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.
I'm disinclined to acquiesce. Means no. There was even a big blow up a couple years ago over some emails from a prominent global warming entity that showed they were trying to hide data that did not support their position. There is just not enough info yet to make this claim, there is tainted/biased data presented from "scientists", and too many people have an agenda. Call me a skeptic. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm not easily swayed.
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.
I'm disinclined to acquiesce. Means no. There was even a big blow up a couple years ago over some emails from a prominent global warming entity that showed they were trying to hide data that did not support their position. There is just not enough info yet to make this claim, there is tainted/biased data presented from "scientists", and too many people have an agenda. Call me a skeptic. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm not easily swayed.
Skepticism is fine, but bear in mind that those accusations were subjected to multiple independent investigations, all of which concluded that data were not being hidden or manipulated. I see innuendo, but little else, in your reasons to doubt the science.
Amusing and apt, in a way, but note that none of the examples are of scientists misusing statistics. Analysts, bankers, journalists, surveys etc., all get an honorable mention, but no scientists. Which is not particularly surprising because if, as a scientist, one screws up statistical analysis, there is never a shortage of other scientists lining up to point it out.
Has there been major improvements in how effectively solar energy is harvested? What about costs of materials?
Uh oh! I fear this thread is about to get trolled into oblivion but the FOX News watching, anti-technology, aluminium foil hat-wearing, conspiracy theorists.
Not sure if you've heard of Elon Musk's ventures into solar technology?
These massive solar fields may soon beome obsolete. I personally think an Apple acquisition or merger with Musk's solar and battery ventures makes more sense than cars, but with now $700b + market cap and $200b in cash literally ANYTHING is possible.
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.
It certainly is a problem! Global conventional oil production peaked around 2005. As Colin Campbell said "It is axiomatic that nobody would look for oil in 3,000 feet of water if there were easier places to find it". Why are oil companies attempting to drill in the arctic? Why in ever increasing depth of water? Why extract oil from the tar sands of Alberta (Rob Hopkins said that trying to get oil from tar sands is like trying to get a pint of beer in a pub by squeezing what had been spilt on the carpet). We are desperate. Saying there's no problem yet is very short-sighted, and clearly, if you actually look at what oil companies are saying, there IS a problem. Have a read: http://tinyurl.com/q6ttkw6
Yes, I believe that 400ppm has a significant effect on the climate - because 97% of peer-reviewed papers on climate change say that it's affecting us now and that we are the cause. The 400ppm is a significator of the damage we are doing. The evidence that we are having a serious impact is very, very strong. The same level of confidence that says that smoking tobacco is associated with increased levels of lung cancer. The science is in.
Yeah but THIS time they got right, K? Sure, they're been whipping up the populace with gloom and doom scenarios for the past few years, despite knowing full well that global warming and rising temperatures has slowed to a crawl since right around 2000, and not understanding exactly why and what consequences it could have for their models. But trust us! This time we won't be wrong! By much!
It's interesting to look at the responses in this thread, which exemplifies exactly why nothing much has been done on global warming so far, and why little more will be done in the future.
Not only is it against the economic interests of the majority of the worlds population, and little research has been done into what the most cost efficient mode of action would be. But the green movement also spent most of the 70ies and 80ies effectively poisoning the well against nuclear power, one of the only realistic alternatives to carbon.
And as also evidenced in this thread: Global Warming standard bearers and hardcore believers have been infected by sanctimonious twats, who love to stand on their soapbox and pontificate on how stupid, ignorant and/or evil everyone else but they are. Which is always a sure fire way to sabotage yourself, and turn away the silent majority. And that's why, global warming has been preached for close to two decades, and nothing much has been done!
These massive solar fields may soon beome obsolete. I personally think an Apple acquisition or merger with Musk's solar and battery ventures makes more sense than cars, but with now $700b + market cap and $200b in cash literally ANYTHING is possible.
I think you misread the article. Elon would like to create a much smaller battery for household energy storage, but that energy would come from household solar panels yet the house would still be connected to the grid. More centralized or regional power would be accessed from the grid just as today, and solar farms would be part of that, and even those would most likely also have larger scale battery storage.
