Windmills along the lake

[Yosemite Sam]

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



BY ELISSA PAQUETTE
Staff Writer

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

[fatlazyless]

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


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

[Rattlesnake Gal]

The Long Island Inn used to have a windmill too. Used I would guess to pump water?

[Dr. Green]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

[Yosemite Sam]

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

Click on picture below to read the article:

[SAMIAM]

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

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

[tis]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

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

[Dr. Green]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

Samiam

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

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

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

Samiam

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

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

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

Samiam

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tis]

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

[NBR]

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

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

I agree with you SAMIAM.

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

All kidding aside, this is what I believe:

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

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

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

[gtxrider]

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

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

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

Remember everything has a cost.

Nuclear?

[Shedwannabe]

This is fascinating.

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

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

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

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

[Yosemite Sam]

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

[SIKSUKR]

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

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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

You da man!! Very well put!

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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

Insert "Thanks" here.
Very well said SS.

[ITD]

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

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

[SIKSUKR]

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

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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

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

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

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

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

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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

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

Originally Posted by Pineedles

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

Excellent points!!!

[Shedwannabe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

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

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

[Boater]

Goody, my favorite topic.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

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

Shed, the statement above shows your political bias on this topic. Calling people who have a reasoned honest disagreement with you "deniers" or "flat-earthers" is really offensive. It is a typical Liberal tactic. It infers that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers and hinders any constructive conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

This is fascinating.

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

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

[tis]

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

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

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

[SIKSUKR]

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

[Newbiesaukee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lakegeezer]

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine)...Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control..."

Just Sunday, a scientist interviewed on FOX-TV said that "Cap & Trade" won't reduce CO2 levels. 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!

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that..."

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

Originally Posted by ITD

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

The last discussion didn't turn out so well.

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

"...That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it...energy demand keeps increasing...wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great)..."

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

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power...and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.

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

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas...I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills, but they won't power a motor vehicle.

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

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors...anyone care to comment...??

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

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

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil..."

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

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats..."

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

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

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

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

IMHO.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by granitebox

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

Stanford Study Explains Internet Trolls

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

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

Said Morrison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gearhead]

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

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

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Gearhead

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

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

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

[Onshore]

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

[fatlazyless]

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

Article in Oct 22 Laconia Daily Sun.

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

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

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

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

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

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.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

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

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

[Nagigator]

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

Hope this goes through!

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

[SAMIAM]

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

[SAMIAM]

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

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

..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.

[Whimsey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by Whimsey

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

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

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

cheers -PIG

[Argie's Wife]

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

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

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

After all, birds are better than people!

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

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.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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/

[Cobalt 25]

Well put, Just Sold!

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

Peter

[SAMIAM]

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

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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. "

[trfour]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

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

[SAMIAM]

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

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

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

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



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

[SAMIAM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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.

[ishoot308]

Hi Samiam;

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

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

FWIW;

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

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

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

[SAMIAM]

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

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shedwannabe]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

You are a troll!

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Happy Gourmand]

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

[Cobalt 25]

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

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

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

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

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

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Boater, that was a great and thoughtful response..."

It was excellent, and can be read again here.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

Annapolis, MD, might argue that point.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...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".

Originally Posted by jmen24

"...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.

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds..."

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.

Originally Posted by travaler18

"...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.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

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

...and...

Originally Posted by Pineedles

"...You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually...!"

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

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

[Argie's Wife]

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

[SAMIAM]

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

[Redwing]

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

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

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

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers".
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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

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?

[Airedale1]

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

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

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

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

[Rose]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rose

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

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

[Yankee]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

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!

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Yankee

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

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

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

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

[jrc]

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

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

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

[trfour]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

Terry
_________________________________

[Cobalt 25]

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

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

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

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

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Weather is not climate.

Peter

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

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


Terry
____________________________________

[Pineedles]

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

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Yankee

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

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

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Rose

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
_________________________________

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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