• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Wind farms (1 Viewer)

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
walwyn said:
The Cambrian period was one of the warmest on record, the average temperature being 22ºC compared with the current period beeing around 12ºC.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69828

That article says the Earth was probably warmer because there is less glacial evidence, yet you have quote a precise average temperature of 22ºC.
How come the discrepancy? How come an ice age in the Cambrian period?

The thing is, no one actually knows for sure because we haven't gathered enough data and we ain't gonna live long enough to find out. Our data only goes back 100 years ish but these cycles are on the scale of 100,000 year fluctuations.

I am actually all for renewable energy (except windfarms) but only as a political measure to wean countries away from foreign energy.

There remains the possibility that this may be the reason for the GW conspiracy in the first place.
 
Reay_Bonxie said:
I am actually all for renewable energy (except windfarms) but only as a political measure to wean countries away from foreign energy.

There remains the possibility that this may be the reason for the GW conspiracy in the first place.



oonly as a 'political' measure? :'D :'D :'D

conspiracy? :'D :'D :'D


Tim
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
80 metre riise in sea levels by 2200 :'D

Global warming is scientific fact :'D

Canaletto's paintings of Venice prove GW is happening :'D :'D

Katrina is a direct result of GW :'D :'D

Windfarms will combat climate change :'D :'D

The Indian Tsunami was caused by GW :'D :'D

I've heard all the bunkum as well
 
point 2 is obviously true

i'll refrain from being rude but the planet is warming up - there are things called thermometers you know. If you agree that Man is having an influence is another matter - the planet is warming. The data are all there. Not even sceptics deny this. Just you?

point 5 is also true - how effective they will be remains to be seen but they are combatting global warming

point 4 may be GW, the future will give more info on that. The ferocity of recent hurricanes COULD be due to warmer ocean temperatures. The scientists are concerned enough to be seriously investigating it and the link will be there think the experts

points 1 3 and 6 I agree with you
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
I may have inadvertently mislead you sorry.

When I meant GW I meant anthropogenic global warming.

I agree that the Earth is warming up (it has been warming up and cooling down ever since it was formed) but there may be nothing we can do about it though I do feel that further investigation into the causes of GW that we as humans have a major part in GW, I don't have enough data to say we ARE warming the planet up. The simple fact may be we are just coming out of the mini ice age of the last 500 years.

Orkney was once a growing region for vines and Hippopotamus used to roam across Morecambe Bay in the UK. We could be just returning to that stage in the cycle.

Back in the middle ages there was a warm spell then it got colder around 1600. In fact there was a report of an Eskimo kayking into Aberdeen harbour!! His kayak and clothes are still there in the museum I believe. He had survived the crossing from Greenland to Scotland by ice hopping from one iceberg to the next.

Now come on, there has to be further reasons for GW than mere exhaust fumes?

It is too presumptious to go from melting glaciers to 'we are the culprits so we have to change'.

PS Why do you need to refrain from being rude? We are debating aren't we? ;)
 
Reay_Bonxie said:
I may have inadvertently mislead you sorry.

When I meant GW I meant anthropogenic global warming.


PS Why do you need to refrain from being rude? We are debating aren't we? ;)

cos i wasn't sure you meant what as written.... and you didn't. Cool :t:

impt graphs...

Tim
 

Attachments

  • historical03.gif
    historical03.gif
    30.1 KB · Views: 94
  • predicted03.gif
    predicted03.gif
    24.6 KB · Views: 99
I understand what you are alluding to re past temperatures but we shouldn't be at that stage.... 'something' is raising temperatures above what all the models predict. The CO2 in the air and other greenhouse gases must be contributing heavily. CO2 already keeps us about 30degs warmer than we really should be... more would add to this temperature. Entirely reasonable and supported by the physics and chemistry. 99% of the experts in climatology (probably 99.9!) support this.
 

walwyn

Here today, gone tomorrow
Reay_Bonxie said:
That article says the Earth was probably warmer because there is less glacial evidence, yet you have quote a precise average temperature of 22ºC.
How come the discrepancy? How come an ice age in the Cambrian period?
What a hoot! The article says

1 "An absence of Cambrian glacial deposits"
2 "The absence of glacial deposits of Cambrian age"

those words went in through your eyes and by the time your brain had processed them they come out as less. Do you always deceive yourself in that way?

Perhaps as words are difficult a picture will help.
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

Find the glaciar a free game for all:
http://www.scotese.com/ecambcli.htm
http://www.scotese.com/mlcambcl.htm
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
walwyn said:
What a hoot! The article says

1 "An absence of Cambrian glacial deposits"
2 "The absence of glacial deposits of Cambrian age"

those words went in through your eyes and by the time your brain had processed them they come out as less. Do you always deceive yourself in that way?

Perhaps as words are difficult a picture will help.
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

Find the glaciar a free game for all:
http://www.scotese.com/ecambcli.htm
http://www.scotese.com/mlcambcl.htm

Hey pal there's no need to be flippant.

And I say there were cambrian ice ages
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
:

impt graphs...

Tim

Interesting graphs, but who was collecting the temperature data pre 1900? Were they using the same method that they use now?
Interesting though we should be talking about average global temperatures, and much of the world was undiscovered then let alone used as a weather station.
And how did they correlate the temperature with CO2? I am fully aware of ice core data and I fully accept it. But I think you will find that the graph is a 'done deal' (it is not independently derived)because the temperature is derived as a function of the CO2 concentration.
 

walwyn

Here today, gone tomorrow
Reay_Bonxie said:
Interesting, such wide changes in temperature, cold spells when then the earth was covered in % level CO2. (1% =10,000ppm)

How can this be? Yet the climatologists claim a mere 70 parts per million rise in CO2 from human activity will lead to global catastrophe.

Who are they trying to kid?
[font=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Milankovitch cycles.[/font]
http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html
 

walwyn

Here today, gone tomorrow
Not to worry the general NS information on GW is enough:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.
Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun
04 October 2005

CLAIMS that increased solar activity could explain the world's warming climate are challenged by a study of Irish bogs. The research, which is a fresh blow to climate sceptics, shows that while there are cyclical changes in both climate and the sun's activity, there is no obvious link between the two.

"The data shows that there is no simple one-to-one relationship, as some researchers have touted," says Chris Turney of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia, who led the work.

Other studies have claimed to find a link, but what sets this one apart is that the figures for the sun's heat output and those for climate are from the same source - trees growing in the bogs. This avoids any problems of accurately matching the dates of climate data from one source to solar activity from another, Turney says.

Firstly, the Irish trees already form part of the basis for the international radiocarbon calibration curve, the gold standard for inferring solar activity over the last 9000 years. Radioactive carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays from deep space hit the Earth's upper atmosphere, and trees absorb this carbon, laying down a record of historical levels. When the sun is very active, the increased solar wind of charged particles deflects cosmic rays and reduces carbon-14 production. So a low level of carbon-14 in trees reveals increased solar activity.

To deduce climate variations over the same period, the team used an archive of more than 750 excavated trees from the bogs, dating back 7648 years, to gauge tree cover. Periods of more abundant cover indicate relatively warm and dry spells, while sparser cover suggests the climate was wetter and cooler, since a higher water table makes it difficult for saplings to flourish.

"We find a clear cycle in wetting and drying phases, with shifts about every 800 years," says Turney. But the peaks in solar activity do not coincide with peaks in warmer conditions (Journal of Quaternary Science, vol 20, p 511).

Previous studies have used data from separate sources. In 2003, for instance, Feng Sheng Hu of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and colleagues reported a study of biological productivity in lakes in the Alaskan tundra, to use as an indicator of changing climate conditions. The team compared this with known changes in sea ice and the international radiocarbon calibration curve, and concluded that variations in climate do seem to tie in with changes in solar activity.

Hu is impressed with the new data though. "The quality of the chronology is extraordinary and the documented dry/wet cycles seem striking." But, he says, there are significant discrepancies between different measures of climate variation. Hu thinks that understanding these will be vital to understanding any link between solar activity and climate.

The question of exactly what is causing the roughly 800-year periodic shifts in North Atlantic climate seen by Turney's team is still open. We are currently a few hundred years into a warm, dry phase that followed the so-called little ice age, which ended around 1850. It is theoretically possible that solar activity might have some role in climate shifts, but if it does it is indirect, Turney says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take note the last paragraph and the first paragraph. Total contradiction

Nobody really knows and this is in the latest Newscientist, one of the most pro GW publications going.

More of those Emperor's clothes!! :'D :'D
 

Reay_Bonxie

Well-known member
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities.

Global greenhouse
People are causing the change by burning nature's vast stores of coal, oil and natural gas. This releases billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year, although the changes may actually have started with the dawn of agriculture, say some scientists.

The physics of the "greenhouse effect" has been a matter of scientific fact for a century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the Sun's radiation within the troposphere, the lower atmosphere. It has accumulated along with other man-made greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Some studies suggest that cosmic rays may also be involved in warming.

If current trends continue, we will raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations to double pre-industrial levels during this century. That will probably be enough to raise global temperatures by around 2°C to 5°C. Some warming is certain, but the degree will be determined by cycles involving melting ice, the oceans, water vapour, clouds and changes to vegetation.

Warming is bringing other unpredictable changes. Melting glaciers and precipitation are causing some rivers to overflow, while evaporation is emptying others. Diseases are spreading. Some crops grow faster while others see yields slashed by disease and drought. Clashes over dwindling water resources may cause conflicts in many regions.

As natural ecosystems - such as coral reefs - are disrupted, biodiversity is reduced. Most species cannot migrate fast enough to keep up, though others are already evolving in response to warming.

Thermal expansion of the oceans, combined with melting ice on land, is also raising sea levels. In this century, human activity could trigger an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This would condemn the world to a rise in sea level of six metres - enough to flood land occupied by billions of people.

The global warming would be more pronounced if it were not for sulphur particles and other pollutants that shade us, and because forests and oceans absorb around half of the CO2 we produce. But the accumulation rate of atmospheric CO2 has doubled since 2001, suggesting that nature's ability to absorb the gas could now be stretched to the limit. Recent research suggests that natural CO2 "sinks", like peat bogs and forests, are actually starting to release CO2.

Deeper cuts
At the Earth Summit in 1992, the world agreed to prevent "dangerous" climate change. The first step was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which will now finally come into force during 2005. It will bring modest emission reductions from industrialised countries. But many observers say deeper cuts are needed and developing nations, which have large and growing populations, will one day have to join in.

Some, including the US Bush administration, say the scientific uncertainty over the pace of climate change is grounds for delaying action. The US and Australia have reneged on Kyoto. But most scientists believe we are under-estimating the dangers.

In any case, according to the IPCC, the world needs to quickly improve the efficiency of its energy usage and develop renewable non-carbon fuels like: wind, solar, tidal, wave and perhaps nuclear power. It also means developing new methods of converting this clean energy into motive power, like hydrogen fuel cells for cars.

Other less conventional solutions include ideas to stave off warming by "mega-engineering" the planet with giant mirrors to deflect the Sun's rays, seeding the oceans with iron to generate algal blooms, or burying greenhouse gases below the sea.

The bottom line is that we will need to cut CO2 emissions by 70% to 80% simply to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations - and thus temperatures. The quicker we do that, the less unbearably hot our future world will be.

Fred Pearce, 13 December 2004

Here is the full report from the Newscientist but I have some niggling questions...

1. Since when was methane a manmade gas?

2. The article does not address the issue of naturally derived CO2.

3. The article mentions that sulphur particles have a negative effect, so why do we have low sulphur fuels on the back of GW propaganda?

4. The report mentioned that the Earth has not been as warm for a millennia or more, so what caused the last rise in temperature in the absence of a industrial revolution and all the fossil fuel burning?

5. It says that cosmic rays may have an effect on GW. Wooo! Ok these are high energy photons of neutral charge. They can be assumed to be constant. But I assume he is getting confused with solar wind, but as anyone knows, the strength and movement of the Earth's magnetic field has an effect on this, but I have seen no study to correlate these variations with the variations in the solar wind cycle.

6. It say that the sinks are releasing CO2, but no way does it say that this may be cyclical but it implies that manmade CO2 has saturated the sinks and is causing this release. Where is the proof of this speculation?

7. The article says the hottest years have occurred since 1998, this is true but this means nothing. We could easily have a decade of cool temperature.

8. I see the IPPC has a major finger in the pie on the drive to recognise man made GW. The article also mentions the US and the Aussies as dragging their heals over GW. I wonder, Have you ever heard of Occams Razor? The simplest explanation is the correct one. The UN is highly hostile to the US, could it just be that the IPPC (a UN body) is just trying to scaremonger us into slowing down the economies of the richer nations so that the poorer ones can catch up?

How anyone can seriously stand up and claim that humans are causing GW in the light of all these variables is beyond me, I know one thing though, their conclusions are not scientific (there is a definition of this) otherwise they would account for all these variables.

Food for thought, but as windfarms are cited as being the weapon against GW then it is justified to challenge their 'raison d'etre'.
 

Tyke

Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
course not trevor

that's why they're spreading like wildfire :t:

Tim

Now then Tim !-you really are an expert at the evasive put down-the rhetorical non sequitur.

But you know why they are being built as well as I do.

There is one man only in these threads who has had the honesty to support his local wind farms-and say why.

Cornish Exile-post #192 of this thread..." it's all about money"

And CE knows how it works up there in Shetland-they made zillions out of the black stuff.( See the film Local Hero for a laugh & learn how it's done & great Dire Straits music) Now it's the windy stuff-see post#193

And it's no different in Skye-or Lewis( god forbid)-or Wales-or Northumberland-or Milton Keynes. Landowners are queuing up for the dosh.

But it's crumbs from the developers' millions south of the border. You gotta hand it to those canny crofters-they know how to get their noses REALLY in the trough.

Cheers
Colin
 
windy stuff better than black stuff

and it's the IPCC Mr Bonxie (not IPPC)

no wonder simple science confuses ya

i wish i knew more than all the experts - must be wonderful

Tim
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top