Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Le TVR said:
"Republicans aren’t the only ones looking to cut environmental science spending." 
dickymint said:
Le TVR said:
"Republicans aren’t the only ones looking to cut environmental science spending." Not being capable of powering a western civilisation with hospitals and universities as well as shops and factories is a damning indictment. It won't go away however prices are levelised, nor with any amount of taxpayer subsidy. EROEI is important for that reason, also as a means of showing that renewables offer no solution to the non-problem we didn't cause which led to the current madness. Resorting to a shoot-the-messenger approach shows how little there is of substance to support the renewables folly.
Some reading for open minds that haven't read it previously. Or, another messenger to shoot, if that's all there is on offer by way of reply.
http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-oil-vs-peak-re...
Some reading for open minds that haven't read it previously. Or, another messenger to shoot, if that's all there is on offer by way of reply.
http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-oil-vs-peak-re...
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an alternate tin foil hat source that refutes any modern day calculations and costs - that are typically 3 or 4 years out of date.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
Eh? 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an alternate tin foil hat source that refutes any modern day calculations and costs - that are typically 3 or 4 years out of date.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
Might have trouble with that one should you ever do any dimension sanity checks on your modern day 'calculations'
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I would suggest that using the Metric of EROEI as the benchmark in the dogged perseverance of a perverse agenda - compounded by the type of tin foil hat websites that Google throws up when a "EROEI" search is made is sufficient to say it is not really a helpful barometer of the success of Offshore wind or renewables.
The Industry, media, governments and alike tend to use the LCOE.
Assessing intermittent sources like windmills, solar etc using LCOE is bullsThe Industry, media, governments and alike tend to use the LCOE.
t as it typically fails to take any account of the cost of providing spinning reserve. Until magic batteries are invented windmills and solar are snake oil.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I would suggest that using the Metric of EROEI as the benchmark in the dogged perseverance of a perverse agenda - compounded by the type of tin foil hat websites that Google throws up when a "EROEI" search is made is sufficient to say it is not really a helpful barometer of the success of Offshore wind or renewables.
The Industry, media, governments and alike tend to use the LCOE.
i had a look at lcoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_...The Industry, media, governments and alike tend to use the LCOE.
when it takes that amount of words to come up with a measure of efficiency/cost it usually means someone is trying to obfuscate .
surely measuring the lifetime costs of generation method vs energy output is the only way to do this ?
Lev. costs and Social Costs of Carbon are otherwise known as fraudulent accounting.
Anyway, good news (if you believe the weather in the Arctic matters), the 'heatwave' that was widely reported, but that never was, has turned into the coldest since 2015, and has dropped to the long term 'normal' average for the date.
Surely the BBC will be reporting this good news as avidly as the 'bad'! (Won't hold my breath, they'll just cherry pick some lowest ice extent/volume meaningless headline instead.)
Anyway, good news (if you believe the weather in the Arctic matters), the 'heatwave' that was widely reported, but that never was, has turned into the coldest since 2015, and has dropped to the long term 'normal' average for the date.
Surely the BBC will be reporting this good news as avidly as the 'bad'! (Won't hold my breath, they'll just cherry pick some lowest ice extent/volume meaningless headline instead.)
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Its what the industry, governments, Energy suppliers etc use.
Whats the issue with :
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the generating asset must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. It is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital.
Covers it all ? And is used as benchmark across the variety of sources.
It would be fine if all means of generation had similar intermittency, capacity factor and were equally despatchable. Unless these are accounted for it's a worthless benchmark and just results in the grotesque market distortion that we have now.Whats the issue with :
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the generating asset must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. It is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital.
Covers it all ? And is used as benchmark across the variety of sources.
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
Which is not surprising because AGW is based on two quite fundamental scientific facts:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the effects of which have been studied for something like 200 years.
2. There are increasing levels of greenhouse gases - particularly CO2 - in the atmosphere, caused by burning fossil fuels.
I have highlighted the above because it’s clear you do not understand the current AGW hypnotises.1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the effects of which have been studied for something like 200 years.
2. There are increasing levels of greenhouse gases - particularly CO2 - in the atmosphere, caused by burning fossil fuels.
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.
To go from the above statements to a serious situation you have to add another.
Will increased heat in the climate from CO2 lead to an increase in water vapour (which is a strong forcing agent) so as to result in significant increases in temperature.
Only if this last statement is correct would we have a problem.
The fact is we have no idea about the last statement. Water vapour as a gas is a strong forcing agent however if it’s held as clouds then in may even cool the climate.
Since science know very little about how clouds behave on a global scale the models just guess.
As to feedbacks, we do know, both from historical data and from contemporary satellite data.
Overall feedback is negative, and water vapour feedback within it likewise. See snips below based on data not models and with my emphasis added to each for skim-readers with limited time.
Abstract 1
The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative - that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Abstract 2
We explore the daily evolution of tropical intraseasonal oscillations in satelliteobserved tropospheric temperature, precipitation, radiative fluxes, and cloud properties. The warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the oceanatmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate
Abstract 3
Direct evidence for negative water feedback is found in CRUTEM4 station data by comparing temperature anomalies for arid regions (deserts and polar regions) with those for humid regions (mainly saturated tropics). All 5600 weather stations were classified according to the Köppen-Geiger climatology. Two separate temperature anomaly series from 1900 to 2011 were calculated for each region. A clear difference in temperature response is observed. Assuming the difference is due to atmospheric water content, a water feedback value of -1.5 +/- 0.8 W/m2K-1 can be derived.
Are people on here not knowing what the difference is between POLITICAL and SCIENCE is?
Turning back to politics
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/scott-pruitt...
Will be interesting what happens now.
So far on global climate change not much has happened from motormouth Trump.
Now Pruitt is in charge of EPA, and he's a tough, experienced, intelligent cookie, it will be interesting to see how much of his agenda on this issue he can push through as Donald has his mind on other matters....
Turning back to politics
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/scott-pruitt...
Will be interesting what happens now.
So far on global climate change not much has happened from motormouth Trump.
Now Pruitt is in charge of EPA, and he's a tough, experienced, intelligent cookie, it will be interesting to see how much of his agenda on this issue he can push through as Donald has his mind on other matters....
Gandahar said:
This is politics climate, not science, wrong thread
Tell Durbster and Plunker who bomb the thread complaining that there is no political debate, then dedicate their lives to tag-teaming the thread with (fake/poor) science trying to win an unwinnable argument.Although what they are unwittingly doing is proving that all the pro-CAGW 'science' is actually just politics!
Gandahar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Lev. costs and Social Costs of Carbon are otherwise known as fraudulent accounting.
What ?Source of claim ?
Both subjects are so widely discredited, it's insulting to ask for proof.
I'm not Paddy's google monkey.
(PS. Your pointless dig wasted valuable thread space.)
Mr GrimNasty said:
Gandahar said:
This is politics climate, not science, wrong thread
Tell Durbster and Plunker who bomb the thread complaining that there is no political debate, then dedicate their lives to tag-teaming the thread with (fake/poor) science trying to win an unwinnable argument.Although what they are unwittingly doing is proving that all the pro-CAGW 'science' is actually just politics!
Would you like to comment on my last post about Scott Pruitt?
Mr GrimNasty said:
Gandahar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Lev. costs and Social Costs of Carbon are otherwise known as fraudulent accounting.
What ?Source of claim ?
Both subjects are so widely discredited, it's insulting to ask for proof.
I'm not Paddy's google monkey.
(PS. Your pointless dig wasted valuable thread space.)
Would you like to comment on my last post about Scott Pruitt?
Mr GrimNasty said:
Get some sleep G. if you're tired.
1/3 of all the carbon dioxide ever released by man produces 0 global warming.
Only noticeable influences are ENSO and Volcanic. NOW THAT IS SCIENCE.
But that should be on the Science thread, not political1/3 of all the carbon dioxide ever released by man produces 0 global warming.
Only noticeable influences are ENSO and Volcanic. NOW THAT IS SCIENCE.
This should be on the political thread
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/t...
Maybe you need some sleep?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff