COLABORADORES

BUSQUEDAS

DIRECTORIO

TRADUCCION A CASTELLANO: ir a www.google.com
pinchar "herramientas del idioma" y seguir las instrucciones.


Dear Sir or Madam,

Having read your letter in the Western Mail on renewable energy and your apparent support for wind turbines, I wonder if you are aware that no matter how many turbines are erected, not one conventional power station will close as a result, since they must be kept running wastefully on ‘spinning reserve’ to back up the turbines if the wind blows at the wrong speed or not at all.

There will be no saving in CO2 emissions; the stations will still be running. Even if carbon dioxide (CO2) was a real problem, turbines would do nothing to reduce it.

Think of the power required to manufacture, transport and erect the turbines, thousands of tonnes of steel-reinforced concrete, the access roads, the extra cabling and huge machinery. They all require enormous amounts of energy. It has been suggested that it takes more energy to complete the above tasks than the turbines will produce in their 25year lifespan.

The Institution of Electrical Engineers, our foremost experts on power generation, has warned the government that any renewables build is a high-risk strategy.

The idea that renewable sources of electricity will halt climate change is not borne out by actual measured temperature records; in fact the very idea that anything man does will stop the climate moving quite naturally from Ice Age, through warm interglacial and back to Ice Age is ludicrous, “Flat Earth” thinking.

There have been at least 17 known Ice Ages in the Earth’s history and the planet warmed quite naturally from this icing with no help at all from fossil fuel burning.

Research by J.R. Petit et al on the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica, tracing 420,000 years of climate history, reveals that the previous four interglacials were warmer than the present Holocene by as much as 2 degrees Celsius. Clearly there were no cars, factories or power stations producing CO2 then. 1000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period was also 2 degrees warmer, with grapes growing in Yorkshire.

Research by Monin et al reveals that in all cases of past warming, any CO2 rise has followed the temperature increase and not led it. Since the 1950’s, radio sonde weather balloons have been measuring atmospheric temperatures; NASA satellites have confirmed their data since 1978. Both sets of instruments, using different technologies, confirm there is no warming of the lower atmosphere. The IPCC models suggested the warming, if it was real, should be happening there now. It is not.

Tide gauges worldwide reveal no rising trend at present, though of course sea levels have varied enormously in the past and no doubt will do so in the future, whatever man does.

We were recently bombarded with hysterical Press stories about the past year being the second warmest ever. Really? This was based on just 4 weather stations in central England, at least two of which are influenced by the well-known Urban Heat Island effect. Meanwhile, other parts of the world were experiencing extreme cold; in China the Yellow River became frozen solid in parts, at least a month earlier than normal. Last year, 600,000 animals died in Eastern Europe during the coldest winter in living memory.

Of course, the immediate reaction of anyone having their attention drawn to these facts is to cry, “But the worlds leading climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted global sea level rises of up to 100 feet and temperature rises of 10 degrees Celsius. Islands will be lost; coastlines disappear”.

Again this is a politically inspired untruth. They made no predictions. The IPCC computer models actually produced 245 storylines or changes we might see if CO2 continued rising. They gave no extra weight to any of these storylines but the only one we see quoted is the extreme A1/F1 storyline, the one showing the scariest scenario. A1/F1 required CO2 emissions to quadruple; yet a 2001 study by Wofsy et al, reveals that levels have been more or less stable for the past two decades, at around 360 ppm. It is worth noting that the IPCC actually admit their models are unable to reproduce 75% of the factors which affect weather and climate.

You may be aware that last year, representatives of 76 nations voted the previous Chairman of the IPCC out of office. Allegations have been made of interference in the scientific reports for political purposes.

Nature circulates 97% of the worlds CO2 via the carbon cycle. Mans activities contribute less than 3%. Given that the major part of the greenhouse effect is comprised of water vapour, man’s contribution through CO2 is tiny.

James Hansen of NASA, who first set this nonsense in train in 1988, has now suggested that methane emissions are of greater concern than CO2 and this is where hydro-electric stations fail in the global warming debate. Their lagoons contain rotting vegetation, which emits…methane. Rice paddy fields are another source.

Yours faithfully,

Alwyn Davies

LINKS / ENLACES

More information on this webpage: click

* Birds and windfarms - Bird Genocide at windfarm sites
* Birds and Windfarms - Wind turbines and birds in Flanders (Belgium) - Preliminary results 2000/01
* The Naked Truth about Windfarms, Wind Energy, and CO2 Emissions.
* More wind turbines cause chaos
* The Wind Monster.

Related información on Internet: click
* www.oism.org/pproject
(19.000 scientists speak-up against the theory of anthropogenic global warming)

* www.co2science.org
(web page on CO2)

* www.ecotrop.org
(web page on Kyoto)

* www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/05climate
(Harvard scientists speak-up against the theory of anthropogenic global warming)

* www.sepp.org
(Declaration of Leipzig against the theory of anthropogenic global warming)

Valoración

Comentarios