Register to Comment
Like Tree9088Likes
  1. #33391
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,730

    Quote Originally Posted by Socratus O' Pericles View Post
    It's hard to find any evidence that wind energy can supply power without subsidies whereas there are numerous profitable nuclear, fossil fuel burning and airlines which are commercially viable without.
    We have been through that many times. Fossil fuels are heavily subsidised: even now as mature industries they cannot be "sustaunable without heavy subsidies.

    Wind power is already the cheapest form of energy where it has been developed into a viable industry - and without the subsides of its competitors. Old coal plants are still cheaper, but new coal os more expensive than wind power.

    When externalities are taken into the equation, there is no contest. No fossil fuelled source is even close to being competitive with wind and, increasingly, solar.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #33392
    oneshotleft oneshotleft is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    482

    Quote Originally Posted by Socratus O' Pericles View Post
    This whole wind power drive is a bit of a scam isn't it?

    If that Dublin Park story is anything to go by then it costs more than it's worth.

    Blow for council as wind power fails to light up
    from the article: "There have also been complaints from local residents, who are seeking compensation for nuisance. One told the council that "if any one doesn't know what it's like to live under the constant whining of those cursed turbines, let them try sleeping with a washing machine on in their bedroom at night"."

    but,but,but...Curly says that ain't so
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #33393
    oneshotleft oneshotleft is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    482



    "
    Lewandowsky appears to have uncritically relied on results published in Wood et al, 2012...Within the Wood dataset, only two (!) respondents purported to believe that Diana faked her own death. Neither of these two respondents also purported to believe that MI6 killed Princess Diana. The subpopulation of people that believed that Diana staged her own death and that MI6 killed her was precisely zero.

    Lewandowsky’s signature inconsistency was completely bogus – a result that will come as no surprise to readers acquainted with his work."

    More False Claims from Lewandowsky « Climate Audit
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #33394
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,810

    Quote Originally Posted by Socratus O' Pericles View Post
    It's hard to find any evidence that wind energy can supply power without subsidies whereas there are numerous profitable nuclear, fossil fuel burning and airlines which are commercially viable without.
    No fuel source is available without subsidy.

    The US paid a massive subsidy in military force to keep its oil supplies from the Middle East clear of interference.

    The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $523 billion in 2011, up from $412 billion in 2010, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Changes in international fuel prices are chiefly responsible for differences in subsidy costs from year to year. The increase in the global amount of subsidy in 2011 closely tracked the sharp rise in international fuel prices.


    A lot of these oil and coal subsidies come in the form of tax breaks for "exploration" that the company would do anyway.

    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/re...ergysubsidies/

    PS I have no great attachment to wind energy - I judge an energy on the cost we will pay for its CO2 emissions in the future, not just what you pay for kWh in the present. Taxes we pay that end up as subsidies should be included - for all sources.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #33395
    realist realist is offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,787

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    We have been through that many times. Fossil fuels are heavily subsidised: even now as mature industries they cannot be "sustaunable without heavy subsidies.

    Wind power is already the cheapest form of energy where it has been developed into a viable industry - and without the subsides of its competitors. Old coal plants are still cheaper, but new coal os more expensive than wind power.

    When externalities are taken into the equation, there is no contest. No fossil fuelled source is even close to being competitive with wind and, increasingly, solar.
    But what you are ignoring is the fact that intermittent renewables provide, according to James Hansen, only 1-1.5% of total energy. That means at least 98.5% of energy is provided by other sources and therefore the pro rata monetary amount paid in subsidies would be much higher. Here is a summary of the cost of solar generated power in Germany as compared to equivalent nuclear power:

    Mims has asked us to compare the cost of building, operating, and maintaining the Daiichi reactors to the equivalent in Germany's solar PV installations. The answer to Mims' question is that the equivalent in power generation from solar PV would cost at least $100 billion more than the generation from the Daiichi reactors.
    The Breakthrough Institute - Doing the Math: Comparing Germany’s Solar Industry to Japan’s Fukushima Reactors

    And Hansen also disagrees with you when he says that, after nuclear, fossil fuels are currently the cheapest form of energy. As one of the foremost opponents of fossil fuels in the world, I am pretty sure he would not say that if it were not true.

    RENEWABLE energy won't save the planet so it's time to go nuclear, according to one of world's most high-profile climate scientists.

    "We should undertake urgent focused research and development programs in next generation nuclear power," said atmospheric physicist James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York.

    While renewable energies such as solar and wind were gaining in economic competition with coal-fired plants, Professor Hansen said they wouldn't be able to provide baseload power for years to come.

    Even in Germany, which pushed renewables heavily, they generated only 7 per cent of the nation's power.

    "It's just too expensive," said Professor Hansen, an expert in climate modelling, planetary atmospheres and the Earth's climate.

    "Right now, fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy,
    except for operating nuclear plants," he said on the first day of a lecture tour in Australia.
    - See more at: The Australian

    Hansen is not alone in his view as the letter referred to in this article explains:

    PITTSBURGH (AP) — Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.....

    The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.
    Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming - SFGate

    I have always been very anti nuclear but the new technologies currently being discussed sound a little more encouraging as to their safety and viability to be considered as a reliable fuel source for the future.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #33396
    realist realist is offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,787

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Further, the bottom charts are charts of temperature trends per 9 year intervals, not of temperature itself. While there is a recent dimunition in decadal trends, the trend of the trends since 1960 seem to be rising to me.
    If you look at the top chart, the trend since 1980 seems to be falling.


    A little more than a year after we had published our millennial hockey stick reconstruction, paleoclimatologist Thomas Crowley of Texas A&M University (and coauthor of the Crowley and Lowery reconstruction discussed earlier) published findings based on the use of a theoretical climate model simulation designed to investigate causes of past temperature change. Crowley subjected the model to estimated changes in natural factors over the past thousand years, using indirect measures of changes in solar output and explosive volcanic activity, information on both of which can be recovered from atmospheric deposits in polar ice cores.

    These simulations revealed that the natural factors could explain the extent of medieval warmth in our reconstruction; in the model, this warmth arose from a relative lack of cooling volcanic eruptions combined with relatively high levels of solar output. The natural factors could also explain the cooler conditions of the ensuing Little Ice Age, which resulted from relatively low levels of solar output and more frequent explosive volcanic eruptions.

    Fed the natural factors only, the model could not, however, reproduce the abrupt twentieth century warming. In fact, the model predicted that the climate should have cooled in recent decades, rather than warmed, if only natural factors had been at play.
    It was only when Crowley added the modern human influences – increasing greenhouse gas concentrations primarily from fossil fuel burning and the regional cooling effect of industrial sulphate aerosols emissions – to the model simulation, that it was able to track the hockey stick all the way through to the present.

    The conclusion was clear: Natural factors could explain the temperature changes of the past millennium through the dawn of the industrial revolution, but only human influences could explain the unusual recent warming.
    Michael Mann on climate wars: 'the hockey stick did not suddenly appear out of left field' | Environment | theguardian.com

    I have not seen the study by Crowley but it sounds like his results are more in keeping with what has been happening in recent decades.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #33397
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,810

    Quote Originally Posted by realist View Post
    If you look at the top chart, the trend since 1980 seems to be falling.



    .
    Yes, but the trend also fell in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, so if the trend is falling now, it will pick up again - as the physics says.

    I have always maintained there is no "pause" in global warming, just a temporary dimunition in surface temperature trend. The chart lends further credibility to that.

    Let's not cherry-pick endpoints. Here is my own chart of surface temperature trends, these are moving averages of 17-year and 30-year trends, weighted by their variance (high variance, low weight).


    My chart is in degrees C/ yr, the Met Office in degrees C/ decade. Since my trends are over longer times, my chart is less noisy. But both show a peaking in 2005 or so, and a diminution since. Not a stop in warming, just warming at a lower rate.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 11th November 2013 at 11:39 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #33398
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,810

    Quote Originally Posted by realist View Post

    Michael Mann on climate wars: 'the hockey stick did not suddenly appear out of left field' | Environment | theguardian.com

    I have not seen the study by Crowley but it sounds like his results are more in keeping with what has been happening in recent decades.
    You would be ill advised to compare a reconstruction of over thousand years of temperature from proxies, to less than a decade with accurate thermometers.

    Reconstructions from proxies just do not have the resolution of decades - more like centuries.

    This is the study referred to:


    Mann study in red, Crowley-Lowery in blue.

    NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Crowley 2000 Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #33399
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,810

    Comment on Typhoon Haiyan


    A proposal is afoot to add a category 6 storm to the scale.

    Should There be a Category 6 for Hurricanes? – Greg Laden's Blog
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #33400
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,810

    Haiyan is an example of the type of extreme storm that may become more frequent as the climate continues to warm

    ... But there is more consensus about the stormier future than there is about the present.

    The researchers also urged caution in attributing Haiyan’s strength to global warming, given the lack of evidence that manmade global warming has had any detectable influence on Western Pacific typhoons, let alone tropical cyclones in general (an umbrella term that includes typhoons and hurricanes).



    Climate research has not yet provided a clear picture of how global warming is altering tropical cyclones around the world. Importantly, though, studies are providing clues that we may be in for a much stormier future, with more intense storms that bring with them stronger winds, heavier rainfall, and greater storm surge due to sea level rise.

    Less cyclone frequency, but more intense cyclones. This is a precursor.

    Super Typhoon Haiyan: A Hint of What's to Come? | Climate Central

    Projected changes in tropical cyclone statistics. All values represent expected percent change in the average over period 2081–2100 relative to 2000–2019, under a high emissions scenario. The metrics presented here include the total annual frequency of tropical storms, the annual frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms, the mean lifetime maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, and the precipitation rate within 200 km of the storm center at its most intense point. The solid blue line is the best guess of the expected percent change, and the coloured bar provides the likely confidence interval for this value.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment