UK energy future

[pjclarke]

Just because solar activity drives the climate does not mean it has anything to do with irradiance.
Stop spouting the party line and try thinking for yourself

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Lockwood and Frohlich, Proceedings of the Royal Society 2007.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a “U-turn in every possible way” in the mid-1980s.

“The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now,” Lockwood told New Scientist.

https://www.newscientist.com/article.../#.UwkaDEJdWig

Mike Lockwood is Professor of Space Environment Physics at Reading and Rutherford Appleton Labs. Note that the first sentence of the 2007 abstract falsifies the assertion that solar is 'dismissed'. :-0

Spend less time on blogs run by accountants and try opening a scientific paper once in a while.

[pjclarke]

Wood's experiment is easily repeated.

.
I never doubted its reproducibility; I challenged the conclusions made from it. It tells us little to nothing about the greenhouse effect, as it acts in the atmosphere. Hint: the absorptivity of the glass to IR is roughly unity as is that of the black cardboard, and therefore by Kirchoff's law their IR emissivity is also unity in the IR.

Wood was a brilliant experimental Physicist, however as he noted 'I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter'.

Nor have you.

[LucidDementia]

.
I never doubted its reproducibility; I challenged the conclusions made from it. It tells us little to nothing about the greenhouse effect, as it acts in the atmosphere. Hint: the absorptivity of the glass to IR is roughly unity as is that of the black cardboard, and therefore by Kirchoff's law their IR emissivity is also unity in the IR.

Wood was a brilliant experimental Physicist, however as he noted 'I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter'.

Nor have you.

Good grief. You folk need locking up.
You genuinely believe you can force your claptrap down people's throats and brush under the carpet anything which doesn't fit your agenda.

His experiment all else aside, and the reproductions of it, have shown experimentally that the Greenhouse Effect (as sold for crying out loud) is not good science. So you'll ignore that, or whitewash it, because **** science.

Perhaps Jamie Whyte said it best:

They are partial in their accounting for costs and benefits; they ignore substitution effects; they pretend that mathematical precision is evidence; they confound risk and uncertainty; and they exaggerate the certainty warranted by the available evidence. Having committed such errors, they obscure them with grandiose irrelevancies about peer-reviewed publication, consensus among scientists and the proclamations of official scientific committees.

Which interestingly is exactly what you keep doing.

[pjclarke]

Good grief. You folk need locking up.
You genuinely believe you can force your claptrap down people's throats and brush under the carpet anything which doesn't fit your agenda.

His experiment all else aside, and the reproductions of it, have shown experimentally that the Greenhouse Effect is not good science. So you'll ignore that, or whitewash it, because **** science.

Perhaps Jamie Whyte said it best:



Which interestingly is exactly what you keep doing.

Just to be clear, you dispute the Greenhouse Effect ?!

[LucidDementia]

Just to be clear, you dispute the Greenhouse Effect ?!

You know damn well I'm speaking of the Greenhouse Effect as sold. i.e That the GE is 1. the main driver of climate change and 2. that the change in CO2 drives that.

So, is there such a thing as a Greenhouse Effect? Yes.
Is it killing the planet as a result of CO2 emissions or otherwise? No evidence anywhere says so.

[LucidDementia]

Tucked away in er, the executive summary of the latest IPCC report. I know it is not the Mail, but the discussions are all there if you just take the trouble to ..... oh never mind.

Do you not understand that referring to a report from the very people leading the entire charade does not offer anything to a debate?

[pjclarke]

Perhaps Jamie Whyte said it best:

Or maybe it was Chris Hitchens 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'

A lot of the pushback against action on climate change has come from the free-market supporting, industry-friendly Right, as it requires acknowledging a market failure and a solution will probably require collective provision by co-operating States. Whyte is typical, in the pamphlet criticising AGW policy, he also rails against state interference to cut down harm from passive smoking and alcohol related disease.

He's entitled to his opinion, natch, but fortunately he is very much in the minority.

[LucidDementia]

He's entitled to his opinion, natch, but fortunately he is very much in the minority.

That's how it works pal. Used to be the folk saying smoking could kill you were in the minority. And the folk saying slavery was amoral. And those who said homosexuality was not evil.

[LucidDementia]

Actually pjclarke a straightforward question.

Given that this forum is made up of contractors who can be assumed to be at least of average intelligence and fairly assumed to be above average: if you're correct and the IPCC is correct and there's a 97% consensus then why do you have so few supporters in this thread?

Just answer me that.

For my part I imagine it's because the smart ones are the hardest to fool.

[pjclarke]

Actually pjclarke a straightforward question.

Given that this forum is made up of contractors who can be assumed to be at least of average intelligence and fairly assumed to be above average: if you're correct and the IPCC is correct and there's a 97% consensus then why do you have so few supporters in this thread?

Just answer me that.

For my part I imagine it's because the smart ones are the hardest to fool.

Give it time. According to your immediately-previous post, the minority viewpoint often is proven right

Perhaps you could indicate where anything I've posted has been shown to be wrong?




What I have noticed is, compared to a few years ago, the number of 'AGW is a load of bollux, scientists know nuffink' posts is way down.