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

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
No they aren't.

Oil isn't going to run out magically any time soon .. supplies have never been larger and the move towards gas, which is a waste gas usually burnt off in oil fields .. means supplies will continue probably for over 100 years at least.

Still zero reasons other than ideology whilst the "supposed" environmental reasons are the opposite.

Germany dropped Nuclear and went coal .. where do you get this rubbish from ? They even went with Lignite which is the most polluting form of coal there is.

And let's face it .. the current "Greening" rules came in because Germany decided it was a good idea to plant one crop .. without hedges .. which led to everyone in the EU having to plant 3 crops mandatory.

On every level "Renewables" is not very good .. and it doesn't undercut oil based power at all. Withou subsidied no "Renewables" would be viable. Try selling renewable power at 6p a unit to justify the costs .. what planet do you live on ?
Lol ok what ever..... solar and wind power are very viable.....
by the way renewables will always be cheaper than fossil fuels, I will not wast my breath in details explaining that, other than it comes from the air or sky for free..... no extraction, refinement, pumping transport etc etc... and fossil fuel power stations get massive sub In the form of payments for being sat idle, when not needed it’s the just in case payments.... they get payed even when not producing power, how is that not sub and a cost on the consumer.

Germany
fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2017.png

As you can see Germany has doubled its enegy production at the same time its reduced its nuclear fuel use, the cost base of its energy is falling, as investments are repayed energy prices can fall. If a factory owner installed solar on the factory roof and supplemented or replaced the need for Grid power in his factory, at least part time, for the next 30 years for a one off cost that normally you get a return on in 10years that means they get 20 years of free power...!. free power...!. free power....! how is oil or coal cheaper?

Solar can now be installed with no sub and it still pays for itself, what’s changing is the export price, the best a person gets now is 4p a kw/hr, for exported electric which makes your 6p 33% to expensive, bearing in mind the electric companies then resell it for 11-16p per unit, to the house next door. But the home owner saves on buying electric at the same rate and exports what they don’t need, these people, are not billionaires....

https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/ikea/solar-panels/
These systems would have cost over 20k 5 years ago. Even with rates at 4p and saving based on consumption at time of production, they still make sense if you have a good roof and day time electric demands, throw in battery storage, you can increase your savings but at the battery prices at the moment it’s less clear if this is a good investment.

Oil is not used in any big way for electricity production, it’s coal and gas, oil is still very important, large amounts of shipping by road and sea will depend on oil for a good long time yet, but oil prices have fallen because of the increase of renewables, it’s the increase of renewables that has seen oil prices tumble, so will the increases in cars using electric, these changes force oil down again in price this has been the best benefit of renewable power use, you seem to not notice these benefits...?
When the demand for oil drops by a good margin the OPEC counties will not be able to cut supply’s to the point of effecting the markets as they do now.
Don’t forget pollution free cities from going to electric cars all these innovations have been driven by climate change....... and now price, now we have economies of scale and prices of renewable tech has fallen, its self sustaining. Most new cars will be hybrids or all electric by 2040, and maybe sooner than that. And I expect the cars to become part of the national grid and act as battery storage for the nation grid. To help with supply and demand jumps around renewable production.

You don’t live in the same world you did 10 years ago, things have changed and for the better if you chose to see that fact.
 
Have you actualy read anything I've posted, I said colder longer winters and warmer summers

You have made a number of posts throughout this thread about people claiming you are telling lies, when in fact nobody has ever done so. However, I would like you to tell me how else you would describe it when you have consistently quoted different figures for rising sea levels, most particularly regarding your choice of the tide gauge at Fort Dennison, as “fact” – one of your favourite words about your posts. Posting false information is not the truth. Posting different numbers as all being “fact” is not the truth.

Now you post this huge whopper. Between posts #297 and #1574 you made some 30 posts, and I can give you the numbers of them if you want, in which you claimed the temperatures are falling and will do so for, according to you who can forecast the future, various lengths of time between “one or two years” and “30 years”. Which is correct, if any? The search facility on this site is very good and it took little time to find the information.

In this post #1576, for the very first time you mention warmer summers. Yet you question whether @linga has read what you have been posting, and bullied him into believing he had missed all your posts about warmer summers. You also asked if he was mad. But you do not play the man do you? If you claim to have posted something when you have not, how would you describe it if not a lie?

This chap is one hell of a brainy person and it's worth a listen even if you don't agree with me.
I belive exactly the same as him.

You claim that all the people who make these YouTube videos are exceptionally clever. Perhaps some of the posters on here are just as clever. I do believe they are a lot more honest. You do not know what is behind somebody’s sign in name. I have been open and admitted that I call on an extremely well qualified scientist for information and clarification. He needs to know what is happening about the climate. Obviously he has two Masters degrees in related fields and a PhD otherwise I would consider him under qualified to advise me. He has been invited to speak at many auspicious places around the world including (just in the USA) twice to NASA staff and both Harvard and Cornell Universities. Many other countries, for a total of 29 different occasions, have asked him to speak, and at some of these proceedings he was the keynote speaker. He has 72 published scientific papers in which he is either first or a supporting author. He is still only 35 y.o. so I assume he will go on to do more.

He does not receive any money from anyone to persuade him how to think about global warming. He has access to information that might otherwise be extremely difficult, or even impossible, for me to obtain. I ask, he provides. I am sure there are other posters on here who are also “one hell of a brainy person” and have access to well qualified people knowledgeable about the climate.

If you believe exactly the same as your YouTube man then you are aware of what other posters have already said about what he believes. Neither mentioned the “fact” that soon after the raccoon spoke to him he was abducted by aliens. Have you also been abducted by aliens? Or do you just believe in them?

Pretty much all climate modellers have no clue about the climate and I've learnt on this thread people attack the man not the ball when the evidence shows they are wrong!

Climate modellers most certainly have much more of a clue than you about the climate, otherwise they would not be doing that for a living would they? To say they have no clue about what they are doing and in the same sentence make the claim that others attack the man is rather stupid is it not? I agree with you that people who do what you do is very consistent with those who know they are wrong and cannot reason their way out of it.

Actually (again using the forum’s excellent search ability) you are the single worst offender throughout this thread, and possibly on the whole forum. Here is an extract from a single post you made:

" I've read your post, you were working for the green lobby ( it paid your bills and the huge grants the place got ) the rest is a lie and misinformation. you lot should be ashamed of yourselfs for frightening people with non science. Christ even the founder of green peace thinks it's bullpoo and you must pray to him nightly. Your type stop debate by trying to deemeen and dismiss evidence and they have done over the last 20 years. your like Brian cox brainwashed by incorrect data."


All that was pure nonsense made up in your own head. None of it was true, none of it was accurate. Had you read, and understood, the post you would not have written what you did. You were asked to explain what was lies, misinformation and non science. Guess what. You refused.

Many posters have refuted almost every YouTube video to which you have linked, and apart from extracting occasional charts etc. from the same source, you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your views. You have been asked on many occasions to do so, but never have. The reason of course is that you cannot. You are the one who posts non science, especially your inaccurate posts about sea level rises over the last 300 years.

On numerous occasions you have been very rude to anyone who agrees with global warming, including the quoted post, but also on various occasions referred to them as idiots (several times) nutters, mad, slippery swine, snake oil salesmen and similar terms. No poster on here has used that sort of insult in relation to those who do not believe in global warming.
 
It's a scam.

Climate change is pure drivel

Climate Change is rubbish.

I would be interested in your elaboration of these statements. Are you saying temperatures are not rising at a rate that is at the very least of some concern for the future? Are you saying that increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are not contributing to these rises?

Do you dispute that a small increase in the level of CO2e (that is all GHGs converted to CO2 equivalent) in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to increase. If you do and can prove it then you will go down in history. As I have posted on this thread on several occasions, for 200 years successive now world renowned scientists have shown that increasing CO2e leads to increasing temperatures. I also posted about the difference in temperatures on Mercury and Venus as an example of how atmosphere affects temperature. If you are able to disprove all this then I would agree with you. Until then, I do not.

On every level "Renewables" is not very good .. and it doesn't undercut oil based power at all.

I have just had my electricity bill a couple of days ago. It updates 2016 to 2017 results for the source of electricity production in Portugal. For the year 42.82% was derived from wind power; 12.70% from hydro and 5.68% from other renewables (mainly solar). Coal is still used and provided 10.11%. Various other biomass and waste products are also burned to provide the remainder.

So, more than 60% of the country's power needs were met from renewables, and it could be argued that some of the "other" burnt material is also renewable. Not too bad I think. Additionally, since Portugal has extremely little need for overnight power, it exports surplus wind generated power to Spain. Also there are times when wind is producing more than 100% of requirements and that surplus is also exported to Spain. You will note that there is very little solar power generation in Portugal. My understanding is that conventional PV panels become inefficient at the high summer temperatures. Just what I have read, I cannot confirm details.
 
I would be interested in your elaboration of these statements. Are you saying temperatures are not rising at a rate that is at the very least of some concern for the future? Are you saying that increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are not contributing to these rises?

Do you dispute that a small increase in the level of CO2e (that is all GHGs converted to CO2 equivalent) in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to increase. If you do and can prove it then you will go down in history. As I have posted on this thread on several occasions, for 200 years successive now world renowned scientists have shown that increasing CO2e leads to increasing temperatures. I also posted about the difference in temperatures on Mercury and Venus as an example of how atmosphere affects temperature. If you are able to disprove all this then I would agree with you. Until then, I do not.



I have just had my electricity bill a couple of days ago. It updates 2016 to 2017 results for the source of electricity production in Portugal. For the year 42.82% was derived from wind power; 12.70% from hydro and 5.68% from other renewables (mainly solar). Coal is still used and provided 10.11%. Various other biomass and waste products are also burned to provide the remainder.

So, more than 60% of the country's power needs were met from renewables, and it could be argued that some of the "other" burnt material is also renewable. Not too bad I think. Additionally, since Portugal has extremely little need for overnight power, it exports surplus wind generated power to Spain. Also there are times when wind is producing more than 100% of requirements and that surplus is also exported to Spain. You will note that there is very little solar power generation in Portugal. My understanding is that conventional PV panels become inefficient at the high summer temperatures. Just what I have read, I cannot confirm details.


I'm not going to fall into a trap of CO2e .. you can't lump all Climate gases as if they are CO2 because quite pointedly they are not - nor is CO2 the dominant factor by any means. I mean who came up with that one ? If water vapour was CO2 you'd have a point .. but it isn't.

Water vapour is a climate gas .. in fact it's THE climate gas as should be obvious to anyone - you can feel it when a cloud goes over the sun. Clouds contribute upto 80% to climate temperatures according to "Climate Science". However I doubt they are including the thermal effects of heat transference between the layers of the atmosphere nor are they including how water, snow & ice affects the atmosphere within the same figures either (reflection, evaporation) - this last part is a guess based on the fact "Climate Scientist" tend to over exaggerate their case.

Of couse as the Earth warms water vapour will increase .. but IMHO this will just lead to temperature norms via the water cycle. Why do I say this ? Because the Earth has been through CO2 levels far higher - upto 8000 or so ppm. Whilst I'm not a "scientist" I do know that no matter how hard you boil water it stays at 100 degrees centigrade at 1 atmosphere. Just guessing again .. given water boils at lower temperatures in lower pressures my guess is the profile of that atmosphere, pressure and dominance of water on the Earth leads to regulation at a lower temperature via the water cycle.

CO2 is a poor minor climate gas at about 400ppm. Water vapour is 100x more potent at 10,000 to 50,000 ppm. Methane 2ppm.

Venus .. the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 atmospheres, 96.5% CO2 - the same pressure at a depth of 1km of the earths ocean. You could practically swim in the atmosphere it's that thick - in fact if we coud retain our volume at 1 atmospheric pressure (which we can't) we'd float upwards. The most important point about Venus is it lost all of it's water and therefore it's water cycle transfering heat up into the high atmosphere to cool, form clouds stopping and reflecting heat back into space.

