Chapter 6:Why are we going wind again?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter

The main reason for this move to “renewable” energy and the main purpose of the Green Energy Act, is to save the planet from our emissions of CO2.  This is called Anthropic Global Warming, a.k.a Human Caused Climate Change.   The IPCC and environmentalist NGO’s around the world have the Western World in a frenzy about humans changing the climate with some catastrophic future soon to come.  They claim the science is settled.  Just as “settled” as gravity, plate tectonics, genetics, evolution, etc.

Well, let’s dispel that myth right now.  Nothing in science is ever settled.  Only dogmatic positions make such claims.  But isn’t gravity settled?  No it’s not, not by a long shot.  Let’s separate two things here because those who claim AGW is settled are deliberately confusing two entirely different things — events and mechanisms.

Gravity exists yes.  When we see gravity in action that is an event.  But the mechanism of how gravity works is not even known, has several theories of how it might be working, and is in no way even close to being settled.  So those who claim AGW is settled like gravity is are fundamentally and logically flawed in their argument.  Yes, the climate changes. We see climate events taking place.  There is no question that climate changes.  The mechanism of how that change happens is in no way settled, and can never be settled.  But what these AGW dogmatists are doing is claiming the mechanism of AGW is settled, but using events to prove that it is.  Well, if that is the case, then climatology is unique of all the sciences that can have mechanisms unquestioned and settled.  The default position in AGW dogma is that humans are causing all the changes until empirical evidence of natural shows otherwise.  You see it in the news every day, some weather event happens, it’s blamed on us, we are the mechanism of that event. That’s a logical fallicy.

This is completely backwards to how every other science works.  In no other science is the default position of natural causation first supplanted with a human causation.  Only in climate science is that done.  This is why AGW is not science. It’s not following the rules of science.

Oh, but there is that consensus.  Well, in science, nothing is settled by consensus.  So it does not matter who says what.  It does not matter who claims to be an expert.  It does not matter which scientific organization endorsed what.  All that counts in science is evidence — nothing more.  Never, ever, let the argument from authority trump evidence.

Now let’s look at that evidence.  Let’s start right at the beginning with some thoughts on CO2 emissions.  Yes, there is evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing since accurate measurements were started some 100 years ago.   Daily readings since the 1950s shows CO2 is clearly increasing.  But is this bad?  Will it have a deleterious effect on the planet?  Will our planet become like Venus as some claim?  No! CO2 is actually quite low now in a geological time frame.  In fact, CO2 levels are the lowest in geological history.  CO2 levels were as much as 20 times today some 400 million years ago.

Even as recently as 3 million years ago CO2 levels were 3 times today, — yet the planet didn’t cook.  55 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher and it was the time of the great diversity of mammals.  The planet was a tropical climate all the way to the poles.  Greenland had palm trees then.  The planet didn’t cook, life flourished!  It’s periods like the one that we are in today, the rare glacial periods, that are the real killers of life.

Here are a few references on CO2’s effects:

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The main effect this increased CO2 has on the atmosphere is that it traps heat, hence raising the world’s temperature, or so the models claim.  Yet, what isn’t acknowledged by the AGW dogmatists is that these scientists have not figured out the heat budget of the planet. So how can the models predict anything in the future if they don’t understand what is happening right now?  They can’t.

Is the temperature of the planet increasing? We keep hearing in the news that it is.  They keep showing us that graph of temperature going up since industrialization began.  Graphs such as this.

What are they presenting in that graph of increasing temperature?  Is it a measurement or a calculation (big difference)?  Well, it’s the global average of the yearly mean temperatures.  What is that?  Well, they get the daily high and low temps for each day and average it.  They then average all those averaged temperatures to get a yearly average (thus ignoring seasonal changes), they then average all the years for that location from that yearly average.  Then, they average all the locations on the planet to get the global average.   So, no, that graph they are showing (above) is not a measurement, but a calculation of many layers of averages.  It really is quite meaningless because it lacks context.

It’s kind of like this.  The average road speed in the country is 55km/hour (that’s a guess, but play along).  If it was 50km/hour 20 years ago, does that mean cars are moving faster?  No, that’s not true, not at all.  One can have more vehicles moving on a highway going highway speeds, which increases the average, but the top speed of cars on highways is not increasing.  Just more cars travelling at highway speeds.  All you need to do to increase the average speed is to increase the speed limit on a road that once had a school that is now closed!  That is the problem with averaging of many layers.  All that averaging loses a lot of detail.  It loses it’s context on how the average was obtained. Hence it’s a meaningless number. 

The question has to be asked, what is physically happening to increase the average speed on all the roads?  Thus in translation, what is physically happening during the max and min temps of each season to make the average temp increase?

Can you have an increase in the average yearly temperature over the century without it getting hotter?  Oh, absolutely!  In fact, in Canada that is exactly what is happening.  See this analysis for details on what is actually physically happening with temperatures in Canada.  The bottom line is that summers are cooling in every location in Canada.  1/3 as many days in Southern Ontario are over 30C today than in the 1920’s.  Winters are becoming “not as cold”.  Half as many days are below -20C in Southern Ontario since the 1920’s.    The difference in the summer and winter temperatures in Canada are more moderated, narrowing, and converging since the 1900’s.  If the trend continues, then some 800 years from now summer and winter would be the same basic temperature of some 18C, thereafter winter would be warmer than summer.  Since that is physically impossible, then at some time in the future, this convergence between summer and winter temps must reverse and start to diverge, regardless of how much CO2 we emit. In other words, this trend is just a normal natural cycle.

There is more than enough evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period were warmer than today, and global (see list of references here).  By warmer, that means the summers were the same as today, but just that the winters were less cold, and they had a longer growing season.  It’s no co-incidence that during the MWP the great cathedrals were built (There was enough food that people could specialize in building them!) and it abruptly stopped after the 1400’s when the Little Ice Age hit (shorter summers, with deep long winters).  Millions staved during that 400 year-long period from crop failures.

But what about weather extremes?  What about them.  “Extreme” weather events have been happening since this planet had an atmosphere.  What is “extreme”?  Any event that is “extreme” must have never happened in all of history, at least human history, even recent human history (last 5000 years, which is nothing).  That’s obviously going to be difficult to figure out.  But there are papers published that show storms, cyclones, rain fall, snow fall, are no different now than in the past 5000 years (see subject listing here).

The bottom line about the climate is this.  Nothing is happening in the climate or weather today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10,000 and 100,000 year cycles.  Nothing, zippo, nodda.  Not storms, not rain, not snow — nothing abnormal is happening. That’s what the evidence shows.

But what about all those expensive computer models?  One thing that must be stated very clearly is predictions from computer models is not evidence!  It’s speculation!  There are more than enough studies done on the accuracy of computer models which shows them to be quite lacking.  It’s really simple to see the game these climate modelers play.

Their predictions of the future are a range of probabilities.  There are as many different outcomes of these probabilities as there are software programs that generate those results.  Yet, as soon as the future becomes the past, these models magically predicted that with pinpoint accuracy.  Why?  Because when the future becomes the past the climate modelers adjust their programs to match what actually happened.  And then they have the gall to claim they predicted that all along!  Now if that isn’t a lie.

So here we have it.  The entire Green Energy Act, the reason for all these turbines and solar panels, the reason you are demanded to pay more, is all based on a deception.  That our CO2 is changing the climate.  It’s not.

For more on this visit the following sites on a regular basis:

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Previous Chapter Next Chapter

6 Responses to Chapter 6:Why are we going wind again?

  1. Sally & Mike Sapiro says:

    I like what you have done so far. There is also an aurgument that industrial wind turbines do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. William Palmer uses some graphs that show the demand curve for a typical week in each of the 4 seasons. Add to that graph the typical industrial wind tuebine output for the same period using the same MW y axis. now add in base load generation form hydraulic and nuclear. Now expand the wind to see the effect of 12,000 MW name plate capacity. (the amount of wind power in the FIT program que). It then becomes obvious that much of the time Ontario will be paying either nuclear or wind to not produce power. The next topic becomes running gas gererators to maintain grid stability to compensate for the hourly changes in wind production. The net reduction in CO2 becomes trivial. The cost of power will double over the next few years!

    [DR: Wind power is actually 1,200MW instantaneous production — or Face Plate value]

  2. willr2010 says:

    Sally and Mike:

    Wind output varies much more rapidly than an hourly basis — think second by second. The data stream would be overwhelming to present it that way however except for snippets of information. In any case, hourly is how IESO supplies it — so that’s how we analyze it…

    In any case have a look here…

    The lack of significance of Wind Power will be much more clear.

  3. Small point…..AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming
    OK, I have a question that I have been asking for quite some time, with no response!

    Point me to a recent scientific empirical study that concluded that a rise in atmospheric CO2 caused an increase in temperature greater than about 1C/100 yr.

    I have been asking this for so long to so many people who claim to have answers that I am starting to think that there has been NO recent scientific empirical studies of this. And, if that is the case, then what is causing this spectacular world-wide temperature rise??
    And, how can we prove that?

    IWT is being developed to solve an unknown problem!

    • jrwakefield says:

      There is no scientific evidence that CO2 changes anything in the climate, including temperature. The IPCC’s latest report claims that we will have either slight cooling or flat temperatures for the next 30 years at least, regardless of increases in CO2 emissions. AGW is con job, who’s only goal was to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries. Wind and solar won’t save the planet from our CO2 emissions, because CO2 is not a threat, it’s essential plant food.

      • So, JR…..
        You cannot point me to a recent study? These AGW folks have been at it for at this for at least 36 years (that I know of) and are still at square one! We were very lucky that an agreement was not signed at the Copenhagen summit; now at the Durban summit, they agreed to have another meeting.
        I think it is time that we joined their effort, to bring a little sanity to the proceedings. I am currently trying to get an invite. I would love to vacation each year on the government’s nickle.
        I just read a study published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Fourier that stated that the warming of earth is almost entirely from the sun (although there was some influence from the earth’s central core and also energy from all the celestrial bodies). That is my starting point. I am trying to understand when CO2 was introduced as a source of heat….Arrhenius? And since his study in 1899, what new ideas have been uncovered?
        At least the theoretical physics explaining the Universe has scientific experiments that have bolstered their hyposteses; while atmospheric science is still just theory. I am an Engineer and am looking for the truth. Hard to find!

      • jrwakefield says:

        No can’t because there is no paper, no research, that has linked CO2 to any change in the climate. They only have models. Models are not evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: