Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
More on wind NOT being the cheapest energy source, by a country mile, and that doesn't even include grid connection costs etc.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Harrabin on the BBC reporting that the UN have a "Scientist" who thinks UK renewables policy is not well timed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3455...
Prof. Who?
Meanwhile I note that the UK Electricity "demand" at this time is a little over 40Gw and that the French "demand" is 64Gw.
The countries have, according to some only source I found, almost identical population sizes at the moment.
Both being Northern European and Industrialised - why is there such a difference? The energy that France exports does not seem to account for anything like the apparent consumption discrepancy.
Perhaps the availability of guaranteed Nuclear based supply in France is attractive for large energy users in industry?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3455...
Prof. Who?
Meanwhile I note that the UK Electricity "demand" at this time is a little over 40Gw and that the French "demand" is 64Gw.
The countries have, according to some only source I found, almost identical population sizes at the moment.
Both being Northern European and Industrialised - why is there such a difference? The energy that France exports does not seem to account for anything like the apparent consumption discrepancy.
Perhaps the availability of guaranteed Nuclear based supply in France is attractive for large energy users in industry?
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
plunker said:
What's good about it? He's no sceptic - just flipped from one form of believer to another by the looks. He confesses to being a vegan so I'm guessing he doesn't do things in half measures. I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation. Even turbobloke doesn't argue for that 
So you read almost half of it then plunks - so with nothing else you found fault with until the TSI link you're almost a Skeptic plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
However, I think you may be doing don4l a disservice, given that TSI variations are amplified in terms of impact and this needs to be taken into account; don4l may well have done so in what sits behind comments in the above banter.
Shaviv 2008 said:
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycle variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism
There's also the issue of what TSI doesn't tell us, in particular the 50% to 1000% or so variation in solar UV across a solar cycle, which I first discussed on PH many years ago (including in the context of climate change on Mars) and which that well-known political outfit NASA eventually picked up on - not that they used PH to get there in the end, more's the pity.http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na...
NASA in 2013 said:
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
...
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
...
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.
I can't recall the first time it was raised (by me) on PH climate threads but it was well before a clear mention back in 2011, and one particular response to that follows. Not sure who posted it......
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
...
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.
PHer said:
there's nothing in the paper (or the obs) that suggests a global forcing from UV
NASA got there 2 years later, hopefully the PHer has caught up as well by now. It may not have been too difficult as they already 'got' the upper atmosphere effect. Who knows, next thing they'll start to appreciate how the Bucha mechanism causes a wider temperature rise in the troposphere via the upper atmosphere around the poles 
Finally, and not to go too far off LongQ's thread focus, politicians may or may not be aware of solar irradiance but given that the IPCC appears not to take into account the Shaviv amplification result and omits solar eruptivity forcing completely (SPMs) as a result the entire arena of solar forcing is rarely covered as it should be. The eruptivity element isn't a sunspot cycle issue as it involves mechanisms that don't directly relate to sunspots, e.g. coronal holes. It's another (this time non-UV) top-down forcing, via the Bucha mechanism as above involving auroral oval effects, and finally the experimentally proven but hush-hush-do-not-upset-the-applecart-or-warmists result relating to the Svensmark mechanism.
Not that it matters but the earliest PH mention I can find of solar UV variation as being orders of magnitude greater than TSI variations with the capability to impact on global or planetary climate was in a post from me back in 2008. It was immediately ridiculed using nonscience by one of the most strident believers PH has seen (not plunker, to return the favour). I'm aware that it's unpopular to say "I told you so", but I told you so, and a full 5 years before the politicised climate science community including NASA got anywhere near it.
but the earliest PH mention I can find of solar UV variation as being orders of magnitude greater than TSI variations with the capability to impact on global or planetary climate was in a post from me back in 2008. It was immediately ridiculed using nonscience by one of the most strident believers PH has seen (not plunker, to return the favour). I'm aware that it's unpopular to say "I told you so", but I told you so, and a full 5 years before the politicised climate science community including NASA got anywhere near it.LongQ said:
Meanwhile I note that the UK Electricity "demand" at this time is a little over 40Gw and that the French "demand" is 64Gw.
The countries have, according to some only source I found, almost identical population sizes at the moment.
Both being Northern European and Industrialised - why is there such a difference? The energy that France exports does not seem to account for anything like the apparent consumption discrepancy.
Perhaps the availability of guaranteed Nuclear based supply in France is attractive for large energy users in industry?
In answer to your question, the abundance of guaranteed inexpensive Nuclear based supply in France is attractive for large energy users in industry just as much as it is to the domestic user.The countries have, according to some only source I found, almost identical population sizes at the moment.
Both being Northern European and Industrialised - why is there such a difference? The energy that France exports does not seem to account for anything like the apparent consumption discrepancy.
Perhaps the availability of guaranteed Nuclear based supply in France is attractive for large energy users in industry?
Jinx said:
plunker said:
What's good about it? He's no sceptic - just flipped from one form of believer to another by the looks. He confesses to being a vegan so I'm guessing he doesn't do things in half measures. I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation. Even turbobloke doesn't argue for that
So you read almost half of it then plunks - so with nothing else you found fault with until the TSI link you're almost a Skeptic plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
One thing that I have learned is that the IPCC projections have continued to diverge from the data.
robinessex said:
Is it fair to say the climate advocates basicaly haven't got a clue ? Or am I being unfair to them ?
Non-existent politicised manmadeup warming advocacy? Not really unfair, it's worse than that.There's deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation, error by omission as well as commission including data manipulation, and the academic equivalent of standover thuggery going on in terms of attempts to silence people and actual successes in silencing people.
turbobloke said:
I can't recall the first time it was raised (by me) on PH climate threads but it was well before a clear mention back in 2011, and one particular response to that follows. Not sure who posted it...
Haha, well that was in response to you claiming effects on global temperature, and unless I've missed it the Nasa article doesn't say anything about global effects - rather circulation shifts causing regional climate changes - so we're actually no further on than in 2011.PHer said:
there's nothing in the paper (or the obs) that suggests a global forcing from UV
NASA got there 2 years later, hopefully the PHer has caught up as well by now. plunker said:
Haha, well that was in response to you claiming effects on global temperature, and unless I've missed it the Nasa article doesn't say anything about global effects - rather circulation shifts causing regional climate changes - so we're actually no further on than in 2011.
You must have missed this snip that I quoted from the NASA webpage:"Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence."
In the context of this:
A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate..."
Note. Earth's climate aka global. Also circulation is fair game as it distributes heat, both oceanic and atmospheric.
Does the warmist phenomenon of polar amplification not operate partly through circulations? One of the oft-quoted manmadeup warming advocacy websites gives "more atmospheric heat transport from lower latitudes" as a secondary mechamism contributing to polar amplification. Very selective reasoning there...another believer problem along with the others I recently cited.
Keep trying, Paris isn't far off
don4l said:
plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
Anyway something more useful - sometimes it's good to know a few facts and figures and when I saw a graph puporting to show TSI variance of several watts/m2 over the 20th century it immediately jumped out at me. After all the claimed forcing from a doubling of CO2 is just 3.7W/m2 so if there was any validity to TSI varying by that and more over the 20th century it would knock all arguments into a cocked hat - it's the sun wot done it. However there isn't much support for TSI variance of that sort of magnitude.
plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
Anyway something more useful - sometimes it's good to know a few facts and figures and when I saw a graph puporting to show TSI variance of several watts/m2 over the 20th century it immediately jumped out at me. After all the claimed forcing from a doubling of CO2 is just 3.7W/m2 so if there was any validity to TSI varying by that and more over the 20th century it would knock all arguments into a cocked hat - it's the sun wot done it. However there isn't much support for TSI variance of that sort of magnitude.
Not at all convincing.
Also TSI isn't the story of solar forcing, as indicated with details in at least a couple of recent posts.
turbobloke said:
plunker said:
Haha, well that was in response to you claiming effects on global temperature, and unless I've missed it the Nasa article doesn't say anything about global effects - rather circulation shifts causing regional climate changes - so we're actually no further on than in 2011.
You must have missed this snip that I quoted from the NASA webpage:"Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence."
In the context of this:
A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate..."
Note. Earth's climate aka global. Also circulation is fair game as it distributes heat, both oceanic and atmospheric.
Does the warmist phenomenon of polar amplification not operate partly through circulations? One of the oft-quoted manmadeup warming advocacy websites gives "more atmospheric heat transport from lower latitudes" as a secondary mechamism contributing to polar amplification. Very selective reasoning there...another believer problem along with the others I recently cited.
Keep trying, Paris isn't far off
How interesting - are they starting to try to hide their tracks now>?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
turbobloke said:
plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
don4l said:
plunker said:
I stopped reading when I saw his wide-eyed belief in solar TSI/temperature correlation.
Do you really believe that TSI has no effect on the Earth's temperature?I'm stunned that anybody could be so monumentally stupid.
No sparky, it's the purported variation in TSI over the 20th century shown in his graphs that is dubious. You haven't learned much from hanging around these threads all this time have you.
Anyway something more useful - sometimes it's good to know a few facts and figures and when I saw a graph puporting to show TSI variance of several watts/m2 over the 20th century it immediately jumped out at me. After all the claimed forcing from a doubling of CO2 is just 3.7W/m2 so if there was any validity to TSI varying by that and more over the 20th century it would knock all arguments into a cocked hat - it's the sun wot done it. However there isn't much support for TSI variance of that sort of magnitude.
Not at all convincing.
turbobloke said:
Also TSI isn't the story of solar forcing, as indicated with details in at least a couple of recent posts.
TSI isn't the whole story - ok, got it! 
ttfn
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff