I still believe it's just nature, sure the pollution might be doing a little bit, but not much. I call shens on the severity of global warming. It's mainly just another cycle of the planet, like the ice age. Now we're in the "warm" age leading to the "hot" age.

I don't think the question is whether global warming exists...it does in some form exist, but the question breaks down into several vital parts-

1-How rapidly are climates changing?

2-Is pollution impacting the change?

3-How much more radical will the change become over the next 100 years?

All 3 of these questions affect each other, but #2 is the talking point of the day. I think http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ - the offical .gov site explains the complexity of this issue best-

Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html - atmosphere . The burning of fossil fuels and http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Biomass - biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Aerosol - aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light.

The addition of greenhouse gases and aerosols has changed the composition of the atmosphere. The changes in the atmosphere have likely influenced temperature, precipitation, storms and sea level. However, these features of the climate also vary naturally, so determining what fraction of climate changes are due to natural variability versus human activities is challenging.

There has been substantial natural climate change throughout history. Bear in mind we live on a planet that has more than likely experienced the rapid creation of land masses, an entire ice age, and countless natural enviromental changes throughout its long history. So it stands to reason that small changes in temperature are minimal in the overall scope of things.

Here's a projection from the site-

Carbon dioxide concentrations (see Figure 2) in the atmosphere will increase throughout the 21st century according to all IPCC scenarios. The scenarios project CO2 concentrations ranging from 540 to 970 parts per million (ppm) by 2100, which is 42 to 156 percent higher than current levels ( http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureac.html#ref - IPCC, 2001 ).

Now for the practical stuff-

Temperature Change Projections

The Earth's Commitment to Warming

According to several recent studies, even if the composition of today's atmosphere was fixed (which would imply a dramatic reduction in current emissions), surface air temperatures would continue to warm (by up to 1ºF). The studies suggest that a portion of the warming associated with past human activity has not yet been realized due to heat being stored in the ocean, and that the Earth is committed to continued warming. In addition, many of the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted remain in the atmosphere for decades or longer, and will continue to contribute to warming for their duration.

Now, that's the EPA side of things. I remain fairly neutral on this subject-I don't consider myself qualified to make any assumptions, I do however question the logic that these tiny changes to the earth's temperature are a:) going to create a rapid, permenant change in our climate as we know it and b:) warrant an immediate change in lifestyle. I am personally content with the efforts that car manufactures and groups like the EPA are making. I'm not selling my SUV, in other words.

/long post

-------------

oldsoldier wrote: I am just amazed at the current hysteria over global warming, as I sit here in 9deg Nebraska.

9 deg weather has nothing to do with it.  Global warming will actually result in significant cooling in some parts of the planet.  While the average temperature will rise just a few degrees, the real issue is the effect on global weather and climate patterns.  A small shift in the gulf stream, for instance, could make Northern Europe drastically colder.

"Global warming" is really a misnomer, leading people to believe that it is going to be toasty everywhere. 

I still remmember the scientific community of the 70's warning us of the impending New Ice Age, as the world cooled, and all the devestation we will expierience.

"Ice Age" was a bit of hysteria at the time, but that term was mostly not used by scientists.  There was a concern about global cooling, however, but even at the time the scientists involved were very clear that the science was insufficient and unclear.  There was nowhere near the level of certainty we are operating with now.  More about global cooling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - here .

And while we are talking about old environmental scares, let's talk acid raid and ozone layer.  Remember those?  Scientists warned on both of those, with specific predictions as well as cures.  The world acted, and both of those were pretty much beaten back.

The truth is, of course, that scientists are usually right.

Now in a total 180 the same scientific community warning us of Global Warming, as the worlds heats up, and all the devestation we will expierience.

Not a 180.  That's silly, and demonstrates your lack of research on the matter.  In fact, concerns about CO2-based global warming were being raised in the 70s, even as scientists were also warning about global cooling.  The two are not inconsistent.  There are many different factors that affect the world's climate.  One factor may lead to one kind of change, another factor may lead in a different direction.  It's not one or the other.

There is plenty of science on point here.  If you aren't concerned, you aren't listening.

Most of the anti-global warming misinformation comes from lobbyist and politicians, not scientists.  Heck, I even heard Dennis Avery arguing against global warming the other day - and that is about as good of an argument FOR global warming as anything else out there.

And even if you don't buy the science, buy the risk.  Even leftist propaganda machines like The Economist points out that even if there is only a small chance that global warming might occur, it would be outright foolish not to take measures to stop it.  The cost of ignoring it is too great, the cost of addressing it too small.

You don't buy fire insurance because you know that your house will burn - you buy it because there is a small chance that it might, and it would seriously suck.

^^^^^  Correct on all counts.  The US is disproportionately to blame, but we are still a minority of the cause, and India/China are working hard to catch up.

But it is hard to control China's actions - it is (relatively) easy to control our own.

And besides, isn't cutting wasteful behavior a good thing anyway?

MT. Vigilante wrote: we deserve very little blame compaired to other countrys.

Not sure that is true.  Last I heard, the US, on a per-capita basis, is by far the biggest polluter on the planet.  I could be wrong.

But regardless, this is one of those things where we all have to change our ways.

*Stealth* wrote: I'll believe the science community can predict the global heating trends of this planet, when they can accurately forecast the weather two days in advance.

I cannot tell you how much 'awesome' I found in this statement.

*Stealth* wrote: I'll believe the science community can predict the global heating trends of this planet, when they can accurately forecast the weather two days in advance.

And as amusing as that statement is, it is also a complete non-sequiteur.

Meteorology and climatology are two entirely different fields of science, and they operate with different parameters and different data.  And, of course, meteorologists actually do a pretty impressive job of predicting the weather.

"The science community" is a diverse group.  Some sciences are more exact than others.  Nobody is claiming to predict the exact amount of heating or the exact outcome.  The newest IPCC report indicates a large range of expected heating values, and others had argued for a wider range yet.

Science doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be valid - it just has to be accurate to a non-random degree.  In fact, no science is 100%.  Every experiment has to deal with confounding variables, sampling error, and other things that get in the way.  Some branches of science are more susceptile to this than others, but the basic rules are the same.  How many times did you see a science experiment go wrong in high school science class?  Does that mean that baking soda volcanos are really just fake?

Even as everybody involved will admit that we don't know that much about the specifics of global climate change, the knowledge and data underlying the conclusions that we CAN reach is staggering in volume.

This is not just a whim.

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm - Milankovich Cycles

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles - A better explanation

......So no science is exact, a statement with which I completely agree.

Taking that into account, could this non-exact theory provide an explanation for what we're arguing?

That the warming of earth is cyclical as opposed to a man induced and irreversable occurance?

Reb Cpl wrote: Taking that into account, could this non-exact theory provide an explanation for what we're arguing? That the warming of earth is cyclical as opposed to a man induced and irreversable occurance?

Why does it have to be one or the other?  I don't believe that anybody is arguing that man is the "sole" cause of climate change.  Climate changed all on its own long before we got here.

Milankovich's work is fairly well known.  I have not read the IPCC's report, but I be surprised if they do not discuss variability from orbital variation, as well as simple solar variation and other non-human causes.  That simply establishes the baseline.

Just because there are other contributing factors (which nobody is disputing) doesn't mean that man is not also a contributing factor.

But the information I have is that observed climate change is FAR beyond what we would expect from simple Milankovich cycles.

I really dont believe in global warming, its dumb the earth goes in cycles, somtimes it gets hotter, somtimes it gets colder, people freak out over the smallest things, "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH ITS RAISED 5 DEGREES IN THE LAST 100 YEARS!!!! WE'RE GUNNA DIE!"

but if im wrong ill probly be dead before any bad stuff happens so, oh well.

Mephistopheles wrote: Oh noez Global Warming again. I love how some people try to blame one situation as if that one thing will make or break the system. Reality though is there are a cluster of systems all working at the same time, and small changes in some or all can have drastic results. The earth's rotational speed, our magnetosphere, the rotaional orbit around the sun being more circular or more eliptical, greenhouse gasses from man, greenhouse gasses from the Earth, polar cap size, glacier snowfall vs. glacier breakoff, solar storm size/strength, oceanic temperatures, etc. Oh but if we drive electric cars all will be saved! Right. I don't even bother thinking about this situation any more. We've lost so much polar ice on both ends already, and with ocean temps even in the polar regions warming and eroding them from underneath, yeah it's game over. What ever happen is going to happen now no matter what we do about it. Just time to sit back and enjoy. *edit* OH but forgot to add. No matter what happens, the US will be at fault. You can count on that.

Post, I name thee "strawman".

Try arguing against the ACTUAL science and ACTUAL policy, instead of some made-up version.

As has been said many times, everybody knows about natural cycles.  The issue is that we are messing up the cycle.

*Stealth* wrote: We are guessing, nothing more, nothing less. The five degree raise in temp could just as easily be due to natural cycles, as it could be due to human impact.

No, no, and no.

We are not "guessing".  That is a very significant body of science behind the conclusions reached.

Is there much we do not know?  Absolutely.  Might the scientists be wrong after all?  Absolutely.

But that is true of ALL science.  Simply because scientists don't have 100% knowledge does not mean that we are "guessing".  To suggest such a thing is to deliberately ignore the body of knowledge that we have accumulated.

CarbineKid wrote: He wasn't talking about the farce called "Global Warming" but it fits.

Pray tell - based on what do you claim that you understand global climate better than the world's scientists?

This just cracks me up - just like how my minister declares, based on zero scientific education or knowledge, that evolution is wrong and those scientists "don't know what they are doing".  Hmm...   who should I believe on a highly complex scientific issue...   hmm... the scientist or the preacher...  hmm...   the scientists or the politicians... hmm...

Yes, scientists might be wrong - happens all the time.  But if you are going to criticize a scientific finding, that criticism needs to be based in something more than "I don't think so".

CarbineKid wrote: The worlds scientists once thought the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. I'm still waiting for the worlds scientists to actually prove anything. Right now they have a theory, a hypothesis based on an observation...nothing more nothing else. Oh and for the record not every scientist believe in "global warming".

Fascinating.  And because scientists were wrong about the shape of the earth, you disbelieve all scientists?  Or only those dealing with climate change?

When a chemist tells you how many protons are in a carbon atom, do you not believe him, because scientists were wrong about the shape of the earth?  How about when the physicist explains how a microwave works?  Instead of believing in microwaves, do you instead conclude that the meat was going to thaw anyway?

You can't see the protons or the microwaves, and scientists have been known to be wrong, therefore clearly you can't believe in either protons or microwaves, right?

Your straw man of skepticism makes no sense.  The truth of the matter is that you overwhelmingly believe what scientists tell you, regardless of the subject - we all do.  And that is the rational thing to do.  If we choose to disbelieve the scientists, we - as rational beings - must have a good reason.  And "I couldn't demonstrate it in 7th grade" is not a good reason.  The vast majority of science is far beyond your understanding, but you accept it anyway.

Yet you have singled out a very complex matter of climatology (which I presume you know very little about), simply because it doesn't pass your 7th grade gravity test.  I call shens.  You have political motivations, or some other non-scientific basis for disbelieving.  You simply do not have the scientific qualifications/understanding/background to make a legitimate argument against what the climatologists of the world are telling us (and neither do I, which is why I will believe them until convinced otherwise).

And, of course (as TKD pointed out), your 7th grade "experiment" doesn't actually prove gravity at all.  When you drop a coin and it falls, you have simply proven that things tend to fall down.  That's not gravity.  "Gravity" is the mysterious invisible force that physicists use to try to explain WHY things tend to fall down.  And proving gravity is very difficult indeed, and - frankly - gravity is not particularly well understood.

But - on point - allow this short exchange as an example of what all the doubters in this thread are functionally doing:

CarbineKid:  I have a lump in my leg.

Oncologist #1:  It's cancer.  We should amputate.  But you should get a second opinion.

CK:  I will, and more.

Oncologist #2, #3, #4:  Yep.  Cancer.  Amputate now or die.

CK:  Don't believe you.  I think it's just a cyst.  I'm getting more opinions.

Oncologists #45, #87, #92:  Not cancer.  Just a cyst.  Don't worry.

All other oncologists, #1-#100:  Cancer.  Amputate or die.

CK:  Ok.  Cyst it is.

You believe what your doctor tells you.  You believe what your car mechanic tells you.  We all tend to believe experts, in whatever field, when they tell us something we are not qualified to argue with.  Why is climate change getting the special treatment?

Lone_Wolf wrote: Clark, if a mechanic tells me that my alternator has failed and I need a new one, they put a new alternator in and the car goes, it looks good, he proved it. If a doctor tells me that I need stitches, and they stich me and I heal, theres proof he was right.

Incorrect on both counts.  Wouldn't you get the same result in both cases with a variety expert errors?  This is the same logic that has kept charlatans in business for millenia.  Science has to meet much higher crieteria than that. 

But that's not really important.

Science is tricky in that there isn't a whole lot of concrete proof on much of anything.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "concrete proof."  I'm not sure I accept this premise either, but that may be primarily a matter of semantics.

"The earth is flat" ...oh wait...we goofed. "There are 9 planets" ....oh crap again. "The earth is the center of solar system." .....awww hell. ...and so on.

Please - give me more of the "... and so on".  Let's not gloss over that.  Because for every major error in consensus scientific conclusion thoughout modern history, there have been countless consensus conclusions that have held up, been modified, tweaked, improved, and so on.

And I also note that two of your examples (flat-earth and earth-as-center) were arguably not scientific conclusions at all, but merely pre-science religious beliefs that were defeated early by actual science.  Not to mention, of course, that they are really really old.

I would like for somebody to bring up a couple of 20th century examples of major consensus scientific theories/conclusions that have been wholesale abandonded as wrong.  Not tweaked or improved - but flat out proven wrong or abandonded.  There are several, but you will have to look a lot harder to find them.  Quasi-scientific theories from medieval times just don't make convincing examples about how often scientists are wrong.

But that really isn't my main point. We've all agreed that there are cycles to the earth's cooling and heating. We all (most of us) agree that man has had his hand in the warming (recently) of the earth.

Ditto to both.

Where it looks like we're differing is over the point of permanance. So we had our hand in the heating of the earth.....does that mean "OMG we're all gonna die?" Or, will the cooling cycle of the planet outweigh man's interjection? The complexity of the situation disallows for us to pin a permanant outcome on 'global warming' based on our own additions to the changes.

I believe that is all true as well.  Nor do I believe that many climatologists are currently trying to predict that specifically what will happen - the complexity of climate prediction is fairly well know.  But there does appear to be significant evidence that we are near (on one side or the other), of a tipping point, where the cycles as we know them will not be able to recover on their own - at least not until humans are extinct.

Theories.....its all theories. Show me that man has doomed himself with the production of co2, or, show me that the earth doesn't give a whit about man and his fancy machines.

It is NOT all theories.  Whether the evidence is sufficient for conclusion is for the scientists to determine - but to declare it mere theorizing is simply incorrect as a matter of fact.

Either way, I'll be long, long dead before any of it is proved.

Maybe not.  The most pessimistic scenarios are pessimistic indeed.  And even if we don't see it, our children certainly will.

Solution:

Don't have kids. For many of us, thats the best idea anyway.

Ken Majors wrote: If a doctor tells a woman....you have Uterine Cancer....hysterectomy ensues. She survives. He is a miracle man. Although she truly only had a fibroid. Noone will ever know. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Just pointing out that a doctor is a poor analogy.

Excellent point - but not responsive to mine.

My point with the doctor analogy wasn't about whether the doctor was right or not - it was about how we trust the doctor, as we should, yet somehow we suddenly feel qualified to question the conclusions of expert climatologists.

I live south of Farmington and east of the power plants. At night, I enjoy looking at stars. When I use my flashlight during the telescope setup, I notice particulates floating by, from west to east.

When I watch the weather on the news channel, most of the storms move from west to east. When I look at the La Plata Mountains, I see yellow haze over Farmington, the La Plata Valley and Durango, Colo. I visually follow the yellow haze and it ends at the Four Corners and San Juan Generating Station Power Plants.

Knowing the weather pattern and the origin of the yellow haze only makes me believe that this is not just a Four Corners problem. It is everyone's problem.

The irony is that electricity will be made and sold to Phoenix, Las Vegas, Nev., and California. In return, the Four Corners will get additional air pollutants from these areas by the prevailing air currents.

This is the best time to say "Stop!" to the carpetbaggers of energy that say "Huge demand for growing southwest," "There is a huge need for energy in the fast growing southwest that renewable energy and increased efficiency can't meet alone," and "Bridge the gap between supply and demand."

Save the Black Rocks and catch the wind and sunlight while we can, because tomorrow may be a calm, cloudy day.

http://www.daily-times.com/opinion/ci_5190591 - http://www.daily-times.com/opinion/ci_5190591

Thats right blam global warming on the Navajo Nation!

^^^^  I don't know who is telling you that, but they are wrong.

Wind power development is going very well in Montana.  After the Dakotas, Montana has one of the best wind resources in the nation.  The wind projects that are up are generally doing quite well, and there are many more planned.

The main hindrance to developing wind power in Montana (and the Dakotas) isn't the wind resource, but the lack of electrical transmission to population centers.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Um, which one of us lives in Montana? I'm telling you that there simply is not as many wind power plants here as there was supposed to be for the reasons I said before.

lol - I don't want to give away too many personal details, but I seriously honestly know a whole lot from direct personal experience about windmills in Montana, including the ones by Judith Gap.  More than what you read in the local papers.    ;)

The wind estimates in Montana are adjusted downwards during development from the initial ones given, true - but that is also true everywhere else.  The initial developers paint a rosy picture of how great the wind is to lure in the big money.  The big money does their own study, and adjusts downwards.  Etc.  Same old story.

Bottom line - Montana has great wind resource, lousy transmission.  Once we figure out transmission (probably with the help of the coal industry), you will see lots and lots of windmills in Montana.

Clark Kent wrote:  Montana has great wind resource, lousy transmission.  Once we figure out transmission  you will see lots and lots of windmills in Montana.

If we go back in time. Windmills have existed for at least 1,300 years.

In Mass. there are many of these brand new wind tubines most are not even moving.

But the Dutch has many old windmills up to 600yrs old still running.

welcome guest wrote: In Mass. there are many of these brand new wind tubines most are not even moving. But the Dutch has many old windmills up to 600yrs old still running.

Not a lot of wind turbines in Mass at the moment, and the wind isn't that great there (although there is a significant offshore development proposed with serious political opposition - thanks, Ted Kennedy).

But the reason that the turbines seem to be mainly sitting still is that the new bigger turbines mostly turn at night.  Modern utility-scale turbines have much higher cut-in speeds than the old tiny windmills (approx. 3 m/s, depending on the model), and the wind in most of the US blows harder in the night than during the day.

On the average, most modern wind turbines generate about 30% of the energy that they theoretically could generate if they were blowing full speed all the time, but they still pump out vastly more energy than any old dutch-style windmill.  So most turbines will be sitting still most of the day, and that's perfectly normal.

I can't tell you how angry that Cape Cod silliness makes me.  Those turbines will be five miles offshore.  FIVE MILES!

In the meantime, a similar project on the other side of Long Island (the poor side) is proceeding more or less on schedule towards construction, without significant local protest...

Clark Kent wrote: welcome guest wrote: In Mass. there are many of these brand new wind tubines most are not even moving. But the Dutch has many old windmills up to 600yrs old still running. Not a lot of wind turbines in Mass at the moment, and the wind isn't that great there (although there is a significant offshore development proposed with serious political opposition - thanks, Ted Kennedy). But the reason that the turbines seem to be mainly sitting still is that the new bigger turbines mostly turn at night.  Modern utility-scale turbines have much higher cut-in speeds than the old tiny windmills (approx. 3 m/s, depending on the model), and the wind in most of the US blows harder in the night than during the day. On the average, most modern wind turbines generate about 30% of the energy that they theoretically could generate if they were blowing full speed all the time, but they still pump out vastly more energy than any old dutch-style windmill.  So most turbines will be sitting still most of the day, and that's perfectly normal.

http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=135 - http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=135

Wind Power

The force of wind, used for centuries for pumping water and grinding corn, is the most promising renewable energy source for making electricity.

The traditional Dutch windmill has been redesigned to be a most advanced aerodynamic machine with blades designed to capture the wind as efficiently as possible. These windmills are connected to generators where electricity is being generated.

http://www.nov55.com/wdm.html - http://www.nov55.com/wdm.html

Science Errors

Anyone can look at an old-fashioned farm windmill, which had about 18 blades, and compare. It is quite visible that unused wind goes between the blades with two and three blade systems.

Reference on government research: Capturing Energy from the Wind. James L. Schefter, NASA SP-455, 1982. (gov. doc.)

Here is the central error in your article (there are others, but this is the main one):

Article wrote: Two factors are important in determining overall efficiency of a widmill. One is its ability to use low velocity wind, and the other is its conversion efficiency.

This is arguably true from an engineering perspective - arguably.  It is, however, COMPLETELY false from an economic perspective.

When you are building a power plant where fuel cost is a significant part of the overall cost of the facility (like a coal or gas power plant), fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency is a useful measure, but even then it is only secondary.

When you are building a power plant where fuel cost is relatively insignificant (nuclear power) or completely insignificant (wind, solar), then the conversion ratio is only an indirect consideration.

The REAL question is $/MWh.  How many dollars do you have to spend to generate electricity, and how can you do so cheapest.

Example:  A nuclear power plant consists of two main parts - a nuclear reactor that generates heat, and a steam turbine generator that turns that heat into electricity.  In a typical commercial US nuclear power plant, the conversion ratio from heat to electricity is around 30%.  This is not very high - other types of power plants do much better.  But nuclear fuel is so cheap that it is overall cheaper to build an inefficient power plant and throw more fuel at it than to build a more efficient plant.

For wind/solar, this goes to the extreme, since we essentially have unlimited fuel for free.  So the ONLY consideration is how much it costs to build and operate the windmill, compared to how much energy you get out of it.

And the proof is in the pudding.  US wholesale prices for wind energy 25 years ago, when there were various small multi-blade designs in use, was $350/MWh or more.  Today, with giant turbines, those prices hang around $40/MWh.  As size goes up, cost goes down.  The fact that a theoretical wind turbine could have generated more energy from the same amount of wind is completely irrelevant.

Moreover - wind turbine manufacture is a massively competitive multi-billion-dollar international industry.  General Electric, Mitsubishi, Siemens, and a bunch of other giant companies around the world spend millions on wind turbine R&D.  The pittance that the US government threw at wind R&D 20 years ago is dwarfed by the annual budget of any one of these companies.  And multi-blade designs have been investigated, downwind systems have been proposed, vertical-axis, and a bunch of other versions as well.  The state of the art is the slow-turning 3-blade upwind turbine.  This may yet change (probably will), but this is by no means some inefficient holdover.  This is raw market power at work.

Evil Elvis wrote: My Windmill Expert Disagrees

I have been vanquished by superior farce.

Sounds like a job for.