used to produce these models and when they do it takes them as long as A WHOLE WEEK!!!

IBM RoadRunner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

IBM Blue Gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene

If anyone wants a class in global modeling, I'll be glad to provide the dimensions of the cells of which the earth is divided up into. In short though, let me just say that the earth is divided up into thousands of 3 demensional cells (about 10 miles high and covering the entire globe)... Within each cell there are hundreds, if not thousands of variables which each have to be programed. When the modeling is started, each cell interacts with the one next to it on all sides, thus affecting the results for those cells and also the first cell. This is an example of a floating point calculation. The fastest desktop computer we have would take years to produce a model such as the ones that we have now thanks to Blue Gene and Roadrunner... The Science is real... The results are real... If you don't believe it it's your own fault...

Gotta head to class now... Might post later, after everyone has had the chance to look at the movie...

~ Chris

[RSVX]

I stopped reading at "falce".

[gstape]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NapaBavarian
I'm less worried about global warming than I am about canada not selling food to the US when they become the farmbelt "you must stop shooting people USA, and learn french!"

EXACTLY what we should be worried about!!! The most recient data produced by NOAA suggests that global CO2 output last year TRIPLED!!! But I can tell you where all of that came from... China and India and other developing countries... The US data actually shows that our CO2 production went DOWN slightly!! EXACTLY what needs to be happening ...

wouldn't global warming increase the amount of land area that we could farm, and lengthen the growing season, in areas that we already farm?

If anyone wants a class in global modeling, I'll be glad to provide the dimensions of the cells of which the earth is divided up into. In short though, let me just say that the earth is divided up into thousands of 3 demensional cells (about 10 miles high and covering the entire globe)... Within each cell there are hundreds, if not thousands of variables which each have to be programed. When the modeling is started, each cell interacts with the one next to it on all sides, thus affecting the results for those cells and also the first cell. This is an example of a floating point calculation. The fastest desktop computer we have would take years to produce a model such as the ones that we have now thanks to Blue Gene and Roadrunner... The Science is real... The results are real... If you don't believe it it's your own fault...

sounds like lots of potential for error, assumptions, etc. It seems to me if we can't predict weather accuratly more than 5 days out, the water level of lake Michigan, the path of a hurricane, when an earthquake may happen, when a volcano may errupt... how can we reliably predict the average temperature of the earth in 50 years? and then what the consequences of that will be?

don't get me wrong I am all for energy conservation, and alternative energy (i like to build wind turbines for fun), but I think the economics of scarcity will drive that by itself. THere is no need for legislation based on a scare of global warming.

[GreenMarine]

Originally Posted by RSVX

I stopped reading at "falce".

My bad... I was typing in a hurry (only 30 minutes between classes) and typing on a ****e keyboard... Didn't bother to check the spelling since I had 5 minutes to get to class (3 buildings over)...

Originally Posted by gstape

wouldn't global warming increase the amount of land area that we could farm, and lengthen the growing season, in areas that we already farm?

[color=red]I see where you are going with that and believe it or not, I actually thought the same thing for a while. However there are alot more factors that need to be taken into account other than just temperature. Soil moisture retention is a major one. Rainfall. Actual weather patterns (which we can't predict, as our intrepid meteorologists keep proving all the time)...


sounds like lots of potential for error, assumptions, etc. It seems to me if we can't predict weather accuratly more than 5 days out, the water level of lake Michigan, the path of a hurricane, when an earthquake may happen, when a volcano may errupt... how can we reliably predict the average temperature of the earth in 50 years? and then what the consequences of that will be?

don't get me wrong I am all for energy conservation, and alternative energy (i like to build wind turbines for fun), but I think the economics of scarcity will drive that by itself. THere is no need for legislation based on a scare of global warming.

The important thing to remember here is that we are not predicting WEATHER. We are predicting CLIMATE. Weather and weather patterns are short term (weeks, months, etc)... Climate is long term... Imagine an excel graph (X Y scatter plot)... There is usually quite alot of variation in a scatter plot. However when you tell excel to "plot a trendline", THAT is when you see the overall direction that the data is leaning.

Like I said, I'm not calling anyone stupid here at all. Hell, even Ignorant might be a bit of a strech. All I can say is that we have the data from previous years from all over the world. We have the two most powerful supercomputers in the world at our disposal (not WE as in NC State, but WE as in Environmental Scientists)... And to put it quite basically, when we enter the data from the last 100 years and tell the computer to "plot a trendline" we get those results. That is one of my jobs as an upcoming Environmental Scientist, to produce data. I have nothing to gain from scaring people. I only want to send out a clear warning that this is the general trend that is happening... I can't predict the future one bit. Hell, we could all wake up tomorrow and have a nuclear war and then we'd have a nuclear winter and everything would be cold as hell for 3 - 5 years... But the fact remains that CO2 levels (along with other "greenhouse gasses") in the atmosphere is rising. We know the effects of CO2 on climate and thus can predict basically what will happen to the climate...

The sad truth in the matter is that CO2 has a relative lifespan in the atmosphere of nearly 200 years before it breaks down. So even if we were to stop "cold turkey" tomorrow (no more electricity, industry, cars, etc), the CO2 in the atmosphere would still effect the climate for atleast 200 years from now... When you look at it like that I guess my degree field really lives up to it's name as the "bad news science"... ... Why the hell did I choose this field ... I should have just been a banker or a lawyer, or stayed in Engineering and designed some cool **** instead of doing this... Because either way you look at it, we won't be around when the really bad times hit... It will be our children and our grandchildren that have to deal with it... I just want to make the world cleaner and better for the future generations. I think that's ultimately the goal of all environmental scientists... But how do you do that when no one wants to believe what you are saying?

~ Chris

[GreenMarine]

On another note "gstape"... You said you like to build wind turbines "for fun"? Do you have any pictures of any you've built? I am trying to get the university to fund a new design wind turbine at the moment and place them on Jordan Hall (The environmental building - Where I LIVE ) and use them to power some low draw lab equipment as an experiment... The ones I designed have an operating range of 10mph - 45mph (substantially higher than any ones I know of at the moment). The reason they should beable to operate at wind speeds that high is because of the design (think of an underwater impellar and you'll beable to imagine the rough shape I pitched to the engineering department and the environmental labs...)...

The reason I came up with this idea is because we have two buildings ontop of a hill (Jordan 1 and Jordan 2). Between them is a walkway which interestingly enough creates a venturi effect at seemingly all times of the day. Because the buildings are at roughly the highest point on campus they are always subjected to wind from both sides, so there is almost always a rather decent breeze blowing through them...

We'll see if they take my idea and run with it though... Hell, they've had a mono-rail system on the drawing boards for over 20 years now and have yet to take steps into actually inplementing it...

~ Chris

[Landshark]

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul...nrik-svensmark

also, the upcoming solar cycle 24 is predicted to be the biggest in the last 400 years of recording these cycles.

i don't feel too bad about removing those catalytic converters.

[Royal Tiger]

al gore is an idiot. He, in typical democrat fashion, made people believe in funding his cause through guilt. The staple of liberal politics.

Pollution is where we need to focus our efforts.

[gstape]

Originally Posted by GreenMarineSVX

On another note "gstape"... You said you like to build wind turbines "for fun"? Do you have any pictures of any you've built? I am trying to get the university to fund a new design wind turbine at the moment and place them on Jordan Hall (The environmental building - Where I LIVE ) and use them to power some low draw lab equipment as an experiment... The ones I designed have an operating range of 10mph - 45mph (substantially higher than any ones I know of at the moment). The reason they should beable to operate at wind speeds that high is because of the design (think of an underwater impellar and you'll beable to imagine the rough shape I pitched to the engineering department and the environmental labs...)...

The reason I came up with this idea is because we have two buildings ontop of a hill (Jordan 1 and Jordan 2). Between them is a walkway which interestingly enough creates a venturi effect at seemingly all times of the day. Because the buildings are at roughly the highest point on campus they are always subjected to wind from both sides, so there is almost always a rather decent breeze blowing through them...

We'll see if they take my idea and run with it though... Hell, they've had a mono-rail system on the drawing boards for over 20 years now and have yet to take steps into actually inplementing it...

~ Chris

How many watts are you looking to get?

Generally the professionals in the small wind industry (which I am not) are huge advocates of tall towers and open areas for wind turbines, and generally against turbines on buildings etc. There are people putting turbines on and around buildings, but the output usually isn't that great... or at least not nearly as good as the wind maps would suggest.

Of course this all depends on your expectations and needs for output.

THere are "micro" turbines on the market that will run (generate) in winds up to 45 or so mph. These are all something like 2 ft in diameter and smaller. They are often used in Marine applications where the boat sits at a dock for a week and the turbine charges the battery.

Most "small" wind turbines range from 10 ft diameter to 22 ft diameter and produce from 1 kw to 10 kw in about 25 mph wind, which is the wind speed at which they start to regulate. They "cut in" or start producing at about 7 mph and produce from 50 w to 200 w at that speed.

The output of a turbine is P=.5p(3.14)r^2V^3. P = power in watts, p (rho) is the air density in kg/m^3, r is the radius, and V is the wind speed in m/s.
You then need to mutiply by an efficiency which for a drag machine (lots of straight blades like a farm wind mill) is about .2 and for a lift machine (uses an airfoil blade usually 3 of them) is about .35. Some of the really efficient lift machines approach a .5 efficiency. .6 is the theoretical limit. ( Betz limit).

you could set up an excel table that calculates output based on size and wind speed if you want

A good sight to look at is www.otherpower.com. I learned much of what I know from Dan who runs that sight. He's got lots of pictures.

Hmm not sure if answered your question?

Im not convinced that the dire consequences of global warming are as dire as predicted. I am also fairly convinced that there would be dire consequences if we try to legislate a solution to what many people think is man made global warming. I am not either convinced that the science that predicts global warming is accurate... it may be, but I have read compelling arguments from reputable scientists to the contrary too. And like the earlier posts, I am not equating man made global warming with polution.

[lhopp77]

Interesting, but not surprising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149...ashington_post

Lee

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Interesting, but not surprising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149...ashington_post

Lee

Remember how everything electronic was going to fail when 2,000 arrived. Corporates and public bodies spent millions, millions were pocketed. A mate who sold and leased diesel powered generators, absolutely agreed with my scepticism, while laughing all the way to the bank.

I had many terse arguments, but all fell silent after the day of truth. Pity I will not be around to test the validity of the current super band wagon.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by Trevor

Remember how everything electronic was going to fail when 2,000 arrived. Corporates and public bodies spent millions, millions were pocketed. A mate who sold and leased diesel powered generators, absolutely agreed with my scepticism, while laughing all the way to the bank.

I had many terse arguments, but all fell silent after the day of truth. Pity I will not be around to test the validity of the current super band wagon.

The company I worked for back then Trevor made a good profit from the pervading paranoia.

I don't have detestation of bull$hi1t in my signature, but we should be wary of scepticism.

Yes, I do know what I have just said.

In a closed environment, no matter how large, existing organisms operate in stasis, there is balance. From the time of the industrial revolution in the 1830s we humans have proliferated and affected that balance. I don't think we fully understand The System, so we will be at the mercy of the Swings and Roundabouts.

Socially as a species we have learned to flush away our faeces or face the health consequences. We bury our dead because we have come to understand something of decay and disease. Yet as an industrially advanced society we do not appear to have accepted the negative environmental consequences from the faeces of our industrial endeavour which is CO2.

For the last few thousand years our ancestors have lived in agrarian societies using cyclic and conservative farming techniques that sustain life and conserve or have negligible impact on the environment.

Do we have the understanding or the data to assume that this latest industrial phase of our development and population explosion will not have a negative effect on our eco systems? I think we don't and it is now past time for conserving that which we know will sustain us.

Ergo, I'm a sceptic about climate sceptics.

Joe

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

The company I worked for back then Trevor made a good profit from the pervading paranoia.

I don't have detestation of bull$hi1t in my signature, but we should be wary of scepticism.

Yes, I do know what I have just said.

In a closed environment, no matter how large, existing organisms operate in stasis, there is balance. From the time of the industrial revolution in the 1830s we humans have proliferated and affected that balance. I don't think we fully understand The System, so we will be at the mercy of the Swings and Roundabouts.

Socially as a species we have learned to flush away our faeces or face the health consequences. We bury our dead because we have come to understand something of decay and disease. Yet as an industrially advanced society we do not appear to have accepted the negative environmental consequences from the faeces of our industrial endeavour which is CO2.

For the last few thousand years our ancestors have lived in agrarian societies using cyclic and conservative farming techniques that sustain life and conserve or have negligible impact on the environment.

Do we have the understanding or the data to assume that this latest industrial phase of our development and population explosion will not have a negative effect on our eco systems? I think we don't and it is now past time for conserving that which we know will sustain us.

Ergo, I'm a sceptic about climate sceptics.

Joe

Kia ora Joe,

Detesting BS has nothing to do with scepticism. BS is real, and a fact now exactly described by the applicable modern phrase.

Your lecture in fact relates to sustainability. I agree in this regard.

You advise, “Ergo, I'm a sceptic about climate sceptics.” i.e. we are both sceptical and nothing is proven.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by Trevor

Kia ora Joe,

Detesting BS has nothing to do with scepticism. BS is real, and a fact now exactly described by the applicable modern phrase.

Your lecture in fact relates to sustainability. I agree in this regard.

You advise, “Ergo, I'm a sceptic about climate sceptics.” i.e. we are both sceptical and nothing is proven.

Howdy Trevor

Thank you, I'm pleased you see my point about sustainability.

I meant no more in my remark about BS other than I am no more swayed by it than you are I would say. I prefer facts to rhetoric or emotional embracing of a cause.

Facts are scarce in relation to long term climate swings when recorded meteorological data and indeed scientific study only goes back a couple of hundred years. This lack of evidence should actually lead to caution when we are loading the atmosphere with CO2 at a measurable and unprecedented rate. The opposite applies.

We'll blame the Chinese [for wanting to be as developed as and as well off as and such heavy energy users as us!] and we'll blame anything rather than moderate our usage patterns.

'Tis a dangerous game we play. If we want to put scepticism to good use then we should be selective about what scientific evidence holds weight. I would find highly dubious anything coming from scientists aligned with or paid by Energy suppliers. To me it would appear that the majority of objective analysis indicates the start of a warming pattern and yesterday wouldn't be soon enough to start changing emissions policy.

Joe

[lhopp77]

This is for Joe. (probably not real current but still appropriate)

If this doesn't tug at your heart strings, nothing will!! We've all seen the faces of those ravaged by floods in Sri Lanka and New Orleans. This "award winning" photograph of floods in Ireland captures the horror and suffering there. Keep these people in your thoughts and prayers.

Must be caused by global warming.

Lee