Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[mybrainhurts]

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were being discussed on Radio 4 today. Bod from the British Geological Survey said it wasn't predicted because they didn't have data going back very long and research and models made them think they knew more than they did and the Indian Ocean was flagged up as a very low risk area.

Makes a change to see one area of scientific research admitting failure.

[LongQ]

Blib said:

There's no higher call for a modern politician than to be seen as saving the planet for future generations. Oh, noble, noble leaders. We are not worthy.

More to the point it beats the hell out of having to deal with immediate "issues" and then being judged by the "results" that can be ascribed to whoever is incumbent.

They are all quite safe "fighting" for things that will only ever be even (partly) assessable well after they are gone - something they know very well indeed.

[Beati Dogu]

mybrainhurts said:

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were being discussed on Radio 4 today. Bod from the British Geological Survey said it wasn't predicted because they didn't have data going back very long and research and models made them think they knew more than they did and the Indian Ocean was flagged up as a very low risk area.

Makes a change to see one area of scientific research admitting failure.

Geologists tend to be sensible people. They're used to dealing with earth sciences covering millions of years, so the short termist global warming fad tends to fall on barren, rocky ground.

Of course everyone has bills to pay.

[The Don of Croy]

Is it me, or did anyone else get the impression that most of northern Scotland must have blown away yesterday from the (slightly awed) weatherman on t'Beeb?

Winds of - gasp - 100mph gusting to 115mph at the Cairngorms!

Some way off record levels.

Remind me, what season are we in and does northern Scotland usually get breezy?

Oh, and it's hot in Australia too, what with it being summer. So bush fires etc. Clearly unprecedented.

[hidetheelephants]

The Don of Croy said:

Remind me, what season are we in and does northern Scotland usually get breezy?

The UK hit by entirely typical weather.

[Shar2]

Yet on the weather reports they were stating that gusts had been recorded in the Shetland of 113mph and that this was the highest since records began in 1970. I could have sworn there have been much higher constant wind speeds recorded up there, not just gusts.

[turbobloke]

Shar2 said:

Yet on the weather reports they were stating that gusts had been recorded in the Shetland of 113mph and that this was the highest since records began in 1970. I could have sworn there have been much higher constant wind speeds recorded up there, not just gusts.

The key thing is whether 1970 truly represents a start of 'official' records, there's an RAF met record on Shetland (max wind speed 177mph) but that was from the mid-60s iirc. Max wind speeds of over 173 mph were recorded at Muckle Flugga lighthouse on 1st January 1992, which is definitely post-1970 but clearly not 'official'.

As often happens this is convenient cherry picking by journos to fit their pre-conceived beliefs and convey the 'right' message. AKA a pile of carp.

[Shar2]

TB, your last sentence is exactly as I viewed the report, a load of codswallop.

[turbobloke]

Shar2 said:

TB, your last sentence is exactly as I viewed the report, a load of codswallop.

Probably an unprecedented load reaching a tipping point soonest

[Ali G]

mybrainhurts said:

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were being discussed on Radio 4 today. Bod from the British Geological Survey said it wasn't predicted because they didn't have data going back very long and research and models made them think they knew more than they did and the Indian Ocean was flagged up as a very low risk area.

Makes a change to see one area of scientific research admitting failure.

'Hubris' was the term assigned to what had taken place re the prediction of future earthquakes and associated consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

Wiki re Hubris said:

Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

Very apt!

[jurbie]

A story here about a windfarm that has been built in South Wales and what a massive construction project it's been.

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/year-life-...

The story mentions that 125,000 tonnes of timber was removed from the site to make room for the turbines. I'm guessing by timber they actually mean trees. A quick foray around Google would suggest that we are talking something in the region of 10,000 trees which between them would have eaten around 125,000 tonnes of CO2 every year.

I wonder how long it will take the windfarm to save that amount of CO2?

[foreverdriving]

jurbie said:

I wonder how long it will take the windfarm to save that amount of CO2?

Probably however long it takes to dismantle and replant all the trees.

[LongQ]

jurbie said:

A story here about a windfarm that has been built in South Wales and what a massive construction project it's been.

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/year-life-...

The story mentions that 125,000 tonnes of timber was removed from the site to make room for the turbines. I'm guessing by timber they actually mean trees. A quick foray around Google would suggest that we are talking something in the region of 10,000 trees which between them would have eaten around 125,000 tonnes of CO2 every year.

I wonder how long it will take the windfarm to save that amount of CO2?

Also what effect removing that many trees might have on the local ecology and weather patterns. (Think what happened to Kilimanjaro's snow as the surrounding trees were slowly removed.)

Then of course there would be the effects, under ground level and CO2 output, of 250 tons of concrete for each disturbine base.

[LongQ]

LongQ said:

jurbie said:

A story here about a windfarm that has been built in South Wales and what a massive construction project it's been.

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/year-life-...

The story mentions that 125,000 tonnes of timber was removed from the site to make room for the turbines. I'm guessing by timber they actually mean trees. A quick foray around Google would suggest that we are talking something in the region of 10,000 trees which between them would have eaten around 125,000 tonnes of CO2 every year.

I wonder how long it will take the windfarm to save that amount of CO2?

Also what effect removing that many trees might have on the local ecology and weather patterns. (Think what happened to Kilimanjaro's snow as the surrounding trees were slowly removed.)

Then of course there would be the effects, under ground level and CO2 output, of 250 tons of concrete for each disturbine base.

Actually the article says 610 cubic meters of concrete per base (plus 84 tonnes of steel).

1 Cubic meter of concrete apparently weighs 2.5 tonne

http://www.easymix.co.uk/concrete.html

So a single base for disturbine will require about 1500 tonnes of concrete. Which in turn, depending on where you read, is almost the same as the weight of CO2 output.

All very green of course ... just a pity there are no trees left to absorb the feedstock and fertilisation effects for the positive growth benefits that all that tax gas could deliver.

[turbobloke]

Shar2 said:

Yet on the weather reports they were stating that gusts had been recorded in the Shetland of 113mph and that this was the highest since records began in 1970. I could have sworn there have been much higher constant wind speeds recorded up there, not just gusts.

Mrs TB reports that one of the BBC TV stations has been repeating the 113mph gust as the strongest since records began. They really must be desperate.

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

Shar2 said:

Yet on the weather reports they were stating that gusts had been recorded in the Shetland of 113mph and that this was the highest since records began in 1970. I could have sworn there have been much higher constant wind speeds recorded up there, not just gusts.

Mrs TB reports that one of the BBC TV stations has been repeating the 113mph gust as the strongest since records began. They really must be desperate.

The Beeb mentioned 143mph a short time ago.

[AreOut]

meanwhile in California...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1738135/california-introd...

[LongQ]

AreOut said:

meanwhile in California...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1738135/california-introd...

I think that's an excellent idea and I can't imagine a more appropriate place for such a tax to be applied. However I don't think it goes far enough.

Given the way the US tax system works I can see no reason why they should not simply tax anyone who has a registered place of domicile or business in the State, whether occupied or not, to self assess and pay the State tax on all of their "carbon" use anywhere in the world.

So every time some "celebrity" flies around promoting their latest film, album or whatever, they pay tax for the privilege.

Borrow a huge yacht to party in Rio or New York or wherever DiCaprio chooses to doss around next .... pay the tax. Let them put their money where their mouths are and hopefully we would all benefit by hearing and seeing less of them.

[steveT350C]

How hot was 2014? The hottest ever???

Er...



Both RSS and UAH agree that 2014 was far from being the hottest year ever, ranking it only sixth in the last 18 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11337317/Was-20...

[Andy Zarse]

steveT350C said:

How hot was 2014? The hottest ever???

Er...



Both RSS and UAH agree that 2014 was far from being the hottest year ever, ranking it only sixth in the last 18 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11337317/Was-20...

Or what we scientists like to call "just about average".