Ping TNP re gridwatch

mind is a denier (isn't that a grade of stocking stitch?).

Reply to
dennis
Loading thread data ...

Since when can a simple question be a straw man?

You missed out the bit about 'answer yes or no' leaving me the opportunity to answer clearly that I never beat my wife. That of course had nothing at all to do with AGW just like your response to my question.

pot-kettle-black

The fact remains that you made a statement that you cannot or will not substantiate. What could be simpler than saying what you based your observation on?

Reply to
Roger Chapman

Well you could answer the question. Why you expect me to know who your deniers are is beyond me.

Has he?, where?

Reply to
dennis

No, on the basis that it is inherently unlikely that a difference that could not be measured accurately would be a reasonable substitute for the effect of the very real increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

summary makes no reference to half a per cent increase.

Not really. The change is evident from further back than the start of mass flying and you can't really overlook the fact that the rise in CO2 emissions is an important factor. Ignoring that is taking cherry picking to extremes.

The positive feedback that Hansen picked up on concerned the melting of the icecaps and you can't get away from the fact that the warmer it gets and/or the dirtier the ice becomes the faster it will melt.

It has at its core a bloody great hole.

In your dreams. You are sounding more and more like a determined denier every minute.

Goodnight (and sweet dreams).

Reply to
Roger Chapman

Well, here for starters:

Look what is it with you lot? You all ladies' hosiery fanciers?

Reply to
Tim Streater

Are you saying you don't know what the term "starting conditions" means?

Reply to
Tim Streater

5th - 8th December, 9 - 10GW predicted surplus including wind and hydro. 55GW predicted demand peak over the same period with much colder weather coming next week according to the met office.
Reply to
The Other Mike

HOW prolonged?.. I think we only have about 65GW of capacity in total excluding renewable rubbish

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Hypocrite.

Reply to
Huge

Yes you are if you believe anything Dominic Lawson writes without first checking it against reputable sources.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

I know what I mean if I use the term starting conditions but that doesn't seem to fit with the way Dennis is using it. Couple that with his refusal to name the factors he thinks should or should not be considered in a climate model and his use could be something totally bizarre.

Message would not post 8.40am. (Server timed out according to Thunderbird). Can't read anything else either so I am off to do something else for a while.

10.14 another attempt to post.
Reply to
Roger Chapman

YMYA

Reply to
Huge

It's just over 80GW including the renewables and all the interconnectors.

28.5GW CCGT 27.5 GW Coal 3.6 GW Oil 9 GW Nuclear 3.7 GW Wind 2.8 GW Pumped 1 GW Hydro 1.2 GW OCGT

2 GW France

0.5 GW Ireland 1 GW Netherlands

Source BM reports

Reply to
The Other Mike

Both are pretty bad journalist paraphrasing of what were in their original papers reasonable observations and descriptions of mechanisms.

It is pretty clear that the solar cycle sunspot variation has an influence on climate and that it is larger than you would expect from the fairly tiny 0.2% variation in its luminosity that occurs. Another variant of the same theory says that UV components vary more and are responsible for harsh northern winters (I will hold fire on that because I don't think they have enough data to be convincing yet).

formatting link
is also the well known effect that an active sun with a stronger solar wind and the odd CME in our direction in effect fluffs up the Earth's outer atmosphere. The main effect of this is increased drag on low orbit satellites (and Skylabs premature demise) but it would be surprising if it didn't alter the thermal radiation budget slightly.

Indeed which is why you have to be careful to read the original research and not some baulderised copy of it on a right wing blog.

And that could be the case if that is indeed the mechanism.

I am quite interested in the cosmic rays or active sun link to the climate. The deltaO18 and deltaC14 measurements were likely done on kit that I once developed the software for. I would not at all discount the possibility that there is real forcing of cloud formation going on.

Wilson's cloud chamber was originally done to study weather - it just turned out to be a good way to detect charged particles as well.

*something* in it. But you are apparently trying to find anything at all to avoid accepting that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are now playing an important part in the future of the Earth's Climate.

The problem I have with Svensmark is that the residuals of the HADCRUT dataset do not correlate at all well with sunspot number. Notably the previous big peak in global temperature was around 1935-1944 whereas the most active sun in the most recent past was around 1956-1961 where the residuals are tiny. There may still be something in it, but it isn't anything like the full explanation or you would be able to see the relationship as a correlation in modern data.

In fact it is surprisingly difficult to find the 11 year periodicity signal in the global average temperature records at all. I estimate it to be around 0.07K peak to peak using HADCRUT. I suspect it does show up better in the northern hemisphere dataset but haven't tried that yet.

Regards, Martin Brown

Reply to
Martin Brown

I think the term "initial conditions" is more used. See my other post on that topic.

Do we know, does anyone know, what factors should be considered?

Reply to
Tim Streater

The scientific community are pretty sure of their ground. They may not be making a good job of communicating it to the public though.

Thermal inertia. CO2 changes roughly speaking the second derivative of temperature by decreasing slightly the net rate of heat loss. The planet therefore warms up until it regains radiative equilibrium.

I suspect there are many other factors at play in that the Earth's orbital elements were different to today 14-20My ago. A reasonably good description of how small changes can get amplified in the global setting in relation to Milankovitch Cycles is online at:

formatting link
By that argument we are already doomed, so nothing can be done anyway That is possibly true. We may be stuck with remedial measures to ameliorate the damage that we have already set in train. And since we cannot rapidly shift from fossil fuels entirely there will be more to come. I'm alright Jack - my house is 50m above sea level.

Not at all. Tidal forcing *is* one of the multidecadal oscillations. And anyway I am interested in it out of curiosity.

Careful. I can't tell how much junk you have absorbed from right wing blogs like for example Dennis the menace who parrots dittohead lies.

Not at all. I don't know why you think the IPCC is ignoring anything. They may make the odd mistake but as far as I can see their scientific reports are a genuine attempt to summarise our state of scientific knowledge and the evidence that backs it up with extensive bibliography into the primary literature.

If you are going to dissent you have to demonstrate that you have something better to put in its place. A handwaving argument that it is all down to the sun really doesn't hack it.

Changes with the temperature. Historically the initial shift would be due to external forcing by insolation but amplified by the various positive feedbacks that exist. Notably long term accumulation of snow on land at higher latitudes leading to a higher albedo or vice versa. Warmer water holds less dissolved gas so you get more CO2 into the atmosphere as well (with a slight additional warming from that too).

We are now adding enough CO2 annually to change be a net driving force for warming.

Well to some extent it did. CO2 emissions from extreme vulcanism for example like the Deccan traps.

Which ones would they be?

Scientists are always pretty careful about what they say. The evidence is strong and the penalties when AGW really bites are very significant.

You have to be kidding. Most of them are on the ultraviolet fringe of the American Republican party, far right bloggers or complete kooks.

Yes it does. We are adding more CO2 every year. We have hardly ever reduced annual emissions even during the deep recessions (1991 maybe).

The CO2 already in the atmosphere will take some time to acheive its total warming effect. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow the global temperature would continue to rise for a few decades or so.

And that really is clutching at straws. You will have to learn the difference between climate and weather.

It is in case you hadn't noticed possibly one of the mildest Autumns we have ever had. I have roses and geranium back in flower and will need to cut the grass again this afternoon!

On that I am in broad agreement with you. At least something along the lines of bread and breakfast to break Fred the Shred's obsence golden parachute contract. Heads we win tales you lose is the bankers motto.

Not at all. I have been interested in alternative energy since the

1970's. I actually knew one of the very early wind energy research groups back in the 80's long before it was fashionable.

ENRON tapped into the Green movements aspirations. Ironically some of what they did was quite clever. But some of it was outright fraud.

Prevaricate for another couple of decades and then politicians will wring hands and blame scientists and engineers when the lights go out.

But equally David MacKay talks a lot of sense.

Regards, Martin Brown

Reply to
Martin Brown

I wouldn't count interconnectors as capacity, nor would I count renewable when all of those could simply fail to be there when needed. If we get huge low wind cold events there will be no power spare in Europe either, - quite the reverse - and the Moyle ICT is down and likely to stay down all winter anyway.

And pumped capacity is only for a short duration.An hour or two run flat out.

Strip all that out and its

28.5GW CCGT 27.5 GW Coal (I didn't make it that big when I totted up all the coal stations I found on wiki) 3.6 GW Oil 9 GW Nuclear (and thats a bit optimistic as well.. 1 GW Hydro 1.2 GW OCGT

which I make 71.8GW.

But that's a really unrealistic target itself.

I have never seen more than 7GW of nuclear nor more than 23GW of coal.

So that puts us into the mid 60's of reliable available generation capacity.

That doesn't depend on wind, rain or surplus continental power..

I think that is really cutting things very fine indeed.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

No he doesn't. There may be *nothing* better to put in its place. It may be that all the models are essentially worthless, for reasons I put in another post.

To start with, we don't know, necessarily, what needs to be included in the model. And for everything that we *think* needs to be included, can we guarantee that we've got the all correct measurements for those items that will allow a set of initial conditions to be input to the model?

Reply to
Tim Streater

Is false logic something you learn along with 'climate science'?

Ug looks up as fireball crashes into the earth and turns to his wife 'thats because you forgot to sacrifice a rabbit last Thursday'

'bollocks', she says

'You will have to do better than that if you want me to abandon my theory' says ug.

'But I have forgotten to sacrifice rabbits on many occasions, and it didn't lead to fireballs'

Ug stares in total incomprehension as the words dribble out of his mouth.

"If you are going to dissent you have to demonstrate that you have something better to put in its place. A handwaving argument that it is all down to the sun really doesn't hack it."

Can you not see how foolish and illogical that is?

There is absolutely no onus on me to generate a competing theory first in order to refute - say - phlogiston, or the luminiferous aether.

Michelson and Morley more or less did that without inventing relativity.

I am begining to realise that you are not really very smart after all.

You talk the talk, but you really don't understand science, although I concede you may PRACTICE it,

Svensmark is the most credible to date from my subjective stance.

Can you not see your own prejudice inherent in the use of the word 'when' and not 'if'. o you its done and dusted and there is no room for argument.

Your mind is already made up,. you are simply not looking at this with an open mind.

That tells me you are at best a third rate scientist. NOTHING in science is EVER done and dusted.

Once again,. your prejudice is hanging out of your trousers..

on the contrary many people who remain scoptical about the IPCC predictions are right bang in the mainstream. Of course the IMPRESSION you get from the greentrolls - of which I am beginning to suspect you are a member, is that all dissent is fringe, politically incorrect, and therefore can safely be disregarded.

And yet that sort of ad hominem stance is in of and by itself alone, deeply disturbing as I have oft repeated to you, if you cant do better than that, its doesn't say much for AGW and the IPCC.

The old standby line straight out of the IPCC green trolls handbook '

"When it's hot, its global warming, when its cold, its just weather"

I don't think YOU understand the difference between weather and climate.

If EVERY WINTER for 100 years was cold, it would still be 'just weather' to you .. your grasp of statistical analysis is very poor.

No, it hasn't been that mild I have seen milder. ive been cutting grass up to Xmas before.

Roses will always flower when its warm enough. As grass will grow.

So how come you don't understand the engineering and economics of them..? Oh, I forgot, you don't actually think for yourself, you just parrot someone elses 'work'

I too have been interested in alternative energy for a long time, and it was briefly part of my job to analyses it, and subsequently I have spent many hours doing just that.

And the answer is a pup. It has no place - renewable energy - in mainstream power generation (apart from hydro) whatosoever.

He does and he is behind most of the drive to get uneconomic renewables scrapped.

His private wet finger last time we chatted was "80% nuclear 20% wind" but even David is not infallible.

I have been able to prove that there is absolutely no benefit from adding wind power to a nuclear based grid.

The correct answer is in fact 80% nuclear and 20% gas or, if you want fossil free, 100% nuclear, but it will cost more as the nukes will have to be run at much lower capacity factors.

Wind only makes any sort of sense in a large empty windy country with low population that doesn't mind them in conjunction with massive amounts of hydro power, that is rain fall rather than capacity limited.

Two places spring to mind there - the Mojave desert/boulder dam and New Zealand. Even so its expensive.

Its got zero relevance to Britain. Especially a nuclear powered britain. What benefit is there in augmenting one capital intensive zero carbon power source that is reliable, with another that isn't, at treble the expense?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

actually initial conditions are NOT so relevant in this sort of model, because over time we can assume that it will stabilise at a level that is dependent on te pure input from the sun balanced against losses to space..the question is not where we start, its where we get to.

Initial conditions are more important in systems that exhibit high levels of positive feedback.

To whit, the initial condition of a pencil balanced on its point are VERY important because the system is unstable, and the initial conditions will determine where it tends up.

Contrariwise with a ball bearing in a smooth saucer, its irrelevant where it starts..it ends up at the bottom, because the system is stable with large amounts of negative feedback.

Of course AGW is deeply schizophrenic about its stability: It assumes there mitts be overall negative feedback, because otherwise temperatures would simply shoot off to totally frozen or scorching hot, but it cant get away without positing positive feedback as well, because the numbers don't stack up when CO2 alone is the sole agency of change.

And if climate WAS as unstable as AGW says, it should have not exhibited the stability it has over huge historical timespans. Which is one of the greatest problems with it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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.