Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 You do realize that repeatedly posting a single-site graph is just embarrassing yourself? Especially as it's already been pointed out to you? Fluffy you should be more compassionate. For Damik posting that link is like a nervous tick so obsessed and focussed on this issue is he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 At time of writing monitored wind farms produced 9.9% of the Uk's electricity. So in reality it will be more like 12%. http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Fluffy you should be more compassionate. For Damik posting that link is like a nervous tick so obsessed and focussed on this issue is he. But just think how much extra satisfaction he'll get when the entire edifice of climate science crumbles before the might of WUWT and it's denizens! More persecution means more glory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 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. OK, great. So you confirm that there is no visible European MMGW tempreture increase what so ever ... thanks! So the MMGW is happening everywhere else, but not in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 OK, great. So you confirm that there is no visible European MMGW tempreture increase what so ever ... thanks! So the MMGW is happening everywhere else, but not in Europe. Don't be ridiculous - the clue is in "GLOBAL". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 You do realize that repeatedly posting a single-site graph is just embarrassing yourself? Especially as it's already been pointed out to you? you miss the main point that my graph is the latest natural temperature record for EU. This is based on real measured data/proxies. this is not a theory. this is a real observation of nature. you on the other side are discussing pseudo-scientific theories, that perhaps sulphur emissions are maybe negating CO2 emissions. and this is not based on any natural observation what so ever my observations are invalidating your theories; your theories can not invalidate observation of nature the sciense does not work like this ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Don't be ridiculous - the clue is in "GLOBAL". yes; there is a global MMGW, which is not visible in EU whatsoever ... I acknowledge your argument ... thnaks for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 yes; there is a global MMGW, which is not visible in EU whatsoever ... I acknowledge your argument ... thnaks for it So why do you continue to blather on about a regional increase in temperature? GLOBAL warming refers to the increase in the mean temperature of the entire atmosphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 you miss the main point that my graph is the latest natural temperature record for EU. This is based on real measured data/proxies. this is not a theory. this is a real observation of nature. you on the other side are discussing pseudo-scientific theories, that perhaps sulphur emissions are maybe negating CO2 emissions. and this is not based on any natural observation what so ever my observations are invalidating your theories; your theories can not invalidate observation of nature the sciense does not work like this ... I'm with fluffy on this - you're an idiot, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 you miss the main point that my graph is the latest natural temperature record for EU. This is based on real measured data/proxies. this is not a theory. this is a real observation of nature. you on the other side are discussing pseudo-scientific theories, that perhaps sulphur emissions are maybe negating CO2 emissions. and this is not based on any natural observation what so ever my observations are invalidating your theories; your theories can not invalidate observation of nature the sciense does not work like this ... Look, you've reached the stage of making Sil agree with me, that could cause a rip in the space-time-internet continuum. Now, let's have a look at your graphs. Since you like them so much. Although this is purely from the graphs, it would be more interesting to look at the stats. The top two show what we expect from any single place - lots of variation from year to year. Graph c is therefore more interesting. It shows, for this single site, a slightly warm period centered around the year 1000 'MWP', and a slightly cold period 1600-1750 'LIA'. Pretty similar to a lot of NH proxy reconstructions. There is a very interesting spike in the late 1700s. 1783 volcano in iceland? Would expect a cold signal. Temperatures for the 1900s look similar , although more consistently high than our 'MWP'; it stays above 10 degrees very consistently. Graphs D and E both show a noisy upward trend, going up strongly in the 2000s. Now, none of these observations are really statistically significant (or at least I haven't demonstrated that they are), and obviously they are from one location, but they are certainly not inconsistent with AGW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 So why do you continue to blather on about a regional increase in temperature? GLOBAL warming refers to the increase in the mean temperature of the entire atmosphere. OK; so your theory says that the MMGW phenomena is global and you acknowledge that there is no MMGW warming signal in EU, based on my last graph so here is another paper, which shows that there is no MMGW warming signal in South America. the paper is saying that MWP temps were higher than now (graph 12.b of the PDF): http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=msc_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D2004.%2BGeneration%252C%2Btransport%252C%2Band%2Bpreservation%2Bof%2Bthe%2Balkenone-based%2BU37K%2527%2Bsea%2Bsurface%2Btemperature%2Bindex%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bwater%2Bcolumn%2Band%2Bsediments%2Bof%2Bthe%2BCariaco%2BBasin%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%222004.%20Generation%2C%20transport%2C%20preservation%20alkenone-based%20U37K%20sea%20surface%20temperature%20index%20water%20column%20sediments%20Cariaco%20Basin%22 are you saying now that the MMGW global phenomena is global, but it does not show any signs of unprecedented temperature raises in EU and also in South America (what is on the other side of the globe) in 20th century ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Look, you've reached the stage of making Sil agree with me, that could cause a rip in the space-time-internet continuum. Now, let's have a look at your graphs. Since you like them so much. Although this is purely from the graphs, it would be more interesting to look at the stats. The top two show what we expect from any single place - lots of variation from year to year. Graph c is therefore more interesting. It shows, for this single site, a slightly warm period centered around the year 1000 'MWP', and a slightly cold period 1600-1750 'LIA'. Pretty similar to a lot of NH proxy reconstructions. There is a very interesting spike in the late 1700s. 1783 volcano in iceland? Would expect a cold signal. Temperatures for the 1900s look similar , although more consistently high than our 'MWP'; it stays above 10 degrees very consistently. Graphs D and E both show a noisy upward trend, going up strongly in the 2000s. Now, none of these observations are really statistically significant (or at least I haven't demonstrated that they are), and obviously they are from one location, but they are certainly not inconsistent with AGW. it seems that you can write, but you are not able to read. this is from the paper abstract: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century this contradict your statement of unprecedented warmings caused by AGW ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 you miss the main point that my graph is the latest natural temperature record for EU. This is based on real measured data/proxies. this is not a theory. this is a real observation of nature. you on the other side are discussing pseudo-scientific theories, that perhaps sulphur emissions are maybe negating CO2 emissions. and this is not based on any natural observation what so ever my observations are invalidating your theories; your theories can not invalidate observation of nature the sciense does not work like this ... Are you taking the pi$$? Sulphur aerosols and particulates and their cooling effect are a well known phenomema both man made and natural (ie Volcanoes). Jeez they are often mooted as geotechnical fixes for the whole MMGW phenomema in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Look, you've reached the stage of making Sil agree with me, that could cause a rip in the space-time-internet continuum. Now, let's have a look at your graphs. Since you like them so much. Although this is purely from the graphs, it would be more interesting to look at the stats. The top two show what we expect from any single place - lots of variation from year to year. Graph c is therefore more interesting. It shows, for this single site, a slightly warm period centered around the year 1000 'MWP', and a slightly cold period 1600-1750 'LIA'. Pretty similar to a lot of NH proxy reconstructions. There is a very interesting spike in the late 1700s. 1783 volcano in iceland? Would expect a cold signal. Temperatures for the 1900s look similar , although more consistently high than our 'MWP'; it stays above 10 degrees very consistently. Graphs D and E both show a noisy upward trend, going up strongly in the 2000s. Now, none of these observations are really statistically significant (or at least I haven't demonstrated that they are), and obviously they are from one location, but they are certainly not inconsistent with AGW. Thats pseudo science apparently. Same as the observed cold period after Krakatoa in 1883 - clearly some form of global delusion by Meterologists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 this contradict your statement of unprecedented warmings caused by AGW ... I simply described what I saw, with a lot of caveats; the 1900s are indeed similar to the 'MWP'. I certainly did not use the phrase 'unprecedented warming' in the post. Please don't put words into my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 OK; so your theory says that the MMGW phenomena is global and you acknowledge that there is no MMGW warming signal in EU, based on my last graph so here is another paper, which shows that there is no MMGW warming signal in South America. the paper is saying that MWP temps were higher than now (graph 12.b of the PDF): http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=msc_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D2004.%2BGeneration%252C%2Btransport%252C%2Band%2Bpreservation%2Bof%2Bthe%2Balkenone-based%2BU37K%2527%2Bsea%2Bsurface%2Btemperature%2Bindex%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bwater%2Bcolumn%2Band%2Bsediments%2Bof%2Bthe%2BCariaco%2BBasin%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%222004.%20Generation%2C%20transport%2C%20preservation%20alkenone-based%20U37K%20sea%20surface%20temperature%20index%20water%20column%20sediments%20Cariaco%20Basin%22 are you saying now that the MMGW global phenomena is global, but it does not show any signs of unprecedented temperature raises in EU and also in South America (what is on the other side of the globe) in 20th century ??? And if you were to take the mean of the Northern data and the Southern data... does the signal persist? No. OK, I see your problem now. You clearly have no understanding of climatology and its components which affect different regions of the globe in different ways. A second's Googling suggests a good jumping off point here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I simply described what I saw, with a lot of caveats; the 1900s are indeed similar to the 'MWP'. I certainly did not use the phrase 'unprecedented warming' in the post. Please don't put words into my mouth. well the AGW theory says that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured Figure 3.20 showing this decadal summer temperature reconstruction together with a separate curve plotting instrumental thermometer data from the 1850s onwards. It stated that in this record, warming since the late 19th century was unprecedented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 And if you were to take the mean of the Northern data and the Southern data... does the signal persist? No. OK, I see your problem now. You clearly have no understanding of climatology and its components which affect different regions of the globe in different ways. A second's Googling suggests a good jumping off point here: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Climatology a/ OK. Here is a paper about South Pole MWP. Please see figure 9: http://210.77.94.226/local/ejournal/QuaRes/QR2002/QR-2002-58%283%29-234-245.pdf b/ what famous climatologist Briffa thinks about another famous climatologit Mann about his Hockey Stick and his "mean" methodology: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/climate-high-sticking-the-unmanly-mann.php CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “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,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years . . . and (better say no more).” Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction], 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. . . . 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.” In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only ‘half-empty’; it is demonstrably ‘broken’. I come more from the ‘cup half-full’ camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it is.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 well the AGW theory says that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured Figure 3.20 showing this decadal summer temperature reconstruction together with a separate curve plotting instrumental thermometer data from the 1850s onwards. It stated that in this record, warming since the late 19th century was unprecedented. We're meant to be talking about the graphs you've posted goodness knows how many times. They seem important to you, so why are you suddenly going off on a tangent? Globally, the warming since c. 1950 is both unprecedented and unexpected, yes. Individual records may not show all of this. Really not sure what your point is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 We're meant to be talking about the graphs you've posted goodness knows how many times. They seem important to you, so why are you suddenly going off on a tangent? Globally, the warming since c. 1950 is both unprecedented and unexpected, yes. Individual records may not show all of this. Really not sure what your point is. I think he's confused about localised climatology and global warming... but to be honest I'm f*cked if I know either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I think he's confused about localised climatology and global warming... but to be honest I'm f*cked if I know either the point is that famous climatologists Briffa and Cook think that the MWP was global and that famous climatologist Mann (the man behind the hockey stick) is wrong ... Briffa backs his work by simple proxies, which do not show the hockey stick Mann backs up his work by complex PCA statistics of multiple proxies, which show the hockey stick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) the point is that famous climatologists Briffa and Cook think that the MWP was global and that famous climatologist Mann (the man behind the hockey stick) is wrong ... Briffa backs his work by simple proxies, which do not show the hockey stick Mann backs up his work by complex PCA statistics of multiple proxies, which show the hockey stick OK, to keep it simple for you: "Briffa backs his work by simple proxies, which do not show the hockey stick" << REGIONAL (averaged over few sample sets) "Mann backs up his work by complex PCA statistics of multiple proxies, which show the hockey stick "<< GLOBAL (averaged over many sample sets) As an extreme example - if i was to only measure the temperature during winter in my backgarden only, would you expect that to tell you anything meaningful about the average annual temperature across all of Europe? Edit: changed North America for Europe. Edited November 8, 2012 by sossij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 the point is that famous climatologists Briffa and Cook think that the MWP was global and that famous climatologist Mann (the man behind the hockey stick) is wrong ... Briffa backs his work by simple proxies, which do not show the hockey stick Mann backs up his work by complex PCA statistics of multiple proxies, which show the hockey stick I think you may be representing things a bit: Timothy J. Osborn*, Keith R. Briffa 2006 Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period. The MWP in the original (and now superceeded) hockey stick was probably a bit low, by about 0.2 degrees. It was, it has to be said, the first such reconstruction and corrections have been within the error of that reconstruction. So... you've found a bit of self correction going on within science, that does not change the overall conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 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. I think the point I was making is that even if we covered the entire country with windmills we might be able to shave a couple of thousandths of one percent off of global CO2 emissions. Maybe I'm being naive but it strikes me that spending ITRO of £100bn to achieve the above is not a terribly sensible use of the funds available. Surely it is more logical to spend say £20bn on reseach and development into new technologies that could offer a real cost and CO2 saving that crucially could be exported to other countries so that we could actually affect the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But then I suspect the wind power lobby are not terribly interested in CO2 output and are rather more interested with extracting subsidies from the rest of us. Furthermore, restricting the problem to a single country pretty much guarantees a small final number, unless that country is the US or China. We are not the US or China and since the thread was about the cost to the UK it seems fair to look at UK emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 At the end of the day this argument is now entirely academic because all major nations are now either building coal fired stations or nuclear or they are planning on investing heavily in shale gas extraction, of which there is a couple of hundred years supply. More wind turbines will be built, where contracts have been signed but in the majority of the World the game is up for green subsidy chasing 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.