Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
mondeoman said:
loafer123 said:
LongQ said:
A positive spin on the problems of intermittency from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36516585
Another connector to France!
So, what if the french close down a large part of their Nuclear fleet if Germany tells them to? Or because they decided to go "free Wind"?
£1.1 billion cost to go 150 miles (is the channel getting wider?). Is that a bargain?
If so, why does it take a Ukrainian business owner fronted by a (bought and paid for?) Lord some-one-or-other to make the investment? Is it really just some form of Money Laundering?
It is a commercial bet on the fact that we will need energy due to the ludicrous energy policy of successive governments and that therefore they can invest and make lots of money.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36516585
Another connector to France!
So, what if the french close down a large part of their Nuclear fleet if Germany tells them to? Or because they decided to go "free Wind"?
£1.1 billion cost to go 150 miles (is the channel getting wider?). Is that a bargain?
If so, why does it take a Ukrainian business owner fronted by a (bought and paid for?) Lord some-one-or-other to make the investment? Is it really just some form of Money Laundering?
It's fairly clear what it is. Even clearer that someone from an apparently "basketcase" country outside the EU feels that it is a good bet to make.
Maybe the the EU should pay off Russia and get these Ukrainians running the economy ASAP. They seem to be prepared to go where others fear to tread - or rather fail to see the opportunity. Or perhaps have no leverage to make it work.
You might have thought that someone like Dyson could be interested in trying to ensure continuity of supply given that his entire product portfolio relies on electricity.
Once upon a time this country employed mercenaries to control countries and territories that provided a market for its industrial output and a source of materials for factories.
Now the mercenaries are in control and the manufacturers have moved off sure.
Just another empire at the end of its developments cycle?
Meanwhile, this.
put into perspective by this:
along with some observations related to an article from Bloomberg:
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-produc...
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-produc...
put into perspective by this:
along with some observations related to an article from Bloomberg:
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-produc...
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-produc...
LongQ said:
Meanwhile, this.
The old trick, a massive increase in bugger all, is still bugger all! And extrapolate the cost.As an antidote to the BBC scouring every corner of the world for continuous wind/flood stories to post on the UK weather page, here is a selection of unusual/massive snowfalls currently.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/13/surprise-sn...
The Beebs CC puff piece for today
El Niño likely to boost CO2 in 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3652...
"A big spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels means the greenhouse gas is about to pass a symbolic threshold."
Er, yes, the only 'greenhouse gas' bit correct is that CO2 is pumped into greenhouse to make the plants grow more !!
Further into the article, is the following:-
"the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
So why the words "our ongoing influence on the climate system" when its all due to El Niño ?
El Niño likely to boost CO2 in 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3652...
"A big spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels means the greenhouse gas is about to pass a symbolic threshold."
Er, yes, the only 'greenhouse gas' bit correct is that CO2 is pumped into greenhouse to make the plants grow more !!
Further into the article, is the following:-
"the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
So why the words "our ongoing influence on the climate system" when its all due to El Niño ?
robinessex said:
Further into the article, is the following:-
"the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
They do like to move the goalposts, don't they? "the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
Not so very long ago, we were warned that 400 ppm would bring Armageddon on steroids, turned up to 11.
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Further into the article, is the following:-
"the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
They do like to move the goalposts, don't they? "the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
Not so very long ago, we were warned that 400 ppm would bring Armageddon on steroids, turned up to 11.
XM5ER said:
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Further into the article, is the following:-
"the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
They do like to move the goalposts, don't they? "the last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.
"There's nothing magical about this number," said Prof Richard Betts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
"We don't expect anything suddenly to happen. It's just an interesting milestone that reminds us of our ongoing influence on the climate system," he told BBC News."
Not so very long ago, we were warned that 400 ppm would bring Armageddon on steroids, turned up to 11.
They first rang the alarm when it went over 400ppm at Hawaii, then when it went over 400 at Cape Grim (great name), and now that it is likely to stay over 400 in Hawaii for the whole year.
(Remeber CO2 varies over the globe to a certain extent, and cycles up/down yearly too.)
So every days's Christmas day for a climate alarmist, you can make up constant unprecedented benchmarks for the same stat, and ring that 400ppm bell over and over again.
(Remeber CO2 varies over the globe to a certain extent, and cycles up/down yearly too.)
So every days's Christmas day for a climate alarmist, you can make up constant unprecedented benchmarks for the same stat, and ring that 400ppm bell over and over again.
The obvious implication is that we should "fight" El Nino. Humans seem to be especially good at "fighting".
Perhaps the Russians could be persuaded to use their resources to tow a few icebergs from the poles up to the Mid Pacific area to cool down the water next time it starts to get warm.
A couple of nuclear tugs floating around awaiting the next calving in the South would be handy. And of course taking ice from the north would have the added benefit of allowing continued reporting of dramatic ice loss from the Arctic.
So many benefits from one simple idea .....
Perhaps the Russians could be persuaded to use their resources to tow a few icebergs from the poles up to the Mid Pacific area to cool down the water next time it starts to get warm.
A couple of nuclear tugs floating around awaiting the next calving in the South would be handy. And of course taking ice from the north would have the added benefit of allowing continued reporting of dramatic ice loss from the Arctic.
So many benefits from one simple idea .....
Mr GrimNasty said:
They first rang the alarm when it went over 400ppm at Hawaii, then when it went over 400 at Cape Grim (great name), and now that it is likely to stay over 400 in Hawaii for the whole year.
(Remeber CO2 varies over the globe to a certain extent, and cycles up/down yearly too.)
So every days's Christmas day for a climate alarmist, you can make up constant unprecedented benchmarks for the same stat, and ring that 400ppm bell over and over again.
I now have a mental image of climate alarmists as Pavlovs dogs; salivating every time 400ppm is mentioned.(Remeber CO2 varies over the globe to a certain extent, and cycles up/down yearly too.)
So every days's Christmas day for a climate alarmist, you can make up constant unprecedented benchmarks for the same stat, and ring that 400ppm bell over and over again.
Someone sent me this link for an audio "interview" of American Naomi Klein made during the carbon saving conference that was COP21 in France, December 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_2GjzS576A
It is actually worth setting aside one's doubts or potential annoyance and listening to the whole thing.
Those of a certain age who might remember the late 60s and early 70s with some fondness (for whatever reasons) may find themselves hearing familiar concepts outlined.
I wonder if there is a free e version of the book she is promoting - released as part of the COP21 jamboree? There might be more "thought leadership" gems to uncover. It's probably not worth paying anything close to the cover price for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_2GjzS576A
It is actually worth setting aside one's doubts or potential annoyance and listening to the whole thing.
Those of a certain age who might remember the late 60s and early 70s with some fondness (for whatever reasons) may find themselves hearing familiar concepts outlined.
I wonder if there is a free e version of the book she is promoting - released as part of the COP21 jamboree? There might be more "thought leadership" gems to uncover. It's probably not worth paying anything close to the cover price for them.
Alex Epstein's response to AG's Exxon communications fishing expedition.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/16/quote-of-th...
Seems a supposedly climate skeptic project (Showing MWP was global) may have been too popular for a French Government Sponsored climate project competition?
The voting link vanished!
http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/16/inconvenient-ma...
Most sane people would just consider it GOOD science, not worthy or unworthy of publicity because of inconvenient facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/16/quote-of-th...
Seems a supposedly climate skeptic project (Showing MWP was global) may have been too popular for a French Government Sponsored climate project competition?
The voting link vanished!
http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/16/inconvenient-ma...
Most sane people would just consider it GOOD science, not worthy or unworthy of publicity because of inconvenient facts.
Todays Beeb CC puff piece:-
President Obama in Yosemite: 'Climate change is a reality'
Unlike 'Barmy' Obamas brain !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36569614
Lots of unqualified rhetoric and complete ignorance of the climate. Never mind, he'll be gone soon
President Obama in Yosemite: 'Climate change is a reality'
Unlike 'Barmy' Obamas brain !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36569614
Lots of unqualified rhetoric and complete ignorance of the climate. Never mind, he'll be gone soon
Poor old Obama, it was all a bit embarrassing with the Indian PM's visit recently wasn't it, him putting out false stories about India being about to ratify the COP21 agreement, flatly contradicted by India, who now seem to have put it all on the back burner.
So what's a man to do. I know, send Kerry off to stare at some more ice melting in the summer and spout more s
te.
So what's a man to do. I know, send Kerry off to stare at some more ice melting in the summer and spout more s
te.I saw a BBC article today that made much of the well publicised explorer Hempleman-Adams setting off in an aluminium sailing boat (is aluminium significant?) to circumnavigate the North Pole with a team of 7 that, seemingly, includes a child of 16 who, clearly, will be missing some school at some point since the circumnavigation is likely to take 4 months.
Or maybe 3 years as the article claims for the same sort of feat being attempted in time past.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36562176
Why does this item strike me as being wrong on so many different levels?
Or maybe 3 years as the article claims for the same sort of feat being attempted in time past.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36562176
Why does this item strike me as being wrong on so many different levels?
I was going to put this one on the Science thread.
It's about the claims of the first mammal species extinction due to human caused climate change.
Except as this link clearly seems to identify, it's just another example of making a connection to something that may or may not exist but would seem to be unconnected to it even if it does.
Clearly to mention the original paper on the Science thread would be misleading considering its conclusion.
How desperate are these people to take something so obscure as the basis for an attempt at worldwide headline grabbing?
http://euanmearns.com/climate-change-claims-its-fi...
A photo - there are plenty around.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robscruisypics/62661...
Here is a blog with some further comments and an interesting (but rather poor) image of the entire atoll.
Since the creature was "first described in 1924 ..." and is reported as being vegetarian (it seems to suggest in the blog) one has to wonder whether this entire headline grab is really based on anything like science.
The place is clearly something that birds could use. But given it's 20 miles from the nearest land (Papua New Guinea) one has to wonder how the rats got there in the first place.
It also seems likely that the "uniqueness" of the species compared to the huge variety of similar species on other islands, may not be as great as the headlines would like us to believe.
I often wonder whether the claims of huge biodiversity of species is more due to people wanting to discover something that could carry their name far into history and so finding reasons for marginally divergent creatures to be classed as different species (or rather sub-species).
It's about the claims of the first mammal species extinction due to human caused climate change.
Except as this link clearly seems to identify, it's just another example of making a connection to something that may or may not exist but would seem to be unconnected to it even if it does.
Clearly to mention the original paper on the Science thread would be misleading considering its conclusion.
How desperate are these people to take something so obscure as the basis for an attempt at worldwide headline grabbing?
http://euanmearns.com/climate-change-claims-its-fi...
A photo - there are plenty around.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robscruisypics/62661...
Here is a blog with some further comments and an interesting (but rather poor) image of the entire atoll.
Since the creature was "first described in 1924 ..." and is reported as being vegetarian (it seems to suggest in the blog) one has to wonder whether this entire headline grab is really based on anything like science.
The place is clearly something that birds could use. But given it's 20 miles from the nearest land (Papua New Guinea) one has to wonder how the rats got there in the first place.
It also seems likely that the "uniqueness" of the species compared to the huge variety of similar species on other islands, may not be as great as the headlines would like us to believe.
I often wonder whether the claims of huge biodiversity of species is more due to people wanting to discover something that could carry their name far into history and so finding reasons for marginally divergent creatures to be classed as different species (or rather sub-species).
Edited by LongQ on Monday 20th June 03:36
Just a few thoughts on climate change.
I find the ideas of arguing against the fact that the Earths climate is changing a little strange, because change is precisely what the Earths climate is doing, and has done since the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago. Change is what the earths climate does, regardless of whether humans are on the planet or not.
Some believe that humans have had an effect on the Earths climate, and in general I would not argue against this possibility either, but, if as some believe, we have altered the Earths climate, then humans as a species must be devastatingly toxic for the Earth, to have affected the climate in tiny length of time, we have been burning fossil fuels.
The Grand Canyon has an average depth of 1.6 kilometres, and if that were taken to represent the entire history of the Earth from its formation 4.6 billion years ago, to the present day, the entire time that humans have been on the planet, from the first upright apes, to the present day would be represented by a strata, no more than a few millimetres thick, and the time we have been burning fossil fuels, just a fraction of a millimetre thick.
Whilst it is possible for humans to have had an effect on the Earths climate, to do so, in so short a time seems unlikely, but if true, the best thing for the Earth (but not humans) is that we become extinct as many species have done as soon as possible, and allow the Earth to go on its way, until its eventual destruction, when the Sun burns out.
Some have likened humanity to, a skin disease which has erupted on a ball of dirt. Like many skin diseases it will probably leave a few scars here and there, when it is gone, but it will eventually die out, and the earth will carry on its way, as it has done for billions of years.
Many animal species (who it could be argued have had no effect on the Earths climate whatsoever) have gone extinct because they could not cope with, or adapt to the continuous changes to the Earths climate that have occurred over time for various reasons.
Darwin believed that survival was not dependent on being the strongest, or even necessarily the most intelligent, but more likely on the ability to quickly adapt to change.
Rather than vainly trying to control the Earths climate, it may be better for humans to focus on how they can adapt to the changes which WILL occur, whether we like it, or not, (or whether we had a hand in causing those changes, or not)
Alternatively if indeed humans are causing the Earth the equivalent of an unpleasant skin disease, perhaps the sooner we are gone (for the Earth) the better?
The problem is that most try to look at the Earth, and its climate in the scale of the human timeframe, when it should really be viewed in that of the Earths timeframe. the two are not the same.
I find the ideas of arguing against the fact that the Earths climate is changing a little strange, because change is precisely what the Earths climate is doing, and has done since the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago. Change is what the earths climate does, regardless of whether humans are on the planet or not.
Some believe that humans have had an effect on the Earths climate, and in general I would not argue against this possibility either, but, if as some believe, we have altered the Earths climate, then humans as a species must be devastatingly toxic for the Earth, to have affected the climate in tiny length of time, we have been burning fossil fuels.
The Grand Canyon has an average depth of 1.6 kilometres, and if that were taken to represent the entire history of the Earth from its formation 4.6 billion years ago, to the present day, the entire time that humans have been on the planet, from the first upright apes, to the present day would be represented by a strata, no more than a few millimetres thick, and the time we have been burning fossil fuels, just a fraction of a millimetre thick.
Whilst it is possible for humans to have had an effect on the Earths climate, to do so, in so short a time seems unlikely, but if true, the best thing for the Earth (but not humans) is that we become extinct as many species have done as soon as possible, and allow the Earth to go on its way, until its eventual destruction, when the Sun burns out.
Some have likened humanity to, a skin disease which has erupted on a ball of dirt. Like many skin diseases it will probably leave a few scars here and there, when it is gone, but it will eventually die out, and the earth will carry on its way, as it has done for billions of years.
Many animal species (who it could be argued have had no effect on the Earths climate whatsoever) have gone extinct because they could not cope with, or adapt to the continuous changes to the Earths climate that have occurred over time for various reasons.
Darwin believed that survival was not dependent on being the strongest, or even necessarily the most intelligent, but more likely on the ability to quickly adapt to change.
Rather than vainly trying to control the Earths climate, it may be better for humans to focus on how they can adapt to the changes which WILL occur, whether we like it, or not, (or whether we had a hand in causing those changes, or not)
Alternatively if indeed humans are causing the Earth the equivalent of an unpleasant skin disease, perhaps the sooner we are gone (for the Earth) the better?
The problem is that most try to look at the Earth, and its climate in the scale of the human timeframe, when it should really be viewed in that of the Earths timeframe. the two are not the same.
Todays Beeb CC puff piece:-
New crop varieties 'can't keep up with global warming'
Matt McGrath grasping at straws! How appropriate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3657...
The 6th word in that story is 'could'. Didn't read any further.
New crop varieties 'can't keep up with global warming'
Matt McGrath grasping at straws! How appropriate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3657...
The 6th word in that story is 'could'. Didn't read any further.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff