OT:Windmills

[Man at B&Q]

So no different to all the other Greenwash we're expected to swallow.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

obal

You really need to learn to read. It may be denying *anthropogenic* GW, but that's not what you said.

In other words you have no idea.

That well know font of all accurate knowledge? Did you write that article yourself?

Ah, sorry, you're agreeing, water vapour *is* an important greenhouse contributor.

It's only your comparison. There's just as much pseudio science on the part of those espousing AGW.

Personally, I remain to be convinced either way. It would be a lot better if all the argument were channelled into convincing people to conserve energy and resources and cut pollution, etc., etc., as worthwhile ends in themselves. Everything else will follow naturally.

MBQ

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well I've seen studies that used hopelessly optimistic costs for wind power, talked about peak as if it were mean, and totally ignored backup and transmission costs.

And of course used a 30 year old reactor as the basis for what 'nuclear power costs'

My own figures suggest 2-3 times as costly for JUST the windmills, and no allowance for grid boosting or backup, or maintenance.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Exactly, if we have to have 90% nuclear, why not go 100% and be shot of these unreliable environmentally disastrous expensive dinosaurs

[The Natural Philosopher]

which already means its almost meaningless..

only the relative costs of

Its not the grid, its the storage..and the standby issues.

Indeed. And burn most of our rubbsih and use whatever organic waste we have. No reason not to.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Oh, indeed it is, but it has one very interesting feature. It condenses in the atmosphere and falls as rain. You may even have experienced this phenomenon. That means its pretty irrelevant how much we put up there, because it cant exceed a certain amount.

Anyone brings it up, is either being completely disingenuous, or is a fool whose opinion is not worth a used tissue.

However,

Its a lot more dangerous, and methane is even worse..That is really scary.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Fort one good reason. You would need to draw all your electricity off the grid, which takes all that to make it go.

A piddly windmill in your back garden MIGHT get you 50W on a good day.

Not the couple of Kw you actually probably use on average

I see, in danger of losing the argument, you back out, claim that 'the physics doesn't apply' give no substantiation and claim better things to do.

Close the door behind you then. I don't care what YOU think, I care that idiots like you are bending political ears and wasting my money on fantasies.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or even boild a kettle without using a 4ft diameter magnifying glass focussed on a bit of blackened copper pipe, and praying for a 'bright interval' ;-)

[nightjar]

Nevertheless, if it produces anything like the percentage of greenhouse effect suggested in the article, or in the Wikipedia article Roger quoted, then it cannot be ignored when working out what effect, if any, reducing our carbon footprint will have.

Colin Bignell

[Roger Chapman]

nightjar >>> snip

How about this then?

" During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized."

It would have been easy enough to find had you wanted to.

has a long list of sources.

Which is one of the reasons why the article is a load of bull. The

95.000% they claim as the effect of water vapour is grossly exaggerated as well as impossibly precise. And that is by no means the only deception in the article.

If you want a more balanced view of water vapour and the greenhouse effect try:

> I rather like my comparison between those who espouse creationism and

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. What is not so certain is the extent to which mankind has contributed to it.

What we do in the UK is completely pointless unless the rest of the world follows suit.

The article you cite does indeed claim that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not man-made. I suspect that is just more deception. CO2 concentration has been relatively stable for thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution so it would be an amazing coincidence if only 15% of the rise from 288000 ppm (itself seemingly a suspiciously high base figure) to 368400 was attributable to human activity.

Is the definition of likely above from the IPCC report or your interpretation of the word?

In the final analysis it matters not a jot whether the increase in CO2 is man-made or not. What really matters is how big a part CO2 plays in the greenhouse effect. There are some very unpleasant prospects ahead for the human race if the world heats up sufficiently to liberate the vast reserves of undersea methane.

There is however a simple solution if the world enters a cooling phase (which is already overdue). Just burn more coal. :-)

[dennis]

The evidence for climate change is good, the evidence for sustained global warming is not overwhelming at all. In fact all the current evidence is that we are in an ice age and that the average temperatures re significantly higher than current temperatures.

Well we already know that it has little effect compared to everything else.

The cooling phase is not overdue, if anything the warming phase is late, but on the timescales of the real climate change its not significantly late.

There is still time for some cooling following the passing of the solar grand maxima (last year IIRC).

[Roger Chapman]

Average temperatures of what? Over what period?

Is that the royal we? And I would like to know how on earth the length of a piece of string (one example out of millions in "everything else") has more effect that CO2.

So are you saying that contrary to mainstream opinion we are not in an Interglacial?

Is that Milankovitch I hear spinning in his grave.

[dennis]

Precisely, here you are stating global warming is a fact when it is in fact colder now than it has been for a large part of history. You choose a span of a few decades and declare global warming when global averages vary more than that normally.

Well you posted the figures that stated that.

Define when one starts and ends. We are on the rising slope at the start of an interglacial aren't we?

[news09paul]

It's a sort of multi-player prisoner's dilemma, innit?

#Paul

[nightjar]

Despite what Americans believe, the USA is not the world. The global picture is a combination of many effects - Europe is warming faster than the average, parts of the Antarctic ice sheet are melting, but, overall, it is growing, because other parts are staying cold.

...

That is not the point.

've seen that and it is interesting, although I don't see anything in it about the effect of the increase in water vapour content as the temperature of the atmossphere rises, or the evaporative cooling effect of oceans.

...

Very few deny that.

Which is the point I was making.

....

Which is also a point Iwas making. If we sent experts to China to extinguish their undergroung coal fires, it would cut CO2 emissions by more than taking all fossil fuel transport off the roads of Britain. However, there would be no politcal milage in doing so.

There are those who argue that much of the increase is due to the warming itself, not the other way around.

The words they use are quite clearly defined in the report. Likely means agreement is in the range 66% - 90%. More likely than not means agreement is in the range 50% - 66%.

That won't help plants adapt. They can cope with increases of temperatures far better than with decreases, so cold periods have always brought famine. If the sun spot theories are right, we have probably just started the cooling cycle.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Oh dear oh bloody dear.

Actually it tends to COOL teh place. AS it acts as a sun screen. Its called 'clouds'.

Typical example of pseudo science.

[Roger Chapman]

nightjar >> That is not denying global warming. It is disputing the reasons for it.

I am with you on the Merkins but the quote was to suggest that your cited site was denying global warming.

As to ice accumulation in the Antarctic ISTM that that is due to increased precipitation which might be expected is the continent is warming up in places.

snip

"Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation."

Seems to address your first point.

Which point was totally spoilt by your choice of reference. 95.000% of the greenhouse effect down to water vapour is in the realms of cloud-cuckoo land.

If the RealClimate figures for the CO2 are correct (9 - 16% of the greenhouse effect down to CO2) and the greenhouse effect is worth 33 degrees C then the post industrial warming (Met Office figures) sits in the middle of that range.

The unfortunate effect of positive feedback (CO2 exhaled as oceans warm) but without the forcing effect of man-made CO2 there is no reason to suppose that CO2 levels would not have stayed within the long term range of 260000 - 280000 ppm.

Thanks for the clarification.

Did you miss the :-)? Anything we do to upset the balance of nature is likely to be detrimental but so too are certain natural events that could be catastrophic as far as we are concerned. A mini ice age brought on by a super volcano going bang (Yellowstone is overdue on past behaviour) is going to kill millions and make life very hard for the remainder.

Are you sure about the effect of sunspots? I thought an absence of sunspots was linked to lower solar radiation, not the reverse.

[Roger Chapman]

I doesn't help your reputation in the slightest by setting up a smokescreen whenever one of you more meaningless comments is queried. It is perfectly clear to at least some of us that the period under discussion is from the start of the industrial revolution. That large part of history you have brought up is of a world that would not support human life.

Did I?

So just answer the question above. Should be really easy if I have already posted the figures.

Not as far as I am aware.

Must have been Hale, not Milankovitch, or perhaps it was Maunder. :-)

[nightjar]

The action of water vapour is complex. As you say, clouds increase the planetary albedo, which tends to reduce temperature. Water evaporating from the oceans also creates evaporative cooling. However, water vapour does not only condense into clouds and, as a gas in the atmosphere, it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect, which is quite good, as otherwise most of the world would be at sub-zero temperatures. One of the problems with water vapour though, is that, as the temperature rises, the amount of water vapour it can hold increases, which increases the greenhouse effect, creating positive feedback. Higher temperatures also mean that clouds are less likely to form, although they do increase the evaporative cooling.

Colin Bignell

[nightjar]

I'm not sure how increased precipitation would induce larger areas of sea to freeze, although it could thicken existing ice. The British Antarctic Survey puts the growth down to the effects of the hole in the ozone layer, which increases winds locally, keeping much of the continent cooler.

....

As the article you linked to points out, 98% is a widely given figure, even if the author disputes it.

...

The sun has been increasing in activity over the same timescale.

....

On a geological scale, overdue could mean sometime in the next few thousand years.

That would be why I suggested that we could already have started a cooling cycle. Late sunspot cycles have, historically, been linked to long periods of global cooling, although nobody can explain what the link might be. Then again, 50 years ago, nobody was suggesting a link between human produced CO2 and global warming, despite the 1950s holding some of the records for temperatures until this century.

Colin Bignell