Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
SpeedMattersNot said:
Someone I know today said; "They're saying now, that anyone who disputes that Sandy was not partly our fault due to global warming is speaking pure nonsense".
How do you even begin...?
You say, Why? Are you suggesting that hurricanes have increased in frequency or intensity and if so since what point do you suggest the increase? Then invite them to put forth the evidence they have which shows that How do you even begin...?
1. Hurricanes increase in correlation with CO2
2. There is causation to human emissions
SpeedMattersNot said:
Someone I know today said; "They're saying now, that anyone who disputes that Sandy was not partly our fault due to global warming is speaking pure nonsense".
How do you even begin...?
Yes, and 3000 years ago, people who didn't believe that bad floods, wind/rain/hurricanes were the fault of themselves for not appeasing their particular Gods were also ridiculed, and perhaps worse.How do you even begin...?
The more things change.........
Jasandjules said:
Globs said:
It's a clever switch, just as global warming looked like being 'global staying the same' it was rebranded to 'climate change' but with the 'big names' still pushing the 'warming' as that's what their fame/infamy was based upon. I.e. if you say the weather is warming, you can be wrong if it cools. Connecting it with weather was a move of genius because we've always had and always will have big storms and natural disasters, and they _will_ get worse because of the growing populations, even if they get less frequent (hurricanes down to half normal amount this year).
Sure but that is why EVERY time someone says "Climate Change" I say, no you mean Global Warming...... I refuse to allow them to get away with this bull**t and I for one would vote for the party who put some of these people up against the wall when the time comes, for they will be directly responsible for thousands of deaths over winters as fewer and fewer people can afford to adequately heat their homes, a matter amplified when the temperatures are lower.
Storms and natural disasters are much cleverer though - that's going to be difficult to counter as people are so superstitious now.
So we need to get back to basic facts: More CO2, but colder weather. Which renders the entire AGW scam a lie.
deeps said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
Interesting,
Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)
Do those two do modelling? I don't think they do, but anyway if we're just going on the GMT data, over the last few years they've tracked towards the low end of model forecasts (see the real climate link) but I don't take a great deal of comfort from that so yes most certainly still 'in danger' and we've had a good taste recently of the type of jeapordy we're in from disruptive weather in the form of floods, droughts etc leading to poor harvests, rising food prices, damage to infrastructure, adaptation costs etc...Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)
I could go on but I won't!
Don't fear natural global warming Kerplunk, the alternative is far worse.
deeps said:
My bold. Apart from the fact that that's a completely unreasonable assumption, a warming climate is actually the best we can hope for, a cooling climate would bring food, transport, energy problems and premature deaths on a far greater scale.
Don't fear natural global warming Kerplunk, the alternative is far worse.
I agree cooling would probably be worse, but we should always fear the weather, deeps - it's woven into everything, it's part of our being, it is the governor. Don't fear natural global warming Kerplunk, the alternative is far worse.
What is the ideal climate? The same as last year.
Lost_BMW said:
turbobloke said:
No bias here just an appropriate understanding of what the the data and sound science have to say.
The crux! Do you, Kerplunk, feel you have this appropriate understanding?Globs said:
All agreed - and I do the same, using the original name to keep the focus on the (non existent) warming.
Storms and natural disasters are much cleverer though - that's going to be difficult to counter as people are so superstitious now.
So we need to get back to basic facts: More CO2, but colder weather. Which renders the entire AGW scam a lie.
I do the same too, was having the disussion in the pub last night, but amazingly some people do actually believe that man made global warming has melted the arctic ice causing a shift in the gulf stream and a cooler climate for us in the UK. That was what I was up against. I went on to explain that gravy train climate scientists predicted a mediteranian UK, no more snow, mild wet winters, warm dry summers, all of which haven't materialised as of yet. Storms and natural disasters are much cleverer though - that's going to be difficult to counter as people are so superstitious now.
So we need to get back to basic facts: More CO2, but colder weather. Which renders the entire AGW scam a lie.
Possibly in 10 years time or so, winter temps of -20 or so, mains water supplies freezing up, electricty demand at an all time high, windmills with no wind to spin them and little back up power because the coal power stations have been closed to meet crazy co2 legislation, supermarket shelves empty because the transport infrastructure is not geared up for months of snow, then perhaps the truly religious believers will start to question man made global warming theory! Or more likely they'll freeze to death in ignorance.
kerplunk said:
I agree cooling would probably be worse, but we should always fear the weather, deeps - it's woven into everything, it's part of our being, it is the governor.
What is the ideal climate? The same as last year.
Well we've got it pretty good at the moment, even though the weather is lousy much of the time. But the point is that we can't choose what's going to happen, and if natural warming occurs it will be far easier to adapt to than cooling.What is the ideal climate? The same as last year.
Just heard on the radio people are not seeing UFOs any more and even with or because of the internet there isnt any proof ,my guess is these redneck nut jobs are now into man made up climate change along with the nutty profs and spivs that have discovered they can make a hansome living out of it.
Edited by powerstroke on Sunday 4th November 07:34
kerplunk said:
Frankly I don't believe anyone on the planet has an 'appropriate' understanding - not the IPCC and certainly not anonymous-bloke on the internets. To quote the late Stephen Schneider; we are insulting our environment faster than our ability to understand the consequences.
If so, why is it appropriate to tax us and build useless turbines if ''I don't believe anyone on the planet has an 'appropriate' understanding - not the IPCC''? There is a local impact on climate via GDP/LULC/UHI but this is local warming not global warming and represents a delay in cooling.
It's not difficult to look at global climate data showing no visible causal human signal and then resist the temptation to invent one. You would need a non-scientific reason to do that. The level of scientific understanding required isn't overly demanding.
To understand the junkscience nature of manmadeup warming at the basic level you need to be able to differentiate between a distance change and a temperature change. At a more tangibly scientific level, you simply don't abuse the Beer law. Or for the really challenged, the Second Law as well.
What really grates is people saying that 'obviously' we humans have an impact on global climate, meaning non-zero, without then going on to explain what this actually means when no such signal is visible in the data.
An unremarkable transient delay in cooling which varies from place to place and time to time isn't permanent dangerous global warming.
If kerplunk means that while a qualitative approach is accessible, a quantitative modelling approach remains GIGO and will be so for the foreseeable, then fine.
It's not difficult to look at global climate data showing no visible causal human signal and then resist the temptation to invent one. You would need a non-scientific reason to do that. The level of scientific understanding required isn't overly demanding.
To understand the junkscience nature of manmadeup warming at the basic level you need to be able to differentiate between a distance change and a temperature change. At a more tangibly scientific level, you simply don't abuse the Beer law. Or for the really challenged, the Second Law as well.
What really grates is people saying that 'obviously' we humans have an impact on global climate, meaning non-zero, without then going on to explain what this actually means when no such signal is visible in the data.
An unremarkable transient delay in cooling which varies from place to place and time to time isn't permanent dangerous global warming.
If kerplunk means that while a qualitative approach is accessible, a quantitative modelling approach remains GIGO and will be so for the foreseeable, then fine.
deeps said:
I do the same too, was having the disussion in the pub last night, but amazingly some people do actually believe that man made global warming has melted the arctic ice causing a shift in the gulf stream and a cooler climate for us in the UK. That was what I was up against. I went on to explain that gravy train climate scientists predicted a mediteranian UK, no more snow, mild wet winters, warm dry summers, all of which haven't materialised as of yet.
Also most people mis-understand what the IPCC is actually claiming - it's not even claiming that CO2 causes severe warming, it's claiming that it forms a positive feedack mechanism with water vapour to do that. I.e. first you have to believe a sub-1C warming from CO2, then add one some positive feedback mechanism that has only been modelled on computers, and defys the laws of thermodynamics.Then there are the beers laws - line up a few pints - and look through them. As you add more pints to the line you'll see it makes no difference. Thus is is with CO2 - the 15um absorption line of CO2 gets stopped in a few metres just as well with 320ppm CO2 as with 10,000ppm CO2.
Then there is water vapour itself - named by the IPCC as the evil agent of positive feedback - but any relative humidity of 10% and over completely masks the IR effect of CO2 because H2O is a wideband IR absorber. So CO2 will be inert anyway.
And then there's the old pub argument about how CO2 knows which way is 'down'. I.e. after a lucky molecule absorbs some IR, it re-radiates in a sphere, including back out to space.
deeps said:
Possibly in 10 years time or so, winter temps of -20 or so, mains water supplies freezing up, electricty demand at an all time high, windmills with no wind to spin them and little back up power because the coal power stations have been closed to meet crazy co2 legislation, supermarket shelves empty because the transport infrastructure is not geared up for months of snow, then perhaps the truly religious believers will start to question man made global warming theory! Or more likely they'll freeze to death in ignorance.
We had -20C and all the other things you said in 2010, with windmills standing still (heated from the grid).BTW another issue with windmills - that the hypothermic UK pensioners contribute £0.5bn a year to.
You know what it is?
They need £8bn worth of new overhead wires and pylons, stretching over the UK countryside - ruining it further still and adding many more pensioners to the >25,000 per annum fuel poverty deaths.
That graph of CO2 vs Hurricanes that TB put up would make an excellent T-Shirt for the pub
kerplunk said:
Lost_BMW said:
turbobloke said:
No bias here just an appropriate understanding of what the the data and sound science have to say.
The crux! Do you, Kerplunk, feel you have this appropriate understanding?All replaced by modelling, programs, pogroms, propaganda and sophistry. As we were...
For those who have not siged, or received a response to their petitioning against wind turbines on the govt. e-petition site here is the reply they have now been forced to make - given the number of signatories - it's not promising frankly, and with some frankly specious arguments attempting to divert attention and bluster through issues - see the line on local planning concerns - total waste of time around here for instance, with local govt. residents and Peak Planning Board ignored totally and then billed for their challenge - £80,000 - and cats comment for example!
"Dear ,
The e-petition 'We do not want any more onshore wind turbines/farms in Norfolk or elsewhere in the UK.' signed by you recently reached 13,007 signatures and a response has been made to it.
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has provided the following response: We are grateful for petitioners taking time to sign the e-petition online and for expressing concerns on onshore wind farms. The government believes that onshore wind should be part of our diverse energy mix, which will also include conventional gas and other forms of low-carbon generation.
Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source. Reports by ARUP and Parsons Brinckerhoff commissioned by DECC in 2011, found that the cheapest onshore wind has a cost of £75/MWh, which is around the cost of nuclear at £74/MWh. Wind energy is variable but that does not mean it is an inefficient source of energy. Wind turbines tend to generate electricity for around 80-85% of the time and are able to harnesses the maximum potential from the wind resource.
Wind power provides a home-grown source of electricity that does not produce carbon dioxide. The electricity system always has more generating capacity available than the expected demand, so by having a diverse energy mix, we can manage the fact that some technologies are variable. Having a mix means that if there is a problem in one part, we have a better chance of keeping the lights on, and doing so affordably.
We understand concerns about the visual impacts of wind farms. It is important that they are sited correctly and developers are required to minimise any adverse effects through siting, layout, landscaping and design. Wind farm developers are required to carry out a rigorous analysis of the impacts that their projects are likely to have on the local environment through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Planning applications for onshore wind farms can be, and are turned down due to landscape and visual amenity concerns. Wind farms have to be located to make best use of the available resources and every planning application is considered on its merits, taking into account advice from statutory advisers on issues like environmental impact.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken, both in the UK and elsewhere, to determine the significance of any impacts of wind farms on wildlife. Data collected from a number of wind farms have indicated that for the majority of wind farm locations there is little or no evidence of a significant impact on birds. However, careful site selection is still extremely important to avoid potentially significant impacts. The RSPB has noted in its own reports that ‘the majority of studies indicate that bird collision mortality rates per turbine in the UK are low’. By way of context, the number of birds killed by domestic cats is around 55 million a year.
The Government’s view is that wind farms do not have a direct effect on the public health. A number of independent peer reviewed research studies commissioned by DECC’s predecessors at DTI and BERR, and by Defra have looked at the impacts of noise from wind farms and concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines. However, we are keen to keep this issue under review.
With regards to concerns about tourism: by way of example, the UK's first commercial wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, and the visitor centre at Whitelee wind farm near Glasgow attracts 100,000 visitors per year. A recent study carried out by DECC has shown that onshore wind farms have brought economic benefits at both national and local level, supporting around 8,600 jobs and worth £548m to the UK economy. Of this, around 1,100 jobs and £84m investment occur at the Local Authority level. As part of EU-wide action to increase the use of renewable energy, the UK has committed to generating 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. Generating electricity from renewable technologies is more costly than from long-established fossil fuelled technologies. If we are to meet our challenging 15% target therefore, support needs to be provided to these technologies to ensure that they are viable. The Renewables Obligation (RO) is currently the Government’s main financial incentive for large scale renewable electricity, including wind power. This requires supply companies to source a specified and annually increasing proportion of their electricity sales from eligible sources of renewable energy or pay a penalty. The RO is a generation based subsidy, meaning support is granted for each MWh of electricity actually generated. A wind farm will, therefore, only receive support when it generates. Lower capacity windfarms will generate less renewable electricity and therefore receive a lower RO subsidy. Every unit of wind energy that replaces a unit of high carbon energy is a unit that reduces our emissions and our dependence on imported fossil fuels, lessens our exposure to volatile oil prices, and improves our security of supply. There is a cost to energy security, but it is nothing like the cost of energy insecurity. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
View the response to the e-petition
HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
"Dear ,
The e-petition 'We do not want any more onshore wind turbines/farms in Norfolk or elsewhere in the UK.' signed by you recently reached 13,007 signatures and a response has been made to it.
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has provided the following response: We are grateful for petitioners taking time to sign the e-petition online and for expressing concerns on onshore wind farms. The government believes that onshore wind should be part of our diverse energy mix, which will also include conventional gas and other forms of low-carbon generation.
Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source. Reports by ARUP and Parsons Brinckerhoff commissioned by DECC in 2011, found that the cheapest onshore wind has a cost of £75/MWh, which is around the cost of nuclear at £74/MWh. Wind energy is variable but that does not mean it is an inefficient source of energy. Wind turbines tend to generate electricity for around 80-85% of the time and are able to harnesses the maximum potential from the wind resource.
Wind power provides a home-grown source of electricity that does not produce carbon dioxide. The electricity system always has more generating capacity available than the expected demand, so by having a diverse energy mix, we can manage the fact that some technologies are variable. Having a mix means that if there is a problem in one part, we have a better chance of keeping the lights on, and doing so affordably.
We understand concerns about the visual impacts of wind farms. It is important that they are sited correctly and developers are required to minimise any adverse effects through siting, layout, landscaping and design. Wind farm developers are required to carry out a rigorous analysis of the impacts that their projects are likely to have on the local environment through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Planning applications for onshore wind farms can be, and are turned down due to landscape and visual amenity concerns. Wind farms have to be located to make best use of the available resources and every planning application is considered on its merits, taking into account advice from statutory advisers on issues like environmental impact.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken, both in the UK and elsewhere, to determine the significance of any impacts of wind farms on wildlife. Data collected from a number of wind farms have indicated that for the majority of wind farm locations there is little or no evidence of a significant impact on birds. However, careful site selection is still extremely important to avoid potentially significant impacts. The RSPB has noted in its own reports that ‘the majority of studies indicate that bird collision mortality rates per turbine in the UK are low’. By way of context, the number of birds killed by domestic cats is around 55 million a year.
The Government’s view is that wind farms do not have a direct effect on the public health. A number of independent peer reviewed research studies commissioned by DECC’s predecessors at DTI and BERR, and by Defra have looked at the impacts of noise from wind farms and concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines. However, we are keen to keep this issue under review.
With regards to concerns about tourism: by way of example, the UK's first commercial wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, and the visitor centre at Whitelee wind farm near Glasgow attracts 100,000 visitors per year. A recent study carried out by DECC has shown that onshore wind farms have brought economic benefits at both national and local level, supporting around 8,600 jobs and worth £548m to the UK economy. Of this, around 1,100 jobs and £84m investment occur at the Local Authority level. As part of EU-wide action to increase the use of renewable energy, the UK has committed to generating 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. Generating electricity from renewable technologies is more costly than from long-established fossil fuelled technologies. If we are to meet our challenging 15% target therefore, support needs to be provided to these technologies to ensure that they are viable. The Renewables Obligation (RO) is currently the Government’s main financial incentive for large scale renewable electricity, including wind power. This requires supply companies to source a specified and annually increasing proportion of their electricity sales from eligible sources of renewable energy or pay a penalty. The RO is a generation based subsidy, meaning support is granted for each MWh of electricity actually generated. A wind farm will, therefore, only receive support when it generates. Lower capacity windfarms will generate less renewable electricity and therefore receive a lower RO subsidy. Every unit of wind energy that replaces a unit of high carbon energy is a unit that reduces our emissions and our dependence on imported fossil fuels, lessens our exposure to volatile oil prices, and improves our security of supply. There is a cost to energy security, but it is nothing like the cost of energy insecurity. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
View the response to the e-petition
HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff