Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
have you seen them ?
Show More
Ok, let's meet again in 2073 and see who is correct.
I didn't quite understand though: Can you shortly say what is meant to be the reason for the current quite rapid heating while in the next 50 years that is going to flip again and cause ? It can't possibly be Milankovich cycles because those are on an entirely different timescale. You wrote that we are on the way into a full ice age because of them too and that the overall trend is cooling. It can't be solar cycles either with the timescales we are looking at and with what we are seeing. Things like the 11 year and the 27 d solar cycles do affect the stratosphere and troposphere indeed, including the temperatures, but not so much. If you furthermore look at e.g the lyman alpha timescale you'll see the solar activity hasn't been going nuts upwards in the past half century to match the heating. You can plot the time series of solar irradiance from recent satellite observations at
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/composite_lyman_alpha
There are some interesting studies though regarding to what processes are influenced by in particular by the 27d cycle.
Regarding the meridonial heat transfer: So this causes the arctics to lose snow, which in turn reduces albedo, which in turn increases absorbed energy, which in turn increases heat, which in turn makes temperatures rise...right? So with that in mind the heating trend should continue until the northern hemisphere is completely ice free, until the albedo is hence not going to be further reduced, at which point then the heating will stop and the overall cooling due to the heat escape into space will set in?
If that is to be the case, I however do not see how ice free, less albedoing northern hemisphere will let earth return to average temperatures in 2073 that are lower than currently observed.
....but let's meet again in 2073 and see what's correct.
I didn't quite understand though: Can you shortly say what is meant to be the reason for the current quite rapid heating while in the next 50 years that is going to flip again and cause ? It can't possibly be Milankovich cycles because those are on an entirely different timescale. You wrote that we are on the way into a full ice age because of them too and that the overall trend is cooling. It can't be solar cycles either with the timescales we are looking at and with what we are seeing. Things like the 11 year and the 27 d solar cycles do affect the stratosphere and troposphere indeed, including the temperatures, but not so much. If you furthermore look at e.g the lyman alpha timescale you'll see the solar activity hasn't been going nuts upwards in the past half century to match the heating. You can plot the time series of solar irradiance from recent satellite observations at
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/composite_lyman_alpha
There are some interesting studies though regarding to what processes are influenced by in particular by the 27d cycle.
Regarding the meridonial heat transfer: So this causes the arctics to lose snow, which in turn reduces albedo, which in turn increases absorbed energy, which in turn increases heat, which in turn makes temperatures rise...right? So with that in mind the heating trend should continue until the northern hemisphere is completely ice free, until the albedo is hence not going to be further reduced, at which point then the heating will stop and the overall cooling due to the heat escape into space will set in?
If that is to be the case, I however do not see how ice free, less albedoing northern hemisphere will let earth return to average temperatures in 2073 that are lower than currently observed.
....but let's meet again in 2073 and see what's correct.
Scrap the first part. I know you said what it is mainly attributed to by Vinos.
Interesting stuff. .Marksman..
Global warming has become more like a faith than a science to its followers.
In the old days people believed in God because that's what they were taught. Everybody believed it so it must be true.
No question at all.
The same thing is happening here with the idea of man-made global warming. And we've seen how far out experts usually are with their predictions. And here they are again with their forecasts about the dire consequences of global warming which come and go - LOL.
We're being taken for a ride again alright. The point to consider is, how do they manage to do it so easily, every time?
Global warming has become more like a faith than a science to its followers.
In the old days people believed in God because that's what they were taught. Everybody believed it so it must be true.
No question at all.
The same thing is happening here with the idea of man-made global warming. And we've seen how far out experts usually are with their predictions. And here they are again with their forecasts about the dire consequences of global warming which come and go - LOL.
We're being taken for a ride again alright. The point to consider is, how do they manage to do it so easily, every time?
What happens to the energy that is staying in the system due to human activity, Crippen?
Put some focus on the science you always hold so dear, Crippen, instead of just making up conspiratory fairy tales as usual.
Look upthe Stefan–Boltzmann law, edy. You will see that the radiated energy is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature in degrees Kelvin. The earth can be approximated to a black body in terms of absorption and emission of radiation and for completeness, you might want to read all about black body radiation too.
You can rest assured that I am somewhat familiar with such things.
edy,
I am only taking on board what I have read from various sources (especially Javier Vinos who has gone into the most detail). My guess is that if the Arctic became ice free in winter, then the mechanism of heat loss in the Arctic winter wouldn't work at all. Then we would have a feedback loop and it would get hotter still. But the Arctic is still really cold in winter and I don't think it is likely that it will become ice free in winter in the near future. (Despite predictions of impending ice free summers in the Arctic, this hasn't come close to happening either.)
It would probably take another episode like the Little Ice Age to see the increase in the Northern Ice Sheets. That is why Vinos does not predict this happening for about 1800 years. The next little ice age will probably coincide with the next Grand Solar Minimum, as the last one did. The long length of the Little Ice Age was believed to be caused by the additional effect of volcanoes erupting at the start and end of it. But we will be further down the Milankovic cooling cycle next time and volcanic eruptions may not be needed to make the next cooling event cold enough to precipitate full Glacial conditions. (The Grand Solar Minimums are believed to occur every 2500 years)
I am only taking on board what I have read from various sources (especially Javier Vinos who has gone into the most detail). My guess is that if the Arctic became ice free in winter, then the mechanism of heat loss in the Arctic winter wouldn't work at all. Then we would have a feedback loop and it would get hotter still. But the Arctic is still really cold in winter and I don't think it is likely that it will become ice free in winter in the near future. (Despite predictions of impending ice free summers in the Arctic, this hasn't come close to happening either.)
It would probably take another episode like the Little Ice Age to see the increase in the Northern Ice Sheets. That is why Vinos does not predict this happening for about 1800 years. The next little ice age will probably coincide with the next Grand Solar Minimum, as the last one did. The long length of the Little Ice Age was believed to be caused by the additional effect of volcanoes erupting at the start and end of it. But we will be further down the Milankovic cooling cycle next time and volcanic eruptions may not be needed to make the next cooling event cold enough to precipitate full Glacial conditions. (The Grand Solar Minimums are believed to occur every 2500 years)
.M
You have a knack of rambling. In your first paragraph what do you mean by the near future?
What is the point of your second paragraph? So Vinos is predicting the climate 1800 years into the future ? Good luck with that.
You have a knack of rambling. In your first paragraph what do you mean by the near future?
What is the point of your second paragraph? So Vinos is predicting the climate 1800 years into the future ? Good luck with that.
Ur sh1thead mates attacked the Chelsea Flower show this morning Chaz , I thought flowers were good for the Climate ?
May 25, 2023 -- 4:11PM, casemoney wrote:
Ur sh1thead mates attacked the Chelsea Flower show this morning Chaz
CaseMonkey, you seem desperate to include me in your posts, so thank you. Why do you say they are my mates? Flowers are good for the climate.
Charlie, you have a knack of being plain unpleasant, and of deliberately not understanding things you don't like. But I will clarify what Vinos said; The onset of the next full glaciation is most likely in 1800 years time. But there is a small chance that, even then, conditions may not be conducive to this and, in which case, we have up to around 4100 years until this happens. But on any date after that for several 10s of thousands of years, most of Northern Europe will be under ice sheets. Once you get your head around Milankovic Cycles (how they work, and have worked in the past) you will see that the re-glaciation is inevitable.
I know that "near future" sounds vague. Instead, I should have said "not during the current inter glacial".
I know that "near future" sounds vague. Instead, I should have said "not during the current inter glacial".
.M
I'm quite pleased I have the knack of being unpleasant to people who talk bollocks. So you're saying the start of the next full glaciation will be in 1800 years time or maybe up to 4100 years. What's the point of even mentioning the next predicted glaciation?
What do you think I don't understand?
I'm quite pleased I have the knack of being unpleasant to people who talk bollocks. So you're saying the start of the next full glaciation will be in 1800 years time or maybe up to 4100 years. What's the point of even mentioning the next predicted glaciation?
What do you think I don't understand?
Climate Activists who don't Like Flowers , A bit like the Insulation geezer who had no Insulation Chaz , What happened to Him ?
Some strange causes you follow
Some strange causes you follow
It's not all that strange for climate and environmental activists to have a problem with ressource intensive cultivation of flowers when the same area could be used to plant a tree or use it for better regulated, more efficient forms of agriculture.
E.g. because most people do not tend to eat the cut flowers that they buy at Interflora, exceptions prove the rule, lawmakers are quite a bit more lax regarding pesticide use than is the case with the regulation of farmers growing noodles and ketchup on their fields. Something that's obviously not great for the environment.
Climate Activists who don't Like Flowers , A bit like the Insulation geezer who had no Insulation Chaz , What happened to Him ?
Probably the same thing that happened to the woman giving an interview advocating for the banning of new conservatories being built whilst sitting in her conservatory.
Probably the same thing that happened to the woman giving an interview advocating for the banning of new conservatories being built whilst sitting in her conservatory.
Cut flowers are very much a luxury.
They look pretty but take a fair bit of money/energy to produce.
Personally don’t see a problem In people buying cut flowers occasionally as long as they are aware of the pros & cons. They are a nice present imo. Then again I don’t have much time for all these confrontational stop the oil protests. They are really pushing the idea of “peaceful protest “ to the limit.
They look pretty but take a fair bit of money/energy to produce.
Personally don’t see a problem In people buying cut flowers occasionally as long as they are aware of the pros & cons. They are a nice present imo. Then again I don’t have much time for all these confrontational stop the oil protests. They are really pushing the idea of “peaceful protest “ to the limit.
more efficient forms of agriculture.
There ideal form of agriculture would be a bunch of blokes in a field with sickles.
There ideal form of agriculture would be a bunch of blokes in a field with sickles.
I grow flowers alongside veg. Doesn't take any energy especially if you make your own compost as I do. Good for the climate.
the wokies ideology is based on a false Premise. The science is as rickety as a bridge about to fall down.
but the wokies want to drag us back to some type of non industrial wasteland. They give little thought to any alternative that would work for an overcrowded island
DIG FOR VICTORY
DIG FOR VICTORY
Moisok
Electricity generated from nuclear, wind, tide, solar has the same properties as the expensive electricity generated from coal, oil, gas.
The end user will still be able to watch TV powered by electricity.
How is coal generated electricity working in South Africa at the moment? Shame they don’t have any sunshine, wind or oceans to use for energy production.
Electricity generated from nuclear, wind, tide, solar has the same properties as the expensive electricity generated from coal, oil, gas.
The end user will still be able to watch TV powered by electricity.
How is coal generated electricity working in South Africa at the moment? Shame they don’t have any sunshine, wind or oceans to use for energy production.
May 26, 2023 -- 2:46PM, moisok wrote:
the wokies ideology is based on a false Premise.
Please explain what the wokies ideology is, you seem to know.
The science is as rickety as a bridge about to fall down. Presumably you mean that the science of climate change is about to be overturned. Any evidence for this or just you spouting off as usual?
The science is as rickety as a bridge about to fall down. Presumably you mean that the science of climate change is about to be overturned. Any evidence for this or just you spouting off as usual?
moisok • May 26, 2023 2:48 PM BST
but the wokies want to drag us back to some type of non industrial wasteland.
I'm sure you could expand on this and provide some context.
They give little thought to any alternative that would work for an overcrowded island
An alternative to what?
DIG FOR VICTORY
I hope this isn't trying to take the piss out of our nation.
but the wokies want to drag us back to some type of non industrial wasteland.
I'm sure you could expand on this and provide some context.
They give little thought to any alternative that would work for an overcrowded island
An alternative to what?
DIG FOR VICTORY
I hope this isn't trying to take the piss out of our nation.
May 25, 2023 -- 7:10PM, Charlie wrote:
.MI'm quite pleased I have the knack of being unpleasant to people who talk bollocks. So you're saying the start of the next full glaciation will be in 1800 years time or maybe up to 4100 years. What's the point of even mentioning the next predicted glaciation?What do you think I don't understand?
Still no answer.
Electricity generated from nuclear, wind , tide , solar .. does NOT have the same properties
as coal , oil and gas … obviously
as coal , oil and gas … obviously
May 26, 2023 -- 4:26PM, lfc1971 wrote:
Electricity generated from nuclear, wind , tide , solar .. does NOT have the same properties as coal , oil and gas … obviously
lfc trying to redifine electricty. Idiot.
LFC thinks that electricity from Hinkley Point contains Uranium.
Guess anybody who went to school past the age of 11 will understand what happens when a coil of wire is moved in a magnetic field.
All those poor people who use Hydro Electric Power turn on their TV & their front room gets flooded.
Guess anybody who went to school past the age of 11 will understand what happens when a coil of wire is moved in a magnetic field.
All those poor people who use Hydro Electric Power turn on their TV & their front room gets flooded.
.MI'm quite pleased I have the knack of being unpleasant to people
That's why they call him Flatnose.
That's why they call him Flatnose.
LFC
You haven’t bothered to explain your garbage about electricity being different if generated by nuclear or coal. Yep you just spout out a completely unrelated question about one country which sells stacks of fossil fuels.
Care to explain your previous nonsense about different kinds of electricity. Yet for some reason can all be mixed up in the national grid.
You haven’t bothered to explain your garbage about electricity being different if generated by nuclear or coal. Yep you just spout out a completely unrelated question about one country which sells stacks of fossil fuels.
Care to explain your previous nonsense about different kinds of electricity. Yet for some reason can all be mixed up in the national grid.
I never said the electricity was different
Now care to explain how Saudi are so rich ?
Now care to explain how Saudi are so rich ?
May 26, 2023 -- 4:26PM, lfc1971 wrote:
Electricity generated from nuclear, wind , tide , solar .. does NOT have the same properties as coal , oil and gas … obviously
Are you trying to say that electricy isn't the same as coal, oil and gas in much the same way that a sandwich isn't an elephant and a car isn't a mountain? You're doolally.
May 26, 2023 -- 6:22PM, Dr Crippen wrote:
.MI'm quite pleased I have the knack of being unpleasant to peopleThat's why they call him Flatnose.
Crappin, you need to update your insults they're all stale.
There is a reason Cowardly Coxy chose to retire in despair with only such third rate disciples available to him to do the baiting.
Polar bears population has nearly doubled. But the WWF still take millions with their scam.
Moisok
Just give more money to the Saudis and their Russian & Middle East OPEC dictator friends. We should all buy more oil to help them out.
Hopefully you can kill a few Polar Bears , can’t believe their population has increased since there were legal restrictions placed on shooting them. Seems very strange.
Meanwhile LFC has worked out that there is a difference between a lump of carbon and 20,000 volts. Who said a decent education is important?
Just give more money to the Saudis and their Russian & Middle East OPEC dictator friends. We should all buy more oil to help them out.
Hopefully you can kill a few Polar Bears , can’t believe their population has increased since there were legal restrictions placed on shooting them. Seems very strange.
Meanwhile LFC has worked out that there is a difference between a lump of carbon and 20,000 volts. Who said a decent education is important?
I wish I had thought up a scam like WWF did. You are mugs to believe any of this garbage. Is water lapping around your ankles at the moment? I thought we were all going to drown. To one woman her life is over! That is the level of intelligence of some of these protesters.
moisok • May 26, 2023 9:47 PM BST
I wish I had thought up a scam like WWF did. You are mugs to believe any of this garbage. Is water lapping around your ankles at the moment? I thought we were all going to drown. To one woman her life is over! That is the level of intelligence of some of these protesters.
Can you cite the relevant study for the bold part?
I wish I had thought up a scam like WWF did. You are mugs to believe any of this garbage. Is water lapping around your ankles at the moment? I thought we were all going to drown. To one woman her life is over! That is the level of intelligence of some of these protesters.
Can you cite the relevant study for the bold part?
I would let it pass normally, but if you don't provide some citations the wrath of science lover Crippen will be upon you, so.....
It's not really all. Some write blogs and bold books with petrophysicists that are released by publishers that don't have an address and that have about two books in their portfolio.
Gotta respect the release model though of offering the hardcover for $70, the ebook for $3-5 and a free copy on researchgate.
From what I understand the atmosphere is made up of 0.04 % carbon of which 97% of that is mother nature and the 3% man made. So yes there is man made climate change but it is negligible and the earth will heat and cool over time as it always has and always will for millions of years. No amount of money being extracted from our wallets will stop this imo.
Where did you get those figures from? You should blacklist the source because they are blatantly lying to you. See e.g.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
to learn that humans added way way more than 3%.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
to learn that humans added way way more than 3%.
