Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
The link posted by Guam said:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/renewables/bio...
The Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that if implemented, the proposals would ‘shift the goalposts for the industry so dramatically that millions of pounds of investment could be wasted, including in the most advanced UK businesses’.
Does that mean advanced as in distance down the line of dependency on daft unaffordable national energy policy possibly including subsidies?The Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that if implemented, the proposals would ‘shift the goalposts for the industry so dramatically that millions of pounds of investment could be wasted, including in the most advanced UK businesses’.
It can't possibly mean advanced in the sense of best, as seen in the myth of IPCC type climate scientists being the 'best' money can buy.
Somebody should tell these people about the naked Emperor, though you get the feeling from all the whining that they're staring at his butt already.
mko9 said:
We may be wandering off into the weeds a bit, but apparently you have never been near Salt Lake City. It is essentially high desert next to a big salt lake (hence the name). There is very little vegetation.
Never been but got google - I can see plenty of greenery and 'national forests' on the east side of the city as well as large areas of wetlands/marshes right next to the city on the lake side. What else could explain the clear diurnal cycle with lower concentrations during the day and higher concentrations at night so typical of plant respiration?
http://co2.utah.edu/co2tutorial.php?site=7&id=...
Wind speed is a dominant causal factor in terms of lowering carbon dioxide levels at a particular location, and a stable atmosphere as often found at night and during early morning hours makes for an efficient 'trap'.
In terms of carbon dioxide levels, not even bothering with the usual debate about what comes from where, and with no visible causal link to mean global temperature, we are indeed way off topic in a thread on the politics of the manmade global warming myth.
In terms of carbon dioxide levels, not even bothering with the usual debate about what comes from where, and with no visible causal link to mean global temperature, we are indeed way off topic in a thread on the politics of the manmade global warming myth.
Guam said:
Jeez just seen some American Green talking head on CSPAN, Waffling on about a million deaths due to chernobyl? I thought that had been categorically debunked years ago?
Maybe I have been transported back through time?
UNSCEAR report of 2008 has total confirmed fatalities from radiation as 64.Maybe I have been transported back through time?
turbobloke said:
The link posted by Guam said:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/renewables/bio...
The Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that if implemented, the proposals would ‘shift the goalposts for the industry so dramatically that millions of pounds of investment could be wasted, including in the most advanced UK businesses’.
Does that mean advanced as in distance down the line of dependency on daft unaffordable national energy policy possibly including subsidies?The Renewable Energy Association (REA) said that if implemented, the proposals would ‘shift the goalposts for the industry so dramatically that millions of pounds of investment could be wasted, including in the most advanced UK businesses’.
It can't possibly mean advanced in the sense of best, as seen in the myth of IPCC type climate scientists being the 'best' money can buy.
Somebody should tell these people about the naked Emperor, though you get the feeling from all the whining that they're staring at his butt already.
What if the stand alone subsidy policy is being replaced by something less directly linked in terms of visibility?
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...
Ed Davey is almost certainly a lost cause.
Osborne may not be a lost cause on the greenery front but probably is in terms of the need to generate taxes and direct spending by any means he can just in case it allows him to have some sort of control.
Winter 2013/2014 could be very interesting.
Moreoever, if they really are, as suggested in the linked article, burining up the (EU resticted) hours available to the coal powered stations in order to maximise returns before the tax kicks in (which is a reasonable business decision on the face of it) does that mean that in times of decent wind capacity the disturbines are being subsidised to generate nothing in order to allow the coal plants their maximum returns?
Lunacy all round.
We should rename Westminster to Bedlam. The function seems to be similar.
kerplunk said:
mko9 said:
We may be wandering off into the weeds a bit, but apparently you have never been near Salt Lake City. It is essentially high desert next to a big salt lake (hence the name). There is very little vegetation.
Never been but got google - I can see plenty of greenery and 'national forests' on the east side of the city as well as large areas of wetlands/marshes right next to the city on the lake side. What else could explain the clear diurnal cycle with lower concentrations during the day and higher concentrations at night so typical of plant respiration?
http://co2.utah.edu/co2tutorial.php?site=7&id=...
Well - with its amazing mystical missing sink and invisible energy, AGW seems to stagger on from disappointment to destruction as slowly as ever. As such, anything is possible.
In terms of carbon dioxide sources, there's nobody on here disputing that we put a molecule or two up from time to time, but regardless of whether invisible energy hiding in a jar under the missing sink is visible via faith or not, there's not one shred of credible evidence in global climate data to show carbon dioxide as anything but a spectator, causing nothing and merely responding to its prompts and cues, still doing nothing remotely measurable.
Belief can move thermometers, and failing that there's always substition, homogenisation and inadequate computer modelling...and politics, the subject matter of this thread.
In terms of carbon dioxide sources, there's nobody on here disputing that we put a molecule or two up from time to time, but regardless of whether invisible energy hiding in a jar under the missing sink is visible via faith or not, there's not one shred of credible evidence in global climate data to show carbon dioxide as anything but a spectator, causing nothing and merely responding to its prompts and cues, still doing nothing remotely measurable.
Belief can move thermometers, and failing that there's always substition, homogenisation and inadequate computer modelling...and politics, the subject matter of this thread.
Fishy business this Climate Change...
Of course the Beeb takes this baton and runs with it... Clicky...
Of course the Beeb takes this baton and runs with it... Clicky...
nelly1 said:
Fishy business this Climate Change...
Of course the Beeb takes this baton and runs with it... Clicky...
It just shows the biggest scam of the century is all those dinosaur bones, and bones of giant snakes and crocodiles - just not possible in a warm climate Of course the Beeb takes this baton and runs with it... Clicky...
BBC link said:
Climate change 'may shrink fish'By Matt McGrath
Researchers modelled the impact of rising temperatures on more than 600 species between 2001 and 2050.
Warmer waters could decrease ocean oxygen levels and significantly reduce fish body weight.
The scientists argue that failure to control greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater impact on marine ecosystems than previously thought.
Previous research has suggested that changing ocean temperatures would impact both the distribution and the reproductive abilities of many species of fish. This new work suggests that fish size would also be heavily impacted.
The researchers built a model to see how fish would react to lower levels of oxygen in the water. They used data from one of the higher emissions scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Warming the fish
Although this data projects relatively small changes in temperatures at the bottom of the oceans, the resulting impacts on fish body size are "unexpectedly large" according to the paper.
As ocean temperatures increase, so do the body temperatures of fish. But, according to lead author, Dr William Cheung, from the University of British Columbia, the level of oxygen in the water is key.
"Rising temperatures directly increase the metabolic rate of the fish's body function," he told BBC News.
"This leads to an increase in oxygen demand for normal body activities. So the fish will run out of oxygen for growth at a smaller body size."
The research team also used its model to predict fish movements as a result of warming waters. The group believes that most fish populations will move towards the Earth's poles at a rate of up to 36km per decade.
"So in, say, the North Sea," says Dr Cheung, "one would expect to see more smaller-body fish from tropical waters in the future."
Conservative model
Taking both the movements and the physiological impacts of rising temperatures together, the research team concludes that fish body size will shrink between 14% and 24%, with the largest decreases in the Indian and Atlantic oceans.
When compared with actual observations of fish sizes, the model seems to underestimate what's actually happening in the seas.
The researchers looked at two case studies involving North Atlantic cod and haddock. They found that recorded data on these fish showed greater decreases in body size than the models had predicted.
Other scientists say the impact could be widely felt.
Dr Alan Baudron, from the University of Aberdeen, UK, has studied changes in the growth of haddock in the North Sea. He says this latest research is a "strong result".
He believes it could have negative implications for the yields of fisheries. And it could also seriously impact the ability of fish to reproduce, he adds.
"Smaller individuals produce fewer and smaller eggs which could affect the reproductive potential of fish stocks and could potentially reduce their resilience to other factors such as fishing pressure and pollution," he told BBC News.
The authors point out a number of limiting factors in their study, including uncertainties in the predictions for the climate and the oceans. According to Dr Cheung, further research is required.
"Our study shows that climate change can lead to a substantial decrease in the maximum body weight of fish. We need to look more closely at the biological response in the future."
The research has been published in the Journal Nature Climate
Researchers modelled the impact of rising temperatures on more than 600 species between 2001 and 2050.
Warmer waters could decrease ocean oxygen levels and significantly reduce fish body weight.
The scientists argue that failure to control greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater impact on marine ecosystems than previously thought.
Previous research has suggested that changing ocean temperatures would impact both the distribution and the reproductive abilities of many species of fish. This new work suggests that fish size would also be heavily impacted.
The researchers built a model to see how fish would react to lower levels of oxygen in the water. They used data from one of the higher emissions scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Warming the fish
Although this data projects relatively small changes in temperatures at the bottom of the oceans, the resulting impacts on fish body size are "unexpectedly large" according to the paper.
As ocean temperatures increase, so do the body temperatures of fish. But, according to lead author, Dr William Cheung, from the University of British Columbia, the level of oxygen in the water is key.
"Rising temperatures directly increase the metabolic rate of the fish's body function," he told BBC News.
"This leads to an increase in oxygen demand for normal body activities. So the fish will run out of oxygen for growth at a smaller body size."
The research team also used its model to predict fish movements as a result of warming waters. The group believes that most fish populations will move towards the Earth's poles at a rate of up to 36km per decade.
"So in, say, the North Sea," says Dr Cheung, "one would expect to see more smaller-body fish from tropical waters in the future."
Conservative model
Taking both the movements and the physiological impacts of rising temperatures together, the research team concludes that fish body size will shrink between 14% and 24%, with the largest decreases in the Indian and Atlantic oceans.
When compared with actual observations of fish sizes, the model seems to underestimate what's actually happening in the seas.
The researchers looked at two case studies involving North Atlantic cod and haddock. They found that recorded data on these fish showed greater decreases in body size than the models had predicted.
Other scientists say the impact could be widely felt.
Dr Alan Baudron, from the University of Aberdeen, UK, has studied changes in the growth of haddock in the North Sea. He says this latest research is a "strong result".
He believes it could have negative implications for the yields of fisheries. And it could also seriously impact the ability of fish to reproduce, he adds.
"Smaller individuals produce fewer and smaller eggs which could affect the reproductive potential of fish stocks and could potentially reduce their resilience to other factors such as fishing pressure and pollution," he told BBC News.
The authors point out a number of limiting factors in their study, including uncertainties in the predictions for the climate and the oceans. According to Dr Cheung, further research is required.
"Our study shows that climate change can lead to a substantial decrease in the maximum body weight of fish. We need to look more closely at the biological response in the future."
The research has been published in the Journal Nature Climate
so lots of "could" and maybe based on a computer model built by people seeking to increase/secure their funding and using data provided by a corrupt source.
Who would have guessed that the results might me "worse than previously thought"
Something smells a bit fishy to me
As with the payments for the "set aside" concept in agriculture that apparently helps to balance the market for produce when the demand is not present, we have the same thing for disturbine owners who can claim payments when they are asked to stop generating because the grid cannot deal with their output.
One might see the idea as a positive thing if there was a real need to influence the market yet ensure that the underlying infrastructure could be recommissioned as soon as it was once again required, yet in the case of wind farms it just seems to be a way of creating invisible extra subsidies for something that is a dubious investment in the first place.
That the numbers involved in the payments seem to be deliberately buried as deeply as possible, according to the Daily Mail probably tells as all we need to know.
It's not science and it's not business as we expect it to be. So it must be politics.
I'm trying hard to think of a justification for claiming payments for deliberately doing nothing.
One might see the idea as a positive thing if there was a real need to influence the market yet ensure that the underlying infrastructure could be recommissioned as soon as it was once again required, yet in the case of wind farms it just seems to be a way of creating invisible extra subsidies for something that is a dubious investment in the first place.
That the numbers involved in the payments seem to be deliberately buried as deeply as possible, according to the Daily Mail probably tells as all we need to know.
It's not science and it's not business as we expect it to be. So it must be politics.
