Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 7th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Silver Smudger said:
Really wondering why you posted this article at all, and now you are undermining their 'success' with bad news about ste turbines and having issues and describing it as a bad project.
The article was to show that despite some noggins misguided and Stupid statements - such as someone on here saying diesel generator 'farms' are required to supplement power when the wind stops blowing - it is the opposite in the above case

From a 'project perspective' the infrastructure of the east coast of the USA, the available WTGs to the market, the PPA's system, the lack of site VFM due to the volume or quantity (quality) of equipment deployed and lastly the protectionist nonsense that is the Jones Act skewing the maritime industry - it was all told still a better solution than the continued fuelling and running of diesel generators- and delivered revenue from the excess energy, paid for a grid connection and connected the island to the fibre broadband.

Not a bad result huh?


(The WTG / sub sea cable issues are well documented and one could argue are the result of the small volume of deployment to date and the 'experimental' nature of the project and learning curves - by the local installation contractors and OEM alike)



Yet I guess if the likes of Horns Rev 2 by DONG all those years ago hadn't been deployed, the lessons would have never been made to deliver the cost differentials of a Horns Rev 3 by Vattenfall all those years later.


As for witterings above to counter the 'informed' decision making of DONG versus the born sceptical useing arguments based on 'perhaps' or 'probably' guesses is daft... and simply random pricking of points that do not add up other than in the narrow mind of the writer who refuses to accept he knows less than others in the financials of Offshore Wind.


Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Sunday 7th May 18:35
If anyone can offer a human readable translation of this series of assertions and industry (?) shorthand I would be grateful for it.

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Sunday 7th May 2017
quotequote all
Comment of the month barely a week in.

In a speech or two previously and an article this month the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr Richard Lindzen said:
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation...So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.
More here:

http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-t...

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Sunday 7th May 2017
quotequote all
Talking of magic - here's a blast from the past, dated 24 01 2016 in Vol 3 of this thread.

Scroll down to the Fairies but there's more entertainment besides.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
To the narrow minds of those saying its all fake news of the Green jobs for want of a better description . . . . .
'Those'. Who are they?

Nobody afaics is saying that green jobs represent fake news. Far from it.

Evidence from university department analysis, commercial analysis and think tank analysis has been posted showing that rather than waste taxpayer money on unsustainable greenblobjobs which are at risk regardless of what those receiving the green shilling may say, it would be better economically and for energy security if real jobs were created by government using the same taxpayer funds, given that between 2 and 5 real jobs could be achieved for the cost of every greenblobjob.

The only counterpoints read to date include gullible and self-interested politicians saying 'it aint so' and vested interests wishing it wasn't so and spinning for their careers...the personal angle is understandable though not in the overall national interest.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Comment of the month barely a week in.
... Dr Richard Lindzen
Isn't it funny how all the people you cite are from the same place:

Dr Richard Lindzen - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/rich...

Edit: And after reading the link, yet another person you've cited who says you're wrong. Honestly, is there anyone with relevant credentials out there that supports your position?

Edited by durbster on Monday 8th May 10:31

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
To the narrow minds of those saying its all fake news of the Green jobs for want of a better description - does the rejuvenation of a dead fishing port not count ?

Klaus Skoust Møller, senior programme director at Dong and all round nice family man:
"It will showcase the Humber's position as a leader in renewable energy," he said. "We are proud to be part of the significant growth in the area.

"We are absolutely committed to our operations in the Humber and plan to invest £6 billion in the region by 2019."

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/grimsby-declared...

http://renews.biz/106921/humber-offers-offshore-bl...
You are missing the larger point paddy.

If there is a need to add 100k jobs (nett?) in the renewables industry in order to produce the same amount of total energy (or indeed a little less) to satisfy falling demand (due to exporting manufacturing jobs from other industries and some efficiency gains in other areas that often use imported technology), is the total cost increase good economics?

Let's say your favourite tipple is a litre of beer.

The Brewing industry persuades the government that it can have greater control over locally generated revenues by mandating that the drinks industry should be regulated to control the mix of available refreshment for sustainable production.

The cost of alcoholic drinks is then to be managed on the basis of alcohol content with rebates for producers who can show that they are in some way providing carbon sinks.

Brewing steps up and claims that they able to do this and create 100k new jobs if the price of alcoholic drinks from all sources can be adjusted to make it worth their while.

Over the course of a few year the price of beer doubles and looks likely to go that way for some time while in parallel the production of other drinks has been largely eliminated by making them uneconomic at the point of delivery or simply banning them outright.

The Government's tax and duty take from the industry (i.e. the consumers) more than doubles in the course of a decade, although they will claim that the increases are good for the nation and the planet as they are intended to cut drunkenness, obesity and, for the planet, CO2 levels due to sequestering via crop based CO2 absorption.

Would you, as a beer lover, be happy with the price you pay doubling in order to justify the creation of a claimed 100k jobs?

Bear in mind that this shift may well have cost the country 100k jobs in other businesses one way or another. So to add 100k nett new jobs you would need to create 200k in the "new" field. And then only count those that can be predicted to be permanent and long term cost overheads. (Not a very popular concept in these decades of "agile" business methods.)

The only benefit one has with the beer analogy is that, currently, whether or not you consume beer is clearly a matter of personal choice. That choice is not really an option when it comes to energy consumption in the modern world.



LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Drought warnings.

I see we have the early shock headlines for drought conditions appearing.

Presumably this is due to climate change causing dry winters as were the floods of the previous two (or more?) winters due to more extremely wet weather due to climate change.

As I recall a major reservoir development plan was killed off not too long ago on the basis that over supply of water was likely to be more of problem than under supply. Fresh water on land, after all, is a naturally renewable resource as parts of California have recently re-discovered. Just not something that humans have yet learned to control.

I assume that the political angle to the announcement is partly to form opinions early, partly to push the Climate change agenda and partly to obscure any claims of poor policy making since the last think the Government and its masters the Civil Servants need at the moment is a voting public that has even less trust in their decision making competence.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Comment of the month barely a week in.
... Dr Richard Lindzen
Isn't it funny how all the people you cite are from the same place:

Dr Richard Lindzen - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/rich...

Edit: And after reading the link, yet another person you've cited who says you're wrong. Honestly, is there anyone with relevant credentials out there that supports your position?
Turbofacts! (Or not facts at all)

You can just check this thread out every few weeks. Nothing changes, links to bloggers usually with Dr in the title for added science, posted as facts,

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
As with your lengthy post on Saturday that was used to question the DONG strategy, you are making a version that fits your preferred vision, and is not based on the actuals.
So, no answer on the Macro economics question then.

And my previous post was based entirely on the wording of the DONG statement so explain to me where I was entirely wrong.

Better still get the DONG people to comment on it directly?

You have pitched it as a "done deal" and a likely fiscal model for the future.

The statement wording seems to suggest, not unreasonably, that it isn't totally done and exit options are available should they be needed.

In which case the "actuals" are not yet as "actual" as you would seem to like them to be, although at some point in the next 7 years they may become what you expect of them.

That does not necessarily mean that the particular fiscal model outlined can be considered as a new normal standard for the industry as a whole.

Makes for a timely press release of course and we all know about the absolute veracity of press releases, don't we?

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
El stovey said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Comment of the month barely a week in.
... Dr Richard Lindzen
Isn't it funny how all the people you cite are from the same place:

Dr Richard Lindzen - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/rich...

Edit: And after reading the link, yet another person you've cited who says you're wrong. Honestly, is there anyone with relevant credentials out there that supports your position?
Turbofacts! (Or not facts at all)

You can just check this thread out every few weeks. Nothing changes, links to bloggers usually with Dr in the title for added science, posted as facts,
Ho Ho Ho what a pair (of posts). The weak, ineffective respoinses using ad homs amd smears typified by you and durbster don't change, that much is true. Presumably you;ve got absolutely nothing to add to the debate; it looks clear enough.

The idea that Lindzen says I'm wrong is risible. Firstly it's curious indeed that somebody should offer the usual believer smear on Lindzen, then take the word of the person they just smeared as gospel when it suits. Even though the claim of disagreement is false. When faith is the order of the day, miracles can happen. Data, rather than model gigo / hot air, says my position is correct, that;s the only yardstick worthy of mention.

There's nothing controversion at the Lindzen link posted above. in the usual drop and run approach hinting that there's more than there really is. In the link I posted, Lindzen says the following;

On true believer scientists and their disciples:
" I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty" this agrees with my position as I regularly point out the dishonesty of the true believer position.

On the falsehood of a 97% consensus:
"One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on" and again this is exactly what I've been posting on PH for over 14 years - I describe the minusciule and immeasurably small impact from carbon dioxide emissions more appropriately as an insignificant and transient delay in cooling, which is in agreement with the data and sound science, the 'influence' is non-zero but is too small to be measured.

"Since this issue (agw) fully emerged in public almost 30 years ago (and was instantly incorporated into the catechism of political correctness), there has been a huge increase in government funding of the area, and the funding has been predicated on the premise of climate catastrophism. By now, most of the people working in this area have entered in response to this funding. Note that governments have essentially a monopoly over the funding in this area. I would expect that the recipients of this funding would feel obligated to support the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, opposition to this would be a suicidal career move for a young academic" this echoes what I and others have posted on several occasions; whereas competition for funds usually ensures the success and survival of the fittest academics, the largesse around government funding has allowed masses of third-raters to enter the fray and add partisan noise to the debate.

"The warmest years on record meme. This simple claim covers a myriad of misconceptions. Under these circumstances, it is sometimes difficult to know where to begin. As in any demonization project, it begins with the ridiculous presumption that any warming whatsoever (and, for that matter, any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come. We know that neither of these presumptions is true. here Lindzen is correct to indicate the myriad of misconceptions involved in this meme, presented on PH as durbsterfactoids or possibly ElStoveyfactoids these days, Lindzen agrees with me on the ridiculous nature of the presumption that any warming whatsoever (and any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come.

"The IPCC attribution of most of the recent (and only the recent) warming episode to man depends on the assumption in models that there is no such competitive process." this is spot on, in numerous believer attrition loops desperately ramping failed IPCC climate model gigo I've pointed out that amplified solar irradiance (Shaviv) and the entire solar eruptivity forcing (Svensmark, Bucha) are completely ignored...if they were not, there would be no room for any carbon dioxide effect which cannot be permitted by the IPCC articles of faith but which agrees with the data.

"The focus on the temperature record, itself, is worth delving into a bit. What exactly is this temperature that is being looked at? It certainly can’t be the average surface temperature. Averaging temperatures from places as disparate as Death Valley and Mount Everest is hardly more meaningful than averaging phone numbers in a telephone book." many of us have pointed out the uselessness of mean global tempeture and the absolute stupidity involved by invoking it to 'explain' glacier phenomena.

"One rather infamous case (of data diddling in the Adjustocene) involved NOAA’s adjustments in a paper by Karl et al that replace the pause with continued warming. But it was easy to show that even with this adjustment, models continued to show more warming than even the ‘adjusted’ time series showed. Moreover, most papers since have rejected the Karl et al adjustment (which just coincidentally came out with much publicity just before the Paris climate conference)." this is precisely what I and other climate realist PHers have been pointing out all along and demonstrates the political nature of climate with any vestige of scientific credibility at low tide and about to evaporate

"The extreme weather meme: every weather forecaster knows that extreme events occur someplace virtually every day. The present temptation to attribute these normally occurring events to climate change is patently dishonest...Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.". Nothing needs to be added at this point except to indicate that Lindzen is in violent agreement with PH climate realists.

"Beginning in 1979 we began to use satellites to measure actual sea level. The results were surprisingly close to the previous tide gauge estimates, but slightly higher, but one sees from Wunsch et al (DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1840.1) that one is in no position to argue that small differences from changing methodologies represents acceleration. Regardless, the changes are small compared to the claims that suggest disastrous changes. However, even in the early 1980’s advocates of warming alarm like S. Schneider argued that sea level would be an easily appreciated scare tactic. The fact that people like Al Gore and Susan Solomon (former head of the IPCC’s Scientific Assessment) have invested heavily in ocean front property supports the notion that the issue is propagandistic rather than scientific." Total agreement here.

"Arctic sea ice: Extrapolating short term trends is obviously inappropriate. Extrapolating surface temperature changes from dawn to dusk would lead to a boiling climate in days. This would be silly." Spot on, no disagreement with that.

"Ocean acidification: This is again one of those obscure claims that sounds scary but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Ever since the acid rain scare, it has been realized that the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it." No element of disagreement in sight there.

"Global warming as the cause of everything: As we see from the above, there is a tendency to blame everything unpleasant on global warming." He's not wrong.

"The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all." Absolutely.

False and misleading claims...the perfect end for a response to false and misleading claims from durbster and El Stovey (and others who should consider their baseless faith statements included). The best feature of LongQ's thread is that it recognises the mamipulation of data and lack of credible science by focusing on the politics, which is everything these days.

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Your fundamental believes are that Offshore wind energy is smoke and mirrors financially
...

You do not want to learn or be educated - as is clear in your posts
Renerables simply cannot work (quote from the greenest believer scientists and engineers that google could pay to find out that...renewables simply cannot work even using non-existent fantasy technology).

I don't allow myself to be indoctinated, you apparently do. The level of my education is reasonable enough, and more than enough to spot the bullst in agw and renewables spin. Including yours.

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
Jinx said:
Unicorn farts and Angel burps.

Not measurable = no effect. And Very likely > Likely. Ergo natural causes more likely than AGW prior to 1950.
Check the links to the chapters as well - dear lord how they got "likely" from those chapters for AR4 I will never know.
Hence the point still stands.
No it doesn't - you're plainly wrong in asserting that the IPCC say there's no human influence on climate prior to 1950 and thus you cannot discount the first 2 of the 10 papers that I posted in the science thread as being 'completely and totally wrong'.
Just for your reference there's a graph showing the estimated evolution of radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases since 1750 here:

http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-...

see fig 6.8 on page 401.

It shows a +0.5W/m2 forcing by 1900 rising to 1W by 1950. To my mind that's ample justification for the IPCC to state there was likely an anthropogenic contribution to the early 20th century warming.




Edited by plunker on Monday 8th May 13:24

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Renerables simply cannot work (quote from the greenest believer scientists and engineers that google could pay to find out that...renewables simply cannot work even using non-existent fantasy technology)
As has been pointed out countless times, that is not the quote. The actual quote doesn't fit your propagandist intentions so you repeatedly present a distortion.

It's so blatant.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Your fundamental believes are that Offshore wind energy is smoke and mirrors financially.
You are entitled to your opinion.
The subsequent outcome of this however, is your continued position to raise individual minutiae and thus conclusions you jump to (of your own opinion often caveated with a 'probably' or 'let's say'), stitch them together to create a tenuous 'doubt' question that should be thrown over the industry as an over-riding perception of a conspiracy theory - despite the fact that it is proving to be a success against your own arguments, and dare I saw - wishes.

Arguably - it is the same as about three or four of the other posters on this threads approach to Climate change as a subject on the whole.

Small minutiae, taken out of context, written by individuals wanting their two minutes of fame to be controversial and used to supplement an overall wish to appear the scholar or court jester to equal measure in an argument that has been agreed by the majority of the learned world already.


You do not want to learn or be educated - as is clear in your posts - but take a greater joy in picking apart a sentence at a time of something that is happening around you as we type, generated by the forces of politics, economics and business.
It is for those reasons I won't counter your assumptions line by line. They are your assumptions and valid in your thoughts only.

Your posts must give you great delight from a wordsmith stand point, but do not make them correct.
This was addressed to me?

Assuming it was ....

So no Macro economics answer then?

Do you never read the small print on a contract either?

turbobloke

103,740 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Renewables simply cannot work (quote from the greenest believer scientists and engineers that google could pay to find out that...renewables simply cannot work even using non-existent fantasy technology)
As has been pointed out countless times, that is not the quote. The actual quote doesn't fit your propagandist intentions so you repeatedly present a distortion.

It's so blatant.
It was the precise point they were making. Why didn't your blatant spin just give the real quote? Yet another drop and run failiure.

In any case, the EROEI numbers show it cannot work, there's no need to refer to anyone or anything, but it helps when the people referred to were/are the greenest of greeny believers beind paid handsomely to make a case for renewables that they simply could not make - even using non-existent fantasy technology.

Here's a direct quote from the greeny team of well-paid scientists and engineers:

Team Fantasy Will Not Save Renewables said:
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
You appear to be concerned about potayto potarto. Good for you! Try discerning can't from cant.




robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Just took the woof for a walk. May! It's more like bloody February outside. Where is the fking global warming? I'm freezing my bks off at the moment! Oh hang on, it’s 5degrees warmer in some bloody obscure island in the middle if the Pacific! So that’s where it is. Planet average temperature up then!!

Engineer792

582 posts

85 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
El stovey said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Comment of the month barely a week in.
... Dr Richard Lindzen
Isn't it funny how all the people you cite are from the same place:

Dr Richard Lindzen - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/rich...

Edit: And after reading the link, yet another person you've cited who says you're wrong. Honestly, is there anyone with relevant credentials out there that supports your position?
Turbofacts! (Or not facts at all)

You can just check this thread out every few weeks. Nothing changes, links to bloggers usually with Dr in the title for added science, posted as facts,
Perhaps you should check your facts before posting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
plunker said:
Just for your reference there's a graph showing the estimated evolution of radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases since 1750 here:

http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-...

see fig 6.8 on page 401.

It shows a +0.5W/m2 forcing by 1900 rising to 1W by 1950. To my mind that's ample justification for the IPCC to state there was likely an anthropogenic contribution to the early 20th century warming.




Edited by plunker on Monday 8th May 13:24
[cough]
link said:
Compared to the use of the earlier expressions, the
improved formulae, for fixed changes in gas concentrations,
decrease the carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
radiative forcing by 15%,
All GHG <> CO2

CO2 AGW prior to 1950 is even less likely with reduced CO2 forcing (remember all CO2 and not just A-CO2) so again nonsense and unicorn farts.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
Todays Beeb CC puff story

Trump shadow hangs over climate talks opening

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3980...

Climate negotiators meeting in Bonn have begun their work amid on-going concern about future US participation in the Paris Agreement.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 8th May 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Here's a direct quote from the greeny team of well-paid scientists and engineers:

Team Fantasy Will Not Save Renewables said:
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
You appear to be concerned about potayto potarto. Good for you! Try discerning can't from cant.
No it isn't.

It's not even the full sentence, it's an edited version.

Why don't you post the full sentence, in context?
Engineers said:
Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Why don't you link to the source?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it...

It's intentionally misleading and the clearest example of how you are posting in this thread to deliberately spread misinformation.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED