How far back into Elementary School do we have to go ...

[Emily Lake]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the notion that we could exhaust the wind via wind turbines so that we would be unable to get more energy from them.

That statement has nothing to do with anything said either by Barton OR by the source he quoted (and paraphrased badly). At this point, you're just making things up out of whole cloth based on a bad paraphrase and an interpretation that looks the worst... regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent any reasonable interpretation at all.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So we can put wind turbines anywhere in the world?

Of course. Doesn't mean that they will generate much electricity or make economic sense. But that is not equivalent to claiming wind energy is finite.

But it does relate. There is only so many places and turbines that we can put up to use wind energy. If wind energy was infite, then we could put up turbines anywhere.

 

[coloradoatheist]

As I said before, the argument against his argument should be whether or not he overemphasized the environmental concerns of the wind farms.

 

[laughing dog]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the notion that we could exhaust the wind via wind turbines so that we would be unable to get more energy from them.

That statement has nothing to do with anything said either by Barton OR by the source he quoted (and paraphrased badly). At this point, you're just making things up out of whole cloth based on a bad paraphrase and an interpretation that looks the worst... regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent any reasonable interpretation at all.

Your response is based solely on inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension and use reasoning. Still waiting for you to show how wind energy can be finite without using up wind.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course. Doesn't mean that they will generate much electricity or make economic sense. But that is not equivalent to claiming wind energy is finite.

But it does relate. There is only so many places and turbines that we can put up to use wind energy. If wind energy was infite, then we could put up turbines anywhere.

That is logically false, because putting wind turbines under water would not wor. A finite resource is one that one can use up. You are misunderstanding the basic terminology.

 

[Emily Lake]

Still waiting for you to show how wind energy can be finite without using up wind.

Why should I have to do that? It's a red herring. I haven't made that claim, so why exactly should I be asked to defend it? What will my defense prove? Any argument I make will be irrelevant.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

- - - Updated - - -

That is logically false, because putting wind turbines under water would not wor. A finite resource is one that one can use up. You are misunderstanding the basic terminology.

You're conflating wind with wind energy, so I guess terminological comprehension is in short supply.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course. Doesn't mean that they will generate much electricity or make economic sense. But that is not equivalent to claiming wind energy is finite.

But it does relate. There is only so many places and turbines that we can put up to use wind energy. If wind energy was infite, then we could put up turbines anywhere.

His comment wasn't regarding locations where harnessing wind wasn't viable due to a lack of wind. He was discussing large scale wind power harnessing somehow being able to dissipate the pressures within air masses.

I can't imagine the amount and size of wind turbines required to change the air pressure within an air mass. This would be required in order to dissipate wind and make his "finite" statement meaningful. While not quite at the same scale, it'd be similar to warning about the finiteness of tides and using equipment to generate electricity the coming and going tides.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

 

[Emily Lake]

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

Why on earth are you asking me?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But it does relate. There is only so many places and turbines that we can put up to use wind energy. If wind energy was infite, then we could put up turbines anywhere.

His comment wasn't regarding locations where harnessing wind wasn't viable due to a lack of wind. He was discussing large scale wind power harnessing somehow being able to dissipate the pressures within air masses.

I can't imagine the amount and size of wind turbines required to change the air pressure within an air mass. This would be required in order to dissipate wind and make his "finite" statement meaningful. While not quite at the same scale, it'd be similar to warning about the finiteness of tides and using equipment to generate electricity the coming and going tides.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

That second question would have to be directed at an engineer who understands wind turbines. I asked if wind turbines can be places anywhere in the world. Has someone answered yes. For a wind turbine to work does the wind need to be at above a certain mph for a certain time to overcome the resistance to turn the propellers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

Why on earth are you asking me?

link

His comment wasn't regarding locations where harnessing wind wasn't viable due to a lack of wind. He was discussing large scale wind power harnessing somehow being able to dissipate the pressures within air masses.

I can't imagine the amount and size of wind turbines required to change the air pressure within an air mass. This would be required in order to dissipate wind and make his "finite" statement meaningful. While not quite at the same scale, it'd be similar to warning about the finiteness of tides and using equipment to generate electricity the coming and going tides.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

That second question would have to be directed at an engineer who understands wind turbines. I asked if wind turbines can be places anywhere in the world. Has someone answered yes. For a wind turbine to work does the wind need to be at above a certain mph for a certain time to overcome the resistance to turn the propellers?

So you umm... ignored the part that specifically was replied to you to address your misunderstanding about wind turbines in areas where they are not feasible, verses wind power being finite?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why on earth are you asking me?

link

His comment wasn't regarding locations where harnessing wind wasn't viable due to a lack of wind. He was discussing large scale wind power harnessing somehow being able to dissipate the pressures within air masses.

I can't imagine the amount and size of wind turbines required to change the air pressure within an air mass. This would be required in order to dissipate wind and make his "finite" statement meaningful. While not quite at the same scale, it'd be similar to warning about the finiteness of tides and using equipment to generate electricity the coming and going tides.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.

That second question would have to be directed at an engineer who understands wind turbines. I asked if wind turbines can be places anywhere in the world. Has someone answered yes. For a wind turbine to work does the wind need to be at above a certain mph for a certain time to overcome the resistance to turn the propellers?

So you umm... ignored the part that specifically was replied to you to address your misunderstanding about wind turbines in areas where they are not feasible, verses wind power being finite?

But that is the point. That a point X in the world there is an amount of energy Y that goes over that point in a give time frame. That energy Y isn't infinite. I can't calculate it but doesn't mean that number does exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that is the point. That a point X in the world there is an amount of energy Y that goes over that point in a give time frame. That energy Y isn't infinite. I can't calculate it but doesn't mean that number does exist.

That wasn't the point. It is pretty well understood that wind energy requires a certain amount of consistent wind to be viable. Therefore, there is little sense in studying whether putting mills somewhere where it isn't windy enough would be pure silliness.

What Barton is stating is that when it is windy enough to have mills, that if you use enough of them, the harboring of a lot of wind energy into electrical energy will lead to higher temperatures because the wind is being dissipated, reducing the atmosphere's ability to transfer heat. The shear volume of air involved in these processes would seem to make such a claim hard to swallow. His statement only makes sense in the context that the wind mills are absorbing too much of the kinetic energy (ie, making the wind stop).

 

[coloradoatheist]

To appease everyone. He should have said, "Since wind energy isn't constant everywhere, we can't place wind farms everywhere and according to an MIT study, wind farms may have a environmental impact on the surround area that we need to further explore"

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that is the point. That a point X in the world there is an amount of energy Y that goes over that point in a give time frame. That energy Y isn't infinite. I can't calculate it but doesn't mean that number does exist.

That wasn't the point. It is pretty well understood that wind energy requires a certain amount of consistent wind to be viable. Therefore, there is little sense in studying whether putting mills somewhere where it isn't windy enough would be pure silliness.

What Barton is stating is that when it is windy enough to have mills, that if you use enough of them, the harboring of a lot of wind energy into electrical energy will lead to higher temperatures because the wind is being dissipated, reducing the atmosphere's ability to transfer heat. The shear volume of air involved in these processes would seem to make such a claim hard to swallow. His statement only makes sense in the context that the wind mills are absorbing too much of the kinetic energy (ie, making the wind stop).

that's better. But studies he was referring to do show some impact on the amount of wind behind the turbines and it slightly changes the temperatures and soils near the turbines. My question, and what the thrust of the argument should be, how much affect.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why on earth are you asking me?

link

You've failed to make any point. It's not a rhetorical question. It actually needs a qualified answer for you to have a point. I don't have the expertise to provide an answer, and any questions directed at me about the science that a third party provided are entirely irrelevant to whether or not Rep. Barton is WORRIED ABOUT RUNNING OUT OF WIND.

 

[Emily Lake]

What Barton is stating paraphrasing is that when it is windy enough to have mills, that if you use enough of them, the harboring of a lot of wind energy into electrical energy will lead to higher temperatures because the wind is being dissipated, reducing the atmosphere's ability to transfer heat. The shear volume of air involved in these processes would seem to make such a claim hard to swallow. His statement paraphrase only makes sense in the context that the wind mills are absorbing too much of the kinetic energy (ie, making the wind stop).

1) Fixed that for you
2) Still doesn't say that he's worried about RUNNING OUT OF WIND

 

[laughing dog]

Why should I have to do that? It's a red herring. I haven't made that claim, so why exactly should I be asked to defend it? What will my defense prove?

First, it will signify that you have a least a smidgen of actual understanding of the issues. Second, it goes to the heart of Barton's stupidity. What does saying "wind energy is finite" mean? In natural resource fields, a finite resource is one that can be exhausted through use. So, the only way I see we can "use up" wind energy is to use up the wind. Which means from my perspective as someone in that field, Barton is quoting someone who is essentially saying that we could use up the wind. Hence, I think defenders of Barton need to show how that is false.

Any argument I make will be irrelevant.

I am glad you finally recognize every argument you have made is irrelevant.

The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.

Nope. See above.

You're conflating wind with wind energy, so I guess terminological comprehension is in short supply.

This is yet another example of willful ignorance masquerading as analysis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What Barton is stating paraphrasing is that when it is windy enough to have mills, that if you use enough of them, the harboring of a lot of wind energy into electrical energy will lead to higher temperatures because the wind is being dissipated, reducing the atmosphere's ability to transfer heat. The shear volume of air involved in these processes would seem to make such a claim hard to swallow. His statement paraphrase only makes sense in the context that the wind mills are absorbing too much of the kinetic energy (ie, making the wind stop).

1) Fixed that for you
2) Still doesn't say that he's worried about RUNNING OUT OF WIND

In order for temperatures to rise, the wind has to go away. It isn't as if it'll be just as windy, but warmer. The warmth is a result of significant wind dissipation.

That wasn't the point. It is pretty well understood that wind energy requires a certain amount of consistent wind to be viable. Therefore, there is little sense in studying whether putting mills somewhere where it isn't windy enough would be pure silliness.

What Barton is stating is that when it is windy enough to have mills, that if you use enough of them, the harboring of a lot of wind energy into electrical energy will lead to higher temperatures because the wind is being dissipated, reducing the atmosphere's ability to transfer heat. The shear volume of air involved in these processes would seem to make such a claim hard to swallow. His statement only makes sense in the context that the wind mills are absorbing too much of the kinetic energy (ie, making the wind stop).

that's better. But studies he was referring to do show some impact on the amount of wind behind the turbines and it slightly changes the temperatures and soils near the turbines. My question, and what the thrust of the argument should be, how much affect.

Do they? He didn't actually recite from a study, but from a paper on a study someone else did, and apparently it didn't report that study correctly.

link

You've failed to make any point. It's not a rhetorical question. It actually needs a qualified answer for you to have a point.

Actually, it is a simple cause and effect. Temperature rise allegedly occurs because of wind dissipation.

I don't have the expertise to provide an answer, and any questions directed at me about the science that a third party provided are entirely irrelevant to whether or not Rep. Barton is WORRIED ABOUT RUNNING OUT OF WIND.

Curious, so you are only in this thread then to protect the intellectual image of Represenative Barton?

 

[coloradoatheist]

There are several articles about wind and temperature affects of the area surrounding a wind farm. NASA found a .72 degree increase in temperatures around wind farms in Texas. the question though is the impact and how big of an impact it really is.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here's the article on the MIT study which said that the wind turbines disrupt some of the mechanism behind the wind turbines which cause the temperature to rise. Though it said the opposite affect happens with water based farms. However then we would have to study the impacts of the farms on marine life

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/climate-wind-0312

 

[Emily Lake]

First, it will signify that you have a least a smidgen of actual understanding of the issues. Second, it goes to the heart of Barton's stupidity. What does saying "wind energy is finite" mean? In natural resource fields, a finite resource is one that can be exhausted through use. So, the only way I see we can "use up" wind energy is to use up the wind. Which means from my perspective as someone in that field, Barton is quoting someone who is essentially saying that we could use up the wind. Hence, I think defenders of Barton need to show how that is false.

Hold on a moment... So because you can only understand it to mean one thing, then everyone else who thinks you're wrong must prove that your understanding of it is wrong? How does that make sense?

- - - Updated - - -

Curious, so you are only in this thread then to protect the intellectual image of Represenative Barton?

No, I'm in this thread because I have little patience or liking for willful misrepresentation for the purpose of political points.