I'm trying hard to think of a justification for claiming payments for deliberately doing nothing.
Excess energy production storage idea.
Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
LongQ said:
Excess energy production storage idea.
Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
I think you are being a touch cynical here. If a power station will just vent energy during low demand periods, capturing that wasted energy and storing it for use when required is a laudable aim - what have we got to lose? Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
loafer123 said:
I think you are being a touch cynical here. If a power station will just vent energy during low demand periods, capturing that wasted energy and storing it for use when required is a laudable aim - what have we got to lose?
This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
Power stations don't "vent" during low demand periods. They get turned down/off.This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
This is all about capturing windmill energy during low demand periods. So it is about global warming.
Don
--
don4l said:
loafer123 said:
I think you are being a touch cynical here. If a power station will just vent energy during low demand periods, capturing that wasted energy and storing it for use when required is a laudable aim - what have we got to lose?
This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
Power stations don't "vent" during low demand periods. They get turned down/off.This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
This is all about capturing windmill energy during low demand periods. So it is about global warming.
Don
--
Nuclear power stations reduce output, but don't cool right down, steel mills have to keep going or they will crack their kilns...even the residual heat which currently gets cooled in cooling towers after it has been through a steam turbine at a power station at full pelt could work with this.
I am no AGW nutter, I can assure you, but I can't see why you object to this one.
loafer123 said:
don4l said:
loafer123 said:
I think you are being a touch cynical here. If a power station will just vent energy during low demand periods, capturing that wasted energy and storing it for use when required is a laudable aim - what have we got to lose?
This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
Power stations don't "vent" during low demand periods. They get turned down/off.This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
This is all about capturing windmill energy during low demand periods. So it is about global warming.
Don
--
Nuclear power stations reduce output, but don't cool right down, steel mills have to keep going or they will crack their kilns...even the residual heat which currently gets cooled in cooling towers after it has been through a steam turbine at a power station at full pelt could work with this.
I am no AGW nutter, I can assure you, but I can't see why you object to this one.
I think the problem is that the article mentioned wind turbines, that are springing up all over the place, at great cost, and now they are thinking how to make them work, it highlights the madness of wind power, only now after so many have been built that they decide that the wind turbines cannot work by themselves and will have to build more plant to make them work, along with another real power station for the times that the second power plant runs out of energy.
loafer123 said:
LongQ said:
Excess energy production storage idea.
Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
I think you are being a touch cynical here. If a power station will just vent energy during low demand periods, capturing that wasted energy and storing it for use when required is a laudable aim - what have we got to lose? Not sure if this one is Politics, Science or neither.
Written up by Harrabin so let's assume Politics for now. The obserations re efficiancy, for example, seem to be somewhat in doubt.
If this gets government funding it will be for political reasons initially.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...
This article isn't about global warming, it's about energy efficiency.
However my point was that pushing this story now is not so much about the technology and the opportunity it gives to promote the disturbine cause. Or renewables in general.
In theory this and any similar extra capacity storage capabilities - pumped hydro is the most obvious - are only using excess capacity that is a by-product of operational needs (or lack of operation/excessive opperational output in respect of generation here the fuel input cannot be controlled). They are not efficient in themselves and the balance of cost effectiveness is slim, especially in a marketplace where the spot price of electricity is hugely variable on a purely commercial level.
Secondly, as is mentioned in the article, this is not just a fuel source swap. To use the 'stored fuel' requires a special generator that uses it. This device will need to be maintained even when not in regular use - unless of course the availability of such a device makes its use regular.
Pumped water storage has, potentially at least, alternative uses - for water supply at a push and for leisure activity maybe. Nothing likely in that way for Liquid Nitrogen. (Or Liquid Air as the article describes it.) Find something to augment its marketability and things may look better. IN which case one could imagine that the specialist gas vendors would see an excellent business opportunity and toss a few million into the development pot.
Maybe they have?
Or maybe everyone feels that they can put forward a Warmist scenario that will prompt government to provide the funds (generously no doubt) on a freebie from the tax payer. Everyone wins - except the tax payer, to start with, and most of the rest of the country some years later once the costs filter through to the bills.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff