March 2013 Open Thread

Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    March 13, 2013

    @99,Sou, Melbourne got the record,26.5C at 7.10am.
    A ‘record minimum’ of deniers….

  2. #2 Sou
    March 13, 2013

    Thanks Nick. Wasn’t sure if they judged the record on the overnight minimum or the 24 hour minimum.

    (A previous post of mine just got swallowed up – maybe it fell into the spam folder?)

  3. #3 MikeH
    March 13, 2013

    @#93
    The Rabbett had a bit of fun with the hapless Poptech here.
    http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/rtfr-pops.html

  4. #4 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Bernard J

    I’m amazed that someone that appears to have some nous still deludes himself as much as the worst of the ignorants.

    I’m sure I have read that intelligent people can fool themselves with equal if not greater efficacy than daft ones.

    Denial is an insidious pathology that turns the mind into a weapon against itself…

  5. #5 bill
    March 13, 2013

    I’m sure I have read that intelligent people can fool themselves with equal if not greater efficacy than daft ones.

    A central point of my two intellectual heroes – George Orwell and Noam Chomsky.

    A text-book – or DSM V! – example of it requiring brains to be a truly breathtaking idiot is available elsewhere on this site.

  6. #6 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    bill

    I hazard a guess that we are both thinking of the same example.

  7. #7 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    @ 2 Sou

    Was it linky-rich? I think the spam filter triggers at > 4 links.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    March 13, 2013

    The Rabbett had a bit of fun with the hapless Poptech here

    And Dikran Marsupial humorously exposes the fatal flaw in Poptech’s criteria for removing a rebutted paper by supplying first-person evidence that Poptech is incompetent to judge when a paper conclusively rebuts another.

    Poptech subsequently doubles down, providing further evidence he doesn’t know what he’s doing…but you all knew that already, right?

  9. #9 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    It can go earlier.

    There may be some catchwords that the link filter chucks in the spambin.

    It may be that so many things get put in there that finding anything that shouldn’t be there is a lot of work, but from out here, all we see is that something gets into moderation and it will NOT be looked at, effectively throwing it as spam.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    March 13, 2013

    My, my. What a load of ugliness coming from PT (aka AK) at Rabett’s place. Almost makes BK look angelic.

    But there is a good article over there on the Klotzbach/Christy flim-flam: Some Reading.

  11. #11 lord_sidcup
    March 13, 2013

    In case you haven’t heard, all the remainder of the stolen CRU emails have been made available. They are calling it ‘Climateagte3′. Climategate2 bombed and so little is expected from the latest release. Furthermore, the hacker has set up a bitcoin addrss and is asking for ‘donations’.

  12. #12 chek
    March 13, 2013

    First I’ve heard of it lord_s.

    I wonder who’ll be the first puppy dog running over here with the first delusional gruntings, only to be met with disappointment?

    My money’s on Griselda Slime or El Duffer

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    March 13, 2013

    220,000 emails will take time to quote mine, most of them must be really mundane university admin. stuff. FOIA signing off with a request for ‘donations’ is a fittingly sordid end to the affair.

  14. #14 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    This proves it wasn’t whistleblowing anyway.

    If someone knew what was going on in private, they would have that information and not have to throw everything out. 220k emails proves he doesn’t know what is going on there, only suspicions.

    So not a whistleblower.

  15. #15 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Wow

    Agreed, but we can perhaps go further. Whistle-blowers need something substantive to blow their whistles about.

    The defining characteristic of ‘climategate’ is that it was a manufactured fake ‘scandal’ invented (right down to the framing name) by fake sceptics.

    But it was very, very clever. Once the fake ‘controversy’ was being screamed about all over the internet, a *real* inquiry had to take place. Refusal to investigate would have been framed as a cover-up. Investigation was framed as evidence that there was something to investigate and *then* as a cover-up.

    I couldn’t have contrived it better myself.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    I disagree: it wasn’t clever.

    It was timed to shortly before Copenhagen. That’s no more clever than bears who wait for the salmon rush to go out and catch salmon.

  17. #17 lord_sidcup
    March 13, 2013

    UEA say it was a hack. The police say it was a hack Mr FOIA lacks knowledge both of CRU/UEA and of climate science in general and there is nothing else to indicate an insider. He didn’t identify what he was blowing his whistle about. He didn’t need to be anonymous to blow he whistle…

    ..AND YET, a quick review of comment at Delingpole, Montford, and Watts shows the deniers are still clinging to notion. Deluded doesn’t begin to describe them.

    Speaking of deluded, they also confidently assert that the request for ‘donations’ was merely irony.. AND YET the bitcoin address exists and transactions are going through it.

  18. #18 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Wow

    We might hate it, but the ruse worked. Proximity to COP15 was an essential part of the whole thing. And another reason why we can be fairly sure this was data theft. One day it would be interesting to know who exactly was responsible.

  19. #19 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    To be clear, it would be interesting to know if this was some lone buffoon who did more damage than they could have imagined in their wildest dreams, or if it was the work of professional strategists.

  20. #20 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    “We might hate it, but the ruse worked”

    Oh, it worked.

    It just didn’t require any cleverness to pull off.

  21. #21 bill
    March 13, 2013

    I can see it now – “Climategate 3 – Phil Jones calls Pat Michaels a ‘putz’, misspells ‘stochastic’ and repeatedly splits infinitives – film at 11!”

    This coincides with nothing, and will go nowhere. It’s just chumming for morons… watch for dreck like Delingpole to try to inflame them with it!

    Did any sane person ever think this was ‘whistle-blowing’?

  22. #22 Sou
    March 13, 2013

    So they were only in it for the money when it all comes down to it. What a lot of nutters. Should keeps them out of our hair for a bit though, while they dream up new conspiracies.

    Did you know there are people trying to ‘prove’ that this isn’t Australia’s hottest summer? These people even lived through it AFAIK. Blind, heat tolerant, fire resistant and very very stupid. They have difficulty with grade 3 arithmetic.

  23. #23 bill
    March 13, 2013

    What I love is the people who all passionately backed the Watts surface stations project then announcing that some completely uncontrolled measurement made (in the sun!) in Dapto in 1834 proves that this wasn’t the warmest summer ever…

    ‘Skeptics’, eh?

  24. #24 Vince Whirlwind
    March 13, 2013

    Climategate 3 – Phil Jones calls Pat Michaels a ‘putz’,

    Isn’t that what Monckton would call, “unlawfully interfering on the blogosphere”?

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    March 13, 2013

    I well remember that day in early January – I was driving along and said to my wife, “Shit! Look at the temperature reading the car’s giving us! It must be faulty.” What was even more astounding was that the temperature then slowly climbed upwards until it started saying 45 degrees. We were driving up a pass in the Great Dividing Range. There were broken-down cars all over the place. At one point there was a bus in front of us and the asphalt was coming up under its wheels and splattering back over the road in front of us. On some corners, the road was a puddle of tar the car wallowed through.
    I’ve been driving around coastal NSW for a long time and it was definitely a novel experience.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    March 14, 2013

    Tom told me a story once about how frustrated he became once while trying to explain what the term “passive-aggressive” meant to a particular student. Over and over he gave this young man example after example and still he could not get through. He finally gave up when he began to wonder if this student was just pretending to not get it and was in fact demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior by repeatedly asking him to give him more examples.

    I can’t decide whether the deniers of global climate change are as dense as they appear or if it is an act or they are just extremely passive-aggressive and pathologically obstructionist. I really don’t know. It is an interesting question that has been studied but one we may never answer.

    How many times will we patiently explain the globe is warming? And that CO2 is responsible? And that there is this thing called the internet and it is extremely easy to use it to find out scientific truth about greenhouse gases and the worldwide scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

    http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/03/deniers-of-clim.html?partner=RSS

  27. #27 JamesT
    March 14, 2013

    The carbon tax killed my cat.

  28. #28 Sou
    March 14, 2013

    Willis E complains that “nowhere in the paper do they show you the raw data” and Steve McIntyre is (still) “baffled”

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/still-more-denier-weirdness-from-wuwt.html

  29. #29 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    So what’s he demanding? That nature come on a stack of BluRay disks to hold all the data for one paper?

  30. #30 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    “Over and over he gave this young man example after example and still he could not get through. He finally gave up when he began to wonder if this student was just pretending to not get it and was in fact demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior by repeatedly asking him to give him more examples.”

    I’d have patted them on the head and said “Never mind, you’re an adequate human being in other ways.”

  31. #31 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    A noteworthy comment by Jeremy Shakun at DotEarth:

    Just a quick point here. I state in the interview that we can’t be sure there aren’t any abrupt global warming blips during the Holocene similar to the current one due to chronological uncertainties and the relatively low time resolution of our global temperature reconstruction. It is worth considering though that we do have several high resolution proxy climate records from various regions around the world (think ice cores), and if abrupt global warming events happened in the past, then we might expect these local records to show them…..but my sense is they don’t. So, this isn’t hard and fast proof that there weren’t any abrupt global events like today during the rest of the Holocene….but if I had to lay down a bet, it might make me place my wager on that side of the argument.

    [Emphasis added]

    So the contrarian meme that M13 is worthless because the temporal resolution is too low is itself a weak line of attack.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    March 14, 2013

    …He finally gave up when he began to wonder if this student was just pretending to not get it and was in fact demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior by repeatedly asking him to give him more examples.”

    Like this example Wow: Dawkins v Wendy Wright, the latter could remind you of Jo Nova. BK is now sailing very close to this wind.

  33. #33 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    Oh yes.

  34. #34 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    When that silly bint blithers on about “those ad-hominem attacks show that you don’t believe your statements”, doesn’t she realise that she’s several times called an ad-hom on scientists and Dawkins before Richard asked “Is there a hostile agenda hidden behind this?” (which isn’t an ad-hom, but it’s no surprise she gets that wrong)?

    1) You’re closed-minded
    2) You are demanding people just believe in you
    3) Scientists have a closed clique
    4) Scientists insist that only scientists can claim on science

    All as much or more an ad-hom than Dawkins’ statement.

    I guess she doesn’t believe her own stories…

  35. #35 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    “Where is your evidence showing evolution from one species to another. We believe we were created by god”.

    Show us proof of god creating people.

  36. #36 Craig Thomas
    St Leonards
    March 14, 2013

    BBD,

    So the contrarian meme that M13 is worthless because the temporal resolution is too low is itself a weak line of attack.

    Have they proposed any mechanism whereby recent rapid and record warming would suddenly be reversed and thereby disappear from a low-res temperature record?

    Obviously not.

  37. #37 Craig Thomas
    March 14, 2013

    Sou,

    Steve McIntyre is (still) “baffled”

    At least he is consistent.

  38. #38 Craig Thomas
    March 14, 2013

    Lionel,

    BK is now sailing very close to this wind.

    Huh? They’re not just on the same carousel, they’re on the same horse!

  39. #39 MikeH
    March 14, 2013

    An attack on the Climate Commission’s Angry Summer report by the Pielke Jr associated Risk Frontiers group at Macquarie Uni. Familiar Pielkesque bait and switch tactics being employed. The CC has issued a statement, Pielke Jr has weighed in.

    http://theconversation.edu.au/weighing-the-toll-of-our-angry-summer-against-climate-change-12793

    For the script read here
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=141&&n=1566

  40. #40 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    “Huh? They’re not just on the same carousel, they’re on the same horse!”

    THEY ARE THE HORSE!

    A panto horse.

    I think the horse is easy to spot thought: it has two arseholes.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    March 14, 2013

    I think the horse is easy to spot thought: it has two arseholes.

    Aha! Bifurcated Tergiversation. That’s rich, as is the smell that comes with it.

  42. #42 Craig Thomas
    March 14, 2013

    Ah, but he can repeat Feynman’s “Dictum”.

  43. #43 chek
    March 14, 2013

    Ah, but he can repeat Feynman’s “Dictum”.

    Of course he can!
    In the end denial always boils down to assertions from ‘authority’, because the inevitability of the scientific case isn’t contestable. As we’ve seen for almost a decade now, no matter how hard the denier wolf huffs and puffs and distorts.

  44. #44 Craig Thomas
    March 15, 2013

    But in this case we have a two-arsed horse huffing and puffing, being led around a ring by its master Chris Monkeytown.

  45. #45 chek
    March 15, 2013

    But in this case we have a two-arsed horse huffing and puffing, being led around a ring by its master Chris Monkeytown.

    A two-arsed horse? That can only mean one thing…. the pantomime horse of denial

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    March 15, 2013

    Duff:

    Sweating, are you?

    Sure did, clown.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    March 15, 2013

    I think the horse is easy to spot thought: it has two arseholes.

    That would be Ducktor Do-nothing’s Pull-me-push-you, wouldn’t it…

  48. #48 Chris O'Neill
    March 15, 2013

    Vince:

    What was even more astounding was that the temperature then slowly climbed upwards until it started saying 45 degrees. We were driving up a pass in the Great Dividing Range.

    Good car.

  49. #49 Craig Thomas
    March 15, 2013

    Jo Nova has released a bunch of important inside information about “Climategate 3″ and the brave, selfless “whistleblower” who is responsible.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/has-the-world-started-cooling-hints-from-4-of-5-global-temperature-sets-say-it-might-have/#comment-1253222

    The comments are completely insane – these people have gone right off the edge of planet Sanity.

  50. #50 Nick
    March 15, 2013

    @39,Pielke Jr gets involved,using the kind of rhetoric he apparently disapproves of from The Climate Commission.

    He compares Will Steffen’s perhaps intemperate remark about conduct unbecoming with Richard Nixon’s directive to defund MIT when it displeased him. Huh? Is there actually a less appropriate straining for an analogy than that one?

  51. #51 MikeH
    March 15, 2013

    @50.
    I see that a final tranche of “climatefake” emails has been released. Boring.

    What would be interesting is the email traffic between Pielke Jr and the Risk Frontiers group. The article in TC has Pielke’s fingerprints all over it.
    http://theconversation.edu.au/weighing-the-toll-of-our-angry-summer-against-climate-change-12793

    Here is how it works. Pielke Jr wants to attack the attribution statements in The Angry Summer report from the Climate Commission. But neither he or his colleagues in Risk Frontiers are climate scientists. So pretend that the CC are making claims about “normalised” (their algorithm) insurance losses via key fact 3 below which mentions property – this is nominally their turf.

    Australia’s Angry Summer shows that climate change is already adversely affecting Australians. The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.

    This gives them the confected hook to make the following attack on the report.

    The report refers to, amongst other things, how the significant impacts of extreme weather on property highlights the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.

    So has property damage during 2012-2013 been higher than normal?

    The answer, in terms of insured losses from weather-related disasters, is no.

    and so on and so on, blah, blah.

    Ryan Crompton the co-author or the article gives the game away by conceding that it is really the attribution statements in the CC statement that he takes issue with.

    The script for this “bait and switch” was developed here.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-jr-mcintyre-assist-christy-extreme-weather-obfuscation.html

    Watching Pielke Jr in action close up. Not a pleasant experience.

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    March 15, 2013

    Sou:

    And with more warm weather on the way, Melbourne could be heading for the hottest March on record.

    It’s a very tough record to beat (30.5 deg C max). It came very close in 2008 I think.

  53. #53 lord_sidcup
    March 15, 2013
  54. #54 chek
    March 15, 2013

    Great story, lord_s.

    And the follow-up comment makes a trenchant point too.
    We just need to create a video of people complaining about the smells of CO2 exhaust? Toss in a few loud muscle cars for noise? And share it everywhere? Hmm…
    I wonder if cretins like Delingpole have ever heard the expression ‘fight fire with fire’? Or realised the implications for themselves?

  55. #55 Nick
    March 15, 2013

    Yes @51,the worth of the normalisation algorithm is challenged quite effectively in comments at The Conversation. These guys are pissant pol sci stats types and should reasonably caveat their views,underlining how specific and therefore limited their expertise is. Is that not colleagial? ;)

  56. #56 Nick
    March 15, 2013

    Foolishly, MikeH, I read the SkepSci thread you linked. Pielke Jr indeed has an unfortunate manner.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    March 16, 2013

    People.

    Do yourselves a favour and close the Brangelina tab. The guy has no science, and he’s only sucking hours of your time.

  58. #58 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Actually, it’s now BBD “doing a Bray”, in deep denial about nuclear power and MacKay’s partisan book “Without hot air”.

  59. #59 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2013

    Please Bernard, stop bad-mouthing Wow.

  60. #60 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Oh, lap dog, you need your eyes tested.

    And cut back on the onanism, ‘k?

  61. #61 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, the same goes for you. Please don’t talk to Bernard in that way, even if find him offensive.

  62. #62 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Oh dear, lappy, you’re the one with the reading problem, not me.

    You know, it’s only kindergarden that go “I know I am, but you are too!”. Tell me, are you out of nappies yet?

  63. #63 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And you really shouldn’t call Anthony Watts a paedo child sex trafficer like that, it’s a libellous claim, Olap!

  64. #64 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Even if it could be true.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    March 16, 2013

    I have just started reading through the very interesting David MacKay document cited by BBD (thanks) in the Brangelina thread and would like to add my two-pen’eth which is to urge the reading of Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power by William J. Nuttall wherein will be discovered that 4 Gen nuclear power can provide a more efficient use of raw material, a methodology for disposing of waste from 3 Gen and before, and how the various management options have been or are being implemented for the thorny problems involved.

    Reading this book, with an open mind, will take the fear away from many issues including that of weapons proliferation which is not a feature that 4 Gen will provide.

    It is no surprise to find Centrica making waves to swamp out any nuclear renaissance as they, and the Russian oligarchs allied with Osborne, Cameron & co would rather we fracked the hell out of our land and never mind the consequences WRT safe water supplies never mind other hazards of fracking.

    There are dangerous forces at work looking after their own vested interests as this article shows: Is Britain’s nuclear renaissance in danger?

    Anybody who tries to shout down nuclear power either does not know their subject or is supporting these self same vested interests.

    [Ducks for cover]

  66. #66 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “Reading this book, with an open mind, will take the fear away from many issues including that of weapons proliferation which is not a feature that 4 Gen will provide”

    Not true.

    Proliferation is not addressed by Generation 4 nuclear power.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    (PS look a little more skeptically on his maths. they add up, but they don’t work)

  67. #67 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    [Exchange moved from Brangelina thread; acrimony redacted ;-)]

    The problem all along has been that you haven’t read what MacKay actually wrote.

    Had you RTFR as I repeatedly suggested (eg see # 61) you would have noticed that MacKay begins – like any good scientist – by questioning his initial assumptions.

    You ignored what was written even though I took the trouble to quote it for you, rather than simply provide a link.

    Here it is again:

    1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct? What is the average consumption of Britain? We’ll look at the official energy-consumption numbers for Britain and a few other countries.

    2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential? We’ll compare the estimates in the green stack with estimates published by organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the Centre for Alternative Technology.

    I have now also emboldened relevant sections of the quote in an attempt to punch it through your bony head.

    Had your bothered to RTFR for just over one page you would have come to this:

    Our estimate of a typical affluent person’s consumption (figure 18.1) has reached 195 kWh per day. It is indeed true that many people use this much energy, and that many more aspire to such levels of consumption. The average American consumes about 250 kWh per day. If we all raised our standard of consumption to an average American level, the green production stack would definitely be dwarfed by the red consumption stack.

    What about the average European and the average Brit? Average European consumption of “primary energy” (which means the energy contained in raw fuels, plus wind and hydroelectricity) is about 125 kWh per day per person. The UK average is also 125 kWh per day per person.

    Now FFS read the rest of it. I cannot do it for you. If you had done this in the first place, you could have avoided making such a tit of yourself in public.

    As we know (because I told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference) MacKay used 125kWh/d/p in the five energy plans he presents later in the book. Not 195kWh, not 128kWh. 125kWh

    What you are doing here is simply repeating the crude strawman set up by Hickey. And you are wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.

    Now, as you also know, because I have told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference, your claim about offshore wind makes exactly no sense at all. Mind you, shrilling that MacKay is shilling for Big Nuke is completely insane, so this relatively minor in comparison.

    This nonsense could only have been written by an energy illiterate who has not read the reference:

    Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.

    From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.

    I set you straight in detail at # 78. Oddly, you don’t actually mention this above. But once again, you were completely and demonstrably wrong.

    At some point, you need to admit your errors.

  68. #68 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Lionel A

    You are of course in complete agreement with no less that James Hansen wrt fast-track development of Gen IV.

  69. #69 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “Had you RTFR as I repeatedly suggested (eg see # 61) you would have noticed that MacKay begins – like any good scientist – by questioning his initial assumptions.”

    I HAVE READ THE FUCKING THING.

    YOU, however didn’t.

    Your link pointed AS ITS VERY FIRST SENTENCE:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    Then when I told you that ht wasn’t 195kwh/p/d, you claimed:

    “MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans”

    BULLSHIT

  70. #70 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    James Hansen said in his 2008 letter to President Obama (emphasis added):

    Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved grid deserve priority and there is a hope that they could provide all of our electric power requirements. However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power.

    Therefore it is important to undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next
    generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. These programs could be carried out most rapidly and effectively in full cooperation with China and/or India, and other countries.

    Given appropriate priority and resources, the option of secure, low-waste 4th generation nuclear power (see below) could be available within a decade. If, by then, wind, solar, other renewables, and an improved grid prove that they are capable of handling all of our electrical energy needs, then there may be no need to construct nuclear plants in the United States.

    Many energy experts consider an all-renewable scenario to be implausible in the time-frame when coal emissions must be phased out, but it is not necessary to debate that matter.

    However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. Both countries project large increases in their energy needs, both countries have highly polluted atmospheres primarily due to excessive coal use, and both countries stand to suffer inordinately if global climate change continues.

  71. #71 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You also blathered on how larger more efficient designs that were then available were not a problem in his “calculation” because bigger turbines have to go further apart.

    FUCK NO.

    Absolutely wrong.

    Read a fucking book on wind power, you moron.

    Then look at his load of tripe again.

  72. #72 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    Settle down and read my comment. You are totally out of order at this point, and in full public view.

    Sort yourself out.

  73. #73 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct?

    No.

    2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential?

    Yes.

  74. #74 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 71

    You know nothing. Get a clue.

  75. #75 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Oh fuck off you ignorant shithead, BBD.

    1) Your link started on its first sentence with:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    Correct?

  76. #76 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Get a clue yourself, you moron.

  77. #77 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    What you are doing here is simply repeating the crude strawman set up by Hickey. And you are wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.

    Go back to # 67 and *read it*.

  78. #78 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Here’s another example of your nonsense claim that MacKay has understated the potential of renewables.

    I would like to see a substantive response to this.

    His figure for offshore is an eighth of the actual reserves.

    His calculations only work if you accept them.

    MacKay bases his generous estimates for wind capacity in the standard manner, using power per unit area and area:

    Onshore wind.

    Shallow offshore wind.

    Deep offshore wind.

    Now, go and read the references before even thinking about responding. Once you are crystal clear about what MacKay *actually wrote*, can you be specific about why you reject these estimates? Please show your working.

    While exercising due dilligence, be sure to read the end notes to both sections. You will find important information there too. For example, this:

    60. The area available for offshore wind.
    The Department of Trade and Industry’s (2002) document “Future Offshore” gives a detailed breakdown of areas that are useful for offshore wind power. Table 10.7 shows the estimated resource in 76 000 km2 of shallow and deep water. The DTI’s estimated power contribution, if these areas were entirely
    filled with windmills, is 146 kWh/d per person (consisting of 52 kWh/d/p from the shallow and 94 kWh/d/p from the deep). But the DTI’s estimate of the potential offshore wind generation resource is just 4.6 kWh per day per person. It might be interesting to describe how they get down from this
    potential resource of 146 kWh/d per person to 4.6 kWh/d per person. Why a final figure so much lower than ours? First, they imposed these limits: the water must be within 30 km of the shore and less than 40 m deep; the sea bed must not have gradient greater than 5°; shipping lanes, military zones,
    pipelines, fishing grounds, and wildlife reserves are excluded. Second, they assumed that only 5% of potential sites will be developed (as a result of seabed composition or planning constraints); they reduced the capacity by 50% for all sites less than 10 miles from shore, for reasons of public ac-
    ceptability; they further reduced the capacity of sites with wind speed over 9 m/s by 95% to account for “development barriers presented by the hostile environment;” and other sites with average wind speed 8–9 m/s had their capacities reduced by 5%.

    This is why reading the reference is an essential first step. Doing so can help avoid libellous misrepresentations and stupid, embarrasing errors later.

  79. #79 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Listen, when YOU answer the question “Why did he pick the % of land used by windfarms that he did” with “Because the UK is a small country” YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A PERCENTAGE IS.

    Then YOU come along and go “Get a clue”????

  80. #80 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “MacKay bases his generous estimates for wind capacity in the standard manner, using power per unit area and area:”

    1/8th of the reserves is THE OPPOSITE OF GENEROUS.

    Given you think his calculations are generous, YET THEY ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, then you really do need to rethink whether his calculations are honest at all.

  81. #81 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, on top of things today are we? :-)

    By the way, Jerry Springer’s looking for new white trash for his show. I took the liberty to mention your name Wow. I’m sure you don’t mind since a subhuman of your calibre probably can get a fair sum for the trouble.

  82. #82 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    YOU demanded: Start here: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

    VERY FIRST LINE:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    That was your post here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-39/#comment-152846

  83. #83 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 80

    Are you going blind old chap?

  84. #84 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 82

    Repeating stupid things does not help. You need to read and to admit your errors.

    What you are doing here is simply repeating the crude strawman set up by Hickey. And you are wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.

    Go back to # 67 and *read it*.

  85. #85 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You are, BBD.

    YOU demanded: Start here: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

    VERY FIRST LINE:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    That was your post here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-39/#comment-152846

    Your response? Oh, he says it’s 125kwh/p/d.

    Really?

    You see one hundred and twenty five when the bloody link YOU have said you read (obviously lying) writes down one hundred and ninety five???

    You’re senile, old boy.

    Senile and drooling.

  86. #86 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You keep changing what I’m supposed to read.

    But you never, EVER deign to say that anything that has been PROVEN completely false is wrong or in error.

    Just like Bray or Jonas.

    Gish gallop the fuck away.

  87. #87 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    I went precisely where you told be to start.

    But right in the very first sentence, you disagree with the text written and make up a fantasy that does not exist.

  88. #88 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    Given you think his calculations are generous, YET THEY ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, then you really do need to rethink whether his calculations are honest at all.

    BBD # 78:

    I would like to see a substantive response to this.

    [...]

    Now, go and read the references before even thinking about responding. Once you are crystal clear about what MacKay *actually wrote*, can you be specific about why you reject these estimates? Please show your working.

    Are you going blind old chap?

  89. #89 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    You keep changing what I’m supposed to read.

    No, I keep *repeating* what I would like you to read.

  90. #90 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    BBD: You’re still galloping off to the next moving goalpost.

    YOU demanded I start here: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

    Which says:

    “The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.”

    Correct or not?

  91. #91 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “No, I keep *repeating* what I would like you to read.”

    Well, what a suprise: SO AM I.

    You said Start here.

    That’s where I started.

    EXACTLY where you said to start.

    But in the very first sentence is a load of rubbish that even YOU disagree with.

  92. #92 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 67

    # 78

  93. #93 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    He doubles the energy required for the UK.

    He reduces to 1/8th the offshore wind power available.

    He uses 10 year old tech and says to use it for the next 30 years.

    He pretends that the entire windfarm extent is entirely used by wind turbines.

    Then when that isn’t enough to preclude renewables, reduces it by a quarter again.

    And YOU think he’s being “generous” to renewables???

  94. #94 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    #90
    #91

  95. #95 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    WRT offshore wind, you say:

    Given you think his calculations are generous, YET THEY ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, then you really do need to rethink whether his calculations are honest at all.

    To which I long ago responded in detail at# 78:

    I would like to see a substantive response to this.

    [...]

    can you be specific about why you reject these estimates? Please show your working.

    Are you going to back up your shouting or not?

  96. #96 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    He doubles the energy required for the UK.

    Rubbish. He uses the standard figure of 125kWh/d/p. See # 67.

    This is just embarrassing now. Would you like to stop?

  97. #97 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “can you be specific about why you reject these estimates? Please show your working.”

    I showed you the bloody source of the data on the other thread you ignorant arsehole! YOU IGNORED IT THEN TOO.

    Find it yourself with this google phrase:

    uk offshore wind resource

    And then YOU come back with the source of HIS calculations.

    Oh, that’s right, you can’t. YOU JUST ACCEPTED THEM.

  98. #98 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    What’s this?!:

    60. The area available for offshore wind.
    The Department of Trade and Industry’s (2002) document “Future Offshore” gives a detailed breakdown of areas that are useful for offshore wind power. Table 10.7 shows the estimated resource in 76 000 km2 of shallow and deep water. The DTI’s estimated power contribution, if these areas were entirely filled with windmills, is 146 kWh/d per person (consisting of 52 kWh/d/p from the shallow and 94 kWh/d/p from the deep). But the DTI’s estimate of the potential offshore wind generation resource is just 4.6 kWh per day per person. It might be interesting to describe how they get down from this potential resource of 146 kWh/d per person to 4.6 kWh/d per person. Why a final figure so much lower than ours? First, they imposed these limits: the water must be within 30 km of the shore and less than 40 m deep; the sea bed must not have gradient greater than 5°; shipping lanes, military zones,pipelines, fishing grounds, and wildlife reserves are excluded. Second, they assumed that only 5% of potential sites will be developed (as a result of seabed composition or planning constraints); they reduced the capacity by 50% for all sites less than 10 miles from shore, for reasons of public acceptability; they further reduced the capacity of sites with wind speed over 9 m/s by 95% to account for “development barriers presented by the hostile environment;” and other sites with average wind speed 8–9 m/s had their capacities reduced by 5%.

    This is why reading the reference is an essential first step. Doing so can help avoid libellous misrepresentations and stupid, embarrassing errors later.

  99. #99 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “He uses the standard figure of 125kWh/d/p.”

    NO HE DOESN’T. SEE http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

    VERY FIRST LINE:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

  100. #100 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And that is a link TO HIS BOOK.