Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

[Jasandjules]

turbobloke said:

the expert nodded that it definitely had elements of both and that with climate change we could expect to see more snow storms like this.

Well, that's a change from "Snow is a thing of the past"

It's almost as if they will make up any old s***e to keep the gravy train on track...

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

turbobloke said:

the expert nodded that it definitely had elements of both and that with climate change we could expect to see more snow storms like this.

Well, that's a change from "Snow is a thing of the past"

It's almost as if they will make up any old s***e to keep the gravy train on track...

Almost!

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Stubborn

The thing that grates on that score is 'scientists' saying that those who criticise climate models are denying the basic laws of physics. Carl said as much at the link, and Julia has said something similar. It's not like that at all.

Nobody is questioning those elements of basic physics involved, the questions that arise are around tuned paramaterisations, needed because modelling can't cope with all of the physics. It takes people who are stubborn to continually misrepresent the position of others.

Likewise climate change. Where is there any disagreement with climate change, which has been happening for over 4 billion years...it's supposed manmade climate change that the data objects to.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

Blimey. Do you read anything other than what is posted by turbobloke?

I find it astonishing that you'll blindly accept his assertions about a set of data, even when the people who actually produced the data say he's wrong. What would it take for you to actually apply some critical thinking?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

Blimey. Do you read anything other than what is posted by turbobloke?

I find it astonishing that you'll blindly accept his assertions about a set of data, even when the people who actually produced the data say he's wrong.

No, they don't. You're resorting to baseless assertion.

On the other hand, what I said about what Carl said (about models and physics) and what the reality is, is right not wrong.

Out of interest, as you've read a lot from Carl at RSS, where did he suggest you look to see the invisible causal human signal in global climate data? How were you going to see it, since it's not visible?

Before I forget...there's one group that does deny climate change, and I don't mean just non-existent manmade climate change. It's the Conservative Party in its past publication 'Quality of Life Challenge' where one of the key bullet points said and I quote "Global climate can be re-stabilised". Meaning that it's not now, with tax gas working away, but it was before and can be once again.





What would it take for believers to let go of belief and actually apply some critical thinking, given that evidence has no effect...

[LongQ]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Surely we've been told, and must believe truly, that The Pause never existed?
More here: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Here's an article on the same topic from the team who collected that data:
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-glob...

A few quotes:

Remote Sensing Systems said:

Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.

Remote Sensing Systems said:

...A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)

There's no point me commenting. You can decide whether to believe the "Journalist, Author and Broadcaster" or the "Senior Research Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems".

RSS is a Scientific establishment of note, right?

And they use a populist writing style and terms like "denialists" and "pooh-pooh" in official releases?

How depressing. Will no one think of the dire future these people are lining up for "the grandchildren"?

It is not necessary to "believe" either PR sourced feed. In fact quite possibly it is best to believe neither. However is is worth understanding what influences they may have on "the great and the good" as represented by the gathering at Davos for example.

Personally I can't think of anything that produces so much genuinely pointless carbon "pollution" as Davos other than the CoP jamborees and Di Caprio's holidays. One possible competitor might be the Los Angeles methane storage escape problem but is likely has some catching up to do. Still, there seems to be a link between them. Los Angeles ad its Hollywood connection has a lot to answer for.

[turbobloke]

From the latest LTT, not checked as yet but it looks to be of interest:

Snip from letter said:

The following is based on a 1,034 kg state-of-the-art turbo diesel manual car. It's expected fuel consumption would be around 4.2 litres per 100 km. A litre of diesel fuel contains 40 MJ/litre or 11.2 kwh/litre of energy. So total energy needed to travel 100km is 11.2 x 4.2 = 47.2 kwh. Each litre of diesel fuel produces 2.66 kg of CO2, so CO2 produced per 100 km would be 2.66 x 4.2 = 11.2kg.

The overall efficiency of a diesel car (engine plus transmission) is around 30%, so if a vehicle was 100% efficient 14.2 kwh would be required to travel 100km. The Tesla batteries are state-of-the-art and a discharge-recharge cycle has an 87% efficiency. And the efficiency of converting electric motor energy to forward propulsion is around 85%. Hence, for a 1,034 kg electric vehicle, the energy required to travel 100 km would be 14.2 / 0.87 / 0.85 = 19.2 kwh without adjustments for regenerative braking. Typically, hybrid technology including regenerative braking reduces fuel consumption by around 25%, so it would be expected that energy required would be around 14.4 kwh per 100 km.

Tesla data shows the weight of the actual batteries is around 3.3 kg per kwh. However, the battery enclosure plus cooling system and related components adds 170% to the overall weight. Hence a 48 kwh battery will weigh around 428 kg. There will be a saving in weight through removing the diesel engine and cooling system and fuel tank and transmission, and an increase in weight for the regenerative braking motor combination, with a net decrease in weight of ~200 kg. Hence overall it would be expected that the 1,034 kg weight of a diesel car would be increased by 228 kg to around 1,264 kg. As energy requirement is largely proportional to weight in urban environments, the required energy consumption / 100 km would be 14.4 x 1,264 / 1,034 = 17.6 kwh/100 km.

If power comes from a coal-fired power station the following apply for black coal: energy produced per tonne = 6,150 kwh. However, the efficiency of converting that energy to electricity is only around 36%, and transmission losses between the power station and users is typically around 7%. So the energy available for recharging an electric vehicle is 2,059 kwh/tonne. And burning a tonne of coal produces 2,860 kg of CO2, or 1.39 kg per kwh.

Hence the electric vehicle would produce 17.6 x 1.39 = 24.4 kg CO2/100 km, nearly 2.2 times more than the diesel vehicle.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

Blimey. Do you read anything other than what is posted by turbobloke?

I find it astonishing that you'll blindly accept his assertions about a set of data, even when the people who actually produced the data say he's wrong. What would it take for you to actually apply some critical thinking?

Er, I don't "blindly accept his assertions about a set of data", because he always manages to BACK IT UP AND PROOVE IT, with source data YOU can freely access, or I'm sure he'd let you have a copy if you want. A small but important point I think. You can do the same if you want, but not, obviously, pointing at the original source. And where did they say Turbobloke was wrong then? Did I miss that?

[powerstroke]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

Blimey. Do you read anything other than what is posted by turbobloke?

I find it astonishing that you'll blindly accept his assertions about a set of data, even when the people who actually produced the data say he's wrong. What would it take for you to actually apply some critical thinking?

irony meter bust is it??? but hey you crack on saving the pla sorry gravy train..

Edited by powerstroke on Sunday 24th January 14:58

[turbobloke]

Pity it wasn't 97%

[durbster]

LongQ said:

RSS is a Scientific establishment of note, right?

And they use a populist writing style and terms like "denialists" and "pooh-pooh" in official releases?

How depressing. Will no one think of the dire future these people are lining up for "the grandchildren"?

To be fair, it's a blog post rather than a press release or statement so you'd expect the language to be more casual and personal.

LongQ said:

It is not necessary to "believe" either PR sourced feed. In fact quite possibly it is best to believe neither. However is is worth understanding what influences they may have on "the great and the good" as represented by the gathering at Davos for example.

That's not correct though. The Delingpole piece posted by turbobloke is PR / journalism (the two are all but indistinguishable these days) and the link I posted is from the actual source of the data. That people give equal credibility to both is incredible to me.

robinessex said:

Er, I don't "blindly accept his assertions about a set of data", because he always manages to BACK IT UP AND PROOVE IT, with source data YOU can freely access, or I'm sure he'd let you have a copy if you want. A small but important point I think. You can do the same if you want, but not, obviously, pointing at the original source. And where did they say Turbobloke was wrong then? Did I miss that?

O.....K, let's just go over this.

Turbobloke posts article by a journalist that claims NASA think that satellite temperature data is more reliable.
I post an article by the actual source of the satellite temperature data that says that is not true.
Then you somehow declare TB victorious because his post was backed up by the source data (even though it wasn't and mine was).

It is surely not possible to get any closer to the source than the article I posted and you still won't accept it, so clearly no level of evidence is good enough. Is it sychophancy or an emotional investment in the chosen side? It's as fascinating as it is baffling.

[durbster]

LongQ said:

You need to think outside the box on this one. Or maybe inside the Westminster bubble.

You don't need to increase supply just reduce demand.

In France, with their large nuclear capacity, electricity usage is about 40% higher than the UK for the same population. Poor efficiency of investment IMO.

Here we can simply rely on the improved efficiency of electrical goods (the short life span cost is absorbed elsewhere in CO2 terms) and the reduction in demand from heavy industry. The Steel industry for example.

If Tata, et al, can close their plants quickly enough the shortfall in output compared to demand forecast for next winter can probably be avoided without the need to fall back in the Chinese diesel generator sets in the US funded STOR farms scattered around the country in spare fields kindly made available for nominal rental fees and, probably, tax breaks by a select group of landowners.

Just remembered that I meant to reply to this, as I completely agree about efficiency being a key but understated player in all this. There are obvious steps that'll reduce demand like better insulation, and modern electronics are far better than their ancestors but there must still be masses of energy wasted in industry that could be harnessed somehow.

Round my way the council switch off three out of every four street lamps overnight. It's a simple idea that doesn't really have much negative effect and must save a tonne of money.

[robinessex]

Durbster, trawlback through the 300 odd pages of this forum. Enough references have been posted from sources to show adjustments to data to prove my point. The original data has subeqently deleated.

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Durbster looses again!!!! Stubborn bugger isn't he ?

Blimey. Do you read anything other than what is posted by turbobloke?

I find it astonishing that you'll blindly accept his assertions about a set of data, even when the people who actually produced the data say he's wrong. What would it take for you to actually apply some critical thinking?

http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature

Read what they say - models DO NOT follow reality., in fact thats repeated through the page several times.

[Lotus 50]

mondeoman said:

http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-...

Read what they say - models DO NOT follow reality., in fact thats repeated through the page several times.

I'm confused Mondeoman. The publication you've just posted a link to says "Our results can be summarized as follows:

- Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
- Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.-
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.


But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict."

So to paraphrase, the paper says that satellite measurements show the troposphere warming in a way that can only be explained if you include greenhouse gas emissions but that this warming isn't as much as nearly all of the climate models have predicted.

Durbster posted a paper which sets out to explain the reasons why the models appear to be over-predicting yet you seem to be trying to tell him he's wrong....?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 24th January 20:02

[turbobloke]

Michael Upside Down Mann and Kevin Travesty Trenberth are subtly spinning snow. The URL in full is less subtle.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/22/causes-of-east-coas...

El Nino is the backdrop, and others are on the case.

Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with the private weather firm WeatherBell Analytics, said on Twitter that the process of forming a rapidly intensifying coastal storm involves much more than just higher-than-average sea-surface temperatures.

Climate scientist quotes today seem to be confusing baroclinic cyclogenesis w/tropical cyclones. Terms missing: air-sea flux, latent heat

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) January 22, 2016

... heat flux, latent heat release effects on "bomb" cyclones showed 30-yrs ago complicated process. Goldilocks ingredients of max dev (2/2)

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) January 22, 2016

[turbobloke]

Remember climate alarmists cheering the death of John L Daly ('Still Waiting for Greenhouse') in shameful emails seen within the Climategate messages? This time with Bob Carter it's just as blatant. Coverage here on the political blog Climate Depot of despicable comments from the infamous William Connolley, which is nothing less than one would expect with this charmer.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/21/sick-warmis...

[mondeoman]

Lotus 50 said:

mondeoman said:

http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-...

Read what they say - models DO NOT follow reality., in fact thats repeated through the page several times.

I'm confused Mondeoman. The publication you've just posted a link to says "Our results can be summarized as follows:

- Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
- Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.-
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.


But....

The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict."

So to paraphrase, the paper says that satellite measurements show the troposphere warming in a way that can only be explained if you include greenhouse gas emissions but that this warming isn't as much as nearly all of the climate models have predicted.

Durbster posted a paper which sets out to explain the reasons why the models appear to be over-predicting yet you seem to be trying to tell him he's wrong....?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 24th January 20:02

It doesn't say that at all, it says the MODELS cant do it unless you fudge them and add in made-up numbers.

To paraphrase properly - the models do not follow the data ergo, the models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

[Lotus 50]

mondeoman said:

It doesn't say that at all, it says the MODELS cant do it unless you fudge them and add in made-up numbers.

To paraphrase properly - the models do not follow the data ergo, the models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

With respect, I suggest you read the publication again and stop just seeing what you want to see.