Another Wind Farm Proposal

[travlineasy]

Have you visited Climate Depot and actually read the information? Or, are you saying because they've been partially funded by Exxon/Mobil they must be the bad guys, and the only good guys are those that believe in Global Warming? I guess the 30,000 climatologist that said, in print, that there was NO general consensus in the scientific community that global warming existed and that man had virtually no impact whatsoever on climatic conditions, are all idiots. And, of course, Al Gore, the guy who is laughing all the way to the bank, and owns the company that trades energy credits for a huge commission, he wouldn't lie--he's a politician. And, we know they all tell the truth.

Don't condemn Climate Depot because of their financial supporters. If I recall correctly, that same group at RealClimate.org was the organization that claimed we were headed into another Ice Age back in the 1970s, and for the same reasons. Hmmmmm!

Cheers,

Gary

[paulk]

I like the current/tide turbine ideas. Cruisers have used them for decades to charge batteries on board. Con Ed was setting some up in New York City's East River to check out the practicability last I heard. Because the flow is relatively slow (compare it to how fast water would be going after a drop of perhaps 50' or more at a dam) the tide-turbines would need a big diameter in order to generate enough power to be really useful.

[primerate84]

There are a few wind turbines on Lake Erie and every time I drive by them on the way to my boat, there isn't enough consistent wind to keep them turning. They are a waste of taxpayer money.

[Stearmandriver]

Originally Posted by travlineasy

Have you visited Climate Depot and actually read the information? Or, are you saying because they've been partially funded by Exxon/Mobil they must be the bad guys, and the only good guys are those that believe in Global Warming? I guess the 30,000 climatologist that said, in print, that there was NO general consensus in the scientific community that global warming existed and that man had virtually no impact whatsoever on climatic conditions, are all idiots. And, of course, Al Gore, the guy who is laughing all the way to the bank, and owns the company that trades energy credits for a huge commission, he wouldn't lie--he's a politician. And, we know they all tell the truth.

Don't condemn Climate Depot because of their financial supporters. If I recall correctly, that same group at RealClimate.org was the organization that claimed we were headed into another Ice Age back in the 1970s, and for the same reasons. Hmmmmm!

Cheers,

Gary

Gary... I've had this debate so many times, in so many different venues, that I'm just not gonna do it again. I'll skip my background, and most other talking points, and just address all the things that are wrong with your above post.

1. Yes, I've visited climatedepot, and pretty much every other dedicated site, many times. Yes, I've read what they post - enough to know that it's the same cherry-picked pseudoscience (and sometime outright silliness) that Inhofe et al have been pushing for years. None of it holds up to a true review process. Most of their favorite points (the earth cooled mid-century! So warming can't be anthropogenic!) have been explained ad nauseam using real science.

There's a reason that the folks who post at, say, Realclimate publish their work in peer-review journals (where it contributes to the ongoing scientific process) and the folks who support orgs like ClimateDepot and the Heartland Institute publish THEIR thoughts as op-eds. It's not science. It doesn't stand the very basics of peer review.

2. I didn't say anyone was the "bad guys" or the "good guys". Simply that some of them are actual scientists working with the latest data and models in preeminent research institutions... and some of them are bought-and-paid-for politicians like Inhofe, with a seeming lack of understanding of even very basic atmospheric science. I know who I, personally, would choose to get my science from.

3.The 30,000 "scientists" you refer to published that paper a decade ago - I put "scientist" in quotes and didn't even use your word, "climatologist", because almost none of those people were climatologists and many had no science credentials to speak of. The few who might have had a modicum of knowledge of atmospheric science were not actively publishing in the field, and therefore probably not up to date. That paper was an outright joke to the research community but of course certain media outlets loved it and didn't do their due-diligence in source-checking. And again, it's a decade old. Data-driven consensus has become stronger since then.

Interestingly, Inhofe spearheaded another press release in I think 2007 claiming 400 scientists oppose AGW theory. That number has since been revised upward to around 650 in 2009 I think. Quite a drop from 30,000 in less than a decade, no? And again, the large majority were not qualified to engage in debate on climate science. The way they managed to skew the numbers (and include some actual climate scientists) is by revising the press release title to something like (... scientists disputed man-made global warming claims) and including every scientific challenge to any precept of the latest IPCC report. It's science. There are always challenges. That is as it should be, and in no way indicates that the challenging individuals actually believe there's data to indicate the whole concept of AGW is false (which, of course, is what the press release wants to lead you to believe).

4. I never referenced Al Gore, or his trustworthiness or lack thereof. He is not a scientist, he is a politician.

5. I'm not sure what "group" at RealClimate you reference. It's just a hang-out for publishing atmospheric and climate scientists. Since the internet didn't exist in the '70s, I'm not sure how they could have constituted a "group". But since you've mentioned one of the golden nuggets of the deniers, I'll explain it (this was shown around 10 years ago, but people still hold on to it). Global average temps have been trending upwards since near the beginning of the industrial revolution, with one exception in the mid-20th century. (Note that I'm referring to long term trends, not any one year being warmer or cooler than any other. That is meaningless. There will always be variations.) This was correctly raised as a challenge to the theory of long-term temps trending upwards. The problem was, the models - which had gotten pretty good by the late 90s at modeling global climate (MUCH different than a short term wx forecast) - didn't replicate this temp trend, with or without anthropogenic CO2. Someone finally thought to add another anthropogenic emission to the models - sulfur dioxide. Then the models snapped into agreement with actual data. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol emission from coal power plants that causes climate cooling. Its forcing ability is much greater than GHGs, so it overcame their influence and actually caused some cooling. It also causes acid rain, and so scrubbers to remove it from emissions were mandated in the 70s. Being an aerosol, sulfur dioxide is quite short-lived in the atmosphere compared to GHGs (it only lasts around 8 mos).

So... the very next year after scrubbers became mandated in many parts of the developed world... temp trends reversed and headed upwards again.

The consensus at the time of most atmospheric scientists wasn't that "we were headed into another ice age". That's more media paraphrasing. They believed it was a normal variation of the earth being in a stable interglacial period according to the Milankovitch cycles, and some cooling being due given the recent trend of warming.

Believe the theory or don't, but know whether you're basing your position on actual science or propaganda. Don't get your information from press releases and industry-funded groups. Get it from the source. Get it from the journals, from the research institutions. Google Scholar is your friend.

Just sayin'.

[Stearmandriver]

Btw I have no knowledge of the problems inherent to building an offshore wind farm... and I wouldn't want to sail around them either! ;-) But I WILL say that I remember reading about those windmills on the east side of the Cascades on the I90 corridor when the state was deciding whether or not to invest more heavily in biofuel burning. Apparently that wind farm acutally often produces a SURPLUS of power, to the extent that many of them have to be feathered and shut down so they don't overload the grid. So I guess they can be effective in certain places...

[smurphny]

Originally Posted by Stearmandriver

Gary... I've had this debate so many times, in so many different venues, that I'm just not gonna do it again. I'll skip my background, and most other talking points, and just address all the things that are wrong with your above post.

1. Yes, I've visited climatedepot, and pretty much every other dedicated site, many times. Yes, I've read what they post - enough to know that it's the same cherry-picked pseudoscience (and sometime outright silliness) that Inhofe et al have been pushing for years. None of it holds up to a true review process. Most of their favorite points (the earth cooled mid-century! So warming can't be anthropogenic!) have been explained ad nauseam using real science.

There's a reason that the folks who post at, say, Realclimate publish their work in peer-review journals (where it contributes to the ongoing scientific process) and the folks who support orgs like ClimateDepot and the Heartland Institute publish THEIR thoughts as op-eds. It's not science. It doesn't stand the very basics of peer review.

2. I didn't say anyone was the "bad guys" or the "good guys". Simply that some of them are actual scientists working with the latest data and models in preeminent research institutions... and some of them are bought-and-paid-for politicians like Inhofe, with a seeming lack of understanding of even very basic atmospheric science. I know who I, personally, would choose to get my science from.

3.The 30,000 "scientists" you refer to published that paper a decade ago - I put "scientist" in quotes and didn't even use your word, "climatologist", because almost none of those people were climatologists and many had no science credentials to speak of. The few who might have had a modicum of knowledge of atmospheric science were not actively publishing in the field, and therefore probably not up to date. That paper was an outright joke to the research community but of course certain media outlets loved it and didn't do their due-diligence in source-checking. And again, it's a decade old. Data-driven consensus has become stronger since then.

Interestingly, Inhofe spearheaded another press release in I think 2007 claiming 400 scientists oppose AGW theory. That number has since been revised upward to around 650 in 2009 I think. Quite a drop from 30,000 in less than a decade, no? And again, the large majority were not qualified to engage in debate on climate science. The way they managed to skew the numbers (and include some actual climate scientists) is by revising the press release title to something like (... scientists disputed man-made global warming claims) and including every scientific challenge to any precept of the latest IPCC report. It's science. There are always challenges. That is as it should be, and in no way indicates that the challenging individuals actually believe there's data to indicate the whole concept of AGW is false (which, of course, is what the press release wants to lead you to believe).

4. I never referenced Al Gore, or his trustworthiness or lack thereof. He is not a scientist, he is a politician.

5. I'm not sure what "group" at RealClimate you reference. It's just a hang-out for publishing atmospheric and climate scientists. Since the internet didn't exist in the '70s, I'm not sure how they could have constituted a "group". But since you've mentioned one of the golden nuggets of the deniers, I'll explain it (this was shown around 10 years ago, but people still hold on to it). Global average temps have been trending upwards since near the beginning of the industrial revolution, with one exception in the mid-20th century. (Note that I'm referring to long term trends, not any one year being warmer or cooler than any other. That is meaningless. There will always be variations.) This was correctly raised as a challenge to the theory of long-term temps trending upwards. The problem was, the models - which had gotten pretty good by the late 90s at modeling global climate (MUCH different than a short term wx forecast) - didn't replicate this temp trend, with or without anthropogenic CO2. Someone finally thought to add another anthropogenic emission to the models - sulfur dioxide. Then the models snapped into agreement with actual data. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol emission from coal power plants that causes climate cooling. Its forcing ability is much greater than GHGs, so it overcame their influence and actually caused some cooling. It also causes acid rain, and so scrubbers to remove it from emissions were mandated in the 70s. Being an aerosol, sulfur dioxide is quite short-lived in the atmosphere compared to GHGs (it only lasts around 8 mos).

So... the very next year after scrubbers became mandated in many parts of the developed world... temp trends reversed and headed upwards again.

The consensus at the time of most atmospheric scientists wasn't that "we were headed into another ice age". That's more media paraphrasing. They believed it was a normal variation of the earth being in a stable interglacial period according to the Milankovitch cycles, and some cooling being due given the recent trend of warming.

Believe the theory or don't, but know whether you're basing your position on actual science or propaganda. Don't get your information from press releases and industry-funded groups. Get it from the source. Get it from the journals, from the research institutions. Google Scholar is your friend.

Just sayin'.

Nice post. The problem with science is that so many of the researchers are funded by institutions with "groupthink" mentality. Academia, unfortunately, is heavily influenced by liberalism and persecutes those who happen to disagree with their sometimes predestined studies. It's not that they are bad folks. They are surrounded by an environment that has become hostile to opinions other than those that are accepted. It's true in all fields of study. In this kind of environment, I question whether their research design is unbiased. Many high-priced careers depend on coming up with answers that fit the accepted model. Environmentalism has become a religion and we know how subversive and dangerous religions can be. On the other hand, corporate funding cannot help but influence their "research." I find it difficult to figure out where the truth lies but I know I do not trust either side to present factual information. I also know none of these things are proven, they are hypotheses.

[travlineasy]

Smurf,

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't wish to debate whether global warming exists--some folks sincerely believe it does, and some folks sincerely believe it does not. My main purpose for posting a link to Green Hell and Climate Depot is both have excellent information about the cost effectiveness of wind generators. Every source I've found during the past decade about wind power revealed that it's extremely expensive, not at all reliable, the generators require constant maintenance, and they are heavily subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Kinda' like paying twice for the same electricity--it just doesn't make good sense at all. IMHO, when it comes to wind farms, the bang for the buck just isn't there. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone well connected to the political machine is going to make a lot of money on this one.

Cheers,

Gary

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by Stearmandriver

Apparently that wind farm acutally often produces a SURPLUS of power, to the extent that many of them have to be feathered and shut down so they don't overload the grid. So I guess they can be effective in certain places...

Especially places where there is no industry and few people liove.

[Stearmandriver]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda:828862

Especially places where there is no industry and few people liove.

The majority of the power produced there is shipped to CA. I meant the west coast grid lol.

[Ulladh]

When the NJ, DE and VA offshore wind looked more feasible, there was a proposal for an offshore grid link for all three states.

The DE offshore wind proposal collapsed with lose of private funding and did not have much if any DE funding.

The Brits have proposed an underwater grid link between Ireland and Wales to take advantage of the projected excess energy from West Coast wind farms.

Most technological development needs a leap of imagination before financial viability, think what would have happened if computers, aircraft or medical advancements did not move forward because the short term financial viability was questionable.