Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The major causes of extinction and biodiversity loss are being ignored when people consider recent climate change as a major cause. I am not aware of a strong link thus far. It's speculation on possible future trends that are more of interest. That's mostly based on modelling, and the results are highly variable and tenuous imo. Of course interpretation of the various papers depends on the degree and rate of climate change you consider likely...

    Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity - Bellard - 2012 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library

    I would say that small shifts in climate change moving forward could cause a greater number of extinctions than in the past because so many species are currently in danger of extinction from other human activities, primarily ones that reduce the amount of natural habitat or fragment it. Species cannot as easily shift geographically if the new areas which suit them climatically can no longer develop into their habitat if they are occupied by cities and agricultural land. This was probably a major factor in species successful attempts to adapt to past climate change. Our attempts to preserve biodiversity by protecting small remaining pockets of habitat may be foiled in the long term by climate change, no matter its root source.

    Extinction is a tricky business, and biodiversity loss is not be caused just at the species level. In the future such loss may be linked to climate change, but the primary cause may often be other human activities, a combination of factors are normally at play.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
      First, this cover page, or whatever it is, isn't a study that shows the planets biodiversity has been reduced by half from climate change. They don't even claim as much. I'm assuming you've given up on that one?

      Second, the IPCC does not predict that the earth will warm on average by as much as 6c by 2100. So not only does it not support whatever it is you're claiming now but their own claims are incorrect as well.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...er12_FINAL.pdf

      Table 12.2: By 2100, the worst case scenario yields 3.7c according to them. Not even close.

      You're just striking out all over the place.
      Keep on marching to your own tune. Your attitude and language reminds me of the attitude of people who consistently denied that smoking tobacco or cigarettes were bad for their health by keeping pointing out inconsequential inconsistencies and ignoring the larger picture at hand in the hopes of drowning out the message.

      Keep preaching to your own choir.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Brown bears and polar bears used to be the same species, one branched off to live a life on the ice. If the ice vanishes, its likely they will as well. There is simply not enough terrestrial food there to support them.
        So...polar bears disappear...we have brown bears left...things get back to before this species branched off...biodiversity is restored. Sounds like a good deal.

        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Within limits established by various historical, natural and geologic records.
        Now we're getting somewhere. Can you give me a set of numbers defining this "proper rate" of climate change? Like x degrees variance in y number of years...etc.

        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        At less t=cost than we are paying now. Necessity is the mother of invention- unleash the human mind and market forces to end the reliance on polluting technologies. Fission, Fusion, Solar, Wind, Tides, Geothermal... numerous sources of under utilized electricity production which if combined with modern and developed batteries remove the need for gassy technologies.
        I don't disagree with any of these. The problem is the word "necessity." Right now we have very clean power generation technology. The existing scrubbers can clean up most of the pollutants from a coal power plant. Nuclear is very efficient compared to solar and wind. We can see that from the pricing schedule. Hydro is a fantastic source of renewable power.

        The problem is the greenies want solar and wind only. Coal with scrubbers is not good enough. Nuclear is scary. Hydro disrupts fish habitat. Did you know hydro power is not classified as a "renewable" source of power under the California global warming solutions act? California blew up a number of dams in the north to release water for fish, in the name of protecting "biodiversity." Now we are short on power and water.

        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        The only real cost is the debt we are piling up for our kids and grandkids. The loss of habitat, biodiversity, technological invention, human potential and possibly the very climate we need to survive are not helped by doing nothing and actively trying to thwart change and technological progression. Somehow the oil companies and coal fired power plants have made resisting the march f technology a virtue. Imagine if FDR had said no to the Manhattan project as too costly now for the benefits expected later. Or if Henry Ford had not been willing to risk it all on a new style of production and worker/employer relationship. Change might be pricey, but overall in the US it has tended towards good not bad.
        The climate will always change. We shouldn't be here to control it or even stop it. We should adapt to it and embrace it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Unleash the human mind and market forces to adapt to the changing planet, instead of attempting to force nature to adapt to us.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          So...polar bears disappear...we have brown bears left...things get back to before this species branched off...biodiversity is restored. Sounds like a good deal.
          Uhm no, the loss of an apex predator will have major implications on the rest of the flora and fauna. Plus biodiversity is not restored when we lose a species, it is reduced.



