http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nt-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nt-report-says

frackschool ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-30013638

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nt-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what the
cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be economical now and
later.

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the low-carbon
economy that we are surely going to need, and that if you leave it in the
ground the price of oil in the long term and is only going to go up and the
cost of extraction come down. So deciding to just plunder the whole lot now
for a quick buck is always going to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Tim w

Maybe seismically?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nt-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Tim W wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nlikely-to-mak
e-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what
the cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be economical
now and later.

Except that, as a guy pointed out on the R4 Today prog this morning,
the Yanks have drilled 1,000,000 wells for fracking, so you might
imagine they could give us a clue. In the Pennsylvania area they are
extracting three times as much gas as the whole of the UK uses.

Yes so we have an idea but there are still uncertainties, especially as to
future costs. Exactly

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the low-carbon
economy that we are surely going to need ...

Not at all obvious we are going to need it, since no one has shown
conclusively that CO2 is causing such warming as there is.

Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who know
about these things agree that CO2 causes warming and only a few oddballs
deny it.

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't and
doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that make it
alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the planet, just
because it might not be so clear cut as some people make out? No, it is
still totally iresponsible and we still need a low carbon economy.

Tim W

On 12/11/2014 16:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't
and doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that
make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

Yes.

ffs

On 12/11/2014 16:41, Tim W wrote:
....
Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who
know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming...

Can you substantiate that figure? The IPCC goes to great lengths to
disguise the percentage of their contributors who agree with them, which
suggests they don't have the universal support they claim.


--
Colin Bignell

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nt-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what the
cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be economical now
and later.

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the low-carbon
economy that we are surely going to need,

I don't buy that last.

and that if you leave it in the ground the price of oil in the long term
and is only going to go up and the cost of extraction come down.

You can say that about any fossil fuel.

So deciding to just plunder the whole lot now for a quick buck

It isnt being done for a quick buck.

is always going to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Not necessarily, any more than north sea gas was either.

Tim W wrote:

Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who
know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming

You made that 99% figure up.

Bill

On 12/11/2014 20:01, Bill Wright wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists
who know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming

You made that 99% figure up.

Bill

Totally. It's a turn of phrase not a scientific claim.

On 12/11/2014 16:56, Chris Hogg wrote:


I read recently that since the US has started using shale gas, it's
CO2 emissions have dropped to the extent that it now conforms to the
Kyoto Agreement, even though it didn't sign up to it at the time. (see
for example, possibly any of the articles here
http://tinyurl.com/kvjutk5 )


Do you remember even the gist of the argument - how using fossil fuels
has reduced CO2 emissions?

Tim W

Bill Wright wrote:
Tim W wrote:

Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists
who know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming

You made that 99% figure up.

Bill

I think you meant "since 99% of scientists
who don't know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming"

There is a considerable difference between "may" and "does" which has
not been proven.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:04:36 +0000, Tim w wrote:

I read recently that since the US has started using shale gas,
it's
CO2 emissions have dropped to the extent that it now conforms to
the
Kyoto Agreement, even though it didn't sign up to it at the time.
(see
for example, possibly any of the articles here
http://tinyurl.com/kvjutk5 )

Do you remember even the gist of the argument - how using fossil fuels
has reduced CO2 emissions?

Probably because they are now burning gas instead of coal. Per unit
of energy gas produces less CO2 than coal and a CCGT plant is
thermally more efficient than anything but the very best coal fired
stations.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Tim W wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nlikely-to-mak
e-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what
the cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be economical
now and later.

Except that, as a guy pointed out on the R4 Today prog this morning,
the Yanks have drilled 1,000,000 wells for fracking, so you might
imagine they could give us a clue. In the Pennsylvania area they are
extracting three times as much gas as the whole of the UK uses.

Yes so we have an idea but there are still uncertainties, especially as to
future costs. Exactly

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the
low-carbon economy that we are surely going to need ...

Not at all obvious we are going to need it, since no one has shown
conclusively that CO2 is causing such warming as there is.

Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who
know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming and only a few
oddballs deny it.

No one who matters is denying that CO2 and other greenhouse
gases cause warming. What is in dispute is whether there are
also other effect that mean that we dont in practice see enough
warming to justify spending trillions on reducing the amount of
CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere or even that warming
is undesirable either.

