Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2009, 03:26 PM   #101
Onshore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Thanks: 12
Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts
Default

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.
Onshore is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 04:04 PM   #102
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 05:54 PM   #103
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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?
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 10-23-2009 at 07:02 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 06:17 PM   #104
Gavia immer
Senior Member
 
Gavia immer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shore things View Post
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.
Gavia immer is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 06:40 PM   #105
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 10-22-2009, 06:52 PM   #106
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,612
Thanks: 1,082
Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
..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.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 08:49 PM   #107
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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...omment-page-1/
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 09:44 AM   #108
Whimsey
Senior Member
 
Whimsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rum Point/West Alton
Posts: 195
Thanks: 258
Thanked 37 Times in 24 Posts
Default Windmillls and Birds

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.
Whimsey is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 10:04 AM   #109
Pine Island Guy
Senior Member
 
Pine Island Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: pine island of course!
Posts: 404
Thanks: 235
Thanked 233 Times in 111 Posts
Default 'opinion' versus 'article'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimsey View Post
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
Pine Island Guy is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 11:50 AM   #110
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

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.
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 04:30 PM   #111
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 06:28 PM   #112
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife View Post
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. NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 10-24-2009, 06:46 PM   #113
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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!

After all, birds are better than people!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 10-24-2009 at 07:48 PM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-25-2009, 12:45 PM   #114
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,612
Thanks: 1,082
Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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/m...l_kb_study.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_n9722887/
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata

Last edited by Just Sold; 10-25-2009 at 01:14 PM. Reason: typo & Added link
Just Sold is offline  
Old 10-25-2009, 04:12 PM   #115
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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
Cobalt 25 is offline  
Old 10-25-2009, 04:36 PM   #116
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-25-2009, 05:13 PM   #117
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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. "
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 08:38 AM   #118
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.cf...#ixzz0V35oM6MG
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 08:50 AM   #119
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 09:06 AM   #120
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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) 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.) 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.
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 09:11 AM   #121
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
Default

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
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 10:13 AM   #122
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 03:59 PM   #123
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 04:44 PM   #124
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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.
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 05:01 PM   #125
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

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...
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 06:35 PM   #126
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

You are a troll!
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 06:37 PM   #127
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
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!

Last edited by Pineedles; 10-26-2009 at 07:06 PM. Reason: Added emphasis!
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 08:23 PM   #128
Happy Gourmand
Senior Member
 
Happy Gourmand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ruskin FL
Posts: 1,025
Thanks: 187
Thanked 322 Times in 179 Posts
Default Power...

.....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?
Happy Gourmand is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 10:53 PM   #129
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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
Cobalt 25 is offline  
Old 10-26-2009, 11:14 PM   #130
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default Should We Stress Our Planet Even More....

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand View Post
.....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!
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 05:12 AM   #131
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Default More Windmills Needed...and Soon...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...Boater, that was a great and thoughtful response..."
It was excellent, and can be read again here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoBozo View Post
"...Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world..."
Annapolis, MD, might argue that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoBozo View Post
"...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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
"...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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...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 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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by travaler18 View Post
"...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 ).

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
"...So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming..."
...and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
"...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).
Attached Images
 

Last edited by ApS; 10-28-2009 at 05:49 AM. Reason: To thank shore-things for this morning's latest observation...
ApS is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 07:23 AM   #132
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Is anyone else seeing the irony of this thread going 'round and 'round and 'round... like a windmill...?
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 08:29 AM   #133
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 09:32 AM   #134
Redwing
Deceased Member
 
Redwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Haven, Connecticut and summer resident of Moultonborough, NH since 1952
Posts: 216
Thanks: 324
Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
Default Thank you!

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.
Redwing is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 11:33 AM   #135
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

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.
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 12:14 PM   #136
Redwing
Deceased Member
 
Redwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Haven, Connecticut and summer resident of Moultonborough, NH since 1952
Posts: 216
Thanks: 324
Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
Default Another point of view

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
Redwing is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 12:34 PM   #137
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default Sheddy

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 12:52 PM   #138
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
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?
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 01:41 PM   #139
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

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.
ITD is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 02:56 PM   #140
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
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.

Last edited by Shedwannabe; 10-27-2009 at 02:58 PM. Reason: To underline "isn't" for clarity and emphasis
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 03:47 PM   #141
Boater
Senior Member
 
Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
Default

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. 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" 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.

Boater is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 06:03 PM   #142
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default Just a Thought

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
NoBozo is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 06:57 PM   #143
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
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.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 08:01 PM   #144
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Default Before the boom drops...

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

Quote:
"...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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
"...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". )

Quote:
Originally Posted by shore things View Post
"...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 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).
ApS is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 08:26 PM   #145
Onshore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Thanks: 12
Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts
Default

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?
Onshore is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (03-07-2011)
Old 10-27-2009, 08:36 PM   #146
Redwing
Deceased Member
 
Redwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Haven, Connecticut and summer resident of Moultonborough, NH since 1952
Posts: 216
Thanks: 324
Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
Default One last thought, if I may...

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.
Redwing is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 10:06 PM   #147
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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
Cobalt 25 is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:30 AM   #148
Onshore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Thanks: 12
Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts
Default

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.
Onshore is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 07:57 AM   #149
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default Still angry but....

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.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 08:45 AM   #150
birchhaven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 132
Thanks: 14
Thanked 54 Times in 30 Posts
Default 2007 Letter

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_pop...html?id=164002

also it is important to look at the signatures
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
birchhaven is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:07 AM   #151
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default Wow....

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
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 05:40 PM   #152
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default Chewing The Cud...

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/...ths-atmosphere

I am 100% for wind power.
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 07:37 PM   #153
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default

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.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 08:36 PM   #154
JPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 159
Thanks: 42
Thanked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Default WMUR Chronicle on Wind Power

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.
JPC is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 04:30 AM   #155
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Cool Better start soon...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
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:

Quote:
"...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...

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


The magazine notes that the Cape Wind permitting process began eight years ago.
ApS is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 10:02 PM   #156
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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
Cobalt 25 is offline  
Old 01-27-2010, 08:52 PM   #157
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default Interestng Twist...

'Stealth' wind turbine blade may end radar problem.
cnet-Reuters; http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10...orsPicksArea.0
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 02-25-2011, 10:35 AM   #158
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

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/sc...aa.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.
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 02-25-2011, 02:34 PM   #159
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

Oh this really changes my mind now.Why didn't you show me this in the past.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.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to SIKSUKR For This Useful Post:
Begonezvous (02-27-2011), brk-lnt (02-25-2011), chipj29 (02-28-2011), garysanfran (02-25-2011), Gatto Nero (02-25-2011), hazelnut (03-07-2011), ishoot308 (02-25-2011), NoRegrets (02-28-2011), Pineedles (02-26-2011)
Old 02-25-2011, 03:25 PM   #160
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default I Can Explain

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. YUP: That splains it. NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 08:56 AM   #161
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

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.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:07 AM   #162
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

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.
ITD is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:23 AM   #163
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

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.
jrc is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
Airedale1 (02-27-2011)
Old 02-26-2011, 10:43 AM   #164
NBR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Default Polar Ice

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.
NBR is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 11:46 AM   #165
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default Could you please point it out

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
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

Last edited by Rose; 02-26-2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason: grammar
Rose is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 07:07 PM   #166
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

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 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
NoBozo (02-26-2011)
Old 02-26-2011, 07:32 PM   #167
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

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.
jrc is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 08:09 PM   #168
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
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.
Rose is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 04:28 AM   #169
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Post At Minimum, Turn Off Residential Outdoor Lighting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
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?

ApS is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
Rattlesnake Guy (02-27-2011), Waterbaby (02-28-2011)
Old 02-27-2011, 10:39 AM   #170
Airedale1
Senior Member
 
Airedale1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laconia
Posts: 594
Thanks: 557
Thanked 1,569 Times in 274 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
"The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit." Nelson Henderson (1865-1943)
Airedale1 is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:33 AM   #171
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airedale1 View Post
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.
ITD is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:52 AM   #172
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default You could be right

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD View Post
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.
Rose is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:07 PM   #173
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
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.
jrc is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:35 PM   #174
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
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?
ITD is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:54 PM   #175
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default New wind turbine design

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.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf New Developments in Shrouds and Augmentors.pdf (302.8 KB, 1131 views)
File Type: pdf ducted wind turbines and propellers revisited.pdf (239.7 KB, 1926 views)
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 03:07 PM   #176
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Here are some more pictures of global warming from about 1970. I am about 6' 2" in this picture.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 05:23 PM   #177
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
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).
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 05:40 PM   #178
CateP
Senior Member
 
CateP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wolfeboro
Posts: 868
Thanks: 584
Thanked 540 Times in 210 Posts
Default

Shed- I sent you a PM. Check your messages
CateP is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 06:39 PM   #179
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
Airedale1 (02-28-2011)
Old 02-27-2011, 07:29 PM   #180
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
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?

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. NB ....Maybe not so funny....

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html
NoBozo is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 08:54 PM   #181
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
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!
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
Airedale1 (02-28-2011)
Old 02-27-2011, 09:22 PM   #182
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Thumbs up What A Rose We Have...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
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/2011/0...70N2HN20110124

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
_________________________________
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trfour For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (03-06-2011), Rose (03-02-2011), Waterbaby (02-28-2011)
Old 02-27-2011, 09:28 PM   #183
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
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.
Shedwannabe is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shedwannabe For This Useful Post:
Cobalt 25 (03-01-2011), Jonas Pilot (02-28-2011)
Old 02-28-2011, 07:15 AM   #184
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

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.
jrc is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
Airedale1 (02-28-2011)
Old 02-28-2011, 07:08 PM   #185
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
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.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
ishoot308 (02-28-2011), NoBozo (02-28-2011), Pineedles (02-28-2011), SIKSUKR (03-02-2011)
Old 02-28-2011, 07:24 PM   #186
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
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
NoBozo is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to NoBozo For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (02-28-2011)
Old 02-28-2011, 08:34 PM   #187
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Post May I Add...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
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
_________________________________
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:49 PM   #188
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 213
Thanks: 219
Thanked 36 Times in 20 Posts
Default

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
Cobalt 25 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cobalt 25 For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (03-01-2011), Rose (03-01-2011), trfour (03-01-2011)
Old 03-01-2011, 06:00 PM   #189
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Post I Agree...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt 25 View Post
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
____________________________________
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 07:37 PM   #190
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

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.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 09:22 PM   #191
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
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.
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.
Shedwannabe is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Shedwannabe For This Useful Post:
Cobalt 25 (03-04-2011)
Old 03-02-2011, 07:55 AM   #192
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
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.
Perfectly said, Pineedles!
tis is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (03-02-2011)
Old 03-02-2011, 07:58 AM   #193
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to SIKSUKR For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (03-02-2011)
Old 03-02-2011, 09:11 AM   #194
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Question Hunh?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
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.
Attached Images
 
ApS is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:38 PM   #195
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Unhappy The Deception Was at Universities...

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:

Quote:
• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
"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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose View Post
Do not misquote me like that again.
The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion.

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

ApS is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:17 PM   #196
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
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".


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

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


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.
ITD is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:38 PM   #197
JPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 159
Thanks: 42
Thanked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Default Getting back to Global Warming

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
JPC is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:50 PM   #198
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC View Post
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."
ITD is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:50 PM   #199
JPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 159
Thanks: 42
Thanked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Default Global Warmin link

I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...LIMATE-WINTER/
JPC is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:04 PM   #200
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPC View Post
I should have just posted the link for the article.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...LIMATE-WINTER/

As should have I:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html
ITD is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.53199 seconds