Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
robinessex said:
Except when the wind isn't there. And that tends to happen in the winter, when we need it most.
Indeed.And as we (should) recall from numerous airings at this stage Renewables Simply Will Not Work and cannot power a developed western economy. Back-ups are needed and windymills don't last long.
In particular how long is it now before the first herds of white elephants need to be decommissioned at significant cost and replaced with newborn white elephants at more cost? The lifespan of adults is said to be ~20 years and some self-destruct long before then.
Older nuclear plants have worked well beyond their previously estimated 40-year working life and new plants can be expected to run for 70-100 years iirc, they will also deliver power reliably unlike renewables in terms of wind and solar power which have an Insoluble Intermittency Problem.
The DT can print anything it likes, our energy policy at the moment is a disaster and our energy security is dire as a result.
LongQ said:
durbster said:
It's ironic that a media that was totally indifferent to climate change a few years ago now seem to be desperate to link everything to it.
What?You are joking, aren't you?
robinessex said:
Randy Winkman said:
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
"Britain's vast national gamble on wind power may yet pay off" And that's from the wind farm hating Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.And you still haven't answered the question(s).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/14/bri...
chris watton said:
My point was that you linked massive migrations of people to global warming, which caused farmland changes. I would bet that the Syrian crisis is everything to do with stupid governments with different agendas, and nothing at all to do with climate change, which is a massive cop out.
What's not to get?
Apologies for butting in, usually don't get involved in this thread as the attrition loop and various other variations thereof are just too frustrating. But as this is the political thread there's a fair bit of evidence the significant drivers for massive migration are multi faceted. Of course one facet is change of climate causing difficulty with traditional agricultural activities, not going to get into the man made side of this or not. Other significant facets being conflict and terrorism, and we mustn't forget restrictive and damaging agricultural policies of western countries and the EU in particular. What's not to get?
Also EU fishing off the coast of Africa has done much to harm local fishery industries and again is one of the drivers for massive migration, subsidised activities to support EU boats accounts for a significant loss to the local economy, estimated in some nations eg Senegal to be up to 2% of gdp. For example Spanish fishing boats alone are likely to receive well over 1.5 billion euros as subsidy in the next 4 years, simply to reduce unemployment in Spain.
The point is that it's wrong to say it's all down to climate change, or war, or any of the other reasons. However a lot of it is down to stupid political and selfish actions by states who should know better. Building and subsifising more intermittently useless windmills isn't going to change anything.
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Except when the wind isn't there. And that tends to happen in the winter, when we need it most.
Indeed.And as we (should) recall from numerous airings at this stage Renewables Simply Will Not Work and cannot power a developed western economy. Back-ups are needed and windymills don't last long.
In particular how long is it now before the first herds of white elephants need to be decommissioned at significant cost and replaced with newborn white elephants at more cost? The lifespan of adults is said to be ~20 years and some self-destruct long before then.
Older nuclear plants have worked well beyond their previously estimated 40-year working life and new plants can be expected to run for 70-100 years iirc, they will also deliver power reliably unlike renewables in terms of wind and solar power which have an Insoluble Intermittency Problem.
The DT can print anything it likes, our energy policy at the moment is a disaster and our energy security is dire as a result.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Make what worse? The climate is well within natural limits of variation!
The history of the success of man has been one of migration and adaptation as climate has naturally changed massively.
You can't stop climate change! Only a fool would suggest you could.
PS:
clinky
Oh my goodness what a load of imaginary misleading codswallop, from NASA, what an embarrassment for a once great scientific institution.
Live link resurrected.The history of the success of man has been one of migration and adaptation as climate has naturally changed massively.
You can't stop climate change! Only a fool would suggest you could.
PS:
clinky
Oh my goodness what a load of imaginary misleading codswallop, from NASA, what an embarrassment for a once great scientific institution.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 21st August 23:19
Indeed. It repeats, extrapolates, nay, exponentiates the "natural disasters are on the rise because climate change" meme (my summation). Sea level woah! Ice, arrgh! Heatwaves, eek! Plagues of boils, bleurrgh!
Woe, woe & thrice* woe!!!
*only three of these are taken from the page
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
Wow, sticking their neck out there - 'Will' instead of 'Could', 'Possibly' or 'Maybe'.And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
But of course, when their predictions fail (the latter one especially), we'll all be long dead, anyway. Convenient...
Pausing briefly to bring Syrian migration back into the spotlight, looking at their population growth rate points to a problem (doubling every twenty years at one stage). Within a stable economy with safe borders that might be challenging enough, but not so clever with too much 'shouty-bang-dead' going on (I jest in gratuitous bad taste)
Instability is the problem - identifying if it's AGW at root may or may not be possible for decades.
In the meantime we can quantify how much we are 'investing' in renewables, and judge that cost against those abundant but sadly unavailable reserves of coal our country sits on, and make a judgement as to how well we've been informed and how soundly our future prosperity and safety can be left to politicians.
Sorry to drone on. Please renew attrition looping when ready.
Instability is the problem - identifying if it's AGW at root may or may not be possible for decades.
In the meantime we can quantify how much we are 'investing' in renewables, and judge that cost against those abundant but sadly unavailable reserves of coal our country sits on, and make a judgement as to how well we've been informed and how soundly our future prosperity and safety can be left to politicians.
Sorry to drone on. Please renew attrition looping when ready.
The Don of Croy said:
Pausing briefly to bring Syrian migration back into the spotlight, looking at their population growth rate points to a problem (doubling every twenty years at one stage). Within a stable economy with safe borders that might be challenging enough, but not so clever with too much 'shouty-bang-dead' going on (I jest in gratuitous bad taste)
Instability is the problem - identifying if it's AGW at root may or may not be possible for decades.
In the meantime we can quantify how much we are 'investing' in renewables, and judge that cost against those abundant but sadly unavailable reserves of coal our country sits on, and make a judgement as to how well we've been informed and how soundly our future prosperity and safety can be left to politicians.
Sorry to drone on. Please renew attrition looping when ready.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/climate-change-syria-civil-war-prince-charlesInstability is the problem - identifying if it's AGW at root may or may not be possible for decades.
In the meantime we can quantify how much we are 'investing' in renewables, and judge that cost against those abundant but sadly unavailable reserves of coal our country sits on, and make a judgement as to how well we've been informed and how soundly our future prosperity and safety can be left to politicians.
Sorry to drone on. Please renew attrition looping when ready.
Mike Hulme is a committed but fairly balanced proponent of the AGW concept. See the last paragraph.
There is more here and a discussion - the last reply in the comments at the tome of writing this was where the first link came from.
http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terroris...
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
Pfft, these civil servants have no imagination or ambition; this guy reckons it will happen within 24 months, and it definitely has nothing to do with the hysterically titled book he's hawking. Definitely not.And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
It's time for a BCB - Believer Climate Bunfight.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns.
As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020, he should definitely head over to NASA with iced buns at the ready.
These Arctic ice predictions are pure dreck but remain very useful when supposedly expert authorities in climate mythology stand in line to show themselves up as deluded dunces.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski previously told an American Geophysical Union meeting that earlier projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss and that as a result the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013, ooops he can stay away from the iced buns.
As it happens, summer ice mass had grown 'by a third' after the cool summer in 2013. Double oops.
Back in 2013 Peter Wadhams told the FT that Arctic summer sea ice would disappear in 2016. Also oops even in August 2016. Wadhams spoke as Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge. He claimed that the disappearance would be preceded by an “Arctic death spiral”, another oops.
The infamous Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020, he should definitely head over to NASA with iced buns at the ready.
These Arctic ice predictions are pure dreck but remain very useful when supposedly expert authorities in climate mythology stand in line to show themselves up as deluded dunces.
Checking back, there's more...
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ETA ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
Also ETA that Wadhams is back! Like the ice. ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
There could be an iced bun shortage at this rate. A shortage worse than previously thought.
In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the Arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.
In 1972 the Arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice by the year 2000. Another oops and no iced buns for Bernt.
ETA ArcticNet (Canada) had the Arctic summer ice-free date as 2016, with their epic fail of a claim staked in 2007.
Also ETA that Wadhams is back! Like the ice. ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (The Guardian, 21 August 2016).
The soothsayers at the UK Met Office claimed on behalf of the IPCC that all Arctic summer ice would be gone by 2040. More iced buns please! NASA have got themselves another challenger.
The Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer Arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. As mentioned in my previous post, and back in the real world, ice cover had expanded by the prediction date.
The Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL said Arctic summer ice would be a gonner in 2022.
In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no Arctic summer ice by 2030.
There could be an iced bun shortage at this rate. A shortage worse than previously thought.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 22 August 21:29
Some compulsory bedtime reading for Durbster.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hubris-Troubling-Science-...
Funny how these books always get good reviews apart from random 1 star 'typical denialist junk' rants!
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
The question was "the ideal temperature of the planet is xx.xxC".
"When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
Hm. "When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
Warming = flourishing life and prosperity. If floods occur they will be localised requiring a rethink of areas built on flood plains.
Cooling = struggling life, death and hardship. Growing food, building homes, heating/energy requirements, transport, jobs, just about everything will be widespread hit.
Let's hope we get some decent natural warming to stave off a possible Dalton or Maunder type event that's been talked about.
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
I bet you read it at a non NASA web site based in the USA owned by a bloke who is white and middle aged and has a bee in his bonnet ?And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
Just guessing
Meanwhile lovely day in Kent. For the first time ever there is a 5km long Ambre Solaire slick off Folkstone.
Gandahar said:
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
I bet you read it at a non NASA web site based in the USA owned by a bloke who is white and middle aged and has a bee in his bonnet ?And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
In which case unless the chap is a liar (not restricted to white middle aged types) it could still be NASA as the location you describe would be a secondary source.
Also johnfm doesn't take to spinning yarns, so a link may well be discoverable.
However there's no harm in taking the RS at their word in the case of nullius in verba. If only the RS did likewise.
It makes little difference - forecasts of Arctic sea ice disappearance are as frequent and as wrong as Met Office weather forecasts, though they got it right today by the look of it. Woohoo.
Yesterday I said:
...Met Office weather forecasts, though they got it right today by the look of it. Woohoo...
Spoke too soon.We were told that today would be cloudy around here. There was a distinct impression of 8/8 and maybe light rain if it hadn't evaporated before it reached the deck.
Last night I applied the fleshware algorithm "red sky at night, TB's delight" to predict sunshine and clear skies. So far, it's fleshware algorithm 1, Met Office climatewang computer 0.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff