Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
king joking..mondeoman said:
turbobloke said:
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
king joking..
Article said:
Niall Stuart, chief executive of trade body Scottish Renewables, admitted Scotland did face electricity supply problems in the short-term which could not be overcome solely through green energy generation, such as wind and tidal.
"Mr Soames is right in that we face massive challenges to replace the loss of existing generation in the network," Mr Stuart told The Scotsman. "We will need a mixture of other forms of generation for the foreseeable future. However, what he completely fails to understand is that Scotland is part of the British network and we need to focus on our massive strengths and the economic and environmental benefit of renewables.
"Our research clearly shows Scotland can aim to be 100 per cent renewables in the medium-term if everyone is happy to live in the dark eating dirt and feeling lucky to reach the age of 30 in what will become an economic blackhole."
EFA"Mr Soames is right in that we face massive challenges to replace the loss of existing generation in the network," Mr Stuart told The Scotsman. "We will need a mixture of other forms of generation for the foreseeable future. However, what he completely fails to understand is that Scotland is part of the British network and we need to focus on our massive strengths and the economic and environmental benefit of renewables.
"Our research clearly shows Scotland can aim to be 100 per cent renewables in the medium-term if everyone is happy to live in the dark eating dirt and feeling lucky to reach the age of 30 in what will become an economic blackhole."
Edited by hidetheelephants on Saturday 13th November 20:45
mondeoman said:
turbobloke said:
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
king joking..It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
This would then set a world precident that would bring to forth the daylight robbery that western governments have set up.
This could be the one route that I've been wanting to see for a long time, that being, the people involved who have pushed through all these made up lies liable to prosecution.
AJI said:
This actually is exaclty what this MMGW debacle needs. A proper examination of proof with the science to back it up passed through a court of law. I mean how would the MMGW theory stand up in court when asked to show the science behind it?
It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
That's not what's going to happen, here. This 'opportunity' will be seized. And not in a good way.It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
grumbledoak said:
AJI said:
This actually is exaclty what this MMGW debacle needs. A proper examination of proof with the science to back it up passed through a court of law. I mean how would the MMGW theory stand up in court when asked to show the science behind it?
It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
That's not what's going to happen, here. This 'opportunity' will be seized. And not in a good way.It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
grumbledoak said:
AJI said:
This actually is exaclty what this MMGW debacle needs. A proper examination of proof with the science to back it up passed through a court of law. I mean how would the MMGW theory stand up in court when asked to show the science behind it?
It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
That's not what's going to happen, here. This 'opportunity' will be seized. And not in a good way.It would be torn apart and shown exactly for what it is!
And to whom would one appeal from this kangaroo court ?
"The great danger facing the UK’s Energy Policy is that the history of meddling with the markets; the persistence with which we re-iterate unachievable goals for emissions reduction; the wildly optimistic forecasts of the availability, cost and performance of new technology; all these leave the serious investors, the institutions who have the billions we need, shaking their heads. I think the UK is in danger of becoming unattractive as a place to build new infrastructure. We may wish the replacement to be wind, we may wish the replacement to be tidal but wishing isn’t going to make it happen and I think you have responsibly to have a Plan B. We have to move on from the days of holding hands and singing Kumbaya to the great green God."
Rupert Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, Scottish Parliament, 12 November 2010
Rupert Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, Scottish Parliament, 12 November 2010
There are a number of people who have been pointing out the approaching problems for some years but until recently the 'media' have not been terribly interested. Probably because they are not numerate enough to understand the consequences.
Still, when all the recent immigrants with no long term historic connection to these benighted islands jump ship to somewhere with energy sufficiency ....... 'every cloud ....' as they say.
Meanwhile something that has been puzzling me for a while.
We have known for decades that Oxfam is quite poor at distributing its takings to the needy they claim to assist but for some years now it has clearly been acting as a propaganda agency and political lobbyist.
On that basis why is it still a charity? And how many people is it conning into providing it with funds for junkets like the one reported in the Grauniad?
Still, when all the recent immigrants with no long term historic connection to these benighted islands jump ship to somewhere with energy sufficiency ....... 'every cloud ....' as they say.
Meanwhile something that has been puzzling me for a while.
We have known for decades that Oxfam is quite poor at distributing its takings to the needy they claim to assist but for some years now it has clearly been acting as a propaganda agency and political lobbyist.
On that basis why is it still a charity? And how many people is it conning into providing it with funds for junkets like the one reported in the Grauniad?
LongQ said:
There are a number of people who have been pointing out the approaching problems for some years but until recently the 'media' have not been terribly interested. Probably because they are not numerate enough to understand the consequences.
Still, when all the recent immigrants with no long term historic connection to these benighted islands jump ship to somewhere with energy sufficiency ....... 'every cloud ....' as they say.
Meanwhile something that has been puzzling me for a while.
We have known for decades that Oxfam is quite poor at distributing its takings to the needy they claim to assist but for some years now it has clearly been acting as a propaganda agency and political lobbyist.
On that basis why is it still a charity? And how many people is it conning into providing it with funds for junkets like the one reported in the Grauniad?
It was obviously elaborated on the basis of their findings from their 'important' survey earlier in the year.Still, when all the recent immigrants with no long term historic connection to these benighted islands jump ship to somewhere with energy sufficiency ....... 'every cloud ....' as they say.
Meanwhile something that has been puzzling me for a while.
We have known for decades that Oxfam is quite poor at distributing its takings to the needy they claim to assist but for some years now it has clearly been acting as a propaganda agency and political lobbyist.
On that basis why is it still a charity? And how many people is it conning into providing it with funds for junkets like the one reported in the Grauniad?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/22/the-well-fun...
turbobloke said:
52. "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory" "The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed"
Ah thermos dynamics! A cooler upper atmospheric layer cannot heat a lower one. That would be contrary to the 2nd law
You've moved the goalposts again TB and once again evaded the question.Ah thermos dynamics! A cooler upper atmospheric layer cannot heat a lower one. That would be contrary to the 2nd law
I'll give you the fact there are two statements there and I've only addressed the first one.
But you've failed to provide evidence for the statement in bold.
I've explained the mechanism for the greenhouse effect. Explain what part of what I've said contradicts the 2nd law of themodynamics and I will alter my position.
mybrainhurts said:
Why hide behind another name, Micra man...?
Actually the Mirca is GFs although there was a time when I spent more time driving it than my own due to mechanical repairs. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to provide your own vehicle history to critique?No hiding. Just boredom setting in. I thought the name "G_T" showed a profound lack of imagination.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 16th November 14:14
Lost_BMW said:
IainT said:
G_T said:
Radiation however, is not selective. Photons are emitted in all directions with roughly 50% being out to space and 50% being back towards the Earth.
Do you have an appreciation of the radiative properties of a gas relative to convection and conduction?It's fairly critical to your argument to understand if it forms a significant transfer of energy at all or is, to all intents and purposes, zero.
One key to his regular but feeble attempts to argue 'science' and inability to persuade on here. He can copy and paste for sure, but I doubt he reads any of it and certainly not with any understanding. Mind you, the man is a scientist!
Rather than trying to undermine my arguement, why not simply explain? That is of course, unless you don't know why you are contradicting the bulk scientific evidence.
The BBC's response to this should be interesting..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/16/...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/16/...
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
So no breach in the 2nd law.
The 2nd Law is breached if, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude were to heat a warmer lower layer. Which is what you are claiming with your misunderstanding of single localised events of emission and absorption as cooling and heating, which is not the case. Heating and cooling are net effects over time based on particulate energy distributions and not single acts of absorption or emission. This is the mistake you keep making.turbobloke said:
G_T said:
Also, shock-horror, we have shown an example cooler objects providing heat to warmer ones.
No you haven't. You've described a localised event of emission leading to a localised event of absorption, but the bulk property of temperature will change over time in a net manner according to the shift in energy distribution, and a cooler object cannot heat a warmer one without external work. I thought I made it quite clear in my, admittedly laymans explanation, that I was referring to heat as energy. But for the purposes of my arguement the two are interchangable.
Whether heat is a bulk property or not it is irrelevent as in the context we are talking about transfer of energy.
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bulls
t mechanism rears it's head again!).In much the same way as the cold glass of a greenhouse increases a warm greenhouse further by convection, the cold layer of CO2 provides energy/heat/photons to the ground/layers of atmosphere beneath it by radiation and the external work you keep banging on about as if it somehow undermines the greenhouse theory in both of the above examples is the sun.
Prof Prolapse said:
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
So no breach in the 2nd law.
The 2nd Law is breached if, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude were to heat a warmer lower layer. Which is what you are claiming with your misunderstanding of single localised events of emission and absorption as cooling and heating, which is not the case. Heating and cooling are net effects over time based on particulate energy distributions and not single acts of absorption or emission. This is the mistake you keep making.turbobloke said:
G_T said:
Also, shock-horror, we have shown an example cooler objects providing heat to warmer ones.
No you haven't. You've described a localised event of emission leading to a localised event of absorption, but the bulk property of temperature will change over time in a net manner according to the shift in energy distribution, and a cooler object cannot heat a warmer one without external work. I thought I made it quite clear in my, admittedly laymans explanation, that I was referring to heat as energy. But for the purposes of my arguement the two are interchangable.
Whether heat is a bulk property or not it is irrelevent as in the context we are talking about transfer of energy.
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bulls
t mechanism rears it's head again!).In much the same way as the cold glass of a greenhouse increases a warm greenhouse further by convection, the cold layer of CO2 provides energy/heat/photons to the ground/layers of atmosphere beneath it by radiation and the external work you keep banging on about as if it somehow undermines the greenhouse theory in both of the above examples is the sun.
The post said that temperature is a bulk property. Maybe you should read posts you reply to more slowly, for understanding.
The odd photons you mention originating from the cooler atmospheric layer at altitude that reach the lower layers of the atmosphere near the ground don't cause the warmer lower layer to heat up, the net flow of thermal energy is away from the warmer layer and towards the cooler layer. It's the net flow bit you either don't understand or see as a focus for your obfuscation. Any exchange of thermal radiation between two objects including those not at the same temperature is two-way, the issue of heating or cooling is determined by the net flow and without external work a cooler object will not heat a warmer one.
The glass roof of a garden greenhouse needn't be cold and it doesn't "increase a warm greenhouse further by convection" which you phrase curiously indicating some kind of active role, it stops the inside of the greenhouse from cooling down quicker by preventing convection.
Already mentioned the Sun, see my earlier post. However regardless of your apparent inability to read posts carefully enough and/or forget the content, consider your junkscience proposition in a night-time context for some light entertainment.
People’s Daily Online, 16 November 2010
Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff