Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
robinessex said:
For that remark, best if you leave the Forum I think
What draws you to the conclusion that I should leave the forum for saying (admittedly in brief) 'you're wrong in your assertion that it's a pathetically useless/uncertain way to record the temperature of the sea' and to ask you for evidence to back up your assertion that we're 'using the data to destroy the planet'? Go on, where's your evidence?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 21st January 17:03
Lotus 50 said:
robinessex said:
For that remark, best if you leave the Forum I think
What draws you to the conclusion that I should leave the forum for saying (admittedly in brief) 'you're wrong in your assertion that it's a pathetically useless/uncertain way to record the temperature of the sea' and to ask you for evidence to back up your assertion that we're 'using the data to destroy the planet'? Go on, where's your evidence?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 21st January 17:03
DapperDanMan said:
Lotus 50 said:
robinessex said:
For that remark, best if you leave the Forum I think
What draws you to the conclusion that I should leave the forum for saying (admittedly in brief) 'you're wrong in your assertion that it's a pathetically useless/uncertain way to record the temperature of the sea' and to ask you for evidence to back up your assertion that we're 'using the data to destroy the planet'? Go on, where's your evidence?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 21st January 17:03
DapperDanMan said:
I am also very keen to know how the move towards renewable energy etc. is destroying the planet
Destroying or detrimental?Electric vehicle manufacture and use see 'Dust to Dust' report and actually read it rather than rely on the lies from green advocacy sites
Extraction of rear earth metals for turbines is having a devastating impact on locations where the elements are extracted and processed.
Then there's the massive diversion of resources to a non-problem we didn't cause and which doesn't need fixing.
Turbines don't manage to decrease carbon dioxide emissions "say scientists" but no doubt the science is now settled. Has anyone seen any treatment which looks at the cost, never mind the wider impact, of turbine decommissioning in anything other than a cursory manner if at all?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...
However the whole shebang is a costly pointless exercise in faith and vanity as renewables are incapable of powering a developed western economy with hospitals, schools and colleges as well as factories and shops and of course, mechanised transport.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
Those disagreeing with the EROEI calculations ^^ please provide alternative worked numbers not armwaving rhetoric. Also it would be good to read why a localised medieval lifestyle will be so great and a vote-winner, though the detail of the latter may be better in the other thread. Nothing credible has emerged as yet. Well summed up by XM5ER 'uses more energy than they will recoup in their working lifetime'.
XM5ER said:
DapperDanMan said:
Lotus 50 said:
robinessex said:
For that remark, best if you leave the Forum I think
What draws you to the conclusion that I should leave the forum for saying (admittedly in brief) 'you're wrong in your assertion that it's a pathetically useless/uncertain way to record the temperature of the sea' and to ask you for evidence to back up your assertion that we're 'using the data to destroy the planet'? Go on, where's your evidence?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 21st January 17:03
As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
DapperDanMan said:
Once the renewable supply is sufficient the energy used to create new renewable technology will be from renewable technology. We need to get to that threshold. Also technology doesn't suddenly appear it is an iterative process that needs to work in a commercial environment in order to fund further work on developing ever more refined versions.
We've had windmills for 2000 years and they still have limited uses - how long do they need!!!DapperDanMan said:
As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Unless the benefits are also costed in then no they are not subsidised [sic]DapperDanMan said:
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
You're right - who wants to clean up this mess.....The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
DapperDanMan said:
Once the renewable supply is sufficient the energy used to create new renewable technology will be from renewable technology.
That's already been looked at extensively including fantasy turbines that erect themselves and robots that build farms. It doesn't work even that way. To quote the obvious comment arising from review of the engineers' report:The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
Any fait accompli comment that renewables can create the energy needed to build sufficient renewables while powering a developed, civilised western economy at the same time is head-in-the-sand faith, and better placed in the other thread with its religious/political basis.
In the science thread you need EROEI numbers that work, I politely suggested that armwaving rhetoric would not be a substitute but we got the armwaving anyway.
We are near peak renewables now, enjoy it while it lasts and while governments fail to see they cannot afford the inevitable failure and devastating loss of energy security.
DapperDanMan said:
Once the renewable supply is sufficient the energy used to create new renewable technology will be from renewable technology. We need to get to that threshold. Also technology doesn't suddenly appear it is an iterative process that needs to work in a commercial environment in order to fund further work on developing ever more refined versions.
As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
In order of your points.As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
Look at this again, the supply can never be sufficient as it always consumes more than it supplies. Nuclear offers a solution to this but at huge cost (less than renewables though). Funnily enough I read a paper by Greenpeace about 25 years ago making the same point about Nuclear, i.e. that it was so carbon intensive in its building and then mining of uranium, that it could never be CO2 emission reducer, I'm sure it was a badly written advocacy paper but the irony is not lost on me.
Fossil fuel is not subsidized. I know that the guardian sells this lie but it is simply untrue. Ironically, a large part of China's real pollution problems (and I mean real, nasty heavy metals type poisonous pollution) is caused by the manufacture of wind turbine generator sets.
Yes tar sand extraction is very unpleasant, without a doubt and so is strip mining for coal. But it's not as unpleasant as the grinding poverty that mankind endured for millennia before the twentieth century (and still do in large parts of the undeveloped world).
I have nothing against the principle of renewable energy development but current technology doesn't work and subsidies (real cash handout type subsidies that YOU and I pay every day), actively prevents the development of technologies that will be required for the next century.
XM5ER said:
I have nothing against the principle of renewable energy development but current technology doesn't work and subsidies (real cash handout type subsidies that YOU and I pay every day), actively prevents the development of technologies that will be required for the next century.
If only renewables could work!Dreamers can dream and will; vested interests will spin and gloss.
Jinx said:
You're right - who wants to clean up this mess.....
Just the tip of the iceberg I think.Under each of the "regular" current specification land based disturbines is something like 250 tons of carbon intensive steel and concrete.
Now the industry says the carbon cost is covered in 2 or 3 years but that has to be dependent on the savings actually made, if any, from electricity generation.
Even if we accept that it is probably safe to assume that the next generation of disturbines, 20 or so years down the line when current new installations are deemed uneconomic, will likely need different bases in different positions. Re-use of existing bases for another 20 years might be more than a little risky.
And so the fields and the moors will be dug up once again and 400 tons of steel and concrete deployed for larger units.
A little of what is dug out for the new bases will be used to cover the old ones and someone will be paid for the Eco landscaping work. Very "green" of course. The concrete and steel will be left where it is.
Not once in many years of looking have I seen any reference to site clean up once the life of the "plant" is complete. Can some of the more delicate moors survive 2 or 3 generations of such abuse?
Or will it just then be a good excuse to industrialise them? Brown field sites and all that.
How do you reinstate an ancient moor? (Other than an ice age perhaps?)
The latest excuse for "the pause"
Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-globa...
I despair.
Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-globa...
I despair.
XM5ER said:
It's quite simple. At the current level of renewable technology, the manufacture of renewable power devices (solar + wind) uses more energy than they will recoup in their working lifetime.
This is not generally the case. Almost all large scale renewable generation returns a multiple of the energy invested in it's manufacture over it's lifetime. Unfortunately, if you do the sums, this multiple needs to be rather large to be much use for anything.XM5ER said:
The latest excuse for "the pause"
Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-globa...
I despair.
Thanks for posting, however you're mistaken that the paper tries to explain "the pause". Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-globa...
I despair.
XM5ER said:
DapperDanMan said:
Once the renewable supply is sufficient the energy used to create new renewable technology will be from renewable technology. We need to get to that threshold. Also technology doesn't suddenly appear it is an iterative process that needs to work in a commercial environment in order to fund further work on developing ever more refined versions.
As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
In order of your points.As for subsidies well the use of fossil fuel is subsidised in so much as its detrimental effects from well/mine to atmosphere are not paid for from the profits of the producers. Look at China's smog problem who will pay to clear that mess up.
Also have you seen the devastation from tar sand extraction.
The use of renewables is here and growing fast. I very much welcome it as sitting on our arses and relying on oil until it is gone is not the answer. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and leaving it to our descendants to clean up our mess.
Look at this again, the supply can never be sufficient as it always consumes more than it supplies. Nuclear offers a solution to this but at huge cost (less than renewables though). Funnily enough I read a paper by Greenpeace about 25 years ago making the same point about Nuclear, i.e. that it was so carbon intensive in its building and then mining of uranium, that it could never be CO2 emission reducer, I'm sure it was a badly written advocacy paper but the irony is not lost on me.
Fossil fuel is not subsidized. I know that the guardian sells this lie but it is simply untrue. Ironically, a large part of China's real pollution problems (and I mean real, nasty heavy metals type poisonous pollution) is caused by the manufacture of wind turbine generator sets.
Yes tar sand extraction is very unpleasant, without a doubt and so is strip mining for coal. But it's not as unpleasant as the grinding poverty that mankind endured for millennia before the twentieth century (and still do in large parts of the undeveloped world).
I have nothing against the principle of renewable energy development but current technology doesn't work and subsidies (real cash handout type subsidies that YOU and I pay every day), actively prevents the development of technologies that will be required for the next century.
Anyone seen this :-
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/t...
And this :-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-a...
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/t...
And this :-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-a...
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 24th January 09:50
plunker said:
Thanks for posting, however you're mistaken that the paper tries to explain "the pause".
On second look, you are right it doesn't, my confirmation bias is showing. TBH though, the press release is so badly written I have no idea what the paper is meant to prove.Pekka Kauppi a forest ecologist from Helsinki University and co-author added the results were "As if forests have been holding their breath", or its as if the ocean's out-gassing of CO2 slowed during the pause. But I thought the pause didn't happen and it was all a bad dream, did the researchers not get the memo?
This is an interesting article. As always it is wise to assess with a cynical eye, especially given the provenance... Nevertheless some of the key assertions (eg. that the results underlying such an important paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists) should be quickly and easily dismissed if they are false. I will watch with interest.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-n...
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-n...
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers."
WindyCommon said:
This is an interesting article. As always it is wise to assess with a cynical eye, especially given the provenance... Nevertheless some of the key assertions (eg. that the results underlying such an important paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists) should be quickly and easily dismissed if they are false. I will watch with interest.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-n...
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers."
I haven't read the Daily Mail or WUWT articles but I did see a rebuttal to it on Twitter this morning:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-n...
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers."
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays...
The accusation is the NOAA data had been adjusted to exaggerate warming, but in reality that original data was probably flawed because it wasn't validated by other data sets.
There's another rebuttal here:
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-m...
Also, the graph on the article was wrong and used different baselines, so the article's author had to "adjust" it after this was pointed out. https://twitter.com/DavidRoseUK/status/82826207193...
Probably just a mistake but amusingly ironic
So climate science isn't quite as settled as some would suggest?
I'm not talking about the whistle blower, though the idea that the teams are completely isolated so there is no way he could know what was going on even though all of the data and programs are published for the world to see a bit contradictory. What I mean is that they are still tweaking data sets and trying to improve the resulting information, nothing wrong with that, it is what science is about after all, however it does appear that how much warming is being seen is still quite uncertain.
It isn't an easy thing to measure the temperature of a planet, it's hard enough to measure the temperature of a person, never mind the relationship between those temperatures and the amount of heat being held by various materials. A one degree rise in air temperature is quite different from one in a body of water. Then after taking on the deeply statistical nature of the temperature analysis you have to try to understand what effect that has on the environment and ultimately us.
Some of the graphs I have seen show that we have enjoyed a quite stable climate for the last 10,000 years, unlike the previous 10,000, if start to have fluctuations as per those then it is going to get rather less cosy living here.
I'm not talking about the whistle blower, though the idea that the teams are completely isolated so there is no way he could know what was going on even though all of the data and programs are published for the world to see a bit contradictory. What I mean is that they are still tweaking data sets and trying to improve the resulting information, nothing wrong with that, it is what science is about after all, however it does appear that how much warming is being seen is still quite uncertain.
It isn't an easy thing to measure the temperature of a planet, it's hard enough to measure the temperature of a person, never mind the relationship between those temperatures and the amount of heat being held by various materials. A one degree rise in air temperature is quite different from one in a body of water. Then after taking on the deeply statistical nature of the temperature analysis you have to try to understand what effect that has on the environment and ultimately us.
Some of the graphs I have seen show that we have enjoyed a quite stable climate for the last 10,000 years, unlike the previous 10,000, if start to have fluctuations as per those then it is going to get rather less cosy living here.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff