****Official ask a Fuzzy Lumpkins anything and not get a straight answer thread****

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You haven't shamefully crawled back into your hole yet?

How about asking me the relevant questions in the thread instead of accusing me like you do, or are you afraid that if you ask real questions that pertain to what I said, I will prove you wrong about me?

Look at the le of thread. Think about it a bit. I am the topic of this thread. You are in my world now, .

I notice that you do not want to talk about how you came to the numbers. Seems the only dissembling bag here is you. Just admit that you are talking out of your ass and we can move on.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't ask for your general guess. I asked for the models and the formulas you used to come to that number. I asked what assumptions you made ie initial conditions, gradients from the IC etc. Your EZ Bake science level derived from wikipedia or whatever other you found on google isn't good enough. If you want to make claims like that then back it up with something legitimate. Or cite someone who is legitimate.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't ask for your general guess. I asked for the models and the formulas you used to come to that number. I asked what assumptions you made ie initial conditions, gradients from the IC etc. Your EZ Bake science level derived from wikipedia or whatever other you found on google isn't good enough. If you want to make claims like that then back it up with something legitimate. Or cite someone who is legitimate.

I don't know how to explain to you the way I see it in my head. It isn't numbers, but visualized patterns. What I can hypothesis is backed up by various studies. They have the numbers. I posted a couple links, and if you search, there are plenty of studies out there. Even NASA says the wind farms in Texas have caused a 0.73 degree anomalously above similar areas without wind power.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know how to explain to you the way I see it in my head. It isn't numbers, but visualized patterns. What I can hypothesis is backed up by various studies. They have the numbers. I posted a couple links, and if you search, there are plenty of studies out there. Even NASA says the wind farms in Texas have caused a 0.73 degree anomalously above similar areas without wind power.

Bull . Whatever nonsense you have in your head is you making up. You have named some variables not even attempted to model the system or describe how said interact. What you have is mickey mouse bull .

And your google search only came up with .73 degree anomaly.? Thats too bad because your numbers are in terms of power. You really want to get back to thermodynamics and your assumptions on grey bodies? We going to illuminate more of your bull ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and what formulas are you planning on using in relating these phenomenon? What you got?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh and what formulas are you planning on using in relating these phenomenon? What you got?

Are you really that blind? The studies are out there. The 0.73 is out there. When I first asked the question, I had a clear visual of what occurs. I later started looking for links, and there are many. Including how wind power over the seas change the surface flow, and makes mixing deeper. I don't care about the numbers, I was never claiming a degree of change. That is your stupid box you keep trying to squeeze me in, on this thread and others, and you continue to fail. You think you win, but you don't. I just refuse to play that game.

My question to you is this.

Does the use of wind power have an anthropogenic change to climate or not?

My claim is that it does. I am not claiming how much. Only that it does.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not making the claim. I am asking what model and what ICs, formulas, feedbacks etc you used to justify the number that you claimed. Now you are claiming that there is a .73 temperature number in some random study that you don't link.

You did claim how much now you are saying that you're not making the claims. You don't care about the numbers but you are more than comfortable to say what the numbers are. You weasely dissembling s bag. Here is you doing it:

We are not changing these levels by around a watt or so per square meter as claimed for CO2, but by hundreds of watts or more per square meter where these wind mills are.

For Manny to just blow off such a question is rather short sighted in my view.

As to your question: I don't know. I am not going to make claims about things I do not know. That's your deal.

[Wild Cobra]

Aren't you ever tired of owning yourself?

Fail...

Lack of context...

This precedes what you quoted of me:

We are removing kinetic energy from nature, that affects our atmosphere.

Fail...

Improper timeline...

Manny blew me off before I stated anything. He blew me off from the initial question.

It is funny watching you own yourself.

Must I really explain this as if speaking to a 3 year old:

We are removing kinetic energy from nature, that affects our atmosphere. We are not changing these levels by around a watt or so per square meter as claimed for CO2, but by hundreds of watts or more per square meter where these wind mills are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where

are

you

getting

hundreds of

watts

from,

dumbass.

[Wild Cobra]

Where

are

you

getting

hundreds of

watts

from,

dumbass.

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?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

That isn't an answer. That is at best an initial condition. As agloco explained to you wind shear is a gradient. Further the turbine is not the only thing that impacts the system like say.... the I dunno the GROUND and a whole manner of feedbacks and things I don't know because I don't study, aerodynamics, wind and the dynamics thereof.

But with you were getting 1000 * .4 = 400. See its hundreds of watts why doesn't Manny listen to my stupid ?

This is your ez bake oven analysis and napkin math just like I predicted. Thats not even a model. But hey we know what your doing and your dumbass is going with the oversimplified explanation. A simple answer for a simple mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I just want to point out something that I know dumbass hasnt considered. Dumbass taunted someone about laminar and turbulent flow when he first read the wiki page but turbulent flow is extremely hard to model. Him pretending like he knows that is really funny because if you did 'understand' it you would be a Nobel Prize winner. Depending on IC it goes in many many different directions. Half of the fractals that you see are based on similar functions. They all do different things.

The effects of that phenomenon I would imagine are difficult to quantify at all. The NS equations do crazy crazy stuff with nondeterministic flow. I have studied some of those models. It's mindboggling.

But hey we have Dr EZ-bake so we should go with that.

[Wild Cobra]

That isn't an answer. That is at best an initial condition. As agloco explained to you wind shear is a gradient. Further the turbine is not the only thing that impacts the system like say.... the I dunno the GROUND and a whole manner of feedbacks and things I don't know because I don't study, aerodynamics, wind and the dynamics thereof.

But with you were getting 1000 * .4 = 400. See its hundreds of watts why doesn't Manny listen to my stupid ?

This is your ez bake oven analysis and napkin math just like I predicted. Thats not even a model. But hey we know what your doing and your dumbass is going with the oversimplified explanation. A simple answer for a simple mind.

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.

[Wild Cobra]

And I just want to point out something that I know dumbass hasnt considered. Dumbass taunted someone about laminar and turbulent flow when he first read the wiki page but turbulent flow is extremely hard to model. Him pretending like he knows that is really funny because if you did 'understand' it you would be a Nobel Prize winner. Depending on IC it goes in many many different directions. Half of the fractals that you see are based on similar functions. They all do different things.

The effects of that phenomenon I would imagine are difficult to quantify at all. The NS equations do crazy crazy stuff with nondeterministic flow. I have studied some of those models. It's mindboggling.

But hey we have Dr EZ-bake so we should go with that.

Building another strawman I see.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh im not losing it.

you have done IC - efficiency coefficient * IC = output. thats the 'amazing' model you have in your head. We have the proof right here:

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.

They sure took it didn't they. The wind shears off of that comes at different angles, comes off at different angles, create eddies etc. I don't know that really at all so I am not going to front on it. But hey you installed a fan motor so you have practical experience.

[Wild Cobra]

Still losing it.

I don't recall ever installing a fan motor. Multi axis robots... Yes!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your a real piece of .

We are removing kinetic energy from nature, that affects our atmosphere. We are not changing these levels by around a watt or so per square meter as claimed for CO2, but by hundreds of watts or more per square meter where these wind mills are.

For Manny to just blow off such a question is rather short sighted in my view.

That's your initial statement. Youre a deceiving little .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still losing it.

I don't recall ever installing a fan motor. Multi axis robots... Yes!

Uh huh.

I'm sure an automated riveter taught you so much about dynamic flow. I also think its funny that youre a technician that thinks he knows more than the engineers that are telling you what part to change. Must burn your ass. Also explains why youre butthurt about your union. But hey you still work there.

[Wild Cobra]

Your a real piece of .



That's your initial statement. Youre a deceiving little

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?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

No I am saying that input - windmill efficieny*input = output is an ignorant model. No, I know it's a simpleminded model that I would expect from you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because this is a thread about me answering questions how you are being misleading is because you are making the statement that it's changing by hundreds of watts. I ask you where you get hundreds of watts several times. You give me several wind energies and say thats what you were talking about. No originally you were talking about how much energy was being taken out of the system was in terms of hundreds of watts.

Deceptive was probably unfair because in retrospect I don't think your doing it intentionally. You just don't know what your talking about so it becomes confusing to follow your guessing. I retract that and will go with misleading.

[Wild Cobra]

Because this is a thread about me answering questions how you are being misleading is because you are making the statement that it's changing by hundreds of watts. I ask you where you get hundreds of watts several times. You give me several wind energies and say thats what you were talking about. No originally you were talking about how much energy was being taken out of the system was in terms of hundreds of watts.

Deceptive was probably unfair because in retrospect I don't think your doing it intentionally. You just don't know what your talking about so it becomes confusing to follow your guessing. I retract that and will go with misleading.

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?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I have just found fault in you. I really really hate people that try and act like they know what they are talking about when they don't. When you try and act like you can speak more on climate than Manny on the basis of such stupid like this it bothers me. Then you continue to do it over and over and over and over again. Then you say that racist it bothers me. Whenever anyone says racist it bothers me.

I quite honestly think it's wrong in every sense of the word wrong. man, you have tried to justify sterilization programs to me.

I don't have a problem with most people here. RG, EN, MiG, TSA, L, Blake, bout, Clip, WH, bouts, snc, DMX, trill, creep, mouse ,bb ag, dan, yoni, teysha and most everyone else. I know I get into it with CC because he likes being callous towards whats going on with future generations but hey whatevs. I really don't think he is earnest about it. I know I am argumentative and I piss people off like RG and WH but I don't find 'fault' in them.

I do have serious problems with both you and DMC because you support the tenants and in your case specific policies of eugenics. You flat out said you wanted a sterilization project associated with social services for the poor. I have absolutely no issue in finding fault with people that think that's a good idea. And stuff like what were talking about now is how you go about trying to justify like it. You just make up and guess the way you want it to be.

I've told you before. You might as well put me on ignore because it's not going to change. When I say that I have contempt for you, I actually mean it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So anyway WC when a new engineer comes in fresh out of OSU or something similar, and I know you work 2nd shift so you get a lot of them, when they tell you what to do and then ignore your suggestions and whatnot how much does it piss you off?