Wind energy model blows cold

Here is an intriguing article about a dilemma faced by the United Kingdom: its wind power farms are running out of wind. Climate change? The article offers plenty of ideas as to why this may be.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

The U.K., along with a few other EUropean countries like Denmark and Spain, has banked heavily on wind power as their alternate energy source of choice.

Does anyone else catch the subtext in this article?

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Mike Devx: I found no evidence either way, and presented that in 241.

    You presented the list of “scientists who question AGW orthodoxy”. In any case, Lorius says people are responsible for global warming. It can’t get much more clear than that.  

    Hodell says that humans have possibly already influenced climate even in the ancient past. (For instance, forests make their own rain. Damage the forest, and change the dynamics of precipitation.)

    Let’s move to the next name, Gerald H. Haug. He contributed to a letter to the journal Nature saying “Comparison with other long-term precipitation reconstructions indicates a large-scale intensification of the hydrological cycle coincident with the onset of industrialization and global warming, and the unprecedented amplitude argues for a human role.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7088/abs/nature04743.html

    Again, it’s standard fare in  pseudoscience to compile such lists.

  2. Mike Devx says

    Z-Team: You presented the list of “scientists who question AGW orthodoxy”.

    Try again, o’ silly little one.  Not my list.  Three strikes and you’re out?

    > In any case, Lorius says people are responsible for global warming. It can’t get much more clear than that.  

    Try again, o’ silly little one.  I am awfully good at logic.  It’s one of my strengths.  His exact quote is *not* – and I know I’m rehashing, but sometimes the children require repetition, it seems – you can allow that there *is* global warming occuring, without buying into everything that is known by the concept “AGW science”.

    Z-Team does give us a new one on Haug, where Z-Team’s evidence for Haug concludes with:
    ” and the unprecedented amplitude argues for a human role.”

    Get it Z-Team?  “argues for a human role”.  It’s exactly the same level of caution that Lorius quote uses – and many skeptics use.  I’ll try again to explain:  There is human-level AGW occurring, of *some sort*, at *some level*.  Most allow that.  What they don’t agree to are the specifics in the AGW position.

    So you’ll have to come up with something better.  But I know you won’t.

  3. Mike Devx says

    Gawd, let me try to be even clearer.  The AGW position is usually – always? – that the Earth itself is in balance on CO2 creation and destruction; that any excess CO2 and any rise in temperatures is *entirely* caused by human civilization’s production of CO2.

    The skeptical position can be that none of it is.  Or it can be that only some of it is.  The latter is often the case.
    Where an AGW orthodox proponent will point to a 2C rise over 100 years and say it will all be caused by human-generated AGW, a skeptic may argue for 0.5C.  And 0.5C is cause for NO ACTION, cause for all the gloomy doomsayers to please retake their seats and play with their little toys again.  And stop crying ‘Emergency! Emergency!”

    The debate is in the numbers, it’s in the transformations, it’s in the models, it’s in the non-predictive worthlessness of the models, it’s in the “projections” out for a century or two that we are to blindly trust… and THEN it is, most importantly of all, in the policies that get implemented based on the conclusions, policies that, to date, look likely only to harm us all.

  4. says

    Zachriel: You presented the list of “scientists who question AGW orthodoxy”.

    Danny Lemieux presented the list purporting it to be a list of “scientists who doubt AGW orthodoxy.” Adding the word “orthodoxy” doesn’t salvage the claim. 

    Mike Devx: The AGW position is usually – always? – that the Earth itself is in balance on CO2 creation and destruction; that any excess CO2 and any rise in temperatures is *entirely* caused by human civilization’s production of CO2.

    Climate scientists certainly understand that there are natural causes of climate change. We’ve pointed this out before, so it’s rather odd that you are still confused on this. Should we look to see if we made the point directly in response to you? 

    Mike Devx: Where an AGW orthodox proponent will point to a 2C rise over 100 years and say it will all be caused by human-generated AGW, a skeptic may argue for 0.5C.

