Talk-Polywell.org

It appears that with the current solar minimum, winds across the continent of North America are quieting down. NOTE: A 10% decrease in average wind velocity results in a decrease in power output of 30%. This means that while previous estimates for required windpower capacity mandate 2 GW wind capacity for each 2 GW of fossil fuel plant capacity taken offline, this would require 3 GW of capacity to be installed for periods of solar minima.

Thus a 10% reduction in average wind speeds increases the cost of wind power by 50%.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD98NNON81

I wonder if there is additional data to back this up?

AP Article wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University.

So what do we know about Eugene Takle and the Atmospheric Science done at Iowa State?

Also, I boldfaced the AP's conclusion. They've already chalked it up to global warming!!!

dch24 wrote:I wonder if there is additional data to back this up?

AP Article wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University.

So what do we know about Eugene Takle and the Atmospheric Science done at Iowa State?

Also, I boldfaced the AP's conclusion. They've already chalked it up to global warming!!!

Obviously - nothing can save us.

The one absolute fact that global warming can be proven to be responsible for is to show us how debased and shoddy science reporting has become!

icarus wrote:The one absolute fact that global warming can be proven to be responsible for is to show us how debased and shoddy science reporting has become!

Global warming caused that too!

Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't it reasonable to think that global warming could be responsible? I thought you guys were only disputing the cause of that warming.

And where did the solar minimum stuff come from? It certainly wasn't in the article.

JohnSmith wrote:Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't it reasonable to think that global warming could be responsible? I thought you guys were only disputing the cause of that warming.

And where did the solar minimum stuff come from? It certainly wasn't in the article.

The reason why it couldn't be responsible is that our climate has, in fact, been cooling since 2002....

The only warming going on is around the HVAC vents being installed next to GISS stations across the country.

All things considered -

If storms get worse, then it's due to global warming.

If storms weaken and get less frequent - it's due to global warming.

So - if the winds weaken or strengthen, then it's due to global warming.

It snowed in North Dakota in June - due to global warming.

They're having record cold temperatures in Canada - due to global warming.

They're having record cold temperatures in AUSTRALIA, due to global warming.

And locally, the drought (which was due to global warming) has broken (and how...) again due to global warming.

Global Warming - the Wonder Cause of the 21st Century. There's NOTHING it can't do!

Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't it reasonable to think that global warming could be responsible?

There is nothing global warming can't do.


Myself? I think global warming is irresponsible and it should be ashamed of itself. Causing heating and cooling at the same time. It should just stop confusing people.

IntLibber wrote:Thus a 10% reduction in average wind speeds increases the cost of wind power by 50%.

The basic physics of wind power says the power out of a given machine is proportional to v^3, so you are basically correct, although it is a bit more complicated. First, 0.9^-3 is 1.37, so we are looking at a 37% increase, not a 50% increase. Second, if you are expecting a different (lower) distribution of wind speeds, the optimized power plant would be a bit different, so you could shave a few percent points off the increase in price. Finally, the windmill has to be shut down in very low and - important - very high winds, which will also give you a slight advantage. For example, if the wind speeds are consistently smaller, maybe you only have storms so powerful that you have to shut down the machine on 7 days a year instead of 10 (numbers made up).

With the exception of IntLibber, it seems you are all complaining about unfounded and exaggerated statements sometimes made by one person or another. I hope that you keep in mind the difference between such statements and serious scientific research on global warming.

Art Carlson wrote:With the exception of IntLibber, it seems you are all complaining about unfounded and exaggerated statements sometimes made by one person or another. I hope that you keep in mind the difference between such statements and serious scientific research on global warming.

I've seen serial peer reviewed papers suggesting that global warming will increase the salinity of the North Atlantic. Or decrease it.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... auses.html

So possibly my position is not unfounded.

MSimon wrote:

Art Carlson wrote:With the exception of IntLibber, it seems you are all complaining about unfounded and exaggerated statements sometimes made by one person or another. I hope that you keep in mind the difference between such statements and serious scientific research on global warming.

I've seen serial peer reviewed papers suggesting that global warming will increase the salinity of the North Atlantic. Or decrease it.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... auses.html

So possibly my position is not unfounded.

The only position you have clearly stated is that global warming should be ashamed of itself for confusing people.

It is not easy to draw a firmer conclusion than that from your blog. On the one hand, you have cite staff writer from a science news website writing

Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.

(Which scientists that would be, exactly what they said, and where we could find it, is not specified.) On the other hand is a report on another science news website saying,

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years.

In this case, the publication details of the peer-reviewed study are given, as well as some of the differentiated statements, such as,

When in their recent study Boyer and his colleagues zoomed in on the subarctic Atlantic, they found that the waters there became much less salty in the 1960s, as expected. But since the 1990s, they have been getting saltier again, and are now about as salty as they were in the 1970s.

Backing up this finding, when the team looked at the salinity of deeper waters, those flowing more than 1300 metres beneath the surface, they found that these have been getting less salty since the late 1980s.

My guess is that the first reporter was sloppy, the situation is complicated, but there could be a rough consensus in the scientific community on the main observations of salinity, but one would have to look a bit deeper to be sure. Any farther reaching conclusions on the basis of this evidence are simply unfounded.

To be sure - not something to take much stock in one way or the other. I did find it amusing.

It's a really flipping complicated system. And the term global warming is misleading itself, the warming trend is supposed to be an average, with regions getting cooler and others warmer. I am very unsettled by how bearable the weather is in Iowa right now, it's supposed to be horrible, it's how we keep our population down.

But the number of things that are happening at once and people still persist in trying to model it garners a little bit of admiration in my mind. Trying to factor in increased CO2 and Methane with particulate matter in the sky which reduces insolation and a ridiculously low amount of sunspot activity along with hundreds of other things which seem trivial but likely have considerable impacts when taken as a whole is very difficult.