For a Venus situation to occur on Earth the Earth needs to lose most of it's Hydrogen .. for example when you charge acid batteries this liberates hydrogen and has to potential to leave the atmosphere at 1000s of MPH, which it does BTW.

As you point out .. I'm NOT a "world reknowned scientist" .. it's very easy to state CO2 increases temperatures in isolation but the Earth's atmosphere is not made up just of CO2 nor is CO2 the dominant factor in the Earth's Climate control. There is one salient point to be made regardless of anything else. The Earth regulates it's atmosphere despite cataclismic conditions far worse than 400ppm CO2. We are talking super volcanic eruptions for 1000s of years .. yet the Earth resets and predominantly gets cooler - the water cycle not only regulates but also cleans our atmosphere.

BTW there are other factors such as the fact the moon is now much further away and therefore tides & volcanic activity is less - the moon flexes the Earth's crust increasing temperatures - also supposedly the centre of the Earth is radioactive, if so then the half-life of that radioactivity will have an affect. Meteor showers & impacts and the suns changes as it fuses heavier atoms. Things change, they don't stay the same.

The fact the Earth got almost too cold for any life during the last ice age is of more concern to me than todays warming alarmists - I'm quite happy that humans have brought Carbon and other minerals to the surface. I think in time I'll be proved correct that life will become more abundant as the atmosphere warms up, more rainfall, less deserts and better growing conditions for plants - which will boost all life.

If humans had not evolved before the onset of the next ice age the Earth coud literally turn into an ice ball. Perhaps this is one explanation of why evidence of extraterrestial life in the universe is so rare .. an intelligent species needs to evolve BEFORE life processes (fossilisation of minerals into oil, coal, sea salts such as Phosphate, Potassium & Calcium) and tectonics bury too much carbon to keep life sustained for long enough. I think we as a species have been VERY lucky - we almost DID die out - I think by chance we have ensured that life will continue for some few more 100 million years by mining & the industrial revolution, at least I hope so.

It's fine having renewables but are they at a cost that competes with oil & coal ? I don't think they do but correct me if I am wrong. Basically renewables are a cost added to the bottom line reducing wages and therefore the standard of living.
 
Last edited:
Lol ok what ever..... solar and wind power are very viable.....
by the way renewables will always be cheaper than fossil fuels, I will not wast my breath in details explaining that, other than it comes from the air or sky for free..... no extraction, refinement, pumping transport etc etc... and fossil fuel power stations get massive sub In the form of payments for being sat idle, when not needed it’s the just in case payments.... they get payed even when not producing power, how is that not sub and a cost on the consumer.

Germany
fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2017.png

As you can see Germany has doubled its enegy production at the same time its reduced its nuclear fuel use, the cost base of its energy is falling, as investments are repayed energy prices can fall. If a factory owner installed solar on the factory roof and supplemented or replaced the need for Grid power in his factory, at least part time, for the next 30 years for a one off cost that normally you get a return on in 10years that means they get 20 years of free power...!. free power...!. free power....! how is oil or coal cheaper?

Solar can now be installed with no sub and it still pays for itself, what’s changing is the export price, the best a person gets now is 4p a kw/hr, for exported electric which makes your 6p 33% to expensive, bearing in mind the electric companies then resell it for 11-16p per unit, to the house next door. But the home owner saves on buying electric at the same rate and exports what they don’t need, these people, are not billionaires....

https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/ikea/solar-panels/
These systems would have cost over 20k 5 years ago. Even with rates at 4p and saving based on consumption at time of production, they still make sense if you have a good roof and day time electric demands, throw in battery storage, you can increase your savings but at the battery prices at the moment it’s less clear if this is a good investment.

Oil is not used in any big way for electricity production, it’s coal and gas, oil is still very important, large amounts of shipping by road and sea will depend on oil for a good long time yet, but oil prices have fallen because of the increase of renewables, it’s the increase of renewables that has seen oil prices tumble, so will the increases in cars using electric, these changes force oil down again in price this has been the best benefit of renewable power use, you seem to not notice these benefits...?
When the demand for oil drops by a good margin the OPEC counties will not be able to cut supply’s to the point of effecting the markets as they do now.
Don’t forget pollution free cities from going to electric cars all these innovations have been driven by climate change....... and now price, now we have economies of scale and prices of renewable tech has fallen, its self sustaining. Most new cars will be hybrids or all electric by 2040, and maybe sooner than that. And I expect the cars to become part of the national grid and act as battery storage for the nation grid. To help with supply and demand jumps around renewable production.

You don’t live in the same world you did 10 years ago, things have changed and for the better if you chose to see that fact.


Solar & Wind are only viable because of grants. Yes the AMOUNT of renewables energy has increased but so has the average cost of energy.

electricity-prices-europe.png

88f7689d-6ad3-46d7-aa6b-088096a1c944


I think I am correct in stating that offshore windfarms face higher repair and maintenance cost due to adverse conditions .. but at least MPs made more money, despite energy production costs being 2x that of onshore wind.
https://www.thegwpf.com/type-failure-or-wear-and-tear-in-european-offshore-wind/

Renewables isn't self sustaining, it still has grants and the current system is not viable unless you have a captive market for your own energy production. Otherwise it's completely pointless, just dead money or worse.

Oil prices are currently $77 a barrel and due to increase because of Iranian sanctions. Oil prices fell for two reasons, firstly USA shale/fracking oil making the USA a producer. Secondly Iran entering the market post sanctions being lifted during Obama's era.

You've no idea IF there is even enough materials for batteries to be produced to sustain production. Nor have you allowed for the fact far more energy needs to be produced to provide the energy for the cars .. with transimssion and storage losses because energy is no longer being created at point of use.

Pollution is worst where-ever traffic is worst.

Where have most houses been built ? What is planning policy ? Where do young people live in an estate ? Where are babies most likely to be ?

Next to busy roads and motorways - more so now than ever, mostly because of greed and oportunism. Even if you get rid of all oil based engine pollution there is still metalllic particles in the air, plastics, lubricants and road surfaces. I think they've linked metallic particles with altzheimers, asthma and heart problems. The same goes for trains, metalic particles in the air - which gets into brain tissue BTW.

