Thank you. But just to be clear, I'm not wishing anything away, just saying that these models are problematic, have been wrong many times in the past, but are still being promoted as if they're religious dogma, and we're all headed for certain doom.* That, and it is being promoted at the great expense of diverting resources and attention away from other environmental concerns. I truly believe that, for this reason, the global warming hysteria has done more harm to the environment than good.
*Funny, it (climate change) has a lot of parallels with Christianity; we are all born with original sin (evil carbon emitters), we cannot question the validity of the book (scientific studies) or consider alternative implications/belief systems (focus on climate change comes at the expense of other environmental issues), and our only chance of salvation is to do good (buy expensive LED lightbulbs, drive a Prius) and die.
These models are not problematic. The very early models were simpler, true, but they were giving us an early idea of what was happening. The models have, for some time, predicted what we are seeing. They haven't been wrong many times in the past. But science is of continuous improvement. Models get better, and theories get refined. The anti group hasn't shown anything.
What you're doing here is trying to at yourself up as a martyr. But you're not, you're not some guy, all alone against the mad crowd. You're not willing to look at the facts. That seems obvious because of your dismissal of facts you don't seem to be familiar with.
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
I'm familiar with some of the Western deserts, and the while deserts are fragile, there is also the case that there are areas that would see little impact from even large arrays of solar panels, and it may be that the panels would actually be beneficial by providing shade and controlled runoff of what little rain occurs. As I have stated before, siting is part of the process that the Federal Agencies have in place to manage environmental impact and "best use".
Precipitation is the missing ingredient for a lush environment, and the Sierra strip most of the moisture out of storm systems, hence the deserts.
I think that blends very well from what I'm used to in the US.
The thing about just slapping some panels on a roof is that depending on the degree of latitude compared to the pitch of the roof and the orientation of the roof plane, the efficiency can be rather poor if all the conditions are not optimized. That is why I think solar needs to be designed into all new architecture and development planning. As you get closer to the equator the roof needs to be much lower pitch and not everyone likes that from an esthetic perspective.
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.
It's believed, with a good amount of evidence, that both oil and gas come from biomass living down beneath the surface. It's now believed, from rock samples brought up from oil drills and scientific boring, that 80% of the biomass on earth is living in the porous rock. As that rock moves downward, it heats up and cooks that biomass, which is bacteria.
When we were kids, they used to say that oil came from the big forests and animals living a long time ago. But much of that oil and gas comes from areas that don't seem to have ever been on the surface, or at least not within those time scales. So that means that oil and gas is constantly being produced underground, but we're using up most of what's ready now.
I stand by what I say. Scientific investigation is the willful attempt to find, and understand the facts. If something seems wrong, the further investigation is required. Looking at one article and denouncing it isn't scientific. There have been a number of experiments that show that increased co2 levels will be bad for agriculture, and even animal husbandry. We already see problems in wine grape growth. It's estimated that in 20 to 30 years, California wines will be close to a historical reference.
Weed growth will be enhanced, and more pesticides will be required to fight off the increased insect populations.
I could go on here. There's just too much that this is going to negatively impact.
Virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming is fact, and that human activities are a major factor in that. At this time, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, and others, say;
"...more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about."
That says that you are not looking at this with a sense that we can do anything, because, obviously, since we have nothing to do with it, we can't do anything about it. That's denial. You may want to deny that, but it's obvious by your own words.
That's precisely my point, it's not scientific. That study was interpreted with a bias to say climate change is bad; all did was point out that the implications of the actual data are not what they were promoted to be (increased food production is good). I can't speak to your're other points about agriculture as I'm not familiar with them. But I will say this: you don't find it strange that there's so many predictions of doom and gloom about climate change, but no studies done regarding the compensatory ability of the environment to accommodate or adapt to them? Literally EVERYTHING is somehow related to how climate change is dooming us. There was even a prolonged segment on NPR about how climate change will make cork wood more rare somehow. The point is, scientific data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and there is clear evidence that this data is being interpreted in a biased fashion.
I don't know how you again managed to somehow work in the condescending remark that I am a "denier" or "in denial." I'm not in denial. I'm skeptical, as any scientifically minded person (who's not motivated by politics, ideology, or economics)* should be. And I believe that our priorities are misguided by a disproportionate focus on climate change, particularly when there are species and habitat being destroyed daily, pollution, etc.
*I do my best to maintain an agnostic stance towards political ideologies, and keep away from the fringes. Also, I have no vested interest in any energy company. Unless you want to consider my handful of shares in Apple, now that they're leading the charge for clean energy. Which, as I mentioned before, I am in agreement with. FWIW, Apple, as expected, is doing clean energy the right way. For instance, in using hydro power (typically destructive to the environment) they used runover waterways (green). Also, they seem to pair the solar arrays with a way to store the energy using fuel cells (an aspect that is often ignored). This allows Apple to use energy from off peak times, thus not unduly burdening the energy system at critical times (this was a significant problem with Germany's implementation of solar power).
Hasn't been a problem yet and frankly prices have fallen dramatically.
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.
Isn't the number itself that's the problem, it's what the number means, where it's going, and how much faster it's going.
These models are not problematic. The very early models were simpler, true, but they were giving us an early idea of what was happening. The models have, for some time, predicted what we are seeing. They haven't been wrong many times in the past. But science is of continuous improvement. Models get better, and theories get refined. The anti group hasn't shown anything.
What you're doing here is trying to at yourself up as a martyr. But you're not, you're not some guy, all alone against the mad crowd. You're not willing to look at the facts. That seems obvious because of your dismissal of facts you don't seem to be familiar with.
What you say in the first paragraph very well may be true. But even if recent models have proven accurate in the short term (they were modified fairly recently; it was only a few years ago that the IPCC was predicting global cooling), I still find it hard to believe that they can, with certainty, predict utter catastrophe many decades out. Is this what you really believe? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or rhetorical.
Well I don't see myself as a martyr, or as 'keeping my head when all about me are losing theirs,' or as Don Quixote chasing windmills. I'm willing to look at the facts, but the facts are not immune to bias, and they are not the whole story; it is how these facts are being used that also matters, and the implications of these facts that matters as well. It's regarding the bias, how the facts are used, and the implications of the facts that I've been focusing most of my discussion.
I'm certainly skeptical of the scope of the claims of the global warming alarmists, but are there any facts that I've been dismissive of?*
*Edit: I feel like I should mention that I'm being genuine, and not just trying to win a battle of attrition here, or arguing for arguments sake (although I am a big fan of monty python's argument clinic sketch).
I'm familiar with some of the Western deserts, and the while deserts are fragile, there is also the case that there are areas that would see little impact from even large arrays of solar panels, and it may be that the panels would actually be beneficial by providing shade and controlled runoff of what little rain occurs. As I have stated before, siting is part of the process that the Federal Agencies have in place to manage environmental impact and "best use".
Precipitation is the missing ingredient for a lush environment, and the Sierra strip most of the moisture out of storm systems, hence the deserts.
We have to put power plants somewhere. Traditionally they're put as close to the consumer as the supply of fuel allows. Wind and solar are different. They need to be put where the energy on the ground is sufficient. It doesn't need to be the best.
Since so much of the city and suburban areas in the country look nothing like they did before development, it's probably safer to do something in an area that's already been severely altered.
Sure, about the Great American Desert, it's the Rocky Mountains that cut the noiset air from the Pacific that caused the desertification.
It is easy to con an uneducated person, however bright, than an educated one.
Nah.
Originally Posted by melgross
These models are not problematic. The very early models were simpler, true, but they were giving us an early idea of what was happening. The models have, for some time, predicted what we are seeing. They haven't been wrong many times in the past.
They’ve been fundamentally wrong since their inception…
That's precisely my point, it's not scientific. That study was interpreted with a bias to say climate change is bad; all did was point out that the implications of the actual data are not what they were promoted to be (increased food production is good). I can't speak to your're other points about agriculture as I'm not familiar with them. But I will say this: you don't find it strange that there's so many predictions of doom and gloom about climate change, but no studies done regarding the compensatory ability of the environment to accommodate or adapt to them? Literally EVERYTHING is somehow related to how climate change is dooming us. There was even a prolonged segment on NPR about how climate change will make cork wood more rare somehow. The point is, scientific data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and there is clear evidence that this data is being interpreted in a biased fashion.
I don't know how you again managed to somehow work in the condescending remark that I am a "denier" or "in denial." I'm not in denial. I'm skeptical, as any scientifically minded person (who's not motivated by politics, ideology, or economics)* should be. And I believe that our priorities are misguided by a disproportionate focus on climate change, particularly when there are species and habitat being destroyed daily, pollution, etc.
*I do my best to maintain an agnostic stance towards political ideologies, and keep away from the fringes. Also, I have no vested interest in any energy company. Unless you want to consider my handful of shares in Apple, now that they're leading the charge for clean energy. Which, as I mentioned before, I am in agreement with. FWIW, Apple, as expected, is doing clean energy the right way. For instance, in using hydro power (typically destructive to the environment) they used runover waterways (green). Also, they seem to pair the solar arrays with a way to store the energy using fuel cells (an aspect that is often ignored). This allows Apple to use energy from off peak times, thus not unduly burdening the energy system at critical times (this was a significant problem with Germany's implementation of solar power).
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
Everyone can agree that what Apple is doing is good, except for that right wing organization that buy a share of stock of companies whose shareholder meetings they attend to harass. That happened last year to Apple. Fortunately, he was told to invest in another company.
That's precisely my point, it's not scientific. That study was interpreted with a bias to say climate change is bad; all did was point out that the implications of the actual data are not what they were promoted to be (increased food production is good). I can't speak to your're other points about agriculture as I'm not familiar with them. But I will say this: you don't find it strange that there's so many predictions of doom and gloom about climate change, but no studies done regarding the compensatory ability of the environment to accommodate or adapt to them? Literally EVERYTHING is somehow related to how climate change is dooming us. There was even a prolonged segment on NPR about how climate change will make cork wood more rare somehow. The point is, scientific data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and there is clear evidence that this data is being interpreted in a biased fashion.
I don't know how you again managed to somehow work in the condescending remark that I am a "denier" or "in denial." I'm not in denial. I'm skeptical, as any scientifically minded person (who's not motivated by politics, ideology, or economics)* should be. And I believe that our priorities are misguided by a disproportionate focus on climate change, particularly when there are species and habitat being destroyed daily, pollution, etc.
*I do my best to maintain an agnostic stance towards political ideologies, and keep away from the fringes. Also, I have no vested interest in any energy company. Unless you want to consider my handful of shares in Apple, now that they're leading the charge for clean energy. Which, as I mentioned before, I am in agreement with. FWIW, Apple, as expected, is doing clean energy the right way. For instance, in using hydro power (typically destructive to the environment) they used runover waterways (green). Also, they seem to pair the solar arrays with a way to store the energy using fuel cells (an aspect that is often ignored). This allows Apple to use energy from off peak times, thus not unduly burdening the energy system at critical times (this was a significant problem with Germany's implementation of solar power).
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
...
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
That is a good point. The area lost is trivial in the broader picture. Not to mention these things can be removed and replaced when they make them x10 more efficient in a few years. That said, are we really placing these arrays where there is the most sunlight per square meter/day?
Locations are first and foremost accounted when deploying solutions:
Ultimately, when organic hybrid panels are deployed you'll be able to deploy them in any climate, store for weeks ahead and off-load excess power to larger backbone distribution networks that can then eventually deploy power to third world regions of the globe.
Then there is the NIF&PS nearing its work on Fusion.
Not to mention there most recent work on X-Ray/Gamma Rays.
The big breakthroughs yet to materialize in commercially deployable options are new materials for Power Distribution that drastically reduce the resistance of current thus allowing a far greater distance before power dissipation requires a bump.
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
Everyone can agree that what Apple is doing is good, except for that right wing organization that buy a share of stock of companies whose shareholder meetings they attend to harass. That happened last year to Apple. Fortunately, he was told to invest in another company.
No, again. Not my point. My point, again, is that actual, real, verifiable scientific evidence was interpreted in a biased fashion. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Data is unbiased, but interpretations of data often are, and in the example I pointed out, blatantly so. The counter to this, would be your seemingly unflinching belief that the interpretation of the data is not at all wrong, when in fact this is a real possibility, particularly when these models have been PROVEN to be wrong by the same scientists that currently swear on their life are true.
I have no interest in being wrong or right about this; I'm pointing out inconsistencies that are blindly ignored by global warming alarmists (which again, those who insist on continually being condescending, is not scientific). If my bias is to be skeptical of these dogmatic proclamations, then your apparent bias is to blindly focus on them.
I want to reiterate, again, that these facts CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM. Even if we accept the current findings as true, do we really think they can be extrapolated out for decades (past evidence, and common sense, says no)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that warrant the changes being suggested, which have very real economic impacts (particularly for developing nations)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that mean that focusing 90% of our environmental focus on CO2 emissions is an effective way to help the environment, when it comes at the expense of dealing with other, more immediate, and concretely addressable environmental issues (again: habitat destruction, pollution, sustainability, fishery protection, invasive species damage, species extinction.....)?
If it seems like I'm repeating myself, I am, because, as is usual, none of the issues I'm bringing up are really being addressed. What the typical response seems to be is condescension, and referencing that there is "overwhelming data" that disproves me. But again, my point isn't so much with the data (although I believe it should be open to skepticism), but on the interpretation and implications of this data.
I agree completely with your last paragraph, that what Apple is doing is great, and that the individual that made that remark to Tim was an a-hole (I'm reading between the lines on this last bit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Um, what exactly am I projecting? Or is that another condescending, nonsensical derisive remark meant to marginalize me and dismiss my viewpoints as somehow irrelevant? If you have an issue with a specific point I made, please point it out.
I seem to be upsetting a lot of people on here. That is CERTAINLY not my intention. I really enjoy this site, and mostly because of the contributions of you, melgross, and several others. I also have significant admiration for those that have worked for and been involved with Apple. I started out as a fan of Apple products, but have become a big fan of the company, as it seems to be the only large company (or any institution for that matter) that consistently acts with integrity. Although we seem to have some significant disagreements with this particular issue, I sincerely hope the hatchet can be buried when it comes to Apple discussions.
The thing about just slapping some panels on a roof is that depending on the degree of latitude compared to the pitch of the roof and the orientation of the roof plane, the efficiency can be rather poor if all the conditions are not optimized. That is why I think solar needs to be designed into all new architecture and development planning. As you get closer to the equator the roof needs to be much lower pitch and not everyone likes that from an esthetic perspective.
Both of these are butt ugly, guess esthetics have not made its way to solar panels yet. Maybe Apple could produce the Ipanel ;-).
That is a good point. The area lost is trivial in the broader picture. Not to mention these things can be removed and replaced when they make them x10 more efficient in a few years. That said, are we really placing these arrays where there is the most sunlight per square meter/day?
Locations are first and foremost accounted when deploying solutions:
Ultimately, when organic hybrid panels are deployed you'll be able to deploy them in any climate, store for weeks ahead and off-load excess power to larger backbone distribution networks that can then eventually deploy power to third world regions of the globe.
Then there is the NIF&PS nearing its work on Fusion.
Not to mention there most recent work on X-Ray/Gamma Rays.
The big breakthroughs yet to materialize in commercially deployable options are new materials for Power Distribution that drastically reduce the resistance of current thus allowing a far greater distance before power dissipation requires a bump.
I still think fusion will be the future energy source, but I'm afraid that NIF is much further away than you think. They have not yet achieved ignition, just indications of alpha heating, and the reported energy gain only arises from changing the definition of energy input to the capsule.
There's actually some theories that the earth just naturally produces petroleum.
That theory has been pretty much debunked. The debunked theory says that no biological remains are needed and oil is being continiously formed. Science shows us that we need biological material as the feedstock and there is a limited amount of that in the earth. We are using it thousands of times faster then it was formed.
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Um, what exactly am I projecting? Or is that another condescending, nonsensical derisive remark meant to marginalize me and dismiss my viewpoints as somehow irrelevant? If you have an issue with a specific point I made, please point it out.
I seem to be upsetting a lot of people on here. That is CERTAINLY not my intention. I really enjoy this site, and mostly because of the contributions of you, melgross, and several others. I also have significant admiration for those that have worked for and been involved with Apple. I started out as a fan of Apple products, but have become a big fan of the company, as it seems to be the only large company (or any institution for that matter) that consistently acts with integrity. Although we seem to have some significant disagreements with this particular issue, I sincerely hope the hatchet can be buried when it comes to Apple discussions.
Apologies - I didn't mean to sub-quote your post - my comments were in response to @melgross's general observations. I disagree with your assessment of the state of science in this field, but my specific observations were not directed at you.
I'm not all for "butchering land" but I fail to see what could be a better use of land than a solar farm that is continually generating energy from the sun. Residential? Commercial? Industrial? It just seems like a more efficient, beneficial, and cleaner use of land than almost everything else one can think of building.
Yes, maybe solar does fry a few birds a year. There is nothing in the world that has NO negative consequences, especially when it comes to energy generation. And from what I know, pretty much every other available feasible method has a much higher cost.
I think it would be interesting to be a company pioneering solar on top of 1300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. That would also help reduce a portion of the heat island effect in metropolitan areas.
Comments
These models are not problematic. The very early models were simpler, true, but they were giving us an early idea of what was happening. The models have, for some time, predicted what we are seeing. They haven't been wrong many times in the past. But science is of continuous improvement. Models get better, and theories get refined. The anti group hasn't shown anything.
What you're doing here is trying to at yourself up as a martyr. But you're not, you're not some guy, all alone against the mad crowd. You're not willing to look at the facts. That seems obvious because of your dismissal of facts you don't seem to be familiar with.
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
I'm familiar with some of the Western deserts, and the while deserts are fragile, there is also the case that there are areas that would see little impact from even large arrays of solar panels, and it may be that the panels would actually be beneficial by providing shade and controlled runoff of what little rain occurs. As I have stated before, siting is part of the process that the Federal Agencies have in place to manage environmental impact and "best use".
Precipitation is the missing ingredient for a lush environment, and the Sierra strip most of the moisture out of storm systems, hence the deserts.
I think that blends very well from what I'm used to in the US.
The thing about just slapping some panels on a roof is that depending on the degree of latitude compared to the pitch of the roof and the orientation of the roof plane, the efficiency can be rather poor if all the conditions are not optimized. That is why I think solar needs to be designed into all new architecture and development planning. As you get closer to the equator the roof needs to be much lower pitch and not everyone likes that from an esthetic perspective.
It's believed, with a good amount of evidence, that both oil and gas come from biomass living down beneath the surface. It's now believed, from rock samples brought up from oil drills and scientific boring, that 80% of the biomass on earth is living in the porous rock. As that rock moves downward, it heats up and cooks that biomass, which is bacteria.
When we were kids, they used to say that oil came from the big forests and animals living a long time ago. But much of that oil and gas comes from areas that don't seem to have ever been on the surface, or at least not within those time scales. So that means that oil and gas is constantly being produced underground, but we're using up most of what's ready now.
I stand by what I say. Scientific investigation is the willful attempt to find, and understand the facts. If something seems wrong, the further investigation is required. Looking at one article and denouncing it isn't scientific. There have been a number of experiments that show that increased co2 levels will be bad for agriculture, and even animal husbandry. We already see problems in wine grape growth. It's estimated that in 20 to 30 years, California wines will be close to a historical reference.
Weed growth will be enhanced, and more pesticides will be required to fight off the increased insect populations.
I could go on here. There's just too much that this is going to negatively impact.
Virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming is fact, and that human activities are a major factor in that. At this time, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, and others, say;
"...more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about."
That says that you are not looking at this with a sense that we can do anything, because, obviously, since we have nothing to do with it, we can't do anything about it. That's denial. You may want to deny that, but it's obvious by your own words.
That's precisely my point, it's not scientific. That study was interpreted with a bias to say climate change is bad; all did was point out that the implications of the actual data are not what they were promoted to be (increased food production is good). I can't speak to your're other points about agriculture as I'm not familiar with them. But I will say this: you don't find it strange that there's so many predictions of doom and gloom about climate change, but no studies done regarding the compensatory ability of the environment to accommodate or adapt to them? Literally EVERYTHING is somehow related to how climate change is dooming us. There was even a prolonged segment on NPR about how climate change will make cork wood more rare somehow. The point is, scientific data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and there is clear evidence that this data is being interpreted in a biased fashion.
I don't know how you again managed to somehow work in the condescending remark that I am a "denier" or "in denial." I'm not in denial. I'm skeptical, as any scientifically minded person (who's not motivated by politics, ideology, or economics)* should be. And I believe that our priorities are misguided by a disproportionate focus on climate change, particularly when there are species and habitat being destroyed daily, pollution, etc.
*I do my best to maintain an agnostic stance towards political ideologies, and keep away from the fringes. Also, I have no vested interest in any energy company. Unless you want to consider my handful of shares in Apple, now that they're leading the charge for clean energy. Which, as I mentioned before, I am in agreement with. FWIW, Apple, as expected, is doing clean energy the right way. For instance, in using hydro power (typically destructive to the environment) they used runover waterways (green). Also, they seem to pair the solar arrays with a way to store the energy using fuel cells (an aspect that is often ignored). This allows Apple to use energy from off peak times, thus not unduly burdening the energy system at critical times (this was a significant problem with Germany's implementation of solar power).
Isn't the number itself that's the problem, it's what the number means, where it's going, and how much faster it's going.
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/april-becomes-first-month-with-co2-levels-above-400-ppm-17367
Of course, there's lots more, if people really care to look.
These models are not problematic. The very early models were simpler, true, but they were giving us an early idea of what was happening. The models have, for some time, predicted what we are seeing. They haven't been wrong many times in the past. But science is of continuous improvement. Models get better, and theories get refined. The anti group hasn't shown anything.
What you're doing here is trying to at yourself up as a martyr. But you're not, you're not some guy, all alone against the mad crowd. You're not willing to look at the facts. That seems obvious because of your dismissal of facts you don't seem to be familiar with.
What you say in the first paragraph very well may be true. But even if recent models have proven accurate in the short term (they were modified fairly recently; it was only a few years ago that the IPCC was predicting global cooling), I still find it hard to believe that they can, with certainty, predict utter catastrophe many decades out. Is this what you really believe? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or rhetorical.
Well I don't see myself as a martyr, or as 'keeping my head when all about me are losing theirs,' or as Don Quixote chasing windmills. I'm willing to look at the facts, but the facts are not immune to bias, and they are not the whole story; it is how these facts are being used that also matters, and the implications of these facts that matters as well. It's regarding the bias, how the facts are used, and the implications of the facts that I've been focusing most of my discussion.
I'm certainly skeptical of the scope of the claims of the global warming alarmists, but are there any facts that I've been dismissive of?*
*Edit: I feel like I should mention that I'm being genuine, and not just trying to win a battle of attrition here, or arguing for arguments sake (although I am a big fan of monty python's argument clinic sketch).
We have to put power plants somewhere. Traditionally they're put as close to the consumer as the supply of fuel allows. Wind and solar are different. They need to be put where the energy on the ground is sufficient. It doesn't need to be the best.
Since so much of the city and suburban areas in the country look nothing like they did before development, it's probably safer to do something in an area that's already been severely altered.
Sure, about the Great American Desert, it's the Rocky Mountains that cut the noiset air from the Pacific that caused the desertification.
Nah.
They’ve been fundamentally wrong since their inception…
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
Everyone can agree that what Apple is doing is good, except for that right wing organization that buy a share of stock of companies whose shareholder meetings they attend to harass. That happened last year to Apple. Fortunately, he was told to invest in another company.
That's precisely my point, it's not scientific. That study was interpreted with a bias to say climate change is bad; all did was point out that the implications of the actual data are not what they were promoted to be (increased food production is good). I can't speak to your're other points about agriculture as I'm not familiar with them. But I will say this: you don't find it strange that there's so many predictions of doom and gloom about climate change, but no studies done regarding the compensatory ability of the environment to accommodate or adapt to them? Literally EVERYTHING is somehow related to how climate change is dooming us. There was even a prolonged segment on NPR about how climate change will make cork wood more rare somehow. The point is, scientific data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and there is clear evidence that this data is being interpreted in a biased fashion.
I don't know how you again managed to somehow work in the condescending remark that I am a "denier" or "in denial." I'm not in denial. I'm skeptical, as any scientifically minded person (who's not motivated by politics, ideology, or economics)* should be. And I believe that our priorities are misguided by a disproportionate focus on climate change, particularly when there are species and habitat being destroyed daily, pollution, etc.
*I do my best to maintain an agnostic stance towards political ideologies, and keep away from the fringes. Also, I have no vested interest in any energy company. Unless you want to consider my handful of shares in Apple, now that they're leading the charge for clean energy. Which, as I mentioned before, I am in agreement with. FWIW, Apple, as expected, is doing clean energy the right way. For instance, in using hydro power (typically destructive to the environment) they used runover waterways (green). Also, they seem to pair the solar arrays with a way to store the energy using fuel cells (an aspect that is often ignored). This allows Apple to use energy from off peak times, thus not unduly burdening the energy system at critical times (this was a significant problem with Germany's implementation of solar power).
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
...
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Locations are first and foremost accounted when deploying solutions:
http://www.energy.gov/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-concentrating-solar-power
There is also the issue of power distribution.
Ultimately, when organic hybrid panels are deployed you'll be able to deploy them in any climate, store for weeks ahead and off-load excess power to larger backbone distribution networks that can then eventually deploy power to third world regions of the globe.
Then there is the NIF&PS nearing its work on Fusion.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
https://www.llnl.gov/news/physics-world-names-national-ignition-facility-fuel-gain-top-10-breakthrough-year
Not to mention there most recent work on X-Ray/Gamma Rays.
The big breakthroughs yet to materialize in commercially deployable options are new materials for Power Distribution that drastically reduce the resistance of current thus allowing a far greater distance before power dissipation requires a bump.
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
Everyone can agree that what Apple is doing is good, except for that right wing organization that buy a share of stock of companies whose shareholder meetings they attend to harass. That happened last year to Apple. Fortunately, he was told to invest in another company.
No, again. Not my point. My point, again, is that actual, real, verifiable scientific evidence was interpreted in a biased fashion. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Data is unbiased, but interpretations of data often are, and in the example I pointed out, blatantly so. The counter to this, would be your seemingly unflinching belief that the interpretation of the data is not at all wrong, when in fact this is a real possibility, particularly when these models have been PROVEN to be wrong by the same scientists that currently swear on their life are true.
I have no interest in being wrong or right about this; I'm pointing out inconsistencies that are blindly ignored by global warming alarmists (which again, those who insist on continually being condescending, is not scientific). If my bias is to be skeptical of these dogmatic proclamations, then your apparent bias is to blindly focus on them.
I want to reiterate, again, that these facts CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM. Even if we accept the current findings as true, do we really think they can be extrapolated out for decades (past evidence, and common sense, says no)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that warrant the changes being suggested, which have very real economic impacts (particularly for developing nations)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that mean that focusing 90% of our environmental focus on CO2 emissions is an effective way to help the environment, when it comes at the expense of dealing with other, more immediate, and concretely addressable environmental issues (again: habitat destruction, pollution, sustainability, fishery protection, invasive species damage, species extinction.....)?
If it seems like I'm repeating myself, I am, because, as is usual, none of the issues I'm bringing up are really being addressed. What the typical response seems to be is condescension, and referencing that there is "overwhelming data" that disproves me. But again, my point isn't so much with the data (although I believe it should be open to skepticism), but on the interpretation and implications of this data.
I agree completely with your last paragraph, that what Apple is doing is great, and that the individual that made that remark to Tim was an a-hole (I'm reading between the lines on this last bit).
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Um, what exactly am I projecting? Or is that another condescending, nonsensical derisive remark meant to marginalize me and dismiss my viewpoints as somehow irrelevant? If you have an issue with a specific point I made, please point it out.
I seem to be upsetting a lot of people on here. That is CERTAINLY not my intention. I really enjoy this site, and mostly because of the contributions of you, melgross, and several others. I also have significant admiration for those that have worked for and been involved with Apple. I started out as a fan of Apple products, but have become a big fan of the company, as it seems to be the only large company (or any institution for that matter) that consistently acts with integrity. Although we seem to have some significant disagreements with this particular issue, I sincerely hope the hatchet can be buried when it comes to Apple discussions.
The thing about just slapping some panels on a roof is that depending on the degree of latitude compared to the pitch of the roof and the orientation of the roof plane, the efficiency can be rather poor if all the conditions are not optimized. That is why I think solar needs to be designed into all new architecture and development planning. As you get closer to the equator the roof needs to be much lower pitch and not everyone likes that from an esthetic perspective.
Both of these are butt ugly, guess esthetics have not made its way to solar panels yet. Maybe Apple could produce the Ipanel ;-).
I still think fusion will be the future energy source, but I'm afraid that NIF is much further away than you think. They have not yet achieved ignition, just indications of alpha heating, and the reported energy gain only arises from changing the definition of energy input to the capsule.
Provided we don’t master reactionless thrust or figure out of vacuum energy can be harnessed first.
Provided we don’t master reactionless thrust or figure out of vacuum energy can be harnessed first.
I'd settle for physics that we understand first, but I'd be happy to see those too.
There's actually some theories that the earth just naturally produces petroleum.
That theory has been pretty much debunked. The debunked theory says that no biological remains are needed and oil is being continiously formed. Science shows us that we need biological material as the feedstock and there is a limited amount of that in the earth. We are using it thousands of times faster then it was formed.
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Um, what exactly am I projecting? Or is that another condescending, nonsensical derisive remark meant to marginalize me and dismiss my viewpoints as somehow irrelevant? If you have an issue with a specific point I made, please point it out.
I seem to be upsetting a lot of people on here. That is CERTAINLY not my intention. I really enjoy this site, and mostly because of the contributions of you, melgross, and several others. I also have significant admiration for those that have worked for and been involved with Apple. I started out as a fan of Apple products, but have become a big fan of the company, as it seems to be the only large company (or any institution for that matter) that consistently acts with integrity. Although we seem to have some significant disagreements with this particular issue, I sincerely hope the hatchet can be buried when it comes to Apple discussions.
Apologies - I didn't mean to sub-quote your post - my comments were in response to @melgross's general observations. I disagree with your assessment of the state of science in this field, but my specific observations were not directed at you.
I'm happy to see Apple going after this project.
Quote:
I'm not all for "butchering land" but I fail to see what could be a better use of land than a solar farm that is continually generating energy from the sun. Residential? Commercial? Industrial? It just seems like a more efficient, beneficial, and cleaner use of land than almost everything else one can think of building.
Yes, maybe solar does fry a few birds a year. There is nothing in the world that has NO negative consequences, especially when it comes to energy generation. And from what I know, pretty much every other available feasible method has a much higher cost.
I think it would be interesting to be a company pioneering solar on top of 1300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. That would also help reduce a portion of the heat island effect in metropolitan areas.