Same ****, here is the start of PJ's argument to my breakdown of the Hockeystick. deniers please log in to view this image Ryan Cooper please log in to view this image Why would I read further Great argument PJ, try understanding the subject ffs man
Given the same nitwits are doing the exact same thing on this thread. Have your climate change debate amongst yourselves. "deniers" It's already beginning to pollute this thread, which is what ye want of course. So carry on without me #leavemeoutofit
You don't need to make multiple posts about how you refuse to read an article You could just not read it and not comment about it
Says the bloke who is too afraid to respond to my actual posts and points Plus his link in no way addresses what I said in my post
Swansea bay will generate nearly 500,000 MWh of juice a year. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/the-project/faqs/59/ Hardly small change and doesn't require inland lakes to be formed on a small island
Keep it civil, I suspect it's about 120,000 kettles in the local area that it would supply. The whole Swansea bay are......approx 115,000 houses with capacity depending on turbine placement/average efficiency to 130,000
I am not up on tidal tbth. I worked in the past for a renewable company Mainstream Renewable power. Ocean flood todal power generation so I have some idea of the costs, which are immense compared to other renewables But what do I know compared to Astro, who is referring to wind power when you are talking tidal You never explained how your link addresses my points about the Hockeystick chart and uncertainty
My personal favourite project from recent renewables is the Open Hydro one. I designed low speed bearings to give great wear life at boundary lubrication conditions(sea water) and hydrodynamic lift and zero friction at generating water flow speeds even with a 16M hubless runner. And I even managed to pass the bearing production to a specialist Uk composite manufacturer local to me in the UK.
Cos I am not sure how anything in your link, I skimmed it, relates to probability modeling or the 1209 proxies spliced throughout that chart. Or how the uncertainty is ignored as if it doesn't exist
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/dnl-ebc012816.php As I mentioned before I sat in a meeting with Vestas and Boeing at Farnbrough a few years ago talking composites and materials for on shore wind power. However this has progressed to large diameter deep water offshore wind, the U.K. Is looking at the old North Sea oil/gas field sites as a potential spot. The problem comes with materials, mooring, servicing and installation. Siemens have already started to invest in facilities in and around Hull in a move that tells me offshore wind and deep water wind will be a big part of the UKs future power generation
Ok I'm reading two different things here. One very interesting part that PJS posted on renewables And One very dull climate change arguement that's a holdover from the last thread. Can we (and I'm asking not telling) forget the last thread and say ok we all know each others views and move on. I find the discussion on renewable very interesting and irrespective of whether it's to save the planet from fossil fuels or to save the west from the middle east oil dependency it's a very interesting topic. I think personally having seen the largest wind farms in Germany and here that there's so many people anti wind and anti cables and just about anti anything near them that off shore is indeed the way to go.
I'm not getting drawn into a discussion on climate, this is a science thread and I posted my beliefs on that subject and that's it. But without brilliant Engineers the scientists are just making good paper based ideas, it's my profession that makes the world tick over and Engineering impacts on every single aspect of everyone's daily life. All praise the Engineer! I'm open for any discussion on renewables, but my main area is hydro and tidal. I must see 6-7 concepts a year and all but a few fail in the real world
All of which ignores the salient point of his post. The fact that the error percentage decreases as the time advances and you've taken the maximum error rate for the pre- industrial era and extrapolated it across the piece, but at the most recent - where the temperature rise is at its most prominent - the error rate is at its smallest. Which therefore gives the impression that the recent warming is not that prominent. As he rightly said you didn't produce the converse version as it would have shown an even more pronounced rise in recent years. So therefore why not merely take the mean? i.e the original graph..........
The Swansea bay project is fascinating. I've had an interest in tidal since it was first mooted, as it seems such an obvious source of relatively unobtrusive power generation. Kudos that you've been involved in its infancy, it must be extremely gratifiying to be involved in such a ground breaking field. My lad is studying engineering and I'd love him to get involved in this particular sphere, once he finishes his degree.
Where is he studying and what course is he doing? I would advise on lower paid summer work in engineering if he hasn't taken a course with a placement year option. I dropped lucky getting various jobs post graduation and falling on my feet at certain points. All the big employers are looking at graduates with practical experience, moving away from the norm of high class graduates from red brick universities
