Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
But it's a minimal effect we're talking about. 
The estimates are around a fraction of a degree per decade which is bugger all in a system that ranges in temperature of something like 100 degrees.
The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels. I don't buy the apocalyptic predictions but if we continue that trend it seems pretty clear we'll be hit hard by things like sea-level rise, for example. Most of the world's major cities are river based, after all.
I'm very disapointed I still need to go to southern Europe to find a meditereanan climate ,The estimates are around a fraction of a degree per decade which is bugger all in a system that ranges in temperature of something like 100 degrees.
The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels. I don't buy the apocalyptic predictions but if we continue that trend it seems pretty clear we'll be hit hard by things like sea-level rise, for example. Most of the world's major cities are river based, after all.
You climate cretins said no more snow and the south of england would be like southern Italy
I want my money back and these Ugly windmills removed oh and you can f
k the solar subsidy farms off too!!!
"The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels"
Armwaving never looked so bad.
Presumably somebody intended to add that it would have an impact on ice if the local temperature (not some global average based on adjustments) actually reaches the melting point, and available heat content is sufficient to supply the right amount of latent heat.
There have been small upward and downward trends continuously throughout the history of the planet. The above 'issue' is a description of natural normality.
There is no causality to humans in any of it: temperature, sea levels or ice.
This thread today has taken a turn towards Sean Connery MkII.
Armwaving never looked so bad.
Presumably somebody intended to add that it would have an impact on ice if the local temperature (not some global average based on adjustments) actually reaches the melting point, and available heat content is sufficient to supply the right amount of latent heat.
There have been small upward and downward trends continuously throughout the history of the planet. The above 'issue' is a description of natural normality.
There is no causality to humans in any of it: temperature, sea levels or ice.
This thread today has taken a turn towards Sean Connery MkII.
powerstroke said:
You climate cretins said no more snow and the south of England would be like southern Italy
Hey, I built a lovely cactus garden just like the BBC told me to. Well it was lovely until the frost killed it.And I hear the Aussies have some nice desalination plants for sale at a knockdown price. One careful owner, hardly used.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Turbobloke- I honestly can't be arsed to duel any further with your refusal to accept a difference of opinion and actual facts regarding costs.
I hadn't noticed any duelling, nor am I unable to accept differences of opinion as that's fine, however numbers are a different matter. They feature in my renewables posts but they're not my data they're from engineers working to make renewables work, and they don't work. Others are from different engineers who also show that renewables cannot work. Some people don't like this but don't seem able to go beyond opinion to provide credible quantitative corrections e.g. to be specific, alternative EROEI numbers with reasoning. Where did I miss this? Don't think I missed it.
Until that happens, we can celebrate differences of opinion until the cows come home and fart in big jars as an energy source but it won't make renewables workable.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Twaddle.
You use selective reasoning, and 'fake news' as per a similar sceptic.
You use selective reasoning, and 'fake news' as per a similar sceptic.
Mentioning selectivity and twaddle in that manner ia deeply ironic - just post up where we can find detailed alternative EROEI calculations for renewables rather than false accusations of twaddle, and go tell Google's engineers and scientists that after their lengthy and costly in-depth investigation into what proved to be unworkable renewables that they got it wrong, their engineering / science / maths is in the 'twaddle' you're smearing and without any basis whatsoever thus far.
The final irony is calling a climate realist a skeptic in so many words, which is a compliment as far as any scientist is concerned, when what you're pushing looks suspiciously like true belief.
johnfm said:
In my job I see that renewables definitely work - for the investment funds making 15% IRR on solar and windfarm projects. These guys are very skilled at harvesting subsidies - truly a work of art.
It's amazing how the prospect of unearned free money focuses the mind, isn't it?I guess a example of this would be with welfare lifers*- in almost all ways, they seem irredeemably stupid, but when it comes to claiming free money for life, they seem to know every trick there is to get it.
- Some, most certainly not all.
durbster said:
Mrr T said:
I have highlighted the above because it’s clear you do not understand the current AGW hypnotises.
I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
But it's a minimal effect we're talking about. I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
The estimates are around a fraction of a degree per decade which is bugger all in a system that ranges in temperature of something like 100 degrees.
The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels. I don't buy the apocalyptic predictions but if we continue that trend it seems pretty clear we'll be hit hard by things like sea-level rise, for example. Most of the world's major cities are river based, after all.
chris watton said:
johnfm said:
In my job I see that renewables definitely work - for the investment funds making 15% IRR on solar and windfarm projects. These guys are very skilled at harvesting subsidies - truly a work of art.
It's amazing how the prospect of unearned free money focuses the mind, isn't it?I guess a example of this would be with welfare lifers*- in almost all ways, they seem irredeemably stupid, but when it comes to claiming free money for life, they seem to know every trick there is to get it.
- Some, most certainly not all.
Most, perhaps all, of the Benefits Offices or whatever they are now called are staffed by people whose main objective, for one reason or another, is to make sure that they go through every possible source of claims that their "customers" might be able to make.
No need to bust a gut trying find information. Just walk in and have someone seek out everything for you. It's what they get paid for.
LongQ said:
They get free training.
Most, perhaps all, of the Benefits Offices or whatever they are now called are staffed by people whose main objective, for one reason or another, is to make sure that they go through every possible source of claims that their "customers" might be able to make.
No need to bust a gut trying find information. Just walk in and have someone seek out everything for you. It's what they get paid for.
Ah, OK, I didn't know that. When I was younger, they were actually called Job-Centres, and the staff did everything they could to find the unemployed a job. I guess it's changed...Most, perhaps all, of the Benefits Offices or whatever they are now called are staffed by people whose main objective, for one reason or another, is to make sure that they go through every possible source of claims that their "customers" might be able to make.
No need to bust a gut trying find information. Just walk in and have someone seek out everything for you. It's what they get paid for.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Nope. I won't.
You'll do as always - roar and lambast, provide an alternate tin foil hat source that refutes any modern day calculations and costs - that are typically 3 or 4 years out of date.
Light years ago in the terms of renewables energy
if you would provide the latest up to date figures it would make it easier for people to form an opionion. from my perspective i can appreciate and accept that the calculations will change over time, the physics not so much.You'll do as always - roar and lambast, provide an alternate tin foil hat source that refutes any modern day calculations and costs - that are typically 3 or 4 years out of date.
Light years ago in the terms of renewables energy
johnfm said:
durbster said:
Mrr T said:
I have highlighted the above because it’s clear you do not understand the current AGW hypnotises.
I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
But it's a minimal effect we're talking about. I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
The estimates are around a fraction of a degree per decade which is bugger all in a system that ranges in temperature of something like 100 degrees.
The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels. I don't buy the apocalyptic predictions but if we continue that trend it seems pretty clear we'll be hit hard by things like sea-level rise, for example. Most of the world's major cities are river based, after all.
I struggle with the ability to measure the earth accurately to percent of a degree, as durbster points out at any time there is a 100 degree difference over the planet along with the variability of night and day, it fanciful to imagine that it is possible to come to an accurate figure, than attribute the change to a small change in a trace gas, that's excluding the problems with the pause, that even the met office agree is happening.
durbster said:
Mrr T said:
I have highlighted the above because it’s clear you do not understand the current AGW hypnotises.
I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
But it's a minimal effect we're talking about. I am what you would term a sceptic but I agree with both the above statements.
So why I am I a sceptic? because we know CO2 is a very weak forcing agent so on its own CO2 will have minimal effect on the Climate.
The estimates are around a fraction of a degree per decade which is bugger all in a system that ranges in temperature of something like 100 degrees.
The issue is that as we are already seeing, that small upward trend can have a significant impact on things like ice levels. I don't buy the apocalyptic predictions but if we continue that trend it seems pretty clear we'll be hit hard by things like sea-level rise, for example. Most of the world's major cities are river based, after all.
With regard to sea ice there is a lot of data you can look up and its inconclusive. Some areas have seen a fall is sea ice others an increase most is almost certainly weather related.
As for rising in sea level read the views of Dr Morner the warming due to CO2 would have minimal effect on sea level rise.
While many great cities are built on oceans, oceans have significant tidal variations.
The expected low levels of sea level rise will have minimal impact.
A more political statement - this from the The Grauniad in a column about the recent uptick in Ladybird sales (mainly due to the pee-taking titles like 'The Hipster' etc), wherein our future monarch felt compelled to put pen to paper once more (but not green ink this time);
The Climate Change book has a rather different purpose, to campaign for change in a politically treacherous area. “It is the result,” according to co-author Prince Charles, “of a conversation I had with a friend following my return from having spoken at the opening session of the Paris Climate Change Summit that took place in December 2015.” With a comic pomposity that could pass for a spoof itself, Climate Change not only has three authors but declares itself to have been peer-reviewed by eight learned meteorologists.
The cover depicts scenes from the 1999 flood in Uckfield thus -
- based on a rescue that never occurred (no people were on the roof trying to escape). In fact by the time the inshore lifeboats arrived just about everybody in town was milling about sight seeing (along with me hitching a ride in a front loader to wade through the water).
It's a work of fiction. With a political message. And a scary picture to re-inforce that message.
Hopefully the next book will be 'How It Works - The Entitled Prince and His Massive Carbon Footprint'
The Climate Change book has a rather different purpose, to campaign for change in a politically treacherous area. “It is the result,” according to co-author Prince Charles, “of a conversation I had with a friend following my return from having spoken at the opening session of the Paris Climate Change Summit that took place in December 2015.” With a comic pomposity that could pass for a spoof itself, Climate Change not only has three authors but declares itself to have been peer-reviewed by eight learned meteorologists.
The cover depicts scenes from the 1999 flood in Uckfield thus -
- based on a rescue that never occurred (no people were on the roof trying to escape). In fact by the time the inshore lifeboats arrived just about everybody in town was milling about sight seeing (along with me hitching a ride in a front loader to wade through the water).
It's a work of fiction. With a political message. And a scary picture to re-inforce that message.
Hopefully the next book will be 'How It Works - The Entitled Prince and His Massive Carbon Footprint'
Le TVR said:
If passed, excellent news all the same.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff