It's all over but for the sweating?

[Arragonis]

An Australian's view of the UK energy policy - you need to listen.

I swear this Greenie madness story is not me on the La Perouse, this is fair dinkum - Michael Smith News

Even he thinks it is madness.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Unfortunately the electric grid doesn't work that way. You may, as in some places in the US, be able to notionally buy "green" electricity from wind plants &c (and could do the same with nuclear or whatever), but you aren't actually getting the same electrons that the wind plants shoved out on the grid.

Well it could do if you measure energy in vs energy out. That way if someone chooses to only use renewables and the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine they get cut off. Meanwhile those of us happy with coal keep warm, watch TV, and post on internet forums

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Why? I'm not saying that British air quality is not lots better than it was in the 1950s, just that it's not yet up to my standards of good. So I would just need to move my nose from here to there, and compare.

Depends where you are. The UK is a small place (about the same size as Japan). Go and poke your nose in the highlands of Scotland and you would struggle to find finer air anywhere on the planet - and if you do I would be happy to be your Scottish host

Take your nose to London and it is a different story.

It is only about 600 miles from one to the other.

And we used to be "Top nation", which was a good thing.

[Arragonis]

More on Drax (the power station, not the bond villain) burning American trees in the name of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Madness! How we'll pay billions on our electricity bills so Britain's biggest power station can switch from coal to wood chips - and it won't help the planet one jot | Mail Online

[NeilBlanchard]

Both sides? What is the other side from reality? If the science concludes that climate is warming and it is because of humans burning fossil fuels, then what else is there? Wishful thinking? Belligerent ignorance? Willful lying bought and paid for by monied interests?

Another clearer graph:


(click on image for link)

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Both sides? What is the other side from reality?

Before I clicked on the Quote button this was all that was posted.

My response was to be "Here is a debate, we are on page 56 of it. There are people with doubts including scientists and ordinary people."

My funny side suggested posting "Narnia, come through the wardrobe - the Lions are lovely and cuddly, and talk like Liam Neeson to little girls who carry swords and make spells".

However...

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If the science concludes that climate is warming and it is because of humans burning fossil fuels, then what else is there? Wishful thinking? Belligerent ignorance? Willful lying bought and paid for by monied interests?

Another clearer graph:...

Bottom line - it is one study, largely based on proxies. You may recall James and I discussed this before - take thing which is affected by x (e.g. temperature) and try to use it to determine what x was in the past.

This is a process fraught with danger, especially at the stage of selecting proxies. This is where the original 98 and 99 hockey sticks (allegedly) "came a cropper". Did you know some of the proxies in MHB98 and 99 were used upside down ?

I'd say that was worrying. Maybe it only happened away from reality ?

Note my italic largely here. A quick scan through the released stuff suggests it might not all be proxies - some of the data might be instruments spliced onto the end. This has been seen before in papers - did you actually understand the real process behind "hide the decline" or was that not part of reality?

The results of this paper conflict with other papers, especially some that reconstruct temps based on ice cores - which arguably are the most reliable and also arguably the least reliable - depending on which side of the reality vs non-reality debate they support or don't.

The ice itself must be pretty fed up by now due to not being believed by either side.

Sorry - I'm being sarcastic, and not deliberately insulting. Guess what sometimes us skeptics pick up science stories quickly - What do you mean you don't have a subscription to "Science"...

I'm here for the debate. I'm not paid (wish I was - exxon, Koch, Shell, BP - please PM me for account details), or ignorant - and I really do care about the environment and the future. I have kids too.

In that spirit of a debate, I posted the paper here first. A skeptic too.

Lets debate the paper ourselves, take a look at it and the analysis of it by others. This is what I have been calling for all along - more science, more research. Read it, analyse it, look at the challenges, look how they got round them, check the analysis, get the data, compare it to other results.

Look behind the curtain for the wizard...

And maybe less lingua "Joe Romm".

[Arragonis]

"Hide the decline" explained here.



That little orange line peaking out is the key part - read the link for a full explanation.

(caution - skeptic link alert, probably big oil funded, or maybe not...)

[NeilBlanchard]

We are not scientists, so we cannot debate this, anymore than we could debate plate tectonics or atomic theory or evolution.

Where is the scientific debate?

This is the science as succinct as possible:


Higher resolution version of the graphic is available here:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-...limate-change/

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Well it could do if you measure energy in vs energy out. That way if someone chooses to only use renewables and the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine they get cut off. Meanwhile those of us happy with coal keep warm, watch TV, and post on internet forums

Until the coal miners go on strike, or the Chinese pay more for the coal than the British can, or... And you were minding what I said about storage, weren't you? Wouldn't be all that difficult, technically, to supply each house with sufficient storage for a day or two - plus what's in the plug-in hybrid's batteries.

Depends where you are. The UK is a small place (about the same size as Japan). Go and poke your nose in the highlands of Scotland and you would struggle to find finer air anywhere on the planet - and if you do I would be happy to be your Scottish host

Been there, and had thought to mention that places like Skye do have pretty decent air. But you do realize that it's not really British air yet? It's Atlantic air, a new immigrant making its first appearance on your shores. By the time it gets down to the Lowlands, let alone the Midlands, it's learned more about British ways :-)

Take your nose to London and it is a different story.

Though I will allow that if you follow the Ridgeway a ways to the southwest (and don't look off to the north), it's not all that bad with a good wind blowing.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We are not scientists, so we cannot debate this, anymore than we could debate plate tectonics or atomic theory or evolution.

Where is the scientific debate?

This is the argument from authority, by proxy, and just as lacking in credibility. Worked example - non-scientists doing the job better than scientists.

Or maybe you think it is heretical to question things ? Maybe you would like any debate banned ? I think you have a constitution which prevents that. This film is a response to a proposed law in Australia about restricting press freedom, the opening story is relevant here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuzrHwMkMU

Science is not a consensus.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Until the coal miners go on strike, or the Chinese pay more for the coal than the British can, or... And you were minding what I said about storage, weren't you? Wouldn't be all that difficult, technically, to supply each house with sufficient storage for a day or two - plus what's in the plug-in hybrid's batteries.

As I pointed out before, the miners are no longer so unionised - haven't been for 20+ years - they lost the strike in 1984 and haven't been strong since. In fact unions themselves are far less relevant these days, except in the public sector.

We just closed a mine too, partly due to reduced demand (did I mention those closing coal stations) and because of a fire.

As for overseas supplies being insecure, like the US we have a load of gas under our ground which we could nicely be fracking if uk.gov would get out of the way. Apparently the fields in the US are about 2-300 metres thick, the one in Bowland is nearly 2km thick. Yet still we import gas as LNG from qatar. Madness again.

Additionally that fracked gas reduced the US co2 output and kept the lights on. Why shouldn't we do that too ?

EDIT - the first person to

mention GASLAND

gets a dunce's cap

And China isn't cutting any emissions anytime soon.