Well...ok, but only if we play with 6 bullets and you go first! :P
You have given up on it. Now you resort to ad hominem instead. You will forgive me for not being impressed by the climate hysteric rhetorics.
You have given up on it. Now you resort to ad hominem instead. You will forgive me for not being impressed by the climate hysteric rhetorics.
I would love to hear your explanation for why carbon isotopes are a poor method of tracking carbon dioxide sources.
If you need possibilities:
Bomb spike raised the C14 levels and they have been dropping off with the test ban
Geothermic activity such as volcano fumes also have little C14 due to not coming from plants
I noticed these two possibilities were distinctly absent from your link. Curiously absent, I felt. I am sure there are more possibilities, but it is late. The Sissyl is tired.
I am sure there are more possibilities, but it is late. The Sissyl is tired.
As well you should be! It must be tremendously draining to maintain that bubble that is impermeable by facts and/or reality.
Rather, impermeable by rhetorics of climate hysterics that I have heard a million times before. I am entirely ready to tell you the problems I have with climate science as it stands today, but it is getting late, and I can't do it now.
Probably absent because the isotopes they are looking at are C13...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need possibilities:
Bomb spike raised the C14 levels and they have been dropping off with the test ban
Geothermic activity such as volcano fumes also have little C14 due to not coming from plantsI noticed these two possibilities were distinctly absent from your link. Curiously absent, I felt. I am sure there are more possibilities, but it is late. The Sissyl is tired.
No, not possibilities, explanations. The documentation I'm readying seems to account for those sources of carbon isotopes.
"Because I can imagine it my head" is not a valid method of refuting science. You can say it, but what you say has no relevance to reality.
I know guys! Previous climate studies didn't account for the exhalation of the dragons that roamed the earth! Prove to me dragons weren't real!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need possibilities:
Bomb spike raised the C14 levels and they have been dropping off with the test ban
Geothermic activity such as volcano fumes also have little C14 due to not coming from plantsI noticed these two possibilities were distinctly absent from your link. Curiously absent, I felt. I am sure there are more possibilities, but it is late. The Sissyl is tired.
Also, I just noticed something, you claimed they were absent from my link, you're incorrect. They were absent from the first page, but there is information on later pages, each page only covers a concept or two, but seeing as this is a pretty complicated subject, there is more than one page.
I do understand how you might be tired and unwilling to click through and read, but because you're lazy doesn't make you correct. In fact, your laziness made you incorrect.
As for volcanoes, if volcanoes were causing it, we would see abrupt increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 after eruptions, but so far, nothing has ever been evident.
Annually, volcanoes average 130 million tons of CO2 into the air every year.
Annually, humans pump 27000 million tons of CO2 into the air every year.
Second, the reflective particles and aerosols released by volcanoes actually have net cooling effect on the planet, which has been recorded after major eruptions... not just theorized, recorded.
Wind farms alter wind paths, especially when used in large volumes. In order to generate power, they have to remove it from the atmosphere. The effects on weather patterns are unknown. .Wind farms are also an issue in terms of migratory bird paths, but the greatest resistance to them has been mainly on aesthetic grounds. Because a mountain of wind farms is to face it.... an ugly thing to look at.They're apparently getting better at making them safer for birds.
And personally, I kind of like them. They're sort of majestic.
I agree, although it could be my bias poking through. I mean, 100 years ago they said the same thing about telegraph poles/power lines. Them s&@*s is everywhere! But you don't really notice. Try going for a drive some time and really NOTICE them, how ubiquitous the power lines are, because they are ugly and unsightly.
The point is that we'll get used to it and they'll become invisible.
one thing I don't get about wind farms: why is bigger better? Like I understand that it's more efficient and more energy is generated at the larger wind mills but noise and wildlife are major concerns with the big guys. But why can't we have hundreds of smaller windmills that aren't so loud or so dangerous? I mean most cities have tons of roof space that could have solar panels and/or smaller windmills on them.
I think it's a cost benefit thing on many levels. If I were to venture a guess I'd say the outside "hull" was relatively inexpensive next to the moving parts, so bigger is just more efficient.
I'll see if I can dig up stuff about this whole birth flight path thing. My dad works for USF&W and specializes in birds and he seemed to think the risk was pretty minimal.
one thing I don't get about wind farms: why is bigger better? Like I understand that it's more efficient and more energy is generated at the larger wind mills but noise and wildlife are major concerns with the big guys. But why can't we have hundreds of smaller windmills that aren't so loud or so dangerous? I mean most cities have tons of roof space that could have solar panels and/or smaller windmills on them.
1) Ownership. You don't want to have to negotiate 500 deals with 500 different land owners to put up 500 wind mills. If the windmill is on top of a building someone else owns, you have to ask when you need to work on it. Some of those neighborhoods arent' safe...
2) Maintenance/monitoring: these things do break down. You don't want the windmill repair guy driving all over creation with a 90 foot propeller stuck on the car. Much easier if he can come into work, say "yup, its busted" and drag it out of the storage shed to go up.
3) The best spot is the best spot: the next 499 spots probably aren't as good.
4) cost to size: a smaller windmill takes forever to pay for itself.
I know guys! Previous climate studies didn't account for the exhalation of the dragons that roamed the earth! Prove to me dragons weren't real!
I suppose the dinosaur fossils were a joke by God the Father when he created the Earth 6000 years and 15 minutes ago?
If you need possibilities:
Bomb spike raised the C14 levels and they have been dropping off with the test ban
Geothermic activity such as volcano fumes also have little C14 due to not coming from plantsI noticed these two possibilities were distinctly absent from your link. Curiously absent, I felt. I am sure there are more possibilities, but it is late. The Sissyl is tired.
This is why I don't even bother. I'm not a climatologist. I doubt you are either.
It is possible that those two points are valid objections to the theory. It is possible that you, with a couple of minutes of thought, have come up with an astounding revelation that 1000s of climatologists have missed. Including all of those with incentive to disprove it.
More likely they are so completely and obviously wrong that there was no point in even mentioning them in the list.I could try to dig into the literature to see if I could figure out why they're wrong. Since I'm not a climatologist it would probably take me quite a while to get a definitive answer.
Once I've done that, you can take another quick look and spout off some other irrelevant objection. Then I can spend a few more hours tracking it down.
It's very easy for the ignorant to throw out misleading objections that actual climatologists wouldn't even waste time on, but that confuse a debate between amateurs.
if I can't find something on any of your claims, you get to win. Whether that's because you have found the answer or because my Google-fu is weak. I can never win, because there are always more frivolous objections.But pretty much anything any of us amateurs comes up with requires all of climate science to be vast multinational conspiracy. The theory and the data have to be not just wrong, but deliberately wrong. Over decades. In near perfect secrecy. With no particular advantage to the scientists involved.
I've played this game before. I know the steps. It's no fun and there's no point.
See, it is very interesting that nowadays, you must be a climatologist to have any sort of opinion on anything a climate scientist says. No other sort of scientist is welcome to do so. I would have thought anyone with the theoretical grounding in natural science should qualify, but no dice. The climate scientists have also redefined scientific method in that consensus is what determines truth. If these guys were serious, opposing voices would be welcomed, not shouted down.
I have played the game too, and have found it just as depressing as you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opposing voices are welcomed. You just have to do some actual work, not just say "psh, I don't believe you!" When you bring up the same points that have been addressed time and time again, you're going to get ignored because you haven't done your homework.
Also, while an aircraft engineer deals with the laws of physics on a daily basis, I wouldn't trust his opinion or expertise when it came to astrophysics. Specialists are specialists in specialized fields. Shocker!
So indeed... only a climatologist has the right to speak.
First the climatists drown you in links, often including things like the hockey stick graph. Then you object, and they say you are unqualified to have an opinion. Care to tell me what the point is then? I get to choose between agreeing and being ridiculed and accused of being paid by big oil?
So indeed... only a climatologist has the right to speak.
First the climatists drown you in links, often including things like the hockey stick graph. Then you object, and they say you are unqualified to have an opinion. Care to tell me what the point is then? I get to choose between agreeing and being ridiculed and accused of being paid by big oil?
Think of it as analogous to a doctor.
No matter how much time you spend surfing WebMD, you're not qualified to make a diagnosis. Maybe you think you are, because you took a semester of anatomy. So you go to your doctor because you're not feeling well. He says "you have a fever" you respond with "no I don't".This is no different than any other area of expertise. in any field. in any profession. ever. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to know what you're talking about. Why on earth would I take the medical advice of someone who doesn't have the qualifications? If they dismiss your Brilliant Idea (TM) which you're absolutely certain has never been mentioned, maybe it's because it already has been, a thousand times, and studies were done on it, and it was dismissed.
You get to choose between a) agreeing with the prevailing science on the matter or b) actually proving them wrong. Those are the rational choices. You, however, have chosen to go with the (far too popular) option c) put your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA NOT LISTENING"
No. It is like an orthopedist claiming that no surgeon that is not an orthopedist has any right to have an opinion about his science.
You can have any opinion you like. Be prepared to be wrong when presented with evidence to the contrary!!!
Your arguments can be easily summed up in "You are not a climatologist so you are wrong and I won't even discuss your arguments LALALA NOT LISTENING!"
I have not made any arguments about global warming so you're talking out of your ass.
However, others in this thread who have presented evidence have had it ignored by you soooo....
So you have no arguments? Then leave the discussing to them, skull.
|
one thing I don't get about wind farms: why is bigger better? Like I understand that it's more efficient and more energy is generated at the larger wind mills but noise and wildlife are major concerns with the big guys. But why can't we have hundreds of smaller windmills that aren't so loud or so dangerous? I mean most cities have tons of roof space that could have solar panels and/or smaller windmills on them.
Because smaller is noisier. more turbines to produce the same energy equals more noise. Small three blade Props produce more cavitation noise than a big five blade prop.
|
|
I know guys! Previous climate studies didn't account for the exhalation of the dragons that roamed the earth! Prove to me dragons weren't real!I suppose the dinosaur fossils were a joke by God the Father when he created the Earth 6000 years and 15 minutes ago?
I confess I was drunk at the time...and i blew up the old Earth to make the new one.
So you have no arguments? Then leave the discussing to them, skull.
Soory to be blunt, but so far your arguments (on this and other theads) about climate change amount to "I don't believe climatologists now because 1) they have been wrong in the past; 2) they are hysterical pro-ecology nuts who must have an hidden agenda, so I don't believe anything they say".
Well, the first part is true of absolutely every field of knowledge ("I don't believe in gravity! Lots of physicists have been wrong before Newton!"), and I don't know of a previous climatological hypothesis that had been held true by almost all scientists and later was proven false. All the examples you provided were hotly challenged from the start; it's very different from the actual consensus about human induced climate change.
I mean, there have been opposing voices, but they grow fewer and fewer as the data accumulates. I know of some scientists who started as opponents of this theory, led their own research... and switched camps, as their analysis confirmed what they were trying to debunk. It's the usual process of science : theories get wider and wider acceptation as they get validated by experimental data.
And no, it's not the result of a campaign of intimidation waged by the gnomes of Zurich. The second point doesn't deserve a serious answer.
EDIT: I'm no climatologist either. I recall that you are working in the psychology field (sorry if I'm incorrect). We are both ill-equiped to challenge or to validate theories in a complex scientific field.
It's alright, Sissyl. You still have an open invite to the Galtan drug-fuelled orgies...unlike any of these other clowns.
Regardless of climate change...goblins do it in the street!
Smarnil: It is nice that you tell me what my points are, missing both and then manage to prove me wrong. Congratulations.
My objections are:
Their methodology leaves much to be desired.
The media spin is murderous, and their treatment of dissenting voices stinks.
They are pushing a political agenda that will hurt more than it helps.
But of course, you know what I mean better than I do. Also, nice touch on the gnomes of Zurich thing. I must be psychotic if I don't agree with all the AGWers here, right?
|
Sissyl,
Media spin on everything is ludicrous. Hardly the climate science's fault, or their problem.
Which political agenda exactly? And pushing how and where?
In what ways does the methodology stink? Suggest ways it can be improved.
These three are pretty mcuh using a brush ten yards wide to make your point. How can people possibly be expected to disopte such vague things? Oh, and you're pushing a poltiical genda that will hurt more than it helps, IMO. Clearly therefore , whatever you say is false because it is opposed to my politics. That really isn't a convincing argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to be very honest about the whole climate change thing and admit I've always felt there is a lot of overreaction and statistic reductionism applied, and that I think it is more likely related to natural planetary cycles than our own handiwork.
That being said, I also think it is one of those things you just can't take chances with, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Like not smashing down a building until you have checked every single room twice, even if you are 99% sure no one is in there.
Plus climate change or not, I prefer clean stuff over dirty stuff, and being Catholic and all there is also a religious predisposition to take care of Creation in a good way.
Point is, climate alarmism or not, it doesn't hurt to keep more things green. I have a good deal of my savings invested in renewable energy projects, after all.
Big Norse Wolf...where does the issue of CONTROL (over power usage, consumption, gradation and billing) come into play?
It doesn't.
The electric company doesn't care what you're doing with the power, they just want their check.
Big wind vs big hydro vs big oil would have the same power structure or business plan: a huge initial investment thats out of reach of individuals for the means of power production, followed by upkeep/maintenence and profit from the consumers.
I would say not very sustainable.
Thought I don't mean that in a "the sky is falling" way. Just that, given current technology, the planet couldn't support a U.S. lifestyle for seven billion people.