Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (25056)	8/27/2009 4:07:21 AM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

"Large portions of many continents..." Wharfie, there are not many continents. There are only 5 or possibly 6. <Large portions of many continents had substantially warmer-than-average temperatures during July 2009. The greatest departures from the long-term average were evident in Europe, northern Africa, and much of western North America. Broadly, across these regions, temperatures were about 4-7 degrees F (2-4 degrees C) above average. Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across southern South America, central Canada, the eastern United States, and parts of western and eastern Asia. The most notably cool conditions occurred across the eastern U.S., central Canada, and southern South America where region-wide temperatures were nearly 4-7 degrees F (2-4 degrees C) below average. > We can't conclude much if anything from that statement. It's a generalisation that some places were warmer and some were cooler. Well, crikey, what else would one expect? That's pretty much what weather does. Sometimes places are warmer and sometimes they are cooler. Sometimes they are wetter and sometimes they are dryer. After 100 years of all-out effort, assuming we claim credit for ALL of the warming, then we have achieved almost nothing: <The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, at 1.03 degrees F (0.57 degree C) above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.8 degrees C). > If we claim credit for ALL of the CO2 increase over the last 100 years, we have raised it from 280 ppm to 380ppm, which is not a huge success either. If you calculate our total emissions of CO2 you'll find a LOT of it has leaked out of the atmosphere back into plants, animals, and oceans. If we go for another 100 years, we might get to 480ppm and raise temperatures another 1 degree Fahrenheit, which is hardly a huge result for all the effort. It's hardly grounds for all-out panic now. Especially when the measurements are questionable and the causes debatable. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (25056)	8/27/2009 12:58:10 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 36917

Wind farms trigger false alerts of dangerous weather By ASSOCIATED PRESS \| Thursday, August 27, 2009 SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) \| Wind farms have been blamed for disrupting the lives of birds, bats and, most recently, the land-bound sage grouse. Now the weatherman? The massive spinning blades affixed to towers 200 feet high can appear on Doppler radar like a violent storm or even a tornado. The phenomenon has affected several National Weather Service radar sites across the country, even leading to a false tornado alert near Dodge City, Kan., in the heart of tornado alley. In Des Moines, Iowa, the weather service received a frantic warning from an emergency worker who had access to Doppler radar images. The alert was quickly called off in Kansas and meteorologists calmed down the emergency worker, but with enough wind turbines going up last year to power more than 6 million homes and a major push toward alternative energy, more false alerts seem inevitable. New installations are concentrated, understandably in windy states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and Iowa - all part of tornado alley. Texas, which has more tornadoes than any other state, also has the most wind power capacity. Dave Zaff, science and operations officer with the National Weather Service office in Buffalo, N.Y., describes the wind farms 20 to 35 miles to the southeast as "more of a pimple or a blotch on your face" that 99 percent of the time will not pose a problem. But what about those busy, high-stress periods when a meteorologist is tasked with making quick decisions as storms grow violent? In a worse-case scenario, a forecaster could disregard a real storm for turbine interference, but, more likely, would err on the side of caution, Mr. Zaff said. "If you take a glance and then all of a sudden you see red, you might issue an incorrect warning as a result," he said. Problems began to surface about three years ago, and seem to occur where a wind farm is built within 11 miles of a Doppler site, said Tim Crum, with the weather service's radar operations center in Norman, Okla. That could become a bigger problem because the same terrain is attractive for both weather radar and wind farms. "They want to be out in relatively exposed areas, high terrain, those sorts of things," Mr. Crum said. "So we sometimes are looking for the same ground, although we're already there." Software can easily filter out buildings, cellular-communications towers and mountain ridges on radar screens. Yet because weather radar seeks motion to warn of storms, there's no way to filter out the spinning blades. Microwave radio signals are beamed toward a particular point and meteorologists listen for the "reflection." Professionals can pick out the shape of a storm, or a tornado. The splatter of green, yellow, orange and red on Doppler screens that are caused by wind farms can look much like a tornado or a storm. In Kansas, it was a computer program that picked up on the pattern and issued the alert. A meteorologist who was aware of the phenomenon quickly called off the alert. The weather service is trying to improve its technology so that meteorologists during severe weather events can more easily tell the difference between dangerous storms and wind farms.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (25056)	8/27/2009 3:53:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

As I wrote Wharfie, Antarctic ice is increasing. You seem to disagree, yet strangely agree with what you quoted: <Arctic sea ice covered an average of 3.4 million square miles during July. This is 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the third lowest July sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006. Antarctic sea ice extent in July was 1.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. July Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 6.1 percent per decade since 1979, while July Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by 0.8 percent per decade over the same period. > Thanks for quoting some proof. If you read it really carefully, it says that Antarctic ice extent is increasing. That's what I wrote too, but you disagreed. At the other end of the world, it says that Arctic ice has also been increasing from the lows of 2006 and 2007. Again, that's just what I wrote. MORE ice in the Arctic. But wait, there's more. They are writing that over a longer period of time, namely since 1979, July Arctic sea ice has decreased by 6.1 percent per decade. They must mean the average decrease because it's unlikely to have been precisely 6.1% each July. From 1979 decreasing 6% per year: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx now xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Gosh, there isn't much left... poor polar bears. But there's lots down south. The polar bears should migrate there. The ice has been migrating there. Is there any particular reason the ice is going form the north pole to the south pole Wharfie? Do you have satellite photos from 1979 and now? Or maybe they walked around the edge with a GPS device. Please show us photos so we can check that 6.1% isn't another "climate model" result. Mqurice