March 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, you should just stop. Really.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You should get a clue, really really.

  3. #3 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    British energy demand is 205 GW. That’s the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use)

    LESS THAN HALF THE FIGURE HE USES.

  4. #6 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And this is why this love affair with a distant future tech is atrocious:

    http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=15779.0

  5. #7 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Renewables are able to do the work

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=799&p=5

  6. #8 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And I’ll quote Tom Curtis:

    BBD, KR and I have both read 236. What is more, I adressed your arguments in 236 directly and found them to be without foundation. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as not having read your comments or understood them. If anything, it is rather the opposite, a sign of both having read and understood what you say.

    You however insist on doing a bray.

  7. #9 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 3

    If only you would read the reference. The basis for projected change in *electricity* demand is detailed here.

  8. #10 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Why do you say nothing about this? It is *directly* relevant to one of your major misrepresentations, namely that DM has under-stated the potential for offshore wind. In fact, DM provides a very generous estimate – far higher than the official DTI figure:

    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%.

    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.

    Can you be specific about why you reject these estimates?

  9. #11 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    That SkS thread is illuminating, BBD.

    You really ARE a BradK when it comes to upping nuclear power and dissing renewables.

    Over at the SkS thread, you do precisely the same thing here.

    a) get the figures wrong
    b) whine
    c) pretend that only Davids figures are real and that ANYONE ELSE is wrong

    You are GENUINELY Doing A Bray.

  10. #12 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    From there, the proof of this being your standard M.O.:

    KR at 00:26 AM on 13 July, 2011
    BBD – And… you repeat the error, by stating “200W/m2 x 2000 = 400kWh per m2″

    It’s not 200W * 2000 hours, but 200W * 24 hours * 365 days. Or, 1000W * 2000 hours/year of available time for collection.

    200W is daily per/hour average, while 1000W on the other hand is peak power that is then scaled by the hours that power is available (2000/year, or 5.5 hours a day, more, actually, tapered for morning/evening). Apples and oranges, BBD – you are taking a 24 hour daily average and then scaling again by a fraction of a day. This is an error.

    I simply don’t know how to put that any more clearly, BBD. 200W daily average is already scaled by hourly availability – yet you scale it again!

    LAGI then (properly) applies a 20% conversion efficiency. 30% is possible for CSP, minus additional plant footprint – not unreasonable.

  11. #13 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    Whilst I can see why you might want to divert attention elsewhere, it would be more to the point if you responded to # 10.

  12. #14 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    And # 9.

  13. #15 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And now you’re doing a Bray again.

  14. #16 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    See SkS.

  15. #17 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “DM provides a very generous estimate ”

    He doesn’t.

    2200GW available shallow sea offshore for the UK. Three times what the UK uses up in power themselves.

  16. #18 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And you know who you remind me of when you defend David MacKay and his fictional story so hard? This guy.

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

  17. #19 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    As an aside, there are two options open to us all. We can always use the same screen name, or we can periodically change it.

    Some might think that it would have been in my best interests to change mine during 2011. But I chose not to, although it would have been the easiest thing in the world.

    Why did I do this? Do you think it is evidence of bad faith, or of good faith?

  18. #20 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    WTF are you on about now?

  19. #21 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Since you keep bringing up the SkS thread, when I finally saw my error I admitted it at once. See # 308. I was horribly embarrassed. I’m *still* embarrassed and I admit it freely.

    Have you never had a blind spot? Got a cog stuck? ;-)

    I like to think that it happens to us all, occasionally.

  20. #22 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 20

    I’m just passing the time waiting for you to respond, substantively, to # 10.

  21. #23 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    I brought it up at first because it was a scenario about how 100% renewable was possible and how it could be done (and the timescales thereof).

    I honestly had NO IDEA you were doing the same BS article, raising that up wasn’t the point.

    But you realised in print on that site that you made errors (thought these errors were not just errors in your assertions, but evidential of error in MacKay’s calculations too).

    You don’t, however, have seen to have learned from them.

    Remember in the Young BradK days, when he’d be given some link to climate papers, he’d go “OK, thanks, I’ll read that later, gotta go to bed now”?

    Then when he came back, it was as if it had never happened?

    You just took longer to revert.

    MacKay’s figures were cherry picked as much as any denier who is trying to claim proof AGW is over.

    But finding you on that thread was happenstance.

  22. #24 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Ahem.

    # 10

  23. #25 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    (thought these errors were not just errors in your assertions, but evidential of error in MacKay’s calculations too).

