Global Warming

[rov1100]

As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?

[David H]

"I'm not being funny, but have you ever been to a Steps concert?? "

Was that for me? No, but I've seen Bill Haley and Roy Orbison. I have a lot more taste than that.

[beso]

Again you use simplistic single curves and straight lines to make claims about the effects of CO2 and Climate Change.

You try to terrify people with notions of unbearable cost should we do anything but combust every last thing we can possibly ignite. It is a stupid attitude. The sooner we get on with a renewable energy future the sooner we will reap the benefits and avoid any worries about the possibility of CO2 causing climate change.

I worked in the solar and wind energy sectors for many yeatrs and am still in touch with what is going on. Photovoltaic panels are already competing strongly against the cost of electricity at the meter with systems able to produce power at well below the retail cost and now approaching the wholesale level.

Chinese production is already huge and they are currently constructing a factory capable of producing many GigaWatts of panels per year.

Germany has embraced the task, is the strongest economy in Europe and have their lowest unemployment in twenty years. Indeed they and a handful of other European companies are considering going ahead with carbon reduction agreements without the rest of the world should they not reach agreement in Durban.

Far from being an economic disaster, renewable energy is a massive stimulus to the ecomomy.

[beso]

I meant European *countries* are considering going ahead with carbon reduction agreements without the rest of the world

[David H]

I have pages of figures on wind and solar performance and cost. Two words in conclusion, forget it. Or even one, rubbish.

Here's an interesting set of graphs I just found, every single one has an almost perfect correlation with temperature and sunspot activity, while CO2 roughly bumps along appearing if connected to be released by the ocean after the temperature rises. The IPCC dismiss it totally as they do Svensmark who developed the idea. But I'm sure such a misleading connection can easily be cleared up by you as always.
http://uk.images.sear...ity+temperature+graph

[David H]

Here's a full appraisal of wind power (links to two summaries at the bottom) and more details on the solar equation which was used 20 years ago to predict the following temperatures successfully. This is cutting edge science, confirmed in 2003 by Soon and Baliunas who the CRU attempted to block publishing. Now the Climategate2 emails are out showing full conversations it's easy to tell how only the supporting evidence was approved while the rest was sidelined and ridiculed. But it's still there and free for any scientist to check for themselves.

http://climaterealist...ication%20Dan%20P.pdf

I'll admit maths is my achilles heel but everyone else who's checked it seems to agree so why shouldn't I?

[David H]

oops http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

[beso]

David H //I have pages of figures on wind and solar performance and cost. Two words in conclusion, forget it. Or even one, rubbish.//

No doubt those pages are dutifully supplied by your skeptics network. They will use long out of date figures.

PV solar costs have fallen to just over a $1 per Watt and are continuing to fall with expectations of $0.50 per Watt by 2020. Systems near where I live in Australia are already producing power at lower cost than the retail price of electricity.

The stimulus provided by various programs around the world to promote the solar industry have work beyond all expectations. They are being wound back because it is clear that they are no longer essential to the industry's viability.

Quite the opposite to what is claimed by many, China has embraced this change and is undergoing phenominal growth in renewable energy. Forecasts are being wound closer almost by the day. Their PV capacity has almost reached 5GW with projections of 100GW by 2020.

Solar has reached a tripping point and it makes economic sense to pursue it regardless of Climate Change.

[David H]

The solar figures I get are from UK solar companies. The cost of a panel- £8-10,000. The payback period, 20-25 years. Including a subsidy which until its reduced shortly was ten times the price of the market cost per KwH. Then it turned out roof panels needed cleaning every year or so. It turned out the price charged to go on the roof and clean them was the amount they earned per year. The disposal costs after the 20 year or so life are also relevant as they contain poisonous substances.

According to this site the cost is 10-20 times the price of coal. Pretty much typical of the others I've seen. http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=612

The usual question is what do you do with solar at night when you need power the most, and in the winter when there isn't much daylight and cold?

[David H]

The sun has its uses though

http://www.tmgnow.com...ry/solar/lassen1.html

Temperatures appear to have followed solar activity for centuries. Svensmark, Soon/Baliunas, Lassen, can they all be wrong after confirming the previous studies independently?

[David H]

More renewable energy charts. I suspect the differences depend whether or not the figures subtract the subsidies from the overall costs, which is not totally honest.
http://www.claverton-...ricity-generation.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.o...electricity_by_source
http://webarchive.nat...k/files/file32014.pdf

[David H]

All explained nicely here in a recent parliamentary presentation

45 minutes

[David H]

It's sunday, it's cold and dark so I've had nothing much to do besides check the news:

In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”

http://www.deccanchro...op-ed/sea-scandal-730

It's a pity this was only an oral quote, but nonetheless means anyone equipped (and I'm sure some are) can now check the records and see what's been done. And trust me, if they cheat on one area they can and do on the rest. Climategate 2 makes suspicions into admissions. Good science speaks for itself, crap science needs George Soros to pay for Real Climate and Queensland to pay Skeptical Science to spin the figures constantly to stop people waking up. I am paid sod all and do the opposite because I believe in telling the truth and they are not.

[David H]

birdie, that attitude comes with the territory, and seems to actually be a requirement for it in many cases, along with a contempt for capitalism, globalisation and freedom in general. Why most left wingers are the major mouthpieces for this theory tells me far more than any faulty and extremely weak efforts by science. The only reason I mentioned Skeptical Science wasn't because of any qualifications I may or may not have to compete with them but my tolerance level. They are easily the most obnoxious bunch of pointless wastes of space and time I've ever had to get dirty from. Therefore anyone elsewhere is a relative doddle and can't do worse than call me a baby killer (expletives removed). On multiple occasions.

As for actual data my links are never sent out as unique, we all know unsupported sites are dodgy and though some mass reports turn out to be as well they cancel out on both sides. But things like sea level are only drawn by a few places for the world, the others being localized. Here is a full collection of the U. Colorado's material with added optional commentary.
http://wattsupwiththa...11-sea-level-changes/

Hopefully no one can or will question their veracity, and the wikipedia page has lovely 22,000 year and intermediate graphs showing the same things I mentioned ages ago.

How anyone with their brain in gear can believe a 10 inch a century rise can become metres/yards on the current stuttering temperature rise despite constantly rising CO2 amazes me to the point of wondering if I'm a different species from them. It really beggars belief. In the absence of rising CO2 these changes would never have raised an eyebrow.

By the way, my Time-Life book from 1961 said CO2 wasn't a constant, back then the official normal level was 240-400ppm. If they'd measured it at 390 back then before anyone had thought of AGW it would have been interesting but not amazing and most of all within the normal range. How things have changed since Al Gore escaped.

[beso]

David:
I have read your links. This one from the first link amuzed me. I hope I don't I need to explain why.

"sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. "

Further on it says:

When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”

That is called worthless hearsay. It does not name the person nor does show the nature of the "adjustment" referred to.

The second link just trys to obfuscate the issue of sea level rise with a plethora of graphs. It is also a little behind the current data. The sea level is currently rising very rapidly toward the trend line again after a very deep dip that followed the very deep La Nina event.

[beso]

David H
//Good science speaks for itself, crap science needs George Soros to pay for Real Climate and Queensland to pay Skeptical Science to spin the figures constantly to stop people waking up. I am paid sod all and do the opposite because I believe in telling the truth and they are not. //

Except they publish the real figures while you have repeated the rubbish fed to you by the arch denialists.

If you want to criticise the scientific position put forward by these sites then do so. However it is clear that you can't.

You hate these "scum" (your words) because they expose your claims as false. These sites are the sworn enemies of denialists.

You should also consider the funding of the organisations set up to deny the science. Why don't they rely on the science "speaking for itself"? They are paid by oil companies to come up with anything they can to sway public opinion away from the truth. It has been estimated that half a billion dollars has been spent recently by denialist organisations.

[beso]

David H //By the way, my Time-Life book from 1961 said CO2 wasn't a constant, back then the official normal level was 240-400ppm.//

That was long before accurate, organised and regular monitoring. Interesting how you choose 400 and ignore the 240.

[beso]

David H //Then it turned out roof panels needed cleaning every year or so. It turned out the price charged to go on the roof and clean them was the amount they earned per year. //

Wow, Britain must be even more dingy and dirty than I imagined.

Here we can buy a fully installed system for about $10,000 with no subsidies. It would produce about $1,000 of electricity per year.

//The disposal costs after the 20 year or so life are also relevant as they contain poisonous substances. //

Panels output is usually guaranteed to 80 percent for twenty years and keep going well beyond that. Nothing especially toxic in them. Mostly vitually pure silicon, glass and an aluminium frame. You may be thinking of the defunct Cadmium Telluride technology.

[David H]

So things may be bad, but not as bad as I thought, and the diagrams seemed reasonable to me so recommend you offer yourself as a reviewer for the IPCC. They certainly need help sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Meanwhile this is what your esteemed scientists have been doing originally behind the scenes, but it isn't any more. Summary- not just outsiders are concerned about the hockey stick diagram, many of Michael Mann's peers are as well, and while the terminology used is not always in common English anyone in the field will know exactly what they're saying he's up to.

Climatology began as we know it in the 70s when it was given its own department at the UEA and as such the team are the first as far as I know in the world and as a result the leading organisation. Once they admit (ie no accusations, they came straight out with it) they get things wrong, for 'the cause', if the foundation of this theory is shaky what does it say about everything above it?

http://wattsupwiththa...manns-reconstruction/