Wind Turbines

[springfan62]

jet_noise said:

What is the "toxic" level of CO2 to which you refer?
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?

Consensus is not science.

Consensus in science happens when scientist stop arguing about it.
Given that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is responsible for climate change I would say there is a consensus.

That you choose to disagree is fine but as you are not a scientist I don't think your opinion holds much weight.
You can deny the reality for as long as you like but change will happen whether you like it or not.

[bucks]

robinh73 said:

While I appreciate the need for alternative means of power, wind turbines really aren't the answer. Currently, wind turbines as we speak are providing 1.3% of the power required for the UK. We are getting 4.7% from France and 3.2% from Holland. Nuclear is providing 17.3%.
My issue with wind turbines (especially out at sea) is that they require huge energy in construction and the amount of fossil fuel that is used to actually put them in place is massive. Then there is the fact that they can't produce power 24/7. Tidal power would be a much better option.

springfan62 said:

I think you will find that the current contribution is about 4% (ie today) but over the year its about 15% so not insignificant.

You can see real time grid factor here https://carbonintensity.org.uk/

We need a balanced mix of generation to make the grid work and wind and solar make a growing and important contribution to our energy needs.

You may not like the look of them but would you like to live next to or look at a nuclear or coal power station.

Demand and supply of the national grid:

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[jet_noise]

springfan62 said:

jet_noise said:

What is the "toxic" level of CO2 to which you refer?
And what "abnormal" effects pertain?

Consensus is not science.

Consensus in science happens when scientist stop arguing about it.
Given that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is responsible for climate change I would say there is a consensus.

That you choose to disagree is fine but as you are not a scientist I don't think your opinion holds much weight.
You can deny the reality for as long as you like but change will happen whether you like it or not.

Strike 3!
Neither "toxic" levels of CO2 nor "abnormal" effects have been identified. You might as well argue that water is a toxic pollutant and the rain we're having today is a result of driving to work today.
(Yes I know you can damage yourself by drinking too much water but point made I think).

Scientists are still arguing about "it".
Do you know how that 97% meme was obtained?
Whiskas advertising is more robust than that figure.

When you say "responsible for" and "changes" are you referring to some correlation of increasing CO2 and reported global average temperature (itself a tricky measure)?
Few dispute such correlation but there is huge uncertainty about ECS, even the good o'l IPCC has a range 0f 1.5-4.5°C per doubling of CO2 ppmv (IIRC).
Climate has always changed and always will. Humans (and animals and plants) will do what they always do - adapt. Nature finds a way.

I am indeed not a scientist but I am surely capable of observing robust (or not) method, logic and conclusions.
I fear we're drifting well outside this thread's purpose but that's t'internet

[springfan62]

jet_noise said:

Strike 3!
Neither "toxic" levels of CO2 nor "abnormal" effects have been identified.

Is that the depth of your scientific analysis, seriously. Where is the research that backs this statement up.

The 97% comes form NASA, probably more credible than a climate sceptic psuedoscientist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The climate sceptics do so as an emotional response to change not a scientific one, they seek to sow doubt where there is consensus.
What interests me is what is your motivation for being sceptical, is it based on a conspiracy theory, political, cultural or something else?

[jet_noise]

springfan62 said:

jet_noise said:

Strike 3!
Neither "toxic" levels of CO2 nor "abnormal" effects have been identified.

Is that the depth of your scientific analysis, seriously. Where is the research that backs this statement up.

The 97% comes form NASA, probably more credible than a climate sceptic psuedoscientist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The climate sceptics do so as an emotional response to change not a scientific one, they seek to sow doubt where there is consensus.
What interests me is what is your motivation for being sceptical, is it based on a conspiracy theory, political, cultural or something else?

MaxTorque made the assertion that CO2 was a toxic pollutant causing abnormal effects. I was after some research that gave a level at which CO2 could be classed as toxic and what the abnormal effects might be. I've yet to receive an answer.

Again on the 97% meme: Do you know how the number was generated?
Nullius in verba as they say.

My motivation for being sceptical?
I accepted the AGW-needs-fixing view until the C (catastrophic) thermal runaway ideas were mooted. I'm an electronics eng. and such a thing seemed wholly unlikely. It just failed the sniff test.
Over geological timescales the planet has experienced a wide range of (as far as we can tell) CO2 and quite a narrow (as far as we can tell) global temperature. Todays levels and temperatures have existed without a boiling planet result.

Digging ever deeper and such red flags as climategate, the failure to consider CO2's benefits and suppression of opposing views made me question far more.

[Condi]

jet_noise said:

My motivation for being sceptical?
I accepted the AGW-needs-fixing view until the C (catastrophic) thermal runaway ideas were mooted. I'm an electronics eng. and such a thing seemed wholly unlikely. It just failed the sniff test.
Over geological timescales the planet has experienced a wide range of (as far as we can tell) CO2 and quite a narrow (as far as we can tell) global temperature. Todays levels and temperatures have existed without a boiling planet result.

Digging ever deeper and such red flags as climategate, the failure to consider CO2's benefits and suppression of opposing views made me question far more.

So an electronics engineer, with no scientific background and who's only starting point was the 'sniff test', purports to know more about climate change and the effects thereof than the vast majority of climate scientists, many of whom have spent their entire lives researching their subject and arguing their views with data and work which has earnt them PhD's, and even Nobel Prizes?

Unbelievable.

[Evanivitch]

Condi said:

... and even Nobel Prizes?

Unbelievable.

Bad example to be fair. Nobel Prizes for claimate change have so far been awarded to the IPCC, Al Gore and two economists.

Kind of like Barrack "drone strike" Obama getting his peace prize.

[jet_noise]

Condi said:

jet_noise said:

My motivation for being sceptical?
I accepted the AGW-needs-fixing view until the C (catastrophic) thermal runaway ideas were mooted. I'm an electronics eng. and such a thing seemed wholly unlikely. It just failed the sniff test.
Over geological timescales the planet has experienced a wide range of (as far as we can tell) CO2 and quite a narrow (as far as we can tell) global temperature. Todays levels and temperatures have existed without a boiling planet result.

Digging ever deeper and such red flags as climategate, the failure to consider CO2's benefits and suppression of opposing views made me question far more.

So an electronics engineer, with no scientific background and who's only starting point was the 'sniff test', purports to know more about climate change and the effects thereof than the vast majority of climate scientists, many of whom have spent their entire lives researching their subject and arguing their views with data and work which has earnt them PhD's, and even Nobel Prizes?

Unbelievable.

You have to start somewhere

An electronics engineer who has some understanding of control theory and the sort of positive feedbacks which would be necessary to bring about ever the more shrill catastrophes trumpeted. That was the sniff test which failed. Catastrophes which are always a rolling 10, 20, 30 years away. Catastrophes on the altar of which we are all (with the poor suffering the most) asked to sacrifice modern society.
Let's also add failed predictions and busted computer models (again something about which I as an electronics engineer have knowledge).
Also as an engineer I can recognise conclusions built on sand. From data which has been tortured. The post hoc selection of data that supports a point, the ignoring of contrary information and vilification of those who dare to provide it. If I did my job like this I'd be slung out for gross negligence.

Just think of the opportunity cost of all that money spent on renewables. We could spend it on the NHS (!) or even our roads (!!).

You'd better believe it

Drive a V8. Feed a tree.

[thegreenhell]

Climate change is the new religion. i'm not saying there's nothing in it, as we are demonstrably changing the planet for the worse in many ways, but the cataclysmic predictions are the new control mechanisms for those in power over the masses. Previously it was the church telling us we'd all burn in hell if we didn't conform to their doctrine; now we'll all burn alive before we get to hell if we don't do as the government says.

[Tryke3]

thegreenhell said:

Climate change is the new religion. i'm not saying there's nothing in it, as we are demonstrably changing the planet for the worse in many ways, but the cataclysmic predictions are the new control mechanisms for those in power over the masses. Previously it was the church telling us we'd all burn in hell if we didn't conform to their doctrine; now we'll all burn alive before we get to hell if we don't do as the government says.

[Jinx]

springfan62 said:

Is that the depth of your scientific analysis, seriously. Where is the research that backs this statement up.

The 97% comes form NASA, probably more credible than a climate sceptic psuedoscientist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The climate sceptics do so as an emotional response to change not a scientific one, they seek to sow doubt where there is consensus.
What interests me is what is your motivation for being sceptical, is it based on a conspiracy theory, political, cultural or something else?

The references from that link -

nasa said:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Cook, Doran, Oreskes????

Always check the references.....