Forum menu
Not trolling these are my beliefs.
Excellent - please take a walk to the middle of Afghanistan and start writing some graffiti about prophets. Take a video camera too so it will give us all a giggle.
Zokes. I am a Muslim. People in my family have fought in the British army in Afghanistan.
If you feel strongly about something try and keep your comments on topic and not post as an attack another person.
Surprised at the rabidness of the greenies - seems to stem from a heightened sense of self importance
If you feel strongly about something try and keep your comments on topic and not post as an attack another person.
Ok if you are not a troll then you are not that bright
Any one know how long until fossil fuels run out?
Why are you surprised mega? STW is merely reflecting the real world. A little understood topic (nb, Met Office's description of the current state of knowledge on natural cycles) combined with massively entrenched and polarised positions. Question any side at your peril!!!!!
Any one know how long until fossil fuels run out?
Even in human time scales, not long.
Actual time frame isn't really know. Any figure given will be a guess, some educated, others less educated.
Still, not like we rely on fossil fuels for much.
allmountainventure - MemberAny one know how long until fossil fuels run out?
chuffing ages.
coal? - we've got loads of it.
gas? - we've got loads of it.
oil? - well, we've got something like 70ish* years of the kind of stuff that we buy from saudi arabia, but there's a mind boggling amount when we include all the stuff that needs a bit more processing - tar sands, oil shale, etc. (see Alberta)
(*if you add up all the claimed reserves, and divide it by the annual consumption, then we've got almost exactly 100 years left, but it's generally accepted that most countries are a bit optimistic when they're asked how much they've got...)
exactly 100 years left
We have very different ideas of "chuffing ages"
but that's just the easy stuff.
there's much more than that when you look at oil/tar sand/shale, much much more.
many hundreds of years worth.
of all the important natural resources that we'll run out of, fossil fuels are way down the list.
many hundreds of years worth.
Sorry, Im probably not coming across how I'd like.
By human time scales I'm talking millennia.
sorry, i'm probably being a bit flippant.
my point is that we cannot rely on the depletion of fossil fuels to curb our use in such a way to limit the impact of climate change.
There are going to be Energy Wars well before the natural hydrocarbon reserves actually "run out". If we don't pull our fingers out, and invest in a generation system that has sufficient power density (nuclear for example) to support our ever growning power consumption, it's going to get messy!!
For example, when asked in a survey, "Would you like wind turbines or a Nuclear power station to be built" most people naturally answer "wind turbines". But, that isn't the real question, which should be "Would you like wind turbines and rolling blackouts in your power supply, or nuclear power generation and no blackouts". I'd bet the answer would be very different.......
Of course, some things are really going to struggle without cheap abundant hydrocarbon fuels, for example, air transport. Battery electric plane anyone? (too heavy to fly, and only can taxi for 12miles before the battery is flat 😉
Speaking of which, any seen owt about the remake of Mad Max?
I reckon the Energy Wars started around twenty years ago.
Why are you surprised mega? STW is merely reflecting the real world.
What scientists saying one thing right wing polemicist denying it and presenting no evidence?
A little understood topic
What do you mean? It s a very well understood topic - what is your point ? You dont understand? See cancer example earlier- is this well understood or poorly understood? \our understanding cannot tell you which smoker will get cancer so we should reject it all ?
combined with massively entrenched and polarised positions. Question any side at your peril!!!!!
My position is not entrenched- i am scientist so it is evidence based if you want to alter my opinion simply present some data that refutes the current scientific consensus - will I have a long wait? or will i just need to endure more philosophical attacks without any data?
Its funny how global warming is the right wing [non scientist] conspiracy and really i did expect better of you THM
We dont always agree but i always had you down as a rationalist who followed the evidence
Indeed JY - rationalist who "tries" to follow the evidence and dislikes calling others who disagree "not very bright" 😉
A "little understood topic" - not my words, the words of Met Office. Happy to take their word for it, they are scientists after all 😉
Happy to take their word for it
When it suits you. 🙂
I know, confirmation bias DD. I'm uniquely affected by it. 😉
A "little understood topic" - not my words, the words of Met Office.
What did they say about whether there was man made global warming as I feel certain you want to maintain your halo of non bias.
Your evidence and data was once more absent 😕
I am genuinely surprised you are doing this
imagine TJ did this over say OBR revising the growth figures after they have more data- i feel sure you would be saying exactly the same things as you are here.
The same things can be said they go it wrong before,no one really understands, its poor modelling etc
Get on with enjoying your life, be sensible
Exactly. I would say not filling the air with pollutants would come under 'sensible'.
Imagine if CO2 was a sicky green colour, smelled nasty but was otherwise harmless. I think we'd have found a way to sort it out pretty quickly.
What all of us do all day every day is the equivalent of throwing McDs wrappers out of the car window. That would get universally condemned on here and anywhere else. Just because we can't see CO2 people go a little bit stupid.
I've not bothered reading any of the above but suggest that global warming must be a good thing. The melting polar caps release more water to turn to rain. So more for the increasing population to drink, as long as they move to the right areas.
you want to alter my opinion simply present some data that refutes the current scientific consensus
Well, the key problem is that the observed data does refuse to fit the current scientific consensus, and the IPCC modelled predictions have had to be [i]repeatedly[/i] revised downwards.
Trenberth to Mann Email:
[i]The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming : but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. [/i]
Notice that - the data is/are (a whole other argument) wrong - which flies against one of the key principles of science, that when scientific data fails to support a theory, then one may have to rethink the theory!
the key problem is that the observed data does refuse to fit the current scientific consensus*well if a quote from the climategate hack does not disprove then I dont know what does.
Even you accept its only may so not the strongest point you will ever make
* is it really your view that data does not match the view of all the scientists and they have all just made a big mistake - should be a piece of piss to prove that.My bold
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16][b] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations[/b]* that is just not true
maxtorque - Member
There are going to be Energy Wars well before the natural hydrocarbon reserves actually "run out". If we don't pull our fingers out, and invest in a generation system that has sufficient power density (nuclear for example) to support our ever growning power consumption, it's going to get messy!!
so where are you getting the uranium from in this plan of yours to avoid energy wars?
So are we talking thousands of years of fossil fuels or hundreds?
Molgrips has a point. I've just lit my wood burner so it's stinking out the street and filling the air with fine particles that are very unhealthy, but it's carbon neutral.
are we talking thousands of years of fossil fuels or hundreds?
Hundreds with ever harder ways of getting to it - Arctic oil or fracking gas for example
Hundreds with ever harder ways of getting to it - Arctic oil or fracking gas for example
I think the more worrying figure is it takes an estimated 3 million years for the earth to form 1 years worth of fossil fuels at current consumption levels.
Nice link but the deniers do like to use the record high year id el nino in 98 as the start point [ though iirc we had 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record in the intervening period!]
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend:1998 [/img]
rather than
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1907/plot/wti/trend:1907 [/img]
then then moan about cherry picking data
The issue for fossile fuels is likely to become economic before it becomes actually scarce. (In someways it already is).
For example, battery electric cars are currently un-economic compared to conventional cars, but if fuel prices doubled, which they easily could (harder to find, extract, refine poor quality crude supplies, and more people wanting it (commercial pressures), then those uneconomic batteries suddenly become viable!
Ignoring the climate change arguments, moving to a more renewable or a higher energy density system is only a good thing in the long run. Funnily enough, the very thing that has made certain Gulf states rich on oil money, could also make them rich on renewables (lots of sunlight = lots of photosynthesis = lots of plant matter = lots of oil, But now, lots of sunlight = >solar energy generation (via various methods))
Nice link but the deniers do like to use the record high year id el nino in 98 as the start point [ though iirc we had 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record in the intervening period!]
What you can't get away from, is that the recognised and accepted modelled predictions laid forth by the experts in the field were for a continued increase throughout this period and this has not only spectacularly not happened, but the models have been revised downwards to reflect this.
Which means that the predictions and modelling that we have been told were reliable, consensus, and based on the best science available were fundamentally wrong.
so Junky, if the predictions were wrong two years ago, have been continually wrong in their predictions for the past sixteen years, then why on earth do you feel that they can be relied upon now?
I like your use of "spectacularly" and "fundamentally". Lends you more credibility, so it does. Keep it up!
So, you're actually disagreeing, or saying I'm wrong? or just relying on passive-aggressive faint praise to try and dismiss an argument which is factually correct?
Can you show anything to support your claim that the models are inaccurate then?
Let's forget adverbs. Everybody knows they're the tool of the lazy writer. So let's see your best graphs then.
[img] 
[/img]
Red line is the model, blue line is the actual:
[img] 
?w=640&h=397[/img]
is that the recognised and accepted modelled predictions laid forth by the experts in the field were for a continued increase throughout this period and this has not only spectacularly not happened, but the models have been revised downwards to reflect this.
there are graphs and everything to show you the trend [ i know how much you like them] - You quoted me saying 8 out of 10 of the hottest years since records began. Also the earlier link debunking this claim and removing weather - el nino high for example from the graphs shows it is still an upward trend and a revision downward is still an increase hence your “wise” choice of words- suggesting a drop would be the spectacular claim you make but it is not what has happened .
Which means that the predictions and modelling that we have been told were reliable, consensus, and based on the best science available were fundamentally wrong.
What is this Hyprebole day at Zulu mansions?
By fundamently wrong you mean not 100% accurate. I gave you the model of smoking whereby they cannot tell me how many smokers would die if there was an increase in smoking nor which ones would die. I dont class that model as fundamentally wrong it is just incomplete like any complex model. As long as the broad prediction of increase is accurate we would hold the model to be sound and the theory sound - we would not reject it because it was say 15 % out on how many cancer sufferers we get what we would do is remodel it whilst still maintain that smoking caused cancer- well i would who knows what you would do.
Its nothing like you describe and saying fundamentally wrong is fundamentally wrong 🙄
so Junky, if the predictions were wrong two years ago, have been continually wrong in their predictions for the past sixteen years, then why on earth do you feel that they can be relied upon now?
Your description of this is at best spin and at worst lies.
However rely on them or rely on you ...its a tough choice I will get back to you on that on
dismiss an argument which is factually correct?
its just possible you believe that but I doubt it. i dont think anything you have said [ possibly ever on here 😉 ] is factually accurate
Notice that - the data is/are (a whole other argument) wrong - which flies against one of the key principles of science, that when scientific data fails to support a theory, then one may have to rethink the theory!
The worrying thing is that you clearly have no idea how science works. It is equally possible that measurements are not accurate enough - especially when it comes to measuring fractions of a degree, averaged across the planet.
This is a common argument between modellers and empiricists. A model may only be as good as the data that feeds it, but it is also a fallacy to assume that measurements are perfectly accurate. In which case, predictions from a model based on correct theory may on occasion give more correct results than apparent measured values.
People get too caught up in the temperature thing and fail to see the wood for the trees. A lot of us on this forum have been around for half a century or so - what have you experienced? I've come to expect more storms that are more intense, more freak weather events, more humid Summers, less snow at low altitudes.
It's not just my imagination; I spent some time checking climatic data and the winters of my youth were colder, the Summers were drier. It's all on the Met Office site and Méteo de France. No flooding events in my local area from 63 to 82, 13 since 82.
I'm in a part of the world in which the climate is getting warmer, some parts are getting cooler and overal ther's a smalll warming. What we mustn't lose sight of is that there is climate change and the changes are consitent with a higher energy regime in the atmosphere as predicted by a greenhouse gas model.
predictions from a model based on correct theory may on occasion give more correct results than apparent measured values.
I'm just going to get my head around that for a minute. 🙂
In the meantime, I thought I'd read somewhere that current models have been quite successful in "predicting"* temperatures back to around 1800, no?
*I'm not sure how one describes "predicting" the past, but you know what I mean.
well its easier to predict the past as a rule DD
shortest assesment is here
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html
[img] 
[/img]
FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)
I'm just going to get my head around that for a minute.
Another way of putting it would be that models based upon long term data may be more accurate than new short term data.
But it's late here, and I've a carbon sequestration grant to finish writing before I can go to bed
Where are you zokes? Are you in Aus? Seems like the local press are stirring things up a bit today!
I bet a lot of people would love that quote - "models based upon long term data may be more accurate than new short term data." A new avenue for willy-waving!
Yeah, I get ya zokes.
Sleep tight.