Windmills along the lake

[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.

[Pineedles]

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

Here's the link.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/ca...woes-15421.htm

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

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

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

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

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by chipj29

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

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

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

[Dickie B from HB]

Shed , you have really drunk the kool aid.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by jmen24

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

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

Or perhaps their names were Abbott and Costello?

[NoBozo]

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

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

[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.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by shore things

I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads.

The wind velocity that appears in ZIP code forecasts is nearly always half of the reality on the lake. This forum's weather guys can elaborate better, but our local winds near the water are shaped (and their velocity increased) by the mountain ranges around us.

[Redwing]

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

[Cobalt 25]

shore things,

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

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

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

not to mention the previously quoted PM.

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

Peter

[Onshore]

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

[Pineedles]

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

[birchhaven]

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

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

[Woodsy]

Lots of hostility....

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

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

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

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


Woodsy

[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.