Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
So exactly what was the 1984 miners strike all about in that case.As far as I remember it was all about saving the industry not scrapping it.Although it would be no surprise if the global warmist believing cause tried to re write history by saying it was all about the miners striking for pit closures and early retirement on the grounds of health and safety and ill health and cutting CO2 emissions.
It was all about one man's hubris; he believed he had single-handedly brought down Heath's government and fancied his chances against Thatcher.Powerbase and finding may have been part of the deal at the time but the mining industry had been in decline for years (see my earlier post) and even the Labour Government in the 60s knew it could not last long. That did not stop them subsidising the pension fund to retain votes.
It's one thing doing a Germany and using huge machines to rip fuel from the surface in order to create (50s and 60s) and perpetuate (10s) their manufacturing capability, but something else entirely to try to make deep mines compete with alternative sources from around the world.
As with oil, at some point the need and pricing will likely become enough to justify the effort of robotising the systems on way or another. If society collapses maybe even humans underground will be acceptable again.
But right now in the UK it seems you have to dissociate energy production from coal and the expectation that the coal will come from a UK mine. That in turn suggests that there is unlikely to be any UK sourced fuel to provide energy security - at least nothing as "obvious" as coal.
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
So exactly what was the 1984 miners strike all about in that case.As far as I remember it was all about saving the industry not scrapping it.Although it would be no surprise if the global warmist believing cause tried to re write history by saying it was all about the miners striking for pit closures and early retirement on the grounds of health and safety and ill health and cutting CO2 emissions.
It was all about one man's hubris; he believed he had single-handedly brought down Heath's government and fancied his chances against Thatcher.Which leaves the question as to where we are now being a net importer of energy with planned future reliance on expensive dangerous nuclear power as opposed to safer cheaper coal.The difference being whereas in 1984 it was all about the government not wanting to pay miners what they were/are worth it's now all about the bulls
t global warming agenda.With the possibility that the global warming cause is being taken advantage of,by at least some would be global warming sceptic Cons,but who still don't want to pay miners to produce a safer cheaper product because miners don't fit the right profile to suit the Cons dogma.Which probably explains why the Cons are happy to keep an alliance going with the global warmist believers that make up the LabLibDems group.Hopefully that situation might change if/when the Cons find themselves needing to enter a coalition with UKIP to save themselves from annihilation against a LabLibDem coalition at the next election and future government.In which case there's no way that Farage can make a global warmist sceptic energy policy work without a massive return to coal even to a greater degree than Germany is so far doing.IE the Cons have now got the choice of let Thatcher and her political dogma go or let the raving CO2 nazi LabLibDem cause win out.
NicD said:
I am no expert but in a hot country, I would expect daytime will see greatest power usage from a/c, offices and factories.
The figures quoted were from March, far from greatest sun. They are what they are, nothing more. I am a fan of nuclear btw.
Do you think you are an expert, cos you just sound opinionated.
Could be called an expert I suppose, in that as a job I have to meet Energy Nominations every day and have some qualifications on power system management and control.The figures quoted were from March, far from greatest sun. They are what they are, nothing more. I am a fan of nuclear btw.
Do you think you are an expert, cos you just sound opinionated.
These Nominations are in GWhrs, so when MW from wind and PV are mentioned, particularly in 000's instead of the odd GW it does rankle a bit when they leave out the total energy values.
Opinionated? Definitely!
I can't stand all this misguided green bulls
t any more.This is coming from someone who fell for it back in the early 90's and voted green once!
It's high time the politicians shut the f
k up and let the Engineers get on with it before the lights go out.XJ Flyer said:
The 1984 strike was actually all about saving the coal industry based on an accurate representation given to the members of the secret policy of planned closure.The accuracy and truth of that representation being proved with hindsight.
Which leaves the question as to where we are now being a net importer of energy with planned future reliance on expensive dangerous nuclear power as opposed to safer cheaper coal.The difference being whereas in 1984 it was all about the government not wanting to pay miners what they were/are worth it's now all about the bullst global warming agenda.With the possibility that the global warming cause is being taken advantage of,by at least some would be global warming sceptic Cons,but who still don't want to pay miners to produce a safer cheaper product because miners don't fit the right profile to suit the Cons dogma.Which probably explains why the Cons are happy to keep an alliance going with the global warmist believers that make up the LabLibDems group.
A secret policy of mine closures which everyone knew about and merely mirrored the mine closures of the previous 20 years; uneconomic pits shut, profitable ones maintained and superpits, opencast and imports to fill the gap. If Scargill's objective was saving the coal industry he failed spectacularly. What miners are worth is irrelevant, the mines were uneconomic and an industrial policy based on the state paying people to make or dig up stuff that cannot be sold for more than it cost is iniquitous as well as economic folly. I note you're overlooking 13 years of Labour government not taking any notice of mining, or reopening any pits?Which leaves the question as to where we are now being a net importer of energy with planned future reliance on expensive dangerous nuclear power as opposed to safer cheaper coal.The difference being whereas in 1984 it was all about the government not wanting to pay miners what they were/are worth it's now all about the bulls
t global warming agenda.With the possibility that the global warming cause is being taken advantage of,by at least some would be global warming sceptic Cons,but who still don't want to pay miners to produce a safer cheaper product because miners don't fit the right profile to suit the Cons dogma.Which probably explains why the Cons are happy to keep an alliance going with the global warmist believers that make up the LabLibDems group.In the short term there is exactly no chance of a deep mining revival in the UK; in the long term robotic machinery may bring costs down and productivity up enough for deep mining to be competitive with imported coal. In the mean time it's open cast all the way, and even that's struggling in the UK. The days of coal mining being a mass employer are gone for good.
hidetheelephants said:
?
...
In the short term there is exactly no chance of a deep mining revival in the UK; in the long term robotic machinery may bring costs down and productivity up enough for deep mining to be competitive with imported coal...
My son worked at Thoresby in 2012 as part of his degree. One subject that was verboten was any mention of automation leading to job losses. One has to wonder sometimes at how shortsighted people can be....
In the short term there is exactly no chance of a deep mining revival in the UK; in the long term robotic machinery may bring costs down and productivity up enough for deep mining to be competitive with imported coal...
Sending men underground to toil in 30 degrees with 100% humidity is asking a lot. Lower the ceiling and add the knowledge of all the other associated dangers and you have a pretty unpleasant workplace.
But if that's all there is...
More progress on the move to top-down rather than bottom-up i.e. tax gas thinking on climate...perhaps. Politicians will remain blissfully ignorant as it won't make it to the IPCC AR6 SPM if there is one.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na...
Well the met orifice actually got back to me, however, it seems my questions were just a tad too hard, quite how theyd deal with some questions from a real live proper scientist isnt too hard to imagine.
Anyways, they sent me a copy of their loverly pdf which I had a look through and picked out some tasty morsels to fire back at them.
That was the 4th march, heres what I sent them with their previous pdf bulletpoints quoted.
Sir, thanks for your recent response in regard to the above reference number.
I read your response with interest but also frustration and irritation, I apologise in advance for being somewhat ill tempered.
Allow me to quote sections of your .pdf.
"As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding.
This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate. "
Julia Slingo stated it was "likely" climate change was the cause.
How can that statement be valid?
"Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990,of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change."
And yet youve already stated theres "no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change" so how can "climate change" be attributed as the cause by two thirds?
So which is it? Is man made global warming to blame or not?
Give me a "definitive" answer, ie, yes or no.
"The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate
models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall."
Whats the empirical data say?
The models arent REAL WORLD.
"In seeking to answer questions about the impact of climate change on severe weather, there are two distinct steps to be taken. The first is to detect a change
in either the frequency or intensity of storminess or rainfall events that is more than just the natural variability in UK weather. UK weather is notoriously volatile and so detection is particularly challenging.
Severe storms have always affected the UK and are documented in many historical records.The intensity of recent storms is unusual, as the climatological records
discussed earlier indicate, but not necessarily unprecedented."
If its not unprecedented then it fails to support climate change as a reason.
Not withstanding the rate at which the earths climate changes, what makes you think any changes are going to be visible, let alone attributable over the short span humans have been industrialising the world?
Climate wont move that quick, try altering the course of an oil tanker in a couple of minutes.
"Following on from the issues of detecting changes in storminess and rainfall discussed above, the process of then attributing even some aspects of those changes to anthropogenic climate change remains challenging. Attribution is fundamental to making the case for climate change."
Yes it is and its a case youve already proven to be false, you have not and can not attribute changes, perceived or real to humans, youve already stated as much and also contradicted yourselves.
"The attribution method depends fundamentally on climate models....."
If the models do not accurately represent the climate in all ways then it matters not what output it comes up with, itll be garbage, just like the winter rainfall prediction for 2013/14.
Attribution depends not on what some skewed model might think but whether or not measured data supports the models, obviously it does not or the case for agw would be solid and youd be able to "definitvely" attribute humans as the cause.
"In terms of the global temperature record, climate models are able to simulate the evolution of the observed record since 1860 with considerable skill and the difference between the simulations with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gases is statistically significant. It is this result that enabled the IPCC18 to state that ‘It is
extremely likely (95-100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of
the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010."
Define statistically signficant?
As for the IPCC being a whopping 95-100% certain, then how can you claim theres no definitive connection?
If theyre up to 100% sure then the discussions over, no?
Youre all contradicting yourselves.
Further to that, from the IPCC:
"IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8 said:
Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
"We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Direct contradictions, again, oops.
"With a credible modeling system in place it should now be possible to perform
scientifically robust assessments of changes in storminess, the degree to which they are related to natural variability and the degree to which there is a contribution from human-induced climate change."
So the current models are not credible.
How on earth can you continue with this charade?
Youre simply hoping, wanting, wishing for agw to be true rather than knowing it to be so and for all the efforts youre putting in to trying to convince people youre failing because you already know theres no unambiguous, attributable, visible, human causal signal in the data, its all in the models paranoid imagination.
"The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models ...."
Utter nonsense! Data is what you should be focussed on, empirical, testable, reliable data, not models that say whatever a true believer tells it to!
Since man made climate global warming change chaos isnt definitively proven to have caused any of the floods, why dont you issue a press release putting that fact straight and informing the likes of hrh the pinhead of wales and the ever opportunistic ed miliband that theyre wrong to be doing so?
Id like an answer to these questions/statements please, apologies for the amount of them and their tone.
Regards,
They responded with this cop out answer.
"Dear........,
Thank you for your further emails.
Your comments have been reviewed however we do not have the resources to provide point-by-point answers to particularly long enquiries such as yours, and we cannot to enter into ongoing debates.
The report and information sent to you in our last correspondence provides the current stand-point of our understanding on this topic and highlights the need for more research in certain areas.
To keep up-to-date with developments in our science I would recommend regularly checking our Research News pages for articles on our latest work: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news
Thank you for taking the time to contact the Met Office.
Kind regards,
Trish
Trish Lamb Climate Science Enquiries Coordinator"
So, thats £30 million quids worth of sooper dooper compooter models, chief slingo the wicked witch of the wang, and all the guff you can swallow yet they cant answer ANY, not ONE of the points I raised.
Their current understanding of climate appears to be a somewhat less than the PG tips chimps.
What an effing disgrace!
Anyways, they sent me a copy of their loverly pdf which I had a look through and picked out some tasty morsels to fire back at them.
That was the 4th march, heres what I sent them with their previous pdf bulletpoints quoted.
Sir, thanks for your recent response in regard to the above reference number.
I read your response with interest but also frustration and irritation, I apologise in advance for being somewhat ill tempered.
Allow me to quote sections of your .pdf.
"As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding.
This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate. "
Julia Slingo stated it was "likely" climate change was the cause.
How can that statement be valid?
"Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990,of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change."
And yet youve already stated theres "no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change" so how can "climate change" be attributed as the cause by two thirds?
So which is it? Is man made global warming to blame or not?
Give me a "definitive" answer, ie, yes or no.
"The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate
models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall."
Whats the empirical data say?
The models arent REAL WORLD.
"In seeking to answer questions about the impact of climate change on severe weather, there are two distinct steps to be taken. The first is to detect a change
in either the frequency or intensity of storminess or rainfall events that is more than just the natural variability in UK weather. UK weather is notoriously volatile and so detection is particularly challenging.
Severe storms have always affected the UK and are documented in many historical records.The intensity of recent storms is unusual, as the climatological records
discussed earlier indicate, but not necessarily unprecedented."
If its not unprecedented then it fails to support climate change as a reason.
Not withstanding the rate at which the earths climate changes, what makes you think any changes are going to be visible, let alone attributable over the short span humans have been industrialising the world?
Climate wont move that quick, try altering the course of an oil tanker in a couple of minutes.
"Following on from the issues of detecting changes in storminess and rainfall discussed above, the process of then attributing even some aspects of those changes to anthropogenic climate change remains challenging. Attribution is fundamental to making the case for climate change."
Yes it is and its a case youve already proven to be false, you have not and can not attribute changes, perceived or real to humans, youve already stated as much and also contradicted yourselves.
"The attribution method depends fundamentally on climate models....."
If the models do not accurately represent the climate in all ways then it matters not what output it comes up with, itll be garbage, just like the winter rainfall prediction for 2013/14.
Attribution depends not on what some skewed model might think but whether or not measured data supports the models, obviously it does not or the case for agw would be solid and youd be able to "definitvely" attribute humans as the cause.
"In terms of the global temperature record, climate models are able to simulate the evolution of the observed record since 1860 with considerable skill and the difference between the simulations with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gases is statistically significant. It is this result that enabled the IPCC18 to state that ‘It is
extremely likely (95-100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of
the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010."
Define statistically signficant?
As for the IPCC being a whopping 95-100% certain, then how can you claim theres no definitive connection?
If theyre up to 100% sure then the discussions over, no?
Youre all contradicting yourselves.
Further to that, from the IPCC:
"IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8 said:
Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
"We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Direct contradictions, again, oops.
"With a credible modeling system in place it should now be possible to perform
scientifically robust assessments of changes in storminess, the degree to which they are related to natural variability and the degree to which there is a contribution from human-induced climate change."
So the current models are not credible.
How on earth can you continue with this charade?
Youre simply hoping, wanting, wishing for agw to be true rather than knowing it to be so and for all the efforts youre putting in to trying to convince people youre failing because you already know theres no unambiguous, attributable, visible, human causal signal in the data, its all in the models paranoid imagination.
"The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models ...."
Utter nonsense! Data is what you should be focussed on, empirical, testable, reliable data, not models that say whatever a true believer tells it to!
Since man made climate global warming change chaos isnt definitively proven to have caused any of the floods, why dont you issue a press release putting that fact straight and informing the likes of hrh the pinhead of wales and the ever opportunistic ed miliband that theyre wrong to be doing so?
Id like an answer to these questions/statements please, apologies for the amount of them and their tone.
Regards,
They responded with this cop out answer.
"Dear........,
Thank you for your further emails.
Your comments have been reviewed however we do not have the resources to provide point-by-point answers to particularly long enquiries such as yours, and we cannot to enter into ongoing debates.
The report and information sent to you in our last correspondence provides the current stand-point of our understanding on this topic and highlights the need for more research in certain areas.
To keep up-to-date with developments in our science I would recommend regularly checking our Research News pages for articles on our latest work: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news
Thank you for taking the time to contact the Met Office.
Kind regards,
Trish
Trish Lamb Climate Science Enquiries Coordinator"
So, thats £30 million quids worth of sooper dooper compooter models, chief slingo the wicked witch of the wang, and all the guff you can swallow yet they cant answer ANY, not ONE of the points I raised.
Their current understanding of climate appears to be a somewhat less than the PG tips chimps.
What an effing disgrace!
Informative?
not!
You'd best be careful, there'll be a 'Keeper' along soon to tell you to stop annoying the monkeys by throwing peanuts/questions they can't answer honestly at them.
Thank you for asking them anyway, even if you did get the usual definitive blarrrgh from them as per usual.
not!
You'd best be careful, there'll be a 'Keeper' along soon to tell you to stop annoying the monkeys by throwing peanuts/questions they can't answer honestly at them.
Thank you for asking them anyway, even if you did get the usual definitive blarrrgh from them as per usual.
4v6 said:
great stuff
One part of the reply from the Met I found particularly interesting:Met Office said:
".....the process of then attributing even some aspects of those changes to anthropogenic climate change remains challenging. Attribution is fundamental to making the case for climate change."
So much then for "settled science" if there is still a "case to be made for climate change". To me, that is a clear admission that they know AGW is a busted flush. The Global Warming Pup has been peddled for thirty-odd years, and those peddling the ste still admit that - effectively - the case isn't closed. For them, there are arguments still to be made; affidavits to The Team still to be issued; politicians to be fooled; more troughs to be snouted in.Depressing.
"Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990,of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change."
Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
Oh joy, now the EU has decided to burn £250M on a futile 'carbon capture' effort.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2706...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2706...
Mr GrimNasty said:
"Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990,of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change."
Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
But Mystic Mut can change all that...Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
with smoke and mirrors
So we're told glibly that "Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers."
There's a key step missing in that spin.
Even if we accept the casual use of 'due to' at face value, where is the claimed melting of glaciers and claimed ocean warming unambiguously attributed to humans? Answer - nowhere.
Also you have to wonder how that 'due to' explanation took into account isostatic/crustal rebound which is causing the sea level in the north of the UK to fall and in the south to rise. As we know. The south is where the English Channel is situated, curiously enough.
http://vamoswearegolden.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/w...
There's a key step missing in that spin.
Even if we accept the casual use of 'due to' at face value, where is the claimed melting of glaciers and claimed ocean warming unambiguously attributed to humans? Answer - nowhere.
Also you have to wonder how that 'due to' explanation took into account isostatic/crustal rebound which is causing the sea level in the north of the UK to fall and in the south to rise. As we know. The south is where the English Channel is situated, curiously enough.
http://vamoswearegolden.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/w...
Article said:
When the ice melted at the end of the ice age this pressure was released and the north-west of the UK began to rise or rebound after the pressure from the ice was removed, this also caused the south-east of the UK to sink. therefore the sea level is falling in the north-west and rising in the south-east, and this process is still occurring today, causing small amounts of sea level change.
A couple of mm/year is small, it's one of those near-zero-with-errors situations. Where are the detailed numbers for thermosteric, melt and crustal rebound contributions? With error bars of course. Not in Pachauri's latest or next climate porn novel for sure.mybrainhurts said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
"Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990,of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change."
Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
But Mystic Mut can change all that...Newlyn figures are pretty typical:-
1910-1940 average increase 2.74mm/yr
1980-2010 average increase 2.53mm/yr
(The average increase depends on the periods, and goes up and down yearly, repeatedly and periodically.)
Southampton data since approx 1935 shows a similar order of yearly increases with no notably increase in later years.
So it is unlikely, verging on the impossible, that sea levels will rise 11cm by 2030, even allowing for the fact the land is sinking slightly.
with smoke and mirrors
It seems with every sentence/breath they try to misrepresent even their own exaggerated figures.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff