Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[loafer123]

Here's an idea.

We have a power crunch coming due to lack of power station development.

13ish% of energy consumption is down to incandescent bulbs, and given industrial power usage and the use of domestic lighting are generally not at the same time, the proportion of peak power need is probably even greater.

So, rather than building power stations, how about the government simply builds a new tech LED light bulb factory and gives them away, therefore avoiding the power crunch altogether?

Spending also would increase as consumers save money on energy bills, too.

[motco]

loafer123 said:

Here's an idea.

We have a power crunch coming due to lack of power station development.

13ish% of energy consumption is down to incandescent bulbs, and given industrial power usage and the use of domestic lighting are generally not at the same time, the proportion of peak power need is probably even greater.

So, rather than building power stations, how about the government simply builds a new tech LED light bulb factory and gives them away, therefore avoiding the power crunch altogether?

Spending also would increase as consumers save money on energy bills, too.

Far too sensible.

[Art0ir]

This popped up yet on here?

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/...

[Terminator X]

Liking the met office study, those fkers can't even tell me what the weather will be like next week with any certainty.

TX.

[Art0ir]

Terminator X said:

Liking the met office study, those fkers can't even tell me what the weather will be like next week with any certainty.

TX.

I like UKIPs policy. Their level of funding depends on their forecasting accuracy.

[Globs]

Art0ir said:

Terminator X said:

Liking the met office study, those fkers can't even tell me what the weather will be like next week with any certainty.

TX.

I like UKIPs policy. Their level of funding depends on their forecasting accuracy.

Yes, expect AGW activism to be hustled out of the door and some real weather forecasting to begin if their funding depends upon that.
hell, they'd almost be working for us then!

[LongQ]

loafer123 said:

Here's an idea.

We have a power crunch coming due to lack of power station development.

13ish% of energy consumption is down to incandescent bulbs, and given industrial power usage and the use of domestic lighting are generally not at the same time, the proportion of peak power need is probably even greater.

So, rather than building power stations, how about the government simply builds a new tech LED light bulb factory and gives them away, therefore avoiding the power crunch altogether?

Spending also would increase as consumers save money on energy bills, too.

Along the same line of thought, some years ago I suggested that if Governments wanted to reduce 'pollution' from cars (etc.) there was, at the time, fairly clear looking evidence that replecing older cars with newer ones should work well. That's what the official numbers said.

So the obvious things to do was to subsidise all new cars.

Somehow a bit later we ended up with the bastardised system for trading in older cars and seeing some miniscule minimum value set - or whatever the scheme was. A poor and half hearted attempt given that they were making things more difficult and more expensive in other areas of the purchase process.

There is a downside to replacing incandescent bulbs, at least in cold building that need to be warm. The heat given out is not wasted, it acts as background heating. Not great in the warmer times in summer but generally a pretty useful effect. The room I use as my home office (I work mainly from home) is mostly heated only by a single 40W spotlight and whatever computer equipment I have running. If the temp hovers around 0C I might need the odd burst of supporting output from the radiator, or a strong northerly sort of wind might create the same need. But mostly I can leave the rad off.

I can't claim that this is hugely efficient in terms of heating my house but there is a clear effect within the room.

In many cases buildings will have been designed to the standards of the time in which they were built. This could be especially effective for offices where use related to design might be easier to scale and design for than would, say, a house.

If you then attempt to apply usage rules or alternative technologies that relate to different design criteria the results may not be entirely predictable.

[Gun]

MMUGW debate possibly being dropped from the curriculum http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/17/cl... (It is the Guardian so a large pinch of salt is needed)

Moonbat is not happy on Twitter

[turbobloke]

That's good news. The chances of a 'debate' were thin and this affects younger pupils who would be more susceptible to indoctrination.

[Jaged]

Gun said:

MMUGW debate possibly being dropped from the curriculum http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/17/cl... (It is the Guardian so a large pinch of salt is needed)

Moonbat is not happy on Twitter

That is excellent news.

As a soon to be Grandfather, I will ensure my grandchild has both sides of the debate.
But I am hoping by then things will be so obvious I'll not have to bother.

[Globs]

Jaged said:

But I am hoping by then things will be so obvious I'll not have to bother.

I think the relentless refusal of the climate to cooperate would have left the grants, careers and reputations in the dust by then.

I know the science can be readily debunked but not many people know the scientific method - especially these days with constant debasement by warming activists, but the weather and climate is a more powerful, instinctive thing that has, is and will continue to expose the lie of 'warming'.

I just hope by the time the lie is undone too much environmental damage and too many early hypothermic deaths will not have occurred

[PRTVR]

Guam said:

Mansell90 said:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/events/2013/241.htm...

Skip to about 12 mins in where he starts talking about the carbon cycle.

I would be genuinely interested to hear what you think of this presentation... hence why I posted it a couple of pages ago.

That belongs on the science thread tbh. A discussion on that will completely derail this one.

Cheers

Had a quick look at this and it uses the same old scare story
Co2 is a trace gas, find a chart with the Co2 concentrations as a percentage of the overall makeup of the atmosphere,but I suppose a flat line is less scarey , the properties of CO2 are an inert gas that has low thermal insulation properties but is very important for life as plant food
How do we know what was happening in the world when a slice of ice from the core was laid down, massive volcanic eruptions or even a meteor strike we have no idea, we can call the numbers but we have no idea what was happening on the earths surface.
You really need to read all the climate change threads on here all your questions will be answered , it will take some time but it will give you an insight into the reasons most on here don't believe in MMGW

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:53

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:54

[Mansell90]

PRTVR said:

Guam said:

Mansell90 said:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/events/2013/241.htm...

Skip to about 12 mins in where he starts talking about the carbon cycle.

I would be genuinely interested to hear what you think of this presentation... hence why I posted it a couple of pages ago.

That belongs on the science thread tbh. A discussion on that will completely derail this one.

Cheers

Had a quick look at this and it uses the same old scare story
Co2 is a trace gas, find a chart with the Co2 concentrations as a percentage of the overall makeup of the atmosphere,but I suppose a flat line is less scarey , the properties of CO2 are an inert gas that has low thermal insulation properties but is very important for life as plant food
How do we know what was happening in the world when a slice of ice from the core was laid down, massive volcanic eruptions or even a meteor strike we have no idea, we can call the numbers but we have no idea what was happening on the earths surface.
You really need to read all the climate change threads on here all your questions will be answered , it will take some time but it will give you an insight into the reasons most on here don't believe in MMGW

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:53

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:54

If you did actually listen to it then you would realise that the argument of temperature was not at all based upon the earths surface.

I have read, the reason I posted in the first place was that I was so disturbed by what I had seen!

[PRTVR]

Mansell90 said:

PRTVR said:

Guam said:

Mansell90 said:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/events/2013/241.htm...

Skip to about 12 mins in where he starts talking about the carbon cycle.

I would be genuinely interested to hear what you think of this presentation... hence why I posted it a couple of pages ago.

That belongs on the science thread tbh. A discussion on that will completely derail this one.

Cheers

Had a quick look at this and it uses the same old scare story
Co2 is a trace gas, find a chart with the Co2 concentrations as a percentage of the overall makeup of the atmosphere,but I suppose a flat line is less scarey , the properties of CO2 are an inert gas that has low thermal insulation properties but is very important for life as plant food
How do we know what was happening in the world when a slice of ice from the core was laid down, massive volcanic eruptions or even a meteor strike we have no idea, we can call the numbers but we have no idea what was happening on the earths surface.
You really need to read all the climate change threads on here all your questions will be answered , it will take some time but it will give you an insight into the reasons most on here don't believe in MMGW

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:53

Edited by PRTVR on Saturday 20th April 19:54

If you did actually listen to it then you would realise that the argument of temperature was not at all based upon the earths surface.

I have read, the reason I posted in the first place was that I was so disturbed by what I had seen!

Sorry did not have time to watch it all only the start, real world things have got in the way.

[Globs]

Right then Nigel, please post your proof of man made CO2 causing planet heating here

AGW is a settled consensus science so it should just take a few lines, then we can look at each link in greater detail.
Perhaps you can also explain why there hasn't been any warming for a couple of decades in the face of huge increases in CO2 while you are at it?

[BliarOut]

I'd also babe interested in your opinion as to why the models are... Well, wrong.

[Mansell90]

Globs said:

Right then Nigel, please post your proof of man made CO2 causing planet heating here

AGW is a settled consensus science so it should just take a few lines, then we can look at each link in greater detail.
Perhaps you can also explain why there hasn't been any warming for a couple of decades in the face of huge increases in CO2 while you are at it?

Ok, just to preface, I certainly wouldn't personally claim to have proof! Nor do I think there is irrefutable proof personally. I do think (as I am sure you are aware from the goading) that the hypothesis of a partially man made de-stabalising of the climate is more likely than to say we are having no effect.

This is the way the chain of events works in my head -

Firstly of course we have the diversion of the normal carbon cycle from the course it has been taking for the past hundreds of thousands of years. I'm aware this has probably been widely discussed already, and debunked I am sure so feel free to explain why that was to me.

Secondly the temperature (up until the past 20 years admittedly) rose in line with this increase in CO2 levels. Common sense tells me that the past 20 years is likely a blip and that given all the preceding data, which was over a significantly longer period of time, the upward trend is more than likely to continue.

In addition to this surface temperature, upon which the 20 year flat-lining argument is based, is not the most reliable way of measuring the overall temperature of the planet. Much more representative are sea temperatures (there's a lot more water after all) and conveniently water acts like a planetary thermometer, and sea levels are rising, that indicates the planetary temperature is rising.

Arguments over localised temperatures over recent winters such as saying how much snow we have had do seem a little bizarre to me as I don't really see how that represents the bigger picture at all.

Furthermore, it is generally believed that the sharp increase in CO2 will have an effect upon the climate in some way, with the data gathered thus far, it believes a temperature increase. As the models (that I know you all hate) take into account the new data, they will adapt and slowly over time be able to give us more accurate predictions.

I guess the point is that by not acting at all we are taking a huge risk, as we quite simply cannot say for certain the effect we will have long term. Besides that, I don't see developing new sustainable energy sources as a bad thing. Fossil fuels will invariably become more expensive to find and extract, so at some point we will have to develop this technology anyway, is our country being one of the fore-runners in that development a bad thing?

Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?

[PRTVR]

Mansell90 said:

. Fossil fuels will invariably become more expensive to find and extract, so at some point we will have to develop this technology anyway, is our country being one of the fore-runners in that development a bad thing?

Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?

But have we developed new energy sources?, we are throwing money at foreign companies to build windmills while at the same time having to build real power plants for the times when the wind does not blow, driving up energy cost that are driving what little manufacturing we have remaining away.
Our coal fire power stations are due for closure leading to a short fall in electricity production, you must see the madness of closing a few coal power stations in the UK when India and china are on a massive building program of something like one a week , the only thing that comes from this policy is bragging rights, the moral high ground, stuff the fact people will lose their jobs we are trying to save the world, even though the world does not need saving.

You say spend a bit of money is that so bad? Not if you are comfortably off, but if you are poor its a big thing, people in large numbers are been driven into fuel poverty and for what? a flawed idea that has no basis in science, this thread has been running a long time and in all that time the science has been seen to be sadly lacking,the main drive always appears to be an appeal to authority.

[BliarOut]

Mansell90 said:

Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?

Yes.

Thousands die of fuel poverty and land that was once used for food is now used for the production of bio fuels.

What if the political organisations driving Global Warming are wrong and end up killing people in their thousands. Is that a risk worth taking?

[Blib]

Mansell90 you disappoint me. I headed over to this thread hoping to see some firm evidence. All we get is more of the same woolly-minded guff.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the poor polar bears.

People in this country are dying in their hundreds, if not thousands, directly due to the energy policies derived from the theory of MMGW.

What I find most offensive about your appearance on these threads is your patronising attitute to the posters on here. Several of whom are experts in aspects of this issue.

Now, go away and find links to some evidence that backs up your "claims" that can be discussed. There's a good chap.