Science lesson for today.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2013, 11:34 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(10-10-2013 06:26 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 03:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is enough wind energy to meet our needs

According to the article anyways. But the article also says this:


Which suggest that Joe Barton is right....wind energy generated from ground based wind turbines is a finite resource.

I think all you guys who are laughing at Joe Barton are bigger morons than he is....he actually has a valid point. Wind energy is a finite resource and maximizing production of it could cause a serious environmental impact.

Just sayin Tongue

You're the moron. You are confusing power with energy. A source of energy that continues as long as the sun burns is no reasonable definition of finite. The human race will cease to exist long before we run out of wind.

Your stupidity is hard for me to bare. Oil(hydrocarbons) are a source of energy that continues as long as the sun burns. Like hydrocarbons, wind energy is finite in the amount you are able to harvest at any given moment in time. Yes you can theoretically meet the energy needs of the entire world with wind, but you need 400 windmills covering each and every square mile of the globe. And no you can't meet the energy needs of the entire world with wind without cause serious climatic damage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 12:00 AM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(10-10-2013 11:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 06:26 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You're the moron. You are confusing power with energy. A source of energy that continues as long as the sun burns is no reasonable definition of finite. The human race will cease to exist long before we run out of wind.

Your stupidity is hard for me to bare. Oil(hydrocarbons) are a source of energy that continues as long as the sun burns. Like hydrocarbons, wind energy is finite in the amount you are able to harvest at any given moment in time. Yes you can theoretically meet the energy needs of the entire world with wind, but you need 400 windmills covering each and every square mile of the globe. And no you can't meet the energy needs of the entire world with wind without cause serious climatic damage.

Bolded part....you are talking about power. The rate is limited, not the amount. And as you say, it would take such a ridiculous amount of wind turbines to max out that rate, that it just isn't feasible. You would, by the way, have to locate all these turbines at all levels of the atmosphere.

You don't understand basic science concepts like energy and power. Further up-thread I gave a devastating knockdown argument to this foolish ass by pointing out thermodynamics dictates that any turbine which draws energy from the wind to do work actually COOLS the wind. This is absolutely required by the first law of thermodynamics. This is the opposite of what this guy and you thinks happens.

As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 01:06 AM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 12:00 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Bolded part....you are talking about power. The rate is limited, not the amount. And as you say, it would take such a ridiculous amount of wind turbines to max out that rate, that it just isn't feasible. You would, by the way, have to locate all these turbines at all levels of the atmosphere.

You don't understand basic science concepts like energy and power. Further up-thread I gave a devastating knockdown argument to this foolish ass by pointing out thermodynamics dictates that any turbine which draws energy from the wind to do work actually COOLS the wind. This is absolutely required by the first law of thermodynamics. This is the opposite of what this guy and you thinks happens.

As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

You really should be embarrassed at all your errors. First, Wind has no temperature, air has temperature. Wind is the natural movement of air. Second, regarding your "devastating knockdown argument", all you knocked down was a strawman and nothing actually claimed by Barton. You knocked down a strawman by claiming Barton was talking about wind turbines cooling the wind(air...cough). Go read the original Barton quote provided by GhostExcorcist in post number 20 of this thread. Go on read it, then report back here to how your "devastating" argument refuted anything Barton actually said.

On second thought, maybe you should take a dose of your own advice:

Quote:As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 01:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 12:00 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Bolded part....you are talking about power. The rate is limited, not the amount. And as you say, it would take such a ridiculous amount of wind turbines to max out that rate, that it just isn't feasible. You would, by the way, have to locate all these turbines at all levels of the atmosphere.

You don't understand basic science concepts like energy and power. Further up-thread I gave a devastating knockdown argument to this foolish ass by pointing out thermodynamics dictates that any turbine which draws energy from the wind to do work actually COOLS the wind. This is absolutely required by the first law of thermodynamics. This is the opposite of what this guy and you thinks happens.

As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

You really should be embarrassed at all your errors. First, Wind has no temperature, air has temperature. Wind is the natural movement of air. Second, regarding your "devastating knockdown argument", all you knocked down was a strawman and nothing actually claimed by Barton. You knocked down a strawman by claiming Barton was talking about wind turbines cooling the wind(air...cough). Go read the original Barton quote provided by GhostExcorcist in post number 20 of this thread. Go on read it, then report back here to how your "devastating" argument refuted anything Barton actually said.

On second thought, maybe you should take a dose of your own advice:

Quote:As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

You and this guy both claim that temperatures will increase due to the use of turbines, when the turbines actually cool the moving air (the wind). My pointing out that this claim violates the first law of thermodynamics is most definitely a knock down argument.

And are you really going to hang your argument on semantics? Not only are you a fool, but you are a jackass. I'm using the word wind as the noun with the meaning of air that is moving. Turbines couldn't cool air that isn't moving. If my use of the word wind really bothers you that much, replace the word wind with the phrase "the moving air".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wind
"1.a Moving air, especially a natural and perceptible movement of air parallel to or along the ground."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BryanS's post
11-10-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 07:05 AM)BryanS Wrote:  You and this guy both claim that temperatures will increase due to the use of turbines, when the turbines actually cool the moving air (the wind). My pointing out that this claim violates the first law of thermodynamics is most definitely a knock down argument.

Okay Einstein, please explain how your "knock down devastating" argument refutes Barton's claim. Barton's actual claim is in post #20 of this thread. Barton is saying winds move heat around the planet and that wind turbines could, potentially stop or significantly slow that down....therefore cause hotter places to remain hotter and cooler places to remain cooler. How does the second law of thermodynamics insures that if the winds were slowed down by 400 turbines placed on each and every square mile of the planet, heat still moves around the planet just as it did before?

It doesn't moron. Your argument at best refutes a claim nobody ever made. That's why it is a strawman. You couldn't refute Barton's claim so you had to weasel by pretending Barton claimed something else...and then refute that.

Also if you read the science article I linked, it claims that generating all the worlds energy needs via wind would increase global temperatures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2013 03:11 PM by kim.)
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 02:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Also if you read the science article I linked, it claims that generating all the worlds energy needs via wind would increase global temperatures.
I read the article. I also read the cited article upon which it was based. At least what I could read of it before payment was required. If you can't access the link, I'll put it here:
Quote:Geophysical limits to global wind power

Kate Marvel, Ben Kravitz & Ken Caldeira
Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author
Nature Climate Change 3, 118–121 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1683
Received 01 May 2012 Accepted 08 August 2012 Published online 09 September 2012

There is enough power in Earth’s winds to be a primary source of near-zero-emission electric power as the global economy continues to grow through the twenty-first century. Historically, wind turbines are placed on Earth’s surface, but high-altitude winds are usually steadier and faster than near-surface winds, resulting in higher average power densities1. Here, we use a climate model to estimate the amount of power that can be extracted from both surface and high-altitude winds, considering only geophysical limits. We find wind turbines placed on Earth’s surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 TW, whereas high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1,800 TW. At these high rates of extraction, there are pronounced climatic consequences. However, we find that at the level of present global primary power demand (~ 18 TW; ref. 2), uniformly distributed wind turbines are unlikely to substantially affect the Earth’s climate. It is likely that wind power growth will be limited by economic or environmental factors, not global geophysical limits.

The italics, underlined, & bold are my enhancements for the sake of focus but the rest of the blurb is a fairly interesting read.
There is a lot more to comprehension than just reading. This is the abstract which sums up the research, it clearly states "wind turbines are unlikely to substantially affect the Earth's climate." Pretty clear to me. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 02:56 PM)kim Wrote:  I read the article. I also read the cited article upon which it was based. At least what I could read of it before payment was required. If you can't access the link, I'll put it here:
Quote:Geophysical limits to global wind power

Kate Marvel, Ben Kravitz & Ken Caldeira
Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author
Nature Climate Change 3, 118–121 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1683
Received 01 May 2012 Accepted 08 August 2012 Published online 09 September 2012

There is enough power in Earth’s winds to be a primary source of near-zero-emission electric power as the global economy continues to grow through the twenty-first century. Historically, wind turbines are placed on Earth’s surface, but high-altitude winds are usually steadier and faster than near-surface winds, resulting in higher average power densities1. Here, we use a climate model to estimate the amount of power that can be extracted from both surface and high-altitude winds, considering only geophysical limits. We find wind turbines placed on Earth’s surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 TW, whereas high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1,800 TW. At these high rates of extraction, there are pronounced climatic consequences. However, we find that at the level of present global primary power demand (~ 18 TW; ref. 2), uniformly distributed wind turbines are unlikely to substantially affect the Earth’s climate. It is likely that wind power growth will be limited by economic or environmental factors, not global geophysical limits.

The italics, underlined, & bold are my enhancements for the sake of focus but the rest of the blurb is a fairly interesting read.
There is a lot more to comprehension than just reading. This is the abstract which sums up the research, it clearly states "wind turbines are unlikely to substantially affect the Earth's climate." Pretty clear to me. Shy

I don't disagree with you Kim.

However, BryanS made the claim that wind turbines would actually cool the air. The study suggest that "a full-out distributed system would result in a 0.1 degree Celsius increase in zonal mean temperature". While this isn't a substantial predicted increase, it is an increase nevertheless and it contradicts the claim made by BryanS's "Knock down devastating" argument that wind turbines would actually cool the air.

Further, If you read the actual Barton quote and not the dishonest version posted by Chas, Barton isn't making a claim that temperatures would necessarily rise....he is suggesting there is a reason to think they might rise. That's a big difference. Barton isn't being the moron here. The moron's are the ones taking seriously some fabricated meme and accepting it as truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(09-10-2013 02:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  [Image: 1382973_10151887468615155_578217352_n.jpg]

Full quote:
"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas
where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if
in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a
finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?
Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely
something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop
something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up.
It’s just something to think about."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
11-10-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
My understanding is that air has energy in multiple forms: kinetic energy of a travelling air mass and heat energy from the localized movements of individual air molecules. It is reasonable to assume that a turbine could absorb the kinetic energy without altering the air temperature. In fact some of the kinetic energy might be dissipated as heat thereby warming the air as it slows. Of course total energy of the air would decrease.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 09:04 PM
RE: Science lesson for today.
(11-10-2013 08:41 PM)sandman Wrote:  My understanding is that air has energy in multiple forms: kinetic energy of a travelling air mass and heat energy from the localized movements of individual air molecules. It is reasonable to assume that a turbine could absorb the kinetic energy without altering the air temperature. In fact some of the kinetic energy might be dissipated as heat thereby warming the air as it slows. Of course total energy of the air would decrease.

As the turbine turns friction is going to generate heat which is going to be dissipated back into the air but that is not the kind of temperature increases Barton was alluding too. The way wind turbines cause significant temperature increases is by stopping the heat in the air from moving from one local to another.

Wind Farms can cause climate change

Quote:The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: