Interesting.
I'm presently reading a book by Canadian Grant Jeffrey entitled "The Global Warming Deception".

Jeffrey's book is well-researched and his arguments often convincing.
He examines the anthropogenic global warming movement (AGW) and suggests the climate change alarmists have a sinister agenda - that an elite group have designs on creating a global socialist government.

Jeffrey presents evidence that leading scientists who question the theory of human induced global warming are being silenced.

There are many articles which support his theories.

This one is interesting for starters:
Scientists question melting of Greenland ice sheet shown on Times Atlas

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8774785/Scientists-question-m...

It is always unfortunate when something that should be purely scientific and objective becomes political.  It is hard to know what to believe.  

The subject is so technical it is hard to understand.  It is based on computerized models of the earth's climate.  In the article LBM links to, some adjustments to a model predict a faster disappearance of the Arctic Sea Ice.  

Now, at my age (60) I can clearly see that winters are warmer now on the West Coast than they were in the 1960's-70's.  But some say it is natural fluctuation.  Others say the fluctuation is too great.

​This NASA site has a lot of maps showing the variations, plus articles.  

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

It is a great site (consider signed up for "Image of the Day" e-mail, which comes out once a week and shows all sorts of fascinating things, burning forest fires as viewed from space, a ton of interesting stuff).  Each image is accompanied by a short, readable description.

Here is one about Arctic Sea Ice, since 1999.   The summer extent is shown on the left.   No question, the sea ice dropping dramatically.  The initial set of maps shows 1999.  Click on SHOW ALL to see it up to the present.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

​

From the commentary:

​

Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic.

The series of lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries from 2004 to 2007, marked a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Since 2002, ice extent at the summer minimum has not returned to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000). Though winter ice extent has fluctuated, satellite and in situ observations have shown that there is less multiyear ice and more annual ice.

​

Here is a dramatic photo showing the sea ice in 1979 and 2003

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3900

Then a discussion of low winter ice, rather technical ("Arctic Oscillations")

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49132

Yet Antarctic sea ice is not showing the same dramatic trend.  Long discussion here:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=40042

-----------------------------------------------

Here is another good site, maintained by climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Many of the posts are highly technical.  There is a sidebar with links to topics of more interest to the general public.

Highlights

    * Al Gore’s Movie

    * Betting on Climate Change

    * Dummies Guide to the latest ‘Hockey Stick’ controversy

    * El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth

    * Hurricanes and Global Warming

    * Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

    * Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”

    * The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM

    * Tropical Glacier Retreat

    * Water Vapour: feedback or forcing?

    * Welcome to RealClimate

    * What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

-----------------------------------------

If you go to amazon.ca and look up the book Gecko mentions, you can read an excerpt.

It is indeed complex and thank you ladies for the additional links.  As EasternOrthodox mentioned the Science Daily article provides several other articles on the subject.

For myself there is little doubt about climate change.  I grew up in a community that relied on the weather for the tourist dollars.  We marked rainy and sunny days.  Winters became just as important as summer with snowmobiling and then winters became shorter.  In 1999 I watched in awe for the first time sleds racing past in a thunderstorm.

Climate change is gradual. It can go unnoticed except to those who watch the sky.  It will reach a critical point where it will become obvious to all but by then it will be to late to do anything but adapt - if we can.

LB

------------------------------

Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us. 

      Henrik Tikkanen

Thanks LBM for starting this thread. I have picked up a couple of leads already.

I have recently joined a Climate Change Reading Group at our church so this is a topic of interest to me. We have begun to read "Storms of our Grandchildren" by James Hansen. I am in the camp of those like Al Gore who believe that greenhouse gases are a real problem. I know there are many who disagree so I am trying to become knowledgeable enough to be able to debate the issue with some credibility.          

Go for it EDI.  The "earthobservatory" is a good site because they provide short, concise explanations that a layman can understand.

Spotted this at The Economist website.  It is addressing "legitimate skeptics" who are complaining that the different locations that measure temperature may not match.  But they do, apparently.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/climate-change

Getting hotter

Oct 20th 2011, 13:02 by The Economist online

Our planet has undergone warming and cooling cycles before, but the world has never warmed up as fast as it is now. While we, in a cold country like Canada, may welcome global warming, the global cooling that inevitably follows in its wake will hit us hard.

You should check some of those maps at "earthobservatory" on the melting Arctic sea ice (if you have not already).  Scary.  

