Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)
  • 185 cubic metres per second
  • Premier Icon NewRetroTom
    Full Member

    I can’t see any way that we’re going to stop burning all the oil, gas and coal while it’s so cheap and easy to do so.

    I also can’t see any way that it’s going to become more expensive or inconvenient to keep burning. The world’s leaders are never going to get their heads together and enact the kind of tax rises required to do that when it would have such a negative short-term effect on their people.

    The only hope is that green energy becomes so cheap that it makes burning fossil fuels look expensive.

    I really can’t see how that is going to happen either, so I conclude we’re doomed to suffer all the worst effects of climate change.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    That’s the fatalistic view. An ELF geologist (now TOTAL) said to me “every drop of oil that can be extracted and burned will be”. It’l only stop when there’s non left.

    He’s probably right but everyone who reduces their direct and indirect consumption reduces the flow of that waterfall in the opening post. The slower the flow the slower the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and teh more time for it to find its way into carbon sinks.

    And that’s the other end of the problem, at the same time as we are emitting more we are destroying carbon sinks both on land and in the oceans, double trouble.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    @Edukator – I know you’re interested in CC, so fill your boots with this.  It’s a really interesting bit of research. I saw him deliver this at a conference in Zurich last year.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    He’s really disorganised. He says the maths in his own graphics are dodgy (why didn’t he check them) and he expresses himself badly. I ended up having no idea whether he should be taken seriously.

    “we do not know which answer is right” sums up his presentation. “Who knows what climate change is doing” (repeatedly); “all the models can be wrong”. “we’ve gotten close to nowhere on it in many years”, “you have to make the assumtion that would change with climate” (well why wouldn’t it?)

    It’s painful to watch.

    He eventually gets around to saying theat aerosols won’t be protecting us anymore and global warming is increasing, and that the Atlantic is likely to follow Pacific trends (which aren’t good right). But failed to commit to the obvious statement – hurricanes are going to get more frequent and more powerful from here on in.

    Who is he funded by (oficially and unofficially)? Who funded and hosted the conference? what are a bunch of Yanks (both presenter and audience – al th equestions at the end) doing in Zurich, were there any non-anglo-saxon guests?

    Checking a couple of the references on his presentation a lot of this is old hat and he’s selective in his choices of reference.

    I’d have asked for my money back. 😉

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    That video was from Miami.  As stated earlier “I saw him deliver this (meaning the presentation) at a conference in Zurich last year“.  That was an insurance conference, where everyone spoke English regardless of where they were from. He was a guest speaker to present a scientific research perspective on something that the wider industry is trying to quantify. Of ~200 attendees there were only a handful of North Americans.

    But failed to commit to the obvious statement – hurricanes are going to get more frequent and more powerful from here on in.

    There’s no absolute guarantee of this so why would he he commit to it?

    What’s your view on  the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?

    Premier Icon Kuco
    Free Member

    How much is a set of batteries for an old Prius or Leaf or Zoe?

    I can tell you to get a new battery fitted in one of our Mitsubishi PHEVS when it got damaged was around £13000 and it was off the road for 4 months.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?

    I’ll stick to France and say that in terms of localised tornados there’s no significant change over recent decades. In terms of cyclones there’s been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency. The problem with putting numbers on it is that data pre-satelites was poor so there are only 40 years or so of reliable data. Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.

    All this is really well documented and has been the subject of documentaries in France and Germany, the main channels I watch. If you speak French the Meteo France site has articles on just about every aspect of climate that could interest an insurer. And they aren’t afraid of stating there’s an increase when they find one.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.

    You may well remember Lothar & Martin but there were also clusters of strong storms in 1990 and many strong individual storms in the 60s & 70s e.g. Capella. Decent scientific instrumentation has existed for while but the the advent of satellites and computers has helped improve this. We do have some good data for 60+ years.

    In terms of cyclones there’s been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency.

    I don’t agree with this. What we’ve seen is not conclusive enough and the largest storm we’ve seen in recent years was probably in 1990.

    I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change.  The signal from CC is not a strong one.
    However, it is undeniable that we will get more flooding (fluvial, pluvial and coastal) from CC and there is almost a consensus on that (which is rare in any scientific discussion )

    Premier Icon finephilly
    Free Member

    Solar (in the UK) is a waste of time considering the alternatives. The UK is more windy than sunny. Solar panels generate very little output for a given surface area and cost. You need acres and acres to get a few MW, which can be achieved by one wind turbine. Fine if you have a south facing roof (or better still, panels which track the sun) but for energy generation on an industrial scale in the UK, wind is a much better option. You musn’t forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can’t be grazed by sheep as well. This opportunity cost is much lower for wind, although maybe transmission costs are higher as they are likely to be further away from areas of high demand.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom

    Premier Icon muddyjames
    Free Member

    Without wanting to state the blooming obvious but greenness and energy consumption is a lot more complex than just do you own a gas boiler, suv, or insulate your house to the nth degree.

    – a 400bhp suv used one a week is going to use less energy than a sensible car being run for every journey; could you cycle or walk instead

    – electric cars need charging this energy needs to be generated some how which might be burning fossil fuels.

    – what do you eat, meat industry is pretty carbon intensive. Where does it come from, berries from Morocco or just seasonal veg.

    – do you have a dog – meat consumption etc

    – how often do you wash; every day or more is going to require more energy than every other day. Power shower or gravity fed etc

    – how often do you wash your clothes

    – do you watch Netflix; all that data is on a cloud somewhere that Is chugging out a cloud of smoke to power it

    – do you drink tea or cold drinks. Someone on 10 cups a day is going to use a lot more energy than someone on waters

    – do you own a filthy sex pond

    – do you live in a big house, could you cope with a smaller one.

    Etc etc.

    The bottom line is everything man does is pretty bad for the environment. You might be badder in one area but better in others. Capitalist society is such that people are encouraged to be selfish. Adverts never show the sexy girl being snagged by the sweaty chap cycling to work but rather the one negotiating the speed bump in a cool SUV. The only way anything will change is if it is forced on companies/people and even then there will be compromise. E.g. the move away from plastic Is going to push up energy consumption as a glass bottle used once is much more energy intensives in both production and transport than a plastic one.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Now how would you get more flooding without bigger storms dumping more water, El Shalimo. 🙂

    The signal from CC is not a strong one.

    That’s what the man in the vid said. Other signals he mentions include aerosols which he says are decreasing due to lower soot emissions. He said they are falling without much justification. Global coal consumption and oil consumption are stil rising:

    https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-coal-consumption-1978-2019

    with China producing lots so his conclusion that aerosols have a decreasing role in preventing large storms strikes me as odd. Intuitively the opposite of what the man said is true and aerosols are still masking the effects of CC.

    We have enjoyed a remarkably calm period in volcanicity. The last explosion to put up enough dust to give red sunsets worldwide was 1883 and a big enough one to give significant cooling and crop failures was 1815. Mount st Helens went off more sideways than up.

    If ever China and India do clean up their acts then the masking effect will go and we’ll get the full impact of CC due to CO2. If the short term trend in that coal graph is confirmed that starts now.

    Why wouldn’t the Atlantic behave in the same way as the Pacific as water temperatures rise? Every graph I’ve seen shows a steady climb in Atlantic temperatures most everywhere. Warmer water means more energy, more evaporation, bigger storms.

    If you’re a gambling man which insurance companies are, don’t bet against things getting worse.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    The signal from CC is not a strong one.

    I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones

    It’s just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.

    Also don’t need bigger storms to get more flooding. Fluvial flooding is not often due to storms, antecedent conditions are more important than storms.  Pluvial usually is and coastal flooding is normally due to sea surge from storms. Add to that rising areas levels, coastal erosion, isostatic rebound etc and you’ll quickly see it’s not a simple thing.

    If you look at North Atlantic Oscillation, El Niño, La Niña variability you get water in different places etc

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    It’s just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.

    However that’s what a lot of studies show and gets repeated on local news every time there’s an Episode Cévenol. Metéo France are prediciting that as the temperature of the Med rises so will the intensity of the episodes (storms).

    Edit to add:

    https://meteofrance.com/actualites-et-dossiers/actualites/a-la-une/des-pluies-extremes-exceptionnelles-se-sont-abattues-sur-les

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    The news is for the general population and has to be dumbed down to a digestible format.

    How many times have you watched the news discussing something that you actually know a lot about, or have worked in for years, and they simply get it wrong or use outdated thinking?

    A great example is when they say flood defences failed when a 5m flood overtops a 4m flood defence. The defence did not fail, the flood exceeded the flood levels it was designed for. The Tohuko earthquake tsunami was up to 28m high in places so the 10m tsunami defences had no chance (exacerbated by 150km of coastline dropping 1.5m in the earthquake). The media says they failed… 🤦

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Anglo-Saxon news may be dumbed down, I live somewhere they credit the population with a minimum of intelligence, enough to understand. And they generally call on the right people to comment rather than the first climate change sceptic that offers their services. 🙂

    You’re sounding very much like a sceptic and linking “don’t knows”. Go on check out that graph on the Méteo France link I added and try to denay a trend.

    Incidentally if you’re looking for oudated your man in the video up there has graphs that are well out of date missing between 5 and 15 years of recent data. Updating would significantly change his conclusions.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    You’re misreading this. I’m simply stating that it’s not as simple as you suggest. If it was we’d have a consensus within the scientific community and be diligently working on mitigation rather than still trying to understand these extremely complicated and dynamic systems.

    Go back and read my posts. I’m trying to demonstrate that it really isn’t simple.

    Insurance companies know all about the increasing risk. They are investing millions in trying to understand this. They tend to write business on an annual basis but they know that tomorrow is not going to be the same as today. In real terms the day to day claims are irrelevant – they’re just cashflow, it’s the large events that affect their solvency and capital requirements. This is why we have EIOPA, Solvency II, etc.

    As you’re in France just look at what companies AXA, CCR, SCOR are researching right now. Check out Groupama too

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    I’m not suggesting it’s simple either. Your man in the vid waffles around but fails to say what he put into his models and what he left out. A few seconds of thought says that things he should consider:

    Al the satelite data, measured sea surface temperature at different points, measured air temperatures, measured wind speeds, aerosol influence at a global level, volcanic activity, ice sheet extent, solar output, CO2 and other greenhouse gases… .

    He was vague on his model because it’s crap, modelling the weather/climate is the stuff of national weather centres using some of the most powerful computers on the planet. He’s dabbling and out of his depth. I’ll take Méteo France over him, they have the expertise, the monitoring capability, the satelite data and the computer power to crunch the numbers.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    I’m intrigued why you think it is so crap as he didn’t fully explain what’s in it so you’re guessing.

    What are your credentials? Could you do it better?

    Do you think that climate modelling is solely the domain of the meteo institutions? Do you think they’re the only ones with rather impressive computing resources?

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Do you think they’re the only ones with rather impressive computing resources?

    Yes, in a word, the national weather organisations have the most computing capacity and way beyond your bod in Miami. And getting more impressive, even in lil’ ol’ UK:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/12-billion-for-the-worlds-most-powerful-weather-and-climate-supercomputer

    What are your credentials? Could you do it better?

    I was the first name on the first UK paper pubished on lake liming as a response to surface water acidification. I’d like to think I was one of those who contributed to getting scrubbers added to UK power stations. I set up the rain water quality monitoring network in Wales. All that is long time ago though. I long ago decided that fighting causes isn’t for me.

    In short I’m a scientist, geologist by initial training.

    As for whether I could do better, I wouldn’t even try, I’d leave it to people far more expert than me who are already working on it. I’m too old, too lazy and to slow thinking these days.

    That doesn’t stop me recognising when someone is out his depth which the guy in your video is.

    I think climate modelling is better done by organisiations financed by taxes with the public interest at heart rather than universities funded by the private sector with vested interests.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Full Member

    I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change. The signal from CC is not a strong one.

    I think that the science community is playing up things like the ice-free Arctic to help get their message across. I’m sure they are fully aware of natural variability.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/26/adam-sobel-testifies-extreme-weather/

    Seems he’s changed his tune. 🙂

    ““Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change,” he said.”

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    You should be commended for your past activities. I’m not sure that you’re up fully to speed on current thinking and research.

    I’m not saying Sobel is right, I posted it as I knew you’d be interested in it. He’s from Columbia University, NY, so no slouch. It’s not like he’s a Prof from Bolton Institute or some such place.

    I take it that you do know that many large academic institutions have serious computing power available to them. There are many universities across the world doing amazing research into climate modelling too eg Free Uni Berlin, Potsdam, Reading, Exeter, the list is very long. Climatological and Metrological modelling is advancing every day but it’s still not sure there yet.

    Eg Tempête Alex had a stingjet which are notoriously hard to model, predict etc. They only work it out as it happens.

    The biggest challenge in Climate modelling is that the models are still not of a high enough resolution currently but we are rapidly getting there. I’ll go back to my comments on the CV19 thread. All models are wrong but some are incredibly useful.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    @molgrips – awareness of it and being able to quantify it are sadly two very different things

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Well now he’s stopped saying “don’t know” Sobel has testified before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and said:

    Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change

    So now he has joined the concensus are you happy to agree with him (and me)?

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    You musn’t forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can’t be grazed by sheep as well.

    Sheep are used for keeping the grass down under solar panels to cut maintainance costs:

    https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-ponts-de-ce-49130/les-ponts-de-ce-des-brebis-sous-les-panneaux-solaires-19fef332-a585-11ea-803a-7f4faa9e76a0

    In Spain the solar panels reduce water consumption and direct sun damge for some crops.

    Solar panels are compatible with and can enhance agricultural production.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones

    Didn’t you read this?

    Premier Icon CountZero
    Full Member

    The heating threads on this very forum demonstrate how reluctant people are to use alternative energy sources and less polluting solutions because they cost more and are posibly more difficult/complicated.

    I have gas heating, but I was seriously looking at getting solar PV panels fitted when they were being offered with grants, etc, but due to the shape of my roof, it wasn’t possible to fit enough panels to generate enough to make it viable.
    Maybe the Tesla roof tiles would be an option, but there’s no way I could fund them myself.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    I did, I read this too:

    What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?

    I’ve replied to that much more general question with a series of links that support my stated view and suggestions for your further research. If you don’t like it you don’t have to agree with it but there’s no need to get unpleasant and insistent about it, eh.

    You’re getting insistent about the wind component, I’m not fussed about one component, I’m happy with a more global appreciation which even Sobel is happy to testify – increased hurricane risk.

    You’re unlikely to find an answer to your question because a bigger more powerful storm won’t necessarily have higher wind speeds if the extra energy in the storm is spread over a bigger area.

    To answer a specific question about wind speed you need to identify the type of cyclones with the highest wind speeds and whether they are likley to be proportionately represented in the predicted increased frequency of cyclones in general.

    Good luck researching.

    Premier Icon ElShalimo
    Full Member

    I never mentioned windspeed

    It appears we’re talking at cross purposes so we look like two bald men arguing about who gets to use the comb.

    I’ll bow out here and let you have the last word which is clearly what you want …as usual.

    I’m sure you’re lovely in real life and have a reputation for being a gifted and generous lover that reaches the Ariege. Online however you come across as the guy who shouts the loudest and longest therefore is the most right.

    🤦

    Premier Icon mikertroid
    Free Member

    it’s never sunny in the UK so solar panels are a waste of time.

    My PV panels fund all my household energy expenditure throughout the year.

    I’ve got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.

    I do, however 20k miles a year; moving closer to work isn’t an option… EVs wouldn’t work for me at all right now. Hoping biofuels (again pretty CO2 neutral and requiring fewer new units to be built as cars can be adapted) become the answer.

    Unfortunately, our government confuse whats right for London to be whats right for the rest of the UK.

    Premier Icon squirrelking
    Free Member

    Solar is good the further south you go, wind the further north. Generally speaking.

    Everywhere has its challenges and strengths, its about recognising them and using the appropriate technologies rather than a stupid one size fits all solution.

    Premier Icon Edukator
    Free Member

    Other people can read, Elshalimo, I’m answering the quesions you keep asking to the best of my knowledge. You word your questions to try and trip me up and fall flat on your face trying because the guy you linked to demostrate we don’t know and that there’s a lack of consensus has testified with consensus that CC will lead to higher hurricane risk. As for you last two posts:

    Penultimate post

    I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones

    last post

    I never mentioned windspeed

    I can’t be the only one to wonder just what you are asking about.

    If you’ve learned you don’t like the answers I give you to direct questions to me, there’s a simple solution, don’t ask me questions you aren’t going to like the answer to. In short stop trolling.

    Premier Icon Dickyboy
    Full Member

    I’ve got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.

    CO2 neutral my arse, you are still burning stuff! Grow trees for building materials etc for carbon capture, biomass is generally just greenwash.

    Reduced usage should still be the primary objective, dial ya heating back a degree or two, wear a jumper etc etc

    Premier Icon mikertroid
    Free Member

    Dickyboy, oh please!

    The trees absorb CO2. A similar amount is released back to atmosphere in burning.

    Pretty Eco, I’d say. Particularly when oil or Calor gas are my options right now. I back on to a wood at the top of my garden and that will more than cater for my needs….

    I’m also a big fan of a jumper and strict heating discipline; don’t make assumptions about people you don’t know!

    I think you’re confusing neutral and negative. I don’t ever profess to being carbon negative, as much as I’d like to.

Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.