News24

New findings on wind farms

2012-04-29 21:06

London - Large wind farms may have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States shows, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming, which could lead to the melting of glaciers, a rise in the sea level, ocean acidification, crop failure and other devastating effects, scientists say.

In a move to cut such emissions, many nations are moving towards cleaner energy sources such as wind power.

The world's wind farms last year had the capacity to produce 238 gigawatt of electricity at any one time - a 21% rise on 2010. Capacity is expected to reach nearly 500 gigawatt by the end of 2016 as more, and bigger, farms spring up, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world's largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to 2011.

The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72ºC per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.

"We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms," the study said.

 The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said.

"These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate," the authors said.

But the researchers said more studies were needed, at different locations and for longer periods, before any firm conclusions could be drawn.

Scientists say the world's average temperature has warmed by about 0.8ºC since 1900, and nearly 0.2ºC per decade since 1979.

 Efforts to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are not seen as sufficient to stop the planet heating up beyond 2ºC this century, a threshold scientists say risks an unstable climate in which weather extremes are common.

The Texas study found the temperature around wind farms rose more at night, compared with nearby regions.

This was possibly because while the earth usually cools after the sun sets, bringing the air temperature down and the turbulence produced by the farms keeping the ground in their area warm.


Comments
  • louis.langenhoven - 2012-04-29 21:16

    I think its the better of various evils

      Ernst - 2012-04-29 23:28

      @Louis: I was just about to say that. Perhaps humanity should substantially increase investment into nuclear fusion as a source of electricity. See: http://www.iter.org/

      amanda.victor2 - 2012-04-30 04:55

      South Africa is behind the rest of the world. The rest of the world has recognised the con of global warming and are fast back-tracking. Most of Europe has stopped with the solar and wind farms as they are not productive. Nuclear is the best way, yet Greens fall over themselves to stop this form of energy. Why? It's all about fleecing the public of funds. Money talks. There has been no global warming since 1998 and we are in fact entering the next mini-ice age. The sooner you do your own research and stop relying on the 'media' for the truth the better off you'll be.

      Chumscrubber1 - 2012-04-30 06:22

      amanda, I think you should stop listening to the misinformation fed by the fossil fuel industry, and try just using common sense. Nuclear would be nice if it was safer and did not produce everlasting dangerous waste, or if fusion could be figured out.

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 08:43

      @Amanda +1000. It's always the same Al Gore minions on News24 propogating the self-same lies.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 09:59

      @Morgean and Amanda: " The rest of the world has recognised the con of global warming and are fast back-tracking." This is a sweeping statement. It is easy to make bold statements when you dont have to provide a shred of scientific peer reviewed evidence to back your absurd claims up. "It's always the same Al Gore minions on News24 propogating the self-same lies." Why are you so fixated with Al Gore? 98% of climate scientists actively publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals endorse the consensus based on forensic evidence. Al Gore is NOT one of these scientists. Get over your obsession with the man.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:02

      @Morgean and Amanda: Perhaps you should write letters to the following prestigious institutions and tell them that they are wrong: The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK continue

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:06

      Continue: The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

  • rowen.loretz - 2012-04-29 21:29

    I think their research is rubbish- don't believe it for a minute- probably oil companies of producers of other fossil fuels that paid them to say that. I wont be surprised.

      arne.verhoef - 2012-04-30 05:24

      Propaganda fueled by denialists

      Chumscrubber1 - 2012-04-30 06:25

      Agree, I can't understand how turbulance would keep temperatures down - like its warmer in a breeze then on a windless day? In the day I suppose they have some impact on air flow so some sort of warming would take place, but I doubt significant. The next thing they will say is they have to shorten high rise buildings as they are affecting air flow!

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 08:41

      BumChumScrubber, where the heck did you learn your "fysiks" from, you moron! Turbulence is a dissipative process, i.e. it releases energy in the form of heat. Go back to your farmyard, you tree-hugging palookah.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:07

      @Morgean: Perhaps you should write letters to the following prestigious institutions and tell them that they are wrong: The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:08

      Continue: The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 10:35

      Ernst Geological Society of Australia In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change[103] supportive of the IPCC position. However in 2011 the position statement was withdrawn because members contended that they were not consulted by the society's executive in its content and had no approval for its release.The society in 2011 was canvassing members to decide its future stance on this issue.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 10:42

      Ernst What I mean is you have organisations such as Geological Society of Australia listed that are not supporting AGW, your list is not very credible. Then there are other major organisations which are not on your list who do not recognise manmade causes of climate change: American Institute of Professional Geologists “In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials: The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.”

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:07

      @Marius: The "Geological Society of Australia" has not said: " We beleive that manmade global warming is false, based on the following research....." Withdrawing statement does not mean: "we reject the consensus". Your assertion that this list is not credible is strange. Most of the worlds most prestigious orginizations are on that list so I dont understand what you are trying to say.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 11:24

      Ernst you say they support it, they have not given an official support, that means they don't belong on the list of organisations that you suggest support manmade global warming, whether they are against AGW or just not taking a stand on the issue, it does not matter to the fact that they don't belong on your list of organisations who support AGW theory because they don't support it. Their statement makes that clear.

  • Robert - 2012-04-29 21:42

    Electricy deamnd is changing the earths magnetic fields. Live with it.

  • Just_my_opinion - 2012-04-29 21:43

    Generating heat is not the problem. It's retaining the heat through greenhouse gasses that is. Without the greenhouse effect the heat generated will just simply escape into space.

  • Ted - 2012-04-29 21:49

    Alternative energy scientists are like diet 'specialists'. Today they say this works, tomorrow they say it has a side effect. If we put a bit of effort into trying to see how an electric eel or fire fly generates electricity and how we may use that, we may be looking in the right direction. Nature appears to have had these solutions long before we invented the lantern.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 09:35

      membrane potential often have large energy storage capacity but very low generation capacity. Your brain also generate electricity the same way. But we need to consider that the bio-mass, life span, variability’s, maintenance (life support system) and energy consumption to keep it going will not be practical to replace Koebergs 1800 Mega Watt capacity. Energy generated by organisms are extremely energy inefficient (input organic energy vs. output electrical energy). This might be perhaps because it only generates enough to survive and none of them have evolved in nature as power supplies for the ESKOM grid. Using the same electrochemical methods employed in bio-electromagnetism or membrane potential processes will be extremely expensive. It might be cheaper to replace Koeberg with millions of Duracell batteries.

  • Jason - 2012-04-29 22:07

    So just because this does a little change to the climate, we should stop using wind farms and keep on burning fossil feuls that does exactly the same at an alarming rate much larger than wind energy?????? Not the hell!!!!!!!!

  • Nicholas - 2012-04-29 22:07

    It seems however, that the most heat and gas is being emitted by these clowns ...

  • Adil Smit - 2012-04-29 22:17

    Shale gas fracking pollutes drinkingwater and release methane into the environment which contributes to GLOBAL climate change. Would be interesting to know who funded the anti-windfarm research. Go wind farms and solar panels - at least we'll still have clean water.

      Adil Smit - 2012-04-29 22:19

      And there's large-scale shale gas fracking going on in Texas and it's coming up against increased resistance - there's a drought in Texas and whilst people not allowed to water their gardens, fracking going ahead with 18 million litre of water per event per well. Google DISH, Texas and a blog by Texas Sharon

      Andrew - 2012-04-30 06:13

      Proably the same people who are against bio-feuls. ie Big oil and big oil countries.

      Craig - 2012-04-30 15:17

      Adil, you do understand what fracking is don't you? Because frankly it would appear that you don't. Fracking takes place thousands of meters below the groundwater table. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for gas , let alone liquids, to rise through such enormous thicknesses of rock. You will have learned that the American EPA has admitted that there is not one instance of fracking have led to groundwater contamination since fracking started in 1960. Naturally occurring methane in groundwater has been noted since the beginning of the last century and it has been leaking into the atmosphere for millions of years. Methane, BTW, is not natural gas even though it is found in natural gas. You will also know that NG burns far more cleanly than other fossil fuels and it can be converted to liquid fuels using technology in use in SA today. Surely SA would be richer and cleaner if the NG was exploited through fracking.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 16:20

      Adil Wind farms kill birds, make massive noise and take up massive natual habitats. Solar panels need batteries which must be replaced, these batteries carry heavy metal toxins and must be dumped. Large solar systems using steam, fry birds as they fly through the focus area, They cause heat streams up to 45m vertical and kill birds that fly over it. None of these green power systems are environmentally friendly as they are advertised.

      Adil Smit - 2012-04-30 19:21

      Craig, I have been reading up about it extensively - I can assure you your understanding of fracking is not up to date. Contact TKAG and ask them to send you their monthly updates on the increased number of moratoria, bans, earthquakes and EPA confirmation of water contaminated with arsenic, barium and other nasties and areas where clean water is trucked in. Interestingly the French Government ( definitely not a bunch of tree-huggers) has banned fracking and the technique is now actually against the law there. And in New York state they are fighting very hard to ban it. Whichever way of energy production we use - nothing is without problems but we live in a country that already has water shortages and we can't afford the 18 million litres of water per frack per well, the risk of water contamination with cancer-causing chemicals and then the problematic waste-water disposal: dumping the radio-active, chemical laden waste-water in rivers( Orange and Vaal) or drilling more holes to bury it in, a practice which has caused so many earthquakes in the US that it has been stopped in some states. And the extensive reports by vets about animal illnesses and deaths. So Craig, I've read up a lot and will continue to do so and the emerging picture is scary. Marius, those things are true but compared to the wide-spread problems caused by fracking, I know what I'll choose.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 19:40

      Adil, I was not comparing it with fracking. I’m a supporter of nuclear power as it has proven to be the safest to nature and humans of all other sources. It is relatively economical, manageable and efficient. Very few deaths has been caused by nuclear power since 1951, when nuclear electricity generation started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power "Nuclear power has caused far fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than other major forms of power generation. Energy production from coal, natural gas, and hydropower have caused far more deaths due to accidents"

      Adil Smit - 2012-05-01 17:08

      Marius,to produce enough energy for industry at the moment I do believe we need nuclear power but for household use we must look into solar and wind power. I hope that the French will help government to build more reactors and not Russia or China for obvious reasons. But then Koeberg isquite near the Milnerton fault line and an earthquake may be devastating - what happened in Japan confirmed that you can never predict forces of nature and you cannot control it, no matter how knowledgeable your engineers, technicians etc. and strong the safety features. I strongly believe all the energy companies should heavily research how to maximise energy production from solar and wind because it is the least harmful.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 00:53

      I will use some time to explain my position on the subject. The examples are only examples and do not always reflect on all scenarios. I will work with reference to a typical 1 person apartment. We need to consider that a geyser consume about 3000W during the on cycle, a kettle about 2000W and a micro wave oven about 850W, while a fridge during the on cycle only use 130W, but because of the poor power factor we talk about 250VA it consumes during its on cycle. From a design point we always need to consider the worst case scenario for a requirement. Where the geyser, kettle, microwave, Stove, heater, fridge and at least 5 x 40W lights are allowed to be on at the same time. We need to consider that the inverter is only 85% energy efficient. In peak conditions you will require 8.9kW, for a 12V battery pack and 85% efficiency of inverter this will be a load of 848A Many single people in an apartment may note that they use on average about 800W power. Solar panels are between 40 to 70% energy efficient, So lets be fair and use 50% that are the cheapest and most common. And I’m sure with regards to solar irradiation I’m still over estimating and 12% might be closer. But lets stick to 50%. The sun on average provide you with 250W/m2 irradiance. With a 50% efficient panel you will on a average 24hrs get 125W/m2 effectively. A typical battery that cost about R1200 will provide 12V at 95Ah. Lead acid batteries should not draw more than 30A continuously per battery. cont.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 01:00

      Now lets consider this single persons energy needs and find out what will be required. [#A ] For 848A peak you will need 28 batteries in parallel. Total cost R33 600, they will need to be replaced every few years To provide an 800W average power supply from sun light you will need to cover 6.4m2 area min. If your solar panel is a meter long, they will have to stretch 6.4m wide at min. This will be impossible for flats or small apartments. You will need more than 4 x 200W solar panels that will about R4000 per panel. This will mean about R16 000 for the solar panels. Practically you might need more panels than that. Lets just stick to 4. A 1000W pure sine wave inverter will cost you about R4 500 2 x 80A charge controllers will be about 2 x R10 000 The kit will cost R74 100 and will cost R92.63 per Watt. To generate the same as a modern two reactor nuclear plant that has a 2500MW capacity it will cost R232 billion while the actual plant will cost in the area of R56 billion. The problem is that you will require 88 million batteries. This will be equal to the energy requirement of 3 million 1 person households. If 10% of batteries are not recycled properly then we can talk about 3 million batteries per year that will be polluting our environment. That is 73 000 ton of toxic materials from lead to battery acid per year. Therefore I do not believe that domestic solar energy is the most practical solution. Not to meet energy demands, and not for the environment either. cont.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 01:08

      Nuclear and other risks. Nuclear related accidents since 1961: about 70 onsite deaths, 4000 estimated deaths from cancer related to nuclear accidents. One serious example: April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia – Explosion The INES scale is from 0 – 7 so this is rather high up. A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 01:10

      The worker on site got equal radiation contamination as going for 70 mammograms or about 50 CAT scans, or what a smoker get from smoking 30 cigarettes per day for 1.5 years. Or 15 times less than the maximum a emergency worker on a nuclear site is allowed to be exposed to (750mSv) according to the EPA. This just to reiterate the fact that serious nerve wrecking accidents does occur just to find no or extremely little deaths or illnesses as a result. It appears that people are way more afraid of nuclear energy than what its worth. Coal Energy Since 1885 in 121 coal mining accidents = 20151 deaths Since 1986 there was 9 people dead from nuclear accidents, and 10011 dead in coal mines. Wind Farms It is unknown to me how many people are dead in wind farm related accidents but the more worrying situation lies with birds rather. [#3] In the US about 10,000 to 40,000 birds are killed each year as an result of wind turbines. this is relatively low compared to the millions killed by domestic cats but it is still rather high compared to nuclear power. Gas [#5] Only in the US, In 2004, 148 people died from unintended injuries from gas and other explosions. Only in the US there is more people dead from gas explosions than since 1986 with nuclear power accidents in the world. cont.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 01:26

      Solar Power Stations [#6] In February 1999, a 900,000-US-gallon (3,400 m3) therminol storage tank exploded at the SEGS II (Daggett) solar power plant, sending flames and smoke into the sky. Authorities were trying to keep flames away from two adjacent containers that held sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide. The immediate area of 0.5 square miles (1.3 km2) was evacuated. Conclusion: My conclusion that since 1951 when nuclear power started we had 61 years to observe the results of the risks related to thousands of sites. If the risk would have been high, we would by now have seen thousands of lives lost. But to the contrary the evidence proves the opposite. [#2] "Nuclear power has caused far fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than other major forms of power generation. Energy production from coal, natural gas, and hydropower have caused far more deaths due to accidents. However, nuclear power plant accidents rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage attributed to energy accidents"

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 01:31

      My references #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power #3 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm #4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations #5 http://www.explosionattorneys.com/fire-explosion-statistics.html #6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems #7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center #8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant #A http://www.sustainable.co.za/solar-power/solar-power-kits.html #B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 03:19

      When we look at March 11, 2011 Fukushima, Japan which is a INES level 7 nuclear disaster there was only 3 people dead with nuclear related causes. There has only been 2 disasters since 1961 with that magnitude. 7 is the highest on the INES scale. The previous one was April 26, 1986 Chernobyl, Ukrainian SSR which killed 56 directly and about 4000 are estimated that could have died because of cancer. In 1986 nuclear regulations was poor and technology was even worse. They evacuated people over a time between 1986 to 2000. There was no passive safety systems back then. Or accurate safety levels for exposure. It was in different class of regulation and technology than today. Getting back to the Fukushima accident which was rated on the highest level nuclear disaster only 3 people died, in the actual tsunami 10 000 died. In South Africa in one coal accident, 417 deaths on 21 January 1960 at Coalbrook North colliery . But even in this level 7 disaster, it took almost 2 weeks before it became necessary to evacuate people in a radius up to 20km. There was no immediate risk for the public. Comparing it to Koeberg it might take 2 weeks before it is necessary to evacuate Richwood and Melkboss.

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-02 03:19

      The fault line through Milnerton is very small, very week and stable it never cause tsunamis or anything close to what happened in Fukushima. We cannot compare the Milnerton fault line to other major faults like the San Andreas Fault ext. In the 20th century there was only 4 major earthquakes in South Africa and non-of them in Cape Town or Milnerton, none of them higher than 6.5 http://www.geoscience.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1612:historical-earthquakes&catid=138:seismology-unit-activities&Itemid=615 The records suggest that it is rather unlikely that anything of that magnitude will happen here. And if it would then nuclear disaster is the least of our worries. A tsunami might kill 10000 people for every one person that might die from nuclear related deaths.

  • komorison - 2012-04-30 00:36

    Oh give me a break! When will this proven farcical hoax of global warming be buried once and for all.

      zaatheist - 2012-04-30 04:10

      And just where did you obtain your doctorate in climatology?

      arne.verhoef - 2012-04-30 05:27

      @Zaatheist, I bet you he gets it from his church.

      Chumscrubber1 - 2012-04-30 06:28

      You have an interest in the big polluting industries komorison?

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 08:45

      @zaatheist: you are one sorry M/F. For a so-called atheist, you sure as heck worship at the Church of Al Gore, don't you?

      Zion - 2012-04-30 08:57

      This hoax will never be buried because it makes some look more intelligent than what they are. there is another one cann,,,,,,,, Oh to hell with it.

      Cobus - 2012-04-30 09:22

      @komorison. Come farm with me and I will show you how the warming climate is messing up this industry. No hoax buddy. I notice the impact in my maize etc...

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:42

      @Komorison: "When will this proven farcical hoax of global warming be buried once and for all." Farcical Hoax? Well, only if you think that science taught at high school level is rubbish. You simply dont live in reality my friend. Let me give you the facts: 1) Humans are generating BILLIONS of tons of greenhouse gasses each year by burning oil, coal and gas, chopping down rain forrests etc. These greenhouse gasses are dumped into the atmosphere. 2) It is scientific fact that these gasses prevent all the energy striking the surface of the planet to escape into space. The more the concentrations of greenhouse gasses rise, the more energy is prevented from escaping into space. This has been MEASURED by satellites. SORRY YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT AWAY. 3) This additional enery causes an energy imbalance in the atmosphere, causing the climate to adjust and so it changes. These are basic well understood principles, backed up by well understood science. Conclusion: Is manmade global warming a Hoax? Only, if you live in la-la land.

      zaatheist - 2012-04-30 12:02

      @Morgaen Are you one of those poephols who claims that there is no need to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand? Figures!

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 12:43

      On the contrary zaatheist, it is pr1cks like you who are shaouting and screaming about so-called "global warming" bringing on Doomsday. Listen to yourselves, 456!! The rest of the world are getting wise to your hysterical BS, and no longer believing Pastor Gore. What a tw@t you are!!

      Mike - 2012-04-30 17:18

      Made made global warming is serious problem and the non-scientifically qualified posters seriously need to show us their research work and where they've published and been reviewed otherwise it's just a group of buffoons wasting space with stupid posts and then followed by ad hominem attacks on those who go along with main stream science. So to go along with main stream scientifically published articles on the subject, you don't need to have a PHD or scientific qualifications, but to counter the position of the world scientific consensus on global warming by the top scientists, you would need to be qualified and have done research on the matter, if you haven't done the research and if you are not qualified why post drivel as it has no significance and this is a topic that can only entertain informed opinions on the subject.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 20:22

      Cobus: where is your farm?

  • Julio - 2012-04-30 04:56

    I somehow still feel that they are still better and safer than burning all our coal or risking current nuclear technology. There's also been a resurgence of the opinion that wind turbines are responsible for the killing of lots of birds, yet this has repeatedly been shown not to be the case.

      Manie - 2012-04-30 15:19

      I completely agree. Lets draw a comparison to an airport or better yet, a cornfield. Airports violently repel birds by shotgun, poison, and natural pradators introduced into the surrounding area. Farmers place big drums of fuel under bird nesting trees and blow them up, thereby burning EVERY living thing to charcoal. Whether its chicks or adults. A wind turbine with reflecting silver plates on the tips and flashing lights deter any bird from entering a wind farm. They are mildly annoyed but get to keep the feathers on their backs. People have been indoctrinated to follow the way of big companies. Www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

  • Lara - 2012-04-30 07:03

    Accept the fact that mankind is a destructive force. We cannot live in harmony with the natural world. And we're supposed to be the intelligent lifeforce on the planet.

      Craig - 2012-04-30 15:19

      So are you saying we are aliens and should be removed from the planet?

      Lara - 2012-04-30 18:28

      Who said anything about aliens? You're not right in the head.

  • Craig - 2012-04-30 07:30

    No mention of the fact that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years now. No mention of the fact that sea levels have actually dropped over the last two years. No mention of the fact that sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic are at or above historical averages. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ Surely the world is waking up to this man made CO2 / AGW scam. Get the gas out from under the Karoo and let South Africa prosper as she should.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:26

      @Craig: ".......planet hasn't warmed for 15 years now. No mention of the fact that sea levels have actually dropped over the last two years." False. The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino. Conclusion: For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. In addition, greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere and will continue to do so for the next hundred years. This is going to have an effect and you cannot explain that away. "No mention of the fact that sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic are at or above historical averages. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ " Could you please provide a citation that points to published peer reviewed papers that back up this claim you are making.....please. Continued.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 10:29

      "http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/" Firstly, "wattupwiththat" is an anti-science website that does not base its claim on peer reviewed evidence. Recently, Anthony watts from "wattsupwiththat" encouraged his readers to threaten the wife of an MIT Climate Scientist in a “Frenzy of Hate” and Cyberbullying. This is DISGUSTING. Perhaps you should see the following links: 1) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/16/266463/arctic-ice-at-record-low-nsidc-director-serreze-ice-free-summer-by-2030-downward-spiral/ 2) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/15/404673/mit-climate-scientist-wifecyberbullying-pushed-by-deniers/ 3) http://thinkprogress.org/?s=wattsupwiththat&nl=1&x=5&y=4

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 11:01

      Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming. Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil. He also made it clear that very little research was done in the natural causes as very little money was invested into that side of the study. From this researcher Dr. Roy Spencer suggest AGW is rubbish and the cooling phase may start soon. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:24

      @Marius: Roy Spencer is part of the 3% of scientists that do not agree with manmade global warming. You want his opinion to count 50% of the weight and you want to reduce the other 98% to 50%. The fact is: This guy knows he is going to get attention by taking a contrarian view. In that respect he is an attention seeking narcissist. Below are a few of his arguments debunked: 1) "the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site." DEBUNKED: Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend. 2) "there are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming" DEBUNKED: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives. 3) "we're talking about forestalling maybe hundredths of a degree, a few hundredths of a degree per decade of warming just based on the US shutting down half of its economy." DEBUNKED: If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale. 4) there's no way to get rid of the CO2" DEBUNKED: Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change. 5) "I think...we may see very little warming in the future" DEBUNKED: Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. Continued. DEBUNKED:

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:33

      6) "I think that most of the warming we've seen could well be natural" DEBUNKED: Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. 7) "for some reason it stopped warming in the last 10 years, which is one of those dirty little secrets of global warming science" DEBUNKED: Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded. 8) "The cost [of CO2 limits] in terms of human suffering, however, will be immense. " DEBUNKED: Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change. 9) "Even if we could substantially reduce U.S. CO2 emissions in the next 20 years, which barring some new technology is virtually impossible, the resulting (theoretically-computed) impact on U.S or global temperatures would be unmeasurable….hundredths of a degree C at best. " DEBUNKED: If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale. 10) "While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world" DEBUNKED: The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. 12) "the troposphere is ignoring your SUV" DEBUNKED: The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. Continued.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:38

      13) "When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat." DEBUNKED: Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. 14) "what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior." DEBUNKED: Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century. 15) "warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning." DEBUNKED: No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 16) "The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence." DEBUNKED: Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:40

      17) "Are we really sure that ALL of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is from humanity’s emissions? After all, the natural sources and sinks of CO2 are about 20 times the anthropogenic source, so all it would take is a small imbalance in the natural flows to rival the anthropogenic source. " DEBUNKED: The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. 18) "climate modelers...mistakenly conclude that cloud feedbacks in the climate system are positive when in fact the evidence, when more critically examined, suggests they are negative." DEBUNKED: Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. 19) "It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem." DEBUNKED: By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 11:58

      Ernst I think you should rather just read his credentials again to see his level of involvement in climate science. I think the 3% of deniers you are referring too are people who believe in a static climate, who deny climate change and not denying AGW particularly. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition by Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; Member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994 to 2000. Title "Climate change science is an unverified hypothesis" http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/climate%20change%20science%20is%20an%20unverified%20hypothesis.pdf Larry Bell a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 12:11

      @Marius: Provide the citations that point to peer reveiwed research. Please dont provide links that point to Forbes.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 12:15

      Marius: Making bold claims of Hoax, without backing it up with peer reviewed literature is ridiculous.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 12:23

      Ernst Ok, here is your 900+ peer reviews against manmade global warming http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 12:32

      This one is also peer reviewed, William Kininmonth headed the Australian National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998 and now operates a meteorological consultancy. During 1998 and 1999 he coordinated a global review of the 1997-1998 El Niño event and its impacts for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). He was principal Australian delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology (1982-1998) and served for eight years on its advisory board. He was also an Australian delegate to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the intergovernmental negotiating committee for the UNFCCC (1991-1992). http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climatechange.pdf

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 12:37

      William Kininmonth stated: Recent global warming can be directly linked to forcing by the tropical oceans. The increased downward emission of longwave radiation to the surface resulting from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (the enhanced greenhouse effect) could not have caused the warming of the tropical oceans because the large thermal mass of the surface layer would not respond in such a relatively short timeframe. The magnitude of the response, however, is consistent with the estimated increase in solar irradiance operating over the past three hundred years. There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences. The climate model studies that claim to reproduce the global temperature trend since 1860 need further assessment and development.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 12:44

      @Marius: Marius, could you please point out a paper in the list that states explicity that human activities are NOT responsible for warming.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 12:51

      @Marius: Lastly, maybe you should see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populartechnology.net%2F&x=14&y=9

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 13:01

      Ernst Saying Climate Change is mostly driven by natural phenomena, and saying humans are not the cause of climate change in simple English is the same thing. To say “I didn’t drop the glass” and “the glass was dropped by someone else”, both mean that it wasn’t me. But look at the previous post from a peer review paper "Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences." in other words it suggest that the IPCC say human influences are to blame but the document suggest that natural variability of the climate system was under estimated. the entire document if you read it contradict the IPCC idea of manmade global warming, it does not dismiss climate change. It includes statements: The IPCC hypothesis, however, does not accord with the observed trend of increasing tropical longwave radiation to space, as measured by satellites, over the past two decades (see Box 13). This paper make it clear that they do not agree with the IPCC's Hypophesis

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 13:15

      @Marius: Can I ask you the following question because i think we are arguing in circles here: What happens if you add billions of tons of greenhouse gasses to a finitely sized atmosphere? What is going to happen. According to you, these activities have no effect?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 13:36

      I agree. If you talk about CO2, then 1/4 will be absorbed by the oceans, some more gets used by some bacteria and plants. Some will remain in the atmosphere contributing to warming. Then increasing other greenhouse gasses, such as water vapour and CO2, as a result of warming. Now it is my turn: Fact, The Sun’s irradiation on average is 250W/m2, it is our only known source of thermal energy. We observed an increase of 3W/m2 solar irradiance since Maunder Minima as part of the current solar maxima. Question: What will happen when solar irradiance increases with 3W/m2 (1.2%)?

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 13:54

      @Marius: So Marius, let me get this straight: the accumulation of greenhouse gasses over the next 50 years is irrelevant becuase solar irradiance will cause warming. If solar irradiation increases, then surely the accumulated greenhouse gasses will only make the problem worse?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 14:25

      Ernst you didn't answer my question!

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 14:37

      @Marius: Please enlighten me. What will happen when solar irradiance increases with 3W/m2 (1.2%)?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 14:45

      If solar irradiance increase, 1) Water temperature will increase 2) Water capacity to hold CO2 will decrease then it will increase CO2 in the atmosphere (2/3 of earth surface is water) 3) Water vapour (greenhouse gas) will also increase to warmer atmosphere and oceans 4) With both greenhouse gasses increasing further warming in the atmosphere will continue. Up to now 1/4 of our CO2 emissions is absorbed in the water. When we increase water temperature not only will it absorb less CO2 causing a sudden rise in atmospheric CO2, it may also release more CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to know that humans was not here when the major ice ages and hot house effects happen during the last 560 million years http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm Nature is more than capable of doing what we see here by itself, since nature has done much worse before. The idea that climate is naturally stable and that the changes are only caused by humans are inconsistent with the earth climate history or current natural events.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 15:01

      @Marius: Ok, so what happens if carbon is dug up from where it has been stored for millions of years and burned in large quantities? Surely, this increases greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which only exacerbates the effects you have mentioned. I dont understand your point.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 15:23

      My point is what it has always been. I do not dismiss that climate is changing; It have been changing for 4 billion years. I do not suggest that humans have no effect on climate either. I do believe that the IPCC is over exaggerating the human influence for unknown reasons. I suggest that the natural phenomena we observe have the potential to do exactly this we see and worse without human intervention. I suggest that there is a very real controversy in the scientific community about the current perception of climate change as presented by the IPCC I also suggest that the IPCC is not without error. I suggest that scientists are influenced by interest groups and authorities in both sides of the argument. (Companies either way, have policies to prevent scientist of speaking out) I suggest there is not much we can do about it without putting the planet at risk. I suggest the manmade global warming theory is what it is because of the presents and absents of facts. I dismiss any idea that climate is constant and that any observed deviation is fundamentally caused by humans.

  • Zion - 2012-04-30 08:55

    Wind farm dynamics and thermo0dynamics is not my forte. However, By just being interested it struck me that some heat will be generated by the airflow being decelerated abruptly when passing over the blades and between the blades. It must be remembered that for every watt generated a bit more energy will be removed from the atmosphere. Due to the nature of the turbulence in the leeward side of the unit some heat may be re-generated

  • DuToitCoetzee - 2012-04-30 09:01

    See I told you guys that farts, in general, is hotter (sometimes wetter as well) than the air outside and usually keeps a "low-longer-lingering profile" on earth and with these wind farms it now get push into the upper air. That cause this new problem. Stop eating peanuts. O...you don't believe me? Now why do you than belief these people? Is oil price going down? Did they discover new oil fields. Does the USA now have more oil to use/sell(after certain wars) LOL!!!

  • marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 09:26

    Add this to bird strikes, noise pollution and the amount of natural habitat it occupies. Wind farms are not exactly environment friendly.

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 12:51

      And don't forget the Neodynium mining in China, with resultant waste byproducts of radio-active Thorium. For the tree-hugging bunnies out there, 1 ton of Neodynium is used per generator, so you can imagine the amount of radioactive products that result for the mining & extraction process. This is something the greenies are too stupid to realise, or they simply ignore it because it is an "Inconvenient Truth"

      marius.dumas - 2012-05-01 12:11

      Just in the US there is 10'000 to 40'000 bird stikes due to wind farms

  • brianmacza - 2012-04-30 10:17

    "Scientists say the world's average temperature has warmed by about 0.8ºC since 1900, and nearly 0.2ºC per decade since 1979." is mathematically stupid... 1980/1990/2000 = 0.6ºC increase by itself... where do they get the balance of 0.2ºC measurement from? It's called CLIMATE CHANGE people... it happens without our intervention anyway.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 10:31

      I agree completely, humans may have some effect but most of it is natural. Solar activities could be one of the main driving forces. We already found the projections of the IPCC to be wrong and misleading.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:47

      @brianmacza: "It's called CLIMATE CHANGE people... it happens without our intervention anyway." So you think adding billions of tons of greenhouse gasses in a finitely sized atmosphere is not going to make things worse??

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 11:48

      @Marius: "We already found the projections of the IPCC to be wrong and misleading." Where? The IPCC report is a 3000 page document.

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 13:05

      @ernst. What a tosser you are. You haven't a flipping clue about science do you? You just regurgitate ManBearPig and his hippie minions' lies.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 13:11

      @Morgean: Shame.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 14:20

      Here is a graph showing how the IPCC is over estimating temperature in comparison with the actual measurement http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0167644fec98970b-popup Temperature is not a direct function of CO2 http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi Remote sensing results from satilites does not mach the IPCC models that predicted warming. From: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf Remote Sensing ISSN 2072-4292 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing Page: 1612 "...Unfortunately, this appears not to be the situation in either the satellite observations or the coupled climate models. Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models." Title "IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 14:29

      @Marius: Oh yes, the remote sensing paper that caused the editor of the journal to resign because this "fundamentally flawed" paper got through the peer review system.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 14:34

      @Marius: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/remote-sensing-editor-resigns-over-spencerbraswell-paper/ "Temperature is not a direct function of CO2" When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 15:05

      Ernst you made two very important statements. 1)[orbit] you said the earth gets out of an ice age because of changes in orbit. orbits are the classical explanation but a factor. But one thing you said without saying it, was that a change in solar irradiance (orbit). We recover from an ice age because of an increase in solar irradiance.(earths orbit, solar activities) 2) [oceans and CO2] you admit that an increase in temperature will cause the oceans to give of more C02 when this solar irradiance increases. So its not all about humans making CO2 when this happens. 3) [Climate Change] you admit that this effect can cause massive climate change as it can recover us naturally from an ice age. Well we are still recovering from an ice age 18 000 years ago, the polar caps are what was left behind. That exact process you describe is still happening. accept modern astronomy also found that solar activities on 11, 22 and 80 year cycles within the sun also effect irradiance and not only the orbit of the earth.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-30 16:05

      Ernst you talk about tons of CO2 that humans produce per year, I don’t say it has no effect but… When I talk about 1.2% increase of solar irradiance, then I mean we receive 1 500 000 Giga Watt (Joules per second) of energy extra from the sun. DO you think that may have an effect on climate?

      Emile - 2012-05-01 08:01

      @Morgean\r\n ManBearPig-50% man - 50% bear - 50% pig ! Lol loved that episode also the one where ManBearPig was alive and kicking in Fantasy World and where Eric was the hall monitor at school....bear mace that one Beth, bear mace that one too Beth! Lol

  • Morgaen - 2012-04-30 12:46

    Does anyone else get the impression that Ernest is getting a little defensive, spamming this page with his copy-and-paste tripe? Go and organize your handbag, you poof.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 13:11

      @Morgean: Ag shame. Did mommy not put on your nappy today.....

      Morgaen - 2012-04-30 19:41

      @ernst: You're the one with wet nappies, but probably from incontinence caused by your unnatural acts with other boys.

  • Craig - 2012-04-30 15:08

    Ernst is a very busy little alarmist today isn't he. The link I gave to sea ice extent contains information from all of the main players , the DMI and NASA and GISS amongst others. You keep on about billions of tonnes of green house gases yet you obviously know . . 1. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and that using Arrhenius/ Tyndall a doubling will increase the air temperature by about 1K. Only by assuming all of the forcings are positive will that rise to 3k. The forcings have been shown to be largely negative or neutral. 2. Of the CO2 load being added to the atmosphere only 3% is man made. 3. The PDO cannot change the overall heat balance of the ocean it just moves it about. 4. Sea levels are not going up and they would have to if global warming was a fact. But, rather than go on, consider this. We know that AGW can result in things getting warmer and colder, wetter and drier, more ice and less ice, more snow and less snow, sea level going up and going down , the tropical troposphere hot spot being there and not being there etc. etc. So let me ask you what would it take to disprove your rather bizarre theory that man made Carbon Dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change? Just give us a straight forward test that would disprove it. I ask this because it seems to me that anything and everything that happens is used by the alarmists as proof that AGW is happening. Thank you.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 15:29

      @Craig: 1) The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks. "2. Of the CO2 load being added to the atmosphere only 3% is man made." I assume that your conclusion from this statement is that man's contribution is so small, therefore it is insignificant. Saying that human activity caused CO2 is insignificant is like saying that arsenic is "only" a trace water contaminant. Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. " Just give us a straight forward test that would disprove it. I ask this because it seems to me that anything and everything that happens is used by the alarmists as proof that AGW is happening." The problem with this statement is that you require proponents of AGW to be 100% sure instead of 90% sure. Yet, you dont place the same rigour on people that do not believe in AGW, as you refute all the evidence that suggests man is responsible.

      Craig - 2012-04-30 17:47

      Ernst all I am asking for is what it would take to disprove the CAGW theory. For instance it can be stated that gravity here on Earth requires everything to fall towards Earth eventually, to disprove that would require something to "fall" away from the Earth. In other words the null hypothesis is that something falling away from Earth would disprove my statement. There must be something that would disprove the CAGW hypothesis if it occurred. For instance if CO2 continues to increase but the planet cools for some period that would disprove the theory. How long would such cooling have to go on for? Or, we are told that Global Warming is killing the Polar Bears but the global population of Polar Bears has increased from 5000 thirty years ago to 25 000 today. How many more should we have to see before the CAGW theory is disproved? I mean the Polar Bear thing was chosen as proof by the alarmists that the planet was warming catastrophically. Or how many glaciers would have to increase their mass? The alarmists said that glacier loss was proof that the planet was warming catastrophically but new research done by satellite measurements show that glacier ice mass was increasing along the Himalayas and Karakoram ranges. It has been shown that ice/snow loss on Kilimanjaro is because of deforestation on its slopes rather than climate change. So how much glacier ice increase is needed to disprove the hypothesis that man made CO2 is causing a catastrophic change to our climate?

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 19:30

      @Craig: "....ice mass was increasing along the Himalayas and Karakoram ranges. It has been...." Craig, consider all ice sheets that cover the globe. If ice mass increases in one area then it does not mean that total global ice mass is increasing. Globally, the total ice volume has decreased. "ice/snow loss on Kilimanjaro is because of deforestation on its slopes rather than climate change. So how much glacier ice increase is needed to disprove the hypothesis that man made CO2 is..." Craig, once again you are confusing regional ice cover with global ice cover. Ice mass increasing in one specific area does not imply global increase. Below link is an interesting read: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm "Or, we are told that Global Warming is killing the Polar Bears but the global population of Polar Bears has increased from 5000 thirty years ago to 25 000 today. How many more should we have to see before the CAGW theory is disproved? I mean the...." Craig, I dont know where it was said that AGW is currently directly killing polar bears. However, I would think that if their ecosystem (ice) melts then they will become extinct. In the next 50 years, their habitat is going to diminish substantially due to warming.

  • Adil Smit - 2012-04-30 19:26

    Donald Trump is against the wind farm near his intended villa in Scotland..... that alone is enough reason to be in favour of it :-)

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 21:21

      @Adil Smit: Yes Adil, perhaps they should rather use that comb-over hair of his to generate electricity.

  • Morgaen - 2012-04-30 19:45

    ernst, ernst, ernst.... you realy ought to get a life. You are failing to convince anyone with your fallacious copy-and-pasted tripe.

      Ernst - 2012-04-30 21:24

      @Morgaen: My aim is not to convince anybody of anything, it is do debunk people like you. You can deny basic scientific principles all you like.

  • Lauden Kirk - 2012-05-01 10:11

    My god 0.80% of heat is the friction caused at the router level

  • Zion - 2012-05-01 15:16

    OH, OH, OH, If only, if only I too can fall for the conspiracy theory it would give me better and more sleep at night.

  • pages:
  • 1