The Alternative Green Energy Thread

DiggerUK

JKenH said:

DiggerUK said:

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

My philosophy is read everything - that is if you have an open mind and are interested in learning..........The best articles to read are the ones that challenge our preconceptions not confirm what we already believe. 

Try telling that to some posters and they won't have the the gorm, nor the gumption, to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Sad, but true..._

ABrass

JKenH said:

DiggerUK said:

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

My philosophy is read everything - that is if you have an open mind and are interested in learning. If you reject everything that is not from one of your trusted sources you risk getting only filtered information and if you never see the other side of the coin you end up with a lop-sided view of the subject. The best articles to read are the ones that challenge our preconceptions not confirm what we already believe. 

It's a lovely concept, but I don't have enough hours in my life. Some sources are too corrupted, in the classical sense, to be worth reading to try to refine some grain of knowledge from the rot.

GWPF is one of them.

JKenH

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

DiggerUK said:

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

My philosophy is read everything - that is if you have an open mind and are interested in learning. If you reject everything that is not from one of your trusted sources you risk getting only filtered information and if you never see the other side of the coin you end up with a lop-sided view of the subject. The best articles to read are the ones that challenge our preconceptions not confirm what we already believe. 

It's a lovely concept, but I don't have enough hours in my life. Some sources are too corrupted, in the classical sense, to be worth reading to try to refine some grain of knowledge from the rot.

GWPF is one of them.

Here is a recent article from GWPF. Quite an interesting read which perhaps goes some way to understanding why the US might be less concerned about rising temperatures than other nations. It isn’t by a ‘climate scientist’ because it isn’t dealing with ‘the science’, rather it looks at statistics. It is therefore easier to understand than some of the scientific papers on the subject which often contain maths which go right over my head. Up to you whether you read it but it won’t take up too much of your day.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/09/US-Climate-2019.pdf

JKenH

Having read theGWPF article I then came across this

Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2019

Warmest year on record for Alaska, second wettest for contiguous U.S.

http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201912

On first read I thought that sounds pretty bad with records being broken all over the place but then again with 50 states and thousands of cities and weather stations there was always a probability that at least some new records would be set somewhere for hottest, coldest, driest, wettest, sunniest, windiest, snowiest year/month/day.

It is very easy to latch onto the extremes which of course is what the media do. There isn’t much of a news story in what effectively is the conclusion of the report in so far as extreme weather In 2019 is concerned.
“The U.S. Climate Extremes Index (USCEI) for 2019 was 14 percent above average and ranked in the upper third of the 110-year record.” 

One thing I did note from the report though, which will be ignored by the media as it doesn’t suit their agenda was

“For 2019, wildfire activity across the U.S. was below average with 4.6 million acres consumed — the sixth lowest area consumed and the second fewest number of fires in the last 20 years.” 

Now contrast that with the report in the Guardian about 2020 wildfires.

“The fires that continue to incinerate the west coast, pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and blanket the country in smoke are the latest sign that the climate crisis has made landfall in America and is torching its way inward like an occupying army overwhelming battle-weary fortifications.“

Has there been a sudden change in the climate over one year? Is climate change the sole reason for the wildfires that this year are so devastating? No, but the media like to make a tenuous link to climate change to score political points. 

We just all need to look at both sides of every story or we will get a very distorted view of the world.

ABrass

Oddly 2019 was a very wet year, which reduces wildfires down below the current massively escalating trend. It is, to reuse your phrase, an extreme. Which is why the GWPF did an article on it.

Also, weather is not climate. If you don't know that by now then the alternative facts thread is a good place to stay.

Solarchaser

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/hurricane-season-names-atlantic-us-tropical-storm-beta?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA=#aoh=16011149482746&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/hurricane-season-names-atlantic-us-tropical-storm-beta

Ran out of phonetic storm names for only the second time in history (first being 2005).

I tried to find a link you would warm to Ken, from that bastion of integrity the telegraph.
However it didn't seem to report it..... funny that 🤔

JKenH

ABrass said:

Also, weather is not climate.

Well said. If only the media would realise that.

JKenH

ABrass said:

Oddly 2019 was a very wet year, which reduces wildfires down below the current massively escalating trend. It is, to reuse your phrase, an extreme. Which is why the GWPF did an article on it.

The article was not about the climate of a single year. It was where we had got to by 2019. Perhaps that will become clear on a second reading of the article.

JKenH

Solarchaser said:j

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/hurricane-season-names-atlantic-us-tropical-storm-beta?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA=#aoh=16011149482746&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/hurricane-season-names-atlantic-us-tropical-storm-beta

Ran out of phonetic storm names for only the second time in history (first being 2005).

I tried to find a link you would warm to Ken, from that bastion of integrity the telegraph.
However it didn't seem to report it..... funny that 🤔

Thank you. The connection between climate change and hurricanes is proving surprisingly difficult to establish. I certainly would expect increased hurricane activity with global warming as do climate scientists but it seems it isn’t that simple. As you point out 2020 hurricane activity has been very high, in fact 15 years have elapsed since this level of activity was last seen. I’m not sure if 2020 is an outlier or demonstrates a trend. Other factors may be more important than climate change.

Physics suggests that as the world warms, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones should get stronger, because warmer water provides more of the energy that fuels these storms. And climate simulations have long showed an increase in stronger hurricanes as warming continues.

But confirming that through observations has been problematic, because of the relatively small number of hurricanes every year and the difficulty of obtaining data on their wind speeds and other characteristics. Even in the United States, storms that do not potentially threaten populations are measured less than others.

“We’re doing collectively a bad job of measuring tropical cyclones around the world,” Dr. Emanuel said. “We’ve all believed we should see more intense hurricanes. But it’s very very tricky to find it in the data.”

The North Atlantic has seen increased hurricane activity in recent decades, by a measure that combines intensity with other characteristics like duration and frequency of storms. On Thursday, NOAA will issue its forecast of activity for this season, which officially runs from June 1 to November 30. Forecasts by other organizations have suggested that this year may be an active one.

But the North Atlantic is one region where climate change may be overshadowed by other factors, Dr. Emanuel said.

“We do see clear signals and strong trends in the North Atlantic,” he said. “The problem is we can’t uniquely attribute that to greenhouse gases.”

Climate Change Is Making Hurricanes Stronger, Researchers Find - The New York Times

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

Ran out of phonetic storm names for only the second time in history (first being 2005).

I tried to find a link you would warm to Ken, from that bastion of integrity the telegraph.
However it didn't seem to report it..... funny that 🤔

No, I didn’t see anything about them running out of names but The Telegraph did report earlier in the season on the increased number of hurricanes forecast for this year also suggesting (rightly or wrongly) a link to global warming. FYI.

The Caribbean is bracing itself for the double whammy of a bumper hurricane season and ongoing efforts to keep coronavirus under control. 

A busier than normal Atlantic Ocean hurricane season has been predicted for 2020, and the coronavirus could "spread easily in crowded emergency shelters" where social distancing would be difficult, said Unicef, the United Nations' children's agency.

Four of the 16 predicted storms this year could become major hurricanes, partly due to warming surface water temperatures linked to climate change, according to forecasters at Colorado State University. The annual hurricane season runs through November.

The Caribbean has already experienced more frequent and severe storms and hurricanes tied to global warming in recent years.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/caribbean-braced-coronavirus-hurricanes/