Latest from UKIP Daily

‘Climate Change’Winners and Losers (Part 2)

Ed ~ This is the second and final part of the series. You can read the first part here on UKIP Daily.

So why does the climate/temperature change?

There are literally hundreds of minor reasons causing hotter, colder, wetter, drier climate. However, the reasons for these comparatively minor changes pale into insignificance with the most important and powerful reasons for climate change; albeit these are very long-term cycles. These extreme changes to an ice age then back to extreme global warming such as those producing a tropical climate in our islands, then back again to another ice age and so on.

They are the three cycles controlling the earth’s relationship with the sun. These are known as the Milankovitch cycles after the Serbian scientist who discovered and analysed them, Milutin Milankovitch – who died in 1956.

The cycles are

  1. Eccentricity (every 100,000 years)
  2. Obliquity (every 41,000 years)
  3. Precession (every 26,000 years)

During the Eccentricity Cycle, the earth’s orbit around the Sun goes from its closest point, the Perihelion, to its most distant point the Aphelion. At the Aphelion a period of extreme cold is experienced on Earth while during the Perihelion a period of great warmth is experienced.

To complicate the patterns of the Earths movement further, during the Obliquity Cycle, the Earth tilts towards the sun and then away from the sun over a period of 41,000 years. The angle of tilt is very small; only two degrees, but at its extremes of tilt; a greater or lesser area of the Earth is exposed to the Sun’s energy and rays. An even more complicated period of movement is produced as the Earth wobbles, on its axis much like a child’s spinning top, this is called Precession, which again exposes or reduces the amount of the earth’s surface exposed to the sun. This cycle repeats itself every 26,000 years.

It will now be realised by the reader that the combinations and overlapping changes of these cycles are complex, but never the less, these forces far outweigh anything that man can do.

In discussing the subject of ‘Climate Change’ people have said to me, “Well if there is any doubt about it; why not play safe and go for renewable energy anyway?”

The reason is very simple. It has been calculated by the organisation ‘Scientific American’ that this could cost up to £315 billion in 2030. It looks like this when put into figures:

£315,000,000,000

In addition to the money being spent on it, renewable energy is not as environmentally friendly as its protagonists make out.

Windmills need a concrete block to hold them in place, and the manufacture of concrete is the most Carbon Dioxide producing process known to man. The Windmills block must weigh anything from 10 tons to 50 tons depending on location.

Even before the blades start spinning the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions from their manufacture. An estimate by a scientific organisation of a breakdown of just how much CO2 goes to build one giant windmill is about 241.85 tons of CO2.

The magnet in their dynamo, which produces the energy, is made of Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) a combination of rare earth metals. To make these metals requires huge amounts of energy and the process is extremely toxic. There is a lake in China 5 miles by 5 miles approximately which has poisoned the surrounding farmland and made many people ill and contracting cancer at an unusually high rate. This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children, and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for wind turbines.The lake of toxic waste is at Baotou, China, on the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities.

The process used to extract neodymium has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.

In reality, as Britain boasts about its environmental credentials by spoiling its coastlines and beautiful moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to this vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.

The author has found that obtaining factual information about the amount of energy installed (Capacity) and the amount of energy produced, by windfarms both offshore and onshore is extremely difficult. It required many hours of research.

However, the salient and most up-to-date figures are as follows:

The energy produced by windmills and solar panels is still extremely low, very expensive, and above all intermittent, so traditional power stations still have to be built as back up for when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining.

As a typical example of the electricity generated by wind power in the UK, from 16th to 22nd January 2017, wind power generated 3% of all energy produced and solar 1%. In the same period, coal produced 18%, nuclear 18%, while Combined Cycle Gas Turbines produced the major share at 52%

The lessons which should be learned:

Wind and solar power systems are very expensive to make, install and run, produces very little electricity, is intermittent so that the traditional power stations must still be built (further cost) to fill in the gaps left by renewables. Windmills and acres of solar panels blight the most beautiful parts of our country, killing birds and fish, produce a dreadful droning sound, and the reduction in carbon emissions by running renewables has no effect on climate change anyway.

Meanwhile, in distant countries like Africa, Latin America, USA, Canada, Australia, China, and India; some 2,100 new coal-fired power stations are being planned.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

32 Comments on ‘Climate Change’Winners and Losers (Part 2)

  1. NASA
    “Mars is emerging from an ice age, a finding that could shed light on the past and future climates of both Mars and Earth, researchers said.

    The orbit of Mars regularly undergoes changes that greatly affect how much sunlight reaches the planet’s surface, which in turn can strongly alter the Red Planet’s climate. Similar orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles are known to happen on Earth.

    Previous Martian climate models suggested that such orbital changes could lead to ice ages on Mars, when ice would cover most of the planet. Now, researchers said they have found evidence of these ice ages on Mars.”

    The amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere follows an increase in global temperature, like Earth, Mars is also warming. Nothing man is doing on Earth can affect the climate on Mars.

    So even NASA seems to agree that Climate Change is natural.

  2. In 2007, the Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the IPCC whose Chairman at the time was Rajendra Kumar Pachauri who at the time was also Chairman of the Tata Energy Research Institute in India. Purely coincidentally, Under the Emission Trading Scheme, Tata has earned over £700m in the UK which was just what the doctor ordered when Tata built the new Kalinganagar Steel plant in India. Yes, the purpose of the global warming scam is to subsidise the transfer of industry at consumers’ expense from the first world to the third world whilst damaging our international competitiveness so we in Europe have to produce energy without generating carbon dioxide, a gas that is beneficial to plants and has no impact on the climate: generating CO2 in the Orient is equivalent to generating the same amount of CO2 in the Occident.

    Colin Powell, Secretary of State, said that oil was fungible, consequently all oil-based explanations for our need to attack ME states are false.

    Sadly the MSM is fake news which means people have to work rather harder to find out what is really happening.

    • You may have noticed that the UK steel industry was in decline since WW2, was nationalised in the 1960s and finally collapsed in the late 70s and early 80s as a result of the UK not being able to afford any investment in steel-consuming applications such as new housing and infrastructure (due to the public finances being tipped over the edge by the OIL CRISIS), and as a result of the exchange rate being so high (caused by discovery of north sea OIL) that any manufacturing that did not have to be done in the UK migrated overseas, such as shipbuilding and the car industry. The UK steel industry has been moribund for 50 years already. It is true that Tata have benefitted about £700m in credits from keeping Port Talbot open. In fact, this was the ONLY reason they kept Port Talbot open. Once these credits ended Port Talbot continued bleeding losses leading Tata to try to sell it. Tata bought Corus including Port Talbot in 2007, the reason they had the chance to do this is that the UK steel industry had been brought to its knees over a 30 year period by the exchange rate and a committment to ‘free trade’ including our membership of the EU. Upon joining the EEC we opened our markets to German and French steel and cars and subsequently our own industry collapsed. I’m afraid you can’t say this was all a plot by Tata, they are merely the cunning scavengers of the carcass, but they had no part to play in killing the beast in the 1970s. I do agree that this element of the story has not been reported in the MSM, very few people are aware of the extent of the credits. On the other hand, Tata has rescued Jaguar Land Rover which was also a zombie from the 1970s onwards and had been so hollowed out by Ford that their cars were basically mondeos with nicer body shells. JLR has been a huge success story, and in turn it is one of the largest customers for steel from Tata’s UK plants. They recently opened a new engine plant in wolverhampton and are hiring thousands of staff in the UK. No British owner was prepared to take on the investment needed to turn JLR around. So Tata has not been a bad thing for our economy. JLR makes profits of 1-2billion a year and contributes billions to our economy here in terms of jobs and taxes, and they have not hollowed JLR out and transferred head office to India. They have not transferred manufacturing to India. Unlike the Germans, who do not produce a single car or major component here except for the minis they inherited from their disastrous purchase of Rover, or the Americans Ford (only a small engine factory left) and GM (sold Vauxhall to Peugeot, only remaining factory just laid off 400 people). And to think British car makers thought joining the EEC would boost their exports to Europe!

      • Do you accept or not that carbon credits are designed to transfer industry from West to the East, never mind a potted history of the British steel industry? If not, what is their purpose?

  3. There is just so much lies and scientific untruths about climate change. The climate always steadily changes. CO2 does not cause warming as it has no means of doing so. The CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon of energy collides with another molecule of atmospheric gas within 100 nanosecond and shares the energy. More CO2 does nothing to store or block emission from earth to space.

    Over the past few days there have been some cold nights, why? Because there was no cloud cover and the temperature dropped by 10 degrees C. Temperature control of the earth is by means of the water cycle acting as a thermostat.

    The earth is presently cooling because of a drop of about 1% in the Total Solar Insolation (TSI). Over a 10 year period this produces a 1% change in absolute temperature from 288K to 285K. If it doesn’t go back up again we could see rivers like the Thames freezing over again by 2030.

    It is not practical to get rid of fossil fuels and there is no need to do so. If all cars went electric by 2050 they would need around 100GW of charging in a 24 hour period. As we only produce 40GW now, where would we get the other 60GW of continuous grid supply by 2050.

    This is not about science it is about controlling the nations of the World by the United Nations using the most effective tool, the control of energy.

    If we don’t start fracking for gas as well as opening coal mines and restarting coal fired generating stations and stop the unsustainable subsidies to intermittent solar & wind we will degenerate into the third world country with intermittent and high cost electricity.

  4. Fossil fuels and capitalism are the escape route and the only hope for the poor of world in the developing countries of today.

    They have provided and continue to provide the comfort already enjoyed by those living in the more advanced countries.
    It would be morally and ethically, unforgivably wrong to try to deny them to the poor of the world now.

    But fossil fuels and their link to capitalism are anathema to the liberal-left; hence the man-made global warming scam.

  5. Let’s not forget the massive pollution resulting from battery manufacture for hybrid cars. Great for the users when others are dying from it.

    • Real-life example please? Where are people dying from this pollution?

      There are plenty of industries where people do really die of pollution, e.g. stripping electrical cable for its copper by burning it, children packing fireworks, coal mining, etc. But the batteries for hybrids are made in state of the art factories. Anyway, glad to see any example you can show.

      • I stand corrected. There is a good article in the FT today about this, and in particular the problems with cobalt mining in the congo for the batteries.

  6. I’m afraid that’s not what perihelion and aphelion mean.

    • Perhaps you could clarify the meanings then please Simon.

    • Gordon W. Triggs // November 7, 2017 at 7:25 pm // Reply

      Thank you for drawing attention to my use of the words Perihelion and Aphelion. I am always anxious to learn, so I checked their meanings in the Oxford Dictionary. It confirms what I wrote; that the Perihelion is – the point in the orbit of a planet, asteroid or comet at which it is closest to the Sun. The opposite of Aphilion. However please let me know what your understanding of the two words are so that I cover all possibilities.

      • The problem is that you are saying that it goes from Perihelion to Aphelion during the eccentricity cycle which lasts 100,000 years. If fact it does this every year. You also say “At the Aphelion a period of extreme cold is experienced on Earth while during the Perihelion a period of great warmth is experienced.” In fact at present Earth’s Aphelion is reached around the 4th July every year when it is usually warm and Perihelion around 4th January when it is usually cold.

        • That is in the Northern hemisphere of course.

          • Trust a northener to complain it’s cold at perihelion ?

          • Gordon W. Triggs // November 9, 2017 at 9:19 am //

            Yes, the eccentricity cycle lasts 100,000 years. In this cycle of going from a nearly perfect circular orbit to an oval orbit, a distortion/eccentricity of only 3 million miles in 93 million miles, it takes 50,000 years for the Earth to go from its closest point to the Sun to its most distant point from the Sun before the cycle starts to return from its oval shape to a nearly circular shape. In every one of those years there is a Perihilion and an Aphilion. So when the Earth is at its most distant point in the cycle the Aphilion is about 3 million miles further away than at it nearest point.

  7. Even in political terms, if UKIP wants to win back votes its best policy would be to take back the environmental high ground. The left have abandoned green policies such as protecting the countryside from housing development because they are incompatible with their agenda of open borders and mass immigration. The conservatives never did care. People however do care. They don’t want fracking and they don’t want pollution, flooding and other effects of unsustainable development. UKIP should be campaigning for the environment on behalf of the people because nobody in parliament is. Descending into climate denial will not win votes. UKIP should be looking at other negative effects of high net migration apart from integration issues. Environmental and economic concerns are important to many people too. UKIP is in danger of losing the game because it is not playing its best cards.

    • I agree wholeheartedly. Immigration CAUSES pollution. Simply put, more people = more pollution. I had this argument with my Green opponent at the hustings at the GE17. Incredibly, he came back with the official position of the Greens that population has no impact on levels of pollution! They have been totally captured by political correctness and this is an area ripe for UKIP. But not if we sound like eccentrics going on about denying whether climate change is man-made or not and bat populations.

    • Philip you’ve hit the nail on the head, we don’t want those hideous whirly-gigs slicing up our bats and birds and despoiling our beautiful countryside. We also need plenty of carbon dioxide which feeds the plants and make things nice and green.

      Of course people don’t want fracking because they’ve been told not to by the media which is why we need to counter this otherwise we’ll be just like the fake conservatives and labourites focussing on wants with their magic money trees and ignoring needs.

      There’s an inverse proportionality between energy cost and most, if not all, the variables that measure the quality of human life, especially so where it’s cold (heating) or in countries where it’s very hot (air conditioning).

      Your point about us ‘descending into climate denial’ is valid. We need to deal indirectly with the climate scam by focussing instead on the many benefits of cheap reliable clean energy. People will soon quietly forget about Global Warming as it becomes more and more obvious that there isn’t any.

      I’m not quite sure what exactly is meant by this ‘unsustainable’ development the mainstream media love to blather about which is fine. It means we can make it mean what we want it to mean. Let’s say sustainable development is the kind of development that provides jobs, a decent standard of living, with a good life expectancy while preserving our green belts and beautiful countryside.

      I read recently that tree-planting is at an all-time low in GB. Policy encouraging the planting of more trees would make a good starting point.

      • The biggest threat to bats are housing developments, transmission lines and cats. The threat from wind turbines is tiny in comparison. Offshore wind farms will be better.

        • Offshore wind is massively bigger than onshore wind in the UK. All the investment is in offshore where you can build 300 turbines in a project. Try getting planning permission for that on dry land. Let’s get fact-based and forward facing. The economics now mean there is no threat to the landscape from land turbines and nobody is building any.

  8. “… it is over-rapid development in general and a conscious decision to develop …”

    Graham the reason for the ‘over-development’ in China and the fact that we now buy things from them that we used to make here is simple. They are out-competing us because they have cheap energy derived almost exclusively from burning coal. You know, like we used to here before WW1 when we were the richest, most powerful people on the planet.

    Wars may come and wars my go but the fact is we could do a lot with £315 billion right now. Like build new clean coal power stations to give us cheap electricity and research new nuclear. (Search on line for molten salt reactors to get my drift.) And rebuild our armed forces to defend our islands and control our borders so we can repel all boarders.

    The clue that we were being taken for fools with lurid lies about ‘Global Warming’ lies in the letters ‘CC’ in IPCC. They knew from its inception that our beloved Globe would soon stop warming and start cooling, especially up here in the North and they’d have to switch their propaganda to ‘Climate Change’.

    Now that’s what I call ‘tosh’.

    So as the Sun’s spots diminish and we see more cold disruptive weather impacting our food supplies (search on line for Maunder Minimum) we may well be wishing we had cheap reliable energy to keep us warm and petrol and diesel cars that work well, even when it’s really cold.

    • Sorry but I shall repeat my point, our manufacturing industry had fallen off a cliff a full 15 years before China started significant exports. There was no competition from China in the 1970s and 1980s when our manufacturing industry fell apart. In fact, a core reason for our manufacturing collapsing then was that our currency was over-valued due to the extraction of north sea oil. We were at £1=$2.40. European and Asian (at that time, Japanese and later Taiwanese, not Chinese) products were cheap as a result.

      Good luck with developing an independent nuclear capacity. I agree we should never have given up on nuclear, but we are where we are and nuclear is so capital intensive and risky that there is no chance of being competitive with the five or so designs available today, unless there is some fundamentally different technology available. Just look at the Hinckley C plant, the reactor design is the latest available from the French and it doesn’t work! And that is with a huge, experienced workforce of researchers and operators servicing a large installed capacity. We would be starting from zero, with no proven design, no installed base, no experience…. and all the time there is too much reactor design and build capacity available anyway. But sure, if some new technology comes along, I wouldn’t rule it out, and there should be funding for this theoretical research.

      Not all renewables are unpredictable. Tidal power is perfectly predictable. Please take a look at the Meygen project in Orkney as an example of a new predictable renewables technology that the UK leads in.

      Perhaps the man-made climate change narrative is a conspiracy, but frankly I don’t care either way. What I do know is that reliance on petroleum has played havoc with our economy and puts us at the mercy of our enemies. Every ten years or so we have to go to war to protect our access to oil. ‘Wars come and go’ is rather blase, I guess you wouldn’t say that if your son had been killed. Politicians make up whatever lies to justify going to war but the fact is it is to secure access to oil. So I really think you are missing the point with all this talk of climate change being a hoax.

  9. The cycles you are writing about happen over many thousands of years. variations over the last few thousand years have been plus or minus one degree at most with timescales of about 1000 years between highs and lows. Temperature rises over the last few decades are unprecedented taking the average global temperature above all estimates and measurements since before the last major ice age, and it is predicted to go much higher this century. The cause is atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to deforestation and use of fossil fuels by humans. Atmospheric CO2 levels had not been above 300 ppmv over the last 400 thousand years but humans have rapidly pushed the level over 400 ppmv and is rising steadily at 20 ppmv per decade with no sign of the rate slowing down yet.

    Renewable energy is becoming cheaper than other forms of power generation and is needed by the UK for energy security on top of environmental concerns. Fossil fuel prices are expected to rise and make us reliant on countries with political regimes we would rather not be supporting. The combination of wind, solar and nuclear can cover our energy needs. China is the world’s largest producer of renewable energy in absolute terms and ah even overtaken the UK in percentage terms. Many African countries produce almost all their energy from renewable sources. Many countries such as Brazil and Canada are a long way ahead of us. The US is by far the biggest concern and needs to be shown by example.

    The environmental harm from some renewable sources that you describe is overstated and is a lot less significant than the harm already being caused to the marine biosphere by warming seas e.g. on the great barrier reef, let alone the threat from global warming.

    • “Temperature rises over the last few decades are unprecedented.” I’m afraid I think that’s incorrect. I think that temperature rose similarly between about the beginning and about the middle of the 20th century. I also think that there has been little or no temperature rise over the last couple of decades.

  10. So irrespective of the China part, wind etc. will provide adequate power without the need for backup Graham?

    I think we should take up the idea quoted here: http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-saturday-22nd-july-2017/ of quoting wind farms in terms of “ bat deaths per month” (BDPM)

    • I don’t understand why contributors to this discussions see everything in either-or terms. The less petroleum you can use the better, you don’t need to switch to 100% renewables overnight. And it isn’t even about using more renewables, the key is to use less petroleum-based products. I am OK to use coal as long as it is mined in the UK. When we closed the mines in the 80s and moved to importing coal from Poland we were basically just increasing the amount of pollution created because we went from being able to control our own coal mining pollution and safety to handing it over to the Polish authorities, and who knows if they applied any effective controls or not. You won’t be surprised to know that I don’t care about bat deaths, in the same way I don’t care about the cows who die so that I may wear leather shoes or have 2 leather jackets instead of 1. What I do care about is soldier deaths when we keep having to fight wars for access to petroleum.

  11. More tosh I am afraid. I lived in China for 20 years. Whatever industry, turbines, toasters, leather jackets, cotton pants, you can go and find rivers and lakes full of pollution. It is nothing to do specifically with wind turbines, it is over-rapid development in general and a conscious decision to develop at the expense of the environment.

    £315 billion by 2030 is pretty cheap when you compare it to the cost of the war in Iraq which is SO FAR $2 trillion, and that is real money, already spent, not some future forecast of what might or might not happen.

    • Commenters make a lot of good points, but the main point as I see it is that while Western leaders stand around and pat each other on the back while signing ‘climate agreements’ and applauding each other for ‘reducing their carbon footprint’, all that has happened is that the ‘problem’ has just been moved elsewhere, specifically to the fast developing parts of the world like China and India.
      Connect the dots: why do globalists love the idea of open borders and free trade agreements? Cheap manufacturing gives higher profits, especially when linked to cheap (dirty) energy and cheap (exploited) labour.
      Google ‘UN Agenda 2030’ if you want to get an idea where this is all leading to.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*