Global Warming News

[dave1949]

I'm sure that in some locations, windmills will produce electricity. As I said earlier, most of those locations are NOT where we need most of the electricity.

We live on a ridgetop that seems quite windy at times. I just checked our weather records for last year. Most months, the average wind speed was 3.5 mph. It did get higher in November and December, 4.6 mph.

As I recall, a minimum of about 10 mph is required to turn the turbines and they really need at least 20 mph average to be worthwhile. Now I'm sure there are places out on the Plains and in mountain areas that do have enough wind, but those places are not where most of the nation needs electricity!

I also distinctly remember Sierra magazine (voice of the Sierra Club) having a cover article attacking wind farms. Seems even the hyper Green folks didn't like them.

Take away the government incentives and cost sharing (which the oil companies do NOT get), and you will find, just like ethanol, it doesn't make economic sense in most locations.

If we want to really reduce our "carbon footprint", we need to figure out nuclear power. We could start with Fast Breeder Reactors, but our government won't allow that even though France has been using them successfully for decades. Besides, anything like that, Washington and the environmentalists would tie up with decades of paperwork and counter productive regulations.

No, this isn't about the environment, or global climate change, it's about destroying the economies of the developed nations. As I've said several times, Kyoto and Copenhagen were not designed to change the environment for the good, they were designed to destroy the developed economies and move industrial production to MORE POLLUTING COUNTRIES, a net loss for the environment. I challenge anyone here to tell me how moving industrial production to China will improve the environment. I'm sure that no one will answer that.

Ken

No quibbles on having production in the US, we need that here and the jobs it creates.

Wind turbine siting is very critical. If the evaluations of a site's wind potential isn't done correctly, there is a good chance of failure.

What I don't understand is the position some groups take on windmills. Here in Maine a hilltop was tested for turbines and found to have good potential. But, the Appalachian Trail runs close to it and the turbines would be visible. They managed to get the project cancelled eventhough the landowner's and affected towns were agreeable.

To me, that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It makes no sense, those trail users probably don't want a coal fired plant around them at home either - which creates the acid rain that impacts the forest they love to walk through.

On the northeast coast, there are thought to be good wind turbine sites offshore. These are close enough to urban centers like Boston and New York City to be practical. You know how that went, people living in their multimillion dollar seaside homes don't want their view spoiled. More of the same in lots of places.

The only two real objections I know of to wind turbines are the annoying whoosh noise they can make with the right weather conditions if you are living close enough, and when they are sited in a heavily used migratory path. The bird people have begun mapping these paths and now can tell which sites are better choices in that regard. I have no idea if migrating birds can learn to shift their flight paths, it would seem they could be capable of doing that, but that is just a guess.

Turbines aside, we obviously need an energy strategy that is based across multiple non-fossil technologies. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and tidal are all potential sources that we should use to our advantage.
Dave.

 

[SpringHollow]

I believe it was Eddie that was asking about the payback on large windmills. I was talking to a project engineer for the nearest wind farm. He said that the windmills had a 25 year life expectancy and if you front loaded all of the costs including maintenance and taxes over the 25 years, it was pure profit after 17 years. I do not think this was taking into account tax incentives, etc. but just basic costs such as purchase, installation, maintenance, taxes paid, cost of money and basic income from the sale of power.

And the comment was also made that power plants had to keep running because of the variable nature of wind power. While that is technically true (one does not trivially shut down a power plant), the newer plants (especially the natural gas ones) are designed to be able to rapidly vary the amount of power they produce and so they produce less when wind power is available.

Ken

 

[dave1949]

I consider them more opinons, although I do have engineering and scientific training. Over 40 years worth. Patents also. What are yours?

In plain words, I believe you are biased. No amount of rational presentation of facts will ever sway the opinion of a biased person. In fact, a biased person won't even acknowledge others may have valid points. Well, that makes for a fun day on the forum don't it?

That is completely false. I am just more open minded, better read, and ask more questions, to find the full truth. Not just what I'm told by the media, or Al Gore with his falsehood movie.

If I pointed out an unbiased person to you, we would be looking at a headstone and grave. The problem is to recognize the bias.



It would be nice if Eddie could acknowledge that windpower has a real, working place in the energy arena, I gave a good reference to check out. Nothing hypothetical about it. You can see 'em and touch 'em. But, if he wishes to believe that windpower is only just another taxpayer robbing scam that doesn't work, it's a free country. Those turbines will be producing megawatts of power whether Eddie believes in them or not. It does work, its working around the globe. Even in China they are implementing wind power as fast as possible. There are several core reasons it is an attractive energy resource.

I think wind power is a viable source of power. What Eddie is bringing out is, where is the breakeven point of windpower. It's not when electrons start to flow down the wire to the grid.There has been huge amounts of energy expended to build this wind machine. From exploration of the ore to mine. Processing the ore, manufacturing the wind machine, transportation to the site, etc. Choosing a site, getting permission to erect a wind tower, etc. So how much is expended? And where is the break even point? 2 years later? 5 years later? How about maintanence cost? Can you smelt iron ore with wind power? Can you smelt iron ore with solar power? These energy producing sources have there place, but at what cost? And what break even point? It has it's place.

I think Eddie can speak for himself. Every power source has a break even point, and the items you list are common to pretty much all of them, not just wind. In any case, that is what you are saying, not Eddie.


Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Informed persons are not fibbers. They may have a different point of view, but to infer that Eddie is fibbing about a subject is possibly a closed mind approach and very small thinking. Eddie is just asking the question. "Where is the break even point? How much energy are we going to get from this source?" Eddie may have a greater intellect, bigger picture of the world, deeper depth of thinking about things, more inquisitive mind. Better read on these subjects. Higher level of creativity.

This a quote from Eddie:
'CO2 does not and will not change the temperature of the planet.'
Given the background you have, you will see the problem with this statement.

Definitions of biased on the Web:

Bias is a term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. ...


This is not about beating up on Eddie or anybody else. It is attempt to point out that when discussing something, we all need to recognize we aren't right all the time. And that things aren't true just because we say so. It is a learning experience. I have learned a good bit following the viewpoints and links in this discussion. Do I feel qualified to pass judgement on the work of others? No. But I see no reason why I am a bad guy if I point out falsehoods. The people who write them can choose to qualify them, explain or expand on them, restate them, or stick by them.

I pointed out Eddie's false info to illustrate the point that other scientists are being tarred with the UK email brush unfairly. No one will admit that apparently because it is too useful to the argument. As I said, it doesn't make for very good discussions.
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

Been out for afternoon-

In answer to Ken:
My post from 6:28AM today (Sunday) gave references and information on subsidies and profits. Again my original post brought up the fact that wind projects are not the only subsidized companies which is what lead to this discussion. I'm only concerned with big oil pay and profits because of the tax money they appear to be receiving.

Not sure where your 160 billion Exxon tax came from but the following site which appears to be a statement for investors statesfor FY 2008)
$477 billion gross income
$73 billion tax
-here is the site-
(XOM: EXXON MOBIL CORP Income Statement)

Concerning the coal plant in US or China - probably less particles in US but CO2 the same. I didn't realize that what you stated were the results of Copenhagen- was that agreed to?? I haven't read the agreement.


I feel that as a country we could learn something from Detroit over the past 20 years as they fought every proposed increase in mpg requirement. Other companies worked on technology which improved mileage and quality and along the way attracted much of the market. There are countries that are increasing efficiency and relying more on renewables and enjoying the benefits.

Even if man has no influence on earth's temp shouldn't we do our best to reduce our need for foreign oil. The long term solution includes more efficient use of what we have, development of new technologies, and development of alternative energy sources. The need to keep foreign oil flowing is too expensive. What is the advantage of continuing to waste fossil fuels. Being a leader in efficiency and in the development of these technologies could create thousands of US jobs.


Loren

 

[IH3444]

The discussion has been heating up on this subject, so a cool down time is approaching. Where is that C02, and greenhouse gas when you need them?

A single event of cooling weather does not make a trend. But It's a good start.


Freeze in Florida Tonight Will Be Worst Since 1989
1/10/2010 3:17 PM
Several blasts of arctic air have gripped the eastern two-thirds of the country since the beginning of the new year. In the South, the extreme cold has been threatening crops,

Several blasts of arctic air have gripped the eastern two-thirds of the country since the beginning of the new year. In the South, the extreme cold has been threatening crops, and temperatures tonight could be the most damaging for some.

While temperatures will rebound throughout the upcoming week, a late-week rain storm could cause even more damage to Southern crops.

Tonight Will Be Most Damaging in Florida

So far, citrus-growers in Florida have gotten by with only light damage following several nights of sub-freezing temperatures over the past week. Tonight will likely prove more destructive as temperatures drop to the lowest levels in over 20 years.

Agricultural Meteorologist Dale Mohler, the hard freeze tonight will be the worst since December of 1989.

Mohler said that unlike the last few nights, temperatures tonight across all the orange groves will drop below freezing and most will dip blow 28ｰ, a critical temperature for the fruit. In many groves, temperatures will stay below 28ｰ for 6 to 10 hours or more.

Mohler expects a 6 to 10 percent loss of the total 2009 orange crop after tonight's freeze. The groves where temperatures drop between 23 and 25 degrees will suffer the most significant damage.

Freeze Still Threatens Crops in Louisiana

Growers of the tender sugarcane crop in southern Louisiana could continue to suffer losses the next couple of nights as temperatures drop well below freezing.

The harvest has already been set behind schedule due to record rainfall from the fall and into December.

Lows will fall into the teens again to the north of New Orleans and lower 20s across areas to the south. While Monday night will not be quite as cold, temperatures will still drop below freezing.

Southern Louisiana is home to roughly 40 percent of the nation's sugarcane crop.

 

[dave1949]

The discussion has been heating up on this subject, so a cool down time is approaching. Where is that C02, and greenhouse gas when you need them?

You are right.

I am not ignoring your request for the solar correlations, looking for the best article that has at least the appearance of neutrality. There are many to wade through and many rejects on both pro and con viewpoints. google 'solar
cycles global warming' and you can find a wealth of opinions.

I would like to read more about/from Roger Pielke Sr.; University of Colorado. He seems to be carving out an opinion space that he works hard to protect from being used. He has a blog site: climatesci.org which doesn't seem to be available now. Most references to his work that I have found online do not deal with solar activity in the main.

PIELKE - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Very interesting thread.
Don't know if anyone has read "SuperFreakenomics" but a group of inventor's have proposed a solution to "global warming", that would involve hoisting a hose that would carry sulphur into the upper atmosphere to counteract the effects of C02 on the earth.
The cost would be about $20million to start, a drop in the bucket compared to what is being proposed by some of the advocates of "Climate Change", but then that would explain it,wouldn't it.

 

[EddieWalker]

Just saw this link on Drudge. I don't recognize David Rose or the British paper, the Mail Online, but it sounds like they are naming sources and backing up thier positions.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

Eddie

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

My post was to support my claim of record profits by oil companies. I'm not concerned with price of bottled water as I don't buy any - it has nothing to do with excess profit after receiving large amounts of tax payers money. All of the honest costs of production along with salaries and bonuses (excess in my opinion at times) are business expenses which are subtracted from gross income to determine profit.

My question : "Who stands to gain most by maintaining the status quo in regards to the use of fossil fuels?" as they say - follow the ""

I have tried to make a few points that can can be defended with facts. (I did use my opinion when I classified a few things as excessive) Also I don't wear spandex - I do ride bike - and my car gets 38 mile per gallon - also I have lived off the power grid for 26 years and use solar and wind for my electricity.

Loren

Question: What percentage is an "excessive" profit, and who determines "excessive". Thanks for your response.

 

[Pilot]

The article that Eddie referenced starts off by talking about the north pole being free of ice by 2013.

Here you can see the USS Skate on the surface at the North Pole in 1959. http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg Not a lot of ice, was there?

Here is a little more ice, same submarine, but note how thin the ice was:

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/skate.jpg

That was 1959.

Recently read a book, "The Little Ice Age". Warmer is better than colder. With colder you get widespread crop failures and mass starvation.

The point is, that the climate is changing all the time. We had a medieval warming period, a little ice age, then as always happens after an ice age, the climate got warmer again, with ups and downs all along the way.

 

[CRJCaptain]

Just saw this link on Drudge. I don't recognize David Rose or the British paper, the Mail Online, but it sounds like they are naming sources and backing up thier positions.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

Eddie

Hi Eddie:

I actually read the link you supplied, and there is some valid science there towards the end (I'll point it out later)...the problem is that the article David Rose wrote is riddled with errors. This should be a major red flag for anyone looking for unbiased data.

The problems I saw?

1. The claim that Arctic sea ice is INCREASING.

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

This is extremely misleading.

To see the raw, unedited data, and decide for yourself, I suggest anyone interested educate themselves at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, (yes, the same source quoted in the article) and look for yourself:

Important point: be sure and distinguish between ice AREA, and ice VOLUME.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

For other good discussions on how the deniers spin this topic, as well as time lapse remote sensing images, check this out:

YouTube - 2009 Sea Ice Update

2. The continuation of the myth that climate scientists were screaming about the next ice age in the 1970's.

"He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted another Ice Age? saying: 'Man may be somewhat responsible as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth."

This is one of the most perpetuated myths out there:

YouTube - Climate Deniers Love the 70s! -- The Remix

3. The only part of the article that doesn't rehash falsehoods and is actually interesting quotes a Prof. Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group.

Dr. Tsonis has an interesting theory to explain some of the short term cooling observed that has to do with ocean currents and multi-decadal oscillations or MDO's.

The problem is that the good Professor is inundated by nut jobs from both the pro and con climate change factions. He says in your article:

"Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with hate emails.

He added: people were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I am interested in is the truth.

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming."

This exactly illustrates how politicized this branch of science has become.

The article then goes on to take Prof. Tsonis's theory and twist it to somehow make him look like he is saying that there is no man-influenced warming.

I am familiar with Prof. Tsonis, and I know that in the past he has said the exact opposite. From a former interview:

"I recently invited Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to participate in an email interview regarding a research paper written by Tsonis and Professor Kyle Swanson titled "Has the climate recently shifted?". The peer-reviewed paper is said to conclude that global warming due to anthropogenic causes is on hold.

Here is the interview in its entirety:

Carbon Purging (CP): What is your background, and what typical activities do you do in your background?

Anastasios Tsonis (AT): I am a professor of Atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I teach and do research related to climate dynamics and variability.

CP: What prompted the researching of this paper?

AT: Our interest in understanding the natural variability of climate.

CP: Was this paper peer-reviewed?

AT: Yes.

CP: If so, who were the reviewers, and did they come to the same conclusions as you did for your research paper?

AT: The reviewers were anonymous. Their comments were supportive of our conclusions.

CP: Would a break in the mean global temperature trend suggest that anthropogenic sources are or are not the main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?

AT: If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

CP: Do you agree that average global temperatures have continued to increase since 2001?

AT: No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing.

CP: Do the conclusions of this paper support the existence of anthropogenic global warming?

AT: The research was not designed to address this issue, however the conclusions do not rule out that natural variability may "ride" on the top of some anthropogenic or other low-frequency signal. In fact we state this in our conclusions.

CP: Would you be more inclined to say that average global temperatures are cooling, that average global temperatures are trending no change, or that average global temperatures are warming?

AT: Right now we would say that the rapid warming in the 80s and 90s has stopped and we are entering a cooler regime.

CP: In layman's terms, how did you form your conclusions?

AT: The conclusions are the results of a rigorous mathematical analysis of observed and modeled data.

CP: In layman's terms, what modeling or testing did you do to research this paper?

AT: This is too complicated to explain here.

CP: In your expert opinion, would you agree that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via anthropogenic sources contributes to the increase in average global temperature?

AT: Yes.

CP: Would you allow part of, or all of, this email interview to be excerpted at my blog?

AT: We would prefer the whole thing as we wrote it.

CP: Would you consider a follow-up interview should I have additional questions?

AT: Sure."

 

[AKfish]

I support effort's in his country to expand both the technological infrastructure as well as the production infrastructure for Bio, Green and Alternative energy production.

It makes sense by any measure...

Blowing off about Climate Change is a waste of good Oxygen!

AKfish

 

[IH3444]

Ice Age Now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

And my favorite:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Quietest_Sun_in_almost_a_Century_could_lead_to_evolutionary_leaps.htm

 

[Loren49]

Good morning all,

answer to FallbrookFarmer-
Excessive profit was clearly my opinion - as stated earlier I feel when a company receives tax money that its profits should be modest - especially when the profit comes from fuel costs for those tax payers. (is this a liberal or conservative view?) Since I'm on the topic, probably as important is the pay within the company (same question for non profits who are tax exempt) - example-is pay excessive (worker and management) - how much are lobbyists paid? What are the fringe benefits?
I just want to pose the question - I'm sure we won't all agree and I'm not after anyone's answer. (I can't put a solid number on it) If everyone in a company we look at is making $16 million we probably could agree that it appears excessive.
I am confident that big oil lobbyists historically have been more interested in their profits than in policies that would make us energy independent. Also all of these big oil companies do much of their business offshore and must work with many countries who aren't very friendly towards the US.

A comment for thought - Companies with profits in mind make the decision to move their manufacturing to China. (easy to criticize Government for their role - employ rights here, EPA standards, import duties (which ultimately effect our exports)


Concerning Alternative energy sources - after my 26 years with small wind and solar - I see real advantages of solar - biggest one is no moving parts - almost zero maintenance - down side is higher cost per watt to build. A combination of solar and wind over a wide area can help keep a more constant output. (Germany has significant small solar electric production and is much farther north than most of the US)

I agree with "AKfish" post. We will be a much stronger country if we become energy independent. Countries who have made this a priority are making progress. I believe this would create more jobs.


Loren

 

[keegs]

Yeah...all this global warming stuff ...it's a conspiracy ..

 

[Ken45101]

A comment for thought - Companies with profits in mind make the decision to move their manufacturing to China. (easy to criticize Government for their role - employ rights here, EPA standards, import duties (which ultimately effect our exports)

Loren49,

Companies who do not make a profit go out of business. "Profit" is not an evil word, it is what has brought the U.S. the prosperity it has had.

I agree with you about excess profits, but as has been shown here, the oil companies are in the middle of corporate range of profitability. Per dollar spent, their profits are not excessive. I agree with you that executive compensation is excessive....across all corporations. At least the oil company managers are making a profit for their owners, unlike a lot of companies that are lavishly rewarding their execs as they run the company into the ground.

The U.S. oil companies would love for U.S. oil independence. The U.S. and Canada has more oil reserves available than Saudi Arabia ever had. But we are not allowed to extract it.

You keep harping on subsidizing the oil companies and you feel that our military efforts is a subsidization. Without getting into the politics of where the U.S. uses it's military, one has to ask what is the goal of our foreign intervention: to keep our economy running, or to support the oil companies? As for Iraq, it was producing more oil before we invaded. What does Afganistan have to do with oil?

I do not see our military operations as a government subsidy of oil companies. If that were the case, we would invade Venezuela for their breech of contract with the major oil companies.

So I just do not buy your claim that the government is subsidizing the oil companies.

Ken

 

[EddieWalker]

I don't think anybody is denying that the arctic sea ice is lower then it has been in the past. What I fail to comprehend is how this becomes an issue when we also know that there was allot less sea ice in the arctic 100 years ago. I realize that 1979 is a base, or starting year because that's when they started measuring the ice, but history tells us that there was less ice there then at any time since 1979.

This is part of the problem. Basing science on events that happen in an eye blink, but ignoring history and natural cycles. From what I can tell, the 90's were a warming cycle that ended around 1998. Then we leveled off and are now starting towards a cooling cycle. The debate isn't if CO2 is causing this, the debate should be if we're really headed towards a downward temperature cycle and how long will it last? Ice levels in ther arctic were down, but now they are rebuilding. Apparantly they are not up to the levels from 1979, but they are nowhere near the levels of the 1930's either. What caused the ice to melt in the arctic back then? and why isn't the sun responsible for it melting back in the 90's?

I think that if we take historical weather patterns into account, naturaly cycles of the sun and look at what is happening to our weather over the past couple of decades, you'll see that it's all part of a natural pattern thta has been repeated over and over again.

Looking at this graph, it's pretty obvious that there is an up and down to this. Blaming CO2 for the most recent upward swing, but ignoring it in the past is being dishonest. In the case of the hocky stick, it's criminal that they lied about the data to eliminate the midevil warming period. History proves to us that it was allot warmer during that period then it is now. When all the glaciers melt, when we arctic sea ice is no more, all we have is a repear of the weather pattern of the midevil warming period. If it's happened before, it's going to happen again. Saying it was natural the first time, or even denying that it happened, and then saying that this time, when it's not even close to being as warm as it has in the past, and saying it's caused by CO2 is just downright silly. Especialy when you have to fabricate the science to support your claim.

Eddie

 

[Ken45101]

Looking at this graph, it's pretty obvious that there is an up and down to this. Blaming CO2 for the most recent upward swing, but ignoring it in the past is being dishonest. In the case of the hocky stick, it's criminal that they lied about the data to eliminate the midevil warming period.

Eddie,

IMO, you are being too kind. IMO, a more proper term would be "treasonous".

I note that still no one has responded to my challenge to show how moving industrial production and pollution to more polluting China will help anything. Of course, I'm not surprised.

Ken

 

[Loren49]

Ken thanks for the response,
I did not post that the subsidies included part of our military expense. Someone else stated that. My reason for believing that there is tax payer support was from the numerous results from my google search including the piece I posted. (Its similar to public money being spent on airports which benefits airline companies)

Concerning the graph posted by Eddie, there is well documented evidence from a much more in depth global study which shows that your posted graph was a regional observation. No reason to argue this as we all have what we feel are valid reasons for our own conclusion.

I enjoy a good debate when it stays civil,
Loren