    No, the error was mine alone.

  24. #26 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “Have you never had a blind spot? ”

    Every human has one, since the nerve endings from the retina are, foolishly run along the front of the eyeball, not sensibly at the back where they don’t have to pass the retina to get to the brain.

    But if you meant intellectual blind spot?

    Some.

    Nothing compared to yours, though.

    over 880kwh/p/d can be gained from offshore wind. Four times what he’d put as the total energy use of the UK. I’ll give him that this is a figure from newer designs, but this goes back to another of your assinine assertions: bigger turbines don’t get more power per unit area of ground covered because they have to be further apart.

    He puts it down as, what 16kwh/p/d? That would be gained by exploiting only 2% of the resource.

    His assertions that land used in a windfarm was used up by that windfarm is likewise completely insane. 99.9% of the land in a windfarm is unoccupied. Farmers can farm it.

    Just like with solar power: MacKay insists that if 1% of land is used for that, it is entirely used up. Except there’s a lot of ground and it’s bright enough to grow crops there. Or it can be on rooftops.

    His calculations rely on such fakery to add up.

  25. #27 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “No, the error was mine alone.”

    No, you were perpetuating the same errors MacKay does.

    You don’t see them because you LIKE his answer. And therefore you don’t notice that you’ve picked up HIS bad habits.

  26. #28 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    If the ‘fakery’ is DM’s then why does he provide a much higher estimate for offshore wind than the DTI?

    Please read and respond to # 10.

    Are the links in that comment working for you btw? There should be five.

  27. #29 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    The thing is, see, is that you get an equation, run some numbers through, and when the numbers do not accord to what you want to be there, you add another factor in. But if the numbers DO say what you want, you leave them there.

    MacKay does it.

    You did it.

    MacKay is pushing nuclear. You’re pushing it. And that requires the removal of renewables from the table, otherwise “AGW needs to be addressed” will make renewables progress, not nuclear.

    So the renewable option has to be taken off the table.

  28. #30 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Uh, you’re about fifty responses behind, BabyBraD.

    #90
    #91

  29. #31 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “If the ‘fakery’ is DM’s then why does he provide a much higher estimate for offshore wind than the DTI?”

    He produces a much higher power requirement than the DTI.

    And the report on renewables for the UK’s offshore resources shows far far more than DM does in his fictional story. 2200GW.

  30. #32 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    I can’t say what the DTI says because you haven’t given their word, only the hearsay of someone incompetent to be trusted on the subject.

  31. #33 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    All I can get from them is this:

    “The 2003 Energy White Paper ‘Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy’ recognised that a key contributor to the government target of 10 per cent of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010 would be offshore wind.”

    Which would indicate that maybe all David has done is quote how much renewable the government had elected to have come from offshore.

    Not the resource available at all.

  32. #34 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And a likely source for this email:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/jun/30/email-nuclear-uk-government-fukushima

    would be someone at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

  33. #35 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And if you want to claim that only 125kwh/p/d is what should be counted, then since the “Green bar” adds up to 180kwh/p/d (the second sentence), renewables CAN produce 100% of required power.

  34. #36 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    MacKay is pushing nuclear. You’re pushing it. And that requires the removal of renewables from the table, otherwise “AGW needs to be addressed” will make renewables progress, not nuclear.

    So the renewable option has to be taken off the table.

    This is me:

    My sense is that you are creating a strawman and trying to have a fight with it.

    Please stop.

    This is what I argue:

    All credible projections* indicate ~25% nuclear and ~25% renewables by mid-century if we go flat out for both.

    Both.

    We can choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.

    Or we can choose 50% FF by mid-century, complete with the *reduced* infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in the full-spectrum option.

    You set up the strawman that I am *anti* renewables and *pro* nuclear and that the whole thing is some kind of zero-sum game where one approach must ‘win’ at the expense of the other.

    But the truth is that I am *pro* decarbonisation. That is all.

  35. #37 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    ” My sense is that you are creating a strawman and trying to have a fight with it.”

    No, claiming a strawman does not make it a strawman. Your rhetoric is obvious.

    You are pushing nuclear.

  36. #38 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    You are having an argument with yourself.

  37. #39 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “We can choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.”

    We can choose 75% renewable by mid-century, complete with ZERO OTHER power sources.

    All that would require is a reduction of waste until we are half way to the world average.

    Given that electrical and heating power come to ~20kwh/p/d, 1/6th the total, much of the rest must be transport. But electrical power is 3x more effective.

    EVEN IF you now change to wanting it to be 125kwh/p/d, the total could be dropped 25% by moving transport over to electrical if even 35% of the remaining power were for transport.

    Given much of the heating is due to crappy insulation and housing stock in the UK, halving the 20kw/p/d needed for personal use isn’t going to be difficult.

  38. #40 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You’re painting a picture to preclude options you do not want to be picked.

    “Take this, which may have a turd in it, or pick the other one, which definitely doesn’t!”

    This is because you want one route to be chosen: gung ho for nuclear.

  39. #41 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    I’m gung ho for decarbonisation.

  40. #42 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    ONLY as long as it’s nuclear decarbonisation.

  41. #44 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, I don’t care all that much what we do, so long as it *works*. See # 36.

  42. #45 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    And renewables work.

    So why do you fight against them?

    #36 is just more proof that you’re lying. See #39

  43. #46 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    # 45

    Mind that straw. It can give you a nasty poke in the eye.

  44. #47 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    #39.

    Your assertions in #36 are completely false. A shibboleth of the nuke-pushing lobby and a bogeyman made up to scare people.

    It is COMPLETELY FALSE.

    We could choose that, but that is only because it is possible to choose to do that.

    IN NO WAY does it have to be chosen.

    IN NO WAY does it mean we can’t have 100% renewables.

  45. #48 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Under climate change, nuclear doesn’t work:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/warm-seawater-forces-conn-nuclear-164118299.html

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

    Meanwhile Germany’s balance of payments is up since they increased their renewables. Selling power to France.

  46. #49 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Skip along to 4:30

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty-0M59EcK0&list=PL2EF0E2B9498E328E

    Renewables, wind only, 60% of power needs.

  47. #50 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, maybe this will cheer you up?

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

    Robust or robusted? ;-)

  48. #51 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Nah, looking at the lunacy at climate fraudit isn’t going to cheer me up, no matter how ludicrous he gets.

  49. #52 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    “We can choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in made up to discard a non-nuclear option.”

    FTFY BabyBraD.

    We could choose 100% renewables by mid century, complete with local energy security and local jobs.

  50. #53 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2013

    Wow, nonetheless it seems that Steve has a strong case. Please show (not tell) me its not the case! ;-)

  51. #54 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Yeah, but you imagine all sorts of weird shit that doesn’t happen in the real world, lapdog.

    Such as, for example, your exhortation.

    This is a textual, not visual medium, therefore it is only possible to TELL you something.

    But go on, YOU show us (not tell us) that Mr FraudIt has a strong case.

    I take it you don’t mean scotch, right?

    Because his scorecard on having anything other than a hangover or the DT’s is running a flat zero.

  52. #55 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Actually, you haven’t even told us, have you.

    You’ve only said you think he has one, you haven’t actually told us he has one.

    Seems not even you believe him. And that’s gotta sting.

  53. #56 bill
    March 16, 2013

    You know, I did suggest, right at the start, it was a good idea not to mention the war.

    This debate has been banned at various other blogs, or confined to specific threads and allowed no leakage. There’s a good reason why. See above.

    David BB – here’s a hint. The above, and the similar result on the other thread, are the entirely predictable outcome on attempting to force this (off-)topic into discussion.

    And yet, when I return to the Climate Progress thread where it might have been both on topic, and had greater exposure in a country where this is all actually a live issue, I do see you there, yes – hooray! – but the debate did not follow you and the endless back-and-forth is all here, gumming up the works.

    What would you say your bringing it up again here has achieved?

    Little in the way of good, from my perspective.

    Certainly I doubt that the reputation either of nukes or of their advocates has been in any way advanced, which would appear to be the only valid reason for a proponent to bring it up in the first place.

    Might I suggest we return to fighting deniers? I’m sure this will be ignored, but as advice it’s no less valid for that.

  54. #57 bill
    March 16, 2013

    To whit: Olaus, please spell out Nigel’s ‘strong case’ for us in your own words. Ta.

  55. #58 bill
    March 16, 2013
  56. #59 chameleon
    March 16, 2013

    Bill?
    . . . suggest we return to fighting deniers?
    David B and apparently BBD are attempting to go past that highly counter productive and ‘name calling’ paradigm.
    They can both see we will have some real issues with future energy needs if we are not prepared to discuss ALL the workable options.
    The piece by Prof BB that David B linked, while certainly pro nuclear, also clearly outlines the impracticalities of some of our current energy policies.
    2 of the most successful & reliable low emmission technologies (nuclear and hydro) are not being sensibly discussed in the current political climate.
    Hats off to BBD and David B for having the courage to discuss one of them, despite the current political climate.

  57. #60 chameleon
    March 16, 2013

    And of course,
    That comment awaits moderation and appears way out of synch.
    Moderator/s.
    Please stop moderating my comments. There is no ‘sock’!

  58. #61 bill
    March 17, 2013

    And, at the risk of attracting the attention of the auto-moderator, here’s an interesting piece on the (un)holy alliance between AGW denial and creationism – sorry; ‘Intelligent Design’ – targeting the school room.

    Or, 20th century Creationism hybridizes with its 21st Century equivalent… with Holy Writ in this case deriving from the Tobacco Industry playbook…

  59. #62 David B. Benson
    March 17, 2013

    bill — There are many forms of denialism.

    ON BK’s thread chameleon asked for my opinion regarding electric power. I claim it is rather informed since the academic power engineers here still hold the title of the best in the west and I have an information channel to that group. [Not surprising the group is best in the west as many of the Columbia River system dams were designed in the very building in which I have an office.]

    I also claim some degree of expertise regarding matters nuclear as my most formative years were in Los Alamos and my senior year I took a course on atomic physics.

    After looking at a variety of alternatives for providing reliable, on-demand electricity via a grid I have come to the conclusion that dispatchable generation is required. Non-dispatchable generators such as solar PV and wind turbines can be accommodated, up to an appropriate fraction of the maximum demand but dispatchable generators are necessary for the reliability of an on-demand grid.

    The remaining question is cost. One would like to accomplish the above using (ideally) minimum cost.

    Since Australians on the eastern seaboard interconnect are all going to have to replace aging coal burners relatively soon, what are you going to replace those with? Barry Brook claims to have an answer, but it is one that many Australians seem to be in denial about.

  60. #63 bill
    March 17, 2013

    David, if you wish to label anyone who disagrees with you in this matter a ‘denier’ that’s up to you, but, again, if you wish to make any converts to your cause you’re going about it in an odd way to my mind.

    Be that as it may – you’re doing it again. This conversation really can serve no purpose anymore – if it ever could.

    As I note Tom Curtis ended up having to say to proponents at SkS – not agreeing with you is not proof that I’m not listening to you, it’s proof that I don’t agree with you. If I’m a ‘denier’, I’ll point out that one of the defining hallmarks of zealotry is never knowing when to give it a rest; is that you?

  61. #64 Lotharsson
    March 17, 2013

    Joanne Nova gulls the gullible once more – herself-included, apparently – by redefining “statistical significance”!

  62. #65 chameleon
    March 17, 2013

    Well said David B!
    Thankfully even here there are people who can see there is a huge problem in the future if we don’t plan for reliable, constant dispatchable generation.
    And moderator/s!
    I would like to be able to contribute to this particular topic in a reasonable timeframe!
    Please allow me to do so.

  63. #66 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    Gee, thanks, fellas! The middle of March and I awake to yet more global warming falling steadily out of a grey sky and settling nicely.

    Oh, and ‘pur-lease’, don’t tell me it’s awfully hot in Australia, it’s always hot in Australia, that’s why sundry nitwits go off to live there – that’s if you can call clinging to the rim of a massive desert ‘living’! And anyway, ‘in a very deep and meaningful sense’, who gives a flying fig what happens in Australia? I don’t even care much what happens in Wiltshire – and that’s next door!

  64. #67 Olaus Petri
    March 17, 2013

    Fellas, Revkin believes that

    “Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been dissecting the Marcott et al. paper and corresponding with lead author Shaun Marcott, raising constructive and important questions.”

    What a nerve! But let’s hope for the best! ;-)

  65. #68 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “on-demand electricity via a grid I have come to the conclusion that dispatchable generation is required.”

    So not nuclear, then.

    One reason why France is in the hole is that they produce excess energy at night and sell it below cost to get rid of it and have a shortfall during the day and have to buy it in at peak cost.

    Buying it from countries like Germany who dispatch power from their renewables to France.

    Solar power plus wind follows the demand curve.

    Nuclear doesn’t.

  66. #69 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “I also claim some degree of expertise regarding matters nuclear as my most formative years were in Los Alamos and my senior year I took a course on atomic physics.”

    Like Geologists who more frequently are climate deniers because they have some degree of expertise regarding matters geological, where the climate was different, assume that they know better and it will all be fine.

  67. #70 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “and I awake to yet more global warming falling steadily out of a grey sky and settling nicely.”

    No, that’s hail, Duffer.

    It is still winter.

  68. #71 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “What a nerve! ”

    What?

    All you’ve done is put some words in quotes. Absolutely pointless. If you’d had something concrete, you’d have said so. I think this proves the vapidity of your queries adequately.

  69. #72 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    Duffer, I take it that you can prove that AGW hasn’t warmed the world, right?

    Go on, show us.

  70. #73 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    Load-following generators such as solar PV and wind turbines can be accommodated</blockquote.

    FTFY, dude.

    up to an appropriate fraction of the maximum

    120%.

  71. #74 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    If you want to talk about nuclear power, we can talk about it.

    If you want to talk about how nuclear power is the only way we can manage to decarbonise, you’re talking bullshit.

  72. #75 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    “It is still winter.”

    Oh, so that’s alright, then. Of course, Spring is only 3 days off so can I expect some global warming, Mr. Wow, sir?

    And I do know the difference between hail and snow, Mr. Wow, because yesterday we had the hail, this morning we had the snow!

  73. #76 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    No, it’s still winter, duffer.

    Nothing right or wrong about it.

    It’s winter.

    This seems to come as a complete shock to you every year. You may want to check yourself in to a home for the mentally incompetent.

  74. #77 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “Spring is only 3 days off so can I expect some global warming”

    And the world’s seasons don’t punch a clock, duffer.

    You are merely proving how incompetent you are to proclaim ANYTHING about either weather or climate since you don’t have the slightest clue what is going on.

  75. #78 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    I am happy, Wow, to admit that **forecasting** weather/climate is beyond me, as it is to everyone else, including on several inglorious occasions, our Nationalised Met Office.

    But may I say, with due deference, that you and your fellow cultists here at the Church of Climate Warming have not been too hot (nudge-nudge, geddit?!) at forecasting climate, either. What is it now, 15 or 17 years of virtually no global warming?

  76. #79 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    I am happy, Wow, to admit that weather/climate is beyond me

    Fixed that for you.

    as it is to everyone else

    Pretending everyone else is as incompetent as you to make yourself feel better isn’t going to work, idiot.

    including on several inglorious occasions, our Nationalised Met Office.

    Now why do you want to imply that if someone is ever wrong in a prediction, they must always be wrong?

    Like i said, pretending everyone is like you just to make yourself feel better isn’t going to work

    What is it now, 15 or 17 years of virtually no global warming?

    Uh, where did year 16 go?

    Or are you agreeing that for 16 years that there was warming of the planet?

    And the trend over the last 15 years or 17 years is within the range of the IPCC projections.

    Just because you are clueless doesn’t mean anyone AT ALL is fooled.

  77. #80 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    And where did this “global warming is lying on my garden” go? Finding that your idiocy isn’t getting you anywhere, you gallop off to new pastures of infantilism?

  78. #81 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    By the by, Wow, how are your alkenones hanging?

  79. #82 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    Yawn.

    Booooring.

  80. #83 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    I think I’ll call you “Cumpy-one, the wonder horse”, duffer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5i_pEYGe1o

  81. #84 Lionel A
    March 17, 2013

    What is it now, 15 or 17 years of virtually no global warming?

    Duff, if you had been a pelagic organism you would have ‘noticed’ a considerable amount of warming.

    Tell me though why is it that drought and wildfire ranges have extended across two major continents, and adjacent territories?

    Also, have you looked at NOAA for information</a) or are you continuing the argument from ignorance (see the new book 'THE DENIAL OF SCIENCE: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK‘ by Martin Lack which provides a description of your brand of denial – when I have read more of this book I aim to provide a bit more context), this in spite of many pointings to sources such as this: Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming?

    Also, tell us why you think this is happening February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update, and tell us also what happens to water when a large body of ice is introduced.

    You will ignore this, or provide a flippant content free response. Why? Because you are a noisome wind up merchant (a Delingtroll) rather than a serious questioner How many Delingtrolls are there to a Euro I wonder?

  82. #85 Lionel A
    March 17, 2013

    AArgh!

    Also, have you looked at NOAA for information or are you continuing the argument from ignorance (see the new book ‘THE DENIAL OF SCIENCE: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK‘ by Martin Lack which provides a description of your brand of denial – when I have read more of this book I aim to provide a bit more context), this in spite of many pointings to sources such as this: Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming?

  83. #86 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    Here’s something that Chumy-one can manage intellectually, maybe:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_to_temperature_when_ice_is_melting

    Are you going to say that the heat being applied to the ice stops when it starts to melt, Chumpy?

  84. #87 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    Odd how Wow finds “boring” an example of, shall we say politely, less than scientific exactitude with regard to dates. Equally odd how excited he becomes if ‘deniers’ make an error.

    Truly may it be said, that in the land of those with two eyes, the one-eyed man walks round in circles bumping into things!

  85. #88 Lionel A
    March 17, 2013

    Further to my recent above and for Duff, here is another Uh!Oh moment in the making:

    Melt Season’s First Signs in Arctic. It shoukld be interesting to see what Goddard, Watts and Bastardi make of this.

  86. #89 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “Odd how Wow finds “boring” an example of, shall we say politely, less than scientific exactitude with regard to dates”

    Really?

    Where is that in your statement:

    #78 Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 17, 2013

    By the by, Wow, how are your alkenones hanging?

    Hmm?

  87. #90 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “Equally odd how excited he becomes if ‘deniers’ make an error. ”

    Really?

    But one tiny error in the IPCC report (a typo) has had you screaming and frothing at the mouth that the ENTIRE report is false.

    Odd how deniers run a galaxy-sized double standard.

    Nah, they’re just lying twats, that’s what.

  88. #91 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “Melt Season’s First Signs in Arctic. It shoukld be interesting to see what Goddard, Watts and Bastardi make of this.”

    I predict:

    Denial.

  89. #92 Karen
    March 17, 2013

    “It shoukld be interesting to see what Goddard, Watts and Bastardi make of this”

    ummmm…………..another storm, lol, just like the one that smashed the ice to bits last year, hehe, didja forget lyinell ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

  90. #93 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    I take it you can prove your assertion, spots, that a storm made the sea ice minimum last year, right?

    No, no you can’t. You made it up.

  91. #95 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    You do know that there have been storms there before, right?

    But this was a record low.

    So the record low CANNOT be caused by a storm.

    Really, you don’t have a clue, do you, spots.

    Yawn indeed.

  92. #96 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    Ice is melted by heat, spots, not wind.

    Not a clue, have you.

    Not one clue at all.

  93. #97 lord_sidcup
    March 17, 2013

    Yes, another spectacular display of bungling and misrepresentation from David Rose:

    http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/

    He’s really surpassed himself.

  94. #98 Lionel A
    March 17, 2013

    ummmm…………..another storm, lol, just like the one that smashed the ice to bits last year, hehe, didja forget lyinell ?

    KrakenMacSpot but more Toc-H light‘, here is an idea, cover the surface of a bowl of water with smashed ice and blow on it, what happens?

    A blowhard like you should have enough puff if not from your lungs then point ‘seventh rock from the sun’ at it.

    Did you not know that the ice minimum was reached days before that storm?

    Did you not know that recently released data from polar exploring nuclear submarines shows that ice thickness has dramatically reduced since they started taking measurements?

    Do you appreciate how much heat ice has to absorb before it turns into water? If so tell us what that amount is and explain.

    You are either an ignorant twerp or a dissembling idiot.

  95. #99 FrankD
    March 17, 2013

    Lotharsson, that post was a hoot. Lewis Carroll would be proud: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    I note none of her – *coff* – “skeptical” posters called her on this error, painfully obvious as it was. I don’t think much of Codling, but I thought she knew better than that.

    Itsnotnova has a nice post on this. Thanks to Codling’s trick, we can now extract statistical signficance from almost any data set, however small, so long as its not flat.

  96. #100 Lionel A
    March 17, 2013

    ‘KrakenMacSpot but more Toc-H light‘ do you bother to READ and UNDERSTAND stuff at the sources that you cite. Here is the ‘read-learn-and-inwardly-digest’ bit highlighted and in context:

    Bottom line: A powerful polar low developed and pushed northward into the Arctic on August 5, 2012. The storm apparently helped break up Arctic sea ice, due to upwelling of warmer waters and the pushing of swaths of ice into warmer locations. Prio [sic] to the recent storm, sea ice extent in the Arctic had already been declining at record low levels across the region. We have another full month of melting before temperatures will slowly begin to drop again, as the winter months approach. Will 2012 beat out 2007 for record low sea ice extent since the satellite era? It is very possible, and there are no signs at the moment that the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice in 2012 is slowing down.

    You trap yourself every time.

Current ye@r *