|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 3, 2023 11:12:19 GMT
The poll gives him all the answers he needs. Unfortunately the climate does not depend on the opinions of a few people on a forum, but I am interested in how many people really want AGW to go away. And if polls mean something then polls across the UK show 70% of people believe in AGW and that it represents a real threat to mankind and the planet. Yes but we cannot do anything about it. In fact we are making it worse by making it too expensive to manufacture in Europe production is shifting to other areas of the globe that have less environmental restrictions and thus more emissions. Shutting down industry in Europe is great for massaging your virtue but does bugger all to save the planet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2023 11:12:51 GMT
It would be a first if you ever answered any question. You haven't got a frigging clue on climate or what net zero would mean. The poll gives him all the answers he needs. I think we're supposed to change our minds and run the poll again and again until the correct answer is given. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 11:23:50 GMT
The poll gives him all the answers he needs. Ain't that the truth. I don't know why he thinks people aren't going to see through him asking very silly leading questions in an attempt to duck, obfuscate and blur, as a means to continue to foist his opinion on everyone. Funny thing is in his attempt to ignore and dismiss climate change over time he's actually become what he's attempting to slyly ridicule others for - a climate change denier! What is even funnier is that I gave him a get out of jail free card and he looked the gift horse in its mouth. I gave him a better reason to attempt to influence climate control and he's completely avoided it in favour of resetting the thread and continuing to push one narrative which can't be proven. He's so busy trying to argue a point because that is more important to him than what he claims his goal is. This is the mind zone. Please discuss the subject not the poster. I still await your definition of a "relatively short time" and any evidence you have to back it up. Having the support of other people does not make you right. If it did then I can cite almost the entire scientific community on my side. Instead I prefer to offer people facts, links and evidence. You seem unable to answer any of my points and have resorted to the fall back position of insulting the poster as if getting a thumbs up from other AGW deniers on here makes you right. If you have no evidence then fair enough you may follow your beliefs. As for my goal, I have none on here. I don't need to have a goal for what needs doing is being done. If that was my goal I would need do nothing but sit back and boast. Instead I try to bring facts to people who have been fed lies, albeit lies they wish were true. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 3, 2023 11:26:05 GMT
Have you any figures to back that claim? Not sure where your gonna get your nuclear central heating or nuclear cars. Nuclear power may be the answer but it is extremely expensive, it takes decades to get through planning and building them and nobody wants one on their doorstep. All that is before you consider the risk from the plant itself or the really toxic waste materials. Nuclear power is a great solution to supply the energy needed going forward. Its clean (as far as current understanding goes) its cost effective, its predictable, its scalable. The unfortunate situation is that short sightedness over the past 60 years has made getting it off the ground a monumental task. Instead of having a regulated state operator pursuing sensible long term nuclear strategy it was abandoned. The reality is that the UK would need to build around 40 nuclear power stations now in order to meet current demand. It would need to build 8 over the next 7 years just to stand still. It would probably require renationalising electricity and having a national energy strategy controlled by the state. nuclear is great but the economic of it are difficult to manage without control of the market because while its operational cost are very low, the upfront cost is very high, and the payoff is long term. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 3, 2023 11:33:08 GMT
As for my goal, I have none on here. I don't need to have a goal for what needs doing is being done Thread over then. As far as you are concerned the science is settled, the required action is being taken. So you aren't here to discuss anything and never were. All you are doing is trying to batter people over the head with your opinion while ignoring theirs. That is not discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 3, 2023 11:35:40 GMT
Nuclear power may be the answer but it is extremely expensive, it takes decades to get through planning and building them and nobody wants one on their doorstep. All that is before you consider the risk from the plant itself or the really toxic waste materials. Nuclear power is a great solution to supply the energy needed going forward. Its clean (as far as current understanding goes) its cost effective, its predictable, its scalable. The unfortunate situation is that short sightedness over the past 60 years has made getting it off the ground a monumental task. Instead of having a regulated state operator pursuing sensible long term nuclear strategy it was abandoned. The reality is that the UK would need to build around 40 nuclear power stations now in order to meet current demand. It would need to build 8 over the next 7 years just to stand still. It would probably require renationalising electricity and having a national energy strategy controlled by the state. nuclear is great but the economic of it are difficult to manage without control of the market because while its operational cost are very low, the upfront cost is very high, and the payoff is long term. Decommissioning costs are huge too. committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/136734/sorry-saga-of-disused-nuclear-sites-will-cost-generations-of-uk-taxpayer/#:~:text=According%20to%20its%20most%20recent,who%20live%20near%20the%20sites. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 11:39:21 GMT
Nuclear power may be the answer but it is extremely expensive, it takes decades to get through planning and building them and nobody wants one on their doorstep. All that is before you consider the risk from the plant itself or the really toxic waste materials. Nuclear power is a great solution to supply the energy needed going forward. Its clean (as far as current understanding goes) its cost effective, its predictable, its scalable. The unfortunate situation is that short sightedness over the past 60 years has made getting it off the ground a monumental task. Instead of having a regulated state operator pursuing sensible long term nuclear strategy it was abandoned. The reality is that the UK would need to build around 40 nuclear power stations now in order to meet current demand. It would need to build 8 over the next 7 years just to stand still. It would probably require renationalising electricity and having a national energy strategy controlled by the state. nuclear is great but the economic of it are difficult to manage without control of the market because while its operational cost are very low, the upfront cost is very high, and the payoff is long term. I definitely think it should be part of the package. Though we still have the question of what you do with the spent material and the future cost of storage or disposal. Wind and Solar are now providing 35% of our power with hydro, nuclear and biomass making up another 20%. A cheaper option than nuclear will be renewable with various back up supplies, such as hydroelectric, pumped storage, nuclear and even gas turbines. People need to remember net zero does not mean no fossil fuels. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 11:41:09 GMT
As for my goal, I have none on here. I don't need to have a goal for what needs doing is being done Thread over then. As far as you are concerned the science is settled, the required action is being taken. So you aren't here to discuss anything and never were. All you are doing is trying to batter people over the head with your opinion while ignoring theirs. That is not discussion. Its only over if you refuse to back up your claims and continue the conversation. If you consider asking people for supporting evidence is battering them, then yes you are being battered. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 3, 2023 12:23:42 GMT
The rate of change is unable to be compared to past events as we do not have clear data on how fast those changes occurred apart from major catastrophes. Clear data? Depends what you mean. We have a plethora of data from ice cores, everything from the amount of snow fall to the length of summers can get measured from number the bubbles, carbon deposits, pollen etc found in them. A year by year account if you will. What makes you doubt these? www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2018/03/23/heres-how-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/#:~:text=One%20way%20to%20measure%20past,in%20ice%20sheets%20and%20glaciers. So some areas have seen no change, but isn't it disingenuous to imply the only areas that have seen increases are at strategically placed measures in heat islands. We have seen record temperatures in everywhere from Cambridge to Greenland. Are you suggesting the thermometer in my garden was strategically placed. Or that meteorological that have been in place for the last 30 years across the UK have all suddenly found themselves in heat islands? It seems unlikely that the botanical gardens in Cambridge have become a heat island since 1980. As for increased storms, the frequency and severity of storms has definitely increased in the last 20 years. You are just plain wrong here. nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes#:~:text=The%20intensity%2C%20frequency%2C%20and%20duration,Explore%20changes%20in%20hurricanes. The method used to cast doubt on severity is to pick extreme events from history and raise them as the norm. And further to blur the results by quoting things like "The great storm that killed 3,000" without putting any figures to "The great storm" or historical differences in storm defences at the time. However its more difficult to cast doubt on frequency. said our temperature has never increased at such a rate. How do you know. Your link clearly indicated the problems with proxies etc and accuracy on an annual or century scale is as they say difficult and always conjecturalThe whole idea of the US stations was to remove the Heat Island effect and show the increase in temperature clearly defined from points that were not subject to any influence by new buildings etc. There was no increase. As regards hurricanes. NOAA confirm that they can find no trend in Atlantic major hurricanes: The data when examined does not show what is claimed. That is the data used by all the models and upon which the statement that they are 'becoming worse' was based. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/09/bbc-refuse-to-correct-blatantly-false-hurricane-claims/The 2022 season ended with the weakest storm levels for the past 42 years |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 3, 2023 12:26:37 GMT
Thread over then. As far as you are concerned the science is settled, the required action is being taken. So you aren't here to discuss anything and never were. All you are doing is trying to batter people over the head with your opinion while ignoring theirs. That is not discussion. Its only over if you refuse to back up your claims and continue the conversation. If you consider asking people for supporting evidence is battering them, then yes you are being battered. There is no point. You've already dismissed looking at the 500 Million year picture as unimportant. You've already dismissed the fact that global temperatures have changed as much and as quickly during previous glacial and interglacial periods. You refuse to accept that just because you can't look at climate change in little one year snapshots that doesn't mean that what is happening now hasn't been seen before. I would just be wasting my time. I therefore gave you a pass. set aside climate change as a reason to tackle CO2 output, and instead moved to accepting that I'd be up for doing something about it on the principle of 'tidying up after oneself'. leaving things as one found them'. I gave you a suggestion on how to quantify human's impact and then how that might be mitigated but you've refused to engage with it. Since I've given you a reason other than climate change to get buy in, and a suggestion on how to tackle the objective you believe in and you won't engage with it I can only assume you aren't interested in discussing what you claimed to want to discuss. I could have gone down the childish route you are, I could say prove to me that what has been seen over the past 30 years hasn't been seen over the past 500 million years during other interglacial periods. You wouldn't be able to. It is impossible. It is why what you continue to repeat over and over is simply opinion that can never be established in fact. Instead I gave you a way to move the conversation forward. A different reason to do something and a methodology to assess Humanity's impact on atmospheric CO2 with some ideas on how to tackle that once quantified. You've turned your nose up at the opportunity because you are too busy wanting to try to prove a point which is impossible to prove. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 3, 2023 12:31:11 GMT
Thread over then. As far as you are concerned the science is settled, the required action is being taken. So you aren't here to discuss anything and never were. All you are doing is trying to batter people over the head with your opinion while ignoring theirs. That is not discussion. Its only over if you refuse to back up your claims and continue the conversation. If you consider asking people for supporting evidence is battering them, then yes you are being battered. It does not seem to matter how much supporting evidence is provided. You either call the site a denier site or just say no it is not. The whole idea is the IPCC have made predictions now for over 30 years and not just in general terms their predictions have been battered pretty severely on the anvil of what actually occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 12:59:39 GMT
Clear data? Depends what you mean. We have a plethora of data from ice cores, everything from the amount of snow fall to the length of summers can get measured from number the bubbles, carbon deposits, pollen etc found in them. A year by year account if you will. What makes you doubt these? www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2018/03/23/heres-how-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/#:~:text=One%20way%20to%20measure%20past,in%20ice%20sheets%20and%20glaciers. So some areas have seen no change, but isn't it disingenuous to imply the only areas that have seen increases are at strategically placed measures in heat islands. We have seen record temperatures in everywhere from Cambridge to Greenland. Are you suggesting the thermometer in my garden was strategically placed. Or that meteorological that have been in place for the last 30 years across the UK have all suddenly found themselves in heat islands? It seems unlikely that the botanical gardens in Cambridge have become a heat island since 1980. As for increased storms, the frequency and severity of storms has definitely increased in the last 20 years. You are just plain wrong here. nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes#:~:text=The%20intensity%2C%20frequency%2C%20and%20duration,Explore%20changes%20in%20hurricanes. The method used to cast doubt on severity is to pick extreme events from history and raise them as the norm. And further to blur the results by quoting things like "The great storm that killed 3,000" without putting any figures to "The great storm" or historical differences in storm defences at the time. However its more difficult to cast doubt on frequency. said our temperature has never increased at such a rate. How do you know. Your link clearly indicated the problems with proxies etc and accuracy on an annual or century scale is as they say difficult and always conjecturalHave you a link to this, I feel there has to be a wider study here. the NOAA say frequency is decreasing but intensity is increasing and land fall more frequent. There is a slight increase in numbers in the North Atlantic but this is thought to be caused by reductions in CFC's. Fair do's I wouldn't rely on the BBC either. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 13:23:40 GMT
Its only over if you refuse to back up your claims and continue the conversation. If you consider asking people for supporting evidence is battering them, then yes you are being battered. That's because the weather of 500 million years ago is irrelevant to the weather today. I've asked you for evidence of this and a definition of as quickly. 1.5 degrees in 30 years is the bar. You have no idea what I think. Ofcourse you did, your were unable to substantiate your claims. A pass was better than admitting you were wrong. I misunderstood that was what you were suggesting. As above. But very happy to re-start that. Was this after I said I would not read your further posts until you stopped calling me names and answered my reasonable question. The one on which your entire claim that climate change is natural rested upon. If so, then I didn't read them as stated. You could and I would have answered you. No it isn't. You made the claim I did not. I stated that what happened to the earth 500 million years ago is not relevant today. I clarified that by saying we know what's causing current climate change, its not some natural event, no asteroid has struck earth causing catastrophic change, none of the other large effectors have happened either. We can see those and measure them, yet the world is getting warmer. No climate denier has ever offered me a logical explanation for the earths increasing temperature that is backed by evidence. Your claim that its happened before is unproven as you have offered no evidence, but even if it had you would have to show what was causing it this time. As stated above. I stopped reading your posts. I don't know why you would think I would make the effort when you switched to name calling and petty jeering with the forum idiots, instead of attempting to answer my points or admitting you were wrong and explaining why. I have plenty of time for many people who disagree with me, Sandy Pine disagrees with me on many matters but I have been conversing with him for years. Same with Dan Dare and Pacifico. All offer evidence to back up their claims. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 3, 2023 14:00:40 GMT
Nuclear power is a great solution to supply the energy needed going forward. Its clean (as far as current understanding goes) its cost effective, its predictable, its scalable. The unfortunate situation is that short sightedness over the past 60 years has made getting it off the ground a monumental task. Instead of having a regulated state operator pursuing sensible long term nuclear strategy it was abandoned. The reality is that the UK would need to build around 40 nuclear power stations now in order to meet current demand. It would need to build 8 over the next 7 years just to stand still. It would probably require renationalising electricity and having a national energy strategy controlled by the state. nuclear is great but the economic of it are difficult to manage without control of the market because while its operational cost are very low, the upfront cost is very high, and the payoff is long term. Decommissioning costs are huge too. committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/136734/sorry-saga-of-disused-nuclear-sites-will-cost-generations-of-uk-taxpayer/#:~:text=According%20to%20its%20most%20recent,who%20live%20near%20the%20sites. Decommissioning and storage is factored into the capital cost from day 1 these days. Back when the UK was pioneering nuclear it wasn't understood or given much consideration and instead just parked under the 'future problem' rug. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 3, 2023 14:25:50 GMT
Decommissioning and storage is factored into the capital cost from day 1 these days. Back when the UK was pioneering nuclear it wasn't understood or given much consideration and instead just parked under the 'future problem' rug. Levelized costs Nuclear costs about $160 per MWH Offshore costs about $40 per MWH. |
|