Oh Edy
You are just nit picking.
So CO2 levels are 50% human activity rather than 3%.
Perhaps Dance will provide a link to their source & we can compare that to your obscure organisation called “nasa”.
You are just nit picking.
So CO2 levels are 50% human activity rather than 3%.
Perhaps Dance will provide a link to their source & we can compare that to your obscure organisation called “nasa”.
Well no, not responsible for 50% of CO2 levels. CO2 levels are 150% of what they were before humans started using fossil fuels at large. Natural levels have been meandering between about 180 ppm and 300 ppm for a very long time now and that meandering obviously has quite long time scales.
Humans managed to increase it from about 280 ppm to 420 ppm in a dramatically shorter timescale, which is where the 50% come from (Humans increased it from 100% (the 280 ppm baseline) to 150% (the 420 ppm)). In terms of what percentage humanity is responsible in regards to total atmospheric CO2 it's about 1/3 of of atmospheric CO2 levels instead of 1/2 of it however.
(420 ppm - 280 ppm) / 420 ppm
Which is quite a long way from 3% of course. I've seen the 97% and 3% split before on here and would really love to learn which complete [w-word] deliberately misleads people with that. Hence I asked where DancingBraveTheBest got the figure from. I'm positive he didn't make it up himself.
Humans managed to increase it from about 280 ppm to 420 ppm in a dramatically shorter timescale, which is where the 50% come from (Humans increased it from 100% (the 280 ppm baseline) to 150% (the 420 ppm)). In terms of what percentage humanity is responsible in regards to total atmospheric CO2 it's about 1/3 of of atmospheric CO2 levels instead of 1/2 of it however.
(420 ppm - 280 ppm) / 420 ppm
Which is quite a long way from 3% of course. I've seen the 97% and 3% split before on here and would really love to learn which complete [w-word] deliberately misleads people with that. Hence I asked where DancingBraveTheBest got the figure from. I'm positive he didn't make it up himself.
I hadn’t ever seen the 3% idea before.
It is just madness that people believe any nonsense online without bothering to check.
I’ve heard the volcano garbage before. Is very sad that so many unemployed male dropouts get their information from Twitter, then actually believe they know more about the subject than those who work in the field.
It is just madness that people believe any nonsense online without bothering to check.
I’ve heard the volcano garbage before. Is very sad that so many unemployed male dropouts get their information from Twitter, then actually believe they know more about the subject than those who work in the field.
I think it probably has to do with a deliberate misrepresentation of CO2 emissions and sinks as part of the carbon cycle. That about 97% of total CO2 emissions a year come from natural sources. This of course deliberately, with strong intent to mislead, omits that a whole lot of that is sunk again by nature. That, in fact, nature is a net sink and not a net emittor.
It may have come from ExxonMobile:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/
Fig. 6 Excerpt from the New York Times of 6 November 1997
The text to go with it read:
While most of the CO2 emitted by far is the result of natural phenomena – namely respiration and decomposition, most attention has centered on the three to four percent related to human activities – burning of fossil fuels, deforestation.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/
Fig. 6 Excerpt from the New York Times of 6 November 1997
The text to go with it read:
While most of the CO2 emitted by far is the result of natural phenomena – namely respiration and decomposition, most attention has centered on the three to four percent related to human activities – burning of fossil fuels, deforestation.
Interesting article Charlie.
Guess maths & science is too difficult to understand for those who didn’t bother to take advantage of the education system. Easy to fool fools with mathematics.
All these conspiracy theories rely on uneducated males thinking that they know more than all the experts. Simple grooming tricks , been happening to the gullible victims for centuries.
Guess maths & science is too difficult to understand for those who didn’t bother to take advantage of the education system. Easy to fool fools with mathematics.
All these conspiracy theories rely on uneducated males thinking that they know more than all the experts. Simple grooming tricks , been happening to the gullible victims for centuries.
Reading through the trash from the lefties here.
It's amusing that they appear to unable to write anything without including an insult.
In fact, insulting others seems to be their main consideration.
They might consider having their blood pressures checked. LOL.
It's amusing that they appear to unable to write anything without including an insult.
In fact, insulting others seems to be their main consideration.
They might consider having their blood pressures checked. LOL.
May 27, 2023 -- 12:13PM, Dr Crippen wrote:
Reading through the trash from the lefties here. It's amusing that they appear to unable to write anything without including an insult.In fact, insulting others seems to be their main consideration.They might consider having their blood pressures checked. LOL.
Unlike your always highly scientific and factual input, including this very post of yours.
But do feel free to explain what was the trash if you want to show there is some substance to your claims.
Not exactly holding my breath though, knowing your history of just making up claims you can't remotely substantiate.
Crippens is merely projecting again, and is
clearly angry which can be deduced from his
mention of blood pressure.
clearly angry which can be deduced from his
mention of blood pressure.
The polar bear money making scam is only one the many scams the 'warmers' are running. Ably supported by the 'warmist cult' supporters on here.
Oh, good to have you back, moisok!
edy • May 26, 2023 10:08 PM BST
moisok • May 26, 2023 9:47 PM BST
I wish I had thought up a scam like WWF did. You are mugs to believe any of this garbage. Is water lapping around your ankles at the moment? I thought we were all going to drown. To one woman her life is over! That is the level of intelligence of some of these protesters.
Can you cite the relevant study for the bold part?
edy • May 26, 2023 10:15 PM BST
I would let it pass normally, but if you don't provide some citations the wrath of science lover Crippen will be upon you, so.....
edy • May 26, 2023 10:08 PM BST
moisok • May 26, 2023 9:47 PM BST
I wish I had thought up a scam like WWF did. You are mugs to believe any of this garbage. Is water lapping around your ankles at the moment? I thought we were all going to drown. To one woman her life is over! That is the level of intelligence of some of these protesters.
Can you cite the relevant study for the bold part?
edy • May 26, 2023 10:15 PM BST
I would let it pass normally, but if you don't provide some citations the wrath of science lover Crippen will be upon you, so.....
That statement of yours in bold will have probably been what he meant with trash, so you really gotta deliver now, moisok, Reign in the wrath!
Save humanity (or at least your own soul) before Crippen unleashes the full monster.
Please, moisok, please. You don't want to be witness to fully unleashed Crippen's Fury. Save us all!
So Moisok
Who has benefited from decades of dependency on fossil fuels.
Have the multi millionaire board members benefited?
Have the Russian and Middle East dictators benefited?
Have the billionaires who own large parts of oil companies benefited?
Have children living in high pollution areas benefited?
We spend hundreds of billions every year on fossil fuels. The global temperature is increasing because of our use of these fuels.
Meanwhile the unemployed male dropouts actually believe they have a better understanding of the science & statistics than those who have studied the subject & work in the field.
Some people still don’t understand that putting a bullet into the head of a polar bear has an effect on that bear’s life expectancy. I mean how intelligent are these dropouts.
Who has benefited from decades of dependency on fossil fuels.
Have the multi millionaire board members benefited?
Have the Russian and Middle East dictators benefited?
Have the billionaires who own large parts of oil companies benefited?
Have children living in high pollution areas benefited?
We spend hundreds of billions every year on fossil fuels. The global temperature is increasing because of our use of these fuels.
Meanwhile the unemployed male dropouts actually believe they have a better understanding of the science & statistics than those who have studied the subject & work in the field.
Some people still don’t understand that putting a bullet into the head of a polar bear has an effect on that bear’s life expectancy. I mean how intelligent are these dropouts.
If you can't deliver citations because you made it all up, at least apologise for it to soothe The Beast!
We in Britain have benefitted , luckily we had coal which powered
the worlds first industrial revolution - and therefore we became the most advanced
and richest country in the world . Also we got lucky again in our own lifetimes with the discovery of North Sea Oil and gas
the worlds first industrial revolution - and therefore we became the most advanced
and richest country in the world . Also we got lucky again in our own lifetimes with the discovery of North Sea Oil and gas
That covers the last two or three hundred years
And there have been zero problems with climate change in that time
That’s all the evidence you need
And there have been zero problems with climate change in that time
That’s all the evidence you need
LFC
Stacks of countries have coal, it isn’t rare. Nature locked up carbon thousands of years ago, humans have released that carbon over a few decades.
Science paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. U.K. were burning fossil fuels a long time before steam powered factories.
U.K. uses more electricity than 100 years ago. The lights haven’t gone out with the move towards nuclear and renewables.
Burning fossil fuel has resulted in global temperatures rising. There are alternatives to buying harmful fuels from Russia and the Middle East dictators.
Stacks of countries have coal, it isn’t rare. Nature locked up carbon thousands of years ago, humans have released that carbon over a few decades.
Science paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. U.K. were burning fossil fuels a long time before steam powered factories.
U.K. uses more electricity than 100 years ago. The lights haven’t gone out with the move towards nuclear and renewables.
Burning fossil fuel has resulted in global temperatures rising. There are alternatives to buying harmful fuels from Russia and the Middle East dictators.
Of course other countries had coal - but without coal
no industrial revolution in Britain … from which we all benefit
Today some countries have Oil - the lucky ones such ourselves
From which we benefit .
no industrial revolution in Britain … from which we all benefit
Today some countries have Oil - the lucky ones such ourselves
From which we benefit .
I sincerely hope the USA, INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA are listening. And the south americans are told to STOP burning their forests down.
May 27, 2023 -- 1:21PM, lfc1971 wrote:
That covers the last two or three hundred years And there have been zero problems with climate change in that time That’s all the evidence you need
Try removing the bucket over your head and look at what's going on in the world.
Only you can save humanity, moisok. Get over false sense of pride!
May 27, 2023 -- 12:41PM, moisok wrote:
The polar bear money making scam is only one the many scams the 'warmers' are running. Ably supported by the 'warmist cult' supporters on here.
Your only reply to climate change is about polar bears. Yet even your misguided belief on this is wrong. Unless of course you can provide some up-to-date information on this. I predict you wont but will go on repeating your nonsense.
Yep LFF
AND without fresh water the agricultural revolution wouldn’t have happened. Stacks of countries have water.
Without trees there wouldn’t be wood houses. Stacks of countries have trees.
Without a coastline there wouldn’t be a Navy. Stacks of countries have a coast.
Coal isn’t rare. It has been used all over the world for over a thousand years.
Science, invention, investment, cheap labour, vast profits are very much in the mix regarding the Industrial Revolution. Coal is very common there is nothing special about the U.K. having coal.
There are alternatives to buying fossil fuels from Russian & Middle East dictators.
AND without fresh water the agricultural revolution wouldn’t have happened. Stacks of countries have water.
Without trees there wouldn’t be wood houses. Stacks of countries have trees.
Without a coastline there wouldn’t be a Navy. Stacks of countries have a coast.
Coal isn’t rare. It has been used all over the world for over a thousand years.
Science, invention, investment, cheap labour, vast profits are very much in the mix regarding the Industrial Revolution. Coal is very common there is nothing special about the U.K. having coal.
There are alternatives to buying fossil fuels from Russian & Middle East dictators.
moisok • May 27, 2023 1:48 PM BST
I sincerely hope the USA, INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA are listening. And the south americans are told to STOP burning their forests down.
As you don't believe in climate change then why single out these countries?
I sincerely hope the USA, INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA are listening. And the south americans are told to STOP burning their forests down.
As you don't believe in climate change then why single out these countries?
Mexico I’m afraid science and invention are quite difficult fields
And there is no guarantee that Britain will be any good at that
After all Saudi might still be living in tents in the desert .. but for Oil
That’s why natural resources are so important and we are so lucky
to have oil and gas .
And there is no guarantee that Britain will be any good at that
After all Saudi might still be living in tents in the desert .. but for Oil
That’s why natural resources are so important and we are so lucky
to have oil and gas .
Oh LFC
Sorry to ruin your woke communist dream but not all natural resources are worth the same.
You show your lack of understanding by comparing apples and oranges as the same thing.
Oil and coal are different fuels. Try sticking some coal dust in your car instead of petrol.
Coal is a common form of carbon. Diamonds are a rare form of carbon.
I’m afraid that science and invention are very much in the same family yet common coal are rare oil are quite different. ( assume you were supposed yo type different rather than difficult?)
Science and invention has shown that we have an alternative to spending billions on fossil fuels from Russian and Middle East dictators.
Humans have increased the temperature of the planet, looking very likely we will miss the 1.5C target.
Sorry to ruin your woke communist dream but not all natural resources are worth the same.
You show your lack of understanding by comparing apples and oranges as the same thing.
Oil and coal are different fuels. Try sticking some coal dust in your car instead of petrol.
Coal is a common form of carbon. Diamonds are a rare form of carbon.
I’m afraid that science and invention are very much in the same family yet common coal are rare oil are quite different. ( assume you were supposed yo type different rather than difficult?)
Science and invention has shown that we have an alternative to spending billions on fossil fuels from Russian and Middle East dictators.
Humans have increased the temperature of the planet, looking very likely we will miss the 1.5C target.
How does a country become successful economically ?
Well there are only two ways in this world , it either has to
be fortunate enough to have an abundance of natural resources
that it can sell - or it has to buy resources from other countries
and turn those resources into something of higher value - in order to sell -
That’s difficult and requires skill and intelligence and hard work and creativity
Luckily Britain had not just one - but both of those / creativity and natural resources
Hence the astonishing success of the British
Well there are only two ways in this world , it either has to
be fortunate enough to have an abundance of natural resources
that it can sell - or it has to buy resources from other countries
and turn those resources into something of higher value - in order to sell -
That’s difficult and requires skill and intelligence and hard work and creativity
Luckily Britain had not just one - but both of those / creativity and natural resources
Hence the astonishing success of the British
Well done lfc, once again you've managed to clog up a thread with remarks that have nothing to do with the topic.
The ability to take what you want from other countries is another key factor.
Why pay the market rate for raw materials, just take them? U.K. & Holland somehow managed to become major diamond traders even though they don’t have any diamond mines .
There are alternatives to paying billions to Russian and Middle East dictators for polluting fossil fuels,
Why pay the market rate for raw materials, just take them? U.K. & Holland somehow managed to become major diamond traders even though they don’t have any diamond mines .
There are alternatives to paying billions to Russian and Middle East dictators for polluting fossil fuels,
Germay went for the cheap option and got into bed with Putin. But they would. Led by a communist and lover of Putin
Moisok
That is basically true about Germany but they are not alone in dealing with very suspect regimes.
The whole of the West has basically outsourced all low tech manufacturing to China. We know their human rights record is poor, workers treatment isn’t good, potentially slavery abuses, theft of intellectual property, exploitation in Africa, terrible pollution and fossil fuel use. Yet we don’t really care because it means we can buy cheap pants & bras.
Oil is a real problem for the West. We are addicted to it yet it is controlled by some very suspect countries.
Time to cut use on fossil fuels & use our own resources.
That is basically true about Germany but they are not alone in dealing with very suspect regimes.
The whole of the West has basically outsourced all low tech manufacturing to China. We know their human rights record is poor, workers treatment isn’t good, potentially slavery abuses, theft of intellectual property, exploitation in Africa, terrible pollution and fossil fuel use. Yet we don’t really care because it means we can buy cheap pants & bras.
Oil is a real problem for the West. We are addicted to it yet it is controlled by some very suspect countries.
Time to cut use on fossil fuels & use our own resources.
germany are digging for coal as fast as they can go - destroying their own villages - amazing scenes
meanwhile we sit on 400 years supply of coal
meanwhile we sit on 400 years supply of coal
U.K. has already removed the cheaper, easy to access coal.
Closing mines took bold leadership in the 1980’s , the taxpayer was forking out money to produce dirty , dangerous , expensive energy.
400 years LOL we should have sunshine for 5,000,000,000 years.
Closing mines took bold leadership in the 1980’s , the taxpayer was forking out money to produce dirty , dangerous , expensive energy.
400 years LOL we should have sunshine for 5,000,000,000 years.
moisok • May 27, 2023 6:36 PM BST
Germay went for the cheap option and got into bed with Putin. But they would. Led by a communist and lover of Putin
Books will be written about your sudden turn from communist and lover of Putin that was very eager to spread the Kremlin line of the EU sstaging a coup in Ukraine to your current version.
Germay went for the cheap option and got into bed with Putin. But they would. Led by a communist and lover of Putin
Books will be written about your sudden turn from communist and lover of Putin that was very eager to spread the Kremlin line of the EU sstaging a coup in Ukraine to your current version.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539