Wind energy is not a future resource, it is here now. There is no question that it will be a primary part of our energy mix in the future. The only question is, will we build those millions of turbines here in the US, or will we concede the growth industry of the 21st century to our competitors. Cost of Wind Energy dropping (www.midwestenergynews.com eetd.lbl.gov www.windpowerengineering.com PTC bipartisan support www.politico.com Lester Brown on Wind Power www.youtube.com Lester Brown on the end of coal climatecrocks.com 2010 Wind Market report – US DOE www1.eere.energy.gov Catch this and other science vids at Glimpse Science Network glimpsescience.net)
The PowerPlane developed by Ampyx Power is a straightforward machine to harvest the stronger winds at 400 meter with a tethered aircraft. Propelled by the wind like a kite, the aircraft unwinds a cable from a ground based winch. The rotation of the winch drives a generator. When there is no more cable, the aircraft flies back towards the winch. This results in low tension in the cable, such that it can be retracted with minimal energy consumption. Due to stronger and more consistent winds at higher altitudes the PowerPlane realises much higher capacity factors compared to conventional wind turbines. Since the PowerPlane has no tower, it has lower installation & foundation cost, especially offshore. The PowerPlane requires 20% of the materials of a wind turbine, reducing the CAPEX significantly. Combined with lower environmental impact and low development cost, the PowerPlane will revolutionize the wind industry. Ampyx Power would like to thank Quince for developing this animation.
Video Rating: 5 / 5
25 comments
No ping yet
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm (UTC 0)
“The only thing you exposed … ”
More Dunning-Kruger.
You are totally incompetent & a fraud. You stare facts in the face & deny them.
Your statement:”NO science suggested the globe was cooling in the 70’s” was FALSE but you have refused to admit it now 230 times now! And you keep digging your self deeper into more errors.
I figured exposing your ineptness would trigger an eruption of JoeRomm brain explosion & it did!
But I’m going to be away from internet for a while so grow up while I’m gone.
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm (UTC 0)
“It’s called a literature review”
Yes, & the 1st requirement is to know the names of the papers that you cite. You have proved that you FAIL the first requirement, so the rest of what you spew out is just babble!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm (UTC 0)
“Mitchell specifically states that his methodology is not sound and cannot be used to draw conclusions”
And that would be why he makes “concluding remarks” & states “a 20-year run (1940-1959) of monotonic GLOBAL COOLING” ?!?!
Yes it was the same data that is used today to draw conclusions. If it’s good enough for today, then it was good enough then!
“get your sh!t strait son”
Great evidence of Dunning-Kruger effect. You think you are smart, but you are deluded!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 6:35 pm (UTC 0)
“Actually it would only be deception if I left out the ellipses”
No that would be even WORSE deception. What you did IS still deception, trying to fool people who don’t take the time to check the original source, by misrepresenting the meaning of what is said.
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm (UTC 0)
“where both papers were originally presented in tandem.”
Hahahahaha. That would be why “Recent Secular Changes of Global Temperature” is NOT published in the Proceedings?!? Hahahaha.
Hoisted upon your OWN petard. StAverti makes one of the most outstanding owngoals in the history of climate science.
Hahahaha
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:46 pm (UTC 0)
“So, it must be TERRIBLY embarrassing for a cocky, arrogant, condescending lay-person to be “pwned” by their own ignorance. No wonder you won’t give us your name!”
Hahahaha. I guess that’s all you’re left with, when you can’t argue science. Repeating my words shows that you are just monkey see monkey do.
If you’re not going to admit your error, just slink away in shame. You have totally disgraced your profession, if indeed you ARE a climate scientist.
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm (UTC 0)
“In otherwords, both “On the World-Wide Pattern of Secular Temperature Change.” and “Recent Secular Changes of Global Temperature.” were presented in tandem at the joint UNESCO/WMO Rome Symposium.”
WOW, how can you make such a baldface lie?!?
Look at the table of contents! “Recent Secular Changes of Global Temperature” is NOT there! bit(dot)ly/J0u07x
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive. One lie leads to another! You are beyond incompetent, you are a liar & fraud!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 8:56 pm (UTC 0)
“were proceedings from the same event in 1961.”
That does not matter in the least. You didn’t even know the names of the papers. And you CLAIM to be a climate scientist! But you had to be schooled by an internet skeptic. I give you an F for your FAILED efforts. In fact your irrational & inane behavior on this issues qualifies to have your PhD REVOKED if you even have one. You have whown yourself to to TOTALLY incompetent!
& thanks for giving the correct cite now to PROVE yourself WRONG!
Hahahaha
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:02 pm (UTC 0)
“You plain cannot make “global” assesments of a phenomena that you don’t have 70% of the data”
It’s done all the time, including today. But again when NOAA, GISS, HadCRUt publicly states that ALL data prior to 1970 is garbage & shouldn’t be used, then you can say that. Until then Mitchell’s data STANDS valid!
No, StAverti, the incompetent one is CLEARLY YOU! You are making yourself & other climate scientists look like FOOLS when you deny, deny, deny
Keep it up tho, you are making MORE skeptics!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:44 pm (UTC 0)
“data availability in the SH was quite literally garbage”
No, nearly 1/3 of the stations were SH, just like ~1/3 of the globe’s land mass is SH, so it was very representative. Mitchell63’s map even circles ALL the major SH land masses other than Antarctica & explicitly states: “Heavy lines circumscribe world areas of GOOD DATA COVERAGE”. Whoops there goes your BOGUS argument about “data was garbage”! Hahahahahaha.
Quit trying to defend the indefensible & admit your ERROR!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 10:17 pm (UTC 0)
“No one has shown that projections of global cooling were correct,”
Hahahahaha. There you go again trying to move the goalposts! Your statement had NOTHING to do w/PROJECTIONS!
No, the globe DIDN’T warm from 1940 to 1970. I’ve shown several p-r papers & a LONG list of climate scientists that said it.
You have shown NOTHING that said the globe was warming from 1940-1970! You are denying historical FACT. You are deluded b/e of your BELIEF in CAGW!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 11:11 pm (UTC 0)
“not representative of global conditions”
Again, it is the SAME data that is used today. And it shows that the globe WAS COOLING prior to the 70’s.
Get over it and admit your ERROR!
RealOldOne2 says:
May 12, 2012 at 11:41 pm (UTC 0)
“So then you admit your use of that paper was unwarranted, as it was aimed at understanding aerosols, and has no relevance to projections of global cooling.”
Hahahaha.
No the paper was about aerosols b/c they were trying to explain WHY the globe was COOLING! The FACT of ~3 decades of cooling was NOT in dispute. What was not known was WHY the globe was cooling. So in addition to their explicit statements, the fact that they were even discussing aerosols shows that there WAS cooling.
Hahahahaha
RealOldOne2 says:
May 13, 2012 at 12:32 am (UTC 0)
“The long and short of it is that NOTHING you cite pre-late 1970’s has any relevance to understanding “GLOBAL cooling” because there was no way to measure temperatures globally.”
Hahaha. This is a TOTALLY BOGUS point. This is EXACTLY the same data that your alarmist buddies use to tell us it’s the hottest in recorded history!
As soon as Hansen & the rest of the climate alarmists admit that we don’t know WHAT temps were prior to 1970, then you can use your argument.
Hahaha. What a LAME argument!
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:02 am (UTC 0)
The only thing you exposed was that you have no clue what the concept of Global cooling is, and that you can’t understand very simple publishing practices for symposium proceedings. You don’t even realize that you aren’t even working in the correct temporal scale, let alone the fact that you don’t understand the spatial scale issues with early work and the inherent unreliability and thus inability to produce relevant conclusions of early attempts to produce “global” temperature projections.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:28 am (UTC 0)
It’s called a literature review, they are made all the time in every field of science. Get with the program, perhaps you really are too old. You might be served better by getting yourself into a nice nursing home.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:42 am (UTC 0)
Mitchell specifically states that his methodology is not sound and cannot be used to draw conclusions, Peterson follows that sentence with another that shows that was not the case ,and we are talking about Global cooling, get your sh!t strait son.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 2:23 am (UTC 0)
Actually it would only be deception if I left out the ellipses. It did however get you to at least read some of the paper, hopefully you got to the part where he states his conclusions cannot stand on their own, and better data and methods need to be developed to monitor oceans and the other data voids. You know, the content in the paper that shoots your argument down.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 2:30 am (UTC 0)
Actually they are Mitchel 1961 and Mitchell 1961(b) respectively. The difference is the proceedings of the Rome symposium (held in 1961) were not published until 1963, although it was held in 1961 where both papers were originally presented in tandem.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 3:03 am (UTC 0)
So, it must be TERRIBLY embarrassing for a cocky, arrogant, condescending lay-person to be “pwned” by their own ignorance. No wonder you won’t give us your name!
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 3:08 am (UTC 0)
In otherwords, both “On the World-Wide Pattern of Secular Temperature Change.” and “Recent Secular Changes of Global Temperature.” were presented in tandem at the joint UNESCO/WMO Rome Symposium. The only difference being “Recent Secular Changes of Global Temperature.” was also published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science (1961), while “On the World-Wide Pattern of Secular Temperature Change.” was not published else where,. and only appears in the proceedings of the symposium.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 3:19 am (UTC 0)
You know what must be even more embarassing? Not realizing that both Mitchell’s 1961 and 1963 papers were proceedings from the same event in 1961.
Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1963). “On the World-Wide Pattern of Secular Temperature Change.” In Changes of Climate. Proceedings of the Rome Symposium Organized by UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, 1961 (UNESCO Arid Zone Research Series, 20) pp. 161-81. Paris: UNESCO.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 3:58 am (UTC 0)
Seeing as the oceans comprise around 70% of the earth. You plain cannot make “global” assesments of a phenomena that you don’t have 70% of the data for (not EVEN considering the massive data voids on land at that time as well in both the North AND South hemispheres. Mitchell himself explicitly states this in that paper, he devotes an entire section to it. The incompetent one, seems to be you.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 4:20 am (UTC 0)
And? You provided no relevant quotes so i had no need to myself. Mitchels figures are extrapolations, and the data availability in the SH was quite literally garbage. Did you even bother to read his 1) statement that none of his study is accurate globally due to data constraints, and 2, that for those reasons his analysis does NOT match with any others, suggesting the need for further research before any definite conclusions can be drawn? And the lack of oceanic data renders it all moot.
StAverti says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:06 am (UTC 0)
No one has shown that projections of global cooling were correct, as 1) the only projections that were supported by any authors were those related to orbital cycles, and all made note of the potential human influence through emissions, and 2) the globe didn’t cool, it warmed… no physical evidence exists to dispute that.