          Now we're getting somewhere. Can you give me a set of numbers defining this "proper rate" of climate change? Like x degrees variance in y number of years...etc.
          No, because "proper" is a nebulous term. I can provide numbers for historical warming and cooling rates. I guess you could call a mean of those numbers "proper" if you wanted to.

          I don't disagree with any of these. The problem is the word "necessity." Right now we have very clean power generation technology. The existing scrubbers can clean up most of the pollutants from a coal power plant. Nuclear is very efficient compared to solar and wind. We can see that from the pricing schedule. Hydro is a fantastic source of renewable power.
          The coal industry is fighting putting those scrubbers in place, or in going from old technology to super critical or carbon capture. Until we do, coal is dirty. Not just from a climate change perspective, but from a downwind perspective on human and ecological health. Nuclear is the way to go, even more so if we can figure out how to clean up the waste. The newer technologies are damn near meltdown proof, though some like liquid sodium are horribly radioactive when their life ends.

          [quote]The problem is the greenies want solar and wind only. Coal with scrubbers is not good enough. Nuclear is scary. Hydro disrupts fish habitat. Did you know hydro power is not classified as a "renewable" source of power under the California global warming solutions act? California blew up a number of dams in the north to release water for fish, in the name of protecting "biodiversity." Now we are short on power and water.

          Hydro does have issues with how it impacts fish stocks, silting and other problems, it needs to be more tightly used to strike a balance between man and nature. Nuclear is misunderstood and it is scary and this (and Jimmy Carter) has prevented us from adopting new technologies that would put the meltdown boogyman to bed.

          The climate will always change. We shouldn't be here to control it or even stop it. We should adapt to it and embrace it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Unleash the human mind and market forces to adapt to the changing planet, instead of attempting to force nature to adapt to us.
          The energy sector does not want us to adapt, that is why they trying to stop the market and leash the mind and market. If the climate changes faster than we and the species we depend on can adapt to- we die. If only we and the critical species we depend on can adapt and the wild spaces perish- we are forever impoverished. Simple fact is we can and do affect the climate- pollution, urban heat sinks, terra forming and other human activities all have an impact on climate. The argument is about how much and how fast we are doing it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Uhm no, the loss of an apex predator will have major implications on the rest of the flora and fauna. Plus biodiversity is not restored when we lose a species, it is reduced.
            What was there before polar bear roamed free?

            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            No, because "proper" is a nebulous term. I can provide numbers for historical warming and cooling rates. I guess you could call a mean of those numbers "proper" if you wanted to.
            Yes, please. Let's see the historical numbers.

            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            The coal industry is fighting putting those scrubbers in place, or in going from old technology to super critical or carbon capture. Until we do, coal is dirty. Not just from a climate change perspective, but from a downwind perspective on human and ecological health. Nuclear is the way to go, even more so if we can figure out how to clean up the waste. The newer technologies are damn near meltdown proof, though some like liquid sodium are horribly radioactive when their life ends.

            Hydro does have issues with how it impacts fish stocks, silting and other problems, it needs to be more tightly used to strike a balance between man and nature. Nuclear is misunderstood and it is scary and this (and Jimmy Carter) has prevented us from adopting new technologies that would put the meltdown boogyman to bed.
            I agree. Coal industry is fighting the efforts to clean up because it adds cost. Nuclear is costly if we factor in all the regulations and environmental studies and law suits. Hydro has issues with impacting fish habitat, I do not disagree.

            However, solar and wind are far more costly and impact the environment probably more than conventional technology. Tonapah power plant on the border of CA and NV is a solar plant that covers 5 square miles of desert land with mirrors. Every year thousands of migrating birds mistaken the reflection as water and attempt to land. They get roasted. The exact number is unknown because someone decided not to publish that data. By the way, this plant produces 1/4 of the projected output because somehow the years of study before building this plant had overestimated the amount of sunlight in this area

            I drove through Palmdale area north of Los Angeles where there's a big wind farm, with gigantic wind turbines. Most of them were not spinning. Those blades are dangerous to birds as well. I have seen videos showing a bird in flight being killed by those giant blades.

            Wind is erratic. Solar is bright sunny day only. Both are incredibly expensive compared to conventional energy while offering their own challenges to the environment. Due to their non-constant nature, a backup plan has to be in place to supply the grid with near constant power. This backup is usually in the form of a gas turbine power plant. They can be turned on and off real fast.

