But, you need to read what I wrote just as carefully as I need to read what you wrote, which was potentially ambiguous, but I'm not interested in arguing that. I never said that we should build more than a handful of sites, and even listed the most likely ones to build. If you assumed, as you seem to have done, I was suggesting building anything further, then that was your assumption based on what you wanted to believe I said, not what I actually said.
"Try reading for comprehension." as you say below.
The point is that noone mentioned either rape or bio-fuels in this dialogue until you did, so they have no relevance as a refutation of my previous arguments.
Yes, I have said that I think that we have to do as much as possible with renewables, and I stand by it, but that's not what you are claiming above.
It's blue-sky, but not is "hand-waving blue-sky b/s".
Given The Other Mike's assurances that batteries are not needed to smooth out the 'End of Eastenders" syndrome, I'm happy to forego that idea. It would be perfectly feasible here, incidentally, but would be more difficult in my last home, which was urban.
As far as batteries with trains goes, it was an attempt to make one of Mackay's own suggestions more realistic than currently it would be. Currently, we don't power a significant proportion of private transport off the grid, and to decide to do so would place huge strains upon it. However, we already power train systems off the grid, so if we want to implement Mackay's idea of using batteries to store excess power to be used in transport, we should think about how to do it with trains, not cars. It's certainly blue-sky, but no more or less hand-waving b/s than Mackay's own original idea.
Not completely, but it certainly helps. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that a resource, such as carbon-based fuels, that comes from many different places and for which we have significant indigenous supplies, is strategically more secure than a resource, such as fissile uranium, of which the outlets are by comparison limited, of which the resource's own trade body predicts that demand will outstrip supply in ten-ish years, and of which we have no indigenous supplies of our own.
I shouldn't need to 'expound' upon it - the logic is sufficiently simple that any rational person could be expected to see it without any further explanation than the above.
We haven't got such a stockpile unless we decide to recycle waste at additional expense, and new nuclear is already the most expensive baseload option. Even then, it will only give us 6.5GW for the 60 year life of the plant.
I've started from the quite legitimate assumption that you need to be specific in your criticisms, rather than spew out endless vague insinuations. So I will do a Jeremy Paxman on you ...
Terry Fields, who claims personal senior academic status, are you or are you not claiming that: * The whole of climate science is fraudulent? * Some of climate science is fraudulent? * None of climate science is fraudulent?
Note that when I say 'is' I mean now, post climategate.
Then WHICH claims have note been proved, is it * All of them? * Some of them, if so which? * None of them?
Again you are arguing from the particular to the general, which you are very fond of accusing other of doing, yet do it all the time yourself. You are conflating one piece of bad science with a whole scientific discipline, and that is itself unscientific, not to mention massively unjust, not to mention massively stupid.
Who is claiming to be able to predict earthquakes? Not scientists, they know they can't, unlike climatologists who claim they can, even when the evidence says they can't.
Again you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you so often accuse others of doing. No-one here is disputing that the models are not currently very useful, but that doesn't mean that the entire field of climate science can be dismissed as being the same.
We have a working physical understanding of how CO2 would cause an increase in average world temperature, so a strong correlation, such as that shown in the linked results between CO2 and temperature, makes it scientifically senseless to deny that causation is at work.
AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.
If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.
As explained here, this is nothing per se unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:
formatting link
However, when a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant a known mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been:
"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis):
The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain ? ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]
However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question ?does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports?, and concludes that divergence ?is not hidden? and ?the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.?"
Put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.
As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data.
The BBC had the opportunity to ask for the evidence, but didn't. They merely did exactly what they were accused of doing - add a health warning because it was a RIGHT wing think tank.
FFS you believe their own review of their own impartiality?
Nothing new in that. We all know China and India are building coal fired power stations.
So come back when the solution is found - if ever. Meanwhile what's your energy strategy given that many of our coal fired power stations are being shut down.
You've rather missed the point. I was claiming that they couldn't.
Historically, I have not heard every pronouncement about climate computer modelling, so I can't be certain that you're wrong. However, I've only heard people talk about them with suitable caveats.
So I think it's up to you to provide a link, and really, you've had enough time to learn this ritual by now. Why should anyone still have to ask you for one?
According to the figures demand will not outstrip supply until about
2080 because supply will continue to increase. You have made up your mind that Nuclear is not an option and are determined not to consider any evidence to the contrary
So you think mining companies just sit on their hands until they wake up one morning and find they have run out? You are typical Guardian reading problem stater.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.