Hard News: Done like a dinner
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
What has Manapouri got to do with it?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Why can both sides not be argued?
Because insisting the earth is flat just pisses off smart people. If you want dullards to impress, go elsewhere.
-
Counting mentions of China over the last few hours (and it really does interest me how China – at least as a metaphor – has entered the discourse in recent years):
George Darroch:
In the last 15 years wind turbines have become massive, and there’s a great amount of engineering and science behind any one structure. China is of course catching up, and the US has a reasonable industry,
Farmer Green:
It seems very obvious with the number of new coal-fired generators being built in China that atmospheric CO 2 levels are going steadily upwards ,
and:
and China is going to burn all the coal it can get.
Richard Grevers:
And there’s no need for appliance efficiency to happen only at the high end of the market, given that some of the best R&D into both energy efficiency and small scale power production is happening in the manufacturing base: India and China – which have very real incentives for conserving power, given that if you overload the system, it falls over.
And you’re all right.
For George’s “China catching up”, there has been talk for years now about investment in nuclear and renewables to wean China off coal, and I see evidence to suggest talk is backed by action. I’ve got plenty of reasons to complain about China’s truckies, but when I’m stuck at a rural intersection waiting for a truck hauling a wind turbine blade out to a wind farm I don’t complain, I sit back and admire the beauty. I’m following with interest the construction of a solar power tower (solar thermal generation, so far as I can tell) in another part of the county.
Farmer Green is correct about the coal. But that’s because China doesn’t have the renewable and nuclear capacity to replace coal yet. Yet.
And Richard is right, and not just about systems falling over, but, well, see photo for an averagely smoggy Beijing sky (and, by local standards, only an averagely filthy canal) – taken about 11am today. And it actually looks worse in real life than in the photo. Those in NZ who don’t see the need to clean up our environmental act may wish to consider what kind of environment they’d be living in if NZ had anything close to China’s population density. ETA: Or perhaps contemplate life in a place where you can buy fashionable masks for toddlers. In other words, I don't see much point in debating climate change, but bloody hell, we do need to clean up.
-
Richard Grevers, in reply to
Energy star does make a difference, if you can afford the choice. We chose our new fridge in part based on the fact it had the best star rating (also the vege drawer could hold a whole spring onion!) - but we had the luxury of being able to make that choice. One and two star appliances are cheaper because production costrs are cheaper. Essentially the manufacturer is passing the cost on to the consumer and the country - why do we allow them to do that?
What I'm meaning is that India and China are capable of making highly efficient appliances which are affordable for their own middle classes - which would be really cheap in NZ terms. I wonder if NZ importers are deliberately choosing less efficient models for the bottom end of the market so as to justify the cost of the high end models?
A few years ago we bought a Gram fridge (6 stars) and freezer (5.5 stars) which together 30% used less power than our old Kelvinator despite having 3x the capacity. They cost about $200 more than the equivalent sized F&P models (3 star). -
Chris Waugh, in reply to
India and China are capable of making highly efficient appliances which are affordable for their own middle classes
This much I can confirm.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
“So you want us to adapt to something you claim isn’t happening? Huh?”
Those are your exact words. You made up the bit about the claim that climate change is not happening. It is clearly a false accusation.
You then revised it to include the word anthropogenic and FG asserted that all organisms change their environment. Climate is a major , significant part of that environment. It can’t be much clearer. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
. In other words, I don’t see much point in debating climate change, but bloody hell, we do need to clean up.
Couldn't agree more. And that translated directly into becoming an organic farmer 35 years ago. FG is very happy to report that it has been everything that he dreamed of and more, but is essentially indistinguishable from the farming of the 1940s and 1950s with the exception of the level of paperwork (traceability). And of course the modern technology. The underlying principles are the same.
-
Richard Grevers, in reply to
What does your last sentence mean?