            Bottom line, wind and solar are expensive, need fossil fuel power plant as back up, kill birds by the thousands (at a single plant, imagine dozens of them), the reward is just not worth it.

            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            The energy sector does not want us to adapt, that is why they trying to stop the market and leash the mind and market. If the climate changes faster than we and the species we depend on can adapt to- we die. If only we and the critical species we depend on can adapt and the wild spaces perish- we are forever impoverished. Simple fact is we can and do affect the climate- pollution, urban heat sinks, terra forming and other human activities all have an impact on climate. The argument is about how much and how fast we are doing it.
            They aren't trying to stop the market because they don't want to adapt. They are trying to stop a market distorted by government fiat.

            The energy sector is the market force. They want to generate a profit. That's the market. People will do things when they profit them. Solar and wind aren't profitable. If they were, everyone would be on the bandwagon. Solar and wind are so inefficient that we need to dump billions and possibly trillions of dollars to prop them up. This money could otherwise be used to update our existing technology. Evolution rather than revolution. What we are trying to do is to reach for the pie in the sky in one leap rather than slowly progress toward it. Did Wright brothers go for a super sonic jet on their first try? Did Thomas Edison go for a highly efficient LED instead of a wasteful filament design? Did RCA say the traditional tube TV is too inefficient, let's go straight to LED flat panel to save power?

            The green lobby is a utopian lot. They want their pies and eat them too. Real world doesn't work that way. Everything has a cost. We shouldn't look to eliminate the cost. We should look to minimize the cost.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              What was there before polar bear roamed free?
              Dunno, but the Polar bear is part of an ecosystem that devleoped over thousands of years and is now interconnected.

              Yes, please. Let's see the historical numbers.

              see attached pic from the Journal Nature


              I agree. Coal industry is fighting the efforts to clean up because it adds cost. Nuclear is costly if we factor in all the regulations and environmental studies and law suits. Hydro has issues with impacting fish habitat, I do not disagree.

              However, solar and wind are far more costly and impact the environment probably more than conventional technology. Tonapah power plant on the border of CA and NV is a solar plant that covers 5 square miles of desert land with mirrors. Every year thousands of migrating birds mistaken the reflection as water and attempt to land. They get roasted. The exact number is unknown because someone decided not to publish that data. By the way, this plant produces 1/4 of the projected output because somehow the years of study before building this plant had overestimated the amount of sunlight in this area

              I drove through Palmdale area north of Los Angeles where there's a big wind farm, with gigantic wind turbines. Most of them were not spinning. Those blades are dangerous to birds as well. I have seen videos showing a bird in flight being killed by those giant blades.

              Wind is erratic. Solar is bright sunny day only. Both are incredibly expensive compared to conventional energy while offering their own challenges to the environment. Due to their non-constant nature, a backup plan has to be in place to supply the grid with near constant power. This backup is usually in the form of a gas turbine power plant. They can be turned on and off real fast.

              Bottom line, wind and solar are expensive, need fossil fuel power plant as back up, kill birds by the thousands (at a single plant, imagine dozens of them), the reward is just not worth it.
              Wind and Solar have immediate and visible costs, the newer tech coming being developed significantly reduces the danger. But coal is fighting the new technology not because it would cost them more, but because it would finally force them to stop forcing others to pay for their profits. Every dollar spent on health care related to down stream effects, every hour lost to health problems due to down stream effects, every pond turned too acidic to support life is a cost the coal industry should be paying but is instead passing on to others. Often these others are not even their customers. They've spent decades buying laws that shield them from paying the real cost of their operations. That is not market forces, its market manipulation.



              They aren't trying to stop the market because they don't want to adapt. They are trying to stop a market distorted by government fiat.
              They are the ones who distorted the market by government fiat.

              The energy sector is the market force. They want to generate a profit. That's the market. People will do things when they profit them. Solar and wind aren't profitable. If they were, everyone would be on the bandwagon. Solar and wind are so inefficient that we need to dump billions and possibly trillions of dollars to prop them up. This money could otherwise be used to update our existing technology. Evolution rather than revolution. What we are trying to do is to reach for the pie in the sky in one leap rather than slowly progress toward it. Did Wright brothers go for a super sonic jet on their first try? Did Thomas Edison go for a highly efficient LED instead of a wasteful filament design? Did RCA say the traditional tube TV is too inefficient, let's go straight to LED flat panel to save power?
              The energy sector is not market forces, its market manipulation. They would not be spending so much on lobbying if they were not getting a return on their investment.

              The green lobby is a utopian lot. They want their pies and eat them too. Real world doesn't work that way. Everything has a cost. We shouldn't look to eliminate the cost. We should look to minimize the cost.
              The dirty energy sector is the utopian lot- they think endless polluting can go on for ever despite over whelming evidence of local, regional and now global impacts. The technology to drastically reduce carbon emissions exists. Some technologies like Fusion will hopefully be seen in our lifetimes. We'd get there faster, pay less over the long run and have a cleaner environment at every level if we'd switch over now.
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • Z,

                I'm not sure how that graph shows we are outside of historical norms either by temp or rate of change. Do you see something different there than I do?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                  Z,

                  I'm not sure how that graph shows we are outside of historical norms either by temp or rate of change. Do you see something different there than I do?
                  I see we should be entering a glacial period but that temps are rising instead.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    I see we should be entering a glacial period but that temps are rising instead.
                    And that's a bad thing?!?!

                    Regardless, your argument was that we are outside historical norms and this graph does not show that, for either temp or rate of change. If you're making judgements based on the length it's because of what I said earlier, difference of resolution, in this case related to depth. The higher the depth the higher the resolution.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      There is a lot less CO2 today than there was during the days of the Dinosaurs. This is evident by grassland (requiring much less CO2) where once jungles used to be.
                      You mean trees ecosystems cannot survive in today's CO2 deprived atmosphere?

                      Comment


                      • Pretty awesome animation here
                        http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NoOneKnows View Post
                          You mean trees ecosystems cannot survive in today's CO2 deprived atmosphere?
                          It's freaking worst than that. In a few hundred million years, there won't be anything but bacteria on this friggin planet. Not enough CO2 to support plant life. No plant life. No animal life.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            It's freaking worst than that. In a few hundred million years, there won't be anything but bacteria on this friggin planet. Not enough CO2 to support plant life. No plant life. No animal life.
                            So, declining CO2 levels in the atmosphere, starting from some 100 million years ago, has resulted in trees - mature trees to simply die and rot and be replaced with grass in some rainforests spread across the planet. But it has spared other rainforests and trees, such as in Congo, South America, S.E Asia, heck my own backyard tree. Sounds like CO2 is very discriminatory and biased.
                            Also, you can lay easy on the CO2-scaremongering. Its not going anywhere.

                            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ide_400kyr.png

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NoOneKnows View Post
                              So, declining CO2 levels in the atmosphere, starting from some 100 million years ago, has resulted in trees - mature trees to simply die and rot and be replaced with grass in some rainforests spread across the planet. But it has spared other rainforests and trees, such as in Congo, South America, S.E Asia, heck my own backyard tree. Sounds like CO2 is very discriminatory and biased.
                              You're really missing the big picture. Check the fossilized tree rings from the age of the dinosaurs. They showed a much higher CO2 concentration than there is today. In fact, CO2 during the dinosaurs would be lethal to humans today.

                              Originally posted by NoOneKnows View Post
                              Also, you can lay easy on the CO2-scaremongering. Its not going anywhere.

                              https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ide_400kyr.png
                              Yeah, sure, right.

                              http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html

                              You were saying?
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 27 Jul 15,, 21:30.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                You're really missing the big picture. Check the fossilized tree rings from the age of the dinosaurs. They showed a much higher CO2 concentration than there is today. In fact, CO2 during the dinosaurs would be lethal to humans today.
                                I am asking you to explain a simple fact - why did carbon deficiency destroy existing trees only in selected areas? - given that CO2 concentrations - despite being affected by local environment, are largely global. How does the African Savannah live side by side with the Congo basin?
                                http://grasslandsnrazov.weebly.com/u...7522_orig.jpeg

                                http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel...ere/whemap.gif
                                Matter of fact, how does any tree (of forestal descent) survive?
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                Yeah, sure, right.

                                http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html

                                You were saying?
                                Nothing that could be contradicted with that link.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X