Ok Lets do that.
No problem to change to H2, Turbine hall ventilation has to cope with H2, build in some piping mods to handle both H2 and NG, for the switch, change out the combustor cans, small configuration and coating change, and revise the back end temp probe set up.
Minor problem - we can't mix Syngas with Natural gas in the distribution grid.
So we need to locate the new CCG's for easy access to the UCG production sites.
Time scale is about the same we agreed on the old site. We've been here before Providor.
Big problem - the energy growth curve isn't going to flatten out in 2015!
Are we now so PC that we cannot use the word "black" any more, even if it refers to the colour of coal?!!
You might think that ... I couldn't possibly comment :)
I am pleased someone else found the article worthwhile. It brilliantly pulls together the mammoth crises we face.
Abdication of responsibility springs to mind when thinking about how our leaders are responding to the huge challenges. The parliamentary cycle isn’t geared for long-term strategic thinking is one answer.
The numbers you quote are mind boggling indeed … and the time bomb is ticking.
Super-insulated houses - with PV Panels and heat pumps are part of the energy saving mix.
2006 BBC report:
Quote:
Britons waste the equivalent of around two power stations' worth of electricity each year by leaving TV sets and other gadgets on standby.
Flexible working hours to reduce road congestion/fuel wastage (add better road works management for the same reason). Much more teleworking. Encourage the manufacture of energy efficient domestic appliances, lighting, and electrical goods of all kinds. Halt airport expansion (that would hurt!), No more cars failing to reach 30mpg on the urban cycle (sorry J Clarkson) then 31 mpg and so on.
Eliminate unnecessary packaging, junk mail, EU directive print runs etc. Hand out free high efficiency bulbs to replace guzzling incandescents. More rail freight movement (and canals are worth a look).
The list can be extended way beyond that. How many power stations equivalent would a really good, long list represent? If just standby lights = two power stations ….
This isn’t party political point scoring, but why hasn’t this government already done all or most of these things already? Aren’t they easy, quick, and visible ways to show someone is thinking things through? Wouldn’t public opinion be behind it?
Rather than “outrage” about what I see as the wind folly, its rather more exasperation that it is taking so much focus and money to produce so little, unreliable electricity … and above all taking our eye off the ball. Now if Richard Girling were Energy Minister ….
Quote:
I haven't given up hope that we can deal with all this, and I'll do all I can to help find a solution, but in the meantime I'm planning to head for higher ground and drastically reduce my reliance on others to provide my energy and food supplies. Like physics911comfan, I can see how bad this could get, even if the Government and most of the population are still in denial.
You are not alone. The knock on effect of the brief fuel tax blockade was instructive.
For my part, I believe there is ample evidence that our planet is in a mess. Pollution is a reality, so are habitat destruction and the wasting of finite resources. Future generations won’t be impressed if we continue this way.
This clearly written assessment The deceit behind global warming gives further food for thought. But whichever way the thermometer is headed, we urgently need to start living sustainably because we live on a small planet with a BIG population problem that is increasing all the time.
Windwatch
Thankyou for that link
The last paragraph I have copied as I have had this information for some time from a very reliable source
Now it is there for all to see.
Quote:
Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.
From your link two points put significant perspective on things.
First
Quote:
Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.
But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.
It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.
And secondly
Quote:
It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.
If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.
These are both important because they expose the AGW political driver as suspect - while the real issues and the job that needs to be done is ignored.
Global overpopulation and the ensuing pollution and ecological damage is destroying spaceship Earth.
Our consumption of finite resources is increasing exponentially.
It would be silly to believe that there will not be a climatic impact from this desecration.
But
The problem is not GW, it is resource depletion.
However the solution to both is essentially the same.
Our civilisation depends crucially on the availability of cheap energy, without it we revert to a bronze age society.
Here in the UK we simply could not feed the population millions would starve.
The sustainable UK population in those circumstances would be about 3 million.
Our society would have to revert to animal and manpower to drive it - that will inevitably mean a return to slavery.
To avoid that awful vision becoming reality it is time to focus on the real challenges.
Restructuring our energy supply systems. (We don't have long)
Reducing energy demand by efficiency improvements. (your post and others here make useful suggestions)
Reducing the Global population. (in the UK we should aim to be down to 40 Million by 2050)
To achieve this my first step would be to get the Greens out of the decision making process.
But we have to convince the politicians, who talk the walk, but fail to walk the talk.
We are simply not going to tax ourselves out of this.
You’re welcome Lizabeth, it makes very interesting reading.
Sorry – missed your wpm.co.nz link which covers a theme seemingly avoided by developers.
When assessments are carried out during the planning phase, it would make sense for lighting to be considered seriously. Wind turbines the size of the London Eye are by far the most prominent target for lightning. That has serious fire and heavy ‘missile’ implications as broken sections are thrown considerable distances.
Could such strikes cause power surges that would black out the area affected?
Hi Glynne, I think we are heading towards (spin free) consensus :-)
Only two observations. Is your 3 million UK population target just a touch draconian? Can't somehow see exterminating 57 million as a vote winner. During WWII we were at times largely cut off from the rest of the world and had to feed ourselves. There was rationing, people were healthy, there was no junk food, and at a guess, the population then would have been approaching 50 million.
One way to make more productive use of our land is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet (cries of anguish from the carnivores). That would cut out the ‘middle man’ feeding animals to feed ourselves.
The other thought is on the “green” label. In conversation with the dreaded Porritt, I would likely agree with much of what he said … until we got to wind farms! So what colour does that make me – khaki? I think the hole we are in needs fewer labels (prejudices even?) and more effort to reach necessary understanding.
But I’m entirely with you on “We don't have long”, and expecting a coming together soon in present circumstances is probably unrealistic.
As for “reducing the global population”… vitally important as it is, I can imagine any politician promoting that hot little potato having their head blown off.
Is your 3 million UK population target just a touch draconian? Can't somehow see exterminating 57 million as a vote winner.
No this is a worst case vision of the result of societal collapse due to energy shortage.
I hope its wrong - but think about how you would manage with only what you could gather to feed and warm yourself, and 60 -70 million others are trying to do the same on this small patch.
Quote:
During WWII we were at times largely cut off from the rest of the world and had to feed ourselves. There was rationing, people were healthy, there was no junk food, and at a guess, the population then would have been approaching 50 million.
I Understand the UK population in 1940 was close to 40 million.
I will check.
We couldn't feed ourselves then - Without the Atlantic convoys we would have certainly starved.
At one point we were one convoy away from surrender.
That was what the U-boat war was all about.
Quote:
But I’m entirely with you on “We don't have long”, and expecting a coming together soon in present circumstances is probably unrealistic.
What worries me is the silly squabbling and inaccurate pseudo techno propoganda nonsense over issues like wind and nuclear.
Both have a place in working us through this mess.
Both have flaws - and both are only short term fixes.
But without them we have got big problems.
At least with wind, when we have finished with it, in about 40 years there will be no environmental damage to clear up.
The environmental legacy of nuclear will be somewhat different.
But it still has to be used, we have no alternative.
... think about how you would manage with only what you could gather to feed and warm yourself, and 60 -70 million others are trying to do the same on this small patch.
Thinking this through keeps bumping into nasty obstacles. Without population decrease, it’s hard to imagine achieving long term sustainability. But harder still to imagine public/cultural acceptance of control. So we keep on as before and work on technical fixes to halt, or at least delay, a bunch of unpleasant things hitting the fan (if it’s still working).
Have you come across the Transition Towns movement? It’s one idealistic response to the problems we are discussing.
Some years ago I recall a report that suggested if every adult in China wanted a bicycle, raw materials would run out before it could be achieved. It may not be correct, but makes a point.
I’ve long believed population pressure was the ultimate risk for human survival. The Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth report (mid 70s) was my sustainability baptism. For all of its old computer modelling inaccuracies, a pity it wasn’t heeded.
Limits to Growth - Resources & Man, the Course Books to T-101 I believe.
They played a major role in raising popular interest in Global Ecological issues.
Quote:
But harder still to imagine public/cultural acceptance of control. So we keep on as before and work on technical fixes to halt, or at least delay, a bunch of unpleasant things hitting the fan (if it’s still working).
As the energy shortfall bites and impacts transport and food distribution, I think society will collapse into anarchy - Martial Law will be the first step to try to reestablish control. - Where we go from there does not bear thinking about.
However this can all be avoided - the key is to secure our energy supply system.
Thank you for the link (Transition Towns movement) - I had not heard of this group before.
I'll check it out.
A quick scan suggests the proposed model is self sustaining island communities.
Given the current population of the UK it will be difficult to find room for everyone.
One further point
Quote:
One way to make more productive use of our land is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet (cries of anguish from the carnivores). That would cut out the ‘middle man’ feeding animals to feed ourselves.
Much of the UK is made up of poor quality land (the uplands of Wales etc.)
It is by only grazing sheep and cattle that this land can be used to produce food.
This clearly written assessment The deceit behind global warming gives further food for thought.
Oh no, here we go again!
There's recently been much criticism of Al Gore on this forum for his "vested interest". Well in case none of you have noticed, "The deceit behind global warming" is actually an advertisment for a book by the same authors:
Quote:
"Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth" by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4115 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk
so neither the authors nor the Daily Telegraph can seriously be considered impartial.
Booker and North's article is stuffed with exaggerations, distortions and convenient omissions. I don't have time to go into all of them, and to be honest I'm rapidly losing the will to keep going over and over this stuff, but here's a few observations (all of which I have already made at least twice before on this forum) that you might want to consider before deciding that this article adds anything useful to the debate about AGW.
Quote:
Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".
This is simply not true. There was a lot of speculation and sensationalisation in the popular press about an "imminent ice age", but the scientific press presented a much more sober view. Some scientists were clearly concerned, but the overwhelming conclusion at that time was that they simply didn't know enough about climate science to make useful predictions.
Quote:
Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.
One would need to read their book to know what "evidence" they refer to, but from what I've seen you'd need to be very selective about what "evidence" you look at to come to that conclusion. Page 467 of chapter 6 of the current IPCC report shows the results of a whole raft of temperature reconstructions, some of which show a clear Medieval warming in some parts of the world but none of which show conclusively that it was warmer than it is now.
They go on to give a very one-sided view of the "hockey stick" dispute. There is no doubt that there were some errors in that study, but it's principal conclusion, that late 20th century temperatures are higher, and increasing more rapidly, than at any time in the past 1000 years or so, still stands even after those errors are corrected. The only effect of the errors was to make the "handle" of the "hockey stick" a bit too straight. There have been numerous other similar reconstructions of past temperatures using proxies, none of which AFAIK have been shown to be in error, and they have all come to a similar conclusion. If the "hockey stick" study were to be completely erased it would not make a jot of difference to the overall consensus position or the predictions for the future. The mere fact that the denialists have to keep re-heating this dead issue is a measure of how thin their case is.
They claim that
Quote:
(Gore) claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft
He didn't. He said that IF Greenland melted, sea level would rise by 20 feet, but he gave no indication of a timescale.
Then they bring up the nonsense about the recent hundredth-of-a-degree revision of the US temperature record, highlighting the sensational fact that in the US it was 1934, not 1998 which was the hottest year on record, but somehow omitting to mention that even before this shocking error was revealed 1934 had only been a hundredth of a degree behind 1998, and that in any case this revision makes virtually no difference whatsoever on a global scale.
The conclude by saying
Quote:
The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.
It certainly will, and I wonder how they will feel when it turns out that the consensus was right all along but because of them and their like we have wasted another 10 years putting off the changes that need to be made, and by then it's too late to avert the catastrophe?
To be fair, providor “The deceit behind global warming” was a link and not my words.
Quote:
This clearly written assessment "The deceit behind global warming" gives further food for thought. But whichever way the thermometer is headed, we urgently need to start living sustainably because we live on a small planet with a BIG population problem that is increasing all the time.
My point is, the article does give food for thought. Not least in terms of Richard Girling’s comments on elusive consensus. In that sense, I have to agree “Oh no, here we go again”.
I believe that the things on which we agree should be the focus. Apportioning blame for (allegedly) getting certain elements of the debate wrong can be very unhelpful.
The stock insult that articles covering the findings in a new book are profit-driven is convenient but hardly informative. We don’t know if the article was as the writers intended. Editing and “sexing up” aren’t unknown! Let the book speak for itself.
As for impartiality, can anyone honestly claim that? Our thoughts are largely the product of what we have read, seen, or heard … and understood from it. As our frame of reference develops, it inevitably inclines us in a particular direction – right or wrong. Belief can be far from truth.
The historical reference below seems to apply today
Quote:
Some scientists were clearly concerned, but the overwhelming conclusion at that time was that they simply didn't know enough about climate science to make useful predictions.
Sensationalism may have its place so long as it generates appropriate, constructive action. What else would shift most people?
Quote:
Page 467 of chapter 6 of the current IPCC report shows the results of a whole raft of temperature reconstructions.
But a former IPCC related expert rubbishes IPCC, and that calls into question impartiality for some sections of the great energy divide. “Oh no, here we go again” is right. It bedevils consensus and progress. This whole thing continues to be a mess.
More of the same with the "hockey stick" dispute.
Quote:
The mere fact that the denialists have to keep re-heating this dead issue is a measure of how thin their case is.
One person’s denialist is another’s planet saviour … Labels aren’t helping consensus.
Most people don’t have time to focus on more than the headlines. I recall it said that very many of the hottest years have occurred in the last decade. This has been used to illustrate the “reality” of GW. If it is not nearly as clear cut as that, it is a material consideration.
Quote:
The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.
Any attempt at conclusion at this stage might be premature!
Agreed, "wasting another 10 years" is unthinkable ... but the disagreements that exist are not encouraging.
WindWatch, sorry if anything I wrote appeared to be aimed at you, my criticisms were of the article itself. Yes it does give food for thought, but unfortunately a lot of people who read it are going to do so uncritically, especially if they are looking for reasons to reject action on GW. You only have to look at some of the comments following the article to see that this is true. A typical one said "Fantastic article. Just what I wanted to hear." In other words, "I've already made my mind up, thanks for giving me a further reason not to bother looking objectively at this issue". If the thought it fed was along the lines of "That's intersting, I wonder if it's actually true?" and that thought led on to some open-minded research which resulted in a properly informed opinion, that would be great. But for the vast majority that is not the outcome, and of course the authors don't want that to be the outcome.
Quote:
Apportioning blame for (allegedly) getting certain elements of the debate wrong can be very unhelpful.
But apportioning blame for deliberately misrepresenting certain elements is entirely appropriate, whichever side of the debate it comes from.
Quote:
We don’t know if the article was as the writers intended. Editing and “sexing up” aren’t unknown!
I doubt that a piece such as this, with the authors' names at the top, would have been edited so as to misrepresent the authors' views.
Quote:
As for impartiality, can anyone honestly claim that?
Sadly not, but some people could try a lot harder! This article doesn't have even the slightest vestige of impartiality.
Quote:
Sensationalism may have its place so long as it generates appropriate, constructive action.
That's more or less what Gore said, but look at all the stick he's received for it!
Quote:
Most people don’t have time to focus on more than the headlines.
Exactly, that's the point I was making a few days ago about the "Bloggers prove NASA wrong on climate change" headline in the Sunday Times. The press should be more responsible and balanced in how they present these stories. (Fat chance!)
Quote:
I recall it said that very many of the hottest years have occurred in the last decade. This has been used to illustrate the “reality” of GW. If it is not nearly as clear cut as that, it is a material consideration.
On a global scale, that continues to be the case. Those who's agenga is to muddy the waters have deliberately failed to make it clear that the revised temperature league table applies only to the US and makes precious little difference to the global picture. And even those who do go on to give the full story can't resist going for the sensational headline and leaving the important details to paragraph 4, by which time the damage is done.
We desperately need an informed, impartial public debate about all this, so that we can move forward on the basis of a broad consensus.
WindWatch I agree with a large part of your post especially.
Quote:
I believe that the things on which we agree should be the focus. Apportioning blame for (allegedly) getting certain elements of the debate wrong can be very unhelpful.
And Providor I agree with this
Quote:
But apportioning blame for deliberately misrepresenting certain elements is entirely appropriate, whichever side of the debate it comes from.
There is more consensus between us, on this matter, than difference.
Providor this comment amused me,
Quote:
Booker and North's article is stuffed with exaggerations, distortions and convenient omissions.
I think I, and others, made and substantiated, similar accusations about Gore and his film "AIT" on the In The News thread, was it "Errors in Gores Film".
In fact Gore himself admitted exaggeration!
I think Both sides are Guilty.
We are all wasting emotional energy and effort trying to understand what is the truth regarding GW.
But as I said above, talking about extracts from "The Deceit Behind Global Warming".
Quote:
These are both important because they expose the AGW political driver as suspect - while the real issues and the job that needs to be done is ignored.
Global overpopulation and the ensuing pollution and ecological damage is destroying spaceship Earth.
Our consumption of finite resources is increasing exponentially.
It would be silly to believe that there will not be a climatic impact from this desecration.
But
The problem is not GW, it is resource depletion.
However the solution to both is essentially the same.
We don't know if we can reverse the global warming trend. Assuming the IPCC is right and its happening.
What we do know is we have to do something about resource depletion - if we focus on that - stop arguing in circles about GW.
We may just solve both problems.
No apology necessary providor, I was just clarifying. Glynne is right
Quote:
There is more consensus between us, on this matter, than difference.
What I find encouraging about the Go Green forum is that people are concerned enough about the problems to want to discuss them – and sufficiently motivated to try and get a handle on the issues and what should be done about them.
A friend once said to me he reads xxxxxxxxx (a certain broadsheet) because he likes his prejudices pre-digested. With the energy debate, many can’t seem to muster enough interest to reach even that level. There is almost an audible click as people I attempt to discuss it with switch off! (no " who's boring then" comments please!) We have a number of mountains to climb.
This exchange has helped me broaden the scope of my thinking. That is a mixed blessing because I thought there was enough to think about already. Time to do some more reading.
Between now and the Energy Bill expected mid-December, I want to be better able to evaluate it. Must get more into Blueprint for a green economy.
Just because the Russians of the Iranians make the gas unavailable to us that doesn't mean it won't be burnt somewhere else sooner or later. The CO2 will find its way into the atmosphere whoever burns the gas.
In that case concentrate on saving energy. Why should we bother about CO2 emissions when we are such a small contributer?
All the evidence you have so far pointed me to as justification for the CO2 case is so flawed as to be worthless. Don't those scientists ever go on computer modelling for absolute beginners courses? Perhaps there is a need for a book of climate modelling for dummies to point out that comparing two variable means first knowing what size they are.
Even the graph you pointed to as useless has a better case than anything you have pointed to so far.
Don't deny that a notable scientist has said the case made by the IPCC has exactly the deficiency I have stated of ignoring natural sources.
Why should we bother about CO2 emissions when we are such a small contributer?
They aren't, except in your bizarre ostrich world where it's possible to ignore most of the evidence.
Quote:
All the evidence you have so far pointed me to as justification for the CO2 case is so flawed as to be worthless.
You keep expressing that opinion, but since you are totally unable to produce any contrary evidence to justify it, your use of the word "worthless" is rather hypocritical.
Quote:
Don't those scientists ever go on computer modelling for absolute beginners courses?
Such hubris!
Quote:
Don't deny that a notable scientist has said the case made by the IPCC has exactly the deficiency I have stated of ignoring natural sources.
Would that be a retired coal researcher who calls himself a "climate scientist" in spite of apparently never having published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change, and who hasn't even published a peer reviewed paper on anything for 17 years? The one who is reported to be a member of Tech Central Science Foundation, which received $95,000 from that bastion of impartiality Exxon Mobil? The one who is reported to be a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project, a lobby organization that says that a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow it to say whether energy companies are funding it? Interesting definition of "notable".
Perhaps you have been taken in by his description as an "expert reviewer for the IPCC"? Do you actually know what that means? As far as I can discover, "expert reviewer" is a pretty meaningless status, it certainly doesn't seem to imply that the IPCC asked him to review anything - all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer appears to be to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. An example of his criticism of the IPCC report is his claim that they "suppressed" a paper (McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173 - you'd like it Roverdc) which claims to have uncovered evidence that the temperature record is biased. What your "notable scientist" fails to reveal in making this attack on the IPCC however is that the real reason for that paper's rejection is that the authors made the schoolboy error of using degrees when they should have used radians! As a result the paper's conculsions were seriously flawed, and that's why the IPCC didn't include it.
Thanks for your suggestions. I will have them looked at by someone who knows a great deal more about the technicalities than I do.
My comments weren't intended to be exhaustive. Few would read a thesis! I chose not to mention that current wind turbine output is so inconsequential that backup isn’t an issue now – but will be if/when the percentage of total demand it is supposed to satisfy is ever achieved.
So many points arise in this exchange that I simply don't have the time to answer each one - it would need a minor essay.
However the following might help concerning the need for backup and what it may cost in additional fuel. The industry itself already gives some answers.
I start with the assumption that backup is currently 'lost' in the existing reserve - it doesn't even jeopardise the present 'insurance policy' which is an admission of how little wind currently contributes to power generation.
Once wind penetration increases to say 7.5% to 8% of generation (the funny 2010 target) the proportion of the insurance locked-up will be much greater (I have likened it to your allowing a neighbour to have a half share in your home insurance for no cost - only a madman would do that).
As you know E.ON Netz's Wind Report 2005 claimed that up to 90% of the installed wind capacity had to be covered by "shadow power stations" to maintain security of supply.
The UKERC report (2006) attempted to discredit this claim but much more recently we have the European transmission authority (UCTE) report on the integration of wind into power networks (January 2007 - see footnote).
This report says very specifically:
"The variable contributions from wind power must be balanced almost completely with other back-up generation capacity located elsewhere."
"Elsewhere" in this case means somewhere within the giant grid extending from the Balkans to Portugal. The UK has no such access to a huge backup reserve of running generation (our limited capacity cross Channel link is already at capacity anyway).
The conclusion is the one which Dr Dieter Helm (DTI Energy Adviser) broadcast several years ago: - "So the paradox of building windmills is that you have to build a lot of ordinary power stations to back them up and those are going to be almost certainly gas in the short to medium term and that’s what’s required. If you ask the question who’s making sure that there’s enough gas stations out there to back up the windmills the answer is nobody.”
The CO2 cost (and electricity cost) of providing backup was addressed by Sir Donald Miller at the Whinash Inquiry. When he retired Miller was Chair of Scottish Power and earlier in career was a renewables engineer (hydro-). He is impeccably qualified to comment.
Sir Donald said: -
9. But there is more. Since output from wind generators can vary dramatically over a short time this shortfall must be compensated for by quick response conventional generating plant. However fossil fuelled plant can take up to 10 hours to start and load from cold so that it becomes necessary to run sufficient back up at less than the rated load whenever the wind turbines are in operation. Experience has shown that this deloading must be some 60% of the wind turbine output at any time. Operation in this inefficient mode incurs still further additional costs which are met by the consumer. It also increases the quantities of C02 released compared with operation at full load, so reducing the gain in CO2 emissions by at least 20% compared with that given by simple calculation based on the wind, energy output.
John
Full UCTE reference Here European Wind Integration Study (EWIS) Towards a Successful Integration of Wind Power into European Electricity Grids
I think the Climate is important to people with a nice property portfolio, good pension, guaranteed inheritance or students but to people in the real world like those in the forgotten generation just trying to get a place to live or wondering how they will survive in retirement then it's not all that important.......
Sorry providor – another case of “Oh no – here we go again”
Quote:
Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe LINK
By Hans H.J. Labohm : BIO| 05 Nov 2007
Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European countries.
In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important sceptical environmental-ist, defying the political correctness which is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He 'only' challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy meas-ures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive expenditures (often euphemistically called 'investments') in exchange for undetectable returns. Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-made global warming hypothesis. They are of the opinion that the human contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most insignificant. But, of course, they are happy with the arguments advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate hysteria.
In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/) has been established - still in its infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See: http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html). Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/7video.htm)
But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf, the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US, George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry. Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming fed up with him.
In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there is a very vocal group of climate sceptics, which regularly publish in 'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See: http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/). Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have some command of the Scandinavian languages, see: http://webbtv.axess.se/index.aspx?id=229: Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?
In Italy the Bruno Leoni Institute has espoused climate scepticism (http://www.brunoleoni.it/). In Spain, the foundation Rafael del Pino has paid attention to climate scepticism in the past, but because of social and political pressure it has felt forced to keep a low profile on this issue over the last few years. (http://www.libertaddigital.com/index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=25151) In the French-speaking part of Europe, individual scientists such as as Marcel Leroux could be mentioned. Moreover, the Molinari Institute has joined the cause of climate scepticism (http://www.institutmolinari.org/index.htm). In the Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel is single-handedly attempting to instil some common sense into public opinion. In Austria the Hayek Institute carries the torch (http://www.hayek-institut.at/english/1183/termine/article/hayek/2035/), while Estonia is represented by Olavi Kärner (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).
In my own country, the Netherlands, the situation has markedly improved. In line with the tradition of consensus-seeking, it has been possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between AGW adherents and the climate sceptics. Personally, I have even been invited by the Netherlands Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to become expert reviewer of the IPCC. As such, I have submitted many fundamental criticisms on the draft texts of the Fourth Assessment Re-port of the Panel (AR4). What happened to my comments? To be honest, I have not the faintest idea. Most probably, nothing at all.
Nevertheless, in my capacity as expert reviewer of the IPCC, I have also received (a tiny) part of the Nobel prize, which has been awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC (yes, thanks for your congratulations). Should I be grateful? I don't think so. Both 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the latest IPCC report labour under cherry-picking, spindoctoring and scare-mongering (Al Gore's movie more than the IPCC reports). Awarding the Nobel price for such flawed science is a disgrace. But it should be recalled that the Nobel Prize for Peace is being awarded by a group of (five) Norwegian politicians and not by the Swedish Academy of Science, which is always scrupulously investigating the merits of the candidates. The Norwegians are piggybacking on the reputation of the Nobel prizes for science and literature. The method of electing the winner of the Peace prize ensures a political outcome reflecting the current strength of Norwegian political parties. Four out of five members of the parliamentary committee that selected Gore are former cabinet members. The fifth, Mjoes, was president of the University of Tromso. So the Democrat Gore owes his prize to a constellation of Progressives, Social and Christian Democrats and Green socialists. Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits: 'Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.'
Russian scientists are criticising very openly the AGW hypothesis. They do it with a frankness which - in this particular field - is still rare in the 'free world'. Usually scientists shroud their statements in clouds of caveats. Even the IPCC follows this tradition to a certain extent. But Russian climatologists do not. They simply state that a new little ice age is imminent. Not so long ago it was astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, who declared that the Earth will experience a 'mini Ice Age' in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Now it is the climatologist Olech Sorochtin, member of the Russian Academy of Physical Science, who joins him. His message was prominently disseminated by the Russian press agency Novosti, which in the period of the Cold War was generally considered to be a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. (http://de.rian.ru/analysis/20071009/83073114.html). Therefore, it is perhaps not too far-fetched to speculate that this might be a warning signal that the Russians will drop out of Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.
But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners, including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened.'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.' Monckton has also won support from the maker of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus on climate change ... people can decide for themselves,' he said.
And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn't they survive the nonsense of man-made global warming as well?
Hans Labohm is an independent economist. Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he is co-author of 'Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma'.
The previous IPCC posting gives further food for thought. Man Made Climate Change/AGW theory followers and those persuaded by the Natural Climate Change theory (NCC) can’t agree. It seems to be a case of the only certainty is uncertainty.
I hope to be a long time dead before the theories have run their course and a conclusion reached … if ever. Time for a move away from unproductive disagreement? I think so.
Even the most commited NCC advocate is unlikely to believe that humankind is making no impact on planet earth at all. So if we can all agree what the impacts are, we will be in a better position to consider remedies.
This is an Environmental Checklist for Dummies
1. Population pressure.
2. Finite resources depletion.
3. Energy dependency – supply problem impact on our established way of life.
4. Pollution of land air and sea affecting all life on earth.
5. Habitat destruction leading to increasing species depletion/extinction.
6. Loss of diverse plant life – the basis for medicines and growing food.
7. Monoculture – disease vulnerability because diversity is lacking.
8. Need for population control, rather than allow war (over land and water), disease, and starvation do it for us.
The next step is deciding urgently which policies will work and to prioritise and implement them.
It’s hard to imagine an honest, open, spin-free debate necessary for such an undertaking. Public involvement is essential, but Richard Girling’s words are likely to apply
Quote:
The problem for the politicians is that there are conflicting imperatives and no consensus on what should be done – you would more easily achieve agreement on the existence of God. It is not so much a debate as an aural riot, voices shouting against one another like dealers on a trading floor.
I turned to the government’s review The Energy Challenge chapter 2 Saving Energy LINK
Quote:
2.6 However, although it would deliver cost savings, businesses and
households are not making the most of the full potential of energy efficiency.
The Energy Efficiency Innovation Review, published in November 2005,
summarised the reasons for this:
• lack of appreciation of the true costs and the long-term benefits of energy
efficiency measures;
• market misalignment, due to regulatory failures, external budget
constraints or split incentives (e.g. the tenant pays the energy bill so the
landlord has no incentive to invest); and
• inertia, lack of interest, knowledge or awareness.
Borrowing from John Cleese, “to state the bleeding obvious”. An infant school project could do better. And there are many more mind-numbingly awful statements like these. As Girling said of another government document “For all its length (342 pages), the white paper is much more about “need to do” than “how to do”.” Where is the vision and leadership?
Germany already has an established 100,000 roofs solar panel programme. 1000 litre rain harvesting has been a requirement there on newbuild housing for some years. Their recycling programme is light years ahead of what we are (not) doing.
Brown and Benn boast about energy world leadership. Cloud cuckoo land meets the Emperor’s new clothes.
Dr J R Etherington a distinguished, much published, critic of wind.
Quote:
I start with the assumption that backup is currently 'lost' in the existing reserve - it doesn't even jeopardise the present 'insurance policy'
We agree.
Quote:
Once wind penetration increases to say 7.5% to 8% of generation (the funny 2010 target) the proportion of the insurance locked-up will be much greater
A statement of the obvious. But I would have said on put on standby.
Quote:
"The variable contributions from wind power must be balanced almost completely with other back-up generation capacity located elsewhere."
This also is of course true.
Quote:
(our limited capacity cross Channel link is already at capacity anyway).
Importing power generated by the French Nuclear reactors.
This major point Etherington is making, is that the back up capacity has to be in the UK. And I agree.
Dr Helm is quoted as saying
Quote:
So the paradox of building windmills is that you have to build a lot of ordinary power stations
Which is of course not correct. The power stations are already there! But we do have to replace many of them, they have reached the end of there useful life, and the old Rankin cycle stations need to be replaced with something more efficient.
Wind simply is a shaving technology it means you can turn off the fossil fuel stations (while the wind is blowing.)
The whole idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burnt, reduce CO2 emissions.
Wind is a stepping stone technology - not perfect and not reliable enough to stand alone, the wind farms will need to be replaced rapidly by Nuclear and then tidal.
But today they are all we have got.
Dr Helm, whose work has certainly influenced recent progress in the energy field, went on to say(some years ago)
Quote:
a lot of ordinary power stations to back them up and those are going to be almost certainly gas in the short to medium term and that’s what’s required. If you ask the question who’s making sure that there’s enough gas stations out there to back up the windmills the answer is nobody.
I believe it was largely thanks to Dr Helm's concerns and efforts, that the arrangements to secure the UK Gas Supply and to decouple us from dependence on the European pipeline were put in place.
As I'm sure you are aware there are massive gas import facilities and distribution networks close to completion. Our Gas Supply will soon be secure for the near future (20-30 years)
Sir Donald Miller is also a distinguished opponent of wind.
Quote:
Since output from wind generators can vary dramatically over a short time this shortfall must be compensated for by quick response conventional generating plant.
This is true wind strength can decay rapidly - but - Given the current accuracy of meteorological prediction, These changes can be accurately forecast, there is no need for massive quick response conventional generation.
Quote:
However fossil fuelled plant can take up to 10 hours to start and load from cold so that it becomes necessary to run sufficient back up at less than the rated load whenever the wind turbines are in operation.
Yes it can take up to 10 hours to start up a conventional generator, but it can be held for long periods in an off load turn down state.
If you think about it the margin for error in predicting major wind force change will be small so this is not a big deal.
The idea that something like Drax or Didcot will be the standby is ludicrous.
The major standby component will be Gas fired CCG plants with a start up from cold to full power of a couple of minutes.
I copy my original post in full because I don't believe your distinguished supporters have made a reasonable case against it.
Quote:
In the UK to ensure stability of the grid, there has to be back up generation on instant start, full capacity, standby at all times,(something like 6-10,000MW's depending on the grid load and conditions) sufficient to pick up the output of the largest generators on line, should they trip.
There is no special provision for wind.
In fact wind, because the output is made up of a large number of small individual generators, is more reliable than a standard power station, mechanical failure will statistically only involve a small number of wind generators at any point in time, so dramatically less instant start standby capacity is needed.
Standby for weather induced power fluctuation is more easily predicted and it is not necessary to have hot standby for that scenario (You have to have investment to provide and maintain that capacity, but you need that for the standard generators anyway so it cancels out)
Your statement regarding emissions is nonsense, fuel input will be about 1% to 10% of full load. In a hot fired generator, the boilers will be operating at high excess air rates so NOx, particulate and CO emissions will be effectively nil. CO2 will be simply depressed in proportion to the fuel turn down.
In fact we don't need hot standby today - fast start gas turbine sets can go from cold to full output in a couple of minutes.
Well within the grid stability requirements when dealing with a distributed generating system like wind, where the demand change curves are more gentle. You don't get an instantaneous call for 1,000's of MW's.
WindWatch, what exactly does that article tell us? That there are some people who disagree with the AGW hypothesis! Well, yes I think we already knew that didn't we? If Labohm's flagrant mis-reporting of the Dimmock case is anything to go by, I'm inclined to wonder how true the rest of it is. He embellishes the oft-repeated lie that Mr Justice Burton found "nine scientific errors" in Gore's film (he didn't) by saying "at least nine" - implying that the judge may have in fact found more than nine, which is quite untrue. Notice how he somehow forgets to mention that the judge also found that the film was "broadly accurate". He seems to think, based on his cherry-picking of the less-than-earth-shattering outcome of the Dimmock case, that "Britannia rules the waves" in climate change scepticism. Doesn't say much for the strength of the anti-AGW case in the rest of Europe does it?
I've looked up all of the URLs mentioned in the article. Many of them aren't in English, but in the ones that are I've seen a fair bit of repetition of the same worn-out old anti-AGW stuff that frequently comes up on this forum and which has long been discredited. I'm still waiting for some convincing peer-reviewed research which inflicts serious damage on the AGW hypothesis and which stands up to detailed analysis by real climate scientists before I change my position! The fact that Herr Labohm, an "independent economist" with an anti-AGW book to promote, can list a bunch of individuals and organisations who disagree with the consensus does not impress me at all.
Time for a move away from unproductive disagreement? I think so.
I wholeheartedly agree, and have said so many times myself. My position has always been that it really doesn't matter whether we are the main cause of global warming or not, there are heaps of other good reasons for treating the planet with more respect, as you so eloquently set out in your "Environmental Checklist for Dummies" (LoL!!).
Girling has it spot on - we have a "to do" list but we don't have a plan. We desperately need our movers and shakers to stop shouting at each other from their entrenched positions on either side of the climate change divide and start a constructive debate about the way forward. Some of us on this forum and its predecessor have long been trying to do precisely that, but we are powerless.
Anybody who thinks our current generation of wind turbines are a bit of a blot on the landscape is going to be apoplectic if we start building these monsters!
Quote:
a magnetically levitated wind turbine that can generate one gigawatt
Looks like a bit of blue-sky sci-fi to me, but the principle is already being tested on a small scale in China.
Providor - WindWatch - count me in on the side of the converted!
Quote:
My position has always been that it really doesn't matter whether we are the main cause of global warming or not, there are heaps of other good reasons for treating the planet with more respect, ..... we have a "to do" list but we don't have a plan. ......... start a constructive debate about the way forward. Some of us on this forum and its predecessor have long been trying to do precisely that, but we are powerless.
or it could have been Son of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire :-)
The encouraging amount of common ground is noted.
The one distinguished author directly involved made clear he was not going to write an essay. He has more pressing things to do than preach either to believers or those who will never believe. A fair point when you consider what providor said:
Quote:
Girling has it spot on - we have a "to do" list but we don't have a plan. We desperately need our movers and shakers to stop shouting at each other from their entrenched positions on either side of the climate change divide and start a constructive debate about the way forward. Some of us on this forum and its predecessor have long been trying to do precisely that, but we are powerless.
Quote:
WindWatch, what exactly does that article tell us?
Just another example of how difficult it is to move on with the pendulum swinging almost daily between the two main theories.
This LINK has the words of Dr Vincent Gray (the IPCC critic) himself rather than via a reporter. He certainly looks on paper to be a credible commentator. AGW critics will resist any attempts to dismiss what he says. So the divide is maintained.
I found the vertical axis maglev monster a few months ago and in many ways it seems to me preferable to current windmills. The frictionless bearing surfaces means it should be much more efficient than turbines – and it isn’t directional which eliminates related complicated motors, gearing and control systems. Turbines produce minimal power unless wind speeds are in the 40 to 50mph range. This is very rarely achieved consistently at inland sites. So output is bound to be disappointing and very expensive. Emissions reduction likewise.
Because the ‘blades’ are so close together (appearing like a solid wall), bird chopping is much less likely I imagine. Visually, they would be less “busy” and flashing, and would cast a consistent shadow – so probably be more acceptable to most people than 1000 turbines covering a staggering 64,000 acres. Suitably coloured to blend in, and carefully sited, the impact could be lessened considerably. Stuck near coastal oil refineries, they could double as one hell of a lighthouse! Noise and vibroacoustic disease risk would need assessing
But as you suggest providor … probably best not to hold our breath.
Quote:
Providor - WindWatch - count me in on the side of the converted!
Providor, I had a question about the spaced based solar stations which was transmission. Is Wireless power transmission a commercial practicality yet?
Had a look at the maglev thingys.. Would hate to see them on the scots highlands but based in the thames estaury or wherever they may be as acceptable as anything else. They also look a bit flimsy to me.
In fact the more I look at it the less practical they look.. The China exhibit was july 06.. why has so little been made of it since then?
I think wishful thinking sci fi is about right.. unless, (my suspicious conspiracy theory mind coming in here) the Eon's of this world have huge vested interests in not seeing these things being developed.
To me the environment is important in other ways.
When research can reduce the noise from aircraft to half which has an immediate and proven benefit but is deliberately traded off against emissions of CO2, that is a trade off I would class as unacceptable even if I was a believer.
When we are building houses on green belt land so that we can comply with an order from an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels to allow unrestricted access to this tiny island that is another environmental issue.
When we collect food waste fortnightly with its health issues proven by ordinary people in areas where it is already imposed, which the 'scientists' employed by the councils deny as being valid. That is another important environmental issue.
When canal funding is removed to save money diverted to the Olympic games instead of removing some subsidy from an operation that failed to deliver as promised. That is also environmental.
What is more important is that these are visible effects on the environment now and in the immediate future, not vague unreliable projections based on esoteric mathematics that clearly even many of those involved do not really understand as is now becoming more publicly revealed.
Just another example of how difficult it is to move on with the pendulum swinging almost daily between the two main theories.
As far as I can tell, those who deride the AGW theory do not actually have a credible alternative theory, in the strictly scientific sense. They have a hypothesis that it's all down to natural variability in the climate system, and that human influences are too small to make any difference. To turn that hypothesis into a credible scientific theory they have to produce some hard evidence which can be tested, and show that their theory explains the observed changes better than the mainstream anthropogenc one. I've seen precious little indication that they are able to do this. So far I've seen a lot of nit-picking around the edges of the anthropogenic theory, and a lot of criticism of the IPCC's procedures, but nothing terribly convincing that would elevate the "natural causes" hypothesis to the status of a scientific theory.
Quote:
This LINK has the words of Dr Vincent Gray... He certainly looks on paper to be a credible commentator.
That's the problem - to the average person he looks credible, but when you scratch the surface he isn't. It's all very well him pontificating from the safety of his one-eyed website, but put him in a live debate with a couple of real climate scientists and his specious nonsense would be ripped to shreds in minutes. I don't have the time or energy to dissect your link in detail, but just to look at his opening salvo:
Quote:
To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.
This is a blatant straw man. The evidence that global temperature is increasing is not based on a graph of "mean annual global temperature" at all, because as he rightly points out it's impossible to measure "global temperature". What graphs such as this show is not temperature, but temperature anomaly which is an entirely different beast, and which can be measured on a global scale.
It works like this. Actual temperature is highly dependent upon the exact location and elevation of the measuring station, so for example if you looked at the average temperature for August 2006 on the pier at Bangor and on the top of Snowdon, they would be quite different even though they are geographically close together. But if you looked at the difference (anomaly) between the Aug 2006 average and the long-term average at each location, they would probably be quite similar because when it's hot at Bangor it's pretty likely to be relatively hot on Snowdon, and vice versa. So whilst a record of the actual temperature will tell you how it varies at a particular location, the temperature anomaly is a more useful measure of the way temperature varies over an area.
So, to calculate global temperature anomaly, you look at the temperature records from an individual weather station over a standard "reference period" (1961-1990 is normally used) and calculate the average temperature for that station for each of those years. Then you calculate the average of those 30 annual averages to get the "reference temperature" for that location. To calculate the temperature anomaly for say 2006 at that location you just subtract the reference temp from the 2006 average temp. That's just the same as saying that "the temperature in 2006 at (insert location) was x degrees above average". Now do the same for 3000 weather stations across the globe, average all 3000 and you arrive at the global temperature anomaly for 2006.
Gray rubbishes the temperature record as statistically invalid, but then goes on to cite that same temperature record as evidence that there has been no global warming for 8 years! He can't have it both ways - either the record is wrong, in which case it's impossible to say if there's been any warming or not, or it's correct, in which case in spite of the fact that it's levelled off a bit in recent years the overall trend for the past 40 years has been inexorably upwards.
Incidentally the above graph shows that there have been three other periods (1971-1975, 1981-1985 and 1989-1992) where the global average has dipped a bit but then gone right on rising, so I wouldn't get too excited by the current slightly downward trend.
I wish I could rediscover the link to the IPCC spreadsheet that shows exactly how they responded to Gray's "1,898 comments", rather than having to take his word that they were "rejected without explanation".
The environment is only as important to me as I can make it! If the rest of the world is continuing to pollute the atmosphere at a rate far greater than Britain is ever likely to generate, then why should I chew my nails to the quick and lose money on a microcosmic contribution?
I am far more worried about the health hazards created by fortnightly refuse collections; the pollution and health problems to be contemplated by potential fines for not recycling; the space needed in my front garden for all the different wheelie bins; and how the hell I am supposed to sell a 4x4 (which incidentally was bought for reasons of disability in the first place) in order to raise the cash to "go green".
Anyway, how do we really know what isn't natural evolution on this planet? The change processes have been going on for infinitely longer than Man's pollution has!
Providor. The denialist are not proposing any action so they need to prove nothing.
The AGW brigade are demanding action:-
Based on computer models that are a total failure when validated using the requirements demanded of models in other fields.
Based also on no evidence of data collection projects for natural emissions to compare against man made ones. Still waiting for that list of references for the most basic of comparison data.
Based on lumping together various gasses with different mechanisms for compensating for their effects.
In short a pathetic mish mash of poorly researched rubbish that it is now becoming very clear is only supported by a few powerful big names even in the scientific world with no declaration of their commercial and political affiliations.
Let's now forget this rubbish and get on with the country's real problems.
Ask readers to put their ten priorities in order and see where CO2 comes in the list. No it won't happen but if we are not to end up with a BNP government it should be done and soon.
Sorry providor – another case of “Oh no – here we go again”
providor – the strength of your attack on Dr Vincent Gray caused me to look again at what he said. Up to that point, I was content to leave the AGW pendulum alone.
You appear to have linked these two quotes from different paragraphs unfairly by stating:
”I wish I could rediscover the link to the IPCC spreadsheet that shows exactly how they responded to Gray's "1,898 comments", rather than having to take his word that they were "rejected without explanation".”
The quotes are here – separated as Dr Gray wrote them.
Quote:
I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
Because Dr Gray wrote in support of another IPCC critic, Professor David Henderson, I looked for information on him. See his submitted evidence to the government Select Committee on Economic Affairs
I also found IPCC - Call it propaganda, not science and Commentary: The Construction of Dogmas in Climate Science both by Prof. Tom V. Segalstad, Head of the Geological Museum within the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway) and a Scientific Advisor to CFACT Europe. He was an official Expert Reviewer to the IPCC Third Assessment Report, although his scientific criticisms made no impact on the IPCC.
So, these three qualified people from three entirely different disciplines are highly critical of the IPCC.
For a number of years, I have discounted dissent from what appeared to be the mainstream AGW theory. Perhaps that was unwise.
I am not qualified to cross swords with these three experts in their respective fields.
Even if you, providor, are as highly qualified as Dr Gray (and I have no idea what your qualifications are to call into question his) I do seriously think that he and Professors Henderson and Segalstad deserve a fair hearing on something this important.
It is difficult to avoid considering the possibility there is a hidden agenda.
You appear to have linked these two quotes from different paragraphs unfairly
The two paragraphs both refer to comments he made to the IPCC, so they are clearly linked. I've no idea why you think I'm being unfair, all I said is that I would like to be able to see the other side's opinion - what could be fairer than that?
Have you looked to see if the Select Committee on Economic Affairs took Prof Henderson's evidence into account, or if anybody presented contrary but equally weighty evidence? If so, please post a link.
Have you investigated the credentials of the individuals and organizations from which your links are drawn?
Did you know that Prof Henderson is a colleague of Dr Gray? They are both founder members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
The strength of my scepticism of Dr Gray derives from the observations that (1) he claims (apparently self-appointed) status as an "Expert Reviewer of the IPCC" and as a "climate scientist", which could mislead people into believing that his opinions have greater authority than they deserve, and (2) that his criticism of the temperature record is based on an incorrect assertion which I have already explained in detail. You seem content to overlook such considerations, but for me they are pivotal to my assessment of the credibility of his views, and cannot be casually disregarded. If his organisation claims "to represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change" and the very first "fact" I read on their website turns out to be a misrepresentation, you can hardly blame me for being a bit sceptical!
Here's the invitation to become a self-appointed "expert reviewer" for one of the IPCC reports:
Quote:
The Technical Support Unit of the IPCC Working Group III invites everyone who has interest in, or knowledge of, CO2 capture and storage to become an Expert Reviewer and to contribute to the production of a balanced scientific assessment of CO2 capture and storage.
So literally anybody claiming even an "interest" in the subject could become an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC", and subsequently aggrandize themself with that title for the purpose of adding unwarranted credibility to their contrarian views. It is in my view a mistake to uncritically assume that just because somebody calls himself an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC", it necessarily implies that he has the expertise and authority to back up his accusations.
There is of course another important observation to make here, which is that the mere fact that the IPCC is prepared to invite literally anybody to review their output could be seen as a powerful testament to the openness, transparency and accountability of the IPCC process.
Quote:
The IPCC requests its reviewers to be attentive and very critical towards eventual biases in the Report, towards redundancies and towards factual errors or assumptions...
The authors of the Special Report will discuss and process all officially submitted review comments during their meeting in June 2004. Review Editors will see to it that the comments are processed in an appropriate manner. During the Government and Expert Review, in September and October 2004, you will be invited to review the Second-Order-Draft. Both reviews will be anonymous.
(My added emphasis)
In other words, the IPCC welcomes comments from anybody, without regard for their qualifications (or lack of), their affiliations or their motivation. All comments are discussed by the authors (who will not know the identity of the commenter) and those who submit comments get a copy of the second draft so they can see how their comment is reflected.
And although it doesn't mention it in this quote, as I already said there is a publicly-available audit trail of all review comments and responses thereto, from which anybody can see what criticisms were made and how they impacted on the final report, but unfortunately I am unable to find it right now.
Quote:
I have no idea what your qualifications are
I have no relevant qualifications, unless you consider a 30-year old physics degee relevant. I'm just a bungling amateur trying to find my way through the fog of confusion and deception surrounding this issue, and trying very hard to remain objective. I am utterly dismayed at the way that the whole credibility and respectability of science is being damaged by the toxic influence of vested interest on both sides of this debate. This issue is so important - people need to become engaged with it but instead many are just switched off by the whole thing while others have adopted entrenched positions and no longer believe a word of what the other side have to say.
Quote:
It is difficult to avoid considering the possibility there is a hidden agenda.
I was impressed with explanation of the temperature anomaly calculation and the associated link.
Quote:
The evidence that global temperature is increasing is not based on a graph of "mean annual global temperature" at all, because as he rightly points out it's impossible to measure "global temperature". What graphs such as this show is not temperature, but temperature anomaly which is an entirely different beast, and which can be measured on a global scale.
The graphs you provide show an upward temperature shift of 1' C from the minima of 1915 to the top of the peak in 2000. Discounting the trough about 0.75'.
Very little, surely the sort of variance one would expect over a few decades.
However in terms of the geological time over millions of years this variation is negligible.
I started looking at solar data, and found many published peer reviewed papers that said there was no evidence to support solar radiation as an actor in the calculated global temperature anomaly.
The great and good of the IPCC with many words and much data dismiss any connection - then I found this.
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming.
What impressed me was how closely the trends you provide and those in this article match. pity my trend seems to stop about 1990, but the slopes agree. The article also points out
Quote:
On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2 percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a year, the researchers estimate.
A quick google brought up this regarding Jupiter and this about Pluto and of course we all know about Mars.
Obviously these changes have no relationship to the Climate Change we are experiencing here on earth.
The great and the good of climate science say so!
Thanks for your comments providor. I hope my answers won’t have readers nodding off.
Quote:
You appear to have linked these two quotes from different paragraphs unfairly
Dr Gray said “I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report”. A couple of paragraphs later he stated “Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.”
This cannot logically be interpreted as “all 1,898 comments were rejected without explanation” which is the essence of what you wrote.
I chose my words with care on the question of fairness.
Have I checked out Prof Henderson’s vital statistics including inside leg measurement, is he kind to children, his cat and wife; known associates and affiliations with Scientology, and so forth? Nope. If you want to, feel free. Same applies to Prof Segalstad. Being judgemental is best left to judges … they at least have an opportunity for all the facts to be laid out before them. For the rest of us? We just have to muddle on as best we can.
And yes, I am aware of the link between Dr Gray and Prof Henderson. My last post states:
Quote:
Because Dr Gray wrote in support of another IPCC critic, Professor David Henderson, I looked for information on him.
Your polemical style puts me in mind of Gerald Kaufman’s remark about never seeing a belt without feeling an urge to hit below it.
You make a number of claims that Dr Gray has got it wrong. You denigrate someone you don’t know as a person or as a professional. You claim to be able to assess the credibility of his views – and by implication suggest that these assertions you make have been “casually disregarded” by me. The charm school you attended has a lot to answer for!
Thanks for the invitation to be an “IPCC expert reviewer”. One small problem, I’m not an expert. And perhaps I’ve got this wrong, but haven’t you been getting stuck into Dr Gray because he has criticised IPCC procedures and findings? Do you now agree with Dr Gray?
The section of your posting that suggests a semi-literate gerbil with delusions of grandeur could become an expert reviewer is most entertaining.
And then you throw in the wonderfully surreal “the mere fact that the IPCC is prepared to invite literally anybody to review their output could be seen as a powerful testament to the openness, transparency and accountability of the IPCC process.” ... Nobel Prize material? :-)
I hope this doesn’t sound cynical, but the following comment you made might be interpreted as a cunning way to have a large volume of conflicting input allowing the IPCC to justify any pre-determined policy. Even with the audit trail you mention, the bean counters are free to claim that they have “taken account” of the broad response and tempered it with “in-house expertise and practicality”.
Quote:
In other words, the IPCC welcomes comments from anybody, without regard for their qualifications (or lack of), their affiliations or their motivation. All comments are discussed by the authors (who will not know the identity of the commenter) and those who submit comments get a copy of the second draft so they can see how their comment is reflected.
Having said all that in rather more pointed language than I favour, I warmed to your honest description of yourself. I have read that you have a family to think about, you don’t just pontificate about carbon footprints, but recycle and compost, and you are committed and passionate about us starting the process of proper sustainability. For that you have my vote :-)
This cannot logically be interpreted as “all 1,898 comments were rejected without explanation” which is the essence of what you wrote.
Fair point, I concede on that one!
There are a number of other points in your comment that I take issue with, but this is beginning to develop a more confrontational edge than I am comfortable with, and I doubt that anybody else is interested anyway, so at risk of being accused of cowardice I will thank you for your complimentary final paragraph and refrain from further comment. There's an interesting comment on the "Manifesto for the environment" thread that I want to respond to, so I'd prefer to direct my efforts there.
Fair enough providor – let’s get back to our focus on solutions.
I will just add that if errors with information interpretation on something this straightforward is possible, it’s scarcely surprising that climate data of Himalayan proportions is open not only to interpretational differences, but also human error … and dreaded hidden agenda manipulation.
This from Schopenhauer makes a good point:
Quote:
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Why cannot Brown understand this?
Why did I have such a problem getting a Union Jack to take to Paris demonstration?
Sarkozy listened and acted
Will Brown now listen to us? Those affected in the North East of England, some in Blair's former constituency could not even make contact with him.
SARKOZY announces new wind turbine policy nov6th 2007
France Press Releases
This new policy marks the end of industrial wind turbine installations in rural and wild areas. This is a relief for the 800 villages and 52 departments represented in the October 6 demonstration
. It is also a powerful contribution to the image of France and shows Europe that an energy policy can reconcile the fight against global warming and respect for the countryside and every life.
The 1500 demonstrators on October 6 brought six demands. Many of them have been accepted : publicize the true numbers of wind energy development (M. Borloo [environment minister] has committed to this
protect public health from wind turbine nuisance,protect the cultural and natural heritage ofFrance, restore peace in the villages, commit to an effective energy strategy.
Quote:
The sixth concerns the financial scandal of the price of wind-generated electricity. The highly elevated price encourages the production of intermittent energy which does not promote the reduction of greenhouse gases.
It will lead to speculative pressure for the few areas in France that meet the criteria of the new policy.
Just as the president announced that the policy of supporting biofuels will be reviewed price support for wind turbines needs to be reviewed.Fédération Environnement Durable
Les Associations de Patrimoine
Still waiting for you to tell me what "natural emissions" you're on about Roverdc!
If you just engage brain for half a second and stop regurgitating half digested IPCC propaganda it would be obvious.
The fact that you even think of asking is a hell of an indictment of the whole case for AGW which should be centerd around a balance sheet of man made emissions and absorbtion against natural emisson and absorbtion of greenhouse gasses.
If it was money we would be asking for a balance sheet of income and expenditure for each party in determining the relative contribution or drain. This should be the same for greenhouse gasses and the projects to measure them listed. I REPEAT, WHERE ARE THEY?
We are just being bombarded with irrelevant propaganda to justify more taxes.
Roverdc, I've been crossing swords with you on this issue for long enough now to know never to presume to understand what you are talking about! You never cease to surprise me with your idiosyncratic take on this whole thing, (that's one of the joys of being here!) so there is no way you are going to send me on yet another wild goose chase through the journals looking for what I think you mean, only to have you come back at me with some new, eccentric angle which is what you actually meant but didn't make clear at first.
So you list exactly what sources and what gases you think haven't been "properly researched" and provided they actually exist I'll have a go at proving you wrong, otherwise, no deal!
The graphs you provide show an upward temperature shift of 1' C from the minima of 1915 to the top of the peak in 2000. Discounting the trough about 0.75'.
Very little, surely the sort of variance one would expect over a few decades.
Yes it's not a lot so far, but it's the possible future rise we have to worry about. There's a lot of lag in the system, and temps could rise by a further 2C even if we ceased emitting CO2 altogether right now. But you need to look at the rate of increase as well - there isn't much evidence in the historical record that it has increased this fast before, although the further back you look the poorer the temporal resolution becomes so it's difficult to be sure that there haven't been times in the distant past when it went up quickly.
Quote:
then I found this.
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming.
What impressed me was how closely the trends you provide and those in this article match. pity my trend seems to stop about 1990, but the slopes agree.
Yes, that's the same trick that Durkin used in TGGWS - he stopped the graph at the point where the correlation breaks down!
Quote:
A quick google brought up this regarding Jupiter and this about Pluto and of course we all know about Mars.
Obviously these changes have no relationship to the Climate Change we are experiencing here on earth.
The great and the good of climate science say so!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier (25/05/2007 14:32 on this thread.)
You never cease to surprise me with your idiosyncratic take on this whole thing
Providor perhaps that is why I can see it is all a con and you can not.
If requiring a carbon balance sheet is an idiosyncaratic requirement then what does that say about followers of the CO2 religion?
Nothing very flattering is the one thing I am certain of.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm
This while saying one thing highlights how flimsy and underfunded the evidence for the AGW lobby really is compared to the funding for its propaganda machine.
This as I tried to say before is one totally unimportant aspect of environment based on a con instead of proper measurements compared to much more immediate and definitely more important aspects like health , crime , green belt preservation, population levels etc which are important.
