Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 213529 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #180 on: May 12, 2017, 04:09:22 am »

Germany's SolarWorld (SWVKk.DE), once Europe's biggest solar power equipment group, said on Wednesday it would file for insolvency, overwhelmed by Chinese rivals.
SolarWorld AG is headquartered in Bonn, Germany and operates a large manufacturing facility in Hillsboro, Oregon. The statement said the company is currently evaluating if its subsidiaries, which includes SolarWorld Americas, must also file for insolvency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN

Thus, the solar sector shows once again what happens when the state interferes too much in the energy sector - or in any other sector. It is a lesson for all who opt for subsidies for electric cars and house insulation.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepolitik/solarworld-insolvenz-umsonst-gefoerdert-15010326.html

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #181 on: May 12, 2017, 05:03:36 am »

Good news for all you alarmists who are worried about your grandchildren and how they will cope with a warmer climate.  :)

Recent research headed by Valentina Zharkova, who is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University, and who has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, implies that we might be heading towards another Little Ice Age in the near future, perhaps as early as 2020.

Here's the story and relevant links. Of course, a number of climatologists in the alarmist group wanted this research to be suppressed. So much for the scientific objectivity of certain so-called scientists.
http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to."

"A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of sync and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity."

https://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html#jCp
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/

Professor Valentina Zharkova:

"We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small."

« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 05:09:42 am by Ray »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #182 on: May 12, 2017, 09:24:24 am »

Germany's SolarWorld (SWVKk.DE), once Europe's biggest solar power equipment group, said on Wednesday it would file for insolvency, overwhelmed by Chinese rivals.
SolarWorld AG is headquartered in Bonn, Germany and operates a large manufacturing facility in Hillsboro, Oregon. The statement said the company is currently evaluating if its subsidiaries, which includes SolarWorld Americas, must also file for insolvency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN

Thus, the solar sector shows once again what happens when the state interferes too much in the energy sector - or in any other sector. It is a lesson for all who opt for subsidies for electric cars and house insulation.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepolitik/solarworld-insolvenz-umsonst-gefoerdert-15010326.html


I agree government shouldn't play favorites picking winners and losers.  At least Germany will continue to sell their cars to China which must be a bigger business for them.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #183 on: May 12, 2017, 09:28:40 am »



What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small."
[/i]

  Ray, I've been asking about the sun's effect on climate for years.  I wonder how many other factors we just don't have right or are still unknown that effect climate.  As an old computer hand I remember the term GIGO well for many computer programs that supposedly predict.  Garbage In Garbage Out. 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #184 on: May 12, 2017, 10:27:36 am »

  Ray, I've been asking about the sun's effect on climate for years.  I wonder how many other factors we just don't have right or are still unknown that effect climate.  As an old computer hand I remember the term GIGO well for many computer programs that supposedly predict.  Garbage In Garbage Out.

There nothing new under the sun, it has been (and continues to be) investigated and is debunked as the cause for global warming (it's actually the opposite, it should lower the average temperature).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
note: there is Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels of explanation on that page (the tabs under "What the science says...")

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #185 on: May 12, 2017, 11:42:38 am »

To put things into perspective:

"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

Quote
Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent.

Quote
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #186 on: May 12, 2017, 01:35:36 pm »

Not to forget the electricity generation from the Landfil Gas which gets rid also of significant amount of CO2..

Quote
Landfills are the third largest source of anthropogenic methane in the United States. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), landfill gas (LFG) comprises 17.7 percent of all U.S. methane emissions. Landfill methane in 2011 accounted for 103 million metric tonnes of carbon equivalent released into the atmosphere. Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant with significant warming potential, and over a 20 year period, one ton of methane causes 72 times more warming than one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). Consequently, the mitigation of methane from existing landfills provides important climate benefits.

Mitigation of LFG can provide health benefits as well. Landfill gas is comprised of approximately 50 percent methane and 50 percent CO2, with trace levels of other compounds, including nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as ammonia and sulfides. NMOCs include hazardous air pollutants that can increase the risk of cancer, cause respiratory issues, and produce strong and unpleasant odors. To mitigate both health and environmental impacts, the EPA currently regulates LFG from very large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, which must capture and safely dispose of methane and NMOCs from LFG. This process is typically accomplished either by flaring the gas or by converting the gas into energy.

To encourage landfill operators and development partners to capture and harness LFG, the EPA created the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) in 1994. As of October 2012, there are 605 operational energy projects in 48 states, and LMOP estimates that another 400 additional landfills are good candidates for energy projects. Together, the operational landfills produce approximately 15 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 100 billion cubic feet of LFG for direct use annually. In 2012 alone, the amount of methane removed was equivalent to eliminating the CO2 emissions from approximately 240 million barrels of oil consumed.

http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #187 on: May 12, 2017, 03:10:22 pm »

Not to forget the electricity generation from the Landfil Gas which gets rid also of significant amount of CO2..  (In 2012 alone, the amount of methane removed was equivalent to eliminating the CO2 emissions from approximately 240 million barrels of oil consumed.)

http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane
  The world uses 95 million barrels of oil per day so that's less than 3 days worth or less than 1%.  Figured against American use of 19 million barrels, that's about 13 days or 3.5%.  So saying that's a "significant" amount of CO2 is overly dramatic. 

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #188 on: May 12, 2017, 03:34:31 pm »

To put things into perspective:

"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

The wildest-eyed optimist doesn't claim that those two renewables will replace other methods. So I don't understand the point of this kind of non-information. In 1897, a similar newspaper article could have been written that claimed that there were hardly any oil wells in the world and so the idea that people could use automobiles for daily transport was demonstrably insane. I can just see the 3rd paragraph in the article, "What do people think, that we will dig up oil all over the planet, refine it, and deliver it to street corner gas stations in every city on earth!"

It wasn't that long ago that people claimed we could never see "full-size" sensors in cameras because the price would be too high due to the low yields in chip manufacture. now people are trading in their full-size sensor D-SLRs at the drop of a hat because a new model has been released.

We're probably not going to generate ALL our electricity with wind and solar (then again, who knows what new tech will bring), but we don't need to. It's just sensible to diversify.
A few years ago, everybody was predicting $150 per barrel oil. In a year or two, those days may return. For some reason, some humans persists in thinking that everything that is true this minute will be true forever. And that's never the case.
Logged
--
Robert

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #189 on: May 12, 2017, 04:08:59 pm »

No one is saying that we should not produce solar and wind power. It's just that the government should stay out of it and not pick winners and losers. Let the free market decide just like what happened with oil.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #190 on: May 12, 2017, 04:14:12 pm »

No one is saying that we should not produce solar and wind power. It's just that the government should stay out of it and not pick winners and losers. Let the free market decide just like what happened with oil.

First, that's a non sequitur.

Second, are you suggesting that governments are not involved in the oil business?
Logged
--
Robert

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #191 on: May 12, 2017, 04:28:59 pm »

First, that's a non sequitur.

Second, are you suggesting that governments are not involved in the oil business?
The government is involved in everyone's business.  But that's not the main reason for oil's growth. The oil business was and is driven by economics and the free market.  Customers want the product and are willing to pay the going charges for it. 

Solar and wind power, on the other hand, are driven by rebates and incentives; subsidies provided by the government that the taxpayer pays for whether they want the commodity or not. 

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #192 on: May 12, 2017, 04:40:24 pm »

The government is involved in everyone's business.  But that's not the main reason for oil's growth. The oil business was and is driven by economics and the free market.  Customers want the product and are willing to pay the going charges for it. 

You've got to be kidding. How does OPEC fit in to your free market scenario?

Customers pay whether gas goes for $2/gallon or $4. There's no free market when supply and demand are manipulated according to the whims of a small group of people.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #193 on: May 12, 2017, 05:11:47 pm »

You've got to be kidding. How does OPEC fit in to your free market scenario?

Customers pay whether gas goes for $2/gallon or $4. There's no free market when supply and demand are manipulated according to the whims of a small group of people.
In case you haven't notice, OPEC has no power to control prices, or very little.  I'm sure you've heard of fracking coming from Texas.    And OPEC is  a relatively recent development.  Oil was long produced from the 1800's and greatly effected the economy before OPEC came along.  In any case OPEC has nothing to do with the American government subsidizing solar and wind power.  Customers are willing to pay higher prices for oil even if there might be collusion to keep prices artificially high.  The opposite is true with solar and wind where it requires  the government to subsidize the cost with tax money to get people to buy.  Oil is a natural, organic economic commodity where free markets and competition drive the production and cost.  Solar and wind require the government.  Reminds of the Soviet's 5-year plans.   Those were losers too. 

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #194 on: May 13, 2017, 01:05:53 am »

Oil is a natural, organic economic commodity where free markets and competition drive the production and cost.

No, free markets do not drive production and cost of oil.

You don't know enough about the oil business to prove what you're saying, Alan.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #195 on: May 13, 2017, 01:21:46 am »

There nothing new under the sun, it has been (and continues to be) investigated and is debunked as the cause for global warming (it's actually the opposite, it should lower the average temperature).


Well, if that's the case, thank God for our CO2 emissions. Without them we could all freeze to death.  ;)

The skepticalscience site you linked to, Bart, is clearly a very biased site devoted to promoting AGW alarmism. The title of the site is itself misleading. A more appropriate and truthful title would be 'dogmaticscience'.

A search on the internet should reveal  a lot of unethical and dubious behaviour by the founder of the site, John Cook, who does not appear to have any qualifications in climate science, but does have some qualifications in physics, and an interest in psychology which he uses rather cleverly to create the impression that all contrary arguments are allowed.

The style seems to be to debunk so-called myths about the relevance of natural causes of our current warming, in an academic manner which gives the impression of objectivity.

However, the impression I get is that any contrary comments or contrary, peer-reviewed articles which cannot be debunked, and therefore leave some doubt on the issue of AGW, are censored.

You will not find any references to the research of Professor Valentina Zharkova on the skepticalscience.com site, because her research is too difficult to debunk.
I also find it very bizarre that John Cook, and some of his supporters of the site, once dressed up as Nazis, or were photoshopped in Nazi uniforms some time ago. What message were they trying to convey?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Those who are convinced there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists, that CO2 increases are the main driving force of the current slight global warming period, should look at the following article which points out the flaws in the methodology used.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#467ba35a485d

Also, John Cook appears to have used another scientist's name to post some of his own comments.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/


Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #196 on: May 13, 2017, 01:28:55 am »

No, free markets do not drive production and cost of oil.

You don't know enough about the oil business to prove what you're saying, Alan.
You haven't presented any proof that free markets aren't at work.  But they are.  When OPEC cuts production to raise the price, frackers start "drilling" more to make up the difference and that lowers the price again.  When oil was $100, people reduced purchases of SUV's and stopped driving so far.  They started to buy more efficient cars, electric vehicles, etc.  They cut back on gas purchases which lowers the price.  This is how free markets work.  Sure, OPEC tries to influence the production and price, but they have failed because competition from non-OPEC producers, frackers, etc  just produce more oil keeping the price lower in a kind of equilibrium. 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #197 on: May 13, 2017, 03:03:13 am »

Fracking has little to do with the oil price.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

That's inflation adjusted and it also shows recessions (which other than the GFC have had little impact really).

Sure, OPEC adjusts the price a little bit to make it not cost effective for alternatives.  When demand decreases, OPEC just reduces supply.  The introduction of more efficient vehicles had very little impact on the price of oil.

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp

The inflation adjusted average since 1946 is USD42.54, since 1980 is USD53.69, and since 2000 is USD63.52.  Oil has been going up, in real dollars, on average.  OPEC adjusts supply to counter demand to maintain price.  They might drop it short term to push others out of the market where they can, but that's not the free market at work when it's a cartel.
Logged
Phil Brown

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #198 on: May 13, 2017, 08:09:53 am »

To put things into perspective:

"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"

Wow, 2 red herrings in the same sentence. I wonder why you brought that up, other than attempting to live up to the thread's subject line.

1. Nobody claims that Wind turbines are clean,
2. Nobody claims it is or will, ever be able to, provide global energy (to fully replace other sources).

The author of the article that you linked to, Matt Ridley, is a known lobbyist for the Coal industry (he also admit a vested interest in your article link), heck he even allows the UK Government to do open-cast Coalmining on his family's Blagdon estate in Northumberland ...

As usual, this article by him uses a mix of truths and a lot of fallacies. That would be fine if meant to be entertaining, but not when intended to sow doubt in Government (who occasionally worry more about getting re-elected than about building a better future).

Wind energy is one of the several sources of 'renewable' energy, and building the installations will involve some one-time polluting manufacturing (steel/concrete/fiberglass/quarrying of magnetic materials) effort (and create job opportunities and build expertise). As more installations are added to the total energy production capacity, the percentage of renewable energy in the total requirements will increase (10-15% is an already reasonable possibility, Germany produced 34% in 2016). What we are currently experiencing in my country, is that we're basically passing the point where subsidies are needed to create momentum. Experience/expertise, skill, and improving materials make that possible.

Also, besides energy saving efforts, with each kWh generated by renewable sources (an overview of the growing Dutch production capacity can be followed here, real-time), we can reduce the production by our remaining otherwise continuously polluting Coal and Natural Gas power plants, and at the same time reduce our energy dependency on other countries, like Russia or Saudi Arabia et al. We are already reducing our own Natural Gas production volumes (also to reduce earthquakes). A company like Google has, in advance, purchased 10-years production capacity worth of energy for their Datacenter in the Netherlands, completely supplied by a wind farm (the location of farms near the sea-coast helps to provide a more steady supply of the wind than possible with land-based wind farms).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 13, 2017, 08:50:22 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #199 on: May 13, 2017, 10:45:31 am »

Fracking has little to do with the oil price.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

That's inflation adjusted and it also shows recessions (which other than the GFC have had little impact really).

Sure, OPEC adjusts the price a little bit to make it not cost effective for alternatives.  When demand decreases, OPEC just reduces supply.  The introduction of more efficient vehicles had very little impact on the price of oil.

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp

The inflation adjusted average since 1946 is USD42.54, since 1980 is USD53.69, and since 2000 is USD63.52.  Oil has been going up, in real dollars, on average.  OPEC adjusts supply to counter demand to maintain price.  They might drop it short term to push others out of the market where they can, but that's not the free market at work when it's a cartel.
  You're wrong.  Fracking had a lot to do with oil price.  OPEC, particularly, Saudi Arabia, two years ago kept production up forcing prices down in order to put their  fracking competitors out-of-business.  It worked for short while.  Then the frackers developed more efficient ways to produce oil and were back in business.  The Saudi's were going into huge debt.  The fact that pricing is getting stable again shows that free markets are working despite OPEC.  Their cartel has lost its power for the most part because America is producing 4 million more barrels of oil a day then it use too.  Other producers like Iran and Iraq are back in the game as well.  With Trump opening up more areas of production, it will even be harder for OPEC to control prices.  Unless there's a war, you won't see $100 oil again.  My guess is a $40-$50 range. 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72   Go Up