climate change

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:21 pm

Very logical Htown - How was driving across town in that snow storm this past winter? I spent many years in Htown - one of the finer cities in the US. . . On a different note; where do you hunt down there? I spent most of my time in Trinity bay area.
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN


Re: climate change

Postby Dolsmi » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:03 pm

rman114 wrote:There is plently of evidence supporting an upward trend in global temps. And an increase in carbon in the atmosphere. Isn't it also interesting that these stats also coincide with the Industrial Revolution.
Are you just ignoring the obvious?
If these graphs tracked an increase in crime in the United States would you simply say naa crime isn't rising nationally just because maybe you haven't noticed it in your backyard?



Just trying to figure these 2 charts out.
When does the chart actually start? Pre 1860's?
Your chart starts at a temp that is -0.4 around 1860, Where are these temperatures taken from?
Is it an average of all temperatures from that day from across the world? and then averaged out for the year?
And if this is true, how accurate where the thermometers back then? Or shouldn't I ask that?
User avatar
Dolsmi
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:24 pm

Dolsmi wrote:
rman114 wrote:There is plently of evidence supporting an upward trend in global temps. And an increase in carbon in the atmosphere. Isn't it also interesting that these stats also coincide with the Industrial Revolution.
Are you just ignoring the obvious?
If these graphs tracked an increase in crime in the United States would you simply say naa crime isn't rising nationally just because maybe you haven't noticed it in your backyard?



Just trying to figure these 2 charts out.
When does the chart actually start? Pre 1860's?
Your chart starts at a temp that is -0.4 around 1860, Where are these temperatures taken from?
Is it an average of all temperatures from that day from across the world? and then averaged out for the year?
And if this is true, how accurate where the thermometers back then? Or shouldn't I ask that?


Dang Bro - great question!!! How can a chart show averages when there was no way possible to take these averages. . .

BRILLIANT man. . . :beer:
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby HtownBlaster » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:43 pm

MacMan wrote:Very logical Htown - How was driving across town in that snow storm this past winter? I spent many years in Htown - one of the finer cities in the US. . . On a different note; where do you hunt down there? I spent most of my time in Trinity bay area.


It was pretty cold Mac. It's the first time I've seen snow like that down here. It's too dangerous to drive around though. Not becuase of the icy roads, but all the morons who don't think they have to slow down and adjust their braking distance.
I regularly hunt a private lease sandwhiched between the Trinity River and Lake Anahuac. It's very close to the public areas in Trinity Bay - called the Mayes Lease. The hurricane wiped out all the freshwater habitat in the area this year, so I did a lot of driving to find the ducks. East Texas for Mallards and Wood Ducks, South Texas for Pintails, Gadwall, Widgeon, and Teal.
Newest member of the A5 club.
User avatar
HtownBlaster
hunter
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Houston

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:34 pm

Gotcha - My bro started a roofing/reconstruction bus. after the hurricane. We both left about 10 - 15 yrs ago and Bro went back for HighSchool reunion when the hurricane hit and decided to stay for awhile. His hunting this year was Port Lavaca - they did well. . . My daughter still lives in Laporte. . . Well, one thing about hurricanes - they wash the crap out and the fishing usually breaks out in the following year(s).
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby Rat Creek » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:43 pm

According to Al Gore the renowned climatologist who received his Ph.D. from… Oh yeah, he has no training. :huh:

Oh well. According to Al Gore, about 200 years ago there were about 275 carbon parts per million in the atmosphere. By this highly objective scientist’s, err politician’s best guess; we have roughly 350 carbon parts per million today.

I have no confidence that either of these measurements are accurate, but let’s look at the numbers anyway. According to the seller of carbon credits, carbon makes up .000350 (.035%) of the atmosphere, up from a mere .000275 (.0275%). That isn't 35%, that is three one hundredths of one percent. That seems pretty inconsequential. Per Carbon Credit Profiteer Gore, and based upon this highly inaccurate measurement, he thinks that 75 parts per million (.000075) is making the earth boil. Ready? Seven one thousands of one percent is making the difference. :fingerhead:

I would prefer to blame catastrophic climate change on the other 99.965 percent of the other stuff floating up there that makes up our atmosphere. Since moisture in number one, let's blame water and do what we can to get rid of all water. :yes:

If carbon makes up .035 of one percent, why are we even looking at it?

And considering the earth’s temps peaked in 1998, plateaued for a few years and has dropped sharply the past three years, giving back all of the temperature increases of the past 40 years, I think global cooling should be a greater concern, though there is nothing we can do about that either.

But know this. I am doing my part. I burned the prairie grass on my land this weekend, pumping untold tons of carbon into the atmosphere, so prepare for the temperatures to soar for the next five months. :thumbsup:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:39 am

Great Post RC - seems that all of us sane type can figure it out - it's the freakin' nutbars that suck up to this BS. . . However, be prepared - this carbon credit tax is coming and there ain't no stopping it. 'bout like we are headed to socialism too - same polical machine. :mad:
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:17 am

Great post RC...you forgot to mention that of the carbon in the atmosphere....humans contribute about 1% of it...the rest is natural (valcanoes, etc....) and OUT OF OUR CONTROL!!!! but we humans are the cause of global warming, errr cooling.....climate change.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58163
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: climate change

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:26 pm

Indaswamp:

I could easily mess up this calculation because there are way too many 0's on the right side of the decimal. So we are worried about the 1% of the .035%? So we are worried about .00035%. Is that 35/100,000ths of a percent?

Seriously, this is why it is a religion. No common sense can allow anyone to think that some razor thin sliver of one percent can cause warming, while discounting sun spots and documentented increases in solar activity. And you have to believe there is an accurate temperature calculation that measures all areas of the globe with accuracy. I can't place two digital thermometers in the controlled environment of a tight orafice and get the same readings. Please!!! :yes:

:bow: :bow: :bow: You either believe in manmade global warming on sheer faith or you don't.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:51 pm

Rat Creek wrote:Indaswamp:

I could easily mess up this calculation because there are way too many 0's on the right side of the decimal. So we are worried about the 1% of the .035%? So we are worried about .00035%. Is that 35/100,000ths of a percent?

Seriously, this is why it is a religion. No common sense can allow anyone to think that some razor thin sliver of one percent can cause warming, while discounting sun spots and documentented increases in solar activity. And you have to believe there is an accurate temperature calculation that measures all areas of the globe with accuracy. I can't place two digital thermometers in the controlled environment of a tight orafice and get the same readings. Please!!! :yes:

:bow: :bow: :bow: You either believe in manmade global warming on sheer faith or you don't.


Wow - the Global Warming folks - even though mostly non-Christian have to have faith too. Wow nr2, it's so much easier to put faith in Al Gore than it is the creator of the universe. . . It is a religion!!!!!
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:34 pm

I'm not clear how you arrived at those miniscule numbers, but will guess you've misinterpreted the information, and there may be some confusion about decimal notation. Regardless (or guardless if you prefer), the overhelming mass of evidence agrees and strongly suggests a man-made impact. If you don't want to believe your own eyes and ears, then what can one believe in? These are some links and there are plenty more, but these pretty much address the non-believer notions brought up here. the first one with David Attenborough is good and the video is short.

http://www.theclimatepost.com/en/articl ... graph.html

this one is from a religious site.
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... ockey.html
these speak for themselves.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch ... change.htm

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... date.shtml

The trouble is: with someting this potentially devastating, whistling in the dark is not a legitimate option. Many simply think about CO2 but there are many compounds that have a global warming potential (GWP). CO2 is the baseline and has a GWP of 1. Methane has a GWP of 21. See below (the table didn't cut and paste well). If you Google some of these compounds you will quickly see how widespread their use is in everyday industrial processes. It's not just CO2 that we need to be concerned about.

GAS CHEMICAL FORMULA GWP
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1
Methane CH4 21
Nitrous Oxide N2O 1320
Surface Ozone O3 100
HCFC-22 Chlorodifluoromethane (Freon) CHClF2 1350
HCFC-23 Fluoroform CHF3 11,700
CFC-11 trichlorofluoromethane CCl3F 1320
CFC-12 dichlordifluoromethane CF2Cl2 6650
CFC-113 trichlorotrifluoroethane C2F3Cl3 9300
Perfluoroethane C2F6 9200
Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6 23,900
Methyl chloroform CH3CCl3 -700
Carbon Tetrachloride CCl4 -1550
Propane C3H8 3



BTW: if you did watch An Inconvenient Truth you would know that in the very beginning Mr. Gore talks about how he learned of the situation while a Senator because our leading scientists (not the kooks) were giving presentations to congress. Because he took it seriously and recognized a significant threat and decided to take action, does not make him a profiteer and any of the other slanderous things thathave been said here. It takes courage to speak up when you're in the minority, knowing that the first line of defense for nay sayers is child-like derision...which, unfortunately, is cheap and goes a long ways.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:38 pm

I don't want to get into a battle on how many links we can post, so I will only place one here. Not because it refutes the whole idea that the earth is continuing to get warmer, but because it forecasts (based on science) that we are in a 23 year cooling trend.
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellit ... l-cooling/

As a selfish conservative, I am not looking forward to 23 years of cooler temperatures. If CO2 would warm things, this would be a good time to go nuts with it. Now don't get me wrong, every manmade global warming denier I know likes a clean environment. So, let's keep working toward cleaner air, water and diapers for that matter, but let's stop the farce that is manmade global warming. Even to my liberal friends, it has become a punch line to a bad joke. :yes:

Here is the fun part. A guy I work with is related to a woman on the IPCC- UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. They are the organization that blesses research papers with a peer review to deem them acceptable or just junk. I find it ironic, funny in a sad way, and troubling that the organization that does this has Climate Change in its name. I bet if your charter is climate change and you are paid to find evidence of climate change, that everything pretty much looks like climate change. :no: :huh:

Are you able to look past this and deem them objective? Just curious. Send them a paper on duck meat being gamier since the temperatures have risen. It will be published with their blessing I am sure. :lol3:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: climate change

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:10 pm

"when all else fails...Manipulate the data."

do that and you can make any argument either way you want it to go. More scientists discount global warming than support it.
It is not a proven fact. or a proven theory.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58163
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:42 pm

What is the optimum temperature of the Earth?

If warming is bad, then would cooling be good?

Are we to believe we are at the exact perfect optimum temperature?

If we are at this perfect optimum temperature, then we have to believe it sits near a cliff that will lead to catastrophe?

How much harm will result from curtailing the use of the cheapest forms of energy on earth?

The things that you must believe to be true in order to accept that the harm from increased CO2 will outweigh the harm from curtailing the use of the cheapest form of energy on earth is mindboggling.

I would like to curtail coal in the U.S. because we can do better. We are rich and we can afford to use cleaner and safer technologies with a much smaller footprint and the only option is nuclear. We should not shutdown the existing coal plants, but we should be building mostly nuclear plants to fill the demand for baseload electricity.

BTW, I was just in Missouri and drove past some windfarms. It just pissed me off to see the unbelievably ugly, land consuming, unreliable pieces of garabage scarring the landscape. This is what the "environmentalists" want to do to the rural landscape. They are even bigger morons than I ever thought. A nuke plant generally produces positive benefits to the local area. I hunt and fish at power plant cooling lakes all the time. I've gone recreational boating. The coal and nuclear plants have a small footprint and much of that footprint is a heated lake that is full of fish and wildlife. The wind farms are just raping the rural landscape. It should be a disgrace.

I now actually have to agree with the Kennedy's. Don't build these things in Cape Cod. They are too big of an eyesore to build just about anywhere.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby GroundSwatter » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:00 pm

I really dislike wind farms too. There is nothing worse than driving in the middle of no where and seeing wind mills on top of every damn mountain and hill. I wish we would disband the idea of wind farms and work harder on making it a shorter process to build nuclear power plants. The main problem with nuclear power is a PR issue. How much paper work would it take to build a nuclear power plant spinner? Somebody told me it took almost 5 years to get your plans approved and then another 5 to build it.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Re: climate change

Postby Rat Creek » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:16 am

And now there are studies being done about the mental health impact on people who live near windmill farms. Something about the constant low level noise or other undetermined causes. The effect is migraine headaches, concentration problems and even schizophrenia.

So, we will be green, but raving lunatics. Actually, maybe this isn’t cause and effect, but instead a dependency. :hammer:

And great point Spinner. How do we know that the temperature recorded in say…1850 or 1950 is the perfect temperature for this planet? It appears that the warmer this planet is, the better it is for the inhabitants in general. Think the Renaissance for a good warm period and the Black Plague for a cooler period. Now I know of am focused on humans, so keep my selfish motives in mind.

This we know. It has been much, much warmer and much, much cooler. Fossils of tropical/jungle plants have been discovered in northern Canada and we know ice has covered most or the entire planet before. What is so special about the arbitrary line people place on graphs that lefties point to and say “Ah Ha!” :fingerhead:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: climate change

Postby gsurko » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:10 am

It's all a moot point. Obama is going to save us. After that we won't want to live, so it don't matter.
gsurko
hunter
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 9:05 am
Location: Hastings, Mi.

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:26 am

I read the article by Mr. Avery of the Hudson Institute. Then I Googled the institute. Enlightning and certainly no agenda to speak of. :no: I've highlighted a few of the recent celeb members and their corporate sponsors. Didn't bother googling those names I didn't recognize. But here's what wiki has to say...

The Hudson Institute is an American, non-profit, conservative think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.[1] It moved to Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1984 and to Washington, D.C., in 2004.[2]

The Institute promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security."[1]

Its current president is Herbert London.[1]


Policy positions
According to its mission statement the Hudson Institute "challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business."[1]

In the 1970s, Hudson’s scholars advocated a turn away from the "no-growth" policies of the Club of Rome; in the early 1990s, it advised the newly-liberated Baltic nations on becoming market economies; it assisted in drafting the Wisconsin welfare reform law.

The Institute has taken positions critical of environmentalism[3]. Dennis Avery, as Director of the Hudson's Center for Global Food Issues, has written in opposition to those who favor the adoption of organic agricultural methods.[4]

It was described by US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as “closely associated with neoconservatives”.[5]

The Hudson Institute is developing programs to propose the political and economic transformation of Muslim nations.[citation needed]


Funding
The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from companies and individuals. Corporate contributors include Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.[6]

Fundraising efforts use testimonials from what the Institute calls its "family of generous supporters and friends", among them, Henry Kissinger, who provides a testimonial: "Hudson Institute is today one of America's foremost policy research centers, in the forefront of study and debate on important domestic and international policy issues, known and respected around the globe, a leader in innovative thinking and creative solutions to the challenges of the present and the future."[7]

Some[who?] question the institute's position on many [which?] issues. An example is their view of food production and the large sums they receive from food companies. The New York Times commented on Dennis Avery's attacks on Organic farming: "The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the United States, the conventional food industry is worried."[4]


Hudson Institute Leadership
Herbert London (President)
Kenneth R. Weinstein (CEO)
Deborah L. Hoopes (Vice President & Chief Financial Officer)
Grace Paine Terzian (Vice President for Communications)

Notable trustees, fellows and advisors
In 1990 fellow Bruce Chapman founded another think tank, the Discovery Institute.

Politicians who have been affilitated with Hudson include former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle and Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels.

Other members have included:

Zeyno Baran
Anne Bayefsky
Conrad Black
Chuck Blahous
Robert Bork
Rudy Boschwitz
Pierre S. du Pont, IV (emeritus)
Joseph Epstein
Douglas J. Feith
Joseph M. Giglio[8] (Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees)
Alexander Haig (emeritus)
Bernadine P. Healy, M.D. (emeritus)
Roy Innis
Donald Kagan (emeritus)
Amy A. Kass
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (resigned from his position as a senior advisor after his convictions in United States v. Libby)
Betsy McCaughey
Robert H. McKinney[9]
John O'Sullivan
William Odom
Richard Perle
Max Singer[10] (Co-founder, president until 1973, currently senior fellow and trustee)
Irwin Stelzer
Walter P. Stern[11] (Chairman of the Board of Trustees; Board Member; Executive Committee Member)
Allan R. Tessler[12] (Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees)
Kenneth R. Weinstein (Board of Trustees)
Richard Weitz
Ambassador Curtin Winsor, Jr.[13](Board Member)
Yoshiki Hidaka(Japanese Columnist, Visiting Senior Fellow)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby jrockncash » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:17 pm

Spinner
BTW, I was just in Missouri and drove past some windfarms. It just pissed me off to see the unbelievably ugly, land consuming, unreliable pieces of garabage scarring the landscape. This is what the "environmentalists" want to do to the rural landscape. They are even bigger morons than I ever thought. A nuke plant generally produces positive benefits to the local area. I hunt and fish at power plant cooling lakes all the time. I've gone recreational boating. The coal and nuclear plants have a small footprint and much of that footprint is a heated lake that is full of fish and wildlife. The wind farms are just raping the rural landscape. It should be a disgrace.


Thank you for posting that. We just got a wind farm and it is disgusting. I have posted many times about how worthless they are. They produce ZERO net Energy! Its all a sham! Green Energy my ass this is the next ethanol. Theirs another one they shoved down our throats that ended up being crap science. Yeah, now my car gets worse mileage, its harder on the engine, and oh ya, costs more energy than it creates. Whoooweeeee! Thanks libbies another notch in your douche belt.

The sad thing is they think that they are "For" the environment when that couldnt be further from the truth.
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Jrock,

I'll be the first to admit that windfarms may not be the prettiest sight in nature, but they're not as ugly as an induatrial park. One thing you and Spinner may not be thinking about is that for some farmers and ranchers, having wind mills on their property gives them an additonal income source, so they're not quite so vulnerable to the wild price fluctuations of grain and livestock markets, and variable weather patterns.

(douche belt?)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:24 pm

OKAY FOLKS - Apology to the gays on DHC - I really didn't mean to offend you - AND an apology to those of you that are indeed Global warming apostles - I didn't mean to call you folks faggots - there may be some girlyMen - but, I'm not to judge that - Please forgive me. . .
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7842
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:39 pm

Just a funny aside. I told my Congresswoman in person that I thought the windturbines were ugly. She is pro-nuke, so I was preaching to the choir.

How did I tell my Congresswoman in person this, do you ask? I am in DC for work. I had a flight on Monday and was sitting on the floor by the gate (all the seats were full) working on my laptop waiting for my flight. About 10 minutes before boarding, I decided to get up to stretch. I overheard the 3 woman standing by me say it is a shame that there is politics in sciences. I interject the offhand comment that there has always been politics in science and expected to continue on my merry way. They actually engaged me in conversation. We talked a bit and then the one woman asked if I knew who the one woman in the group was. I said no, but realized she did look familiar. Yep, it was my U.S. Representative Judy Biggert :lol3: Both of my Senators including the now infamous Roland Burris as well as several other Congressman were on the flight. I sat next to a Senator from another state, but for the life of me I can't think of who he is. He had his head burried in work the entire flight, so I did not talk to him.

dudejcb wrote:Jrock,

I'll be the first to admit that windfarms may not be the prettiest sight in nature, but they're not as ugly as an induatrial park. One thing you and Spinner may not be thinking about is that for some farmers and ranchers, having wind mills on their property gives them an additonal income source, so they're not quite so vulnerable to the wild price fluctuations of grain and livestock markets, and variable weather patterns.

(douche belt?)

The only industrial park they need to be compared to is a coal and nuclear plant and that has to be done in a fair way.

You can put 3,000,000 kW or more on a single site for coal or nuclear and it will on average be producing 95% of that power level. That site will be a few thousand acres, most of which is unimproved land and/or a cooling lake. Cooling towers look better than the ugly ass wind turbines.

For a wind farm to produce the same amount of energy (3,000,000 * 0.95), it will require an installed capacity of around 9,500,000 kW (assuming 30% capacity factor, which is not atypical) to 5,700,000 kW (assuming 50% capacity factor which there aren't many places that can do that well). Wind turpine sizes range from 100's of kW to the giant ones are over a 1,000 kW. So we are talking somewhere in the range of 5,000 to 20,000 individual wind turbines to replace a single nuclear power plant site.

Just the installed nuclear capacity is about 100,000,000 and we get most of our electricity from other things. That is a lot of f'ing windmills if they wish to play in the big leagues.

BTW, the windfarm operator is almost certainly going to purchase the land and then lease the unused land back to a farmer. I doubt they will lease the land, but even if they did they are not going to pay rent significantly above the value of the land that they are utilizing. Why would they? They would just go to a different farmer that will agree to a lower price.

GroundSwatter wrote:Somebody told me it took almost 5 years to get your plans approved and then another 5 to build it.
It really just does take that long to build multibillion dollar facilities. You can build a plant in the 4 - 5 year time frame from breaking first ground, but you have significant lead times to get the financing, order the large components, etc. Doesn't really matter what they are, it takes a lot of years to spend a billion dollars, well unless you are Obama. What is he averaging? A few hundred billion a day :lol3:

Rat Creek wrote:And now there are studies being done about the mental health impact on people who live near windmill farms. Something about the constant low level noise or other undetermined causes. The effect is migraine headaches, concentration problems and even schizophrenia.
I would bet a big pile of money this is complete junk science. Although it is the same junk science that they use against the nukes, so it kind of serves them right.

It's like people that are convinced the electromagnetic fields are doing them harm. You cannot kill a mouse with EM fields. If you can't generate strong enough fields to kill the mouse, we for damn sure aren't getting hurt by very low level fields.

We are not being harmed by low level radiation, but that is because our body has repair mechanisms that can handle the damage caused by low levels of radiation. There is a point at which our body cannot repair it. How do I know this? I can guarantee you that I can kill that mouse with radiation. I can give it cancer. I can do a lot of bad things to it at very high levels. How does that translate to very low levels? That requires a ton of research, which has been done along with several very large human experiments. The first was conducted August 6, 1945 and the second was three days later. The results of these tests showed that cancer risks will only go up by a few percent, even at these tremendously high levels (100,000's of mREM in one shot). Occupational limits are 5,000 mRem per year and acceptable doses to the public are much lower. Single doses are more harmful because the body has no time to repair. No discernable effects have been seen in humans below about 10,000 mRem. Beagle studies have shown that if there is any very low level of cancer from very low level exposures, that the cancer will not occur until after the end of your natural life. The lower the exposure is then the longer it takes for the cancers to manifest, so you should be lucky to live long enough to get the cancer and with ever better health care, at least until Obama fixes it, the chance of you dying from it continues to go down.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby SimpleMan » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:42 pm

I think dudejcb is kin to Alan Colmes , he makes a great argument , but has drank way too much KOOL AID !
SimpleMan
hunter
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:04 am
Location: Fuquay Varina , North Carolina

Re: climate change

Postby GroundSwatter » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:19 am

There are a lot of different technologies that would see a boost from nuclear power. One would be Fuel cells and any other technology that requires hydrogen for energy. The major issues with Fuel cells right now is that, one they are complicated and unreliable, but secondly, creating hydrogen for a PEM Fuel Cell is an expensive process. If we use nuclear power, guess what a bi-product of that wonderful technology is, thats right, good ol H2.

Dude, have you seen how much windmills cost? Its going to take a farmer a really long time to pay off his windmills. Also, there is nothing like going to a place you have hunted in years past, show up and all you can see around your deer stand is windmills. If we were putting windmills on top of high rise buildings in NYC, I'm sure there would be a lot more people complaining about the eye sores.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:33 pm

not related to Alan Colmes and don't drink kool aid. Am not afraid to voice my opinions despite overwhelming counterveiling views on DHC.

Frankly, I don't understand everyone's opposition to environmentally beneficial notions. If we become more energy efficient, more productive, reinvigorate our (seriously dated) manufactuing base, and also decrease our dependence on a finite resource of fossil fuels...and it helps the airshed...what is the big deal.

You think our cost of living will rise? it will regardless. have you noticed gasoline inching upward while demand stays low. How many of you Americans buy your crap from Walmart? It's nice to have low prices, but when incomes fall as well (as a nation) then we are no better off and have lost our infrastructure in the process. China has nice new stuff, and they are our enemy in many, if not most, ways. Our manufacturing base (what's left) is old, generally. We need to retool to be competitve. The world that will buy our products already has signed on to Kyoto, so the game is over cuz they won't buy pouir stuff if it has a big carbon footprint, so we need to get with the program regardless of whether you think the "libs" have a conspiracy cooked up to screw you over. sometimes bad tasting medicine is for you own good, even when you don't like it.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests