By Viv Forbes
There are three big drivers of weather for any place on Earth: the latitude, the local environment, and solar system cycles.
The biggest weather factor is latitude – are you in the torrid, temperate, or frigid zone? These climatic zones are defined by the intensity of heat delivered to Earth’s surface by the sun.
In the Torrid Zone, the sun is always high in the sky. It is generally hot, often moist, with low atmospheric pressure, muggy conditions, and abundant rain and storms, some severe. Places close to the Equator get two summers per year (just one long summer) and very little winter. Farther from the equator, there are two seasons: “The Wet” and “The Dry.” The Torrid Zone produces many equatorial rainforests and also contains some deserts. Most people dream of vacations or retirement in the warm zone.
Continue reading “How Weather and Climate Work”
What is petroleum used for other than fuel for cars?
By Dr. Jay Lehr
We are confident that all of our readers have read or heard for a number of years that 97% of all scientists believe that mankind has played a role in changing the earth’s climate. While it should have been recognized long ago as an urban myth, one of those stories that hang around regardless of a lack of any supporting facts. Rarely a day goes that a global warming alarmists do not use it to promote their cause of enlarging government and reducing personal freedom through the promotion of fear about our future.
Many articles have been written to refute this claim but they all dig into the statistical weeds. Common sense alone should set you straight. If the reader wishes he or she read could read the original paper by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Be aware you might die laughing.
Continue reading “It’s Time for us all to Recognize the 97% Con Game”
By Des Moore
In interpreting the budget it is important to realise the Coalition will face the election in May with electoral polling which indicates it is almost certain to lose. As such, apart from possibly indicating the Coalition’s budget as no more than a manifesto with which to start the election debate, the same applies to the manifesto which Shorten has announced. He is now further developing that by announcing yesterday the 50% compulsory electric cars by 2050, which has (rightly) been widely characterised as absurd. Shorten has also failed to indicate the costs of his environmental policies. This situation further widens the gap between the two parties on the issue of dangerous global warming which appears likely to be a major discussion item. Unfortunately, the Treasurer’s budget address re-stated the Coalition’s existing policy of reducing emissions as stated in Paris and announced a $3.5bn “climate solution package” apparently designed to soften the moderates within the Coalition. Another bad poll would provide the opportunity to moderate this policy but it looks as though such a moderation is not politically possible.
Continue reading “Commonwealth Budget For 2019/20 Won’t Save The Bacon”
While Western civilisation has enjoyed the benefits of cheap, coal-fired electric power for barely more than a century, much of the Third World still struggles to cope with the capriciousness of an ever-challenging climate.
So what do fools do to celebrate? They turn off the lights.
May I suggest Earth Hour be more appropriately held on the first day of April.
Dr. John Happs
It was in Lima, Peru that the United Nations (UN) travelling climate circus met in 2014 for COP 29 in its futile attempt to limit global carbon dioxide emissions which they blamed for (imaginary) global warming. Incredibly, national leaders were told that, by pledging to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, global temperature could be limited to 2oC above the pre-industrial level.
The Lima conference was attended by more than 10,000 delegates, flying in their ministerial jets with another 1,000 observers joining them. Collectively, they created a “carbon footprint” larger than any of the many previous climate jamborees. It was reported that:
“Organisers rejected powering the village with solar panels on the grounds they were too unreliable, while efforts to hook the site up to the national grid – which is half-fed by renewable energy – failed due to technical problems.”
Electricity was supplied to the conference by diesel generators since the available renewable hydro-power couldn’t cope. Curiously, no electric or hybrid vehicles were used by attendees and bicycles were largely shunned due to dangerous driving conditions. Transport came from 300 diesel-powered cars.
Monumental, Unsustainable Environmental Impacts of Green Energy
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
By Paul Driessen
Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde’s output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.
Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana’s 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.
Delving more deeply, generating 20% of US electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75-80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.
The global warming hysteria was reaching a crescendo in the lead up to the climate confab in Copenhagen in 2009 when a civic-minded person released the Climategate emails, deflating the whole thing. Those emails, concocted from the fevered imaginations of the scientists involved.
Nigh on 10 years have passed since then and we are currently experiencing another peak in the hysteria that seems to be coordinated worldwide. But why? Why now? The global warming scientists have plenty of time on their hands and plenty of money. Idle curiosity would have got some to have a stab at figuring out what is going to happen to climate. Do they see an imminent cooling and they have to get legislation in place before that is apparent?
Continue reading “What Happened to Global Warming?”