Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Any inappropriately dismissive response to Climategate emails suggests two things, one that the person doing the dismissing hasn't read (m)any, and that they have a less than totally objective position on climate change, possibly in terms of vested interest(s).
Please lay off the speculation of my motives. The actual answer is I read upon it a lot as the story broke the ensuing arguments and the explanations and notes. I just can't be bothered to get into an argument about it all again when I was satisfied there was no foul play, except for a lot of miss quotes assumptions and spin. The whole lot in my mind seems to have been orchestrated by the GWPF who appear to be a front for the Coal/Oil/Gas industry since they were quoiting from the stolen emails within hours.

The example you just posted ... I'm happy to say they haven't fully explained the energy balance. But I don't need 5 year old stolen emails to tell me that. Maybe the other scientist - who we don't have any context for was actually replying.. "well I have here in front of me a 400 page excel workbook in which I beg to differ. I can tell you that in the Indian ocean.." Or maybe he was going to say "I can't agree as I haven't studied that yet and it would be unethical of me to put my name to something outside of my area of expertise". IF you want to link me to a full conversation trail to where the previous mail came from I'll gladly indulge you. But I've got better things to "investigate".

With or without climate change we need to work out how to run 600+ hp motors for the next 50 odd years (in may case) I don't want to wait till 2050 and say, oh crap oil prices are now $300 a barrel, pump prices are £2.50 a litre and natural gas means my heating bill is £4,000 a year, and China and India and Africa are buying 95% of the worlds coal supply to run their manufacturing industries and we go, er... what's left that we can use to run our leisure society on? (Actually I thinn Africa will be running on 90% Solar as they are building there grids from scratch and have plenty of sun).

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
turbobloke said:
Any inappropriately dismissive response to Climategate emails suggests two things, one that the person doing the dismissing hasn't read (m)any, and that they have a less than totally objective position on climate change, possibly in terms of vested interest(s).
Please lay off the speculation of my motives. The actual answer is I read upon it a lot as the story broke the ensuing arguments and the explanations and notes. I just can't be bothered to get into an argument about it all again when I was satisfied there was no foul play
You really didn't read them, did you?

TransverseTight said:
except for a lot of miss quotes assumptions and spin. The whole lot in my mind seems to have been orchestrated by the GWPF who appear to be a front for the Coal/Oil/Gas industry since they were quoiting from the stolen emails within hours.
You are a one, aren't you..? rofl


TransverseTight said:
With or without climate change we need to work out how to run 600+ hp motors for the next 50 odd years (in may case) I don't want to wait till 2050 and say, oh crap oil prices are now $300 a barrel, pump prices are £2.50 a litre and natural gas means my heating bill is £4,000 a year, and China and India and Africa are buying 95% of the worlds coal supply to run their manufacturing industries and we go, er... what's left that we can use to run our leisure society on? (Actually I thinn Africa will be running on 90% Solar as they are building there grids from scratch and have plenty of sun).
:cough: shale gas :cough:

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
e
:cough: shale gas :cough:
Rather than taking the piss and posting smileys why don't you give me your intepretation on climategate. I might learn something useful from you.

Shale gas will give us at least 20 more years of local supply to replace what we are lost in the north sea. After that? How will it help me run my 600+ hp car? CNG? How much does it cost? Quantify the pollution risks. I think it looks promising.

I know someone who builds CCGTs - says from application to cutting the ribbon can be done in as little as 4 years. If the planning doesn't hold it up. Seems sensible to me to to get a few more built to replace coal plants. They can follow the load profile a lot better, and if you build them near population centre you can even sell the waste heat for heating (and cooling) boosting the plant efficiency to 90%.

PS turbobloke - I think you may have been referring to me working in the energy industry as a vested interest. Nope - I'm a freelance systems tester. Last job retail energy billing, currently Pay TV, next job banking. No investments held in energy other than what's in my mixed pension funds.

Edited by TransverseTight on Wednesday 29th October 19:15

George111

6,930 posts

250 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
e
:cough: shale gas :cough:
Rather than taking the piss and posting smileys why don't you give me your intepretation on climategate. I might learn something useful from you.
Climategate gave us the most honest revelation about so called "climate science" we've ever had or are ever likely to get. The main players were caught with their pants firmly round their ankles and they have never recovered. Why don't you try reading it . . . took me weeks to read most of the e-mails and even the code with the comments stating they had "fixed" the data to make the model work. Scam is the only word that comes to mind !

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
After that?
Hydrate fields would do the following 50 - 100 years.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
:cough: shale gas :cough:
Rather than taking the piss and posting smileys why don't you give me your intepretation on climategate.
No need, you've had a taste already and you're not listening.

TransverseTight said:
I might learn something useful from you.
True, but it won't alter your beliefs.




hidetheelephants

23,778 posts

192 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
The shale gas could/should help keep the lights on and the economy spinning while we belatedly invest in new nuclear, both PWR now and cheaper MSR designs in 20 years or so.

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
PS turbobloke - I think you may have been referring to me working in the energy industry as a vested interest. Nope - I'm a freelance systems tester. Last job retail energy billing, currently Pay TV, next job banking. No investments held in energy other than what's in my mixed pension funds.
Righto. The comment was a general one as clearly evidenced by the wording.

In which case only you will know the reason for your apparent lack of objectivity in dismissing essential reading.

The full Trenberth email was posted for your attention. What alternative interpretation would you wish to offer? It's not only clear what he is saying, it also fits the data. This is the acid test that goes beyond he-said she-said.

You mentioned spin, as you may know that boot is on the other foot and in case you have time between assignments (all the best with those) here are two more dollops of bedtime reading smile

IPCCer Peter Thorne said:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Out of the mouths of babes and the IPCC. And finally a pdf file:

IPCC Spinning the Climate

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
:cough: shale gas :cough:
Rather than taking the piss and posting smileys why don't you give me your intepretation on climategate.
No need, you've had a taste already and you're not listening.

TransverseTight said:
I might learn something useful from you.
True, but it won't alter your beliefs.
That appears to be the case.

There is after all a comprehensive PH thread on the matter which only the strongest faith could stomach and remain faithful.

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Thanks, TB, I've been looking for that...smile

PS, your previous link is duff.

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Thanks, TB, I've been looking for that...smile

PS, your previous link is duff.
So it is, thanks for the heads-up. Truncation, you gotta love it wink

Here goes, second time clicky:

IPCC Spinning the Climate

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
mybrainhurts said:
Thanks, TB, I've been looking for that...smile

PS, your previous link is duff.
So it is, thanks for the heads-up. Truncation, you gotta love it wink

Here goes, second time clicky:

IPCC Spinning the Climate
Its a bit old, but I guess the point he's making - is one I'd support. Getting rid of the IPCC. I don't like the way they do the approvals / review process.

I'd prefer a cross academic / public group that created a yearly / continuously updated output of current research using a face book time line style approach.

Something the people of planet earth can follow on the "Summary For People without degrees in Climate Science". Or in short "Summary for Voters". Who can Like (or dislike) the contents of each paper.

No papers left out - even if they don't add much to the debate, or contradict current axioms. All papers cross reference with summaries.

I can wish.

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
turbobloke said:
mybrainhurts said:
Thanks, TB, I've been looking for that...smile

PS, your previous link is duff.
So it is, thanks for the heads-up. Truncation, you gotta love it wink

Here goes, second time clicky:

IPCC Spinning the Climate
Its a bit old, but I guess the point he's making - is one I'd support. Getting rid of the IPCC. I don't like the way they do the approvals / review process.

I'd prefer a cross academic / public group that created a yearly / continuously updated output of current research using a face book time line style approach.

Something the people of planet earth can follow on the "Summary For People without degrees in Climate Science". Or in short "Summary for Voters". Who can Like (or dislike) the contents of each paper.

No papers left out - even if they don't add much to the debate, or contradict current axioms. All papers cross reference with summaries.

I can wish.
You and me both.

The 'no papers left out' is spot on, at the moment the role of the IPCC is advocacy and their selection is not even touted as balanced or even close to being comprehensive. The papers they cite support The Cause and many are authored by The Team. Anything else has been kept out, no it's an open secret along with broken peer review, thanks to Climategate.

Phil Jones to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Ed Cook to Keith Briffa: "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically..."

NIPCC fills in the missing bits.

Otispunkmeyer

12,558 posts

154 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
Boat hooks, 9 bob notes..... Both made to look straight as an arrow by the IPCC.

International Panel of Crooked s

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
:cough: shale gas :cough:
Rather than taking the piss and posting smileys why don't you give me your intepretation on climategate.
No need, you've had a taste already and you're not listening.

TransverseTight said:
I might learn something useful from you.
True, but it won't alter your beliefs.
Look I'm not a religious cliamte numpty with a set belief system - that I agree a lot of people are. I'm a petrol head who is also a techie and interesting in the whole cliamte debate thingy, as energy is proably one of my favourite subject areas. If I name everyone who I have ever come into personal contact with I probably know more about energy than they do. Not to say I'm the worlds number 1 expert, but really I shpould get off to the OU and get some letters.

I spent hundreds of hours (ie most evenings for several months) reading up on this back in 2009/2010 Looking at stuff on both sides from Whattsupwiththat and Realclimate and the like. Then the outcome of the inquiry. Some of those long posts on Fuel Cells aren't just thoughts of the top of my head, but "insight" from years of market watching... I studied electrical and electronic engineering back in the early 1990s, and have always followed what goes on in alternative energy speheres. I remember seeing a 5kW DC Stepper motor on a visit to Nootingham uni whilst making my UCAS choices and seeing it load up from 0-5kw in about 100 millisecond and thought... that would be handy on a go kart. Except for the fact it was as big as a kitchen bin.

I nearly decided to become a freelance energy advisor in 2006/7, but then HIPs and the EPC came along and I just didn't want to get involved in something the government were interefering with. I really started to take an interest in the whole CO2 thing at that point - rather than just a techinical energy efficinecy / money saving aspect as first Al Gore said "ooooh the planet aaaargh", and then Channel 4 showed a documetary by Martin Durkin called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The fallout on the C4 Science forum was fascinating. Heavy weigh climate scientists coming in rubbishing the arguments they had supposedly said on the programme. I still have a copy recorded on DVD. It turned out that he quoted people out of context and was basically on a mission to create a sensationalist piece of poo. Daily Mail standard. Sadly I've seen the whole Web 2.0 turn in to more of the same. Click bait to show adverts by sticking up as much controversy as you can so people are bound to bite and post in the comments and leave their email address. All whilst displaying adverts for "Bat boxes" to "Big End Bearings".

We have come to different conclsions. Not becuase of belief systems, just from looking at data and interpreting the meaning differently. I aceept I may be wrong, but I come to PH because its more challenging that going and looging onto say Greenpeace or Friend of the Earth... makes me go and read more and learn more. So I am listening. Just don't expect me to change my mind becuase you posted a link to WUWT.

What concerned me about Climategate was the way the release was timed just before a big climate conference, GWPF were on it straight away, and the whole thing just looked like a cook up job to try and discredit climate science. The whole "Hide the decline" and "Trenberth Travesty" if you read not just the email and blogger opinions, but look as what the authors did in their official published works - totally disarms the quotes from emails. Trenberth was saying "we have more work to do on finding why the energy balance doesn't add up", ie heat should be coming out from the system but we can't see it in measurements, so it's still down here on earth - somewhere. The code for the hide the decline reluctantly got published, and all was well with the world again.

My opinion is really that there's a big FUD job going on by the fossil industry - I really wish we could get some leaked emails from them for once. And its this that is the real consipracy, not climate researchers all over the world scheming together. It would be so easy for dozens of them to become famous just for being able to show the historical link between CO2 and temperature isn't there. But no one is able to do that. There's no real alternative viewpoint. NAtrual variation isn't a good answer - asnd you have to say - what natural process is the input. And model it, and we all know what skpetics think of modelling.

Another example the 31,000 "scientists" seems a lot compared to the IPCC 2,000 reviwers, but only really represented about 1% of US "scientists" who could also have signed the petition. Do we assume 99% support the AGW theory? It's consistent crap like that that makes me see what is really going on.

If the fossil industry can collectively delay any kind of legislation by just 1 month, they can make a few billion extra to distrubute to shareholders. Swinging public opinion to be anti environment legislation and creating the impression climate science isn't settled, is unreliable, is corrupt has to be at the top of their "PR and marketing" agenda. Judging by the number of comments on here its money well spent. Microsoft did it for years against competitor operating systems, there's no reasons why fossil companies wont do the same to competitor start up industries like wind and solar.

The market intervention on PV has worked. Panel Prices are down from £4,000 kwPeak to £1,000. Pretty soon there won't be any FiT. It's fallen from 41p to 14p in about as long as the current coalition has been in power. I did a spreadsheet a while back and I think it's about 2020 when I expect panel prices will make PV cost competitive with buying from a Big6 Supplier. That's when you'll see a market transformation. But... I keep looking at houses that have had it done, and think. "what a mess!" . Seriously - is this what we want? Although I love the idea of decentralised energy, and being free of big companies and self sufficient, I think for now we are better off with larger industrial scale stuff. I just wish they could hurry up and get town scale fusion cracked, PV->H2 solar panels working, and interseasonal heat storage working at single house scales. None require climate change to make them sensible ways to keep warm and well lit.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 29th October 2014
quotequote all

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Be unstruck...

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/arti...

Easy to find really. Did a search for "Forum for the Future energy stoarage unit"

She might be geting a bit ahead of herself and the market though. As in they are still at the could, maybe, possibly stage.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Not sure what you mean by this, Climategate emails are confirmed as being sent/received by the persons in the published messages. They are not to be avoided they are essential reading. As the 'out of context' excuse is as oft-seen as it is misguided here is the full email from Trenberth to Wigley which you can see is not going to offer anyone any extra context as a figleaf.



On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close
to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the
planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact
that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes
any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able
to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin



Look! No added spin.

Any inappropriately dismissive response to Climategate emails suggests two things, one that the person doing the dismissing hasn't read (m)any, and that they have a less than totally objective position on climate change, possibly in terms of vested interest(s).

For most of the past 20 years I've been in contact with several of the scientists subjected to personal abuse and peer review abuse as catalogued by the abusers themselves in their Climategate messages.

The Climategate 1 and 2 emails document the suborning of science. There is no 'context' excuse, or any other excuse, available to anyone.
Right had to dig this up - just to explain what I mean by out of context. You posted 1 mail. Here's another he sent a couple of days before.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt

Kevin


Here's the paper he is talking about where he is clearly stating more measuring is required so they can better track the energy balance. It's actually one of the easier papers I've come across to read....

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009...

So his "why don't you agree" mail you posted is basically saying... do you know where all the energy is going then? Can we say geo engineering will work if we don't know exatly which part of the heat rise we need to counteract. I'm assuming we might be able to dig up more of the mail thread, but toi be honest... nothing to see here. Move along.

Now it's interesting as since then, anything he published gets a lot of stick. Its like being and 1970s TV presenter accused and cleared of sexual misconduct. He must be suspect. There's no smoke without fire. I'm not saying his work is right or wrong.... but Skeptic blogs are full of "Trenberth at it again" type comments. Objectivity gone. I followed a link to Judith Curry's blog - who I think is an ecellent skeptic as she doesn't get all excited. She points out deficiencies in methods. But the blogger comment was "Curry demolished Trenberth". When you actaully looks what she is saying it was basically "I'm not yet convinced they have enough measurement data to say the ocean is taking up the heat". Which is also what Trenberth is saying. He's supposing it might be there but can't prove it becuase the toys in the sea weren't working correctly over a long enough period.

Anyway - this is drifting into the scope of the science thread, but I actually believe blogs don't belong on the science thread as they are opinions with spin, hence politics. I'm just trying to point out, don't read everything you believe on skeptic blogs, (in fact apply that to the whole internet) make sure you goolge the counter arguments, and do some critical thinking of your own. That's not specifically at you TB I can see with 62,000 posts - you have some time to do some reading and writing, which presumably includes thinking time in between.

I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people read a headline, post the link on here and add commment, "See it's all bks, fnarr.".

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
Back off the subject of CO2 and onto balancing energy supply... here's Telsa's CTO explaining their future stategy for Grid energy storage. He sees the growth of this being bigger than battereis for cars as the cost model will simply save the customer money. I guess by that he's getting at the fact you can buy electric at night for 6-8p, vs about 15-18p in the day. Just as start. You can stick one in the garage, and halve your electric costs, become someone who isn't contributing to the evening peak. This also means you ca start load dropping and become part of a "aggregated frequency balancing service". Maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWSox7mLbyE&ap...

Also some stuff on how they use the packs to buffer energy at the supercharger sites to reduce demand charges. When he talks about ratcheting to peak demand for the month, he's talking about how for commerical energy bills the meter basically clicks up to measure the peak flow of kW, so even if you only use it for 25 seconds a month, you'll be billed quite hoorendously for that peak network usage. The tarrifs are usually in some multiple of tens of £s per kW. So in their case a 250kW peak could hit them with a several thosuand pounds extra charge.

He's not just talking residential. It's a way for big factories to reduce bills. No specific mention of using them for supply side though... ie bufferuing wind output, it on the demand side they appear to be focused.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people read a headline, post the link on here and add commment, "See it's all bks, fnarr.".
Or vice versa.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED