Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
dickymint said:
Are you sure? Let's just hang on and see how this pans out.....
I actually think this episode is a good test of cognitive biases on both sides. It should be relatively straightforward to sort out what happened yet currently we have anti-wind farmers saying wind turbines were to blame and pro-wind saying they aren't. Bias clearly at play.The reddit link was promising (thanks durbster) with a real engineer commenting but then drowned out by numpties. The time graph in the GWPF link is also illuminating but I'm not qualified to interpret it fully. At least the restart issue has been conceded by the pro wind team.
It does seem a bit coincidental that it has happened in a massively pro wind state. To me it boils down to my previous question; would it have happened (indeed has it happened elsewhere?) if all the power was provided from non-renewable sources with the necessary infrastructure and inter-connectors to support that set up? Presumably there are a load more pylons to connect to loads of turbine sites?
Interesting stuff. Any engineers around who understand this stuff to give an overall unbiased view?
Northbloke said:
dickymint said:
Are you sure? Let's just hang on and see how this pans out.....
I actually think this episode is a good test of cognitive biases on both sides. It should be relatively straightforward to sort out what happened yet currently we have anti-wind farmers saying wind turbines were to blame and pro-wind saying they aren't. Bias clearly at play.The reddit link was promising (thanks durbster) with a real engineer commenting but then drowned out by numpties. The time graph in the GWPF link is also illuminating but I'm not qualified to interpret it fully. At least the restart issue has been conceded by the pro wind team.
It does seem a bit coincidental that it has happened in a massively pro wind state. To me it boils down to my previous question; would it have happened (indeed has it happened elsewhere?) if all the power was provided from non-renewable sources with the necessary infrastructure and inter-connectors to support that set up? Presumably there are a load more pylons to connect to loads of turbine sites?
Interesting stuff. Any engineers around who understand this stuff to give an overall unbiased view?
LongQ said:
Pity that the Independent didn't do it's homework on Michael Mann.Todays Beeb CC bit:-
Aviation industry agrees deal to cut CO2 emissions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3757...
The first deal limiting greenhouse gases from international aviation has been sealed after years of wrangling.
From 2020, any increase in airline CO2 emissions will be offset by activities like tree planting, which soak up CO2.
The deal comes in a momentous week for climate policy when the Paris agreement to stabilise climate change passed a key threshold for becoming law.
Since when has the Paris Agreement become a law?
Aviation industry agrees deal to cut CO2 emissions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3757...
The first deal limiting greenhouse gases from international aviation has been sealed after years of wrangling.
From 2020, any increase in airline CO2 emissions will be offset by activities like tree planting, which soak up CO2.
The deal comes in a momentous week for climate policy when the Paris agreement to stabilise climate change passed a key threshold for becoming law.
Since when has the Paris Agreement become a law?
robinessex said:
LongQ said:
Pity that the Independent didn't do it's homework on Michael Mann.Edited by LongQ on Friday 7th October 10:57
Keeping hurricane Matthew's climate guff on this thread and away from the tracking and impact elements being covered in tbe other thread, and acknowledging the devastating effects of such major storms, we have this:
Clearly there was more manmade carbon dioxide around back then and more global warming. Which explains it, along with the unusual ~11-year drought to 2016 in terms of landfalling major hurricanes (Cat 3 and higher) on the continental USA.
Bryan Norcross as senior hurricane specialist for The Weather Channel commenting on Hurricane Matthew now Cat 3 said:
This is like no storm in the record books.
Oops. One hurricane at least as strong as Matthew made landfall on Grand Bahama Island in 1935. Clearly there was more manmade carbon dioxide around back then and more global warming. Which explains it, along with the unusual ~11-year drought to 2016 in terms of landfalling major hurricanes (Cat 3 and higher) on the continental USA.
Northbloke said:
I actually think this episode is a good test of cognitive biases on both sides. It should be relatively straightforward to sort out what happened yet currently we have anti-wind farmers saying wind turbines were to blame and pro-wind saying they aren't. Bias clearly at play.
Yep, I think you're right.It looks like what happened in South Australia was the storm taking out key parts of the infrastructure which would have happened regardless of renewables, BUT having such reliance on renewables made the problem a lot worse. That gives the loons on both sides something to get frothy about.
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Australia is no stranger to big storms (although I don't think SA gets hit that hard). Queensland was hit with a big one recently and they didn't suffer like this, but is that because they don't rely on renewables, or simply because they have a better network?
durbster said:
Northbloke said:
I actually think this episode is a good test of cognitive biases on both sides. It should be relatively straightforward to sort out what happened yet currently we have anti-wind farmers saying wind turbines were to blame and pro-wind saying they aren't. Bias clearly at play.
Yep, I think you're right.It looks like what happened in South Australia was the storm taking out key parts of the infrastructure which would have happened regardless of renewables, BUT having such reliance on renewables made the problem a lot worse.
durbster said:
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Hostile witness? Relaying information hardly makes the GWPF not sensible, it's sensible to collate and relay information. It's possible you don't approve of the particular information relayed, information that makes the renewables role less edifying, and have decided to shoot the messenger.
Could this be your own cognitive dissonance lying naked for inspection? Yep I think that's right.
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Hostile witness? Relaying information hardly makes the GWPF not sensible, it's sensible to collate and relay information. It's possible you don't approve of the particular information relayed, information that makes the renewables role less edifying, and have decided to shoot the messenger.
Could this be your own cognitive dissonance lying naked for inspection? Yep I think that's right.
I got as far as the image comparing South Australia to North Korea and concluded it was clearly not going to be an objective take on the story. Those kinds of articles are merely a service for people who are looking to confirm their bias, as above. You learn nothing from them.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Hostile witness? Relaying information hardly makes the GWPF not sensible, it's sensible to collate and relay information. It's possible you don't approve of the particular information relayed, information that makes the renewables role less edifying, and have decided to shoot the messenger.
Could this be your own cognitive dissonance lying naked for inspection? Yep I think that's right.
I got as far as the image comparing South Australia to North Korea and concluded it was clearly not going to be an objective take on the story. Those kinds of articles are merely a service for people who are looking to confirm their bias, as above. You learn nothing from them.
Surely a number of people will have learned this from GWPF, as I did:
"AEMO said data currently available indicates that the damage to the Davenport to Brinkworth 275 kV line on which 14 towers were damaged 'occurred following the SA Black System'."
Showing that, from the timeline available so far, a wind power fail is indeed implicated.
As you will have known for some time, and I suspect others will know even if you've missed it, I take a position in keeping with available credible data.
From the self-evident nature of your posts, you don't; so between the two of us I'm certain where any bias rests and it's not with me. Keep the faith
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Hostile witness? Relaying information hardly makes the GWPF not sensible, it's sensible to collate and relay information. It's possible you don't approve of the particular information relayed, information that makes the renewables role less edifying, and have decided to shoot the messenger.
Could this be your own cognitive dissonance lying naked for inspection? Yep I think that's right.
I got as far as the image comparing South Australia to North Korea and concluded it was clearly not going to be an objective take on the story. Those kinds of articles are merely a service for people who are looking to confirm their bias, as above. You learn nothing from them.
Such outrage that I didn't read an article that is blatantly one-sided.
It's obviously not going to give an unbiased picture of events, so it's essentially worthless. There are many other sources available.
Err... the only time I recall mentioning them was to point out how even they wouldn't support the views of this thread.
It's obviously not going to give an unbiased picture of events, so it's essentially worthless. There are many other sources available.
dickymint said:
durbster said:
I had thought the GWPF might be a relatively sensible organisation until I read that article linked above.
Really? from what I've seen from your posts you have shown nothing but 'cognitive bias' against the GWPF turbobloke said:
As you will have known for some time, and I suspect others will know even if you've missed it, I take a position in keeping with available credible data.
I'm constantly amazed that you post these kind of statements, when they're so easily shown to be untrue.Obama has told D-Cap that climate change is implicated in the Syrian civil war. What a doofusa.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/04/blameshifti...
Several other Climate Depot web pages seem to be down.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/04/blameshifti...
Several other Climate Depot web pages seem to be down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff