ghl;
Good question. I haven’t felt it necessary to build an external case for him myself, but your point is well taken. I’ll work on it.
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by tcflood
↧
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by tcflood
And here I was thinking I wouldn’t get to find out where on the denier-to-alarmist continuum reality would lie before I passed on the great beyond.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Edim
Agree.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by intrepid_wanders
While David Springer is very correct for California (and most of the green world), there is an odd “economies of scale” being used with UK renewables:
http://www.britishgas.co.uk/products-and-services/gas-and-electricity/our-energy-tariffs/tariff-rates.html
J Martin, it appears that only if you go from a high rate with “sustainable energy” from tier 1 to tier 2 you get a huge break to be just above “clear and simple”.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Peter Lang
tcflood,
I’d suggest it is you that is the denier if you don’t recognise the most authoritative bodies are projecting massive increase in coal consumption world wide and that it will remain perhaps THE major source of energy this century (certainly if the foolish ‘Progrewssive’ continue to block the only viable alternative).
Are you one of the foolish ‘Progressives’?
Are you a denier or the bleeding obvious/
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
Nonetheless – I tend to be better informed on science, technology, economics and poetry. Prices in free markets are set by supply and demand – and I refer to the Hayek quote earlier for the perils of intervening to obtain a good as you see it. As I say – in a democracy you are free to set taxes as you like. Provided you can convince he rest of us to vote for Resurrection Kev.
Having obliged just today with a few stanzas of the Jabberwock – I’d rather talk poetry. Happy to again oblige wee willie.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Jabberwock is a sublime triumph. I have attempted something of the sort myself – in the context of a long and quite contemporary bush ballad called The Nutters and Beggars Ball.
We flew out to Quildilichimes,
so we could get some monkey shines.
We flung out to Junubungulla’
feelin’ like a toothsome fella.
We fled out to Dueappledome,
then we turned and went on home.
We ran out to Jinilderberry,
Followin’ floots and chasin’ jelly,
Gatherin’ the tasty footsel pies,
An tyin’ up the jumble wine,
To get it all together for,
The Nutters and Beggars Ball.
… too long to repeat… but my favourite…
There was one or two I knew,
And even quite a few,
Of obvious splendidisity,
And dubious planetisity,
Shootin’ rings ’round turbo rockets with their laser leadin’ brights,
In a spinner with a whisper playin’ buzzball ’round the lights.
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part II: Climate models by Chief Hydrologist
It is so not true – you need models with hundreds to thousands of runs to generate PDF’s. No model has single deterministic solution – there are many solutions to any model within the range of feasible inputs. To understand this you need to understand the nature of the nonlinear Navier-Stokes partial differential equations. You need to have some appreciation of chaos theory to understand the models. Chaos theory was rediscovered by Edward Lorenz using the Navier-Stokes equations in a simple 1960′s convection model. This is a case where 5 plus 5 doesn’t equal 10.
A hand is five,
Another is five.
So what do you get,
Add five plus five?
A butterfly.
↧
Comment on Assessing climate model software quality by www.doctorslounge.com
Furthermore, you could still take into consideration that this book is not totally perfect.
Some readers have stated in The Tao of Badass review a few things where the book
has to enhance. First would be, not all the “moves” that this book
have are suitable for all ladies because there are people who
are timid and hesitant. The strategies mentioned in the book works best with women who are outgoing and prepared to meet a guy that can sweep them off their feet.
Bear in mind though, that no matter just how very good The Tao of Badass is,
it cannot do all the work for you, nor could it offer you
immediate results. Soon after reading through all of its content, you should put them
to the test. If you follow the methods appropriately, and
put a few time to practice it, then you could ensure that it would help your dating and sex life a whole lot.
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part II: Climate models by Chief Hydrologist
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
You’ve not quite got the idea HAP. There is no correspondence between ‘ensembles of opportunity’ and ‘perturbed model’ ensembles. One has a collection of results of different models that are chosen arbitrarily form an unknown range of outcomes – irreducible imprecision – and the other is theoretically more applicable but still struggling with models and methods.
Understanding the problems of models emerges from understanding the nonlinear nature of the underlying maths – chaos theory in other words.
↧
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by J Martin
On a different company’s website than my supplier ( I can find no tariff details on my suppliers website) ” Any kWh’s you used above that ceiling will be charged at ‘Discounted Energy’.”
http://www.atlantic.co.uk/OurPrices/
But when you click on the ‘view our tariff table’ button, it only gives you the standard rates and doesn’t say what the discount is.
There have been a lot of complaints to the energy watchdog and in the press about the lack of transparency in energy pricing. And I believe the watchdog has asked / ordered an improvement in the situation. Judging by the difficulty I have had in finding my energy tariffs on a web page it would seem they have some distance to go.
I am amazed I cannot see a table of tariffs anywhere on the UK energy websites I have looked at so far.
I think in a country as small as the UK there is no justification for so many competing utilities companies. Whilst overall my politics lean increasingly to the right as I get older, my view on energy is left wing and that the UK should re-nationalise the energy companies that interface with the public.
Allowing domestic customers to pay less above a certain usage may be unique to the UK and is certainly a most peculiar practise. I am surprised that it hasn’t been outlawed in this day and age, especially given the rhetoric coming from the 3 main political parties.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by J Martin
One thing I did discover in trying and failing to find my energy tariffs on my suppliers website was “We generate more renewable electricity than anyone else in the UK and Ireland.”
That makes me think that perhaps I should consider switching to a different supplier. Something I haven’t looked at doing in many years.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Time fer some poetry Willard oh yes, come ter dinner and we
shall pass the time right merrily with musick, jockes and poetry
and more …
Inviting a Friend to Supper.
Ben Jonson.
Tonight, grave sir, both my house, and I
Do equally desire your company;
Not that we think us worthy such a guest,
But that your worth shall dignify our feast
With those that come, whose grace may make that seem
Something, which else could hope for no esteem.
It is the fair acceptance, sir, creates
The entertainment perfect, not the crates,
Yet shall you have, to rectify your palate,
An olive, capers, or some better salad
Ushering the mutton; with a short legged-hen,
If we can get her, full of eggs, and then
Lemons, and wine for sauce:to these a cony
Is not to be dispaired of, for our money:
And though fowl now be scarce, yet there are clerks,
The sky not falling, think we may have larks.
I’ll tell you more and lie, so you will come:
…..
Nor shall our cups make any guilty men;
But, at our parting we will be as when
We innocently met. No simple word
That shall be uttered at our mirthful board,
Shall make us sad next morning or affright
The liberty that we’ll enjoy tonight.
Bts
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Beth Cooper
Peter Lang bingo!
1200km x 800km fer 5% ter 35% output.
A BC Haku modelling kim (
I rest me case.
Them intermittant wind farms
are a waste of space.
↧
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Peter Lang
J martin,
Are you aware that the renewable energy you are buying from you supplier is avoiding about half as much CO2 emissions as claimed by the utilities and government departments?
http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part II: Climate models by StuL
An ensemble of models is like a consensus of opinions, it doesn’t really mean anything.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Peter Lang
Beth,
Here is week of virtually no output (from 14 May 2010): http://windfarmperformance.info/documents/analysis/monthly/aemo_wind_201005_hhour.pdf
Sometimes all the wind turbines combined (over an area 1q200 km east-west by 800 km north-south) were drawing more power from the grid than they were generating. That is, they were generating negative power. That happened on 65 separate 5-minute intervals over that 6-day period.
↧
Comment on An energy model for the future, from the 12th century by Tonyb
J Martin
I use EDF and always buy the longest fixed deal I can, around 3 or 4 years. To date over that term it has never failed to save money as prices have escalated so sharply. Whether that will happen in the future is difficult to gauge but the govt expects prices to double over 2012 rates by 2018
Green power is invariably more expensive but will make you feel virtuous . If you don’t like what windmills and solar farms do to our landscape and which don’t work in the winter when most needed there is an obvious answer and that is to stop supporting them , but that is your call
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by GaryM
tempterrain,
Conservatives already hate the idea of a carbon tax, because it is not justified by the “science.” It is called a progressive (not a socialist) tax because its primary purpose is to let the government control the energy economy.
But it is good to see that you don’t buy into the nonsense about a “revenue neutral” tax. A carbon tax would hit the poor the hardest. Just another reason it’s a really stupid idea.
↧
Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang
The GHG emissions tax club will not get implemented and the few that try will fail. read the links in my comment above and you will understand.
Emissions pricing is the wrong approach to cutting global GHG emisisons. Read this and you may understand the economically rational alternative approach: http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/01/why-conservatives-should-love-a-carbon-tax/#comment-339549
↧
Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by tempterrain
So you have to resort to comments like read: http://someobscure and irrelevantlink.org and then “you might understand” ?
They aren’t the most convincing of arguments, if I may say so.
Debate should be about intelligent reasonable argument with maybe some wit and invective rhetoric added just occasionally.
You really need to lift your game. Peter
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