    The list is question is supposed to be of scientists who question “AGW orthodoxy”. Hodell even thinks that even primitive humans damaged the climate to their detriment.
    It is incumbent on those who push the list to make sure the list fairly represents the views of the scientists, not the other way around. The list is bogus.

    Mike Devx: His exact quote is *not* – and I know I’m rehashing, {} you can allow that there *is* global warming occuring, without buying into everything that is known by the concept “AGW science”.

    Lorius says his study of the polar ice caps has proven global warming is occurring and that humans are responsible. You really have to distort the words to pretend that he should be on the list. 

    Claude Lorius: “And that’s when we wrote, almost 30 years ago now: if we emit greenhouse gases, it’s going to get warmer. And that’s exactly what’s happening now.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRRX1aBlJwY

    It is highly misrepresentative of Lorius’s view to suggest he doubts AGW, even with the weasel-word “orthodoxy” added. You may disagree with the man who helped discover how to read the history of the climate in the ice, but there is no way to listen to his words and reach the conclusion that he should be on a list of AGW skeptics. Or the other names we mentioned. And we only tried the first few names on the list! 

    The list is bogus. 
    Mike Devx: The debate is in the numbers, it’s in the transformations, it’s in the models, it’s in the non-predictive worthlessness of the models, it’s in the “projections” out for a century or two that we are to blindly trust…

    The skeptics have no evidence to support their view. Only rarely do skeptics even publish in the literature, and then, it is only tangential. The most skeptics usually do is publish bogus  lists, and argue in the media. 

  5. Mike Devx says

    I’ve finally decided, Z-Team, that you’re arguing with someone else, not with me.

    - Your statement said it was my list. Twasn’t,
    - I have never said that Lorius belongs on the list.
    - I have never said he doubts AGW
    - I said I couldn’t determine one way or the other whether he belongs on the list, and asked that if anyone found a link showing one way or the other, I’d be glad to change my mind.

    I was very careful in how I was stating these things.  Your repeated statements don’t answer my question as to whether he belongs on the list or not.  I *still* cannot tell.  One way or the other.

    I like the word ‘orthodoxy’ and will continue to use it.  It describes the scientific majority opinion *and* attempts by its practitioners to silence the dissenters, and crucially, it also describes the next tier of public policy advocates who enforce decisions based on the science of the majority view.

    It’s not precisely a part of the Z-Team argument, but here’s a snippet from their own side’s supportive website, skepticalscience, claiming that the CRU/East Anglia climate emails are perfectly fine examples of the peer review process.

    Read this, and tell me: Do you think these two ClimateGate scientists are engaging in pure, objective science?  Completely unbiased!

    Or, have they taken a biased, advocacy position?  And are defending it?

    —–

    For example, Jones wrote in an email dated 11/3/2003:

    I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, a well-known skeptic in NZ. A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

    Michael Mann replied:

    This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

    —–

    The above is considered normal, peer-review email communications, and the “investigation” cleared them of any wrong-doing and finds this entirely normal.  

    Sure looks like advocacy to me!  I especially have an appreciation for Jones’ line:
    A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

    If only the CRU/East Anglia plant could control the peer review process there, they’d be able to *totally* shut down all of the unorthodox positions, and those papers would *never* see the light of day!  Nah, that’s not bias and advocacy.  Actually, no it isn’t – it’s WORSE.

    Above email cut and paste excerpt is from:
    http://skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

  6. says

    Mike Devx: I said I couldn’t determine one way or the other whether he belongs on the list, and asked that if anyone found a link showing one way or the other, I’d be glad to change my mind.

    The list claims documented doubts, providing literature cites that do not support the claim. You’ve been provided more than sufficient information for a reasonable person to conclude that at least several of the scientists do not belong on a list of skeptics, orthodoxy or otherwise. The list is bogus. 

  7. Charles Martel says

    Mike, you have been warned. Don’t make Zach angry. You would not like Zach angry. You have no idea how much boilerplate he can spew when he is angry.

    Please, Mike, I beg you. Do not wake this sleeping giant.

  8. Mike Devx says

    Charles,

    The Z-Team appears to be a cadre – a collective – of undergraduate students at, say, UCal-Berkeley. Rolling membership since 2005.  Started by Professor Von Leftie in 2004, he assembled some university sophomores from his Sociology 101 class, to create an experimental entity on the Web, to test his theories on debate and persuasion.

    The students refined their techniques under Professor Von Leftie until you see the commentary style we see today, subsuming all individual differences into a single coherent, collective style.  As the years passed, the students could *never* agree on specific policy positions, and that’s why you never see specific policy positions from the Z-Team.  They *can’t* because they’ve got no consensus.

    Dat’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it!

    Please, Mike, I beg you. Do not wake this sleeping giant.

    Gawd, if this represents the Z-Team *sleeping* , you’re right, I’d hate to see what things would look like here awake!  ;-)

  9. Charles Martel says

    Mike, I think you’re on to something.

    Another reason for the collective’s deadly dull writing style may be the professor himself. Zach writes like an academic whose blood has been drained. The level of writing is mostly sophomoric, with the most persistent error being calling singular nouns “they.” (For example, Israel is a “they.”) Typical college-kid mistake.

    The Zachs’ persistence here is not a measure of their effectiveness. I think that people on this blog pretty much have obliterated his arguments and lurkers see through them. But going back to your student collective idea, I think that they don’t get credit if they don’t show up. You know how scared fiercely independent college kids get when a grade is at stake.

    Another aspect to the experiment is the subtle distortion of language, which jibes with your theory about testing various approaches to debate and rhetoric. The Zachs are masters of misdirection and either pretending to not get the point or else sliding in ideas that were not at all present in somebody’s statement. The idea is derailment, not discourse, and certainly not persuasion.

    Hey, Zachs, a shoutout to youse!

  10. says

    Mike, critical hit on the skeptical science peer review emails/process.

    Keep socking A through Z in the solar plexus. I like reading such.

    The Zachs are masters of misdirection and either pretending to not get the point or else sliding in ideas that were not at all present in somebody’s statement. The idea is derailment, not discourse, and certainly not persuasion.

    Like narcissists, you exist here as tools for their experimentation and ego, not as other people of equal status to discuss new things and learn about mistakes made (by A through Z). 

    Most youths start out arrogant because they can’t conceptualize the realm of knowledge that the wise and old have obtained. Since they can’t conceptualize, they believe it’s not of any worth and will instead believe in their peers and cults like AGW which they can conceptualize. Well, the reason they can grasp the concept of AGW and like it, is because they were arrogant youths to begin with.

  11. Charles Martel says

    “Like narcissists, you exist here as tools for their experimentation and ego, not as other people of equal status to discuss new things and learn about mistakes made (by A through Z).”

    Solid point, Ymar. These guys would make glorious commisars in a people’s republic.

  12. says

    The Soviet defectors like Yuri Bezmenov, Martel, said that these would be the first ones the comissars send to the wall to be shot in the back of the head. Cause they know too much and will be a disruption in the People’s Paradise. They know too much to be harmless but they aren’t full in lockstep with totalitarian death squads to be of use. Their days of usefulness ended when their idiocy prevailed.

  13. Mike Devx says

    In an argument thread between me and the Z-Team (Zach), in 257 Z-Team says:
    You’ve been provided more than sufficient information for a reasonable person to conclude that at least several of the scientists do not belong on a list of skeptics, orthodoxy or otherwise. The list is bogus.

    Thought I had nothing more to say, but I do.

    No, Zach, you have *not* provided sufficient information, concerning Claude Lorius.  Do you really believe you have?  You have given the one quote.  I have explained why that is not sufficient.  Let me add this:
    - Lorius was one author of a study indicating that in the 1500 climate cycle, CO2 production did not cause warming temperatures.

    This does not force one to call him a skeptic.  But it may *lead you* to believe he is one.  How could this evidence not at least make him wonder about the CO2 cycle near and dear to all of the AGW science?

    Similarly, your quote may *lead you* to believe he is an AGW proponent.

    But neither consistutes proof.

    You say: This indicates he is not a skeptic and he must be struck from the list, therefore the list is bogus.

    NO! It does not suffice to strike him from the list.

    An analogy:

    Sarah Palin recently commented that Paul Revere warned the British that the patriots were waiting for them.

    The Left howled in derision and mocking laughter at her.  “What a foolish beauty pageant bimbo! As if Revere would warn the British!  The woman truly is as dumb as we always what she was! What a moron! Moron! Moron!”

    Errrr… except she was right.

    So, maybe ONE of them could have fired up at least a few neurons in their heads and done a web search.
    It would probably have led them to evidence that she was right.  Whew!  They wouldn’t have looked like such MORONS themselves!

    Or – and here’s the crux of my argument – maybe they’d have found nothing.  Paul Revere… warning the British? Ha!  There’s nothing on the web that says that!  Palin is a MORON!

    But maybe she isn’t.  Maybe…the information just isn’t there, or you haven’t found it yet.
    You cannot tell one way or the other.  Maybe… just maybe… Sarah Palin is not THAT stupid.  What an incredibly stupid thing for her to say if she’s got no clue.  So just maybe she does have a clue!

    That’s where I am with Claude Lorius being on the skeptics list.  THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OUT THERE EITHER WAY.
    But maybe, just maybe, they know something I don’t, and that you don’t know either.
    Neither of us has enough evidence either way to prove the point either way.

    And you do NOT have enough evidence to show his name should be struck from the list.  No, you don’t.  Your quote does not suffice, and I have explained twice, further above, why it doesn’t suffice.

    Now, I am done.  At least with Claude the quiet, non-commenting close-mouthed scientist, who apparently has had the humility to stay out of the AGW debate itself.

  14. says

    Z’s epistemology is peculiarly shallow. From what I can tell, the only thing he needs to know something is knowledge are,

    1. He defines it as science.

    2. The sources that he defined as science, defining it as science.

    3. Z knows it is true because he found somebody in history that told him it was true.

    This kind of epistemology, shallow as it is, runs into a couple of distinct problem areas. For one thing, for Z to know that he has money, all he has to do is to define himself as being defined as “owning money” or being told by a scientific source, that he defined as scientific, claiming Z owns money. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether Z knows he has 1 million or 1 billion or 0 dollars. There’s no way for Z to know what science is simply by labeling some people scientists and there is no way scientists can know what Z is, simply because scientists have a hypothesis. If all it took to know something was true was to define it as true, we wouldn’t need to ask questions.

    Another issue concerns the fact that scientists are not people Z calls scientists. And Z is not able to know who is or isn’t a scientist simply from indirect and arrogant presumptions. Whether a person differentiates between hypothesis, theory, and law in science does not depend upon Z calling him a scientist or non-scientist. Independent origins there.

    So to begin with, the truth isn’t the truth because someone labels it such. And secondly, a label isn’t even necessarily true simply because it exists for person. Lastly, what determines whether a person is a scientist or not is solely based upon whether that person follows scientific experimentation, hypothesis making, and data collection. If the person doesn’t do any one of these, then they are no scientist, by objective fact and personal observation. Even if the entire world said that this science, mere words cannot redefine a label/definition.

  15. says

    Mike Devx: Thought I had nothing more to say, but I do.

    You didn’t actually say anything more.  Reasonably people who listen to his words will have little doubt as to his position on anthropocentric global warming. 

    Claude Lorius: “And that’s when we wrote, almost 30 years ago now: if we emit greenhouse gases, it’s going to get warmer. And that’s exactly what’s happening now.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRRX1aBlJwY

    We provided information above on other scientists on the list, David Hodell and Gerald H. Haug. Here’s a couple more.

