Grendel wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:


Bingo!

and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government... 

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:



What are the other emissions of a modern power plant?

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:



You mean the Chinese ones, the Japanese ones? Others?

We've gotta do better than burning stinking coal -
we need more renewable energy & also research into the
power locked inside Thorium.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant 

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

Yeah that water vapour that's bad stuff...

One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology.

Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states.

Oh and yes there are other outputs...

But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either.

As for power stations...

Quote:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 10:18am:

Really?  I never would have guessed.

I never implied  your lie at all... 
You made a statement, I commented on  it.

Did I accuse you falsely of implying anything like you just did me?  NO... 

You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations?

You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

Yeah that water vapour that's bad stuff...

Grendel wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:



The problem with that is how can you then judge what to do to plan for the future, if you have no idea what the future holds.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 10:18am:



Show me where Beijing met or exceeded those exalted Chinese air standards.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:


But don't understand the difference between air quality standards and actual air quality.

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86075/sedac_gis_2010_20...

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 12:32pm:



Yes. We know you are quite the hypocrite.  No need to enhance your reputation.

What is the difference between historical simulations and Historical methods.

They don't mention the time used but isn't TCR over a twenty year period and the formula for doubling CO2 is set in formula, are they saying it changes with location ?

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:


What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:



Oh good. You are starting to ask questions.

"For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper).

Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

It is any period you want, basically.

And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

so what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable.

Quote:


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 2:10pm:

that 15% u know from the original post Lee 

do your own work.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 3:22pm:


What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:



Oh good. You are starting to ask questions.

"For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper).

Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

It is any period you want, basically.

And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

Ok so having read this I was wondering

I have Lee that’s why I was asking you what u thought it all meant,

he rest is a easy summary and I thought since you posted it, u would know what the variation was

or did u just see 15% less and decided it was anti AGW ?

We argue that historical methods can be more reliable

given that the discrepancies of the global climate models directly bias their projections.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:



Nope. I leave that to you.

You do understand the difference between a Summary and the actual paper?

We have no idea what level of confidence. Al we know is waht they wrote in that Summary.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:



You do understand BIAS?

Ha Ha Bias, well what exactly is it about ?
15% less carbon or 15% less temp raise, 15% accuracy, why post something u don't even know what it is ?
Or if u do please be my guest let us know .

what access ?

To make things worse u had a hissy fit we changed the subject and u don't even know what the subject is.

Maybe just keep quoting one line from a post and distorting it... that's what your best at Lee  Wink

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 5:08pm:

what group is that ?
while replying to my post...... Ok so it wasn't directed at me ?
ohh why did u write it, just a random thought ?