I didn't exactly explain myself there. About a year ago we moved to an aging eco-house in a community, conveniently across the road from where we are planning to build. The power lines stop a couple of km away. The week before we moved in, a storm destroyed the existing solar panels (which were well past their use-by date), leaving us with the output of a 1kW micro-hydro generator with significant transmission losses (150m of inadequate cable - I have suggested moving the pelton wheel further downhill). The lighting was 12V halogen lamps - pulling 4A each! For a slight loss of lux, we replaced them with 6W LEDs, and partied the night we were able to turn on four lights at once instead of one. Other than that our priorities are refrigeration (our 6-star fridge running on the inverter) and the coffee grinder, charging phones and laptop*. Hot water is wood-fired, with a gas backup that we don't use, and we have gas and wood options for cooking. The place has good insulation and thermal mass, so despite all the air leaks it is relatively warm. We put the woodburner on maybe 40 nights last winter. We'd already been TV free for a year before moving, but we note that TEAC make an excellent and efficient 12V/240V TV with built in DVD and satellite box for about $700.
Insurance paid for 300W of new solar panels and our rent paid for 450VA worth of new batteries. When these arrived, we tried running our freezer, but generation is about 20% short of what is needed for reliable service. We'll probably look at 2-3 x the size of system when we build, and would definitely have solar as the primary water heating, as it is so cheap.
Our washing machine is also pretty efficient so long as it isn't heating water, but it doesn't like the old inverter (not pure sine wave) that we're stuck with, so we run it on a generator. Still cheaper and less hassle than lugging washing 30km to the laundromat.* We bought a high-capacity battery for our laptop so we could charge it in town most days, but it has died after 9 months service. The mistake was to buy one which drop-shipped from Hong Kong, with no support (The website did not make that at all clear).
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Sorry I didn't realise quite how smart you were. Unforgiveable. Did I really say the earth was flat? Of course not.
-
Someone put this fool out of our misery.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Do you know about these?
http://www.powerco.co.nz/Divisions/BASEPOWER/Photo-Gallery/Redflow/ -
Hebe, in reply to
Those in NZ who don’t see the need to clean up our environmental act may wish to consider what kind of environment they’d be living in if NZ had anything close to China’s population density.
A cesspit: Kiwis are bigger trash producers per capita than US Americans. The only reason we get away with it is the tiny population.
-
Richard Grevers, in reply to
No, I didn't. Well, not the Redflow bit. Interesting that they don't list redflow as an option for their basepower units yet. I'd seen basepower before. big $$$.
-
Really ? How many links?
You might want to review the quality of the links in the last discussion that got derailed by this topic, particularly back when people where commenting about the links you were posting. I think it is still fresh in most other people's minds.
The scientific process proceeds point by point with resolution of differing viewpoints.
And this synthesis has already happened among climate scientists. In the big picture evolution is better understood than gravity. Gravity (general process understood, some mystery about the finer details) is understood about the same as global warming.
Why can both sides not be argued?
There is a difference between debate leading to synthesis, and circular argument. If you are truly interested in the resolution of differing viewpoints you are going to have to actually engage with the evidence in order to bring it together. Once again I ask, in a spirit of resolving positions, could you explain how the entire paragraph of the IPCC quote you brought to the discussion supports your position. If you are in doubt, I will then explain why the entire paragraph was about something else until we reach a resolution of viewpoints.
Who else here will argue the negative?
Being the only person to argue something is not a virtue when the technique of argument is to bring poor evidence to a forum that has a respect for reason. In particular when such suddenly appears in threads on unrelated topics.
In 50 years we may know exactly how it works, but it’s a long shot at present. Do you claim to know already?
I notice you have been shifting the goalposts on time frames. In the other thread you started at 15 years, then when I agreed with you that it would be known by then, you went to 30 years, and are now at 50. This makes it difficult to arrive at resolution.
I think the general shape of warming of climate is fairly conclusively established right now, with some detail, particularly the role of the deeper oceans as heat sink, to be filled in. In this sense I think that if there was to be no average warming for the next decade, climate models would need some serious revision. But then so would chemistry, as there would be some serious questions about what carbon dioxide does in the way of physical properties that would seem to need answering.
-
Local denialists continue usual form.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
What I’m meaning is that India and China are capable of making highly efficient appliances which are affordable for their own middle classes – which would be really cheap in NZ terms. I wonder if NZ importers are deliberately choosing less efficient models for the bottom end of the market so as to justify the cost of the high end models?
This is why we (should) legislate efficiency. Unfortunately, the last Labour Government set up EECA with a rather weak mandate based around education and did not put in place the kind of standards that are increasingly common around the world. National, with a strong belief in 'consumer rights' and 'freedom' has further weakened EECA's mandate.
Someone put this fool out of our misery.
On the evidence there's only a small degree of difference between FG and what other people here believe, and it's on things which reasonable people can disagree on. And which reasonable people can agree to disagree on. Plonking down something that looked like denialist linkbait might not have been the best start, but as Russell has noted elsewhere, what debate is happening here isn't actually a constructive one - it's rather boring.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
You might want to review the quality of the links in the last discussion that got derailed by this topic, particularly back when people where commenting about the links you were posting. I think it is still fresh in most other people’s minds.
Ah, a history. I have no time for denialists.
-
Sacha, in reply to
yes. fool us twice, etc
-
Lilith __, in reply to
“So you want us to adapt to something you claim isn’t happening? Huh?”
Those are your exact words. You made up the bit about the claim that climate change is not happening. It is clearly a false accusation.
You then revised it to include the word anthropogenic and FG asserted that all organisms change their environment. Climate is a major , significant part of that environment. It can’t be much clearer.Yes, everything is very clear. You're a climate change denier who lacks the courage to stand up for your beliefs. Grow a backbone.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
In this sense I think that if there was to be no average warming for the next decade, climate models would need some serious revision.
A point of agreement then . In another decade of no warming, depending on which dataset we are using (presumably RSS ) the period of no warming would total just over 30 years. That seems eminently sensible given the 30 year half cycle of the PDO. Certainly no warming until well after 2030 would indicate incomplete understanding.
I don’t think it matters greatly that we differ on when complete and final understanding of the climate mechanism will be achieved. That understanding depends mostly on the economic situation and the availability of funding for climate research. You may have a rosier view of the economic quagmire than does farmer green.
You mention the physical properties of CO2 which would seem to be well established but FG’s understanding is that its possible role in positive feedback loops may be the issue where catastrophe does or does not occur,and that this aspect of the GCMs may be poorly understood at present.
FG appreciates that you have not once used the D word, but have engaged constructively : it’s very rare on this site.. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
And you are clearly a person who uses words with no understanding of their meaning. Someone who insists that climate changes constantly can never be accurately labelled a climate change denier, It is nonsensical to insist otherwise. But you may not be alone.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
. I think it is still fresh in most other people’s minds.
Really , it was that upsetting? Perhaps readers here are unaware of the ongoing debate that takes place in the agricultural media on a weekly basis. Name calling forms no part of that debate. It is devoted solely to the varying scientific viewpoints, but the common ground is that definitive answers are not yet available.
It's quite different here. -
I suddenly realised who you remind me of, Farmer Green! Thank goodness, because it was driving me crazy. "Dammit, who ELSE obsessively refers to himself in the third person?"
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And you are clearly a person who uses words with no understanding of their meaning. Someone who insists that climate changes constantly can never be accurately labelled a climate change denier, It is nonsensical to insist otherwise. But you may not be alone.
I'm generally inclined to let these debates run because they produce useful and interesting rebuttals. But I think we've passed that point now. I would like us to get off this tedious, circular argument.
Everyone else, it would probably help now if you didn't respond to FG.
-
mccx, in reply to
Do you mean the science which says that natural variability is far in excess of any anthropogenic climate signal? That point was made quite clearly.
I read the Economist article, not the NBR article (paywalled), so it's not entirely clear which science you're referring to here. The journal article that The Economist refers to on natural variation in PNAS doesn't say that though. The PNAS paper says the range form 1650-1750 was about 0.1 degrees greater than the 1900-2000 range and that others have overestimated 20th C warming trends by a factor of 2, but that since 1910 the human contribution to warming has been ~0.075 degrees/decade and that 60% of warming in the last 50 years is attributable to humans.
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see your point being made quite clearly anywhere in that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.