I don't keep a record of every newspaper and magazine I read on the subject so I can't provide links. However my overall impression is that climate models are inaccurate which is why I asked you for links

That's nlp's homeopathic universe. The fewer the molecules, the greater the heating effect. Which pretty much demonstrates all one needs to know about his knowledge of physics. He thinks he understands the math, but doesn't understand that there's no physical basis to support it as a model.

Simple really. 1 doubling gives you an amount of temperature rise. The next doubling requires more CO2 for the same increase. Where do you find the carbon? Especially if you assume 'peak oil'.

But any thoughts on the real-world practicality of that 5MW compressed air energy store? And why can't I get a few million to extract carbon from CO2, turn it into diamonds, and then burn the diamonds when there's no wind?

Fun with calculator-

http://www.highview-power.com/market/#calc-jumper

a 10MW system taking 20h to charge and running for 4hrs is a snip at $17m, or $427/kWh

Not convinced there's a market for that.. other than in our insanely subsidised one.

Simple, maybe, but not an answer to the question put:

Ah, back on your unidirectional logarithms.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be a climate scientist.

However, there is no doubt, and it is backed up by climate science as per the websites I linked to, that CO2 levels were very much higher over geological time than it is now and it is at the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth as shown by the chart that I linked to. You can try and deny it, but it is an established fact.

Yes it has risen slightly over the past decades, but your quote of 40% is misleading, it has risen by 0.01% which is an insignificant statistical variation in the timescales involved.

I not really interested in your puny attempts to insult anybody that dares to ask questions, i am merely pointing out that the logical conclusion from the data, even if every fact you claim is true, is that it doesn't really matter what happens to the CO2 levels because the Earth is doomed in a very shorter timescale that the scientists would like us to believe.

The panic being introduced by the climate scientists is masking a much more serious problem than global warming because it can't be fixed by reducing CO2.

I'm afraid you're not any sort of scientist - the sentence above is just wrong.

What more serious problem, be specific.

Which part of "I do not pretend" did you fail to understand, I am not a climate scientist and neither are you and neither is njp, so stop trying to pretend you have some relevance in these discussions.

The facts I speak of, and for which Science agrees with, is that CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher in the past than they are today.

Something is radically different today than it was then for tiny almost imperceptible changes in those CO2 levels to make such a big difference in global temperatures.

What is so hard to come to terms with in those facts?

That's one fact. Another fact is that humans weren't alive then. Another fact is that sea levels were far higher then.

270ppmv to over 400ppmv is not "almost imperceptible".

Your bizarre description.

Not me guv, but it does seem to have you and nlp terribly confused.

So CO2 absorbs and emits IR at specific wavelengths. It has no sense of direction, so works the same way sun-down to surface-up.. Yet nlp thinks it doesn't block any incoming energy, only outgoing.

Then the homeopathic logarithm. Take one standard atmosphere, a spectrometer and maybe a filter tuned to CO2's wavelengths. Ask NASA nicely if you can borrow the design they used to measure atmospheric CO2 with their OCO-2 satellite.

Measure the energy absorption in standard atmosphere. Then halve the amount of CO2. Then halve it again. According to nlp's 'its teh logarithms, stoopid' theory, the less CO2 there is, the greater the energy absorption. Somehow, the likes of Arhenius, Planck, Callendar etc etc missed this..

And from unidirectional logarithms to lying in one easy step.

What science says is that there is far more outgoing energy at the specific wavelengths CO2 absorbs IR.

You know yet choose to misrepresent this at the behest of the US propaganda websites you promote.

Instead of lying about what other people supposedly think, why don't you tell us what happens when you halve CO2 and halve it again.

Or quote what njp actually said; but liars like you can't so don't. So easy to spot.

The relevance is that we both understand the science well enough to know why your claims about it are wrong, and you don't. Why are you so reluctant to learn anything?


An understanding of solar luminosity changes and logarithms would get you a fair way towards understanding ancient climate, and why the very far from imperceptible recent increase in CO2 has the effect that it does.

Armed with some actual knowledge, none of your "facts" are the least bit hard to come to terms with.

He must have applied advanced Eelian mathematics to make that a 0.01% increase.

Ordovician you mean?

I recall you thinking that was an example of an ancient climate that couldn't be explained using science. You were wrong, of course, but I see that hasn't stopped you harking back to it!

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...5#post56615775

Nor harking on about a group of turbines running at differing speeds, it's still happening. Last week it was eight rotating and one stationary, do you think it was broken?

Edit: I see from your link that Black Cloud was giving you a run in those days. Wonder where he is, now, we could do with some real scientists.

It's possible. Or it might have been undergoing routine maintenance. Or there might not have been enough demand for the power. The latter is the most likely reason for individual turbines not rotating when the rest are.

But you seem to have moved away from your entertaining conspiracy theory that the rotors were being driven by motors to give the illusion that windfarms were generating power in the absence of wind. Have you had a rethink?


He fell on his sword. It might have been the stress of keeping up with the reams of mutually contradictory nonsense he couldn't stop himself posting, and which I delighted in pulling apart.

Panto mode again! Oh no it doesn't. So back to money wasting-

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/ouarzazate/

The BBC, that bastion of slanted reportage on all things green, has an article about a new solar power plant entitled “The Colossal African Solar Plant That Could Power Europe“. It’s full of all kinds of interesting information about the plant, located in Ouarzazate, Morocco....

...The reporter talks about a variety of things, including the fact that on the day the reporter visited it was overcast … but somehow, despite hyperventilating about just how awesome and gosh-dang wonderful the plant is and the difference this will make to the planet, the reporter never got around to talking about the cost. Funny, that.

Hmm.. same as it's advert for compressed wind energy. But this solar project cost $3.9bn, or almost as much as the Bbc gets from licence payers annually. And being reliant on hand-outs and subsidies, perhaps that's why the Bbc overlooks important little details like cost. Especially as it'd probably cost a couple of billion more to connect this plant to the European power grid, and there would be even more losses involved.

And obviously they're doing this wrong. Instead of solar heating oil during the day, "science says is that there is far more outgoing energy at the specific wavelengths CO2 absorbs IR" so surely they should have downward facing collectors and use CO2 instead of oil..


You've really bought into this alt-right/fake news thing haven't you? Hardly suprising given climate activists have been trying to block dissent for years.

So how does ignoring or misrepresenting cost fit with your claim that it's sceptics doing the propaganda thing? If you look at the costs, we wouldn't be wasting £65bn tilting at windmills..

Why are science deniers opposed to storing energy produced from renewable resources?

Why are science deniers opposed to solar power?


Why don't you ever understand anything about science or engineering?

Don't knock it at present this is little more than a proof of concept and it uses tried and tested technology.
I'd say it was approaching the same ball park as hydro storage.
And it wouldn't take much of a tweak to take the CO2 out of the air before it was relased.
If only there was a method of long term storage.

There is, it's called the atmosphere.

Well... simple economics really. So take a product for which there is no demand. Then try to store it, adding cost. Then try to sell it to customers for far more than competing technologies can deliver power..

And I keep pointing out that I'm not opposed. So problem is dealing with excess demand. One solution is cheap hot water tanks & heaters, and a 'smart switch'. Perhaps even using a different coding scheme to the very simple Economy 7 one whereby you could control the amount of heaters being switched on to match production.. Which is kind of how Economy 7 came into being, ie sinking nuclear base load off-peak.

But although that's far cheaper, and gives consumers hot water.. It doesn't allow the surplus energy to be sold for a massive profit. So not suprisingly, the renewables lobby aren't keen on the idea. They love adding costs..


I'm not. I'm opposed to the subsidies that pay for it, increasing energy costs and energy poverty.


Oh, but I do.. And also some economics. Rather important in engineering, unless you're given money to play with pointless schemes. Sadly my carbon capture->diamond->energy system remains unfunded, which is a shame because it's 'renewable'.

Windmills were tried and tested technology. Then along came the age of steam, and windmills died out.. For a while at least. But like hydro, this scam has the same scaling issues.


Oh there is. So you could seperate out CO2, use surplus wind power to do electrolysis on water, then a Sabatier reaction & Fischer Tropsch process to produce gas or oil. Of course fraccing and a CCGT/OCGT would be a lot more useful, cheaper and more efficient..

But you could do it, if only you could find a fool and their money... Sadly that money's ours.

Flipping heck not someone else who hasn't heard of the Kyoto protocol. You do realise that vast sections of the world including Africa are signed up to it, and the acts related to climate change have got naff all to do with the EU.