• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

115200600.jpg
 
It'll never scale...

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
pavlosmacwolf said:
So far it seems from China to America to everyone else, that there is a recognition of Global Warming ( call it what you like), but what the fuck would all these top leaders of the world, with a zillion scientists advising them every day, by the minute know, that our very own HGW doesn't?

For simple old me, if 99% of world leaders acknowledge that we have a serious global warming problem, and I am finding scorpions still romping around in November when they normally fuck off 1st of September, I am inclined to go with the big guys.
Click to expand...

Don't believe for one second that China, India or Russia have a common interest with the EU or the US (Obama is powerless in terms of a binding treaty).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2015/12/04/what-will-all-the-hot-air-in-paris-actually-do/

[Lomborg is no sceptic]

Pav, the scientific 'concensus' nonsense has been done to death both here and elsewhere. Hundreds of coal fired power stations are under construction or planned around the globe (including Japan and Germany).
Vis, I've advocated future technologies that might actually work but have always emphasised immediate requirements for a rational energy policy.
 
pavlosmacwolf said:
Ha ha, (I'm Laughing out loud)

I can't wait to hear all the technical bollocks as to why this is sooooo wrong!

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...akes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy
Click to expand...

It mentions a 115MW wind farm and doesn't provide figures for existing hydro. There is a mention of liquified gas with no mention of its use (as if it might be considered renewable).
Could a similar mix be applied to the UK economy? Certainly not.

From Uruguay's INDC:

"CO2 Emissions - Energy (94% of CO2 emissions in 2010) Uruguay has made great efforts within the framework of the "National Energy Policy 2005-2030", to achieve a clean energy mix: 59% of the global primary energy mix is currently renewable, which amounts to 83% for the total energy consumption of the industrial sector and 93% for power generation (2014). With regard to transport, the use of biodiesel accounts for 7% and bioethanol 10% of the total vehicle fleet, both with entire domestic production. Even though a lot of progress has been made in the past years, there are still many opportunities for action in this sector. As a result, the total emissions of the country's energy sector per GDP are very low: the emission intensity of Uruguay's energy sector in 2014 was 111 g CO2/USD, one third of total global intensity (global CO2 emissions of the energy sector vs. aggregate global GDP) and significantly lower than the average for OECD countries. Moreover, there is still an important reduction potential, especially in the transport sector (see below for list of additional mitigation measures), that the country is willing to implement if means of implementation were to be made available. Uruguay will continue to develop maintaining the currently low emission intensity level in the energy sector, and even achieving an intensity reduction of 25% from 1990 values by 2030, by means of domestic resources, and a potential 40% total reduction with additional means of implementation. Power Generation Thanks to the ongoing structural transformation of the power generation mix, by 2017 Uruguay will achieve an absolute emissions reduction of 88% within this subsector compared to the annual average for the period 2005-2009, with a higher consumption. By 2017, emissions from the domestic power generation system will be 17 g CO2/kWh, which accounts for 3% of the global average. This will be achieved with 40% of non-conventional renewable energy sources (mainly wind, but also photovoltaic and biomass waste), in addition to 55% hydropower (estimating an average annual rainfall). Although this figure would increase in the following decades after reaching the hydro-wind complementation threshold, it could remain close to 2017 value, if storage systems were to be incorporated through additional means of implementation (see below for list of additional mitigation measures)."

The Guardian aren't generally presenting data creditably...
 
We have all seen the terrible scenes of devastation in Cumbria. 16 inches of rain fell in two days. Is this kind of thing down to climate change or just a freak weather system?
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
We have all seen the terrible scenes of devastation in Cumbria. 16 inches of rain fell in two days. Is this kind of thing down to climate change or just a freak weather system?
Click to expand...

Its hard to say. Climate scientists are always wary of saying 'This is caused by climate change' for a simple reason.

Lets say that in a given decade you have 3 events like we've seen in the last few days. And furthermore lets say that because of climate change we may end up with, say, five. But then when an event happens, is it one of th three that would have happened anyway, or is it one of the extras we see because of climate change?

All we can really say is that climate change makes extreme events more likely, but individual events cannot be causally linked to it.
 
You can confidently say that extreme weather is more likely around the globe, simply because more heat into the global climate equals more energy into the overall weather systems.

Edit - Missed Vis' last paragraph. Wot he said.
 
As Vis stated a pattern or trend needs to develop to link what is weather with climate change. The storm conditions in Cumbria/Lancashire over the weekend was unprecedented. The problem when designing drainage and flood defence systems is deciding on the storm frequency that you base design on. Typically if you selected say a "1 in 100" year storm in effect you are designing for a storm of such a high intensity that it is only likely to occur once in 100 years.

The designer has to balance between the cost of the design and the practicality of the probability.
 
Last edited:
 
 
Visage said:
Impressive set of links. In other news, turkeys said to be 'not that keen' on Christmas, bears confirmed to defecate in woods, and Pope announces he's quite partial to Catholicism.
Click to expand...

ha ha ha ha ha ha
 
Visage said:
Impressive set of links. In other news, turkeys said to be 'not that keen' on Christmas, bears confirmed to defecate in woods, and Pope announces he's quite partial to Catholicism.
Click to expand...

In other words China and India will carry on as usual trousering whatever is on offer. The US will potificate but do nothing for the rest of the Obama term, Germany/Japan will complete there development of coal fired power stations and the UK will fail to repeal the embarassing Climate Change Act.
Do you really think that global temperature (whatever that is supposed to be) can be controlled by international treaty? Remember that the 'ambition' for 1.5 celcius as apposed to 2 celcius is just a finger in the air political posture. How do you verify when the surface temperature series are essentially made up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top