Booker: It Is Wind Power That Will Send Our Bills Sky-High

[sossij]

No one knows.

But - here's an abstract from one of his papers

Abstract/Summary

Recent research has suggested that relatively cold UK winters are more common when solar activity is low (Lockwood et al 2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 024001). Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29) and records of past solar variations inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (Abreu et al 2008 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 L20109) and geomagnetic activity data (Lockwood et al 2009 Astrophys. J. 700 937–44) suggest that the current grand solar maximum is coming to an end and hence that solar activity can be expected to continue to decline. Combining cosmogenic isotope data with the long record of temperatures measured in central England, we estimate how solar change could influence the probability in the future of further UK winters that are cold, relative to the hemispheric mean temperature, if all other factors remain constant. Global warming is taken into account only through the detrending using mean hemispheric temperatures. We show that some predictive skill may be obtained by including the solar effect.

On this basis, if AGW is correct we should be pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible in order to prevent another mini ice age which certainly would be a disaster for humanity as food Global food production would plummet.

I see, so your 'analysis' (such as it is) of Lockwood's work is to selectively choose any sentences which, out of context, could possibly support your pre-determined bias.

I'd hoped you might understand the conclusions Lockwood reaches... Silly me.

[Game_Over]

I see, so your 'analysis' (such as it is) of Lockwood's work is to selectively choose any sentences which, out of context, could possibly support your pre-determined bias.

I'd hoped you might understand the conclusions Lockwood reaches... Silly me.

Anyone who truly understands anything about science knows that theories are just that

And anyone claiming that MMGW is the truth or reality is a liar.

The NASA article I linked to stated that more research was needed which is fair enough because basically - no one really knows.

Before Einstein, had I stated that I believed Newton was wrong you would have called me an idiot and a gravity denier.

Theories are just theories and if as in the case of MMGW they are totally unable to predict actual outcomes then the probability of them being correct is approaching zero.

Climategate clearly showed that the data was being manipulated to fit the theory - which should have at least made MMGW supporters a bit less fanatical

but at the end of the day it really isn't about science, it has now become a weird pseudo scientific cult that is being exploited by politicians for their own ends.

So stop worrying and have a think about who is manipulating you and for what reasons

[sossij]

Anyone who truly understands anything about science knows that theories are just that

And anyone claiming that MMGW is the truth or reality is a liar.

The NASA article I linked to stated that more research was needed which is fair enough because basically - no one really knows.

Before Einstein, had I stated that I believed Newton was wrong you would have called me an idiot and a gravity denier.

Theories are just theories and if as in the case of MMGW they are totally unable to predict actual outcomes then the probability of them being correct is approaching zero.

Climategate clearly showed that the data was being manipulated to fit the theory - which should have at least made MMGW supporters a bit less fanatical

but at the end of the day it really isn't about science, it has now become a weird pseudo scientific cult that is being exploited by politicians for their own ends.

So stop worrying and have a think about who is manipulating you and for what reasons

Newton wasn't and isn't wrong. His theory is demonstrably true at non relativistic velocities. Einstein modified Newton's law of Gravitation at those extremes. He did not falsify it or overturn it.

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word 'theory'? By your disingenuous usage quantum mechanics is 'just a theory' yet it is one of our most successful models.... its predictions have been tested to one part in 10^12 and they have never been shown to be false. But to you it's 'just a theory'...

[Game_Over]

Newton wasn't and isn't wrong. His theory is demonstrably true at non relativistic velocities. Einstein modified Newton's law of Gravitation at those extremes. He did not falsify it or overturn it.

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word 'theory'? By your disingenuous usage quantum mechanics is 'just a theory' yet it is one of our most successful models.... its predictions have been tested to one part in 10^12 and they have never been shown to be false. But to you it's 'just a theory'...

No - he didn't modify it

Einstein completely overturned Newtons model.

The point I am making, which you are trying hard to ignore is that MMGW is only a theory

and unless it can accurately predict actual outcomes then the probability that it is correct is extremely low.

[sossij]

No - he didn't modify it

Einstein completely overturned Newtons model.

Ha ha! For someone claiming to understand the history of science you haven't the first clue.

[Damik]

Newton wasn't and isn't wrong. His theory is demonstrably true at non relativistic velocities. Einstein modified Newton's law of Gravitation at those extremes. He did not falsify it or overturn it.

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word 'theory'? By your disingenuous usage quantum mechanics is 'just a theory' yet it is one of our most successful models.... its predictions have been tested to one part in 10^12 and they have never been shown to be false. But to you it's 'just a theory'...

sossij, you are missing the point that the climatology is a young science and it is still developing it's core. this is a normal development and it should not confuse you.

as an example I have shared with you what Briffa and Cook think about Mann and MWP:

https://sites.google...s/climategate-2

3272.txt: Another warning from Briffa, in 1999 as the IPCC 2001 TAR was being prepared, that was ignored: " I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. "

and I have also shared with you, how is the understanding of the climate sensitivity for CO2 doubling changing and evolving (17 peer reviewed papers):

This is a normal scientific progress and I do not understand, why do you reject it.

You also forget that there were a plenty of other theories around Newton time, but he was the only one, who got it right. Everybody else was wrong.

If somebody is a denier here it is actually you ...

Edited November 9, 2012 by Damik

[Game_Over]

Ha ha! For someone claiming to understand the history of science you haven't the first clue.

I own and have read many books on both Newton and Einsteins theories.

Einsteins model of gravity as a curvature of space time completely replaces Newtons theory based on forces

Newtons theory is only an approximation and his model bears no relation to reality

This does not mean that Newton wasn't a genius

arguably he was the greatest thinker who ever lived

but his theory was not the 'truth'

it was just a convenient mathematical model that could be used to approximately describe reality.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Game_Over

[Damik]

I own and have read many books on both Newton and Einsteins theories.

Einsteins model of gravity as a curvature of space time completely replaces Newtons theory based on forces

Newtons theory is only an approximation and his model bears no relation to reality

This does not mean that Newton wasn't a genius

arguably he was the greatest thinker who ever lived

but his theory was not the 'truth'

it was just a convenient mathematical model that could be used to approximately describe reality.

perhaps Briffa and Cook are Einstein and Mann is Newton ???

http://assassination.../1024334440.txt

From: Ed Cook <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>

To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400 <x-flowed>

Hi Keith,

Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.

Ed

>I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical

>area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of

>regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over

>the last few years , and ... (better say no more)

> Keith

==================================

Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty

Senior Scholar Tree-Ring Laboratory

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades,

New York 10964 USA Email:

drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu

Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152

==================================

Edited November 10, 2012 by Damik

[Kurt Barlow]

Here you go Gameboy and Damik

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

As I type 8.7% of the Uk's electricity from wind. 7.7% over the last 24 hours.

[Mr. Miyagi]

No strictly on topic but the BBC has recently been subject to a FOI request regarding a seminar held in 2006, where a number of climate 'specialists' where asked to attend, in order that climate change policy at the BBC could be discussed and ultimately the policy of reporting climate change could be formed.

The list of the so called '28' was made up of only 3 recognised scientists with the rest being made up of activists etc. The FOI was ultimately refused (at considerable expense to the license payer), however a blogger named Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) found the list using an internet archive tool.

So in essence we have the BBC who are supposed to be an impartial News organisation, forming policy on the reporting of climate change by asking the view of a bunch of VI's and alarmists without any consideration to the contrary.

I have no idea why the BBC would try and keep this a secret

See

http://omnologos.com/author/omnologos/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/

and

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/bbc_beats_blogger_/

Edited November 13, 2012 by Mr. Miyagi

[Goat]

Here you go Gameboy and Damik

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

As I type 8.7% of the Uk's electricity from wind. 7.7% over the last 24 hours.

Currently producing 1.0%, 2.7% over the last 24 hours. Lets hope no-one wants to turn the lights on.

Oopps.

[(Blizzard)]

.

Edited November 15, 2012 by (Blizzard)

[fluffy666]

sossij, you are missing the point that the climatology is a young science and it is still developing it's core. this is a normal development and it should not confuse you.

How would you know? You don't have a clue about the subject. All you are doing is mindlessly reposting stuff from denialist websites with no effort to comprehend what you are posting. Which is why you end up contradicting yourself.

For example, we've already examined the Asten 2012 (unpublished) result and found it extremely dubious, yet here you are including it again.

Now, you can either read this to get a basic start, or you can stick with the label denialist. Your choice.

[Kurt Barlow]

Currently producing 1.0%, 2.7% over the last 24 hours. Lets hope no-one wants to turn the lights on.

Oopps.

How are you coping with the power cuts today then?

[Damik]

How would you know? You don't have a clue about the subject. All you are doing is mindlessly reposting stuff from denialist websites with no effort to comprehend what you are posting. Which is why you end up contradicting yourself.

For example, we've already examined the Asten 2012 (unpublished) result and found it extremely dubious, yet here you are including it again.

Now, you can either read this to get a basic start, or you can stick with the label denialist. Your choice.

if you do not understand what is the point of Briffa x Mann discussion than the one with no clue is actually you ...

also Asten2012 is not the only peer reviewed paper suggesting no CAGW

Edited November 15, 2012 by Damik

[fluffy666]

if you do not understand what is the point of Briffa x Mann discussion than the one with no clue is actually you ...

Scientists disagree. Would you prefer it if they moved in lockstep and refused to criticize each other's work?

also Asten2012 is not the only peer reviewed paper suggesting no CAGW

It isn't a peer reviewed paper.

Very low sensitivities would only be plausable if the climate never changed., because it would indicate that negative feedbacks would tend to keep temperatures in a very narrow range. This is disproven by things like the glacial-interglacial transition (and the MWP/LIA).

Not that you'd ever let yourself understand this.

[Damik]

Scientists disagree. Would you prefer it if they moved in lockstep and refused to criticize each other's work?

It isn't a peer reviewed paper.

Very low sensitivities would only be plausable if the climate never changed., because it would indicate that negative feedbacks would tend to keep temperatures in a very narrow range. This is disproven by things like the glacial-interglacial transition (and the MWP/LIA).

Not that you'd ever let yourself understand this.

you are claiming that:

- climatology is "old" and settled

- but it is "normal" when key climatologists disagree on CAGW fundamentals

- and you are personally arguing in favour of some papers (pro CAGW) and you are against some other papers (no CAGW)

All these 3 statements can not be correct at the same time

if you are so clever why do not you tell Briffa that he is wrong, perhaps even an idiot ... surely with your PhD and 100s of citations you can not be wrong ..

[fluffy666]

you are claiming that:

- climatology is "old" and settled

I am? For given values of 'old' and 'settled', perhaps. Nothing fundamental has changed in the last 20 odd years.

- but it is "normal" when key climatologists disagree on CAGW fundamentals

They don't. Some denialists leap on any disagreement as some sort of epic split, but that's because they are more interested in propaganda than science

- and you are personally arguing in favour of some papers (pro CAGW) and you are against some other papers (no CAGW)

I tend to argue in favour of higher quality papers. The for-comments piece you showed was rubbish.

You understand that such the concept of quality exists?

All these 3 statements can not be correct at the same time

Well, they are not all correct.

if you are so clever why do not you tell Briffa that he is wrong, perhaps even an idiot ... surely with your PhD and 100s of citations you can not be wrong ..

It appears that the MWP was bigger than it appeared in the first reconstructions, by perhaps 0.2K.

Fine. Small correction to older work.

What's the problem?

[Goat]

How are you coping with the power cuts today then?

You're the one who wanted to boast about how much power they were producing.

Currently 2.3%, 1.5% over the last 24 hours.

[Damik]

I am? For given values of 'old' and 'settled', perhaps. Nothing fundamental has changed in the last 20 odd years.

They don't. Some denialists leap on any disagreement as some sort of epic split, but that's because they are more interested in propaganda than science

I tend to argue in favour of higher quality papers. The for-comments piece you showed was rubbish.

You understand that such the concept of quality exists?

Well, they are not all correct.

It appears that the MWP was bigger than it appeared in the first reconstructions, by perhaps 0.2K.

Fine. Small correction to older work.

What's the problem?

problem is that your arguments are not scientific, but political. you pick up a scientific opinion, which you like. I pick up the one which is simple, robust, based on natural observation only and clearly breaks the older unproved theories. if Briffa finds that there is no CAGW temp signal in EU for last 2000 years using very simple proxies and statistics he is more truth worthy than Mann with his tweaked complex PCA massaging the data in the ways he wants

[fluffy666]

problem is that your arguments are not scientific, but political.

Look in the mirror.

you pick up a scientific opinion, which you like.

I pick up the result of a large amount of consistent scientific research. You are talking garbage.

I pick up the one which is simple, robust, based on natural observation only and clearly breaks the older unproved theories.

That's not even wrong.

IF you would like to explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS how this particular derivation is performed, and ALSO explain why it is more robust than, for instance, a GCM, or present day observations, or hand calculations from basic physics, THEN you can make this statement.

Can you? And if not, how could you possibly make such a statement?

if Briffa finds that there is no CAGW temp signal in EU for last 2000 years using very simple proxies and statistics he is more truth worthy than Mann with his tweaked complex PCA massaging the data in the ways he wants

That isn't even english.

[Damik]

Look in the mirror.

I pick up the result of a large amount of consistent scientific research. You are talking garbage.

That's not even wrong.

IF you would like to explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS how this particular derivation is performed, and ALSO explain why it is more robust than, for instance, a GCM, or present day observations, or hand calculations from basic physics, THEN you can make this statement.

Can you? And if not, how could you possibly make such a statement?

That isn't even english.

very simply just for you so you can grasp it:

Briffa2012 proves that there is no AGW temp signal in EU for last 2000 years. this is based just on observation of tree growth and basic statistics. this is not a theory, but a very solid and simple observation of the nature.

so all the theories of the unprecedented warming in EU for last 100 years are simply wrong

and perhaps there is some CAGW warming signal somewhere else or maybe it will come later, but right now in EU there is no CAGW

so perhaps all the "theories" of the positive feedback should be critically looked at and more work should be done on the negative feedbacks

and sorry for my English; I started with it when I was 15 only; I hope that you master a few foreign languages as well ...

[Damik]

Look in the mirror.

I pick up the result of a large amount of consistent scientific research. You are talking garbage.

That's not even wrong.

IF you would like to explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS how this particular derivation is performed, and ALSO explain why it is more robust than, for instance, a GCM, or present day observations, or hand calculations from basic physics, THEN you can make this statement.

Can you? And if not, how could you possibly make such a statement?

That isn't even english.

and just for you a new paper published in Nature this month about CAGW outcomes:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

Little change in global drought over the past 60 years

Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation⁷ that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles⁸ that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years

[fluffy666]

very simply just for you so you can grasp it:

Briffa2012 proves that there is no AGW temp signal in EU for last 2000 years. this is based just on observation of tree growth and basic statistics. this is not a theory, but a very solid and simple observation of the nature.

No, he dosen't, and we've already been through this. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

Not quite sure what you have against statistics, either. A proposition does not become automatically wrong because the statistics behind it are complicated.

so all the theories of the unprecedented warming in EU for last 100 years are simply wrong

I wasn't aware we had such theories. Why the focus on the EU - especially the northern EU, which as a geographical region is heavily influenced by heat transport and therefore especially likely to show spurious effects?

and sorry for my English; I started with it when I was 15 only; I hope that you master a few foreign languages as well ...

I'm rubbish at foreign languages. Which means, interestingly, that I don't go around trying to tell native French speakers how to speak french.

[Damik]

No, he dosen't, and we've already been through this. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

Not quite sure what you have against statistics, either. A proposition does not become automatically wrong because the statistics behind it are complicated.

I wasn't aware we had such theories. Why the focus on the EU - especially the northern EU, which as a geographical region is heavily influenced by heat transport and therefore especially likely to show spurious effects?

I'm rubbish at foreign languages. Which means, interestingly, that I don't go around trying to tell native French speakers how to speak french.

cool, so you do indeed confirm that there is no AGW temp signal in Northern EU ...

Edited November 16, 2012 by Damik