Actually, there is no predicting what will happen in Canada.  So far in BC, the warmer winters have caused an outbreak of pine-beetles that are destroying lodgepole pines and ponderosa pines over a huge area of the interior.

I wrote about it on Mike's "Mother Earth" thread a few days ago, if you follow the link, there is a map showing the extent of the damage to BC.

Some things ARE already happening in Canada, none of them pleasing...

One is the water supply feeding the prairies: it's increasingly from "fossil water", ice that formed many thousands of years ago, so it's become a non-renewable resource. Then there are B.C. forest fires and pine beetles, and the increased incidence of West Nile disease... climate change is a part at least of these developments.

There is nothing to look forward to in Canada from climate change because of the global dislocations that are on the way. Denial is less and less tenable... and it's already too late to avoid some of the serious impacts. Science suggests there's still some time to avoid the most catastrophic consequences.

Science faces enormous challenges in areas like this because the impacts are so diverse and so difficult to measure and relate to specific outcomes.

The Athabasca tar sands are going to cost Canada dearly.

Meanwhile...

(from New Scientist):

FAR from being the benign figure of mythology, Mother Earth is short-tempered and volatile. So sensitive in fact, that even slight changes in weather and climate can rip the planet's crust apart, unleashing the furious might of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and landslides.

That's the conclusion of the researchers who got together last week in London at the conference on Climate Forcing of Geological and Geomorphological Hazards. It suggests climate change could tip the planet's delicate balance and unleash a host of geological disasters. What's more, even our attempts to stall global warming could trigger a catastrophic event.

Evidence of a link between climate and the rumblings of the crust has been around for years, but only now is it becoming clear just how sensitive rock can be to the air, ice and water above. "You don't need huge changes to trigger responses from the crust," says Bill McGuire of University College London (UCL), who organised the meeting. "The changes can be tiny."

Among the various influences on the Earth's crust, from changes in weather to fluctuations in ice cover, the oceans are emerging as a particularly fine controller. Simon Day of the University of Oxford, McGuire and Serge Guillas, also at UCL, have shown how subtle changes in sea level may affect the seismicity of the East Pacific Rise, one of the fastest-spreading plate boundaries.

The researchers focused on the Easter microplate - the tectonic plate that lies beneath the ocean off the coast of Easter Island - because it is relatively isolated from other faults. This makes it easier to distinguish changes in the plate caused by climate systems from those triggered by regional rumbles. Since 1973, the arrival of El Niño every few years has correlated with a greater frequency of underwater quakes between magnitude 4 and 6.

The team is confident that the two are linked. El Niño raises the local sea level by a few tens of centimetres, and they believe the extra water weight may increase the pressure of fluids in the pores of the rock beneath the seabed. This might be enough to counteract the frictional force that holds the slabs of rock in place, making it easier for faults to slip. "The changes in sea level are tiny," says Day. "A small additional perturbation can have a substantial effect."

Small ocean changes can also influence volcanic eruptions, says David Pyle of the University of Oxford. His study of eruptions over the past 300 years with Ben Mason of the University of Cambridge and colleagues reveals that volcanism varies with the seasons. The team found that there are around 20 per cent more eruptions worldwide during the northern hemisphere's winter than the summer (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1029/2002JB002293). The reason may be that global sea level drops slightly during the northern hemisphere's winter. Because there is more land in the northern hemisphere, more water is locked up as ice and snow on land than during the southern hemisphere's winter.

The vast majority of the world's most active volcanoes are within a few tens of kilometres of the coast. This suggests the seasonal removal of some of the ocean's weight at continental margins as sea level drops could be triggering eruptions around the world, says Pyle.

Interesting.  More earthquakes.  How pleasant.

The subject is so complex is hard for people for get a good grip on it.  

To me, the weight of evidence seems to be in favour of global warming being real (I have read a few books on it, and I have read at the sites I mentioned).   But there can be counterforces (not enough to reverse the warming, but enough to confuse people), like the recent spate of cold winters in Europe.

Again from The Economist, they link it to the 11-year sunspot cycle, suggesting an actual change in the Sun's output.

http://www.economist.com/node/21532246

Here is a photo (from NASA, who run "earthobservatory", of a snow-covered Britain from space:

We're not talking 11 years, EO: global warming and the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels, acidification of lakes and oceans,  has been traced to the 19th century and the industrial revolution kicking in, first on coal, then on coal+petroleum products. And then there's nitrates & eutrophication and a lot of other combined effects some of which interact with, rather than directly cause, temperature rise.

Warming gets talked about because it's measured and recorded and certain; also demonstrated is the unprecedented rate of warming and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures: climate change is an outcome of those changes and the ways different substances conduct and hold heat.

It is complicated but it sure as hell is something to worry about and act on.

You misunderstand.  I am not talking about global warming per se in that post.  I am talking about the 2 very cold winters Europe has experienced, leading some be suspicious of global warming.  The article noted was suggesting the cold winters (might) be tied to the sunspot cycle.

The 11-year sunspot cycle is a very well known feature, known for a long time.  The number of sunspots varies in an 11-year cycle.   See here:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.

The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

[...]

Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.

---------------------------------------

​​The Aurora Borealis  are  (from Wikipedia):

....caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere (thermosphere). The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and are directed by the Earth's magnetic fieldinto the atmosphere
 

Thus the Aurora are tied to the sunspot cycle, because when there are more sunspots, there are more emissions (also known as "the solar wind").  

------------------------------------------------

Now from the Economist article mentioned above:

(Note: UV = ultraviolet -- a form of radiation that is higher in energy than the highest energy colour that can be seen by human eye (violet).  This is part of the radiation that comes from the sun.)

THOSE unconvinced—and those seeking to unconvince others—of the reality of man-made global warming often point to the changeable behaviour of the sun as an alternative hypothesis.

A new study showing how the severity of winters in Europe, and warming in the Arctic, might be linked to changes in solar activity might seem to add to this case. In itself, it does not, for the heat (or, rather, the cold) in question is being redistributed, not retained. But it does point to two other lessons about climate change: that hard data on the factors which affect it are sometimes difficult to come by; and that computer models of the climate can be quite impressive tools for working out what is going on.

The sun’s activity waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle, and over this cycle the amount of ultraviolet (UV) light the sun emits changes a lot more than does the total amount of energy. The stratosphere, the part of the Earth’s atmosphere which does most to absorb UV, might thus be expected to be particularly sensitive to the cycle.

n a paper just published in Nature Geoscience, Sarah Ineson of Britain’s Meteorological Office and her colleagues compared the way that the Met Office’s new and putatively improved climate model dealt with winters at times of high UV and at times of low UV, using data on the amount of ultraviolet the sun gives off that were collected by a satellite called SORCE.

Dr Ineson found that at low UV levels the stratosphere in the tropics was cooler, because there was less UV for it to absorb, which meant the difference in temperature between the tropical stratosphere and the polar stratosphere shrank. That changed the way the atmosphere circulated, and as those changes spread down into the lower atmosphere they made it easier for cold surface air from the Arctic to come south in winter, freezing chunks of northern Europe. These conditions looked similar to those seen in the past two cold European winters—which occurred at a time of low solar activity. The Arctic itself, in models and in real life, was warmer than usual, as were parts of Canada. In contrast, northern Europe, swathes of Russia and bits of America were colder.

Why had this solar effect not been seen before? To some extent it had. Earlier modelling of a period of prolonged low solar activity in the 17th and 18th centuries showed similar patterns. That models of today’s climate had not was, in part, because they used much lower estimates of the amount of UV variation over the solar cycle than those derived from the SORCE data, the most precise to be taken from a satellite looking at the sun. It may just be that working with more realistic data made the model work better.

This does not mean the question is settled. Some scientists suspect the SORCE data may be exaggerating the sun’s variability, and if they were revised the link might go away. There are other theories around seeking to explain the recent cold winters, too. Improving predictions of future cold winters on the basis of this work, as the researchers say they would like to do, may thus prove hard.

But though global warming has made people look to models as predictors of the future, that is not their strongest suit. Something they can do much better is look at what happens when a variable such as UV is altered, compare that with the data, and thus gain insight into the mechanisms by which climate works. This new research provides a good example of what such an approach can achieve.

------------------------------------

Now we are all crystal clear right?  Ha!  This shows how complex the topic is and how hard it is to understand.

----------------------------------------

I can't resist adding an aurora picture (this from Norway).

Published on Thursday, October 20, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect

by Ian Sample

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/20-8

Sorry to appear to be "shouting" but I can't seem to make the text smaller.

Well all that shouting made me read the article Gecko ;-)

And it does make a good point, there is nothing wrong with being sceptical.  Everyone should question everything and the Art of Science is the best at doing that - peer reviews are at the heart of scientific discovery.  There is a difference between being sceptical and denial and that difference manifests itself in actions.

The sceptic accepts the premise but not the result or the science.  They will err on the side of caution - take steps necessary to prevent the negative outcome.  The denier rejects the premise outright, ignores the results and science and operates on their own premise.  The latter is dangerous because they will not act to prevent the negative outcome.

And if I may, the scientific community no longer refers to the current state as "Global Warming" but as "Climate Change".  That may appear to be pedantic splitting of hairs but it is not.  Our planet is undergoing profound environmental changes, some of those changes are natural, some are man made and some are natural phenomena heightened by man made contributions.

Since the Industrial Revolutions human beings have been adding "unnatural" substances into their environment and the rate of man made substances has grown with each decade.  Denying that those substances have an impact is on par with denying there is a sun in the sky on a cloudy day.

Humans have laid waste to their environment in the past.  We polluted rivers and land to the point of devastation.  Now we are doing the same to the air that we breathe and this pollutant is spreading outwards and around the globe.  For the first time, industrial pollution is impacting on the unindustrious.

There is a positive note to this human destruction.  History shows that nature can recover and can recover with human aide.  The Thames in England is a good example.  However history shows that there must be a concentrated human effort, a willingness to take the steps necessary to protect not just the natural environment but our own.

One can be sceptical but still pragmatic enough to minimize the damage.  Think of it as being an Environmental Agnostic on a crashing airplane.

LB

--------------------------

Delay is the deadliest form of denial.

      C. Northcote Parkinson

lol!!

wow... and i have read a few that say that the people who are attempting to silence the concerns about global climate shift are an elite group that have designs on creating a global CAPITALIST government!!

Climate change - a cash cow for the wealthy....

Published on Friday, October 21, 2011 by Environmental News Service (ENS)
Investors Worth $20 Trillion Urge Legally-Binding Climate Treaty
The Tipping Point: Sustained stability in the next economy

WASHINGTON, DC - Hundreds of the world's largest investors, representing more than $20 trillion in assets, earlier this week encouraged governments and international policy makers to take new legally-enforceable steps to combat climate change at the upcoming UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa.

The group of 285 investors issued a joint statement emphasizing the urgent need for policy action which stimulates private sector investment in climate change solutions, creates jobs, and ensures the long-term sustainability and stability of the world economic system.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/21-3

One of the big issues is what to do about it.  We cannot just suddenly go back to being peasant-based societies the world over.  However, realistic talk about what to do is often lacking, because it is so hard to come up with solutions.

Nuclear power was looking like it might take up some slack, but people are are getting skeptical of that post-Fukushima.  In Germany, the population is particularly anti-nuclear and the govt has promised to phase out all nuclear power plants.

Here is an article about their work with wind power, all off-shore, in the North Sea:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,792918,00.html

From the article:

This is no longer some environmentalist's toy. These are industrial plants surrounded by open water. The 12 wind turbines are in fact 12 power plants, albeit very small ones, each with an output of five megawatts, which just happens to be the same as that of the first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, Russia, which opened in 1954.

The German government plans to install another 10,000 megawatts offshore by 2020, and 25,000 megawatts by 2030.

That would mean another 5,000 of these wind turbines, or 400 wind farms the size of Alpha Ventus. Large swaths of the German Bight would then resemble a pincushion from afar, turning the body of water into a sea of megawatts.

When that happens, dozens of vessels like the Wind Force I will be needed, as well as hundreds of divers and thousands of men like Ralf Klooster. Germany would then be a true republic of wind.

So they have 12 x 5 = 60 megawatts in this wind farm, with another 10,000 megawatts planned for 2020, up to 25,000 megawatts by 2030.  Requirement: 25,000/5 = 5,000 turbines.

For some perspective, the Chernobyl reactors generated 4,000 Megawatts (there were 4 of them).  So they are going to need a lot of turbines.   They will also require new high-voltage transmission lines to transmit the energy to the inland parts of Germany.

But, what is the alternative, other than burning fossil fuels?  (Solar not an option in Germany).

Hi EasternOrthodox:

Solar is an option in Germany. In the area where I come from (Bavaria) farmers are covering their south-facing barn roofs with photovoltaic panels, feeding the electricity into the grid and getting paid for it. There are government grants and low interest loans for this. A friend of mine covered his south-facing house roof with solar panels, and took out a government loan for it. The loan is taylored so that the money he gets for the electricity covers the payments. In ten year's time, the loan will be paid off, and he will actually earn some income from the electricity he ships.

Sure, there is not a lot of regular sunshine in Germany, but the long term plan is for a solar/hydrogen future: solar electricity will be converted to hydrogen whenever the sun shines, and the stored hydrogen used as needed.

(Modern photovoltaic panels are more efficient and produce electricity even in low light.)

As far as I know no scientist is suggesting we go back to pre-techonological societies.  There is realistic talk out there if people are willing to look for it.

There are easy ways to reduce carbon emissions but to do so requires a committment from governments, business and citizens.  To date that will has been sorely lacking in the leaders of emissions - North America and Europe, particuarly the biggest producer the US.

The North American governments are planning on jointly spending millions of dollars to prop up the fosil fuel economy, those funds could be re-directed to cleaner technology.  The fosil fuel companies could be left on their own to fund their projects and it would be interesting to watch whether they would chose to do so without government funding - because if they didn't that is a clear indicator that the project is not fiscally viable.

Without affordable options citizens are left with no choice but to use the technology they can afford.  In a community such as mine, asking us to not use our cars is ludicrous.  We have no public transportation and the distances between services, jobs and homes is too great to walk or bike.  Providing public transporation is one way to reduce carbon emissions.  In the long term it would also improve our local economy by granting access to jobs for those without transportation but our municipal governments see only the short term cost and thus maintain the status quo.

Governments, business and citizens need to start thinking out side of the status quo.  For example, one suggestion for rural public transit was to use school buses but that was turned down because of jurisdictional squabbling between school board and municipal government.  Who benefited from that squabbling, no one but the status quo.

At the turn of the century when the automobile was first introduced people said it would never fly.  Buggy manufactures lobbied against the iron horse and governments enacted laws prohibiting the use of automobiles.  Eventually the populace recognized the benefits and changed the landscape forever. 

Now it is time to change the landscape again before the landscape revolts against us.

LB

-------------------------

The most successful people are those who are good at Plan B.

      James Yorke

Speaking of skeptics, here is another one coming out on the side of climate change....

******************************

Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit

Physicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an "exaggerator," has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre's famous takedown of the "hockey stick" climate graph made him "uncomfortable" with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.

So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? "Muller's views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics," said Scientific American, "and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results." The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.

But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures. (Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here)

******************************

Interesting to note, the above article mentions that the newest ploy of some Climate Change deniers is to no longer deny that change is occuring but now merely argue that it's economically pointless to try to stop it.  This latest argument is not only foolish but dangerous because if we don't do something to reduce the impact then there will be no economic future at all.

LB

---------------------

Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.

      Richard Muller, October 2011

Sorry EO... I DID mis-read your 11-year sunspot cycle info. 

And, yes, it is one of a number of complicated factors that make weather difficult to "read" in relation to climate. Weather and climate are far from the same thing. Weather's what you get every day of the week; climate is the context in which weather happens. Climate is the result of long-term consistent trends in a host of variables and their interactions. And why climate scientists are pretty much unaimous in their concerns about climate change is the disproportionate impact of human activity, especially (but not only) the enormous production of carbon dioxide — it has been big enough to tip climate change in unprecedented ways. Where scientists do not agree is the extent to which changes will prove catastrophic for the Earth's various life forms — and the impacts those changes will in turn produce. It's all very Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg... but not as funny.

It works a bit like this (but without the Guiness):

It's all about interconnected tipping points.

Certainly solar can be an option to some extent.  Every little bit helps!

Being able to feed into the grid and get paid is a great incentive, I have heard talk of that in North America but don't know if it has actually happened anywhere.

But for producing large amounts of power, the North Sea is a very windy place.  If you read that article, it talks about how hard it is to place the turbines on the sea floor due to the high winds and waves.  It also talks about how Germany is set to become a sort of testing ground for wind for other industrialized nations.   They are using incentives, etc, as you mention above.  

Thanks for the info about solar in Germany.

I think I read somewhere that Canada also has wind farms.  In Alberta maybe?  I would love it if our government would  get 'with it' and offer meaningful incentives to citizens to install alternative energy sources.  We would put up solar panels if we could afford it.  Private citizens feeding their excess power back to the regualr power suppliers would have to be a bonus.

I found a map of Canadian wind farms here

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php

The German article pointed out that offshore is generally better because the wind blows stronger and more continually.  That could explain why there are so many on the map in the lightly populated Maritimes.

The prairies is also good for wind.

Apparently, the west coast of Vancouver Island is very windy but BC is completely on hydro power, largely from a large dam in the far north of the province.   There are not any dams on the main river of BC, the Fraser.  We have enough power to sell excess to the States.  Of course, there are long high-voltage transmission lines required to bring that power to the south, but they will that in Germany too.

I don't know if people can sell the power back (on solar), I am pretty sure you cannot here in BC but I know little about.  It rains all winter anyway.

Maps for US

http://www.thewindpower.net/country_maps_en_4_usa.php

Our church — St Andrew's By The Lake, Kingston, Ont. — has installed solar panels and will be making money from feeding "green energfy" into the grid. There are wind farms in PEI... beautiful technology.

Oz has lots of wind - I don't mean just the politicians - we are an island locked by oceans.

I'm bemused by the arguments of farmers for and against.

Those that are against swear that their cattle/sheep are nervous and, as a consequence, lose weight. (plays havov with the bottom dollar!)

Those that are "for' say that their cattle/sheep graze happily.

Call me an old cynic - but I'm rapidly reaching the view that everything - science, religion, culture is all a human construct.

 It's all too easy to "construct" a view that suits us as individuals.

Thus, I have a feeling that my spiritual experience will be the most enlightening experience of my life.

Whilst it's true to say I place a human construct on it - the experience itself is "first-hand",  and can't be denied.

I'm with MikeP, there is something majestic looking about wind farms. 

The complaints of those that oppose them seem to be based on noise levels and this is a real concern but that never seemed to stop the laying of train tracks and airports.   Instead of killing the option in its infancy the goal could be to work toward quieter models for the more sensitive humans and cows among us.

My partner and I are looking into whether we can install a windmill in our swamp to produce our own energy and personally I am looking forward to the day that I can watch the blades turn.

Instead of looking for excuses to prevent the growth of green energy, we need to look at reasons for promoting it.  In the long run we'll all be better for it.

LB

--------------------------

It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As pretty as an Airport' appear.
      Douglas Adams

LOL!

I have read about Midwest farmers in the US finding wind turbines a convenient new source of income (they do get a cut of the profits for allowing construction on their property).   (Of course, these might not be livestock farms).

Have you read about the furious campaign to prevent a small wind farm in Nantucket Sound off Martha's Vineyard (Massachusetts)?  The turbines would be visible to residents, although far off in the distance and very small.  Martha's Vineyard is home to many ultra-wealthy, it has been so since the "Gilded Age" of the late nineteenth century.  

Now, I am not trying to sound like I am raging against wealth in general--I believe that regulated capitalism works--but this is a particularly obnoxious example.  Especially since many of those in Martha's Vineyard have inherited their wealth.

In his book "Storms of my grandchildren" Jim Hansen describes the NASA Office of Public Affairs as an office of propaganda. Apparently the Bush administration in 2005 did not like the criticism it was receiving over its perceived failure to do more to stop the effects of climate change. So it instructed NASA officials, who are apparently political appointees, to clamp down on critics like Hansen. One of the new rules instituted by NASA officials required press releases concerning global warming to be sent to the WH where they were edited to appear less serious or discarded completely. No wonder people are cynical about politicians.

Concerning wind farms. It's not just the noise and ugly appearance that bother some people; it's also the effect on birds. They have constructed a wind farm on Wolfe Island in Kingston and apparently it has been a disaster for migrating birds.  I would be interested in knowing if Mike P knows anything about this and I wonder how they handle this problem in Germany?

EDI, that campaign against Hansen was despicable.

Let me check on the bird thing.

Haven't been tp Wolfe Island yet: going soon. But we were closeto wind farms in PEI. I can't imagine the noise being a problem. If you stood in the open directly under a turbine, you could hear a gentle whoosh-whoosh-whoosh... in a car, engine off, with the windows up, you could hear nothing.

I rather like their appearance. They are quite graceful, and compared with the alternatives, even beautiful. And, when it comes to birds, compared with tailing ponds and high rise buildings, I dn't know how they compare, but climate change itself is a relatively huge threat to birds as well as other wildlife of all sorts. The blades of the turbines could probably be made more visible but people might then complain about that. 

We have lived within sight and sound (and smell) of both coal-fired power stations and an oil refinery — both of them very intrusive, smelly, noisy, brightly-lit all night, big and ugly. And we lived close enough to Sellafield (in the U.K) to have the beaches gone over quite regularly by guys with geiger counters. Give us wind power, or solar, any day.

Basically, if people don't like any of these energy sources, the only way for them to go is to get by with their own initiatives.

We lived for four years in a small cabin relying on dead wood for heat and solar-wind generation for some electrical lighting. To take a bath, we had to cut wood (hauled up a steep hill out of the bush, by hand) and get the wetback stove going. The we hand to hand-pump water from a rain tank to a header tank on the roof (we used a marine bilge pump). Cooking was all on the wood stove. Depending on the weather, the lighting might enable us to read till close to midnight. It was a kifestyle we thoroughly enjoyed but it was hard work and time consuming. An the woodsmoke was undoubtedly polluting.

Our current suburban lifestyle is shockingly energy hungry because of the options we have living where we do. But we try to minimise our demands, recycle and not over-use the heating in winter by wearing sweaters, etc. And still we use much more than we should by global standards. 

The German article in Der Spiegel says birds and sea animals are being "monitored" by camera.  It says they have had no luck driving off the birds with loud noises.

But what choice do they have, if the German population has rejected nuclear power and greenhouse gases?  

I have heard people who have the turbines near their homes say that they are noisy.  But the ones in Germany are all off-shore, where the wind blows stronger and more steadily.

Yes, wood smoke is polluting, especially if a lot of people are doing it at the same time in a small area, like a valley.  In Canada we have isolated regions where one can burn wood without disturbing anyone--we are lucky that way.

No-one seems to want energy generated anywhere near them... fine: so cut your energy use. 

In the long run, it's unlikely that any ONE source will suffice in the near future. Fusion is probably still some way off. We need an array of technologies with as much local generation as possible. As I said (above) our church has just put up solar panels and plugged into the grid this past week.

Hi Eastern Orthodox - you ask...what else can the Germans do if they have rejected nuclear power and  greenhouse gasses?   My suggestion would be solar - apparently amazing production can occur with a panel on every roof.  I just don't understand why governments around the developed world aren't handing out grants and/or start up loans for solar panel installation.  Home owners/businesses could return excess power to the grid in exchange for working off any debt they got for installing.  Once all the costs are paid the home owner/business could sell the power back to the main power company.

I think wind farms are an excellent energy source.

But, when it comes to their appearance, they blot any landscape, IMO. 

I can welcome them for utilitarian purposes, but "pass" on their beauty.

Arminius (from Germany) wrote about solar in Germany a few posts up.  It is suitable for some areas (he is from the south of Germany).  

In principal it is a great idea, but the solar panels are still rather expensive and require subsidies to make them competitive with other sources of energy (that could well change, as technology improves and other sources become more expensive).

But no way of generating large amounts of power is beautiful.  Large dams are extremely ugly, as they produce huge flooded areas (in BC I have seen small dams, with these muddy "lakes"--often with the skeletons of dead trees sticking out of them)..  

Nuclear power may not look so bad but it seems to be more difficult to make it safe than people once thought.  

To generate solar in bulk, you need a lot of land and a sunny climate (could that work in Oz?).

All three of these non-green-gas methods of generating power require great lengths of high voltage transmission lines.  These extend for hundreds of miles in BC, from the huge dam in the far north.  Yes, the transmission lines are ugly too

On a related note, wind power in Turkey: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64350.

Photos of German wind turbines in the North Sea:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-67303.html

Problems in poorer nations

From Eurasianet, about Armenia (formerly part of the Soviet Union and a poor country)  Do check this link, if only to look at the pictures:

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64365

Since the early 1990s, when the economic and energy crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union prompted Armenians to start chopping down trees for firewood, deforestation has threatened the country’s ecosystem. The government reports that forests currently account for 11.2 percent of Armenia’s territory of more than 3.7 million hectares. But some environmental groups contend that woodlands make up as little as 6 percent of the total land area.

Mining – the major source of Armenia’s export revenue – exacerbates the problem, environmentalists say. “Armenia is a mountainous country and has a huge number of landslide zones,” commented Greens Union of Armenia Chairperson Hakob Sanasarian. “And … when forests are sacrificed to the mining industry, it is clear that this also creates perfect conditions for landslides.”

The severe deforestation has led to a lot of landslides.  About 40% of Armenia's power comes from a 1970's era nuclear reactor.

EO, that's my point.

Just because I think something is worthwhile from a utilitarian point of view - doesn't mean, IMO, that I have to embrace it fully - and say it's "beautiful" when I honestly don't think it is.

One of these days I'll do a thread on conflicting feelings - and making a choice whilst admitting to some conflict...............

To explain where I'm coming from,  I'm a firm believer in a quote from Oz psychologist Dorothy Rowe,

"For every event there are both good and bad consequences".

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

I genuinely think the windmills are beautiful.  I have unexpectedly come across huge wind farms in the Arizona desert, California coast and while lost in rural Ontario.  The sight, for me, was breathtaking.... but then again I think snakes and spiders are beautiful and am always slightly surprised when people go "Ew" instead of "Aw" when I show them my close up pictures.

There is no need for people to embrace technology.  There is a need to accept the practicality - as Pilgrims Progress does.  It is kind of like snakes and spiders, one does not have to hug a snake or spider, or even take pictures, but one shouldn't eradicate such creatures because of a personal aesthetic.

LB

---------------------------------

Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.

         Rachel Carson

Grim: Compared with a coal fired power station or nuclear plant, windmills are bloody gorgeous!  (What I wrote was: "I rather like their appearance. They are quite graceful, and compared with the alternatives, even beautiful. ") We've lived near each. But that wasn'r really my point. I do believe we will need a mix of generation technologies until something new (like fusion) is ready to go.

My point was, if you don't like the generation system, don't use the power. Not using the power is probably the best option of all but, as I said, it's hard work.

lol!

thanks, mike... a BRILLIANT observation regarding the appearance of windmills.

in saskatchewan, there are two large wind farms along the transcanada... one just as you cross the border from manitoba, and one around swift current. 

they are both beautiful, imho...

as far as the birds go, i believe that you can lock them up.  i know that the any turbines that are on a migration route are simply shut down during the migration periods.

C'mon, Canucks!

Has all that natural beauty in your land affected your minds???

There I was, earlier this year, travelling by train through the stunning Rockies - gobsmacked by nature's incomparable beauty............

I implore you, please don't advertise overseas a train trip passing numerous wind farms, you'll go broke.............

Mike, I understood that you were comparing wind farms to their alternatives.......... I was merely bemused by your use of words like beautiful and graceful.

Geez, I dunno, trust a Kiwi to give an Aussie sheila a backhander.

I'm grim - yet a bloody wind farm is graceful and beautiful?????

Snootles said she thought they were attractive on the prairies.  Which are not noted for their scenic beauty.

Prairies and the sea are the best places to build them -- there is nothing to break the wind.

I don't find them particularly attractive, but neither are dammed lakes attractive.  

I've been camping in the prairie region.  I found it incredibly beautiful.  Wide vistas, tiny hidden flowers, birds and sudden, unexpected changes in view as a mound disappears over the horizon.  I certainly didn't find anything scenic about the TransCanada highway - but that isn't the prairie!   

I confess to having to no experience outside the Trans Canada.  My daughter lived for several years in Edmonton and is hoping that she and her family will settle there permanently.  (depends on jobs).

But even from the TC I did see a kind of beauty on the prairies -- especially when the thunderheads gathered.  Wild, dramatic.

i dunno, pilgrim...

our family farm is down by estevan, south eastern saskatchewan.  there, they have 2 coal fired power plants.  within the past decade or so, they have attached scrubbers to the stacks, so you don't see an orange film over the whole region anymore, which is definetly an improvement... but having seen them all my life, i can tell you that there really isn't anything all that attractive about a coal fired power plant.

to get to the lignite coal used to power the furnaces, they use drag lines on open pit mines.  now, if you want to see incredibly destructive energy production, you need look no further... the draglines strip the top layers of soil off the farmland and put it in huge piles.  once that is stripped, these huge front end loaders and dumptrucks move in to transfer the coal to the coal barns.  from there, it is augered into the power plants.  stop for a moment and just consider all the exhaust from the vehicles at this point...

once the coal seam has been cleaned out, they move the dirt back in, and then it takes DECADES to reclaim the land back into useable farm land again.  until that happens, the place looks like a lunar landscape.  consider again that this is HUGE areas of land that are now completely useless for many years....

now, think of a wind farm.

how can you look at that, and not see such an AMAZING improvement!?!?

it must be that you actually have to go and LOOK at how we produce the energy we consume in canada before you can fully appreciate the beauty of a solar or wind farm... i simply cannot understand how you can look at a wind farm and NOT see something pure and beautiful.

I'm with you Sigh...

Some claim that living near these wind giants  have caused tachycardia, ear pressure, irritability, vision problems, nausea, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo, anxiety, etc....

Referred to as "Wind Turbine Syndrome"

You know sometimes I just have to look out my windows to see something that floors me. Ever seen the "new" asperatus clouds that have started to appear in our skies over the last few decades? They're pretty scary looking and because they are a new phenomonom they have come up with the new name, "Asperatus".

(wish I could download some for you)