    Paul Mayewski: Greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures, therefore raising the likelihood of disease and climate calamities.
    http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/environment/interview-dr-paul-mayewski

    Maureen Raymo: “everything I’ve learned about the dynamism of the planet’s climate places me, like most all of my colleagues, strongly in the camp that says we need to take preventive action to keep the planet from warming further. I am extremely concerned that we’ve made such large changes in the composition of our atmosphere with so little understanding of the consequences. The path we are on is completely anomalous to anything that has gone before.”
    http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-13-paleoclimatologist-sea-levels-greenland-ice-rise/PALL/print

  16. abc says

    Mike wrote:

    “This concerns the cap and trade system instituted across about eight New England states.
    I ran out of time, I’m only about half-way through *it*.  Perhaps I have a better bullshit detector than many people, but my BS detector started ringing early, and it got so loud and so frequent as I kept reading that I’m surprised my neighbors weren’t at my door, begging me to please tone things down.  What a load of horsecrap!
    If this report is what passes as an “objective study” these days, we are all in very serious trouble indeed.  Perhaps the second half is better than the first.  What I’ve read so far is just laughable.  Remember, here we’re at the “second tier” – above the science itself, in the area of policy implementation by the Z-Team’s beloved “centralized planners”.  And here is where all the serious problems lie for me, where we as individuals get actively harmed by these people.”

    Here’s the thing:  you need to state why it is horsecrap.  Otherwise, it isn’t a very useful comment or criticism.

    Also, I have some doubts that you randomly selected that particular argument, since it is one of the very few on the list that is not about science but about economics, and I personally think it is wrong.  Of course, you are adding costs to our economy by taxing carbon that weren’t there before.  The reason you do this, of course, is because: 1) the science is correct, 2) there are real costs and harm caused by AGW and the burning of fossil fuels, and 3) those costs and harm have not been paid for (an externality).  If you could magically and without cost get rid of the harm, then we would remain where we are today without any risks, but that is not reality. 

    Now, the article happens to explain the benefits of cap and trade, and even the Economist ran a large symposium years ago highlighting that a market system is the best, most effiicient way to get emissions down to prescribed levels.  This is hardly “crap” but pretty uncontroversial stuff.

  17. Mike Devx says

    abc wrote:
    > Also, I have some doubts that you randomly selected that particular argument, since it is one of the very few on the list that is not about science but about economics, and I personally think it is wrong.

    I believe I said, more precisely, I looked for one that seemed particularly controversial.  Was controversial the word I used?  Contentious?  But it was the first one I chose.

    I guess it shouldn’t be surprising it’s the first one I chose.  My big beef is with the policy choices of centralized planning.  Few would care about the science if it wasn’t for the policy implications – let the skeptics and the advocates fight it out for ten more years!  We’ll all check back in and see how the debate is going.  They would all know a lot more. But the policy implications are tremendous because the advocates are advocating emergency actions and a desperate need to move now, now, now.

    And the recommended policies all require – due to your “externalities” – that we abandon the free market and move to a top-down centralized planning approach across the entire world, losing most economic freedoms, which are the cornerstones of human individual liberty.

    It therefore matters.  Tremendously.

  18. Mike Devx says

    In reply to Zach 267:
    If Claude Lorius truly means what he said at the end of the video – as you quoted – then I can finally agree, he shouldn’t mentioned as though he were a skeptic.   You have to take the fellow at his word. In the iist you mentioned as being bogus, he is not quite described as a skeptic, but the inference is there.  It’s sloppy.

    As I said before, if anyone finds a reason why he really would be a skeptic, I’d be glad to change my mind.

  19. Mike Devx says

    abc 275:
    I don’t think you’re genuinely interested in my reasons.

    I’m willing to let that “study” stand on its own.  Anyone can go read it – just spend ten minutes! – and decide for themselves.  I see it as an advocacy piece, absolutely filled with bias and assumptions that are either wrong or debatable.  But I’ll let it stand on its own.  I’ve been having far more fun reading “Miracle At Philadelphia”, and I have a list of six more books I’m more interested in reading, and a huge number of things piling up I have to do.  And I’m on break from work!

    The links we’re talking – I’ll repeat the two links here, from 248 – about are from one of abc’s favorite web sites, documenting skeptical claims on AGW and providing refutations to each claim.  It’s a worthwhile website in that it does appear to be where the proponents of AGW give their best answers to skeptical claims.

    The main link on the question of CO2 policy has a fair number of advocacy problems (as I’d put it)

    http://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm
    But the study *it* cites as its real world example, the RGGI study, was the one I urge people to read to see what they think.  This is the one that I found wildly ludicrous with its bias and assumptions:

    http://www.rggi.org/docs/Investment_of_RGGI_Allowance_Proceeds.pdf

    So, anyway, abc, I will let this last, ahem, “study” stand on its own two feet.  Read if you wish!  See what you think.  We’re all responsible adults here. If someone’s interested in seeing a biased advocacy article masquerading as an objective study, they’ll go take a look.
    There was a third on costs of energy efficiency among state utilities that I spent a lot of time reading, there, too, that I thought was pretty good.

  20. says

    People don’t need to read cites to argue. They can simply, you know, type their reasons out by hand on something called a keyboard and then hitting the button named Post.

    It’s called the manual, peasant, way to argue. As opposed to the Ivy Tower academical way.

  21. Mike Devx says

    Back to the original Book post, this was in the news from your SanFran area a few days ago:

    Scores of golden eagles have been killed after striking the thousands of wind turbines in the Bay Area, raising questions about California’s move toward alternative power.
    from:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-wind-eagles-20110606,0,4078175.story?track=rss

    A vexing problem for environmentalists.  “When sacred cows collide.”

    How about focusing on expanding nuclear (fission) power instead.  France seems to have figured out how to do it safely.  There are much more effective alternatives for powering a modern civilization than wind power.  Has its place in the larger picture, sure, but only as a niche technology.  Too many problems with intermittent capability and energy storage.

    But oil and natural gas extraction is where the big game is at right now.  A lot is happening and most of it in a very positive direction, not just for us but for the world.  If we (the USA) would just get off our asses and *move*.  That would include refinery construction, too, not just extraction.   Unfortunately, just as with Israel, this is something Obama is reflexively hostile too.  You have to drag him kicking and screaming toward *any* improvements at all, so we won’t see anything significant until Obama is put out to pasture.  Let us hope in 2012.

  22. Charles Martel says

    Mike, considering that many environmentalists are Luddites who would be pleased to have us all living in, as Camille Paglia sneeringly called it, “little [feminist] villages by a bend in the river,” there’s no real collision of sacred cows here. You simply do what killer Ted Kennedy did, which is to support wind power in concept but not if it interferes with your view (or a few local chickenhawks). You can have your cake and eat it, too, because the demands for green this and green that are not tethered to logic.

    The point is to do away with technological society and get us back to the garden (which in Joanie Mitchell’s 1969 dream was a mud-encrusted, drug-hazed wallow at Woodstock). That’s why when you propose grown-up stuff like nukes, most of the enviros reach for their smelling salts. If you build enough nukes, you are talking about serious, safe, reliable power, available 24/7. You cannot wallow in Gaia when hot water and indoor plumbing are accessible to so many so cheaply. You cannot have the meek and the poor taking hot baths—it wrecks the whole rushing to the rescue of the earth thing.

  23. Mike Devx says

    Oh yes indeed, Charles!

    The rich and powerful shall have their prerogatives and privileges.  

    But extend it to the little people, and suddenly you’re talking about “unsustainable development”.  All those little people must be put right back into their places.  And be happy that they’re allowed what little the privileged allow them.

  24. Mike Devx says

    Here’s another wind turbine/environmental story that fascinates me, this one set in Ontario, Canada.  The utility development company in question makes no bones about the tradeoffs and risks. They can develop in the winter, and by the time the birds return in the spring, their nesting habitat should be sufficiently restored.  But there’s not much they can do about the turtles, and they freely admit it.  It’s a big risk for the endangered turtle species.
    http://www.greenerideal.com/alternative-energy/wind-energy/8835-endangered-species-threatened-by-wind-project-in-ontario
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/12/ontario-green-endangered.html
     

Leave a Reply