Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Wednesday 17th December 2014
quotequote all
According to the political blog Climate Depot, during a press conference by the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at the United Nations climate beanfeast in Peru, climate change realist and former NASA Apollo astronaut Col Walt Cunningham, along with CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker and Director of Communications Marc Morano, were abruptly removed off the stage by UN officials to create a platform for a photo-op for the newly arrived Secretary of State John Kerry. They had just got to the closing bit of Col Cunningham's speech where he slammed the UN climate summit for perpetrating ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’. If the report is accurate, how heartwarming it is to know that open debate in UN IPCC circles is still so remarkably open.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Politicians should be explaining this to taxpayers, or at least demanding explanations themselves so they can attempt it.

Satellite UAH and RSS temperature data for the lower troposphere, where manmadeup global warming should be visible first and foremost, continue to drop below the range of CMIP5 climate model gigo. Using additional abbreviations: RIP IPCC AGW hypothesis.





The lower graphic in each case looks at the discrepancy over time such that the blue dotted line (continued stasis or cooling) leads to an increasing warm excess in model gigo.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Guam said:
Not sure this has been picked up so hopefully not another beer for TB here

H/T Tallbloke smile

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/100m-tur...yikes
Every time the wind blows, it's like Uri Geller micro bending a fork shaft - or is it the power of the sceptic group mind willing them to fall?

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
Guam said:
Not sure this has been picked up so hopefully not another beer for TB here

H/T Tallbloke smile

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/100m-tur...yikes
Every time the wind blows, it's like Uri Geller micro bending a fork shaft - or is it the power of the sceptic group mind willing them to fall?
The fork tally grows but the beer tally remains the same smile

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
A comment or two from the Climate Audit source of the graphics posted earlier today.

In this couple, where the first is snipped and the second has a spelling correction, the assumptions in models and how modellers respond to failure are laid bare: "In your analogy you say you are modeling a ball rolling downhill. This means you have a mathematical model of a hill. You model the behavior of a ball on that hill and note that there will be behavior too granular to predict, or too internal, or too chaotic, or some other TOO…reason. Observations of the real ball you are modeling then show that the ball has stopped rolling down the hill. What about your model then? Many commenters here believe the ball has stopped rolling down the hill, and defenders of the models are raising the hill with hydraulics while keeping the ball in place so it looks like it’s still moving downhill." then there's this "knowing the lottery numbers a week after the draw does not mean you can accurately predict the lottery or you have actually won anything".

One more, with the political failure laid bare: "Forgive me for being blunt, but the “estimates” being “improved”, were they put to any use when first published? Such as raising alarms by “projecting” the “estimates” out for decades (which nobody expected to happen) and demanding governments act on the projections to suffer higher energy costs today to avoid the “projected” future? As you “improve” the models in light of new info, any chance you can pass that info to governments, which might just “improve” energy policies to reduce this unnecessary sacrifice?"

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Guam said:
Not sure this has been picked up so hopefully not another beer for TB here

H/T Tallbloke smile

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/100m-tur...yikes
As one of the commenters at Tallbloke's site notes, it looks like the failure is at a bolted flange based on the images available. No sign of any bolts at all but presumably any that stayed on their holes may have been removed for testing before the photos were taken.

Presumably they could do any structural monitoring that is felt to be desirable from inside the towers. But do they bother?

motco

15,919 posts

245 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Guam said:
Not sure this has been picked up so hopefully not another beer for TB here

H/T Tallbloke smile

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/100m-tur...yikes
As one of the commenters at Tallbloke's site notes, it looks like the failure is at a bolted flange based on the images available. No sign of any bolts at all but presumably any that stayed on their holes may have been removed for testing before the photos were taken.

Presumably they could do any structural monitoring that is felt to be desirable from inside the towers. But do they bother?
I noticed the same flange, but they will have a job to suggest it is sabotage - thirty metres up the column!

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Have you all been keeping an eye on caol mining and oil drilling and refinery accidents too? Just to keep the balance. Or it it just wind turbines that you think might be dangerous.

Here's one of each just for starters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster

Or lets just focus on the UK... remind me how many people have been killed in total by wind turbines in total. Vs say the yearly deaths from extraction, refining and transporting fossil fuels?

Here's the latest I could find...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2743424/Wo...

In fact isn't this the best reason to look at alternative energy sources. Not becuase of some future unseen bogey man coming to carbonise us all, but real, here and now deaths that are preventable.

Conveniently here's a link showing deaths per GWh of the different technologies.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml

Note this doesn't include long term ilnesses, such as Asthma due to poor air quality, and excess winter deaths caused by temperature inversions trapping smog, but the supply side of the equation, not the usage.

You could, if you wanted to be a skeptic argue that economically the deaths of 100 or so people per year in the UK is small price to pay for the benefits it brings. As long as it's is in someone else's family.

Or you could agre, you could get that down to 10ish if we went mostly nuclear with some wind and gas. (Sounds like a hot curry would do the trick).

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all


Liverpool docks. There's a cruise terminal right under one of those turbines.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Have you all been keeping an eye on caol mining and oil drilling and refinery accidents too? Just to keep the balance. Or it it just wind turbines that you think might be dangerous.

Here's one of each just for starters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster

Or lets just focus on the UK... remind me how many people have been killed in total by wind turbines in total. Vs say the yearly deaths from extraction, refining and transporting fossil fuels?

Here's the latest I could find...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2743424/Wo...

In fact isn't this the best reason to look at alternative energy sources. Not becuase of some future unseen bogey man coming to carbonise us all, but real, here and now deaths that are preventable.

Conveniently here's a link showing deaths per GWh of the different technologies.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml

Note this doesn't include long term ilnesses, such as Asthma due to poor air quality, and excess winter deaths caused by temperature inversions trapping smog, but the supply side of the equation, not the usage.

You could, if you wanted to be a skeptic argue that economically the deaths of 100 or so people per year in the UK is small price to pay for the benefits it brings. As long as it's is in someone else's family.

Or you could agre, you could get that down to 10ish if we went mostly nuclear with some wind and gas. (Sounds like a hot curry would do the trick).
What, no mention of 30,000 old folks dying because they can't afford to pay for renewable energy? And their families? Tut...

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Have you all been keeping an eye on caol mining and oil drilling and refinery accidents too? Just to keep the balance. Or it it just wind turbines that you think might be dangerous.

Here's one of each just for starters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster

Or lets just focus on the UK... remind me how many people have been killed in total by wind turbines in total. Vs say the yearly deaths from extraction, refining and transporting fossil fuels?

Here's the latest I could find...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2743424/Wo...

In fact isn't this the best reason to look at alternative energy sources. Not becuase of some future unseen bogey man coming to carbonise us all, but real, here and now deaths that are preventable.

Conveniently here's a link showing deaths per GWh of the different technologies.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml

Note this doesn't include long term ilnesses, such as Asthma due to poor air quality, and excess winter deaths caused by temperature inversions trapping smog, but the supply side of the equation, not the usage.

You could, if you wanted to be a skeptic argue that economically the deaths of 100 or so people per year in the UK is small price to pay for the benefits it brings. As long as it's is in someone else's family.

Or you could agre, you could get that down to 10ish if we went mostly nuclear with some wind and gas. (Sounds like a hot curry would do the trick).
I would stake few quid that there are more people killed through mining, one way or another, in China for the construction of stuff like solar panels and windmill parts. Your stats are too selective.

Diderot

7,264 posts

191 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Not accepting comments in that dm article

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Pesty said:
Not accepting comments in that dm article
Neither of the quoted articles are current nor accepting comments.

DM from 2011.

Grauniad reprinting a Le Monde piece in 2012.

The problems have been clearly identified for a number of years but they hardly get a mention when "clean" energy is discussed. Far too inconvenient.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Thats nice but I recall China arent exactly willing to share their rare earths prefering to keep them for their own turbines. Hence we get stuck with the noisy ones with gear boxes.

I detect another Sudbury type story there. Find a site where theres been envirnmental mess and blame it on alternative technology, even if its not actually part of the current supply chain. In the case of Sudbury it was the Prius mk2 that got the blame for Nickel smelting causing deforestation, when in fact that happened in the 1970s and Sudbury had since installed sulphur scrubbers and is now replanting the forest. Quite succesfully.

Anyway by coal standards a couple of kids getting drowned in crud, and some sick adults contained in a small isolated area isnt too bad. My grandads autopsy showed he died from sone lung condition related to being a coal miner in his early days.

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Thats nice but I recall China arent exactly willing to share their rare earths prefering to keep them for their own turbines. Hence we get stuck with the noisy ones with gear boxes.

I detect another Sudbury type story there. Find a site where theres been envirnmental mess and blame it on alternative technology, even if its not actually part of the current supply chain. In the case of Sudbury it was the Prius mk2 that got the blame for Nickel smelting causing deforestation, when in fact that happened in the 1970s and Sudbury had since installed sulphur scrubbers and is now replanting the forest. Quite succesfully.

Anyway by coal standards a couple of kids getting drowned in crud, and some sick adults contained in a small isolated area isnt too bad. My grandads autopsy showed he died from sone lung condition related to being a coal miner in his early days.
sleep

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
TT and Plunker, did you read this:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of... ?

Any comment?

hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Thats nice but I recall China arent exactly willing to share their rare earths prefering to keep them for their own turbines. Hence we get stuck with the noisy ones with gear boxes.

I detect another Sudbury type story there. Find a site where theres been envirnmental mess and blame it on alternative technology, even if its not actually part of the current supply chain. In the case of Sudbury it was the Prius mk2 that got the blame for Nickel smelting causing deforestation, when in fact that happened in the 1970s and Sudbury had since installed sulphur scrubbers and is now replanting the forest. Quite succesfully.

Anyway by coal standards a couple of kids getting drowned in crud, and some sick adults contained in a small isolated area isnt too bad. My grandads autopsy showed he died from sone lung condition related to being a coal miner in his early days.
Baotou is a stty mess and is likely to remain a stty mess as long as the Chinese want to hold on to their REE monopoly; they do sell REE, but only the refined metals and charge accordingly. They also apply persuasion to manufacturers to move factories to China, offering reduced tariffs etc. As industrial strategies go it's been a successful one.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
TT and Plunker, did you read this:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of... ?

Any comment?
Just looking at the title (sorry, not got time to read the lot) - there is to my mind a very simple reason why rising temps would not validate the models.

The models did not predict any "oause". Ergo they are flawed.

Should anything coincide with the models, it is just that, a coincidence. Given the failure noted above.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
rovermorris999 said:
TT and Plunker, did you read this:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of... ?

Any comment?
Just looking at the title (sorry, not got time to read the lot) - there is to my mind a very simple reason why rising temps would not validate the models.

The models did not predict any "pause". Ergo they are flawed.

Should anything coincide with the models, it is just that, a coincidence. Given the failure noted above.
A 'pause' of the current length (~18 to ~20 years depending on the analysis) has a vanishingly small probability according to the models but here we are - fail.

And the failure to backcast.

And the failures involving vertical profile, first derivative, antarctic sea ice, precipitable water, convectively forced large-scale circulations, poleward energy transport, LW exchange (tropics) and...how many failures are needed?!

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED