Rotation start. Visualization by Reinhart Paelinck on page 49 and following
of Windenergienutzung mit schnell fliegenden Flugdrachen
  http://www.kuleuven.be/optec/files/Geebelen2010.pdf     Pages: 125.   
Kurt Geebelen and Joris Gilis did their masters thesis on this topic.

As far as I know, that is the only really interesting document about that (so far ;-) , the Leuven team is working hard !).   
Greetings from Leuven,  Reinhart    
Nov. 9, 2010. ===========================

This thread has support: 
http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/StagedLanuchingLandingGiantKitePlanes.html

Vestas:   

      I have submitted some ideas to them using their form:
http://www.vestas.com/en/pages/share-your-ideas-with-vestas/idea-submission-form.aspx   Perhaps others will send them some Pixie dust.

And I also used their form for registering for a job with them ... to be part of their coming AWECS sector.

 Horse whispering ...  http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=23460
Pixie dust ...

 

News ship

http://www.startribune.com/nation/106948613.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUzyaP37D_MDua_eyD5PcOiUr

Perhaps they could pull out their kites and get underway ...

COOL!

Duh.
How many geniuses on the head of a pin did it take to figure out this one? Hang a wind turbine from a blimp. Not that this is the BEST way, but at least it can be accomplished right away using off-the-shelf technology.

This is why I say there is not a single entity in this space that is serious about anal wind energy - er um I mean airbourne wind energy, since a working system is so simple.
Hey let's just stick with Magenn. DO we have a power curve from this major player in the "industry" yet? Why not? Like a chair with no legs. Nothingness masquerading as somethingness.

You know what occurred to me this morning while reading the LTA Wind white paper? Why not just pray for a solution? I see little difference between the current state of this area of endeavor (note I do not repeat the term "industry" so casually misapplied in unconscious self-glorification) and large groups of people facing toward the wind, bowing down and admitting that while they are helpless to harness it, they look to the sky and see a huge power that could be used for good, and express their wish that it be so.

Maybe what is needed is a Church or AWEA to give the "industry's" participants something to do besides blog!
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.flyingwindturbine.com

Tweaking the PR machine?   Announce your competitors.   A first:   www.HAWPA.net  is listed as a competitor, despite HAWPA featuring LTA Windpower. Hmmm!   

http://enerygykitesystems.net/AWEpr/HAWPAcompetitor.jpg

Name is neat.  After powering launch, perhaps let the blades-

-during soaring in excess lift or during gliding down--'

charge ultracapacitors structurally double-purpose playing as airframe keel and triangle control frame tubes and basebar ...

Free-flight AWECS is near this "Alti-generator"  http://www.altigenerator.nc/anglais.htm

They don't have my suggestion yet about the generator phase and double-purpose airframe; but it will be done by someone. And I think Alti-generator is still ICE and not electric.  But consider the electrics as they have arrived for footlaunch powered HG.  There are now electric paragliders and electric hang gliders.    

Sorry, the company has announced their electric version ...

http://www.altigenerator.nc/e_altigenerator.htm

Dave,
I tellin ya the draft didnt show up until you replied. Moot point..

I OBJECT TO PROVISION 2.1.1, THIS PROVISION IS VAGUE AND COULD BE USED INAPPROPRIATLY. For example I feel the CO2 thing is a false relgion an Im persuing to manufacture a coal burning car.
The global warming belief is a big argument and does not apply to cannons of ethics.

I OBJECT TO PROVISIONS 5.2 AND 5.3, DID YOU GUYS PLAGERIZE THIS OR GET PERMISSION TO USE THIS FROM THE GEOLOGY SOCIETY?

Lynn


---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
Its vital to debate ethics openly, as an American core value. In places like North Korea & Iran such debate is absent.
 
Thank you for providing the militarist voice, as AWEC's members cowardly pose as neolibs, by ducking debate.
 
We are mainly debating for elitist Euros to judge which Americans are "good guys".
 
AWE R & D will likely be centered in EU & we can partner if our core values line up.



From: "spacecannon@san.rr.com" <spacecannon@san.rr.com To: dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com Cc: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 8:58:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [AWECS] DRAFT AWEIA Code of Ethics

Dave, the draft was not at the bottom of the email I received, thats why I asked.  Do you really want to start this argument again?  This pacifist liberal progressive bend is nowhere man.  Humans dont naturally operate that way, and socialism doesnt work.  You would think the greenies would understand natural selection and how only the strong survive.  Wake up, "good guys" is relative to the side you are on, what do you think other countries think of when they think of who the good guys are?  Do the Iranians think we are the good guys or do they have some one else in mind?

Im not saying war is good or that innocents dont die in war, but I would rather be on the winning side even if it means dropping the bomb like in WW2.  Figure out which side you are on then back them even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, cause winning in war is a lot better than loosing.
Lynn


---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
The draft was right there at the bottom of the message. This note sent off-forum, since yours is a non-kite related question.
 
You will probably once again object to the global anti-militarization AWE ethic, so keep in mind that modern armies average about a 20-to-one kill ratio over *noncombatants*, & tyrannical govts & terrorists will abuse lethal kite tech imitated from "good guys".
 
There is easy military R & D taxpayer money available (like WindLift's million) without fighting AWEIA's proposed ethics. AWEC is the military-industrial investor group, with no ethics barrier.
 
d



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "spacecannon@san.rr.com" <spacecannon@san.rr.com To:
Cc: dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 11:02:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AWECS] DRAFT AWEIA Code of Ethics

Was there something supposed to be attached here or are you implying our code of ethics is to be blank.




---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

Of course RATs  have been on blimps and other aircraft for ages.

And then many patents have LTA-held turbines.  And our fellow Airbine  is busy in LTA aims.

Click image for full patent by Lynn Potter of Airbine.

And we have:     
A Concept design for a lighter than air wind turbine  
Author:   D.J. van Engelshoven       Date: Delft, December 1999

And Vestas is being invited to keep open an active room with leaders for lifting turbines via LTA lifting aircraft.

But China in patent footsteps is showing high interest in this direction.  Get the leak rate down, have pressure valves, pressure adjusters, etc.

Our very own SuperTurbine(R) fellow has been seen lifting multiple turbines using LTA elements.   

And our associate in Russia is proposing impellers in donut blimps .

VAWT set horizontally:  Macedo in 2004 instructs.    But he seems to come after http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=akF7AAAAEBAJ&dq=7129596.

In 1964: Click image for full patent of 1964.

A different drummer:

CLICK.

In 1974 Lambros Lois instructed several versions including LTA yo-yo phasing.

 Click for full patent.

And others.

Just how well might the hydrogen-leak, hydrogen management , and automatic pressure-keeping be solved toward ever-up kytoon lifters of turbines or devices for fan-belt mechanical transmission?  Will graphane or graphene stop hydrogen leaks ?   Keep in mind toyAWECS, sportAWECS, and residentialAWECS besides utilityAWECS in this LTA sector; what might be a non-winning design direction for utility might end up being a winner in sportAWECS for camping, charging powered ultralights, etc.  And if one is after the dollar, consider the toy market for AWECS that light up the night with LTA-held turbines, etc.

JoeF

Ninety-seven percent of scientists think that global warming is a very serious reality, despite the easy money available to skeptics.  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/hundreds-scientists-plan-rhetorical-assault-climate-skeptics/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=d4606534f6-Nov9Newsletter11_9_2010&utm_medium=email

Alberto Kling had some instructions:

Charles Max Fry and Henry W. Hise:  LTA schemes instructed groundgen via torsion from VAWT elements in his multiple-rotor assemblies in 1975. One sees he was teaching terrain-enhanced and also towered versions.   Click image for full instruction. Text claims are broader than drawings.

spacecannon@san.rr.com schrieb:
Developing a coal burning car is probably not unethical if you don't
believe in the damage to others such a car might cause. If you do know
this, as does the majority of people regarding global warming, it would
probably be unethical. Vague it must be, as we all act unethically. :-(


I am also puzzled by this. What has geology to do with it?

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

Global warming is not a majority belief.. your statement is propoganda in itself.

---- Theo Schmidt <theosch06@yahoo.de

Ok Dave, your fairness and parlimentary openness is is is ... changing my opinion of you in a good way, crap.
Lynn



---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

I've been promoting my turbines including the flying ones to Vestas and all major manufacturers, in person, for years. Well not so much anymore. I discovered years ago that the engineers like new stuff and the management is preoccupied with the present. These companies have a LOT invested in the status quo.

In the end what you are saying to them is: "Everything you've got is obsolete if only you will listen to me. All your tooling, your designs, your business pipelines - all obsolete".
So do you think they want to hear that?
Nope. They don't have time for that - they are late for a meeting anyway.

That's why new companies emerge. The old ones want to stay the way they are - too much momentum, too much inertia. Hey let's sell the railroads on a new kind of transport that doesn't need tracks - the airplane! See what I mean?

Also, remember these folks make many megawatts at all times. It is hard for them to go back to square 1 and get excited about new proof-of-concept projects that make only a few kilowatts, if that.

So don;t expect the big players to get involved, at least in my experience.
Of course you may remember" I placed in the GE 100 for the Shocking Sky Serpent.
So far they have passed every promised deadline with no announcment of "working with" any company or idea. A far cry from the promises with which they enticed the world of innovators to spill their guts to them, slowing progress that could have been made while more redundant paperwork was created instead.

I'm looking to see when the promised $200 million in development funds is forthcoming. I'm recommending a new organization of inventors who have wasted their lives on the empty promises from these types of gargantuan progress-slowers and demand that they cough up the promised $200 million and distribute it to all applicants, and that goes the same for ARPA-E, (Almost Ready to Produce Another - Excuse) NREL (National Repository of Energy Lies) and all the rest of the big energy liars, who talk about innovation then function to stop it by taking the lead role then doing nothing.
Doug Selsam
http://www.flyingwindturbine.com

I think 1 rule will suffice:
Rule 1: Make no rules before a reliable system that generates usable amounts of power economically has been demonstrated.

To act otherwise would be like asking the railroads to come up with the rules for air traffic before anyone had flown a plane.
This thread is one more aspect of the complete insanity that has taken over this forum - as though accumulating long lists of self-serving rules will ever get anyone anywhere, as opposed to developing a working system.

How 'bout "nobody can develop a system different from Dave S.' vision - reeling kites with soft sails only"?

All these proposed rules could apply to any field of endeavor. Nobody is going to rewrite all business-related laws and traditions just because some people see a possible new emerging technology taking shape. The rules of business and IP have been in place for some time and are there to serve as a time-tested scaffolding to support any business or tech effort.

Thanks fer listenin'
Doug Selsam

Complete insanity.

OK go ahead and start with Magenn:
"A Member shall not knowingly engage in false or deceptive advertising,..."
Magenn claims to have an energy solution. I say they do not.
That is a pretty basic question to answer with well-known standards of performance, reliability, and output versus cost.
Let's get 'em! Rule breakers! Liars! where's your power curve magenn? This field's most well-know sponsor is a complete scam, as a start. So where do you go from there with "enforcement" of "ethics"?

Bob Stuart mentioned we should have a rule in this field of contrarian thinkers, implying that we free-thinkers must toe the mental line of "believing in" "global warming". Meanwhile I'm sharpening my skis for another below-average-temp cold winter here in the Los Angeles area, known for its sunny days, warm temps and palm trees.

OK here are the rules:
1) All ideas must be Dave Santos'
2) all ideas must use tethers, reels, and kites in oscillating cycles
3) no member may "deny" global warming
4) all standards of ethical behavior and forthrightness, as defined by Dave S., must be followed at all times
5) nobody is allowed to have a system up and running for more than a few minutes
6) no system will run unattended

Blah blah blah,
Doug S.
wah wah wah.com

1) I admit I am powerless to create energy from the sky;
2) I will attend daily online "meetings" where I will lament the impossibility of getting anything flying - these daily meetings will serve to prevent me from falling back into "building mode" wherein I even attempt to build flying wind energy systems;
3) If I feel myself coming close to falling into "building mode" I will quickly find and attend a "conference" where I cannot get my hands on any tools or materials for a few days;
4) I will promote rules in advance of technology, thereby squelching any unforeseen technological developments;
5) I will attempt to focus attention only on technologies that are proven NOT to work, and tacitly approve those entities that promote these unworkable technologies;
6) I will spend lots of money but find no solution;
7) I will NEVER leave a system running overnight;
8) I will NEVER leave a system running when there is nobody there to insure that it makes no power;
9) I will diligently search out all rules that could possibly be used to prevent AWE and be sure to follow them all;
10) If I find myself coming close to "build-mode" I will read through the aforesaid rules and laws to bring myself "back to earth".
11) Any system that can stay in the air must make no usable amounts of power;
12) Any system that makes usable amounts of power must not stay in the air;

woops I'm up to 13 steps:
13) I will never develop any system that can survive storms or other weather-related challenges;
OK one more:
14) Any truly promising system must only be a rendering;

:) Anyone want to join, or are we already members?
I don't think 12 steps can cover this - how 'bout a few dozen "steps"?
Hey that is the next task for AWE: sit here online all day thinking of more "steps"!

Sheesh I gotta run.
Have a "productive" day!
(The word "productive" is a pun for those with familiarity with wind energy, of which there are very few, if any, reading this)
Doug Selsam
http://www.flyingwindturbine.com

Doug Selsam

This is true and valid, I second the motion.
Lynn



---- Doug <doug@selsam.com

spacecannon@san.rr.com schrieb:
You are probably considering the USA, where belief is currently under
50% in the population. In Switzerland it is completely mainstream, also
in Germany. In any case, global warming is no longer a question of
believing it or not, it is now a fact. The problem is that in spite of
this there is not much change of behaviour. Or counterproductive
behaviour, like promoting atomic power.

Cheers, Theo

Thank you Doug for the Motivation, Sincerely I think Im going to enlarge this and put it on my shop wall, Im outa here, gotta go to work.
Spacecannon


---- Doug <doug@selsam.com

You are confusing a man made global warming threat with normal climate change swings, the CO2 and global warming extrapolations are all mathematically wrong.

Cheers Lynn


---- Theo Schmidt <theosch06@yahoo.de

Dave,

If "motivation correlates with engineering intelligence" then Doug Selsam has you beat by miles, dont go there.
The mathematics you speak of on CO2 = global warming are based on a study of Venus in the 70s, there is no correlation between Venus' green house effect and Earth because it is so far out of the statistical deviation, that it is rediculus. dont take my word for it, go do some research, its a scam by the progressives.
Lynn



---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

Dave,
Yes love and passion for a subject are powerful motivators, but it does nothing for financial feasibility, a product has to be profitable to be successful, and that is the bottom line.

The Venus study is what the CO2 case is built on, I would postulate that there is a better probability that human thermal production is a better choice for global warming thery, but to solve that you would have to get rid of humans, personal I dont like that idea. The global warming hoax or is it the climate change hoax was started by progressive greenies that want to controll human behavior.

Show me your root concept proofs and I will show you mine, but I would rather you went out and did your own research for truth, because I have found people are imposible to convince, but if they find the truth them selves...
Otherwise its like trying to convince a Catholic to become Mormon.

Lynn




---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

AWE Classification Challenge Committee (ACCC)
has been born; the set of committee members is open; if you want to be on the working committee, please express your interest to the secretary protem.  

And certainly welcome from All: commentary toward obtaining effective classification schemes that may be set high for viewing and possible use. Anticipated is several classification schemes that face particular purposes.  Pioneering designers might enjoy one type of classification of AWECS. Investors might find a classification that can be worked to help them decide where to put their money.  Airspace controllers may benefit from classification; indeed, agents may provide their own classification scheme for governance. AWEIA International may want to have a scheme that is workable for membership purposes.    Within SportsAWE there may develop a classification that distinguish sporting activity. Etc.  

Note, there is a very simple system: All others and mine.  Such a simple system might have a narrow use, but it just may be very powerful for the one entity using the "mine" system.

Another classification may also have very narrow effective use: Those that work today and those that do not work today. Two branches. Opinions vary on which methods would go into the works today branch.

The fuzzy mission statement for the committee will probably get less fuzzy in time.  

Scratching records for the committee so far:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECSclassification/index.html

May AWE come up with some cool classification systems!

JoeF

 

Neutrality is necessary for a good classification.However a classification can let making easy the appreciation of qualities according to "parameters" as efficiency,reliability etc.

PierreB

OK Lynn,

So maybe you think the causes of global warming are different than what the "progressive greenies" say, but you seem to agree that the earth is actually 'warming'. If so, do you think we (humans) should do something about it?

- Dimitri

I believe we are still comming out of an iceage and the glaciers should melt back. Our climate is ever changing, that is what it does, and trying to "do something about it" is messing with something we dont fully understand. If the earth is that sensative to CO2 we could swing it back into an ice age really easy. The arguement against CO2 is obvious, and if i have to dig out the venus study I will, but think about this. There are a dozen Volcanos around the globe spuing GHG into the atmosphere at any one time 24/7/365, the CO2 production of the entire human race for a year equals about 1 hour of one of these volcanos, it's like we humans are a flea farting on the back of dog, no effect. Wake up people and reserch it all, find the basic truth of both opinions.

Lynn




---- "dimitri.cherny" <dimitri.cherny@yahoo.com

Wikipedia is nice but you do realize who runs it and that it is biased, ya try to change a entry to something they dont agree with and it doesnt stay up on there page.


Dave, CO2 is an old speculation, but the math came from the venus study and the extrapolations are all wrong, they wanted an outcome and they bent the data, research both sides to find the truth not just your own.

"Unrelated information"!? you started this after i expressed my opinion on 2.1.1, I rest my case.
Lynn



---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

Hi Lynn,
 
            Actually, we are at the end of the warm cycle, with every spike in C02 the ice age follows, rapidly.
 
                                                                                                            Dan'l
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
CC: dimitri.cherny@yahoo.com
From: spacecannon@san.rr.com
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 05:54:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Motivations of AWE Engineering

 

Lynn,
Since you're not a professional climatologist - someone who thinks about this stuff all day long, someone who's researched ALL the data available (not a single decades-old study or two) and continually discusses all the ideas and data extensively with their peers around the world - I'd rather trust the collective knowledge of the thousands of experts who all accept global climate change as a 'fact' (not an opinion) and are convinced that we farting fleas ARE the cause of it and also offer the only hope of stopping it.

For if we don't stop it, billions of people around the world, will at the least, be displaced by rising oceans. The impact to human civilization could likely set humanity back hundreds of years. The quality of life for billions of people, including hundreds of millions of North Americans, would be reduced to levels most westerners alive today have never experienced - imagine car-camping without the car, while being hunted by gang members. The wars and anarchy that would arise from this population displacement - even here in North America - would make today's Afghanistan look like a stable and safe society. Without a stable society with a large enough population pool to train and develop expertise in all the required areas, all the advances of mankind would be gone in only decades as replacement parts and consumables and pre-packaged foods are no longer available.

The refusal of so many people to accept the word of experts, instead placing 'faith' in what seems like common sense, folk wisdom, urban myths and 'feelings', is bringing America to its knees. We have to understand that the world is more complex than most of us can perceive and understand. Most things are too complex and too large to fit within a 'sound-bite' or on a bumper sticker or within the heads of most television new personalities and politicians. Fortunately, there are very smart and dedicated people devoting their lives in every area of complexity, to understanding those complexities. Much like WE are doing the same regarding AWE. The layman's gut may tell him AWE is impossible, but we experts know he's wrong.

Trust the experts. Now get back to work in your own area of expertise.

- Dimitri

Figure-of-eight & looping are roughly comparable-power modes, but with major design & operational trades. Active-control looping is the most risky aerobatic. Passive looping under a pilot lifter is far more robust. 

 

In autonomous control, figure-of-eights are advantaged over loops by the smooth state transition to-&-from "parked" flight,. In the passive-control case its just a matter of tuning in any desired amount of Dutch-Roll oscillation. Looping is an all-or-nothing state for an autopilot, with an abrupt qualitative change from parked. A passive advantage is that a looping kite will naturally start & run lifted by a pilot, & naturally stop before a soft landing in a lull.

 

Cyclic surge loads are not completely avoidable in a real-world system. Soft structure &

polymer tether will tend to tolerate lifetime cyclic loading better than composite wings & complex conducting tethers,

Dimitri,
You should write science fiction...
You have become rediculus.
good luck with that.
Lynn



---- "dimitri.cherny" <dimitri.cherny@yahoo.com

Hi Dimitry,

I would not generalize this "trust the experts", but regarding climate
change, I want to support
your point of view.
We - in the Netherlands - live beyond the level of the sea (ocean) -, so
life here would become
difficult, if the ocean rises (we already pay an extra tax for building
dikes).

Look at:
http://www.350.org/en

and:
http://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/ (in Dutch)

To slow down the climate change is a strong motivation for me to be
active as HAWP researcher.

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner
ASSET member
(Institute for Applied Sustainable Science, Engineering and Technology)


Am 12.11.2010 17:41, schrieb dimitri.cherny:

spacecannon@san.rr.com schrieb:
Please, Lynn (and others), snip your quotes! You may think that it costs
nothing to waste electronic resources, but this isn't so. You are
consuming disk space on countless servers and PCs, bandwidth on
transmission lines, electric power in servers and hence also electric
power. This is the same phenomenon as with air pollution, CO2, air,
water and many other things. If there is no direct price tag, people
think their are no costs involved and use more than their fair share,
even if this means death for others.

Thanks!
Theo Schmidt

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am following your forum with interest, but I found the position of some of the members rather dismaying. AGW is an established science fact and I would suggest to grow up, abandon childish conspiracy theories and stop thinking that you can teach people who know more than you. More than that, if we want AWE to be taken seriously, we must be serious on science. Otherwise AWE risks to be demoted to the level of the many fringe ideas that infest the internet.

We are all working on AWE with the idea that, among other things, is something that may be a powerful weapon against global warming. I have been discussing this subject with Massimo Ippolito in relation with the kitegen, and we believe that these machines may be put to work on absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing its concentration. It is a monumental task, but one of the few hopes we still have to reverse the climate degradation - which is rapidly going out of control. Please, think about this and stay on focus. We have a tremendously difficult task task to do - let's not make it even more difficult.


Ugo Bardi
 

dimitri.cherny schrieb:
...
Not believing facts is a human trait. For thousands of years people
believed that the earth was flat or that the speed of falling objects
was highly dependent on their mass. It took a famous person like Galileo
to drop a wooden and an iron ball from the leaning tower of Pisa and
show that they fell with the same speed and not the iron one faster, as
everybody believed previously. Today this is a primary school experiment.

Today we have similar arguments e.g. with sailing. Some people still
don't believe that boats can sail against the wind even when they are
sitting on one. Others don't believe that boats can sail to windward
using kites, that wind-turbine boats can sail against the wind, or very
recently that wind turbine boats can sail downwind faster than the wind.
Even when these things have been proved by experiments. So not
"believing" in global warming is understandable, but not very intelligent.

When things are more complex than you can work out yourself, it depends
whom you trust, scientists, religious leaders or tea-bag politicians.
:-) I trust the scientist I know, whose office is in the same building
where I work: Thomas Stocker. This is a true expert and completely
trustworthy person. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/

Or would you rather trust those who say that climate warming is an
article of faith? Many of these don't believe in science at all, e.g.
evolution, modern physics and so on. Scientists aren't always right. But
the scientific principle is consistent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=2&hp

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

Hi Theo,
 
              Very nice, thank you. After the ice age recedes the oxygen levels increase, due to the ice age the surface of the earth is ground and rocks are pulverized into a plethora of different minerals which in turn are utilized by the microbes, due to the amount of minerals on the surface at that  time there is a biologic explosion of said microbes, when this occurs the vital life force of the planet is at its maximum, a veritable "Garden of Eden" effect. After many thousands of years the minerals that were on the surface are leached into the sea (humans are directly responsible for an accelerated leaching dew to poor land management, greed. Once the minerals diminish of the surface, desertification takes place, at first small dead spots, these dead spots (cancer)continue to expand ever increasing, in the wake C02 is released into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, forest fires due to microbal die off, due to mineral depletion accelerates faster and faster, the tipping point. As the CO2 and other GHG increase the lens effect at the equator becomes very strong and cloud cover continues to multiply as the GHG go higher and higher. At first there will be a heat spike rapidly followed by a massive and quick cold down due to cloud acceleration. We are at that point now. While we still have time to act, yes, we should limit as much as possible the CO2 count but even better then that, we should remineralize the surface of the Earth, just one trace mineral lacking will cause desertification, healing the  brown spots of desertification is primary for restating the "Eden Effect"
     Please forgive bad grammar and poor spelling as that is boring and the most important thing is to get the ideas out there, Volcanoes give us the minerals all the time, what's needed is to spread them rapidly, fistly, bringing back the microbal count, which leads to the plant count which leads to the critter count multiplying which leads to the reabsorbing of the GHG and locking it down in the plants.
 
                                                                                                                                       Dan'l

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: theosch06@yahoo.de
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:19:38 +0100
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Trust the Experts

 

Yes what Dan'l says is absolutely correct.
A look at the LONG TERM temp charts from the ice cores CLEARLY show that we are at the precipice of the next ice-age.
Today's "Global Warming" is like the froth on the stock market at the end of a bull run. Just as the top of a bull market can be easily identified when all the "experts agree" that the market will go higher, the apex of temps has been reached when all the "climate experts agree" that temps will increase further.
It is a human phenomenon, common to all fields.

But
Let's just do a double-check to see what other recent predictions these climate "scientists" have made, and the accuracy.
Let's see...

OK I've got one!
After Hurricane Katrina (ya know where they breached the intentionally-weak levees to flood the city and cause a big news event?) Al Gore and the "climate scientists" issued a WORLD PROCLAMATION - a WARNING TO MANKIND:
The "experts" declared:
WE WILL NOW HAVE SEVERAL YEARS OF VERY SEVERE HURRICANES, STARTING NOW!
KATRINA WAS JUST THE BEGINNING!
YOU FOOLISH HUMANS WILL SEE THE ACCURACY OF OUR PREDICTIONS!
YOU WILL SEE HOW STUPID YOU ARE AND HOW SMART WE ARE!
THIS WILL BE A DEMONSTRATION OF OUR VAST UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE.
YOU WILL WITNESS THE MOST SEVERE HURRICANE SEASONS WE HAVE EVER SEEN, OR COULD IMAGINE!
HERE IS WHY: HURRICANES ARE SIMPLY A FUNCTION OF OCEAN TEMPS.
HIGHER WATER TEMPS = MORE HURRICANES!
WATER TEMPS ARE NOW THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN DUE TO "GLOBAL WARMING".
THEREFORE WE ARE 100% CERTAIN THAT THESE SEVERE HURRICANES WILL OCCUR!
THIS IS NOT IN DOUBT.
YOU FOOLISH HUMANOIDS WILL USE THIS AS A DEMONSTRATION OF OUR VAST POWERS OF UNDERSTANDING!
BECAUSE THIS SITUATION IS SO SIMPLE, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE SEVERITY OF THE NEXT FEW HURRICANE SEASONS, USE THIS AS A DEMONSTRATION TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT THAT WE UNDERSTAND CLIMATE!
Result?
The next hurricane season was basically NONEXISTENT.
And since that time there have been almost NO hurricanes for years now.
At most you hear about tropical storms that barely turn into a hurricane, with some warnings, then you hear "It degenerated back down into a tropical storm" etc.
So
The climate scientists announced their own acid test of their accuracy and failed about as badly as they possibly could have failed.
It is only because we humanoids ARE so stupid that we don't, as a group, all acknowledge:
a) the prediction with its attendant result
b) the resulting outcome that the climate scientists were 100% wrong about a subject they said had no doubt, since they understood with 100% certainty exactly what causes hurricanes.

Instead of people accepting the acid test and accepting the results, our mass amnesia allowed us to simply forget all that the "climate scientists" had declared.

I will go a step further:
"Science" is truth and accuracy. The predictions of these "scientists" were 100% wrong, not science, but simply wrong thinking.
Therefore I posit that it is inaccurate to call these people "scientists" or "experts". No, by their own test, the best you can call them is "people who are wrong in their most basic beliefs" or "people who flunked their own foolproof acid test"
or simply
"people who are wrong".
another word might be simply
"liar" or at best "very mistaken".
Doug Selsam
http://www.flyingwindturbine.com

Own area of expertise?
AWE? With no working systems, who is an expert?
Nobody!