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't and
doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that make it
alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the planet, just
because it might not be so clear cut as some people make out?

Yes, particularly when what produces the CO2 is so vital for viable
economys.

Corse the other approach is to replace all the things that produce CO2
with nukes but there are plenty who hate the idea of that approach.

No, it is still totally iresponsible and we still need a low carbon
economy.

It is very far from clear that we do in fact need a low carbon economy.

On 12/11/14 14:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...



http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nlikely-to-mak

e-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what
the cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be
economical now and later.

Except that, as a guy pointed out on the R4 Today prog this morning,
the Yanks have drilled 1,000,000 wells for fracking, so you might
imagine they could give us a clue. In the Pennsylvania area they are
extracting three times as much gas as the whole of the UK uses.

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the
low-carbon economy that we are surely going to need ...

Not at all obvious we are going to need it, since no one has shown
conclusively that CO2 is causing such warming as there is.

I will actually argue that cheap fossil energy is on the way out.

However the answer is nuclear, not windmills.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/11/14 18:35, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 12/11/2014 16:41, Tim W wrote:
...
Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who
know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming...

Can you substantiate that figure? The IPCC goes to great lengths to
disguise the percentage of their contributors who agree with them, which
suggests they don't have the universal support they claim.


Of course 99% of scientists and even I would argue that CO2 causes
warming. Its a total straw man. Farting in bed also causes global
warming. The question is 'how much'...

The fact that the question is phrased in those terms at ALL is clear
evidence of wool being pulled over peoples eyes.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/11/14 21:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:04:36 +0000, Tim w wrote:

I read recently that since the US has started using shale gas,
it's
CO2 emissions have dropped to the extent that it now conforms to
the
Kyoto Agreement, even though it didn't sign up to it at the time.
(see
for example, possibly any of the articles here
http://tinyurl.com/kvjutk5 )

Do you remember even the gist of the argument - how using fossil fuels
has reduced CO2 emissions?

Probably because they are now burning gas instead of coal. Per unit
of energy gas produces less CO2 than coal and a CCGT plant is
thermally more efficient than anything but the very best coal fired
stations.

Its better than et best coal period.

Die to using the combustion gases at a far higher temperature than you
can achieve with steam plant alone..


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/11/14 14:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message
...



http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nlikely-to-mak

e-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says

Not a lot of it after all they say.
As I suspected.
But how do they know this?

Nobody knows 100% how much there is and certainly they don't know what
the cost of extraction will be and therefore how much will be
economical now and later.

Except that, as a guy pointed out on the R4 Today prog this morning,
the Yanks have drilled 1,000,000 wells for fracking, so you might
imagine they could give us a clue. In the Pennsylvania area they are
extracting three times as much gas as the whole of the UK uses.

What we do know is that fracking will do nothing to create the
low-carbon economy that we are surely going to need ...

Not at all obvious we are going to need it, since no one has shown
conclusively that CO2 is causing such warming as there is.

I will actually argue that cheap fossil energy is on the way out.

No evidence that it is with brown coal particularly.

However the answer is nuclear, not windmills.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:02:31 +1100, 290jkl wrote:

It is very far from clear that we do in fact need a low carbon economy.

Depends how long you want the fossil fuels to last. They are most
definately finite. OK so is the sun(*) but on a some what longer time
scale.

(*)The sun is the prime source of all but a tiny amount of energy on
the surface of the planet. We haven't yet seriously started thinking
about deep geothermal systems to utilse the heat of the earths core.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 13/11/2014 08:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:02:31 +1100, 290jkl wrote:

It is very far from clear that we do in fact need a low carbon economy.

Depends how long you want the fossil fuels to last. They are most
definately finite. ...

There are already a couple of processes for manufacturing oil from
renewable raw materials. They just are not anywhere near economic at
today's oil prices.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/11/2014 16:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't
and doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that

The current scientific consensus is that there is a better than 95%
chance that the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere accounts for more
than half of the warming in the past 60 years (most of which happened in
the last three decades of the last century). eg. IPCC WG1 p60

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...5_TS_FINAL.pdf
(last paragraph)

There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels
(and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

Yes.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.
You can trust them as far as you can used car salesmen or forex traders!

Easter Islanders had that approach when they chopped down their last
tree and then starved because they could no longer make fishing boats.

The main problem for shale gas in the UK is that our geology is more
complex, fractured and economically extractable shale deposits rarer. It
will run into extreme nimbyism especially in the Home counties.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 13/11/14 11:25, Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/11/2014 16:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't
and doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that

The current scientific consensus is that there is a better than 95%
chance that the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere accounts for more
than half of the warming in the past 60 years (most of which happened in
the last three decades of the last century). eg. IPCC WG1 p60

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...5_TS_FINAL.pdf
(last paragraph)


No, that's the IPCCS conclusion, not the scientic consensus, if you
actually read the IPCC supplied science.


There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels
(and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

Yes.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.
You can trust them as far as you can used car salesmen or forex traders!

Easter Islanders had that approach when they chopped down their last
tree and then starved because they could no longer make fishing boats.

The main problem for shale gas in the UK is that our geology is more
complex, fractured and economically extractable shale deposits rarer. It
will run into extreme nimbyism especially in the Home counties.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Martin Brown wrote:


There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels
(and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be wrong.

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

What do you want to do with them then? What's the advantage of leaving
them in the ground?


Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.

To maintain our standard of living. What's wrong with that? Humanity
owns this planet. It's ours to use to the best advantage.

Bill

On 13/11/2014 13:58, Bill Wright wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:


There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2
levels (and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998 to
within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The
orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame
for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides
conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60 years
responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on a
rising trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to
tidal forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect
another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020 onwards
(and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are being held
back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep oceans (which in
turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

What do you want to do with them then? What's the advantage of leaving
them in the ground?

Feedstock for the chemicals industry has to come from somewhere. It will
be very tedious when we have to mine rubbish dumps for plastics.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.

To maintain our standard of living. What's wrong with that? Humanity
owns this planet. It's ours to use to the best advantage.

We don't have to go back to living in caves like the greens seem to
want, just be more conservative and less profligate with wasted energy.
TBH there was more zing to the 1970's OPEQ induced Oil Crisis "Save It"
campaign than there has ever been with the Climate Change.

I realise the concept of "good stewardship" is beyond you. But best
advantage does not mean burning through it all as quickly as possible.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998 to
within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

Yes, so what? Fact is, the world has cooled 0.2deg in the last 17 years.


All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be
wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The
orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame
for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides
conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60 years
responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on a
rising trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to
tidal forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

So you've figured this out, but until recently the IPCC had no idea? And
if the warming hadn't stopped would you have figured it out? No, of
course not. You are merely trying to find pseudo-scienticic explanation
that fits the observed facts.
The IPCC predicted temperature rises, taking everything they knew into
account, and they were wrong. So they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Geddit?


Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect
another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020 onwards
(and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are being held
back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep oceans (which in
turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

How do you know? How come this idea has only just been drempt up now the
computer modelling (on which everything depended) has been shown to be
wrong?

It's laughable that you and the other warmists are now frantically
concocting explanations for the divergence between the predictions and
reality.

If the predictions were wrong (and they were) they were wrong. Wrong
wrong wrong.

Bill

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 12/11/2014 16:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't
and doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that

The current scientific consensus is that there is a better than 95% chance
that the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere accounts for more than half
of the warming in the past 60 years (most of which happened in the last
three decades of the last century). eg. IPCC WG1 p60

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...5_TS_FINAL.pdf
(last paragraph)

There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels
(and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

Yes.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.
You can trust them as far as you can used car salesmen or forex traders!

Easter Islanders had that approach when they chopped down their last tree
and then starved because they could no longer make fishing boats.

The main problem for shale gas in the UK is that our geology is more
complex, fractured and economically extractable shale deposits rarer. It
will run into extreme nimbyism especially in the Home counties.


Exactly so.
If true, as seems likely, we have to act now. Tomorrow is too late.
And there is no going back.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998 to
within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

Yes, so what? Fact is, the world has cooled 0.2deg in the last 17 years.


All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be
wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The
orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame
for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides
conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60 years
responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on a rising
trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to tidal
forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

So you've figured this out, but until recently the IPCC had no idea? And
if the warming hadn't stopped would you have figured it out? No, of course
not. You are merely trying to find pseudo-scienticic explanation that fits
the observed facts.
The IPCC predicted temperature rises, taking everything they knew into
account, and they were wrong. So they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Geddit?


Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect
another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020 onwards
(and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are being held
back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep oceans (which in
turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

How do you know? How come this idea has only just been drempt up now the
computer modelling (on which everything depended) has been shown to be
wrong?

It's laughable that you and the other warmists are now frantically
concocting explanations for the divergence between the predictions and
reality.

If the predictions were wrong (and they were) they were wrong. Wrong wrong
wrong.

So what exactly is your qualification in the subject?
Zero I expect, the same as TurNiPs.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/11/2014 16:41, Tim W wrote:
...
Well that wasn't what I said but I might do since 99% of scientists who
know about these things agree that CO2 causes warming...

Can you substantiate that figure? The IPCC goes to great lengths to
disguise the percentage of their contributors who agree with them, which
suggests they don't have the universal support they claim.

But you have special knowledge unobtainable to everyone else?

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 13/11/2014 08:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:02:31 +1100, 290jkl wrote:

It is very far from clear that we do in fact need a low carbon economy.

Depends how long you want the fossil fuels to last. They are most
definately finite. ...

There are already a couple of processes for manufacturing oil from
renewable raw materials. They just are not anywhere near economic at
today's oil prices.

Now I know you're barking mad.
There is no such thing as "renewable raw materials".
All are finite.

On 13/11/2014 15:11, Bill Wright wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming
stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we
have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998
to within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

Yes, so what? Fact is, the world has cooled 0.2deg in the last 17 years.

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be
wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The
orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame
for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides
conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60
years responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on
a rising trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to
tidal forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

So you've figured this out, but until recently the IPCC had no idea? And
if the warming hadn't stopped would you have figured it out? No, of
course not. You are merely trying to find pseudo-scienticic explanation
that fits the observed facts.

No. I had pointed out a long time ago that I though some of the observed
rise since 1970 was possibly due to a periodic component and related in
part to the Pacific decadal oscillation. Which I reckon shows a partial
correlation at a shift of 29 years due to the lunar solar eclipse period
called Inex (same sort of eclipse opposite hemisphere) and 3x Saros
(same sort of eclipse in about the same place). That it roughly repeats
every 60 years with some beats - it isn't exact because the orbital
phases drift somewhat over time.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

Conventional wisdom has it that this is driven by a non-linear transport
mechanism. I think it may be driven by the interaction of secular
variations in lunar and solar tidal forcing at spring tides.

The IPCC predicted temperature rises, taking everything they knew into
account, and they were wrong. So they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Geddit?

The models will get refined. That is how science works.

Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect
another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020
onwards (and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are
being held back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep
oceans (which in turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

How do you know? How come this idea has only just been drempt up now the
computer modelling (on which everything depended) has been shown to be
wrong?

It hasn't. Papers discussing lunar solar influence on tides affecting
climate have been published at least as far back as 1997 eg.

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.short

I don't agree with everything in the paper but it was a serious attempt
to look for lunar and solar influences in the tidal forcing component.

It's laughable that you and the other warmists are now frantically
concocting explanations for the divergence between the predictions and
reality.

It is laughable that you think that pretending that there is no evidence
of global climate change will make it go away.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Martin Brown wrote:

snip/
Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can
expect another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from
2020 onwards (and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present
are being held back by increased churn dumping more heat into the
deep oceans (which in turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

I'm agnostic so don't jump on me.... surely this *faster rising sea
levels* is easily measured? What does the data say?

How do you know? How come this idea has only just been drempt up now
the computer modelling (on which everything depended) has been shown to
be wrong?

It's laughable that you and the other warmists are now frantically
concocting explanations for the divergence between the predictions and
reality.

If the predictions were wrong (and they were) they were wrong. Wrong
wrong wrong.

Bill

--
Tim Lamb

Dave Liquorice wrote
290jkl wrote

It is very far from clear that we do
in fact need a low carbon economy.

Depends how long you want the fossil fuels to last.

Coal will last fine for hundreds of years more.

They are most definately finite.

Fossil fuels arent the only source of carbon.

OK so is the sun(*) but on a some what longer time scale.

(*)The sun is the prime source of all but a tiny amount of energy on
the surface of the planet. We haven't yet seriously started thinking
about deep geothermal systems to utilse the heat of the earths core.

Because it makes a lot more sense to use nukes instead.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 12/11/2014 16:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim W wrote:

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that maybe CO2 hasn't
and doesn't cause warming or maybe that we can't be sure. Does that

The current scientific consensus is that there is a better than 95% chance
that the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere accounts for more than half
of the warming in the past 60 years (most of which happened in the last
three decades of the last century). eg. IPCC WG1 p60

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...5_TS_FINAL.pdf
(last paragraph)

There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels
(and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

make it alright to carry on burning up all the fossil fuels on the
planet ...

Yes.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit.
You can trust them as far as you can used car salesmen or forex traders!

Easter Islanders had that approach when they chopped down their last tree
and then starved because they could no longer make fishing boats.

That isnt what happened with Easter Island.

The main problem for shale gas in the UK is that our geology is more
complex, fractured and economically extractable shale deposits rarer. It
will run into extreme nimbyism especially in the Home counties.

On 13/11/2014 15:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 13/11/2014 08:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:02:31 +1100, 290jkl wrote:

It is very far from clear that we do in fact need a low carbon economy.

Depends how long you want the fossil fuels to last. They are most
definately finite. ...

There are already a couple of processes for manufacturing oil from
renewable raw materials. They just are not anywhere near economic at
today's oil prices.

Now I know you're barking mad.
There is no such thing as "renewable raw materials".
All are finite.

By that logic, there is no such thing as a renewable energy source either.


--
Colin Bignell

On 13/11/2014 15:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
.....
I imagine that if it does prove necessary to have a carbon-free
society, most transport will be electric, from nuclear, with a few
windmills to keep the greens happy. But aeroplanes? They'll probably
be fueled with bio-ethanol, although the starving millions in the
world might have something to say about good crop-growing land being
devoted to feeding planes rather than people.

If Lockheed Martin are right in their predictions, they could be powered
by high beta fusion reactors.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/11/2014 14:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2014 13:58, Bill Wright wrote:

8

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be
wrong.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account.

So they are wrong then.
They predicted what was going to happen, it didn't happen. How more
wrong can they be?

When are they going to produce a model that demonstrates what has
happened and predicts what is going to happen, that is a model that
isn't wrong?

There is nothing you can say that will convince any sane person that a
model that gives a demonstrable wrong answer is correct.
That is before you tell them they can't look at how it works or what you
feed into it to get the results.

On 13/11/2014 17:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

The models will get refined. That is how science works.

That still won't help, any more than it does for weather modelling.

We can see how good weather models are, because the timescales involved
are short. So we know that today, predictions are good for a few days
and becomes progressively poor beyond that. And yet you're want to rely
on models that take us out a 100 years and which have done a poor
predictive job over the last 20 or so.


When I was about nine years old I remember in geography copying off the
blackboard the different definitions of climate and weather and being
told never to confuse the two.

Weather forecasting is totally and utterly different to climate forecasting.

Tim w

On 13/11/2014 15:35, harryagain wrote:


So what exactly is your qualification in the subject?
Zero I expect, the same as TurNiPs.



So harry what qualifications do you need to accept a model is correct
even though it gets the answers wrong?

On 13/11/2014 17:05, Martin Brown wrote:

It is laughable that you think that pretending that there is no evidence
of global climate change will make it go away.


It is laughable how low you have to stoop even to the point of ignoring
the fact that nearly everyone accepts the climate changes.

On 13/11/2014 17:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

The models will get refined. That is how science works.

That still won't help, any more than it does for weather modelling.

We can see how good weather models are, because the timescales involved
are short. So we know that today, predictions are good for a few days
and becomes progressively poor beyond that. And yet you're want to rely
on models that take us out a 100 years and which have done a poor
predictive job over the last 20 or so.


Its not quite like that.
They run several sets of starting data through the models, choose the
worst cases and use scare tactics to try and get more funding to produce
better results. What counts as better is the real question.

Its the same technique the greens use on nuclear power.