fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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 No, YOU don't get it. You raised some points, I answered them and asked some questions. You refused to read or consider my answers; just went off on another link. That's pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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. Would you like to actually read what I posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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 No one will build anything but gas or coal fired power without subisidy. Thats why virtually no new nuclear power stations are being built either. You seem to casually ignore that point when spouting your anti renewables rhetoric. On the subject of Germany it is a country with very poor wind resources compared to the UK hence the relative poor performance of germany wind turbines (approx 17% for onshore) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No, YOU don't get it. You raised some points, I answered them and asked some questions. You refused to read or consider my answers; just went off on another link. That's pathetic. if you check the Vostok ice cores, the highest global temp before the last ice age was 3 degrees higher than now; if we now double the CO2 to 600 ppmv and the climate sensitivity is 1 degree for CO2 doubling we will not have a higher temperature than the last time; so your theory of CAGW is dead for your CAGW to work the climate sensitivity would have to be around 4 or 5 but this is not possible as we would have to get a positive tempreature runaway in the last few millions of years; and we have not got one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No one will build anything but gas or coal fired power without subisidy. Thats why virtually no new nuclear power stations are being built either. You seem to casually ignore that point when spouting your anti renewables rhetoric. On the subject of Germany it is a country with very poor wind resources compared to the UK hence the relative poor performance of germany wind turbines (approx 17% for onshore) At time of writing metered wind farms producing 8% of UK's electricity demand (Including unmetered that figure will be around 10%). http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No one will build anything but gas or coal fired power without subisidy. Thats why virtually no new nuclear power stations are being built either. You seem to casually ignore that point when spouting your anti renewables rhetoric. On the subject of Germany it is a country with very poor wind resources compared to the UK hence the relative poor performance of germany wind turbines (approx 17% for onshore) OK. if the German economics do not applay in UK you are right ... so you are wrong ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 OK. if the German economics do not applay in UK you are right ... so you are wrong ... Average UK wind speeds are approx 50% higher in the UK compared to Germany hence the higher % production of nameplate capacity from the UK's wind turbines (Onshore 25% / Offshore 37% and in both cases rising as WT's increase in size and efficiency). I dare say in the Damik school of nine bob note engineering you would put hydro in the Sahara desert, wind power in the amazon, and solar in siberia and then claim all 3 technologies are a failure based on their performance in those locations. Tell again the locations of all those nuclear power stations built purely with private finance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 if you check the Vostok ice cores, the highest global temp before the last ice age was 3 degrees higher than now; if we now double the CO2 to 600 ppmv and the climate sensitivity is 1 degree for CO2 doubling we will not have a higher temperature than the last time; so your theory of CAGW is dead for your CAGW to work the climate sensitivity would have to be around 4 or 5 but this is not possible as we would have to get a positive tempreature runaway in the last few millions of years; and we have not got one What the hell do you think will happen to ocean acidity at 600 ppmv??!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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. If you believe that then you really haven't thought it through properly. Fossil fuels are traded on global markets; the producers don't give a damn what we in the UK think, if we don't want their oil, gas and coal then the Chinese will still buy it from them as fast as they can dig it out of the ground. In contrast the renewables and climate change industries are wholly reliant upon government subsidy, without those there is no industy. So, think carefully, who really has an incentive to manipulate the science? Therefore they have embarked on a campaign to discredit the science and make the solutions seem wildly expensive. So if they're not wildly expensive presumably you're happy to remove all subsidies from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What the hell do you think will happen to ocean acidity at 600 ppmv??!! Dodgy Damik School of Engineering say dump baking powder in the ocean to neutralise it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 <Snip attempt to divert from previous questions> 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Dodgy Damik School of Engineering say dump baking powder in the ocean to neutralise it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What the hell do you think will happen to ocean acidity at 600 ppmv??!! similiar thing what happened last time when the CO2 was 4000 ppmv ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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? nope; I am saying (and the IPCC as well) that you need the climate sensitivity about 4 or higher to get the CAGW if the climate sensitivity is 1 then you do not get the CAGW I can not really make it any simpler for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 similiar thing what happened last time when the CO2 was 4000 ppmv ... When the Earth was uninhabitable by humans? Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 If you believe that then you really haven't thought it through properly. Fossil fuels are traded on global markets; the producers don't give a damn what we in the UK think, if we don't want their oil, gas and coal then the Chinese will still buy it from them as fast as they can dig it out of the ground. In contrast the renewables and climate change industries are wholly reliant upon government subsidy, without those there is no industy. So, think carefully, who really has an incentive to manipulate the science? Most climate denialism comes out of the USA, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. The propaganda effort is a global one to make sure that there are no global agreements to reduce emissions, and it's been highly successful. Of course, the denialists also want to make sure that no country goes it alone. Because if they succeeded then it would be a bad example. So if they're not wildly expensive presumably you're happy to remove all subsidies from them. Yes, as long as it applies equally to every power source. i.e. every power source must fully internalise all costs (i.e. no CO2 emissions allowed). And NIMBYs should be sent to reeducation camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 If you believe that then you really haven't thought it through properly. Fossil fuels are traded on global markets; the producers don't give a damn what we in the UK think, if we don't want their oil, gas and coal then the Chinese will still buy it from them as fast as they can dig it out of the ground. In contrast the renewables and climate change industries are wholly reliant upon government subsidy, without those there is no industy. So, think carefully, who really has an incentive to manipulate the science? So if they're not wildly expensive presumably you're happy to remove all subsidies from them. When I worked for Saudi Aramco (the Worlds biggest energy company) they were very keen to quietly finance AGW disinformation campaigns whilst investing in the Worlds largest solar (PV) car park at Al Midra Tower - Dhahran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 nope; I am saying (and the IPCC as well) that you need the climate sensitivity about 4 or higher to get the CAGW if the climate sensitivity is 1 then you do not get the CAGW I can not really make it any simpler for you Right, so you've contradicted yourself... nice to get you to admit it. Now, I have to ask why, given that 1D, 2D, 3D models, GCMs, pertubation measurements and observations all point to a climate sensitivity in the range 2-4 degrees with a central value around 3, you decide that the definitive value is best given by an unpublished discussion paper that makes a huge number of assumptions, based on only one location on the planet, with vast error bars, and in a significantly different plate tectonic setting. Really, why? Why on earth would you prefer that estimate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Right, so you've contradicted yourself... nice to get you to admit it. Now, I have to ask why, given that 1D, 2D, 3D models, GCMs, pertubation measurements and observations all point to a climate sensitivity in the range 2-4 degrees with a central value around 3, you decide that the definitive value is best given by an unpublished discussion paper that makes a huge number of assumptions, based on only one location on the planet, with vast error bars, and in a significantly different plate tectonic setting. Really, why? Why on earth would you prefer that estimate? Because in Damik World 400, 600 and 4000 ppmv CO2 doesn't make any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 When the Earth was uninhabitable by humans? Great just FYI dinosaurs as the cold blooded are much more demanding for the enviornment than mammals ... and it would be nice to get hotter summers in UK anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Because in Damik World 400, 600 and 4000 ppmv CO2 doesn't make any difference. It's the Acausal Denialist world, in which the laws of physics change according to the political requirements of the observer. An interesting, coincidental result of this theory is that no action by a large private corporation can possibly cause significant environmental damage, and any scientific observation or theory to the contrary is automatically falsified. Some may say that this is a gratuitous abandonment of logic, responsibility and basic sanity, to whom I say 'wibble and fishsticks'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 just FYI dinosaurs as the cold blooded are much more demanding for the enviornment than mammals ... and it would be nice to get hotter summers in UK anyway ... and with that comment you now go on 'ignore' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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" It's quite easy to work out > Bankers are based in the occult "Temple" area (they were thrown out of one by Christ) - therefore all aggression and hatred directed at bankers strengthens their evil doings/hexes ditto "Nazi" (Ashke-NAZI) - people taught hatred outpoured/directed at that word! "Nasi" is Hebrew for 'Prince' > it is mentioned in the Bible esp regarding those of the "Davidic Line" whom Christ appeared from! You have to wunder amongst non-believers why perverted, evil people, operating in the shadows, go to so much trouble over "Nothing" (in their minds) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sossij Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 It's quite easy to work out > Bankers are based in the occult "Temple" area (they were thrown out of one by Christ) - therefore all aggression and hatred directed at bankers strengthens their evil doings/hexes ditto "Nazi" (Ashke-NAZI) - people taught hatred outpoured/directed at that word! "Nasi" is Hebrew for 'Prince' > it is mentioned in the Bible esp regarding those of the "Davidic Line" whom Christ appeared from! You have to wunder amongst non-believers why perverted, evil people, operating in the shadows, go to so much trouble over "Nothing" (in their minds) Erranta - I can't work out if you're a genius or a complete loon I like to think the former Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 ... and with that comment you now go on 'ignore' you just really hurt me ... 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.