I think there is too much stuff going round and round so I will try and consolidate
1). Trolling:
You got me, I started coming here 20 (you and I have both been here before 2001 and that is when RC started registration) years ago buying my time just to troll you on global warming. Can we please not start with useless name calling?
The trolling comment was not meant as a slur; it was merely an expression of my disbelief at what I believe to be your not appreciating the extremity of an ice age.
*
2). Seasons:
I get your point that (depending on where you live) there is a large discrepancy between summer and winter; i.e. if Anthony is OK with –30 - +30 why have an issue with (for example) –27 - +37 especially when in the distant past it might have been -20-+40 or –40-+20
I just don’t think it works well. The world is built for how things are (aka where when built) not for how things will be. In 2018 [Link: globalnews.ca] there were over 70 dead because of a heat wave in the area, when discussing with a friend at the time he asked if public transit had air conditioning, I said not usually, jus some of the newer busses, which surprised him, so then I asked him if busses there had heaters that would make them comfortable at –30 and the answer was obviously no on his side, why would they when the temp is always +
Extreme weather events occur all the time. Here are just two examples:
Both occurred long before CO2 became an issue. What is interesting to note, though, is that as the planet warms temperature extremes have reduced. Tony Heller has commented on this numerous times in his videos.
a) I am not sure why we are discussing ice ages (or cooling) as far as I know there is no reasonable prediction of it happening any time soon. b) I don’t want it to get colder the same way that I don’t want it to get warmer. c) yes cold and ice ages can be destructive but so is warmer and (to use a word that you love) it is easier to adapt to colder.
a) To drive home the point that there are far greater forces at work in nature than CO2. CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change, thus to suggest we can control climate by controlling CO2 emissions is pure hubris.
b) Nature doesn't care about what you, I or anyone wants.
c). "…it is easier to adapt to colder." Not if you cannot afford to heat your home.
*
4). Energy:
Having the rare privilege of being supplied "dirt cheap" hydro power is clouding one's judgement over consumables derived energy.
a) are you being told that you DJY needs to replace your furnace? or b) is it that the electric company needs to produce greener electricity?
Like the vast majority, if it is a) then I apologies for misunderstanding the situation. If it is b) then the graph is useless * since we are not talking about different ways to heat a home.
My point (assuming b) is that if the electricity comes from coal the electric company has to charge for all the coal that is used and if it is Natural gas then it needs to charge for the gas .... so the electricity becomes expensive * ( let me pout it this way
back in the late 60’s hydro Quebec decided to go Nuclear, the plan was to build 35 Nuclear reactors throughout the province Gentilly-1 came on line in 1970 ( Gentilly-2 came on line a few years later, they started on Gentilly-3 but never finished it). But in the late 70’s there was a change in direction and instead of inexpensive nuclear reactors that cost around 120M each they decided to go with the insane James bay project where the first phase alone cost 13.7B before any electricity could even be used.
If Hydro Quebec had continued with the nuclear direction today our electricity would be much more expensive and I would not be as “privileged” as I am. Green energy plants cost more to build and they are scarier but maintenance and cost of production of electricity tends to be much so the electricity is cheaper to produce.
Given all the information I've previously provided, I'm at a loss to understand why you still believe "Green Energy" is universally cheap. Clearly your hydropower is, though I wonder if the price Quebec customers pay is discounted against the amount paid by the export market. The UK energy market, however, is an entirely different beast.
As previously mentioned, the GridWatch website provides details (updated every ten minutes, I believe) of grid demand and the energy mix being used to supply that demand. At the time of writing, present demand is 29GW, which is being provided primarily by gas (CCGT) at 16GW and nuclear at 6.6GW. "Green Energy's" contribution (that's wind and solar) is presently 0.7GW, which represents approximately just 2% of installed wind and solar capacity. (Note, as previously mentioned, renewable energy is prioritised, thus that 2% represents all that is presently available.) Herein, then, lies the first problem with wind and solar: their inherent inefficiency.
Installed UK wind capacity is approximately 21 GW, but this year to date actual output has ranged between 0.143-12.443GW, with a daily average of 5.046GW – which represents an improvement over the 2018 average of 4.272GW. Evidently then, real-world performance is far removed from nameplate capacity and suggests a more realistic assessment of the output of the Burbo Bank Extension (32 x 8MW turbines) is likely to be closer to 64MW than its 256MW nameplate capacity.
At present, the market price for electricity is approximately £45 per MWh, at which price, assuming the above, the BBE would make just £25,228,800 per year (64x45x24x365), meaning a return on investment (£800m) of over 30 years. With research finding turbine life expectancy to be around 15 years, with efficiency dropping away significantly after five years, such a time frame is nonsense. The answer to this is subsidies. Rather than paying market price, the BBE presently receives £170.03 per MWh with the extra cost being passed onto the consumer. Not for nothing did Warren Buffett say the only reason to build wind turbines was for the subsidies they attract.
Due to these lavish subsidies, wind and solar are not cheap, hence the price I pay per unit and the even more ridiculous price paid by the Germans - who have travelled further down the renewables rabbit hole. It has also had the knock-on effect of discouraging alternative power station investment unless that is, they also receive an above market price contract - Hinkley C (if it ever works), for example, has been guaranteed a starting price of over £100 per MWh. Furthermore, the subsidies racket has created a whole raft of get-rich-quick schemes headed by some truly shady characters; i.e. the alarmism has incentivised the implementation of some largely unnecessary projects merely to take a slice of the subsidies pie. (Mark Shorrock's madcap Swansea Bay tidal lagoon plans might have hit the rocks, but he's nonetheless managed to acquire for himself a small fortune out of it.)
Another effect of the inefficiency of wind power is the sheer number of turbines which would need to be built, the timeframe for their construction and their location. Regardless of this, the CCC believes that by 2050 renewables (primarily wind) will be supplying 57% of the UK's energy needs, which is in direct conflict with numerous engineering reports (some of which I've previously linked to) and that letter from an engineer I reprinted in my last post. Non-synchronous energy sources pose many headaches when it comes to grid balancing, and system instability becomes a severe threat when it reaches 30%. How the CCC proposes to almost double this figure and retain control remains to be seen.
Because electricity is the most expensive means by which to heat the home (and water), most households in the UK use gas - the table graphic being a means to illustrate the scale of the differential. Natural gas, however, is a fossil fuel and recent legislation will see the banning of gas boiler (furnace) installation in new build homes after 2025. This doesn't directly affect me (at least for the moment), but that was never my concern. That's reserved for the younger generation who are unwittingly creating their own climate-related disaster: not as a result of climate change itself, but as a direct consequence of their actions for which they will be the ones paying the price.
Like fossil-fuelled cars, gas is now very much a target, [1] but the natural gas network is enormous - the energy delivery in the domestic supply alone is easily equal to the whole of the National Grid. So what are the alternatives? Obviously there's electric, but with no one being prepared to build unless they get a big fat cheque, from where is the extra capacity to come? There are low carbon heating systems, which the CCC claims will cost me £26,300 ($44,300 Canadian) plus running costs. There's converting to hydrogen, though that is predicated on the development of a vast industrial complex to produce the stuff and the yet to be developed CCS system necessary to remove and store the CO2 produced during the process.
No matter how one cuts the cake if plans continue as they are the cost of electricity in the UK is going to rise dramatically. This will have a profound effect on industry, jobs, those with low or fixed income and just about every aspect of life as we know it – and I've not even mentioned EV's, the inevitable travel restrictions and the loss of revenue from fuel duty which, it would seem, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has finally caught up with. [2] And, of course, the truly shocking thing about this waste (and waste it is, for the only people benefiting from this would be the scammers and troughers in the renewables market) is that it will make not one jot of difference to either CO2 emissions or climate change.
I could rattle on, but if you haven't got the message by now, then you likely never will. "Green Energy" over here is NOT cheap and just adding more will only exacerbate the problems already being faced by those struggling to pay their bills.
Somewhat serendipitously, Paul Homeward has just posted an article on the impact of decarbonising heating. [3]
*
5). Fear, science and me
I don’t know who (and more importantly by how much) they are right. I don’t know of anyone that thinks things are not getting warmer. My point is simple, think of a piece of meat being cooked. The heat is absorbed at first on the outside nearest the heat source and then is propagates deeper and deeper and further and further. I think where I live happens, for right now , to feel the effects more than many other places. It is hard to believe GW won’t create flooding when you can see it with your own eyes, it is hard to believe it won’t mean deaths when you know it has started. I am not asking you to save the people that died in the heat wave I am not asking you to turn back the clock and make sure my friends house is not flooded. I am saying the fears can’t be 100% BS because it is happening hear and it might happen elsewhere next as the whole roast reaches the same temperature. To put it differently unfortunately for where I live we are the canary in the coal mine, and I am pointing out how I we are doing, you can do or believe what you want.
No serious scientist or observer is claiming that the world has not warmed, but it's cynical political opportunism feeding the belief that CO2 is the sole culprit and that by controlling its emissions we can control the climate.
Weather-related incidents and disasters are a constant throughout history, but the spending of gazillions of dollars, pounds, euros or yen (in an attempt to cut CO2 emissions) will not stop them. Indeed, after spending/wasting all that money, who will then be to blame if famine, drought, misery and death continues?
If, as you appear to believe, climate change played a role in the Montreal flooding, surely you should be lobbying your government to implement a flood mitigation/prevention programme, not expecting other countries to impoverish themselves in the pure blind hope it will stop the flooding.
Note: Regarding the science, Judith Curry has some interesting comments about uncertainties in this [4] blog post at her website. And in the comments to the post there is a link to this [5] video presentation from Dr Ronan Connolly and Dr Michael Connolly who have reanalysed a considerable mass of radiosonde data which, if correct, has the potential to turn the greenhouse effect question on its head. Sounds dramatic, I know, but when taken in conjunction with the work of Professor Nasif Nahle [6] it does lend weight to the argument of CO2 playing a (very) minimal role in the present warming.
