Pfffffffffffft. Alarmist.

noone is even close to having any sort of explanation to address either of these 2 points.

Which is why they never try, cherry pick the data and call everyone else alarmist, use headline grabbing statements then skirt the facts (see the David Icke thread)

Ok – not kept up through pages 2-6 – who’s winning STW Ignoramus’ or STW Scientists?

Depends on which data set you use.

I’ve missed a couple of pages but there’s one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that’s not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How’s that going to work ?

I’m assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front…

and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.

A rather interesting way to admit you have no rational reply nor counter to the point I made with the analogy. Then again it is possible it went over your head…bless.

and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.

What will happen if he and Jivehoney ever disagree ….shudders

I shall leave the others to “debate” with you.

I’m assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front…

Don’t be so sure:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM[/video]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/october/141015ae_lockheed-martin-pursuing-compact-nuclear-fusion.html

😯

So reducing what we can and making efficient what we can’t, not a hard concept, there seems to be a belief that it has to be all or nothing and that if we can’t invent the entire star trek technology overnight it’s not worth trying.

I’m assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be

what I was promised in many of the annuals I was given as a kid in the 60’s 👿 Along with free energy and a 3 day week.

Redesining cities to discourage short trips by fossil fuel burning transport is such an obvious thing to do…..

3 day week is true for many……zero hrs contracts etc

I’ve missed a couple of pages but there’s one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that’s not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How’s that going to work ?

Reduce consumption first and foremost, Reuse what you can, Recycle what you can’t.

I’ve missed a couple of pages but there’s one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that’s not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How’s that going to work ?

That’s another reason to push to get away from carbon for electricity generation tbh- it’s a total waste of a finite resource. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, everyone knows fossil fuels will run down and eventually run out.

OK.. so what we’re seeing here is a ‘my graph is better than your graph’ debate, which if I understand correctly, is a debate that has been rumbling on around the world for decades, a debate that the greatest scientific minds of our lifetime are not getting anywhere with..

So how the blinking nora are a handful of cantankerous, barely educated pseudo scientists on a cycling forum gonna fair any better..!?

They’re not gonna fair any better.. end of
So can I ask a more (im)pertinent question?

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

Zokes. The IPCC include scientific agreed data from ice cores to study climate change. The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up. I thought Mike was making an alarmist point within the context of his original post while mocking a denier. Perhaps that wasn’t his intention. Temp records haven’t been smashed in my opinion as we have data that has been researched and agreed upon since the data set began.

I agree climate change is real and happening which is the consensus or scientific fact as we might call it. Not sure I said otherwise!

Thanks for the honest answer on your travel. Yes it does seem very ironic given your passion on the subject but I also understand that sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the bigger picture so you have to make your own judgements. Just ease up a bit on the ‘don’t you know what’s happening’ attitude if you continue to pollute the earth way more than those you are talking too. It is people like you who are polluting the earth excessively not people like me.

Graham. I didn’t say researchers shouldn’t report back their findings, to decipher a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ scenario many many consequences of our actions need to be considered. Yes perhaps we have different versions of records. I used the broad and varied information within the IPCC rather than cherry picking bits. The reason I didn’t say yes to your question was because it wasn’t a yes as it appears we have different versions of ‘records’. You also mentioned alarmist guff about ‘warmer before the continents had drifted’ (or something like that) which threw me.

250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don’t take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!

The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up.

So am I OK saying that since recorded temperature records began as opposed to interpretation and assessment of historic conditions we have broken the records of recorded (on a thermometer) temperatures.

Apologies for mocking a denier but it most if not all are using hollow arguments to defend an ideology rather than anything else, it’s my right to burn all this stuff, it’s not a problem it never will be.

250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don’t take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!

In the 500000 years of data is there a period where CO2 has been released into the atmosphere at the current rate?

Anyway as I’ve said before, even if it’s all wrong and not happening, the benefit of moving to a non carbon economy before it all runs out far outweigh any reasons for sticking with it.

Yunki…your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn’t read any further than that.

The PETM may provide some sort of analogue for CO2 release rates but it was a long time ago and the temporal resolution of carbon into the atmosphere is poor.

gwaelod – Member
Yunki…your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn’t read any further than that.

awwww bless 😆

awwww bless

He’s got a point though.

so they are getting somewhere with it?

whatever, it’s still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post –

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans. 😯

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans.

Point us to the research, then.

IPCC is where it’s all at kit.

so they are getting somewhere with it?

whatever, it’s still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post

Your post didn’t make any points .. it just misrepresented the state of scientific understanding of the climate system….which you caveated with the phrase “which if I understand correctly”. Clearly you don’t.

What do you mean by positive – in a human geography context that’s an entirely subjective statement. In a scientific physical context it’s something that suggests higher magnitudes of something like rainfall/temperature/humidity.

Some people may see the opening of Arctic shipping routes and easier exploitation of arctic resources as positive. A world that is slower to embrace fossil fuel alternatives will see these “positives” sooner.

Physically…temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be “more positive”

For people who say “where’s the research”..

Then I suggest you start with “Arrhenius 1896” then work forward (you can jump forward to IPCC WG1 and go through the references if you want to see where the current state of science is*.

Those of you who are genuinely interested in planetary climate systems (which is **** fascinating btw) and not merely regurgitating drivel from cut and paste sock puppet websites run by swivel eyed loons, then maybe have a look at the MOOC I linked to earlier – it starts next week https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/our-changing-climate

Physically…temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be “more positive”

So you are claiming that climate change due to human activity can therefore be seen as a “positive” achievement ? Are you a right-wing Republican politician ? That surely must be the silliest comment on this thread.

EDIT : Perhaps I misunderstood and you were being sarcastic ? Apologies if you were.

No – positive in the sense of the “magnitudes being larger”…as opposed to positive “being a good thing”

Science = Negative – less – Positive – more

Waffly arts bollocks = Negative – bad – Positive good

It wasn’t clear from wassisinames post which context he meant….so I give “positive” examples of both.

btw although worth remembering that some shallow water species will see an increase in their environmental space as shelf seas gradually encroach onto land – for them…arguably…that’s “positive”…although that needs to be seen in the context of other phsyical and ecosystem changes around them…many of which are likely to be “negative”

what I was promised in many of the annuals I was given as a kid in the 60’s Along with free energy and a 3 day week.

Yahhh, except this time it’s Lockheed Martins Skunkworks working on it.

That makes me excited.

I’ve missed a couple of pages but there’s one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that’s not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How’s that going to work ?

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

You’d have thought sail powered boats would be a no brainer in a modern low energy society. Well understood tech and completely safe. Surely it must be possible?

yunki – Member

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be?

Only 2 I reckon- short term cost savings (eclipsed by longer term costs of failure to adapt), and some reduced consumption of rare materials.

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans.

I’d say measured fact of the reverse is also quite compelling. Look what happened to Australia’s CO2 emissions in the month or so that have followed the repeal of our ‘carbon tax’:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/powering-up-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-sector-start-to-climb-20141104-11ghdu.html

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

I think the Russians and Americans do quite a good line in nuclear powered boats. Not so passenger-friendly, mind you

Theocb: Yeah, sorry, knee-jerk reaction to someone dismissing clearly reliable data whilst not showing their own is to call them out as a denier. It’s usually quite true, but in this case I apologise. However, it would be good if you’d actually post the figure, rather than casually and somewhat unhelpfully suggest I wade through 370 MB of report.

As for the travel, the scientific community in my field are actually really getting quite close to understanding just how soil microbes and plants interact, leading on to the impact that has on nutrient delivery to crops. If we get that sussed, with an approach breed crops to increase the ‘beneficial’ bugs in the soil, it might not be the second green revolution, but it would see a major potential reduction in conventional (fossil-derived) inputs while maintaining yield and increasing resilience. Hopefully the work conducted on my trave;s in some way contributes to that goal, but it’s obviously one of those things that doesn’t happen overnight.

Global warming aside, while nitrogen fertiliser is produced in a highly fossil-intensive process, phosphorus is mined, and it’s running out. If we want to keep growing stuff, we’re going to have to get a lot better at using what we’ve already got.

Unfortunately, science just doesn’t seem to work very well via teleconference. And trust me, as someone who pretty much spent the past month cooped up in economy class, I do really rather it did. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that rather famously, the best new ideas usually arise in the discussions in the bar at the end of the day, rather than during a conference session. SCience is funny like that – in one sense some of the greatest break-throughs have come from minds far more creative and ‘art-like’ than most artists!

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

One day my dream of the international pneumo-transport pipe will become reality

I think the Russians and Americans do quite a good line in nuclear powered boats. Not so passenger-friendly, mind you

Quite expensive to run too!

I wonder how big an airship would have to be to carry the load of a cargo plane?

Or.. better still, how about we attach goods to drones that deploy a balloon to float up into the jetstream, get blown around the world at high speed and then autonomously glide themselves to a nearby drop zone..

Your post didn’t make any points .. it just misrepresented the state of scientific understanding of the climate system….which you caveated with the phrase “which if I understand correctly”. Clearly you don’t.

LOL.. answer the question you useless little prick 😆

My next post did. Try not to move your lips while you read it.

wasn’t that just a pedantic sidestep?

are you really opposed to clean energy?
are you seriously trying to assert that it would offer no long term benefits?

why are you picking on me?
I’m just trying to get informed by folk who apparently have more knowledge on this subject than myself, that being one of the primary uses of a public forum..

splitting hairs and being antsy just seems utterly defeatist

Try not to move your lips while you read it.

😆