The true cost of wind...

[Java Jive]

Then find some to contradict what I said, or stop wasting everyone's time.

[Java Jive]

If you as a claimed senior academic can not follow the reasoning in what follows, or in the many, many other posts I've made on this particular point, I really don't think there's anything more anyone can do to help you.

I can only conclude you are guilty of 'selective reading' or something like that.

[Java Jive]

That's known as the denialist approach

[Terry Fields]

Technically speaking, the time wasting can be laid at your door, through your posting of incomplete or partially explained figures.

[Terry Fields]

It's not down to me that you can't read and comprehend. You might not have a high opinion of Bert, but he understood the clear message, as did TNP, and felt kindly-enough disposed to you to explain it.

And now we have a prime example of the JJ deflection shields in operation:

[Tim Streater]

And neither does anyone else, which is the nub of the problem.

[Terry Fields]

But you're talking about what other people think. I'm trying to get you to say what *you* think, and not what you think about other people. You can form your own opinions, I take it, so here's a chance to explain what they are founded on concerning the UK's fuel security.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Of the 10 warmest years on record 8 fall in the last 10 years (2003-2012). Or to look at it another way of the 13 years 2000 - 2012 eleven are in the warmest 13 on record. Now is that convincing evidence for no warming for 15 years?

For sea ice it is easiest just to quote the Met Office -

"Since 2003, the September minimum Arctic sea ice extent has moved outside the internal variability of the 1980?1999 period. The six lowest minimum extents in the 32-year record occurred in the past six years, with notably low extents observed in 2007, 2011 and 2012 ... A new record minimum Arctic sea ice extent was observed in 2012 which was 3.29 million square kilometres below the 1979?2000 average."

More convincing evidence that the Arctic sea ice is increasing? Or just evidence that this denier (Terry Field) is blind to the blindingly obvious?

[Terry Fields]

Some professor of climate science on Radio 4: "It seems to have levelled off but is wobbling around a bit" (close but not exact quote).

"Looking at this plot of the 30 day slopes of actual NASA gridded data, the maximum ice melt rate occurs in 1999 and in 2004 not in 2007. Surprisingly the maximum ice growth rates occur in 2007 and 2008, I don?t remember those headlines for some reason. Don?t forget when looking at the 2008 ? 09 peak, the data is preliminary and hasn?t been through the same processing as the other data. From looking at the unprocessed data I doubt it will change much.

Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward, even the most committed global warming scientist has to admit this happens regularly in climate along with regular 30 year uptrends. The questions are, did we cause it or not, and was CO2 the instigating factor. The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accelerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians."

"The current sea ice coverage in the Arctic is the highest in at least 5 years. -The shaded area shows the average ice extent for the last 34 years. -The current ice coverage is in the average shaded area and just below the mean. (gray line) -This estimate includes first year ice, multi-year ice and other ice types. -This does not include actual thickness of the sea ice.

I post this graph to show that the Arctic sea ice is not melting at a record pace. In fact, the surface ice area has increased greatly compared with 2008-2012. The area of latitude 80 degrees to 90 degrees is having a record cold summer."

Terry Fields

[Roger Chapman]

Yes, but or should I say BUT.

Terry claimed no warming in the last 15 years and was wrong. His woolly quote tells us absolutely nothing since it didn't mention the time scale. In fact I can cite a site that suggests that at shorter time scales the trend is currently downwards but for a 15 year span still upwards:

temperature trends

(I had trouble copying the link so it may need some persuasion to work).

But we have declining trends before, 1870s - 1900s and 1940s - 1970s so it may be some years/decades before the question of whether we have passed the peak is resolved.

Polyscienticians rather gives the game away doesn't it.

And where does he get those regular 30 year uptrends? Not from the satellite record for sure.

Also why is he so puzzled about maximum growth rates since these are most likely recovering from an extreme result. The bigger the margin from min to max the faster the change has to be.

Another man with an agenda.

The minimum ice extent (sq miles) for the years 2008 - 2012 are: 1.77,

1.98,1.79, 1.67 and 1.32. 2013 is, provisionally, 1.97.

That 5 year average is 1.71 so is 1.97 a great increase? Or is the real outlier the 2012 result. Average the 1st 4 of those years gives 1.80 with 2012 0.48 below that average and 2013 just .17 above. The average of all 6 years is 1.75 so it is still 2012 that sticks out like a sore thumb just as 1997 does in the global temperature record.

What is also interesting is that the 1981 - 2010 average is 2.40. Well above 2013's 1.97.

Now what was Terry's original point - oh yes that Arctic sea ice was increasing. So it did in 2013 but one swallow does not a summer make or even two or three. The minimum extent also increased over the previous year in 2008 and 2009.

[bert]

Neither of those publications are publicly funded and neither pretend to be anything other than what they are. The asking of such questions becomes nothing more than a PT exercise if not answered sincerely. On the few occasions I have seen this program I have never ever seen representative of BBC management accept any criticism from viewers at all.

[Terry Fields]

Well, at the moment we seem to have

a) A temperature record that is about to breach the lower 2? or 3? sigma band of the forecasts

b) 15 years of non-warming

c) forecast rises unsurprisingly being scaled back

d) Arctic sea ice increasing

e) Antarctic sea ice increasing

Five swallows might not a summer make, but I can feel the chill from here.

Did you enjoy last night's BBCTV news about the upcoming report? It was laughable. CO2 is increasing to levels never seen in human history, man's activities account for the warming, there hasn't been any warming for 15 years. All said with a straight face. And there's the compulsory footage of a polar bear on an ice-floe, overlooking the joyous news that the PB population is increasing and has been doing so for some time.

[Vir Campestris]

Actually, I'd got bored with the thread. I don't think anyone here is going to hange their opinions. This post of yours just happened to come up a the front of my unread ones before I collapsed the thread, and I saw my name. But see below...

... with ellipses :)

The figures you quoted seem to refer to the stocks of (mostly depleted) U in the country.. As far as I can see they don't refer to the other materials in store, and the only reason they mention military at all is that there are quantities of HEU that are from military sources.

They don't mention all the active fission products, nor all the contaminated materials, which constitute most of the waste. Whether DU is waste or fuel is of course debatable.

And just to make it clear, I'm not academic.

Goodbye.

Andy

[Roger Chapman]

snip

I suppose I was expecting Terry to ignore what I had written above in favour of his faith in the certainties inherent in the denialist's world view.

I can't find that particular forecast so perhaps Terry (or someone else in the know) could point me to it.

The trouble with climate change deniers is that whenever they encounter something that does not fit with their version of events they ignore it completely. I cite a site that points out that over the last 15 years there is still a slight warming trend and Terry of course ignores it. He nailed his colours to the 1998 mast years ago and isn't now going to change his spots.

Forecasts don't always pan out even in uncomplicated situations let alone something as fiendishly complicated as the global climate. For instance I forecast that with my investment in Premium Bonds I might expect two £25 cheques every 3 months. In the event I got no wins at all for over 6 months and while the income stream has returned to its usual level there is no sign of excess wins to compensate for the drought. Does ERNIE have it is for me or is that the workings of blind chance.

What would be really surprising would be forecasts not being scaled back in the light of the latest evidence.

So Terry keeps on saying but Terry has always been good at ignoring short term variability when it suits his purpose to do so.

I can't be bothered to check if that is correct but given the recent collapse of the Larson A and B ice shelves that would only be in the short term.

The thing about global warming is that, well, it is global. That some areas actually cool can be consistent with overall warming.

And long term trends are, well, long term. I pointed out above two cooling trends that lasted decades (not that the actual cooling appears to me to be statistically significant). In contrast the the last 3 decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) have all been significantly warmer that the preceding decade and the same can be said for the previous warming phase (1920s, 1930s, 1940s).

Well they were probably right about the CO2 and wrong about there being no warming in the last 15 years. I can't be bothered to check the PB data.

[Terry Fields]

Last night's BBCTV news was even better. They had to drag up the Himalayan Glaciers again. This time they showed the apple growers that depend on glacier melt-water to irrigate their crops, saying that these people would be out of business, along with all the other dependent people, when the glaciers have finally melted.

Not only did the BBC not say when this might be - but by doing so implying that it might be in the next few years or so - but they also never said whether the glacier melt-rate was a) worse, b) the same, or c) better than it has been.

What a crock of reporting. And lack of facts.

Another nail in the GW/AGW/CAGW/CC etc coffin.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Now why am I not surprised by Terry's failure to cite that forecast?

Next section also snipped as Terry seems to have no answer to what I wrote.

So we can add glaciers not receding to the long list of facts Terry is in denial about.

A fantasy nail from a died-in-the-wool denier.

[bert]

Could you explain what it is that a so-called denier actually denies?

[Roger Chapman]

The implication was that glaciers are not receding which is what he was actually arguing years ago and what I was trying to prod him into doing was to respond to my comments.

What you should also be asking is why he has continued in knocking BBC mode rather than actually address my responses to his previous posts.