Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
America will be under the costly climate cosh if Billary is elected, says realist Coleman of the Weather Channel.
CFACT political blog Climate Depot said:
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, a meteorologist for over six decades, is warning that Al Gore may win the decades long “global warming” debate if the victor of the 2016 Presidential election further cements the UN Paris climate agreement and EPA regulations on carbon dioxide.
"Climate change, a scientific issue, has now totally become a political issue. As a result, we skeptical climate scientists are perhaps about to be handed a major defeat in the climate debate” Coleman said.
“President Obama imposed the UN climate agreement on the United States without Senate ratification. Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress. If the next President does not overturn these regulations, U.S. citizens will suffer the consequences as energy prices soar over the next eight years,” Coleman explained.
“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years” Coleman added.
"Climate change, a scientific issue, has now totally become a political issue. As a result, we skeptical climate scientists are perhaps about to be handed a major defeat in the climate debate” Coleman said.
“President Obama imposed the UN climate agreement on the United States without Senate ratification. Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress. If the next President does not overturn these regulations, U.S. citizens will suffer the consequences as energy prices soar over the next eight years,” Coleman explained.
“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years” Coleman added.
There was a recent post linking to an article in the Grauniad offering Peter Wadhams' repeated opinion that the arctic will be ice free in the very near future. Sorry, can't recall who posted it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/2...
Anyway the photo at the top of the article is interesting and I wondered if it was real or a photo shop. I mean, how does a relatively elderly professor come to be travelling in a military submarine? (Or is that something from the Greenpeace fleet?)
So I ran a picture search and didn't really turn up much, other than more pictures of the Prof in different places but with a similar sort of pose and a few links to other articles that accompanied the photos.
One of which was this one from a year ago..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...
One has to wonder what drives him. (Also which malevolent anti-green force has the power and control to launch murderous thunderbolts at specific people walking in Scotland. And if such a force exists why has it not yet gone public to claim that it can solve the climate Change challenge by running daily weather and so, ultimately, long term climate?)
One can only hope that policy makers and government budget spenders are fully aware of the wider aspects of the backgrounds of the people they speak to. Of course, that might be a vain hope.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/2...
Anyway the photo at the top of the article is interesting and I wondered if it was real or a photo shop. I mean, how does a relatively elderly professor come to be travelling in a military submarine? (Or is that something from the Greenpeace fleet?)
So I ran a picture search and didn't really turn up much, other than more pictures of the Prof in different places but with a similar sort of pose and a few links to other articles that accompanied the photos.
One of which was this one from a year ago..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...
One has to wonder what drives him. (Also which malevolent anti-green force has the power and control to launch murderous thunderbolts at specific people walking in Scotland. And if such a force exists why has it not yet gone public to claim that it can solve the climate Change challenge by running daily weather and so, ultimately, long term climate?)
One can only hope that policy makers and government budget spenders are fully aware of the wider aspects of the backgrounds of the people they speak to. Of course, that might be a vain hope.
Investigation of global land/water changes over last 30 years, by Deltares Research Institute Netherlands, just published in the journal Nature Climate Change, analysed Nasa's Landsat satellite images.
In respect of sea changes - coastlines had gained more land (13,000 sq miles), than lost to sea (7,800 sq miles).
"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world." (Dr Baart).
In respect of sea changes - coastlines had gained more land (13,000 sq miles), than lost to sea (7,800 sq miles).
"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world." (Dr Baart).
LongQ said:
Wadhams
He's getting it from all quarters, even hardcore warmists think he's 'out there' with his predictions.Tentacles to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and Anders Levermann - ultra PIK climate alarmism group - according to this:-
http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/27/german-scientis...
turbobloke said:
'NOAA Adjustments Increase US July Warming' (ICECAP)
NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest July. Hang on...calling NASA...
The NYT article linked with NOAA claiming no USA warming or rainfall changes (1989) is a peach.NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest July. Hang on...calling NASA...
"After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years(to 1987), a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period."
They go on to say that this isn't inconsistent with global warming (measured and theory), but apparently that wasn't good enough - it was easier to just make the data 'more' consistent with the theory anyway!
With the UK's Electricity generation in a very tenuous position for winter operations (and Gas is dodgy too but that hardly matters if there ain't no 'leccy) I see that Coal generation was at almost zero earlier today.
So what to do?
Well, here is one report that suggest some big money expenditure is required.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-2...
£215 Billion by 2030 apparently.
Meanwhile with all the intermittent and highly variable mainly windy renewables coming on to the scene replacing spinning generation the system frequency is ever more difficult to manage.
So the National Grid is having to contract out the services which will mean, absent anything like enough Hydro to replace the traditional powered turbines and no chance of building more, BATTERIES.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/storage-sweeps-board...
£66 million worth of deals.
They claims these deasl will save £200 million and offer a faster response to the correction of frequencies.
However the £200 million cost most likely came about only because by shifting everything to subsidised disturbines and other erratic producers the spinning generators became uneconomic to run and the virtually free controls they offered during normal operations suddenly became expensive. Even more expensive when one looks at the first report linked above.
All politics here - well, except for the so called options of converting existing spinning plant to CCS and being allowed to continue burning coal and gas.
Now if only the scientists and engineers could get CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) to work at all things might not look so black.
Alternatively without the "Carbon" scam decisions and the making of them should have been much easier and indeed would have been much easier for the past 2 or 3 decades. (That's not to say that our Political classes would have managed to make the decisions - but that's a different discussion.)
Just one of the negative "benefits" of Climate Change Politics.
So what to do?
Well, here is one report that suggest some big money expenditure is required.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-2...
£215 Billion by 2030 apparently.
Meanwhile with all the intermittent and highly variable mainly windy renewables coming on to the scene replacing spinning generation the system frequency is ever more difficult to manage.
So the National Grid is having to contract out the services which will mean, absent anything like enough Hydro to replace the traditional powered turbines and no chance of building more, BATTERIES.
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/storage-sweeps-board...
£66 million worth of deals.
They claims these deasl will save £200 million and offer a faster response to the correction of frequencies.
However the £200 million cost most likely came about only because by shifting everything to subsidised disturbines and other erratic producers the spinning generators became uneconomic to run and the virtually free controls they offered during normal operations suddenly became expensive. Even more expensive when one looks at the first report linked above.
All politics here - well, except for the so called options of converting existing spinning plant to CCS and being allowed to continue burning coal and gas.
Now if only the scientists and engineers could get CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) to work at all things might not look so black.
Alternatively without the "Carbon" scam decisions and the making of them should have been much easier and indeed would have been much easier for the past 2 or 3 decades. (That's not to say that our Political classes would have managed to make the decisions - but that's a different discussion.)
Just one of the negative "benefits" of Climate Change Politics.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/24/obama-energy-c...
gets you to this little gem
"A recent study found that fracking has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent, whereas the costly and heavily subsidized development of solar and wind energy has only reduced these same emissions by roughly 1 percent."
gets you to this little gem
"A recent study found that fracking has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent, whereas the costly and heavily subsidized development of solar and wind energy has only reduced these same emissions by roughly 1 percent."
Hysterical wibbling at unprecedented high levels; it's worse than we thought.
NewRepublic said:
We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”
In the Pacific this spring, the enemy staged a daring breakout across thousands of miles of ocean, waging a full-scale assault on the region’s coral reefs. In a matter of months, long stretches of formations like the Great Barrier Reef—dating back past the start of human civilization and visible from space—were reduced to white bone-yards.
Day after day, week after week, saboteurs behind our lines are unleashing a series of brilliant and overwhelming attacks. In the past few months alone, our foes have used a firestorm to force the total evacuation of a city of 90,000 in Canada, drought to ravage crops to the point where southern Africans are literally eating their seed corn, and floods to threaten the priceless repository of art in the Louvre. The enemy is even deploying biological weapons to spread psychological terror: The Zika virus, loaded like a bomb into a growing army of mosquitoes, has shrunk the heads of newborn babies across an entire continent; panicked health ministers in seven countries are now urging women not to get pregnant. And as in all conflicts, millions of refugees are fleeing the horrors of war, their numbers swelling daily as they’re forced to abandon their homes to escape famine and desolation and disease.
World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.
For years, our leaders chose to ignore the warnings of our best scientists and top military strategists. Global warming, they told us, was beginning a stealth campaign that would lay waste to vast stretches of the planet, uprooting and killing millions of innocent civilians. But instead of paying heed and taking obvious precautions, we chose to strengthen the enemy with our endless combustion; a billion explosions of a billion pistons inside a billion cylinders have fueled a global threat as lethal as the mushroom-shaped nuclear explosions we long feared. Carbon and methane now represent the deadliest enemy of all time, the first force fully capable of harrying, scattering, and impoverishing our entire civilization.
In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”
In the Pacific this spring, the enemy staged a daring breakout across thousands of miles of ocean, waging a full-scale assault on the region’s coral reefs. In a matter of months, long stretches of formations like the Great Barrier Reef—dating back past the start of human civilization and visible from space—were reduced to white bone-yards.
Day after day, week after week, saboteurs behind our lines are unleashing a series of brilliant and overwhelming attacks. In the past few months alone, our foes have used a firestorm to force the total evacuation of a city of 90,000 in Canada, drought to ravage crops to the point where southern Africans are literally eating their seed corn, and floods to threaten the priceless repository of art in the Louvre. The enemy is even deploying biological weapons to spread psychological terror: The Zika virus, loaded like a bomb into a growing army of mosquitoes, has shrunk the heads of newborn babies across an entire continent; panicked health ministers in seven countries are now urging women not to get pregnant. And as in all conflicts, millions of refugees are fleeing the horrors of war, their numbers swelling daily as they’re forced to abandon their homes to escape famine and desolation and disease.
World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.
For years, our leaders chose to ignore the warnings of our best scientists and top military strategists. Global warming, they told us, was beginning a stealth campaign that would lay waste to vast stretches of the planet, uprooting and killing millions of innocent civilians. But instead of paying heed and taking obvious precautions, we chose to strengthen the enemy with our endless combustion; a billion explosions of a billion pistons inside a billion cylinders have fueled a global threat as lethal as the mushroom-shaped nuclear explosions we long feared. Carbon and methane now represent the deadliest enemy of all time, the first force fully capable of harrying, scattering, and impoverishing our entire civilization.
mondeoman said:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/24/obama-energy-c...
gets you to this little gem
"A recent study found that fracking has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent, whereas the costly and heavily subsidized development of solar and wind energy has only reduced these same emissions by roughly 1 percent."
That 1% must represent some very creative accounting, after all the numbers are man-made and manufacturing tolerances vary gets you to this little gem
"A recent study found that fracking has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent, whereas the costly and heavily subsidized development of solar and wind energy has only reduced these same emissions by roughly 1 percent."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...
Hysterical wibbling said:
There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.
Winter.hidetheelephants said:
Hysterical wibbling at unprecedented high levels; it's worse than we thought.
Satire surely?NewRepublic said:
We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
LongQ said:
hidetheelephants said:
Hysterical wibbling at unprecedented high levels; it's worse than we thought.
Satire surely?NewRepublic said:
We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
LongQ said:
hidetheelephants said:
Hysterical wibbling at unprecedented high levels; it's worse than we thought.
Satire surely?NewRepublic said:
We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
t. It's less factual than Bluto's battlecry from National Lampoon's Animal House.
hidetheelephants said:
As per this post in the thread about a week ago, Wadhams is a guy just doesn't know when to give up.
The faith is strong in this one.
On August 22 in this thread I said:
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.
After his Guardian mention, also posted here, the BBC were bound to get him spouting off at some point.The faith is strong in this one.
Wadhams was on BBC radio sometime during the early morning (I already had a migraine!), being given a free advert for his book and handling gift questions with no challenges to his ridiculous opinions.
He actually said that the Arctic ice models (and other scientists) are wrong for delaying an ice free Arctic for too long into the future, and that his real data measurements (and projections) show otherwise. He said that when models are wrong they should be discarded - why doesn't that apply to all climate models (esp. of warming) then?
ETA
Particularly nutty was his suggestion that we should frack methane to flare it off to save us from the methane bomb in the Arctic region. Seriously? Deliberately produce more CO2 and heat but not even bother using the energy?
He actually said that the Arctic ice models (and other scientists) are wrong for delaying an ice free Arctic for too long into the future, and that his real data measurements (and projections) show otherwise. He said that when models are wrong they should be discarded - why doesn't that apply to all climate models (esp. of warming) then?
ETA
Particularly nutty was his suggestion that we should frack methane to flare it off to save us from the methane bomb in the Arctic region. Seriously? Deliberately produce more CO2 and heat but not even bother using the energy?
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Tuesday 30th August 11:20
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff