Sunday, December 16, 2012

CO2 not a major climate warming gas.



 
Glacial ages tell us that during all four prior interglacial periods, CO2 never rose above or was around 290 ppm. This means we went from warming to cooling while CO2 concentration remained @290ppm.How did the earth get 4 interglacial periods while CO2 remain the same? We should be able to detect a rise in CO2 and then a warming period, a drop in CO2 and a cooling period, if CO2 is like we are being told a direct Global warming Climate driver, these warming and cooling periods should not have happened and the Earth's Climate should have remained the same.  Both the MEDIAVAL WARM PRERIOD and the LITTLE ICE AGE happened while CO2 was rising. Again, how can we explain the LITTLE ICE AGE if rising CO2 is supposed to cause the earth temperature to warm NOT DROP? This suggest to me  that CO2 alone cannot be a major source of Global Climate change and a multitudes of other factors are missing .Climate modelers for some reason or another have  ignored these DATA and programmed their models to show: “ a rise in CO2 cause warming .”  Today we have CO2 still on the rise and yet we have not had a rise in Global temperature in 16 years! And am I NOT supposed to question the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming?
 The entire theory of Anthropogenic Global warming or Climate Change is based on a life giving Trace gas being a danger to all life on this planet....Basically we are  being  re-educated to believe 2+2=5 and they have their pre-programmed computer models to back them up.

Friday, November 2, 2012

EARTH HOUR

Those poor Eastern US states hit by Sandy are experiencing a true Earth day .A week plus long living in the dark,cold,no gas ,water, electricity ,transportation, no food ,a Week Plus of No carbon emission. Is this not what  those enviro nuts are asking from our society?  ... well there you go Zero Human Carbon Emission. How do they like the EARTH HOUR  now?

Friday, September 28, 2012

wind farms

http://www.thegwpf.org/gordon-hughes-response-to-goodall-lynas/

Saturday, July 28, 2012

A real scientist VS The Unrealists

People like Herb Nakada and a lot of Indoctrinating School teachers should stop their idiotic religious belief in AGW and pay attention to Scientist Like Dyson.  

Here

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Robert Wenzel Delivered at the New York Federal Reserve Bank


In present day America, the government focus has changed a bit. In the new focus, the government  attempts much more to prop up the unemployed by extended payments for not working. Is it really a surprise that unemployment is so high when you pay people not to work.? The 2010 Nobel Prize was awarded to economists for their studies which showed that, and I quote from the Nobel press release announcing the award:
One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.[2]


here

Friday, May 11, 2012

Charity Behaving Uncharitably



I wonder how much of this money is going to the Friends of the Nemaiah valley and then funnelled back to the anti-prosperity natives.  After all The Tides Foundation is listed on their web site.


here

here

 http://fonv.ca/aboutus/oursupporters/

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Angry penguin

Pete the penguin confided to this reporter, "It has gotten so we can't eat, drop a load, or even fool around with the missus without some yahoo taking a picture of the details, and we are sick of it. Penguins have rights, too, you know. They call themselves scientists, but all they are is a bunch of peeping Toms."


here

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Why The U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared.

Global warming in the coming years will foster trauma, depression, violence, alienation, substance abuse, suicide, psychotic episodes, post traumatic stress disorder and many other mental health-related conditions.


here

Sunday, March 25, 2012

The Green crucifix


The Environmental religion also has it's own crucifix.

le Crucifie vert


Le crucifie vert

Comme toute les autre religions les Ɖcologistes ont aussi leur Crucifie.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Climate war ..It’s round thirteen

This disparity in the initial reaction is easy to account for. The punishment taken by the skeptics in the early years of the climate wars, had not destroyed them but instead produced a breed of hardy veterans, who dealt in cold realities, rather than hoped for illusions. The real difference between a veteran and an inexperienced soldier, is the former are careful while the latter are fearless.








here

Sunday, March 4, 2012

America’s Energy Potential, Circa 2012 A. US Petroleum

Despite Obama’s desires to shut down America’s largest single source of electricity, coal—and watch oil prices spike to European levels, the US energy sector is rounding into splendid shape. Consider just a few of our states:

1 Texas
Consider the state of US oil supply and discoveries. Just in Texas, production is exploding, with a Feb. 26, 2012 article stating,

The Permian Basin of West Texas is experiencing an oil boom. Production will double within 5-7 years, averaging last year a million barrels per day for the first time since 2001. “Right in the basin, we could get up to 2 million barrels a day,” Jim Henry of Midland-based Henry Resources claims. “We have 30 billion barrels of new oil discoveries,” said Tim Leach, chairman and CEO of Midland-based Concho Resources.

In southern Texas, the Eagle Ford play is booming. Says another author on Feb. 27, 2012,

A similar boom is under way in the Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas. “I could paint a scenario for you where we are producing 3 million more barrels per day by 2016, which would almost get us to the point where we could eliminate 60 to 70 percent of our OPEC imports,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman.

Of course, there are other Texas oil producing areas.

2. Montana & Dakotas
Bigger than Texas—Montana and the Dakotas boast a giant petroleum field called the Bakken. On expert claimed this field holds more than 500 billon barrels. Writes one author recently on the Bakken,

Oil production in North Dakota exceeded an all-time high last month, a record of 535,036 barrels a day in December. The Bakken Shale, which extends south from Canada into North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana, is the largest contiguous oil deposit in the continental U.S. (this will double the next decade).

3. California
The US government recently announced the shale of So CA could have more oil than the Bakken formation. (For all of USA, please see EIA US Review of Emerging Resources: US Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays, July 2011 {105 pages pdf}). Writes one author,

The California Monterey/Santos oil field has estimated 4 times the technically recoverable oil as Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota, an estimated 500 billion barrels. Bakken oil field estimates range from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels. Harold Hamm (billionaire owner of Continental oil) estimates Bakken will produce six times (24 billion barrels) the oil of the EIA estimate.

4. Alaska
And don’t forget Alaska, which according to this article:

Alaska’s North Slope may hold as much as 2 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest U.S. deposit of unconventional crude, and 80 trillion cubic feet of gas, the fourth-largest gas-shale deposit, the U.S. Geological Survey said today.

With only 4 states examined, much oil rich country is ignored—like the recent 1.5 billion barrel find in Colorado. Overall, American oil reserves, which also include much undiscovered in areas which ban drilling, like most coastal regions, is absolutely massive. Says one headline: USA has 7-9 trillion barrels of oil—possibly over 1 trillion barrels recoverable.

B. Natural Gas

It would be tedious to cover all the massive new natural gas deposits discovered in the last few years in America. Suffice it to say that one author titled an article: The Dawn of the Natural Gas Era. Another claims America has 500 years of gas with present reserves. Writes petroleum expert Daniel Yergin,

The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas—more specifically what is called “unconventional” natural gas. Some call it a revolution. Yet the natural gas revolution has unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In 1990, unconventional gas—from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called “tight” formations—was about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far the biggest part.

States another source,

America has become, in the eyes of energy professionals, the Saudia Arabia of natural gas thanks to shale gas. The DOE estimates that shale gas reserves alone are 750 trillion cubic feet. Combined with other domestic sources of natural gas, the United States has enough natural gas to last for over a century, and the numbers continue to climb.

Ellesmere Ice Shelf

Late last year and early this year, various news stories reported the demise of the Ayles Ice Shelf, Ellesmere Island. On Dec. 29, 2006, National Geographic reported Giant Ice Shelf Breaks Off in Canadian Arctic and on Jan 4, 2007, CNN reported the story. The catastrophe actually occurred in August 2005, but no one noticed reported it until 16 months later.

From the story:

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada’s remote north. Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers) ..

The event registered as a small earthquake on instruments stationed 150 miles (250 kilometers) away, Warwick Vincent of Quebec’s Laval University told the CanWest News Service.

The Washington Post reported the story here showing the following picture from NASA. The Ayles ice shelf is visible in the center of the photograph at the lower part of the open water. They reported:

Within days of breaking free, the Ayles Ice Shelf drifted about 30 miles offshore before freezing into the sea ice.

A specialist scientist (Vincent) said that such an event was unprecedented in the tennnnnnnnnn years that he had been studying the area.

Interestingly, Hattersley-Smith 1967 (Arctic Circular 17, 13-14 noted up in Jeffries 1986) had previously observed that the Ayles Ice Shelf no longer existed. Jeffries 1986:

here

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Forget global warming

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: here

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Exposure of global warming deception goes viral

take a look at the views of some of the experts, including a few candid assessments by die-hard True Believers, who reveal just how little evidence exists to keep alive the theoretical Global Warming Godzilla that lumbered onto the scene in the late 1980s.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

CLIMATEGATE II

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Roger Harrabin received money from EAU

The investigators said some of the breaches involved direct conflicts of interests – with the funders being the subjects of the programmes they were paying for – and that others failed to observe BBC rules on telling viewers where the programme budget had come from.

Wind farms are useless

A subsidized industry cannot make profit.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Scientific heresy

Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.

Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.

Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.

Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.

Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.

Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience.

Are you with me so far?

Matt Ridley

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The Delinquent Teenager

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert
By Donna Laframboise



The book elucidates how the panel’s much-vaunted “peer review” amounts to a “circular, incestuous process. Scientists make decisions as journal editors about what qualifies as peer-reviewed literature. They then cite the same papers they themselves played midwife to while serving as IPCC authors.” IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri�s claim that all the “Climate Bible’s” science is peer reviewed is, in any case, bunk. With a body of volunteers, Ms. Laframboise went through the 2007 report and found that more than 5,000 references - over a third - were from less-than-reliable sources. The most egregious such “grey” reference led to the claim that the Himalayan glaciers were to disappear by 2035. This terrifying assertion was traced back to the top of a non-expert’s head.

more

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Solar energy fiasco.

As failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra rides through the investigative ringer in Congress, revelations of another politically-connected company that received what appears to be a less-than-virtuous $1.2 billion loan guarantee are surfacing. The company, SunPower, received its $1.2 billion loan guarantee in September, immediately before the program’s deadline. SunPower isn’t as financially sound as the public was led to believe when it secured a loan guarantee twice the size of Solyndra’s $535 million loan. Just this week — less than a month after taxpayers landed on the hook for SunPower’s $1.2 billion loan guarantee —
read more here

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The Green money pit

Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) released a report on the amount of money that has been spent in the fight over Transcanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline, which would run 1,700 miles from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, is opposed by environmentalists.

Unfortunately, CRP’s report portrays the fight as a battle between “Big Oil” and poor little environmental activist groups. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

The report quotes Eddie Scher, the senior communications strategist for the Sierra Club. Scher complains that environmental groups can’t compete with the “literally unlimited resources” of energy companies.

“There’s no question we’re up against big numbers of campaign dollars,” he said. “We’re up against the cream of the crop when it comes to K Street lobbyists. But we believe even well-financed insanity is trumped by democracy.”

But the Sierra Club - like other major environmental groups - is by no means poor. At the end of 2009, it had more than $170 million in assets between its activist wing and its education foundation. The Nature Conservancy ended last year with $5.65 billion in assets, after taking in $210.5 million in revenue. The World Wildlife Fund had $377.5 million in assets as of June 2010, after scraping together $177.7 million for the fiscal year. And the National Audubon Society had $305.9 million stashed away at the end of last year. The Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and almost every other national “green” group you’ve ever heard of are similarly “impoverished.”

And then there are the foundations - dozens if not hundreds of them - that finance environmental activism. Among their benefactors: the Energy Foundation ($68.6 million in assets), the Joyce Foundation ($773.6 million), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($729 million), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ($6.8 billion), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($5.7 billion), and Heinz Endowments ($1.2 billion).

Scher’s Sierra Club might not spend as much money on lobbying as energy companies do, but that’s by choice. The part of the Sierra Club that is organized under the 501(c)(4) section of the tax code - in other words, the part of the organization that isn’t limited by lobbying restrictions - had nearly $49 million in assets at its disposal at the end of 2009. According to its 2009 tax return, the group spent about $4.9 million on “lobbying and political expenditures.” Only $480,000 of that money was spent at the federal level. The other $4.4 million was spent lobbying at the state level or on political activities like advertisements.

But that’s because the Sierra Club has made a strategic decision to focus more on litigation than on lobbying. The group files, on average, one lawsuit per week.

Other groups with as much financial might, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, make similar tactical decisions about litigation, lobbying, and other activities. In fact, litigation involves more bullying than lobbying does. There are few things worse in life than dealing with lawsuits.

It’s time for the people at these well-heeled environmental groups to stop whining about how they “can’t compete” with energy companies.


Monday, October 10, 2011

new Orleans levees

We keep hearing "It is Was George Bush and the republicans" who blocked the levee construction in New Orleans. Think Again.
"My feeling was that saving human lives was more important than saving a percentage of shrimp and crab in Lake Pontchartrain," Towers told the Times. "I told my staff at the time that this judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a little dramatic."


read more here

Friday, October 7, 2011

The voice of science: let's agree to disagree

Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.”

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Carbon credit Uganda style

But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.  HERE

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Gore effect on Climate Parody Day

So there is nothing unusual about the weather and the behavior of the atmosphere on September 14th, 2011, in comparison with any similar late Summer date in the recent centuries. Still, there exist people on this world who have the stomach to talk for 24 hours – and address their speech to 7 billion people (even though only dozens will listen) – and say that the Earth is nearly dying in their struggle to earn the first billion of dollars coming purely out of malicious libels attacking carbon, the key element of all of life.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

FA launches ‘Let’s Kick Climate Change Denial Out of Football’ campaign

‘There is absolutely no place for this type of bigotry in the modern game,’ said Barry Jones, the FA’s new climate change guru and leading light in the zero-tolerance community. ‘We’ve come a long way since the days when it was considered acceptable for players and fans to joke about holes in the ozone layer and melting ice caps, but now we need to stamp it out for good.’

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Global Cooling?

Listen to Joe Bastardi on the right of the screen.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

scientists would not lie

Yea Sure Big Al and what is next? You did not became the first environmental Billionaire?

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

NOAA's Climate Office.

this is a must read. The current upper echelons of NOAA are remorseless eco-zealots. They are not public servants in that they feel no need to answer to the American people. They have their truth, and it shall be the truth for all, or else. Congress must stick to their guns and not allow this callous cabal to reorganize before the 2012 election.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle..by Judith Curry

Anna Haynes (sourcewatch) latest antics:

For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability. Her questions have insinuated that two former employees of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had suffered previous heart attacks.) This woman has similarly attacked other people and organizations that express views on climate change that she disagrees with. Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to the effort.

Wood closes with the following text:

The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.

The hardball approach of his defenders is in large part a reflex of this loss of prestige and authority. The proponents of AGW, however, have chosen a very foolish tactic. Bullying skeptics and sneering at those who raise questions is no way to regain public trust.

The sharp practices of the warmists also damage the tenor of academic, scientific, and public debate. Frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, mobbing are not the flying buttresses of modern science. They are the rot that undermines the intellectual authority of science. Can you trust anything said by someone who engages in such tactics?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Friday, June 17, 2011

UN climate talks will collapse without EU leadership, thinktank warns

"Copenhagen and CancĆŗn summits." Here
Both were failures .
here

what if it was Exxon-Mobil?

Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre discovered earlier this week that the IPCC’s recent report on alternative energy — which asserted that it was possible to convert the world to 80% green energy by 2050 if politicians would simply tax conventional sources and spend billions on alternative sources — was lifted largely from Greenpeace reports.

The lead author of the IPCC report turns out to be Sven Teske, a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, who the IPCC does not identify as such in either the report or its media releases. Mr. Teske is also the author of much of the Greenpeace material on which the IPCC report is based, in effect making him a peer reviewer of the validity of his own material.NP
here

Friday, May 20, 2011

NAS Climate Panel Fails The Laugh Test

May 18, 2011

By James Taylor, Forbes

Three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar and start talking global warming with a dozen people who have no formal education in climate science. Sound like the beginning of a bad joke? Actually, it’s not. It’s what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would have us believe is an expert, objective, scientifically authoritative panel qualified to produce its latest report, America’s Climate Choices.

America’s Climate Choices asserts that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change that poses significant risks to human welfare and the environment. The report asserts we need to act now to fend off future harms.

Environmental activist groups and their media allies have had a field day claiming America�s Climate Choices is an unquestionably objective and expert report providing irrefutable proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

USA Today, for example, claimed the report was authored by “the nation�s pre-eminent scientific advisory group” and said the report “leave[s] the deniers in the same position as the ‘birthers’” who challenge President Obama’s reported birthplace.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post referred to the report as “the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group” and says “climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”

These are very strong assertions. Let’s see if the facts back them up.

Only 23 people served on the panel. This is hardly sufficient to form a �scientific consensus.�

Of the 23 panelists, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science. That’s less than 22%.

Five of the 23 panelists are or were staffers for environmental activist organizations. That means there are as many professional environmental activists on the panel as there are persons with climate-related science degrees.

Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 made statements claiming global warming is a human induced problem and/or we need to take action to reduce carbon dioxide restrictions. That means 83% of the panel was clearly and obviously biased before being selected.

Two of the panelists are or were politicians.

One of the panelists was appointed by the Clinton administration as general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency.

To claim that a report from such a small panel, comprised primarily of non-climate scientists and environmental activists, is objective and scientifically authoritative is a joke. The fact that 19 of the 23 panelists were clearly biased before even writing the report makes the report an even bigger joke. The only thing missing from such an “expert” and “objective” panel is the presence of Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.”

When environmental activists lament the fact that public opinion has turned so forcefully against global warming alarmism, they need only look in the mirror to find the answer. You can’t trot out staffers from Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and other environmental activist groups and claim this is authoritative, objective science. And if you are going to issue a global warming report and claim it is from impeccably qualified scientific sources, at least a quarter of the report’s authors should be climate scientists.

Environmental activists and their media allies repeatedly point out that America’s Climate Choices is a National Academy of Sciences publication. Rather than provide credibility for the panel of activists and non-climate scientists, the involvement of NAS merely illustrates how far away from quality, objective science NAS has travelled when the topic is a political one as well as scientific one. The fact that NAS chose to publish the report in no way changes the fact that the report was written by a very small panel of environmental activists and non-climate scientists. All the Washington Post and USA Today editorials in the world cannot change the fact that the NAS panel is about as close to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on climate science as Donald Trump is to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on the accuracy of President Obama’s birth claims.

Indeed, when three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar to discuss global warming with non-climate scientists, the duck is most objective, qualified source in the room. Too bad the duck was the only entity left off the NAS panel.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Marc Morano has compiled some links here.http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11086/Climate-Depots-Round-up-on-National-Research-Councils-media-hyped-political-science-scare-report

Repulsive: National Research Council Chaired by Corrupted Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill rcicerone@nas.edu

Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’

Thursday, May 12, 2011

The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science

They also know how to do it. They want to organize the CO2 emissions reduction by means of directives (or commands) issued by the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO2 emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Dr Igor Polyakov (University of Alaska) for the period 1860-2005.

These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.
This data set shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary “The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau CIRCA 1922)”.Study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2. These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.(Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011)

Friday, May 6, 2011

Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years

The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising, and caused by three major factors:

1. a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
2. the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
3. funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Report Questions Wind Power’s Ability to Deliver Electricity When Most Needed

1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.

3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.