Un To Release Latest Update To Global Warming

[snowflux]

Im told by a man who works in the game, those wonderful wind turbines need to be replaced every 10 years, producing as much carbon in total that using a power station iteself would have produced..... If true, then this is not an alternative in terms of MMGW...but hype.

That is complete and easily verifiable ********. Why do you come out with such crap? How utterly arrogant of you to think that all the people who work on such things would be so stupid.

[motch]

That is complete and easily verifiable ********. Why do you come out with such crap? How utterly arrogant of you to think that all the people who work on such things would be so stupid.

I have this ball park figure in my head of these big turbine structures lasting no more than 30 years on average, no real science to back this up, just that steel will be stressed by the movements, and eventually it will fail to some degree, which will then need to be repaired or replaced, plus the corrosion from the salt at the sea turbines.

How long do you think these big structures will last on average?

[Si1]

<br />I have strong environmental convictions, never take long haul holidays, and own one small car that I don't drive very much.<br /><br />That's pretty irrelevant though. If you're stuck in a lifeboat with a bunch of other people who are intent on scoffing all the rations and won't listen to your arguments about eking them out, what sense does it make to go short yourself if no-one else will? That's not hypocrisy, it's simply common sense.<br /><br />Edit: And of course none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the actual science of the matter.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

that's fine, except it isn't the stock excuse

stock excuses are "but I recycle" "it's for the kids" "I work really hard"

etc

I don't doubt the real practical everyday relevance of these comments, but they do support my conservative world view that changing behaviours to accommodate environmental risk may cost more than adaptation, because of human nature to say one thing and do another, ergo any governmental or corporatist financial mitigation strategy may be corrupted in very short order and make things worse

for example, the albeit national scale environmental records of democracies are better than those of non democracies, and yet they have less strategic control of their industries and more individualist cultures.

[Si1]

<br />I have this ball park figure in my head of these big turbine structures lasting no more than 30 years on average, no real science to back this up, just that steel will be stressed by the movements, and eventually it will fail to some degree, which will then need to be repaired or replaced, plus the corrosion from the salt at the sea turbines.<br /><br />How long do you think these big structures will last on average?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think this is a diversionary argument, I'm very sure having seen some of it, that the science and engineering behind wind turbines etc is clear cut

[winkie]

Wind power is fine, but if it were that good why would it have to be subsidised....why do they install low productivity less energy output turbines knowing they will get a higher price, rather than one that creates more power but less money is paid for the energy it produces......why is the energy market so fixed in favour of what is paid instead of what is produced?

[Si1]

<br />Wind power is fine, but if it were that good why would it have to be subsidised....why do they install low productivity less energy output turbines knowing they will get a higher price, rather than one that creates more power but less money is paid for the energy it produces......why is the energy market so fixed in favour of what is paid instead of what is produced? <img src='http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

it's all about forward investment risks and intangible social profits (ergo collective profit from diversifying and cleaning up our energy generation)

[MrPin]

Wind power is fine, but if it were that good why would it have to be subsidised....why do they install low productivity less energy output turbines knowing they will get a higher price, rather than one that creates more power but less money is paid for the energy it produces......why is the energy market so fixed in favour of what is paid instead of what is produced?

A "bung" might be involved! The energy market is not "free" at all! The only "choice" I have is the logo on the bill!

[fluffy666]

<br /><br /><br />

that's fine, except it isn't the stock excuse

stock excuses are "but I recycle" "it's for the kids" "I work really hard"

etc

I don't doubt the real practical everyday relevance of these comments, but they do support my conservative world view that changing behaviours to accommodate environmental risk may cost more than adaptation, because of human nature to say one thing and do another, ergo any governmental or corporatist financial mitigation strategy may be corrupted in very short order and make things worse

for example, the albeit national scale environmental records of democracies are better than those of non democracies, and yet they have less strategic control of their industries and more individualist cultures.

This is why I'm not particularly bothered about changing people's behavior.

And it's actually worse than you say. Imagine that - as an example - the people of America all have an environmental awakening and halve their oil consumption.

Result: Instant oil glut. Price collapses, for a few years until the third world catches up, and we are where we were before. Basically, behavior change cannot fix the problem, and the focus on that change means that people get cynical about the whole thing.

[Guest eight]

Result: Instant oil glut. Price collapses, for a few years until the third world catches up, and we are where we were before. Basically, behavior change cannot fix the problem, and the focus on that change means that people get cynical about the whole thing.

In that case, persuade people to do the things you want to do on their own merits, without using global warming as a pretext. It's not working out anyway, mainly because the people you seek to influence have seen squat difference in their daily lives as a result of it, apart from increased taxation,.

[SHERWICK]

In that case, persuade people to do the things you want to do on their own merits, without using global warming as a pretext. It's not working out anyway, mainly because the people you seek to influence have seen squat difference in their daily lives as a result of it, apart from increased taxation,.

So even if global warming might be happening, don't tell anyone about it as they couldn't care less and/or don't believe it or think it's a conspiracy?

Sounds like Idiocracy to me...

[fluffy666]

In that case, persuade people to do the things you want to do on their own merits, without using global warming as a pretext. It's not working out anyway, mainly because the people you seek to influence have seen squat difference in their daily lives as a result of it, apart from increased taxation,.

The people I seek to influence are those who are in charge of energy policy. Having a public who were actually aware of the dangers they were getting into and had a realistic idea of the fixes would be handy, indeed essential.

Imagine in the 1930s, seeing the danger posed by the rise of Hitler, and saying 'The way to combat this is not to have Big Government build new warships. planes and tanks and increasing the size of the Army, but for individuals to go out and buy a rifle each. Hopefully you can see that although that might have made the country slightly harder to invade, it would have had very little effect in the end.

Global warming is similar, in that the idea that mass behavior changes are going to fix the problem is simply false. It sounds great to, perhaps, a committed 20-something who doesn't see the need for a car, central heating or washing, or to a politician who sees how it absolves him/her from any awkward decision making, or indeed the market economist who detests the idea of government action on principle.

You want to fix global warming? As I've said before.. built a fleet of breeder reactors (+- Wind and solar farms as economic), make more electricity than is ever used directly, convert everyone to electric heating/cooking, and use surplus electricity to make liquid fuels. Costs about £300-500 billion over 20 years. Side effect is that you no longer spend billions a year on fuel imports, the cost of energy does down and the timeline for running out of energy foes from decades to millennia. No one has to live in a yurt. Unless they really like living in a yurt, obviously.

You do it in one country, others can see how to follow suit. And you own the technology..

(Bear in mind of that £25 billion a year, a fair chunk would be standard investment by energy companies)

But that would take government action and commitment over a couple of decades, in the face of screaming opposition from both the fossil fuel lobby and elements of the green lobby. That only has a chance of the general public actually have some idea of what the reality of the situation is.

[Bloo Loo]

That is complete and easily verifiable ********. Why do you come out with such crap? How utterly arrogant of you to think that all the people who work on such things would be so stupid.

Ill pass on your comments to this man who actually goes out to sea to fix the things...Im sure he will be thrilled.

tell me, show me the specs of the local sea based turbines, then show me what they actually put in those towers, then ill pass your comments on for comment.

You see, like nuclear power, these things are made by suppliers offering the lowest tender price...maybe you trust them to fully spec up for 30 years....or maybe the reality of a lucrative spares market is not in their interest.

Keeping the tower up for 30 years and declaring it end of life, is very different from the effort and energy required to keep it there..it may have actually been 100% replaced every 10 years.

[Bloo Loo]

The people I seek to influence are those who are in charge of energy policy. Having a public who were actually aware of the dangers they were getting into and had a realistic idea of the fixes would be handy, indeed essential.

Imagine in the 1930s, seeing the danger posed by the rise of Hitler, and saying 'The way to combat this is not to have Big Government build new warships. planes and tanks and increasing the size of the Army, but for individuals to go out and buy a rifle each. Hopefully you can see that although that might have made the country slightly harder to invade, it would have had very little effect in the end.

Global warming is similar, in that the idea that mass behavior changes are going to fix the problem is simply false. It sounds great to, perhaps, a committed 20-something who doesn't see the need for a car, central heating or washing, or to a politician who sees how it absolves him/her from any awkward decision making, or indeed the market economist who detests the idea of government action on principle.

You want to fix global warming? As I've said before.. built a fleet of breeder reactors (+- Wind and solar farms as economic), make more electricity than is ever used directly, convert everyone to electric heating/cooking, and use surplus electricity to make liquid fuels. Costs about £300-500 billion over 20 years. Side effect is that you no longer spend billions a year on fuel imports, the cost of energy does down and the timeline for running out of energy foes from decades to millennia. No one has to live in a yurt. Unless they really like living in a yurt, obviously.

You do it in one country, others can see how to follow suit. And you own the technology..

(Bear in mind of that £25 billion a year, a fair chunk would be standard investment by energy companies)

But that would take government action and commitment over a couple of decades, in the face of screaming opposition from both the fossil fuel lobby and elements of the green lobby. That only has a chance of the general public actually have some idea of what the reality of the situation is.

I think this is right.

People are happy to get on a bandwagon they can see is fully backed....The issue with carbon, Government, Tax, and reality, is that everything they are doing is so half hearted...how can anyone take it all seriously if government appears to give no backing other than to tax everybody who wants to take a bath, where bankers make millions passing round the same emissions that are needed to be halted, and nimbys successully campaign against a pretty obvious solution.

[Guest eight]

You want to fix global warming? As I've said before.. built a fleet of breeder reactors (+- Wind and solar farms as economic), make more electricity than is ever used directly, convert everyone to electric heating/cooking, and use surplus electricity to make liquid fuels. Costs about £300-500 billion over 20 years. Side effect is that you no longer spend billions a year on fuel imports, the cost of energy does down and the timeline for running out of energy foes from decades to millennia. No one has to live in a yurt. Unless they really like living in a yurt, obviously.

But I'm in favour of that anyway, and you know my views on global warming. I don't think you need to be quite as patronising as you think you need to be!

[Kurt Barlow]

Worth posting, I think, just to put the recent slowdown in context:

Edit: Source

Why bother? We all know from the Scrapper Birds thread that Warmists get more than deniers . Thats why they have all this time to post complete tripe about AGW conspiracy's

[fluffy666]

I think this is right.

People are happy to get on a bandwagon they can see is fully backed....The issue with carbon, Government, Tax, and reality, is that everything they are doing is so half hearted...how can anyone take it all seriously if government appears to give no backing other than to tax everybody who wants to take a bath, where bankers make millions passing round the same emissions that are needed to be halted, and nimbys successully campaign against a pretty obvious solution.

Well.

The government is composed of PPE graduates (I think another poster said only 20-odd MPs had a science education), so have no way of working out what is real or not.

Meanwhile, lobby groups from the fossil fuel industry give them lots of big dinners and 'advice'.

There is also a green lobby - and the politicians are at least dimly aware that global warming is a real threat - hence the various green measures. Nothing to really threaten the status quo, though, no matter how much people go on about 'green taxes'.

[Guest eight]

Well.

The government is composed of PPE graduates (I think another poster said only 20-odd MPs had a science education), so have no way of working out what is real or not.

Meanwhile, lobby groups from the fossil fuel industry give them lots of big dinners and 'advice'.

Maybe if global warming was a bit more, well, apparent, you might get something done. But at the moment it's a matter of opinion, whereas that cash bung is very real.

[Bloo Loo]

Well.

The government is composed of PPE graduates (I think another poster said only 20-odd MPs had a science education), so have no way of working out what is real or not.

Meanwhile, lobby groups from the fossil fuel industry give them lots of big dinners and 'advice'.

There is also a green lobby - and the politicians are at least dimly aware that global warming is a real threat - hence the various green measures. Nothing to really threaten the status quo, though, no matter how much people go on about 'green taxes'.

I dont think its about who lobbies what...its about the impression given is half hearted...this is a leasdership issue, and god knows, we dont have a Winston churchill in the house.

When I hear that MY trip to NZ will cost me an extra £x, and that I can pay £2 to plant a tree to offset my contribution, then I see the concerted effort to move our manufacturing base 10,000 miles away,..I see a total commitment not to the carbon issue, but to money grabbing by a bankrupt government intent on making me poor for a reason they dont actually commit to.

[Bloo Loo]

Why bother? We all know from the Scrapper Birds thread that Warmists get more than deniers . Thats why they have all this time to post complete tripe about AGW conspiracy's

what was causing the cooling at the start of the graph?

[fluffy666]

Maybe if global warming was a bit more, well, apparent, you might get something done. But at the moment it's a matter of opinion, whereas that cash bung is very real.

What would it take to make it apparent? From a scientific perspective, global warming (as in 'A charney sensitivity of c. 2.7K/doubling, with measured effects on the planet in line with expectations') is proven, as far as you get proof in science.

If you want to prove it from personal experience.. well, you might as well be saying that 'Gravity obeying an inverse square law' is a matter of opinion because you can't see it in personal experience. Indeed, you might as well throw out most of the scientific cannon and live in a cave.. Waiting till food production collapses, the WAIS slides into the ocean of some other effect batters your door down is not exactly sensible, either..

[Guest eight]

What would it take to make it apparent? From a scientific perspective, global warming (as in 'A charney sensitivity of c. 2.7K/doubling, with measured effects on the planet in line with expectations') is proven, as far as you get proof in science.

If you want to prove it from personal experience.. well, you might as well be saying that 'Gravity obeying an inverse square law' is a matter of opinion because you can't see it in personal experience. Indeed, you might as well throw out most of the scientific cannon and live in a cave.. Waiting till food production collapses, the WAIS slides into the ocean of some other effect batters your door down is not exactly sensible, either..

It's not, but I fear your case will forever be (perhaps fatally) compromised by all those predictions of Serengeti on Thames that we all remember so well, and which have so spectacularly failed to come to pass.

[Bloo Loo]

What would it take to make it apparent? From a scientific perspective, global warming (as in 'A charney sensitivity of c. 2.7K/doubling, with measured effects on the planet in line with expectations') is proven, as far as you get proof in science.

If you want to prove it from personal experience.. well, you might as well be saying that 'Gravity obeying an inverse square law' is a matter of opinion because you can't see it in personal experience. Indeed, you might as well throw out most of the scientific cannon and live in a cave.. Waiting till food production collapses, the WAIS slides into the ocean of some other effect batters your door down is not exactly sensible, either..

all very well and good, but its not warming at the moment...its stuck...and that graph shows a cooling from some higher level at its start.

some scientists say it will get cooler. Some scientists say the graph is about to move again.

Where is the model that fits the results?

[the gardener]

What would it take to make it apparent? From a scientific perspective, global warming (as in 'A charney sensitivity of c. 2.7K/doubling, with measured effects on the planet in line with expectations') is proven, as far as you get proof in science.

If you want to prove it from personal experience.. well, you might as well be saying that 'Gravity obeying an inverse square law' is a matter of opinion because you can't see it in personal experience. Indeed, you might as well throw out most of the scientific cannon and live in a cave.. Waiting till food production collapses, the WAIS slides into the ocean of some other effect batters your door down is not exactly sensible, either..

Fine, but I have yet to see an actual, verifiable effect of global warming. It's just not apparent to me in my everyday life.

[fluffy666]

what was causing the cooling at the start of the graph?

1902 and 1912 both saw some very serious volcanic eruptions, which have a known if short term cooling effect (see also 1992). This is a possible explanation..

Plus there is internal variability from ENSO. It's generally dangerous to try and explain every wiggle, though..

[fluffy666]

It's not, but I fear your case will forever be (perhaps fatally) compromised by all those predictions of Serengeti on Thames that we all remember so well, and which have so spectacularly failed to come to pass.

What predictions?