Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 154
  1. #101
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117

  2. #102
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    National Academy of Sciences: The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate

    part of it:
    Although the generation and dissipation of kinetic energy is a minor (≈0.3%) component of global energy fluxes, the winds mediate much larger energy fluxes by transporting heat and moisture. Therefore, alteration of kinetic energy fluxes can have much greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by an equal magnitude.
    Although the change in global-mean surface air temperature is negligible, regional peak-seasonal responses exceed ±2°C.
    2C is almost 4F.

    Nature dot com: Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature

    part of it:

    Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms as its spatial pattern and magnitude couples very well with the geographic distribution of wind turbines.

  3. #103
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    Not all of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the turbine necessaily. You claimed to understand turbulent flow but it is obvious that you do not. Again the input - input * eff = output was just you talking out of your ass.

    At no point did I claim that KE was not dissipated. I just said that not all KE was absorbed by the machine. Again turbulent flow. You claim to understand this but you don't that much is obvious.

  4. #104
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Not all of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the turbine necessaily.
    No Sherlock.
    You claimed to understand turbulent flow but it is obvious that you do not. Again the input - input * eff = output was just you talking out of your ass.
    No Sherlock.
    At no point did I claim that KE was not dissipated.
    You didn't understand , now you are trying to recover.

    LOL...
    I just said that not all KE was absorbed by the machine.
    I never suggested such a thing.
    Again turbulent flow. You claim to understand this but you don't that much is obvious.
    Excuses excuses... For your stupid assumptions.

    Why don't you just go away... Troll...

  5. #105
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    Dissemble all you want. I am still waiting for you explanation on how you concluded that it was 'hundreds of watts.' My assumptions are based on this comment and your talking of efficiency and your windspeed chart.

    So again please explain your model and formula for determining that the effect of a wind turbine would be hundreds of watts. I can quote your previous explanation if you are going to just lie about it like you lied about the solubility chart and ocean as soda stupidity.

  6. #106
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Dissemble all you want. I am still waiting for you explanation on how you concluded that it was 'hundreds of watts.' My assumptions are based on this comment and your talking of efficiency and your windspeed chart.

    So again please explain your model and formula for determining that the effect of a wind turbine would be hundreds of watts. I can quote your previous explanation if you are going to just lie about it like you lied about the solubility chart and ocean as soda stupidity.
    I don't know how to dumb it down any more than I did already. Not my fault you are to stupid to understand.

  7. #107
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I'll give you a hint. The hundreds or thousands of watts/square meter is the kinetic energy in the wind that is changed to electricity, friction, and heat loss. I never said it changes the radiative forcing by that much. It removes that much energy from the wind, which now have less energy to promote convection and exchanges of latent heat. Now convection and latent heat do change temperatures and radiative forcing. It also changes the dynamics of the air flow. If you cannot get past these simple truths of science, then bug off.
    The kinetic energy in airflow is close to 100 watts/square meter at 10 MPH. At 20 MPH, it is 800 watts/sq meter, 30 MPH it is 2,700 watts/square meter, etc. It is a cube function. Wind mills are as much as 40% efficient. They do not create this energy, they take it from the airflow.

    Aren't you tired of owning yourself yet?
    You are losing it Fuzzy...

    You asked me where I was getting hundreds of watts. I showed you. You still have this unhealthy compulsion to try to find fault in others, and it almost always backfires on you.

    You really should stop owning yourself.
    How so?

    Serious question. How am I deceiving?

    If a windmill is generating from the wind, 300 watts/square meter, then it must remove more than 300 watts per square meter from the wind.

    Am I right or wrong?

    Or do you think it breaks the laws of thermodynamics?
    LOL...

    Just because you don't know what I'm talking about...

    You have a serious problem. For what ever reason, you have to find fault in others. For you, I think it is a tunnel vision type thing. You can only focus on a strand of something you think you have control of, and don't see anything else. You seriously own yourself that way, and think you are getting over on others. What idiotic arrogance.

    Not my fault you didn't understand my words when I said we were taking hundreds of watts of kinetic energy per meter from nature. A smart person would have asked for clarification. I figured most people knew I would be speaking of wind direction because that was the topic at hand. Not my fault if you assumed downward forcing.

    It's the bully mentality pathetic asses of this world who have to accuse without merit, like yourself, instead of ask. Any idea how pathetic it makes you look?

  8. #108
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    An Alarm in the Offing on Climate Change



    “Climate change is already affecting the American people,” declares the opening paragraph of the report, issued under the au es of the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federally sponsored climate research. “Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts.


    “Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and Arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.”

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...limate-change/

    I figure BigCarbon/Kock Bros will get this report heavily lobotomized, esp stuff like "primarily driven by human activity."

  9. #109
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,019
    Texas now has a capacity of 11 GigaWatts of wind power. That is as much as 11 GW less energy to do the work that wind does for climate.
    smh

  10. #110
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,019
    If you say so Fuzzy.

    I have a thought.

    Why don't you tell me what you are assuming I am wrong about, so I can put your sorry ass in your place by proving you wrong.

    Or...

    Are you going to be as bad as Fuzzy and Chump?
    drunk post

    Do you by chance see your arrogant, assumptive stupidity?
    No.

    You invoked fluid dynamics and have yet to demonstrate how the principles translate. I want to know how wind farms might perturb the atmospheric pressure gradients we see here on earth to a demonstrable degree....and how fluid dynamics aids us drawing that conclusion. I'm waiting with bated breath.

  11. #111
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943

  12. #112
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Not at all. You are simply acting like Fuzzy. Attacking me instead of addressing the issue.
    I'm sorry you don't see it.
    You invoked fluid dynamics and have yet to demonstrate how the principles translate.
    I asked if you understood it.
    I want to know how wind farms might perturb the atmospheric pressure gradients we see here on earth to a demonstrable degree....and how fluid dynamics aids us drawing that conclusion. I'm waiting with bated breath.
    Then read the two links I supplied earlier.

  13. #113
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    Despite Conservative Attacks, States Continue to Realize the Benefits of Renewable Energy Standards

    Though Congress has failed to enact a nationwide standard, policymakers at the state level have enthusiastically filled the void, with 29 states and the District of Columbia adopting hard targets for renewable energy production and another eight states setting renewable energy goals. Standards place an obligation on electricity-supply companies to reach set targets, while renewable energy goals are voluntary for companies—although states might incentivize a utility for reaching a set goal.


    Those mandates have brought a wide range of benefits, ranging from robust clean energy economies to lower carbon emissions and improved public health. Since the beginning of 2009, eight states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York—have increased their standards, while three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—have established voluntary goals. Six other states—Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington state—have beaten back attempts to repeal their standards. Most of the states with renewable energy standards on the books are meeting or are close to meeting their interim targets.

    Two conservative organizations looking to repeal state renewable energy standard policies are the Heartland Ins ute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. These two organizations worked together to write model legislation—the Electricity Freedom Act—to roll back state standards. The policy, which ALEC’s board of directors adopted last October, argues that “a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real compe ion in generation resources.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...rgy-standards/

    ALEC, Heartland, all VRWC.
    lol thinkprogress.

    BTW, of the 14 states listed as examples of good clean energy stewardship in that bit of "analysis", 7 are R 7 are D.

    Yet somehow, conservatives are fighting wind power except for when they're not.


    Texas says hi.

  14. #114
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    lol thinkprogress.

    BTW, of the 14 states listed as examples of good clean energy stewardship in that bit of "analysis", 7 are R 7 are D.

    Yet somehow, conservatives are fighting wind power except for when they're not.


    Texas says hi.
    The headline is accurate for RED and BLUE states, since Repugs/VRWC/Kock-suckers/ALEC are fighting renewable energy EVERYWHERE. Your empty post shows why you post so little content. You're all bull .

  15. #115
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    Texas is about as pro-wind a state as there is. Not seeing the problem here.

  16. #116
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    The headline is accurate for RED and BLUE states, since Repugs/VRWC/Kock-suckers/ALEC are fighting renewable energy EVERYWHERE. Your empty post shows why you post so little content. You're all bull .
    I absolutely destroyed your link. Thinkprogress makes Heritage seem like Nobel prize winners. tp is nothing more than faux news inverted. Idiot.

    You need to look at the wind production in light of your precious red/blue meme. You'll understand why you're viewed as a no content bot.

  17. #117
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    Texas is about as pro-wind a state as there is. Not seeing the problem here.
    Texas is conservative, therefore, they absolutely must be fighting against wind power! /tp

  18. #118
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    I absolutely destroyed your link.

    in your wet dreams. TB

  19. #119
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    Texas is conservative, therefore, they absolutely must be fighting against wind power! /tp
    Texas is just putting up all those windmills because they're for global warming!

    /boutons, after being tutored by wild cobra on fluid dynamics

  20. #120
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    http://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/...ng-tax-credit/

    U.S. Gives a Late Reprieve to Wind Power Developers

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/bu...t-green10.html

    All the REPUGS would allow is a lousy ONE YEAR EXTENSION, which is silly considering these are multi-year infrastructure projects. Of course, the Repugs absolutely refuse to even talk about all the $Bs of fiscal breaks for the oil, coal, gas

  21. #121
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    in your wet dreams. TB
    lol @ bot.

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5665452

    I destroyed it the exact same way in that thread too. You're too ing cowardly to take a slapping without running away like a little .

  22. #122
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    http://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/...ng-tax-credit/

    U.S. Gives a Late Reprieve to Wind Power Developers

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/bu...t-green10.html

    All the REPUGS would allow is a lousy ONE YEAR EXTENSION, which is silly considering these are multi-year infrastructure projects. Of course, the Repugs absolutely refuse to even talk about all the $Bs of fiscal breaks for the oil, coal, gas

    So republicans aren't fighting renewable energy everywhere. Glad we've got that settled.

  23. #123
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    So republicans aren't fighting renewable energy everywhere. Glad we've got that settled.
    Can't you read? Of course they are!!!!!111

  24. #124
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    lol @ bot.

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5665452

    I destroyed it the exact same way in that thread too. You're too ing cowardly to take a slapping without running away like a little .
    mutha in' crickets.

  25. #125
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    As I remember it it was democrats fighting wind power in Chesapeake Bay. That state is so blue it is purple.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •