Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Engineer792 said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
It explains how and why in the article (you have) linked to.
Which link offers garbage for those who like to recycle it.There is no link.
Engineer792 said:
turbobloke said:
Engineer792 said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
It explains how and why in the article (you have) linked to.
Which link offers garbage for those who like to recycle it.There is no link.
The close said:
"The disaster is the fact that Houston population has increased by 40% since 1990. The disaster is the fact that many people were too poor to afford insurance or evacuate. Climate change did not make people build along a vulnerable coastline so the disaster itself is our choice and is not linked to climate change."
Even that assumes manmade cc. Irredeemable!I mean only the quotes from Dr Kelman.
A pity, because, being right at the end of the article, that's the bit which most people won't read.
But that's probably deliberate on the part of the Beeb - we'll introduce some balance to the article so we don't get accused of being biased, but we'll put the sensible bit at the end where most people won't see it
A pity, because, being right at the end of the article, that's the bit which most people won't read.
But that's probably deliberate on the part of the Beeb - we'll introduce some balance to the article so we don't get accused of being biased, but we'll put the sensible bit at the end where most people won't see it
Even this guy, who is drinking the 'man is causing global warming' Kool-Aid refutes the link between global climate and hurricane frequency/secerity:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes...
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes...
kwits johnfm said:
Even this guy, who is drinking the 'man is causing global warming' Kool-Aid refutes the link between global climate and hurricane frequency/secerity:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes...
Quite.http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes...
He has already shown the IPCC and its politicised high priests playing fast and loose with hurricanes.
Resignation open letter from Dr Chris Landsea said:
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
Much more here:http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDo...
Diderot said:
Jeez. The ultimate 'mission put on ice'...turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
Jeez. The ultimate 'mission put on ice'...After the disastrous failure of the previous attempt, backed by the BBC, they were a bit daft to try again.
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
Jeez. The ultimate 'mission put on ice'...After the disastrous failure of the previous attempt, backed by the BBC, they were a bit daft to try again.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/200...
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2...
Ali G said:
Buried deep within that latest fiasco of 'sailing to the North Pole' there may be some form of evidence based proof involving not actually being able to sail to the North Pole because of too much ice.
Wrong. The ice has, is, and will always be variable. It points to nothing at all. Nothing to see there.Is it really the case that Mystic Met is advertising "150 years of accurate forecasting" on Classic FM? BBQ summers anyone?
Article on Mystic and accurate ho ho ho forecasts said:
In 2004, it predicted that by 2014 we would have warmed by 0.8C, while 4
of the five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the "hottest year
ever". In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the "warmest
year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by
0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer
in the UK, it told us, would be "drier than average", just before some
of the worst floods in living memory.
From 2008 to 2010 the UKMO models consistently predicted "warmer than
average" winters and "hotter and drier summers": three years when much
of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while
in the UK, as in that promised "barbecue summer" of 2009, we had
summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October
2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to "2C warmer
than average", just before the coldest December since records began in
1659.
In November 2011, the computer forecast global temperatures rising
over the next five years by up to 0.5C from their 1971-2000 average, a
prediction so embarrassingly off-beam that, a year later, it was
quietly removed from the Met Office website, replaced with one showing
the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". In 2012, it
told us that spring would, yet again, be "drier than average", just
before the wettest April on record. Last November, the computer
predicted that the winter months would be "drier than usual" - then
came the wettest three winter months on record. And today, we can
measure the success of that 2004 forecast that, by 2014, the world
would have warmed by 0.8C - when temperatures have now not risen for
18 years, and not one has got near 1998's record as the "hottest
ever".
IIRC and AFAICS only WeatherAction forecasts have been shown to display skill as found by independent (uni) research.of the five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the "hottest year
ever". In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the "warmest
year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by
0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer
in the UK, it told us, would be "drier than average", just before some
of the worst floods in living memory.
From 2008 to 2010 the UKMO models consistently predicted "warmer than
average" winters and "hotter and drier summers": three years when much
of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while
in the UK, as in that promised "barbecue summer" of 2009, we had
summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October
2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to "2C warmer
than average", just before the coldest December since records began in
1659.
In November 2011, the computer forecast global temperatures rising
over the next five years by up to 0.5C from their 1971-2000 average, a
prediction so embarrassingly off-beam that, a year later, it was
quietly removed from the Met Office website, replaced with one showing
the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". In 2012, it
told us that spring would, yet again, be "drier than average", just
before the wettest April on record. Last November, the computer
predicted that the winter months would be "drier than usual" - then
came the wettest three winter months on record. And today, we can
measure the success of that 2004 forecast that, by 2014, the world
would have warmed by 0.8C - when temperatures have now not risen for
18 years, and not one has got near 1998's record as the "hottest
ever".
Have/hate to say, that fair play Paddy called it....
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-renewables-au...
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-renewables-au...
dickymint said:
Have/hate to say, that fair play Paddy called it....
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-renewables-au...
So it costs more to build something that's more reliable than wind.https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-renewables-au...
Surprise, not.
The Beebs CC news today
Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948
Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.
The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects
Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.
This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.
Nuclear firms said the UK still needed a mix of low-carbon energy, especially for when wind power was not available.
And this is our energy policy ? Who's in charge, Basil Fawlty?
Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948
Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.
The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects
Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.
This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.
Nuclear firms said the UK still needed a mix of low-carbon energy, especially for when wind power was not available.
And this is our energy policy ? Who's in charge, Basil Fawlty?
DibblyDobbler said:
Low cost renewable energy is a good thing isn't it?
You don't need to be a climate alarmist to believe this is good news IMHO...
Lower cost. You don't need to be a climate alarmist to believe this is good news IMHO...
Five years out.
Still subsidised by consumers compared to the costs from other sources that have the benefit of being more predictable and despatchable.
The connection costs and backup costs, etc. are not, as far as I know, covered by these subsidy numbers.
Of course as the wind based production claims to fulfill more and more of the capacity (when the wind is blowing as it requires) the market prices will tend towards Wind's cost base - thus proving, in the absence of any lower cost alternatives, that wind is the cheapest source of supply.
That's a bit like suggesting that all politicians are proficient and competent lawmakers who have only the voter's interests at heart and are honest to a T and morally sound beyond question.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff