Like all primitive religions, the global warming cult demands sacrifice for the CO2 goddess. The picture below is either a wind farm, or a scene from “War Of The Worlds”
“East Perthshire and Highland Perthshire are among the most scenic and beautiful parts of Scotland and many visitors come to our area to see unspoiled landscape.
“This is now lost due to unwanted wind farm developments. Wind farm companies and supporters must realise that massive wind farms are ruining our landscape with these turbines and damaging our local economy.”
Mr Fraser voiced his fears that the tourism industry in the area could be damaged by the blight of turbines and made an impassioned plea for a review of the planning system.
He believes it should be looked at urgently as all three developments in Perthshire have been opposed by both communities and the local council.
“I do not want to see the beauty of Highland Perthshire sacrificed with massive wind turbines staked into the landscape, which can be seen for miles across Perthshire,” he added.
“Scotland’s planning system for wind farm applications and the decision-making process is in a complete mess.
The Courier – Newsnight Scotland wind farm comment seen as ‘insult to Perthshire’
Palm Springs is prettier:
http://philippemorotti.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/windmills.jpg
Maybe we could vault Gore like a giant Rutabaga thru one of these bird shredders and make a (really) big salad. Something must be sacrificed, and Al has always claimed to care more for the planet than anyone else.
And your method for generating energy without carbon emissions is…?
…not necessary. It’s called carbon dioxide, and it’s plant food. Wake up Davey, there is no emergency. You look like a raving lunatic.
Why would anyone want to ?
Your “plant food” also warms the surface.
Is the health of plants really your only concern?
The “plant food” increases AFTER the temperature increases, not before.
Not when humans actively dig up fossil fuels and burn them.
David A,
The only time it has warmed up in the last 3 decades is when El-Nino comes around otherwise it is flat to cooling in its absence.
CO2 seems to fail when La-nina comes around.What a weak little god you worship.
You need to think once in a while…..
So do you think that the surface doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
David A,
The SUN warms the surface and it is immediately obvious when you step out into the sun everyday.
Have you looked at this chart and fired some of your 15 brain neurons over it?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3123.html#pid3123
So you think the Sun is causing recent warming? Please show us how. You can start with the S-B Law
dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S)
and this data:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
David the well known warmist troll still has not addressed my point about El-Nino causing ALL of the short warming spells in recent decades.Every time an El-Nino show up the temperature goes up but when it goes away to La-Nina it stops warming even cool down a little.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/gaia-demands-sacrifice/#comment-160998
Maybe that is because by deflecting away from this painful reality you can continue to swoon over your little gasous friends such as N20,CO2 and CH4 and feel better.
> Why would anyone want to ?
Greenhouse gases create…a greenhouse effect.
Do you think the planet doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that greenhouse gases don’t absorb it?
Yep! Sixteen years of no warming. Hold me David, I’m scared… 😆
Tell us: what has happened to the oceans over that time?
And what is their heat capacity, compared to the tiny surface sliver of the atmosphere?
David A,
The planet’s ATMOSPHERE emits IR and that it is through radiation that energy leaves the planets atmosphere to space.
IR is known to absorb in three bands but is partially covered by water vapor too.Unfortunately for your gian worshippers a lot of IR goes out unbothered by trace gases you are so fond of.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
There is a well known LOGARITHMIC rate of CO2 warming and it is already mostly done by 400 pmmv:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3677.html#pid3677
Maybe you should switch to N2O where your awfull doomsday mood will vanish and your slowmotion brain brain speed up into humerous convulsions.
IR absorbs in only three bands? Have you published this result? Because there are a lot of atmospheric physicists who would disagree with you. They spent all their lives trying to calculate the infrared properties of the Earth and its atmosphere, and if you could simply show them how they’re all just misguided and wrong you would save everyone a lot of time, money, and computer programming.
But first you might have to use your real name — geniuses usually do. Is that a deal breaker?
So what’s your educated take on this one Davy boy ? http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/wayne-jackson-new-identity-linking-meteorological-phenomena/
Making those NON recyclable windmill crap produced emissions while the HIGH mass power producers still stay on anyway even if those ugly LOW mass crap occassionally work.
David A. writes this stupidity because ANYTHING generating electricity generates some carbon emissions from building the power plants to genetaing power in them:
“And your method for generating energy without carbon emissions is…?”
You seem to think fairy tale magic is in the air and around your round fat little head.I think you need to stop sniffing the CO2 gas to clear your fevered head.
Nuclear.
I’m fine with nuclear. Where do you put the waste? And is there enough uranium for more than about 2 decades?
It will ultimately form fuel for more advanced reactors – hopefully thorium will provide some answers in the near future – I have faith in technological advancement.
I have no faith in the cult of doom – I think the GH theory is simply wrong and I believe data exists to support that belief – happy to discuss it rationally anytime and if someone can prove me wrong I will at least have learnt something.
Problem is everytime I try to discuss it rationally I am dismissed as a denier without ever having my points disproven or even rationally discussed.
Insulting derogratory remarks are not real scientific proof of anything except the attitude of the person uttering them.
You certainly like to talk out of your backside don’t you?
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
Your results are from 1983 — a third of a century ago.
Do you have anything from the current geological epoch?
Rosco: Why do you think anyone cares what you think, if you are so afraid that you will not put your name to your opinions? That is not how knowledge progresses….
1946 tech is what you really need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Castle_Romeo.jpg
1. Put the waste in containers shaped like the former pastoral hills of Scotland to hide the inefficient windmill eyesores.
2. That depends entirely on Iran and our current enabler-in-chief.
You could construct wind turbines from the nuclear waste and kill 2 birds…….or more.
Buildings kill about 10^4 more birds than do wind turbines. Should we get rid of them, too? Or is your outrage selective?
You are just full of bullshit statistics. Wind farms kill raptors – like eagles. No one cares about sparrows.
And a raptor is worth more than a sparrow, because?
David,
ever read of breeder reactors and that “spent waste” can be reprocessed for another round of cooking in the reactor.
Thorium is a better choice in the long run:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forum-106.html
David A,
you should tell your fellow kool aid drinkers to stop opposing nuclear power and chanting kumbaya gian tunes to help reduce the need for coal power construction and other “dirty” power suppliers.
Then you will get some yellow flowers in appreciation in return.
Why would you think I have any influence over, or even contact with, any “kool aid” drinker?
I think for myself, and work for myself. Got it?
I didn’t realize that sparrows were endangered. All 300 billion of them could disappear any day now.
The French don’t seem to have any problem handling waste. According to something I read a while back the entire lot is in one vault.
(I can’t believe you’re backing windfarms! That’s as good a give-away as any that you’ve either overdosed on the koolaid or have a hidden agenda. Don’t you even think along lines that aren’t bien pensant?)
“The picture below is either a wind farm, or a scene from “War Of The Worlds””
I’ll take idols of Gaia for it all Alex….
A Coal burning power plant is much aesthetically prettier, and produces more power(cleanly with todays technology) than those ugly bird shredders!
Another deflective stupid statement by the resident warmist moron David Appell:
“So do you think that the surface doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb it?”
It is clear that you will not face the fact that it warm ONLY when an El-nino comes around and that when it does warm it is well BELOW the predictions as stated in the overrated IPCC reports of .20C per decade.
They spent all their lives trying to calculate the infrared properties of the Earth and its atmosphere
Any chance that they are going to finish this work any time soon?
Any danger that we are ever going to have any actual evidence to substantiate all these claims?
You really think there is no evidence?
There is — you’re just ignorant of it.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
These findings have been confirmed:
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
But if there was no ignorance, blogs like this could not exist, and commenters like you might have to actually learn some science. Right?
You are a broken record
Dr. Lindzen long ago himself pointed out the INCREASING outflow of OLW but as John Kehr points out it actually shows how insignificant CO2 really is:
“If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
David you really dont count very well.
“Steve Goddard,” the pussy coward afraid to reveal his own name, will no longer allow dissenting points of view here. So fuck him and fuck you.
Well, let’s have a look at the references that you cite as evidence:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation..”
Inferred is NOT empirical evidence. It is merely one person’s assessment (otherwise known as “guesswork”)
These findings have been confirmed:….
“Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.”
“Compared to simulations” is NOT empirical evicence.
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum”
This is a re-hash of the reference above, and does not add anything of weight to the argument.
Papers on changes in OLR due to GHG’s
Makes “Observations,” and then discusses “Theories and Models.”
None of this constitutes empirical evidence.
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty”
“We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”
Which proves what, exactly?
When you have something that constitutes empirical evidence, then by all means let us have it. But in the meantime, quit wasting our time with bullshit like this.
David wants to look smart with his stupid nitpicking,
“IR absorbs in only three bands? Have you published this result? Because there are a lot of atmospheric physicists who would disagree with you. They spent all their lives trying to calculate the infrared properties of the Earth and its atmosphere, and if you could simply show them how
they’re all just misguided and wrong you would save everyone a lot of time, money, and computer programming.”
I was referring to the three that absorbs in any significant amounts while the rest are piddling but you have to try your stupid gotcha attempt on me when that chart I posted showed only one band that is anywhere near the main IR outflow while the other two are in a low energy part of the IR window.
Here is that chart again and this time try turning on your pea brain and see that only three of them absorbs near or at 100% within the range it strongly absorbs in but only one of them is near the main IR outflow.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
Notice that at the peak radiation outflow CO2 is nowhere in it.
Yes, I know what you meant, and you have some chart or another, woo hoo, big fucking deal. What I’d really like to know is why you, a blog commenter afraid to use his real name, thinks he knows better than generations of physicists and atmospheric scientists who spend their careers thinking, calculating (and publishing) about these problems.
Yawn,
knowing YOUR real name did not help you here and that you have continually dodged
my points with the usual deflections and other evasive bull crap warmists are well known for.
Try being a rational being for a change.
Pussy.
Chicken.
Hiding behind mommy’s skirt. Tsk tsk.
You and “Steve” should start a club: CLIMATE FOR COWARDS.
And now, like all cowards, “Steve Goddard” turns on moderation. Just a day or so ago he wrote to me, asking for input! What a pussy.
I guess moderation is one way to keep your ideas from being challenged. If that scares you.
Who do you think made that chart?
Another deflection by the renown warmist troll:
But to show you what a schmuck you are here is the man who made it who has a PHD in Physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight
and his chart he made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
“Steve”: Do not ever email me again, asking for my comments on something. If you need traffic that badly, look elsewhere. Coward.
Steve, I have to agree. Don’t email David Appell. The auto-beclownment is practically an 8th Amendment violation.
David A,
here is a presentation from a real atmosphere scientist who make it clear that CO2 is absorbing about AT BEST 8% of the IR outflow:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/CO2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.jpg
and the text for it:
“As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm),
respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Your god CO2 is a wimp!
Wow!! — an article in the Middlebury Community Network! Now THAT’s the Big Time! That’s certainly a prestigious publication, world-renowned, and clearly definitive, undoing in just a few pages all the decades of climate science by generations of physicists.
Does this article have an author? I can’t tell. Maybe, like you, he’s afraid to use his name. Who cares??!! I am just *SO* so impressed that someone took their valuable time to type in all these words, and include pictures too! Golly gee, I”m sure convinced, yes sir.
Thank you so much for showing the way that everyone else missed — even if you are afraid to sign your name to your work. (Pussy.)
bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
What a funny meldown David is having and as usual is making a fool of his impressive college education with childish ravings in vivid display.
Steve has good reason to put YOU on moderation when you pollute his blog with evasive dishonest deflective infantile ravings.
Meanwhile this college educated raving lunatic is unaware who wrote this simple primer:
The man who wrote an article in the Middlebury Community Network! is James A. Peden,
“Editor’s Science Bio
James A. Peden – better known as Jim or “Dad” – Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the “100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.”
When will you stop punching yourself in the face David?
By the way James A. Peden is also a member of the MENSA group as well and the creator of this funny cartoon back in 2008:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-14-post-3340.html#pid3340
What a shame that no one saw fit to comment on the real subject of this thread, namely the visual despoilation of Scotland by the proliferation of wind turbines, the reckless accumulation of which has already blighted it’s countryside to such an extent that few if any of the populace could now argue that Scotland’s scenic beauty has not already been fatally impaired.
No comment either on Alex Salmond’s dream of a separate Scotland exporting green energy to a separate England, which he believes, will willingly pay well over the odds to import his wind and wave power rather than import Nuclear from France and Holland whilst dashing for gas and encouraging fracking on home soil, as the 20th Century CO2 myth subsides and becomes lost in the passage of time.
Sadly you have all seen fit to engage with a foul mouthed person, David Appell, who might well benefit from psychiatric assistance for his obsessive beliefs so agressively and rudely promulgated here.
Could we please start this again, and discuss the very real threats that Scotland now faces, with Salmond having bet the farm on what increasingly appears to have been a persuasive but false premise?
The discussion will need to be kept simple to enable the sixteen year old children that he has enfranchised to comprehend the arguments when they vote in 2014.
David Appell’s MO is to immediately change the subject.
I think you’re right. There is an MO here. This may be intended to confuse readers other than those who usually comment. I.e. thow up any counter-argument just to have it up there to dilute the original message.
DA is better than some that I’ve seen. I guess that PhD was good for something …
I should add that for us students of sophistry it’s very helpful to have DA’s postings (and suchlike) accepted on this site.
I guess you missed my comment, that a Coal fired power plant is much more aesthetically pleasing than a landscape littered with these ugly teletubbie-like wind spinners. I’ll bet the people of Scotland would much rather have a power plant(in one location!) that takes the place of 10,000 or more of these windmills – and in the process unblight the landscape!
Modern Carbon and Sulfur scrubbing technology in addition, can arrest copious amounts of CO2 and SO2 from release into the atmosphere. H2O would be the main emission. psst, but don’t tell that freelance journalist guy: Water Vapor is The King of GHG’s, he might just have to resort to using more of those p and f words – the true mark of a coward.
If you can’t use logic and reason then call ’em names, the dirtier the better(speaking of dirty climate 😉
I think I know what David is so surly. He’s heavily invested in solar panels.
Sorry that should say “why”.
“I think I know what David is so surly. He’s heavily invested in solar panels.”
And he has been stupid enough to waste other money on “green energy” in general. If he is that dumb then he deserves to lose money. I hope he goes broke chasing his global warming delusions.