The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

Anything he says or states about our understanding of, and the attempted modelling of, the mechanisms of climate change, is much more likely to be correct than incorrect.

Up to a point I agree with that. His intellect is not in doubt, nor I think, has anyone on here queried his undoubted knowledge and achievements.

I am not a fan of modelling, primarily because it is necessary to know whether the modeller is taking the stance of this is going to happen, or, it is possible this will happen if X Y and Z occur/do not occur. Without the text to accompany the inivetable graphs and charts which will be repeatedly put on forums like this for years, it is not possible to know what the modeller's stance is.

My complaint about Dyson is the things he chooses not to say about the recent and ongoing temperature rises, increasing CO2 in the air, and particularly the oceans, the latter giving rise to accelerating sea level rises.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
I have to say this, some of you have lost the plot regarding freeman dison, he's retired and speaking to everyone in the scientific field.
He's reminding them that science is never solved and that all scientists should be looking at the facts and evidence, not for politics and power by suppressing the facts and evidence.
He is thinking out of the box and hinting that trees could catch carbon when needed ( trees use carbon feeding when the sun is out and the other way around at night I think? ) so he's got a point that needs looking at.
A fair man giving a knowledgable unbiased fact based answer.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
This is an interesting read.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
Page 2
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon_2.html

I think they mention that they think the worlds oceans are at around 33% of maximum saturation, for co2 adsorption, which is good news, the only negative is that the increasing levels changes the ph balance of them. Which may have unknown effects, that may not be positive.
As the oceans provide a lot of food for the world, let's hope it doesn't effect them too adversely.
 
This is an interesting read.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
Page 2
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon_2.html

I think they mention that they think the worlds oceans are at around 33% of maximum saturation, for co2 adsorption, which is good news, the only negative is that the increasing levels changes the ph balance of them. Which may have unknown effects, that may not be positive.
As the oceans provide a lot of food for the world, let's hope it doesn't effect them too adversely.


But CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been much higher for 100s of millions of years.

In fact before plants colonised the Earth CO2 in the atmosphere was circa 4000-8000ppm.

Life evolved in the seas.

When are the "Climate Change" brigade going to stop trading on fear ?
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
I have to say this, some of you have lost the plot regarding freeman dison, he's retired and speaking to everyone in the scientific field.
He's reminding them that science is never solved and that all scientists should be looking at the facts and evidence, not for politics and power by suppressing the facts and evidence.
He is thinking out of the box and hinting that trees could catch carbon when needed ( trees use carbon feeding when the sun is out and the other way around at night I think? ) so he's got a point that needs looking at.
A fair man giving a knowledgable unbiased fact based answer.

Your right trees can help, until they die, cut or are burned. Then they release the co2 stored, its more a band aid than a fix.
You have to fix the underlying issues, that are putting the co2 into the atmosphere, I actual think the oceans will do that if we cut our emissions of co2. They will grab the extra co2 if we give them a chance. And they lock up more than trees, and plants. We just need to do it before we start to, to badly effect the oceans chemistry.

If we keep adding co2 and we let oceans reach total saturation for co2, even if the oceans are not damaged, we will see co2 levels rise with out the brakes the oceans provided which is estimated at 48%, so co2 level would increase 48% faster at that point. Than they are now.

Every piece of evidence I see points to, we need to do something and keep doing it until we reduce our co2 emissions below the point the oceans, and the rest of the planet are adsorbing it, at the very least. That means weaning off fossil fuels as expensive as that is to do. But it's easier if everyone does their bit it spreads the cost, and goals will be met faster at lower cost.
Small things can lead to big changes, your choice of car, insulting your house, fixing drafts, new boiler, reducing waste, avoiding unnecessary car journeys, car sharing, and saving electric. They all burn fossil fuel directly or indirectly.
They are sometimes very simple and cheap to do, not everything cost big money, but they all help. And a lot actually save you money.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
But CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been much higher for 100s of millions of years.

In fact before plants colonised the Earth CO2 in the atmosphere was circa 4000-8000ppm.

Life evolved in the seas.

When are the "Climate Change" brigade going to stop trading on fear ?
But that doesn't mean that for those millions of years the earth could have supported 7 billion people.
Your talking about time so long ago, we can only guess at the conditions and what they were like. Saying it was ok then, is not to say it would be ok now, for everyone living now. It's estimated that the mean globle temprature was 25C I think it's currently 16C that doesn't sound like a lot but it is, there would be no ice at the poles so sea level will rise, to what extent I cannot tell, but as lots of the world populations are at sea level any rise is not good.
Next it's food how much productive land for food would there be, again anyone guess.
All I would say is if it gets that high, we are in big trouble, the natural highs and lows we have seen over the last 800,000 years would have tested our survival and I doubt all 7 billion of us could have, and that only varied from 170-300 ppm of co2. Sure hotter is easier than cold. statements like yours, are little more than wishful thinking, we have no clue where the current 390-400ppm will lead globle temperature to max out never mind higher.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
When I started reading this thread, I was near the centre in terms of my beliefs I believed in globle warming but was unsure to what extent man was responsible.

But after researching info, that was used by the sceptics, it's moved me further from the centre, and more over to it's defiantly man doing it.
There is to much historic data from ice cores and geological data to say this is natural.
When you except that as a fact, you then start to look at the changes for what they are, and what they may be doing.
It's now excepted by both sides that things are warming up.
It's excepted by both sides co2 levels have risen.
What the sceptics are only really arguing about is to what extent things will change. If at all.
So I asked my self this, as co2 is man made and co2 has been increasing world tempratures, then the likely effect of increasing our co2 levels and then them remaining above the levels recorded over the last 800,0000 years of historic levels of 300ppm maximum, puts us in unknown territory, with a trend in place and unknown factors at play, its safer to assume trends will continue than not. I would put it at 90% likely to continue 10% chance we will see falls or levelling of if we see a drop in solar flux.
All the computer models show it's co2 it's the only factor that can be doing it as far as current models show, that's why the sceptics cannot produce a model to predict the falls they are banking on, with no evidence solid or other wise, to back up why they are predicting a fall. they look to historic trends but ignore, the facts we are outside historic trends with co2...

Now if your a gambling man with those odds most would put there lives on trends continuing, because that also covers all bets including the other 10% because it does no harm. Because it also helps us wean of the fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Before they get to expensive.

Now if you decide to put your faith on the 10% that's fine but you don't get the winnings if your proved wrong, by that you have made no progress so if your wrong it will cost you more in the long run. As you scramble to make up for lost time. Which often costs 3x the amount. And they are often far more painful.

I have said it before changes may be painful and we may think they are expensive but the actual, expense of dealing with even the mild effects of globle warming, on the conservative side of predictions can lead to some very big numbers. And the fact that the changes we are making are also heading off problems we will have to face with fossil fuels, even if co2 was proven to not to be a problem ( which is very unlikely) we are at least heading off inflation in fossil fuel prices.

Going the 10% way helps with nothing. You really are gambling that we can just keep doing what we are doing for ever, and that is defiantly impossible, and cannot happen.
I don't see a choice, what ever you belive we have to make changes. Even if it's not for globle warming.
 
Last edited:

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
When I started reading this thread, I was near the centre in terms of my beliefs I believed in globle warming but was unsure to what extent man was responsible.

But after researching info, that was used by the sceptics, it's moved me further from the centre, and more over to it's defiantly man doing it.
There is to much historic data from ice cores and geological data to say this is natural.
When you except that as a fact, you then start to look at the changes for what they are, and what they may be doing.
It's now excepted by both sides that things are warming up.
It's excepted by both sides co2 levels have risen.
What the sceptics are only really arguing about is to what extent things will change. If at all.
So I asked my self this, as co2 is man made and co2 has been increasing world tempratures, then the likely effect of increasing our co2 levels and then them remaining above the levels recorded over the last 800,0000 years of historic levels of 300ppm maximum, puts us in unknown territory, with a trend in place and unknown factors at play, its safer to assume trends will continue than not. I would put it at 90% likely to continue 10% chance we will see falls or levelling of if we see a drop in solar flux.
All the computer models show it's co2 it's the only factor that can be doing it as far as current models show, that's why the sceptics cannot produce a model to predict the falls they are banking on, with no evidence solid or other wise, to back up why they are predicting a fall. they look to historic trends but ignore, the facts we are outside historic trends with co2...

Now if your a gambling man with those odds most would put there lives on trends continuing, because that also covers all bets including the other 10% because it does no harm. Because it also helps us wean of the fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Before they get to expensive.

Now if you decide to put your faith on the 10% that's fine but you don't get the winnings if your proved wrong, by that you have made no progress so if your wrong it will cost you more in the long run. As you scramble to make up for lost time. Which often costs 3x the amount. And they are often far more painful.

I have said it before changes may be painful and we may think they are expensive but the actual, expense of dealing with even the mild effects of globle warming, on the conservative side of predictions can lead to some very big numbers. And the fact that the changes we are making are also heading off problems we will have to face with fossil fuels, even if co2 was proven to not to be a problem ( which is very unlikely) we are at least heading off inflation in fossil fuel prices.

