One other thing
 

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

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

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

Shed , you have really drunk the kool aid.

Bored
 

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

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

Hmmmmmm. I wonder if the same guys who discovered and named those two islands also worked for the Public Works department to name Driveways (where you park your car) and Parkways (where you drive your car)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will support shed
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

windmills
 

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

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

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

Rattlesnake Island Windmills
 

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

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

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

I'm All For New Technology....
 

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

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

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

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

One Word: Mylar
 

Just Sunday, a scientist interviewed on FOX-TV said that "Cap & Trade" won't reduce CO2 levels. :eek2: Worse, we can't be certain that reducing CO2 levels won't create some other, unanticipated global disaster.

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

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

Tennessee (the voters who knew Al best) kept Al from being an even bigger spokesperson! :eek:

The last discussion didn't turn out so well. :(

"Ridge development" is the worst kind of housing to have upslope from any lake. Windmills around Winnipesaukee's windy ridges would be a far better use of land.

Think of the local economy and remember that's a "whopping" 100% increase in a burgeoning new technology!

For a free charge, just park your all-electric "Windmobile" into the wind! :D

http://www.staugustinepics.com/wp-co...pr75942_wp.jpg

The prey of raptors' includes songbirds: windmills could "even out" mankind's toll on birdlife. A wind farm at The Witches might take out an occasional cormorant—but leave Loons alone.

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

...And the future of those "gallon-per-minute" boats? :confused:

1) That "shoving" may come from foreign governments. The last two weeks have seen rumored meetings to change to a different currency than the US dollar. :eek: (In case you thought "world depression" was in the past, try $5+ per gallon gasoline). :(

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

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

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

IMHO. :)

Interesting quote on another thread relevant to the debate on global warming above
 

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.

Forget the windmill, I've got a better idea!
 

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

Sam, read on; http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways...omment-page-1/

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.

'opinion' versus 'article'
 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

After all, birds are better than people!:D

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/

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

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.

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. "

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

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

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.