Effects of Global Warming ??

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by savoir

I mean that the poor suffering taxpayers of the country in question must stump up their hard earned buck$ in order for the wind farm to continue to exist. In every case were said wind farm to sell its power on the open market it would fail to cover expenses and so wind up broke.

The oil industry is irrelevant and there is nothing low cost about wind power. Go look at what it costs to change the bearings in one of those turbines.

Whilst I am no fan of "green" anything - nonetheless the economics of renewables vs oil are a lot closer than is usually compared, and may even favour wind! The answer depends on what you count and when......and what you want it to be! (the magic of Accountancy!).

With a wind farm you do not need such a big army, navy and airforce to hold onto "your" energy that is inconveniantly located in someone else's backyard and ensure it is sold to you at below free market value - for what it does it should be more valuable than Coke . either sorts .

and on top of the guns, tanks, ships and planes you also have the lifetime cost of the large numbers of folks you break in addition to those you don't having been removed from the productive wealth creation part of the workforce during their prime.

A lot of the above do not involve cheques being written directly by anyone let alone the Oil companies so are usually not factored into the cost of oil - but they all cost for a society, and not always in money.

Not to say that you can run a 21st Century economy on windfarms alone! - but no reason why nowadays every developed country can't generate most of it's power needs from within it's own border, and IMO every reason to do so, including for economic stability from security of supply, certainty on cost and simply from having large scale decently paid jobs inside a home industry......me likes Nuclear and Tidal power ......kinda like the French do .

[conachair]

Originally Posted by savoir

In every case were said wind farm to sell its power on the open market it would fail to cover expenses and so wind up broke.

Energy from new Australian wind farms cheaper than from new coal or gas plants, report shows

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by ArtM

If you're referring to the European Riveria of Spain, Italy, and Greece, I've been there... it's not their "own" people who are trying to get work.

Anyway, I believe that the 25% unemployment probably will be quickly solved by reducing the work-week by 25%. We are suffering from excess productivity as we arrive at the end of the age that was designed from the start to allow us to be less productive.

That is pretty much my view of what the future should and could involve .

I have no problem with folks not sharing money , but to my mind of benefit to a society to share far more than has been done the benefits of technology that have created productivity and efficiency undreamt of even a generation ago.

The only purpose for folks working any number of hours (500 hours a week or 5) is because the work needs to be done (by the society) and it takes that long. Time was when being a peasant was a 24/7 job - the world moved on from that, no fundamental reason why it can't move on from a 35 hour or 70 hour week!.........apart from for ideological reasons .

Remember, if work was such a great thing the rich would be doing it all - if sitting on backside counting own cash works for some, why not for others .

Not saying that for your 15 hour week you get $1000 a week, but why not $500, plus free housing! and leave it up to each to decide whether that good enough for them or whether to work longer hours for more money and shinier toys.

We could call the 15 hour / $500 a week folks the Consumer Class .

My gut says that even at those hours we have too many people than are actually needed to run a modern country.......

[Bluewaters2812]

Global fooling, I mean warming has had no effect from what I can see around me here. I guess because I don't subscribe to the theory I don't see it having any effect. I have read some scientific reports that say there has been no "global warming" for the last 10 years. When the next period of global "cooling" occurs and we are given another reason to pay more for "green" technology I will take another sigh of fresh air ... God willing.

[savoir]

Wind farms are proving to be a total financial disaster. The costs of mechanical failure are gargantuan.

Le Mars Daily Sentinel: Local News: Repair costs push school toward wind turbine sale (04/05/12)

Broken Wind Turbine Still Not Fixed | WPRI.com

These quotes are from a Portsmouth RI town council meeting regarding a highly controversial and expensive wind turbine.

" Wind gusts lead to misalignment of the main shaft which destroys the front bearing and the gearbox. This is true in all gearbox driven turbines. Today insurance companies require wind turbine contractors write into the sale a gearbox change every five years .
The industrial wind turbine industry is plagued with gearbox failures, which cause repair costs, lost energy production, and legal expenses.
The Town of Portsmouth bought a commercial wind turbine and only looked at the positive information given and written to them by the wind turbine contractors.
Now we see friends,relatives,politicians who have to look deep into the negative side of commercial wind. There are Town Council members who were convinced by wind advocates and reports given to them this was great project.The council members have to look at what is in front of them : A failed field test that the residents of Portsmouth have to pay for !
Portsmouth now will get involved in the secondary market replacing major components before every five years . Why else would they try and sell the town two gearbox units ? "

" Flex plates are the issue along with shaft alingment. When you take the gearbox out your going to find issues as they did in the Princeton ,Massachusetts turbine. The gearbox replacement was $600,000.00 .That included the gearbox ,special crane and dowm time cash from the turbine. The gearbox went as a result of too much vibration . You'll have to retrofit the flex plates and NO guarantee of that working .It's a cash cow now for wind turbine contractors and they are going to milk the public with the turbine ! The Portsmouth High School wind turbine has become a Trojan Horse - you brought it into town and now it's taking all your cash ! This is what they call "green " ? This really needs National Attention ! "

" The local elected officials were people — like the rest of us — who originally thought that wind turbines were a good thing. Wind turbine contractors always say : "since the wind is free, operational costs are nearly zero once a turbine is erected " . The formula looks like it costs 3 million for the turbine ,$33,000.00 per years for maintance and another $100,000.00 per year for parts -not counting down time and crane service . The town may be looking at blade replacement in a short period of time. Also of concern is that the tower itself has a life of its own depending on the environment . The tower itself doesn't last forever ! "

" The total number of eligible Portsmouth voters for the Nov 6, 2007 Special election was 12,183. There were 3 questions on the ballot. The wind turbine was question 2 on the ballot. Voters who approved were 2,333 or 60.39% and those who rejected were 1,530 or 39.61%.
This tubine has been operational for 39 months. There is still $2.26 million due on the bond, or $226,000 per year for the next 10 years. The replacement gearbox will come with a 30 month warranty. Due to the original company going bankrupt numerous sub contractors were not paid for their work. "

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by ArtM

Anyway, I believe that the 25% unemployment probably will be quickly solved by reducing the work-week by 25%. We are suffering from excess productivity as we arrive at the end of the age that was designed from the start to allow us to be less productive.

While I disagree with you on much on this point I think you are exactly right.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Wow, 155 posts and I still haven't found the answer I was looking for. Maybe I'll need every one of the 40 days forecast for this March to get it. I guess I didn't seek to stir up the global warming debate. In my opinion the weather is increasingly unsettled. While I seem to be able to trust the BOM site for letting me know the strength of approaching weather systems, the timing of them sometimes seems to be way off and more so than it has been in the past. I'm keen to know if this is an Australian phenomena or is weather becoming more unpredictable the world over?

Last summer I took a trip up the East Coast of N America starting in Nova Scotia. Up to southern Labradore, then around Newfoundland.

Every where I went I was told anecdotal stories of hoe the weather is warming significantly and how it is effecting folks daily lives. I did NOT seek out these stories, they just came out.

They are strongly supported by comparing reports form early travelers. For example I sailed through the straits of Belle Isle in June and saw a few bergs. 100 years ago it was often ice blocked till the end of July.

Warming is happening faster further North. Up there you would find little argument that there is less ice, warmer weather. That is causing unsettled weather here in NA. It is not surprising our low lat members don't see a change, it is weak there.

The answer to WHY is in that video I posted earlier 79 page 6. Long but good answer.

YouTube


I don't know the answer for the Southern Hemisphere but suspect it is similar.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Maybe a dumb question but is this whole C02 theory based on the shifting/displacing of Co2 from it's solid forms at ground level to a gas in the atmosphere at a particular height, is this correct?

Cheerz.

Kinda. Carbon is locked up in coal and oil....fossil fuels. When burned it is released as CO2. Then it changes how heat is lost into space.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

The blizzard conditions we are seeing reported in Texas now, is that something that happens occasionally?

Cheers.

Yes. They are due to fluctuations in the Jet Stream. Robby waves. Can happen at any time. Warming is weakening the Jet Stream, makes the fluctuations bigger ( it wanders more) and that causes more unsettled weather.

Last March, the same kind of wiggle was a bit further West. That brought up a blast of heat that set all kinds of records, thousands of heat records, but just one big event. An unsettled Rosby wave.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

My gut says that even at those hours we have too many people than are actually needed to run a modern country.......

Bertrand Russel.......1932... In Praise of Idleness.... Maybe 4 pages

You will like.


In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Clearly the single largest problem humanity faces is over population. I have thought long and hard on that, listened to the arguments, and concluded that there is no solution we will actually do. Nature will impose limits and solutions.

Hi Hpeer, I wanted to pick up on this comment b/c I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and your respectful tone in this heated discussion.

I think you're 1/2 right. Over-population is a critical problem, but the core issue is over-consumption of our limited resources. We are doing this through increased population, but we are also doing it by simply consuming more per-capita.

The first part (the over-population) is focused largely in what we call the under-developed, or undeveloped parts of the world. This is where most of the population growth is centred. The second part of the problem is focused in the rich, mostly "western" world (although not exclusively). The first group's resource demands on the planet are tiny per-capita, but add up to large amounts taken as a whole. The second group (us) place huge per-capita resource demands on the planet. Although our numbers are small (compared to group one) our impact is huge.

The real solution to global environmental issues is quite simple: use less. We have to do this by reducing our population (mostly in the poor areas of the world) AND by reducing our per-capita demands (mostly in the rich parts).

It all comes back to simple ecological notion of carrying capacity. Another way to view it is the ecological footprint idea. However you want to describe it, the fact is we are animals whose whole existence is dependent on our ecosystem for survival. If we destroy our ecosystem, we destroy that which allows us to exist. Humans are an incredibly resilient and adaptive species, but it is arrogance and ignorance in the extreme to believe we are outside of Nature. One way or another, our species will come back into equilibrium with our ecosystem.

BTW, I share your perspective that this re-callibration will be harsh. I don't think we, as a species, have the capacity to change. It may simply be beyond us. All species expand to the maximum amount that their ecosystem allows. Limits are imposed by the environment, and the population's resource demands come into balance. In some cases this balancing act is performed cruelly (deer populations come to mind as an example), sometimes they happen more gently. Either way, no species can long over-consume its ecosystem. Science is telling us we've been doing just that for decades.

The rebalancing will show up mostly in the form of social disfunction (already happening in many areas) and eventual societal collapse (also, already happening in some areas). It will show up first, and be most acutely, in less powerful (poorer) part of the world, although when the barbarians reach Rome (us) our fall may be all the more painful. I certainly don't know if we have 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years, but clearly our ecosystem -- which is now virtually the whole Earth -- is straining under our load. One way or another, humans will come back into balance with Nature.

[Kache Walk]

Anecdotal evidence on the effect of global warming is difficult if not impossible to provide unless you talk about trends you are seeing over a couple of decades or more. It is not yet possible to attribute individual weather or climate events to man-made climate change. This is because of the significant amount of variability in our weather from day to day and in climate across decades. There are climate patterns like El Nino that cycle through periodically, for example that strongly affect seasonal climate.

That's my answer to the thread. You can stop there. But if you want to hear something REALLY INTERESTING, keep reading.

So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by BlackOak

the earth is @4.5 billion years old, according to science. It has endured global warming and cooling a few 100,000 times because of volcanos and extraterrestrial impacts. There have also been axis shifting, and continetal movement because of the earth's crust. Fossilzed sealife found in the arizona deserts. So I dont buy into all this global warming bullcrap, from the tree huggers, caused by human hands.

Fully with you on this one Blackoak. The tree-hugging "green" campaigners are costing us a fortune and there has been no "global warming" for the last 10 years at least. The only global warming is the hot air these people breathe.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Kache Walk

Anecdotal evidence on the effect of global warming is difficult if not impossible to provide unless you talk about trends you are seeing over a couple of decades or more. It is not yet possible to attribute individual weather or climate events to man-made climate change. This is because of the significant amount of variability in our weather from day to day and in climate across decades. There are climate patterns like El Nino that cycle through periodically, for example that strongly affect seasonal climate.

That's my answer to the thread. You can stop there. But if you want to hear something REALLY INTERESTING, keep reading.

So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively.

Nice post!

[barnakiel]

No wonder 97% of all scientists say the same thing: they are all looking at the same data, they have received the same education, learning from from the same books. BTW 97% is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. PLS look up on Wiki and come back tell me what's wrong.

Now let's listen to what the remaining 3% say (if they have any opinion at all). Because THIS can be actually the important stuff.

Do you remember when Einstein published his work, 100 of most prominent scientists signed a letter claiming he was wrong. Einstein's response was 'one, if he is right, is enough'. Time told.

Statistical data used by people who do not know how statistics works can be really a horrible weapon.

Cheers,
barnie