U.S. Climate has already changed

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, May 7, 2014.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    [​IMG]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/science/earth/climate-change-report.html?hpw&rref=us

    Of course, science says one thing, but, special interests say something else. I suppose this is all part of the President's "War on Coal". (There isn't, but, I wish there was such a war.)

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/01/wyoming-gov-accuses-administration-war-on-coal/
     
  2. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    Ultimately as a species our fate will be decided by our actions and if our choices are bad, neither "spin" nor our deity will save us. Savings is for the ones smart enough to learn and make good choices, not fool ourselves. And even that does not guarantee our survival from the asteroid with our name on it.
     
  3. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    Here we go again.

    We need to build more bird killing fields.

     
  4. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #4
    Yup. We just have to keep pounding FACTS into your head until you accept them.
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5

    war on America’s eagles; his eco-genocide; successful weaponization of solar farms.

    Seriously. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    Did your head come out of the sand to make this statement or am I mistaken? ;)

    I'm always wonder how a conservative mouth piece such as the "Washington Free Beacon" would handle this story if it was the Romney Administration? Usually it's not the conservatives who are crying about dead animals, just how the opportunity was lost to make money off of them.

    Aside from that I've never understood how birds can fly into a wind generator, because they don't rotate that fast and the blades are visible.

    Killing eagles? Having trouble buying that. Regarding the mirrors, I didn't know that kind of a project is used for electrical generation. I thought primarily solar panels are used to absorb sunlight, not reflect it. And if it's being reflected it would be to something like a single point collector like a dish setup would it not?
     
  7. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Yes, the reflecting mirrors are all flat, so they simply reflect sunlight up onto the receiver tower, "unconcentrated". However, all those sunlight beams from the mirrors start to overlap/converge as they approach the tower, so the closer you get to the tower in the beam path, the more beams you're illuminated by. It could easily kill eagles or anything else.

    But who cares? (a) This is a tiny patch of desert, and (b) what, coal-fired power plants don't kill birds by the millions every year?
     
  8. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #8
    What percentage of the total annual bird population is 328,000? If you don't know, then how would anyone know if that number is significant or not?

    Your sources show no actual eagle deaths. Not even the original Bloomberg article the others cite as the original source.

    At first I thought FreeBeacon.com was satire, after seeing the ridiculous photoshopped picture. Then I realized I was experiencing Poe's Law.
     
  9. Sydde, May 7, 2014
    Last edited: May 7, 2014

    Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    It appears that wind power does kill birds – at an average rate of maybe one bird per tower per year.
     
  10. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #10
    So is all this global warming/climate change talk based on bad science and bending of the numbers to fit a political agenda? Do scientist bend the numbers to look good for political grants? Is John Coleman full of it?

    Climate change issue aside I do think we should continue to work towards the use of more environmentally friendly energy resources but I don't think weather patterns we are experiencing now has anything to do with the climate change hype.

     
  11. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    Nope. 97% of climatologists agree that (a) climate change is happening at the most rapid pace ever, and (b) humans are the vast majority of the cause of that change.

    If you can't trust 97% of the experts in a scientific field, who can you trust?

    Got any evidence of that? Let me remind you that the "climategate" scandal has been refuted over and over and over, and the scientist in question has been exonerated over and over and over.

    What political grants? You know who decides which scientists get grants? Other scientists (who typically do research grant review/approval for a year or two at NSF or NIH or whatever and then go back to academia)! Not politicians.

    And really, at this point I think a scientist would get much more notoriety if he had solid data showing anthropogenic climate change was bunk. Because no one has that.

    He's either mistaken, lying, or both. He has a degree in JOURNALISM, and is not even a meteorologist, let alone a climatologist.

    Again, listen to the 97% of EXPERTS on the climate.

    Agreed.

    Get back to me when you have a PhD in climatology.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    Is this supposed to be more efficient than solar panels I wonder?
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Dude, the guy was a TV weather anchor.

    From wikipedia (uncorroborated) ...

    Sounds "full of it" to me.
     
  14. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #14
    Ok with that reasoning then Al Gore is full of it too. Thanks for clearing that up.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    :rolleyes:

    I will get too much pleasure as time passes and you become increasingly marginalized by your non-scientific beliefs.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    No. I think it's pretty well established that CO2 existed before humans.
     
  18. ohbrilliance macrumors 6502a

    ohbrilliance

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #18
    Thank goodness for that! I was starting to believe the thousands of qualified climate scientists and reputable international organisations. Your gut feeling changes everything. Phew. Dodged a bullet there.
     
  19. Huntn, May 7, 2014
    Last edited: May 7, 2014

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    ... And humans have introduced huge amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere.
     
  20. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #20
    Yes, the vast vast majority of it.

    ----------

    Al Gore has 97% of climatologists backing him up. Maybe he misspoke sometimes, but that's because he's a layman.

    Just go straight to the scientific articles! It's not hard.
     
  21. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #21
    No, solar panels are photovoltaic, meaning they convert incoming photons into electrons (turn light directly into electricity); this facility is using sunlight to heat water to steam to drive turbines that turn generators. Overall, it is somewhat less efficient than solar panels because if the number of steps it has to go through to turn sunlight into electricity – including the power that the heliostatic mirrors must use to track the sun in order to stay focused, as well as the inevitable power transmission losses (few power users live in the Mojave, most of that power has to travel to LA, SD or LV, as opposed to your solar panels which are mere meters away from where the power is used).
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Birds kill themselves in stupid ways all the damn time. Last year alone, I saw 4 birds break their necks by flying headfirst into large plate glass windows, and one smack up against the side of a building so hard, it's beak actually embedded into the wood. They're pretty dumb animals.

    For birds that kill themselves by flying into turbines, I suggest we do to them what we do for bird-window deaths: we collect them and eat them.

    Free meat from the sky. The circle of life continues.
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    Well, and the birds that die from flying into massive solar installations, hey, they come pre-cooked.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Ideally it could be minimized, but in the quest for a post-petroleum era of energy, a few birds would be a small price to pay.
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    It's enough to make you wish chickens could fly.

    I'm honestly surprised they haven't found a way to do it yet. It almost seems that something as simple as changing the color of the blades would be enough.
     

Share This Page