Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Time Lord says it all works out in the end though.... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqtVNvRSIWw&fe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqtVNvRSIWw&fe...
Dr Who The f
k said:
k said: It's going to save the planet
Another lefty luvvie swallows the yarn....chris watton said:
I caught this on SKY News earlier this morning,
'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...
Not really a new idea though, the estate that I live on has been a smoke free zone for I would guess over 30 years and was introduced to deal with the smog from a thousand coal fires located in a few square miles. Everyone moved onto smokeless fuel and eventually gas and electric central heating.'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...
.
The Don of Croy said:
Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?
Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
Why don't you just don't go out there ( just walking on foot) and do a documentary sayingGreat images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
"Actually, it is really cold"
To give an alternative viewpoint?
I tell you why, because you are all mouth. Sorry, keyboard.
paulrockliffe said:
Second question, seeing as I'm here, is anyone doing any research on the impact of extracting energy from the atmosphere with all these wind turbines? And what the impact of installing enough to satisfy the lentilists and free-loaders might be? Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.
The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.
If the wind is not moving at all it must be warmer? Do you actually mean air rather than wind? If wind is not moving it is not wind. Nonsensical The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.
I wouldn't bother going on the climate change science thread if I was you, you might be in trouble.
Slowing the wind with turbines ...
And after all that you saying "Given how poor the science is around climate"
Go on Einstein, tell us how poor it is. snigger.
The Don of Croy said:
Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?
Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
You'd have preferred he shot a documentary about Russia on his own in his bedroom? Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
What did you think hearing it directly from people who are on the extremes of the climate and therefore experiencing the effects of AGW first hand?
Edited by durbster on Saturday 30th September 09:51
Gandahar said:
paulrockliffe said:
Second question, seeing as I'm here, is anyone doing any research on the impact of extracting energy from the atmosphere with all these wind turbines? And what the impact of installing enough to satisfy the lentilists and free-loaders might be? Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.
The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.
If the wind is not moving at all it must be warmer? Do you actually mean air rather than wind? If wind is not moving it is not wind. Nonsensical The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.
I wouldn't bother going on the climate change science thread if I was you, you might be in trouble.
Slowing the wind with turbines ...
And after all that you saying "Given how poor the science is around climate"
Go on Einstein, tell us how poor it is. snigger.
gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Slowing the wind with turbines is hardly a controversial statement.
I think it's perspective thats lacking here. The size if the turbines and the amount of wind 'slowed' compared to the amount in the system.gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Slowing the wind with turbines is hardly a controversial statement.
I think it's perspective thats lacking here. The size if the turbines and the amount of wind 'slowed' compared to the amount in the system.Whoever it was that saw fit to mock the notion that turbines slow the wind may be interested to know that this is exactly how they extract energy (KE) from it to generate electricity. A higher wind speed passing over a moist surface becoming a lower wind speed (not no wind) can result in less cooling i.e. higher temperatures due to reduced evaporation, a latent heat effect. The person doing the mocking really ought to stay out of the science thread.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
stop being ridiculous.
The Swept area of a Turbine, of all the turbines in a wind farm site, versus the Air above, below and around it.
SFA.
Stop talking rot or if you can't resist it, get in touch with the lead authors Zhou, Keith and Vautard, peer reviewed papers cited in this thread recently and two in the Future of UK Energy thread last month.The Swept area of a Turbine, of all the turbines in a wind farm site, versus the Air above, below and around it.
SFA.
One of those papers shows measured warming around windfarms i.e. local warming: that's data, evidence, not vested interest waffle. Anther of those papers scales up to so-called decarbonisation levels of windfarm proliferation ... and Hey Presclot, global warming. Windfarms.
In addition the scientific content, and related comments, in my post were accurate. There was nothing remotely ridiculous.
After demonstrating your scientific illiteracy with imaginary units of MW/hr you ought to be very wary of wading in to anything beyond the depth of a puddle.
durbster said:
The Don of Croy said:
Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?
Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
You'd have preferred he shot a documentary about Russia on his own in his bedroom? Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.
But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...
Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.
But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.
What did you think hearing it directly from people who are on the extremes of the climate and therefore experiencing the effects of AGW first hand?
Edited by durbster on Saturday 30th September 09:51
list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
mondeoman said:
Oh go on, I'll bite....
list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
What are you on about?list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
I don't think people watching the permafrost melt before their very eyes are relying on supposition and climate models to accept the world is warming.
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
Oh go on, I'll bite....
list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
What are you on about?list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
I don't think people watching the permafrost melt before their very eyes are relying on supposition and climate models to accept the world is warming.
durbster said:
What are you on about?
I don't think people watching the permafrost melt before their very eyes are relying on supposition and climate models to accept the world is warming.
if you know the composition of the permafrost layer you might wonder how it was created prior to being frozen. it certainly didn't occur while the ground was frozen solid.I don't think people watching the permafrost melt before their very eyes are relying on supposition and climate models to accept the world is warming.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
stop being ridiculous.
The Swept area of a Turbine, of all the turbines in a wind farm site, versus the Air above, below and around it.
SFA.
the thing is the co2 content of the atmosphere is sfa in the big scheme of things yet many make a big deal about that. i am glad some research is occurring into what the effects of taking energy out of the atmospheric energy streams and hopefully the same will happen if tidal power ramps up. several years ago i couldn't find anything in terms of research on this,someone else obviously finds it worth looking into.The Swept area of a Turbine, of all the turbines in a wind farm site, versus the Air above, below and around it.
SFA.
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
Oh go on, I'll bite....
list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
What are you on about?list + references + confirmed link to AGW. No supposition, no models, direct causal links only allowed.
I don't think people watching the permafrost melt before their very eyes are relying on supposition and climate models to accept the world is warming.
robinessex said:
Todays mad CC story
Climate change: Ministers should be 'sued' over targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41401656
Ministers should tighten the UK's official climate change target - or face the courts, the government's former chief scientist has said.
Prof Sir David King is supporting a legal case forcing ministers to shrink carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
The killer paragraph in the report ?
"It argues that Business Secretary Greg Clark is obliged under the act to tighten targets if the science shows it's needed. This is the basis of the case."
So how is Science going to show it's needed? Is all the existing so called Science going to be accepted as fact and correct, or is challenging it going to be allowed?
Has the world gone crazy ?
Climate change: Ministers should be 'sued' over targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41401656
Ministers should tighten the UK's official climate change target - or face the courts, the government's former chief scientist has said.
Prof Sir David King is supporting a legal case forcing ministers to shrink carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
The killer paragraph in the report ?
"It argues that Business Secretary Greg Clark is obliged under the act to tighten targets if the science shows it's needed. This is the basis of the case."
So how is Science going to show it's needed? Is all the existing so called Science going to be accepted as fact and correct, or is challenging it going to be allowed?
Has the world gone crazy ?
Just at the moment based on the sorts of things apparently deemed to be important (not only for Climate stuff) the answer would have to be "yes".
Fracking to be banned immediately in Scotland
http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
robinessex said:
Fracking to be banned immediately in Scotland
http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
So banning something they probably don't have much of anyway. Well done Scotland.....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff