Letter: Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings

Letter to the Editor |

Climateers keep trumpeting alarms that glaciers and ice sheets are melting, thus threatening land-based life with rising seas and supporting their dubious claims that Earth faces catastrophic global warming.

Life on earth cannot be extinguished by a sun-warmed atmosphere or retreating ice – sea levels merely rise steadily as land-based ice melts, animals and plants migrate and the slowly warming seas expel carbon dioxide. This allows the biosphere to thrive with more ice-free land in a benign, warmer, wetter, carbon-rich world.

The threats we should fear are the periodic violent eras of volcanism and the life-killing ice ages many of which start with massive snow/hail storms such as the one that suddenly extinguished the mammoths. This is why many ancient peoples celebrated the warmth of spring and worshipped the Sun God.

For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims that a tiny trace of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming. In the continuing drama of natural climate change, global temperatures are the result of far greater forces. Climate research should focus more on the cycles of the sun and solar system and their effect on global climate and on the periodic eruptions along our vast sub-marine volcanic belts. These control the ebb and flow of ice ages and most of the many extinction events that Earth has suffered.

Most geological eras have ended with massive volcanism on land and in the long volcanic/tectonic rifts beneath the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic Oceans. Outpouring of lava under the seas causes ocean warming and increased evaporation while the dust from land-based volcanoes darkens the skies, creating a frigid atmosphere. Warms seas and cold skies cause heavy precipitation of rain, hail and snow. The increased snow cover then reflects any solar energy that gets through the volcanic dust, thus maintaining surface cooling. That is how the life-killing ice sheets grow.

Atmospheric modellers have dominated the climate debate for too long. It is time to ask well-informed geologists about Earth’s ever-changing climate history which is written indelibly in the rocks. Instead of wasting billions on bigger computers for yet more atmospheric models, let’s do some factual research on volcanoes beneath the oceans. Then ask some astro-physicists about the possible influence of solar cycles, sunspots, cosmic rays, cloud formation, earth magnetism, rogue asteroids and movements of the solar system through the galaxy.

To believe mankind can counter the effect of these powerful natural climate controllers by trading carbon credits and capturing a few sea breezes and sunbeams using green energy toys is indeed a sad sign of the modern climate madness.

Viv Forbes,
Rosewood   Qld   Australia
http://carbon-sense.com

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “Letter: Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings

  1. Tosh on steroids.

    “Life on earth cannot be extinguished by a sun-warmed atmosphere or retreating ice”

    Of course not – until the Sun reaches old age – then we will fry.

    “For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims that a tiny trace of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming”

    OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere. No change presumably. The author like all humans has traces of metals vital to life. Take them out and see what happens or add a bit more and see what happens. Low concentration does not = no consequence. To believe that is scientifically pig ignorant.

    “To believe mankind can counter the effect of these powerful natural climate controllers by trading carbon credits and capturing a few sea breezes and sunbeams using green energy toys is indeed a sad sign of the modern climate madness.”

    Yep those stupid countries investing in green energy toys that don’t work – except in the countries where they do work and those toys are now producing very significant amounts of electricity.

    The geological and astro threats the author refers to we can do little or nothing about. We can do something about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That skeptics want to take the risk of doing nothing about it is their choice.

    • No, those toys are doing nothing other than help gullible, deluded fools feel happy about wasting their money.

      Skeptics are taking no “risks” with climate. We’re trying to convince you that you need the COURAGE to stop trying to fix a non-problem.

      • The “gullible, deluded fools” who flog the uneconomic green toys are waxing fat on the forced subsidies coerced from voiceless taxpayers many of whom are already living in a state of energy poverty.

    • Another good article/letter! Thanks for posting.

      James Abbott writes:

      Of course not – until the Sun reaches old age – then we will fry.

      We’re not discussing billions of years from now, we are discussing “climate change”. Stop fabricating new arguments.

      Next, Abbott says:

      OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere. No change presumably.

      That conclusion shows that Mr Abbott simply doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. CO2 has risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000, over ≈150 years. But global warming has stopped. That pretty much debunks Abbott’s climate alarmism, no?

      Next:

      Yep those stupid countries investing in green energy toys that don’t work – except in the countries where they do work and those toys are now producing very significant amounts of electricity.

      We have heard this dopey argument incessantly, but it always ignores payback: how much did it cost to add a little bit of unreliable power? $Billions? It certainly was not worth the cost, for the tiny benefit. And yes, those are stupid countries.

      And:

      The geological and astro threats the author refers to we can do little or nothing about. We can do something about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      As usual, Abbott has it completely backward: no one is going to get China, Africa, Russia, India, and a hundred smaller countries/continents to stop emitting CO2. But we can deal with other threats. Always have, always will. And if we can’t, it is still not nearly so stupid as trying to bury CO2.

      • Maybe James Abbott should be told what would have happened if CO2 levels had dropped from 3 PPM to 2 PPM, and if James could let us know what is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere ?

      • I am sad for Mr. Abbott. It would be very difficult for someone to admit they had purchased swampland in Florida. Better to ignore all the posts that completely undermine ones worldview.

      • Please explain the Roman warm period, the Minoan and MWP. What started these warming era’s and what explanation can you give for these warming periods to end?

      • CO2 isn’t a threat to our World and a real rise will not cause warmer climate. So far so good.
        But
        you have been mislead. That conclusion shows that Mr Abbott simply doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. CO2 has risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000, over ≈150 years. is a false statement.

        You never ever can compare figures of CO2 from a place close to a Vulcano or within 1000 kilometer from an active/silent or dead vulcano, or for that matter within 1000 kilometer from where tectonic plates collide and or moves from an other no matter the result of a collision is that one plate “goes over” the other or that the plates really crash.
        Reason for this is:
        * Vulcanos will “breath” out CO2 from start for ever on. The amount always depends on the force within the vulcano.
        * The instruments placed on or close to vulcan/vulcanos are made for instant warning of changes under surface in the vulcan in order to be able to know when next eruption will happen and the instruments are set to react so quickly that it’s possible to have less than 10 hours warning (hope for 48 hours).

        * There never been a possibility to “correct” figures meassured – that’s fiction in Theories of Science as is
        * using icecore to present CO2 in past.

        The later is a “science” but compared to dendrocronology it isn’t. Ice cores has limitation due to water cycle. First of all All form of water tries to reach the lowest point that’s simple due to the gravitation. But in an icecore you also will find different density and that is something else.
        Density in ice depends on three major factors: Saltination, polution in air when snow fell AND erosion in the area where the snow fell becoming ice.

        Erosion in Arctic can be of three major types:
        Winderosion,
        Temperature erosion,
        Erosion from when open water during summer season is melting between thicker ice.

        On top of that:
        In Arctic where most of the ice cores outside Greenland are taken, there never ever been any single point, GPS or what ever, where same Ice been staying over longer periods. Ice sheet in Arctic is drifting around the North pole area. Complex question to explain but please look at THE FIRST FRAM EXPEDITION (1893-1896) Nansen expedition please take some time looking at the map of ice drifting.

        As for CO2 figures correct measured and so on – there has never been a rising of 3, but a up and down plus minus 4 in 100000 not even in 10000 and what’s even more intriguing is the simple fact that the 5th decimal in what’s usually presented as 0,04 % never ever has reach a point where it changed 4th decimal…. what’s been told is a lie.

        So CO2 figures around world in atmosphere actually hasn’t rised the last 300 years if we look at it with four decimals after 0,
        And CO2 changes never ever will be able without an amount of big vulcano eruptions leading up to warmer climate on earth.

        There are many other factors involved – such as the figures from ice core taken on Greenland not even have been analysed correctly. Neither water’s and ice’s natural force to reach lowest point nor any kind of erosion nor actual correct figures of CO2 in the past that can be calculated from artifacts found that came in permafrost period 1341-1435 from 1990’s out of permafrost to be excavated by archaeologists.

        Facts (not Fiction)
        Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997, page 40

        Guess it’s time to present real history of the past. Most of you don’t know that between early 1020’s up to close to 1400 AD Greenland among other things exported BUTTER and hard CHEESE to Europe. Nor are you probably aware of the fact that farms on Greenland in those days could have up to 70 boxes for livestock in a stable or that for a shorter period Greenland exported apples…. All to be found in still existing Harbor documents and in Norwegian or Danish parchements called Diplomatarium
        for more information please read: Garden under Sandet – a Greenland farm rising from 670 years permafrost

      • Nora when talking about CO2 measured in parts per million (ppm) 1 million ppm =1 or 1,000,000ppm. 0.10=1\100,000 and 0.01ppm= 1\10,000 so 0.04 =4\10,000. If you take 10,000 grains of rice and laid them in rows, they would fill an 11×17 sheet of paper. If you then Color 4 of those grains green you would have a depiction of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you then took one of those green grains and cut it into 12 equal pieces, one of those pieces would be man’s contribution through fossil fuel consumption?

      • ” Most of you don’t know that between early 1020’s up to close to 1400 AD Greenland among other things exported BUTTER and hard CHEESE to Europe. Nor are you probably aware of the fact that farms on Greenland in those days could have up to 70 boxes for livestock in a stable or that for a shorter period Greenland exported apples”

        References please. I’m familiar with medieval references to Greenland (very few in Diplomatarium Norvegicum and Diplomatarium Danicum by the way) and just about the only exports mentioned is walrus ivory and polar bear pelts.
        And it should be mentioned that the one and only medieval farm in Greenland with 70 cattle stalls is the Bishop’s manor at Gardhar, by far the largest in Greenland.
        And there is as far as I know no references to Greenland apples. There is mention of small-scale cultivation of barley during the 13th century, which has recently been archaeologically confirmed, and which does require a considerably warmer climate than at present.

        Anyone interested in the literary sources on the Norse in Greenland should refer to “Grönlands historiske mindesmaerker” (Copenhagen 1838) which is available online (there is a more up-to-date edition, but it is not available online, and is in icelandic only).

    • We can do something about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Do you really believe this nonsense? I suppose if we all drink cyanide (the entire human race) then perhaps that will have a small impact on the amount (390 parts per million, hardly a concentration) of atmospheric CO2, but really only a small impact. Maybe 50 ppm reduction over the next 50 years. But is it really worth the cost?

      On the other hand, our planet’s atmosphere has had, for most of the past billion years, over 1500 ppm CO2 and life thrived. We are currently living through one of the harshest periods short of the ice ages to ever torture our beloved biosphere. Yet you want to make it even worse!

      More CO2! More plant growth! Warmer temperatures!

      • More CO2! More plant growth! Warmer temperatures!
        And a Hard-Boiled Egg !!

        Uhh sorry – reading Pratchett, got carried away :)

    • “We can do something about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere”

      It is arguable that we can do anything about CO2 but, first, why try at all?

      Please provide a rational response to this question while explicitly taking into account that every catastrophic prediction so far has been proven utterly mistaken.

      • Exactly right Brute. I would also hazard an accurate prediction that the Earth will create whatever levels of CO2 it wants, governed by tectonic/volcanic, solar, Milankovitch and oceanic, whether Man is around or not.

    • Yep those stupid countries investing in green energy toys that don’t work – except in the countries where they do work and those toys are now producing very significant amounts of electricity.

      Don’t stop there, give us a for instance, Spain? massive unemployment and expensive power. California? watching their industries moving eastward to Texas. England? soaring power prices and the blight of these monstrous towers everywhere you look. Germany? reverting to brown coal. France? nope, they refused to get sucked in and stuck to nuclear. Japan don’t make me laugh, Australia? the only viable green power is hydro and The Greens put a stop to that.
      Do us all a favour and stick to your green power, and your principles, and refuse to use electricity at night and when the wind doesn’t blow.

    • the comment of an ingrate, an ignorant person and a blowhard…tell you what…remove the “tiny trace” from the atmosphere…what happens? photosynthesis grinds to a halt, and animal life on this planet perishes…
      in really short order, like a month or two.
      why dontcha learn about photosynthesis, before you clog this thread up with your BS.

    • Crippling our economies and making energy far more expensive and far less reliable is “riskier” than letting CO2 increase. Trying to control CO2 levels (and no guarantee we can) is not a painless endeavor. For what return?

      I look around and it seems we have a pretty darn nice climate right now. Getting a degree or two warmer might be nicer still. Happier plants too.

    • OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere.
      ===================
      All plant and animal life on earth will go extinct. Yet the EPA and UN label CO2 as “carbon pollution”. Bureaucracy run wild. Current day Climate V’Gers, seeking to exterminate the carbon based life-forms infesting planet earth.

      Because in the end human beings are the cause of carbon pollution. The logical solution is to eliminate human beings, and thus stop the carbon pollution at its source. The Rules are Bureaucracy’s God.

      • You have to wonder why the never-ending stream of green movement press releases are hell-bent on demonising efficient, affordable energy sources. All based on the discredited computer – projections of a politically-created ‘scientific’ entity. Phrases like: “Dirty and dangerous nuclear”, “Hydro power with its lurking methane time bomb”, “Shale gas ‘worse than coal’.”

        It doesn’t add up. There’s just got to be an agenda somewhere and it may just involve eliminating those CO2 exhalers who are ‘excess to requirements.’

    • ok then you do your part in reducing a beneficial gas… I’ll liberate your share for you.
      Go somewhere where people are gullible . By the way,without subsidies,there is not a single wind generator making a profit. All those countries your talking about? Can you name one?

    • Well those countries are not investing in anything. They are taxing their citizens to death to pay for these systems, which actually provide very little energy compared to what we need.

      Yes some of those toys can provide electricity to remote communities, that can improve their lives. But in the developed world, we have already paid for energy research that is providing for our need, and could do so even better, if governments would simply get out of the way.

      When renewables can pay for themselves, so that private investors will invest THEIR OWN money in them, then it may make some sense. First you have to overcome the sun’s reluctance to provide us with energy at a high enough power density to make it worth while gathering it.

    • I hate to pile in on James Abbott but every single one of his assertions is either wrong or waving red herrings. To take just one example he says:

      OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere. No change presumably. The author like all humans has traces of metals vital to life. Take them out and see what happens or add a bit more and see what happens. Low concentration does not = no consequence. To believe that is scientifically pig ignorant.

      This is misdirection. The effect of Co2 from zero and upwards in the atmosphere is logarithmic not linear.
      References:Skeptical Science / IPCC [pdf]

      The Vostok ice-cores show that over geologic time co2 rise follows temperature rise. Bear this in mind and read the following.
      Abstract
      Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
      Kathy J. Willis et al
      4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
      How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
      DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833

      • Peter Abbott, don’t worry, be happy.

        IPCC
        “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
        http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
        ————————–

        Sir John Houghton
        Atmospheric physicist
        Lead editor of first three IPCC reports
        There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”

        [Full paper paywalled]
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02

    • Hamster wheels can generate electricity. means nothing. Of course windmills and solar panels work. The real question is are they effective, efficient and 24/7 and grid friendly. The answer is no.

    • James Abbott.

      You will have to be patient to get any direct responses to the points you raised. Expect a couple of dozen “straw man” arguments first. The letter to the editor is a Gish Gallop.

    • James Abbott wrote: “except in the countries where they do work and those toys are now producing very significant amounts of electricity.”
      Let me fix that sentence for you.
      …except in the countries where they do work, intermittently and those toys are now intermittently producing very significant amounts of electricity.

      There. Much more accurate statement.

    • OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere.

      ALL Carbon based lifeforms will die

    • James Abbott
      October 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm
      ““For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims that a tiny trace of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming”
      OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere.”

      All life ends, James Abbott. Do you not know that?

    • From Wikipedia:
      The Serenity Prayer …
      God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
      The courage to change the things I can,
      And the wisdom to know the difference.

    • “Of course not – until the Sun reaches old age – then we will fry.”

      The sun will remain on main sequence for another 4 or 5 billion years. I’m not concerned, and neither should you be.

      “OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere. No change presumably. The author like all humans has traces of metals vital to life. Take them out and see what happens or add a bit more and see what happens. Low concentration does not = no consequence. To believe that is scientifically pig ignorant.”

      Actually, if you take the tiny trace out of the atmosphere, plants will all die as will the rest of the biosphere. There wouldn’t be time to see how much removal of CO2 would cool the earth. In fact, you don’t even need to remove all CO2 for biosphere death to occur. It’ll happen at about 150ppm, which we almost reached with the last glacial advance, when CO2 dropped to the almost-lethal level of 180ppm. What was that about ignorance?

      “Yep those stupid countries investing in green energy toys that don’t work – except in the countries where they do work and those toys are now producing very significant amounts of electricity.”

      All renewables combined (predominantly biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric with much smaller contributions by solar and wind) contribute significant amounts of energy, albeit, some at greatly elevated prices and with side effects that are glossed over. For hydroelectric, anyone who’s seen a river valley drowned by a reservoir can attest to negative aspects, as can anyone who’s seen the results of a dam bursting. Ample studies have shown biomass energy produces even more CO2 than fossil fuels while causing food prices to skyrocket. Wind energy is ridiculously expensive because the turbines are unreliable, short-lived, and they are causing great losses of birds and bats worldwide (animals that have, for millions of years, adapted to the frequent changes in climate, both warmer and colder but can’t adapt to being cut up or having their lungs exploded). And then there’s solar. First, there’s not enough solar energy striking the planet to cover our needs, especially in areas that don’t receive much sunshine. It’s expensive, but reliable, useful, and is an excellent way to augment energy needs. However, it’s being handled politically in ways that negate its usefulness. For instance: every roof in sunny areas should have solar panels, but they’re expensive and most people can’t afford them. But government and industry don’t like the distributed method of energy production–they want control. The controlled solution? Destroy huge tracts of land by building solar “farms”. After the ecological devastation of stripping all that acreage of life (remember, in the United States, our government created a moratorium allowing “green” energy producers to destroy habitats and kill endangered species without penalty), the operational solar farms are burning birds out of the air, including endangered birds that we’re supposed to be protecting.

      “The geological and astro threats the author refers to we can do little or nothing about. We can do something about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That skeptics want to take the risk of doing nothing about it is their choice.”

      And, you still miss the point. The CO2 climate models have failed, repeatedly. Nearly every prediction they’ve made, from increasing temperatures to decreasing sea ice, from more powerful storms to more frequent storms, have proven wrong. Now, the purveyors of carbon vilification are claiming that “data is biased” and needs to be adjusted with models.

      As such, you are advocating that–with only computer model output to guide us and data adjusted by computer models so it conforms to the models–we should spend hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars to try to fix something for which we have no credible evidence. And yes, we can do nothing about astronomical or geological hazards. Well, almost nothing. We could prepare for them, as we should be preparing for real climate change, which will occur no matter what we do. After all, climate change has been occurring for over four billion years, and we’ve only been adding CO2 for 120 years. But, if we spend all our money trying to stop “anthropogenic climate change”, we won’t have money to left to prepare for those disasters we can’t stop.

      For the record, and because you’ll likely accuse me of not ‘believing in global warming when we have proof’, allow me to clarify: Earth has indeed been warming. It’s been warming for over 200 years. It’s been warming at about the same rate since the end of the Little Ice Age. Significant contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide have been occurring for about 120 years, with no change in warming rate since then. Many glaciers have been retreating for over 200 years. Sea level has been rising for about 200 years. That glaciers continue to retreat and sea level continues to rise just verifies Earth has been warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has, in the past 15 years, climbed higher and faster than predicted, and yet Earth hasn’t warmed in 18 years–well, unless you adjust data to make the past colder, which “unbiased” scientists have been doing, and have been caught, repeatedly.

      Earth has been significantly warmer several times SINCE that last glacial period, and it was warmer during past interglacials than it was at any time during the current interglacial, and it has done this without any help from anthropogenic CO2. Also, before the Pleistocene (more than 2.6 million years ago) Earth was much warmer than today, and CO2 was also much higher. During the time of the dinosaurs, for example, Earth was usually about 10 C warmer than today, there were no ice caps, and CO2 was up to 10 times higher. And yet…the “tipping point” never occurred. Runaway greenhouse effect, so feared by John Kerry? Didn’t happen. Why not? If doubling CO2 from 3/100 of one percent to 6/100 of one percent “will reach a tipping point”, why didn’t Earth reach a tipping point when atmospheric CO2 was 45/100 of one percent?

      The truth is, we don’t know what causes long term climate change. We barely understand *some* of the causes of short term, cyclic climate change. And yet, you advocate handing over our future to people who say “the debate is over; the science is settled.” Sorry. Science is NEVER settled, and anyone who tells you that is trying to sell you something. Also, if you believe the science is “settled”, you’re mistaking science for faith.

    • Those toys are producing some of the most expensive electricity on the planet. Those toys are so inefficient that they will never produce enough electricity to come close to breaking even because of ridiculous maintenance costs. They are a drain on the economies of the EU and right nowk they are being deserted in favor of coal in many EU countries. People have frozen to death in Europe because they couldn’t afford the electricity from those wondrous toys.

      I live in Arizona. Had I leased solar panels here in the land of sunshine three years ago, I would be paying more for that lease than my current APS bill costs, because the lease rate increased each year predicated on rising fuel costs. Had I gone with paying for the panels, the cost after tax incentives were subtracted would break even with energy costs in about 20 years. However, like most electronics, they lose efficiency at higher temperatures and deteriorate over time. I would have lost money in that deal, also. Instead, I spent the money on energy efficient appliances, air conditioning, and windows. I saw an immediate drop in my electricity costs. The cost of “green energy” does not yield to economies of scale, either, so its use on large scale projects is just plain stupid. Yet greenies continue to chase blindly after so-called free energy. Its a religious experience for them.

  2. “OK – tell us what happens if that tiny trace is taken out of the atmosphere.”

    Taking all (of the CO2) out will extinguish extinguish all plant life. Taking out a little will cost trillions of dollars that might otherwise be spent on essentials such as food, water, heat, medical care, etc.

    • Mike Smith is correct, except you don’t have to remove all carbon dioxide to exterminate plant life. At 200 ppm/co2 green plant life is in severe distress. Below 180 ppm photosynthesis stops, and, eventually, so do we! Many greenhouse growers pump their indoor atmospheres to 1,000 ppm because the plants flourish, and they can get multiple harvests per year.
      It seems to me, taking the historical view of CO2 concentrations, we are actually precariously close to the low end of the spectrum.

      • That is correct Mike, but we are just feeding trolls. True faith doesn’t need any stinking facts

      • While you’re on the right track, C4 & CAM plants can survive on low levels of CO2. But most of those upon which we & the planet rely, ie C3, starve in the 100s of ppm.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation

        “(C3 plants) still represent approximately 95% of Earth’s plant biomass. C3 plants lose 97% of the water taken up through their roots to transpiration. Examples include rice and barley.”

      • When a greenhouse has a level of 1000 ppm CO2, does the farmer have to turn on the A/C to counter the positive-feedback catastrophic Anthropic Greenhouse Warming?

      • Re milodonharlani’s comment – the problem with C4 and CAM plants is that they’ve been found to run CO2 levels down to zero. While they may be an evolutionary step that overcomes C3 plants limits, they’re only taking advantage of a bad situation and increasing their numbers as C3 plants begin to fail (Corn crop data from the 50’s showed corn fields would cause CO2 levels to dip to below 200ppm within an hour or so of sunrise – then photosynthesis would cease). That the atmosphere of the planet was plundered before by ‘natural’ organisms to the point that prior forms of life were all but wiped out seems to suggest it can happen again. People may not want to believe that their happy rainbow trees may actually be on a long slow course to destroying the atmosphere, but it’s happening. Every bit of those trillions of tons of coal that remains underground is testament to the ability of plants to strip CO2 from the air. Every ton is an example of how fast plants can strip CO2 faster than microorganisms can return it to the air.. It may be the ultimate irony that humans evolved just at the end stage of aerobic life and begun burning that coal, restoring balance to the world.

        Burn the coal, Save the world! (T-shirts sure to cause consternation)

      • Karl:

        I agree that the highest & best use of humans in the biosphere may be to rescue most plants from the CO2 starvation to which they are doomed without us.

      • inMAGICn October 13, 2014 at 6:49 pm

        Assuming you didn’t just forget your ‘/sarc’ tag, I’ve wondered about this, too. My guess is no, but I have yet to find a direct answer. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. A call to a local commercial greenhouse might be the way to go. Then find some way to document it.

      • We live in a severely-depleted carbon environment. Most of the earth’s carbon has been buried in Permian and Carboniferous coal deposits or lost through incorporation in limestones and dolomites deposited over the past 2 billion years.The deep-ocean deposition of the calcified remains of micro-organisms exacerbates the problem. To sustain the earth’s viability we need to release carbon to the atmosphere – that is we should burn much coal as we can, lift the CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere as much as possible, and give our plant life the crucial ingredient for growth,

      • Michael Wassil

        Yeh, I was being more cheeky than sarc, so I left off the tag. But really, if CO2 is so overpowering a “greenhouse gas,” when a farmer injects it into a true greenhouse, what happens to the temperature? I like your suggestion, though, as I have some acquaintances who have greenhouses down in the Nisqually. If you find something, let me know.

  3. My prediction is that every severe weather event this winter will be linked to climate change by the next day. That’s kinda cheating though, because you already knew that.

  4. Viv Forbes wrote in a letter to the editor,

    “Atmospheric modellers have dominated the climate debate for too long. It is time to ask well-informed geologists about Earth’s ever-changing climate history which is written indelibly in the rocks. Instead of wasting billions on bigger computers for yet more atmospheric models, let’s do some factual research on volcanoes beneath the oceans. Then ask some astro-physicists about the possible influence of solar cycles, sunspots, cosmic rays, cloud formation, earth magnetism, rogue asteroids and movements of the solar system through the galaxy.”

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Viv Forbes,

    The models relied on by the IPCC assessment reports, after seeing their uselessness, must be deprioritized in total global level of funding to a level below Mann’s yearly funds for legal fees.

    John

    • John,

      Manns yearly legal funds might result in an increase of funding for the models.

      I think it would be better to just charge Mann and the Climateers for the Modeling costs. Models would quickly become unimportant.

  5. Mike Smith

    No I was not talking about plant life. Its a given that no CO2 equals no plant life. i was talking about temperature. If, as skeptics keep saying, CO2 is an inconsequential trace gas, then please tell us what would happen to global temperatures if we reduce it – presumably nothing ?

    I then drew attention to other trace constituents of physical systems – such as the metals in our bodies. What happens if we reduce or increase them ? It is plain ignorance of science to say that the presence or change at low concentrations of a constituent part = no consequence to the system. Other examples:ozone in the atmosphere, chlorine in the water supply.

    CodeTech

    You say

    “No, those toys are doing nothing other than help gullible, deluded fools feel happy about wasting their money.”

    Sorry, just more ignorance on display there.

    Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.

    The best placed countries are now producing most of their electricity from renewables.

    Spain produced over 20% from wind power alone in 2013.

    But presumably you would rather not know that.

    • Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013

      Links, or it didn’t happen.

    • And that should not include hydro, as that is not ‘allowed’ by the greenies for some bizarre reason, and has been going on for decades anyway.

    • What skeptics say that CO2 is inconsequential?

      All whom I know say that it is a vital, life-giving component of the atmosphere, but that its contribution to warming is largely made in its first 150 ppm. After that, more of it is better, up to real greenhouse concentrations around 1000 ppm. Drawing it down below 150 ppm would be very bad indeed for the majority of plants on the planet, ie C4 types like most crops & all trees.

      • Anything is possible
        October 13, 2014 at 5:36 pm

        @James Abbott, October 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm, must intentionally misunderstand skeptics, whose case is that CO2 is good for living things & that up to a high point, more of the now trace gas is better.

        When lungs evolved during the Silurian, atmospheric & probably oceanic CO2 concentrations were a lot higher than now; thousands of ppm for the air.

    • But hydro power accounted for 19% of electricity generated, leaving less than 2% for wind, tide, biomass, and unicorn farts.

      20% << "most"

      Spain would be bankrupt without bailouts.

      But presumably you would rather not know that.

    • You seem to understand that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will kill all plant life.
      But why do you think evolution produced and maintained the conditional response of plants to varying concentrations of CO2?
      Why is the optimal condition for most plants somewhere between 1000 and 1500 ppm?
      (since the density of air changes with temperature, so does the optimal concentration. Warm air, being more rarefied, needs more CO2 to maintain optimal density.)
      Why is it so?

    • then please tell us what would happen to global temperatures if we reduce it – presumably nothing ?
      ============
      if you reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, something else will try and increase due to partial pressure law. that something will be H2O. In the end you replace one GHG with another GHG, and the temperature remains pretty much unchanged.

      • Although under ~150 ppm C4 plants will start to starve, which could have an effect on partial pressure of O2.

        Earth remains dangerously close to plant starvation levels of CO2, despite the beneficial, putative increase from ~280 ppm in AD 1850 to ~400 ppm now.

    • Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.
      ==============
      dung and charcoal are all 2+ billion people have. though if the UN gets its way, it will be closer to 7 billion – until the cities are emptied of people.

    • James, show us where Co2 rise precedes temperature. Increasing Co2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. This can be shown in every time scale, including the ice core.

    • At this point co2 is at the low end for plant survival. CO2 is definitely a trace gas. In this case, more co2 for plants, and for us is better. And if co2 went to zero, I expect temperatures to do nothing. The earth is not a greenhouse. Convection, a mechanical process carries heat up. The only process that the IPCC has identified is water vapor releasing heat which in their view is retained. In mine, not so much. The IPCC has totally missed convection. Not only that, in the years since, when co2 levels were 20% lower, the incoming radiation was 363w/m^2 with 240w/m^2 being retained, trapped. What is it now? The IPCC is very quite about that. After 18 years and vast amounts of co2 added to the atmosphere the temperatures have not gone up. Why is that? The best they can do is revise the data to make it look like it is continuing to warm? All you’re doing James is rehashing a dead argument. You also threw in some other arguments about renewable energy, which is another debate and also leaves out how bad these renewables are. Europe’s carbon laws are so full of loop holes as to be meaningless. In addition, Germany is burning American forest in an effort to be green. I think that’s why everybody went with coal in the first place. The forests will run out. Bottom line, the science is wrong on AGW, and the policies AGW advocate are sheer lunacy. AGW at best flawed, at worst fraud.

      CAGW tells a lot of tales. Which ones have come true? NONE. Don’t you think at least one would have come true in 18 years?

    • If, as skeptics keep saying, CO2 is an inconsequential trace gas, then please tell us what would happen to global temperatures if we reduce it – presumably nothing ?

      Why do you like putting words into people’s mouth’s? Think before you type.

      Co2 is an essential trace gas for our planet. For warmth and plant life. Further increases from TODAY will not lead to dangerous warming this century. It’s not going to happen. “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas” says the IPCC Read my first reply to you up-thread.

      • Correct, but they also say that clouds are a positive feedback. Try telling that to anyone who doesn’t live in a nice sunny state where the occasional nimbus wanders past. In the UK, when we see clouds massing, that’s a sign to pack up and move indoors as the chill starts as soon as the first cloud intercepts the sun.

    • See my comment above. Spain is bankrupt. Free renewable energy provides the most expensive unreliable electricity, period.

    • “Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.”

      Yes, but most of that is hydropower, which works extremely well and is quite cheap, but only possible in very limited parts of the world.

      • First 6 months of 2014
        Nuclear: 45 TWh (17.1%)
        Brown coal: 69.7 TWh (26.5%)
        Hard coal: 50.9 TWh (19.3%)
        Natural gas: 16.6 TWh (6.3%)
        Wind: 26.7 TWh (10.1%)
        Solar: 18.3 TWh (7.0%)
        Biogas: 25.6 TWh (9.7%)
        Hydro: 10.5 TWh (4.0%)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

        Now is that worth all the effort when one considers this?

        Electricity households

        Denmark pays € 0.295 per kilowatt of electricity
        Germany pays €0.265
        Ireland pays €0.225
        Italy pays €0.231
        UK pays €0.170
        Spain pays €0.189

        Nos 1&2 held out as the poster children for renewables in general and wind in particular.

        http://www.itv.com/news/2013-10-29/how-uk-energy-prices-compare-to-other-eu-countries/

      • Re Germany: Please keep in mind that electricity is one seventh of our primary energy consumption. So the 26% of electricity via Wind/solar/biogas are about 4% of primary energy consumption.

        Re the cost, only 1/3 of the cost is reflected in the electricity tariff, another third increases taxes, another third increases product prices (because 1/3 of electricity is consumed by private households, 1/3 by the public sector, 1/3 by companies.)

        All in all we pay 20bn EUR per year for subsidizing renewables; about 1 percent of GDP.

        This pays for 4% of energy supply. That’s better than I expected.

    • James Abbott
      October 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm

      Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.

      The best placed countries are now producing most of their electricity from renewables.

      Ridiculous statements, even if you include hydro, which greenies despise anyway. Greenies have done a good job in the US — I doubt any new hydro-plant has been constructed in 3-4 decades.

    • James Abbot, “Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.”

      Hydro is good. Glad to see you on board with it. Typically though you warmers don’t consider hydro a renewable source, pretty much like you don’t like nuclear.

      Maybe there is hope for you yet. Might be a little early to turn in your greenie card.

    • James Abbot, don’t people like you ever tire of being wrong?

      “Ignorance on display” indeed. Yours.

      Are you sure you’re not my brother? Your response was the same kind of aggressive ignorance I’ve come to expect from him. And no matter how his misconceptions are corrected, he simply moves on to new erroneous “facts”.

      One day you’ll figure this out. Maybe. But like so many others, you’ll continue to create an epic display of breathless “wrongness” in the meantime.

      By the way, you can’t just suddenly inject “hydro” into the mix as “renewable”, that’s called “moving the goalposts”. Hydro is old-tech, your planet-destroying measures to “save the planet” are solar and wind. Maybe you’ll be throwing nuclear into the next grossly incorrect claim you make, since there are no ongoing CO2 emissions from nuclear.

      Your figure is not credible. The iea.org link that Speed provided links to a biased source that is not credible. Here’s a quote from their front page: “IEA message for youth on climate change
      The IEA has released a video, specifically for you, our next generation of leaders!”

      Personally I’m completely fine with ignorant people continuing to do ignorant things. It keeps them out of trouble and off the streets. What I’m against is when they manage to steal MY money to do their wasteful, destructive things, like building windmills or solar farms.

    • “Ice ages” don’t begin with volcanism, but ‘glacial’ and ‘interglacial’ periods are primarily associated with changes in the earths orbit, tilt, and axial precession. The Pleistocene (ice age) represents a period from approximately 2.6 ma to the present (Holocene is simply the most recent interglacial). Since the start of the Pleistocene, there have been 52 ‘warmer’ periods that followed 52 ‘more colder’ periods (which last longer than the warm periods). These are recognized as 104 MIS stages from marine sediments that catalog changes in the oxygen isotope from deep sea samples. One principal hypothesis to the start of significant ice build up in the northern hemisphere at ~3 ma was the closing of the Central American Seaway which fundamentally changed the ocean currents. But the fundamental fact still remains, we are 11000+ years into an interglacial and a 20 year warming trend (1976-1998) is nothing ‘unusual’ or ‘alarming’. Again, this is the 52ND!! warm up in the last 2.6 ma in a climate system that has for the last ~900 ky seen each short warm period (10-15 ky) followed by a lengthy (80-90 ky) cold period. Volcanism is generally associated with some minor and major mass extinctions, but may not be a significant contributor to the extinction event (verdict is still out) since, generally, volcanism is an ongoing process through all of geologic time.

      • You are correct. Volcanism has little to nothing to do with the natural cyclic fluctuations in climate.

  6. The current ice age won’t end until Antarctica moves off the S Pole, Panama sinks and the Arctic Ocean opens up. The ice sheets will return as they did 20 times before. We can only hope the 1C of warming we might get from doubling CO2 delays them. In the mean time, the plants and crops will enjoy relief from the CO2 famine typical of severe ice ages such as the one we are in.

    • True. Mother Earth is in for a long, cold winter, on a par with the Late Carboniferous to Early Permian chill, but thank God, not comparable to the Snowball episodes of the Precambrian.

    • That half bio-mass needs a big asterisk. 10% ethanol in my gasoline gives me 10% lower gas mileage. Hence, I view the ethanol as an additive, not a fuel. Thus, the claim that we are getting 4% +/- of our energy from biomass is false. I burn just as much gasoline with or without the inert filler that is ethanol. I just pay more and have less range per tankful with ethanol.

  7. Not that I disagree with the spirit, but is this a letter to any Editor, or to a particular Editor?

  8. James Abbott says:

    Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013… Spain produced over 20% from wind power alone in 2013.

    Is that true? I doubt it. But if so, what did it cost to install all those windmills (including subsidies) compared with a coal-fired or NatGas plant that generates the same kWh? And what does it cost per kWh to generate windmill electricity, compared with natural gas, or coal, or nuclear power? Truly, windmill power has to be the most inefficient, unreliable power there is.

    And:

    The best placed countries are now producing most of their electricity from renewables.

    “Most”? I’m skeptical of that, too. And what are “the best placed countries”? What does that even mean? What is the percentage of renewables? Does it include hydro power? Answers, please. I’m skeptical of vague statements like that.

    And:

    …presumably you would rather not know that.

    No, plresumably you would rather we don’t know the answers to that.

  9. James Abbott;
    i was talking about temperature. If, as skeptics keep saying, CO2 is an inconsequential trace gas, then please tell us what would happen to global temperatures if we reduce it – presumably nothing ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I’m not sure if you don’t know the answer or do know it and you are simply trying to suck a skeptic or two into an untenable position. I presume the latter, so please let me head you off at the pass.

    As anyone who has studied the physics, including the IPCC, knows, CO2’s effects are logarithmic. Hence the continuous discussions regarding sensitivity in terms of degrees per doubling of CO2. With that in mind, let us consider our current concentration to be about 400 ppm. Let us also, for sake of argument, assume a sensitivity of 1.5 degrees per doubling. From there we can calculate that:

    One step DOWN = 1.5 degrees = 200 ppm.

    One step UP = 1.5 degrees = 400 ppm

    See the problem? Arguing about CO2 reductions is sort of immaterial to the issue of global warming. Reductions in concentration are not comparable to increases. In fact, to make the point clearer, let’s go with 2 steps:

    Two steps DOWN = 3.0 degrees = 300 ppm

    Two steps UP = 3.0 degrees = 1200 ppm

    Given a supposed human influence on CO2 of about 2 ppm/year, getting 3 degrees of “up” is a 600 year proposition. If we were to REMOVE 2 ppm though, 3 degrees of down would take only 150 years. So the two are not comparable at all, and the question is a straw man that serves no purpose.

    This is, incidentally, why the IPCC regales us with tales of catastrophe referring to doubling from pre-industrial levels which are commonly referred to as 280 ppm. Easier to calculate a catastrophic temperature rise when you start with both an unrealistically high sensitivity estimate AND a low CO2 concentration. If we focus on the temperature NOW and the CO2 levels NOW and the best estimates of sensitivity that we have NOW, there is simply nothing to fear.

    Unless you live in a poor country with no electricity, no running water, no sanitation and no hope for a better life because the western world is blocking the financing of a coal fired power plant… then you have plenty to fear.

    • “Unless you live in a poor country with no electricity, no running water, no sanitation and no hope for a better life because the western world is blocking the financing of a coal fired power plant… then you have plenty to fear.”

      And that’s the brutal truth.

  10. James Abbott;
    The best placed countries are now producing most of their electricity from renewables.

    Of pffft. Name one. Unless you are including hydro, you can’t.

      • Small populations, large geo-thermal resources, which is not always a good thing.

        eg Laki
        The system erupted over an eight-month period between 1783 and 1784 from the Laki fissure and the adjoining Grímsvötn volcano, pouring out an estimated 14 km3 (3.4 cu mi) of basalt lava and clouds of poisonous hydrofluoric acid and sulfur dioxide compounds that killed over 50% of Iceland’s livestock population, leading to a famine that killed approximately 25% of the island’s human population.

  11. davidhoffer makes a good point. A 3º rise in global T would not be a problem, since the biosphere has enjoyed similar warm epochs in the past.

    In fact, global T has been far higher in the past. A measly 3º rise would be a piece of cake. The great stadials are the real problem. But the alarmist cult can’t talk about that, because they have painted thmselves into a corner with their incessant global warming scares. They can’t very well turn 180º now, and start again with a global cooling scare.

    James, the fact is that we (and the biosphere) have been living in a truly “Goldilocks” climate since the LIA. So despite your constant head fakes, there is really nothing to be concerned about.

    Take an aspirin, James. Lie down, have a nap. Relax. It’s all good.

    • I am not so sure, their hubris may be as boundless as our universe. I do not believe it would be beyond them to claim climate change or climate disruption (the slogan du-jour), could also cause global cooling. There is a reason for the walking away from the term global warming.

      • James is a Green troll. He doesn’t understand, the science, nor does he want to. He enjoys his state of blissful green ignorance. It saves him from the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

        In his green world, the UK gets all the electrical energy it needs from some far, far-away wind turbines, since solar panel farms really aren’t much use in the UK other than a feel good trophy where there should be a football pitch or a large nature garden. Meanwhile his Green sensibilities consign billions of developing world peoples to continue to cook the meals in their mud huts with charcoal from rain forests and dried dung, Such is the alternative ugly world of a modern Greenie.

  12. True but those in power don’t really believe that we can control or mitigate climate change. What they do correctly believe is that by imposing insane draconian climate measures they can maintain and increase their power and wealth. That’s all it ever was is or will be. Climate is just the means.

  13. Folks, also note that the Troll Question neatly turns ALL fossilized fuel use into a discussion of ONLY electricity. That is less than1/3 of total energy used.

    Transportation is about 99% non electric. That is oil, gas, coal. It is crazy talk to think you can replace that with fans and acres of silicon. Try making steel without coke, or cement with windmills.

    Nobody can show more than a trivial percent of total energy from green toys.

    We wont even mention the cost of aluminum smelting with windmills…

  14. “If, as skeptics keep saying, CO2 is an inconsequential trace gas, then please tell us what would happen to global temperatures if we reduce it – presumably nothing ?” – Abbott

    Well I personally have never heard a more stupid question, not because questions are stupid but because of the intention of your question, which I presumably presume is to prove the exclusive signifigance of not only man-made CO2 exclusivley controlling the planets temperature, but also this exclusive man-made CO2 directly and irrefutably leading to human extinction. There is plenty of childish evidence like your silly question to support both claims, of scientific evidence…little.

    Speaking of presumably, presumably you are aware that to make an unreasonable claim is not the same as proving it. Actually even making a reasonable claim is not the same as proving it. Perhaps I presume too much.

  15. Bravo Viv Forbes! The comments you’ve elicited document quite well the narcissistic egotism of perspective common among the lesser scientifically knowledgeable who believe man will actually have, or can, a long term influence on the world. Finding any trace of 21st century man by the end of the next interglacial could be as difficult as finding ‘Lucy’ was in eastern Africa. To believe that man is even the penultimate evolutionary animal, defies any knowledge of geologic history.

    Geologic process will continue to be the primary mechanisms reshaping the surface of the earth, regardless of man’s physical influence.

    • Showing definitively that CO2 is correlated with temperature. Lamentably, it is both positively & negatively correlated, plus also periodically not correlated at all. At times CO2 levels go up while T goes up, but at other times, concentration goes down while T goes up & goes up while T goes down, but at other times, does nothing while CO2 goes up or down.

    • One of the most significant features in the graph of CO2 is the huge fall in concentration through the Carboniferous and Permian. Only a modest recovery to the end of the Jurasic; then a steady decline from the beginning of the Cretaceous until now. The Pleistocene glacial put us very close to what would have been a HUGE extinction event: basically all oxygen/CO2 breathing life! Someone mentioned above (sorry I’m on my iPad Mini and it’s quite a chore to scroll back to look for it) that most of the CO2 got sequestered as coal and we are actually doing LIFE overall and ourselves a good deed by burning as much coal as we can to get the CO2 back into the atmosphere. I’d like to go on record here and now in full support of that project! Burn more coal and save the planet. There could not be a more worthwhile goal for humans ;-)

      I don’t know how anyone who understands what this graph portrays could want anything else.

  16. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has spoken at the opening of the Caval Ridge mine, saying coal should not be demonised.

    “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world,” he said.

    “This is a sign of hope and confidence in the future of the coal industry – it’s a great industry, we’ve had a great partnership with Japan in the coal industry.

    “Coal is essential for the prosperity of the world.

    “Energy is what sustains our prosperity, and coal is the world’s principal energy source and it will be for many decades to come.”

  17. James Abbott wrote:

    “Renewable energy provided 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.,,,,”

    No so much…

    I love how the Greens always try to lump hydro-electric power (which is an excellent and cheap way to generate power and manage water supplies) together with solar and wind energy production to obfuscate the fact that annual global production of wind power (400 TWh/yr) and solar (100 TWh/yr) only account for roughly 2.3% of the 22,000 TWh/yr of total global electricity production.

    Trying to get accurate and reliable wind and solar energy production numbers is also a fool’s errand, because the Greens often use nameplate capacity rather than actual power generation to inflate the numbers; it’s like trying to nail jello to the wall….

    Even these paltry numbers don’t include: energy inputs to mine/manufacture/fabricate/transport/construct these boondoggles AND the added CO2 emissions required to have conventional power generators (like coal plants) run idle to 100% back up wind and solar plants for those ever-so-rare occasions of: clouds, night, no wind, excessive wind, breakdowns, etc.

    Governments have wasted $100’s of billions on these expensive, diffuse, inefficient, intermittent and unreliable wind and solar boondoggles, that have destroyed their industrial sectors and substantially lowered their citizens’ standard of living.

  18. Strange that. When you want to build good clean hydro or geothermal, they scream you cannot do that, its not renewable. yet, when they make claims about renewable generation they always include, hydro and geothermal.

    odd that.

  19. When these trolls come through, they sure do leave a mess. It’s like trying to tell kids not to play tug-of-war with a puppy. They just can’t resist it…cuz it’s so much fun and that troll is so damned cute. :)

  20. I’d bet most warmist don’t know or avoid the geo fact that Long Island is part of a couple of moraines created after the last ice age ended and finally melted. Even wikipedia says so, so it must be true. Try it sometime with a warmist.

  21. Just to get back to the topic of Viv’s excellent essay for a moment: When the Laki volcano went off in Iceland, 1783, according to Wikipedia, it put out a Pinatubo’s worth of ash every three days and erupted for many months. Six million people supposedly died from the drastic global cooling crop failures and other effects.

    Although it’s true volcanos don’t contribute to long term climate change, we live in a very short term overpopulated and resource stressed world. How many would die if Laki happened today? You can bet that it would be like having the alien overlords arrive in big shiny spaceships – it would be hard to talk about anything else, especially the “threat” of three degrees more heat in 2100.

    Today Bardarbarunga is cued up to get serious. Maybe or maybe not – but another important point about these kind of events – they are utterly unpredictable because down there in the mantle Mama Nature is pulling huge levers that we don’t even begin to understand, much less predict accurately.

  22. “… we live in a very short term overpopulated and resource stressed world.”

    No…not really. You could put every single human being on the planet in one city the size of Texas with a population density of London, and the rest of the entire planet would be empty. Current estimates on the amount of food wasted range as high as 75%.

    The biggest reason we’re stressing resources is our CHOICE to do so. Energy is an excellent example. How much of that resource stress would be relieved/eliminated if we CHOSE to listen to science and move towards nuclear energy? How much time and resources are totally wasted on Ethanol, even though we now know that it’s impact is somewhere between neutral and negative on the atmosphere?

    I agree that one good “PUFF” from one of these major volcanoes will knock humanity on it’s ass for awhile though…and that’s going to make C02 research look pretty damned silly.

  23. it is interesting that James Abbott has received adulation and word by word analysis on Hotwhopper. If its not ‘Sou’ herself I’d be very surprised…..far too much time spent praising every word used by JA in response to Viv. She really needs to get over herself. With a volume of papers and reports coming on against CAGW she must be feeling hemmed in.

    She must also be revelling in the extra attention of late – its become one of my favourite reads, especially the hotwhoppery and her incredible stamina in producing bile. It can get over the top here and I think thats regretful, but for sheer continuous invective/abuse I can do nothing but admire her persistence.

    How anyone can debate with her unless you agree with her, I cant imagine. She must have a ghastly job to have so much pent up anger to expend at the end of the day!!

    My prayers for a full recovery are with you Sou

  24. it is interesting that James Abbott has received adulation and word by word analysis on Hotwhopper. If its not ‘Sou’ herself I’d be very surprised…..far too much time spent praising every word used by JA in response to Viv. She really needs to get over herself. With a volume of papers and reports coming on against CAGW she must be feeling hemmed in.

Comments are closed.