As regards OPEC .. lets talk Saudi Arabia. Trump visits Saudi. Just before the Salisbury "Chemical incident" the Saudis visited the UK. The UK got an arms deal. Then we had Salisbury, the Saudis visited France, then Syria got bombed and now it is gearing up for a war with Iran. The West has increasing prevailence of Saudi mosques. I don't think the UK, US or France are in a position to do much about the Saudis .. in fact I'm wondering if it is quite the reverse.
 
Last edited:

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Solar & Wind are only viable because of grants. Yes the AMOUNT of renewables energy has increased but so has the average cost of energy.

electricity-prices-europe.png

88f7689d-6ad3-46d7-aa6b-088096a1c944


I think I am correct in stating that offshore windfarms face higher repair and maintenance cost due to adverse conditions .. but at least MPs made more money, despite energy production costs being 2x that of onshore wind.
https://www.thegwpf.com/type-failure-or-wear-and-tear-in-european-offshore-wind/

Renewables isn't self sustaining, it still has grants and the current system is not viable unless you have a captive market for your own energy production. Otherwise it's completely pointless, just dead money or worse.

Oil prices are currently $77 a barrel and due to increase because of Iranian sanctions. Oil prices fell for two reasons, firstly USA shale/fracking oil making the USA a producer. Secondly Iran entering the market post sanctions being lifted during Obama's era.

You've no idea IF there is even enough materials for batteries to be produced to sustain production. Nor have you allowed for the fact far more energy needs to be produced to provide the energy for the cars .. with transimssion and storage losses because energy is no longer being created at point of use.

Pollution is worst where-ever traffic is worst.

Where have most houses been built ? What is planning policy ? Where do young people live in an estate ? Where are babies most likely to be ?

Next to busy roads and motorways - more so now than ever, mostly because of greed and oportunism. Even if you get rid of all oil based engine pollution there is still metalllic particles in the air, plastics, lubricants and road surfaces. I think they've linked metallic particles with altzheimers, asthma and heart problems. The same goes for trains, metalic particles in the air - which gets into brain tissue BTW.

As regards OPEC .. lets talk Saudi Arabia. Trump visits Saudi. Just before the Salisbury "Chemical incident" the Saudis visited the UK. The UK got an arms deal. Then we had Salisbury, the Saudis visited France, then Syria got bombed and now it is gearing up for a war with Iran. The West has increasing prevailence of Saudi mosques. I don't think the UK, US or France are in a position to do much about the Saudis .. in fact I'm wondering if it is quite the reverse.
I suppose it’s your personal choice, you prefer to see us use coal and gas to produce our electric, because it’s cheap in the short term over my choice to switch to renewables because it’s cheap in the long term, and it offers cleaner air. It’s all about the money for you you want what’s cheapest.

Battery tech is moving fast and they can be built by a large array of materials it’s cost and energy density that’s important to transport, density is less important for grid backup, sure it helps but price is more important, they can make them from salt which is one of the most common elements on Earth, I for one would not miss the pollution of fossil fuel powered cars, in our cities, your right more power is needed to power all these cars and we will find them as they gradually increase in numbers.

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/news/winds-of-change.html

These new offshore wind farms are coming in far cheaper every year as they get bigger and more efficient at building them. Sure they are over the Strike price which is around £40-45 but by very little, lets not forget coal and gas power stations get paid when idle..... and this is far less than the nuclear plants are going to cost. I think they were £94 ish.

As for cars you seem not to care about the pollution you blame the problems on planning, ok sure but we are not going to start to knock down houses, and we will always need more in the UK, so your plan is..... what, to decrease pollution for people that are suffering from it, if not electric cars? It’s not going to go away or the other form of pollutions you mentioned. Are you on the no plan, plan. We should just stay as we are because it’s cheap? And it’s needs no effort or innovation......

I tell you what, I want a cleaner less polluted world and for my children to live in one as well, if that cost me so be it, if you don’t go live in Donald trumps USA and be happy. It’s will be cheap according to you. And will outproduce the rest of the world.....

I put my health over my wealth every day of the week..... if it takes my power bill doubling to do it so be it.

my fossil fuel bill on the farm has jumped from 10p a litre to over 50p a litre. electric can stand a big jump before it gets close to doing that.... these are real numbers it peaked at 70p a litre the other year.
Like a lot of big consumers of energy they also have a choice they can install there own production in the form of solar panels if they so wish to invest there own money in them. As a farmer I would welcome machinery that’s electric powered as I can offset the costs with my own production via solar panels, it would work well my main energy use times are also in the better sunnier times of the year. If I could swop my fossil fuel use for electric I would.
If the savings for cars transferred to tractors we all would....
https://www.energuide.be/en/questions-answers/how-much-power-does-an-electric-car-use/212/ At about a 70% saving it’s a no brainier add the fact most farms have the space to install solar panels to self generate..... its win win, my guess is they make detachable batteries so like a front mounted battery we can swop on and off like we do on power tools now. If battery size and running times were an issue.

Change comes at a cost, even if you egnore climate change which you do the changes are still for the best, how much is pollution costing us via the cost to our health, how much of the NHS UK budget could be reduced if pollution was reduced?
 
Last edited:
As a farmer I would welcome machinery that’s electric powered as I can offset the costs with my own production via solar panels, it would work well my main energy use times are also in the better sunnier times of the year. If I could swop my fossil fuel use for electric I would.


As a user of larger machinery you should very well know you cannot swap fossil fuels.

Both the amount of fuel you use, the remote location, working conditions due to dust/time of day, replenishment and the weight required to use batteries makes electric unworkable - worse on slopes.

Fossil fuels are cheaper, weigh less, "Recharge" very quickly and are more efficient overall. It's only a 70% saving because of tax .. how is lost revenue going to be replaced ? And I doubt very much you have allowed for the fact batteries degenerate, over heat, lose power when cold and require replacement. Plus the cost of recharge points, degeneration of solar panels, replacement of power converters and maintenance of all renewables.

How much pollution is there in the countryside ? Practically none, in fact the countryside reverses pollution.

NHS budget reduced because of pollution reduction ? Well the UK has lost most of it's large manufacturing and fossil fuel engines continue to get cleaner year on year due to regulation .. noticed any reduction in NHS costs ? Me neither.
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
As a user of larger machinery you should very well know you cannot swap fossil fuels.

Both the amount of fuel you use, the remote location, working conditions due to dust/time of day, replenishment and the weight required to use batteries makes electric unworkable - worse on slopes.

Fossil fuels are cheaper, weigh less, "Recharge" very quickly and are more efficient overall. It's only a 70% saving because of tax .. how is lost revenue going to be replaced ? And I doubt very much you have allowed for the fact batteries degenerate, over heat, lose power when cold and require replacement. Plus the cost of recharge points, degeneration of solar panels, replacement of power converters and maintenance of all renewables.

How much pollution is there in the countryside ? Practically none, in fact the countryside reverses pollution.

NHS budget reduced because of pollution reduction ? Well the UK has lost most of it's large manufacturing and fossil fuel engines continue to get cleaner year on year due to regulation .. noticed any reduction in NHS costs ? Me neither.
Tax tax, your right there will always be tax, if they can build electric lorries, they can make electric tractors, the problem is the size of the market....... it’s actualy relatively small. The actual size and weight of the battery is not that big of an issue neither would taking a spare battery to the job.
Degeneration......everything degenerates your saying the batteries will degenerate more than the cost of all that fuel..... dream on....... especially if I am using free energy self produced the savings are even greater than 70% that was based on national grid supplied electric, Charging the batteries. Once my investment in solar panels is repayed I may get 15 years of free energy, the savings may be closer to 99% as both machines will get similar where and tear, actualy the electric version has less moving parts and is far less complex, so it’s likley the electric version will cost less to make and less to run. The currently expensive part the battery is also dropping in price year on year......

electric vehicles are inevitable as is the savings they will bring, especially if the owner is able to produce their own electric to run it.

As for tax it’s hard to see how they will tax my self produced self used electric, sure they will tax but it will be the ones still using fossil fuels and a more general tax like income tax, or VAT. So the ones still using fossil fuels will pay double the tax while the ones going electric will have the saving they get from going electric to pay the increased taxes.

Your NHS comment are you trying to say pollution causes no ill health. We know it does, so it has a number or cost, as for seeing a reduction in NHS costs that nearly the most stupid statement you have made so far.
When no one splits the cost by illness how would we ever tell if pollution related illness has fallen or increased, and let’s face it we may be improving but we have a long way to go, it’s not until the generation that suffered from pollution is gone, will it be more noticeable that is if the money is not spent on another area of health care which it inevitable will be......

As for me living in the country side sure my air is fine, but I am not a, pull the ladder up jack, I am alright. I care about people who do live in polluted places. I care just as much as if I was, as should we all.

Your determined to see the negatives, not the brighter better future for the next generation, that climate change has started. If the changes we make because of the choices we make because of climate change, saves just one persons life, it’s worth it. Or don’t you value life are you just money money money.....? Fossil fuel is a chain to the past. Renewables offers nearly free energy to the worlds poor, but I assume you prefer they just build more coal fired power stations and charge them for the power. As that’s what’s best. Not local supply for local demand. Or personal supply for personal demand. How else will remote rural locations get power in third world counties.
You have heard the saying Give a person a fish they eat for a day, give them fishing gear they can eat everyday, the same goes for solar give him a generator and a can of fuel he gets power for a day or so give him solar they can have power for years. They can then afford the repairs on the solar equipment because they are not buying fuel every day.....
 
@wanton dwarf I have just being checking my emails and noted you had replied. I have had a quick read and decided you need a quick reply. I will not be able to respond for at least a week due to non-farming commitments including a big problem trying to clear up my late brother's estate. He died in Australia and somebody claimed he married their mother 40 years ago. Not true but a problem. I also have a backlog of work I would like to be catching up on.

You might not be a world renowned scientist, but from the quick read of your reply I have an idea you might well be one of the "hell of a brainy person" posters I suggested to banjo could be on here.

I have a lot of info on clouds and water vapour and so will not need new research before I respond, but please be patient.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
...makes electric unworkable - worse on slopes.

Fossil fuels are cheaper, weigh less, "Recharge" very quickly and are more efficient overall....


Men were never meant to fly you know, we don't have wings... :rolleyes: There can be remarkable torque with electric vehicles, fossil fuels don't 'recharge', in human terms they only diminish - but I assume you meant that they are easier with which to get back to maximum work potential.

Nevertheless, your post is more or less right for now, and that is the point, just for now... batteries will decrease in size, weight, cost and recharge time. Electric motors will get ever-more efficient, cheaper etc.. Vehicles - including ag' ones - will be lighter, stronger and more efficient. You can expect our grandchildren - probably even our children - to be running electric tractors, with a quick-change facility for batteries that will last half a day or more, and that will all be charged from solar roofs on sheds. ;)

(And an awful lot of work will be fully automated and done by little 'bots' roaming around doing their own thing)​
 
@wanton dwarf I have just being checking my emails and noted you had replied. I have had a quick read and decided you need a quick reply. I will not be able to respond for at least a week due to non-farming commitments including a big problem trying to clear up my late brother's estate. He died in Australia and somebody claimed he married their mother 40 years ago. Not true but a problem. I also have a backlog of work I would like to be catching up on.

You might not be a world renowned scientist, but from the quick read of your reply I have an idea you might well be one of the "hell of a brainy person" posters I suggested to banjo could be on here.

I have a lot of info on clouds and water vapour and so will not need new research before I respond, but please be patient.


Sorry to hear of your loss.

I'm interested in your reply from a knowledge persepective but want to move on from moaning about sh@t .. taking too much time which I don't have 8) .. I see you have the same problem.

My reply is based on my continued interest in the world at large on all kinds of subjects .. was recently reading up about how silicon chips are made from single crystals and how they are made .. interesting stuff and certainly a better investment of £10 Billion than "foreign aid".

But no rush .. and certainly not worth it because no matter what I think I can't change things.
 

Pond digger

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
Location
East Yorkshire
I'm not going to fall into a trap of CO2e .. you can't lump all Climate gases as if they are CO2 because quite pointedly they are not - nor is CO2 the dominant factor by any means. I mean who came up with that one ? If water vapour was CO2 you'd have a point .. but it isn't.

Water vapour is a climate gas .. in fact it's THE climate gas as should be obvious to anyone - you can feel it when a cloud goes over the sun. Clouds contribute upto 80% to climate temperatures according to "Climate Science". However I doubt they are including the thermal effects of heat transference between the layers of the atmosphere nor are they including how water, snow & ice affects the atmosphere within the same figures either (reflection, evaporation) - this last part is a guess based on the fact "Climate Scientist" tend to over exaggerate their case.

Of couse as the Earth warms water vapour will increase .. but IMHO this will just lead to temperature norms via the water cycle. Why do I say this ? Because the Earth has been through CO2 levels far higher - upto 8000 or so ppm. Whilst I'm not a "scientist" I do know that no matter how hard you boil water it stays at 100 degrees centigrade at 1 atmosphere. Just guessing again .. given water boils at lower temperatures in lower pressures my guess is the profile of that atmosphere, pressure and dominance of water on the Earth leads to regulation at a lower temperature via the water cycle.

CO2 is a poor minor climate gas at about 400ppm. Water vapour is 100x more potent at 10,000 to 50,000 ppm. Methane 2ppm.

Venus .. the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 atmospheres, 96.5% CO2 - the same pressure at a depth of 1km of the earths ocean. You could practically swim in the atmosphere it's that thick - in fact if we coud retain our volume at 1 atmospheric pressure (which we can't) we'd float upwards. The most important point about Venus is it lost all of it's water and therefore it's water cycle transfering heat up into the high atmosphere to cool, form clouds stopping and reflecting heat back into space.

For a Venus situation to occur on Earth the Earth needs to lose most of it's Hydrogen .. for example when you charge acid batteries this liberates hydrogen and has to potential to leave the atmosphere at 1000s of MPH, which it does BTW.

As you point out .. I'm NOT a "world reknowned scientist" .. it's very easy to state CO2 increases temperatures in isolation but the Earth's atmosphere is not made up just of CO2 nor is CO2 the dominant factor in the Earth's Climate control. There is one salient point to be made regardless of anything else. The Earth regulates it's atmosphere despite cataclismic conditions far worse than 400ppm CO2. We are talking super volcanic eruptions for 1000s of years .. yet the Earth resets and predominantly gets cooler - the water cycle not only regulates but also cleans our atmosphere.

BTW there are other factors such as the fact the moon is now much further away and therefore tides & volcanic activity is less - the moon flexes the Earth's crust increasing temperatures - also supposedly the centre of the Earth is radioactive, if so then the half-life of that radioactivity will have an affect. Meteor showers & impacts and the suns changes as it fuses heavier atoms. Things change, they don't stay the same.

The fact the Earth got almost too cold for any life during the last ice age is of more concern to me than todays warming alarmists - I'm quite happy that humans have brought Carbon and other minerals to the surface. I think in time I'll be proved correct that life will become more abundant as the atmosphere warms up, more rainfall, less deserts and better growing conditions for plants - which will boost all life.

If humans had not evolved before the onset of the next ice age the Earth coud literally turn into an ice ball. Perhaps this is one explanation of why evidence of extraterrestial life in the universe is so rare .. an intelligent species needs to evolve BEFORE life processes (fossilisation of minerals into oil, coal, sea salts such as Phosphate, Potassium & Calcium) and tectonics bury too much carbon to keep life sustained for long enough. I think we as a species have been VERY lucky - we almost DID die out - I think by chance we have ensured that life will continue for some few more 100 million years by mining & the industrial revolution, at least I hope so.

It's fine having renewables but are they at a cost that competes with oil & coal ? I don't think they do but correct me if I am wrong. Basically renewables are a cost added to the bottom line reducing wages and therefore the standard of living.
But the whole point of renewable energy is its sustainability; financial comparison with fossil fuels is irrelevant. It concerns me greatly that modern civilisation is so completely dependent on oil, a finite resource.
 
I'm not going to fall into a trap of CO2e .. you can't lump all Climate gases as if they are CO2 because quite pointedly they are not - nor is CO2 the dominant factor by any means. I mean who came up with that one ? If water vapour was CO2 you'd have a point .. but it isn't.

Water vapour is a climate gas .. in fact it's THE climate gas as should be obvious to anyone - you can feel it when a cloud goes over the sun. Clouds contribute upto 80% to climate temperatures according to "Climate Science". However I doubt they are including the thermal effects of heat transference between the layers of the atmosphere nor are they including how water, snow & ice affects the atmosphere within the same figures either (reflection, evaporation) - this last part is a guess based on the fact "Climate Scientist" tend to over exaggerate their case.

Of couse as the Earth warms water vapour will increase .. but IMHO this will just lead to temperature norms via the water cycle. Why do I say this ? Because the Earth has been through CO2 levels far higher - upto 8000 or so ppm. Whilst I'm not a "scientist" I do know that no matter how hard you boil water it stays at 100 degrees centigrade at 1 atmosphere. Just guessing again .. given water boils at lower temperatures in lower pressures my guess is the profile of that atmosphere, pressure and dominance of water on the Earth leads to regulation at a lower temperature via the water cycle.

CO2 is a poor minor climate gas at about 400ppm. Water vapour is 100x more potent at 10,000 to 50,000 ppm. Methane 2ppm.

Venus .. the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 atmospheres, 96.5% CO2 - the same pressure at a depth of 1km of the earths ocean. You could practically swim in the atmosphere it's that thick - in fact if we coud retain our volume at 1 atmospheric pressure (which we can't) we'd float upwards. The most important point about Venus is it lost all of it's water and therefore it's water cycle transfering heat up into the high atmosphere to cool, form clouds stopping and reflecting heat back into space.

For a Venus situation to occur on Earth the Earth needs to lose most of it's Hydrogen .. for example when you charge acid batteries this liberates hydrogen and has to potential to leave the atmosphere at 1000s of MPH, which it does BTW.

As you point out .. I'm NOT a "world reknowned scientist" .. it's very easy to state CO2 increases temperatures in isolation but the Earth's atmosphere is not made up just of CO2 nor is CO2 the dominant factor in the Earth's Climate control. There is one salient point to be made regardless of anything else. The Earth regulates it's atmosphere despite cataclismic conditions far worse than 400ppm CO2. We are talking super volcanic eruptions for 1000s of years .. yet the Earth resets and predominantly gets cooler - the water cycle not only regulates but also cleans our atmosphere.

BTW there are other factors such as the fact the moon is now much further away and therefore tides & volcanic activity is less - the moon flexes the Earth's crust increasing temperatures - also supposedly the centre of the Earth is radioactive, if so then the half-life of that radioactivity will have an affect. Meteor showers & impacts and the suns changes as it fuses heavier atoms. Things change, they don't stay the same.

The fact the Earth got almost too cold for any life during the last ice age is of more concern to me than todays warming alarmists - I'm quite happy that humans have brought Carbon and other minerals to the surface. I think in time I'll be proved correct that life will become more abundant as the atmosphere warms up, more rainfall, less deserts and better growing conditions for plants - which will boost all life.

If humans had not evolved before the onset of the next ice age the Earth coud literally turn into an ice ball. Perhaps this is one explanation of why evidence of extraterrestial life in the universe is so rare .. an intelligent species needs to evolve BEFORE life processes (fossilisation of minerals into oil, coal, sea salts such as Phosphate, Potassium & Calcium) and tectonics bury too much carbon to keep life sustained for long enough. I think we as a species have been VERY lucky - we almost DID die out - I think by chance we have ensured that life will continue for some few more 100 million years by mining & the industrial revolution, at least I hope so.

It's fine having renewables but are they at a cost that competes with oil & coal ? I don't think they do but correct me if I am wrong. Basically renewables are a cost added to the bottom line reducing wages and therefore the standard of living.

First, thanks for your condolences. You can perhaps guess at the shock of receiving a death certificate announcing your brother married somebody more than 40 years ago and you never knew about it. Especially since he visited us in the UK soon after the alleged occurrence and shortly before we moved to Australia where we spent quite a bit of time with him over the next few years – and several of his “lady friends”. Fortunately the Registry of BD&M took my query seriously so they checked their records and confirmed he did not marry the man’s mother. In NSW a stepchild who was a dependant has a claim against the estate of his stepfather – and he would have been a dependant if the marriage had occurred as he claimed.

As I said in my brief acknowledgement to you, I have a lot of information stored on my computer; also in a book which aimed to show that it was possible to have a Zero Carbon Britain by 2030. I was asked to review a chapter before publication and received a copy as a “reward”. I can give references to the papers behind most of the statements which follow if I do not give them in the text, but do not expect a rapid response. I know from having given your many points some thought over the last couple of weeks this is going to be a very long response.

CO2e is not a trap. It is a convenient means of converting GHGs to one common denominator. This link shows CO2 alone as well as CO2e, and an index of how it has changed from 1979. https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi There are other charts and links to more detailed information for anyone wishing to read in more depth.

As for who came up with the idea that CO2 is the dominant factor, I have already told you, including in the post you quoted, which stated I had posted previously, that it all began almost exactly 200 years ago. It is therefore an extremely long time (in scientific terms) for something to be accepted. Admittedly Angstrom argued against it at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, suggesting that water vapour (wv) was of more importance, but I think nobody has argued against it since. The acceptance that other GHGs also play a part despite being in minute quantities in the atmosphere gave rise to sometimes lumping them together as CO2e. See this link https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius for a short history. I think again that nobody since Angstrom has argued that wv is a forcer of global warming.

To understand why certain GHGs are so important it is necessary to also know the climate sensitivity to the different gases and their relative feedback (forcing) effect on the climate. For example Methane and Nitrous Oxide are more forcing than CO2 so a given amount in the atmosphere has a much greater effect than the same amount of CO2. An increase in GHGs creates an imbalance between energy (heat) entering and leaving the earth. Wv is indeed a most powerful GHG, but despite its power, the reason it has very little effect on our temperatures is because it condenses. Clouds form and it may fall to the ground as the rain we all need to survive. Nevertheless, the small effect it does have is a positive one, thereby increasing temperatures further. As temperatures increase yet more this positive effect will also increase, giving rise to yet higher temperatures.

When wv forms clouds it has both a positive and negative feedback. Some trap heat in our atmosphere and some radiate it back into space. That means that not all wv is increasing global temperatures, some is decreasing temperatures. That does not happen with other GHGs they all force temperatures upwards. GHGs absorb radiation at different wavelengths and those wavelengths are used to check the radiation leaving Earth so that the source can be identified. The quantity of radiation leaving from non wv GHGs has been falling for a few decades, so they are increasing temperatures.

As for heat transference between different layers of the atmosphere, the lower is warming whilst the upper is cooling. This means that more heat is being trapped in the lower atmosphere thereby causing surface temperatures to be higher. The link @wilber gave at #1549 covers this at about 1.40mins. Yes, I know it is another YouTube video, but it is only 6 mins and it covers several more of the points you raised. Well worth 6 mins of your very valuable time. I think few posters have actually watched it. Especially those who agree with AGW. Why do I say this? Have a look at the lack of likes it has at the time of writing.

The level of the tropopause, the point at which temperatures cease to reduce with increasing altitude, is rising, meaning that there is a greater volume of the lower atmosphere, which as pointed out is increasing in temperature. The greater volume of this warmer, lower atmosphere means that it will require much more cooling to reduce it than if it was a smaller volume. This means that overnight cooling is less than it would be for a smaller volume. This is what is happening on my own property.

I have some aquaponics and record the temperature of the fish and live food tanks (daphnia) and the grow beds’ “soil” temps too. I compare these with the same temperature measurements for my terrestrial farming. The larger fish tank maintains a higher overnight temperature than the small daphnia containers, i.e. the lower volume cools more quickly. I use temperatures as a management tool, especially when applying foliar feeds and chemical sprays to my crops.

As you know, snow and ice reflect radiation, and obviously as the ice melts (and it is happening despite some of banjo’s videos) both land and sea areas are exposed. These darker surfaces then reflect less radiation and absorb more of the heat from the sun. Another positive forcing. This link, which I have posted before, gives a daily record of temperatures above the 80ºN latitude http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Whilst on links, here is the one for the Mauna Loa CO2 daily recordings https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 Now for those who claim that volcanoes put out a lot (we will not go into detail as to exactly how much) of CO2 in comparison to man, the current activity nearby would surely have raised the level at least a little bit would it not?

Levels of CO2 in the past that were much higher were all at a time when humanity did not exist. Homo sapiens did not evolve until about 200 thousand years ago. It is nearly a million years since levels were above 400pm. It is some 400 million years since levels may have been as high as the 8000ppm you mention – there is uncertainty about the figure being so high, but I accept it was at least more than 10 times the present level. There were glaciations at these extremely elevated levels too, see https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77 for a decent article about it.

Increasing levels of CO2 is not all good news for plant (or animal) growth either. See these links https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245 and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-global-warming-make-food-less-nutritious/ The second one is short, the first is quite heavy reading. I found similar articles when I was researching for a book I published a few years ago. I did not keep a record of those articles/papers.

I had to learn about Daphnia before I kept them – just another farm animal as far as I am concerned. Colonies are subject to total collapse from time to time, and this often occurs when there is an overabundance of food. Various theories have been put forward and include one that the algae on which they feed (they consume food as they swim rather than actively seek it) is of lower nutritional value when it grows quickly. Just a theory, but algae blooms are more frequent with increased photosynthesis and rising temperatures.

From your comments you are obviously knowledgeable about the climate of Venus. You will therefore be aware that it has been theorised that it is as it is because of an ever increasing greenhouse effect – similar to that we are now experiencing on Earth. Not that I am suggesting that will happen here in the foreseeable long term future, but eventually, at least in theory, it could. Pure guesswork, but since it was a natural occurrence on Venus, and our increasing levels of CO2 on earth appear to be due to burning fossil fuels, I think it unlikely. Of course the rising temperatures dissipated the planet’s water, but as you will know, some still exists as wv.

You repeat your theory about water, I can only repeat what I posted above about GHGs and CO2 in particular. My remarks about “world renowned scientists” were not to disparage you, I suggested that if you could disprove that rising CO2e did not cause rising temperatures you “would go down in history”. As indeed you would, because again, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, nobody in 200 years has disproved that CO2 is the main forcer. I had asked the question whether you believed CO2e did not cause temperatures to rise. You did not directly respond, but said you would not fall into the CO2e trap. I take it that means you believe CO2e does not cause rising temperatures. Not a lot I can do about that, only repeat that in 200 years nobody has disproved that it does.

As for the moon, I doubt you can call a move of probably less than 150 miles in a distance of about 240,000 miles a “lot further away”. Take into account that it has taken about 4.5 billion years to move that distance and it is an extremely slow movement – about a mile every 30 million years. Given our 200 thousand years here that means it has moved about 12 yards since H sapiens first evolved.

I cannot agree with you either that “the Earth got almost too cold for any life during the last ice age”. Given that the glacial maximum was little more than 20,000 years ago and there were great human movements across the planet during the glaciations, there were lots of life forms around before, during and after that glaciation.

I have already covered your point about better growing conditions for plants. As for more rainfall, it has to fall in evenly spread amounts to be effective. Tropical scale downpours for some months and a dry season (as I experience here in Portugal) of about 5 months is not conducive to good growing conditions. There will only be less amounts of desert if the rain does fall evenly. It is not expected to do so. There are no signs up to the present time that rain is being more evenly spread, either seasonally, or across the globe. Add to that the acidification of the oceans from higher CO2 levels and its devastating effect on many marine (and freshwater) species, particularly those that rely on a calcium based body covering, and we are going to be a great deal worse off.

Your final remarks about renewables being competitive with oil and coal is perhaps a moot point. I think I am correct in saying that Portugal no longer has any coal mines. Consequently all coal has to be imported and I believe there will be no coal fired power stations within the next couple of years. Oil is a similar commodity. On the other hand, Portugal is a very windy country and the enormous number of windmills do at times produce more power than is needed for the whole country and this is sold to Spain. Those who have holidayed in Portugal in summer might well think it is ideally suited to solar power, but for economic reasons wind is the preferred source. Certainly solar is useful, but specifically for heat rather than power.
 
Last edited:

Farmer Roy

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
NSW, Newstralya
Last edited:

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
But the whole point of renewable energy is its sustainability; financial comparison with fossil fuels is irrelevant. It concerns me greatly that modern civilisation is so completely dependent on oil, a finite resource.
Especially modern agricultural operations - even animals aren't able to feed themselves or walk to slaughter because people get in the way in their race to the bottom
I do like how robots are touted as a technological breakthrough that will free mankind of his shackles when in reality we have enough population in the world and animal-suiting area that the robots have always existed - must be great to prefer fiction over reality

So many posts on here that I could reply to but I fear the OP has difficulty reading any views that don't suit his own viewpoints - I would however like to hear the reasons for Britains more extreme weather events and how they do NOT relate to climate change - purely as entertainment of course

The world is a system, man has changed nearly every part of the natural world in his pursuit of money - it seems odd to suggest that the changing climate has not been altered in the slightest by centuries of changing landuse and releasing all that carbon from the soil into the atmosphere - sure, it is sunspots :facepalm:
Being a ham radio enthusiast in years gone by - I realise that while they do have effects, the effects are in no way cumulative, or we would be extinct already :whistle:

just sayin'
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

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

  • 1,294
  • 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