Science doesn't lie. If a person lies about the results of an experiment they are not being scientific. The same goes for science getting it wrong. Only the interpretation, either accidentally or purposefully, can be wrong, but the data is the data. Now, the data could be wrong, but the data is result of the machines used to test and measure. This is why science is peer reviewed, hypothesis conceived, theories devised, and experiments are repeated. I have seen nothing more pure in this world than science.
Glad to know you’re open to the possibility that people are lying about data.
Originally Posted by digitalclips
That's the problem in a nut shell. There are simply too many of these pesky human critters for the balance of nature.
Even people deep into the technology of Oil aren't certian what actually produces it. Personally I never bought into the idea that dead dinosaurs are responsible. It is interesting that oil fields have been known to recover from being pumped out.
I'd agree exactly which animals got converted is hard to know but fossil records help. The cool thing about carbon based fuel is it has a lot of carbon in it so isotopic analysis is pretty straight forward. If any source gets replenished then there must be a secondary source 'leaking in there', that or fairies.
1) Perhaps you should read up on fossil fuel discovery rates, resources, extraction rates, extraction costs and depletion rates and then think again.
Hasn't been a problem yet and frankly prices have fallen dramatically.
2) I think that you will find that humans putting 400ppm of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere is meddling with nature.
Do you honestly believe that 400ppm actually has a significant impact on the climate? No one has demonstrated reliably that it in fact does have an impact.
I am simply looking at the data. We could continue to multiply if we start to use our brains but we cannot continue to ignore the consequences of human greed and/ or ignorance on the balance of the planet's eco systems.
Your case for the specific use of land for this Apple solar farm may be valid. But, multiply that by a thousand, or hundreds of thousands who might follow in Apple's steps ...
Also, many (if not most) forest fires are a natural occurrence -- caused by lightening ...
Temporary scorching of the land is part of the renewal process for some trees ...
Those two were man caused, as are most of the largest in California history, but otherwise, most are lighting related, and yes some trees require fire to germinate, such as the Sequoia, but those would be low intensity fires.
As I stated in an earlier post, and at least on Federally managed lands, there are extensive processes in place to minimize environmental impact and improper siting. I would guess that this is true for California State managed lands and private lands.
My point being that Climate Change has been having adverse effects that far outweigh your concerns, and I wonder if this is in fact a case of NIMBY on your part?
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- lest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
Your open views and willingness to see all sides is refreshing. I agree there are extremists on all sides but far more science backs that humans are really messing with a very thin atmosphere on a pretty small sphere of rock. Two hundred years of pumping many, many trillions of tons of carbon gases into that thin wrap we breath cannot be simply wished away.
I agree. I believe the climate changes. Of course it does. Just look outside everyday. Do we have as large an impact on it as everyone seems think (thank you media for sensationalizing it just to get views)? I don't think so. Do we have an effect? sure, but it's probably more akin to spitting into the ocean compared to other things. If you look back at reports and media from the 1970s several of the headlines would've sounded like they came from today, except they were about global cooling.
There really isn't enough data yet to determine these things yet. The atmosphere is one complex machine and many factors are in play. We are looking at a small pin hole in the wall and claiming the entire structure is going to fall. These warming/cooling periods are probably cyclical and largely out of our control. Source? I have none/don't remember.
All said and done, I'm all for solar. I'm glad apple is doing this. Great way for them to save money and reduce reliance on oil for when we do run out.
Those second ice age reports were trumpeted by the media, but not based on peer reviewed scientific studies. IIRC, those sources had about as much credibility as the various books over the years that made the bestseller charts by predicting an apocalyptic event that winds up not happening.
I'm all for green, but butchering all that land for solar panels is such a waste, and a shame. I'm in Monterey often and it breaks my heart to see this kind of destruction going on.
I so hope fusion energy comes into play soon, or some modern-tech nuclear power. I'm gonna get flamed for it, but massive swaths of land for energy is not the way.
Solar farms wastes land, Windmills kills thousands of birds a year, solar collectors fry birds in mid-air... there is a cost.
Me no like this.
So, what REAL technology would you prefer now? After all, fusion won't be here for another, oh, 30 to 50 years, if ever. It ain't a sure thing.
So, do you like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, or how about hydroelectric, which kills hundreds of miles of land? All of those have major problems of their own.
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- jest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
I agree, I worry the rush to build solar farms is not looking at alternatives enough or at least not looking at 'where' enough. I want to see a massive move to energy sources that are not dependent on oxidizing carbon and there are many. Wasting good land shouldn't be on the table IMHO.