For whatever reason, AI has fabricated the impression that Apple was the sole customer and that this was something new instead of actually already approved and funded by Apple and another source.
It certainly does not appear that Apple will be the owner of this facility and it is a 25-year deal.
Why do you think I've misread the article? I think you've explained it perfectly. Through battery technology and more efficient capture panels, these massive, environmentally-destructive solar farms should become obsolete.
Check out Bloomberg Game Changers on Elon Musk where Solar City and Elon's collaboration with his cousin is described. Elon's vision is to address these very concerns raised in this thread. Don't like massive solar farms? Let's find ways to make this economical to set up for any business or home that wants solar power, starting with the sunbelt and then spreading to colder and cloudier climates. Concerned about the efficiency and range of electric cars? Let's make it a luxury item first, then get the technology cheaper and more widely adoptable over time. The latter has similar attributes to Apple's model with the iPod and iPhone.
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.
I think that you seriously need to revisit your geography, and probably your meteorology, but I will agree that a big problem with solar, and wind for that matter, is often the need to create a new backbone of power lines to the site. That doesn't change my position that there are plenty of environmentally sound sites throughout the West.
And for the record, Nevada is the driest state with single digit precipitation, and by some measures, the most mountainous state as well. Certainly, there are millions of acres that are suitable for solar, albeit a large expanse is tied up by the military.
Why do you think I've misread the article? I think you've explained it perfectly. Through battery technology and more efficient capture panels, these massive, environmentally-destructive solar farms should become obsolete.
Check out Bloomberg Game Changers on Elon Musk where Solar City and Elon's collaboration with his cousin is described. Elon's vision is to address these very concerns raised in this thread. Don't like massive solar farms? Let's find ways to make this economical to set up for any business or home that wants solar power, starting with the sunbelt and then spreading to colder and cloudier climates. Concerned about the efficiency and range of electric cars? Let's make it a luxury item first, then get the technology cheaper and more widely adoptable over time. The latter has similar attributes to Apple's model with the iPod and iPhone.
My point is that these will not be made obsolete any time soon, and that these solar farms are not environmentally destructive. When sited properly, solar farms are certainly much more benign than pavement, parking lots, or homes in pristine areas or on converted agricultural land, which is coincidentally where people want to live.
There certainly appears to be a great deal of concern trolling going on with the environmental impact of solar farms, and it leads me to either ill informed urbanites, and/or perhaps the usual resistance to renewables.
My point is that these will not be made obsolete any time soon, and that these solar farms are not environmentally destructive. When sited properly, solar farms are certainly much more benign than pavement, parking lots, or homes in pristine areas or on converted agricultural land, which is coincidentally where people want to live.
There certainly appears to be a great deal of concern trolling going on with the environmental impact of solar farms, and it leads me to either ill informed urbanites, and/or perhaps the usual resistance to renewables.
Actually, it has a lot to do with the way the story has been presented, which I've found to be inaccurate after checking with another news source: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/First+Solar+(FSLR),+Apple+(AAPL)+Confirm+Huge+Commercial+Power+Deal/10250096.html
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.
Wait, what... Weed growth will be enhanced? More insects? Sure sounds like increased levels of co2 could be good for plants?
And they are of course, which is the one thing you neglect to mention. Plants grow to be bigger with higher levels of co2 ppm, we know that not just from plenty of experiments, but also because the levels of co2 in the atmosphere has constantly gone up and down over the ages. If you look back at last hundreds of millions of years, there were times when the co2 ppm levels were as high or higher than today.
The fact that some of our agricultural crops don't tolerate that as well, doesn't mean much in the big picture. other crops will be planted instead, and farmers with the help from biologists will develop new varieties of plants. If you look back 50 or 100 years, farmers grew different varieties of crops then that they do now. Finding new, better more hardy crops is something farmers have done for thousands of years. And today they have geneticists to help them.
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;
The evidence! The evidence! The evidence you seem to ignore, is that climate science is a very new and untested field (unlike meteorologists, that they shouldn't be confused with) that more or less came into existence and prominence because of the idea of global warming. Their skills at actually predicting things aren't thar impressive (as evidenced by the lack of rising temperatures since around 2000) and there is still much that we don't know or understand about climate. Climate has always been changing: 700 years ago Greenland was actually green enough to grow crops on, before temperatures suddenly dropped with the little ice age. And something comparatively small like the little ice age, still can't be properly explained by climate scientists.
"...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.
No it's not denial. It's an excellent point: it's about priorities. Drastically limiting carbon emissions is a hugely expensive project. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. But the same amount or less, could pay for exterminating a deadly disease like malaria, or ensure safe, clean water to everyone in Africa. We can't afford both so we have to prioritize. Where is the money better spent: Drastically limiting carbon emissions, or drastically eliminate malaria, that cost millions of lives every year?
The costs to our lifestyle and society of this hasn't been explained either. If you ask most people, they assume that we could do something about global warming and not change anything except maybe getting an electric car or have a solar panel installed.
But in reality, there's no way we can limit co2 emissions enough without drastically changing how we live. It would be the end of 300$ TVs and tablets, 10 dollar shirts and inexpensive toys. No more daily carrides for the majority of people or more than one car in the family. Denser living, plane tickets that costs many times as much as they do today, and on and on? Would people be willing to make that trade based on climate models? Would you? And keep in mind, there would be no guarantees of success, especially without everybody cooperating. Including countries like China and India, which is far from likely.
Actually, it has a lot to do with the way the story has been presented, which I've found to be inaccurate after checking with another news source: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/First+Solar+(FSLR),+Apple+(AAPL)+Confirm+Huge+Commercial+Power+Deal/10250096.html
My point is that these will not be made obsolete any time soon, and that these solar farms are not environmentally destructive. When sited properly, solar farms are certainly much more benign than pavement, parking lots, or homes in pristine areas or on converted agricultural land, which is coincidentally where people want to live.
There certainly appears to be a great deal of concern trolling going on with the environmental impact of solar farms, and it leads me to either ill informed urbanites, and/or perhaps the usual resistance to renewables.
To be clear, I don't really buy in to the notion that solar farms are "environmentally destructive". But I do believe the technology is progressing to the point where concern trolls' arguments are rapidly becoming moot.
To be clear, I don't really buy in to the notion that solar farms are "environmentally destructive". But I do believe the technology is progressing to the point where concern trolls' arguments are rapidly becoming moot.
We will certainly see how it plays out, and I won't be unhappy at all if you are correct.
Comments
I'm disinclined to acquiesce. Means no. There was even a big blow up a couple years ago over some emails from a prominent global warming entity that showed they were trying to hide data that did not support their position. There is just not enough info yet to make this claim, there is tainted/biased data presented from "scientists", and too many people have an agenda. Call me a skeptic. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm not easily swayed.
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.
I'm disinclined to acquiesce. Means no. There was even a big blow up a couple years ago over some emails from a prominent global warming entity that showed they were trying to hide data that did not support their position. There is just not enough info yet to make this claim, there is tainted/biased data presented from "scientists", and too many people have an agenda. Call me a skeptic. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm not easily swayed.
Skepticism is fine, but bear in mind that those accusations were subjected to multiple independent investigations, all of which concluded that data were not being hidden or manipulated. I see innuendo, but little else, in your reasons to doubt the science.
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/02/14/73-6-of-all-statistics-are-made-up/
Amusing and apt, in a way, but note that none of the examples are of scientists misusing statistics. Analysts, bankers, journalists, surveys etc., all get an honorable mention, but no scientists. Which is not particularly surprising because if, as a scientist, one screws up statistical analysis, there is never a shortage of other scientists lining up to point it out.
Not sure if you've heard of Elon Musk's ventures into solar technology?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-a-thermostat-sized-box-may-one-day-power-your-house-2014-09-17
These massive solar fields may soon beome obsolete. I personally think an Apple acquisition or merger with Musk's solar and battery ventures makes more sense than cars, but with now $700b + market cap and $200b in cash literally ANYTHING is possible.
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.
It certainly is a problem! Global conventional oil production peaked around 2005. As Colin Campbell said "It is axiomatic that nobody would look for oil in 3,000 feet of water if there were easier places to find it". Why are oil companies attempting to drill in the arctic? Why in ever increasing depth of water? Why extract oil from the tar sands of Alberta (Rob Hopkins said that trying to get oil from tar sands is like trying to get a pint of beer in a pub by squeezing what had been spilt on the carpet). We are desperate. Saying there's no problem yet is very short-sighted, and clearly, if you actually look at what oil companies are saying, there IS a problem. Have a read: http://tinyurl.com/q6ttkw6
Yes, I believe that 400ppm has a significant effect on the climate - because 97% of peer-reviewed papers on climate change say that it's affecting us now and that we are the cause. The 400ppm is a significator of the damage we are doing. The evidence that we are having a serious impact is very, very strong. The same level of confidence that says that smoking tobacco is associated with increased levels of lung cancer. The science is in.
What about this for an option... http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml ?
I hope that wasn't a serious post! Solor 'freekin' roadways is a big scam.
Yeah but THIS time they got right, K? Sure, they're been whipping up the populace with gloom and doom scenarios for the past few years, despite knowing full well that global warming and rising temperatures has slowed to a crawl since right around 2000, and not understanding exactly why and what consequences it could have for their models. But trust us! This time we won't be wrong! By much!
It's interesting to look at the responses in this thread, which exemplifies exactly why nothing much has been done on global warming so far, and why little more will be done in the future.
Not only is it against the economic interests of the majority of the worlds population, and little research has been done into what the most cost efficient mode of action would be. But the green movement also spent most of the 70ies and 80ies effectively poisoning the well against nuclear power, one of the only realistic alternatives to carbon.
And as also evidenced in this thread: Global Warming standard bearers and hardcore believers have been infected by sanctimonious twats, who love to stand on their soapbox and pontificate on how stupid, ignorant and/or evil everyone else but they are. Which is always a sure fire way to sabotage yourself, and turn away the silent majority. And that's why, global warming has been preached for close to two decades, and nothing much has been done!
Not sure if you've heard of Elon Musk's ventures into solar technology?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-a-thermostat-sized-box-may-one-day-power-your-house-2014-09-17
These massive solar fields may soon beome obsolete. I personally think an Apple acquisition or merger with Musk's solar and battery ventures makes more sense than cars, but with now $700b + market cap and $200b in cash literally ANYTHING is possible.
I think you misread the article. Elon would like to create a much smaller battery for household energy storage, but that energy would come from household solar panels yet the house would still be connected to the grid. More centralized or regional power would be accessed from the grid just as today, and solar farms would be part of that, and even those would most likely also have larger scale battery storage.
This project was already underway, Apple is not the sole customer and its on a property owned by the Hearst corporation.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/First+Solar+(FSLR),+Apple+(AAPL)+Confirm+Huge+Commercial+Power+Deal/10250096.html
For whatever reason, AI has fabricated the impression that Apple was the sole customer and that this was something new instead of actually already approved and funded by Apple and another source.
It certainly does not appear that Apple will be the owner of this facility and it is a 25-year deal.
Check out Bloomberg Game Changers on Elon Musk where Solar City and Elon's collaboration with his cousin is described. Elon's vision is to address these very concerns raised in this thread. Don't like massive solar farms? Let's find ways to make this economical to set up for any business or home that wants solar power, starting with the sunbelt and then spreading to colder and cloudier climates. Concerned about the efficiency and range of electric cars? Let's make it a luxury item first, then get the technology cheaper and more widely adoptable over time. The latter has similar attributes to Apple's model with the iPod and iPhone.
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.
I think that you seriously need to revisit your geography, and probably your meteorology, but I will agree that a big problem with solar, and wind for that matter, is often the need to create a new backbone of power lines to the site. That doesn't change my position that there are plenty of environmentally sound sites throughout the West.
And for the record, Nevada is the driest state with single digit precipitation, and by some measures, the most mountainous state as well. Certainly, there are millions of acres that are suitable for solar, albeit a large expanse is tied up by the military.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
Why do you think I've misread the article? I think you've explained it perfectly. Through battery technology and more efficient capture panels, these massive, environmentally-destructive solar farms should become obsolete.
Check out Bloomberg Game Changers on Elon Musk where Solar City and Elon's collaboration with his cousin is described. Elon's vision is to address these very concerns raised in this thread. Don't like massive solar farms? Let's find ways to make this economical to set up for any business or home that wants solar power, starting with the sunbelt and then spreading to colder and cloudier climates. Concerned about the efficiency and range of electric cars? Let's make it a luxury item first, then get the technology cheaper and more widely adoptable over time. The latter has similar attributes to Apple's model with the iPod and iPhone.
My point is that these will not be made obsolete any time soon, and that these solar farms are not environmentally destructive. When sited properly, solar farms are certainly much more benign than pavement, parking lots, or homes in pristine areas or on converted agricultural land, which is coincidentally where people want to live.
There certainly appears to be a great deal of concern trolling going on with the environmental impact of solar farms, and it leads me to either ill informed urbanites, and/or perhaps the usual resistance to renewables.
edit: Tonopah Nevada Solar tower
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tonopah,+NV/@38.2390569,-117.3741035,2477m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80bc066f466f630b:0x91556ea4cc7eef96
Actually, it has a lot to do with the way the story has been presented, which I've found to be inaccurate after checking with another news source: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/First+Solar+(FSLR),+Apple+(AAPL)+Confirm+Huge+Commercial+Power+Deal/10250096.html
Wait, what... Weed growth will be enhanced? More insects? Sure sounds like increased levels of co2 could be good for plants?
And they are of course, which is the one thing you neglect to mention. Plants grow to be bigger with higher levels of co2 ppm, we know that not just from plenty of experiments, but also because the levels of co2 in the atmosphere has constantly gone up and down over the ages. If you look back at last hundreds of millions of years, there were times when the co2 ppm levels were as high or higher than today.
The fact that some of our agricultural crops don't tolerate that as well, doesn't mean much in the big picture. other crops will be planted instead, and farmers with the help from biologists will develop new varieties of plants. If you look back 50 or 100 years, farmers grew different varieties of crops then that they do now. Finding new, better more hardy crops is something farmers have done for thousands of years. And today they have geneticists to help them.
The evidence! The evidence! The evidence you seem to ignore, is that climate science is a very new and untested field (unlike meteorologists, that they shouldn't be confused with) that more or less came into existence and prominence because of the idea of global warming. Their skills at actually predicting things aren't thar impressive (as evidenced by the lack of rising temperatures since around 2000) and there is still much that we don't know or understand about climate. Climate has always been changing: 700 years ago Greenland was actually green enough to grow crops on, before temperatures suddenly dropped with the little ice age. And something comparatively small like the little ice age, still can't be properly explained by climate scientists.
No it's not denial. It's an excellent point: it's about priorities. Drastically limiting carbon emissions is a hugely expensive project. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. But the same amount or less, could pay for exterminating a deadly disease like malaria, or ensure safe, clean water to everyone in Africa. We can't afford both so we have to prioritize. Where is the money better spent: Drastically limiting carbon emissions, or drastically eliminate malaria, that cost millions of lives every year?
The costs to our lifestyle and society of this hasn't been explained either. If you ask most people, they assume that we could do something about global warming and not change anything except maybe getting an electric car or have a solar panel installed.
But in reality, there's no way we can limit co2 emissions enough without drastically changing how we live. It would be the end of 300$ TVs and tablets, 10 dollar shirts and inexpensive toys. No more daily carrides for the majority of people or more than one car in the family. Denser living, plane tickets that costs many times as much as they do today, and on and on? Would people be willing to make that trade based on climate models? Would you? And keep in mind, there would be no guarantees of success, especially without everybody cooperating. Including countries like China and India, which is far from likely.
Actually, it has a lot to do with the way the story has been presented, which I've found to be inaccurate after checking with another news source: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/First+Solar+(FSLR),+Apple+(AAPL)+Confirm+Huge+Commercial+Power+Deal/10250096.html
Thanks for the link.
Huh?
Huh?
He's right. The stats were fudged. Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade.
To be clear, I don't really buy in to the notion that solar farms are "environmentally destructive". But I do believe the technology is progressing to the point where concern trolls' arguments are rapidly becoming moot.
To be clear, I don't really buy in to the notion that solar farms are "environmentally destructive". But I do believe the technology is progressing to the point where concern trolls' arguments are rapidly becoming moot.
We will certainly see how it plays out, and I won't be unhappy at all if you are correct.