• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

Climate scientists

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    Yeah, I always go to an IT news and gossip website for the latest climate science - I counted half a dozen lies, half-truths and distortions. About par for El Reg, who BTW used to publish our old pixel-counting friend Steve Goddard (scroll to the Editor's note )..

    Here [once again], are the data that BB thinks are significant, in the context of all the data ...



    Was it one of those Spencerian 'entertainment only' trends?
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
      Yeah, I always go to an IT news and gossip website for the latest climate science - I counted half a dozen lies, half-truths and distortions. About par for El Reg, who BTW used to publish our old pixel-counting friend Steve Goddard (scroll to the Editor's note )..

      Here [once again], are the data that BB thinks are significant, in the context of all the data ...



      Was it one of those Spencerian 'entertainment only' trends?
      did the victorians invent the earth?? I knew they were clever but this takes some explaining!
      Coffee's for closers

      Comment


        #73
        Mackay's book is not bad, e.g.

        However, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Not the strongest greenhouse gas, but a significant one nonetheless. Put more of it in the atmosphere, and it does what greenhouse gases do: it absorbs infrared radiation (heat) heading out from the earth and reemits it in a random direction; the effect of this random redirection of the atmospheric heat traffic is to impede the flow of heat from the planet, just like a quilt. So carbon dioxide has a warming effect. This fact is based not on complex historical records of global temperatures but on the simple physical properties of CO2 molecules. Greenhouse gases are a quilt, and CO2 is one layer of the quilt
        but it contains significant factual errors, which interestingly, all make renewables look worse and nuclear look better. For example MacKay understates the potential of offshore wind by about two-thirds, and he assumes negligible improvements in PV efficiency - the book was written in 2007 and we have already surpassed the efficiencies he predicted for 2050. So enjoy the lecture, but double-check any claims made....
        My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

        Comment


          #74
          Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
          Mackay's book is not bad, e.g.



          but it contains significant factual errors, which interestingly, all make renewables look worse and nuclear look better. For example MacKay understates the potential of offshore wind by about two-thirds, and he assumes negligible improvements in PV efficiency - the book was written in 2007 and we have already surpassed the efficiencies he predicted for 2050. So enjoy the lecture, but double-check any claims made....
          He regularly updates the on-line book and has taught physics at Cambridge, so can't be far off IMO. He has perhaps a good finger on the pulse of advances that might feasibly occur before 2050 (the lecture title and presumably part of his government advisory function) too.

          Where do you think he has underestimated offshore wind by two-thirds (he shows all his workings out)? He might be interested in hearing about it, in the unlikely event that he hasn't already corrected the 'error' or dismissed it.

          Comment


            #75
            Hi Timberwolf,

            Briefly, the Dutch Masterplan Zeekracht study found a technical potential of around 13,400TWh for the North Sea, roughly equivalent to 100% of demand for all the countries neighbouring that sea. . Mackay gets a far smaller figure because, despite claiming that "in calculating our production stack we threw all economic, social, and environmental constraints to the wind." he makes assumptios that are unwarranted and scale down the potential. On offshore wind, the constraints placed are:

            * the shallow-water resource (to 25m) is only one-third of the available area (p60).
            * only one-third of the mid-depth resource (25-50m, labelled "deep" in the book) is used (p61)
            * nothing deeper than 50m is used, and there's no energy from international waters (figure 10.2, p61).

            Yet we've deployed 5MW wind turbines in depths of 45-50m at Beatrice, one within 2km of the oil platform there. The Norwegians have developed the use of floaters (as used for floating oil platforms) for use as floating wind farms, to allow them to deploy wind turbines in their much deeper part of the North Sea.

            The other resources similarly have social, economic and/or environmental constraints placed on them, despite Mackay claiming otherwise.
            My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

            Comment


              #76
              Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
              Hi Timberwolf,

              Briefly, the Dutch Masterplan Zeekracht study found a technical potential of around 13,400TWh for the North Sea, roughly equivalent to 100% of demand for all the countries neighbouring that sea. . Mackay gets a far smaller figure because, despite claiming that "in calculating our production stack we threw all economic, social, and environmental constraints to the wind." he makes assumptios that are unwarranted and scale down the potential. On offshore wind, the constraints placed are:

              * the shallow-water resource (to 25m) is only one-third of the available area (p60).
              * only one-third of the mid-depth resource (25-50m, labelled "deep" in the book) is used (p61)
              * nothing deeper than 50m is used, and there's no energy from international waters (figure 10.2, p61).

              Yet we've deployed 5MW wind turbines in depths of 45-50m at Beatrice, one within 2km of the oil platform there. The Norwegians have developed the use of floaters (as used for floating oil platforms) for use as floating wind farms, to allow them to deploy wind turbines in their much deeper part of the North Sea.

              The other resources similarly have social, economic and/or environmental constraints placed on them, despite Mackay claiming otherwise.
              Hi pjclarke,

              Interesting,

              I don't suppose you also post under the nom de guerre Le Petit Fou?

              One thing Le Petit Fou does appear to allude to that's interesting is that MacKay may have based or taken wholesale (can't look at it all now) his constraints from an earlier Cockerill study. Le Petit Fou doesn't seem to think much of MacKay either. I like his [MacKay's] entertaining use of physics, but can't vouch for the validity of the chosen constraints.

              Comment


                #77
                Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
                Yeah, I always go to an IT news and gossip website for the latest climate science - I counted half a dozen lies, half-truths and distortions. About par for El Reg, who BTW used to publish our old pixel-counting friend Steve Goddard (scroll to the Editor's note )..

                Here [once again], are the data that BB thinks are significant, in the context of all the data ...



                Was it one of those Spencerian 'entertainment only' trends?

                Well that's entertainment

                Lets look how it actually is (i.e. HADCRUT plus Satellite), before they started measuring air conditioners and airport runways:



                HTH
                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #78
                  I don't suppose you also post under the nom de guerre Le Petit Fou?
                  No - but I am sure a little more Googling could find you my identity in that forum, if you care. However I've checked LPF's points and they stand up.

                  To be clear, I agree with the majority of Mackay's arguments, and I would commend the book, but do read it with a sceptical eye for anti-renewable, pro-nuclear leanings ..
                  My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                  Comment


                    #79
                    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
                    No - but I am sure a little more Googling could find you my identity in that forum, if you care.
                    Not really. I wasn't trying to catch you out, I had been searching to see if MacKay had already personally addressed the Zeekracht idea, specifically relating to the looser constraints that plan uses, compared to his own tighter ones.

                    Comment


                      #80
                      Originally posted by pjclarke
                      The editor of the journal now says the paper was, to quote a certain CUKer, a heap of sh*te.
                      Thought you might be interested:

                      New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative-feedback cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget | Watts Up With That?

                      Consistent with previous results (Ramanathan et al., 1989; Su et al., 2010), the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found
                      to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.
                      oh dear looks like the editor was a bit hasty. I'm sure you'll agree...
                      I'm alright Jack

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X