View previous topic | View next topic

Global Warming is a Hoax

Page 11 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next


What do you think?
Global Warming is a hoax
8%
 8%  [ 5 ]
It's real, but is mostly natural
27%
 27%  [ 17 ]
It's real, and is mostly affected by man
56%
 56%  [ 35 ]
Ooh look, a brown dog outside my window...
8%
 8%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 62

barbados
1085041.  Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:15 am Reply with quote

I believe Horizon have something on a similar vein tonight

 
barbados
1085089.  Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:41 pm Reply with quote

Well the horizon program wasn't as interesting - concentrating more on the gulf stream speed causing the unusual climate, but all the same there was plenty to think about.

One of the explainations was the unusual hurricane season was the cause the high speeds, although that alone was only part of the reason, and last year we were just unlucky for all of the things that would cause the abnormal evenrs happened.

The interesting thing about the show yesterday was it reminded me of a debate that has been doing the rounds about pollution in London. Claims have been made that London is the most polluted city in the world. And similar to the unusual hurricane season it is more as a result of the success in cleaning up the air (oddly).

 
Leith
1085100.  Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:29 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
My turn to blast from the past,
Did anyone see the cloud lab programme on BBC last night?

A real bombshell at the end with regards to climate change. It would seem that a big player in the warming of the oceans, is after all, pollution. However, not in the way that you would imagine.

Thanks for the tip off, Barbados. An interesting (and beautifully filmed) programme. I loved the images of migrating birds, which I'd not seen before.

I think the impact and novelty of the scientific ideas presented was a little over dramatized, though. The cooling impact of sulphates and other low altitude pollution is an interesting piece of the complex puzzle of how clouds and aerosols impact climate. It is one that has been known about and for some years, though, and is already included in the latest climate models:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/barometer/science/2012-07/pollution-ocean-temperature-natural-disasters

Sulphate pollution is thought to have played a role in the brief period of falling global temperatures post WW2, as noted a few posts up in post 773475.

barbados wrote:
One of the explainations was the unusual hurricane season was the cause the high speeds, although that alone was only part of the reason, and last year we were just unlucky for all of the things that would cause the abnormal evenrs happened.

The interesting thing about the show yesterday was it reminded me of a debate that has been doing the rounds about pollution in London. Claims have been made that London is the most polluted city in the world. And similar to the unusual hurricane season it is more as a result of the success in cleaning up the air (oddly).


Take care to distinguish the two hurricane-related mechanisms portrayed in the programmes:
- Cloud lab described an increased incidence and severity of hurricanes driven by rising sea temperatures (in turn, partially attributed to reduced sulphate pollution).
- Horizon described high jet stream speeds, driven by an increase in local sea surface temperatures, linked to an unusual decrease in hurricane incidence.

 
barbados
1085112.  Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:07 am Reply with quote

For me, the cloud lab was the more informative, Horizon was pitched just a little over my head and that didn't keep me concentrating on what was going on. They dipped down a couple of times, just enough for me to not turn over, but if there were a part two next week, I would be turning over from repeats of the Big Bang Theory.

The timing of the cloud lab really couldn't have come at a better time for me to be interested. I have some friends, who are of the Guardian reader variety - I know, it isn't something I'm proud of, but they sneaked in without me realising. Anyway there has been a lot of noise coming from their direction about pollution in London, and how we are all about to be surrounded by a killer smog in London thanks to a report from the WHO on how The levels of NO2 in the air on Oxford street, and the surrounds to the east are rather high compared with other areas in the civilised world. The bit that was missed from the report in the papers was the bit that points out that the increase in NO2 is both as a result of the cleaning up of the CO2 emissions in London, and the layout of the city - narrow roads, with tall buildings either side. And the explanation of why the oceans are warming I found very interesting, because it is for a very similar reason - the reduction in pollution reducing the filtering effects of the clouds.

Its rather strange how among my friends, I would be considered a denier, when in reality I am a doubter, a position that I would put most non scientific people with half a brain.

 
barbados
1085113.  Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:10 am Reply with quote

The other thing between the two, I think they were talking of different years of data. From what I could gather, last years weather systems were as a result of the year before's weather events

 
'yorz
1127522.  Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:32 pm Reply with quote

For some reason I started thinking about acid rain, and subsequently realised it was a quite long time ago since I last heard those ominous stories.

This Forbes article is very enlightening, and paints very clearly why and how there was such tireless lobbying going on. Not for the reasons I assumed anyway.
Perhaps old hat for most here, but interesting nevertheless.

Quote:
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

And who are the real losers of such agenda-driven science? One of the biggest is climate science-related credibility. Fellow Forbes contributor Patrick Michaels recently posted an article quoting Dr. Garth Paltridge, a former chief research scientist with Australia’s prestigious Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Referring to a dilemma in the overselling of global warming, Partridge observes: “The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the U.K., the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.”

Partridge then predicts some potentially horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives. Noting that this day is approaching, he states: “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” This, he concludes: “is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

When this occurs, we all lose.



Quite.

 
gruff5
1127596.  Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:06 am Reply with quote

When I hear the name "Forbes" I think American big money and big business - not going to be the natural supporters of environmental protection or concern for the vulnerable.

 
gruff5
1134726.  Tue May 26, 2015 5:30 am Reply with quote

Nice image of the most effective countries in which to install solar power@

http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301bb082300e8970d-pi

 
suze
1134731.  Tue May 26, 2015 6:28 am Reply with quote

Please can someone explain what that diagram means. On the fact of it, Australia ought to be a very good country for exploiting solar power - it gets a lot of sunshine, and as a major developed nation it has the money and the technology to exploit it.

Therefore, I'm not surprised to see Australia in the far corner of the diagram. But India is over in that corner too, and Indian technology is not always state of the art. Has solar power been a particular priority of the Indian government, or am I failing to understand what the coloured stripes mean?

I'm not surprised to see Germany and the UK very close together - they don't get as much sun as a country like Australia, but they do have the money and the technology to exploit the sun they have. Italy gets more sun but isn't quite as good at exploiting it - which again, makes sense.

But why does France fare so poorly? More sunshine than Britain and Germany, but apparently pretty bloody useless at doing anything with it. France is a major developed nation, so why should this be?

 
PDR
1134734.  Tue May 26, 2015 7:29 am Reply with quote

The diagram could benefit from some explanatory context, I agree. What I *think* it's showing is that france has a lower carbon-emitting energy supply (more nuclear), so each kWh of non-carbon generation that's introduced will eliminate less carbon-emitting energy generation than it will in (say) the UK (less nuclear, more coal/gas etc). Similarly Norway, despite having minimal solar energy potential, has a mostly hydroelectric energy supply and so doesn't have much carbon-emitting supply to eliminate. And china, wilst having access to a lot of solar power, still leans heavily on coal generators so has a lot of potential benefit from solar-based alternatives.

I would guess the reason why India is up close to Australia is simply that it's not a big energy generator (probably per head of population or per square mile or summink) compared to countries like Australia, so again there isn't as much carbon-emitting energy generation to displace.

But all the above is guesswork due to lack of context - I'd love to understand the equation which produces the coloured bands.

PDR

 
CharliesDragon
1134747.  Tue May 26, 2015 9:19 am Reply with quote

We theoretically have a great solar power potential between April and September or so, since it's already hardly dark at night.

In the winter, though, a lot less potential and a much bigger need. We already import a lost of power for that...

 
cornixt
1134752.  Tue May 26, 2015 10:27 am Reply with quote

Dumping solar heat into the ground in the summer to pump back out in the winter is now becoming a big thing in Alaska.

 
CharliesDragon
1134766.  Tue May 26, 2015 1:46 pm Reply with quote

Isn't that basically coal, peat, and oil? I mean, indirectly, over millions of years...

My seventh grade level understanding of energy is certainly sufficient here...

 
brunel
1134769.  Tue May 26, 2015 2:12 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
The diagram could benefit from some explanatory context, I agree. What I *think* it's showing is that france has a lower carbon-emitting energy supply (more nuclear), so each kWh of non-carbon generation that's introduced will eliminate less carbon-emitting energy generation than it will in (say) the UK (less nuclear, more coal/gas etc). Similarly Norway, despite having minimal solar energy potential, has a mostly hydroelectric energy supply and so doesn't have much carbon-emitting supply to eliminate. And china, wilst having access to a lot of solar power, still leans heavily on coal generators so has a lot of potential benefit from solar-based alternatives.

I would guess the reason why India is up close to Australia is simply that it's not a big energy generator (probably per head of population or per square mile or summink) compared to countries like Australia, so again there isn't as much carbon-emitting energy generation to displace.

But all the above is guesswork due to lack of context - I'd love to understand the equation which produces the coloured bands.

PDR

On paper, India has the third highest installed electricity capacity in the world (about 267 GW), although per capita energy consumption is still a fraction of most developed nations.

Mind you, the Indian power sector is heavily dependent on coal - nearly 60% of India's power comes from coal - and India is currently the third highest consumer of coal in the world (and due to become the world's largest coal importer in 2020). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-32747649

Furthermore, at the moment India plans to install more coal fired power plans for the long term - there are plans for 455 coal power plans in India in the coming years (China, by comparison, is planning 363). With Modi gearing up for his "Make in India" campaign to drive up Indian growth, coal is a major part of India's future energy plans - hence why they seem to be putting in a lot of effort to drive out organisations such as Greenpeace in recent weeks.

All in all, I would have thought that would have made India a fairly high target for a shift to renewables - a nation with a likely rapidly increasing demand for energy and currently heavily biased towards heavily polluting sources of energy such as coal.

 
gruff5
1135094.  Fri May 29, 2015 5:14 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Please can someone explain what that diagram means. On the fact of it, Australia ought to be a very good country for exploiting solar power - it gets a lot of sunshine, and as a major developed nation it has the money and the technology to exploit it.

Therefore, I'm not surprised to see Australia in the far corner of the diagram. But India is over in that corner too, and Indian technology is not always state of the art. ...

Sorry. The diagram was, I thought, the most interesting part of this long article*:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power.html

As PDR surmises, the axes are comparing solar irradiance potential for solar generation against the CO2 intensity of the current electricity generation. India & Australia lie in the same area as they both have lots of tropical sunshine and both currently rely a lot on CO2-dirty coal generation.

*Linked from a series of Guardian articles:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/we-didnt-demonise-solar-the-grattan-institute-responds-to-its-critics
[/url]

 

Page 11 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group