Part TwoOn September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
Although one lives in Canada, I'm not sure one fully appreciates the extremity of a glacial.I did not say that, you said the UK can have 40 degrees difference over the year. Let me put it this way, I have a friend and co worker that several years ago accepted a new position in Singapore when he first moved there he found it freakishly odd that no one discussed the weather since here it tends to be the go to small talk , first thing after a hi, but after living there for a few months and then a whole year he realized why they don’t talk weather there, there is nothing to say when it is the exact same thing day in day out. It was meant as an acknowledgement that for some people seasons can be a foreign concept, but where I live and southern Alberta was snowed in
[Link: calgary.ctvnews.ca] this weekejnd while I was swimming outddoors I don`t need someone to explain y to me that
and this
are more or less the same place just a few months apart and there is nothing wrong
I'm afraid you’ve not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability. It's completely beyond our control, hence the focus on CO
2 and the other greenhouse gases.
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
On the other hand, your claim of the 'next ultra-warm period' has no precedence.
not sure what point you are making. I thought we both agreed that there where times in the past when the world was warmer. I am just not in a rush to get back there because it was not necessarily good for humans.
Yes, natural variability can have a profound effect during interglacials (as per the Andy May graphics). There may be warm periods, there may be cold, but there's no such thing as ultra-warm periods. There are, however, ultra cold periods: glacials. A cold period during an interglacial may cause severe hardship to millions, but glacials are civilisation killers.
As for not wanting to rush back to warmer climes, what profoundly negative effect has the slightly warmer world had? The bogeymen being spouted by the IPCC and MSM are just that and no more (as previously demonstrated) and other indices such as poverty, lifespan, planetary greening, agricultural production etc. all show positive gains.
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
and the climate's previous variability, as illustrated, makes something of a nonsense of your belief in our having to try and maintain stability.
Why not?
Because, as the evidence shows, there is no such thing.
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
And if it's possible for a minor atmospheric trace gas to have such a profound effect
absolutely take Venus for example, it is a lot further from the sun then Mercury and so should be much colder but it is much hotter because it has a thick coat of greenhouse gazes
I'm afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges. In Earth's atmosphere the relationship of CO
2 to temperature is firstly logarithmic (for every degree of temperature rise requires a doubling of CO
2) and secondly, when it reaches saturation point temperature rise stops. The Earth's atmosphere can never replicate that of Venus.
1 On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
is it then not also possible that attempts to 'control' it may interact with other more powerful natural factors and cause a counter climate crisis?
depends, if we are talking some nut ball that wants to build a giant brick wall between the earth and the sun, then yes. But you can’t argue that trying to control unnatural CO2 can’t have any effect because it is not enough to affect climate but at the same token that it might be so much that it has a counter effect. Plus if that was the case wouldn’t the solution be simple, add a few matches to some giant forest?
If, as the IPCC would have us believe, CO
2 is the primary driver of climate change, then does it not follow that dabbling could have profound, unknown counter effects?
The above, of course, is pure speculation, but the reality is that the full mind boggling complexity of the climate system is unknown and may, indeed, remain so. Literature I’ve previously linked to covers this issue. The thoughts of Dr Mototaka Nakamura may also be worth a read.
2 On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
When it comes to climate change though, your thoughts that those of us cautioning against knee-jerk actions/reactions are losers and that we should just give it go regardless is both insulting and extremely naive for it shows little, if any, understanding of the real cost and extremity of what you're proposing.
Can you show me where I advocated knee-jerk actions/reactions? I just think we need to acknowledge the reality and work for an end goal. For example I think there is no need for ultra polluting coal power plants built using 100 year old technology, when we can build (if needed) much cleaner coal plants (or even a zero emission coal plant). Let me put it this way around 20 years ago I needed a new car, I looked at the ZENN, there was a lot to love, it runs on cheap or free green electricity produced locally and regular maintenance would be much cheaper and less often. But even though it made sense for the 5 km to the bus terminal and back every work day, if I wanted it to go to my friends cottages (1.5h-2.25h away), my sisters home (2.5h away) her cottage (4h away) or my cousins home (8h away) it quickly became impractical. So all the benefits became moot and decided just to replace my car with an other conventional car. And ever since then when I needed a new car (and even when I did not) I looked at electrical cars but bought conventional ones because they just don’t make sense IMHO and context. I Am not looking for a car that is only practical for short distances, I want one that also works on the longue ones and I don’t need two cars.
As for the loser comment I am sorry you took it so personally, it was definitely not meant as a personal diss. I just think in life, in any circumstances, a person can either be defeatist and then they guarantee they will lose or they can try their bests and even if they lose at least they tried their best.
My apologies, but my response to the loser comment was such because it implies I've not given due consideration to either the science of climate change or the proposals being set forth to 'combat' it. I believe my response indicates not only that I have, but that from my perspective the arguments for action simply do not add up.
From the outset the IPCC have been seen to promulgate fear and uncertainty with increasingly strident doom laden scenarios. In doing so they turned a blind eye to outrageous behaviour, accepted at face value 'scientific' studies which at best are shockingly poor and at worst fraudulent and, more tellingly, have ignored compelling evidence to the contrary.
As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed. Thus in fear of a further 10 years of nothing happening completely undermining the alarmist rhetoric, agencies have now stooped to brazenly rewriting the US historical temperature database, made claims about sea-level rise, severe weather events and wildfires which bear absolutely no scrutiny, and engaged the services of a cosseted and emotionally unstable teenager to rally the gullible young (who, ironically, have experienced virtually no climate change) into supporting a political agenda that will make their live far worse than doing nothing. In this regard, I believe your saying the following...
"And yes maybe it will be futile and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it."
...is indeed a knee jerk reaction for it takes no account of the emotional, social, and financial hardship wrought upon those being expected to pay for this agenda. Impoverishing a country merely to claim the moral high ground is plain madness and will solve nothing.
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
I believe that the IPCC and those with vested interests in maintaining alarm (whether political, financial or both) are over-accentuating the effect of CO2 to support the primary goal of political change. I further contend they are happy to use all means available including, questionable science, activist propaganda, the denigration of the reputable scientists who do not support 'the cause', threats to the livelihoods of those who otherwise would, and the stifling of debate, to support this goal.Maybe that is true, but let’s forget 50 or 100 or 1000 years from now look at “today”
[Link: montrealgazette.com][Link: bbc.com] This may sound heartless, but in building within a floodplain, as with building alongside a river, one has to accept the risk of flooding. Locally, the relatively recent Fryers Gate apartment block has somewhat mitigated the problem by building on stilts.
As for the BBC link, I'm afraid that after 28gate I give little credence to their output. A hyped story of a glacier doing what glaciers have done since time immemorial (retreat or grown depending upon conditions) is hardly front page news. I believe Anthony Watts offers a more balanced view.
3 On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
desperately trying to promulgate fear of hotter/drier British summers
don’t know about the UK and maybe it is not BS for you (or your country). But here (southern Quebec) I don’t think there is any doubt. The winters have become colder and snowier (why flooding has become such an issue) and the summers have become hotter and drier. I have a friend I grew up with he is a farmer farming the same land his dad did , planting the same crops his before I as born his dad dug an artificial pond that works as a water reservoir for watering crops, 4 years ago my friend had to make it larger for the first time since his dad dug the hole, this summer he told me he will need to increase it again later this fall.
I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.
Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
Here in the UK the plans are brimful of wishful thinking, make huge assumptions (particularly in the realm of public acceptance) and do not reflect the reality Honestly IMHO political future projections are always a joke and a way to pretend a problem is fixed. The deficit now is XXX but we have a plan for 0 deficit when someone else will be in power”...
so you can be right and it is a pipe dream. But who knows, Coal does not need to be as bad as it is,
[Link: saskpower.com] and here in Quebec at the end the 60’s there were two nuclear power plants (with a third one planned) and many thermal plants. In the 70’s Quebec decided to steer towards Hydro as the main source (not because it was green but because when you factor in consumables it was cheaper I the long run) most of the electricity is Hydro, one (if needed) gas plant and it “buys” electricity from 6 hydro producers, 39 wind farms , 7 biomass and 3 biogas plants, we are also net exporters. If there is a will going green is always a possibility you just need to look at what natural resources are available in your location, look at iceleand
[Link: en.wikipedia.org]
Year |
Total |
Hydro |
Geothermal |
Fuel-Oil
|
|---|
2002 |
1,473.1 |
1,150.7 |
202.1 |
120.3
|
2012 |
2,658.6 |
1,885.1 |
659.0 |
114.5
|
Once again I fear one has not fully engaged with the enormity of the CCC's proposals and the cost to the consumer.
Quebec has a population of circa 8.5m and covers an area of almost 600,000 square miles. The UK has population of 67.5m and covers an area of 93,500 square miles. The scale of energy demand and supply are by several orders of magnitude greater. Indeed, such is the population density of Quebec, little old backwaters Hereford would rank 10th in a list of Quebec's Largest Metropolitan Areas. (Little known factoid. With so many French ex-pats living there, London would rank 6th or 7th in a list of the largest French cities.)
I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, thought that's now significantly diminished,
4 and coal. (See the GridWatch website for the complete breakdown of generation fuel types.) For continued use, both would require the installation of CCS.
As for CCS, the SaskPower project you linked to cost $1.5b Canadian (£925m), for a risible output of 115MW, and it's operating history is nothing like as good as suggested:
"In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were 'serious design issues' in the carbon capture system, resulting in regular breakdowns and maintenance problems that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time. SNC-Lavalin had been contracted to engineer, procure, and build the facility, and the documents asserted that it 'has neither the will or the ability to fix some of these fundamental flaws.'"5
And units 4 and 5 are not going to be converted as gas is cheaper:
In July 2018, SaskPower announced that it would not retrofit Units 4 and 5 with CCS, with minister responsible Dustin Duncan saying that the units were approaching their mandated shut down in 2024 and that natural gas is a cheaper option.5
CCS on the scale imagined by the CCC is still a pipe-dream and renewables are no replacement for present dispatchable generation.
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
I believe I've previously mentioned the fact I don't drive...
I agree with you the electric car (or anything except for gas guzzlers) are impractical. There is a trhead on the subject in the CI lounge a long time ago and you can read a bit more of my opinion there but to keep it simple and shorty
for me for the current model I think it needs
fill up (20%-80%) “on the road” (at home L2 is good enough) : under 15 minutes – 20-80 is the normal range given because under 20 or over 80 each % tends to be longer
range : 2,000 K (might seam like a lot but charge time does not factor in weather,accessories or aging battery)
1/2 life of battery: 20 years
price of the battery: under 5k
none of those numbers are anywhere near what they need to be and if I am honest I don’t think we will get there soon plus each number negatively affects every other one, (if the battery is bigger it will need longer to charge, its 1/2 life is shorter and the price goes up.....
that is why I think the model is broken.
If you want one of my “crazy” ideas, I look at Toronto’s Tramway that has been around for over 100 years or Montreal's Metro that has been around since the early 60’s and I Think the model should not be based on the car but a hybrid between cars and what I just mentioned. Batteries are good for short distances in the city but when you go longer distances they suck, now if we electrify high ways (as they are called here) like a tram or a metro or a light rail train and the car siphons electricity as it goes now you can build an electric car with, let’s say a 100km or 200km battery and it will be practical with micro transactions for the electricity used while on the electrified roads.
For as long as climate change has been an issue there has been a campaign to provide Hereford with a bypass. No, no, say those against the proposal, we should be investing in walking, cycling and public transport. Follow the Dutch example. Then I point out it was the advent of cheap motoring which saw the demise of public transport and that the Dutch example didn't just happen, it required significant infrastructural changes.
By proportion, the number of EVs in the UK, even with government incentives, is tiny. When reality finally dawns, I believe the forcing of change to electric will, by itself, be the cause of significant social unrest – between those who can/cannot afford to buy one and those who can/cannot afford to charge the thing. Perhaps we should follow the latest Dutch example.
6On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
What is clear though is my claim of there being no set plan of how these changes are to be paid for, implemented, undertaken and, above all, their ramifications.
agree, that is why they are future plans, that will be the next guys problem ;)
Ben Pile has written two astute pieces on the madness, here
7 and here.
8 Sample:
"Many are also of the view that NZ2050 will require a dramatic transformation and undermining of our ways of life. Over the next 30 years, it will create burdens greater than anything the EU ever managed to impose on the population of Europe. Moreover, ‘leading the world in setting a net zero target’ seems to be intended to create a more massive, inflexible global bureaucracy than anything any European federalist ever imagined. What is the point of leaving the EU only to foist on Britain and the world another monolith that denies nation states democratic self-determination?”
On September 29, 2019 at 16:12, Anthony said...
Now enters the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: smart meters
Many years ago a person would go home to home take down the numbers (on the meter outside your home)every month. next came assumed average where the person would just go once a year to read the meter and you could get a credit or pay extra depending on if you paid the right amount for the year. I have always seen it as just an other cost cutting measure. You said you take down your own numbers, but sooner or later someone would need to verify those numbers for the companyotr else an unscrupulus person could just say they use very little electricity
I rest my case m’lud.
9[1]
[Link: realclimatescience.com][2]
[Link: notrickszone.com][3]
[Link: wattsupwiththat.com][4]
[Link: britishgas.co.uk][5]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org][6]
[Link: breitbart.com][7]
[Link: conservativewoman.co.uk][8]
[Link: conservativewoman.co.uk][9]
[Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]
Last edited by djy on October 7, 2019 08:13.
