[non-ceph]: Global Warming Thread

[Jean]

It's meeting with a fair amount of opposition, not because of generating power or lack thereof but visual pollution... etc!
QUOTE]

I don't think we're asking for much, we just want power companies to produce vast amounts of electricity using a method that produces no CO2, produces no radioactive waste, doesn't use fossil fuels, doesn't require the diversion of waterways, won't affect tides, won't impact on the local environment when they construct it, is totally silent, and invisible. Is that too much to ask for?

Well Idon't think so

j

 

[monty]

how about flying windfarms. Of course there's always the "aieeee! death from above" problem.

Not In My Back Yard folks also complain about noise, failures involving flaming generators or flying blades, and bird shredding from windfarms. I suspect these are exaggerated, but at South Point in Hawaii, there are some unmaintained 70s era turbines that clearly show signs of catastrophic failures I wouldn't want to be near.

I also wonder how many windmills it would take before impede the flow of air enough to change weather patterns... probably more than are likely to get built, I expect, but still, worth asking the question...

 

[Michael Blue]

...I also wonder how many windmills it would take before impede the flow of air enough to change weather patterns... probably more than are likely to get built, I expect, but still, worth asking the question...

...To change them to what? To what they were before we cut down all the forests and made vast swaths of bare farmland and subdivisions?

I wonder if there were any impact at all, if it wouldn't be a positive one; more closely resembling the landscape here before we stripped the land.

...Just thinking out loud.

 

[monty]

...To change them to what? To what they were before we cut down all the forests and made vast swaths of bare farmland and subdivisions?

I wonder if there were any impact at all, if it wouldn't be a positive one; more closely resembling the landscape here before we stripped the land.

...Just thinking out loud.

No clue. I've just noticed that people who talk about how global warming is going to change some Atlantic current that will make Britain look like Siberia don't seem to bat an eyelash at putting huge numbers of windmills in the middle of the US, which, presumably, will slow the prevailing winds in order to generate power. I don't know if this is a tiny drop in the bucket or not, or what it's effects would be if it is significant in some way... I'd go so far as to say, though, that if you choose a windy mountain pass to install windmills, if you put enough windmills to induce a lot of resistance, at some point the wind may well decide that most of it wants to go through some other place, or over the top. Of course, that might require an implausible number of windmills. I wonder if that "700GW could be provided by windpower" number Sorseress cited requires such an implausible number of windmills, in such a way that it would divert most of the wind in the great plains a few hundred feet higher to avoid those pesky windmills. That, admittedly, seems more likely than diverting the jet stream and turning the farm belt into a dust bowl, I guess.

But all the greenhouse gas and ozone hole problems come from a history of people thinking "human activity can't do meaningful change to the atmosphere" and being wrong, and yet people doing back-of-the-envelope calculations seem to think "if it's environmental enough, we can ignore these effects." Consider, for another example, the albedo effects of replacing hundreds of square miles of light colored desert with black solar cells.

I'm not wanting to be a naysayer, particularly... I like windmills and solar power (and probably tidal, although there I'm concerned that it may have substantial environmental effects on intertidal ecosystems and estuaries). It seems like a lot of these discussions involve people who like or dislike particular things selectively applying optimism or pessimism that supports their views, and then claiming that it's objective science. I'm not particularly accusing anyone here of doing that, but I think the media loves having pundits that do this debate one another, and so the public gets a lot of "these two so-called experts say different things, so choose which one is the expert you'll choose to side with" information, and very little "this actual expert, who's studied this issue for 30 years, goes into all the complexities about the issue and explains what the pros, cons, and unknowns are believed to be, and what their relative significance is, and why certain naive assumptions turn out to be wrong even though they sound good."

 

[sorseress]

I seriously doubt that there will be enough windmills installed on Indian reservations in the northern great plains to ever generate the full 700GW, and those were just on the reservations, you understand, not the property belonging to the federal gov't. or non native ranchers. One of the reasons that I'm jazzed about the concept is not just environmental, it's also economic. Most of the reservations are on land that is worthless for much of anything, the inhabitants are living at poverty levels that are incomprehensible to most of us. Although a few of them have tried the casino thing, most of them are in such unpopulated areas that they can't draw from a very large population of would-be gamblers. Those casinos that have been effective are located near where a large tourist attraction already exists, and believe me, there's nothing to draw most people to the areas around most of those reservations. Wind turbines could raise the incomes of a lot of those tribes to the poverty level, maybe even higher.
There has been a lot of research on new methods of generating solar power, many of which are not at all obtrusive. There are solar panels designed to look like asphalt roof shingles, window screen made with some kind of a filament, (designed primarily for use in countries where lack of electricity and insect borne disease are dual problem so that's a fortuitous dual solution) and probably a bunch of other, newer things that I'm not aware of. I haven't been keeping up on it the way I used to. (Spending too much time on Tonmo, I guess. )

 

[monty]

sounds good to me. In fact, I think it would be poetic justice if the reservations that we stiffed them with turn out to be a windfarm goldmine. I didn't particularly mean to be critical of you, just to air my typical gripe that a lot of this stuff is complicated, and it's hard to discern what's accurate analysis vs spin...

 

[Michael Blue]

...It seems like a lot of these discussions involve people who like or dislike particular things selectively applying optimism or pessimism that supports their views, and then claiming that it's objective science...

Unfortunately, for those of us not directly involved in science, that's what we hear from the scientific community more often than not.

Let me clarify before you all start gathering wood for my fire; it's not that this represents a majority of the scientific community, only that (as Monty alluded to) it's all the media finds particularly interesting enough to cover so the rest of the (non scientific) world is aware of it.

 

[sorseress]

sounds good to me. In fact, I think it would be poetic justice if the reservations that we stiffed them with turn out to be a windfarm goldmine. I didn't particularly mean to be critical of you, just to air my typical gripe that a lot of this stuff is complicated, and it's hard to discern what's accurate analysis vs spin...

I didn't take it that way. I know you well enough (from reading all of your posts) to know that you always analyse everything. You have the right kind of mind to be a scientist....I , on the other hand, do not.

 

[starksinc]

well, it sure was an opportune moment for a photo (and story to go with it)! I think those bears are robust enough to make it off their precarious perches.

But mainly the shot is an attention-grabber to bring up issue of the real effects warming may have on polar bears (i.e. forced to swim farther, etc).

As someone whose entire school is populated with dolphin-huggers (nothing wrong with marine mammals.... they need a lot of help recovering and maintaining their populations with as much junk we pump into their domains), I think I keep a middle-of-the-road (i like to call it scientific) approach to climate change that some may think borders on heresy.

My point is, we need to make changes to what we pump into the seas and atmosphere.... but people probably do not need to trade in their cars for bicycles just yet. Not that it would happen anyway. Drastic change isnt going to happen unless, say, WWIII happens and we return to the stone age.

There is a lot that needs to be understood. Thats partially why i changed my major from marine biology to marine science.... because it is much more.... multi-discipline.

Ok, fact: theres more CO2 in the atmosphere than....ever? But here is another: the sun goes through discrete phases of varying activity levels. With all well-documented shifts between ice ages and normal periods, and we dont even have their exact causes pinned down reliably?

Ok! Now.... be gentle with me... no public stoning please? Besides...this is how we advance the collective knowledge of the human race... not by being told that the world is flat or round and blindly believing it... but by asking questions! Force people to find more than one way to prove their theories.

Hopefully politics aside.... These discussions are so much more interesting when we are talking just the science. but we are all nerds here, right? i know i am.

as one of those infamous professors (you know the type) delights to do..... lesse... is this the "devils advocate" smiley?

How about conducting this simple experiment to prove the theory of what effect CO2 is having on the atmosphere: I just can't believe the people that don't believe global warming, when watching videos and reading this forum I came up with a real simple experiment to test out the truth- go stick their head next to a Diesel engine exhaust system outlet while the enigne is reving and not just a couple of breaths possibly a good 60 seconds preferable a dump truck or semi-truck and experience the suffocation factor/difficulty of breathing and see what we are doing to the enviroment, CO2 has the same effect on the atmosphere, we are suffocating it but people don't want to believe because it is not as immediate as having your air choked off by sticking your head by an exhaust pipe, the earth is a lot larger than the small field needed for you to breath by say a 5 1/2 dia pipe with fumes exiting in which the toxins dissipate and are not visible afterwards, but by no means is the effect any different but the truth is that the blanket of smog is not escaping the atmosphere it is here choking us killing off life on the planet slowly.

 

[monty]

How about conducting this simple experiment to prove the theory of what effect CO2 is having on the atmosphere: I just can't believe the people that don't believe global warming, when watching videos and reading this forum I came up with a real simple experiment to test out the truth- go stick their head next to a Diesel engine exhaust system outlet while the enigne is reving and not just a couple of breaths possibly a good 60 seconds preferable a dump truck or semi-truck and experience the suffocation factor/difficulty of breathing and see what we are doing to the enviroment, CO2 has the same effect on the atmosphere, we are suffocating it but people don't want to believe because it is not as immediate as having your air choked off by sticking your head by an exhaust pipe, the earth is a lot larger than the small field needed for you to breath by say a 5 1/2 dia pipe with fumes exiting in which the toxins dissipate and are not visible afterwards, but by no means is the effect any different but the truth is that the blanket of smog is not escaping the atmosphere it is here choking us killing off life on the planet slowly.

, but please try not to be too confrontational. Our main purpose is to discuss cephalopods, and although environmentalism is something a lot of us feel strongly about, it is a bit off-topic, and we try to keep things fairly civil. Thanks!

 

[starksinc]

, but please try not to be too confrontational. Our main purpose is to discuss cephalopods, and although environmentalism is something a lot of us feel strongly about, it is a bit off-topic, and we try to keep things fairly civil. Thanks!

no hey, in no way was i directing this toward anybody or being confrontational, i was just reinerating on what I quoted above as a generalization to the people-- not us here --more so such as politicians that say or try to steer the public or legislation that there are no enviromental issues i.e global warming and that it's a hoax or that somehow infact if global warming were true that it is not having an effect on the enviroment and habitat and that it is a bunch of hooey! anyways I was just using that post to comment off of because it had a bit of the enviromental issue such as global warming in it, In no way was I attacking the thread or his/her opinion, my opinion and comment was based off the recent c-span conferences held about the enviroment and global warming, that it actually upsetting to hear and see that they are trying to block ways of trying to reverse the damage.
Anywho sorry if anyone thought i was being confrontational- relax don't be so defensive I just wanted to post a thought-- a sarcastic thought to a real situation that I'd figure all of us enviromentalist would get a laugh out of, because I feel that that's what pretty much all of us are.

 

[monty]

no hey, in no way was i directing this toward anybody or being confrontational, i was just reinerating on what I quoted above as a generalization to the people-- not us here --more so such as politicians that say or try to steer the public or legislation that there are no enviromental issues i.e global warming and that it's a hoax or that somehow infact if global warming were true that it is not having an effect on the enviroment and habitat and that it is a bunch of hooey! anyways I was just using that post to comment off of because it had a bit of the enviromental issue such as global warming in it, In no way was I attacking the thread or his/her opinion, my opinion and comment was based off the recent c-span conferences held about the enviroment and global warming, that it actually upsetting to hear and see that they are trying to block ways of trying to reverse the damage.
Anywho sorry if anyone thought i was being confrontational- relax don't be so defensive I just wanted to post a thought-- a sarcastic thought to a real situation that I'd figure all of us enviromentalist would get a laugh out of, because I feel that that's what pretty much all of us are.

Thanks for clarifying... I just thought that since you quoted Fluffysquid's post, you were primarily responding to her views... also, since it was your first post here, I didn't really have a feel for where you're coming from. Sorry I didn't quite get where you're coming from, and again ... speaking of such things, if you're up for it, if you said a few words about yourself over in the "introduce yourself" forum it could help us getting to know you, although I have to admit I skipped that and jumped right in to the forums myself...

 

[Jean]

"introduce yourself" forum it could help us getting to know you, although I have to admit I skipped that and jumped right in to the forums myself...

Tsk tsk tsk..........not that I have either!!! My excuse is I'm pre introduce yourself forum

and starksinc

J

 

[Cairnos]

I came up with a real simple experiment to test out the truth- go stick their head next to a Diesel engine exhaust system outlet while the enigne is reving and not just a couple of breaths possibly a good 60 seconds preferable a dump truck or semi-truck and experience the suffocation factor/difficulty of breathing .

Isn't this just a teensy bit like saying that water must be bad for you because if you stick your head underwater for long enough you will have difficulty breathing?

Or perhaps closer would be to say that tying a plastic bag around your head for long enough will soon cause you to suffocate?

It's my personal opinion that humans are influencing climate change but I don't think you can support this with this analogy.

"Human respiration suffers in high concentrations of carbon dioxide" does NOT equal "The amount of carbon dioxide being released due to human activity is affecting the climate of the planet".

It's statements like that that tend to be siezed upon with great glee by those who do not believe humans are influencing climate change because, well...they come apart real easy.

 

[sorseress]

Absolute proof? Certainly not, but more evidence of straws piling up on the camel's back.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=early-2007-saw-record-bre