Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Jo Stein wrote:
I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908 an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science, theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath). I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! |
#122
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Apr 24, 7:28*am, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote: Following on from another thread... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets- green-light Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to ignore ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i... Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut back elsewhere. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...100.S.60689951 |
#123
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:29:22 -0700, harry wrote:
* *the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in * *the sea? * *What*are* *you talking about. Nothing you've written so far * *makes any sense at all. *It all sounds scarily like Drivel. He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_and... His English is bad but he has a valid point. My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201.../james-hansen- ted-t... * Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, * including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was * made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean * temperature at different depths. *Dr. Hansen said that the current * imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the * energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was * equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, * 365 days per year. JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy. -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * jo * "Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership * *or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide * *quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. And it would affect your ill-gotten FIT gold. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor |
#124
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
"harry" wrote in message ... On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: In , Jo wrote: ... Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win. The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea? What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any sense at all. It all sounds scarily like Drivel. He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and... His English is bad but he has a valid point. My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t... Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 days per year. JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy. Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. More fool you. And the mining of it causes problems too. Mining of anything can, stupid. Uranium is not clean energy. Hell of a lot cleaner than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining Mindless silly stuff. Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid. |
#125
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:29:22 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. Simply repeating this doesn't make it true. |
#126
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Apr 24, 10:26*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob *wrote: *On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: * *In , * * *Jo *wrote: ... * *Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win. * *The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be * *stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in * *the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea? * *What*are* *you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any * *sense at all. *It all sounds scarily like Drivel. He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and.... His English is bad but he has a valid point. My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t... * Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, * including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was * made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean * temperature at different depths. *Dr. Hansen said that the current * imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the * energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was * equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 * days per year. JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy. Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. More fool you. And the mining of it causes problems too. Mining of anything can, stupid. Uranium is not clean energy. Hell of a lot cleaner than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...s_of_uranium_m... Mindless silly stuff. Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You really are a half wit aren't you Rolf? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Waste_disposal |
#127
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote: Following on from another thread... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets- green-light Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? No. The resistance is coming from renewable energy and green lobbies, and it so totally threatens their narrative and cash flows that it cannot be allowed to happen. I think it's going to be hard to ignore ... it will be fought tooth an nail by the green proto fascists and the renewable energy companies. Its already a fact that cheap gas can halve emissions at far far less cost per tonne of CO2 saved then renewables. Both are running out of credibility fast. http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=42 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-idUSBRE83G0LE20120417 -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#128
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: In , Jo wrote: ... Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win. The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea? What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any sense at all. It all sounds scarily like Drivel. He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and... His English is bad but he has a valid point. My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t... Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 days per year. JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy. -- jo "Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. wel it is of course mucgh morte ceondomc thahn reneables and much safer Nothing is renewable however, not even renewable energy so called. And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. nor is mining the stuff that goes in solar planets and wind turbines harry, but you need a lot less uranium than either of those. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#129
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo Stein wrote: I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908 an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science, theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath). I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one. I have found one picture of me as a schoolboy online,. but its under a name I seldom use. There are a couple of other pictures of me in various sites under a completely different and unrelated pseudonym that I use when taking ******** about that hobby. I am not on facebook, twitter, linkedin or any social networking sites. it isn't important who I am, its what I am and what I represent that is of value - or not, depending on your prejudice. I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan. So thats the closest you are going to get. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#130
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
harry wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:28 am, Andy Burns wrote: Mike Tomlinson wrote: Following on from another thread... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets- green-light Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to ignore ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i... Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut back elsewhere. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...100.S.60689951 I think there is no doubt its there, the real killer is what it will cost in cash AND energy terms to get it out. The shell tight oil man said that..if is three times what loose gas is from Norway, its a bank account you wont draw on. And looky here Legal procedures, bureaucracy and haggling over resource valuations can delay exploration and production indefinitely. In France, political opposition to fracking has brought a stop to development of the Paris shale basin. That's exactly how it will go. it will be delayed as long as possible like nuclear power has been to give renewables the fattest easiest profits for the least value to the people of this country. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#131
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan. Separated at birth? You decide ... http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg |
#132
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
"harry" wrote in message ... On Apr 24, 10:26 am, "Rod Speed" wrote: "harry" wrote in message ... On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: In , Jo wrote: ... Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win. The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea? What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any sense at all. It all sounds scarily like Drivel. He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and... His English is bad but he has a valid point. My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t... Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 days per year. JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy. Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. More fool you. And the mining of it causes problems too. Mining of anything can, stupid. Uranium is not clean energy. Hell of a lot cleaner than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...s_of_uranium_m... Mindless silly stuff. Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Waste_disposal Just because some cretin like you claims something, doesnt make it gospel, stupid. |
#133
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Tim Streater wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg That's Inspector Morse. SRSLY? http://www.bernardcribbins.com/ |
#134
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Burns wrote: I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan. Separated at birth? You decide ... http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg I dont have facial hair except when I dont shave for a couple of days. Why do you care? Do you fancy me or something? -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#135
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Why do you care? Only to the extent you were claiming that no photos of you were in the wild! I'll remove it ... |
#136
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Apr 24, 8:11*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Jo Stein wrote: I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908 an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science, theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath). I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian *web 2.0 programmer Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one. I have found one picture of me as a schoolboy online,. but its under a name I seldom use. There are a couple of other pictures of me in various sites under a completely different and unrelated pseudonym that I use when taking ******** about that hobby. I am not on facebook, twitter, linkedin or any social networking sites. it isn't important who I am, its what I am and what I represent that is of value - or not, depending on your prejudice. I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan. So thats the closest you are going to get. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. Clearly has something to hide. |
#137
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Apr 24, 8:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: harry wrote: On Apr 24, 7:28 am, Andy Burns wrote: Mike Tomlinson wrote: Following on from another thread... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets- green-light Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to ignore ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i.... Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut back elsewhere. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...m-3739100.S.60... I think there is no doubt its there, the real killer is what it will cost in cash AND energy terms to get it out. The shell tight oil man said that..if is three times what loose gas is from Norway, its *a bank account you wont draw on. And looky here Legal procedures, bureaucracy and haggling over resource valuations can delay exploration and production indefinitely. In France, political opposition to fracking has brought a stop to development of the Paris shale basin. That's exactly how it will go. it will be delayed as long as possible like nuclear power has been to give renewables the fattest easiest profits for the least value to the people of this country. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. Some of the intial estimates of other gas sites have been cut back by 90%. Quite possibly the whole thing is a Ponsi scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#Economics |
#138
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
harry wrote:
Clearly has something to hide. Indeed. Since the operation I don't quite think I'll make it to the cover of Men On Men .. Or any of your other usual light reading. I prefer on balance to have something to hide than nothing at all worthy of mention. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#139
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge. Andy |
#140
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge. I know. I met his son once. Andy -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#141
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: .... Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP. Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very stupid. Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is not a stable source of energy. Now I get some money because a lot of it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm, I would give them the farm for free. When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature. I hope that you will have a look at it: http://www.radiationandreason.com/ How heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only 70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about 610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me, as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous. If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body. 1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec. Please do a google-search for "ionizations in the body from natural radiation" and then have a look at page 133 of that book. Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science. -- jo Volkswagen Prague Marathon, 13. may 2012 http://www.runczech.com/index.php/en/home_page |
#142
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Jo Stein wrote:
On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote: On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: ... Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. Thats because you have been brainwaahed. And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP. Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very stupid. They are not dangerous and they are not stupid. The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy. Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is not a stable source of energy. It is. Now I get some money because a lot of it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm, I would give them the farm for free. you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away? When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature. I hope that you will have a look at it: http://www.radiationandreason.com/ I don't think you know who I am actually. I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss say. How heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only 70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about 610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me, as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous. If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body. 1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec. Please do a google-search for "ionizations in the body from natural radiation" and then have a look at page 133 of that book. Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science. No its because he DO understand science. Very very well. Better at the philosophical level and over a broad range than most scientists he has met. There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument. It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century global warming. The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick - its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant. Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument (if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are deeply specious. For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY interesting study this paper: http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/M...nsmark2012.pdf I can only reiterate the adage The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me, and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as they can make a massive profit out of it. The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me. Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped). My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved. The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into 'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than if we had no AGW theory at all. But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup (which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand) renewable energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a low carbon or cheap or resource efficient way known to man. And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#143
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On 26/04/2012 01:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote: On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge. I know. I met his son once. So... who lives in Suffolk, and who is a web 2.0 programmer? Andy |
#144
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:44:29 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge. I know. I met his son once. So... who lives in Suffolk, and who is a web 2.0 programmer? I think we may need a venn diagram for this one. |
#145
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On 26.04.2012 13:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote: On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote: On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote: Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry: ... Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power. I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable. Thats because you have been brainwaahed. Do you need better glasses? Here you answer harry and not me. And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems. Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP. Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very stupid. They are not dangerous and they are not stupid. The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy. Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is not a stable source of energy. It is. Now I get some money because a lot of it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm, I would give them the farm for free. you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away? Now I use the farm for vacation only, and there is plenty of room for me and a nuclear power plant. When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature. I hope that you will have a look at it: http://www.radiationandreason.com/ I don't think you know who I am actually. I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss say. "reviewerss" is not an english word. .... There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument. It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century global warming. The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick - its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant. Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument (if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are deeply specious. For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY interesting study this paper: http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/M...nsmark2012.pdf I can only reiterate the adage The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me, and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as they can make a massive profit out of it. The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me. Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped). My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved. The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into 'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than if we had no AGW theory at all. But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup (which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand) renewable energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a low carbon or cheap or resource efficient way known to man. And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas. I agree that renewable is a bad ideea. We need a lot of clean energy to replace fossil fuel, and it must be available on demand. Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story? Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." Our clever scientists have measured the atmospheric CO2 during the last 400 000 years and found this remarkable figure http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.** ** Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826. During the last 20 000 years sea level rose from -132 m to 0 m while CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 395 ppm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise The large population increase came in a periode when we had stable CO2 and stable sea level, and the large spike in CO2 is made by man. When studying the figure from NASA it is not difficult to "guess" what will happen to the sea level in the future. -- jo There is a tension between short-term, individual welfare and long-term, group welfare or world welfare. If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope. Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations. From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet |
#146
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes Andy Burns wrote: Jo Stein wrote: I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908 an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science, theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath). I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one. ISTR a hobby related website you had some years ago btw, you never did say if you knew rod brigginshaw or not -- geoff |
#147
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
In message , Andy
Burns writes Mike Tomlinson wrote: Following on from another thread... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets- green-light Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to ignore ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...e-reserves-idU SBRE83G0LE20120417 That would be a bit difficult for the thrust of the article in that well known environmental rag the Rolling Stone that Harry posted a few days ago -- geoff |
#148
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Grammer and spieling
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:55:52 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote: Pontiac Aztek url:http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...committee.html Good grief, it looks like it's been rammed up the arse. |
#149
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Grammer and spieling
wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:55:52 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson wrote: Pontiac Aztek url:http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...committee.html Good grief, it looks like it's been rammed up the arse. People used to say the same thing about my 73 Golf. http://www.flickr.com/photos/retromotoring/2526890983/ It does work pretty well tho. Tho I do prefer the much lower sill of the Diahatsu Charade. http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...256D1F00129948 Much more convenient for loading heavy stuff like a top loading washing machine into etc. I used to be able to put a DEC LA120 into the back of the Golf by myself. I must have had rocks in my head. |
#150
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
Jo Stein wrote:
Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story? The reverse is equally true. Why would ypu trust wiki when you can go to a dozen different places and find a different story. Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." exactly so. Which is why I pointed yopu at a competent paper from a amn who is a peer revuewed scientist publishing a paper at the royal society. Our clever scientists have measured the atmospheric CO2 during the last 400 000 years and found this remarkable figure http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.** ** Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826. I would cross check those figures elsewhere. there is more than one story out there. During the last 20 000 years sea level rose from -132 m to 0 m while CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 395 ppm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise The large population increase came in a periode when we had stable CO2 and stable sea level, and the large spike in CO2 is made by man. When studying the figure from NASA it is not difficult to "guess" what will happen to the sea level in the future. Guessing is always easy. Being right is a lot harder. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#151
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher writes Andy Burns wrote: Jo Stein wrote: I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908 an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science, theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath). I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that! I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one. ISTR a hobby related website you had some years ago mm. Might be a cvideo of me flying a toy plane, but no online profile. btw, you never did say if you knew rod brigginshaw or not Dot to my knowledge. Only Rod I ever knew was the guy hat manages Iron Maiden..and apparently still does. Haven't seen HIM since '76 tho. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#152
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fracking in UK given green light
On 27.04.2012 13:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote: Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story? The reverse is equally true. Why would ypu trust wiki when you can go to a dozen different places and find a different story. Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." exactly so. Which is why I pointed yopu at a competent paper from a amn who is a peer revuewed scientist publishing a paper at the royal society. Have you heard about this madman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_...nights_Templar He is no more mad than you. Both of you suffer from the delusion that we have no global warming. Both of you tell lies and want us to believe that your fiction belongs to our real world. I think that Anders Behring Breivik can be cured from his delusion. You may be too old to be cured. -- jo "only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today." --Richard Dawkins |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Green light? | Home Repair | |||
Give your FOREX the green light. | Home Repair | |||
Generating green light using a 510 nm AC current | Electronics | |||
OT - Green Light | Metalworking | |||
Weird green light on my LCD VHSC? | Electronics Repair |