@JimJ
It is not the ‘bright people on this blog’ who keep promoting this baloney.
It is the wishful thinkers, academics and/or stupid ones.. Bright people with real world experience work out that its all baloney in only a few minutes.
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Latimer Alder
↧
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Jim Reedy
You have it wrong James.. Fires are ok.. the UN says so.. .> 50% of renewable energy used in the world today is biomass. And the UN is fine with that. Used for cooking, warmth etc..
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by JimJ
My question was somewhat rhetorical and was pointed directly at those who know renewables won’t work and promote it anyway. I believe this issue is at the very heart of the debate and deserves its own posting on this blog. Let’s have at it!
Jim
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Girma
JCH
If that is the case, why did they introduce a hockey stick to instrumental global temperature record: no oscillation in global mean temperature before the 1970s, but a man made global warming after.
Arm of hockey stick before 1970s.
Blade of hockey stick after 1970s.
Global mean temperature is cyclic. The warming after the 1970s is just the warming phase of the cycle.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by kim
Oh, they’ll work just fine, just like they did when life was nasty, shortish and brute. And this is the dream, make no mistake.
==================
↧
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by JimJ
Of course you’d need elephants in the industrial areas to do the heavy lifting. Hampsters would be used only in rural areas.
Jim
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by tempterrain
Max,
You obviously are of the school of thought that everything in this world is driven by money. So, maybe you could advise climate scientists on how to maximise their research grants?
Aren’t they are making a big mistake? Instead of giving the impression of the ‘science is settled’, and advising the world to reduce their CO2 emissions, they should be taking a leaf out of Judith’s book and playing up the level of uncertainty. Of course, they’d also say this would be resolved in they only had a bit more money.
Wouldn’t you agree?
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Chad Wozniak
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – NO models are EVER useful or appropriate in predicting climate change. On the contrary, they are only a source of error and misconceptions, even when not afflicted by the sort of intentional and systematic deception. dishonesty and flat-out mendacity that is the essence and substance of the existing AGW models.
To begin with, it is obvious that any and every model ever seen, even if honestly attempted, inevitably fails to consider any number of relevant variables or to accurately measure the true potential for variability of the variables that have been identified. It is simply impossible to exhaustively identify, quantify and assess the role of every possible determinant of climate change.
It is also mathematically impossible to produce meaningful results with the degrees of uncertainty attendant upon every variable. (I challenge anyone to try to produce meaningful figures from hundreds of partial derivtaives with huge sigmas attached toi themm – that is, if you could even come up with all the pertinent partial derivatives. Even the most powerful computer couldn’t do that because it could never be adequately programmed to do it.) Not only this, but for the models being used to justify CAGW, it is even more obvious that the “data” they are based on is false and the computational routines in them have been engineered to produce a result that supports the foregone political conclusion these so-called “researchers” are seeking.
The historical record is sufficient to predict in macro terns the changes in the Earth’s climate over time. The predictions obtained this way are necessarily uncertain as to the intensity or duration of climate cycles, but they are a hell of a lot closer to reality than the political garbage being spewed by the AGW tyrannists.
Otherwise, I stand by what I’ve previously said concerning simple observation and simple arithmetic: these prove irrefutably that human activity is an infinitesimal fraction of CO2 activity on Earth, and CO2 is an infinitesimal fraction of the determinants of climate change – in fact, human activity s an infinitesimal fraction of even the VARIABILITY of CO2 activity, and CO2 is an infinitesmal fraction of even the VARIABILITY of other climate-change determinants, let alone thair absolute values. AGW simply does not compute.
Climate change models are nothing but a distraction from what we should be doing concerning forecasting climate change, Frankly, we need to stop attempting them. Far from being a necessary aspect of inquiry into climate change, they are only destructive of both legitinate effort and scientific integrity. Climate change models BEGONE!!
Many thanks to Oliver Manuel, David Springer, Wagathon and other voices of sanity on this blog, for putting your fingers so cogently on all the fallacies – and the threats to liberty – associated with AGW.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by tempterrain
Judith,
If you are too “acutely busy” to run this blog properly then maybe it’s time to wind it all up and concentrate on your day job?
There seems to be precious little, if any coming together of the two sides. Does anyone on this blog feel any closer to the other side than previously? Has anyone actually stepped on to the supposed bridge, never mind crossed it?
↧
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Vaughan Pratt
@Arfur Bryant: Firstly, my question was not an ‘act’, it was just a question.
Apparently Andrew understands you better than you understand yourself. A couple of years ago I came to the same conclusion: I got thoroughly fed up with your act, which made all attempts at communication pointless and which hasn’t changed one bit in the intervening two years. I don’t mind David Springer being snarky to me, at least he doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Michael
“properly” is in the eye of the beholder.
As a not-IPCC dumping ground and rallying point for not-IPCC ditto-heads, it’s working perfectly.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Vaughan Pratt
@steven: unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature
Certainly if temperature wasn’t available I’d look for proxies for it, while acknowledging that a proxy is rarely as good as the real thing.
Are you talking about a situation where the temperature itself is not available? If not then I don’t understand the point of substituting a proxy, unless it’s to exploit a difference between the proxy and the real thing, in which case there’s your reason right there.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by WebHubTelescope
“If you can’t show me those, then your claim to be ‘pretty much spot on’ is wildly exaggerated.”
Little Latie,
I am using some sophisticated math to do the projections, but the basis for the calculations remains the total reserves estimated from the size of the individual discoveries. For the UK, several months ago I did a quick overlay of more recent production data against my original projection:
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5060/ukoilupdate.gif
Obviously, the production output fluctuates seasonally, as maintenance is usually performed in the summer, when it is easiest to work the platforms. This figure shows the seasonal changes:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/5891071298_29fe846c24.jpg
But the output should be rising this late in the season, not dropping.
I am waiting for you to scoff at this, as it will just point out how devoid of substance that contrarians like you turn out to be.
You seem to forget that in the late 1990′s, the combined output for the UK and Norway was around 6 million barrels a day. We are talking production declines between 5 to 10% a year over the last decade.
↧
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Peter Lang
Tempterrain,
Why do you bother making a comment at all if the only thing you have to say is sneering jibes?
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Steve Milesworthy
Jim,
A few years back I was involved at a technical level in a project to construct a new coupled model (atmosphere, ocean, sea ice). In discussions of the scientific and technical requirements with the scientists over around 18 months (including casual chats over coffee etc.) there was *not one* single mention of a) CO2, b) global warming c) climate change d) greenhouse gases e) climate sensitivity.
Your fixation on the CO2 component as the key actor would therefore appear to be misplaced.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Peter Lang
Steve Milseworthy,
@August 17, 2012 at 4:01 am
You clearly have not the slightest idea what you are talking about when it cones to energy matters, do you?
But it doesn’t stop you BS-ing about your opinions, does it?
If you are prepared to present uninformed opinions as facts on this matter, why would anyone believe you on anything else you talk about?
Taking this further, it seems you are typical of many CAGW zealots (and anti-nuclear, pro renewable, anti rational-economic zealots). So why should people trust anything such people advocate?
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Steve Milesworthy
Indeed. Steve was the one who pointed out it came from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I do not know whether the GWPF have a view on who should provide the financial cover for the nuclear liabilities, do you.
↧
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by tempterrain
Louise,
I think Latimer is probably of the opinion that, as the UK is a relatively small country, the level of their CO2 emissions doesn’t make much difference to the overall picture. So why can’t they be on the high side?
Its the sort of mis-logic all polluters, of whatever kind, can employ. They can all say that they are individually too small to make much difference.
And if they aren’t, like the USA and China, they can divide themselves into States and Provinces, and then say that each one of them is too small to make any difference.
And that’s probably true! So that’s that problem solved then.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Beth Cooper
Re Latimer 17/08 8.12am:
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
This study in The Netherlands criticizes the energy models that sold wind power to the Netherlands’ Government because the mopdels neglect the the models neglect factors that increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.(pp1-13) One such factor is ramping up conventional plants connected to stand in when the wind isn’t blowing, which is often, and ramping ramping down when it isn’t. Both processes increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
The Dutch study also analyses the efficiency factor in back up generation Coal and nuclear are slow to ramp up and down as are Steam Enhanced Gas Turbines, (CCGT) which are twice as energy efficient as Open Cycle Gas Turbines, (OCGT) However, because OCGT are well suited to rapid ramping, the less energy efficient technology becomes the preferred option of back up.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Steve Milesworthy
Peter Lang, you are very sensitive to criticism, but are rather vicious in giving out criticism and then playing the innocent when you get a reaction. So lets start again:
What should we do about the tonnes of deadly dangerous slag at Windscale? Is it acceptable that despite billions of investment we still have that problem? Could a less-well off country adequately deal with a situation? How many times is the Windscale experience repeated in the US and particularly in Russia, the former Soviet bloc countries and China?
Should we force people to put up with living near a reactor that has popped its top because their fears of contamination are irrational?
If the risks of problems are backed by the tax payer, are the incentives to prevent problems going to be strong enough or will the profit motive outweigh it, as indicated by all the issues identified at Fukushima?
Can that Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor truly be said to be decommissioned when the nuclear waste is still awaiting the US Federal government to come up with a scheme for disposing it?
Can discussion of any of the rational points above be conducted without calling those who raise the issue “catastrophist” in order to avoid the issue?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
