I've made another attempt her to reply here, but without success. I will, accordingly post on the sites "blog" feature.

Spock, I thought you quit blogging, what happen? Your absence was nice while it lasted, we were all spare your paranoid delusional writing. Find your hole and please climb back in.

It's no use - I can't respond here with more than a couple of lines. I've posted my reply to several persons here on the "blog" feature.

As to "BigJ," to dignify by reply anything like that last remark would be beneath a ten year old. In the future, I will simply ignore you.

"Rollin," when did I call anyone a name or resort to ad hominem attack? You are exactly what you appear to be (even the Sherlock-ian magnifier)m as are we all. I've spoken in that regard in my "blog" (damn, but I hate that idiotic expression!).

Why don't you contribute something other than your pettifogging bloviating?

Spock, I thought you refrained from ad hominem attacks. You stooped just like you always do and started calling people names instead of debating like a gentleman that you claim to be. Calling names by the way is quite effeminate.

Thus my last paragraph Spock, that there is not really a reason to not believe, whether it be global warming or the existence of God.

The payoff to not believing could be called "nothing ventured, nothing gained", if in fact it is the right position. Hence there is not a positive payoff to wager on not believing. Ones soul in the case of Gods existence would still be lost,or the condition of the worlds climate would remain the same at best or become worse at worst.

By the way the "wasting time" is attributed to Richard Dawkins who argued for an "anti-Pascal wager" in his book, The God Delusion. "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

But Dawkins reasoning does not change the outcome of the wager. If he is right his soul is lost because there is no God, and if he is wrong his soul is still lost because he wagered wrong, to not believe. No positive payoff.

"Legion," I congratulate you (really) for your courage and integrity in daring a response. How does making the logic of Pascal's Wager "a stretch" because global warming is involved?

Some years ago, one of history's greatest Mathematicians, von Neuman used similar reasoning to recommend that we "first struck" the Soviet Union. John Nash used "the Wager" in his deliberations resulting in the now famous "Nash Equilibrium."

I'm being sarcastic - I'd really like to know your thought on the matter.

And, "all that time wasted (worshipping God)?" You're kidding, aren't you - in a world that WATCHES people play GOLF? And Basketball?

Mightn't you be forgetting that to Pascal, loss of the immortal soul and an eternity in hell were a matter equal - easily - to global warning.

Nevertheless, it is a real pleasure to encounter a responsive and responsible debate, without the usual rancor. I hope I can look forward to more

Spock,

Pascal's Wager,originally concerned the existence of God. In that instance the only positive outcome was to believe in God existence since the payoff to believing is the only one with a positive return on the wager of ones soul.

Even when the wager was increased 2 or 3 times (3 souls), to believe still had the only positive payoff.

Your example of wagering ones life against a roomful of lifes ( or monetary gain) is expanding the risk even further but does not change the only positive outcome. But by injecting human psychology into the wager, it becomes more like game theory.

Applying Pascal's Wager to global warming is a stretch but I get your point, indeed it would be the right decision to believe Mans actions affect the climate, but in a global warming scenario there is also a chance of a positive outcome to not believing Mans action effect climate if indeed that is true. ie: wasting money on carbon trades, cleaner industries ect.

But again that can be compared to some of the arguments against Pascal's Wager. ie: all the time wasted worshiping God if he really doesn't exist, however IMO that is only increasing ones wager (by ones time) against the same payoff or lack there of.

Wow - it posted.

I can't seem to post anything here in any meaningful length. For instance, when I copy and paste what "rollinstone" wrote, I can't get past editing - it won't publish to the "thread."

Is this a new kind of sensorship - somebody who can't shut me up otherwise - or is my "computer on the fritz"

"Rollin," you obviously didn't answer any of my specific questions specifically, and what you did say I already have, verbatim from another website (in fact, I have it in a notebook). Sir, with all due respect and among all the people with whom I have duelled verbally here and on the Internet generally, you are certainly among the most phony.

Ken, review what you wrote, then notice that you didn't answer - except with a Bare Assertion Fallacy string of words - anything I said. PASCAL'S WAGER logic - HOW DO YOU ANSWER (ou're making yourself lose credibility with anyone capable of any real thought), sir? Explain how anyone with what appears to be so little knowledge of any subject related to that in question has the temerity to foist his ill-informed opinion upon others.

Are you aware that there are people who will proceed with their lived in a manner relying upon what you say? Ken, and with the proverbial due respect, answer my questions, show us some real expertise, or shut up. Please!

I am writing this blog in an attempt to answer some of Spock's "questions."

First how much torque can be expected on the shaft of a wind turbine? Torque is determined by dividing the power generated by the angular speed of the turbine.

The power of a horizontal wind turbine is equal to the following:

Power = Constant * density * Diameter Squared * Wind Velocity Cubed

(This is really the area of the fetch times the velocity (cubic feet) times the kinetic energy per pound of the wind.)

For example, a wind turbine about 254 feet in diameter turning in a 27 mph wind (the typical design speed) will generate about two megawatts. Assuming the tip speed of the turbine is equal to the wind velocity this means the turbine is turning approximately three rpm. Computing the torque is therefore a simple matter. But having done this, so what?

Spock, the turbine you seem to be making is a vertical axis turbine, but the basic physics are the same with regard to the power except for one exception. A vertical turbine is less efficient because half the turbine is always turning against the wind. I've read where someone has improved on this problem - but you can find many claims on anything on the internet so I remain skeptical. For the record, the average wind speed in Victoria is about 9.9 miles per hour - do the math.

Now your question about Coriolis acceleration and global warming, HUH? I guess you are implying that global warming effects the jet stream, it does. It has pushed it further north and this in turn has pushed the storm tracks further north. This is probably why we are experiencing more frequent droughts. OOPS, having said that we are probably going to get a hell of a rain now - bring it!

And finally one blogger said global warming may be caused by underground nuclear testing. An earthquake of six magnitude is equivalent to a one megaton nuclear bomb. The Earth has about 140 of these a year. The Indian Ocean tsunami was caused by a nine magnitude earthquake equivalent to 32,000 one megaton bombs. The United States has not tested a bomb in decades.

Legion, And Pascal's Wager?

After reading lot's of websites about global warming from Harvard, UCLA, NOAA and ect. ect. I can come to one conclusion, no one really knows.

There is a correlation between solar activity and climate change but some studies say it is minuscule . Solar winds, forcing as Aubrey said, is also cited as a factor but yet again called minuscule in other studies.

One site I went to claimed that the absence of sun spots in August of this year was because of the collective consciousness of all all Humans on Earth to stop them. LOL

There is however a direct correlation between solar activity concerning Earth temperature, Earths magnetic fields, radio, TV and satellite transmissions. Tho some studies claim its not enough to worry about.

However, the Sun, having just ended cycle 23, is starting what they call cycle 24 and it is suppose to cause all kinds of disruptions concerning Earths atmosphere and all our man made toys.
Once again, there are conflicting theories evident everywhere.
So once again, all these great minds, IMO, cannot even agree amongst themselves.

What if it is just the poles that are being affected from space because of changes occurring at the core?

The Earths gravity and electromagnetic field are weaker at the poles, fact. The hole in the ozone layer is located over the South Pole, fact. What if the changes in those environments are because of changes to the Earths gravity and electromagnetic field at those locations? Under that analysis we could cause greater damage trying to manipulate carbon emissions instead of dealing with the problem at its source.

There is little we can do about the core, with the exception of STOPING NUCLEAR TESTING, DUH!

We can concentrate our efforts on preserving and restoring the polar cap environments; which could possibly lead to stabilizing the world’s environments. Work the problem from one point on the planet first; instead of trying to manipulate everyone else’s environments.

Again, STOPPING NUCLEAR TESTING would probably go a long way, or did they really think that there wouldn’t be repercussions to damaging the Earths electromagnetic field.

I’m sure there were some scientist’s who warned them back in the 50’s, arrogant Bas__ds!

Dumb Humans Monkey’s.

Back from the garage (my back is killing me - why does every table and workbench ever devised have to be such that one has to lean over just at the most tortuous angle?). Aggie, thanks, but first my primary concern has to do with over-rotation in high winds and how to furl the "wings" in that case.

As to torque and gearing, you never get out more than you put in, and I first have to know what that will be. That's the reason for the math. My models - made from soup cans - on the backyard fence here give me a good idea as to rotational speed from a given wind, but torque and power loss to gearing isn't related in a direct way from models to actual turbine.

I'm a self-taught engineer, such that I've already done all the computation and made the design accordingly. Obviously, I only wanted to make a point here.

Admittedly in that regard, I'm kind of ashamed of myself: but irresponsible pontification on subjects one knows all but nothing he didn't get from Google and Wikipedia about irritates me no end. What irritates even more is the way fat cat polititians and the corporations who own them take advantage of people like them. People like the several here who arrogate to themselves the right to talk about matters they know almost nothing about proceed, once they have been duped, to go on and dupe others.

It's like speading a rumor.

Consider BigJ, for instance. From what I've read of his remarks here, I'd be astonished to learn that he knows a solar flare from a bottle rocket. Still, he feels he's entitled by principles of free speech to hold forth any way he likes. Let's ask him what he thinks his responsibilities are concerning his free speech (prepare for something - evidently, that again from experience with this contributions to this forum - more typical of him, a thunderous diatribe).

Consider, too, the reasoning scientifically of someone who relates "four record-breaking blizzards this year" to the question of global warming. Read Ken Schustereits last, then count up the Bare Assertin logical fallacies.

Did I mention "responsibility?"

Let's see how they answer my questions.

And thanks again. Nice try (seriously).

Global warming?

As far back as human records indicate, the “Ice Caps” are melting at rates and quantities not know. This does not necessarily imply global warming. The earth’s environment is changing not predicted by man. It is vain to assume that we have mastered science to the point of having a real working knowledge of this occurrence.

The Earths gravity and the electromagnetic field are weakened around the poles. This makes those areas vulnerable to astrological forces and internal planetary fluctuations.

Not long ago vibrations in the earth indicated a solid mass just off the core. Something about earth quakes being felt across the world in China, in California and I think South America. The analysis was that vibrations traveled through the earth and then split in to two different directions, after coming into contact with this matter that was the size of Manhattan.

A change in the core could affect the earth’s electromagnetic field making the poles more vulnerable to radiation from space.

As far as I’m aware no one has indicated an idea as to what that mass was or why it existed.

I’m just saying there is more to consider than just carbon emissions. I can see it is better to get the public worried about a problem they can do something about instead of one they cannot.

Have a nice.

Unless (A) it is expected that there won't be enough torque to turn the primary (low-speed) shaft, or (B) it is expected that there will be so much torque as to cause the system to fail, in this context, the question of torque is ultimately an irrelevant one because that's what a gear-box is for.
But I think I'm on Spock's side of the argument, and I don't expect his comment was directed at me. LOL!

Oh, hey - I'm working in the garage on a vertical axis turbine I'm designing, and I came back in when it occurred to me that some of the people here who are evidently so capable of understanding global warming and all the science having to do with it might help me with a problem. The problem has to do with varying lift-drag forces in a vertical wind turbine, a problem not completely different from certain of the considerations related to the mutual effect of global warming on the Coriolis Effect.

That's the Coriolis Effect problem I gave you earlier, you know . . .

The three "wings" on my turbine are affected by forces and velocities according to the formula CL - L/1/2pSWsquared; and CD - D/1/2pSW squared; and CT = T/1/2SWsquared; and finally, CN = N/1/2pSWsquared - where CD is Coefficeint of Drag, CT is Coefficient of Thrust, CT is normal tangential components inherent.

My winds will be four feet long fifteen inches in chord, and rotational speed will by up to 750 rpm. Angle of attack is nine degrees at center of wing mass, and rotational radius of the turbine will one and a half feet.

Also, how much torque do you calculate that I can I expect in a fifteen mph wind?

And, P.S., how do you know the supposed data you "cited" was credible? What are your credentials? How much atmosphere is there? How much carbon dioxide can it contain before oxygen-breathing life begins to gasp?

Come, on, amigo - spare us the rhetoric, the one-liners, the logical fallacies, and the "documented, nationally proven, nationally published fact" hearsay.

Ken, you DIDN'T cite any facts; you cited your supposed report of facts. Where are the studies, so I can read them (I've read literally dozens, all by persons whose credentials turn out to be in disciplines totally unrelated to the subject)?

There is no such data, in point of fact - but I await your reply.

Meanwhile, how do you answer Pascal's Wager? and the logic thereof? How do you answer the rest of what I asked? Like the little robot in the movie, "Data, please, data."

The wording of today's polling question is a red flag that the Asker has an agenda. The question is what's known as a MU question - it presupposes that global warming is something TO BE SOLVED. Mars and Venus and Saturn and Jupiter have been warming too! Is that a problem to be solved as well? All of that aside, I believe if you do your research, you will find that we are just over the peak of a 100-200 year warming trend as a result of increased (cyclical) solar activity...and we are now in a global cooling trend - which is why yellow journalists and others have adopted the new term, "global climate change." Don't be fooled. It's all an attempt leverage control over the individual so that the corporate elitists can milk you with a carbon tax. Besides, government and science do not "solve" problems - INDIVIDUALS solve problems!

Ken, and with all due respect and as I said to ("clintusmaximus") you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you have done the required background in science - and science specifically related - you COULDN'T possibly know.

Will folks like you and "Max" next begin to hold forth on the science of medicine? Are you about to tell us how to treat cancer? Muscular dystrophy?

Come on, guys - put it down. Before you go further with corrupting the public's truth - our progeny, for instance - direct yourself and your good intelligence to my Pascal's Wager reasoning. How do you answer that?

Your views are political views, not scientific ones. And we can all see how political views result - it's everywhere evident in our country that we are deciding things not on the basis of science (or logic), but on the basis of what is almost invariably totally uninformed opinion.

The Ice-packs aren't melting because the earth is cooling. "It's documented" means that someone wrote it down. What you're saying here serves as documentation for the ignorant. As I've written here, I have the study and training with which one might reasonably know, and I am absolutely certain not only that the earth is warming un-naturally, but that man's pollution of the oceans and atmostphere will torture our children and grandchildren.

Please, learn before you speak. You are each bright people. The facts, truth, will convince you (I don't want to believe we're killing the planet, either, you know).

I believe our planet is gradually cooling. Earth and Mars were formed at the same time. The smaller planet, Mars, has cooled faster than Earth and is a very cold place.
The release of heat from the center of our planet plays a much bigger role than mankind in the temperature of the Earth.