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

[OnlyMe]

Thank you for your concern and I didn't take it in a patronising or condescending way

I really wish you were right, I really wish MMGW isn't real. Unfortunately, its reality hasn't anything to do with politicians - the physical science is sound.

Out of interest, did you apply the above thinking when people (on here and in other places) were warning about the impending financial crisis in the run up to 2007/8? Did you research the issue and apply some critical thought of your own? Or did you dismiss the warnings as "propaganda and outright lies"?

There's a difference. A lot of the data that has been used to pick trends and historic levels, baselines looks well dodgy. There was not much that could be argued about the level of gearing, debt, fraud that was going on in the financial system but there were a lot of well paid third party commentators, paid mouthpieces and thosee with vested intersts telling us there was nothing odd going on and all was fine. Follow the money.

CO2 running wildly out of control from a static position? - not if thise data is anything like correct.

Where did the 300ppm "stable" co2 baseline come from, this bit of data picking?

[snowflux]

There's a difference. A lot of the data that has been used to pick trends and historic levels, baselines looks well dodgy. There was not much that could be argued about the level of gearing, debt, fraud that was going on in the financial system but there were a lot of well paid third party commentators, paid mouthpieces and thosee with vested intersts telling us there was nothing odd going on and all was fine. Follow the money.

CO2 running wildly out of control from a static position? - not if thise data is anything like correct.

Where did the 300ppm "stable" co2 baseline come from, this bit of data picking?

I don't think that data is anything like correct. It's obviously from a very old paper - 50 years or so, by the look of it - and the graphs don't look anything like those derived using modern data and methods. It would help if you could give the title of the paper that the graphs came from.

Edit: Ice core data, in particular, has more recently provided much more reliable information about changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. They show that, up until the industrial revolution, it remained almost constant at 280 +/- 10 ppm for virtually all of the last 10,000 years.

Edited November 8, 2012 by snowflux

[Damik]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/

There's a difference. A lot of the data that has been used to pick trends and historic levels, baselines looks well dodgy. There was not much that could be argued about the level of gearing, debt, fraud that was going on in the financial system but there were a lot of well paid third party commentators, paid mouthpieces and thosee with vested intersts telling us there was nothing odd going on and all was fine. Follow the money.

CO2 running wildly out of control from a static position? - not if thise data is anything like correct.

Where did the 300ppm "stable" co2 baseline come from, this bit of data picking?

You need to be aware the CAGW theory is a special global phenomena, which is not present in any local temperature reconstructions across the globe for last 2000 years.

Even when top climatologists have doubts about each other work:

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Jones tells Michael Mann that Briffa withheld damning criticism about the hokey stick from a 1999 Science article:

Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale.

[OnlyMe]

I don't think that data is anything like correct. It's obviously from a very old paper - 50 years or so, by the look of it - and the graphs don't look anything like those derived using modern data and methods. It would help if you could give the title of the paper that graphs came from.

Edit: Ice core data, in particular, has more recently provided much more reliable information about changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. They show that, up until the industrial revolution, it remained almost constant at 270 +/- 10 ppm for virtually all of the last 10,000 years.

Have a read of these the data is all the same.

http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-beck-a-major-contributor-to-climate-science-effectively-sidelined-by-climate-deceivers/

Edit: Ice core data, in particular, has more recently provided much more reliable information about changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. They show that, up until the industrial revolution, it remained almost constant at 270 +/- 10 ppm for virtually all of the last 10,000 years.

Much more reliable on what basis? That it fits the model that most interested parties want to present - that can be guaranteed.

As to the reliability, question everything - can ice core data be relied upon 100%, no bactierialogical effects? no diffusion?

Edited November 8, 2012 by OnlyMe

[Damik]

I don't think that data is anything like correct. It's obviously from a very old paper - 50 years or so, by the look of it - and the graphs don't look anything like those derived using modern data and methods. It would help if you could give the title of the paper that graphs came from.

Edit: Ice core data, in particular, has more recently provided much more reliable information about changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. They show that, up until the industrial revolution, it remained almost constant at 270 +/- 10 ppm for virtually all of the last 10,000 years.

yes, they also prove that there is no MMGW temp signal in the Antartica for last 2000 years and these series were excluded from the IPCC report:

http://staff.acecrc....layed%20MWP.pdf

figure 3: b/ and c/

http://climateaudit....aw-dome-series/

Edited November 8, 2012 by Damik

[erranta]

Seriously, you should stop worrying so much and I genuinely don't mean this in a patronising or condescending way.

All my life politicians have been creating false threats and crises which they then use as cover for their own corruption and incompetence.

When I was in my teens, twenties and thirties I took all these scams as seriously as you are taking MMGW because I genuinely believed that if the government or scientists said something was true, then it was true.

As I have said, I even read some of the earliest books written about Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis.

In my forties and fifties, however, I realised that 99% of what I am told is propaganda and outright lies.

Trust me, the World will not end in my lifetime, or yours, or my kids, or our great, great, great etc grandchildren's.

The World will end when the Sun dies and that will be Billions of years after every last trace of humanity has been eroded to dust and subducted into molten rock by plate tectonics.

You have to be uber-thick not to put 5+5 together when you find out they also have coal-fired power stations billowing out zillions of tons of their falsified CO2-con-'pollution'

- on constant tickover to produce electric when the propellors stop turning! Forces prices up even more as propellors are 'double subsidised' minimum for land-owning class GREED.

Chem-Trails since 1950's (around time they start GREENIE (bogieus) 'measuring') > aluminium in atmosphere > more clouds/seeding moisture > more CO2 (same effect as in tropics areas!)

Greeny, seeding, measures, clouds etc

- are all linked to Biblical words/expressions etc (which 'they' per-vert for evil purposes)

CHEM-TRAILS

shah-lohm ah-leh-chem: Hebrew:

This form of greeting was traditional among the Ashkenazi Jewish communities of Eastern Europe.

The appropriate response is "Aleichem Shalom

Hmmmmm - some 'coincidence' that one!

Edited November 8, 2012 by erranta

[erranta]

iT

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

iT

Great book, the best from my childhood

"We all float down here, youll float too" almost up there with Mockingjay

[snowflux]

Have a read of these the data is all the same.

http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-beck-a-major-contributor-to-climate-science-effectively-sidelined-by-climate-deceivers/

Edit: Ice core data, in particular, has more recently provided much more reliable information about changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. They show that, up until the industrial revolution, it remained almost constant at 270 +/- 10 ppm for virtually all of the last 10,000 years.

Much more reliable on what basis? That it fits the model that most interested parties want to present - that can be guaranteed.

As to the reliability, question everything - can ice core data be relied upon 100%, no bactierialogical effects? no diffusion?

Now it's just getting surreal. This commentator quoted in the first article hits the nail:

Now I'd like you to read through this article with an honest skeptical frame of mind. Ask yourself: do you honestly think the atmospheric concentration of CO2 fluctuated massively until exactly the advent of modern accurate spectroscopic methods that didn't rely on Victorians, chemists, and indoor rooms?

For some bizarre reason, this does indeed seem to be what the authors of that particular website think! There's just no arguing with this sort of idiocy.

[OnlyMe]

Now it's just getting surreal. This commentator quoted in the first article hits the nail:

For some bizarre reason, this does indeed seem to be what the authors of that particular website think! There's just no arguing with this sort of idiocy.

LOL, must admit I missed that bit. You'd obvously expect more variability with older, less sophisticated equipment.

The question is this though - is the data that has been ignored at all representative / indicative of there being higher co2 levels in the near recent history. What (if any relevance does 100 parts) in a million mean. There is serious doubt whether CO2 leads or lags temperature and what of all the historical massive changes in temperature and co2 levels that had ip to do with human activity.

but the question is much bigger than this and it involves the actors in this charade, if they believed half of what they said the likes likes of Gore would not be jetting between palatial homes, we would not be printing money to hell to keep consumption and thus production of Co2 output high, we would not be exporting efficient (energy wise) business to the far flung corners of the world where it is the last thing on their minds etc etc etc.

That's mainly why I call ******** on the whole lot. It is a distraction, it is rod to break our backs and our pockets.

Edited November 8, 2012 by OnlyMe

[Goat]

Eh?

You will I'm sure be aware of Godwin's law that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

Well Goodwin's law (named in honour of ex RBS CEO Fred Goodwin) is my version of it.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving bankers approaches 1"

[OnlyMe]

You will I'm sure be aware of Godwin's law that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

Well Goodwin's law (named in honour of ex RBS CEO Fred Goodwin) is my version of it.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving bankers approaches 1"

I think I'm getting close.

[Game_Over]

Thank you for your concern and I didn't take it in a patronising or condescending way

I really wish you were right, I really wish MMGW isn't real. Unfortunately, its reality hasn't anything to do with politicians - the physical science is sound.

Out of interest, did you apply the above thinking when people (on here and in other places) were warning about the impending financial crisis in the run up to 2007/8? Did you research the issue and apply some critical thought of your own? Or did you dismiss the warnings as "propaganda and outright lies"?

Sorry but your logic doesn't follow here.

The TPTB were telling us they had ended boom and bust - so if I didn't believe anything they said I would be expecting a crash surley?

As it happens I correctly predicted a crash on the scale of the 1930's because such an outcome was the inevitable consequence of the policies being pursued.

The one question I can't answer is, did the economists who said nothing know what was coming or are they all just charlatans.

We now have TPTB creating a false threat - Global Warming and you have people here trying to convince you that it is just another scam.

It is you and others here who have been taken in by the propaganda not me/us.

[Game_Over]

You have to be uber-thick not to put 5+5 together when you find out they also have coal-fired power stations billowing out zillions of tons of their falsified CO2-con-'pollution'

- on constant tickover to produce electric when the propellors stop turning! Forces prices up even more as propellors are 'double subsidised' minimum for land-owning class GREED.

Chem-Trails since 1950's (around time they start GREENIE (bogieus) 'measuring') > aluminium in atmosphere > more clouds/seeding moisture > more CO2 (same effect as in tropics areas!)

Greeny, seeding, measures, clouds etc

- are all linked to Biblical words/expressions etc (which 'they' per-vert for evil purposes)

CHEM-TRAILS

shah-lohm ah-leh-chem: Hebrew:

This form of greeting was traditional among the Ashkenazi Jewish communities of Eastern Europe.

The appropriate response is "Aleichem Shalom

Hmmmmm - some 'coincidence' that one!

Thanks, but this isn't helping.

And if the Jews controlled everything, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have arranged for millions of Jews to be murdered in the last Century

[snowflux]

LOL, must admit I missed that bit. You'd obvously expect more variability with older, less sophisticated equipment.

The question is this though - is the data that has been ignored at all representative / indicative of there being higher co2 levels in the near recent history. What (if any relevance does 100 parts) in a million mean. There is serious doubt whether CO2 leads or lags temperature and what of all the historical massive changes in temperature and co2 levels that had ip to do with human activity.

but the question is much bigger than this and it involves the actors in this charade, if they believed half of what they said the likes likes of Gore would not be jetting between palatial homes, we would not be printing money to hell to keep consumption and thus production of Co2 output high, we would not be exporting efficient (energy wise) business to the far flung corners of the world where it is the last thing on their minds etc etc etc.

That's mainly why I call ******** on the whole lot. It is a distraction, it is rod to break our backs and our pockets.

Heres's a graph of temperature and CO2 concentration measurements taken from the deep ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok Station in East Antarctica:

From that graph it should be clear that there is has been close relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration over the last half a million years or so. These parts in a million are obviously of some significance.

Now, there is no doubt at all that CO2 concentration lags temperature by about 1000 years or so. That's because the temperature changed first. In those days there were obviously no SUVs and power stations to add CO2. But what caused the temperature change? There are a number of candidates: Milankovich cycles, solar variations, cosmic ray flux variations, etc. These are all possible causes, but the changes in temperature that they would cause by themselves are too small. They must have been amplified by some feedback effect. And there we have it - CO2. Temperature increases, forests burn down, oceans emit - CO2 concentration increases - temperature increases - etc. until there's no more easily releasable CO2. Temperature stops rising - interglacial period - temperature slowly starts falling as CO2 is buried by trees again.

And then, along come humans. CO2 back in the air again, ice age cancelled, and off we go into the unknown.

PS: I, like Gore, am sure we are destroying the Earth's ability to support humans, but, like him, I still fly and drive. Why? Well, it's like being the last few in a lifeboat running out of food. If you can't convince everyone to ration, best grab as much as you can yourself and sod 'em.

[Damik]

Heres's a graph of temperature and CO2 concentration measurements taken from the deep ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok Station in East Antarctica:

From that graph it should be clear that there is has been close relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration over the last half a million years or so. These parts in a million are obviously of some significance.

Now, there is no doubt at all that CO2 concentration lags temperature by about 1000 years or so. That's because the temperature changed first. In those days there were obviously no SUVs and power stations to add CO2. But what caused the temperature change? There are a number of candidates: Milankovich cycles, solar variations, cosmic ray flux variations, etc. These are all possible causes, but the changes in temperature that they would cause by themselves are too small. They must have been amplified by some feedback effect. And there we have it - CO2. Temperature increases, forests burn down, oceans emit - CO2 concentration increases - temperature increases - etc. until there's no more easily releasable CO2. Temperature stops rising - interglacial period - temperature slowly starts falling as CO2 is buried by trees again.

And then, along come humans. CO2 back in the air again, ice age cancelled, and off we go into the unknown.

PS: I, like Gore, am sure we are destroying the Earth's ability to support humans, but, like him, I still fly and drive. Why? Well, it's like being the last few in a lifeboat running out of food. If you can't convince everyone to ration, best grab as much as you can yourself and sod 'em.

this is a weak point of your theory, which is not backed up by the observation

if the CO2 is the positive feedback there would have to be the positive temperature runaway in the history; as there is still plenty of CO2 in the ocean water and permafrost as we speak and more and more CO2 is released with the raising temperature

however it has never happened for last millions of years; what proves that the CO2 is not the positive feedback, but more an indicator; such as the water vapour; and the whole cycle is managed by the Milankovich cycles

also if the lag is 1000 years or even 100 years the Mann's hockey stick is wrong as it shows 10 years lag max; so please tell us what is now the CAGW theory as both you and Mann can not be right at the same time

Edited November 9, 2012 by Damik

[fluffy666]

this is a weak point of your theory, which is not backed up by the observation

if the CO2 is the positive feedback there would have to be the positive temperature runaway in the history; as there is still plenty of CO2 in the ocean water and permafrost as we speak and more and more CO2 is released with the raising temperature

That would depend on the magnitude of the positive feedback.

Assuming linear forcing (much worse than reality) if a 10ppm rise in CO2 caused warming that consequently caused another 12ppm to be released, then you would have runaway conditions. However, if the second figure was 8ppm then you wouldn't.

Do you even think a bit before you type, or is it just the case that any anti-AGW argument will do? You really are acting like a religious nutcase, very much in the vein of creationists who think that any anti-evolution argument will do 'for the cause'.

however it has never happened for last millions of years; what proves that the CO2 is not the positive feedback, but more an indicator; such as the water vapour; and the whole cycle is managed by the Milankovich cycles

So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all? In which case, why are we not all frozen solid? Why is Venus so hot, given that it receives about the same surface radiation as Earth?

also if the lag is 1000 years or even 100 years the Mann's hockey stick is wrong as it shows 10 years lag max; so please tell us what is now the CAGW theory as both you and Mann can not be right at the same time

The lag is generally given as c. 800 years and appears to be controlled by deep water ocean circulation rates.

The cycle is [Forcing change] -> [Heating] -> [~800 years] -> [Co2 Feedback]

For deglaciation events, the forcing change is generally taken to be a combination of changes in Northern Hemisphere isolation combined with ice-albedo feedback. However, there is no reason why the initial forcing could not be due to CO2 increases.

[fluffy666]

That's mainly why I call ******** on the whole lot. It is a distraction, it is rod to break our backs and our pockets.

Just out of interest, why do you dismiss this hypothesis:

Global warming is a serious problem with relatively simple solutions; however those solutions would pose a major threat to the fossil fuel industry in general and coal companies in particular. Therefore they have embarked on a campaign to discredit the science and make the solutions seem wildly expensive.

[Damik]

That would depend on the magnitude of the positive feedback.

Assuming linear forcing (much worse than reality) if a 10ppm rise in CO2 caused warming that consequently caused another 12ppm to be released, then you would have runaway conditions. However, if the second figure was 8ppm then you wouldn't.

Do you even think a bit before you type, or is it just the case that any anti-AGW argument will do? You really are acting like a religious nutcase, very much in the vein of creationists who think that any anti-evolution argument will do 'for the cause'.

So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all? In which case, why are we not all frozen solid? Why is Venus so hot, given that it receives about the same surface radiation as Earth?

The lag is generally given as c. 800 years and appears to be controlled by deep water ocean circulation rates.

The cycle is [Forcing change] -> [Heating] -> [~800 years] -> [Co2 Feedback]

For deglaciation events, the forcing change is generally taken to be a combination of changes in Northern Hemisphere isolation combined with ice-albedo feedback. However, there is no reason why the initial forcing could not be due to CO2 increases.

new peer reviewed paper downgrades the positive feedback from 3 degrees to 1 degree:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%C2%B1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/

Estimate of climate sensitivity from carbonate microfossils dated near the Eocene-Oligocene global cooling M. W. Asten

School of Geosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia

Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter is 1.1 ± 0.4 °C (66% confidence) compared with the IPCC central value of 3 °C. The post Eocene-Oligocene transition (33.4 Ma) value of 1.1 °C obtained here is lower than those published from Holocene and Pleistocene glaciation-related temperature data (800 Kya to present) but is of similar order to sensitivity estimates published from satellite observations of tropospheric and sea-surface temperature variations.

[fluffy666]

new peer reviewed paper downgrades the positive feedback from 3 degrees to 1 degree:

So rather than answer any questions, you try and divert. Why is that?

[Damik]

So rather than answer any questions, you try and divert. Why is that?

you still do not get it; if the climate sensitivity is 1 degree for doubling of CO2 then your theory just does not work - based on the Vostok ice cores

[OnlyMe]

fluffy.

Err relationship between co2 and temp over the last few ice ages - yeah sodding great water mass that heats up and can't hold as much co2, temp goes up co2 balance changes. Cause and effect, the effect is not driving the climate.

[Damik]

fluffy.

Err relationship between co2 and temp over the last few ice ages - yeah sodding great water mass that heats up and can't hold as much co2, temp goes up co2 balance changes. Cause and effect, the effect is not driving the climate.

and if it does indeed drive the climate we would have to get the positive temperature runaway. and we definitely know that there was not any positive temperature runaway for last few millions of years. even when the North Pole was melted and dinosaurs fossils have been found there

[Kurt Barlow]

Just out of interest, why do you dismiss this hypothesis:

Global warming is a serious problem with relatively simple solutions; however those solutions would pose a major threat to the fossil fuel industry in general and coal companies in particular. Therefore they have embarked on a campaign to discredit the science and make the solutions seem wildly expensive.

Quite. For example I showed several pages back that due to rapidly falling O&M costs for large onshore wind turbines a 2MW turbine (operating at 30% nameplate capacity) will produce electricity at a cost of less than 5 pence a unit. If one follows production over a 3 generation use of the tower and foundations the cost falls to below 4 pence a unit. The major manufacturers are now working on 5-10MW commercial offshore wind turbines which will further lower the cost of generating offshore. I anticipate within 10-15 years floating wind turbines in the 15-20MW range will be coming into production.

However the anti wind brigade will quote the cost as including the ROC's which are not representive of costs but are there to make the investment attractive enough to draw large amounts of investment funds into the sector in a relatively short period.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Kurt Barlow

[Damik]

Quite. For example I showed several pages back that due to rapidly falling O&M costs for large onshore wind turbines a 2MW turbine (operating at 30% nameplate capacity) will produce electricity at a cost of less than 5 pence a unit. If one follows production over a 3 generation use of the tower and foundations the cost falls to below 4 pence a unit. The major manufacturers are now working on 5-10MW commercial offshore wind turbines which will further lower the cost of generating offshore. I anticipate within 10-15 years floating wind turbines in the 15-20MW range will be coming into production.

However the anti wind brigade will quote the cost as including the ROC's which are not representive of costs but are there to make the investment attractive enough to draw large amounts of investment funds into the sector in a relatively short period.

but I have already showed you a proof from Germany that the required gas power station back-ups are not economical and nobody will build them