Uncle Bob Geldof Losing It

[Bloo Loo]

I remember many years ago being a statutory consultee on a planning application for a wind turbine. Anyway one of the objectors stated in their written submission;

You can clearly hear the turbine from 5km on a still night

I wonder if that Objector was Eight?

we were kept up at night by what sounded like lorries going through the night..we thought at first it was hard working farmers, but they rarely go on past 10...

Next morning i went out and followed the noise...the sound took a zigzag course about 3KM away...8 or nine generators pumping water out of the reservoir....with a slight wind in the right direction, it sounded like they were in the field at the bottom of the Garden...Neighbours never heard a thing.

funny thing this sound stuff.

[Kurt Barlow]

we were kept up at night by what sounded like lorries going through the night..we thought at first it was hard working farmers, but they rarely go on past 10...

Next morning i went out and followed the noise...the sound took a zigzag course about 3KM away...8 or nine generators pumping water out of the reservoir....with a slight wind in the right direction, it sounded like they were in the field at the bottom of the Garden...Neighbours never heard a thing.

funny thing this sound stuff.

A diesel generator at source might be 95 dB(A). A wind turbine 65dB(A). The diesel generator emits over a thousand times as much sound energy as a wind turbine. That might explain your observation

[MrPin]

we were kept up at night by what sounded like lorries going through the night..we thought at first it was hard working farmers, but they rarely go on past 10...

Next morning i went out and followed the noise...the sound took a zigzag course about 3KM away...8 or nine generators pumping water out of the reservoir....with a slight wind in the right direction, it sounded like they were in the field at the bottom of the Garden...Neighbours never heard a thing.

funny thing this sound stuff.

Are your neighbours that deaf couple, who put on big gardening gloves, and wave their hands a lot, to have an argument?

[Guest eight]

I wonder if that Objector was Eight?

If I can be serious for a moment, allow me to point out that I am not nor have I ever been opposed to wind turbines.

(I do think they locally mess with the weather, but that's just one of those things we might have to live with. A bit like the wife.)

[Bloo Loo]

A diesel generator at source might be 95 dB(A). A wind turbine 65dB(A). The diesel generator emits over a thousand times as much sound energy as a wind turbine. That might explain your observation

whilst there is no doubt a geney can be heard 100 yards away, I would say that under the right condition you might be able to hear the geney in a wind turbine for a considerable distance.

Saying that, I have stood near wind turbines and couldnt hear a thing...other than the wind in my ears. I suspect the noise issue is something they read about on the internet.

Incidently, saying they didnt hear it could construe a HATE INCIDENT in the eyes of the law...suggest you carefully word your rebuttals lest some delicate soul be offended.

[snowflux]

Another thing not mentioned much is that if man is contributing to global warming - and that is not yet certain - it may actually be a good thing. Nobody really knows. If we are heading towards another ice age - and man is slightly counteracting this - then it could actually be beneficial to us. Nobody knows. And therein lies the main issue with this subject.

People don't like others who don't know something for certain - telling them what to do because of it. Its pretty basic human nature.

Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they don't have a very good idea! From studying past climate changes and some basic modelling, scientists are virtually certain that mankind's CO2 emissions are more than sufficient to head off the ice age that would otherwise be gradually approaching. That is basic physics. CO2 levels are already far too high to allow a return to ice age conditions and there's no natural mechanism that can scrub that excess CO2 from the atmosphere for many centuries.

Btw, I do agree that Bob Geldof is a dick.

[ccc]

Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they don't have a very good idea! From studying past climate changes and some basic modelling, scientists are virtually certain that mankind's CO2 emissions are more than sufficient to head off the ice age that would otherwise be gradually approaching. That is basic physics. CO2 levels are already far too high to allow a return to ice age conditions and there's no natural mechanism that can scrub that excess CO2 from the atmosphere for many centuries.

Btw, I do agree that Bob Geldof is a dick.

So as i said - is there a possibility that IF we are causing the earth to warm - this may actually be beneficial to us ? Simple yes or no answer will suffice

[snowflux]

So as i said - is there a possibility that IF we are causing the earth to warm - this may actually be beneficial to us ? Simple yes or no answer will suffice

Yes. A very small one.

[dances with sheeple]

Just because you don't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they don't have a very good idea! From studying past climate changes and some basic modelling, scientists are virtually certain that mankind's CO2 emissions are more than sufficient to head off the ice age that would otherwise be gradually approaching. That is basic physics. CO2 levels are already far too high to allow a return to ice age conditions and there's no natural mechanism that can scrub that excess CO2 from the atmosphere for many centuries.

Btw, I do agree that Bob Geldof is a dick.

Just watched him on "Talks to Mark Lawson", very interesting interview I thought, much more depth to the guy than I would have previously thought, quite honest and deep interview about a range of things, well worth a watch IMO.

[Kurt Barlow]

whilst there is no doubt a geney can be heard 100 yards away, I would say that under the right condition you might be able to hear the geney in a wind turbine for a considerable distance.

Saying that, I have stood near wind turbines and couldnt hear a thing...other than the wind in my ears. I suspect the noise issue is something they read about on the internet.

Incidently, saying they didnt hear it could construe a HATE INCIDENT in the eyes of the law...suggest you carefully word your rebuttals lest some delicate soul be offended.

One flaw in that theory - a wind turbines noise output is related to its speed which is related to the speed of the wind. Effectively the noise of the wind and wind related effects drowns out the generator noise as distance from the turbine increases. Any Planning Policy Guidance to Planners is that a practical separation distance of 350 metres is applied. This will by virtue of physics alone make any significant noise issues from a modern turbine impossible. Gear box faults will create noise but a faulty wind turbine can be shut down from a control room in a minute or two.

Noise measurement is complex but quite empirical and objective - why do you thing the High Priests of wind turbine objection focus on subjective visual disamenity and bird strike studies from lattice tower designs of the 1970's?

[Kurt Barlow]

Heat pumps do.

Which work very well with intermittant energy sources such as wind and solar because heat (unlike electricity) is very easy and cheap to store.

[ccc]

Yes. A very small one.

Cheers. So why do we think - even if it is only a small chance - that it is never - and we all know never - even mentioned in any article or media piece on this ? Surely this proves there are vested interests on both sides who are unwilling to think about other possibilities than the ones they have already set their mind on ?

It is this sort of thing that makes people cynical - and its not surprising really.

[Kurt Barlow]

Cheers. So why do we think - even if it is only a small chance - that it is never - and we all know never - even mentioned in any article or media piece on this ? Surely this proves there are vested interests on both sides who are unwilling to think about other possibilities than the ones they have already set their mind on ?

It is this sort of thing that makes people cynical - and its not surprising really.

I would disagree with the concept of there even being a small benefit (See eight I don't blindly agree with SF and Fluffy) as increasing Co2 concentrations has a negative effect on Marine life through acidification which adversely affects the ability of plankton to form shells. Plankton is the base of the marine food chain

Collapsing the marine food chain will have profoundly negative effects on mankind (take 90 odd million tonnes of marine protein out of the World food budget). I dare say some berk will be along to tell us that the system will adapt however that takes millions of years Infact there is a lot of evidence that marine mass extinctions have been associated previously with large spikes in Co2 levels.

[Thunderbird 900]

So lets get back to Mr Geldorf. The biggest self opinionated knob to raise his scruffy head in modern times.

What I find amazing is that people actually take him and that other loony tune, Bono, seriously.

Having a few hit records suddenly turns them into serious commentators on important World issues.

Every day on the TV we still view starving children on the screen to make us feel guilty and give generously to charities.

The very same charities that are paying their bosses obscene salaries because "they are worth it".

The money raised inevitably ends up in the bank account of some filthy African dictator wearing sunglasses and raping his country.

I seem to remember Henry Kissinger making an announcement many moons ago that by the year 2000, starvation and malnutrition will have been eradicated.

He must be right we all thought. This gravelly voiced Germanic air of authority on everything....just another useful idiot.

Fxck the lot of them. I'm spending the money on me and my family.

[Bloo Loo]

One flaw in that theory - a wind turbines noise output is related to its speed which is related to the speed of the wind. Effectively the noise of the wind and wind related effects drowns out the generator noise as distance from the turbine increases. Any Planning Policy Guidance to Planners is that a practical separation distance of 350 metres is applied. This will by virtue of physics alone make any significant noise issues from a modern turbine impossible. Gear box faults will create noise but a faulty wind turbine can be shut down from a control room in a minute or two.

Noise measurement is complex but quite empirical and objective - why do you thing the High Priests of wind turbine objection focus on subjective visual disamenity and bird strike studies from lattice tower designs of the 1970's?

the nimby would focus on your use of the word "significant" in the argument for noise, then would ramble on about LF noise that some people find distressing and that seems largely unaffected by wind direction.

In the case of the generators we could hear, it was often that the "top" noise associated with a motor would stop intermittently, but the hum from them wouldnt..

The objector would focus on the possibility of the hum driving a person insane...saying that, Ive never heard a hum from a wind turbine.

[ccc]

I would disagree with the concept of there even being a small benefit (See eight I don't blindly agree with SF and Fluffy) as increasing Co2 concentrations has a negative effect on Marine life through acidification which adversely affects the ability of plankton to form shells. Plankton is the base of the marine food chain

Collapsing the marine food chain will have profoundly negative effects on mankind (take 90 odd million tonnes of marine protein out of the World food budget). I dare say some berk will be along to tell us that the system will adapt however that takes millions of years Infact there is a lot of evidence that marine mass extinctions have been associated previously with large spikes in Co2 levels.

But nobody REALLY knows - and that's the entire point.

[MrPin]

But nobody REALLY knows - and that's the entire point.

Those are the wisest words I have heard on this subject! You are not one of those "philosophers" are you?

[Guest eight]

(See eight I don't blindly agree with SF and Fluffy)

I can see I've touched a nerve here. Jesus man, get over it! I wouldn't take anything I say seriously. If I'm being totally honest, Fluffy didn't send me that email either (or did he? )

[snowflux]

But nobody REALLY knows - and that's the entire point.

Of course, you cannot know anything for certain about the future. The idea is an outcome has to be predicted for certain before avoiding action is taken is ludicrous. You don't know for certain that you would be killed if you stepped in front of a train, but that doesn't make it sensible to ignore level crossing barriers!

Also, nobody is saying that any climate outcome is certain. All the scientists' predictions are laced with percentages and probabilities, as they should be. Trouble is, this language gets used by the ignorant and irrational as a reason not to act!

[Kurt Barlow]

the nimby would focus on your use of the word "significant" in the argument for noise, then would ramble on about LF noise that some people find distressing and that seems largely unaffected by wind direction.

In the case of the generators we could hear, it was often that the "top" noise associated with a motor would stop intermittently, but the hum from them wouldnt..

The objector would focus on the possibility of the hum driving a person insane...saying that, Ive never heard a hum from a wind turbine.

You mean that same infrasound / Low frequency noise that people living by the Sea are exposed to (virtually continuously and at much higher levels)

[Kurt Barlow]

I can see I've touched a nerve here. Jesus man, get over it! I wouldn't take anything I say seriously. If I'm being totally honest, Fluffy didn't send me that email either (or did he? )

Not really - just pointing out that I don't agree with certain people on everything blindly. That opportunity has arisen twice in the last 3-4 pages

[ccc]

Those are the wisest words I have heard on this subject! You are not one of those "philosophers" are you?

I can predict the future i tell ya !!

[ccc]

Of course, you cannot know anything for certain about the future. The idea is an outcome has to be predicted for certain before avoiding action is taken is ludicrous. You don't know for certain that you would be killed if you stepped in front of a train, but that doesn't make it sensible to ignore level crossing barriers!

Also, nobody is saying that any climate outcome is certain. All the scientists' predictions are laced with percentages and probabilities, as they should be. Trouble is, this language gets used by the ignorant and irrational as a reason not to act!

But its not really very close to 'certain'.

You really can't compare what we 'know' about climate change and whether a person would get killed if stood in front of a train. They are on a completely different level.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I seem to remember Henry Kissinger making an announcement many moons ago that by the year 2000, starvation and malnutrition will have been eradicated.

He must be right we all thought. This gravelly voiced Germanic air of authority on everything....just another useful idiot.

I doubt very much that Kissinger would have been in any way sincere. And he's certainly no idiot. A psycho, yes, idiot, no...

National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.

It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures, stating for instance that "No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion".

It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

[snowflux]

But its not really very close to 'certain'.

You really can't compare what we 'know' about climate change and whether a person would get killed if stood in front of a train. They are on a completely different level.

Nevertheless, rational people choose their actions according to the estimated probabilities of various possible outcomes. While there is a small possibility that the climate changes resulting from anthropogenic global warming might have a net beneficial effect, the overall effect is far more likely to be negative. Not certain, but far more likely. It therefore makes sense to consider mitigation measures, such as moves towards a low emission energy generation infrastructure.

Edit: The train example was not meant as a comparison of probabilities; it was simply a "reductio ad absurdum" argument against your implication that avoidance action is necessary only when an outcome is certain.