So, what REAL technology would you prefer now? After all, fusion won't be here for another, oh, 30 to 50 years, if ever. It ain't a sure thing.
So, do you like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, or how about hydroelectric, which kills hundreds of miles of land? All of those have major problems of their own.
I'd suggest the same solar farm could be built somewhere else. I have flown many times over this magnificent continent and from the window seen that a lot of it looks like mars.
I agree. I believe the climate changes. Of course it does. Just look outside everyday. Do we have as large an impact on it as everyone seems think (thank you media for sensationalizing it just to get views)? I don't think so. Do we have an effect? sure, but it's probably more akin to spitting into the ocean compared to other things. If you look back at reports and media from the 1970s several of the headlines would've sounded like they came from today, except they were about global cooling.
There really isn't enough data yet to determine these things yet. The atmosphere is one complex machine and many factors are in play. We are looking at a small pin hole in the wall and claiming the entire structure is going to fall. These warming/cooling periods are probably cyclical and largely out of our control. Source? I have none/don't remember.
All said and done, I'm all for solar. I'm glad apple is doing this. Great way for them to save money and reduce reliance on oil for when we do run out.
The typical know nothing response. There is a vast amount of data that shows that we are a major cause of warming, if not the cause. Going back to the time thermometers were invented (I'll let you look that up for yourself) we can see how the world's temperature has risen along with the population and energy use. This isn't debatable. Neither is all of the information gathered since.
The typical know nothing response. There is a vast amount of data that shows that we are a major cause of warming, if not the cause. Going back to the time thermometers were invented (I'll let you look that up for yourself) we can see how the world's temperature has risen along with the population and energy use. This isn't debatable. Neither is all of the information gathered since.
The problem is the amazingly large number of good, well meaning people that have absolutely zero science education. I have talked to countless people that don't even realize we have an reverse climate going on south of the equator. If it's cold in here it must be cold everywhere!
I'd suggest the same solar farm could be built somewhere else. I have flown many times over this magnificent continent and from the window seen that a lot of it looks like mars.
No matter where you place these, the environment exists. There is no place on earth, except for a few areas in the Antartic, where life doesn't exist. Even the Sahara desert has an environment with life. Sure. We all have spots we think are not worthy of consideration. But that doesn't mean that any one particular spot is of more value than another.
Science doesn't lie. If a person lies about the results of an experiment they are not being scientific. The same goes for science getting it wrong. Only the interpretation, either accidentally or purposefully, can be wrong, but the data is the data. Now, the data could be wrong, but the data is result of the machines used to test and measure. This is why science is peer reviewed, hypothesis conceived, theories devised, and experiments are repeated. I have seen nothing more pure in this world than science
Data doesn't lie, but science lies all the time. I agree that it's the most pure thing, but it's by no means pure. If you've studied science, as I have, and analyzed research, it's easy to see how easy it is to get something wrong, or to manipulate data either deliberately or through subconscious bias.*
I would imagine that this is particularly true when creating mathematical models (where one fraction of a decimal point makes a huge difference), and when these models are dealing with something that has an incredible amount of variables (the entire earth ecosystem), and especially when extrapolating those models out to decades (meteorologists can't even reliably predict the weather more than a day or two out).
The scientific thing to do, regarding these climate predictions, is to be skeptical, not make proclamations every two days that the world is coming to catastrophe.
*Here's a concrete example of science being manipulated. Not just any science either, but science that is supposed to predict more climate change doom and gloom. You're probably aware of a study that came out a few months ago that was interpreted and promoted as "Climate Change to Result in Less Nutritional Food." This was a completely misleading interpretation of actual data. There was no explanation of why this is the case, it was just portrayed as climate change somehow magically reducing the protein and minerals in food. But in actuality, the reason for this is that the increased CO2 (i.e. plant food, i.e. ingredient for starch) increased crop yields in general, as you would expect. Of course, since this growth was promoted by more CO2, there is more starch relative to the other components of the food. In this case, a positive of increased CO2 was actually framed as a negative through the (willful) manipulation of data.
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- lest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
The big change moving forward will be replacing this 1300 acre panel farm with higher density cells per square meter that will drastically increase energy density collection.
I'm sorry but the amount of land destroyed, due to arson, in 2014 alone dwarfs the land that could ever be used for solar energy collection. I won't waste time debating the hundreds of millions of acres destroyed to half-life decay in pursuit of nuclear deterrence, or fossil fuel toxicity.
The problem is the amazingly large number of good, well meaning people that have absolutely zero science education. I have talked to countless people that don't even realize we have an reverse climate going on south of the equator. If it's cold in here it must be cold everywhere!
It's even worse than that. I have a few friends who get all of their "news" and scientific "knowledge" from talk radio. I've listened to some of those shows, and they just lie on the air. I'm amazed sometimes. But their audience believes everything they hear, because it's what they want to hear, it's bolstering their own beliefs.
Stanford University calculated the amount of energy used to create every solar panel ever made and the amount of energy produced by all of those solar panels. We might reach the break even point by 2018.
More importantly, California is in a drought. Studies have shown that California has had drought of up to 240 years long in the past. Where is all the water going to come from to keep all these solar panels clean so that they produce electricity?
Just what do you think you're doing? You're not supposed to use logic. You're not supposed to think outside the box. You can only look at the science, and the science has spoken! Denier!
No matter where you place these, the environment exists. There is no place on earth, except for a few areas in the Antartic, where life doesn't exist. Even the Sahara desert has an environment with life. Sure. We all have spots we think are not worthy of consideration. But that doesn't mean that any one particular spot is of more value than another.
You are totally correct, it has to be a balanced judgment call and it's a tough one. However, I would wager the desert areas exhibit less potential loss of fauna and flora than some of the areas being used, that is all i am saying. Weigh that against mass pollution and catastrophic climate change.
Hopefully scientists will come up with far more efficient energy producing alternatives in the near future. That is if politics and medieval religious beliefs don't stop them.
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- jest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
I agree, I worry the rush to build solar farms is not looking at alternatives enough or at least not looking at 'where' enough. I want to see a massive move to energy sources that are not dependent on oxidizing carbon and there are many. Wasting good land shouldn't be on the table IMHO.
It is interesting to me, the posts of people on this thread who, because of our age -- likely, will be least effected by the long-term effects. We'll be dead before the issues we're discussing have any effect ... Yet, we appear to be the most concerned, and advise to proceed with caution.
My reasons -- I've had a pretty good life, in a world left in pretty good shape by my forbearers ... I'd like to continue that process!
Now, I must go ... I have an appointment with Jaques Daniels ...
Comments
Glad to know you’re open to the possibility that people are lying about data.
Please tell me you’re not a malthusian.
I'd agree exactly which animals got converted is hard to know but fossil records help. The cool thing about carbon based fuel is it has a lot of carbon in it so isotopic analysis is pretty straight forward. If any source gets replenished then there must be a secondary source 'leaking in there', that or fairies.
Do you honestly believe that 400ppm actually has a significant impact on the climate? No one has demonstrated reliably that it in fact does have an impact.
I am simply looking at the data. We could continue to multiply if we start to use our brains but we cannot continue to ignore the consequences of human greed and/ or ignorance on the balance of the planet's eco systems.
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- lest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
Of course, a person is fallible.
Your open views and willingness to see all sides is refreshing. I agree there are extremists on all sides but far more science backs that humans are really messing with a very thin atmosphere on a pretty small sphere of rock. Two hundred years of pumping many, many trillions of tons of carbon gases into that thin wrap we breath cannot be simply wished away.
I agree. I believe the climate changes. Of course it does. Just look outside everyday. Do we have as large an impact on it as everyone seems think (thank you media for sensationalizing it just to get views)? I don't think so. Do we have an effect? sure, but it's probably more akin to spitting into the ocean compared to other things. If you look back at reports and media from the 1970s several of the headlines would've sounded like they came from today, except they were about global cooling.
There really isn't enough data yet to determine these things yet. The atmosphere is one complex machine and many factors are in play. We are looking at a small pin hole in the wall and claiming the entire structure is going to fall. These warming/cooling periods are probably cyclical and largely out of our control. Source? I have none/don't remember.
All said and done, I'm all for solar. I'm glad apple is doing this. Great way for them to save money and reduce reliance on oil for when we do run out.
Those second ice age reports were trumpeted by the media, but not based on peer reviewed scientific studies. IIRC, those sources had about as much credibility as the various books over the years that made the bestseller charts by predicting an apocalyptic event that winds up not happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jupiter_Effect
So, what REAL technology would you prefer now? After all, fusion won't be here for another, oh, 30 to 50 years, if ever. It ain't a sure thing.
So, do you like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, or how about hydroelectric, which kills hundreds of miles of land? All of those have major problems of their own.
I agree, I worry the rush to build solar farms is not looking at alternatives enough or at least not looking at 'where' enough. I want to see a massive move to energy sources that are not dependent on oxidizing carbon and there are many. Wasting good land shouldn't be on the table IMHO.
I'd suggest the same solar farm could be built somewhere else. I have flown many times over this magnificent continent and from the window seen that a lot of it looks like mars.
The typical know nothing response. There is a vast amount of data that shows that we are a major cause of warming, if not the cause. Going back to the time thermometers were invented (I'll let you look that up for yourself) we can see how the world's temperature has risen along with the population and energy use. This isn't debatable. Neither is all of the information gathered since.
The problem is the amazingly large number of good, well meaning people that have absolutely zero science education. I have talked to countless people that don't even realize we have an reverse climate going on south of the equator. If it's cold in here it must be cold everywhere!
No matter where you place these, the environment exists. There is no place on earth, except for a few areas in the Antartic, where life doesn't exist. Even the Sahara desert has an environment with life. Sure. We all have spots we think are not worthy of consideration. But that doesn't mean that any one particular spot is of more value than another.
Science doesn't lie. If a person lies about the results of an experiment they are not being scientific. The same goes for science getting it wrong. Only the interpretation, either accidentally or purposefully, can be wrong, but the data is the data. Now, the data could be wrong, but the data is result of the machines used to test and measure. This is why science is peer reviewed, hypothesis conceived, theories devised, and experiments are repeated. I have seen nothing more pure in this world than science
Data doesn't lie, but science lies all the time. I agree that it's the most pure thing, but it's by no means pure. If you've studied science, as I have, and analyzed research, it's easy to see how easy it is to get something wrong, or to manipulate data either deliberately or through subconscious bias.*
I would imagine that this is particularly true when creating mathematical models (where one fraction of a decimal point makes a huge difference), and when these models are dealing with something that has an incredible amount of variables (the entire earth ecosystem), and especially when extrapolating those models out to decades (meteorologists can't even reliably predict the weather more than a day or two out).
The scientific thing to do, regarding these climate predictions, is to be skeptical, not make proclamations every two days that the world is coming to catastrophe.
*Here's a concrete example of science being manipulated. Not just any science either, but science that is supposed to predict more climate change doom and gloom. You're probably aware of a study that came out a few months ago that was interpreted and promoted as "Climate Change to Result in Less Nutritional Food." This was a completely misleading interpretation of actual data. There was no explanation of why this is the case, it was just portrayed as climate change somehow magically reducing the protein and minerals in food. But in actuality, the reason for this is that the increased CO2 (i.e. plant food, i.e. ingredient for starch) increased crop yields in general, as you would expect. Of course, since this growth was promoted by more CO2, there is more starch relative to the other components of the food. In this case, a positive of increased CO2 was actually framed as a negative through the (willful) manipulation of data.
The big change moving forward will be replacing this 1300 acre panel farm with higher density cells per square meter that will drastically increase energy density collection.
I'm sorry but the amount of land destroyed, due to arson, in 2014 alone dwarfs the land that could ever be used for solar energy collection. I won't waste time debating the hundreds of millions of acres destroyed to half-life decay in pursuit of nuclear deterrence, or fossil fuel toxicity.
It's even worse than that. I have a few friends who get all of their "news" and scientific "knowledge" from talk radio. I've listened to some of those shows, and they just lie on the air. I'm amazed sometimes. But their audience believes everything they hear, because it's what they want to hear, it's bolstering their own beliefs.
Stanford University calculated the amount of energy used to create every solar panel ever made and the amount of energy produced by all of those solar panels. We might reach the break even point by 2018.
More importantly, California is in a drought. Studies have shown that California has had drought of up to 240 years long in the past. Where is all the water going to come from to keep all these solar panels clean so that they produce electricity?
Just what do you think you're doing? You're not supposed to use logic. You're not supposed to think outside the box. You can only look at the science, and the science has spoken! Denier!
You are totally correct, it has to be a balanced judgment call and it's a tough one. However, I would wager the desert areas exhibit less potential loss of fauna and flora than some of the areas being used, that is all i am saying. Weigh that against mass pollution and catastrophic climate change.
Hopefully scientists will come up with far more efficient energy producing alternatives in the near future. That is if politics and medieval religious beliefs don't stop them.
It is interesting to me, the posts of people on this thread who, because of our age -- likely, will be least effected by the long-term effects. We'll be dead before the issues we're discussing have any effect ... Yet, we appear to be the most concerned, and advise to proceed with caution.
My reasons -- I've had a pretty good life, in a world left in pretty good shape by my forbearers ... I'd like to continue that process!
Now, I must go ... I have an appointment with Jaques Daniels ...
Enjoyed this thread!