This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

For most General Posts.
Forum rules
The articles and opinions written on this website , might not reflect the views of the site, We do not give legal advice and in no way are we responsible for what is written by our members

This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby bodge » Fri May 04, 2012 10:59 am

I have been reading a lengthy artice by Fritz Vahrenholt, head of the renewable energy arm of RWE and a former hero of the German environmental movement and here is a guy who is not only extremely intelligent but as he works in the RWE sector and rather like Christopher Monkton is being ridiculed, not so much for his obviously open mind but more because what he says "is politically incorrect". The truth is almost always "politically incorrect":
When your job is to produce renewable energy and when you are responsible for almost 1500 employees, what made you decide to write such a detailed book about the global warming debate?

This was directly related to my work. Every year RWE invests 1.2 billion euros in RWE Innogy. But in 2009 there was little wind in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and our profits went down. During the annual meeting, Jürgen Großmann, the CEO of RWE, said to me: ‘I give you so much money, but you bring back too little, what’s going on?’ I said there is no wind. He said ‘come off it!, next year I don’t want to hear the same excuse’. But 2010 was again not very windy as was 2011. However, the climate models of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body which coordinates international climate research, editor) said the rise of CO2 concentrations would lead to more wind in Northern Europe!I started looking in the scientific literature and found out the lack of wind had nothing to do with CO2 and global warming. In our region the weather is influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a natural cycle with a period of about 60 years. For 30 years you have more wind in the winter, for 30 years less. And if there is less wind the winters are colder, like they were in 2009 and 2010. I published my findings in an op-ed in Die Welt in 2010. I was criticized by Stefan Rahmstorf, a well-known and influential German climate scientist. Sebastian Lüning then wrote in a reaction on Rahmstorf’s blog there was some merit in my analysis. I discovered that Lüning also worked for RWE and that we actually worked in the same building in Hamburg. We decided to team up and two years later we finished the book.


Thats only a small part of this lengthy read. If you are interested in reading "Facts" then you should study this article, its not a technical read, its easy to understand and should suit most people.

http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site ... eb&id=3681
Ged tha mi bochd tha mi uasal ; buidheachas do Dhia is ann de
Chlann 'ill Eathain mi (Though I am poor I am proud; thank God I am
a Maclean.)
User avatar
bodge
 
Posts: 16644
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: North Somerset
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby Thomas » Fri May 04, 2012 11:15 am

he says in an interview with EER. He is convinced that the contribution of CO2 to global warming is being exaggerated and that there is more time to come to genuinely sustainable solutions. "We run the risk of destroying the foundations of our prosperity."


What is the amount that is said to be exaggerated and by whom. What does he mean by foundations of our prosperity.

This ought to not stiff the climate change skeptic's.

When people should really know the bankers and their hirelings ruin prosperity, including hiding energy solutions that would not cause these problems anyway.

renewable energy arm of RWE


Like many of these renewable energy groups. There to convince the public that there are no real workable solutions; without the hegemony of the so-called ptb and expensive.....
Thomas
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby skweeker » Fri May 04, 2012 2:56 pm

Climate change is an inherent ingredient of the evolutionary entropy of our planet.

It is unavoidable.

We are just witnessing a small part of it and cannot do anything else.


Just my opinion, mind. I might be wrong.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)
User avatar
skweeker
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:34 pm
Location: non negotiable
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby Thomas » Fri May 04, 2012 3:01 pm

We are just witnessing a small part of it and cannot do anything else.


Cause and effect, your/our actions will always have an effect.

IMHO.
Thomas
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

perspective

Postby p_devlin » Fri May 04, 2012 4:54 pm

Hi Thomas.

What you state is correct - "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" would seem to sum what you're are saying up unless of course you disagree.

What those who are sceptical of man made climate change try to establish is that the amounts generated by humans is not significant in terms of CO2 forcings and negated by natural emissions and the related forcings.

An analogy that might put it into perspective might be helpful. if you take a red hot steel ball bearing and drop it in a swimming pool, the temperature of the ball bearing will quickly reach a state of equilibrium with its environment.
If the heat of the ball bearing is human produced CO2 and the swimming pool is lets for the sake of argument at a temp of 20C.The change in temperature to the system is not measurable!

What Humans produce in terms of CO2 is within the margin of error for any of the calculations. IE is not statistically significant and is totally unprovable in real terms.

If a computer model were employed to show the devastating effect of the red hot ball bearing on the temperature of the water in the pool. It would be ridiculed and quite rightly so!
That so called scientists take seriously the computer models amounts to no less!
p_devlin
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:02 am
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby Thomas » Fri May 04, 2012 5:31 pm

What those who are sceptical of man made climate change try to establish is that the amounts generated by humans is not significant in terms of CO2 forcings and negated by natural emissions and the related forcings.



Yes I know and we had just been through that on a thread just 2 days ago. And you don't know the data. Or the first law of thermodynamics.

And further if you don't understand this below or (Pretend not to :?: ) then you most likely never will.


"When people should really know the bankers and their hirelings ruin prosperity, including hiding energy solutions that would not cause these problems anyway."





An analogy that might put it into perspective might be helpful. if you take a red hot steel ball bearing and drop it in a swimming pool, the temperature of the ball bearing will quickly reach a state of equilibrium with its environment.
If the heat of the ball bearing is human produced CO2 and the swimming pool is lets for the sake of argument at a temp of 20C.The change in temperature to the system is not measurable!



Of cause it's measurable, that's what science is about, "measuring" and there are mathematical formulas for it "temperature" too. But I do not know the data, and in your analogy how many steel ball bearing per day, the temp, how much water, what temp and so on, the losses and so on.




------------------------


The most common units for heat are

BTU (Btu) - British Thermal Unit
Calorie
Joule

BTU - British Thermal Unit

The unit of heat in the imperial system - the BTU - is

the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water through 1oF (58.5oF - 59.5oF) at sea level (30 inches of mercury).
1 Btu (British thermal unit) = 1055.06 J = 107.6 kpm = 2.931 10-4 kWh = 0.252 kcal = 778.16 ft.lbf = 1.0551010 ergs = 252 cal = 0.293 watt-hours

An item using one kilowatt-hour of electricity generates 3412 Btu.
Calorie

A calorie is commonly defined as

the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water 1oC
the kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) or just calorie (lowercase c) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius
1 kcal = 4186.8 J = 426.9 kp.m = 1.163 10-3 kWh = 3.088 ft.lbf = 3.9683 Btu = 1000 cal

Be aware that alternative definitions exists - in short:

Thermochemical calorie
4 °C calorie
15 °C calorie
20 °C calorie
Mean calorie
International Steam Table calorie (1929)
International Steam Table calorie (1956)
IUNS calorie (Committee on Nomenclature of the International Union of Nutritional Sciences)

The calorie is outdated and commonly replaced by the SI-unit Joule.
Joule

The unit of heat in the SI-system the Joule is

a unit of energy equal to the work done when a force of one newton acts through a distance of one meter
4.184 joule of heat energy (or one calorie) is required to raise the temperature of a unit weight (1 g) of water from 0oC to 1oC, or from 32oF to 33.8oF
1 J (Joule) = 0.1020 kpm = 2.778 10-7 kWh = 2.389 10-4 kcal = 0.7376 ft.lbf = 1 kg.m2/s2 = 1 watt second = 1 Nm = 1 ft.lb = 9.478 10-4 Btu
Thomas
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby p_devlin » Fri May 04, 2012 6:08 pm

The intention is to keep 'US' distracted with discussions about one hundreth of a degree temperature change, or whatever, while they dismantle energy production is what you fail to understand.

Saying that I do not recognise energy solutions is not really fair is it!

I'm sure that energy solutions are hidden, I am not disputing that at all. By the same token I would envisage that technology that uses Hydrocarbons more cleanly is also suppressed.

These are not the points of the argument.
The point is does man made CO2 adversely effect climate?

climate models can show to the nth degree what changes can take place but realistically are they significant?
p_devlin
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:02 am
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby Thomas » Fri May 04, 2012 6:13 pm

The intention is to keep 'US' distracted with discussions about one hundreth of a degree temperature change, or whatever, while they dismantle energy production is what you fail to understand.


How do you know what the data is, 2 days ago you agreed but like on most threads you keep doing a 180. How can you possibly know the data :?:

Saying that I do not recognise energy solutions is not really fair is it!


Why :?:

I am not disputing that at all


In effect yes.

"When people should really know the bankers and their hirelings ruin prosperity, including hiding energy solutions that would not cause these problems anyway."

The point is does man made CO2 adversely effect climate?


Again we had done that 2 days ago and now mentioned twice on this thread. Gases too, not just CO2.
Thomas
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby p_devlin » Fri May 04, 2012 6:42 pm

this might continue for some time. :lol:

lets stick to CO2 for the moment please!
p_devlin
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:02 am
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: This ought to stiff the climate change skeptics.

Postby skweeker » Fri May 04, 2012 6:43 pm

bitch bitch bitch


.............
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)
User avatar
skweeker
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:34 pm
Location: non negotiable
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests