Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[AKH]

No, it's because water vapour is a positive, limited feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism.  That's a subtle, but fundamentally important, difference.

While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

Water vapour is a "reactive" GHG with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans. The balance is dynamic of course: humidity of the air varies by place and time, but its a stable balance.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

This is not the case for CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases.  These accumulate over time, with their effects increasing.

Climate models do incorporate water vapour - correctly modelled as a feedback mechanism, not a forcing.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by lazs2
saber... I do believe that solar will be a viable way to reduce to little or nothing the domestic electric bill in the very near future... we are very close with many homes in kalifornia doing so.. the cost keeps coming down too..  

lazs

As of January 2007 California had just over 23,000 rooftop solar systems.  And that's with California paying for more than half the cost of the systems (i.e. tax payers). These systems do not replace grid power, only reduce dependence on it.  Not all homes or locations are suitable for it, either.  Plus, manufactoring them produces environmental costs of it's own.  It's not a total or even partial solution.

And Angus, your reaction to any study that runs counter to your religious- like devotion to MMGW is nothing short of astounding.  I can see now that you're not interested in any truth but your own.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by indy007
Well, convince the people of Conneticut to let New York go ahead and bulldoze their state. You'd need that much space to power NYC.

Again, right now, it would take 5-10x the resources to create a wind farm that could match a single nuclear plant made in the 1970s. It's a far more economical solution with far less environmental damage.

Just a few thoughts about your rebuttal:

Wind farms do little if any environmental damage.

Cornfields make good wind farms and farmers can sell crops and electricity.

Offshore wind farms do not need bulldozers.

Connecticut is not usually considered as one of the prairie states.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sabre
Got a source for this, HM?  Any info on the cost or efficiency of wind power?  The fact is, wind power is an incredibly poor way to produce reliable commercial power, is incredibly damaging to the environment, takes up huge volumes of land, and only very specific locations are suitable to it.  

The company I work for has 600MW installed thermal power (Nat Gas fired SW 501 Gas Turbines) and about 1500 MW installed wind turbines in the United States.  (We are making a profit on wind and will install another 2000 MW in the next couple years)

All our wind projects are leased from land owners who grow crops or graze livestock among the turbines. (No land use loss there... okay maybe 2% land loss for roads to the turbines)

Environmental damage is....   CO2? no...  Salmon Migration... no...  Acid Rain.. no              Bird Strikes!  Bird Strikes! That's it!  it kills raptors!

Bird strikes are a phenomenon on older lattice towers which encouraged bird nesting and perching, and these older turbies had fast rpm turbines, both problems have been addressed with cantilever towers and slow blades of the 1 to 1.5 MW turbines.

So bird strikes is not an issue anymore.

Special installation areas:
   
 

Average wind speeds of 12 mph or better are looked for in turbine siting.  That lets out about 3% of Iowa.  The lite purple stuff along the Mississippi.

All that green and yellow area in the top half of Iowa is ripe for the picking.

And a farm of 100 turbines producing up to 150 to 200 MW employs maybe 10 people.

One of the guys I work with use to work at a Nuke in Mo that produced 800 MW and employed about 600 ppl. so much for the cost of nuke.

[Holden McGroin]

Here's a good resource for info

[bustr]

I didn't make this up guys.....funny skandinavians.....hehehehe

Der Spiegel: "'Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching.'  

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.  Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.  Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year."

So will the Norwegion Moose be sacraficed on the high alter of "Global Warming"?

I suppose if it can be proven having a baby causes global warming the high preists of the religion will want our newborns aborted to save the planet.....stranger things have been happening over global warming.........

[Jackal1]

The scam is loosing air at the rate of a Dick Cepek after running over on a railroad spike.
There will always be some who will refuse to remove the plastic Al Gore statue from the dashboard.

[lazs2]

akh... nice slight of hand...

What you say is true... we don't increase water vapor nor can it past the 95% figure but... that figure is correct.. the contribution to greenhouse gas is 95% water vapor.  our contribution to water vapor is barely measurable.

Sure.. we can add to co2 and methane and cfc and a lot of things but... our contribution will always be dwarfed... a speck.. compared to water vapor that we can't do anything about... our contribution to global warming through co2 will always be dwarfed.. a spec.. compared to the suns activity and the tilt of the earth and the spreading of the sea floor.

If you leave water vapor out of the greenhouse effect then your dishonest agenda is apparent.

Look at the sites...google em on co2 and global warming...  thousands of alarmist and "the end is nigh" sites... lots of em from scientists... but... try to find the hard data.  the math...

It isn't there except in the relatively few "man made co2 is not killing us" sites.

that is why any debate... where there is freedom... like this one will end up with the co2 as a cause of global warming advocates losing..  they have no real allies... no real proof in all of those thousands of sites.... just misdirection and "what will it hurt to do it?"  or "just because we can't prove it is no reason to not let us run the world over it"

They use math and science terms like "significant" and "probably" and "most agree" and then point to flawed computer models and greenhouse gas charts that show no water vapor.... that ignore 95% of the contribution...

On the sidelines.. the adds of these sites... tell you what you can do to save us from this threat tho..  

Show me the math... show me the math behind the threat and the math behind the solution.

so far... it only looks like we are in a warming period.. a time that has always been the best for man... crops are producing more than ever and the ocean is not and will not rise 30 feet next year... NPR was telling me only last year about how many millions would die when the oceans rose 30' in the next few decades....  no one called in and told em they were a joke!  

Tell the lie.. tell it big enough till it is accepted and then say..."well.. we all agree.. now it is time to do something about it."

These discussions are healthy... I am sure that many who started out thinking that co2 was causing the end of the world have gone to the google to get the data to prove what an idiot I am and come away going "damn... there is nothing there.  just gibberish"

lazs

[soda72]

Originally posted by lazs2
. I am sure that many who started out thinking that co2 was causing the end of the world have gone to the google to get the data to prove what an idiot I am and come away going "damn... there is nothing there.  just gibberish"

lazs

Not to mention being very entertaining watching them blow a fuze, trying to 'discuss' it with you....

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
Show me the math... show me the math behind the threat and the math behind the solution.

It is quite pointless since you are incapable of understanding "the math behind the threat".

All you do in these discussions is to repeat the latest talking points you grabbed from some anti-environment site and then repeat it until everyone else realizes the pointlessness of trying to talk to you and leave the thread. Then you think you won the discussion. Its like trying to argue with a retarded 7yrold with ADHD.

[lazs2]

well of course..  but... if I am simply repeating flawed science then it should be childs play to tear down the math.  

To simply say that the people who do the real math are anti environmentalists is not really getting to the meat of the thing ya know?

If I were to take the side of the chicken littles tho... that man was causing the planet to heat up and melt all the ice and drown us all.

I would dump the co2 thing.   it is pretty indefensible.    

I would take smaller steps... pollution is bad.. co2 is not pollution but many things tied to it are.  the way it is produced.   work on that...

I would try to keep the hysteria and exaggeration and threats out of it and I would refrain from... as was said... "blowing a fuse"

I would also ignore any ally that did so.    If their site was evasive or shunned the math... I would ignore it or only take the things that they showed the math on.

Things change... as new proof or new science comes out we need to look at it but... we can't ignore the new stuff cause we are married to flawed ideas.

I may even end up saying IT'S NOT THE SUN STUPID ITS THE TILT   but.. no matter what.. the  sun does play a 25-60% part in global temps... way more than anything we could ever do with what we have now.  Those are not my estimates either... they are the "environmentalists" denial of the sun.   "only 25% or so" they say... at the low figure.

lazs

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Jackal1
The scam is loosing air at the rate of a Dick Cepek after running over on a railroad spike.
There will always be some who will refuse to remove the plastic Al Gore statue from the dashboard.

The dashboard? Try their bellybutton along with their heads lol:rofl

[Angus]

Sabre:
"And Angus, your reaction to any study that runs counter to your religious- like devotion to MMGW is nothing short of astounding. I can see now that you're not interested in any truth but your own."

Firstly, I'd say that my belive is "Human influenced global warming". And call it a truth of my own, but I think it is just silly to belive there is nothing that we do to influence global warming.
That brings up  the primary point, or previous point, being debated on this forum not long ago, whether there is any warming at all.
Now, suddenly that seems to have fallen into the shade, but the same characters that refused to identify global warming, then mocked the effect, are now debating if the humans have nothing to do with it, while even opposing alernative means of getting energy.

Sorry if my responces are strong, but I think this setup calles for it.

Where is the debate going to go next? Oh, yes, So, global warming is man made- partially - butit's nothing to be done?


And HoldenMcGroin, - you're in the windfarm business????????????????
All ears.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

I would dump the co2 thing.   it is pretty indefensible.    
 

CO2 is not relevant to global warming now?

I must have missed some of your arguments relating to this part of your delusions. If you were any other poster I would ask what the hell you are talking about, but I realize the futility of such an endeavor with you, so I shall just shake my head in your general direction and move on.

[lazs2]

yep... lots of "of course it is true"

but real shy on proof.

hortlund.. good thing you didn't read the whole thread... you will find that there is no source that gives the math to prove man made global warming exists or that man made co2 is causing any warming.

angus...  yeah..  I think it is quite possible that people will next be saying that sure... man affects everything but not enough to matter in the global warming via co2 boogeyman scare.

That is perfectly reasonable and... it is nothing more than I have been saying from the beginning but....

If you want to say radically changing opinions... simply look at your friends in the MMGW religion...  every month it seems that they are having to retract some wild claim or another....  30' rise in the oceans!   co2 causing 5 degrees of rise in global average temp by 2050!   all bs.   They have even claimed at one time that co2 doesn't help plant growth.

It must be embarrasing trying to find something solid in the thousands of websites saying that MMGW is real.

You do agree that 99.7% or so off all the "greenhouse effect" is perfectly natural and has nothing to do with man tho don't you?
lazs