Going the 10% way helps with nothing. You really are gambling that we can just keep doing what we are doing for ever, and that is defiantly impossible, and cannot happen.
I don't see a choice, what ever you belive we have to make changes. Even if it's not for globle warming.

Nothing personal, but your wrong, the modelled data is made up bull and every time it's spewed out a few years later it's found to be way out.
No need to stop c02 because over the next 50 years it will decline as fossil fuels run out naturally. The sea will also cool down during the next 30 years and will take in more co2 as it does.
The only data to use is the origional data.
The way you decide is going to keep poorer people around the world in fuel poverty for the rest of their lives, no electricity, no houses, no nothing. Just makes you feel better about yourself as you drive in your car on the way home to your centrally heated rooms and sitting in front if your big telly.
On the other side of the world they are burning cow dung to cook with, while it poisons them with the fumes, no light, that must feel good to them knowing your stopping them have the basic necessities of life cos someone somewhere decided on false data they can't have electricity.
The temp dropping during the next decade or two will prove I'm correct and I hope this thread is still here to prove it, I have no doubt about it cos the 60 year cycle keeps going even when humans will be long forgotten.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Nothing personal, but your wrong, the modelled data is made up bull and every time it's spewed out a few years later it's found to be way out.
No need to stop c02 because over the next 50 years it will decline as fossil fuels run out naturally. The sea will also cool down during the next 30 years and will take in more co2 as it does.
The only data to use is the origional data.
The way you decide is going to keep poorer people around the world in fuel poverty for the rest of their lives, no electricity, no houses, no nothing. Just makes you feel better about yourself as you drive in your car on the way home to your centrally heated rooms and sitting in front if your big telly.
On the other side of the world they are burning cow dung to cook with, while it poisons them with the fumes, no light, that must feel good to them knowing your stopping them have the basic necessities of life cos someone somewhere decided on false data they can't have electricity.
The temp dropping during the next decade or two will prove I'm correct and I hope this thread is still here to prove it, I have no doubt about it cos the 60 year cycle keeps going even when humans will be long forgotten.
Lets hope your right.........I am happy to do my part, If your not that's up to you.
Even when you add up all your so called false data, it doesn't disprove climate changes current trends........you actually have no data that's supports your opinion. Not even poor climate models.
Historic data, current data, you just have hear say that the data is false, you haven't even verified, any yourself.......in my opinion, your relying on blind faith your right.
Your right about poor countries, should not have to foot the bill, if the wealthy countries don't do anything, we cannot ask the poor too.
As it's the rich countries using the bulk of fossil fuels. That's why co2 trading was started to pay poor counties to off set rich countries co2.
Which they get payed for, it's to help them make better choices, but it's still up to them.

Your on the no plan plan lets just use fossil fuels up then decide what to do.... ok good luck with that, I doubt any govermant on the planet will do it. And it's very likely if we haven't replaced fossil fuels by the time they go into short supply, we will see true fuel poverty.
As reducing fossil fuels use go hand in hand with reducing co2 emissions. It's unlikely you will see big policy shifts, even if your right about everything.
I am also sure I am not personally resposable for quote "knowing your stopping them have the basic necessities of life cos someone somewhere decided on false data they can't have electricity."
If you cannot keep this friendly please don't respond to my post.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
Here is Johnny ball, a lovely man who taught many my age science on telly, basic stuff I still remember to this day. Here he is on the daily politics talking about textbooks having 20 pages of stuff removed about water vapour and frightening students, also the correct figures on what wind farms produce and cost to everyone in this country.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Here is Johnny ball, a lovely man who taught many my age science on telly, basic stuff I still remember to this day. Here he is on the daily politics talking about textbooks having 20 pages of stuff removed about water vapour and frightening students, also the correct figures on what wind farms produce and cost to everyone in this country.

You say the correct figures on what wind farms produce and cost but can you substantiate that?
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377

http://www.thetrentonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/HSBC-peak-oil-report-2017.pdf

https://www.research.hsbc.com/R/20/XXdmzS7D6v50

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...deepens-as-SSE-plans-early-plant-closure.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nly-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne..._a_year_fossil_fuel_subsidies_and_rising.html

Don't forget to take a balance view before you call foul play......it's not all honey with fossil fuels, the so called cheap energy, you have got to remember renewable when you pass the investment faze (which is expensive) the energy is far cheaper, and requires no inputs, unlike fossil fuels which require it constantly.

Every thing we do is a gamble, we make choices with the available info at hand.
The uk govermant would not be investing in finding new oil and gas supply's, if they were not worried that if they don't fossil fuel prices will rocket, if you take the time to read the reports, you will see it's predicted that gas prices will rise by 50% by 2020 still not to the highs we have seen but within 20%, these are only predictions, and they can be wrong, but all predictions require we increase our renewable production to offset our increasing demands, which needs a double investment one for renewables one for finding new supplies of gas and oil. To keep energy prices stable, they still predict problems by 2040 even if we do.

One of the uk coal fired power stations is shutting early despite govermant sudsidy until 2018-19 because despite subsidy it's losing money. All hail cheap coal energy that requires no subsidy.....
 
Okie dokie here goes.

Plenty of coal around, enough for decades. Trouble is it is so polluting.

Gas- loads of it sat under Russia the problem is moving it.

There is still a lot of gas under the UK trouble is it involves fracking which has its own issues. Apparently there is rather a lot down there, something 10 percent of it would keep us going for the next 25 years easily.

Wind power is quite pricey due to the capacity factor and those turbines dont live forever either.

With the advent of battery powered cars and heat pump heating I think electrical demand will rocket for which the only solution is nuclear power.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Okie dokie here goes.

Plenty of coal around, enough for decades. Trouble is it is so polluting.

Gas- loads of it sat under Russia the problem is moving it.

There is still a lot of gas under the UK trouble is it involves fracking which has its own issues. Apparently there is rather a lot down there, something 10 percent of it would keep us going for the next 25 years easily.

Wind power is quite pricey due to the capacity factor and those turbines dont live forever either.

With the advent of battery powered cars and heat pump heating I think electrical demand will rocket for which the only solution is nuclear power.
I think your right it's a pity
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...guide-uk-first-new-nuclear-plant-for-20-years

It's going to cost far more to subsidise than all the other renewables.
It may reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but it comes at a cost.
But hey it's what Johnny Ball wanted, what he wants we get.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
You say the correct figures on what wind farms produce and cost but can you substantiate that?

Johnny ball is a good guy who's only issue is better teaching for children ( plus I worked on a wind farm for ages and witnessed the scam first hand)
The chinks owned it all and run it from China by computer, horrible things that hardly produce any electricity. On stop most of the time I was there during the summer, hopeless waste of money and generator power fills the gap,) very green that!
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
Ok sorry I havnt replyed earlier,I've been at the sheep today and didn't have time.
If mc Donald had any idea how much I've been researching this stuff over the last few months he wouldn't say what he has, but whatever.
The reason I put vids up is to have a person who is expert at the subject explaining it, not me as I'm just a werp who does it as a hobby.
So here's the data you wanted, it's in video form but explained as you go through it and I will post the data list below, this must be enough for you.

Hadcut 3+4 data
Ncdc + rssmsu data
Hansen's invented giss data
Climate 4 you data
Argo + nodc data
Arctic temp from hadcrut 4
Reconstruction arctic ice melt extent 1784-2008
NOAA earth systems research lab data
44 climate models vs reality
Global atmospheric co2
Arctic sea ice vinje 2001
Cryosat - European space agency data

It's all here if you want it and explained as you go so that everyone can understand it, even those who just dropped into the thread and are not certain how to read the data.
I think this is proof that the earth is cooling and the co2 ok and also climate change is a cycle of the earth, not man made.

Here's all the data for you, it's been shown before and all the references written above. Truth hurts!
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
This is Johnny ball going through time showing the discoveries that were thought to be heretic, from gravity to present day, it's brill easy science to understand from a chap who is trying to do good.
The bit about finding the first co2 gas to make soda water, sparkling wine and other things made me laugh, why are we feeding poisoned gas to children in water if it's so bad!
 
But erm, the reason I did not proceed with ground source heat pump central heating (despite having installed underfloor 20 years ago), was the fact that it is NOT "a free lunch"
Even if electric was dirt cheap, one is robbing stored solar heat from the ground, which HAS to have a knock on effect if one is growing owt in/on the ground, other than Amenity grass.
And, if they crack nuclear fusion, AND, even more significently IF the Government manage NOT to tax it(& a fat chance of THAT happening), just use resistence based electric heating.
Renewable energy is mostly a "sop", to make people think they can drive a clean electric car, I think there should be a electronic link to all electric cars, that brings them to a gradual standstill when they is Zero renewable electric available locally, ditto, no renewable electric available, Zero recharging happens.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 75 43.6%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 61 35.5%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 27 15.7%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 3 1.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,283
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top