Climate Change

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Just one of the many ways that the UK is very different from the continent :-)

How so?

Dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by conachair

Another cracker from Judith Curry's site on advocacy by scientists..

(Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists | Climate Etc.

This paper from the royal society fared well with one particular attempt to list 'good things to do'

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...4294972962.pdf

Well worth a read.

yes, interesting.

Ms Curry's article is about how advocacy creeps into presentation of a scientific conclusion.

Research and public presentation/advocacy are separable issues. If you're saying that some scientists or groups have been overzealous in their presentation of the findings, I could agree.

No-one has successfully proven (even including "ClimateGate") that the science behind AGW is incompetent, dishonest or tainted. And to impugn an entire branch of science as being "unscientific" should strike everyone as farfetched and disingenuous.

PS - how many posts on this thread meet any of those guidelines

Stuff on the internet is usually worth what you paid for it. Now, what you do with information is another story.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Scientists and researchers and funding agencies, big oil, NSF, all have biases because they are operated by humans. I personally still maintain a significant fraction of scepticism because I have some understanding of how humans, data, and models work.

This is right back to "what is science", and what is the motivation and mindset of someone who goes into science as a career.

Suggesting that the majority of climate scientists as a group are as ethically malleable as industry associations or lobbyists is massively far-fetched and insupportable. And seems completely ignorant of why "science" is still our best process for minimizing the effect of human foibles, errors and biases on the findings.

A scientist is paid to find out stuff. A lobbyist is paid to make people think or do something. Of the two, only the scientist has verifiable facts as a mandatory requirement.

[goboatingnow]

By the way CF was announced in march 89 and completely discredited by end of April 89. It has no comparison whatsoever with AGW

Dave

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

My basic point dredging all this up is to point out that you may not to drink the Kool-Aid in one gulp. Scientists and researchers and funding agencies, big oil, NSF, all have biases because they are operated by humans. I personally still maintain a significant fraction of scepticism because I have some understanding of how humans, data, and models work.

Fair enough Bill. It is a good lesson for all of us to keep in mind, for all aspects of life. Scientists are no better, or worse, than the rest of us. We are all susceptible to the mob, and to being fooled. But that's what makes science so powerful.

Science is a self-correcting process (something I know you know Bill). Scepticism is critical to the process, but so is the ability to appreciate the cumulative evidence. At some point, scepticism can become irrational. Far be it from me to suggest where the line is, but we seem to be seeing a rise in the cult of denial. The climate change "debate" is one illustration, evolutionary theory is another. It seems to be particularly prevalent in the US these days, but Canada has more than its fair share of it as well.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Fair enough Bill. It is a good lesson for all of us to keep in mind, for all aspects of life. Scientists are no better, or worse, than the rest of us. We are all susceptible to the mob, and to being fooled. But that's what makes science so powerful.

Science is a self-correcting process (something I know you know Bill). Scepticism is critical to the process, but so is the ability to appreciate the cumulative evidence. At some point, scepticism can become irrational. Far be it from me to suggest where the line is, but we seem to be seeing a rise in the cult of denial. The climate change "debate" is one illustration, evolutionary theory is another. It seems to be particularly prevalent in the US these days, but Canada has more than its fair share of it as well.

You are a silver-tongued, diplomatic yet persuasive debater. Could you set up an O'Reilly filter that I can pump all my hyper AGW arguments through?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It seems to be particularly prevalent in the US these days, but Canada has more than its fair share of it as well.

I would suggest that this is an understatement:

Friends of Science
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
International Climate Science Coalition

Steve McIntyre
Ross McKitrick
Tim Ball
Tom Harris
Donna Laframboise
Ezra Levant
R. Timothy Patterson
among others

Fortunately we also have
DeSmogBlog | Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science
Andrew Weaver

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You are a silver-tongued, diplomatic yet persuasive debater. Could you set up an O'Reilly filter that I can pump all my hyper AGW arguments through?

When you've got your O'Reilly filter up and running maybe we could pump Bill O'Reilly through it! Do you have the pleasure of being related?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You are a silver-tongued, diplomatic yet persuasive debater. Could you set up an O'Reilly filter that I can pump all my hyper AGW arguments through?

That's very kind of you to say LE. Thank you. I love getting flowers . I also love discussing these issues with intelligent, rational people like Bill. There's no reason why we can't disagree, yet still remain civil and appreciative of the other's perspective.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would suggest that this is an understatement:

Friends of Science
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
International Climate Science Coalition
...

Yes, there does seem to be a proliferation of these "think tanks." At times it seems like our societies are hell-bent on rolling back the Enlightenment. All the more reason to go sailing .

Originally Posted by SailOar

When you've got your O'Reilly filter up and running maybe we could pump Bill O'Reilly through it! Do you have the pleasure of being related?

Do you know how much it pains me to think this might be so SailOar!?! Please, oh genetic gods, let it not be so .

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thoughtful cruisers are among the most energy-conscious and least-wasteful folks on the planet.

Considering the lifespan of the average FG boat, I'd say it's one of the more positive uses of petrochemicals. Getting rid of a sailboat is not in and of itself something that would benefit the planet.

Thank god! Well that's good news. I thought you were saying we had to change our lifestyles. But, it's only other people? Well, hell, I can support that. Sign me up.

This sure turned out to be something about nothing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

Thank god! Well that's good news. I thought you were saying we had to change our lifestyles. But, it's only other people? Well, hell, I can support that.

We can discuss your misconceptions, if you like.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

In 2009 windpower contributed 7% of the total German KW-hours. I doubt if they are up to 30% now. OBTW, the entire German and Danish coastline and island vistas and seascapes have been irrevocably ruined by these eyesore wind machines.

Now Superior Lake--- are you poking a finger into Dave's sore eyes??

Dave (GoBoatingNow) who is a smart engineer supports alternate energy as you can tell from his responses.

And Dave--are you there???

I got tired last night and dropped off line. But the supporting discussion for wind power included government subsidies which I am not in favor of ESPECIALLY here in the our government finds it necessary to BORROW over $0.40 for EVERY DOLLAR SPENT! That is outrages.

Now if Europe continues to progress with wind power which was reported to cost 300% more than electrical power here in the states, Europe will further erode its competitive or as today's case may be non-competive manufacturing cost. Raw power, raw materials along with technology costs determine a product's cost.

So I predict as Europe continues down the road of "cost be damned" they will fall further behind countries whose energy costs are much less.

While I am at it, I have included a URL to a recent Wall Street Journal that analyses the true impact of wind power.

Jay Lehr: The Rationale for Wind Power Won't Fly - WSJ.com

Foggy

EDIT: DAMN IT, I am a subscriber so I can read it but going to the pointer will get you nowhere

[foggysail]

MR. MODERATOR:

I asked permission from the WSJ to copy the below article on wind power. If for any reason, this posting violates Cruiser's Forum's guidelines, PLEASE DELETE IT.

Thanks--

Foggysail

• June 17, 2013, 7:25 p.m. ET

The Rationale for Wind Power Won't Fly
Physical limitations will keep this energy source a niche provider of U.S. electricity needs.

• JAY LEHR

To understand the folly that drives too much of the nation's energy policies, consider these basic facts about wind energy.
After decades of federal subsidies—almost $24 billion according to a recent estimate by former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm—nowhere in the United States, or anywhere else, has an array of wind turbines replaced a single conventional power plant. Nowhere.
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Joe\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_image001.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Joe\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\cl ip_image002.jpg[/IMG]
Getty Images
Three Tree Wind Turbines.
But wind farms do take up space. The available data from wind-power companies, with which the Environmental Protection Agency agrees, show that the most effective of them can generate about five kilowatts per acre. This means 300 square miles of land—192,000 acres—are necessary to generate the 1,000 megawatts (a billion watts) of electricity that a conventional power plant using coal, nuclear energy or natural gas can generate on a few hundred acres. A billion watts fulfills the average annual power demand of a city of 700,000.
Taxpayer support for wind energy will eventually come to an end, I optimistically predict. The only question is how soon. My pessimistic guess is it will take another decade—by which time the number of wind turbines, currently about 45,000 according to the American Wind Energy Association, could more than double.
It is unclear whether very many wind-energy firms have sufficient monetary reserves to cover dismantling these behemoth lawn sculptures once the tax credits wind down or disappear. If not, the result will be a scene from a science fiction movie—as though giant aliens descended onto our planet only to freeze in place.
The promise that wind and solar power could replace conventional electricity production never really made sense. It's known to everybody in the industry that a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time—but it's impossible to predict when that time will be. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing, but most people will not. And so, during the 30% of the time the blades are spinning, conventional power plants are also spinning on low, waiting to operate during the other 70% of the time.
Importantly, the amount of electricity the wind can generate per acre of land is unrelated to the size of the turbines. Yes, by doubling the turbine's blade length you quadruple the turbine's power output. The problem? If the turbines are big and tall you need fewer of them, but they must be more widely separated. If they're smaller you need more of them, closer together.
Another inescapable problem for electricity grids: The power generated by a wind turbine varies with the cube of the wind speed. When the wind speed doubles—say from 10 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour—the energy output increases eightfold (2 x 2 x 2). Someone, or some computer, has to balance these huge variations on the grid by calling on standby generators to produce more or less power to maintain the stability essential to the grid.
So, you might wonder, do high winds make turbines really hum? No. Turbines must be shut down in high winds because centrifugal force would begin to tear the blades apart. Also, the world has learned from experience in Europe—whose wind sculpture gardens may one day dwarf ours—that a one-millimeter buildup of bugs on the blades reduces their power output by as much as 25%.
There are other problems. Thousands of turbine breakdowns and accidents have been reported in recent years. The basic concrete foundations are suffering from strains, as reported by industry sources and on the wind-farm construction website windfarmbop.com.
And there are environmental factors. Annoying, low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines, particularly large turbines, is driving some people away from their homes, according to numerous press reports. (Low-frequency noise regulations are already in place in Denmark while the phenomenon is the subject of continuing research.) The Audubon Society now estimates bird deaths from turbines exceed a million per year.
Wind is at best a niche player in energy. Grandiose claims made on behalf of wind-generated electricity are rubbish, whether or not renewable-energy advocates admit it. Wind-power developers will milk taxpayers across the world out of a few billion more dollars, euros or pounds in subsidies, tax credits and the like, but sooner or later the public will wise up.
Dr. Lehr, a geological engineer and hydrologist, is science director of the Heartland Institute.
A version of this article appeared June 18, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Rationale for Wind Power Won't Fly.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by foggysail

...the supporting discussion for wind power included government subsidies which I am not in favor of

...

I have included a URL to a recent Wall Street Journal that analyses the true impact of wind power.

Jay Lehr: The Rationale for Wind Power Won't Fly - WSJ.com

So, are you also not in favour of subsidies/low royalties/tax breaks to the fossil-fuel sector? How are you on spending $1 T or more on two wars? Wall St bailout?

You'd think that a few $B to kickstart a new energy sector isn't that terrible a use of public money, by comparison.

[edit - thanks for recopying WSJ article. You do know that the Heartland Institute is a barely-concealed shill for the fossil-fuel industry, right? ]

[Krogensailor]

Foggy, is this the same Jim Lehr your referring to?


Who is Jay Lehr?



Jay Lehr is a Senior Fellow and Science Director at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank. Also a prolific national speaker on environmental and agricultural issues, Lehr earned America's first doctorate in Ground Water Hydrology back in 1962.
According to the Heartland Institute, Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 journal and magazine articles. His profile on the Encyclopedia of Water states Lehr has written more than 400 articles on ground water hydrology, his area of expertise. According to a Google Scholar search, however, Lehr has not published any articles on climate change in peer-reviewed journals.
For more than 20 years, Lehr has maintained environmentalists are fear-mongering zealots.

[Krogensailor]

And this is the heartland institute,

"The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[11] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism. In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." Wikapidia