Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[Hallo Alfie]

I might say the same about a warmible producing warmer porn - but I will refrain.

The problem is I hold no faith in climate models. "Why?" you might ask; the answer is very simple - they have rarely (if ever) been correct.

Boogedy boogedy boo!

 

[bit_pattern]

The problem is I hold no faith in climate models. "Why?" you might ask; the answer is very simple - they have rarely (if ever) been correct.

Boogedy boogedy boo!

Actually, that's a complete myth. Climate models have been very successful, dating back to the earliest days where even primitive models from the early 1980s were highly successful in projecting the last 25 years of temperature growth. And the reconstructions of past temperature, based on natural forcings alone, are equally successful

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

I don't need faith, I have the ability to assess the evidence for myself and not rely on the assurances of industry funded think tanks and News Ltd collumnists that it's all some grand "groupthink" conspiracy that only you are wily enough to see through.

"Boogedy boogedy boo", indeed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Did those models predict no warming for the past decade even with the increase of co2 in the atmosphere?

'nuff said.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Climate change threshold nears for rapid increase in wildfires in Canada

See this, Bikerdruid?

You still giddy that Alberta is going with carbon-intensive power over carbon-free nuclear?

You still want to claim credit for this "victory"?

 

[bit_pattern]

Did those models predict no warming for the past decade even with the increase of co2 in the atmosphere?

'nuff said.

Yes. There are plenty of model run scenarios that show decade long periods of no growth or even a lowering of temperatures due to natural variability. And, despite the fact that it's actually a statistical sleight of hand and that it HAS warmed over the last decade, the idea that ten years of no warming is significant is a meaningless red herring as the following demonstrates so effectively

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So where are the predictions there would be no warming? Can you produce a model that accurately predicts zero warming for the past decade or so. If not, my claims stand and your rebuttals fail.

 

[bit_pattern]

So where are the predictions there would be no warming? Can you produce a model that accurately predicts zero warming for the past decade or so. If not, my claims stand and your rebuttals fail.

Your comprehension of statistics fails, more like it.

Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1232.abstract

 

[Hallo Alfie]

An after the fact prediction is it

Thank you Captain Hindsight.

 

[bit_pattern]

No, that's a lie. Just keep denyin' Alfie, it's what you do best.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why is it a lie?

Was it produced before or after (say) 2011? Where was the prediction that there would be a stalling of the warming?

I love after the fact predictions, I have last weeks lotto numbers if you want them.

 

[bit_pattern]

Why is it a lie?

Was it produced before or after (say) 2011? Where was the prediction that there would be a stalling of the warming?

I love after the fact predictions, I have last weeks lotto numbers if you want them.

You really do like making a fool of yourself, don't you? The paper was written to debunk claims made by John Christy in his Congressional testimony, claims based supposed problems with past climate models. The whole point of the exercise was to evaluate what past climate models realy did predict.

And, as per your request (and this is purely for my own amusement because I knew exactly where to find this graphic and I enjoy deconstructing climate myths) model runs that went into the IPCC AR4 (ie. pre-2005), tell me if you can spot a run that shows a significant period of cooling over a decade long period in the early 21st C or not

Like I said, you clearly have no idea about statistics and how they are applied in climate models. None whatsoever.

 

[lomiller]

I gave you an example of a renewable fuel that was such a sure thing that the government

Which makes it a goalpost move from your claim we don;'t have the technical know how to do renewables.

Who do you think was telling the government that it was a good idea to make use of such fuels mandatory?

Don't know don't care. It isn't relevant to what we are discussing. that being people proposing nuclear as a complete one size fits all solution are appealing to technologies that don't rate higher than theoretical possibilities while those supporting renewable are appealing to well understood mature technology.



If you really want to discuss government, well nuclear isn't ever going to work as fully private without government intervention while renewable don't require anything beyond making fossil fuels build the cost of CO2 emissions into their price.

 

[lomiller]

Sorry, but you are completely missing the point here,

No I get you;r point, you are simply wrong and are presenting wild claims without evidence.

What you are effectively claiming is that renewable are presenting more then the total power requirement of the grid. This is at the very least unsupported and contradicts the facts. Renewable nameplate capacity in Germany does not exceed the total power draw in Germany.

What's happening is that coal and gas plants have fixed costs that they need to pay regardless of whether they are producing power, so their cost per KWh goes up if they can't produce at or near maximum capacity. This makes them less competitive and less profitable so they lobby to have their own power being purchased over renewable.

They also receive huge a huge subsidy in the form of being permitted to emit CO2. Without this they are not competitive with either renewables or nuclear.

 

[lomiller]

I might say the same about a warmible producing warmer porn - but I will refrain.

The problem is I hold no faith in climate models. "Why?" you might ask; the answer is very simple - they have rarely (if ever) been correct.

Boogedy boogedy boo!

We get it you think science is bunk and that humans should abandon science as our means of understanding the word. Repeating yourself won't make your argument against science any stronger however.

 

[Christian Klippel]

What you are effectively claiming is that renewable are presenting more then the total power requirement of the grid. This is at the very least unsupported and contradicts the facts. Renewable nameplate capacity in Germany does not exceed the total power draw in Germany.

Wow, what a load of bull you spew here.

http://www.energieimfocus.de/deutsches-stromnetz-bremst-windkraft-g365660612-p2

http://www.wiwo.de/technologie/umwelt/erneuerbare-energien-der-strom-kommt-auf-die-halde/5904994.html

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article13695438/Windenergie-Chef-wirft-Netzbetreibern-Blockade-vor.html

Want more? Just say a word....

Really, it's a fact that things like windmills are cut off because they would otherwise overload the grid. because the grid operators are forced to feed in the energy from renewables up to the point the grid is almost overloaded, the results are negative prices on the EEX sometimes. Check here, for example, for Monday 26th, between 1 and 2 o'clock in the night:

http://www.eex.com/en/

(Click on "Germany/Australia (Phelix)")

-10,02 Euro per MW/h. -10.04 an hour later.

And if you had read what i wrote, i never claimed that nameplate capacity in Germany exceeds the demand generally. If you claim that, then you lie. I always said that due to the stupid laws here, which force the grid operators to feed in renewables no matter what, the grid is often almost overloaded (at which point they cut off the renewables), and we even expect it to collapse rather sooner than later. That simple fact exists because renewables are incalculable as to their actual production capacity.

Got that?

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Check this as well: http://www.eeg-aktuell.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Einspeisemanagement-Wind-EEG-aktuell-4-1-11-1.pdf

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We get it you think science is bunk and that humans should abandon science as our means of understanding the word. Repeating yourself won't make your argument against science any stronger however.

Your attitutde towards science isn't any different.

You took a potshot at me saying:

He seems to think that because someone ones extracted a few ponds of yellowcake from seawater under laboratory conditions we now have a million year supply of Uranium.

Well before your snide remarks, in this very thread, I posted:

Breeder Reactors: A Renewable Energy Source

Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible
The criteria by which wind, solar, hydro, wave power and geothermal are determined to be renewable apply equally to nuclear energy. We cannot burn enough nuclear fuel to exhaust the Earths supply in the remaining time that this planet will be habitable to us.

I backed up the claim that you dismissively derided with actual scientific papers by real scientists.

You're a great defender of science when you think it supports you. Otherwise your behavior towards science is indistinguishable from AGW denialists.

 

[lomiller]

Y


I backed up the claim that you dismissively derided with actual scientific papers by real scientists.

Your evidence for the claim that nuclear fuel is inexhaustible is that someone one extracted a small amount of it from seawater. A pound of yellow-cake is a far cry from a an inexhaustible source of energy.

 

[lomiller]

Wow, what a load of bull you spew here.

http://www.energieimfocus.de/deutsches-stromnetz-bremst-windkraft-g365660612-p2

http://www.wiwo.de/technologie/umwelt/erneuerbare-energien-der-strom-kommt-auf-die-halde/5904994.html

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article13695438/Windenergie-Chef-wirft-Netzbetreibern-Blockade-vor.html

Want more? Just say a word....

Wow links to websites written in German without eve a summary on your part of what they say or how they support your claim that nameplate capacity of German wind farms exceed the entire power draw of the German power grid.

I'll take that as you saying "I got nothing"

 

[lomiller]

Really, it's a fact that things like windmills are cut off because they would otherwise overload the grid.

And if you had read what i wrote, i never claimed that nameplate capacity in Germany exceeds the demand generally.

So which is it? How can wind power overload the grid if it's nameplate power output is less than the power required by the grid?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Your evidence for the claim that nuclear fuel is inexhaustible is that someone one extracted a small amount of it from seawater. A pound of yellow-cake is a far cry from a an inexhaustible source of energy.

No, my evidence is the papers I linked.