Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
So what ?
It is about understanding that the scientific modelling is closely aligning with the observed data. Hope that helps?turbobloke in 2015 said:
Bashkirtsev and Mashnich (2003) note that "a number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact" when "none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact" and "solar activity during the (solar) cycles 24 and 25 will be, as expected, even lower" while "according to Chistyakov (1996, 2000), the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will fall on cycle 25 (2021-2026), which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air".
Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.
Buy Damart and candles.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1470667&i=5480Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.
Buy Damart and candles.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/1...
Bashkirtsev and Mashnich lost - but welched and didn't pay up
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-bet-...
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 6th March 12:34
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Looking back pover the rhetoric...No new and credible empirical data with causality to humans established has appeared. What a shock. We're left with personal angles, fallacies, bluster, diversion exaggeration with the climate crisis 'noble lie' already acknowledged by climatologists including Prof Hulme, Prof Christy and Dr Curry among others, a statement which is in keeping with the data.
You talk about data but what you do is link to advocacy blogs and tabloid newspapers.If you want to talk data that's no problem. There's a constant flow of climate data coming through all the time these days, and most of it is publicly accessible.
For example, here's what sea surface temperatures are doing at the moment which was not expected:
Source
How are you spinning that? All those runways on the coast maybe?
Can't see anything in the data that supports that global cooling that you predicted would start 12 years ago though. Since you keep referencing some data that supposedly supports your position, perhaps you can point to it?
They aren't models prone to gigo like those crappy physics based ones that predict warming due to increasing greenhouse gases - honest.
Have you seen my list of papers that are all pattern-seeking number wang and no physics?
And besides - gueteres said 'global boiling'
Why are heads not rolling over the dangerously dodgy methodology which misled parliament over the cost of Net Zero - rhetorical question.
Recall that Craig Mackinlay MP, as chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group has said that this state of affairs was “scandalous” and that Parliament had been “misled” when considering Net Zero legislation.
Sloppy is thenew old normal in such matters, the true cost of Net Zero needs to be kept out of politicians' eyes and the public eye. More recently, the CCC has come up with a new estimate for the cost of Net Zero namely £1.4 trillion, but as above there's no satisfactory dunkelflaute consideration (yet). Given the storage cost implications of dunkelflaute - as calculated by two Oxford Profs and a Dr and as posted on this thread - in full Net Zero conditions amount to £3 trillion, this brings the total to £4.4 trillion. If that remains accurate it'll represent extreme weather good fortune. Then there's the £8,000 annual household energy bill to fund the Net Zero grid ..that was another cost that was lowballed and needed recalculating.
Taking HS2 as a comparison, as of June last year the total spent was £25bn (at 2019 prices). Sunak said the government “will take every pound that would have been spent extending HS2 and invest over £36bn into Network North”. On hat basis the total comes to £61bn which is considerably more than the original Gordon Brown era costing of £37bn. Hence the comment above on official costings not remaining accurate.
Using the £61bn for HS2, this puts the cost side of a 2050 Net Zero hit as the same as completing between 2 and 3 HS2 projects (2.7) every year to the end of 2049. Only one HS2 was / is seen as unaffordable and was cancelled.
For even greater comedic effect, there are still statements online claiming that achieving Net Zero can significantly increase energy security and resilience. Will we get Net Zero by 2050 to solve the not-a-climate-crisis (Prof Hulme and others) place your bets.
Prof Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith FRS said:
The National Infrastructure Assessment…is also based on one year…they were told by the Met Office ‘you can get extreme events’…it’s not enough to look at one. They looked at one, so they got the answer wrong. The Met Office are really angry, because they told them ‘don’t do it’, but they did it.
The Prof also said:
I can also reveal that National Grid ESO, in its Future Energy Scenarios, has done the same thing. I wrote to the NGESO team to ask how they did things, and was told that their models are prepared using weather conditions in 2013, which they describe as an “average year”. They are starting to run tests against low-wind conditions (so-called ‘dunkelflautes’), but back-to-back wind droughts don’t seem to be on their radar yet
FFSRecall that Craig Mackinlay MP, as chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group has said that this state of affairs was “scandalous” and that Parliament had been “misled” when considering Net Zero legislation.
Sloppy is the
Taking HS2 as a comparison, as of June last year the total spent was £25bn (at 2019 prices). Sunak said the government “will take every pound that would have been spent extending HS2 and invest over £36bn into Network North”. On hat basis the total comes to £61bn which is considerably more than the original Gordon Brown era costing of £37bn. Hence the comment above on official costings not remaining accurate.
Using the £61bn for HS2, this puts the cost side of a 2050 Net Zero hit as the same as completing between 2 and 3 HS2 projects (2.7) every year to the end of 2049. Only one HS2 was / is seen as unaffordable and was cancelled.
For even greater comedic effect, there are still statements online claiming that achieving Net Zero can significantly increase energy security and resilience. Will we get Net Zero by 2050 to solve the not-a-climate-crisis (Prof Hulme and others) place your bets.
Saw this earlier 
'A group of Norwegian researchers had noticed that the consumption of electrical power increased in the period October - March. At the same time, they saw that the air temperature fell during the same period. It was decided that they had to look into this phenomenon and if there was a correlation. Therefore, a research group was set up which used large resources and many different calculation models on the subject. After a long time they came to a result: The more electricity the residents used, the colder it got outside. The politicians found out about this, and it was therefore decided that the supply of electricity should be reduced in the period October - March, to prevent it getting too cold outside.'
'A group of Norwegian researchers had noticed that the consumption of electrical power increased in the period October - March. At the same time, they saw that the air temperature fell during the same period. It was decided that they had to look into this phenomenon and if there was a correlation. Therefore, a research group was set up which used large resources and many different calculation models on the subject. After a long time they came to a result: The more electricity the residents used, the colder it got outside. The politicians found out about this, and it was therefore decided that the supply of electricity should be reduced in the period October - March, to prevent it getting too cold outside.'
turbobloke said:
FFS
Recall that Craig Mackinlay MP, as chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group has said that this state of affairs was “scandalous” and that Parliament had been “misled” when considering Net Zero legislation.
Sloppy is thenew old normal in such matters, the true cost of Net Zero needs to be kept out of politicians' eyes and the public eye. More recently, the CCC has come up with a new estimate for the cost of Net Zero namely £1.4 trillion, but as above there's no satisfactory dunkelflaute consideration (yet). Given the storage cost implications of dunkelflaute - as calculated by two Oxford Profs and a Dr and as posted on this thread - in full Net Zero conditions amount to £3 trillion, this brings the total to £4.4 trillion. If that remains accurate it'll represent extreme weather good fortune. Then there's the £8,000 annual household energy bill to fund the Net Zero grid ..that was another cost that was lowballed and needed recalculating.
Taking HS2 as a comparison, as of June last year the total spent was £25bn (at 2019 prices). Sunak said the government “will take every pound that would have been spent extending HS2 and invest over £36bn into Network North”. On hat basis the total comes to £61bn which is considerably more than the original Gordon Brown era costing of £37bn. Hence the comment above on official costings not remaining accurate.
Using the £61bn for HS2, this puts the cost side of a 2050 Net Zero hit as the same as completing between 2 and 3 HS2 projects (2.7) every year to the end of 2049. Only one HS2 was / is seen as unaffordable and was cancelled.
For even greater comedic effect, there are still statements online claiming that achieving Net Zero can significantly increase energy security and resilience. Will we get Net Zero by 2050 to solve the not-a-climate-crisis (Prof Hulme and others) place your bets.
I think I commented last time you posted about this subject, if my memory serves me correctly. So sorry you are struggling to remember posting this last time.Recall that Craig Mackinlay MP, as chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group has said that this state of affairs was “scandalous” and that Parliament had been “misled” when considering Net Zero legislation.
Sloppy is the
Taking HS2 as a comparison, as of June last year the total spent was £25bn (at 2019 prices). Sunak said the government “will take every pound that would have been spent extending HS2 and invest over £36bn into Network North”. On hat basis the total comes to £61bn which is considerably more than the original Gordon Brown era costing of £37bn. Hence the comment above on official costings not remaining accurate.
Using the £61bn for HS2, this puts the cost side of a 2050 Net Zero hit as the same as completing between 2 and 3 HS2 projects (2.7) every year to the end of 2049. Only one HS2 was / is seen as unaffordable and was cancelled.
For even greater comedic effect, there are still statements online claiming that achieving Net Zero can significantly increase energy security and resilience. Will we get Net Zero by 2050 to solve the not-a-climate-crisis (Prof Hulme and others) place your bets.
And why is prof Hulme continually misquoted?
Edited by mike9009 on Monday 11th March 18:14
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
So what ?
It is about understanding that the scientific modelling is closely aligning with the observed data. Hope that helps?turbobloke in 2015 said:
Bashkirtsev and Mashnich (2003) note that "a number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact" when "none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact" and "solar activity during the (solar) cycles 24 and 25 will be, as expected, even lower" while "according to Chistyakov (1996, 2000), the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will fall on cycle 25 (2021-2026), which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air".
Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.
Buy Damart and candles.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1470667&i=5480Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.
Buy Damart and candles.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/1...
Bashkirtsev and Mashnich lost - but welched and didn't pay up
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-bet-...
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 6th March 12:34
All the best
The fiasco of amended Net Zero costs after curiously coincidental lowballing, as a result of what was essentially the same error from a number of national bodies, reminded me of the hilarious update to the costings for the folly also known as the Climate Change Bill / Act around 2009 iirc. Peter Lilley MP then in the Conservative Opposition, wrote to the Labour gov't Secretary of State for ManBearPig as a result of the CCA cost-benefit farce. The following snips from Peter Lilley's letter are key elements relating to costs, other elements of the letter are of lesser relevance to costings / amendments shenanigans and have not been snipped for that reason. The full letter was on Peter Lilley's website and may still be there, if you're early to mid-20s and missed the fun.
It'll be a painfully amusing tragedy watching for Starmer to follow suit in a short while.
Parts of the Lilley letter on amended costings for the CCA said:
Dear Secretary of State
You recently slipped out, without notifying Parliament, a massive revision of the estimated costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.
...
The new figures for both costs and benefits have indeed been changed dramatically. As so often in the debate on Global Warming – when the facts don’t fit the theory they change the facts.
...
In other words the government now estimates that the Climate Change Act will cost every household in the country between £16,000 and £20,000 each.
...
When it comes to your revised estimates of the benefits, however, we enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1 trillion. I congratulate you on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits which had previously escaped your notice.
Clinical.You recently slipped out, without notifying Parliament, a massive revision of the estimated costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.
...
The new figures for both costs and benefits have indeed been changed dramatically. As so often in the debate on Global Warming – when the facts don’t fit the theory they change the facts.
...
In other words the government now estimates that the Climate Change Act will cost every household in the country between £16,000 and £20,000 each.
...
When it comes to your revised estimates of the benefits, however, we enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1 trillion. I congratulate you on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits which had previously escaped your notice.
It'll be a painfully amusing tragedy watching for Starmer to follow suit in a short while.
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Just to repeat an old post in case anyone may have forgotten and was not able to respond.
All the best
What a weird comment All the best
Spit it out man, what are you trying to say?Rough101 said:
It’s actual zero we want, stop polluting the planet, not daft offsetting nonsense that means buying more stuff.
Sure reduce pollution as far as possible under an objective cost-benefit approach.CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas, colourless odourless and non-toxic (like N2 it will suffocate if allowed to displace air) and it props up the global food chain. Organisations like US EPA and activists asserting otherwise changes nothing, while making them appear as political tools.
The atmosphere has has 10x higher levels of carbon dioxide in the geological past, as the planet entered an ice age. Currently. far lower levels are still greening the planet and increasing crop yields (this is known from controlled experiments). Benefits are kept from the public as part of the demonisation of lemonade fizz.
Rough101 said:
Net zero is crap. It’s a money making scheme.
It’s actual zero we want, stop polluting the planet, not daft offsetting nonsense that means buying more stuff.
You do realise that "Zero" is impossible? Even if the entire population went back to living in caves! What are you prepared to give up?It’s actual zero we want, stop polluting the planet, not daft offsetting nonsense that means buying more stuff.
Rough101 said:
Net zero is crap. It’s a money making scheme.
It’s actual zero we want, stop polluting the planet, not daft offsetting nonsense that means buying more stuff.
I assumed this was humour?It’s actual zero we want, stop polluting the planet, not daft offsetting nonsense that means buying more stuff.
If we're talking about CO2, actual zero means death to all. We exhale 100 fold more CO2 than we breathe in, talking to your tomato plants is great.
It was humour wasn't it?
Imagine trying to survive without oil. Bye bye to the most comfortable time ever to be alive.
deeps said:
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Just to repeat an old post in case anyone may have forgotten and was not able to respond.
All the best
What a weird comment All the best
Spit it out man, what are you trying to say?You've made it very clear that failed predictions are supposedly a fundamental reason why you hold the position you do.
But here we have numerous failed climate predictions by the most active contributor to this very thread and you meet it with total silence and blank stares. How come you're not jumping all over it?
It's almost as if your position is not based on what's real at all...
Just heard on a local radio news bulletin, something about increasing gas to cope with days when there's little or no wind and it's cloudy. That won't compute with CCC et al., as they don't get it with dunkelflaute.
Priceless...for this and other Net Zero unaffordably expensive government ineptitude, there needs to be a gov't Mastercard with a credit limit in £trillions. Gaia won't provide.
Priceless...for this and other Net Zero unaffordably expensive government ineptitude, there needs to be a gov't Mastercard with a credit limit in £trillions. Gaia won't provide.
durbster said:
deeps said:
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Just to repeat an old post in case anyone may have forgotten and was not able to respond.
All the best
What a weird comment All the best
Spit it out man, what are you trying to say?You've made it very clear that failed predictions are supposedly a fundamental reason why you hold the position you do.
But here we have numerous failed climate predictions by the most active contributor to this very thread and you meet it with total silence and blank stares. How come you're not jumping all over it?
It's almost as if your position is not based on what's real at all...
turbobloke said:
Just heard on a local radio news bulletin, something about increasing gas to cope with days when there's little or no wind and it's cloudy. That won't compute with CCC et al., as they don't get it with dunkelflaute.
Priceless...for this and other Net Zero unaffordably expensive government ineptitude, there needs to be a gov't Mastercard with a credit limit in £trillions. Gaia won't provide.
Yep. Here’s Rowlatt’s BBC arsetickle on the story : https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...Priceless...for this and other Net Zero unaffordably expensive government ineptitude, there needs to be a gov't Mastercard with a credit limit in £trillions. Gaia won't provide.
New gas power plants needed to bolster energy supply, PM says
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...
Some are not happy when a dose of reality kicks in. Roland rat is not a happy bunny now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...
Some are not happy when a dose of reality kicks in. Roland rat is not a happy bunny now.
Diderot said:
Yep. Here’s Rowlatt’s BBC arsetickle on the story : https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...
robinessex said:
New gas power plants needed to bolster energy supply, PM says
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...
Some are not happy when a dose of reality kicks in. Roland rat is not a happy bunny now.
I did a Ctrl+F on the beeb article to find mention of Glasgow (COP26) when coal burning was ordered to keep the lights on at a climate conference beanfeast due to unreliables being unreliable. That wake up call was an early-ish example of renewables being inadequate, naturally it was largely ignored. Mention of having to keep the lights on at a COP by burning coal would have been even more embarrassing. Journalists will get more practice over time.https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68538...
Some are not happy when a dose of reality kicks in. Roland rat is not a happy bunny now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/mars-i...
‘Mars influences Earth’s climate, scientists discover. Proof found that gravitational impact of Mars pulls our planet closer to the Sun affecting long-term global warming.’
‘Mars influences Earth’s climate, scientists discover. Proof found that gravitational impact of Mars pulls our planet closer to the Sun affecting long-term global warming.’
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff