• 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 webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Wed, Jul 28, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

Reply to: Climate scientists

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Climate scientists"

Collapse

  • BlasterBates
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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 ..

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Thats the problem, we have a bunch of people who claim to be certain about the way the climate works
    No scientist makes such a claim. UNcertainty is a fact of life. The pertinent question is, does the balance of evidence justify action? Here's the IPCC headline observation ...

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
    where 'very likely' is defined as >90% probability. And here is a statement from the joint National Academies of Science:-
    The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
    we have a second group, who are so frightened by the predictions of the first group, that they run around in little circles saying 'something must be done'
    Every cost benefit analysis so far performed concludes that mitigation now is a lot cheaper than adaptation later. We are trying to save you money.

    The third group, are scientifically savvy. They say - 'ok, prove it'
    Not so scientifically savvy. Proof belongs in mathematics, rarely in science. In science we have the balance of evidence, which is overwhelmingly supportive of the reality of AGW.

    There is a fourth group who are sceptical because they are natural sceptics, they dont like being told what to believe, dont like authority and dont like big government
    Well, thanks for confirming the political, rather than scientific, basis for your 'scepticism'.

    Sorry I must have missed your previous questions. I unequivocally reject violence to achieve political objectives, and I certainly do not recognise the caricature of the green movement, the overwhelming majority of whom are law-abiding and peacable.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Interesting (free) lecture to be held here: Professor David MacKay Lecture - 2050 Pathways: How... - Eventbrite

    Professor David MacKay - 2050: How Government is planning our energy future. In partnership with the Cabot Institute, IMechE and Atkins

    How easy is it to get off our fossil fuel habit?
    How does our current energy consumption compare with our sustainable energy options?
    How can we make energy plans that add up?
    This talk will offer a straight-talking assessment of the numbers, and will present the DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator

    David MacKay, FRS, is the Professor of Natural Philosophy in the department of Physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
    He's also the guy who wrote this interesting book. He is somewhat fixated by one element, namely carbon, though, but apart from that seems okay. First come, first served, don't all rush at once. Hecklers may not be welcome (event details don't specify either way).

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by andyc2000 View Post
    This is statistically insignificant, along with data 'since records began'. Ice core data is probably meaningful... What's that? CO2 levels changed after global temperature changed? Oh maybe we she actually figure out how the climate works before taxing the sh**e out of everything that can be measured.

    Well its blindingly obvious that we should not try to make decisions on something that we dont understand properly.
    Thats the problem, we have a bunch of people who claim to be certain about the way the climate works
    we have a second group, who are so frightened by the predictions of the first group, that they run around in little circles saying 'something must be done'
    The third group, are scientifically savvy. They say - 'ok, prove it'
    There is a fourth group who are sceptical because they are natural sceptics, they dont like being told what to believe, dont like authority and dont like big government


    there is a fifth group, on the pro-cagw side. they are anti science. they are greenist, fascist and want to control everything. and I mean everything.
    They are outside the debate, but , unfortunately are controlling it at the moment.
    ask one of them, pj for example, if they would use violence to achieve their aims

    there will be no answer. I have asked twice


    Leave a comment:


  • andyc2000
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post

    ...oh it seems to be going down.
    This is statistically insignificant, along with data 'since records began'. Ice core data is probably meaningful... What's that? CO2 levels changed after global temperature changed? Oh maybe we she actually figure out how the climate works before taxing the sh**e out of everything that can be measured.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
    Quite astounding really, editor doesn´t give scientific reasons, and actually admits the the political views of the authors wasn´t the only factor!!! So political views is one factor and the other factor is that it disagrees with a paper from an author with whom he shares the same political views.

    Now what´s the global temp trend for the last decade:



    ...oh it seems to be going down.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X