Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Compared to the 97 million to 970 million birds which are killed each year by hitting windows.

 

I asked for a link, not links....

The uncertainty the IPCC uses is 2:1, for something sensitive, that is huge. I am asking for a link that shows something useable in a model, like +/-10%. For long term predictions, +/-1% or less is better.

I was unclear. You can not test one element in climate. The uncertainties are too high, and there are too many interactions. In contrast, in electronics, I can disconnect a feedback loop (in the model, and in the circuit) to eliminate that interaction, to verify the design.

So, there is some dark denier conspiracy that stops people from installing competitive sources of alternative energy? I have been following solar panel prices (wind speeds here are too low), and they are competitive for my retail cost ($0.35 / KWH), but not for people with less sun and lower utility costs.

 

That depends on what you want to use the model for. There's no doubt that it's getting warmer, no doubt that we're causing it, and no doubt that CO2 stays in the air for centuries. All that adds up to a world of hurt even at the low range of IPCC sensitivity. That's been shown here, and also here, to take just two examples. (Garrett's paper is especially interesting if you're into thermodynamics.)

You can (often, not always) test elements within the system and (often, not always) find that those elements behave in predictable ways. That's how models work. You assume that the Beer-Lambert law holds, that Kirchoff's Law holds, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law holds, etc. Remember models are for climate, not for weather. You can't predict events, but you should be able to predict trends. Models do that, and past predictions, based on much cruder models than we have today, have proven to be pretty good.

It's not a dark conspiracy, just garden-variety stupidity. If we want to transition to renewables, "competitive" (which is where we are now) must be replaced by "definitely cheaper" (which is where we could be if we structured energy subsidies better).

 

I'm not using the model, the IIPC is, and show a hockey stick. Hockey sticks depend on exponential effects, which is why a 2:1 uncertainty, which could be flat, or could be exponential, is unacceptable.

I can extract a curve fit formula from a trend, and it will do a pretty good job of tracking, for a while.

Models also are used to identify sensitivities and interactions, which can be used to achieve maximum effect with minimal effort.

There is a bit of inertia, but less expensive for new technology gets much less expensive pretty quick.

If it really was less expensive here, it would be much less expensive in Europe. Something doesn't ring true.

 

The hockey stick in temperature depends on the exponential increase in CO2, which has actually been measured.



Most of the uncertainty in IPCC estimates is uncertainty over how much we will (or won't) reduce fossil fuel use. Given any measured or assumed CO2 trend, the radiative forcing is known, and the uncertainty in sensitivity is becoming smaller every year.

It's competitive here, less expensive in Europe. Nearly all of the newly installed capacity in Europe during the past few years has been renewable for that reason.

 

What garbage. They have no way of knowing that which is obvious by the 100-fold spread in the first place. In any case, the article refers to human-caused dangers for birds. Why would you want to build a structure that contributes only a minimal amount of energy and only works when the wind blows but racks up even more killed birds?

 

wiki

Once again technology has passed you by.

 

Someday, someday, we all have hope that you will learn arithmetic.

If you're that interested in bird health, why aren't you out there campaigning against the real threat: windows?

 

Mate - you are being swamped by science which you are simply dismissing. Time to rethink your stance in light of the mounting evidence

 

'Swamped by science?' I think you are being duped by faux-science. I have a question for you...How does a windmill generate electricity when the wind doesn't blow?

 

That's it pick on a typo in order to avoid actually addressing the context.

We need windows, we do not need windmills.

 

We need windmills, we don't need crackpot denier cultists who are so brainwashed and bamboozled that they can't tell up from down.

 

There is nothing to deny because you have no scientific proof. All you have is a consensus of a bunch of circle-jerking so-called 'climatologists' who have to create models because they lack enough of a population of data to derive a reliable statistical analysis.

To protect their government largesse, they summarily dismiss skeptics by calling them 'deniers.' You can't generate enough feasible energy with windmills or solar. Natural gas and coal are far more efficient and portable.

 

That is not really true.

Solar thermal with heat storage is not intermittant. It provides baseload power. And with geographic diversity (ie - the wind is usually blowing somewhere), a network of wind turbines greatly reduces the intermitency problems

Zero Carbon Australia has produced a fully costed plan by which Australia could be entirely powered by renewables, using existing technology in 10 years:
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand

Countries like the USA and China have similar geographic diversity and wind and solar resources. No reason it can't be scaled up for those populations.

 

Don't be silly. Of course you can generate enough feasible energy with solar.

Making electricity only involves heating water to make steam to spin a turbine. You can heat water with concentrated sunlight just as easily as you can do it by burning coal.

Add geographically diverse wind resources into the equation and renewables can easily replace fossil fuels. And this is not even considering the potential of future technologies which will harness tidal and geothermal energy.

 

That is a funny way to describe virtually every scientific and academic body on the planet and the vast majority of published scientific literature on the subject.

But don't let me ruin your conspiracy theory. Please - rant away.

 

Yet, in Europe, where energy is more expensive, and alternative energy subsidized, they haven't reduced their CO2 generation. All alternative energy has done is met the increases in demand.

The efficiency of solar steam is limited by Carnot efficiency. Running directly off the sun (5 hours a day or so) is far more efficient that stored heat at night.

And, then there is transportation fuel, or the lack thereof.....

 

Yes - Running directly off the sun (5 hours a day or so) is far more efficient that stored heat at night.

But why is this important? "Efficiency" as you describe it here is irrelevant when we are discussing solar thermal power. We are talking about a cost free fuel. And capturing a only a tiny fraction of this free fuel that strikes the earth - every second - of every day.

A free, virtually limitless fuel does dot need to be used "efficiently"

Running turbines of stored heat is just as efficient as running turbines with burnt coal. More efficient actually - as coal burning stations can not easily adjust their output to meet demand the way a stored heat plant can

Yes - that is a different issue - but no one said we have to eat the whole elephant all at once.

Certainly there is technology available now to replace a very large percentage of urban travel with electric vehicles. And greater use of rail over road for freight would see improvements (and safer roads). It may be some time before ALL transportation fuel can be entirely renewable - but there is certainly scope now for big reductions

 

A) it is not just climatologists but geologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, marine scientists, hydrologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, mathematicians and statisticians, computer scientists and many many more.

b) not all are on the government payroll by any stretch of the imagination,

c) those scientists are actually spread across more than 187 countries

d) Nobody is suggesting we do away with coal power all together - but we can stop increasing the amounts we are consuming

 

Is that not a good start? Or should we, just because we have not totally replaced coal, throw our hands in the air and scream "I give in - it is never going to work!!"

 

An increase that, without alternative energy, would have been required to be met with coal which would have increased CO2 even more than what has occurred.

 

Another scientist who lies about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Man these scientist deniers are all over the internet now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa_SKVhb8qQ"]Brian Sussman part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

I found another one. This guy used to work for NASA? Now he's a professor of Climatology?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U"]GLOBAL WARMING DENIER ROY SPENCER v. SEN. BARBARA BOXER - YouTube[/ame]

 

I know tha Mark Styn is not a Climatologist, but man is he funny. He says the IPCC guy admits AGW is a lie, but I don't understand the name of the guy he is talking about.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcrkmGLh9mA"]Mark Steyn - IPCC official admits Global Warming is a Lie - YouTube[/ame]

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

So basically, this consensus of scientists really doesn't exist. And so non-believers are to be labeled deniers as in holocaust deniers. They are heritics because they don't believe in your religion.

Really. Man caused the Earth to warm. How rediculous is that claim? The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years before Columbus discovered the Americas. We couldn't stop GW if we wanted to. But why would we want to? Warm weather is better than cold weather. Just ask those stone age cavemen that lived through the last Ice Age. Do you think NY City is a better place under 1000 feet of ice?