On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:19:29 -0400, Alain Fournier
wrote:

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.

Large like a tornado you mean. I used to fly and I don't remember any
maps showing no wind over a large area. I flew in lots of different
tailwheel type planes and they get unruly in a cross wind. So I was
paying attention to the wind at all times, you look at maps. You look
for clues like clothslines or smoke, just in case the mill quits. As I
once said, Iowa is a windy place.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:19:29 -0400, Alain Fournier
wrote:

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.

Large like a tornado you mean. I used to fly and I don't remember any
maps showing no wind over a large area. I flew in lots of different

You didn't fly at 100 ft.

tailwheel type planes and they get unruly in a cross wind. So I was
paying attention to the wind at all times, you look at maps. You look
for clues like clothslines or smoke, just in case the mill quits. As I
once said, Iowa is a windy place.


Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
we need no tax to cure Global Warming.

Casady

Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
:we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:19:29 -0400, Alain Fournier
wrote:


Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.


Large like a tornado you mean. I used to fly and I don't remember any
maps showing no wind over a large area. I flew in lots of different
tailwheel type planes and they get unruly in a cross wind. So I was
paying attention to the wind at all times, you look at maps. You look
for clues like clothslines or smoke, just in case the mill quits. As I
once said, Iowa is a windy place.

I don't know much about Iowa, I believe you that it is windy.
My point is that, that one time where it won't be windy at the
windiest point in Iowa, then it is likely that it won't be
windy across the entire state. When you have a windless day
it usually isn't on a small patch of land. So you do have to
plan for those days where the wind falls and not assume that
windmills 10 km further will pickup the slack. You can't even
assume that wind mills 1000 km further will pick the slack.
They might but you can't count on it because weather patterns
are rather large entities so a windless day can be so for
a large area.


Alain Fournier

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
:we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Negligible.

Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
seam to be a big problem. So we know that having many windmills
won't be a serious problem for weather patterns.


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power
and :we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Negligible.

Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
seam to be a big problem. So we know that having many windmills
won't be a serious problem for weather patterns.


Alain Fournier

But will they disrupt the geese on their migration? Will Polar Bears
sense the continuous rotation a 1000 miles away and be lost on pack ice
to drown because of the distraction? Will whales hear the 60 cycle hum
and try to swim onto land to save what they think is an injured fellow
whale?

We have to do EPA and DNR, FCC, FAA... studies and this might take
decades to complete many of the studies. The fence at the Mexican Border
was stopped because a lizard was possibly impacted.....

It may take as long to get a wind mill properly planned and built as it
takes to build a Nuclear plant.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:53:17 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
:we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Negligible.

Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
seam to be a big problem.

We don't have that many sequoias. Just in California, and if by
"large" you mean giant, there are actually very few. But how do you
know they don't cause problems? You have no idea how much better
things might be without them, because we haven't done the experiment.

So we know that having many windmills
won't be a serious problem for weather patterns.

Sorry, argument fails so far.

Alain Fournier wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Poetic Justice wrote:
: :
: :Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
: :we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
: :
:
: And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
: systems?
:
:Negligible.
:

Prove it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Do you
understand weather patterns well enough to know what will happen when
a butterfly flaps its wings in central Kansas? The answer is "no, we
don't, which is why weather is a chaotic system".

If we don't know that, how can you blithely say that taking gigawatts
of energy out of weather systems will have "negligible" effect on
those weather systems?

:
: Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
: doing" scheme?
:
:A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
:a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
:seam to be a big problem. So we know that having many windmills
:won't be a serious problem for weather patterns.
:

We have nowhere near the number of sequoia trees that people are
proposing for windmills and not in any of the same places. Do you
seriously believe there would be no weather or climate effects if we
cut them all down?

What you mean is you HOPE it won't be a serious problem or have some
untoward effect on rainfall, etc.

Yours is the same kind of argument that has been offered for each new
technology throughout history. Many of them then surprise us when
they produce bad side effects.

Hell, your same argument can be (and probably was) offered for why
large numbers of coal fired power plants aren't a problem.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:53:17 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Fred J. McCall wrote:


Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
:we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Negligible.


Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
seam to be a big problem.

We don't have that many sequoias. Just in California, and if by
"large" you mean giant, there are actually very few. But how do you
know they don't cause problems? You have no idea how much better
things might be without them, because we haven't done the experiment.

Maybe you haven't. I did. Computational fluid dynamics its called.
Neither Sequoias, nor wind mills have much effect on wind patterns.


Alain Fournier

On Sun, 11 May 2008 22:02:21 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:53:17 -0400, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Fred J. McCall wrote:


Poetic Justice wrote:
:
:Great then put up wind mills and the panic is over, sell the power and
:we need no tax to cure Global Warming.
:

And what's the result of taking all that energy out of the weather
systems?

Negligible.


Or is this another "let's solve it without understanding what we're
doing" scheme?

A windmill has approximately the same effect on weather patterns as
a large sequoia tree. We already have many such trees and they don't
seam to be a big problem.

We don't have that many sequoias. Just in California, and if by
"large" you mean giant, there are actually very few. But how do you
know they don't cause problems? You have no idea how much better
things might be without them, because we haven't done the experiment.

Maybe you haven't. I did. Computational fluid dynamics its called.
Neither Sequoias, nor wind mills have much effect on wind patterns.

If you can derive the answer from CFD, then you don't need to rely on
the flawed sequoia argument to make your case.