Archives for the month of: January, 2013

The initial claim is that the bolts broke. Well, remind me to investigate, but internet search may prove fruitless. Fatigue is likely, but bolts above the fatigue limit should have been specified. Anyway, this is just another example of why windmills have been abandoned over and over for over three thousand years! They are good for immediate, localized needs, and for pumping water. Other than that, they are mostly a maintenance nightmare.

Watts Up With That?

So much for Endurance…

Bradworthy Endurance Wind Power E-3120 turbine

From Louise Gray at The Telegraph:

Wind turbine collapses in high wind

A controversial 115ft wind turbine has collapsed after being hit by heavy winds.

The £250,000 tower, which stood as tall as a ten storey building, was hit by gale force gusts of 50mph.

The structure then collapsed at a farm in Bradworth, Devon, leaving a “mangled wreck”.

Margaret Coles, Chairwoman of Bradworthy District Council, said hail storms and strong winds have hit the area and the turbine, installed just three years ago, simply could not withstand the wind. 

View original post 133 more words

Advertisements

I’m not much of a fan, but I couldn’t have said it better:

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Voltaire

One could be cynical regarding China’s actions regarding coal, but that probably doesn’t matter to them. While they probably snicker at notions like the President’s about making coal use in the US too expensive (bankrupting all who try to use it), China is simply interested in providing power for its people. China is hellbent on producing more power. Consider the Three Gorges Dam and what was sacrificed to build it. China simply realizes that to be prosperous and to provide good lives for its citizens, it must provide more power, especially electricity.

Watts Up With That?

I noted this juxtaposing today, and thought I would share it. First this story from Reuters today:

EU capped emissions fall below expectations

* Carbon prices drop to record low
* Power sector down 3.1 pct, others off by 0.5 pct
* Germany emissions down 1.2 pct; UK off 7.2 pct (Releads with record low carbon price, adds UBS analyst quote)

By Jeff Coelho

LONDON, April 2 (Reuters) – Carbon prices plunged to record lows on Monday after data showing emissions in the European Union’s main scheme to fight greenhouse gases dropped below expectations last year.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) fell by 2.4 percent in 2011 from 2010, prompting carbon prices to fall by more than 11 percent to well below 7 euros a tonne.

While the preliminary data published by the European Commission on Monday suggests the bloc is on track to achieve…

View original post 338 more words

In this lengthy article, Dr. Carter makes the point that the Greenies are pushing for drastic measures to curtail one possible future climatic condition. The fact is, there are many possible future climatic conditions. The earth might do something completely unexpected. Mother Nature doesn’t care. I’ll repeat, Mother Nature DOES NOT care. Not at all. She will minimize Gibbs Free Energy, nothing more, nothing less. The natural systems will alter to equilibrate in the long run. Since cooling is also possible, even likely, why not prepare to respond to change, rather than try to prevent it? (That is Dr. Carter’s suggestion, if you read it all.) To answer myself, I’ll say the Greenies care not for preparation, they only care for control. Political power and control. Progressivism at its worst.

Watts Up With That?

clip_image002
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW FROM DOWN UNDER

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter

Geologist & environmental scientist

Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, who wrote the December AITSE piece “Climate Change: Anthropogenic or Not?”, is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is senior author of the book “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”.

I am a senior research geologist who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic topics and also author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus”.

Quite clearly, Dr. Hayhoe and I are both credible professional scientists. Given our training and research specializations, we are therefore competent to assess the evidence regarding the dangerous global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) alleges is being caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

View original post 3,050 more words

I have a quote below that I pulled from Anthony’s site (WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/26/newsbytes-global-warming-downgraded-james-lovelock-recants/), which he pulled from Bishop Hill (link below), with additional credits, from James Lovelock.

I love that Lovelock says fundamentalists have taken over environmentalism. I think despite the fact that he is a zealot himself, he finally noticed just how religious and dogmatic it all has become. Gaia, Mother Nature, or some ideal of greenness has come to replace God in the modern religion, which is a hybrid of the faith of our fathers, the love of nature, and simple self-worship. Read the rest of this entry »

Willis Eschenbach said this recently, but it goes back at least to Climategate. I suspect an investigation would find it significantly farther back.

Yes, science is a blood sport. Getting one’s facts wrong can be fatal, especially for engineers. We at least generally hold engineers liable. Hardly so with scientists. At worst they are disgraced and ignored. Usually, they simply fade away with no personal ill effects.

Another case of something sounding too good to be true proving to be really bad. Large solar just doesn’t work, and it likely never will. Solar energy is just too diffuse and intermittent.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by David Middleton

Great News! Siemens will generate an 18% return on a project that will have a negative return on investment (-9%)… All at the taxpayers’ expense!

At first glance, this looked too good to be true…

View original post 963 more words

Update:
I received a nice note back. I am mildly impressed. So far so good. They said they would forward my concerns to the fact-checker and the expert. No names nor qualifications, but oh well. Apparently if my concerns prove out, they will edit future printings. Hmm…
—————–
Dear Editor:
Regarding your issue on extreme weather, I must point out how exaggerated and even wrong nearly every statement in the issue appears to be.
Can you provide me references to back up your assertions? More importantly, can you provide me context wherein I can assuage the fears your magazine engendered in my children?
Perhaps you can visit this reference page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
and explain to me why each item is wrong, and provide at least two references to counter each.
Also, please don’t refer to the hypocrite-of-hypocrites Al Gore. He has recently proven his money-grubbing motives for all to see. Please refrain from referencing activists and radical environmental organizations. I’m looking for real science, where I can go check. No models that are proven more unreliable by the day, please.
Also, please reference this very old (for the internet) reference, http://scotese.com/climate.htm
Please explain to me Dr. Scotese assertion: “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
Please refer to, consider and understand, his figure. Please note that the current commonly referenced temperature that the earth has risen to since the Little Ice Age is 14°C. Please note that Dr. Scotese indicates a slightly lower temperature, of 12 or 13°C. Alarmists predict a 1, 2, 3, even 5 or 6°C increase over the next several decades. These projections are proving daily to be grossly exaggerated. Still, please explain how a temperature that has obtained for nearly the entire prehistory of life on earth can be so catastrophic. Please.
Before I make a point about the paleotemperature record, please let me point out a simple truth for perspective:
The global temperature as estimated from paleological proxies varied between 10 and 25°C, with two very brief (geologically speaking) excursions to approximately 27°C. Note: 10°C = 283.15K and 27°C = 300.15K. From that, we see that throughout the history of life on earth, the temperature has been remarkably stable. That is, 17K is less than 6% of 300K, thus earth’s global mean temperature is 290K ± 3% or less. Remarkably, stable. AND, currently we are well within the natural bounds.
Now, my final point regarding the Scotese graph. Note that the hottest excursion EVER according to the paleological record was just before the Early Eocene. That temperature excursion was 13 to 15°C greater than current earth temperature, more than double the wildest claims by the alarmists. What happened then? Was it a great extinction? Well, it seems some microorganisms in the ocean had a bad time of it, but quite the contrary, the main mammals emerge in the record then and primates about then too. Hmm… We seem to like it hot just as much as the dinosaurs did!
Further, with so much evidence that warm periods in the history of civilization were times of advancement in all aspects of good and civil society (the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period {we used to call these climate optimums until global warming became a cause for panic}), and cool periods like the Little Ice Age resulted in famine, disease, civil unrest, and war, why try to scare kids to death with computer model outputs that are proving more wrong every day? (We are well over 16 years now with no warming. Even the radical activist James Hanson has recently admitted to it. Not long ago the meme was it would take a full 15 years without increase to invalidate the models. Well?)
For a well reasoned hypothosis regarding why earth doesn’t overheat please see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/ (published here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/; http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/nm45w65nvnj3/?p=593f3e397da34c23b3806982df0b915e&pi=0)
Note: it is also why carbon dioxide, one of the three truly essential ingredients of life, will not significantly raise our temperature while we burn up all the available fossil fuel. (Note the three essential ingredients to life are dihydrogen monoxide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The first two are also responsible for a great deal of death, pain, destruction, and devastation throughout our world both now and throughout all of history. Not only do we live on a water planet, so there is no getting away from the dihydrogen monoxide, but it is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for at least 75% of the effect, probably more than 90%, maybe a full 95%. On a water planet–go figure.)
Weather is not getting more extreme. If the storm of September 1938 happened today, no one would consider Sandy significant. (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/hurricane/hurricane1938.shtml)
Every generation throughout the centuries has claimed the worst was upon them, or was just about to happen, if society did not repent and turn from its evil ways. What is different this time? The only difference is the source of prosperity, food, and shelter for all who enjoy abundant fossil-fuel energy versus “sin” or idolatry.
Please, I ask these questions in earnest. I truly would appreciate a full, detailed, point-by-point response. One lesson I live by and try diligently to teach my children is that it is always better to be corrected than to remain wrong. My sometimes-rebellious redheaded 19-year-old daughter still has not come to grips with the notion that some people would rather remain wrong than admit to it.
I have been accused of caring nothing for the future. But that is utterly false. I am raising five of the best children the world has ever known, and I want them to have a better place to live than I have. EPA statistics show we are doing better in pollution. Technological advances keep food and energy ahead of demand most of the time. Only short-sighted politics seems a real threat, and ideological demagogues masquerading as objective scientists. We need to remember Feynman. We ourselves are the easiest to fool. We must take pains do find out our mistakes and blind spots.
One final question: Will not the proposed cure certainly cause more harm in the very real present than the supposed disease will cause in the very distant future?
Sincerely,
Lonnie E. Schubert

Too good not to reblog. Well worth the time to read.

Women of Caliber

By Kellene Bishop

A few days ago I sent an e-mail to a list of my family and friends who subscribe to my emergency preparedness blog, Preparedness Pro.  The most recent blog posted was on the necessity of firearms and ammo (along with necessary skill and practice) for a properly prepared state.  Unfortunately, my message was not well received by one of my friends.  He sent me back a message that simply stated “I’m anti-gun.  Please take me off of your list.”  While I can perfectly understand why a person is not comfortable with the subject of firearms for self-defense, I was certain that my friend was not fully aware of the ramifications that invoking such a vow as being “anti-gun” truly entailed.  In my work I find that the majority of individuals who are “anti-gun” are women.  And thus I felt that addressing this topic was appropriate for…

View original post 1,635 more words

Crazy we will have with us always.
From the snippets Anthony includes, we can see direct evidence of the culture war and the deadly claims of the radical environmentalists. This one is worth repeating: Claim from April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

Watts Up With That?

UPDATE: New table added below.

While searching for something else, I came across this entertaining collection of grand predictive failures related to resources and climate change, along with some of the biggest predictive failures of Paul Ehrlich. I thought it worth sharing.

Exhaustion of Resources

“Indeed it is certain, it is clear to see, that the earth itself is currently more cultivated and developed than in earlier times. Now all places are accessible, all are documented, all are full of business.  The most charming farms obliterate empty places, ploughed fields vanquish forests, herds drive out wild beasts, sandy places are planted with crops, stones are fixed, swamps drained, and there are such great cities where formerly hardly a hut… everywhere there is a dwelling, everywhere a multitude, everywhere a government, everywhere there is life. The greatest evidence of the large number of people: we are burdensome to the world, the…

View original post 2,213 more words

Pointman makes the point. Fundamentalist zealots have the reins of climate science, and the honest practitioners are fighting back. Too bad it doesn’t work this way with religious fundamentalists. I gave up on fundamentalism. There were too many dishonest zealots whose agenda overrode the simple goal of living honestly and humbly before God. Devotion to truth was secondary to fighting for ones dogma.

Pointman's

Over the last few years, we’ve had a number of substantial leaks of sensitive material from deep within the very heart of climate science. In each case, it’s been fairly obvious that the person doing it works in the field and is relatively senior, if only because they have access to such quantities of high-grade material and know the impact its leaking will have.

Given that the heated debate over global warming is so highly polarised, what we have is certain senior people on one side actively supplying ammunition to the other. Why would they go out of their way to damage their own area of science, that they themselves must have invested years of their life in? How on Earth could such an extraordinary situation have come about?

One can only guess at the specific motivation of the individuals concerned, but I think due to the almost fundamentalist nature of mainstream…

View original post 1,356 more words

Sooner or later, it will be clear to everyone who bothers to consider it that the global warming alarmists are no different than previous alarmists and doom-sayers. Sooner or later it will be clear to all that folks like Laden are the same as the folks like Dr. Henry Morris. The dogmatism and self-promoting actions of the global warming alarmists are clearly the same as the actions of the young-earth crowd.

Watts Up With That?

UPDATE: Joe Romm, perhaps fearing he’d be drawn into a defamation lawsuit with Laden for not checking to see if Laden’s claims were true has made a rare update to ClimateProgress in my favor.  See below.

UPDATE2: Reader poll on the question “should I sue the pants off Greg Laden?

Harsh title – I know, but justified by Mr. Laden’s actions. I could ignore him, but people like him need to be called out when they do things like this.

Here’s a screencap of a “science blogs” post made by Mr. Laden, who is no stranger to shooting his mouth off in non factual ways that get him in trouble, as Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) can testify to from another Laden episode last year where Laden was forced to remove untrue and libelous statements he made. Laden’s original post about Tattersall (with all the angry unedited rhetoric)…

View original post 1,029 more words

Here is a quick calculation you can check yourself, indicating the benefits of CO2 outweigh the even exagerated costs presumed by alarmists.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I see that the New York Times (NYT) is going to close their environmental desk. Given that there still are actual environmental problems on the planet, I consider the closing as a sad commentary on the hijacking of the environmental movement by carbon alarmists. CO2 alarmism has done huge damage to the environmental movement, and thus to the environment itself.

In any case, a few months ago in the NYT Green Blog they talked about “monetizing” the “social cost” of carbon. The article said:

In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers and scientists, agreed to work out what they considered a coherent standard for establishing the social cost of carbon. The idea was that, in calculating the costs and benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation could not assume that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a…

View original post 1,298 more words

Algore is a hypocrite and anti-American.

Watts Up With That?

Now that Mr. Gore is on that take from “big oil”, here’s a collection of satirical images and cartoons celebrating his new carbon footprint…

View original post 1 more word

%d bloggers like this: