Climate change, real or no deal.

[Screwdriver]

hello Screwdriver,

you can't use the bathtub anology to the global climate, It is far more complicated and self regulating than that.

The climate is very stable and deviates by a tiny amount. We have had hotter and we have had colder climates than today and humans have always prospered in the warmer periods. Using pre industrial times as an ideal temperature and a bench mark is illogical, who decided that?
What is also illogical is spending trilions and trillions of dollars, Euros, pounds etc on ineffective and unworkable 'solutions' to try and change the climate by trying to reduce our small contribution to a very small part of the atmosperic mix. Water vapour being the main greenhouse gas and is both far stronger due to it's existence in three states (vapour, liquid and solid, nothing to do with America) and that there is about fifty times more of it than CO2. We don't try and reduce water vapour emissions do we, it would be beyond our capability, yet we try and reduce CO2 which is also beyond our capability.
The money spent could and should have been far better spent in so many ways that improves the lives of man, particularly in developing countries.

By the way, having studied this for well over ten years I do know what anthropogenic means :-)

Alec

But you said:

AGW natural or man made?

AGW cannot be "natural" it literally means man made.

Anyhow, the bathtub example is intended to demonstrate how even a small excess can lead to a large change. It is typically presented to explain how man made CO2 emissions in particular can have such a huge effect when that excess production (lit. release) of CO2 is relatively small compared to natural variability.

Water vapour may make a large contribution to global temperatures but by its very nature cannot persist for long enough or at high enough concentrations to contribute to global warming.

Quoting pre industrial times is not harking back to the good old days when everything was "ideal", it is a period during which a sudden spike in human activity coincides with a sudden rise in CO2 levels and an unprecedented rise in global temperatures.

 

[garethp]

We don't have to have it - bought on the spot market.

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/baglan/

In fact the cost for Baglan was £300 million.

Gwynt a Mor £2billion plus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynt_y_Môr

Hornsea 1
approx £2billion plus

The costs are truly staggering

Gas power stations get no subsidises at all.

Thats 2 billion euros and back in 2015 the exchange rate was around 1.4 so substantially cheaper than £2 billion. Also the cost of gas for the gas plant will be significant if both are compared for 25 years.

According to an EU report last year the uk subsided fossil fuels to the tune of around £10 billion whilst renewables got around £8 billion.

 

[fizzy]

Sigh, plenty of studies have been done, again a quick search will return plenty of results.

Quick summary from factcheck.org but plenty of other sites have comparible figures.

"Coal’s carbon footprint is almost 90 times larger than that of wind energy, and the footprint of natural gas is more than 40 times larger, according to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory"

Coal is horrid stuff to burn.
Gas makes more sense.
But as people on here have stated Britain could vanish overnight and it would make virtually no difference to World CO2 levels.
Our industry can't compete due to sky high energy costs so more is done in places like India.
Of course there is a solution. One that has been successful for France for many years.
But of course the evironmentalists have killed that one stone dead

 

[fizzy]

Thats 2 billion euros and back in 2015 the exchange rate was around 1.4 so substantially cheaper than £2 billion. Also the cost of gas for the gas plant will be significant if both are compared for 25 years.

According to an EU report last year the uk subsided fossil fuels to the tune of around £10 billion whilst renewables got around £8 billion.

How is gas subsidised I don't get it?
It is bought on the spot market.
The power stations get about 4 or 5p per kWh.

 

[garethp]

Coal is horrid stuff to burn.
Gas makes more sense.
But as people on here have stated Britain could vanish overnight and it would make virtually no difference to World CO2 levels.
Our industry can't compete due to sky high energy costs so more is done in places like India.
Of course there is a solution. One that has Bern successful for France for many years.
But of course the evironmentalists have killed that one stone dead

Fusion is the long term future, shame its always 10 years away

 

[gaz1]

Hurts who in the pocket, the average American or Trump and his fossil fuel buddies.

just as bad in the uk at least with usa they try to keep some companys in business not ship it all out and go all out data instead

 

[Steveblade]

Wow that caused a bit of shirt storm

My takeway is I have some advise where I might get some better quality LED lamps COOL

But is it all a blag, 50000 hours? lasted more like 500, I wonder how much energy it took to make the dam thing, and they've sold hundreds of millions of em.

My only other thought is Ive seen figures from quite some time ago that claimed human production of Co2 was about 0.002% or less (I cant rememeber the exact number of decimal places, a small percentage for sure) of the total Co2, the rest being natrally occurring. That was about the time the green brigade went full retard. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary of the promoted "Global warming emergency" which is another scary sound bite to put fear of god into ya.

That evidence is suppressed though and anyone spouting the mantra gets a platform, anyone else deplatformed and drown out and canceled.
How many rememember the hockey stick graph that was prooved to be "fixed", modified, bent to promote the current narative? Oh they did try very hard to sweep that under the carpet and many a career was left in ruin, these people had to be shut down.

You can see my thoughts on this subject are sceptical but what I want to know is when exactly did carbon and Co2 become toxic? Carbon footprint indeed .
Before all this BS it was the acid rain scare remmember. You'll be on you way to the shops and if it rains you'll get melted by the nasty ACID RAIN ! Yeah literal melted. You should pay more taxes to stay safe, Euro 5/ 6 /7 /8 where does it end more TAXES!!

DONT POLLUTE by all means, I support that but the rest....tis a total CROCK OF CODS WALLOPING BILGE BUNKHAM

The green sector are making billions of billions out of us off the back this rubbish.




Ill get me some LEDs if there cheap enough, if not I'll have to burn some coal for light

PLAY NICE NOW

 

[Chillitt]

Nurse! he's out of bed again...

 

[fizzy]

Until Trump came along most people actually believed the scientists!

 

[fizzy]

Rather a violent upswing since the 50s.

 

[Steveblade]

Co2 emmission.....

and free Co2 in the atmosphere? I can harly belive that graph I mean why is it we can still even breath?

Co2 is not even the most significant "green house" gas by a long chalk but we can always put corks up cows bums to fix that problem.


There's a big shinny ball of light in the sky during the day, we sometimes refer to it as the SUN. Try turning it down a notch or two as thats the source of your "warming".

Its beyond me how people think that we can control the natural world, on this scale?

In any case if gets a bit warmer we wont need to burn fosil fuels for heating so its a win win for all isnt it?

 

[Steveblade]

Nurse! he's out of bed again...

Thats the best you got

 

[Screwdriver]

Fusion is the long term future, shame its always 10 years away

I think fusion will always be "just around the corner". It works for stars because they're so damned big. Unimaginably huge, even if you think you think you know how big the sun is, it's actually bigger than that!

The furthest any man has been into outer space is to the moon, it took days to get there at 1000's of mph. Now look at the sun. Our furthest foray into outer space is less than half the width of our sun (almost a quarter to be precise), anyway we digress; it is BIG.

While I sit here typing this, pound for pound I am generating more heat energy than the equivalent Screwdriver sized chunk of sun-stuff.


Wait! WHAT?

Well not ALL of the suns material is generating fusion energy, in fact only a teenytiny percent of it is fusing Hydrogen into Helium and releasing energy. Vast quantities of energy of course but that's what makes the sun shine, it's not all "on fire" for example. All of the sun (well most of it) is potentially fuel but it's not all going off all at once so I am, pound for pound, generating more energy than the equivalent size lump of sun.

Getting Hydrogen to fuse into Helium takes a gigantic amount of energy, energy the Sun gets just by being so unimaginably huge with its correspondingly mind boggling pressure of gravity. It is of course a whole library full of hard books more complicated that that but the takeaway is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Sustainable energy positive fusion power is, I think, unattainable. That's not such a bad thing when you remember what we did the minute we discovered how to release energy from matter in one big unsustainable err, bang.

 

[fizzy]

I think fusion will always be "just around the corner". It works for stars because they're so damned big. Unimaginably huge, even if you think you think you know how big the sun is, it's actually bigger than that!

The furthest any man has been into outer space is to the moon, it took days to get there at 1000's of mph. Now look at the sun. Our furthest foray into outer space is less than half the width of our sun (almost a quarter to be precise), anyway we digress; it is BIG.

While I sit here typing this, pound for pound I am generating more heat energy than the equivalent Screwdriver sized chunk of sun-stuff.


Wait! WHAT?

Well not ALL of the suns material is generating fusion energy, in fact only a teenytiny percent of it is fusing Hydrogen into Helium and releasing energy. Vast quantities of energy of course but that's what makes the sun shine, it's not all "on fire" for example. All of the sun (well most of it) is potentially fuel but it's not all going off all at once so I am, pound for pound, generating more energy than the equivalent size lump of sun.

Getting Hydrogen to fuse into Helium takes a gigantic amount of energy, energy the Sun gets just by being so unimaginably huge with its correspondingly mind boggling pressure of gravity. It is of course a whole library full of hard books more complicated that that but the takeaway is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Sustainable energy positive fusion power is, I think, unattainable. That's not such a bad thing when you remember what we did the minute we discovered how to release energy from matter in one big unsustainable err, bang.

If fusion only happened in the stars I would say we are wasting our time - BUT! It has been done on Earth! Many times. Hydrogen bombs. The Victorians would have created the World's biggest beam engine and chucked a H bomb into the piston for every stroke

 

[Chillitt]

Thats the best you got

No. Just the best you are getting.. You are either trolling or daft so I cant be bothered

 

[daleyd]

If fusion only happened in the stars I would say we are wasting our time - BUT! It has been done on Earth! Many times. Hydrogen bombs. The Victorians would have created the World's biggest beam engine and chucked a H bomb into the piston for every stroke

It’s “comparatively” (but not very at all) easy to generate fusion in a bomb, because the conditions only need to be maintained for a fraction of a second. The initiation of a primary fission creates x rays which impinge on a secondary and this creates the fusion conditions. Fractions of a second later the shock wave arrives and the material is dismantled ending the fusion process.

Now, sustaining something like this For more than a few seconds is a different fishy kettle...

 

[Screwdriver]

Co2 emmission.....

and free Co2 in the atmosphere? I can harly belive that graph I mean why is it we can still even breath?

Co2 is not even the most significant "green house" gas by a long chalk but we can always put corks up cows bums to fix that problem.

There's a big shinny ball of light in the sky during the day, we sometimes refer to it as the SUN. Try turning it down a notch or two as thats the source of your "warming".

Its beyond me how people think that we can control the natural world, on this scale?

I agree it is difficult to imagine we could have such an effect, that's why we employ scientists. They spend their lives working out stuff like this then try to explain it to us. Graphs can be deceptive and humans can survive in a CO2 rich environment, so long as there's enough oxygen.

From Wiki: "Normally, humans breathe in air that is approximately 20.95% oxygen, 78.09% nitrogen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% (400 ppm) of carbon dioxide. ... The concentration of CO2 in each breath is ~3.8%"

Thos tiny amounts of CO2 don't bother us but CO2 acts like a blanket wrapped around the Earth and if you increase the insulation value (if you like) one tiny bit more than the Earth has become used to, it literally warms up until the amount of energy it can re-radiate forms an equilibrium with the amount of energy it receives. If you want to see what runaway CO2 can do to a planet, take a peek at Venus because what the scientists are worried about is that global warming is one great positive feedback loop. The warmer it gets, the more global warming increases....

 

[Keith 66]

American so enough said, but I'll say a a bit anyway.

That is very much a case of "can't be bothered" rather than "can't be done".

Fibreglass can be recycled into some construction materials but its probably cheaper to bury them.

As ever with humans greed and laziness conquers all.

My trade boatbuilding has been largely fibreglass based for 60 or more years, in that time most fibreglass boats have been built solely for pleasure use. All those boats moulded & 94% of them are still here. Built from a material that can last centuries & still sit there.
The industry is waking up to the realisation that it cant go on, but the reality is a collapsed market with a vast over supply of cheap boats that are simply uneconomic to restore or refit.
A material that is notoriously hard to recycle & the products from such recycling cost five times the price of new virgin material.
Ever wondered what happens to all those smashed up yachts in the Carribean every hurricane? A mate of mine was out there a few years back & said that due to the lack of repair facilities most were just put on barges & dumped in deepwater to form huge reefs. If true that is environmental vandalism on an industrial scale.

 

[Steveblade]

No. Just the best you are getting.. You are either trolling or daft so I cant be bothered

Good works for me, you see I didnt go out my way and ridicule anything you have said so who's trolling again?

 

[Wozzaaah]

Tick..... tock..... tick... tock.... here comes mr pad... lock....