Wind, waves are getting bigger!
- Thread starter [32511]
- Start date
penfold
Well-Known Member
I thought discussions of this particular brand of religion were verboten on this forum, as toys were being tossed out of the pram and causing a H&S issue underfoot? Anyway, Frank ascribes at least some of it to anthropogenic effects; show me some proof, because I haven't seen any yet that I'd hang my hat on let alone enact 'green' tax law on the strength of.
The badly behaved people at the CRU lied about stuff, then lied about lying about stuff, then said 'the dog ate my homework'. The Met Office backed them up, then looked a bit sheepish, but surprisingly no-one resigned. The Met also lied to the public, then lied about lying to the public. Is there a pattern forming here?
Until there's a cleaning of this particular Augean Stable I'm going to stay on the fence, thanks.
Frank did go on to point out that even short-term forecasting is mindbendingly complex; it seems that modelling it consistently and reliably will remain a pipedream for some time.
The badly behaved people at the CRU lied about stuff, then lied about lying about stuff, then said 'the dog ate my homework'. The Met Office backed them up, then looked a bit sheepish, but surprisingly no-one resigned. The Met also lied to the public, then lied about lying to the public. Is there a pattern forming here?
Until there's a cleaning of this particular Augean Stable I'm going to stay on the fence, thanks.
Frank did go on to point out that even short-term forecasting is mindbendingly complex; it seems that modelling it consistently and reliably will remain a pipedream for some time.
Last edited:
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I do not hold any brief for CRU and think that they were unnecessarily obstructive. Nevertheless, I must say that their emails were deliberately mis-interpreted. Constructing pseudo-homogenous data series from differing sites is always going to be a fruitful field for the doubters. In the UK, we have the Central English Temperature series going back to the 17th century. It is undertaken as carefully as possible. CRU were doing something similar. Taken in isolation, I would not give them credence other than as a rough indicator and a providers of corroborating evidence.
Climate models can and do model past climate well enough to give some confidence in them. They are the clearest indicators that man is affecting the climate. Statistical evidence related to the rate at which global warming is taking place provides some support.
I would like to make a final point. If I want, say, medical advice regarding cancer, I go to a doctor and not a meteorologist. In particular, I will go to a cancer specialist and not a gynaecologist. If I want an expert view on climate and climate modelling I go to the relevant experts and not a forecaster or a boundary layer expert. Most definitely, I would not go to a doctor – or a former chancellor of the exchequer.
Climate models can and do model past climate well enough to give some confidence in them. They are the clearest indicators that man is affecting the climate. Statistical evidence related to the rate at which global warming is taking place provides some support.
I would like to make a final point. If I want, say, medical advice regarding cancer, I go to a doctor and not a meteorologist. In particular, I will go to a cancer specialist and not a gynaecologist. If I want an expert view on climate and climate modelling I go to the relevant experts and not a forecaster or a boundary layer expert. Most definitely, I would not go to a doctor – or a former chancellor of the exchequer.
Signed Out
Well-Known Member
*(OK, now I wrote this while unable to sleep last night, but couldn't post it on my iphone, so emailed to self.)*
I am not going to enter the science part of this, but the above is what I am curious about. This is the part that baffles me. Is there really a huge load being placed us, or is it just what Daily Mail/Telegraph (& ilk) masters are motivated to persuade us?
More important than social manipulation tbough is surely that we should consider that our actions and behaviour do have an outcome. Which is almost entirely detrimental. Why not remember that all material is finite? And even though energy is rather less finite, our tecbnology requires us to waste useful materials to harness it.
Society (read 'the consumer') shows us constantly that it is not willing to act on any scale in any way other than selfish. Yes, developing (etc.) nations act in a more openly irresponsible manner, but because there are bigger fools, we are no less foolish. It seems sometimes it is needed to use controls that we are not keen on.
If fuel was not taxed, or taxed much less, what would happen?
What spoils anything? The Lakes? Dorset Coast? Dartmoor? The water? The air?
People.
Oooh, nice scenery! Ahhh, pretty bird! Wow, a dolphin! Pah, as long as I've got 35' of petrochemicals and smelted ore, moving me to the next pile of blasted earth and pontoon of felled forest they're just a distraction.
Always someone else's responsibility isn't it? I can 'afford' to do such & such, so it's my 'right'. Ho hum.
I've got distracted into a bit of a rant, but my first paragraph is what I'm trying to ask.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I think that there are two issues here. First, there is the fact, probably proven to my satisfaction if not to some others, that our use of fossil fuels is affecting adversely our environment. This, I believe, will impact on future generations.
Secondly, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource and increasingly expensive to extract. Further, their extraction will impact even more adversely on the environment eg the Arctic.
From these two statements, and whether or not you accept the first, the sooner that we reduce significantly our fossil fuel use the better. At some stage, it will not be there to use.
Secondly, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource and increasingly expensive to extract. Further, their extraction will impact even more adversely on the environment eg the Arctic.
From these two statements, and whether or not you accept the first, the sooner that we reduce significantly our fossil fuel use the better. At some stage, it will not be there to use.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Very concisely and logically put Frank, but don't expect that to cut any ice here.
- W
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
No, I suppose not. I rather expected to get the sniping at CRU without understanding what they were trying to do. Also, the comments comparing climate modelling to day to day forecasting modelling. Still, it really does not matter what we think. It is the politicians that I worry about in this country but even more in others.
Seajet
...
There is the story of the cruiser HMS Edinburgh off Durban, S.Africa ( google 'Waratah sinking' for frightening reports of swells and wave conditions there ) going through a swell which washed straight over the bridge, a good 60' up - that of course doesn't mean a 60' wave, but still something to consider with a degree of interest if it's coming one's way.
The Captain put on a mock West Country voice as he exclaimed " Arr skipper, but they don't blow like they used to ! "
That was in the early 1940's, and something not often remembered is that the U.S.Navy suffered weather induced losses of whole warships and damage to others in the Pacific War, while mainly the Brit's went through hell on the Murmansk convoys.
Personally I really do think the weather is worse than when I started sailing in the early 1970's, but I haven't seen any figures to prove it so must admit I could have rose tinted glasses, or maybe the '70's a lot of us here remember were a good glitch ?
The Captain put on a mock West Country voice as he exclaimed " Arr skipper, but they don't blow like they used to ! "
That was in the early 1940's, and something not often remembered is that the U.S.Navy suffered weather induced losses of whole warships and damage to others in the Pacific War, while mainly the Brit's went through hell on the Murmansk convoys.
Personally I really do think the weather is worse than when I started sailing in the early 1970's, but I haven't seen any figures to prove it so must admit I could have rose tinted glasses, or maybe the '70's a lot of us here remember were a good glitch ?
Last edited:
penfold
Well-Known Member
It may surprise you, but I agree with all that. We just differ in opinion on how best to go about it. Reducing our dependence on carbon as a source of energy is an excellent thing to aim for, but the manner in which 'green' taxes have been dumped on industry is economically damaging and the evidence for them is flimsy. There are better ways of inducing companies and consumers to behave in a more sustainable way.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I have not suggested how we reduce our dependence on carbon fuels. So, I do not think that we differ. I suspect that we will have to use nuclear in the short term but go for a combination of solar, wind, tide, biomass etc and not in any order of preference. Around the UK, I would have expected that tidal turbines to have had greater interest but I am not an engineer or an economist so I simply do not know the best way forward. I just know that action is necessary.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>Secondly, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource
When shale oil comes along the USA alone will have five times the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has now. A Shell test has recently successfully extracted shale oil without damaging the shale. The process requires heating the shale for three to four years before production can begin thus the oil won't be cheap. But then renewables aren't either.
When shale oil comes along the USA alone will have five times the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has now. A Shell test has recently successfully extracted shale oil without damaging the shale. The process requires heating the shale for three to four years before production can begin thus the oil won't be cheap. But then renewables aren't either.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Wikipedia; said:
So - very expensive, uses electricity, been trying to get it right since the 1980s and there are pollution risks to groundwater. Makes windmills seem positively sensible.
What I like is your calm assurance . . . 'when shale oil comes along'. There are more problems with shale oil than with renewables, yet you blithely assume they are all solveable because for some reason you prefer an old, dirty technology. I like to think that renewables are every bit as likely to 'come along' - in fact, they are coming along nicely considering the short lead time.
At the moment the main method for shale oil extraction is 'fracking' or hydraulic fracturing, a process which is accused of causing widespread environmental damage and attracts more protests in the US than windfarms. That is unlikely to stop the oil companies though; shale oil seems to be the major plank of the US's drive for energy independence.
- W
Last edited:
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Coming to a seaside resort near you.
mountain
Well-Known Member
A very interesting article in FT weekend magazine (paywall; sorry no link) re shale gas.
Claims world's energy problems will be totally solved (shelved for a few centuries) by shale gas within a few years.
Coming on line swiftly now in particular in Penn. US has sufficient so far discovered reserves for 100 years of current energy consumption !!!
Simple and clean exrtraction (frackting), simple and cheap transport, clean to burn.
Other major deposits are Aus, Russia, China, MENA (!), Denmark, N France, southern England.
ps none in the North Sea
Conachair
Guest
webcraft
Well-Known Member
It says people living nearby can light their drinking water - a fantastic bonus. Probably able to run their cars on it
- W
DaveS
Well-Known Member
It says people living nearby can light their drinking water - a fantastic bonus. Probably able to run their cars on it
- W
Hmmm. My car can run on methane, but I've taken the gas tank out. Maybe I should put it back...
mountain
Well-Known Member
Probably able to run their cars on it
- W
Yes. You're right The FT article tells us that big truck manufacturers have seen the tremendous potential of shale gas and are already working on trucks which run on it.
Signed Out
Well-Known Member
Lots of methane around here of course...
As for current/tidal turbines, there've been experimental installations, and I think indeed they continue, but there are far more difficulties and engineering challenges than with wind at present. Moving parts subsea are far more vulnerable and bloody difficult to maintain. Placing the kit in suitable sites is not easy- been trouble with experimental kit in Scapa area in this regard IIRC. Another issue is the export cabling- hard enough to install in slower water.
I was about to mention Gasland. Missed it last week at the local, but wanted to see it. Damn, sounded good.
As for current/tidal turbines, there've been experimental installations, and I think indeed they continue, but there are far more difficulties and engineering challenges than with wind at present. Moving parts subsea are far more vulnerable and bloody difficult to maintain. Placing the kit in suitable sites is not easy- been trouble with experimental kit in Scapa area in this regard IIRC. Another issue is the export cabling- hard enough to install in slower water.
I was about to mention Gasland. Missed it last week at the local, but wanted to see it. Damn, sounded good.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>That is unlikely to stop the oil companies though
Precisely.
Precisely.
