Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
The Excession said:
"The Climate Wars"
Program on Sky TV - Eden; channel 532 at the moment addressing the views of skeptics.
You can catch the full program on Eden+1 (channel 533) starts at 9pm.
Interesting stuff, seems to be presenting both sides, just waiting for the conclusion.
ETA: It's a piss boiler, the conclusion falls entirely on the side of the warmists..... ugghhhhhhhhhhh
Did you really expect anything else? The clue's in the channel names.Program on Sky TV - Eden; channel 532 at the moment addressing the views of skeptics.
You can catch the full program on Eden+1 (channel 533) starts at 9pm.
Interesting stuff, seems to be presenting both sides, just waiting for the conclusion.
ETA: It's a piss boiler, the conclusion falls entirely on the side of the warmists..... ugghhhhhhhhhhh
Edited by The Excession on Monday 22 November 19:53
There is so much money and ego invested in this I wonder which MSM outlet will be the first to tell the truth.
AshVX220 said:
Did you really expect anything else? The clue's in the channel names.
There is so much money and ego invested in this I wonder which MSM outlet will be the first to tell the truth.
Thing is the first part of the program seemed to be presenting a balanced argument. It's all stuff that has been discussed in these threads. But they are failing to go the last few feet and stopping short of quite a few conclusions that don't support the warmist view.There is so much money and ego invested in this I wonder which MSM outlet will be the first to tell the truth.
There's been a couple of glaring errors too. I liked the one where scorteesh voice over man said 'They record the highest and lowest temperature everyday, by taking the value exactly in the middle they get the average temperature for that day' - shocking stuff, last time I did any stats that was called a median, not a mean.
Nice to see that the tree ring proxies were correctly represented, not.
I've also come to the conclusion that Michael Mann is actually an evil alien robot.
chris watton said:
grumbledoak said:
stevejh said:
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down
As soon as the subsidies stop, these things will be torn down for the scrap mental value. It's not like they generate any meaningful amount of electricity.Only worse than that in that they actually cause damage to some of the more scenic areas of countries. Geckos just rip off money.
Take the concrete bases for example. The things currently have a planned life of 25 years. We'll see whether or not they last that long. If and when they come up for replacement you can bet that technology will have moved on - it will have to if they are ever going to be effective in any way. Taxation is not, in the bnd, a bottomless pit of cash. Now the likleihood is that th old bases will no longer be very suitable for the new technology. So what do they do with the site? Install newer even bigger bases? More concrete? Replace the existing ones? I doubt that far too expensive - easier to abandon and get a new site.
"But" I hear you say, "how could they just walk away leaving such an ecological disaster behind them?" Well, in all the defences of and promotional literature for windmill farms I have ever read not once have I seen anything about reclamation (that word beloved of ecologists) of windmill sites and who has to pay for it. You can find any number of references to the cost of 'Nuclear' clean up (Usually offered in such a way as to lead people to beleive it is an immediate coast rather then an inflated cost over 100+ years) but zip, nada, zilch about the recovery costs after just 25 years (or less) of wind.
In itself such profiligacy with the environment is probably far from being the worst aspect of these things but, like the dog that didn't bark, the fact that they are never mentioned, even though the tiniest details of every other energy creating option is subject to Green scrutiny, should be taken as a strong warning that there is something very dubious about the whole wind concept.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 23 November 00:22
Call me slow on the uptake 
- but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory 
As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
- but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
Ali G said:
Call me slow on the uptake - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory
As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
Aagh! Don't mention radiative properties and quantum anything, G_T will have a fit! - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
Blib said:
No it won't. It will be ignored. Nothing of any import will be seen on the news or any other MSM. The BBC will be silent. As will Sky.
It doesn't fit the current narrative.
They'll not ignore it, they'll rail about how un environmental and damaging and just plain murderously awful the processes 'are'. With opportunity for lots of new TV showings of the Gulf spill, vapour pouring from any handy chimney stack and sky diving Polar Bears.It doesn't fit the current narrative.
Lost_BMW said:
Ali G said:
Call me slow on the uptake - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory
As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
Aagh! Don't mention radiative properties and quantum anything, G_T will have a fit! - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory As far as I can see, there are two mechanisms involved in warming the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the rate of cooling of the planet):
(1) Radiative, which relies upon activation of quantum energy levels in the relevant absorbing molecules and their conseqent decay therby releasing (some) IR back to the planet's surface
(2) Convective, where the surface of the planet directly transfers energy into the molecules in the troposphere which is then transferred via kinetic energy through convection.
R.W Wood's greenhouse experiment attempts to split the radiative from the convective, with the experimental conclusion that the majority of the termperature rise in his enclosed space (greenhouse) appears to be due to convection. Therefore, the primary mechanism for heat transference from the planet's surface would appear to be a physical transference of energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The implication of this is that the absorption of IR by CO2 (and any other 'greenhouse' gas) is totally irrelevant in the troposphere.
On further research, the radiative effect may therefore only exist in the stratosphere and should only reduce the rate of cooling of the troposphere (limited by the fact that this 'quantum' mechanism can operate within very specific wavelenghts). Surely this is negligible, but would seem be the only area where an increased level of CO2 could conceivably have an impact (given R.W. Wood).
Presumably R.W Wood's findings have been debunked by the MMGW crew somewhere?!
Happy to be corrected!
Ali G said:
Call me slow on the uptake - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory
does this help? - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Ali G said:
Lost_BMW said:
Aagh! Don't mention radiative properties and quantum anything, G_T will have a fit!
Guess wave/particle duality of light and Hiesenberg uncertainty principle would be a little tooo much then...Or you'll be lumped in with those of us he considers idiots.
The real Apache said:
Ali G said:
Call me slow on the uptake - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory
does this help? - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Lost_BMW said:
Ali G said:
Lost_BMW said:
Aagh! Don't mention radiative properties and quantum anything, G_T will have a fit!
Guess wave/particle duality of light and Hiesenberg uncertainty principle would be a little tooo much then...Or you'll be lumped in with those of us he considers idiots.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
AMSU channel 5 temps now down below the long term average ! First time for a long time. Due to El Nina etc etc.
This might mean this year will not be the hottest on record / for a while / since they started fudging.
Andy
AMSU channel 5 temps now down below the long term average ! First time for a long time. Due to El Nina etc etc.
This might mean this year will not be the hottest on record / for a while / since they started fudging.
Andy
Edited by zakelwe on Tuesday 23 November 05:54
The real Apache said:
Ali G said:
Call me slow on the uptake - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory
does this help? - but am keen to learn more about why there should have ever been any MMGW theory http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
It sure ought to and the opening says enough in one paragraph:
All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument.
turbobloke said:
And previously they were up due to El Nino. Time to issue a missing signal alert for C666O2.
So, temperatures are varying naturally, there's a surprise.
So, temperatures are varying naturally, there's a surprise.
As Joe neatly puts it:
HAS THE CRASH BEGUN?
The latest daily global temps show we are now breaking through last year's temps, and yesterday against the normals was the coldest day of the year, and the coldest against last year globally, at almost .5 below normal. Given last year's graph, and what is going on now, we could have a string of temps more than .75 below normal. The start to the trend down, that should take us to, or below, normal by March of next year (globally) has begun.
Interestingly enough, this is so much like a high tide, low tide response that the more I study this, the more it's obvious that the oceanic cycles and temps control the planet's temp. The El Nino spiked the global temp this year, but like high tide in the back bay, there is a lag before it goes out. The La Nina quickly came on, and I made that forecast back in February, because with a cold PDO, there is no way a strong La Nina can hold absent other events, like a volcano in the tropics spewing ash way up there. The moral is, in the longer term, the trend is down (the cold PDO then AMO) and in the shorter term, it's down, fast.
Now, it defies logic to try to blame a trace gas, or snakes in Nepal, or the butterfly theory, when in front of you, you can simply look at equatorial Pacific temps and match the Earth's temps, 6-9 months later. Suppose the Earth's temps in 2011 average normal. Since the last major El Nino/La Nina-induced spike and fall in the late 1990s (1998 is still ahead of this year as far as warmest year, then 1999 was near normal) CO2 has increased by close to 20 ppm... or near 3%. Given the talk of feedback this causes, and tipping points, it defies logic to think we should not be peaking not only higher, but higher as the IPCC forecast had it (let's not forget what their forecast was, lord knows MY DETRACTORS DON'T FORGET MINE WHEN I AM WRONG on any weather event). Instead, if 2011 is near 1999, shouldn't the writing be on the wall?
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/b
di-europe-bl...Lost_BMW said:
BBC Radio 4 have just run an ad for a programme about the Copenhagen summit, to run at 1.30pm this Sunday, but no doubt it will be on iPlayer to offer more of their legendary balance.
Well, one can live in hope.
The bottom line however is simple enough, this winter is already f***ng freezing. Two harsh winters on the trot rather undermine the Global Warming s**e... The public might put up with the lies for a while (and have done for too long) BUT the weather itself will soon show them, and then they will challenge....Well, one can live in hope.
zakelwe said:
Diderot said:
The moral is, in the longer term, the trend is down (the cold PDO then AMO) and in the shorter term, it's down, fast.
What time scales are your long and short here?Global temps are currently going down, but the trend is still up within the last 10 years or so.
Andy
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff