“The individual sea level records obtained from the SEAFRAME study on 12 Pacific Islands have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993. This assessment studies individual records and finds that all of them show no change of sea level in almost all of the records following the 1998 cyclones. It is considered that cyclones and tsunamis not only induce false readings which should be ignored when calculating a trend, but they also disrupt the leveling of the equipment so that previous years’ figures should also not form part of a trend.”
“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.”
Here is a the very latest sea Level data from “The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project” produced by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology with technical support from the National Tidal centre and funded by the Australian Agency for International Development. There is no evidence of any dramatic increases in sea levels.
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
Allan Duffy (Press and Journal, August 26), makes a number of assertions and claims which invite challenge.
First, there are far more than a “small number of people” opposing “windfarm sites”.
Second, the cause of this opposition is about more than the potential impact on tourism.
And, finally, they will never generate “excess power” that can be sold to the national grid to enhance Scotland’s economy.
Much of the opposition to windmills relates to their inability to produce electricity when required, combined with their negligible impact on CO emissions because of the expensive associated need for “spinning” back-up from conventional CO-emitting generators.
In his time in Germany, Mr Duffy may have noted that, for all their thousands of windmills, the Germans have not shut down one conventional power station and, in fact, are having to build new coal-fired power stations to meet demand.
If he were to look at the NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements) website, he would see that, with all the windmills at present operating in the UK, wind contributes only about 0.1-2% of daily national demand.
Yes, renewable energy must be a component of our future energy mix, but unreliable and expensive windmills are not the answer.
Yet again, while travelling through the Glens of Foudland, I was struck by a distinct lack of movement by even one of the many wind turbines you drive past.
Another bad day in Scotland’s fight against global warming… sorry, I forgot for a moment that climate change seems to have been adopted as a more appropriate term now.
In the meantime, the landowners, renewable-energy companies – through massive subsidies – and overseas manufacturers of said turbines continue to get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. Strange times indeed.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
Here is an animated video produced by FirstEnergy available from Mining Connection (http://www.miningconnection.com/). It shows how we make electricity from coal. It also shows that the cooling towers so loved by TV to illustrate power plant pollution in fact emit only warm air and moisture – not even the demonised but harmless carbon dioxide. The invisible carbon dioxide exits via the less photogenic chimneys. So what TV usually shows to illustrate “carbon pollution” is no more polluting than what comes out of the spout of your kettle. So much for truth on TV.
Here is a time lapse video showing the effect of increased carbon dioxide on plant growth.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 386 ppm. In this experiment, one plant-growing chamber had 450 ppm carbon dioxide, the level at which we are told will cause the world to tip into runaway global warming. The other chamber had carbon dioxide at 1270 ppm, a level most nurseries would prefer to have, and the level at which much life on earth evolved it.
See for yourself the dramatic increase in plant growth we could expect from a carbon-rich atmosphere. The well fed plant weighed 44% more than the starved one, with greater height, more leaves and far more roots. This plant not only grew faster and better, its better root system would make it more drought and heat tolerant.
Yet Penny Wong and the alarmists want us to believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and more of it would be a disaster!
Why are CSIRO and our many Departments of Agriculture so silent on this fundamental issue?
Are they all cowed, or are their well paid jobs more important than revealing the truth?
“We think that, by 2020, the cost of electricity will be threefold what it is today, given the current policy of large amounts of renewables being forced into the system, un-costed charges for those renewables given the current policy settings and a substantial increase in transmission and distribution costs.”
71% of the earth’s surface is covered by water and large areas of the land are covered by frozen water. Water and water vapour are also significant components of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere and its trace component of carbon dioxide is a very thin skin in close contact with the surface of all of this water. Carbon dioxide is very soluble in water and Henry’s Law says that as the temperature of water changes the quantity of carbon dioxide dissolved in that water will change.
Thus if the sea surface temperature increases, carbon dioxide will be expelled to the atmosphere just like carbon dioxide bubbles are expelled from a warming beer. And as sea surface temperature falls, carbon dioxide will dissolve in the cooling water and this reduces the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This effect can be seen in seasonal, medium term and long term trends.
The seasonal variation in atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is well known, and the huge southern oceans are key players. See the short paper by Bob Beatty on the carbon dioxide cycle at : http://www.bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf [PDF, 689 KB]
When it is winter in the southern hemisphere, the cold surface water of the oceans absorb carbon dioxide and the content of carbon dioxide in the air falls suddenly by about 4 ppm. This is reversed when the southern oceans warm in summer, and the carbon dioxide is expelled from the oceans. (The seasonal summer growth and winter fall of northern hemisphere vegetation adds to this seasonal fluctuation caused mainly by the southern oceans.)
On a medium time scale (21 year moving average) Professor Lance Endersbee published a short paper in August 2008 and he concluded that the oceans regulate the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the influence of human-generated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is negligible. His paper included the following diagram:
On longer time scales, ocean mixing caused by deep ocean currents causes long term changes in ocean temperatures. These changes also affect long term carbon dioxide trends. Carbon dioxide held in large quantities in cold deep ocean water is slowly released as ocean currents mix this cold water with warmer surface water. The reverse occurs as the sea surface cools, absorbs carbon dioxide and the cold dense water sinks to the ocean floor.
The most dramatic evidence of this lagged response comes from ice core data. These show that significant turning points in temperature precede the corresponding turning points in carbon dioxide content in air by between 650 and 1600 years.
Henry’s Law can and has been tested in laboratory experiments. The other data provides additional evidence for the conclusion that the major factor regulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, on all time scales, is the temperature of the oceans. Ocean temperature is controlled by solar cycles, cloud cover, ocean currents and undersea volcanism.
“The Sierra Club is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.”
“This is where the environmental movement will make the most progress in the next five years,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.
The story of how a combination of green missionaries and vested interests have distorted and crippled the Australian electricity industry.
Evans and Quirk conclude:
“By 2020 annual electricity consumption in eastern Australia is estimated from NEMMCO data to be 347 Twh. If renewables are to provide 20 per cent, and no new hydro is to be permitted, electricity production from wind farms (or other renewable sources) must provide 53 TWh. Ignoring for the moment the insuperable problem of unpredictability, and assuming a Load Factor of 25 per cent, this will require a total of 27,000 MW of windmill capacity. Every bit of coastline, every mountain ridge, and much else that can be secured for windmills will have to be pressed into service to meet this target.
“The capital cost of wind power is considered to be $2000 per kW, and so an extra 26,000 MW will cost $52 billion. And back-up will be required. So in addition to new coal plant required to provide an additional 60 TWh, back-up generation of at least 23,400 MW will be required. All of this will have to be paid for by the electricity consumer. These numbers could not appear in any Commonwealth budget; no government could justify that sort of expenditure.
“On top of all this we have system stability problems created by widely dispersed power sources, spread over tens of thousands of square kilometres; whose output can vary dramatically as the wind gusts and dies down; that are connected to the main grid by long, weak transmission lines—a system operator’s nightmare. Such a transmission network, weak and unreliable as it will be, will cost at least $30 billion.”
RSS
