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

[ollie989898]

The effect of transferring some heat from the ground/air into your home is going to be negligible. The mass of the Earth's crust is immense.

Nuclear fusion might as well be a pipe dream, it might never happen, it might take 30, 50 or 100 years, who knows? We need solutions NOW, not 50 years time. That being the case, I would put a big research effort (which India and the Chinese are pursuing now), into nuclear fission and develop safer designs of nuclear reactor, howsoever that might manifest itself.

Nuclear fission has the potential to keep us supplied with energy for centuries, and it is far far simpler than fusion.

Wind power is all well and good, but the capacity of factor of wind is about 25%, and when the wind doesn't blow (or is blowing too strong), you need backup power, either diesel generator farms, or just as bad, open cycle gas turbines.

18 billion for 3.2 GW at Hinkley isn't bad, that is a hell of a lot of juice.

 

[Old McDonald]

For the uninformed, this is data



REN, the Portuguese grid provides 15 minute grid readings separately for each day. Figure 1 shows the graph for May 10, 2016, during the period of 100% renewables generation:



Figure 1: REN grid data graph, May 10, 2016

This is the sort of text that accompanies data

2016 has been an impressive year with new records. With 6024 MW capacity installed in hydro (5360 MW in large dams), 5033 MW in wind, 566 MW in biomass, 474 MW in PV, and 29 MW in geothermal, a transition to 100% is already happening in Portugal. In April 2016, renewable sources provided 95.5% of the electricity demand (the second best month overall in this century). Recently, Portugal broke the record for the most number of hours running straight on 100 percent renewable electricity energy sources. The country ran on wind, hydro, and hydropower energy for 107-hours straight from 6:45 a.m. May 7 to 5:45 p.m. May 11. Throughout this four-day period, Portugal managed to provide 575 GWh of electricity without the contribution of any non-renewable sources, such as gas and coal.


November 30 (SeeNews) - Wind power production in Portugal hit a peak of 4,454 MW on November 21, surpassing once again the national record, according the power utility Redes Energeticas Nacionais (REN).

The volume exceeded by 5 MW the previous wind generation record from May. The power produced during the three hours with the strongest wind would have been enough to meet 100% of demand in the country, REN said on Tuesday.

Statistics by the utility show the wind power output for November 21 stood at 53.8 GWh.

At present, Portugal's wind power generation represents around 25% of national consumption. In the first nine months of the year, renewable sources in the country supplied 61% of demand, mostly due to above average production at hydropower plants (HPPs) and wind farms, REN said.

...........................

For those anti-wind farms people, especially the ones who say it either does not work, or is a waste of money, note that with the exception of hydro, wind produces more energy on an anual basis than any other source.

Note also the extremely small contribution from PV.

This is a very sunny country as I am sure most people will know, but PV has not been used to any extent. This is changing slightly, since more PV has been, and is being, installed in various places to increase the amount of renewable power.

I have a simple, single tariff meter and currently pay just under 16c per kWh or 14p at present exchange rates. There is a standing charge too and for a 27kW supply of 3-phase power this is about a Euro a day. I do not have an invoice to hand because I took all paperwork to my Accountant last week, so cannot give the exact figures.

 

[marcusthehat]

Hydro also fudges up the natural ecology of the rivers, especially blocking the passage of migratory spawning fish.
So is this of less concern than air quality due to burning fossil fuels?
And any/most/all dams silt up remarkedly fast.
Which in turn disrupts downstream gravelly shallows and sandbars, never mind the loss of delta producing sediment.
i.e.
no free lunches.

 

[banjo]

It's all to do with the dose.
Are you saying that we can breathe pure co2 without any effect

Not at all, but as Johnny sais they found co2 while making beer, it was the gas in the top of the vessel. They put a mouse into the pure co2 and it went to sleep, pulled it out and it woke up, thus not a poison.
98% water vapour in atmosphere, 2% co2, 0.015 Human co2, the insects produce 5 times as much co2 as humans, cattle exhale 4 times as much co2 as a human. The amount of human co2 in the air is miniscule compared to nature.
Trees dont grow on high up ground very well in the uk because there is less co2 up that high, we have a lot of moisture in the uk. it's a heavy gas and likes to stay low and then meanders towards the sea. The sea then absorbes a great deal of it because there are more plants growing under the sea than above ( didn't know that before listening to old Johnny )
The more I listen the more sure I am it's a natural cycle.
Basic science is being forgotten and pushed to the side on this subject in favour of tables and info that is puposly trying baffle anyone interested.

 

[Old McDonald]

Hydro also fudges up the natural ecology of the rivers, especially blocking the passage of migratory spawning fish.

have you ever seen a fish pass? If so, which one?

 

[Old McDonald]

Not at all, but as Johnny sais they found co2 while making beer

rees dont grow on high up ground very well in the uk because there is less co2 up that high

The amount of human co2 in the air is miniscule compared to nature.

it's a heavy gas and likes to stay low and then meanders towards the sea. The sea then absorbes a great deal of it because there are more plants growing under the sea than abov

Basic science is being forgotten and pushed to the side on this subject in favour of tables and info that is puposly trying baffle anyone interested.

That is probably the most ridiculous post you have made so far. Absolute total rubbish.

Your mate Johnny is even worse than Dyson. He talked the most abject rubbish. You do not know when and where CO2 was "discovered" do you? It was most certainly not whilst somebody was brewing beer. I will give you a clue - the mans name was Black.

Since the site accepted by all and sundry, including Dysons mate who set it up, is very high on a hill in Hawaii, your argument about height and CO2 is rubbish.

How much is "nature" and how much is human. You do not know.

Quote us some figures about the amount of plants on land and below the sea.

To be blunt, and I do not normally attack posters personally, you have even less knowledge about basic science than me.And I have very little. However, I am an educated peasant and I have a fairly good grasp of the English language and I can crucnch numbers with the best of them, being paid quite well for a number of years for that purpose.

You continue to post only YouTube videos of people who you think are the most expert in the field of CO2 and expect us all to go along with your beliefs.

Tables and info are there, not to baffle, but to assist those who have the ability to read them. I have already acknowledged that if any poster on here lacks the ability to understand the written word and numbers, or lacks the ability to write and produce the numbers, then they have an excuse, but you claim to be able to learn anything if you get your head down, so go ahead and do it. Learn to understand tables and text, but whatever you do, stop searching YouTube for such rubbish as you continually post.

 

[banjo]

That is probably the most ridiculous post you have made so far. Absolute total rubbish.

Your mate Johnny is even worse than Dyson. He talked the most abject rubbish. You do not know when and where CO2 was "discovered" do you? It was most certainly not whilst somebody was brewing beer. I will give you a clue - the mans name was Black.

Since the site accepted by all and sundry, including Dysons mate who set it up, is very high on a hill in Hawaii, your argument about height and CO2 is rubbish.

How much is "nature" and how much is human. You do not know.

Quote us some figures about the amount of plants on land and below the sea.

To be blunt, and I do not normally attack posters personally, you have even less knowledge about basic science than me.And I have very little. However, I am an educated peasant and I have a fairly good grasp of the English language and I can crucnch numbers with the best of them, being paid quite well for a number of years for that purpose.

You continue to post only YouTube videos of people who you think are the most expert in the field of CO2 and expect us all to go along with your beliefs.

Tables and info are there, not to baffle, but to assist those who have the ability to read them. I have already acknowledged that if any poster on here lacks the ability to understand the written word and numbers, or lacks the ability to write and produce the numbers, then they have an excuse, but you claim to be able to learn anything if you get your head down, so go ahead and do it. Learn to understand tables and text, but whatever you do, stop searching YouTube for such rubbish as you continually post.

You've been attacking me for over 20 pages of posts with nothing but garbage yourself, I bow to your knowledge, better than the best scientists, better than the best teachers of teachers, better than nice old scientists who are good at what they do because they love the subject, you are one of the few who claim to know the lot and actualy know f**k all in the end, an al gore clone, a sheeple who push this garbage onto kids trying to frighten them into your direction.
No facts, no evidence is good enough because it proves you wrong, it's beneath you to utter one sentence admitting all the predictions your Lot have made have been way out and in most cases utterly wrong.
Do clouds stop the sun, yes, it's because it's made of water vapour, no charts needed for that basic fact, remove the clouds they are worse than the co2 because it's 98% of the problem.
I will stand by my beliefs on this subject and wait to see what happens, we will see then, I ain't changing my mind, climate change is natural cycles of the planets that go on and on.
We will see how things go from now on after trump has removed all the money from this one sided argument, he's cut all your funding now, your lot are going to have to justify these claims properly, not refusing to debate the subject.
I say bring it on, any debate will show the truth of the matter and many who are called heretic now will have their day.
Ps one thing I've learned in life is follow the money, my lot ain't been payed off, in fact lots have lost their jobs cos they ain't yes men and your lot seem to be rolling in funding from wealthy businessmen who make a fortune out of the green lobby, go figure that out !

 

[marcusthehat]

Yes, I am aware of the existence of fish passes, as to their actual effectivnesses, I am unaware.
I do however note that the US is ripping out obsolete dams wholesale, because a natural unimpeded watercourse is worth more to mankind, and indeed the earth, than cheap electric.
cheers
m

 

[Old McDonald]

banjo, that is even more ridiculous than your previous post.

You refuse to read, or understand what I have been posting from the begininning. That is the simple fact that I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT MAN IS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENT INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE.

I have never seen anything by Al Gore. I am aware he made a film or documentary but I have not seen it, so he has had no influence on my research into the subject.

For some reason you choose to ignore what I have been trying to tell you, and falsely accuse me of having been employed by the green movement, been paid to further my cause, am part of those that I decry who insist that global warming is totally the fault of mankind, claim I know everything when in fact I rely on the work of other people to provide the true data which I have posted on here, and that I try to push children into my direction. You on the tother hand, simply churn out videos with any information you are trying to impart sometimes somewhere in it, and sometimes not.

It would be a good thing if children were pushed into my direction of not knowing, and trying to find out what actually is happening, but you are so blinded by your convictions that you refuse to see that I am not one of those predictors of the future who are convinced that we are all doomed unless we stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I think this may be the fourth time I have made these points. Until you read and understand what others post, I suggest you stop responding to their posts. Your false accusations do not go down well.

When you post untruths, or misguided ideas then I will continue to post rebuttals.

I am a farmer who is greatly concerned at the rising temperatures and how they are affecting the crops we grow. That is my sole personal interest in the matter. From a wider perspective I am deeply concerned about rising sea levels and the effect it is already having and the immense impact it will have if it continues, as it will if temperatures continue to rise, but that is beyond my control. Planning for increasing temperatures in relation to my land and crops is within my control and I am doing something about it.

You are convinced that temperatures are falling and that CO2 is not a problem. Carry on believing that, it is no concern of mine. I have tried to show mainly others reading the thread, but you too, that temperatures are not falling, but as you say, you will not change your mind. So be it, but please stop trying to tell us that those to whom you link are the finest scientists in the world, and that those who we prefer to believe are only in it for the money. You never did explain why I was like Brian Cox. Only to be expected of course, because you do not respond to questions that are put to you, except occasionally to post yet another video.

 

[Old McDonald]

Yes, I am aware of the existence of fish passes, as to their actual effectivnesses, I am unaware.
I do however note that the US is ripping out obsolete dams wholesale, because a natural unimpeded watercourse is worth more to mankind, and indeed the earth, than cheap electric.
cheers
m

Then you need to go and see some operational fish passes when migratory fish are running. Or even non migratory fish that move upstream to spawn. There is a simple pass alongside a weir at the upstream boundary of my property and it is quite fascinating to see fish of about 3 inches climb up a flow of water about 4 feet high. Salmon and some other species are much better than these little fish.

I saw on an American farming forum a few years ago that there are numerous dams on US rivers that are unsafe, and that there was a planned programme of demolition in place. Not all of these are hydro schemes, some are for irrigation needs, and some for human potable water.

 

[banjo]

Nice amount of water vapour stopping the sun coming through today, it's cold bbbrrrrr
Here's a fact for everyone, when al gores film started to be shown in schools showing the world was going to end, it was took to court and the judge ruled that if it's shown an alternative view also has to be shown or the origional can't be.
just giving one side of the argument to children in school is wrong in law!
Nuclear power station would remove all power worries and release bugger all co2, greenpeace even sais it now.

 

[dstudent]

As I have never wathced any of the al gore videos and it is my understanding that @Old McDonald hasn t either, I thought I should put a few up just to understand what the fuss is all about, and also in the name of fairness and as we are asked to keep an open mind and query everything I think this should definelty work for all sides. so here we go , this one is about Co2, again I ve never watched it my self so

 

[dstudent]

this one is about Greenland melting, never seen it my self so it should be interesting

 

[dstudent]

What are your thoughts on this @Old McDonald? I know I know I lot of video tgo through but hei you got so far

 

[Old McDonald]

I still have not seen the Al Gore ones. I am not inclined to, because I do not think I will learn much. I have watched the long one. I think you should have too before you posted it.

Far too much scaremongering, and some inaccuracies. There may be more that I either do not know are incorrect, or that I missed. There was an awful lot of talking to take in. In the first couple of minutes there were three statements that set the scene for the whole film "We are heading for 700ppm (CO2)"; "The arctic temperature has risen 4 to 7 degrees in 50 years"; and the enormous calving of the Larsen ice-shelf in 2002 "Melted in one month".

The end bit about artificial plants is a nut case job. The idea of millions of gigantic structures sitting on a pedestal way up as high as US skyscrapers and filled with caustic soda sounds like a certain recipe for an accident waiting to happen. If we have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere then there are a lot safer and more useful ways to do it.

You have a good knowledge of the subject and have provided some sound information in earlier posts. As I have suggested right through the posts, if you rely on YouTube providing information, you are not going to get the truth.

 

[dstudent]

I know I know , but for once i wanted to take the easy way out, i just wanted to put some videos on, as it seams to pass for scientific research on this thread. Al Gore might be a bit dramatic, I think he has mellowed down a bit nowdays, I think at the beginning there was an urgency to bring this out to the public, out of only the academic and scientific sphera, rightly or wrongly (and we might not like his delivery, but the data is correct), wherever one might stand on the man made or not debate, there are processes that are happening, which will influence mankind'existece on this planet, in the very near future. Understanding these processes is essential for man' survival.
and I will be taking my sandals off now and go hug a tree or read the latest IPCC report, and get grants. apprently this is all I do.

 

[ollie989898]

Wide scale introduction of hydro-electricity would mean flooding large amounts of land and making a lot of people homeless- this is not a wide spread option, look at the disruption the 3 Gorges dam project caused in China.

The Chinese are sat on huge amounts of (admittedly mediocre) coal, and yet are now pursuing new generation nuclear power and investing in wind and PV installations.

This tells me all I need to know. Burning fossil fuels isn't a good idea, CO2 in the frame or not, due to the hideous amounts of mercury and the like in coal. If AGW is a hoax, then you would not have hundreds of scientists from virtually every country discussing it, and you would not have an entire country the size of China suddenly investing in renewable energy.

If drumpf wants to keep the US chained to carbon that's their problem, the rest of the world is already using less fossil fuel per capita than the US and demand will surely reduce in time. Personally I think the UK should push for more research effort in new nuclear technologies, we led the world in many ways some decades ago in this field, it would be nice to see the country retain a technological edge again, but either way it is obvious that coal and oil consumption is going to decrease.

 

[dstudent]

Wide scale introduction of hydro-electricity would mean flooding large amounts of land and making a lot of people homeless- this is not a wide spread option, look at the disruption the 3 Gorges dam project caused in China.

The Chinese are sat on huge amounts of (admittedly mediocre) coal, and yet are now pursuing new generation nuclear power and investing in wind and PV installations.

This tells me all I need to know. Burning fossil fuels isn't a good idea, CO2 in the frame or not, due to the hideous amounts of mercury and the like in coal. If AGW is a hoax, then you would not have hundreds of scientists from virtually every country discussing it, and you would not have an entire country the size of China suddenly investing in renewable energy.

If drumpf wants to keep the US chained to carbon that's their problem, the rest of the world is already using less fossil fuel per capita than the US and demand will surely reduce in time. Personally I think the UK should push for more research effort in new nuclear technologies, we led the world in many ways some decades ago in this field, it would be nice to see the country retain a technological edge again, but either way it is obvious that coal and oil consumption is going to decrease.

I would think another important aspect would be the end of all these oil driven wars.
The end of disgusting dictatorial , West supported, family run countries, with horrible human rights records (the house of Saud comes to mind, and if they are not our friends then they are our enemies and the all military might (legal or illegal) is then unleashed on to the poor people of these countries, with all the nice arms contracts and the like, that come with these wars.

 

[banjo]

Al gore got a Nobel peace prise for that film, frightening people to death !
Dc student is used to getting her own way on this subject, doesn't like an alternative view.
Another vid to Wind em up, Lord monkton thus time demonstrating a small sum on a blackboard that shows the stupidity of it all.

 

[Old McDonald]

Dc student is used to getting his own way

You have not even worked out that he is in fact a she. I keep telling you to read what peoplee post.

Monckton's suggestion that we "burn" CO2 is nonsense. It goes downhill from there.