Global Warming

[Challenger1978]

hydrogen is not on the agenda as such it all about renewables mainly wind at the moment

Nuclear power plants can produce large amounts of Hydrogen depending on the configuration. Eventually if we want to keep driving around in cars like we do now we're are going to have to start using Hydrogen fuel cell cars.

The electric car is the future but I don't think it will be battery powered it will more then likely be hydrogen powered. Simply because the recharge time on batteries takes so bloody long I honestly don't think they are viable.

Most nuclear plants don't want to produce hydrogen, explosive gases and nuclear are possibly a risk too far.

mind you with nuclear you could always generate electricity for a H2 plant significantly removed from the nuclear side of things

Well you better tell that to the US government as its there plan and where they go the UK normally follows. Also electrolysis is not the only way to produce hydrogen heat can be used to.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326112500.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112500.htm</a>

Good read.

 

[SWP's back]

I recommend this part fiction, part fact novel:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0007181604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340203622&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Mich ... 622&sr=1-1</a>

State of Fear

*sits back to await Damocles not being happy*

 

[Damocles]

I recommend this part fiction, part fact novel:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0007181604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340203622&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Mich ... 622&sr=1-1</a>

State of Fear

*sits back to await Damocles not being happy*

I recommend reading Charile and The Chocolate Factory if you enjoy fiction.

Whilst I acknowledge and enjoy any debate on climatology, this book is an absolute fairy tale.

It's absolutely no fact. It's a myth. Read the reviews from independent scientists. Nothing infuriates me more than people advocating that complete and utter work of fucking shit.

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research

James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific</a>


---

In fact, a collection of scientists got together and made a big webpage about how much shit in in that book:

<a class="postlink" href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment ... ageID=1670</a>

--

Even the guy who authored the graphs in the book that MC used said that he's full of shit and distorting data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opini ... .html?_r=1</a>

---

To be honest, when I read the book I thought it was pretty good in places and complete nonsense in others. His idea about creating lightning was one of the dumbest things that I'd ever read. I enjoyed his bit right near the end (I think the characters were in a cafe) speaking about the climate of fear created by the mass media and this has strong echoes in the Power of Nightmares series of documentaries that I enjoyed. The bit with the canninbals was pretty shocking but made a good point about the reality of nature.
However, the climate 'science' in there almost made me throw the fucking thing out of the window. I only read it because I'd heard through the grapevine that he'd released a book that was almost offensive in how poor it treated the source material. Having read Jurassic Park and his one about the nanomachines, I thought that it was maybe an over reaction.

Then I read it.

The way that he tries to present scientific data, without any context AT ALL (a bit like Gelson's Dad did earlier here) is infuriating. The way that he cherrypicks bits here and there and massively misunderstands the meaning of what climate is. How he trots out some utter shit regarding the urban heat effect; how he consistently uses data that he twists to point to his own conclusions. I swear, I've never read a book in my life that made me angrier, and I've read Fergies autobiography. I'm all for reading books that challenge your own position and often do so. But this was a book that actually TRIED to be scientific by NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC AT ALL.

Fuck that book, and fuck Crichton.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

dont believe the vast majority of scientists or the evidence they produce as some bluemoon posters think global warming or climate change which is more accurate cant be true because it not 80 degress outside

is climate change happening evidence says yes

is it man made evidence says yes

is our ever more need for energy preventable, probaly not

do enough people care no(the ecomomy is far more important to most)

Specifically what evidence says it's man made?

Before we start, can you explain the content of those graphs that you posted please, and how they fit into any narrative that you may have?

"Narrative that you may have?"

Bit odd!

The graphs show a number of differing trends over differing time periods by measuring different things.

So we can see that there is more ice in the Antarctic now than there was 30 years ago. But the overall sea temperature trend is up over the same period. It is however steady over the last 10 years.
Stratospheric temperature is down over the same period.

The rate of temperature change does not correlate with the co2 content change which brings into question the validity of the model.

Remember Hansen?
[bigimg]http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen1988Fig3b.PNG[/bigimg]

The whole "Global Warming" cult grew out of his models. They are shown to be inaccurate.

I use the word cult because we have seen many scientists abandon science over this issue. Unsound statistical analysis, reluctance to share data, doctoring of data etc. All more akin to the actions of a cult than a scientific community.

I don't know the cause of the current temperature variations, nor the consequences. Neither does anyone else with the type of certainty I feel is required to start changing social and economic policy for the worse. We have seen all kinds of worthless schemes like carbon trading and green subsidies which do nothing to actually address the real problem of understanding the true nature of climate change.

I take care to try and separate the energy issue from the climate issue. The fact that we've use up in the last 150 years a lot of the oil that took billions of years to create is beyond doubt. I hope we use what's left to produce alternative energy production methods and more efficient systems.

 

[SWP's back]

I recommend this part fiction, part fact novel:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0007181604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340203622&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Mich ... 622&sr=1-1</a>

State of Fear

*sits back to await Damocles not being happy*

I recommend reading Charile and The Chocolate Factory if you enjoy fiction.

Whilst I acknowledge and enjoy any debate on climatology, this book is an absolute fairy tale.

It's absolutely no fact. It's a myth. Read the reviews from independent scientists. Nothing infuriates me more than people advocating that complete and utter work of fucking shit.

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research

James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific</a>


---

In fact, a collection of scientists got together and made a big webpage about how much shit in in that book:

<a class="postlink" href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment ... ageID=1670</a>

--

Even the guy who authored the graphs in the book that MC used said that he's full of shit and distorting data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opini ... .html?_r=1</a>

I know mate, it's why I referenced it. It was a joke. A bit like the puma kit for any discussions on City.

I should have put a wink at the end.

 

[Damocles]

I recommend this part fiction, part fact novel:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0007181604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340203622&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Fear-Mich ... 622&sr=1-1</a>

State of Fear

*sits back to await Damocles not being happy*

I recommend reading Charile and The Chocolate Factory if you enjoy fiction.

Whilst I acknowledge and enjoy any debate on climatology, this book is an absolute fairy tale.

It's absolutely no fact. It's a myth. Read the reviews from independent scientists. Nothing infuriates me more than people advocating that complete and utter work of fucking shit.

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research

James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific</a>


---

In fact, a collection of scientists got together and made a big webpage about how much shit in in that book:

<a class="postlink" href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment ... ageID=1670</a>

--

Even the guy who authored the graphs in the book that MC used said that he's full of shit and distorting data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opini ... .html?_r=1</a>

I know mate, it's why I referenced it. It was a joke. A bit like the puma kit for any discussions on City.

I should have put a wink at the end.

I will fucking stab you.<br /><br />-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:10 pm --<br /><br />

Specifically what evidence says it's man made?

Before we start, can you explain the content of those graphs that you posted please, and how they fit into any narrative that you may have?

"Narrative that you may have?"

Bit odd!

The graphs show a number of differing trends over differing time periods by measuring different things.

So we can see that there is more ice in the Antarctic now than there was 30 years ago. But the overall sea temperature trend is up over the same period. It is however steady over the last 10 years.
Stratospheric temperature is down over the same period.

The rate of temperature change does not correlate with the co2 content change which brings into question the validity of the model.

Remember Hansen?
[bigimg]http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen1988Fig3b.PNG[/bigimg]

The whole "Global Warming" cult grew out of his models. They are shown to be inaccurate.

I use the word cult because we have seen many scientists abandon science over this issue. Unsound statistical analysis, reluctance to share data, doctoring of data etc. All more akin to the actions of a cult than a scientific community.

I don't know the cause of the current temperature variations, nor the consequences. Neither does anyone else with the type of certainty I feel is required to start changing social and economic policy for the worse. We have seen all kinds of worthless schemes like carbon trading and green subsidies which do nothing to actually address the real problem of understanding the true nature of climate change.

I take care to try and separate the energy issue from the climate issue. The fact that we've use up in the last 150 years a lot of the oil that took billions of years to create is beyond doubt. I hope we use what's left to produce alternative energy production methods and more efficient systems.

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I asked?

Can you repost each graph that you shopwn earlier and explain what they are showing and in what context that you are using them please?

 

[No6]

The world goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling but there is no doubt that mankind is having an effect.

So, yes.

 

[nickson71]

Nuclear power plants can produce large amounts of Hydrogen depending on the configuration. Eventually if we want to keep driving around in cars like we do now we're are going to have to start using Hydrogen fuel cell cars.

The electric car is the future but I don't think it will be battery powered it will more then likely be hydrogen powered. Simply because the recharge time on batteries takes so bloody long I honestly don't think they are viable.

Most nuclear plants don't want to produce hydrogen, explosive gases and nuclear are possibly a risk too far.

mind you with nuclear you could always generate electricity for a H2 plant significantly removed from the nuclear side of things

Well you better tell that to the US government as its there plan and where they go the UK normally follows. Also electrolysis is not the only way to produce hydrogen heat can be used to.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326112500.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112500.htm</a>

Good read.

interesting read but nuclear hydrogen is not on the UK agenda at the moment and the article is about some scientist from the IAEA Hydrogen Economic Evaluation Programme stating his case for the research area he works in at a chemical society conference it's not US government

The focus at the moment is geared up towards off shore wind as the main renewable for the UK I've seen the CEO of EON present his companies view on renewable and it was all about phase 3 of off shore wind

If nuclear hydrogen does take off in other countries maybe the UK will look at once it is proven technology

I'm pro nuclear as part of the mix for energy generation but the new nuclear plants that will be built in the UK are nuclear only.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I recommend reading Charile and The Chocolate Factory if you enjoy fiction.

Whilst I acknowledge and enjoy any debate on climatology, this book is an absolute fairy tale.

It's absolutely no fact. It's a myth. Read the reviews from independent scientists. Nothing infuriates me more than people advocating that complete and utter work of fucking shit.

Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research

James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Scientific</a>


---

In fact, a collection of scientists got together and made a big webpage about how much shit in in that book:

<a class="postlink" href="http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment ... ageID=1670</a>

--

Even the guy who authored the graphs in the book that MC used said that he's full of shit and distorting data:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opini ... .html?_r=1</a>

I know mate, it's why I referenced it. It was a joke. A bit like the puma kit for any discussions on City.

I should have put a wink at the end.

I will fucking stab you.

-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:10 pm --

Before we start, can you explain the content of those graphs that you posted please, and how they fit into any narrative that you may have?

"Narrative that you may have?"

Bit odd!

The graphs show a number of differing trends over differing time periods by measuring different things.

So we can see that there is more ice in the Antarctic now than there was 30 years ago. But the overall sea temperature trend is up over the same period. It is however steady over the last 10 years.
Stratospheric temperature is down over the same period.

The rate of temperature change does not correlate with the co2 content change which brings into question the validity of the model.

Remember Hansen?
[bigimg]http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen1988Fig3b.PNG[/bigimg]

The whole "Global Warming" cult grew out of his models. They are shown to be inaccurate.

I use the word cult because we have seen many scientists abandon science over this issue. Unsound statistical analysis, reluctance to share data, doctoring of data etc. All more akin to the actions of a cult than a scientific community.

I don't know the cause of the current temperature variations, nor the consequences. Neither does anyone else with the type of certainty I feel is required to start changing social and economic policy for the worse. We have seen all kinds of worthless schemes like carbon trading and green subsidies which do nothing to actually address the real problem of understanding the true nature of climate change.

I take care to try and separate the energy issue from the climate issue. The fact that we've use up in the last 150 years a lot of the oil that took billions of years to create is beyond doubt. I hope we use what's left to produce alternative energy production methods and more efficient systems.

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I asked?

Can you repost each graph that you shopwn earlier and explain what they are showing and in what context that you are using them please?

I have just explained the context.

A number of differing datasets which do not all corroborate any single climate change model.

 

[The Flash]