|
||||||||
A £65bn question. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
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.
And then of course there's the Paris Agreement.. which adds even more cost. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Panto mode again! Oh no it doesn't.
Possibly because you know you're wrong. Quote:
So back to money wasting- I think you put the wrong link in. I can't see anything there about misrepresenting costs.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.. Or is that more of your Alt-Reich fakery? |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
Ah, silly you, you forget to explain how the earth's outgoing cooler radiation somehow magically moved to the shorter wavelength radiation the atmosphere tends to pass through more.
Which neither you nor nlp have ever seemed able to quantify. Quote:
I think you put the wrong link in. I can't see anything there about misrepresenting costs.
Nope. The Bbc in it's typical gushing advertorial mode. Praise the renewables! Don't look at the price tag..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Hmm? But according to you & nlp, smaller amounts of CO2 produced greater amounts of warming..
Quote:
That log thing again. Otherwise the 'how' is basic thermodynamics and the atmosphere passes through less, what with CO2 and H2O's absorption points mostly overlapping. Leaving a teeny window for CO2's magical effects. Well, you were the one who told us we'd need a 700 million dollar satellite, even though you cleverly showed us that the one you pointed us to us to didn't so what you said it did.Which neither you nor nlp have ever seemed able to quantify. Quote:
Nope. The Bbc in it's typical gushing advertorial mode. Praise the renewables! Don't look at the price tag..
So who's misrepresenting the costs? Or was that just more of your Alt-Reich talk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Hmm? But according to you & nlp, smaller amounts of CO2 produced greater amounts of warming.. That log thing again. Otherwise the 'how' is basic thermodynamics and the atmosphere passes through less, what with CO2 and H2O's absorption points mostly overlapping. Leaving a teeny window for CO2's magical effects.
But have you managed to find another crackpot to agree with your theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" yet? Or are you still all alone on the outermost fringes of the pseudoscience wilderness? |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
Why not remind us where we said that? Might it be because you;re having to lie again, not being able to argue against what we actually said?
Quote:
Well, you were the one who told us we'd need a 700 million dollar satellite, even though you cleverly showed us that the one you pointed us to us to didn't so what you said it did.
It does do what I (and luckily, NASA) said it does. One orbiting spectromter and a filter tuned to CO2's absorption points, hence it's ability to detect CO2.Quote:
So who's misrepresenting the costs? Or was that just more of your Alt-Reich talk?
Errrm.. You do realise the Reich was Green, don't you? Anyways, if we save £65bn by ditching the CCA and most renewables.. Combined with the €200bn the ECB owes us, we'll be able to build 20GW or so of low carbon, baseload nuclear. If we bought French reactors using the ECB debt, the transaction could be completed with vaguely funny money. Cashing that in would somewhat crash the euro, but flock'em if they can't take a joke.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
Thanks for confirming that you still can't understand schoolboy logarithms.
Quote:
But have you managed to find another crackpot to agree with your theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" yet?
Only crackpots would deny CO2's omnidirectional nature. Only crackpots think there's no effect during the day. Just to confirm which you are, are you still insisting there's no solar energy matching any of CO2's absorption points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
I have been.. repeatedly.
Quote:
Yet neither you nor nlp can quantify the effects of CO2.
I can only repeat:Quote:
Well, you were the one who told us we'd need a 700 million dollar satellite, even though you cleverly showed us that the one you pointed us to us to didn't so what you said it did.
Quote:
So there was nlp's 'snowball' theory where 0-275ppmv CO2= 22C or more warming..
Lying again. Science says 275ppmv will give over 20C of warming.Quote:
Based on 'logarithms', rather than physics. Hence the homeopathic approach. Fewer molecules, much greater warming.. But no physical basis to explain it.
You are just assembling your own words at random now. I would suggest you try arguing the points that have actually been made but you never can.Quote:
It does do what I (and luckily, NASA) said it does. One orbiting spectromter and a filter tuned to CO2's absorption points, hence it's ability to detect CO2.
What you and NASA say are rarely the same.Quote:
Errrm.. You do realise the Reich was Green, don't you? Anyways, if we save £65bn by ditching the CCA and most renewables.. Combined with the €200bn the ECB owes us, we'll be able to build 20GW or so of low carbon, baseload nuclear. Funny how science doesn't agree with your financial wizadry.
If we bought French reactors using the ECB debt, the transaction could be completed with vaguely funny money. Cashing that in would somewhat crash the euro, but flock'em if they can't take a joke.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
I'm with CO2 on that one. It doesn't understand that it's meant to be behaving logarithmically either. So... if 270-540ppmv=2.1C, 0-269ppmv= ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,492
|
Quote:
Yes, it does understand it's meant to be behaving logarithmically, more than you understand logarithms. So doubling from 270 to 540 is around 3 degrees and halving from 270 to 135 would be around 3 degrees, ignoring feedbacks.
Don't you understand anything about physics? If the Earth was a perfect blackbody, it would raise its temperature by approx 1.0C for every doubling of CO2. It is the completely unproven positive feedback's postulated by the alarmists that gives a figure of 3.25C for a doubling. No evidence for this other than the models, that have so many free parameters you could prove anything. The Earths temperature history, with it remaining in a pretty narrow band for well over a billion years, suggests that feedback's actually are negative in both directions in the long term. if feedback's were positive in any direction the result would be, in the long term, to drive the Earth well out of the narrow band we have observed. Maggie |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
I'm with CO2 on that one. It doesn't understand that it's meant to be behaving logarithmically either. So... if 270-540ppmv=2.1C, 0-269ppmv= ?
Quote:
Only crackpots would deny CO2's omnidirectional nature. Only crackpots think there's no effect during the day. Just to confirm which you are, are you still insisting there's no solar energy matching any of CO2's absorption points?
Only a congenital liar would continue to insist that this is what people who accept mainstream science think, even though the lie is pointed out to them every single time they make it. And only a crackpot would claim that "CO2 prevents warming during the day", because that claim is utter nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
It is the completely unproven positive feedback's postulated by the alarmists that gives a figure of 3.25C for a doubling
Quote:
No evidence for this other than the models, that have so many free parameters you could prove anything.
Two lies in one sentence. Have you been taking lessons from the Eel? Quote:
The Earths temperature history, with it remaining in a pretty narrow band for well over a billion years, suggests that feedback's actually are negative in both directions in the long term.
Needless to say, they suggest no such thing - unless by "long term", you simply mean the negative feedback which prevents a temperature excursion in either direction continuing indefinitely. But since that is just mainstream science, which you deny, I assume this isn't what you mean. Quote:
if feedback's were positive in any direction the result would be, in the long term, to drive the Earth well out of the narrow band we have observed.
I think it would be helpful if you gave us your definition of "narrow". Or is your argument now that any temperature previously seen on Earth would be perfectly satisfactory if translated to the present day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,492
|
Quote:
Feedbacks which arise quite naturally from a consideration of the physics you deny.
Two lies in one sentence. Have you been taking lessons from the Eel? Needless to say, they suggest no such thing - unless by "long term", you simply mean the negative feedback which prevents a temperature excursion in either direction continuing indefinitely. But since that is just mainstream science, which you deny, I assume this isn't what you mean. I think it would be helpful if you gave us your definition of "narrow". Or is your argument now that any temperature previously seen on Earth would be perfectly satisfactory if translated to the present day? The response of an Earth with a neutral response to an increase in radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2, would be to see its temperature rise by approx 1.0C. That is unarguable physics. There is no proof of there being a net effect of positive feedback's in response to an increase in radiative forcings. The models have free parameters and that is a fact. They quite often use different figures for things like the effect of Black Carbon aerosols etc. These feedback's are adjusted within models to produce their output. There is evidence that there is no net positive feedback from an increase in radiative forcing. The Sun has increased its radiative forcing on the Earth by about the equivalent of five doublings of CO2 in the last 500 million years. Even taking into account a concurrent fall in atmospheric CO2 in that time, it still leaves a significant net increase in forcing on the Earth. The response of the Earth has been to cool by about 8.0C in this time. How can the Earth have net positive feedback's in the face of these facts? Maggie |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Just a refusal to address the facts. Just parroting stuff without critical thinking.
Quote:
The response of an Earth with a neutral response to an increase in radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2, would be to see its temperature rise by approx 1.0C. The physics is "unarguable" only if you perversely ignore most of the physics. Science deniers can never make up their minds if water vapour is very important or completely unimportant. I see you fall into the latter camp. That is unarguable physics. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated drivel, as usual. |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
CO2 doesn't have to "understand" that it's meant to be behaving logarithmically, any more than a falling ball has to understand that it's meant to be accelerating.
Quote:
And only a crackpot would claim that "CO2 prevents warming during the day", because that claim is utter nonsense.
So you've confirmed your belief that CO2 behaves unidirectionally, and has no effect on incoming solar energy. That's... not entirely in agreement with mainstream science. But I also appear to have underestimated the cost- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...te-change-act/ London, 11 December: A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals the extraordinary £319 billion cost of Britain’s Climate Change Act. The report, which is based entirely on official figures, exposes the mischievous attempts by ministers to try and disguise the true cost to households. “Britain has been gulled by false assurances that decarbonising our economy would be costless into signing up to a stupendous bill of over £300 billion up to 2030,” said Peter Lilley MP, the study’s author and one of the few Members of Parliament who voted against the Act back in 2008. I suppose if you're someone like, say Ed Davey, who left DECC to go work for a 'renewables' company, that £319bn is very appealing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
Science deniers can never make up their minds if water vapour is very important or completely unimportant. I see you fall into the latter camp..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
So answer the question. 0-269ppmv CO2 = how much warming?
Quote:
So you've confirmed your belief that CO2 behaves unidirectionally, and has no effect on incoming solar energy. That's... not entirely in agreement with mainstream science.
That's funny, I'm sure I remember njp and I explaining that the effect of CO2 on the incoming shorter wave radiation was very small but not none.But that would mean you're lying. Again. Quote:
But I also appear to have underestimated the cost- Ah, that would be the Peter Lilley who was a director of Tethys Petroleum.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...te-change-act/ London, 11 December: A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals the extraordinary £319 billion cost of Britain’s Climate Change Act. The report, which is based entirely on official figures, exposes the mischievous attempts by ministers to try and disguise the true cost to households. “Britain has been gulled by false assurances that decarbonising our economy would be costless into signing up to a stupendous bill of over £300 billion up to 2030,” said Peter Lilley MP, the study’s author and one of the few Members of Parliament who voted against the Act back in 2008. I suppose if you're someone like, say Ed Davey, who left DECC to go work for a 'renewables' company, that £319bn is very appealing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
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. I see some of yourr points but I think iit's a little early to write off a whole technology. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
There is, it's called the atmosphere.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Hmm.. something we possibly agree on. Sceptics thing water vapor is hugely important given it dominates CO2. Science deniers downplay it because water taxes aren't anywhere near as lucrative as carbon taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
So you've confirmed your belief that CO2 behaves unidirectionally, and has no effect on incoming solar energy. That's... not entirely in agreement with mainstream science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,492
|
Quote:
The physics is "unarguable" only if you perversely ignore most of the physics. Science deniers can never make up their minds if water vapour is very important or completely unimportant. I see you fall into the latter camp. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated drivel, as usual. Just posting random sort of things as if anyone with more than two brain cells would be impressed by them. You obfuscate because you have no answers other than your usual unthinking parroting. Oh and of course water vapour is important it is a much more important and powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Perhaps we should ban it! I say again there is no evidence that the Earth has net positive feedback's to an increase in radiative forcing. You have models but they are not evidence of anything as they get to play around with the free parameters. I mentioned Black Carbon for a good reason. The modellers assign all sorts of quantitative effects in their models because the actual net effect is not measured and is unknown. " more recent direct radiative forcing estimatewould lead one to conclude that black carbon has contributed the second largest globally averaged radiative forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the radiative forcing of black carbon is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing" The IPCC use an estimate of 0.3 Watts per square meter. Other scientists have estimates of 1.2 W/m2. Only a 400% difference then! Good job the science is settled! What do the modellers use?.............................. Anything they damn like is the answer, nobody knows what the true position is and therefore figures can't be challenged. A scholarly paper on black Carbon states this as the current position. "Abstract Black carbon (BC) from the burning of fossil fuel and biomass absorbs solar radiation and might intensify the greenhouse gas warming. Therefore, ideas to combat climate warming by reducing black carbon emissions emerged. However, black carbon emissions are generally accompanied by co-emission of other aerosols that predominantly scatter and have a cooling effect, so that the net forcing is substantially smaller, reducing mitigation potentials. Moreover, indirect effects on clouds are likely to exert additional cooling. As in situ measurements do not sufficiently sample the global atmosphere and satellite data does not provide the necessary detail on aerosol absorption, our only tools to estimate the effect of mitigation are numerical climate models. A review of current model estimates of black carbon radiative effects gives an average estimate of the direct radiative forcing as +0.33 W/m2, indirect effects of −0.11 W/m2 and through BC deposition on snow/ice surfaces of about +0.05 W/m2. A key limitation of these estimates is that the numerical models required for their global quantification are insufficiently constrained by observations. In addition, the comparison of instantaneous forcings generally overestimates the relative importance of black carbon and policy makers should consider alternative metrics, incorporating time-horizons." You know what that adds up to when you reduce the language down? "We have no measurements, no observations and no proof whether the net effect is even positive or negative." The modellers love it though, they can play around with this parameter and the other free parameters to produce the result they like. People like you then swallow these model outputs as proof of something. It would be laughable if it wasn't causing us to divert huge resources into this matter causing goodness knows how many deaths as the poor enter fuel poverty. Maggie |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
|
Quote:
Interesting conspiracy theory, much favoured by the alt-right, I'm sure.
Quote:
Though quite how a tax on water vapour would a) be implemented or b) be in any way useful is a mystery second only to your unidirectional logarithms.
I'd base it on length of coastline to annoy Norway. Carbon is simpler though because that's a tax on pretty much every economic or industrial activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
What are you talking about?
Quote:
Oh and of course water vapour is important it is a much more important and powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Perhaps we should ban it!
Oh, right. So you are indeed the type of science denier who simultaneously asserts the over-riding importance of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, whilst apparently being blissfully unaware that the amount of it in the atmosphere is a function of a) availability, b) temperature, and c) the physics of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.Quote:
I say again there is no evidence that the Earth has net positive feedback's to an increase in radiative forcing. You have models but they are not evidence of anything as they get to play around with the free parameters.
Yes, you say all sorts of things that aren't true.Quote:
I mentioned Black Carbon for a good reason.
Because it's the latest thing for science deniers to cling to in their attempts to undermine the need to reduce CO2 emissions, presumably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18,881
|
Quote:
As soon as I see you displaying any "critical thinking", rather than simply demonstrating your ignorance of physics, I'll be sure to let you know. I might even throw a party.
The physics is "unarguable" only if you perversely ignore most of the physics. Science deniers can never make up their minds if water vapour is very important or completely unimportant. I see you fall into the latter camp. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated drivel, as usual. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:10.




