Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[LongQ]

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Have a look at the Graph for the estimated Long Term Surplus of generating capacity. Note the clarification text underneath the graph.

If I read things correctly the surplus over the winter period is at or under the registered metered maximum possibly capacity of the disturbines.

Or, to see it another way, the typical output of the disturbines means things may be on the limit several times in the next 3 or 4 months - if Wind is the decising factor.

Oddly the "Other" category for generation seems to have become quite significant recently, out of nowhere it seems.

What is it? Solar? Biomass?? Hamster wheels?

STOR diesel generators?

Either way "Other" may be the one thing that our masters are relying on for the predictable future.

Or I could be reading it all wrong and maybe the NETA data misses all sort of sources that are not part of the regular metering process.


ETA.

The gridwatch site observes that Solar is not metered yet so just shows up as a dip in demand in the middle of the day.

"Other" is almost certainly Biomass, presumably mainly from the Drax conversion. If so it is just displaced capacity reducing coal output. I can't recall whether there were claims that biomass was more effective or less effective in its potential output capability.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 10th October 02:57

[Gandahar]

I don't think climate change should be a political debate.

[Gandahar]

turbobloke said:

PH climate threads been swimming around coral reefs a few times.

Corals evolved around 500 million years ago, they survived recent warmer warming through the RWP and MWP which must be a miracle due to Gaia.

Previous 'extinction' events have taken place with corals, yet they're around today.

Which brings us around to the same question as always: causality. We didn't cause previous events, and we're not causing this one whatever it is (no visible causal human signal etc).

It's one of the typical non-evidence stories that believers have to focus on in the absence of warming for ~19 years and a total absence of causality. Bears, ice, corals, not evidence of climate change due to humans.

Ok, I give up, where's the politics in this post? Same could be said for lots of other posts on here.

Chaff.

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

PH climate threads been swimming around coral reefs a few times.

Corals evolved around 500 million years ago, they survived recent warmer warming through the RWP and MWP which must be a miracle due to Gaia.

Previous 'extinction' events have taken place with corals, yet they're around today.

Which brings us around to the same question as always: causality. We didn't cause previous events, and we're not causing this one whatever it is (no visible causal human signal etc).

It's one of the typical non-evidence stories that believers have to focus on in the absence of warming for ~19 years and a total absence of causality. Bears, ice, corals, not evidence of climate change due to humans.

Ok, I give up, where's the politics in this post? Same could be said for lots of other posts on here.

Chaff.

Just because you couldn't see John Presclot doesn't mean his presence wasn't discenible, particularly to those for whom the first line conjured up images of an overweight political lightweight in a snorkel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/296972.stm



If there's anything else from the above post you'd like explaining...or any remaining aspect you want to exploit for another vacuous personal angle... feel free to shoot and miss again.

On the other hand if one more dismissal of warmist coral reef dreck using basic facts got yout goat, never mind. Paris is close.

[powerstroke]

Gandahar said:

I don't think climate change should be a political debate.

You are correct but what else gives the money and control that climate change offers ?
snouts will be in this bovine scatter for a bit longer !!!

Edited by powerstroke on Saturday 10th October 08:05

[turbobloke]

powerstroke said:

Gandahar said:

I don't think climate change should be a political debate.

you are correct but what else gives the money and control that climate change offers.
snouts will be in it for a bit longer
!!!

The entire climate cesspool is political these days, not least in the believer fever of yet another run-up to yet another hot air fest.

[turbobloke]

More political climahype stateside, debunked.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/10/south-carolina...

South Carolina flood levels represent a 1 in 1000 year event allegedly.

http://observer.com/2015/10/south-carolina-floodin...

2015: the Congaree River peaked at 31ft
1908: the Congaree River peaked at 40ft

Without Paris and Obama as the backdrop this may well have been a 1 in 100 year natural event and part of the downward trend in weather extrema.

However while it's not climate change, it is really. "It’s also difficult to directly link the South Carolina flooding to climate change, but the abundance of extreme weather events in the past few decades correlates to the warnings given by scientists on the consequences of global climate change induced by the burning of fossil fuels."

Abundance last few decades

2015-1908 < 1000

31 < 40

There's the politics, where's the science?

[mondeoman]

Gandahar said:

I don't think climate change should be a political debate.

We do.

Got some science, there's a thread for that.


Anything else, pop it in here.

[turbobloke]

FTR:

"before the consensus had received their mandatory James Hansen lobotomy – climate scientists understood that global cooling causes extreme weather, and global warming causes mild weather."

http://www.thegwpf.com/1975-global-cooling-extreme...

"there has been no increase in extreme weather events in recent decades"

http://www.thegwpf.org/report-concludes-extreme-we...

The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link: A Review Of The State Of Science (see above and the Science thread).

The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link: A Review Of The State Of Politics (see The Guardian, BBC, EU, UN, Obama and this thread).

[robinessex]

Here's where he shoots himself in the foot:-

Mr. Mousseau explained. “One all by itself wouldn’t be revealing, but clearly there has been a pattern of large storms over the past few years, which is consistent with the predictions based on the current state of knowledge in regards to global climate change.”

'current state of knowledge' is about zero I suggest

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 10th October 21:32

[Mr GrimNasty]

The Global Warming Church's favourite propaganda tactic is the factoid - "an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

PH climate threads been swimming around coral reefs a few times.

Corals evolved around 500 million years ago, they survived recent warmer warming through the RWP and MWP which must be a miracle due to Gaia.

Previous 'extinction' events have taken place with corals, yet they're around today.

Which brings us around to the same question as always: causality. We didn't cause previous events, and we're not causing this one whatever it is (no visible causal human signal etc).

It's one of the typical non-evidence stories that believers have to focus on in the absence of warming for ~19 years and a total absence of causality. Bears, ice, corals, not evidence of climate change due to humans.

Ok, I give up, where's the politics in this post? Same could be said for lots of other posts on here.

Chaff.

Just because you couldn't see John Presclot doesn't mean his presence wasn't discenible, particularly to those for whom the first line conjured up images of an overweight political lightweight in a snorkel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/296972.stm



If there's anything else from the above post you'd like explaining...or any remaining aspect you want to exploit for another vacuous personal angle... feel free to shoot and miss again.

On the other hand if one more dismissal of warmist coral reef dreck using basic facts got yout goat, never mind. Paris is close.

BREAKING NEWS...

SEA LEVEL RISE CAUSED BY LARGE BODY OF WASTE MATERIAL DUMPED IN THE SEA...

[Scuffers]

is that your Eureka moment?

[mybrainhurts]

[Terminator X]

turbobloke said:

A link in a post by steveT350C in the EU thread:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...

We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.

Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).

Didn't "they" predict the same last year with virtually no snow at all to be seen + it seemed to be very mild too. Likewise the BBQ Summers that haven't appeared. It's comforting to know though that whilst they can't predict the weather over the next few days we should lock in their views on what it may be like hundreds of years from now and treat it as gospel.

Here you go:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter...

TX.

[robinessex]

The Express is only interested in extremes of weather (predicted), and the ever increasing value of houses, which is apparently making all much wealthier. This is the housing market 'recovering'. From what I ask ?

[jurbie]

It seems that DECC is to all intents and purposes no longer in business. Apparently since the election the Treasury have been in charge of energy and now it's going to be run by a new independent body called the National Infrastructure Commision. The commision will be run by the former Labour cabinet minister Andrew Adonis.

All a bit odd really and I have to wonder whether the government is trying to distance itself from the forthcoming energy clusterfunk facing this country.

Full details here:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/298...

[LongQ]

jurbie said:

It seems that DECC is to all intents and purposes no longer in business. Apparently since the election the Treasury have been in charge of energy and now it's going to be run by a new independent body called the National Infrastructure Commision. The commision will be run by the former Labour cabinet minister Andrew Adonis.

All a bit odd really and I have to wonder whether the government is trying to distance itself from the forthcoming energy clusterfunk facing this country.

Full details here:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/298...

Being to do with politics I would guess that they are just attempting to re-purpose the clusterfk and prepare the ground for the installation of new troughs.

[mondeoman]

jurbie said:

It seems that DECC is to all intents and purposes no longer in business. Apparently since the election the Treasury have been in charge of energy and now it's going to be run by a new independent body called the National Infrastructure Commision. The commision will be run by the former Labour cabinet minister Andrew Adonis.

All a bit odd really and I have to wonder whether the government is trying to distance itself from the forthcoming energy clusterfunk facing this country.

Full details here:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/298...

Reading that, it seems like the ecologist want the clusterfk to continue... and get worse.

[durbster]

Terminator X said:

Didn't "they" predict the same last year with virtually no snow at all to be seen + it seemed to be very mild too. Likewise the BBQ Summers that haven't appeared. It's comforting to know though that whilst they can't predict the weather over the next few days we should lock in their views on what it may be like hundreds of years from now and treat it as gospel.

Here you go:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter...

TX.

The Daily Express' catastrophic weather predictions are just seasonal editorial. Every autumn they print that the coming winter will see 50 metres of snow, every spring they print that the summer will be so hot that the skin will boil off our bones. They've been doing it for years so it's about as predictable and reliable as their bi-weekly headline about a cure for Alzheimers.

Citing the Daily Express is folly, even by the standard of debate on here.