Global cooling? What? [Archive] - Beesource Beekeeping Forums

dragonfly

11-21-2008, 05:55 PM

Since these guys don't agree that the global climate temperatures are on the rise, they must be nuts.:s How do you decide who is right? Majority rules?

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2008/11/21/columns/columns06.prt

A new satellite predicts at least 23 years of global cooling
Several Canadian environmental scientists agree that the new Jason satellite indicates at least a 23-year cycle of global cooling ahead. Count me in!
This oceanographic satellite shows a much larger than normal persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Cooler PDO phases usually last 21 to 25 years, so we should be quite chilly as a planet until at least 2030, maybe longer.

iddee

11-21-2008, 06:04 PM

So it took all that technology to find out what the American Indian has known for centuries. Weather runs in about 50 year cycles. Check your daily record cold temps. Nearly all of them are in the 1930's or the 1980's. The late fifties and now are the warmest winters on record. We are just beginning down the cooler side of the 50 year cycle.

Now someone correct me and say it is actually 49 years. I think it is all approximate.

cow pollinater

11-21-2008, 06:32 PM

Every seven or so years we get an el nino year here in CA and every ten or eleven years we get a big freeze. We also get cycles of record heat for about three years in a row. It has been happening since my great-grand-dad bought the property adjacent to where I live now and yet for some reason it always seems to shock some people when it happens.

Sundance

11-21-2008, 07:12 PM

:sleep:Global temperature averages are meaningless in
23 year bites........ It is measured in centuries.

honeyshack

11-21-2008, 07:21 PM

that might be good for some who live in real hot climates. But last winter we set records for the coldest winter and the longest cold snap.
The last two Janaury's have been so brutal even the cows did not like it.
For near a month last year our temps were below -30 sometimes even -45 adding in a wind of -55 or colder.
I would like some more mild winters for a time thanks

Sundance

11-21-2008, 07:36 PM

I am not too far from you and know what your
winters were like.......... brrrrrrr.

Bodo

11-21-2008, 08:09 PM

:sleep:Global temperature averages are meaningless in
23 year bites........ It is measured in centuries.

So what's the avg change in the last 100 years? like maybe 1 degree C?

Galaxy

11-21-2008, 08:28 PM

I can believe in global cooling, especially tonight. The predicted low here is 17, very near the record of 15. These are the typical temps we get in Jan-Feb.

Here is a very good article, written by a scientist, that debunks much of the human-caused global warming junk science.

November 21, 2008
Global Warming? Bring it On!

By Gregory Young (http://www.americanthinker.com/gregory_young/)

Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html

dragonfly

11-21-2008, 08:44 PM

That was a really informative link. Thanks Galaxy:)

Swobee

11-21-2008, 09:26 PM

Yes, cooling... it's been in the news. But it gets buried behind other issues. The 'experts' cannot agree. One side can't explain why the past 12 months or so have wiped out temp. gains and is it really just a cycle? I think it's a cash cow that someone exaggerated and capitalized upon for greed. Mankind isn't helping the earth's health much at all, but nature can be its own worst enemy, also!

Oldbee

11-22-2008, 05:58 AM

"Here is a very good article, written by a scientist, that debunks much of the human-caused global warming junk science".

Yes thanks Galaxy; and for ALL of the 'links'.

However, it mostly talks about carbon dioxide [CO2] and not much about all the other pollutants [carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and others; fine particles] that man's activities contribute to the atmosphere. Granted, ["nature can be it's own worst enemy"--Swobee] other things like volcanic activity contribute pollutants but what 'harm' is there in exploring the 'possibility' that man's activities [industrial, etc.] DOES contribute unnecessarily to atmospheric pollution and global warming? I would think it would be a 'scientific' AND business challenge to at least try and reduce our contribution to pollution.

This is what I don't like about politics the most, especially when it comes to the environment, [earth]. It seems that one side always tries to 'debunk' the ideas and/or philosophy of the other. There seems to be this HUGE, HUGE resistance to 'embrace' the concern/guilt [if there is some], that our [MAN'S] activities has negative affects on the planet that may come back to haunt them someday. This also applies to the denial of some people that there is no need to be concerned about the population [human] of the planet.

JPK1NH

11-22-2008, 09:16 AM

Now, if we could only get BO, Al Gore and the rest of the big gov kooks to step away from their latest scheme to increase gov revenues/increase taxes via this Cap and Trade poop we all can get on with life without additional undue burden of Gov.

Oh, and by the way....some of you may enjoy this you tube vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

Sundance

11-22-2008, 09:46 AM

Like most threads here in Tailgater, nobody
gets their mind changed. (including myself). It's
mealy screaming into the wind. Fun screaming
mind you.

The internet is wild and crazy, anyone can dig up
anything, at anytime, to dispute anything. There
are still folks out there that believe the world is
flat, that GW planned 9/11, and aliens walk among
us.

The fact remains that the vast majority of respected
scientists in the world understand and agree that
global warming is occurring, and humans are
accelerating the process dramatically. I could bury
the server with cut and pastes and links to those
that support this science.

There will always be people that believe that burning
90,000,000 barrels of oil each and every day, along
with countless tons of coal, have zero effect on
the environment. Isn't logical to me, but it is to
them.

Bodo

11-22-2008, 11:41 AM

Sundance

If you could have left out the part about comparing people to 9/11 conspiracy theorists or a flat earther, I think I could give what you say a little more credence.
Since you didn't I'll take it you don't have facts to back up your argument and therefor resort to ad hominem attacks.

Secondly, the US could go "carbon neutral" (whatever that is) tomorrow but it wouldn't change a thing. I could go back to the land and live in some luddite utopia, but it wouldn't change a thing.
Developing countries, India and China don't care about Global Warming (Climate change or whatever the vogue term is now) and they sure aren't going to slow their economy.

So, continue to look down your nose at those that disagree with you and your "vast majority of respected scientists", if you must.

beegee

11-22-2008, 12:08 PM

There's no money in global cooling alarmism.

Sundance

11-22-2008, 12:49 PM

So, continue to look down your nose at those that disagree with you and your "vast majority of respected scientists", if you must.

You can scoff at 90%+ of the scientific community if you
must, and acclaim that I am "looking down my nose" if
that makes you feel better. But the facts are the facts.
The earth is not flat, GW had nothing to do with 9/11,
and global warming is happening.

SantaCruzBee

11-22-2008, 12:52 PM

Sundance, have to agree with you, as usual. The problem people seem to get hung up on is seeing the difference between short-term climate cycling and long-term trends. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Some of the misunderstanding may be the result of just not liking the messenger, like Al Gore. Obviously, there's also the desire to deny changes that will have a big impact upon human life, particularly if it may change lifestyles or cost money to make the adjustments.

My last two winters have been colder than usual. As cow pollinater says, here in California we tend to get a deep freeze every ten years and the el nino's tend to cycle on a 7 year basis. Well, as my last two winters were very cold, then I guess I'm not down for temps in the low twenties at night for another 20 years! But, unfortunately, short-term climate cycling, and that includes any patterns that recur in periods of 100 years or less certainly, has little to do with long-term trends.

We can continue to ignore or deny the dramatic impact of human activity upon the climate and in the short-term it's unlikely to make much difference on our lives. -Just as when oil prices drop, the SUV looks attractive again, but is burning gasoline thoughtlessly a wise approach to the future of humankind? (I own an SUV/truck, but also a Civic Hybrid for my daily needs -that's a lot of wasted resources..) Future generations will look down on us, though, for our short-sightedness.

Doug

Sundance

11-22-2008, 01:11 PM

Future generations will look down on us, though, for our short-sightedness.

Doug

That seems to be a certainty. I fear now with tumbling
oil prices (short term) that once again we'll slip back
into our ways and wait for the next crisis.

iddee

11-22-2008, 01:38 PM

>>>>I fear now with tumbling
oil prices (short term) that once again we'll slip back
into our ways and wait for the next crisis.<<<<

I don't think we slipped out of our ways. We just diverted our house payments to buy fuel, and quit buying new cars. That's why the bailouts and big 3 crisis came about.

Strange, those who screamed the oil companies had the right to make a profit and could charge as much as they wanted, some even hoping for 10.00 gas, seem to be silent since the collapse of the economy. Wonder why???

dragonfly

11-22-2008, 02:18 PM

Well, for anyone who may be still be open minded about the possibility that global warming is not human caused, and in fact is a natural phenomenon that would occur regardless of human presence/ intervention or not, here's another link to an article on the subject.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy (http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html), a climate expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/arctic_definition.html).
Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic. Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north latitude—the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.

walking bird

11-23-2008, 01:07 AM

I'm not a scientist, and don't even play one on TV. But I think it's pretty tough to argue with the fact that we humans have lived on this planet as parasites--- taking what we need, without any thought of the consequences.

Recently there's been improvement, to be sure. We're trying to clean up some of the dead lakes, harbors and waterways we created through ignorance and arrogance; we're learning to manage the production of lumber after seeing the effects of clear-cutting; we've cleaned up the air via emissions control here in California (it was WAY worse when I was a kid); we're doing lots of things to correct some of our mistakes.

The use of fossil fuel is another one of those mistakes. Whether you understand enough about the science to know the truth about global warming or cooling, fossil fuel is a limited resource. Meaning one day, it just runs out. Reason enough to see the folly of a "Drill, baby drill" mentality.

Bodo

11-23-2008, 06:51 AM

Once upon a time, it was popular to say the world was flat. Heck, even 'most' scientists shared that view. Maybe even 90% of them. They even thought that spontaneous generation explained how flies appear on rotting meat.

30 Years ago scientists were worried about global cooling, the next ice age! Now it's global warming. Admit it. They have no idea what's going on and even less of a clue as to why. It fits in some people's view of the world so they latch on to it. It also gives people a way to feel morally superior. "My carbon footprint is smaller than yours. I care more than you do"

As far as "drill, baby drill" goes. How long do you think it's going to take to get this country off of oil? You can't snap your fingers and make it happen. Until we do though, we need an 'all of the above' plan. Which includes nuclear, wind, solar, clean coal AND more domestic production of oil.

Like I said before, the US could never use a drop of oil again and never emit one more molecule of CO2...the problem is that China/India/Developing Countries will just use more and more and more.

tecumseh

11-23-2008, 07:27 AM

sundance writes:
The fact remains that the vast majority of respected
scientists in the world understand and agree that
global warming is occurring, and humans are
accelerating the process dramatically.

tecumseh:
I think the part that some folks resist (by admitting this may be true, it limits legitimate option for individual choice) is the idea that human can be effecting world wide climate patterns. most of the evidence I have seen is in respect to carbon and it's effect on long term climate.

a dragonfly snip...
But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy

tecumseh:
once again (as sundance previously stated) you are confusing short term with long term changes in climate. it seem iddee repeated the same error in thinking.

one of our former friends here (now dead) did some of the original deep ice core samples that established the long term temperature trends of the planet. of course no matter how you view this data what triggered extreme temperature fluctuation is totally hypothetical or speculative (no one really kept records of much value 10000 years ago).

one of my wife's friends here is the former head of noa (national oceanagrapic and atmostphic administration) during the reagan administration. he suggest to me directly that 'clobal warming' was not the best name for what is happening, but that yes it is quite undeniable that man is definitely effecting climate on a world wide bases. he suggested that 'man induced global climate change' would be a better name for what is happening. given the fellow stated politcal leaning it would be difficult to peg the fellow as a tree hugger or liberal.

JPK1NH

11-23-2008, 07:29 AM

HVH

11-23-2008, 09:13 PM

If man is responsible for a sizable amount of global warming then why are the other planets in our solar system warming? There are many links on this subject - pro and con. I hope this doesn't hurt the auto industries on Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Triton, and Jupiter.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

dragonfly

11-23-2008, 09:37 PM

If man is responsible for a sizable amount of global warming then why are the other planets in our solar system warming?

Great point.

tecumseh

11-24-2008, 06:54 AM

Bodo

11-24-2008, 07:33 AM

So Maybe. Just Maybe, this increased solar energy that heats up the other planets is also affecting our little planet too?

Jupiter does indeed have an atmosphere as does practically every other planet in our solar system. What I find even more interesting is that the Climate Change folks won't even admit that something else could possibly be contributing. Instead it can only be Carbon.

dragonfly

11-24-2008, 08:51 AM

So Maybe. Just Maybe, this increased solar energy that heats up the other planets is also affecting our little planet too?

Well, if I remember correctly, when we made our pact with Apollo, the sun god, we were grandfathered in, which exempts us from being subject to the same effects as the rest of the solar system.;)

dragonfly

11-24-2008, 09:06 AM

Our current climate is C02- impoverished compared to much of historical earth time. We are also delusional if we think we can control the climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

dragonfly

11-24-2008, 09:33 AM

It seems to be generally agreed-upon by skeptics that human-induced contributions to high C02 levels is a low percentage of those actually emitted into the atmosphere. Since my working knowledge of things tends to be centered around health, psychology, and human behavior, my analogy is the following:

Pretend that you have a human patient who has cardiac failure, kidney failure, respiratory failure, and liver failure, but you are worried about his nutrition, so you manage to convince him that although is is very ill, he should worry about what he eats. Would this really be a viable method of medical treatment? Should he be worried about his nutrition when all other factors point to an inability to make a significant change in the outcome?

An article from a science blog:

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1996/A/199600382.html

The researchers note that emissions from some vents are equivalent to that of some volcanoes. The flux from the vent east of Naples is equivalent to the combined crater and diffuse flux from Vulcano, a volcanic island near Sicily.
When looking at diffuse degassing, the researchers found one area that measured less than a tenth of a square mile, yet emits 150 tons of carbon dioxide per day.
The researchers note that Mt. Etna, a volcano which produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world, is located in this area of Italy. Unlike many other volcanoes, Etna is not in an area where tectonic plates meet.

HVH

11-24-2008, 10:19 AM

dragonfly writes:
Great point.

tecumseh:
well not really. how many of those planets have an atmosphere or life? a planet without an atmosphere should heat up or cool down based primarily upon the intensity of the sun's radiation (which is not constant and runs in cycles).

what climate change folks are talking about is the effect man kind has had in altering OUR atmosphere... which insulates us. there are a lot of unknowns (as far as the climate modelers are concerned) as to what the short or long term outcome of this change might produce.

Then why did we have a cooling trend from 1945 to 1970 when manmade emissions were rapidly increasing? Also, if you look ever so closely at the graph used by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" you will see that warming actually precedes CO2 increases. This is easily explained by gas laws. The ocean contains most of the earths CO2 and when temps rise the ocean releases this gas. The numbers I have seen suggest that man contributes a maximum of 5% of the atmospheric CO2.
I think we should look to alternative energy, clean up our air and water but for the right reasons, not because of fear mongering and the religion of global warming.
I find it interesting that the global warming crowd conveniently changed to the climate change crowd when the data was making them look stupid.

dragonfly

11-24-2008, 10:22 AM

I find it interesting that the global warming crowd conveniently changed to the climate change crowd when the data was making them look stupid.

That would be called "A Convenient Truth".;)

dragonfly

11-26-2008, 08:44 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15938.html

Republicans aren’t the only ones who are wary of hastily passing a greenhouse gas bill. Ten Democrats wrote to Senate leaders earlier this year, citing economic concerns as a key reason why they didn’t vote for the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill.

And despite Democrats’ pickups in the Senate this fall, several of the new Democrats are from conservative, energy-producing states and may not be supportive, either.

But congressional aides say it could be a long wait before lawmakers are comfortable pushing science that contradicts the global warming theory. And until the lobby gains traction, skeptics plan to continue pushing their ideas by arguing for protection of the economy, where they hope to meet middle ground with global warming supporters.

beegee

11-26-2008, 09:53 AM

The earth's rotation is gradually slowing and the globe is wobbling a little more on its axis. No doubt the fault of Conservatives....Everybody jump off before the thing crashes!!! Run! Run!

dragonfly

11-28-2008, 10:06 AM

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe

"People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol," the report said.
"More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be

randydrivesabus

11-28-2008, 10:34 AM

The earth's rotation is gradually slowing and the globe is wobbling a little more on its axis. No doubt the fault of Conservatives....Everybody jump off before the thing crashes!!! Run! Run!
The slowing rotation should give us more time per day...something I'm sure we all could use.

Scrapfe

11-28-2008, 11:49 AM

that might be good for some who live in real hot climates...last winter we set records for the coldest winter...The last two Janaury's have been...brutal...temps were below -30...-45...a wind [chill] of -55 or colder...

We shattered 100 year old record lows in NW Alabama this November. +17 degrees, cold for here, even in January. Why doesn’t some one start a post your low/high temp thread, compared with record daily highs and lows for that date?

Scrapfe

11-28-2008, 01:22 PM

...The problem people seem to get hung up on is...the difference between short-term...and long-term trends...My last two winters have been colder than usual...unfortunately, short-term climate cycling...in periods of 100 years or less..has little to do with long-term trends.
Doug

I could not agree with you more, Doug. :applause: I suggest we ALL grow up, and go back to those thrilling days of yester year, about 8 yester years ago to be exact, and disavow all the over the top Global Warming hype resulting from the high temps in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The Al Gore band of the Chicken Little school of scientific inquiry seized on this short term warming spree to "prove" their point. A casual reader of Al Gore's pronouncements during this era would of thought that by now everyone down hill from Denver would be treading salt water. :eek:

Otherwise, don't deny the “Nature Is Greater” school the same opportunity to demagogue the issue, via Al’s point and gloat method.

I'll see your century, and raise you a millennium. I suspect that any climate trend measured in units of years with less than 5 digits is meaningless long term.

mike haney

11-28-2008, 02:01 PM

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/24/tibet-glaciers-warming-02.html....researchers say glacers melting at alarming rate prompting fears lack of meltwater will lead to water shortage for up to a billion people. i didnt think the discover magazine/discovery chanel were liberal....

Scrapfe

11-28-2008, 02:29 PM

The earth's rotation is...slowing and...wobbling...on its axis. No doubt the fault of Conservatives....

Climate change is indeed dangerous to all human society not just Conservatives. Scientific inquiry proves that the Sahara Desert of today was once a vast swampy oasis, then the Earth cooled. Where today only serpents and scorpions cavort, once hippos and crocodiles lived in the company of modern man. In fact as recently as the days of the Roman Empire the Sahara Desert was Earth’s bread basket.

What happened? :s The Earth wobbled a little more the climate cooled, and the Sahara dried up. Man is the only intelligent animal on this planet, but we are far too primitive a being with far too limited a brain to understand all the hidden meanings to climatic variation.

Scientist think that a climate hotter than the one we enjoy today with more direct Sun light over the equatorial portions of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will return the Sahara to its former state when it was the soggy cradle of modern man. Since these facts grant little extra power and control of our daily lives to politicians these facts get little attention.

A more true and natural progression of debate should see us going from New Iceagers, to Global Warmers, to Climatic Changers, to Temperture Variationist to dang if I knowers.

This link is provided for your conveyance.
http://home.comcast.net/~georgesaunders/ancient.html

dragonfly

11-28-2008, 03:00 PM

to dang if I knowers.

l (http://home.comcast.net/~georgesaunders/ancient.html)

I believe you just placed me in a category.;)

dragonfly

12-01-2008, 01:36 PM

The author of this article calls this economic suicide for the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/30/do3010.xml

Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Mr Obama floats off still further from reality when he proposes spending $15 billion a year to encourage "clean energy" sources, such as thousands more wind turbines. He is clearly unaware that wind energy is so hopelessly ineffective that the 10,000 turbines America already has, representing "18 gigawatts of installed capacity", only generate 4.5GW of power, less than that supplied by a single giant coal-fired power station.

Bodo

12-01-2008, 01:41 PM

What's next? The Greenies are going to tax each person based on their CO2 output?

If they were honestly willing to do what it taxes to decrease Carbon output, they'd be behind Nuclear Power. But they have another agenda it would seem.

HVH

12-01-2008, 02:12 PM

The author of this article calls this economic suicide for the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/30/do3010.xml

I wonder how much CO2 will be produced by manufacturing another 10,000 wind turbines.

dragonfly

12-01-2008, 02:15 PM

I wonder how much CO2 will be produced by manufacturing another 10,000 wind turbines.

I don't know, but it might be a good quest to take up.:);)

Scrapfe

12-01-2008, 09:08 PM

I wonder how much CO2 will be produced by manufacturing another 10,000 wind turbines.

The problem with wind power is that the wind is prone to blow when you didn't ask it to and never corporates when you need the power and want to watch the ball game or cook supper. For wind produced electricity to be anything but a pipe dream, an over supply of turbines will need to be erected on the order of magnitude of thousands of times needed capacity. :scratch:

Then a large percent of the copper and other conductive metals on Earth will be tied up in transmission lines that may only see hours of use per month. Furthermore, large areas of the United States are not suited to wind turbine generation because of a lack of strong, steady, and reliable wind currents.

For instance of all the South East states, only a very small area atop a few isolated ridges in up state Arkansas even rates a 2 on the wind power sutiabily chart the rest being a 1, with a 5 being the most desirable location to sight a wind turbine.

Therefor many many more transmission towers will need to be constructed and high tention high voltage wires strung long distances. Also, remember that although electricity dose move from place to place without pumps, pipelines, tankers, or dump trucks, it takes a larger percentage of the power produced to move electricity than hauling coal on a rail line, or crude oil in a tanker lets say This is because of the electricity lost to resistance. And the further electricity has to travel the higher the resistance in the wires and the more electricity lost, resulting in a rise in the temperature in the transmission lines causing more resistance and more loss, causing more resistance and loss, in a vicious, rapid, self-sustaining, ever increasing cycle, until the high voltage wires literally melts off the transmission towers causing a increase in resistance in the remaining lines. :doh: In you house the firemen and the coroner calls it a blown circuit. :(

I ain't saying it can't be done, it wont be done, or it shouldn't be done, I am suggesting it sounds like somebody is trying to sell carbon credits.

HVH

12-01-2008, 09:16 PM

Scrapfe,

I agree. And until I see a carefully done cost benefit analysis, I will remain very skeptical. Same goes for solar.

Scrapfe

12-02-2008, 01:46 AM

The author of this article calls this economic suicide for the US.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/30/do3010.xml

Seems like my prediction of Obama becoming the new Hoover, (Herbert, not J Edgar) is looking more and more realistic.

Bizzybee

12-02-2008, 04:53 AM

Welcome to the new and improved green tax. The warm and fuzzy happy tax.... ;)

dragonfly

12-03-2008, 05:34 PM

Another factor to consider

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm

The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. According to a study in Geographical Research, the droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect.
The study uses data from 1876 to the present to examine the correlation between solar cycles and the extreme rainfall in Australia.