the big difference is that we are the ones changing it not the planet.

...bone of contention...

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

New wind farm

Yawn .....

Yawn x 2....

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

...but lets get it in proportion

Exactly, but only as useful as a tiley lamp when you need that odd bit of
lighting when away from a regular power source. The lamp works OK until it runs out
of oil. The same with the wind farms, OK until the wind stops blowing. What
ever the Greens say, we need a constant source of power and if their not
happy with fossil then they will have to accept atomic. Other than that we
all go wind farm and accept, at times, regular power outage due to no wind blowing.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Co2 gasses rise after a warming not before one. Each and every 11 years sun cycle lets off a Co2 rise on earth. Its a cycle!

Co2 is scrubbed by our water ways.

Anyone hear of a thing called the carbon cycle! LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

''Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.'' (Henri Poincare)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Those of us that have been around for a while have seen this climate change song and dance before. It's all about money, power and control of the masses as we push toward OWG. [/img]

Both from the Washington Examiner. (Two days apart)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sun-to-hit-solar-max-of-activity-in-2014/article/2533829 (Aug 3 2013)

"Potentially threatening solar activity will peak late this year or early next year, according to NASA, as seen in the last "ejection" two weeks ago that spit out solar particles at twice the common speed of other recent events."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/claim-global-cooling-not-warming-is-earths-coming-threat/article/2533902 (Aug 5 2013)

"Like most major climate events, the past sea level rise was caused by the Sun and had little or nothing to do with mankind's industrial greenhouse gas emissions," said John Casey, a former White House and NASA advisor and climate author. "Now that the Sun has entered a state of 'solar hibernation' and is cutting back on the energy by which it warms the Earth, a new and potentially dangerous decades-long drop in global temperatures has begun," he warned.

One from NASA, the other from a NASA advisor.

So which one should I believe?

The 11 (ish) year solar cycle mentioned in the first article is well known and has been observed for decades. The data behind the second claim is not expected until later in the month (August 21st), via a news conference in Miami. Who you believe is entirely up to you, though it would seem that belief in the second is currently a leap of faith compared to the first.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Those of us that have been around for a while have seen this climate change song and dance before. It's all about money, power and control of the masses as we push toward OWG.

Indeed, that's why the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, their dedication to the cause of a One World Government. Just like they did when they pushed through the demise of CFCs on the pretext of ozone depletion, right?

Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

The skeptics when is came to ozone depletion were (surprise, surprise) the industries that manufactured CFCs. By strange coincidence, the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change are the industries that generate the bulk green house emissions.

"Money, power and control" those are the tools of scientists and not the likes of ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, right?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Exactly Nick. It will help, of course it will, but if we covered the whole of the UK in them, it wouldn't provide more than 5-10% of the UK's total energy requirements. But it is currently a green vote winner. Doesn't mean that we still shouldn't do it

The article you linked suggested the Greater Gabbard wind farm "can produce up to 500MW of energy". HMG states that:

Since 1970, the overall fuel mix in the UK has significantly changed from solid fuels; accounting for 46.1 mtoe to only 2.4 mtoe in 2012, largely replaced by gas which grew from 14.4 mtoe in 1970 to 47.1 mtoe in 2012.

Over the same period electricity consumption increased by 65 per cent, to 27.3 mtoe.

An mtoe is a "million tonne oil equivalent"; the IEA/OECD define one toe to be equal to 41.868 GJ or 11.63 MWh. (source). Thus 27.3 mtoes = 317,449,000 MWh.

The "capacity factor" of wind farms is at least 20% (source).

There are 8,760 hours in a year, thus the energy production of this wind farm is expected to be at least (8760 x 500) x (20 / 100) = 876,000 MWh/year.

The wind farm is comprised of 140 turbines over an area of 147 km² (source), while the UK is 243,610 km² (source). If the country was covered with similar farms, they'd produce (243610/147) x 876,000 = 1,451,716,734.69 MWh/year or about 4.6 times the total UK electricity requirement.

Electricity accounts for about 20% of the UK's total energy consumption (see Chart 4 of the HMG fact sheet), thus covering the UK in wind farms would come close to meeting the entirety of total energy consumption, rather than 5-10% of it.

but lets get it in proportion.

Yes, let's.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

We are legally committed to meeting 15% of the UK’s energy demand from renewable sources by 2020. Achieving this will help us to achieve the UK’s energy security and carbon reduction objectives. Renewables will also have a crucial role to play in the UK energy mix in the decades beyond, making the most of the UK’s abundant natural resources.

And

The UK is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels.

You've only scratched the surface Bobby .....

2050

Oh and by the way we won't have the country covered in wind farms, the British won't stand for it OK? Work for the Mail now do we :-))))

Covering the country in wind farms was your notion not mine, my post was merely a bit of math that was intended to show the outcome of fulfilling it, specifically that one turbine per square kilometer would almost meet the UK's energy needs of 2012. Doing so would eliminate GHG emissions resulting from energy consumption, clean the air, likely result in population health improvements, etc, etc. Whether the British will stand for it is something time will tell, though I suspect you are correct and the NIMBYs will protest.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Maunder Minimum and Solar maximum do more for the weather on earth then man can or will ever do to the weather here on earth.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Those of us that have been around for a while have seen this climate change song and dance before. It's all about money, power and control of the masses as we push toward OWG.

Indeed, that's why the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, their dedication to the cause of a One World Government. Just like they did when they pushed through the demise of CFCs on the pretext of ozone depletion, right?

Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

The skeptics when is came to ozone depletion were (surprise, surprise) the industries that manufactured CFCs. By strange coincidence, the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change are the industries that generate the bulk green house emissions.

"Money, power and control" those are the tools of scientists and not the likes of ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, right?

And what do CFCs and ozone depletion have to do with the subject at hand which is climate change? Typical move when you have no case. Nice try.

If you don't accept that this whole issue is about money, power and control and the so called climate experts are just puppets being used to promote the agenda that's your choice. Look beyond the hype and believe very little of what you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. OWG is the ultimate agenda whether you choose to believe it or not.

---

Those of us that have been around for a while have seen this climate change song and dance before. It's all about money, power and control of the masses as we push toward OWG.

Indeed, that's why the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, their dedication to the cause of a One World Government. Just like they did when they pushed through the demise of CFCs on the pretext of ozone depletion, right?

Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

The skeptics when is came to ozone depletion were (surprise, surprise) the industries that manufactured CFCs. By strange coincidence, the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change are the industries that generate the bulk green house emissions.

"Money, power and control" those are the tools of scientists and not the likes of ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, right?

And what do CFCs and ozone depletion have to do with the subject at hand which is climate change? Typical move when you have no case. Nice try.

Highlighting a little bit of history repeating when it comes to climate science. There are fools that will believe the word of industrialists over those of the science community when it comes to matters of science.

If you don't accept that this whole issue is about money, power and control and the so called climate experts are just puppets being used to promote the agenda that's your choice. Look beyond the hype and believe very little of what you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. OWG is the ultimate agenda whether you choose to believe it or not.

By all means read the scientific literature, and show it to be wrong. Until you manage that feat, please don't tell me what I should or should not believe.

You asked what has ozone depletion to do with climate change (both are matters studied by climate science, both have been objected to by non-scientists, etc, etc). Yet you seem to have no issue linking notions of "OWG" to this thread, "Typical move when you have no case. Nice try", quite.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Those of us that have been around for a while have seen this climate change song and dance before. It's all about money, power and control of the masses as we push toward OWG.

Indeed, that's why the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, their dedication to the cause of a One World Government. Just like they did when they pushed through the demise of CFCs on the pretext of ozone depletion, right?

Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

The skeptics when is came to ozone depletion were (surprise, surprise) the industries that manufactured CFCs. By strange coincidence, the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change are the industries that generate the bulk green house emissions.

"Money, power and control" those are the tools of scientists and not the likes of ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, right?

And what do CFCs and ozone depletion have to do with the subject at hand which is climate change? Typical move when you have no case. Nice try.

If you don't accept that this whole issue is about money, power and control and the so called climate experts are just puppets being used to promote the agenda that's your choice. Look beyond the hype and believe very little of what you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. OWG is the ultimate agenda whether you choose to believe it or not.

+1

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The impact of ozone is not directly related to climate change, but is a second-order impact. Ozone depletion causes a change in metabolic processes, which in animals is observed as an increase in "body surface" cancers (skin, corneal and the like), in plants the effect is a change in growth patterns, which in some increase the growth rate, but in others causes a reduction in growth rate. So what does plant growth rate have to do with climate? The answer is lots. A decrease in growth rate will lead to a reduction in plant mass, which leads to decrease in carbon dioxide absorption, water transpiration and a greater tendency towards drought conditions. An increase in growth rate leads to the opposite. Now if the effect was that the decrease were balanced by the increase then there would be no net increase, however the balance is in favour of the decrease - which is obviously not "good news"

To say there is no relationship between the release of CFCs into the atmosphere and the depletion of atmospheric ozone is to place one head in the sand as a very large herd of elephants charges in your direction as the impact can be observed in the dramatic increase in skin cancers in the latter half of the last century. This increase is not in only number but also severity of cancers, particularly among "fair skinned" humans. (It is interesting to note that most food stuff animals do not live long enough to generate cancers, but there is some evidence of an increase in pre-cancerous mutations.)

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

To say there is no relationship between the release of CFCs into the atmosphere and the depletion of atmospheric ozone is to place one head in the sand as a very large herd of elephants charges in your direction as the impact can be observed in the dramatic increase in skin cancers in the latter half of the last century.

I never said there was no relationship between the release of CFCs and ozone depletion in any of my posts. If I did please point them out and I'll correct them. What I did say was that I thought this thread was about man made climate change, not CFC/ozone, which is another discussion IMHO.

That being said, if you believe that the 3% of the man made CO2 going into the atmosphere is causing climate change while the other 97% of naturally occurring CO2 isn't then I don't know what else to say. It is about money, power, control, period. Carry on, I'm done.

Could it be mother nature is to blame?!
http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20130812/102032.shtml wrote:

The amount of ice melting in Greenland contributes to nearly one third of the global sea level rise. And now, a study appearing in Sunday’s edition of the journal "Nature Geoscience" gives a new reason why.

A team of scientists found some of the ice is melting from underneath. In other words-it’s not just rising global temperatures that are to blame it’s the temperature of the earth itself.

Heresy, it is CO2!

---

A team of scientists found some of the ice is melting from underneath. In other words-it’s not just rising global temperatures that are to blame it’s the temperature of the earth itself.

Ooooops, perhaps it is us humans causing all this global warming in the end.
With all that concrete, tarmac and buildings covering the planet perhaps we're
stopping the Earth's heat from escaping. Looks like we will have to cut down
on population...I don't think our authorities are going to like this last bit.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.