Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Ok, if it'll make you happy: Game_Over is a senile old fool. There is hope for you yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 There is hope for you yet! Tee hee - sorry, I couldn't resist I'll reply properly to your Lovelock post later (bit busy at the mo'), ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Anyone fancy a quick sweepstake on how long it'll take one of our resident wind farm lobbyists to describe him as a senile old fool? He isn't senile and he's no fool. I read about the Gaia hypothesis decades ago in Nigel Calders Spaceships of the Mind (published 1978). Prior to Lovelocks recent statements, I argued here that MMGW had all the hallmarks of a religious cult. He also shares my views on nuclear power, shale gas and wind turbines - which make no sense in the UK either economically of environmentally. Regarding MMGW itself, he acknowledges that the computer models have completely failed to predict what has actually happened to the climate which is another of my 'hobby horses'. He also acknowledges that it is a 'theory' not the 'truth'. I think the problem is that many scientists, including Lovelock are relying on data produced by other scientists who have actually 'fiddled the figures' to varying degrees. Under these circumstances you can hardly blame many people for believing the theory, but you also cannot blame people for questioning it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Tee hee - sorry, I couldn't resist I'll reply properly to your Lovelock post later (bit busy at the mo'), ok? Well you're not actually under any obligation to reply at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 He isn't senile and he's no fool. I read about the Gaia hypothesis decades ago in Nigel Calders Spaceships of the Mind (published 1978). Prior to Lovelocks recent statements, I argued here that MMGW had all the hallmarks of a religious cult. He also shares my views on nuclear power, shale gas and wind turbines - which make no sense in the UK either economically of environmentally. Regarding MMGW itself, he acknowledges that the computer models have completely failed to predict what has actually happened to the climate which is another of my 'hobby horses'. He also acknowledges that it is a 'theory' not the 'truth'. I think the problem is that many scientists, including Lovelock are relying on data produced by other scientists who have actually 'fiddled the figures' to varying degrees. Under these circumstances you can hardly blame many people for believing the theory, but you also cannot blame people for questioning it either. They've fiddled the data, selected the models, used very suspect "peer review" and they still have not got a working climate model that can explain the ice ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 They've fiddled the data, selected the models, used very suspect "peer review" and they still have not got a working climate model that can explain the ice ages. Personally I do not believe that it will ever be possible to model the climate, no matter how powerful computers become because clearly the Sun's energy output varies considerably over time and unless this happens in some type of stable cycle, any kind of prediction will always be completely unreliable. In fact output could vary in a stable cycle for millions of years, then just change unpredictably so even if stable cycles could be identified any model could only predict based on a balance of probabilities. Even extremely simple systems where all starting conditions are known behave entirely unpredictably, let alone systems as complex as the Earth's climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Here's an interesting article about James Lovelock - for those who lie awake at night worrying about 'Global Warming' So, global warming is happening and powering modern economies entirely from renewables is hard. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So, global warming is happening and powering modern economies entirely from renewables is hard. Fair enough. Just thought I'd point out that one of the founders of the green movement shares exactly the same views that I have been ridiculed for here on Wind Turbines, 'renewable energy', shale gas, nuclear power and climate modeling. The fact that he cannot bring himself to go the final step is understandable under the circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Here's some maths: Mankind contributes 3.5% of global CO2 emissions. The UK contributes 1.75% of those emissions. Energy generation is responsible for 37% of those emissions. Wind energy might become 20% of the total uk capacity. The average output of a wind tubine is 30% of its capacity. The product of the above is 0.001% So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error. Edited November 7, 2012 by Goat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Here's some maths: Mankind contributes 3.5% of global CO2 emissions. The UK contributes 1.75% of those emissions. Energy generation is responsible for 37% of those emissions. Wind energy might become 20% of the total uk capacity. The average output of a wind tubine is 30% of its capacity. The product of the above is 0.001% So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error. Yes but think of the money people could make from Government subsidies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Here's some maths: Mankind contributes 3.5% of global CO2 emissions. The UK contributes 1.75% of those emissions. Energy generation is responsible for 37% of those emissions. Wind energy might become 20% of the total uk capacity. The average output of a wind tubine is 30% of its capacity. The product of the above is 0.001% So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error. Human global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached an all-time high of ~34 billion tonnes in 2011. Taking your values above... (check my working)... 0.0175 x 0.37 x 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.0004 i.e. 34 x 10^9 tonnes x 0.0004 = 13.6 x 10^6 tonnes That is approximately 13.6 million tonnes of CO2 not added to the cumulative total each year if we keep our emissions constant * Seems like a good idea to me "In 2011, UK emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol were provisionally estimated to be 549.3 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. This was 7.0 per cent lower than the 2010 figure of 590.4 million tonnes." http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_stats/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/uk_emissions.aspx *Obviously this would mean the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would still be increasing as the stuff is long lived - hence the need for actual reductions in emissions, preferably sooner rather than later. Edited November 7, 2012 by sossij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error. Taking each of your points in turn: Mankind contributes 3.5% of global CO2 emissions. An oft-repeated red herring. While it is true that large amounts of CO2 are emitted from natural sources, similar amounts are also absorbed by natural sinks as part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. Natural sinks also manage to absorb some 40% of human emissions, but the remaining 60% are 100% responsible for the additional CO2 that is steadily increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The UK contributes 1.75% of those emissions. True but irrelevant. It is wrong to assume that no other countries are developing wind power when, in fact, it is the UK who is lagging behind. The UK is 100% responsible for UK CO2 emissions. Energy generation is responsible for 37% of those emissions. That is currently the case, but this percentage will inevitably increase as oil, gas and coal become scarcer and/or are replaced with electric power. Wind energy might become 20% of the total uk capacity. Actually, studies indicate that it is possible to supply about 20% of total annual electricity used in the UK from wind power without major infrastructure changes. Assuming the 30% capacity factor you give below, this would permit a maximum UK wind capacity of 20% / 30% = 67% of total UK generating capacity. The average output of a wind tubine is 30% of its capacity. True. This gives a total reduction of 100% x 100% x 37% x 67% x 30% = 7.5%. And that's before we've even started switching to electric home heating and transport or upgrading the national grid with additional storage and demand management technologies. Edited November 8, 2012 by snowflux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Personally I do not believe that it will ever be possible to model the climate, no matter how powerful computers become because clearly the Sun's energy output varies considerably over time and unless this happens in some type of stable cycle, any kind of prediction will always be completely unreliable. In fact output could vary in a stable cycle for millions of years, then just change unpredictably so even if stable cycles could be identified any model could only predict based on a balance of probabilities. Even extremely simple systems where all starting conditions are known behave entirely unpredictably, let alone systems as complex as the Earth's climate. What evidence is there that considerable, unpredictable variations in solar output have occurred? Edited November 8, 2012 by snowflux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 What evidence is there that considerable, unpredictable variations in solar output have occurred? Starter for 10........ http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate Abstract The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series. Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist. http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassenA.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Starter for 10........ http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate Abstract The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series. Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist. http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassenA.jpg The variation in solar output over the 11-year solar cycle has been measured to be about 0.1%. Hardly what you'd call "considerable" (nor especially unpredictable) and not anywhere near sufficient to bring about significant temperature change without additional feedback effects (such as changes in ice albedo and greenhouse gas concentrations). Also, I'd note that this is an old paper; any correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature has broken down completely over the past couple of decades. That's not to say that these small variations, amplified by feedback, may not have been an important climate driver in the past; nowadays, however, such small changes are dwarfed by climate forcings from anthropogenic GHGs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The variation in solar output over the 11-year solar cycle has been measured to be about 0.1%. Hardly what you'd call "considerable" (nor especially unpredictable) and not anywhere near sufficient to bring about significant temperature change without additional feedback effects (such as changes in ice albedo and greenhouse gas concentrations). Also, I'd note that this is an old paper; any correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature has broken down completely over the past couple of decades. That's not to say that these small variations, amplified by feedback, may not have been an important climate driver in the past; nowadays, however, such small changes are dwarfed by climate forcings from anthropogenic GHGs. The variations in output and what is specifically measured in that paper maybe small and may not actually be the drivign parameter. The difference in sunspor activity most definitely is very noticeable. Biggest greenhouse gas is water vapur. If something effects that - then you have a much more significant effect. There's a clud chamber experiment iinvolving ionising radiation that is looking at that, no idea when it reports though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Here's some maths: Mankind contributes 3.5% of global CO2 emissions. The UK contributes 1.75% of those emissions. Energy generation is responsible for 37% of those emissions. Wind energy might become 20% of the total uk capacity. The average output of a wind tubine is 30% of its capacity. The product of the above is 0.001% So correct me if I'm wrong but we're proposing to spend something in the region of £100bn to reduce global CO2 output by an amount so miniscule that it could not even be described as a rounding error. Hmmm.. Mankind contributes something like 97% of NET emissions. Biological carbon cycles are in very tight balance. Clearly you missed something in your research.. I also suspect that the final step is excessive. And restricting it to electricity only is also an error; demand management/smart meters can effectively 'dump' excess generation into home hot water (or industrial processes), thus saving domestic emissions. Furthermore, restricting the problem to a single country pretty much guarantees a small final number, unless that country is the US or China. So you've basically assumed your conclusion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The variations in output and what is specifically measured in that paper maybe small and may not actually be the driving parameter. The difference in sunspot activity most definitely is very noticeable. Biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour. If something effects that - then you have a much more significant effect. There's a cloud chamber experiment involving ionising radiation that is looking at that, no idea when it reports though. It's strange that the temperature-activity graph is not extended to the present day. Indeed, it's 20-year-old research. There is a decent case to be made that the increase in solar activity between 1900-1950 played a significant part in the temperature rise over that period - although you have to note that the relationship does not work as well if Southern Hemisphere data is added.. However, the relationship breaks down after that anyway. If solar activity was driving climate, we'd expect temperatures to be very slightly declining from 1940 levels. Furthermore.. although it's surprisingly difficult to get this to register with people.. IF the climate is extremely sensitive to what have been measured as tiny changes in the sun, THEN it follows that it should be extremely sensitive to changes in CO2 levels which are, in terms of the energy budget, at least 10 times greater. Unless the physics behind the radiative forcing calculations is wrong.. which would then mean an honest skeptic would have a HUGE amount of work to do to make their alternative theory consistent. It's a classic denialist tactic to make an argument without bothering to examine the consequences of that argument being correct. As far as the cloud experimnents go.. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/24/probing-the-cosmic-ray-climate-link It's interesting, yes. However, given the above decorrelation of solar activity and temperature, I'd be very surprised indeed if the final result was significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Anyone fancy a quick sweepstake on how long it'll take one of our resident wind farm lobbyists to describe him as a senile old fool? Why would we do that? Lovelock still maintains MMGW is happening. He still maintains it is critical that mankind acts. What he has changed his position on is that he now thinks his most dire predictions are unlikely to occur t least in the medium term. In addition he has changed his position on nuclear because he beleives renewables alone are not sufficient to address MMGW. This position pretty much mirrors what many of us believe (including myself). As you and Game Boy are now quoting Lovelock as a reliable source of research can we assume you accept MMGW is occuring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 As you and Game Boy are now quoting Lovelock as a reliable source of research can we assume you accept MMGW is occuring? Lovelock is only a reliable, wise authority when he says things that Game_Over agrees with. If he says anything else, he's clearly a senile old codger. Some may say this is rank hypocrisy from someone who regards the great, multifaceted, ever-improving edifice of science with about the same comprehension as a drunken chimpanzee flinging faeces at a Picasso, but they clearly don't understand the deep philosophical insight demonstrated by the use of a smiley after every post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) The variations in output and what is specifically measured in that paper maybe small and may not actually be the drivign parameter. The difference in sunspor activity most definitely is very noticeable. Biggest greenhouse gas is water vapur. If something effects that - then you have a much more significant effect. There's a clud chamber experiment iinvolving ionising radiation that is looking at that, no idea when it reports though. OnlyMe, you may find these interesting: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.full.pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full.pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.full.pdf and http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/Sun_Climate_final.pdf oh and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Edited November 8, 2012 by sossij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Why would we do that? Lovelock still maintains MMGW is happening. He still maintains it is critical that mankind acts. What he has changed his position on is that he now thinks his most dire predictions are unlikely to occur t least in the medium term. In addition he has changed his position on nuclear because he beleives renewables alone are not sufficient to address MMGW. This position pretty much mirrors what many of us believe (including myself). As you and Game Boy are now quoting Lovelock as a reliable source of research can we assume you accept MMGW is occuring? OK, so please please show me the MMGW signal in Europe. Based on the latest peer reviewed research. Please show me how the human generated CO2 increases the tempreture in Europe. Please please: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 OK, so please please show me the MMGW signal in Europe. Based on the latest peer reviewed research. Please show me how the human generated CO2 increases the tempreture in Europe. Please please: You do realize that repeatedly posting a single-site graph is just embarrassing yourself? Especially as it's already been pointed out to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) OK, so please please show me the MMGW signal in Europe. Based on the latest peer reviewed research. Please show me how the human generated CO2 increases the tempreture in Europe. Please please: You know full well that regional effects of MMGW are currently hard to predict... and would you listen anyway? "It's a round world last time I checked." Edit: repeated graph. Edited November 8, 2012 by sossij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 OK, so please please show me the MMGW signal in Europe. Based on the latest peer reviewed research. Please show me how the human generated CO2 increases the tempreture in Europe. Please please: What a silly response. The point is Lovelock firmly believes in MMGW and as Goat and Game Boy are now quoting him as a bonefide expert on climate I am logically assuming they have changed their positions and accept MMGW theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.