Windmills along the lake

[Massasauga]

A neighbor of mine wants to build a residential 51' windmill on a 1.75 acre lakefront lot near Belknap Point. It would surely be visible from a number of locations including from the lake.

I am interested in peoples opinions, for example:

1 - Windmills along the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee will diminish the natural beauty inherent to the landscape and will negatively impact property values of those who are forced to view them

2 - Windmills are good for the environment and therefore we should accept how they look and expect to see more of them if/when the cost/benefit improves

3 - Residential windmills in NH is are not typically cost effective or logical (50-100 year payback). Effective wind-power is more appropriately achieved with a carefully selected rural location via a well designed wind-farm (with multiple windmills clustered together).

4 - Other?

[dpg]

Are you stating opinion or fact? For instance #3

[Massasauga]

All are opinions... I am mostly interested in peoples thoughts on the impact on the lake, the scenery and property values.

Although I am not an expert I have done a little reading which suggests that these residential windmills don't generate much power even in a good location (typically 20% of an average home monthly electrical usage) and given most NH locations do not provide consistent winds, a residential windmill costing $20k to install would take 50+ years to pay for itself.

[Lakegeezer]

The beauty of windmills is, unfortunately, in the eye of the beholder. I like looking at them, because they represent decreased dependency on oil and I guess I must like watching whirly things. However, I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise. The article in today's (9/29) LDS projects the out-of-pocket expense will be under $15K (after rebates) and it will bring in $100-$150/month. Projections rarely work out like planned, but the most optimistic calculation says it will break-even in under 8 years. My guess would be double that. The case in Belknap seems well planned, but it needs variances from the town. Good luck! I hope the project is approved.

[jmen24]

You may want to mention to your neighbor to verify that nobody behind him/her has a View Easement. Putting it up is expensive, but putting it up and being sued and having to take it down is even more so.

Other than that I think windmills are cool, but the returns do not justify the means in this area. The winds just do not have enough fetch. Anyone that has driven out west through the windfarms will agree that there is not much blocking the wind from reaching them.

The following is only slightly off topic, but is worth mentioning.

Electricity is really not the most expensive thing to replace in New England home when it comes to using nature to offset those costs.

One of the gentlemen that works in my company, designed and installed himself (he has the background and knowledge) a solar hot water heating system, using 6 hydronic panels and 600 gallons of storage he can heat his home all winter (3800SF) with the boiler only picking up 5-10% of the load on the coldest darkest days and that includes all domestic hot water. After winter he turns a valve and continues to make hot water all year long. I will not get into exactly how the system works as there is alot of information about it, but he invested about $28K and has not had to refill his 500 gallon propane tank yet (2+ years). This system is very cool to see how it works, it also adjusts the temperature of the water in the heat loops based on the outdoor air temp, so it only makes the water as hot as it needs to. Disclaimer is that this system would only work with Radiant heat as you do not want all that work to heat and store the water just to let it go to waste heating air.

[Sman]

I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise.

Don't know enough about them, but the noise point is a good one if it exists, if it sounds like my neighbor has a generator going 24/7 that would be a no vote for me, maybe they are quite?? Would need to know more on that.

As far as the view, my initial reaction is if they started going up everywhere on the water front it would look a bit ugly. Not sure how close to the shoreline you can built a fixed structure.

[Slickcraft]

My opinion: Wind turbines are both good for the environment and interesting to look at. We have a direct view of Belknap Point from Welch Island and would be happy to have a wind turbine improve the view (relative to the motel, condos, Gunstock acres and such).

Last year we visited the large wind farm on Tug Hill in upper NY state. Watching the 195 large turbines slowly turn in synchronism and realizing that a light breeze was pumping power into the grid was satisfying. In no way way was the view objectionable. We were able to walk to about 300' from one of the 260' tall machines with a 270' rotor diameter. You could hear only a faint whish as each blade passed by.

I can't see how the small unit proposed here could be an issue for anyone.

As for being cost effective and payback time, that is for the property owner to decide.

[ishoot308]

A neighbor of mine wants to build a residential 51' windmill on a 1.75 acre lakefront lot near Belknap Point. It would surely be visible from a number of locations including from the lake.

I am interested in peoples opinions

Kudos to your neighbor for being energy conscious. I too have a direct view of Belknap Point and would more than welcome the sight! Everyone has put up with telephone and light poles for all these years, a wind turbine would certainly be a welcomed addition!

This is the way we should all be thinking! Renewable resource energy is our future and should be welcomed by all.

FWIW;

Dan

[Just Sold]

Instead of the traditional Wind Mill for electrical power why not try one of these. http://www.mariahpower.com/ They used them on ABC's Extreme Makeover Home Edition last season.

http://www.mariahpower.com/PageFiles/photo-gallery/Images/main/sid_3_ExtremeMakeoverHomeEditionNorthCarolina_8102 009164013906.jpg

[Argie's Wife]

The school board of Prospect Mountain High School (Alton, NH) have been exploring alternative energy sources. There was a presentation on July 21, 2009 about windmills (wind turbines) that you might find of interest: HERE (http://www.schooltube.com/video/39667/PMHS-Board-Meeting-072109)

[Woodsy]

I love windmills... in fact anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil... not saying they are the prettiest things to see in and around the lake. But they might be a necesary evil.

We need a multi-tiered approach to energy usage...

1. Solar panels should be mandatory on all new construction. Solar panels coupled with small windmills on single family dwellings will save vast amounts of energy. Its not new tech, but it will work and on a big scale it will not be cost prohibitive.

2. Geothermal heating.... works everywhere else. Why not here?

3. Nuclear power.... the big hot button! Time to revisit nuclear power with a fresh set of eyes and new technology. The only thing we have to do is standardize the powerplants to reduce startup costs....

4. Hybrid vehicles... the technology is there!

Woodsy

[Lakesrider]

And make sure you contact the town to see if it is allowed. I know I saw an article on TV about some Maine folks complaining about the really big ones bothering their eyes with the "Flicker issue". the windmills create a rapid shadow and messes with peoples minds....:D But abutters are really the biggest problem. like mentioned, it would have to be approved by any neighbors and addressed in a town meeting I'll bet. Here is an article from last year.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/11/03/town-has-just-1-turbine-but-mulls-regulations/

[Kracken]

A modern windmill that produces electricity is a turbine. Turbine as in jet engine turbine. They are loud and produce a deep bass thumping sound that has had reported adverse effects on people and wildlife.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, while some might find a wind turbine a great addition to the lake, others might disagree vehemently.

Keep in mind this is my opinion and it is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Slickcraft]

A modern windmill that produces electricity is a turbine. Turbine as in jet engine turbine. They are loud and produce a deep bass thumping sound that has had reported adverse effects on people and wildlife.

You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.

Turbine means only a rotor or vanes driven by movement of a fluid or air. The comparison to a jet engine noise is as far off base as anyone could ever get.

[Gatto Nero]

I wouldn't want one in my direct view or have to listen to it all the time but I'm pretty sure I could power the whole damn island with one with the wind I get.

[Dr. Green]

Yes, there are a lot of opinions about windmills. More and more towns are coming up with regulations about them, so if planning to install, please check first to make sure you will not run afoul of a regulation requiring you to take it down after built.

I am a strong supporter of windmills (besides being a retailer of windmills at www.sustainabilitynh.com, based in Laconia), but in general, NH is not a good location for residential windmills (in terms of being cost-efficient). Windmills do best with wind that blows close to the ground without obstructions. Iowa (where I used to live) is a good place for wind - wind comes off the Rockies and blows close to the ground for hundreds of miles. In NH, the hills break up the flow of the wind near the ground, and the trees add lots of turbulence to the wind, making the wear on the windmill more intense.

The large (commercial scale) windmills have been implicated in some deaths of birds - it is an issue; but smaller wind generators will not provide much of a hazard (and the spinning ones even less). It turns out it is not the collision with the blades of the large windmill rotors that is the major problem - bird usually avoid the blades. It is that the large blades create a low pressure zone just following the blade, and when an animal (bird, bat) flies into it, their inner cavities and blood vessels can burst from the sudden near vacuum (according to autopsies of dead birds and bats). Small residential wind generators don't create a big enough low pressure area to injure the animals.

The same rebate available to solar electric installers is available to those who install wind power. There is a 30% rebate - off your next years taxes (not off your taxable income) from the Federal Government. There is an up to $6000 rebate from the State of NH, and if you are a grid tied NHEC customer, there is a rebate of up to $3,500

I would agree with jmen24 that solar hot water (and solar electric) are both better deals than wind power in NH. We get more usable sunlight in NH than almost anywhere in Germany, which produces the most solar electricity per capita in the world. Sure we get less than California or Arizona, but we also have the advantage of a cooler climate (esp cold winters) which means we produce more electricity per hour of sunshine with the same solar electric panels than they do. With rebates, solar is now cheaper than the utilities over about 20-25 years (and that's not including an factoring in of increasingly expensive electric rates over the coming years.

In NH there are relatively few places where wind by itself will be economically feasible - lakefront is one, where wind blows across the lake toward the windmill. Ridgetop without trees is another. Some funnel valleys are also good for windmills.

If you are thinking of installing wind power, first, measure the wind for a while. While you might have three or four months of good wind at your chosen location, it might be not very good the other eight months of the year. Another difficulty about wind is its unpredictableness. You might measure the wind at one location and decide it just isn't a good location. But because of the lay of the land and the way the land channels the wind, it is possible that a spot just 100 yards away is an excellent site for wind. The problem is that it is very hard to tell from just looking at what are good sites for an invisible commodity.

The general rule of thumb is that your wind generator should be located 30 feet above any obstruction within 200 feet. In Iowa, that means building a 37 foot high tower so it is 30 feet above the corn. Here, that might mean an 80-100 foot tower, which are A LOT more expensive than a 37 foot tower (another reason why it isn't very feasible in many locations in NH).

There is one situation where a windmill may work well in NH. If you have an off-the-grid home and are using (and entirely dependent on) solar power, the winter months are the toughest, as sunlight is on average 60% less than summer. A wind generator USUALLY does best in the winter months here, just when solar power is at its minimum. So a windmill complementing a solar installation allows you to downsize both and find a practical balance.

As to the sound windmills make, that is primarily a problem with "propeller windmills", with the turning propellers. The type of windmill pictured in Reply 9 by Just Sold produces very little sound. Additionally, these spinning turbines pick up power better from lighter winds. For residential applications in NH, I would recommend them over the propeller systems (though Sustain Ability can order and install both types). I myself am planning to build with a spinning windmill as a back-up to off-grid solar next year.

On the commercial scale (300 foot high windmills) NH is an excellent state for wind-power - on ridgetops; but for residential size, there are surprisingly few places that are economically feasible in NH. I know this is not everyone's primary consideration. Whereas Solar Power (with rebates) is cheaper than buying from the power company (over the life of the system); wind power, even with rebates, usually will not break-even compared with grid-power.

[Dr. Green]

You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.

Paradoxically, small turbine wind generators are significantly noisier than the large ones. You would NOT want to have a small turbine (propeller) one attached to your house, and nearby neighbors might not like it either, depending on how nearby they are. Residential propeller generators are best when they can be 50-100 feet away from the structure they are supplying power to.

This is not a problem with the rotating (spinning) ones pictured in Reply #9

[Kracken]

You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.

Turbine means only a rotor or vanes driven by movement of a fluid or air. The comparison to a jet engine noise is as far off base as anyone could ever get.


I have to respectfully disagree with you.

The noise is not necessarily generated near the rotors or tower. It is the turbine that is loud and they can be located several hundred meters away from the tower. A turbine is necessary to generate electricity.

While the health risks are debatable…physics are not.

[brk-lnt]

My aunt/uncle have a place on the shore of Saginaw Bay (basically Lake Huron) with an older windmill (it came with the house 20 years ago, and wasn't new then). That mill can power the entire house and send enough electricity back up the line to net them $50 or so each month.

It's been several years since I've been there, but when it was running it really wasn't very loud at all. I would imagine that newer units would be even quieter and most likely more efficient as well.

The windmill may never pay for itself, but few "green" alternative energy sources are really economically viable anyway. When you have power during a storm, the "pay off" period will suddenly shorten dramatically :)

[twoplustwo]

I would love to have one of those Mariah windspires, even if it meant cutting down part of the back 40 to get enough wind to make it worth bothering. They are too, too cool. Put them all around the lake, I'd love it.

Woodsy, it would be great to see more geothermal and solar use up here. The geothermal is catching on, but solar panels are far too cost prohibitive, still. If the gov't would pump some cash into the solar panel manufacturers instead of throwing it at jackhole companies like Bank Of America and AIG, I'd be thrilled. Every time I see a sign on 93 with a bank of solar panels powering it, I always want to bring those suckers home and slap them on my roof. Eventually I'd cover it:D

[travaler18]

once we run out of oil, its gonna be windwills and sailboats everywhere

[Just Sold]

From the articles I have read Geothermal is not always a good investment in certain areas of the country. New England is OK but the temperature down at the point where you drill to get the heat is not as warm as you would like. So you have to pay a little more in oil/gas/wood to get the water to where it will heat the home. Sure you save some but what is it costing in the pump to move the water down and back up? You will still have a hot water furnace like you would would without Geothermal.

Now in the Rocky's and where ever there is geology with thermal springs, old volcanic activity etc. that is where you get the best return on investment. Colorado is one area North and West of Denver. Washington and Oregon too.

I have not been convinced that New England is the place to invest in Geothermal. It is just OK here but the payback seem a little long. My brother looked into it in his new construction home near Blue Hill Maine. An engineering study was done for his home to select the best system and fuel to heat with and Geothermal was not even near the top of heating options.

As for wind power my brother looked into that and no system offered a reasonable payback for the investment. Something like 60 years. Not at his age then of 67. His home has a lot of open land to the NE and N and gets indirect wind off the Ocean a few miles away.

[Woodsy]

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

The noise is not necessarily generated near the rotors or tower. It is the turbine that is loud and they can be located several hundred meters away from the tower. A turbine is necessary to generate electricity.

While the health risks are debatable…physics are not.

Kracken...

I dont know how familiar you are with the principles of generating electricity, but it basically requires magnets (attached to an axle) spinning inside a coil of wire... (the principle of induction) The bigger the magnets & coil winding the more electricity you can generate... but like any mechanical device, the more mechanical energy (electricity) you want to produce the more kinetic energy (wind, steam, water) you need to convert to mechanical energy to spin the magnets. Anyway.. I digress.

A wind tubine (windmill) is no different from any other turbine.. (water, steam etc.) The axle shaft is always directly attached to the spinning blades converting the kinetic energy to mechanical energy. In the case of a wind turbine the spinning axle is directly connected to the blades. This puts the turbine on top of the support post directly behind the blades... not anywhere on the ground.

Woodsy

[jmen24]

Just Sold, I agree with your statement 100%.

Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them.

In new contruction with Radiant heat the hot water solar system explained above carries a cost savings of about $2500 per year in fuel, that nets a payoff of about 11 years, and you are no longer dependant on oil to heat your home and hot water. I forgot to mention that he also suppliments with a wood stove and in case the power goes out and the gas range is not usable, they also have a second stove in the kitchen that uses wood, you know the old school way of cooking. It is a pretty cool setup.

[NoBozo]

Lots of speculation going on here. Portsmouth, RI now has a municipally owned large wind turbine that was brought on line this spring. It's pretty big by most standards at 1.5 Mega Watts. The town "Voted" to do this project. I voted against..but have since become a supporter. The initial cost was to have been $4 million. A deal was struck and it was a done deal at $3 million.

Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world.

I have been there when the turbine is running Full Tilt....which is most of the time ...@ 19 RPM. The only sound you hear is the Whoosh Whoosh of the blades as they pass the tower, You can stand directly under the blades if you wish during operation. The turbine is accesable to the public...not surrounded by a fence. It is a worthwhile experience. It is a magnificent "Machine" ...AND a "Sculpture" at the same time. It makes over 2000 Horse Power. NB

Click on the Wind Energy button which is prominent on the town homepage. below:

http://www.portsmouthri.com/frames.htm

[jmen24]

I have to agree about the windmills being a very cool site. While enroute to Colorado last fall for a hunting trip (we drove via 1986 Ford RV) we were traveling through Kansas somewhere between midnight and 3:00 am, anyway I was driving along when we noticed off in the distance a single red light (constantly on), as we got closer it was like a light switch and the entire horizon lit up with red lights evenly spaced as far as you could see both left and right, after two seconds or so they went out. About 20 or so minutes later we were finally close enough to realize that they were windmills along a ridge. What amazed us is that the lights on these did not stay on constantly as I would think that would not be very fun coming up on that with an aircraft. That was my first experience with seeing these windmills up close, we later so more in the daylight on the way back in Wyoming.

I attached a photo that I took while driving of blades being transported over the road while in Iowa as they had a recall on the blades due to a failure.

I was really cool to see one up close, and as you can see with the full size SUV is added for scale.

[ApS]

"...Windmills along the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee will diminish the natural beauty inherent to the landscape and will negatively impact property values of those who are forced to view them..."
Energy is an essential to our local and national economic future: maybe you weren't here when we had dozens of 12-foot satellite dishes in our lakeside view. :rolleye1:

"...Geothermal is not always a good investment in certain areas of the country. New England is OK..."
The drilling at North Conway has apparently escaped Google's normally-awesome reach, but my Dad remembers a 3000-foot-deep geothermal drilling at Redstone Mountain near North Conway in the 80s. Petroleum company helicopters flew mapping flights from "The White Mountain Airport", where he was employed. (As "The Red Baron" pilot).

Geothermal in New Hampshire was apparently not feasible then—but now? :confused:



"...I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise..."
Sound travels best when ambient noise is least (no wind). Some noises the windmill could make would be "covered" by ambient noises—like Jet-Skis! :D

(Meaning, a windmill would be silent when there's no wind, and somewhat-less noticeable when wind is present). ;)

"...You may want to mention to your neighbor to verify that nobody behind him/her has a View Easement...Other than that I think windmills are cool, but the returns do not justify the means in this area...Electricity is really not the most expensive thing to replace in New England home when it comes to using nature to offset those costs...""

1) Firewood can be considered "solar" energy, but the cost of firewood has jumped since I last bought a pile. (I also supply my own firewood from trimming and windfalls—but not enough). :(

2) Returns aren't justified as yet; moreover, when I asked two years ago about a windmill for my lakefront location, I was told the Town would have no objection. :cool:

3) For payback, a modest windmill would supply the grid in winter (when I'm not here), and move my meter backwards in summer, when I'm out sailing in a Windmill-class wood sailboat. :)

(Note the windmill emblem at the peak of the sail). ;)

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:3zT1SXw11Q2CRM:

4) A view easement? :confused:

"...This is the way we should all be thinking! Renewable resource energy is our future and should be welcomed by all..."
The industry won't just be a new boost to the economy, it's now a national-security measure! :eek:

BTW: Spain—once the "poor-man" of Europe—was once my home in 1970. At my last visit in 1990, nearly the entire Mediterrean Coast was lined with big new windmills.

[Yosemite Sam]

Belknap Point wind turbine decision delayed for want of expert testimony
By Adam Drapcho
THE LACONIA DAILY SUN

GILFORD — Hearing last night the case of the waterfront residents who wish to place a wind turbine on the non-waterfront portion of their Belknap Point Road land, the Zoning Board of Adjustment decided to continue the matter until its next scheduled meeting. However, Chairman Andrew Howe said at the conclusion of the meeting that he isn’t leaning in the applicant’s direction. Referring to two of the five criteria applicants must satisfy to achieve a variance from zoning restrictions, Howe said “I struggle with the hardship, I struggle with [whether] granting the ordinance will do substantial justice — I think they’ve got a long way to go to convince me that they’re going to meet all five of these.”
Representing her clients, Lorraine and Richard Lavalliere, Laconia attorney Regina Nadeau explained to the board that it is an accepted use to place a wind turbine on their property at 62 Belknap Point Road. However, their technical consultant advised them that they should construct a tower at least 52 feet in height to make best use of the availablewind as it sweeps from the north across Lake Winnipesaukee.
Gilford’s zoning ordinances state that wind turbines must be set back from property lines by a distance equal to or greater than 150-percent the total height of the turbine system, including tower and blades. Because of the shape of the property, the only suitable location for such a tower, adhering to the setback requirements, would be along the shorefront. Instead of placing it on the shorefront, Nadeau told the board that her clients wished to locate the tower behind their tennis court and before the stand of trees that fills the back of the lot. She said this placement, on the highest point on the lot, would produce more energy than on the shore and would be visible only by one neighbor instead of everyone who boats past Belknap Point. At that point, though, the turbine would be greater than the 110-percent setback recommended by state guidelines but less than the more restrictive setback adopted by Gilford.
When asked by board member Ellen Mulligan why the town chose a 150-percent setback, Code Enforcement Officer Dave Andrade explained “when the town started hashing out what [setback] to utilize, we didn’t have a whole lot of information.” The state required each town to enact ordinances permitting wind energy systems and limited towns to a maximum setback requirement of 150-percent. Andrade explained that the town, when writing the ordinance, was cautious about issues such as shadow flicker, sound and the dangers of ice and broken propellors flying off the systems. “There’s a lot of unknowns, so what they did was take the maximum setback for liability reasons and say we did the best we could.” There were a lot of unknowns at the meeting last night as well. Without a technical consultant present, Nadeau couldn’t answer questions from the board such as how loud the system would be from the nearest property boundary, how fast the turbine spins, how far ice or a broken propellor would fly and if the proposed site was the best location on the lot for a turbine. “I think it’s fair to say in a residential area as affluent as it is there, the public interest there is peace and quiet,” noted Howe.
The board ultimately decided to continue the matter until its meeting on Oct. 27. In the meantime, they requested that the applicants hire an independent engineer to study whether the proposed location on the lot would indeed be the best in terms of energy production. Many board members also indicated they would travel to Hill, where a similar turbine has been constructed on private property. A couple of abutters spoke during the meeting. Alexandra Breed asked “are there any maintenance issues?” She noted that the Lavallieres spend much of the year in Florida, and she worried that the year round residents would endure an eyesore if something happened to the turbine while they were away. Dick Hickok, the one abutter who Nadeau said would be able to view the turbine from his property, said he would prefer if the turbine was allowed to be built at 52 feet, because the noise would be diminished compared to a shorter rig. He also said he’d prefer if the turbine was constructed on the shoreline, so it would be further from his property.
Hickok noted that there was a risk living near such a device, especially when it flings ice or if it should let loose a propellor. “It’s a crapshoot — if the think breaks at the wrong time, its going in my house, it’s going the distance,” he said.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/

[VtSteve]

There's a wind farm north of here on the NY state side, I'll have to see if I have a picture. Most people would view them as not particularly attractive. We have a few of them around here, and they are usually placed right in the way of a pretty mountain view.

Everyone seems to tie electric power to foreign oil. While most foreign oil this decade came from Canada and Mexico (they are foreign), most electric power generation was fueled by coal and, increasingly, by natural gas. The DOE estimates that over 90% of the electric plants built the next two decades will be natural gas fired. Virtually all distributed power generation will also be NG fueled.

Accelerating the proliferation of Energy Star devices would be a huge plus in reducing the need for more and more power plants. Switching homes in New England to other than oil for heating would also be a huge plus in reducing oil consumption. But now there's a glut of it, so maybe not :laugh:

Foreign oil is a great way to stave off reliance on very expensive domestic oil, and an easier way of controlling inventories. Massive drilling when it bottomed at $30 plus per barrel would have been pretty painful for many companies.

[SAMIAM]

I read a story this month....National Geographic or Smithsonian,not sure which one,that indicated that 100's of thousands of birds were being killed by the windmills out west.Mostly golden eagles,hawks and owls.For some reason they are mostly raptors.I'm puzzled why people who profess to care about the enviroment would want a windmill anywhere near them.
As I recall,Exxon got fined millons of $$ for accidentally killing 80 migrating birds.The have stopped road and bridge projects for a nesting eagle,osprey or owl.There is a federal law that calls for huge fines for causing the death...or even harrassing or interferring with migrating birds.
Hey,I'm with ya' on solar,wave energy, ethanol,nuclear....you name it,but if you want windmills ,say goodbye to your little birdies.

[jmen24]

4) A view easement? :confused: snip



To answer your question, source is sited below.

Easements may be specifically described by boundaries or by its purpose. There is also a "negative easement" such as a prohibition against building a structure which blocks a view. Title reports and title abstracts will usually describe all existing easements upon a parcel of real property. The location, maintenance, and uses of the easement are defined by the agreement, use, or instrument creating the easement. In some cases, the owner of the servient property charges the easement holder a maintenance fee, however, maintenance may be subject to any type of agreement between the parties involved. Easements may be renegotiated under contract law principles. All claims involving claims on land need to be carefully drafted.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/real-estate-easements/

We have run into this issue with projects before that limit the height of projects to protect someones view.

[Dr. Green]

...but solar panels are far too cost prohibitive, still.


Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that solar is not cost-competitive now. Sure, over 5 years it isn't cost-competitive, but systems are guaranteed for 25 years, and should last 40 years easily. At 25 years, with Federal and State rebates (which equal up to 1/2 the price of purchase and installation), solar is cheaper than the power company (assuming you have a full solar exposure). If the cost of electricity keeps increasing at the rate it has increased the last 10 years (approximately doubling) I would expect solar to have closer to a 15 year payback than the closer to 25 it is if you assume the cost of electricity will not increase at all in the next 25 years (the rate we use for cost comparisons).

See: http://www.sustainabilitynh.com/?post_id=40

[travaler18]

to be completly green we must shed our clothes move into caves and eat only what we scavange

[upthesaukee]

to be completly green we must shed our clothes move into caves and eat only what we scavange

Sure will be cold on the snowmobile:D.

[dpg]

I love windmills... in fact anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil... not saying they are the prettiest things to see in and around the lake. But they might be a necesary evil.

We need a multi-tiered approach to energy usage...

1. Solar panels should be mandatory on all new construction. Solar panels coupled with small windmills on single family dwellings will save vast amounts of energy. Its not new tech, but it will work and on a big scale it will not be cost prohibitive.

2. Geothermal heating.... works everywhere else. Why not here?

3. Nuclear power.... the big hot button! Time to revisit nuclear power with a fresh set of eyes and new technology. The only thing we have to do is standardize the powerplants to reduce startup costs....

4. Hybrid vehicles... the technology is there!

Woodsy

Just curious do you own, have you invested in any of these?

[IslandRadio]

Interesting topic! Personally, I believe solar (photovoltaic cells) would be a better solution, at least for the individual.

With wind power, you're dealing with a large, mechanical device - and machanical devices wear out and require regular maintenance and repair. If they are not properly maintained, you have a large eyesore that will be very expensive to remove.

Contrast that with photovoltaic - with no moving mechanical parts (save some relays), no noise, and very little maintenance. Of course the downside of current photovoltaic systems is energy storage - batteries.

There is a large photovoltaic installation in my town at a farm. Apparently, the system generates sufficient electricy to power everything the farmer's got going, and return a small monthly payment from Unitil. But, he has a perfect, unobstructed Southern exposure and a large barn roof to hold the panels.

I looked at a place on Diamond Island (no electricity there), and a good solar installation would have been the most practical way to provide usable and constant electric power.

With constant improvements in battery technology, and increasing conversion efficiencies, it just seems that solar might be a better solution....

Just my opinion ;)

[brk-lnt]

Interesting topic! Personally, I believe solar (photovoltaic cells) would be a better solution, at least for the individual.



Solar is a bit tricky in this area. I've been playing with some solar equipment/systems (importing panels direct from China. At under $5/watt you can start to consider it in places you might not have thought of traditionally), our sun exposure in New England isn't that great...especially in the winter months.

To get the best yield from your panels they need to be tilted toward the sun, and if you're not installing them on a roof each row needs to be spaced back to eliminate shadows from the row in front.

The best solution in this area is probably a solar farm plus a small/mid sized windmill. Depending on your location, you can get decent wind almost continuously, especially at night when there is no sunlight. This reduces the investment you need to make in batteries to store the solar power.

[Grady223]

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!

[Grady223]

how about a cell phone tower on Rattlesnake, it would really improve reception and, with the windmills, you'd never notice it.

[NoBozo]

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!

This would prolly require the Clear Cutting of ALL the trees on the islands which would also provide even more Renewable Energy to warm us for many winters to come. YES..? :D :D NB

[StephenB]

I read a story this month....National Geographic or Smithsonian,not sure which one,that indicated that 100's of thousands of birds were being killed by the windmills out west.Mostly golden eagles,hawks and owls.For some reason they are mostly raptors.I'm puzzled why people who profess to care about the enviroment would want a windmill anywhere near them.
As I recall,Exxon got fined millons of $$ for accidentally killing 80 migrating birds.The have stopped road and bridge projects for a nesting eagle,osprey or owl.There is a federal law that calls for huge fines for causing the death...or even harrassing or interferring with migrating birds.
Hey,I'm with ya' on solar,wave energy, ethanol,nuclear....you name it,but if you want windmills ,say goodbye to your little birdies.

From what I understand, the vast majority of windmill bird deaths in the West happen at one early and rather poorly planned windfarm in Atamont (sp?) near San Francisco. Due to poor knowledge of the time of bird migration routes, this particular facility is in a uniquely poor place as well as having a large number of pretty small windmills turning so fast the birds can't avoid the blades.

Ordinary skyscrapers are estimated to kill many times more birds than all of the more modern windfarms presently operating in the US.

[ApS]

"Bird-strikes" into skyscrapers (http://www.thestar.com/living/article/404975#) are devastating in numbers, but the ordinary house cat kills many more songbirds than any of today's technologies. (The relatively small island of Key West has about 40,000 housecats and is a major US flyway for migrating songbirds). :(

"...most electric power generation was fueled by coal ..."
New coal-fired plants are to be bankrupted (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/03/video-obamas-bankrupting-coal-industry-remarks). :(

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!
;) Let's take another view at Lake Winnipesaukee and "view":

Lake Winnipesaukee's first windmills should be copies of those off US coasts and be built at "The Witches".

(Improving the "view" of The Witches!)


:look:

[Rattlesnake Gal]

I just found this old postcard in McDude's gallery (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=20&cat=500). It has a windmill! Can I guess for it would have been a pump for water?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/531/medium/mtmajorstat3.jpg
Click here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8601) to see the postcard in PhotoPost, where you can super-size it.

[SAMIAM]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

[Rattlesnake Guy]

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.

[fatlazyless]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

...gee whiz...if they can build fish ladders so the salmon can migrate up and down river around a dam.....then they should just build some big safety cages around the whirling propellers to protect the birds. On second thought....how about bird ladders so the birdies can climb around the windmills?

[trfour]

No worries here in the Lakes Region, FLL.


Link; http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

[Argie's Wife]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Thought about it.

Decided to pass on it until you posted again.

And actually, Acres Per Second did make remarks on your post (see above). So did StephenB and I believe he said something about "poor planning" on the part of the engineers. If that's the case then the company who installed those things out west should move them.

I've lived in CA and seen the hills covered by wind turbines. They're awesome to see. I believe there's a mandate in the state that calls for a certain amount of renewable energy to be supplied. I think it's smart on their part because our dependence on foreign countries supplying our oil is hurting us.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's addressed by an engineer who designs the wind turbines, when he spoke to the Alton & Barnstead school boards at a meeting. (Alton & Barnstead share a high school and have a joint maintenance agreement - both school boards meet together to manage the high school.)

There's an excellent study here: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

And a good article about it here:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php

Now, take into consideration the availability of wind, the use of a "renewable" source for energy, and a source that is local vs. being from a foreign country, like oil, and the benefits of the wind turbine far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. I'd wager that far more damage is done from an oil spill than from a wind turbine.

[Yosemite Sam]

Here is an interesting article about a person who put a WindMill on her land in Ossipee. The article was in the Granite State News sometime in early 2008.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn278/wolf03894/Ossipeewindmill.jpg

BY ELISSA PAQUETTE
Staff Writer

OSSIPEE — A 34-foot windmill reaches toward the sky from Cecily Clark’s hilltop acreage in Ossipee. The three, six- foot long fiberglass
blades rotate continuously downwind atop a tapered pole, producing a slight hum when the wind picks up. As the wind direction shifts, so
do the blades. Clark, a sculptor, admires the elegant design. “I always wanted one,” she says, “and the technology is here now.” A chance meeting with contractors Greg and Leonah Simon, recent residents from Nova Scotia who specialize in windmill installation, enabled Clark to fulfill her desire to run her studio on clean energy. “It’s a natural extension for me. My father was a product of the Depression. He saved tinfoil, made sure we turned out the lights when we left the room, and always emphasized conservation,” says Clark. “I can remember when we had to return our toothpaste tubes before buying a new one at the pharmacy. There was lead in them.” Clark,who has lived in the area since 1968, just beyond the Wolfeboro-Ossipee town line on Pork Hill, is a pioneer of sorts. She is the first person to generate wind energy
harnessed to the Wolfeboro Municipal Electric Department grid. Learning the process has been a challenge for her as well as Barry Muccio,
manager of the electric facility. Since the department is not under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, he had to gather
information to draft Wolfeboro’s own policy for a “net metering” pilot program. The pilot program was recently approved by Wolfeboro selectmen. The eight-page document states, “the goal will be to establish future policies which will remain consistent with prudent electrical practices set forth by the National Electric Safety Code,National Electric Code and any other Federal, State and local government codes, while offering a mutual service agreement which is legal, objective, reliable and safe to both participating parties (utility and customer).” Net metering allows a person to be connected to the grid with a meter that runs both ways. When the windmill is generating more electricity than needed, the electric meter runs backward and the electric company records a credit. When the customer’s needs exceed production, the meter reverses course. At the end of a month, there is either a bill to pay or a credit. Since there is no one else currently in her position, Clark will be a primary source of feedback over the course of the year – as well as any others who might want to emulate her. Standing on her hilltop, gazing over the Ossipee Mountain range, she points to a complex of white buildings in a clearing within the rolling, forested vista off in the distance. “They are interested in installing a windmill too,” she points out. Her neighbors also have expressed an interest. They’ll be able to
benefit from her journey through the installation steps and now, production. The anemometer on Clark’s sunroom wall tells her the highest rate of wind in a given day. Thirty to 40 mph gusts are frequent, making her location ideal for generating wind energy. Seventy mph is the highest rate she has recorded, Early in October 2007, Clark ordered her windmill. The cost? $12,000 for the fixed costs, excluding having to
hire an electrician and contractor, and wire at $1 a foot. Her windmill is 300 feet from the meter, necessitating a $300 expense for wire alone.
Trees had to be cut, a trench dug to hold a conduit for the wires, and a hole excavated for the 3,000 pounds of concrete in the six-foot deep base. The rebar cage itself, embedded in the concrete foundation, weighed 750 pounds. Every day brought excitement as the project progressed. Clark’s photo diary shows the men working with snow underfoot as winter approached. Clark terms it “most exciting” to watch the workers hoist the tower into place on its base with their gin pole, but she declares Dec. 22, 2007, the first day of operation,“ the real McCoy.” Clark can now look at her computer screen and see detailed, current information on her windmill’s productionrate. That data is interfaced with Arizona-based Southwest Wind power, a company that just started producing her Skystream 3.7 model a year ago. When
there are glitches, as there have been in the early months of the year, Greg and Leonah Simons have access to the data and are able to
communicate with the company. Soon after installation, production stopped while the inverter (the device that converts direct current to alternating current) had to be reconfigured. Currently, when the blades get to a certain speed, the turbine shuts off. The Simons are communicating with the company to resolve the issue. Clark is “unphased.” She recognizes that a venture into new territory is not without
obstacles to solve, saying, “Somebody has to be the first.” She estimates that she’ll be able to cover the electrical production for the kiln in her sculpture studio, but most important is that she is using clean, renewable energy. If there is any surplus, she has the satisfaction that other users will also be able to power their homes, even if only in part, from energy that is not polluting the air. The electric department installed the necessary meter with a kill switch to be used at any point that work needs to be done on the wires, and another meter shows her total production to date. On days when the wind is blowing, “it’s great to watch the electric meter run backwards.” Her Skystream 3.7 produced 14 kilowatt hours of electricity in a 20-hour period in March. To date, with various starts and stops, she’s produced close to 130 kilowatt hours. “I know it’s only a drop in the bucket, but it’s a step in the right direction. We should be encouraging clean energy use in some fashion.”
According to figures suppliedby the N.H. Public Utilities Commission, Clark’s wind turbine is among only 15 such units generating into
electric grids in New Hampshire. A few installations have been around since the 1980s. As for incentives, Wolfeboro voters passed a warrant article (31) to adopt the provisions of RSA72:66 for a property tax exemption of $5,000 for home owners equipped with a wind-powered
energy system. Under the state’s net-metering law, final rules have been established and are readily available online under Final Rules – PUC 900. Tom Frantz of the Public Utilities Commission urges interested parties to look at RSA362-a:9, which lists the conditions that net metering customers must follow. The Wolfeboro Muncipal Electric (WMED) Department’s pilot program adopted most of the rules set forth by the state, but as a separate entity, the department has the right to establish its own guidelines. One deviation is that the monthly base rate to customers, which stays the same in utility companies throughout the state, is currently double the rate for Wolfeboro’s net metering customers. Also, while the state’s net metering rules offer customers the opportunity to sell electricity to up to three retail customers, the
WMED draft states that the agreement with a customer will be “based on the premise of offsetting part or all of the customer’s own electrical requirements through the use of renewable energy technology.” That includes solar or hydro as well as wind. Cecily Clark is Wolfeboro’s first net metering customer, but more are sure to follow. Already, Peter Goodrich, who will be retiring in June to live full-time inWolfeboro in his solar home, is contributing to the grid too. New manufacturing and service economies are on the rise state and nationwide. Wolfeboro is on its way to going green.

[fatlazyless]

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?


Oops... I forgot that Gunstock belongs to Belknap County....so it has an unlimited source of money and generating income is not a problem......sorry....

[Rattlesnake Gal]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/15014/Capture_9-16-200910-16-2009-11_30_42_AM.jpg ('http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15650')

The Long Island Inn (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=2326&day=2009-10-26) used to have a windmill too. Used I would guess to pump water?

[StephenB]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Ummm, read up. I responded to your post already. Repeat: most of the birds killed out west are killed at one wind farm at Atamont Pass outside of the Bay area. Most folks now agree that this particular area, combined with lots of smaller, earlier generation windmills with smaller, higher speed blades, are responsible for the bird deaths. Please read up for the rest of my comments.

[SteveA]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Your post caught my eye. I knew I had read a similar report. I remembered where I say it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-09-21-wind-farms_N.htm

[Dr. Green]

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?


Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).

[Yosemite Sam]

There was a good article in the Meredith News this week about a family that runs their house on solar panels (or hopes to anyway).

Click on picture below to read the article:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn278/wolf03894/SolarPanels.jpg (http://localhostr.com/files/c6e591/Solar%20Panels.pdf)

[SAMIAM]

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

[Argie's Wife]

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

You know what... I'd agree with you whole-hog if it meant we could drill on US territory.

The problem I have with our reliance on petrol isn't because I'm a "treehugger" (which is somehow a dirty word on this form) or "green". I don't suggest these things to "feel good" - but I do hate how dependent we are on foreign suppliers for our fuel.

That being said... why not more water or steam or gas turbines to create energy - it doesn't have to be solar or wind. It's hardly a warm-fuzzy thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's more about self-reliance to me than anything else.

As far as our infrastructure goes, it takes time to implement these things so that there is an impact on the power grid. The initial implementation takes upfront costs that other energy sources don't call for simply because they are "common".

I'll leave you with this graph from the NY Times about where things are going with energy (graph #1) and how much has been spent to develop new sources (graph #2):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/15/business/0716-nat-webonly-SOLAR2.190.jpg


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/15/business/0716-nat-sub-webSOLAR1.190.jpg

Graphs and article can be read (and a lot bigger, I might add!) HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html

[tis]

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

Samiam, you just always have so much common sense!! What you say is true, however I must admit, it is kind of fascinating fooling around with these alternatives. Too bad they couldn't do more with them-make them worthwhile.

[BroadHopper]

Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com (http://www.sustainabilitynh.com)) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).

Gunstock should take their competitor Wachusetts as a green initiative. Wachusetts harness the heat from the air and water compressors use in snowmaking to heat their main lodge. Wachusetts received commendation from the fed for their initiatives.

[Nagigator]

Wachusett Mountain in Princeton, Ma is installing 2 rather large windmills on the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFKdARjCFM

Hope this goes through!

Clarification: The Princeton Light Dept. is installing 2 windmills on the summit of Wachusett Mountain.

[Dr. Green]

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

[Pineedles]

Samiam

science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

Science is not all facts. It is also hypothesis, which IS opinion of the scientist!
Don't assume because you can call it science that it is fact!

[SAMIAM]

Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.

[tis]

We need a thanks button here for that post Sam. I know I sound like your champion, I just can't help it, I usually agree with you.

[Yosemite Sam]

I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.

I agree with you SAMIAM.

When I wake up in the morning and it’s cold out, then it’s global cooling. If I wake up in the morning and it’s hot, then it’s global warming.

All kidding aside, this is what I believe:

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

When the offset changes (wobbles) from what we believe is the norm, then the earths temperature changes to make it cooler or warmer depending on where you are located on the earth.

The sun will ultimately determine whether it’s going to be hot or cold in the future and not some wannabe global warming scientist like Al Gore.

[gtxrider]

I took a course and the one thing the teacher said to take from the class is "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This was a data class and the example was higher speed = more errors per second.

I think about this when I read about ZERO EMISSIONS CARS. Where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? What are the windmills made of? How do we refine the metal to build them? Where will we put them? Who pays for the land? Who wants the farms in their back yard?

Don't get me wrong every little bit helps but nothing is perfert.

Remember everything has a cost.

Nuclear?

[Shedwannabe]

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine). Pineneedles, I do see your comment about Dr. Green's post that science is hypotheses, and you are right, just because all the evidence supports a hypothesis doesn't mean it is right. BUT it does mean you have to point out some evidence that it isn't right, and to say "its a cold October" totally misses the point. The southwest of the US had one of the hottest years recorded.... while New England took a tiny step back.

Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control. Of course, that control is being demanded by the majority of the people who saw what happened when the government pretended, in the face of massive evidence, that there was no problem. I don't want government taking control of my life, but I like even less wholesale slaughter of any environmental protection and the laying to waste of the planet my descendants will (try to) live on.

I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the personal attacks on him are somehow used as an explanation of why global warming is wrong. Unfortunately for you deniers, in any scientific venue, the reality of the damage we are doing to our life-support system, our planet, is documented and the evidence grows clearer every month. That is why ALL the governments of the world are coming together to take action, because those whose responsibility it is to care for their citizens are looking ahead and seeing that without drastic curtailment of carbon emissions, they will fail in their responsibilities.

[Yosemite Sam]

Al Gore only wants to report global warming in the summer time.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2O_nMSMK0w&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2O_nMSMK0w&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[SIKSUKR]

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

[Yosemite Sam]

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

You da man!! Very well put!

AND........."Drill Baby Drill"

[chipj29]

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

Insert "Thanks" here.
Very well said SS.

[ITD]

Oh this is going to be good, if we can keep it civilized and to the point and our webmaster indulges us.

My problem with windmills is they are not economically viable without large subsidies (read taxpayer payments) to offset the costs. Take away these subsidies and no one in their right minds would pay for them. I believe solar suffers from the same issue, although long term maintenance and endurance may allow it to reach a point of break even with out subsidies.

The Global Warming issue, now called Global Climate change (easier to defend) is a sham as far as I am concerned. I was hoping for a little global warming as I watched the Patriots trounce the Titans. The problem I have with cap and trade is the HUGE cost to families if it is enacted, for a very minimal impact if I accept the premises of the bill and anthropogenic climate change.

[Pineedles]

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.

[SIKSUKR]

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

[Pineedles]

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should,have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.:laugh:

[Yosemite Sam]

Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.:laugh:


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Poor AL, he tries, but most of us can see right thru him.


Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

The earths rotation and angular location to the sun plays a big role in our temperatures. Any variance from "norm" and we can/should expect changes.

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.


Excellent points!!!

[chipj29]

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.

And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh? ;)

[Shedwannabe]

For information on the "climate change denier" movement, see http://www.realclimate.org/, an organization formed by climate scientists appalled at the lies being put out (I'm not talking about "disagreements" I'm talking outright lies) to persuade the public that the scientific community was not in substantial agreement about climate change.

To the comment that volcanos put out a lot of CO2... yes they do... but nothing compared to what humans put out.

"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.. .Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year." From Wikipedia

So Pineedles - it seems your idea that volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity is just plain wrong.

Now there are natural feedback loops that can handle increased carbon dioxin:

"The good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.

The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.

“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.“

Zeebe notes that, “the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume.” Humans have run up CO2 levels 100 ppm over the last two centuries!

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical….

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years."

Additionally, it seems the carbon dioxide level has been below the current level for at leat the last 600,000 years.

So what would ignoring increasing carbon dioxide levels do to us? At 800 to 1000 ppm, the world faces multiple miseries, including:

1. Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of 6 inches a decade (or more).
2. Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half the planet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers.
3. More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme ocean acidification.

"Imagine sea level rise of nearly 20 inches a decade lasting centuries — a trend perhaps interrupted occasionally by large chunks of the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating, causing huge sea level jumps in a span of a few years. And imagine that by 2100, we lose all the inland glaciers, which are currently the primary water supply for more than a billion people. Now imagine what future generations will think of us if we let it happen."

But come to think of it, if science doesn't mean anything to you...then showing the results of scientific research won't either...

One further thought. Suppose that its true that "natural processes" over the long run cause more effect on the CO2 rate than humans do (as several have suggested). So, what if natural processes lead to an increase in the CO2 rate to say 800 ppm. If human activity has added another 200 ppm after that, then we would have put ourselves over the edge into extinction, whereas if we had done what we could to reduce emissions, maybe we would have survived. People's arguments on natural CO2 processes always seem to imagine them in opposition to the effect of human activity but they are just as likely to synergize and more rapidly increase the impact of human caused emissions.

[Boater]

Goody, my favorite topic.
I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.Shed, the statement above shows your political bias on this topic. Calling people who have a reasoned honest disagreement with you "deniers" or "flat-earthers" is really offensive. It is a typical Liberal tactic. It infers that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers and hinders any constructive conversation.

You really don't know ANYONE who is skeptical about AGW? Wow, you don't get out much. There are thousands of scientists that are skeptical. Climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, astronauts and more. You can see that many posting here are also skeptical. Many members of the IPCC itself now don't agree. How, in good conscience, can you ignore and discard their concerns? Any theory you present can be disputed and debated. Problem is, Liberals aren't listening (see Algore shutting off the mike of a questioner). Like you, they simply DECLARE the conversation over and won't even listen to other points of view. This is science?

You also imply that people you know may have doubts but you don't "know anyone who would admit to it". Do you realize what you are saying? Apparently the suppression of non-PC scientific opinion has been accomplished. How low we have sunk when a scientist doesn't dare speak his opinion.

I could get into an extended debate about the very foundations of the AGW theories but what's the use if you've already closed your mind? It is very doubtful that Co2 is the problem here. There is a direct correlation between sun activity and climate change. The connection between Co2 and AGW is highly debatable. 97% of the Co2 on the planet comes from fires, decomposition and volcanoes. Lakes like Winnipesaukee and oceans are huge factories of Co2. They pump it out in mass quantities.

The real endgame for AGW worshipers is to tax and control. While Liberals plot to burden businesses with new taxes and regulations that will further cripple our economy while having minimal impact on climate, emerging economies like China are building power plants like there is no tomorrow. They know that without energy there can be no growth and prosperity. They know that they need oil and electricity. They will drill anywhere (even off our coasts) and do what is necessary to ensure their economic growth. Too bad we won't. While we refuse to create any energy China and others will become the economic superpowers and will laugh at our feeble attempts to control the climate.

Nothing is settled, nothing is beyond debate. Defend your beliefs vigorously but don't demean or discard opposing opinions. Most likely they are not completely wrong and you are not completely right.

[Pineedles]

I have pulled some excerpts from an an article in Carbon Offsets Daily. You can find lots of information out there, no matter which side of the arguement you are on, but 30,000 scientists? Come on! They went out of their way to sign a petition!

Here's the link.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/carbonmarketnews/don%e2%80%99t-blame-human-co2-for-all-our-woes-15421.htm

It may be of interest to you to know that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition which denies that human- produced CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will cause dangerous warming of the planet.

What does the evidence actually show? The global temperature record starts in 1856 showing a warming trend until 1880 then cooling until 1910; warming again until 1942, then cooling until 1975 (scientists were concerned we were heading for an ice age); warming again until 1998 and currently cooling again.

All of this while CO2 was steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

Where is the correlation? Surely if the UN theory is right, temperatures should show an increasing rise along with CO2; it simply is not there. Furthermore with CO2 currently increasing at roughly two parts per million per year, temperatures certainly should not be dropping now as they are.

We should be seeing an alarming increase but it is simply not there. This brief period of history completely destroys the whole man-made global warming scenario being caused by human CO2 output. It also destroys the current computer-climate models as none of them predicted the current situation.

[Pineedles]

You are right about the volcanoes. I researched my statement and I was wrong. But if you hadn't posted a bunch of facts and figures I wouldn't have gone in pusuit of my own. I guess I was trying to find some middle ground with my first post, but you wouldn't have any of it. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything here on the forum and we can go back and forth with mountains of "evidence". Bottom line is, you think the world is coming to an end and I don't. Without my cooperation, your scenario is going to come true according to you. Guess what? The harder you push the more I'll push back.:laugh:

[jmen24]

And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh? ;)

The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.

But remember, when undiscovered land masses were discovered by humans that had the technology to build a boat and sail accross the pond, the climate was not much different than today. I believe the reference to Greenland at one point being green would be correct, but the time period would be well beyond the reach of even old world science. They were not doing core samples back then either.

[Dickie B from HB]

Shed , you have really drunk the kool aid.

[NoBozo]

I really get BORED with Too LONG posts that just ...Go ON..... And ON..... And ON. This happens from both sides of an argument. If you can't make your point in a couple of paragraphs...................:look:....Brevity is...

I admire SHED for digging up the TRUTH about Seaplane Permissions on Pickerel Pond.....And posting his findings....essentially canceling his original premis. It takes a Man to do that. ....SHED: What's come over you..?? :look: Nb

[This'nThat]

The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder if the same guys who discovered and named those two islands also worked for the Public Works department to name Driveways (where you park your car) and Parkways (where you drive your car)?

Or perhaps their names were Abbott and Costello? :laugh:

[SAMIAM]

Boater,that was a great and thoughtful response....I'm sending that to everyone on my mailing list.
Also, tis made a good point that, while GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.



Proud to introduce you to another. Me. Check back in a few decades. I will be willing to reevaluate the data as it comes, will you?

[tis]

It never ceases to amaze me at how easily so many are so willing to "drink the cool aid". I am so proud there are so many of us here who aren't afraid to question.

I also hate reading long posts, as a rule I don't think most people bother to read them all.

If we get cap and trade, we are done as a country. Just MHO.

[fatlazyless]

Go google 'Middlebury College willow trees' to read a recent newspaper article on how this northern Vermont school powers their multi building heating plant. The fast growing willow trees are grown nearby.

Believe the central boiler heats 17 different college buildings with cast iron radiators having switched from oil to wood chips to locally grown willow trees.

About one mile west of Route 93 Exit 24, the Bridgewater Power Co powers wood chips into electricity for the grid, and simultaneously powers down the local property tax. It also creates jobs for local loggers and truckers. Been runn'n for ovah 20 years now, crank'n lectricty with nary a white plume of steamy smoke to show for it......ayuh!.

NH has a long history of smokestack industry. Too bad that NH's paper mill biz has unrolled. Seems like wood chip powered electricity could be a good fit. You probably noticed that all the miles and miles of trees, up north, have been growing like crazy for the last three growing seasons what with all the rain.

[SIKSUKR]

Having posted what I did, I feel shed might feel like he/she is being ganged up on. Unlike what shed posted, I support anybody's right to disagree which really set me off. I normally don't like to get dragged into these battles but the mentality and current trend towards "listen to what I say and don't disagree or you are an idiot" tone of the latest administration has me a little sensitive. Does this me a racists also? Scary stuff.

[Newbiesaukee]

I admit to being a "can't we all get along" kind of guy. My other trait is to cut off the extreme opinions on any issue ( I also buy the medium price washing machine which is usually a better value than the most expensive or the cheapest).

This discussion has been pretty reasonable and a number of good points have been made (again cutting off the extremes).

In my opinion, SIKSUKR made the most important point. There is a fundamental distinction between those who believe global warming exists, meaning that the changes ARE occurring, and those who also believe that humans are the CAUSE of global warming.

And a lot of the comments do not address this so that we are comparing apples and oranges. Of course, if you do not believe that GW is occurring then ANY suggestion to modify it, by definition, has to be wrong. It is vital in considering different opinions to know whether the person believes it is occurring or not. An atheist really can have no valid opinion on whether the Mass should be in Latin or English or the "correctness" of the Sunni or Shia interpretation of Islam.

I do believe that the preponderance of evidence is that GW is real and the average temps are increasing worldwide. Just because we've had some cold winters, etc. in no way refutes the argument any more than the stock market going up for a bit means "happy days are here again." I am NOT so convinced that humans are the direct cause or of the prudence of some of the proposals.

The difficulty is to separate the best answer form the cr*p and there is a lot more of the latter. But you gotta keep trying.

Mixing up ones own political views, strong emotions, social views rarely leads to the correct answer to what is, in reality, a scientific question and this includes both Gore and the fanatics at either end.

Finally, even my position that the "middle" is always correct is not always true and is an "extreme" position itself. Sometimes those at the extremes are correct, just not usually for most of the issues we face as a society.

[Lakegeezer]

Pinning blame seems to be partly an exercise to extract reparations, when disasters from climate change strike, from those who benefited from energy The US culture is to not accept blame; just ask an American Indian. The real question, rarely asked, is; what can be done about it? If we cut carbon emissions by 50%, would it help, and by how much? My theory (and we all should have one) is that a cycle has begun, much like how the lake melts in the fall. Once the lake starts melting, the cycle continues till it is complete - and the earth is in its own cycle. Maybe humans sped up the cycle, maybe they triggered it - but the cycle has begun. I believe the tipping point has been passed. We can ride it out or try to slow it down - but what says we'll make things better? The carbon tax seems like a huge fraud waiting to happen, but if the worst case impact of climage change happens, lots of money will be required to repair the damage. That money has to come from somewhere. And, that gets back to blame. There will be lots of countries looking for help, and they will be wagging their fingers at the carbon consumers. Will we pay up, ignore them, or help them build casinos? How does this impact the lakes region? We currently need lots of carbon to stay warm and the climate changes could continue the water quality decline; impacting the local economy.

[John A. Birdsall]

This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.

As for Al Gore, let him keep thinking he invented the internet, Someone once said that he could be replaced, and they were right he was replaced.:laugh:

[Rattlesnake Gal]

This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.

A windmill or perhaps windmills were looked into by Rattlesnake Island Association.
"Not only was it cost prohibitive, but the town was not in general favor of the project." - Quote from the RIA Secretary.

[fatlazyless]

The July 27, 2008 Union Leader: "For homeowners, powering with wind mills a tall order" by Clynton Namuo is helpfull and informative.. It includes links to the 2008 state law that regulates installations of renewable energy such as solar, wind,and something else and the state law seems to help exclude some arbitrary decisions by local town zoning boards as it provides State of NH guidelines for approving installations. :)

How 'bout a great big wind mill with an arty red & orange diamond rattlesnake displayed along the large tail structure of the windmill! What the heck....Rattlesnake Island already has an alligator on the shoreline....so how about a MONEY-MAKING rattlesnake atop the cliffs!

[trfour]

Knowing that humans have been using wind power for at least 5,500 years. Windmills have been used for irrigation pumping and for milling grain since the 7th century AD.

Brings to mind that sometimes first ideas just need to be tweaked a little, to keep up. And when all is said and done, just maybe our getting back to basics could make our planet better.

Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

PS. I'm also curious as to how far new tech wind power has progressed since the Rattlesnake Island Association did their study.

[ApS]

"...Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine)...Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control..."
Just Sunday, a scientist interviewed on FOX-TV said that "Cap & Trade" won't reduce CO2 levels. :eek2: Worse, we can't be certain that reducing CO2 levels won't create some other, unanticipated global disaster.

While there have been inter-space countermeasures available for decades, none have been suggested so far—only to increase taxes.

The "mylar spider web", placed into geostationary orbit, has the greatest potential to reduce global temperatures, but nobody seems to want it colder!

"...I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that..."
Tennessee (the voters who knew Al best) kept Al from being an even bigger spokesperson! :eek:

"...Oh this is going to be good, if we can keep it civilized and to the point and our webmaster indulges us..."
The last discussion didn't turn out so well (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=33820&highlight=warming#post33820). :(

"...That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it...energy demand keeps increasing...wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great)..."
"Ridge development" is the worst kind of housing to have upslope from any lake. Windmills around Winnipesaukee's windy ridges would be a far better use of land.

"...Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power...and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.
Think of the local economy and remember that's a "whopping" 100% increase in a burgeoning new technology!

"...Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas...I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills, but they won't power a motor vehicle.
For a free charge, just park your all-electric "Windmobile" into the wind! :D

http://www.staugustinepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/pr75942_wp.jpg

"...nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors...anyone care to comment...??
The prey of raptors' includes songbirds: windmills could "even out" mankind's toll on birdlife. A wind farm at The Witches might take out an occasional cormorant—but leave Loons alone.

If no countermeasures were taken, it needn't be a net loss. Birds and other critters respond to sights and sounds: putting a whistle on a blade—or a narrow, highly-reflective, mylar strip—might go a long way to limit birdstrikes.

"...anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil..."
...And the future of those "gallon-per-minute" boats? :confused:

"...GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats..."
1) That "shoving" may come from foreign governments. The last two weeks have seen rumored meetings to change to a different currency than the US dollar. :eek: (In case you thought "world depression" was in the past, try $5+ per gallon gasoline). :(

Now is not too early to begin the change from petroleum.

2) Natural gas seems like a "natural" for this country.

It should have been required long ago, that all Government vehicles get the simple conversion from gasoline to natural gas—and do it tomorrow with a signature!

IMHO. :)

[Shedwannabe]

Found this article today that fits the profile of a few vociferous members - I am not voicing an opinion but its what many have said, the vocal minority can can often really believe what they are saying is the truth.

Stanford Study Explains Internet Trolls

In a study conducted at Stanford, psychologists discovered that people who hold extreme opinions are more likely to voice them loudly than those who hold moderate opinions. At last, science has explained most of what you read on the internet.

Ohio State professor Kimberly Rios Morrison polled Stanford University students about what they thought about students drinking alcohol. What she discovered was that the students with the most extreme pro-alcohol stance expressed their opinions most readily, in general because they believed that they were voicing the majority opinion. But polls showed that the majority of students had a moderate to anti-alcohol stance. When pro-alcohol students were shown evidence that most people didn't support their views, they were far more reluctant to express their extreme opinions.

Said Morrison:

It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue.

Sounds like this study explains internet trolling and flame wars too. People with extreme views who are extremely loud about them manage to delude themselves into thinking everybody agrees. Morrison added:

You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.

No word yet on how to break the cycle. But we can only hope further research will lead to a simple way to cure extremists of their belief that everybody shares their opinions and wants them to keep talking.

I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above.

The vast majority of American's are (rightly) worried by the inaction by governments on steps to combat global warming. An influential (and loud) minority work to block efforts to respond, such as at the Copenhagen UN conference this December.

[Gearhead]

I'm world renown for my half-baked ideas, so here's one of mine to ponder:

Remove the oil or gas-fired furnace, and replace it with a fuel-efficient diesel or gas engine (outside, and with a good muffler). Capture the heat from the water jacket and hot exhaust to heat the house in the Winter, and generate power with the drive shaft. When the engine's running, it's back-feeding the grid; when it's not running you're taking power off the grid. In the cold weather I'll bet one would produce more than a household would consume. The question, therefore: Do I need a VW TDI or a Peterbilt? :rolleye2:

[Argie's Wife]

I'm world renown for my half-baked ideas, so here's one of mine to ponder:

Remove the oil or gas-fired furnace, and replace it with a fuel-efficient diesel or gas engine (outside, and with a good muffler). Capture the heat from the water jacket and hot exhaust to heat the house in the Winter, and generate power with the drive shaft. When the engine's running, it's back-feeding the grid; when it's not running you're taking power off the grid. In the cold weather I'll bet one would produce more than a household would consume. The question, therefore: Do I need a VW TDI or a Peterbilt? :rolleye2:

What you've described is basically what a gas or steam (or combo) turbine does with applications. For example, a paper company may use the turbine for power while having steam available for part of their processing, all generated off the same turbine. So, no... this isn't half-baked. It's something that's pretty much going on already just in a different form.

[Onshore]

I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads. I'd also be curious about clearance radius needed. It would seem the "mariah" type would need the least clearance particularly as it would not need to pivot if the wind direction changes.

[brk-lnt]

I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above.

Which "near unanimous research"? The one that supports the concept that humans are creating global warming and there is something we can do to alter it, or the one that supports the concept that any changes in the environment are not directly attributed to human interaction with the planet and that there are no realistic alterations humans could make to affect the course of events?

The global warming debate is quite frankly much like the evolution/intelligent design debates. Both sides have lots of "evidence" and "unanimous conclusions" by respected individuals to support their theories. And, neither side is really interested in changing their views as much as they are interested in trying to change the views of everyone else to coincide with their own.

[fatlazyless]

Looks like the Gilford ZBA decided yesterday that a waterfront home on Smith Cove facing Pig Island and Locke's Island will not need a variance to put up a wind turbine. Just a building permit will be required.

Article in Oct 22 Laconia Daily Sun.

By lowering the height of the tower from 52' down to 38 1/2', the tower and wind turbine will conform to existing Gilford zoning rules. "The town zoning ordinance requires that wind turbines must be set back from property lines by a distance equal to or greater than 150-percent of the height of the system, including the tower and vanes."

Accordng to the Union Leader's 7/27/08 article: "For homeowners, powering with wind mills a tall order," the average wind needed to make it pay is 12-mph, so it's anyone's guess if a shoreline wind turbine can be a money-maker.

Sure, the large wind mills look to be very large.....make that giant industrial size.....while the smaller home owner models seem to resemble an olde fashioned whirly-gig......where a whirling propeller powers up a rower, rowing two oars in a boat, or a farmer milking a cow, or a crow pecking corn...or something.....you get the picture.

Big question here....will these new-fangled wind mill, whirly-gigs ever make your electric meter spin backwards?

[Gavia immer]

I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads.
The wind velocity that appears in ZIP code forecasts is nearly always half of the reality on the lake. This forum's weather guys can elaborate better, but our local winds near the water are shaped (and their velocity increased) by the mountain ranges around us.

[SAMIAM]

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway. When Exxon had their oil spill, they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds. Shopping centers, roads, bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up. ACLU lawyers, with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

[Just Sold]

..but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

[trfour]

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway.When Exxon had their oil spill,they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds .Shopping centers,roads,bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up.ACLU lawyers,with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day,and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

Sam, read on; http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/05/19/wind-turbine-kills-golden-eagle-%E2%80%94-the-first-in-washington-state/comment-page-1/

[Whimsey]

Sadly, Samiam's assertions are accurate.:( See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds -- WSJ article 9-7-2009

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.

[Pine Island Guy]

See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:


Note that this is not an article by a Wall Street Journal reporter, but in the "opinion" section of the Journal written by: Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"

Not to say that he isn't accurate, but just to make sure the source is clear...

cheers -PIG

[Argie's Wife]

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

[SAMIAM]

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out. I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

[NoBozo]

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

AW: I'm afraid you have veered into some Common Sense. BUT..We don't need no Common Sense when talking about GW .....or Wind Turbines. It just screws up the argument. Just sayin. :look: NB

[fatlazyless]

Say, didn't that airplane which was ditched onto the Hudson River last January go down due to canada geese clogging both jet engines.

Ya know.....it's never too late for NY Attorney General Cuomo to go and indict that "hero on the Hudson" pilot for birdy manslaughter....or birdslaughter.....7 days incarceration for each dead birdy....operat'n a plane without birdy safety protection in use........ there otta be a law! :cool:

After all, birds are better than people!:D

[Just Sold]

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out.I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.


Unfortunately neither of these sources have any articles on electric power windmills killing birds that I could easily find on their web sites. Not even Mr Robert Brice's "Opinion" published in the Wall Street Journal (not an article by the WSJ) contained the claim you stated. Prior to my previous post I did search quite extensively in response to your statement "but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day" and only found the WSJ "Opinion" by Mr. Brice.

I encourage and enjoy everyone's opinion even when it differs from mine but I get irked when people make wild and unsubstantiated claims as some, including you, have made on this site of late. There is enough misinformation to be had elsewhere so please be sure of your sources and facts when making such claims.

FYI: There is a draft report (June 2009) on the birds killed and no Eagles are listed in that report and you can review it here. Even a newspaper article in 2004 did not even come close to the accusation made in Mr. Brice's "Opinion".
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/m32_apwra_draft_48_hour_search_interval_kb_study.p df http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040114/ai_n9722887/

[Cobalt 25]

Well put, Just Sold!

Also, weather is not climate, so dismissing global warming because it was colder than normal last Tuesday in Peoria, Illinois, doesn't make much sense.

Peter

[SAMIAM]

I have no axe to grind on this subject, Justsold.......and I don't like your suggestion that I'm playing loose with the facts. You clearly have some kind of an agenda...........I googled up "Birds killed by windmills" and got so many pages, there is not even room to quote them. Thousands of golden eagles have been killed, as well as hawks and owls.
And please don't whine about feral cats.......don't think they could take on an eagle.

[brk-lnt]

I googled up "Birds killed by windmills"

So did I just now, and found this from the top hit:

"Studies at more recently designed wind farms tell us that bird mortality at windmills is very low. A summary indicates that the average number of birds killed annually across North America is between one and two per turbine. "

[SAMIAM]

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds
© Rosemary Drisdelle

Oct 25, 2006
Windmills, especially older ones, in the wrong places can cause many bird deaths. Newer technology and thoughtful location of wind farms can minimize the death toll.

Anyone who has investigated the issue of bird mortality and windmills has heard of Altamont Pass, an area of rolling grasslands near San Francisco studded with 4000 wind turbines. Marching across the landscape in platoons and columns, the turbines, each with its whirling blades, resemble supersize barbed wire fencing. Estimates put the number of birds killed annually at Altamont Pass at 4,700, about 1,300 of them raptors (Golden Eagles, hawks, Burrowing Owls and other birds of prey).

Yet Altamont Pass seems to be the worst of the worst. The environment here supports high populations of ground-squirrels, and consequently high numbers of birds of prey. It is also situated in a migratory bird flyway. And because many of the turbines at Altamont are older models, with small rapidly turning blades, any birds that do fly near are more likely to meet with a sudden violent end. New windmills are much taller, lifting the blades above the flight paths of many birds, have larger, more slowly turning blades, and can do the work of four of the smaller turbines



Read more: http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/birds_and_windmills#ixzz0V35oM6MG

[SAMIAM]

Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but, please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds. You are culling the few stories by supporters that claim the opposite, but anyone can view the information that is out there..........

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds: One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

[Argie's Wife]

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

I've noticed your quotes are mainly about Altamont, CA wind turbines. Ever seen it or been out there? I have. It's huge - to say the least. It's one of the oldest sites of its kind in the US and engineering issues were realized after the installation/implementation of the site. It's been used to study the problem with the impact on birds in the area (and of course all the birds in CA are protected with a migratory bird act.) (Source HERE) (http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/birds_and_windmills) I believe engineers today are avoiding doing that again - it's not been good and is supposed to be re-designed in the near future.

There have been design changes to windmills since the installation of Altamont. (Source HERE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/04/MNG9SPKPT31.DTL).) Oh, and they do mention that cats are a bigger threat to birds than windmills, but that windmills are more of a threat to bats than to birds. (So... set up some sonic deterrent that only bats will hear and problem solved...) There's no "whining" there, Sam, just facts.

I seriously doubt that we'll see anything like Altamont in the LR and I'm not going to.... dare I say it?... get my feathers ruffled about a couple of wind turbines in the area that aren't even in place yet. This is a science that's still developing and there's much to be learned. Personally, I think it's great that other resources are being realized and explored.

[ishoot308]

Hi Samiam;

You are 100% correct in your assessment of the Altamont wind farms. The number of bird deaths quoted are actually considered conservative and most likely are quite higher!

Yes, Altamont is the worse by far and the reason for this is it is in a migration route for birds. It was quite stupid to allow wind generating turbines to be used in such a sensitive area. The newer wind farms which are not in migration routes are not nearly as deadly to birds.

FWIW;

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds


You seen to cite multiple references to the fact that one of the first, oldest, and largest windmill installations has yielded data that shows poorly planned and installed large scale installations can be problematic.

Reading further, there seems to be much agreement that the generation of windmills being installed currently has learned much from these early sites to greatly reduce the impact to bird populations.

[SAMIAM]

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything. :cool:

[brk-lnt]

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything. :cool:

Understood. I think though that you might be comparing direct measurables, like dead birds on the ground, to less direct factors.

Solar cell manufacturing is a messy, chemical-ridden process. Both for the solar panels, and for the batteries that sit behind them to provide energy storage for when it is dark out. That has a lot of environmental side affects that people don't directly concentrate on.

Coal or natural gas plants have environmental side effects, and so on.

The fact is that there is no "clean" way to power our lives. Electricity is not a naturally occurring phenomenon (eliminating lighting or things that can't be properly harnessed or predicted). The only way to get electricity is to convert some element (wind, sunlight, gas, coal, etc.) into electron movement. Then, we have to carry those electrons through hundreds of miles of cable (made of metals mined from the earth) and through transformers (made of more metal, with various fluids in them), and so on.

To mangle an old Internet meme, every time you load a web page, the power company kills a kitten.

I agree that we should try to minimize the impact we make on the world with our electricity generation and distribution, but we should look at the full impact of various power options, not just the right-in-front-of-your-face impact, which does not always tell the whole story.

[Shedwannabe]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

[Pineedles]

You are a troll!

[Pineedles]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

I wanted to make sure you couldn't "edit out your last post. This says it all--teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Don't worry Shedwannabe, I overcame the lies that my children were told and they're children will also overcome the lies that "educators" like you try to infuse into our grandchildren. You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually!

[Happy Gourmand]

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

[Cobalt 25]

Thoughtful and informative post, Shed. I'll bet you didn't think your point would be proven so quickly!

In my opinion, the loss of some birds pales in comparison to what is happening right now on our planet. The issue is just a distraction thrown up by obstructionists. We need a variety of alternative sources of energy. I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe we should look closer at nuclear power as well. THAT'S how important this issue is!

Peter

[trfour]

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

Still seems to be a + - . Kind of an easy known, lookout for the fallout! #1. "Waste Containment, A Big? ! " #2. To attack us and commit mass destruction! Since 911, security, and into the future has taken on a totally new consideration.

Okay, back to # 2! "We need to neutralize al qaeda and any other extremists that are bent on executing innocent people in the world." I am a 65 year old veteran and will very happily re-up to help in the fight!

Not so easy answers in this day and age and God knows that I don't know many of them, I do know that I will continue the fight to bring the best to my loved ones and my beloved United States Of America and what I can!

[ApS]

"...Boater, that was a great and thoughtful response..."
It was excellent, and can be read again here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=109604&postcount=79).

"...Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world..."
Annapolis, MD, might argue that point. ;)

"...The town "Voted" to do this project. I voted against..but have since become a supporter..."
This could become a trend. :)

It's troubling to read that France has nearly 60 Chernobyl-style nuclear plants, but no citizen actually voted for them: popular opinion, though largely favorable to nukes, was driven by Government-paid "Info-mercials". :eek2:

"...Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them..."
My BIL (the Maytag repairman) did his roof in solar panels in northern California last year. (Doing some of the installation himself). I've emailed for an update, but I recall that his electric meter often runs backwards—and he spends months RV-camping the US during the "hottest" generating periods that peak the grid best.

"...Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds..."
1) Huge bird kills (http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9802c&L=birdchat&P=7745) were recorded years ago at the newest TV towers, so even our newest digital TV reception has had unintended consequences. (And the number of towers is increasing!)

2) Two recent oil spills off New England's SE (http://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/ci_13597731#) coast killed 600 Loons, so even conventional fossil fuel energy doesn't come without bird-loss costs.

3) Logging in May and June accounts for large numbers of lost birds during the breeding season.

4) I've saved even-worse accounts of bird kills, but quite a few are no longer supported on the Internet.

"...once we run out of oil, its gonna be windmills and sailboats everywhere..."
1) Our Canada and Mexico neighbors are finding new fields, but require more expensive technologies for extraction.

2) We're not going to run out of oil, but we can't $ustain our annual 4% increa$ed u$e of it!

3) Just last week, a sailboat crossed the Atlantic in three days and used no oil. (Hitting 53-MPH :eek: ).

The future looks less oil-dependent and, with a planet nearing 7 Billion (7,000-million) people, it's not too soon for wind power, tidal power, solar power and a new look at nuclear.

"...So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming..."...and..."...You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually...!"

ETA:
I think member shore things "nailed it" Wednesday morning—at 4:30 AM!

Illustrator Norman Rockwell stepped away from his usual Americana themes to state MY view best in his work titled, "Russian Schoolroom". (Vicariously, that's "me", the student 2nd-from-right).

[Argie's Wife]

Is anyone else seeing the irony of this thread going 'round and 'round and 'round... like a windmill...? :D:laugh::D

[SAMIAM]

So much fun......started with windmills and now we're getting the global warming preachers. Next they'll be telling the school children that cro-magnon climate abuse caused the dinosaurs to go extinct.

[Redwing]

I do not see the "Thank you" option on these post, so please suffice it to say that I thank both SAMIAM and PINEEDLES for their insightful responses on this thread.

[Shedwannabe]

As to the idea that there is not consensus on global warming:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements." Wikipedia (Bold added)

For more info on the controversy over global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

(I realize these are just Wikipedia pages, but I doubt anyone wants to read the IPPC report or the RealClimate rebuttal of "deniers"

As to PineNeedles character, he took the time to send me a private email which is as follows:

"Get out of town troll!

Not a respectful message to a fellow Forum user... I realize you do not like your viewpoint being contradicted, but that is not cause to post a disrespectful private message.

[Redwing]

For the sake of a healthy discussion, I wanted to share the following link about Global Cooling, which as many of you may be aware was a great concern in the late 1960s/1970s (you may have to copy and paste into your web-browser).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html

[Pineedles]

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

[SAMIAM]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers".
Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.This post by Shedwannabe is disturbing. It seems as though it is an organized effort to brainwash our kids. What right does a teacher have to countermand a what a parent teaches their child? Next, we'll have kiddie police spying on their parents to report environmental crimes.............Jeesh
Um.....would it be too much to ask, since we are paying you, to stick to teaching and leave politics alone?

[ITD]

I think the only chance the Global Warming movement has of survival is through fear, intimidation by name calling. Any scientist who declare the science is settled is suspect in my book.

One look at the proposed "cap and trade" solution shows that it is actually a huge tax and makes the Al Gores of the world rich while making an insignificant decrease in the supposed greenhouse gases. The impact on our economy and the poorest among us will be devastating if this junk legislation is passed.

Fortunately many if not most of us realize this and are calling out these Global Warmists.

Shed's post about some teacher's personal agendas being pushed in schools should be an eye opener to people without kids in school. It's a confirmation of what I've seen as my kids navigate through the school system. I teach my kids that there are some not so bright and some very bright people who will do and say many things true and false to push their agendas. I teach them to rely on their own instinct and common sense to separate the truth from the BS, it's amazing how resistant they are to the BS.

We're on to you and we're not falling for your fairy tales.

[Shedwannabe]

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

Well, Pineedles, I didn't know that I had accused you of quackery, nor did I know what it mean for sure, so I went and looked it up.

"Dictionaries define quack as ... "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed." [This] definitions suggest that the promotion of quackery involves deliberate deception, but many promoters sincerely believe in what they are doing. "

"Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."

So, while I didn't call you this, the definition of quackery fits my understanding of the position you are taking on global warming. Just like the idea cigarettes were not definitely connected to cancer deaths turned out to be a promotion of various parties who had a lot to lose if they were found out, I think the evidence is pretty clear that the idea that global warming isn't definitely a (or the) major problem facing us turns out to be a promotion of various groups (US Chamber of Commerce, fossil fuel firms, etc.) who have a lot to lose if we start listening to and acting on the recommendations of impartial scientists.

My original statement in my first post on this thread was that I found it fascinating that there were still people who admitted they denied that global warming was real. I'm still fascinated.... and amazed... and deeply saddened at what increasingly appears to me to be "stick-head-in-sand" behavior. I find it hard to believe anyone reading (or knowing about) the US Academy of Sciences position, the UN's position, the position of every Academy of Science of every major country with an active research establishment can somehow say "it feels colder this winter, global warming must be bunk". I certainly don't have a degree in climatology, but when all of them are in agreement, worldwide, I trust the scientific research their discipline does, and the conclusions they reach.

[Boater]

Oh no, that evil Chamber of Commerce again. What a nerve they have disagreeing with you and the President. What a nerve they have trying to do what they think is best for small business. They must be stopped. I know they're on Obama's ememies list. Maybe you can outlaw them.

Shed, sarcasm aside please step back a minute and try to understand our skepticism. We're not scientists but we didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. We're not experts but we believe that both sides of this debate should have an open and fair hearing. We don't like being insulted and demeaned just because we reach different conclusions than you. Despite what you say, there are 2 sides to this. The question is not settled simply because you DECLARE it is.

We've watched both An Inconvenient Truth AND The Great Global Warming Swindle. We've noticed that many experts say that Algore's movie is riddled with inaccuracies and fiction. The pictures of Polar Bears in distress are not what they seem. In fact the Polar Bear population is at the highest level ever measured. They are thriving. The cataclysmic scenes in AIT are taken from fictional movies. Many of the cornerstones of Algore's argument are quickly and easily debunked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I). Much of the "truth" the masses are fed is flawed at best.

We also notice that your predictions are based heavily on computer models. As we know models are based on the data used (garbage in garbage out) and are often wrong. Ever see all the models of which way an approaching hurricane will go? They are all over the place. After Katrina the AGW worshipers predicted that we were entering a period of many horrific hurricanes because of AGW. We couldn't help but notice that those models were wrong too. And we are supposed to blindly believe your long term models?

We also notice many articles like "The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025)" published by your friends at NPR. You put a network of thousands of fancy ocean sensors around the world sure that they will show that the oceans are warming. Instead they show the opposite. Instead of pulling back a little and reconsidering your hypothesis you guys say "we must have misinterpreted the data". That shows how politically and ideologically driven this is. Your minds are closed. Ours are open.

This would all be a fun little debate except that you Liberals want to impose huge taxes, bureaucracy and regulation on every business and citizen of this country in the name of AGW at a time when our economy is near collapse (yes, the worst is yet to come). The emerging economies of the world are just not going to go along with this. We'll cripple our economy and the climate will be unaffected.

In my other post I mentioned all the scientists that are now very skeptical of the IPCC conclusions. Even some members of the IPCC are backing away. Lots of climatologists are skeptical. I've spoken to a few. I guess they are all trolls and extremists too. The fact is that only in Liberal organizations like the IPCC is there "near unanimous agreement" and declarations that "the debate is over". The rest of the world is very much split on the issue.

America has really done a fantastic job of cleaning up our act. LA used to have daily smog alerts and now they have almost none. We've cleaned up our rivers and harbors. Even Boston Harbor is now clear. Our cars are efficient and clean. I just replaced my home heating system and increased my efficiency by 80%. We've shut down the smokestacks. We're getting "greener" every day. How about focusing on China and the other real polluters instead of talking like we're the ones that must be punished?

By the way, it appears that you are losing the PR battle. The chart below is from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. It shows that not only people on this site are starting to question this. The doubts from people from all parties is growing. Don't worry though, I'm sure that your friends in the White House are working on ways to IMPOSE massive taxation and bureaucracy on us in the name of AGW despite the concerns of us trolls and extremists. It won't solve AGW, but will make you feel good and help fund even more handouts.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/556-2.gif

[NoBozo]

LIBERALS are much like The BORG. They are programmed from assimilation, and are not influenced by, or susceptible to Reason or Common Sense. They have no Original Thoughts. To them such concepts do not exist. They don't even recognize the Possibility....They are however, able to Mimic their creators. (Looking in the mirror.) Trying to reason with them is FUTILE. NB

[Pineedles]

I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening

I hope you and your buddies keep getting exasperated. The ignorant masses are rejecting your political BS. And while we are on the topic of faith, I guess you and your buddies reject God because it is based on faith?

One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming

Pineedles: Oh good, a college graduate debates K-12th graders on a topic that the teacher is prejudice about! Nice role model! I had a science teacher in 8th grade who presented all the theories of the creation of the universe, including his self admitted own, creation, but I chose to support the Big Bang in a paper. I wasn't penalized for being out of sync with what the teacher believed. I guess that's not the case today, huh Sheddy?

Pineedles: Your exultation of your "most excellent seminar" continues with more of "your Hero's" even more poignant abuse of our children.


Shedwannabe: - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.



I spent way too much time on this troll. I don't need to debate, I need to find a way we can fire teachers like you.

[ApS]

My BIL has responded from northern California regarding his solar panels—emphasis mine:

"...The pay-off for the panels will be about 10-11 years and so far this has been 5 years without a bill and a small positive due to our long trips.

"The initial investment was 25k and between the fed and the state we were paid $9000..."

Some thoughts I left off before:

"...I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above...The vast majority of American's are (rightly) worried by the inaction by governments on steps to combat global warming. An influential (and loud) minority work to block efforts to respond, such as at the Copenhagen UN conference this December..."
1) Dr. Morrison's "study" is fatally flawed since extreme views were held by those prone to an addiction.

They receive unwarrented support from addicts who are like-minded. The results would have produced the same result whether caffeine, nicotine or if dopeheads were studied. (Or maybe even those "addicted" to foreign oil)!

Peer pressure would account for "a reluctance in continuing to express their extreme views". (While not changing their views at all).

2) The use of the word "rightly" indicates a mind closed to alternatives. Some examples:

"Nazi Germany was entitled (rightly) to "Lebensraum" in 1938".

"Our present day economy demands that "Keynesian Economics" (rightly) be applied".

3) In our written medium, we can be influential, but not "loud". If it appears loud—it's because one dismisses the minority view.

4) Climate scientists (and their universities) receive paychecks!

("Follow the money". ;) )

"...I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads..."
At the old Wolfeboro airport, members Rattlesnake Gal (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=102922#post102922) and shore things have reported seeing the 100 acres of the now-defunct "Grandview Commons" development.

That property receives the usual strong NE wind that sweeps nearly the full length of the Broads to arrive there. Now that GC is under foreclosure—and never had much of a "grand" view anyway—a windmill farm seems like "a natural" for there. (And would still keep the present "dog park" atmosphere).

[Onshore]

I'm not "on the clock" right now so let me preface this by saying I'm speaking solely for myself at this moment and not my employer.

First, thanks to Redwing for suggesting the concept of having a "healthy discussion". Can we try that?

Second, there is no consensus on global warming. There is consensus that, globally, climates are changing. How the climate is changing depends on your geographic location. Some places are in fact cooler and wetter. While I cannot think of any well known scientist or scientific organization that would dispute that human impacts are complicating the global climate equation. There is certainly debate with regards to just how much of a factor human impact really is given the complexity of the system. As someone who works in the environmental science field I question how anyone can speak in absolutes on this issue. There are too many variables involved. We can't conclusively model the track and intensity of an active hurricane more than a few hours in advance and yet people will speak in absolutes about where the global climate will be in 50 years? To attribute climate change solely to the impacts of human activity is just as irresponsible as it is to say we have no impact. Science has not eliminated all other possible causes for change. We lack the capability to test and prove the theory at this point. When we become so sure of ourselves that we become close-minded (a condition similar to having one's head stuck in the sand...) and forget that we might be wrong (not like it would be the first time...) we stop being scientists and we need to be challenged. Good science does not fear being questioned. Good science is grounded in questions and the ability to tested by them and withstand them. Any scientist that responds to questioning of their work with derisions and insults deserves suspicion.

Causes aside, we know that the climate has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future. We cannot stop change from happening. If we allow ourselves to believe we are solely responsible for climate change we can then delude ourselves into thinking change is avoidable or reversible, and then we risk failing to be prepared to address changes as they occur. This does not seem like an issue on which we can afford to drop the ball.

Third, why does everything have to be about climate change? There are plenty of other good reasons to explore alternative power. Oil is not a renewable resource; it will run out. It's getting more expensive and money is tight. It funds certain governments that don't like us all that much. It contributes to acid rain. Pick a reason...

Ok…. Done ranting …Can we go back to talking about windmills now?

[Redwing]

The fact is that we don’t know whether the world will cool or warm. If you feel yourself believing confidently in Global Warming, remember that you would have believed in Global Cooling just as strongly in 1975. That climate pendulum is unpredictable and cyclycle.

[Cobalt 25]

shore things,

you stated, "Any scientist that responds to questioning of their work with derisions and insults deserves suspicion."

Does that also apply to members of this forum responding, " I hope you and your buddies keep getting exasperated. The ignorant masses are rejecting your political BS. And while we are on the topic of faith, I guess you and your buddies reject God because it is based on faith?"

and, "I spent way too much time on this troll. I don't need to debate, I need to find a way we can fire teachers like you."

not to mention the previously quoted PM.

I have a bias, of course, but it seems to me that Shed is being much more civil than most of his/her critics. I also believe that the topic of windmills is an excellent opportunity to discuss global warming. I doubt very many peoples' opinions have changed as a result of the discussion, but at least we have a chance to share ideas.

Peter

[Onshore]

If it is going to be a discussion then both sides need to keep an open mind and attempt to be respectful. As this thread shows, once one side is disrepectful of the other it becomes personal and escalates, or perhaps degenerates is a better word. The merits and flaws of the real issue are then either forgotten or ignored in favor of easier targets.

[Pineedles]

Ok, I'll try to be respectful. I find it difficult though when one side flaunts their position in influencing our children with their doctrines as absolute. Personally, I would like to see windmills in use more, as well as solar panels. I support alternative energy to make it cheaper though and not because the sky is falling. As for another alternative energy source, natural gas, we have plently of it in the US and therefore as a bridge to oil independence I would like to see this developed.

[birchhaven]

Here is an interesting letter that seems like a good read for this debate, I will just say I am not a scientist but these guys seem to know there stuff
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

also it is important to look at the signatures
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

[Woodsy]

Lots of hostility....

I am with Shore Things on this... we can debate ad nauseum the causes of global warming but no doubt it is real and climate change is happening FAST. Climates are constantly changing, but this usually occurs over thousands of years... sometimes millions of years! We have seen a rapid warm up over the span of less than 100 years!

To think that a population of 7 BILLION humans doesnt have some effect on the planets climate is silly. Millions of tons of pollutants (organic and man made)are spewed into the atmosphere every day... even more from developing countries like China and India who dont have the same environmental concerns & controls we Americans have in place.

The only thing we can do is to strive to minimize the human effect on the planets atmosphere. The US Govt has spent BILLIONS on studying the atmosphere... I have worked on a few of the satellites designed for this.

Solar, Wind, Tidal and Nuclear are all choices that should be on the table! We need to use fossil fuels as a bridge to cleaner energy.


Woodsy

[trfour]

Cow burps, known in polite circles as eructation, emit 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas (each) per day, or 50 million metric tons per year.

Read on; http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/832/do-cow-and-termite-flatulence-threaten-the-earths-atmosphere

I am 100% for wind power.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

One big reason to not burn up all the oil is we won't be able to make all the plastic stuff we are gonna want in the future. I would have much preferred the stimulus went to green energy projects instead of using up more oil to make all the highways even blacker (to absorb more heat).

Please don't get me wrong, I would have much preferred no stimulus at all.

[JPC]

Did anyone watch Chronicle this evening? They did a segment on the Lempster NH wind mills. I didn't know it but there are 13 wind towers there. It was quite interesting.

[ApS]

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.
Writing about "Cape Wind", which is off the shore of the Kennedy and Cronkite compounds at Nantucket, SAIL magazine writes this excerpt:

"...There have been many proposals for offshore wind farms on the U.S. coast, but none to date are operational; Cape Wind is the closest to fruition. So far, U.S. energy companies have opted for land-based wind farms, whereas offshore farms are common in Europe..."

...and...

Cape Wind is supported by the Audobon (sic) Society.

:coolsm:

The magazine notes that the Cape Wind permitting process began eight years ago. :eek2:

[Cobalt 25]

I have been following the Cape Wind fiasco since it's inception. When it was first proposed, my first reaction was that it must be a joke- there's no way it could be approved because it would ruin the Sound.

After reading more about it, I changed my opinion. The objections raised by the antis (The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound) were truly bogus. One by one, the studies during these past 8 years showed that a wind farm at that location would not be detrimental to the environment at all. Yet the Alliance introduced lawsuit after lawsuit in a successful attempt to delay the process.

I have been a big supporter of Ted Kennedy, and this was the only issue upon which I disagreed with him. He has, in my opinion, done a lot for our country, but his position on this issue seemed self-serving. I wish he had changed his position on this before he passed away.

Shameful. In my opinion, shameful is the only word that can describe the obstructionism shown by the antis. And the latest? The permitting process is again on hold because the Wampanoag Tribe claims the windmills will prevent them from being able to practice their religion because they will block out the sun! Their casinos apparently don't count if you are standing on the west side of them in the morning. There is soon going to be a very important ruling on this latest bogus claim in the courts.

8 years. It is amazing what a small group of zealots can do to prevent something like this from happening. Getting Audubon Society approval should be the ultimate testimonial to the value of this project.

Windmills on Winni! A great way to be a leader in new technology to help improve the environment! They're coming folks, like it or not.

Peter

[trfour]

'Stealth' wind turbine blade may end radar problem.
cnet-Reuters; http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10442876-54.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

[Shedwannabe]

Apropos of all the hot air expanded on "how the theft of the emails proved climate change was a hoax"... the inquiry into the "fake data" conducted by the oversight agency found...guess what? ... That the scientists were telling the truth, that the data was there to prove them, and that the climate change deniers were in fact wrong (as some of us had said all along)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?ref=us

Unfortunately, this will not get the headlines the false accusations got, and those who have had their heads in the sand the last few years will still believe the false accusations (which unfortunately includes the NH Republican Party which voted to leave the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative because climate change was a hoax....). The data shows climate change is happening. ALL national academies of science around the world accept it. The flat-earther's of our time, the climate deniers, don't.

The saddest thing is that there is a group of people, including many active on this forum, who prefer fantasy and self·-aggrandizement over reality and living sustainably. Not only do they want to ignore reality themselves, they want to force everyone else to ignore reality by eviscerating all attempts to respond to the problems.

[SIKSUKR]

Oh this really changes my mind now.Why didn't you show me this in the past.:laugh:All of us that have our head in the sand as you say have one thing you don't,our own opinions and thought process based on independent readings and studies.People like yourself are the real problem because they allow themselves to have their head stuck in the sand by other liberal media sources.

Again from me:There is no debate that the climate is changing.Its always changed since the earth was formed,millions of years before humans were on this planet.We've had everything from a firey hot atmosphere to a mile of ice on top of where we live today.The debate is whether it is manmade.I subscibe that our little tiny sample of climate is but a grain of sand in the solar sytem.

The only people that want to force everyone else to ignore reality by eviscerating all attempts to respond to the problems, as you accused others is yourself and others like you that call out other people that have differing opinions and chastize them.Your last post proves this.Typical liberal mentality,if you don't agree with me then I'll call you names to discredit you.

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

[NoBozo]

It's SNOWING out again, Shed has a bad case of Cabin Fever and also the day off, and was reading old threads to keep his-self busy, and stumbled on to this one and it stirred up his emotions again. :D :D YUP: That splains it. :) NB

[SAMIAM]

You're right,NoBozo.....kinda fun to see people stirred up on both sides of an issue.Can't imagine what would happen if Don allowed political debate.

[ITD]

If all human caused global warming believers would practice what they preach by swearing off energy use (junk your car, disconnect from the grid) that would do more to lower co2 emissions than any cap and tax scheme. They could solve their "problem" and leave the rest of us alone.

[jrc]

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

[NBR]

Oh my! Seals in the artic are becoming too warm. The polar ice cap has shrunk significantly and further shrinkage is a flooding threat to costal habitation. Excuse me the alarm was from the New York Times from 1822. Much like their ice age threat of the 1960's.

[Rose]

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

I read the article in your link and didn't see where Dr. Jones admitted to cooking the books. Could you please indicate where he does so?

Thanks

[jrc]

OK, this is the easiest piece:

"There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good."

Dr Jones' findings are not based on the actual land station records. It's based on data he modified from the real data. He freely admits he changed the actual land record to generate his "official" surface temperature record. That's cooking the books.

Their has never been an independent review of the real data. As a matter of fact if you check a few other sources, you will find that Dr. Jones claims that much of the real data is lost cannot be verified.

Reading further you see that there are three different datasets all derived from the lost real data. All different and only GISS allows anyone to see their data. If this is science and there is a scientific method of converting actual land station data to "official" surface temperature records, then this process would be open and repeatable.

So Dr Jones is 100% sure that we have global warming, he bases this on data that he won't show us, he admits it was changed from the original data using a method he won't tell us, and he claims he lost the original data.

[jrc]

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."


Confronted with differing data, tree rings vs instument data, he chose to use tree rings when that data supported his theory and instrument data when that supported his theory and a "trick" to hide the differences when they didn't agree. In science, when your data doesn't agree, you can't pick the data you like and use a "trick" to hide the data you don't. That's cooking the books.

[Rose]

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."

This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.

As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[ApS]

the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.
1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater. :(

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything? :eek2:

http://astroguyz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/night_usa.jpg

[Airedale1]

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.:(

[ITD]

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.:(

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do. ;)

[Rose]

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do. ;)

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

[jrc]

This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.

As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Unfortunately Rose peer review is not to be for "poor" papers, we have to guess what makes a paper "poor".

"I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech?"

The first part is the most damning. Some people believe that AGW means the end of the world as we know it, a tipping point that we cannot come back from, and yet the leading scientist will not show his work, will not tell us how he changed the raw data to make his charts and conclusions. The lives of 6 billion people are at stake. Does this sound credible? Remember he says he's 100% certain there is warming, he has zero doubt.

[ITD]

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

Is the "science settled" on anthropogenic global warming Rose?

[Yankee]

I ran across this a while back. A well respected massachusetts aerospace company is taking its ducted fan technology used in commercial jet engines and applying it to wind turbines: http://www.flodesign.org/clients.html

This is a really cool application of existing technology. There's two advantages over conventional propeller type wind turbine design: 1) a similar power level generating ducted fan design is smaller, and they can be placed closer together and 2) more importantly it will operate efficiently at both higher and lower wind velocities.

For those who wish to learn about the technology, I've attached 2 white papers published by Flodesign that discuss the aerodynamic theory.

Or watch this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Si-74IcrQ

It will be interesting to see if this alternative design takes off. There are other companies that are introducing similar ducted fan designs.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Here are some more pictures of global warming :D from about 1970. I am about 6' 2" in this picture.

[Shedwannabe]

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

The world is a strange place, isn't it. This is the very response I had previously (and still have) after reading the comments attacking the notion of human caused global warming. Amazing how people on the opposite sides of the issue can feel the exact same feeling. I can't imagine what I would do if I suddenly found myself in a conservative's body and mind - probably die of shock.

As to the numerous comments on how the amount of snow we have been having "disproves" global warming, that is, as usual, taking an instance and constructing a theory from it (or more likely taking a theory and finding an instance that supports it. The latest modeling suggests that the high temperatures in the higher latitudes (north of the Arctic Circle, its MUCH warmer than average) has the effect of pushing the airflow and precipitation down to our latitudes.

The difference between that and the theories here (lots of snow in the Lakes Region disproves global warming) is that the data supports the theory across the board. The idea that high snowfall this year in the Lakes Region disproving human caused global warming is like saying I found one four leaf clover in an entire field, therefore four leaf clovers are the norm everywhere.

But of course, I realize no scientific demonstration would possibly convince those not willing to look at the facts. Conspiracy theories are usually embraced because people have trouble thinking one person could have so much impact; likewise, anti-scientific attitudes are embraced because people have trouble imagining so much change will come from simple activities of driving to work, flying an airplane to a vacation, heating ones home. What many people fail to factor in is overpopulation, wasteful energy use, and the cumulative effects of 300 million people.

I say 300 million, not 7 billion, because lets face it - global warming is caused by excessive affluence, not by mere numbers of humans. Its the "McMansions" that people have to heat, its the excessive energy use for air conditioning, heating, spas, etc. etc. etc. The idea of helping raise the standard of the world will be disastrous (as we see in the way China and India are vastly increasing there energy use, their pollution (remember, China had to close down industry in most of the Beijing region to get air quality to an acceptable level) and their impact on global warming. The world would have a lot more "breathing space" (literally) were the super affluent be curtailed (as is happening in the Arab world right now).

[CateP]

Shed- I sent you a PM. Check your messages :)

[Yankee]

Shed,

The planet is still recovering from the last glacial maximum that reached its zenith around 20K years ago with the ice retreating from what we know as the US of A approx 12K years ago. Glaciologically speaking, we are still in the last ice age because the poles of our planet still remain covered in ice.

That human presence has had an effect on the planets climate there is no doubt. But to infer as you so vociferiously do that our civilization is the dominant cause is IMO a myopic viewpoint.

IMHO, the sun's varying intensity and our planets active vulcanism throughout Earth's history have and still dominate the world's climate. Before the Pleistocene age, the world was much warmer with much higher CO2 levels.

[NoBozo]

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater. :(

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything? :eek2:

http://astroguyz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/night_usa.jpg

Has anyone seen the satellite picture just like this one..Except. it's the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is completely DARK. I suggest our liberals in this country would have us emulate North Korea. THEY (our own liberals) of course would be in charge. :D :D NB ....Maybe not so funny....

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html

[Yankee]

Well, it's settled in my mind, but I know there's no use in trying to make my point here. Now I must go prep to teach my college-age students what greenhouse gases do.

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

[trfour]

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. May I add that She and Her Great wealth of knowledge is, has and always will be respected and enjoyed here!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/24/uk-cold-europe-idUKTRE70N2HN20110124

Also, WSI's meteorologists are predicting a notably cold spring for the entire Northern United States this year, 2011.

Keep up the great work Rose, We love you!
Terry
_________________________________

[Shedwannabe]

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!


I believe that is what you are doing, Yankee. The scientific community has more consensus on human caused global warming than on most other issues. If Rose is teaching college-aged students about greenhouse gases, that's because she's committed to teaching them science, not ideology, which is what your position appears to be.

A few years ago I was in Tanzania, which is definitely a third world country. I decided to go to the National Museum. The museum was four rooms total, one of which was on evolution. Despite looking like it greatly needed a face-lift, the think I marveled at was that their display on evolution was more accurate and up-to-date than many states allow their children to be taught - due to false ideology.

More power to anyone trying to lift the veil of ignorance from the youth of this world who will be inheriting the mess we leave to them due to our collective unwillingness to open our eyes. Look at social security - we are stiffing our children who will pay the bills for the moeny we use. Its pretty much the same (except a lot worse) in terms of the environment, because we will be leaving them a vastly degraded environment that may not be repairable.

[jrc]

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

I'm dropping out of this discussion, I'm impressed that Rose has a mind open to discussion, even if she disagree's with me. I find that most AGW true believers cannot engage in rational thought and just parrot back a list of things they don't like and how they are either caused by AGW or cause AGW or both. Talking to them is like trying to convince the Jehovah's Witness who comes to my door that the Bible is fallible, you can't reason with blind faith.

One last comment, we all hear that AGW or now Climate Change is unpredictable, and some places will heat and some will cool, some wetter some drier. But the one constant is that it is always bad. It never causes anything good, even by accident.

[Yankee]

The Earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation, so it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This energy is then emitted by the Earth in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the two primary "greenhouse" gases in the Earth's atmosphere, and are excellent absorbers of radiation at this wavelength. This energy heats the air, and increases the rate at which it emits energy to space and back to Earth. This warms up the surface and results in greater emissions from the surface and keeps the average temperature of the Earth about 59 degrees F warmer than if it didn't occur. So if it weren't for greenhouse gases, we'd be wishing for global warming...and that's a fact.

See what happens when you assume something? But that's easier to do than asking me what I meant by what I said. And that's what's wrong with our education system...we're teaching kids to look for the easiest way to get through.

Thank you for the rather unneccessary and condecending 6th grade primer on natural science. Needless to say you miss my point. Again, I agree that human civilization is a factor in the planets climate but it is an inconvenient truth that you all but eliminate any possibility that there are other variables in the equation, or even that science knows what the equation is.

Please look at other periods in the Earth's geologic past. Even limit yourself to the last recent epochs and you'll see that there were long stretches of time where the H2O and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much greater. Furthermore, we've only had the technology a few decades to accurately measure the variations in the sun's intensity. And I for one do not believe that we have all the answers regarding the effects of the sun's output, or the effect of infrared wavelength energy absorption in the atmosphere and therefore its propensity for climactic change.

With an increase in greenhouse gases, however they get into the atmosphere, do we really know their effects? Will the planet get warmer or colder?

And I've assumed nothing, and I do not need to ask what you meant. Your post clearly states that you will teach your students what greenhouse gases do while you strongly infer that despite the ongoing climatological debate you have decided to "teach" your students what you think instead of presenting all sides as an educator should do.

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

[NoBozo]

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

Yankee: Please DO NOt Bail Out of this disscussion. You have the ability to put this into words... that make sense. :) NB

[trfour]

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

Mind you all, I haven't any collage degrees, I do however have some years on me...
Planet, ( as in Planet Earth ), did not necessarily mean that any of our great geniuses could just jump in and shape it, ( plan it ) in any fashion that they fancied. Politics has tried and failed, and as far as I can see, Mother Nature has and will prevail.

Now and yes, we try our best to improve what we can to preserve all that we have cherished in our life times and to pass on to others. Just remember that absolute control is frivolous!

May we all keep learning, and thank you for listening,

Terry
_________________________________

[Cobalt 25]

It would seem as though few of us will be changing our minds in the near future concerning this issue.

When I read posts citing localized cold snaps as supporting their belief in the fallacy of climate change, I can certainly see the wisdom of recognizing the impossibility of reason. Weather is not climate.

Even the fact that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record plus the last decade containing some of the warmest years on record isn't enough, by itself, to conclusively prove the point. But all the rest of the scientific data certainly is.

As a former teacher, I commend Rose for sharing with her students information that will help them make decisions to guide our planet in the future.

Peter

[trfour]

Weather is not climate.

Peter

That is why they are spelled differently. What is CLIMATE? Climate is the overall picture of weather. = weather's Mom has always been Mother Nature, and she rules. She is the windmill that graces and powers all of the sail boats here in the Lakes Region, and beyond... :)... And I am also very thankful for www.winnipesaukee.com

Now, being born and brought up here in New England ( for the most part ) I found out early and became a weather nut. Just to let Y'All know, just how much I am enjoying this thread soooo!


Terry
____________________________________

[Pineedles]

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.:D

[Shedwannabe]

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.:D

Title of a private message from Pineedles to me about Global Warming/Climate Change" a while ago:

"Get out of town"

Well, it's not (necessarily) insulting, but it doesn't come across too friendly, or tolerant.

Pineedles must not have read the results of the scientific watchdog agency report, which after investigating all the data, found that the Climate Scientists had NOT lied. They do sound rather arrogant - a common character flaw, but not dishonest. While some "media" like Fox News (sic) may have reported they had lied, that doesn't make it so. Fox is not known for its retractions of its false claims.

Actually, even I think there is some chance that global warming that we see is not primarily caused by human activity. I'm not a climate scientist. I think other factors (sun activity, long term cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.) may have a major impact. However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today. So I think my lack of being 100% convinced is probably the same sort of fantasy that most posters here seem to hold - that if we just say we don't believe it, maybe we are not responsible for knowing about our planet's death of its life support systems due to our unwillingness to change our behavior.

[tis]

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.:D

Perfectly said, Pineedles! :)

[SIKSUKR]

Al Gore called and he's looking for a co host with Kieth Olberman on his radio station.Looks like we have a few here that view the world through their eyes only in that same light.What scares you people so much that you feel you have to stop all talk of differing opinions?I welcome the others opinions and viewpoints especially if it disagrees with mine.How else does a democracy come to a decision?What burns my butt here is when I'm told that the fianl answer is in and I am somehow a persom with my head burried in the sand because I don't agree.Pretty scary scenerio.Sounds more like Middle East dictatorship to me.

[ApS]

"I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts."

:confused:

However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today.

• Still, I prefer "warm" to "cold", especially as there is little we can do about it without costing even more unemployment.

• Windmills will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources—without raising the costs of our food—something in which the entire Department of Energy has failed. (in)

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

[ApS]

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

"You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to". :rolleye1:

Do not misquote me like that again.
:look: The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion. :D

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

:confused:

[ITD]

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:





Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to". :rolleye1:


:look: The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion. :D

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

:confused:


Or the years and years of raw data that was "interpreted" then destroyed to "save space" by a renowned University (UAE) who's studies provide a cornerstone for AGW.

[JPC]

I know most of you have a ton of snow in your back yard and for that reason discount global warming. I saw this article today. Please don't shoot the messenger


Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
12 hours ago


WASHINGTON — This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday.
This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
As the planet warms up, more water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere, said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the same time, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of the moisture that it takes in.
Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches its saturation point, Sanford said.
This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Midwest to the Northeast have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground.
The amount of water in that snowpack is among the highest on record, Masters said.
"If you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out to more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area," Masters said. "If all that water gets unleashed in a hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area, we could be looking at record flooding along the Upper Mississippi River and the Red River in North Dakota."
That tallies with projections by the U.S. National Weather Service, which last month said a large stretch of the north central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring.
SPRING CREEP
Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creep, a phenomenon where spring begins earlier than previously.
"We've documented in the mountains of the U.S. West that the spring runoff pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago," Masters said. "And that's because of warmer temperatures tending to melt that snowpack earlier and earlier."
In the last century, global average temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (.8 Celsius). Last year tied for the warmest in the modern record. One place this warmth showed up was in the Arctic, which is a major weather-maker for the Northern Hemisphere, according to Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
One driver of this winter's "crazy weather," Serreze said, is an atmospheric pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation, which has moved into what climate scientists call a negative phase.
This phase means there is high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at mid-latitudes, which makes the Arctic zone relatively warm, but spills cold Arctic air southward to places like the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.
This negative Arctic Oscillation has been evident for two years in a row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy snowfalls.
It is possible, but not certain, that the negative Arctic Oscillation is linked to warming of the Arctic, which is in turn influenced by a decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.
The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

[ITD]

I know most of you have a ton of snow in your back yard and for that reason discount global warming. I saw this article today. Please don't shoot the messenger


Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
12 hours ago


WASHINGTON — This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said on Tuesday.
This extra moisture is likely to bring on extraordinary flooding with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, as deep snowpack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run-off, the scientists said in a telephone briefing.
As the planet warms up, more water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere, said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At the same time, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of the moisture that it takes in.
Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches its saturation point, Sanford said.
This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Midwest to the Northeast have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground.
The amount of water in that snowpack is among the highest on record, Masters said.
"If you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out to more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area," Masters said. "If all that water gets unleashed in a hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area, we could be looking at record flooding along the Upper Mississippi River and the Red River in North Dakota."
That tallies with projections by the U.S. National Weather Service, which last month said a large stretch of the north central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring.
SPRING CREEP
Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creep, a phenomenon where spring begins earlier than previously.
"We've documented in the mountains of the U.S. West that the spring runoff pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago," Masters said. "And that's because of warmer temperatures tending to melt that snowpack earlier and earlier."
In the last century, global average temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (.8 Celsius). Last year tied for the warmest in the modern record. One place this warmth showed up was in the Arctic, which is a major weather-maker for the Northern Hemisphere, according to Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
One driver of this winter's "crazy weather," Serreze said, is an atmospheric pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation, which has moved into what climate scientists call a negative phase.
This phase means there is high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at mid-latitudes, which makes the Arctic zone relatively warm, but spills cold Arctic air southward to places like the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.
This negative Arctic Oscillation has been evident for two years in a row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy snowfalls.
It is possible, but not certain, that the negative Arctic Oscillation is linked to warming of the Arctic, which is in turn influenced by a decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.
The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said.
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

Like I said, is there anything GW can't do???

From a 1974 Time magazine article:

"Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example."

[JPC]

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110301/NEWS-US-CLIMATE-WINTER/

[ITD]

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110301/NEWS-US-CLIMATE-WINTER/


As should have I:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

[Newbiesaukee]

If your point is that scientists have been wrong in the past, I could not agree more.

A lot of what we thought 35 years ago turns out to be not quite what we expected. This is how science works. The scientific tools we have now with computer models, etc. far surpass what we knew then and we are more likely closer to the "truth" now than we were 35 years ago.

As a physician, I had to continue to take refresher courses to keep up with new advances. It would be unethical to practice medicine based on what we knew 35 years ago.

I think the same is true of any profession or activity based on knowledge...from rocket science to home building.

My point is, any true scientist would agree it would be the height of arrogance to state anything with certainty at any point in time. But we only can deal with the best information that we have at any one time. In science, it is more likely that what we know now is closer to the truth than what we knew then. And by sticking to scientific principles and open-mindedness, we will know more in the future than we know now.

[Gearhead]

This discussion reminds me of the Monty Python call-in skit about farming. Someone called with a question about CEREAL PRODUCTION IN THE EEC, and the host told him, "I'm sorry, we're only taking calls about farming." and hung up. It still makes me laugh.

[JPC]

This discussion reminds me of the Monty Python call-in skit about farming. Someone called with a question about CEREAL PRODUCTION IN THE EEC, and the host told him, "I'm sorry, we're only taking calls about farming." and hung up. It still makes me laugh.

Speaking of wind mills, on my way to work this morning I saw that the Mobil Station on Rt101A near exit 7 is up to $343/gal. After the initial investment of putting up wind mills, wind is free (cheap power vs. Middle East oil). If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East then $5/gal is not that far off.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

I said I'm out of the debate, and I mean that.



You're as bad as some of my students...do you read for content? What does the last sentence in my paragraph say? "What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more." You are both spending so much time blowing so much air you could both power a windmill.

[NoBozo]

Remember the New Math..? If 70% of the students in the class believe that 2+2=5, then It Is So. :). It would be hurtful to the self esteem of the majority of the class to correct them with the truth. After all, they will figure it out sooner or later, right? ;)

You can't carry on a reasonable and logical conversation with people who arrive at a "scientific" conclusion by Consensus. Consensus is a refusal to accept responsibility for ones Own conclusions, because Consensus is NOT Your Own conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------
Consensus: (Taken from Wikipedia) The Bold is mine.

"Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages" .
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I take full responsibility for stating here that Science/Math is NOT driven by Consensus. 2+2=4 ...no matter how you FEEL about it. :D

Feel free to look up the word Editorial. :) NB

[Rusty]

Well, it's settled in my mind, but I know there's no use in trying to make my point here. Now I must go prep to teach my college-age students what greenhouse gases do.

Rose is all done trying to make her point here.

You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more.

I'm out as well since some people here prefer to do nothing but make false accusations and refuse to see that they were wrong in doing so. Seems like a trend in this forum, no matter what thread it is.

Rose is out of here now

I know I said I was out, but I do check for just this type of deception on the part of others. Acres per Second quoted me (and in such a way that when I quote him it doesn't show up...how convenient) as saying,

"I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts."

Since you decided to quote only half of my sentence, I will provide the full paragraph.

"You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Do not misquote me like that again.

Rose knows that she said she is out of here BUT

I said I'm out of the debate, and I mean that.


You're as bad as some of my students...do you read for content? What does the last sentence in my paragraph say? "What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."


Rose said she’s out of the debate and she means it this time

[chipj29]

Rose is all done trying to make her point here.
Rose is out of here now
Rose knows that she said she is out of here BUT
Rose said she’s out of the debate and she means it this time
Well Rusty, if you were being questioned, and your posts were being parsed and quoted out of context, would you return to the thread to try to clear the air?

For me, it is an easy answer...I would.

[jrc]

Come on, I disagree with AGW, and Rose believes in it, but this piling on is just silly.

Rose is teaching about the greenhouse effect, a well known, non-controversial description of how the sun warms the whole earth in a manner similair to how the sun warms a greenhouse.

No one questions the effect, the disagreements come when you discuss changes to the effect and causes of the changes.

I will not re-enter the AGW discussion but this vendetta against Rose is just wrong. She clarified her comments, let it drop.

[SIKSUKR]

Agreed. As a member that has made his opposite views clear, I welcome Rose and anybody else's differing opinions. Unlike other members, I welcome debate and not being told all the answers are in. That in my mind is not up for debate.

[Rusty]

IMHO a good teacher should have knowledge on the subject matter, good communication skills (including listening), and patience.
A good teacher doesn’t take on a debate and then throw the towel in four times because someone has different views on the subject.

[NoBozo]

The Global Warming Spy Satellite riding on a NASA Rocket didn't make it to orbit. SNAFU. I wonder what that's all about..?? :look: :look:

Not trying to make trouble...just trying to encourage thought.. :) NB

Time Sensitive Link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_GLORY_SATELLITE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-04-07-48-04

[trfour]

And Yes!... Not so easy for Rocket Science either... Up's and downs abound here on Earth. The lessens learned FROM OUR GREAT Teachers 'Shore helps.
The final word however comes from above us all. Just keep that in mind as well.

We try to, and we live and learn from our mistakes. Look above and we may get another shake.
Terry
____________________________________

[SAMIAM]

Al Gore's 1/2 a billion $$ satellite now sleeps with the fishes !

[NoBozo]

Al Gore's 1/2 a billion $$ satellite now sleeps with the fishes !

Sam that was Excellent. There hasn't been much to smile about lately but that made me laugh out loud. :D :D NB

[Rose]

This BS has just made it clear that my time here is a waste. Some of you are willing to stop and think and listen (as I was of jrc's opinion and he of mine, and I appreciate that), but others are just mindless fools who don't want to think for themselves and want to maintain the status quo because it suits their lives as they currently experience them. Too bad you're screwing over your progeny. Congratulations. You make the country weaker by not educating yourselves and thus thinking for yourselves.

[Jonas Pilot]

Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!

[NoBozo]

ROSE: We can only HOPE.......................ROSE..C'mon..lighten up. Life is short and there are issues that each of us are passionate about but you can't let it OBSESS you.. :look: NB

[NoRegrets]

Don't go Rose or others. Even though our votes may cancel each other the debate is lost when personal snipes get to you.

I am not a fan of the Global Climate game. I feel it is a program engineered by elitest politicians for their own personal financial gain. It also conviently diverts focused attention on the goings on in government.

I believe the real issue is concentrated pollution that is created by the numbers of people in the world.

[MAXUM]

The whole climate change debate has gone of for years, I for one think the whole premise that ANY of it is man made is a bunch of garbage. It's a whipped up fantasy to create a "crisis" for the government to "solve" or in more exact terms waste more tax payers dollars to force unwanted regulation down our collective throats to lock in more money for them to further waste. It's a vicious cycle. Point being, since the last ice age the plant has been warming up, looking back in history before the ice age the planet was a much warmer place than it is today. Why should we not expect it to return to that state naturally? Stupid.

Now to the point of renewable and alternative energy, sure it's a great idea and in theory makes sense. In reality it has a LONG way to go before it can readily compete with cheaper and more dependable fossil fuels. Does that mean completely abandoning further exploration of renewables? Of course not, but to suggest the idea pushing these very expensive and not as efficient solutions makes little to no sense when the country is going broke. If the private sector wants to develop this stuff, great, let the feds give companies massive tax incentives to do so and see where science takes it. I'm sure that in time solutions will come about that can readily compete with what we have today, but no that's not good enough. The whacko tree hugging liberals figure that they can, with the stroke of a pen they can make laws that will advance this process come hell or high water, not even taking under consideration what that means to the average Joe who ends up footing the bill.

[SAMIAM]

Couldn't have said it better,Maxum........many of us disagree on this issue and we've all made a "pokes" at each other but for Rose to call people mindless fools simply because they don't agree with her brings respectful debate to a very low place.I hope Rose keeps her word and fades into the (smoggy from all of our automobiles) sunset.

[ApS]

Well Rusty, if you were being questioned, and your posts were being parsed and quoted out of context, would you return to the thread to try to clear the air?
The entire paragraph was awkward and unwieldy :confused: it's doubtful anyone actually understood any of it. Now that entire paragraph got deleted, so how 'bout skipping the politics of AGW and attempt to return to the subject of this thread?

(Which was Windmills along the lake).

[SIKSUKR]

This BS has just made it clear that my time here is a waste. Some of you are willing to stop and think and listen (as I was of jrc's opinion and he of mine, and I appreciate that), but others are just mindless fools who don't want to think for themselves and want to maintain the status quo because it suits their lives as they currently experience them. Too bad you're screwing over your progeny. Congratulations. You make the country weaker by not educating yourselves and thus thinking for yourselves.

I take that back. I was hoping to offer an olive branch and the benefit of the doubt but looks like I was right on this case too. If you don't agree with me then your a mindless fool who can't think for themself? The elitism on the gw side is astounding. The true colors come out when questioned at all.

[Woodsy]

I dont understand why balance is soo hard to achieve?? The US economy REQUIRES cheap oil to function... and the lack of cheap oil will slow or stop any economic recovery. I predict a VERY quiet summer on the lake! We need to look at ALL ALTERNATIVES!

Like it or not $5+ per gallon gas IS coming. Its just a question of when. Right now its a spike due to Middle East unrest. When it comes back to "reality" the price of gas will be right around $3.20/gal... and the sheep will all say "hey at least its not $4.50". When it spikes at $5, and returns to $4 the sheep will all say "hey at least its not $5". etc etc etc Gas will keep on climbing and climbing. Its NOT going to stop... its simple supply and demand. As the economies of China & India (2 of the worlds most populous nations) continue to grow at exponential rates, the production of oil remains constant, the supply of oil dwindles.... its a recipe for economic disaster!!

We as Americans need to embrace alternative energy sources. Use the economies of scale to make it happen cheaply! I am all for windmills on mountain tops, every roof should have solar panels, geothermal heating should be required on new construction (where feasible) and the big no-no word... NUCLEAR! We need to invest in our mass transit infrastructure. Hi-speed rail, intercity bus & rail lines etc.. get people out of thier cars and out of airplanes! People forget that at the start of WWII, America had the BEST public transportation system in the world! Trolleys, buses and trains! It will be EXPONENTIALLY cheaper to invest now in public transportation, that it will be when gas is $7/gal and electricity is $.50/KWH (right now its about $.16/KWH).

Embracing and encouraging alternative energy sources also helps reduce greenhouse gases and the global warming debate. Not for nothing but if you think that 6,904,267,367 people (1+ Billion in CHINA alone) voraciously consuming natural resources and burning fossil fuels doesn't have a negative effect on the global climate and the global economy, then you are retarded!

Woodsy

[ITD]

........... negative effect on the global climate and the global economy, then you are retarded!

Woodsy


I agreed with a couple of things you said, disagreed with a couple, was going to respond then you ended as most AGW believers do. AGW really has become a cult and I'm amazed that so called "critical thinkers" behave like this. Because of this cap and trade and CO2 credit schemes need to be stopped. Unbridled environmentalism do-gooders are driving jobs away and need to be reeled in. Enough is enough.

[SIKSUKR]

, then you are retarded!

Woodsy

Agree with most of your post Woodsy and then you solidify mine by not only offending people that disagree but people with special needs. This is exactly what I've been talking about. The intolerance is incredible. I think its obvious who the reasonable thinkers are.

[NoBozo]

FWIW: We haven't built an Oil Refinery OR a Nuclear Power Plant in over 30 years. This is because the "Environmentalists" blocked any efforts to do so. Now those same people are whining because they don't have cheap gas for their Volvos and cheap power for their 60" plazma TVs. Go figure. :look: NB

[Woodsy]

ITD...

I am not as radical a AGW believer as you might think and I am certainly no tree hugger. But I try to apply some sense and logic to things. 7 BILLION people all consuming natural resources, and the majority of those people live in countries that have little or no environmental rules is going to have an effect on the global environment, and most certainly an effect on the global economy. I accept that I am going to pay higher and higher energy costs. I also know that if we start to effect a shift in our thinking now we can mitigate the damage to our economy. Without low cost energy an enconomy cannot thrive.

I really dont care if people want to debate the earth was warm once, and is warming naturally again... the reality is that it is warming. Is it doom and gloom for humans? Naa... we can adapt. Some species wont and will become extinct. However, we as species are consuming the earths natural resources at an ALARMING rate. This consumption will cause the failures of many economies, our own included if we don't find some energy balance!

For example... all of the AGW types tout their electric cars... yet the Prius has a HUGE carbon footprint. and where is all the electricity thats needed to power the new Chevy Volt?? I havent heard of a new powerplant being built? The national grid is outdated and teetering on collapse without some serious improvements! The funny thing is these same types dont want the Power Line project thats supposed to come down from quebec! LOL!

Woodsy

[jrc]

Wow, "mindless fools" and "retards", I guess civility is gone for good.

Back to the original topic, I had the day off for Presidents Day, had a nice ride to the lake and took a ride down Belknap Point Road. The windmill is there right on the road. Not very intrusive, it actually surprised me, given how wooded the general area is. I wasn't down there looking for it but I found it.

I don't think you could see it from the water unless you got at just the right angle. I don't remember any noise but it wasn't very windy that day.

Ok, back to the arguing...

[Woodsy]

Allow me to clarify my use of the word retarded... it was not used in a derogatory manner. As taken from Webster's dictionary....

RETARDED : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

I stand by my statement... There are almost 7 BILLION people (and growing daily) who are consuming natural resources and producing waste at an amazing rate in this world, especially in the growing economies of India and China. Anyone who thinks that this doesnt somehow have an effect on the global climate is definitely IMHO limited in intellectual development.... completely unable to grasp the big picture. Its like living next to pig farm with 10000 hogs and telling me it doesnt stink... or arguing that the hogs dont stink because the wind blows the other way. We know the hogs stink... we can just argue about just how much they stink! We know that human population growth is having an effect on the climate, we can argue about how much effect!

Things need to change and the sooner the better... it will be cheaper now than 10 or 20 years from now. Embrace alternative forms of energy, use economies of scale to make them more affordable....

Woodsy

[ITD]

ITD...

I am not as radical a AGW believer as you might think and I am certainly no tree hugger. But I try to apply some sense and logic to things. 7 BILLION people all consuming natural resources, and the majority of those people live in countries that have little or no environmental rules is going to have an effect on the global environment, and most certainly an effect on the global economy. I accept that I am going to pay higher and higher energy costs. I also know that if we start to effect a shift in our thinking now we can mitigate the damage to our economy. Without low cost energy an enconomy cannot thrive.

I really dont care if people want to debate the earth was warm once, and is warming naturally again... the reality is that it is warming. Is it doom and gloom for humans? Naa... we can adapt. Some species wont and will become extinct. However, we as species are consuming the earths natural resources at an ALARMING rate. This consumption will cause the failures of many economies, our own included if we don't find some energy balance!

For example... all of the AGW types tout their electric cars... yet the Prius has a HUGE carbon footprint. and where is all the electricity thats needed to power the new Chevy Volt?? I havent heard of a new powerplant being built? The national grid is outdated and teetering on collapse without some serious improvements! The funny thing is these same types dont want the Power Line project thats supposed to come down from quebec! LOL!

Woodsy


Well, it takes energy to be productive, to produce things. People like to point out that we consume a quarter of the world's energy, but we also produce a quarter of the world's goods. Making stuff uses energy, being productive uses energy. I think about the cities like Lowell and Manchester and others, one of the factors of being near a river was the ability to exploit the river for power, now a thin wire comes in and gives us all we need. If electricity production had been perfected three hundred years ago this country would look much different than it does now.

I find it ironic the EPA now considers co2 a pollutant. The catalytic converter developed over the last 40 or so years because of EPA regulations, takes all those other nasty pollutants and turn them into....... you guessed it co2 and water among a few other things. I haven't looked up the numbers but I'm willing to bet that you would end up with a much larger reduction in CO2 just by requiring everyone saw off their converters rather than any cap and trade scheme. (No, I'm not advocating that be done.)

I hear the argument "..more public transportation", well tell me, how will that work out in NH (Lakes region for instance) or the rural areas of the 49 other states? I'll answer, it won't. It would be a disaster of epic proportions in waste of infrastructure, money and fuel. It would be impossible to economically cover the area that needs to be covered in this country.

The electric car actually has some appeal to me although not in the presently available models. Look at the Volt for instance. Right now it's batteries can store about 16kwh of energy, of which about 8 kwh is usable. With that power it can travel about 35 miles before the gas motor kicks in. Now I think that is actually pretty good for what it is, although it is still not that useful. This 8kwh of useful energy is stored in a 375 pound battery. If the battery can be made to store about 4 times that usable energy in the same 375 pounds I think the technology will start to give the IC engine a run for its money. As a comparison, a gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds and stores about 36 kwhs of energy.

As far as the infrastructure for electric generation and distribution goes, I'm not sure how big of an issue that really is. As far as efficiency goes, large scale power plants are pretty efficient especially when compared to an IC motor that is probably best case 30% efficient at optimum usage.

Solar and wind are shams as far as I am concerned. They require huge, and I mean huge subsidies to break even compared to fossil fuels. We need huge advances in manufacturing and implementation for them to be competitive. I think the current tax credit/subsidies are actually holding these technologies back. All in the name of feel good politics to say we are doing something "green".

I was going to get into the dubiousness of AGW science and more importantly the proposed "solutions" to AGW but I'm tired of writing now so I'll stop. Maybe another day........

[Pineedles]

Wow ITD! When you are rested, write some more. Your basic facts are very revealing. Thank you!

[jrc]

"I stand by my statement... There are almost 7 BILLION people (and growing daily) who are consuming natural resources and producing waste at an amazing rate in this world, especially in the growing economies of India and China. Anyone who thinks that this doesnt somehow have an effect on the global climate is definitely IMHO limited in intellectual development.... completely unable to grasp the big picture."


No one believes that humans have no effect, but many believe the effect is tiny and insignificant compared to the natural earth and solar processes. Humans always overestimate our power, the climate forces on earth will do whatever it does based overwhelmingly on natural process. We will be kicking ourselve that we didn't spend our time and money finding way to adapt to change rather than vainly trying to stop.

Look how helpless we are today to the force of one hurricane, one tornado, one earthquake, one tsunami, or even a snowstorm.

Yet some believe they can change the climate of entire planet by few minor things like switching what lightbulbs we use.

[Woodsy]

ITD...

You make my point and I appreciate it. There is no one solution thats going to fix everything.... as far as solar goes, you may think its a crock until you start putting it on every roof. I am pretty sure the Germans mandate that. Wind is the same way... wait until there are lots of small windmills... With economy of scale lowering the costs it will all help.

Everything we do in this country is tied to energy production... gas & diesel fuel go up... food and everything else that gets delivered by truck goes up. just about EVERYTHING is delivered by truck. Everything delivered by rail goes up as well, however its a much smaller increase as high fuel costs usually tend to be good for a railroads bottom line they can move more freight for less fuel costs. The big commodity that goes up is coal... coal is used primarily to generate electricity. So the electricity required for those electric cars is gonna get pricey as well.

I see your point about public transportation in the lakes region... however, when gas gets exponentially expensive then what? The people with $$$ buy an electric car... the poor folk have deal with thier expensive old gas vehicle and the large part of their budget it gobbles. So they dont travel unless necessary, get rid of thier car altogether, or we go back in time somewhat and people start using some form of mass transit. No doubt mass transit works better for areas like boston, but at one time even laconia had a trolley! ;)


Woodsy

[Gearhead]

I saw this article in "The Onion" recently. Pretty good idea?



http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

[Cobalt 25]

High speed busses- fantastic idea! It may be a tad bit exciting when they swerve from lane to lane at 165 per. And the old ones can be converted for only forty dollars!

Peter

[NoRegrets]

I will assume the 40 dollar upgrade is the federal budget number. I bet they could turn that 40 into several gabillion dollars by the time they hire staff, administrators, advertising agencies, buy off anyone objecting to the plan, and then leave enough so they can dip into the money pot for their own needs.

[ApS]

the old ones can be converted for only forty dollars!
They'll need a Night Watchman (http://www.funny-joke-rating.com/best-jokes/top_5_best_clean_jokes.html).

:look:

[Argie's Wife]

The link is to The Onion - a satirical news program.:D:D

[Cobalt 25]

I've been enjoying The Onion for years. They've got some funny stuff on there!

Peter