UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
Insults when you run out of evidence, eh?
Will wrote: "Meanwhile in the real world... "Hark who's talking.
A picture of the head of the WWF, I presume. Oh no, it can't be, the head of the WWF would not be able to see out of the back window for all the cash.
Do you understand that article, Geoff? Because it's got me scratching my head.We're currently experiencing the hottest year on record which looks set to beat the record set by 2014 and blow a hole in the "climate change has stalled" myth. Because of this year's unusual weather we have seen lower than average wind speeds, which in turn has led to a reduction in electricity generation.
And this journalist with no scientific background somehow turns that into an argument for more fossil fuel burning which causes climate change in the first place. Huh?
So he acknowledges climate change is having an impact on our lives and his solution is to cause more climate change?
Help me out here. How can we extract anything vaguely sensible or logical out of this?
The problem is that because of the policies over the last 18 years we are now in the position where we have insufficient capacity to give us the power we need to keep the lights on.Whilst I do not completely agree with all his conclusions, can you see any alternatives? We are already bringing in diesel barges and diesel generation farms, nuclear power, if the stations are ever finished are over a decade away and the 30% of power that is provided by coal-fired power stations are being withdrawn.
Where does he acknowledge climate changes impacts our lives? He acknowledges the impact that climate change warmists have on our lives, you'll find if you re-read it. Happy to help you out, as requested.
We have spend incredible amounts of money supporting renewable generation methods that will not support us when needed (still days for wind, dark days and nights for solar) but spent next to nothing on solving the big problem, storage. Short of flooding all the valleys in Wales and Scotland to provide water storage that we can then turn on when required, we are still nowhere and will continue to be into the foreseeable future. Therefore, the only way to keep the lights on is fossil fuel.
One genuine problem is that we tend to get a lot of spells during winter when we have damn all wind over the entire country and damn all daylightSo to claim that wind and solar will be adequate for the UK is nonsense. A lot of the stuff being built now is little more than a scam.
If we want to keep the lights on in winter and don't want to burn gas or coal, we're going to have to have nuclear and pretty quickly
Jim wrote: "One genuine problem is that we tend to get a lot of spells during winter when we have damn all wind over the entire country and damn all daylightSo to claim that wind and solar will be adequate for the UK is nonsense. A lot of the stuff being built now is little more than a scam.
If we want to keep the lights on in winter and don't want to burn gas or coal, we're going to have to have nuclear and pretty quickly"
The problem is that the Chinese design we have signed up for is beset with problems. They can't get the ones they have already built to work properly. We should have gone for the South Korean ones, if we wanted them built quickly and working well. But unfortunately we would have had to pay for them ourselves.
Jim wrote: "If we want to keep the lights on in winter and don't want to burn gas or coal, we're going to have to have nuclear and pretty quickly ..."There are other options, Jim. 2 million people pedaling at modest power on 2 million stationary bikes can produce about the equivalent of wattage as the reactor on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. While this wouldn't be even close to enough to power the entire UK, it would be sufficient to power the homes and offices of every Tory MP with a bit left over. Of course, given that a single person can only produce about 1 cent worth of electricity an hour, you can see it wouldn't be economic to pay people for this work. But there must be at least 2 million layabouts and entitlement bums over there. Heck, it's a country of 60+ million people! Requiring everyone who has ever used the health care system to donate 2 hours a day of pedaling time every day, you only need 24 million to generate 200 megawatts! I'm surprised Cameron hasn't proposed this already!
I think he's waiting for Jed to suggest it first and see how well it goes with the electorate.
Geoff wrote: "I think he's waiting for Jed to suggest it first and see how well it goes with the electorate."Good point. If they offer the electricity to all MPs, might garner bipartisan support.
Well, we need to start with the second sentence of the article: "It was very warm for the time of year."This is the first "d'oh" moment out of several in the article. It is indeed very warm for the time of year because we are in what is almost certainly going to be the hottest year we have ever recorded. Hotter even than the previous record year, which was 2014. And the two previous record holders which were 2010 and 2005. And hotter still than ... but you get the picture, surely? The ten hottest years we have recorded since 1880 have all happened since 1998.
So it's a big thank you to the author for reminding us why climate change is a big threat to all our lives.
And what causes climate change? Almost certainly CO2 emissions caused by man-made burning of fossil fuels.
This gets us to the second "d'oh" moment. If climate change is the root cause of the problem, what should we do about it? Ahem - we stop doing the thing that is causing the climate change. We should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
But, I hear you cry, we won't be able to meet all our needs from sustainable energy sources. That is "d'oh" moment number three. We do have a serious problem here. It's what the reputable scientists have been saying all along. We need to take climate change seriously and change the way that we both produce energy and how we use it.
So what are the answers?
1. reduce our reliance on burning fossil fuels which is almost certainly creating these problems of climate change
2. invest more in sustainable power sources
3. reduce the amount of energy we consume
4. the Telegraph needs some new journalists.
Will wrote: "2. invest more in sustainable power sources..."Depends whether you include nuclear in the list of sustainables.
Because if we've only got wind and solar, it's going to get awfully dark and cold in winter
message 222:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 07, 2015 10:36AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "Well, we need to start with the second sentence of the article: "It was very warm for the time of year."As any fool climate change scientist will tell you (and by God there's a lot of them), that's just weather, not climate change.
And where do you get the hottest years from, BTW? Bearing in mind that even NASA can't find increased temperatures in a decade? You hiding it behind the sofa?
And what causes climate change? Almost certainly CO2 emissions caused by man-made burning of fossil fuels.
Hmm, there goes another busted flush. CO2 goes up yet temperatures have stalled. If CO2 was related to anthopogenic climate change then one would expect increased levels of CO2 to be followed by increased temperature. As you would say, Doh!
We watched the CO2 episode of The Newsroom last night.
Yes, Geoff, there are a lot of climate change scientists. That's because the evidence is overwhelming and it's hard to find a credible scientist who has not accepted climate change.Where do we get the hottest years from? Little things called thermometers. And satellites monitoring sea temperatures. You know, real evidence. Like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/sci...
One day's weather is indeed weather and not climate. That's why we collect temperatures over an entire year and across the entire globe. And it is that long run of data which shows that temperatures have not stalled. 2015 looks almost certain to break the record set by 2014. And by a long way.
As you say, "If CO2 was related to anthopogenic climate change then one would expect increased levels of CO2 to be followed by increased temperature."
And that is exactly what we are seeing. QED.
The dwindling climate change lobby keeps on changing its argument. First the argument was that climate change wasn't happening. Then it was that the climate was changing but it wasn't due to man. Or wholly due to man. Then it was this "climate changed has stalled" argument.
And one by one each of these arguments is disproved by the evidence. My prediction is that the "climate change has stalled" argument will dwindle away when 2015's figures are published. And the few remaining deniers will look for something else to quibble about, no matter how tenuous or distant from the facts.
The number of scientists in a field is only a way of estimating the amount of funding there is in a field.We saw it with nvCJD/BSE
Initially a very minor field, the sort of area where the occasional student might do a PhD but not one you'd work if you wanted to create a reputation.
Suddenly the world was turned upside down and everybody and his academic dog poured into the field, shroud waving and threatening that a third of the population would die if they didn't get more money for research.
As it is, 177 people died in 20 years from the disease
In 11 years, 1979 to 1990, 526 farmers committed suicide and the rate seems to have remained about the same
Scientists have mortgages to pay. Never confuse numbers in a field with the importance of the field, it's purely an indicator of how much money government will throw at it.
Except that climate change is not only recognised by scientists working specifically on climate change. It is also evident in a wide range of other fields, including agriculture.When 99.9% of scientists across several different disciplines are all saying the same thing it's usually an indication that we ought to take it seriously.
Actually in agriculture it isn't because the difference between years is greater than the predicted changes for the next ten to fifteen.There is great excitement amongst scientists working in research, but by an large a lot of that is government funded so they're just sucking from the same teat
I was under the impression that global warming was now generally accepted as being reality. The problems of accurately measuring atmospheric, and surface, temperature in such a chaotic system as the Earth's atmosphere (with its 200 mph winds etc) meant that trends would have to be recorded over a very long term. But the system of probes sunk into the permafrost and the Argo project (nearly 4000 floating sensors in the oceans measuring temperature over a range of depths up to 2000m) have provided more reliable evidence of the Earth warming.Determing how much of that warming is down to the activities of mankind is another problem. Whether or not burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, I can't help feel that in a couple of hundred years our descendants will dismiss us as being utterly stupid, as given a valuable resource of organic chemicals that took millions of years to develop, that can be used to produce thousands of useful products (including medicines), all we did was burn most of it.
Will wrote: "Except that climate change is not only recognised by scientists working specifically on climate change. It is also evident in a wide range of other fields, including agriculture.When 99.9% of sci..."
The reason for that is that if scientists allude to climate change in their research plans they get given money. Nose in the trough.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/w...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/0...
Heard something interesting this evening. Apparently, Russian scientists are now not allowed to publish anything without it first being vetted by the government.I'm told that's been the case in Canada for several years now.
I need to research this.
In a lot of places it's a bit more subtle, publish the 'wrong' results and you'll struggle to get funding. And funding is three year contracts just to keep you on your toes
The consensus round my dinner table was that Russia should be applauded for publicly admitting that scientists 'now' have to have their findings vetted. I almost threw my napkin in a very ineffectual way.
I may have to run for office.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "The consensus round my dinner table was that Russia should be applauded for publicly admitting that scientists 'now' have to have their findings vetted. I almost threw my napkin in a very ineffec..."
I suppose that looked at in a geological context, 'now' is an appropriate term.
Somehow I was reminded of Voltaire's comment.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find who you are not allowed to criticize."
Oh. Voltaire, was it? I used that quote earlier this evening when we were looking at the ISR site but didn't attribute it properly.ISR=International Schools Review.
I only discovered it as part of the collateral damage inflicted by a blog post :-)
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Heard something interesting this evening. Apparently, Russian scientists are now not allowed to publish anything without it first being vetted by the government.I'm told that's been the case in C..."
I believe the new government in Canada has announced it will end this policy.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The reason for that is that if scientists allude to climate change in their research plans they get given money. Nose in the trough. You don't really believe that nonsense, do you?
Come on, you're an intelligent man. You don't think that there is some mysterious organisation paying scientists to give bad news about the climate if it wasn't justified by the evidence. Surely?
Even the most ardent conspiracy theorist nutter can't really believe that just about every single scientist has been influenced to say something that they don't believe in? That would need a conspiracy theory so massive that just about everyone would be in on it.
You are kidding, right?
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that human nature will win out. There is so much money sloshing around in support of climate change research that, if the changing of the terms of reference so that it implies that it involves climate change in some subtle way means a significant increase in funding, then that's what will happen.The same is true of the results. If the research contradicts the status quo, the funding starts drying up.
It's not tyranny from above, Will, it's tyranny from below. It's the little systemic changes that make the difference as everyone makes small changes to increase the access to funds.
You've pretty much just described a conspiracy, Geoff.Is evolution a load of nonsense as well? Just lies propogated by scientists eager for a payday?
Michael Cargill wrote: "You've pretty much just described a conspiracy, Geoff.Is evolution a load of nonsense as well? Just lies propogated by scientists eager for a payday?"
No, as evolution is proven. Except in some US states.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "No, as evolution is proven. Except in some US states. ..."
Which theory?
Lamarckism is making a come back and there are interesting developments in that sort of line.
I think you're best saying 'The concept of Evolution' is widely accepted
To be frank, any pastoral people has known this since 3000BC, it's just the town dwellers who've lot touch with reality who needed a theory
So Geoff, you've carried out your own research on evolution have you?Or are you just relying on what all those scientists are telling you...?
message 244:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 09, 2015 03:56AM)
(new)
Having studied Mendel during my degree course, I suppose I have reviewed his work.Make of this what you wish, but when you perceive something as being wrong I spend more time checking the science behind it. Frankly, climate science has enormous problems with it, as I have presented earlier in this thread, so will therefore not bore you with repeating it.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Having studied Mendel during my degree course, I suppose I have reviewed his work...."
We did him at A level, where it's pointed out he fiddled the figures to get the right answers :-)
Jim wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Having studied Mendel during my degree course, I suppose I have reviewed his work...."
We did him at A level, where it's pointed out he fiddle..."
And you wonder why I distrust scientists and religion.
These links are getting more tenuous and desperate, Geoff. Amateurs trying to pick holes in credible research done by professionals. And failing.Here's a prediction for you. The early evidence is that 2015 is going to be the hottest year on record and by some margin. This blows a hole in the silly "climate change has stalled" stuff that was doing the rounds for the past couple of years.
As we haven't finished 2015, most of the large organisations (eg NASA and the Met Office) are keeping quiet about this being the hottest year ever. NOAA is the first to put their head above the parapet.
This will all change in 2016 when the official figures are published. If the trends continue, there will be very clear evidence of 2015 being hotter by far than any other year recorded. Then we will find the usual (but dwindling) group of amateur sceptics trying to find any discrepancy in the data, no matter how small or inconsequential.
My guess is that they will argue that this is an El Nino year. Or they will try to construct graphs with a short timeframe (like the blog you linked to). Anything to keep the argument alive when the scientific community is in no doubt whatsoever.
Then the anti-climate change lobby (what's left of it) will quietly drop the "climate change has stalled" argument, just as they dropped all their previous discredited arguments.
I predict that the argument will shift in 2016 from "climate change has stalled" to something else. If we are in luck, the argument will shift to "what are we going to do about it?". If we are out of luck, the amateur sceptics will try to dream up something else to nitpick about.
My scepticism comes from scientific studies which are not impartial to the results. More and more it's research to prove a preconceived idea and discounting anything which disproves it. It should be totally unbiased analysis. Not skewed figures to prove a personal point of view. That's where I see the problem. Any crazy theory can be 'proved' that way.
Indeed. That's why the case for man-made climate change has become overwhelming. Study after study has come to the same conclusion - that the earth's climate is getting hotter and that man is partially to blame.One or two of these studies could be challenged on the grounds that they may be impartial. But we have take notice when every credible study says that same thing. It would take a conspiracy theory of ridiculous proportions for all of these organisations to be lying to us or skewing the evidence.
The biased "studies" (I use the term loosely) have all come from what is left of the anti-climate change movement, trying desperately to pick a hole, any hole, in the data.
What is most telling for me is that the oil industry spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to disprove climate change, and they couldn't. They gave up.
To get there Will, you need to begin the journey. No danger of you doing that, eh? Does Pompousland even have a station?