Friday Funny – Wind Turbine Flunky

AGW is being used as the wedge to forcing an agenda. As the planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing is negative (clouds in the tropics increase or decrease reflecting more or less sunlight into space thereby resisting forcing changes) as opposed to positive (whereby the planet amplifies forcing changes) the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in the biosphere expanding.
CO2 is not a poison. Commercial greenhouse injected CO2 into the greenhouse at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to reduce growing times and increase yields. Cereal crop yield increases by 30% to 40% with a doubling of a CO2.
The science is settled. CO2 is not the problem. CO2 is not the problem. The world is not at a “tipping” point due to CO2 emissions.
The “extreme” green policies destroy competitiveness, which has and will destroy jobs. The Western governments have reached to the limit of deficit spending. Deficit spending on green scams which do not significantly reduce total CO2 emissions which is not a problem anyway does not create jobs.
The EU is leading the way with the race to economic ruin. Massive unemployment is a problem. The lack of honesty and clarity of why Western countries are failing is a problem. Currency collapse is a problem. Hyper inflation will be a problem.
We need Margaret Thatcher, like honesty, leadership, and change. It is time to vote for change and work for change.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788090700045X
“Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.”
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
“The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.
For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
“On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE…
1)The models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE.
2) The (negative) feedback in ERBE is mostly from SW while the (positive) feedback in
the models is mostly from OLR.”

More like mildly amusing. It seems to hit both political parties a bit. Will appeal more to Ron Paul fans like myself.

In reply to Mike Jowsey.
“it could have been presented in a much less violent way.” It is a cartoon. It appears you to have missed the message.
Have you heard about the so called “green” jobs. The “green” scams are where billions of dollars of subsidies – deficit government spending – are used to produce power at three to four times the cost of conventional power. If the carbon inputs to the construct the “green” scams are included and the wasted energy required to turn power plants on and off, when the wind does and does not blow and the sun does and does not shine are included the “green” scams do not even reduce total CO2 emissions.
That is madness, insanity. The EU is facing economic collapse if they do not stop the ‘green” madness. There are a group in the US who leading us off the same cliff that the Europeans appear about to fall off of.
It is time to wake up. The crisis is not AGW, it is a complete lack of economic competitiveness in part due to the “green” scams and the EPA efforts to increase the cost of all energy in the US.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/q-cells-bankruptcy-heralds-end-of-german-solar-cell-industry-a-825490.html
“Twilight of an Industry Bankruptcies Have German Solar on the Ropes
By Stefan Schultz
German solar panel manufacturer Q-Cells filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday.
It wasn’t so long ago that people viewed Q-Cells as an energy company of the future. At one point, it was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar cells and quarter after quarter, it topped analysts’ expectations. The company proved to be a money-making machine even during the financial crisis, with some believing it might one day grow to become part of Germany’s DAX index of benchmark companies on the stock exchange.
But Q-Cells’ insolvency also comes as a great shock to the Germany’s solar industry. It is already the fourth major bankruptcy in a sector in crisis, and it underscores the degree to which German solar firms are being outpaced by competition from Asia — despite billions in German government subsidies granted each year to the industry. And despite solar energy gradually becoming more competitive, the setbacks are rapidly mounting.
In March 2012, Freiburg-based Scheuten Solar, the firm that presented what was the world’s largest solar module at the time eight years ago, declared bankruptcy. The same month, power plant producer Solarhybrid and the Frankfurt an der Oder-based Odersun, which had been prestige projects supported by political leaders in the eastern state of Brandenburg, also filed for insolvency proceedings. Other bankruptcies are likely to follow.
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=4055
With feed-in tariffs for solar energy of on average EUR 0.31/ kWh, well above the spot market price for electricity of roughly 5 ct/kWh, solar installations have boomed in Germany. Some experts are expecting between 6 and 8 GW of new PV capacity in Germany this year. In July, the Federal Network Agency expected German additional installed photovoltaic capacity to exceed 3 GW. The additional capacity for the remainder of 2010 is particularly difficult to predict due to the recent July and the upcoming October reduction in solar feed-in tariffs.
Under the EEG, grid operators can pass on the feed-in costs to consumers. In view the current solar expansion rate, experts fear that reallocation fee will rise from currently 2.05 to 4 ct/kWh. 50% of these extra costs would be due to solar power, even though solar contributes only 3.5% to the electricity generation.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2012-05/02/c_131564607.htm
OPENHAGEN, May 2 (Xinhua) — Danish wind-turbine manufacturer Vestas posted a net loss of 162 million euros (212.8 million U.S. dollars) in the first quarter this year, it was reported on Wednesday.
Losses before interest and taxes rose to 245 million euros in the first quarter, up from losses of 69 million euros in the same period last year, the company said in a press statement.
First quarter revenue was 1.1 billion euros, up from 1.06 billion euros year-on-year, it added.
According to Danish financial newspaper Boersen, analysts expected the company to make a first-quarter 2012 loss of around 52 million euros. Vestas said revenues were hit by fewer deliveries, high turbine production costs and restructuring costs.
“There’s no question Q1 was disappointing in terms of revenues and earnings,” Vestas CEO Ditlev Engel said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/us-solar-firm-solyndra-_n_949929.html
(Reuters) – Solyndra LLC, a solar panel maker which had earlier received $535 million in federal loan guarantees, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection early on Tuesday, making it the third U.S. solar firm to succumb to pressure from lower-cost Chinese rivals.

Jim says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:49 am
Anthony, all of your hard work and NCDC proved climate change yesterday. “Each of the 12 months from June 2011 through May 2012 ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 531,441.” Since the probability of this occurring is so low, we can essentially eliminate the possibility of chance (i.e. nature) and presume that it was caused by climate change.

Jim, in the year and a half or so that I’ve been looking at this site, I can recall only one or two posters who have claimed that there is no recent temperature trend over the last 200 years or so. The vast majority of us understand that climate changes; it gets colder and warmer. Since we’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age, no one should be astonished that recent temperatures as a whole are warmer today than they were a hundred years ago. It’s your lot that seem to think that the temperature should never change. Like climate Panglossians, you believe that “today’s climate is the best of all possible climates” (apologies to Voltaire). The crux is not that the climate is changing, but why. Since we know that temperatures have gone up and down in the past without the assisstance of human action, it is not unreasonable to expect they will continue to do so. Your burden is to prove that now is different from then. So far, no dice. Models where you choose, not measure, the CO2 forcing and then assign, not measure, all the feedbacks to get back to the CO2 forcing you started with are most unimpressive.

It was so terrific! Oh, wait. I meant soporific. Zzzzzzz.