Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
Art0ir said:
Ooh, could it be this: "Michael E. Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors had made conservative data choices in their analysis."Presumably they aren't referring to any work on correlation, given the mass buggering up of data analysis in his previous triumph!
Art0ir said:
Quite a bit I'd say."believed to be"
"suggesting"
"scientists said"
"Scientists believe"
"Like previous such efforts, the method gives only an approximation"
"The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.)"
(But even though they suggest it was warmer then, we'll ignore that inconvenient truth. http://www.thegwpf.org/doug-hoffman-medieval-warm-...
"scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases"
(bit like saying a piss in the ocean will cause flooding)
"During the long climatic plateau of the early Holocene, global temperatures were roughly the same as those of today
(What, you mean perfectly normal between ice ages?)
Dr. Mann said. “It’s the unprecedented speed with which we’re changing the climate that is so worrisome.”
(Why then, despite your predictions, further 'enormous' increases in mankind's minute contribution to a minute trace gas, has it stopped for the last 17 years?)
turbobloke said:
Planet Zorg WaPo blogger blames nature for inadequate computer model performance after widespread vinerism
Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post: "Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up."
Click
What a steaming pile of Vinerism.Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post: "Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up."
Click
King Coal Reigns As Global Powerhouse - 3000 Billion Tons Of Coal For 1000 Years
Coal by 2030 will be the most widely used fuel worldwide as developing countries electrify burgeoning cities and rural areas where billions of people have had no or little access to power, according to the International Energy Agency.
The U.S., Europe and Japan may debate the merits of coal versus nuclear, natural gas, wind and other cleaner fuels, but for developing countries that have considerably less income and wealth to pay for power projects, those more-expensive sources of power are rarely realistic alternatives. For this vast swath of humanity, coal remains the main or only alternative to improve their lives with a reliable energy source. In China, coal fuels 80 percent of electric generation, and the country in the past five years has added more coal plants to its grid than the entire fleet of U.S. power generators. China’s appetite for coal is so voracious that it soon will consume more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Patrice Hill, The Washington Times, 04 March 2013
There’s a heck of a lot of fossil fuels in the world. Loads of it. In 2005 they found 3000 billion tons of the stuff near Norway. Yes, it is under water and nearly impossible to mine at present. But technology changes. Whenever it is desirable enough, we can send small robotic mining machines down to get it. So if world reserves are about 250 years worth, that makes it about 750 years more for a total of about 1000 years worth of coal. One can only wonder how much more coal is under the ground and water of the world. The bottom line is that we’re drowning in energy resources. We don’t run out for thousands of years, or never; depending on coal or uranium as the item of interest.
Musings from the Chiefio, 08 March 2013
Coal by 2030 will be the most widely used fuel worldwide as developing countries electrify burgeoning cities and rural areas where billions of people have had no or little access to power, according to the International Energy Agency.
The U.S., Europe and Japan may debate the merits of coal versus nuclear, natural gas, wind and other cleaner fuels, but for developing countries that have considerably less income and wealth to pay for power projects, those more-expensive sources of power are rarely realistic alternatives. For this vast swath of humanity, coal remains the main or only alternative to improve their lives with a reliable energy source. In China, coal fuels 80 percent of electric generation, and the country in the past five years has added more coal plants to its grid than the entire fleet of U.S. power generators. China’s appetite for coal is so voracious that it soon will consume more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Patrice Hill, The Washington Times, 04 March 2013
There’s a heck of a lot of fossil fuels in the world. Loads of it. In 2005 they found 3000 billion tons of the stuff near Norway. Yes, it is under water and nearly impossible to mine at present. But technology changes. Whenever it is desirable enough, we can send small robotic mining machines down to get it. So if world reserves are about 250 years worth, that makes it about 750 years more for a total of about 1000 years worth of coal. One can only wonder how much more coal is under the ground and water of the world. The bottom line is that we’re drowning in energy resources. We don’t run out for thousands of years, or never; depending on coal or uranium as the item of interest.
Musings from the Chiefio, 08 March 2013
Meredith Thring and telechiric mining techniques. This was proposed in the seventies as a means of extracting coal from the ground without the hazards of sending men underground to mine it. I don't know what happened to the NCB study but I expect Arthur Scargill does.
motco said:
Meredith Thring and telechiric mining techniques. This was proposed in the seventies as a means of extracting coal from the ground without the hazards of sending men underground to mine it. I don't know what happened to the NCB study but I expect Arthur Scargill does.
It's much more noble to send sweaty militant yorkshiremen underground than robots; thanks Arthur. 
Dear F,
Can I help?
regards,
Jet
Can I help?
mybrainhurts said:
FiF said:
Of course by now we have handed over pretty much all of our expertise and facilities for the manufacturing of advanced PF coal fired plant. I'm so angry I can't finish typing before I throw this keyboard out of the closed WINDOW 
Go on, go on....you can do itJet
hidetheelephants said:
motco said:
Meredith Thring and telechiric mining techniques. This was proposed in the seventies as a means of extracting coal from the ground without the hazards of sending men underground to mine it. I don't know what happened to the NCB study but I expect Arthur Scargill does.
It's much more noble to send sweaty militant yorkshiremen underground than robots; thanks Arthur. I imagine there are a number of pilot studies that have been done over the years, probably with some really good innovative thinking, that were shelved due to 'labour concerns'. Much better that an entire industry (and 5% of the UK's current energy need) dies a slow death.
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, yes, Earth Hour. Must remember to switch everything on.
I'm living dangerously; I'm sitting in front of a blazing coal fire with the door open. I think I'll stoke up and open the curtains to let some of the heat out. If it gets much hotter I'll be taking clothes off. 
Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 8th March 19:32
"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time."
This much trumpeted claim from Marcott et al regarding ‘unprecedented’ warming is a cherry pick to start with (why look only at the last 1500 years) and to finish with it looks to be incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-a...
Politics polluting science again?
This much trumpeted claim from Marcott et al regarding ‘unprecedented’ warming is a cherry pick to start with (why look only at the last 1500 years) and to finish with it looks to be incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-a...
Politics polluting science again?
hidetheelephants said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, yes, Earth Hour. Must remember to switch everything on.
I'm living dangerously; I'm sitting in front of a blazing coal fire with the door open. I think I'll stoke up and open the curtains to let some of the heat out. If it gets much hotter I'll be taking clothes off. Globs said:
hidetheelephants said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, yes, Earth Hour. Must remember to switch everything on.
I'm living dangerously; I'm sitting in front of a blazing coal fire with the door open. I think I'll stoke up and open the curtains to let some of the heat out. If it gets much hotter I'll be taking clothes off. Switch EVERYTHING on...
We've got to keep this bloody planet warm and compensate for the loony sheep switching everything off...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff