Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[jurbie]

The miracle of green energy continues as Germany is now outed as the second worst polluter in Europe just behind Poland.

article said:

“One of the big surprises for many people is the high-carbon intensity of the electricity production in Germany because that’s the country where renewable energy has been promoted most,” said Trio. “They’ve lead the solar energy revolution by investing a lot.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/11/poland-germany-...

It includes a link to a fun little map showing real time data of how much plant food each country in Europe is creating.
http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/

[mybrainhurts]

jurbie said:

The miracle of green energy continues as Germany is now outed as the second worst polluter in Europe just behind Poland

...Sit down, Angela, you came second, you clot

[mybrainhurts]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/12/surprising-...

US legal bod suggests a few things climate "scientists" should do to prove their case.

Cue durby working up a sweat to dig up some dirt on this bloke...

[Jasandjules]

mybrainhurts said:

Cue durby working up a sweat to dig up some dirt on this bloke...

It won't just be him - it will be many people who have vested interests in the green scam - there is a lot of money at stake.

BUT in Trump's America, I am hopeful that soon it will be the climate scam artists who are running for cover.

[Moonhawk]

jurbie said:

http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/11/poland-germany-...

It includes a link to a fun little map showing real time data of how much plant food each country in Europe is creating.
http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/

Nuclear FTW

[LongQ]

mybrainhurts said:

jurbie said:

The miracle of green energy continues as Germany is now outed as the second worst polluter in Europe just behind Poland

...Sit down, Angela, you came second, you clot

She has some interesting friends in that snap.

[LongQ]

jurbie said:

The miracle of green energy continues as Germany is now outed as the second worst polluter in Europe just behind Poland.

article said:

“One of the big surprises for many people is the high-carbon intensity of the electricity production in Germany because that’s the country where renewable energy has been promoted most,” said Trio. “They’ve lead the solar energy revolution by investing a lot.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/11/poland-germany-...

It includes a link to a fun little map showing real time data of how much plant food each country in Europe is creating.
http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/

Just looking at the electricitymap graphic ... Germany doing much better tonight it seems.

Denmark, however, is pushing Poland and Estonia for the top place.

That said in the time between starting this post and rechecking the numbers they have fallen away considerably.

Must have switched some lights out.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Thunder snow

Or just snow.

Where has that name come from? Cynical me wants to think they've made a name up, called it a rare event, so that it can be climate change that did it.

Rare weather events just don't happen without global warming (which of course was meant to make snow a thing for fairytales).

[Otispunkmeyer]

LongQ said:

Just looking at the electricitymap graphic ... Germany doing much better tonight it seems.

Denmark, however, is pushing Poland and Estonia for the top place.

That said in the time between starting this post and rechecking the numbers they have fallen away considerably.

Must have switched some lights out.

Oh dear. Denmark.

Thought they had their whole lives powered solely by wind? They're currently worse than us!

[Otispunkmeyer]

durbster said:

Convert said:

The clue is in the name, computer MODEL

I see, we're dragging this one out are we.

You mentioned CFD.

We can improve airflow by adding a winglet *here*.
Prove it.
Here it is on the computer MODEL.

That's not evidence?

No it's not. It's a possibility. A prediction with a level of confidence.

There is a reason CFD also stands for "colours for directors". I.e. it's pretty bullst to show the boss why he's paying you. CFD is not infallible and that is even though much of what goes on in CFD models can be validated with experiments.

I worked on a tumble and swirl model for a diesel engine. But we had to physically build a real life swirl rig to validate the model. Even then the model was only there or there abouts. It didn't capture the full story and it only had a range of flow rates where it made good Predictions.

F1 itself proves CFD isn't perfect. All the top teams still make heavy use of wind tunnels. A number of teams in the past have relied totally on CFD and it hasn't worked for them. This is why pre season you'll see many using flow-vis paint on the car and mounting anemometer arrays behind key bits of aero; the proof is in the pudding. Not the ingredients.

Models are not evidence. They are best estimates...Predictions. And they are only reliable predictions when there is some physical experiment data that backs up what is happening.

Climate change doesn't have that. It doesn't even have a set of models that completely captures the chaotic system and all its inputs, outputs and processes. It doesn't even have a null hypothesis to test. The premise is quite unscientific in approach. Some of the wonky thinking behind some of it shows some pro warmers lack even basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

The models are not good enough. Even the IPCC admits quietly that earlier predictions over egged the pudding. In 2013 they revised their predictions down to 0.1-0.23 deg per decade. (From over 0.7).

[durbster]

Otispunkmeyer said:

The models are not good enough. Even the IPCC admits quietly that earlier predictions over egged the pudding. In 2013 they revised their predictions down to 0.1-0.23 deg per decade. (From over 0.7).

I don't think your figures are correct.

IPCC in 2007 said:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

But anyway, what happened after the original projections in 1990, is that they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for and the projections changed. That's how science works: you get more data and update your results. I'm not sure what you are objecting there?

And when you say the IPCC "admits quietly", do you mean it was explained in one of their publications that is available for anyone to read and was distributed to journalists all over the world. Ssshhh.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/...

But anyway, what happened after the original projections in 1990, is that they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for and the projections changed. That's how science works: you get more data and update your results. I'm not sure what you are objecting there?

And when you say the IPCC "admits quietly", do you mean it was explained in one of their publications that is available for anyone to read and was distributed to journalists all over the world. Ssshhh.

Durbs your Quoted AR4 that is one report out of date. AR5 is the current one.

[The Don of Croy]

Stuck in the snowmageddon M25 last night I was listening to 'Science Now' on Radio 4 - a lot of the first half speaking about elements of AGW/CC.

One scientist lady keen to spread the message that the current position is, a 'best guess' and it will change as they understand more (a little different to the mantra of settled science that is a slogan yet to die), and some news from molluscs that will confirm the current AGW concept yet again (by analysing their shells to reconstruct changes pre and post industrial revolution).

[turbobloke]

The Don of Croy said:

snowmageddon

We got some snow too in tractor toting territory!

However it's not rare or exciting, and the children round here know what it is.

Viner you twonk.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

The models are not good enough. Even the IPCC admits quietly that earlier predictions over egged the pudding. In 2013 they revised their predictions down to 0.1-0.23 deg per decade. (From over 0.7).

I don't think your figures are correct.

IPCC in 2007 said:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

But anyway, what happened after the original projections in 1990, is that they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for and the projections changed. That's how science works: you get more data and update your results. I'm not sure what you are objecting there?

Models. From above, "they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for". So the previous models, telling us CC Armageddon was coming , we're thus complete crap then? And as for “important variable”, I seem to remember last year, a re-count of the number of trees on the planet was wrong by a factor of 10! A very important variable I would have though But funny, this disastrous mistake didn’t change the model predictions by 1 iota !!! And you obviously chose to ignore a previous posting that shows that a computer model that is of any use regarding accuracy, thus predictions, can never happen. With all the variables needed, it will never produce an answer. The calculation is due to Dr W Soon (Harvard Smithsonian Centre) and it showed that a full model of the climate system covering relevant variables at all spatial scales used to run a 50 year projection would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time as at that date.

This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe.

[turbobloke]

"That's how science works: you get more data and update your results."

When it's science you 'update' your fubarred hypothesis.

But when it's politics you don't update your corpse of a hypothesis as "the data don't matter" you just stick your hand up its arris and walk it around via supine media so people think it's still alive.

Model gigo - inadequate since the beginning and still going strong wrong.

[mybrainhurts]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

The models are not good enough. Even the IPCC admits quietly that earlier predictions over egged the pudding. In 2013 they revised their predictions down to 0.1-0.23 deg per decade. (From over 0.7).

I don't think your figures are correct.

IPCC in 2007 said:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

But anyway, what happened after the original projections in 1990, is that they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for and the projections changed. That's how science works: you get more data and update your results. I'm not sure what you are objecting there?

Models. From above, "they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for". So the previous models, telling us CC Armageddon was coming , we're thus complete crap then? And as for “important variable”, I seem to remember last year, a re-count of the number of trees on the planet was wrong by a factor of 10! A very important variable I would have though But funny, this disastrous mistake didn’t change the model predictions by 1 iota !!! And you obviously chose to ignore a previous posting that shows that a computer model that is of any use regarding accuracy, thus predictions, can never happen. With all the variables needed, it will never produce an answer. The calculation is due to Dr W Soon (Harvard Smithsonian Centre) and it showed that a full model of the climate system covering relevant variables at all spatial scales used to run a 50 year projection would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time as at that date.

This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe.

Good job Durby seems to have plenty of time on his hands....

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Durbs your Quoted AR4 that is one report out of date. AR5 is the current one.

Aye, that was deliberate. I was responding to the comment that the IPCC revised their projection from 0.7 per decade in 2013. I'm not sure it was ever that high was it? Maybe at the extreme end of the confidence level.

[Moonhawk]

We know from the fossil record that our planet naturally goes through greenhouse and icehouse states - and that it spends much more of it's time (80%) in the greenhouse state.

Why wouldn't warming of the earth be considered a natural consequence of it simply bouncing around the equilibrium point.

Given the earth has only spent 20% of it's history in an icehouse state (i.e. a state we are currently in - with permanent ice caps) - rather than being viewed as a disaster to be avoided, should warming and a loss of the ice caps actually be expected at some point as simply part of the natural cycle of the earth returning to it's 'norm'?

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

The models are not good enough. Even the IPCC admits quietly that earlier predictions over egged the pudding. In 2013 they revised their predictions down to 0.1-0.23 deg per decade. (From over 0.7).

I don't think your figures are correct.

IPCC in 2007 said:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

But anyway, what happened after the original projections in 1990, is that they added an important variable they hadn't accounted for and the projections changed. That's how science works: you get more data and update your results. I'm not sure what you are objecting there?

And when you say the IPCC "admits quietly", do you mean it was explained in one of their publications that is available for anyone to read and was distributed to journalists all over the world. Ssshhh.

What like clouds and water vapour?
They certainly didn't push it hard as a newsworthyy item