Unbelievable, in more ways than one:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
[…]
Why buy the same electricity twice?
When it's really windy, we fill the grid near wind turbines with more clean energy than we need. This creates rush hour traffic on the grid, and the energy can't get to where it's needed.
As a result, we pay to make it again (often with dirty fossil fuels), as
well as paying to switch the wind off.
How do we fix it?
Improvements to the grid will help, but this is expensive and complicated too.
Make energy cheaper where supply is strong. This makes better use of these abundant green electrons, and because there'd be less waste, bills could go down for everybody.
Unquote.
Full horror story at the link given.
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists. This will not suit
those who have already invested in wind/solar. It's only because the
policy has been wind/solar that we are buying twice. Actually it's
buying twice when the wind is blowing and buying from a backup when the
wind doesn't blow.
On 09/07/2025 15:38, Spike wrote:
Unbelievable, in more ways than one:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind >> turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
[…]
Why buy the same electricity twice?
When it's really windy, we fill the grid near wind turbines with more
clean
energy than we need. This creates rush hour traffic on the grid, and the
energy can't get to where it's needed.
As a result, we pay to make it again (often with dirty fossil fuels), as
well as paying to switch the wind off.
How do we fix it?
Improvements to the grid will help, but this is expensive and complicated
too.
Make energy cheaper where supply is strong. This makes better use of
these
abundant green electrons, and because there'd be less waste, bills
could go
down for everybody.
Unquote.
Full horror story at the link given.
Isn't this just the way the grid was conceived over the past 100 years.
Have centralised generation relatively close to large centres of
population. Then have just enough distribution to supply the population.
For instance the highlands of Scotland is relatively sparsely
populated so you don't need a large feed to supply the population. That
is until you need the reverse feed to support a large wind farm or
pumped storage scheme located in the Scottish highlands.
As people have been pointing out for a long time wind/solar are cheap
but only if you ignore the infrastructure to support them.
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists. This will not suit
those who have already invested in wind/solar. It's only because the
policy has been wind/solar that we are buying twice. Actually it's
buying twice when the wind is blowing and buying from a backup when the
wind doesn't blow.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power
stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population
centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population
centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a
lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a
lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
On 10/07/2025 14:18, Joe wrote:
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
Downsides that spring to mind:
1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
3. The waste water from an efficient generator is rather cool. That's
how thermodynamics works. So, to have useful waste water temperature for district heating, you have to reduce the efficiency of the electricity generation. Not the end of the world, but a consideration.
On 10/07/2025 in message <1301211283.773848321.527253.timdownieuk-yahoo.co.youkay@news.individual.net> Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were >> to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production
over
the whole year” then I think the current plan is succeeding, albeit at
the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I have no idea what anthropogenic means but it does sound like the sort of word a scientist might use to bullshit a layman.
The reality is we are around half way between ice ages and have no idea
what the world was like at this point last time round so could well be spending a fortune for nothing.
Tim+ wrote:Related to human activity.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I have no idea what anthropogenic means
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of
mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing
near population centres and where an adequate grid already
exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to
require a lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup
that is going to keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand
last month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free.
I'll bet they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in
6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot
generate much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were
to define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2
production over the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global
warming.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power
stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population
centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
Tim
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population
centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a
lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
What was also mentioned in passing in the news items I saw was how much
rapid addition to the European distribution grid was needed to make more
use of the solar.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Tim+ wrote:Related to human activity.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I have no idea what anthropogenic means
On 10/07/2025 14:18, Joe wrote:
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
Downsides that spring to mind:
1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
3. The waste water from an efficient generator is rather cool. That's
how thermodynamics works. So, to have useful waste water temperature for district heating, you have to reduce the efficiency of the electricity generation. Not the end of the world, but a consideration.
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
In summer, nobody is taking your heating water
(even swimming pools). But you still need to run your plant for the electricity, which means you need to find somewhere to put the heat when nobody wants it. When it's 40C outside you don't have any 'cold' to dump it into. Many places don't have a sufficiently big river you can put it in without affecting the water temperature too much.
Most people here are less likely than the average person to take, well, pretty much anyone's word as Gospel. Particularly after Covid, when just about every 'conspiracy theory' was proved correct and the assurances
from government and 'experts' were proved, er, incorrect.
On 10/07/2025 14:39, GB wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:18, Joe wrote:
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
Downsides that spring to mind:
1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
No you dont.
A smallish nuclear spill is about as dangerous as a truck of bananas.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
There cannot be any big 'spills' and there never have been apart from Chernobyl, and that killed just 75 people. You are more likely to be
killed by a wind turbine blade falling on your head.
On 10/07/2025 14:57, Tim+ wrote:
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were toBut that isn't actually happening is it?
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.
As a solar panel will not be CO2 neutral for at least three years, and a
wind turbine or EV for much longer. Any mass adoption of these technologies in a short time is only going to add a lot more CO2 to the environment.
On 10 Jul 2025 13:57:19 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Probably true, and I think it's the 'believe in' bit that's the
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of
mini power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing
near population centres and where an adequate grid already
exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to
require a lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup
that is going to keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand
last month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free.
I'll bet they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in
6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot
generate much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were >> to define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2
production over the whole year” then I think the current plan *is*
succeeding, albeit at the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global
warming.
stumbling block.
Most people here are less likely than the average person to take, well, pretty much anyone's word as Gospel. Particularly after Covid, when just about every 'conspiracy theory' was proved correct and the assurances
from government and 'experts' were proved, er, incorrect.
Oh, yes, there was Trump's Russian collusion. Pam and a few others were absolutely certain it was all true, and the US taxpayer spent some tens
of millions of Dollars trying to prove that it was true, and failing dismally. A second enquiry actually traced the payments involved in the fraud, though nothing was done about it.
So: show us the evidence that convinced you. Hearsay is not evidence,
no matter how high and mighty and 'qualified' the speaker. Not any more.
'The man in Whitehall...' is a relic of the more trusting, and
trustworthy, past. Or maybe it's just that we were younger and more
gullible.
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events, exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature would be 0.07degC.
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events, exactly as >> predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in every country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day media? We have
just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events, exactly as >>> predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in every
country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day media? We have
just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
Tim
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature
would be 0.07degC.
Ah, you believe that the UK is the only country on the planet?
Of course our country’s contribution to global CO2 production is relatively small but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our part.
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
On 10/07/2025 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:57, Tim+ wrote:
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were toBut that isn't actually happening is it?
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.
Devils advocate....
As a solar panel will not be CO2 neutral for at least three years
, and a
wind turbine or EV for much longer.
Any mass adoption of these
technologies in a short time is only going to add a lot more CO2 to the environment.
It's debatable how much CO2 a wind turbine will save when considering
regular maintenance, especially when installed in remote areas.
As an example of possible increased CO2 usage, where I regularly visit
which is a rural area with electricity delivered via overhead cables
there are regular flights with two helicopters flying low monitoring the overhead lines. I'm assuming one carries a thermal camera. I've seen
them land for the occupants to examine the state of the poles.
methane is being positioned as the 'new CO2' - higher
impact short term:
RJH wrote:
methane is being positioned as the 'new CO2' - higher
impact short term:
That's why the Dutch farmers were up in arms, govt buying up cattle
farms in order to shut them down, to cut down on burps and farts.
Andy Burns wrote:In which case, let dairy cattle burp less while they're producing the milk
RJH wrote:
methane is being positioned as the 'new CO2' - higher
impact short term:
That's why the Dutch farmers were up in arms, govt buying up cattle
farms in order to shut them down, to cut down on burps and farts.
It’s surely just part of a wider plan to get people to eat less meat.
On 10/07/2025 22:16, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events,
exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in
every country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day
media? We have just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
Tim
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this time
was the number of associated deaths.
On 10/07/2025 16:25, Joe wrote:
Most people here are less likely than the average person to take, well,
pretty much anyone's word as Gospel. Particularly after Covid, when just
about every 'conspiracy theory' was proved correct and the assurances
from government and 'experts' were proved, er, incorrect.
I think that all conspiracy theories about Covid have been proved false.
We have always known that politicians are incompetent, especially when
it comes to anything to do with science.
I doubt if anyone here doubts that there is climate change. There may be
some doubt that most of it is man made and even if it is that our
current policy on green energy is sensible for a reliable supply or will actually make much difference.
What is likely is those on this group to question a lot of the green
hype much of which is misleading or just loosely based on some truths.
So much of it appears to be based on future technology that may, or may
not, appear.
What is very likely to kill the green revolution is a lack of
substantial energy price reductions. The general public hear on a daily
basis that wind and solar electricity is cheap - if not free, and a substantial amount of our energy comes from these sources. If this
doesn't result soon in cheaper bills then they will start disbelieving
the hype and any other claimed benefits for renewable energy.
Personally I've always said that the green revolution was about saving
the planet and not about saying the wallet. I also seriously question
the wisdom of relying too much on wind and solar, especially now that we
have real data for a number of years for a statistically representative
high number of panels and wind turbines.
On 10/07/2025 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:39, GB wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:18, Joe wrote:
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini >>>>>> power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near
population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather
than just being dumped in the sea.
Downsides that spring to mind:
1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
No you dont.
A smallish nuclear spill is about as dangerous as a truck of bananas.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
There cannot be any big 'spills' and there never have been apart from
Chernobyl, and that killed just 75 people. You are more likely to be
killed by a wind turbine blade falling on your head.
Can you name 76 people who have been killed by wind turbines?
Besides that, the immediate deaths were less than 75, but long term
there are many thousands. The Soviets drafted in 600,000 people to help
with the clear-up, and it's estimated that 6000 of them died.
Apart from Chernobyl, there's 3 mile island, windscale, and fukushima.
Those are the ones that just spring to mind.
Whilst the risks are kept as low as possible, there's likely to be
another spill one day. It's surprising you claim there won't be.
Do you (or anyone) happen to have a reasonable assessment of the environmental
impact of renewables? I've read a few articles but end up more confused than when I start . . .
4. Ultimately we therefore have to embrace nuclear power or revert to mediaeval life styles.
alan_m wrote:
As a solar panel will not be CO2 neutral for at least three years, and
a wind turbine or EV for much longer. Any mass adoption of these
technologies in a short time is only going to add a lot more CO2 to
the environment.
The oldest wind turbines have reached EoL and are needing replaced, so
if they haven't contributed to a lowering by now, will they ever?
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
RJH wrote:
methane is being positioned as the 'new CO2' - higher
impact short term:
That's why the Dutch farmers were up in arms, govt buying up cattle
farms in order to shut them down, to cut down on burps and farts.
It’s surely just part of a wider plan to get people to eat less meat.
Apart from the elites, of course, who just love to dine on Kobe steaks and swill fine wines, while flying at 35000ft.
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events, exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Tim
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this time was
the number of associated deaths.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events,
exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in
every country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day media?
We have just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your
confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
RJH wrote:
methane is being positioned as the 'new CO2' - higher
impact short term:
That's why the Dutch farmers were up in arms, govt buying up cattle
farms in order to shut them down, to cut down on burps and farts.
It’s surely just part of a wider plan to get people to eat less meat.
Apart from the elites, of course, who just love to dine on Kobe
steaks and swill fine wines, while flying at 35000ft.
On 10/07/2025 22:37, alan_m wrote:
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this time wasGod hates Christians apparently.
the number of associated deaths.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events, exactly as >>> predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in every
country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day media? We have
just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
On 10/07/2025 17:49, GB wrote:
On 10/07/2025 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:39, GB wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:18, Joe wrote:
On 10 Jul 2025 12:31:03 GMT
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini >>>>>>> power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near >>>>>>> population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it? >>>>>>
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
In or close to a city, the waste heat could find a useful home rather >>>>> than just being dumped in the sea.
Downsides that spring to mind:
1. A smallish nuclear spill, and you make many people homeless.
No you dont.
A smallish nuclear spill is about as dangerous as a truck of bananas.
2. A big spill, and you kill them.
There cannot be any big 'spills' and there never have been apart from
Chernobyl, and that killed just 75 people. You are more likely to be
killed by a wind turbine blade falling on your head.
Can you name 76 people who have been killed by wind turbines?
I could if I spent half a day researching it,
Can you name 5 people killed by Chernobyl?
https://scotlandagainstspin.org/turbine-accident-statistics/
260 deaths from scottish windpower ALONE. From 186 accidents.
The data is there if you bothered to reserach it rather than simply
believing in what conforms to your prejudices.
Besides that, the immediate deaths were less than 75, but long term
there are many thousands. The Soviets drafted in 600,000 people to
help with the clear-up, and it's estimated that 6000 of them died.
'estimated' - Who by?
Apart from Chernobyl, there's 3 mile island, windscale, and fukushima.None of which caused any fatalities AT ALL.
Those are the ones that just spring to mind.
Whilst the risks are kept as low as possible, there's likely to be
another spill one day. It's surprising you claim there won't be.
You cannot possibly know that. You are not a nuclear engineer, I doubt
you are even an engineer at all.
Apart from Chernobyl, there's 3 mile island, windscale, andNone of which caused any fatalities AT ALL.
fukushima. Those are the ones that just spring to mind.
That's simply not correct. (Adding capitals doesn't make it true, btw.)
"It is estimated that the radiation leak may have caused 240 additional cancer cases, with 100 to 240 of these being fatal."
Richard Black (18 March 2011). "Fukushima – disaster or distraction?". BBC News. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
Ahlstrom, Dick (8 October 2007). "The unacceptable toll of Britain's nuclear disaster". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
Highfield, Roger (9 October 2007). "Windscale fire: 'We were too busy
to panic'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
On 11 Jul 2025 at 10:32:17 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/2025 08:54, RJH wrote:
Do you (or anyone) happen to have a reasonable assessment of the environmental
impact of renewables? I've read a few articles but end up more confused than
when I start . . .
Of course, No one wants to make a clear statement like 'renewables have
done diddly squat'
All you have to do is look at CO2 data
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
No, thanks anyway, I meant UK whole costs - concrete, steel etc. - most of which will be offshored and not show up on domestic data. I don't think global
trends are a very good indication of the UK's adoption of renewables.
I wouldn't have thought renewables produce much CO2 once they're operating.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 22:37:41 +0100
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 22:16, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events,
exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in
every country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day
media? We have just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your
confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
Tim
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this time
was the number of associated deaths.
And, just possibly, the cloud seeding two days earlier.
On 11/07/2025 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/2025 22:37, alan_m wrote:
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this timeGod hates Christians apparently.
was the number of associated deaths.
Which God?
What do you get when you build a new housing estate on a flood plane?A spelling mistake?
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power
stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it? >>>>>>
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last >>>>> month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet >>>>> they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate >>>>> much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming. >>>
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >>> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature >>> would be 0.07degC.
Ah, you believe that the UK is the only country on the planet?
Of course our country’s contribution to global CO2 production is relatively
small but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our part.
If ’doing our part’ means living in mud huts and eating turnips and beets,
I’ll think you’ll find that won’t be a vote winner.
What we are actually doing is exporting production, and with it we are exporting the resultant CO2 release to countries that don’t really care about it. The problem being that there’s only one atmosphere, so all that feel-good that believers enjoy is largely illusory.
There was an incident reported last month, although they got away with it. https://www.sustainability-times.com/energy/18-hours-without-cooling-nuclear-reactor-left-unprotected-after-technician-closes-wrong-valve-in-alarming-safety-breach/
That particular source may be biased, but the incident was widely reported
at the time. I'm surprised it slipped your memory so quickly.
The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.
On 11/07/2025 12:16, GB wrote:
There was an incident reported last month, although they got away with
it.
https://www.sustainability-times.com/energy/18-hours-without-cooling-
nuclear-reactor-left-unprotected-after-technician-closes-wrong-valve-
in-alarming-safety-breach/
That particular source may be biased, but the incident was widely
reported at the time. I'm surprised it slipped your memory so quickly.
I have no recollection of that, and can only find one other unreliable report, plus MSN echoes. Where else was it reported?
An EV has larger up-front emissions than an ICE vehicle, but much lower emissions from there on. They can equalise in as little as 18 months,
but then its a win for the EV for the rest of its life.
On 11/07/2025 12:16, GB wrote:
There was an incident reported last month, although they got away with
it.
https://www.sustainability-times.com/energy/18-hours-without-cooling-
nuclear-reactor-left-unprotected-after-technician-closes-wrong-valve-
in-alarming-safety-breach/
That particular source may be biased, but the incident was widely
reported at the time. I'm surprised it slipped your memory so quickly.
I have no recollection of that, and can only find one other unreliable report, plus MSN echoes. Where else was it reported?
I could if I spent half a day researching it,
Can you name 5 people killed by Chernobyl?
There's a list of far more named engineers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Engineers_who_drained_the_steam_suppression_pools
https://scotlandagainstspin.org/turbine-accident-statistics/
260 deaths from scottish windpower ALONE. From 186 accidents.
The data is there if you bothered to reserach it rather than simply
believing in what conforms to your prejudices.
If you are going to quote a reference, it's good form to read it
yourself. When you say "260 deaths from scottish windpower ALONE", have
you taken into account that the website says:
"This is Global data – see Detailed incidents, which includes sources
and locations"?
I'm trying very hard not to smirk, and almost succeeding. ;)
Seriously, it's sad that there have been any fatalities, but
construction is a risky business, and you have to compare the windfarm
deaths with deaths building power stations, dams, etc. (96 workers died constructing the Hoover Dam, for instance.)
Plus, if you want to go nuclear, you need to add in the mining deaths, etc.
Were any of the windfarm deaths amongst members of the public, who were
just walking past and were "killed by a wind turbine blade falling on
your head"?
Besides that, the immediate deaths were less than 75, but long term
there are many thousands. The Soviets drafted in 600,000 people to
help with the clear-up, and it's estimated that 6000 of them died.
'estimated' - Who by?
Apart from Chernobyl, there's 3 mile island, windscale, andNone of which caused any fatalities AT ALL.
fukushima. Those are the ones that just spring to mind.
That's simply not correct. (Adding capitals doesn't make it true, btw.)
"It is estimated that the radiation leak may have caused 240 additional cancer cases, with 100 to 240 of these being fatal."
Richard Black (18 March 2011). "Fukushima – disaster or distraction?". BBC News. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
Ahlstrom, Dick (8 October 2007). "The unacceptable toll of Britain's nuclear disaster". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
Highfield, Roger (9 October 2007). "Windscale fire: 'We were too busy
to panic'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
I agree that I'm not a nuclear engineer, but there's been 4 major
incidents over the last 70 years, and it doesn't take a genius to work
out there's going to be another some day.
There was an incident reported last month, although they got away with it. https://www.sustainability-times.com/energy/18-hours-without-cooling- nuclear-reactor-left-unprotected-after-technician-closes-wrong-valve-in- alarming-safety-breach/
That particular source may be biased, but the incident was widely
reported at the time. I'm surprised it slipped your memory so quickly.
On 11/07/2025 08:32, SteveW wrote:
An EV has larger up-front emissions than an ICE vehicle, but much
lower emissions from there on. They can equalise in as little as 18
months, but then its a win for the EV for the rest of its life.
A newspaper reporter noticed that one particular model of a Volvo came
with options of petrol, diesel or electric propulsion, and asked Volvo
where the break even costs were in terms of mileage. Volvo's reply was
that taking maintenance and replacements for wear and tear into account
the diesel version was cheaper up to about 78,000 miles after which the
EV would be cheaper until it needed a battery replacement.
On 11/07/2025 16:50, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/07/2025 08:32, SteveW wrote:
An EV has larger up-front emissions than an ICE vehicle, but much
lower emissions from there on. They can equalise in as little as 18
months, but then its a win for the EV for the rest of its life.
A newspaper reporter noticed that one particular model of a Volvo came
with options of petrol, diesel or electric propulsion, and asked Volvo
where the break even costs were in terms of mileage. Volvo's reply
was that taking maintenance and replacements for wear and tear into
account the diesel version was cheaper up to about 78,000 miles after
which the EV would be cheaper until it needed a battery replacement.
But that is monetary cost, not CO2 emissions.
On 10/07/2025 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Yeah. Water vapour and cloud dominates global temperature, not CO2
The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.CO2 is the chosen enemy because human activities that produce CO2 can be banned or taxed.
The science does show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However the science also shows that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas in that it blocks
a range of wavelengths that include the range that CO2 blocks. Water
vapour is far more plentiful in the Earth's atmosphere than CO2 is, so
even if CO2 production doubled it wouldn't make any noticeable
difference to the climate.
The mathematical model that produced the "hockey stick"forecast of doom
to come did cause scientists to take a closer look at the model, and it
was noticed that the water cycle wasn't included. So the model was
updated with latent heat of evaporation and condensation and the
transfer of heat from clouds to the ground via precipitation. What the models still lack is the water vapour in the atmosphere that isn't
visible as clouds or precipitation, so they are still useless at
producing credible predictions.
Global warming and global cooling are natural cyclical events. The
current pattern of climate change is very similar to that seen 8000
years ago, but the Anthrpocene converts are convinced that nothing
happened before the Industrial Revolution so any research to earlier
times is ignored.
Unbelievable, in more ways than one:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted 691,570,685 switching off wind >turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini
power stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my
breath.
Tim
In message <md7d6qFl4adU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Unbelievable, in more ways than one:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind >> turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
The accountancy is a bit suspicious, because there is a cost of bribi
^H paying the keeper of the wind turbines to switch off , then there is
the cost of the energy from the gas turbines. However this energy is
sold on and used so, it's not wasted . It does say specifically "buying energy elsewhere "
What is wasted is the bribe (and possibly the fee to switch on the gas turbines) and the difference in cost between wind generated energy and
gas generated energy; essentially an opportunity cost. I'd need to see
a balance sheet of income and expenditure.
Some one with a finger in both pies however is maybe on to a nice
little earner.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 22:37:41 +0100
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 22:16, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 21:33, Tim+ wrote:
So you’ve not noticed any increase in extreme weather events,
exactly as predicted by climatologists?
Have there been a greater number or it that every weather event in
every country is now reported instantly on the 24 hour a day
media? We have just had a hot June so it must be climate warming!
I’m sure Spaniards and Texans will take great comfort from your
confidence that extreme weather events aren’t more frequent.
Tim
Extreme flash floods in Texas are common. The difference this time
was the number of associated deaths.
And, just possibly, the cloud seeding two days earlier.
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power
stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it? >>>>>>
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last >>>>> month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet >>>>> they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate >>>>> much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming. >>>
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >>> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature >>> would be 0.07degC.
Ah, you believe that the UK is the only country on the planet?
Of course our country’s contribution to global CO2 production is relatively
small but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our part.
If ’doing our part’ means living in mud huts and eating turnips and beets,
I’ll think you’ll find that won’t be a vote winner.
On 10 Jul 2025 at 16:02:48 BST, Spike wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening. I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, but remain curious . . .
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature
would be 0.07degC.
But the UK has a <1% direct contribution to CO2. I wouldn't expect the UK acting alone to have a huge impact. On the loose assumption that your figures are correct, and everybody did as you suggest, the difference is over 8C (although I doubt the relationship works that way).
And your calculations are not a refutation of AGW/ACC. They simply suggest that a reduction in CO2 will lead to a reduction in global temperatures. Which
if anything supports the AGW thesis.
other human-derived causes of climate change. Any idea why?
This would of course end the UK’s economy
End the economy - how? And where do you get the starting position of 'ending CO2 now'? Has somebody in power/authority mandated that?
and result in what population was
left living in mud huts, wearing sackcloth, crapping in a hole in the
ground, and living on beets and turnips.
Meanwhile the elites would be jetting overhead at FL350 while dining on
Kobe steaks and swilling fine wines.
OTOH, if you wanted to end climate change, all you need to do is
circularise the Earth’s orbit and reduce its axial tilt to 0 degrees.
OK.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power
stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it? >>>>>>>
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much >>>>>> solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last >>>>>> month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet >>>>>> they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate >>>>>> much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at
the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming. >>>>
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >>>> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature >>>> would be 0.07degC.
Ah, you believe that the UK is the only country on the planet?
Of course our country’s contribution to global CO2 production is relatively
small but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our part.
If ’doing our part’ means living in mud huts and eating turnips and beets,
I’ll think you’ll find that won’t be a vote winner.
Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trot this one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?” attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.
Tim
your calculations are not a refutation of AGW/ACC. They simply suggest
that a reduction in CO2 will lead to a reduction in global temperatures.
On 10 Jul 2025 at 16:02:48 BST, Spike wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature
would be 0.07degC.
But the UK has a <1% direct contribution to CO2. I wouldn't expect the UK acting alone to have a huge impact. On the loose assumption that your figures are correct, and everybody did as you suggest, the difference is over 8C (although I doubt the relationship works that way).
And your calculations are not a refutation of AGW/ACC. They simply suggest that a reduction in CO2 will lead to a reduction in global temperatures. Which
if anything supports the AGW thesis. And your calculations seem to ignore other human-derived causes of climate change. Any idea why?
This would of course end the UK’s economy
End the economy - how?
And where do you get the starting position of 'ending
CO2 now'? Has somebody in power/authority mandated that?
and result in what population was
left living in mud huts, wearing sackcloth, crapping in a hole in the
ground, and living on beets and turnips.
Meanwhile the elites would be jetting overhead at FL350 while dining on
Kobe steaks and swilling fine wines.
OTOH, if you wanted to end climate change, all you need to do is
circularise the Earth’s orbit and reduce its axial tilt to 0 degrees.
OK.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC
crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
On 10 Jul 2025 at 16:02:48 BST, Spike wrote:
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to >>>> keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening. I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, but remain curious . . .
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if >> the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature
would be 0.07degC.
But the UK has a <1% direct contribution to CO2. I wouldn't expect the UK acting alone to have a huge impact.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >>>> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
You've obviously never worked for a university :-)
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why >> we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity >> produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
That's nothing to do with the science of climate. That's to do with markets and the allocation of a scarce resource.
If domestic electricity was 9p a unit, nobody would install solar panels
and batteries, which just happen to have the benefit of easing the loads
and their variation on the grid and make generating electricity easier and >> by save money on grid structure and large-scale battery storage. Cui bono? >>
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
You would need to ask that of the IPCC, as I was using their data and
equations.
But you do understand the data I take it? You can obviously deal with high level maths and understand the algorithms, but do you understand what you're calculating?
Keep in mind they don’t model the Earth’s most powerful and plentiful
greenhouse gas.
OK. So long as you're sure.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC
crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:17:33 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
climate science = constantly fiddling the model or the data so the two
match or ignoring 99.99% of the runs from the model if they don't give
the expected result.
OK, fair enough, I'm sure you know enough about it to come to such a clear conclusion. I spent 40 years in my field and I'm still not sure . . . in fact less sure than I was 40 years' ago! But good for you, must be reassuring.
OoI, do you work as a climate scientist?
The UK emits less than 1% of the CO2, but it also has less than 1% of
the world population. Assuming that something really does need to be
done, it's not going to work if everyone says that their bit of the
total emissions is too small to make a difference alone and therefore
they'll do nothing. It would need almost all countries to play their
part - however, if only some play their part, those that don't will gain
a significant economic advantage.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >>>> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
You've obviously never worked for a university :-)
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why >> we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity >> produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
That's nothing to do with the science of climate. That's to do with markets and the allocation of a scarce resource.
If domestic electricity was 9p a unit, nobody would install solar panels
and batteries, which just happen to have the benefit of easing the loads
and their variation on the grid and make generating electricity easier and >> by save money on grid structure and large-scale battery storage. Cui bono?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
You would need to ask that of the IPCC, as I was using their data and
equations.
But you do understand the data I take it? You can obviously deal with high level maths and understand the algorithms, but do you understand what you're calculating?
Keep in mind they don’t model the Earth’s most powerful and plentiful
greenhouse gas.
OK. So long as you're sure.
On 12/07/2025 19:57, Tim+ wrote:
Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trotWell they are simply aping the binary attitude of the climate alarmists
this
one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?”
attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.
- stop all CO2 emissions now, or die.
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening. I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, but remain curious . . .
On 13 Jul 2025 at 23:40:19 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
You've obviously never worked for a university :-)
That’s true, I had a real job.
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why >>>> we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity >>>> produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
That's nothing to do with the science of climate. That's to do with markets >>> and the allocation of a scarce resource.
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the
‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
If domestic electricity was 9p a unit, nobody would install solar panels >>>> and batteries, which just happen to have the benefit of easing the loads >>>> and their variation on the grid and make generating electricity easier and >>>> by save money on grid structure and large-scale battery storage. Cui bono? >>
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, >>>>>>> but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the >>>>>> calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
You would need to ask that of the IPCC, as I was using their data and
equations.
Yes, but are you using them properly?
And have you done any comparisons with
other approaches?
But you do understand the data I take it? You can obviously deal with high >>> level maths and understand the algorithms, but do you understand what you're
calculating?
Looks like I have to keep saying this: it’s the IPCC’s equations and data.
I don’t have to understand it, I merely used it. If you want to know more, >> ask the IPCC.
Keep in mind they don’t model the Earth’s most powerful and plentiful >>>> greenhouse gas.
OK. So long as you're sure.
OK, I suppose the only way we're going to get close to finding out whether you
know what you're talking about is if you show your calculations. Not holding my breath.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into ‘global warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t advance.
On 14 Jul 2025 08:03:16 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money'
sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into
‘global warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published,
careers don’t advance.
Apologies, that should have read “Research into ‘global warming’ that >> doesn’t support the narrative doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be
published, careers don’t advance”.
Don't forget, The Science Is Settled, so there need be no further
research at all.
Quite simply, nobody knows enough about what controls the climate to
actually make a model which would be useful for making predictions.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 21:31:01 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 17:33, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:17:33 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
climate science = constantly fiddling the model or the data so the two >>>> match or ignoring 99.99% of the runs from the model if they don't give >>>> the expected result.
OK, fair enough, I'm sure you know enough about it to come to such a clear >>> conclusion. I spent 40 years in my field and I'm still not sure . . . in fact
less sure than I was 40 years' ago! But good for you, must be reassuring. >>>
OoI, do you work as a climate scientist?
'You don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows'
You'd be suprised ;-)
And your point is that there is no need to understand the science behind climate to explain it?
In message <mdjru4Fnk62U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into
‘global
warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t
advance.
Apologies, that should have read “Research into ‘global warming’ that >> doesn’t support the narrative doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be
published, careers don’t advance”.
The BBC today ( A small shift makes a big difference)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74w1gyd7mko
had a bell curve which showed that the increase in temperature extremes
viz less cold winters and warmer summers is caused by a small increase
in mean temperature.
I decided to check this out and find out the mean temperature and
standard deviation and do my own sumz and work out the probabilities for myself.
I found this paper.
<Https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-UK-Summer-Temperature-with-mean -and-standard-deviations_fig2_393125384>
It says the mean summer temperature is 14C and the sd is 2C . On that
basis even getting above 20C is remote. I'm guessing I've not spotted
some sort of averaging that's reducing the fluctuation .
However ,reading the paper further , the author shows that CO2 is not affecting UK temperature, even though atmospheric CO2 is going up in
line with temperature going up "if both sets of data are increasing with time, there is bound to be a strong correlation between them" - a bit
like lack of pirates causing it .
What he does show is a correlation between the UK carbon emissions
going down and the UK temperatures going up .
He goes on to say " the decrease in UK carbon emissions is presumably associated with the rise in offshore wind power.,,,
And the mean UK summer temperature is indeed strongly correlated with offshore wind generating capacity....
extracting large amounts of energy must lead to low pressure down wind
of the turbines. Given prevailing westerly winds
and largely offshore wind farms, this means the creation of a
low-pressure region in the North Sea. Could it not be that this
low-pressure region is sucking hot air from Africa, leading to an
increase in the mean UK summer temperature"
Do you believe it?
Brian
On 13/07/2025 20:21, Joe wrote:
Quite simply, nobody knows enough about what controls the climate to
actually make a model which would be useful for making predictions.
And that is why the invented the precautionary principle that showed we should spend trillion on concrete pillars *in case* the sky fell on our heads, which would be catsrophic if it happened
No. The point is that there is no need to understand the science behind climate to know how hot it is.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 23:40:19 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
You've obviously never worked for a university :-)
That’s true, I had a real job.
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into ‘global warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t advance.
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why
we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity
produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
That's nothing to do with the science of climate. That's to do with markets
and the allocation of a scarce resource.
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the
‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on >> privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
The last figure I saw was that some wind farms are *subsidised* to the tune of £174 per MWh. That’s 17.4p per unit. Then on top of that there’s the price of the energy produced, which is the same price as paid to the
highest cost generator for that 30-minute slot.
Al Capone couldn’t have dreamed of such a racket.
What’s wrong with paying cost + 6%?
In message <mdjru4Fnk62U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into ‘global
warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t
advance.
Apologies, that should have read “Research into ‘global warming’ that >> doesn’t support the narrative doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be
published, careers don’t advance”.
The BBC today ( A small shift makes a big difference)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74w1gyd7mko
had a bell curve which showed that the increase in temperature extremes
viz less cold winters and warmer summers is caused by a small increase
in mean temperature.
I decided to check this out and find out the mean temperature and
standard deviation and do my own sumz and work out the probabilities for myself.
I found this paper.
<Https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-UK-Summer-Temperature-with-mean-an d-standard-deviations_fig2_393125384>
It says the mean summer temperature is 14C and the sd is 2C . On that
basis even getting above 20C is remote. I'm guessing I've not spotted
some sort of averaging that's reducing the fluctuation .
However ,reading the paper further , the author shows that CO2 is not affecting UK temperature, even though atmospheric CO2 is going up in
line with temperature going up "if both sets of data are increasing
with
time, there is bound to be a strong correlation between them" - a bit
like lack of pirates causing it .
What he does show is a correlation between the UK carbon emissions
going down and the UK temperatures going up .
He goes on to say " the decrease in UK carbon emissions is presumably associated with the rise in offshore wind power.,,,
And the mean UK summer temperature is indeed strongly correlated with offshore wind generating capacity....
extracting large amounts of energy must lead to low pressure down wind
of the turbines. Given prevailing westerly winds
and largely offshore wind farms, this means the creation of a
low-pressure region in the North Sea. Could it not be that this
low-pressure region is sucking hot air from Africa, leading to an
increase in the mean UK summer temperature"
Do you believe it?
IIUC (probably not) it's not so much a subsidy as a top up to meet the agreed contract price per unit of electricity.
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate
change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is
caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trot this one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?” attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.
On 13/07/2025 21:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate
change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is
caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
You've never heard of Svante Arrhenius? Benjamin Franklin? Francis Galton?
Mind, those three are dead, and not relevant to this discussion.
Andy
On 12/07/2025 19:57, Tim+ wrote:
Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trot
this
one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?”
attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.
I'm not certain whether man generated CO2 is affecting the climate. I
think it quite likely is, and it's a damn dangerous experiment we are carrying out.
But...
One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export manufacturing
to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they emit more.
And the UK reducing emission is going to make **** all difference to
global emissions. And it will wreck the UK economy.
Andy
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:45:07 BST, brian wrote:
SD is a measure of variance, not units of temperature.
On 12/07/2025 19:57, Tim+ wrote:
Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trot
this
one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?”
attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.
I'm not certain whether man generated CO2 is affecting the climate. I
think it quite likely is, and it's a damn dangerous experiment we are carrying out.
But...
One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export manufacturing
to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they emit more.
And the UK reducing emission is going to make **** all difference to
global emissions. And it will wreck the UK economy.
Vir Campestris wrote:It's coming, see "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism".
One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export
manufacturing to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they
emit more.
The way around this is to consider the CO2 created with all imports, especially from heavy industry, and add these to a country's total.
That wasn't my question. Do you (and others on this thread) need a background understanding or modelling skills for example?
On 13 Jul 2025 at 21:19:04 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >>>> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.Neither. Do your own research, like I did.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Is that the 2012 piece you circulated recently? You stand by the assertions and conclusions as relevant and applicable today?
Apparently not, since almost none of the people involved appear to have it. >>
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
That wasn't my question. Do you (and others on this thread) need a background understanding or modelling skills for example?
Climate science is for third rate academics who want a safe sinecure and
the chance to be famous without doing any really hard research.
As I say, in my limited experience that's nonsense. But you obviously have your own reasons for reaching that conclusion.
alan_m wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:It's coming, see "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism".
One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export
manufacturing to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they
emit more.
The way around this is to consider the CO2 created with all imports,
especially from heavy industry, and add these to a country's total.
On 16/07/2025 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
alan_m wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:It's coming, see "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism".
One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export
manufacturing to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they
emit more.
The way around this is to consider the CO2 created with all imports,
especially from heavy industry, and add these to a country's total.
That should wipe out any gains from renewable energy :)
On 16 Jul 2025 at 09:08:08 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/07/2025 07:35, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 21:19:04 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.Neither. Do your own research, like I did.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Is that the 2012 piece you circulated recently? You stand by the assertions >>> and conclusions as relevant and applicable today?
Apparently not, since almost none of the people involved appear to have it.
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, >>>>>>> but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the >>>>>> calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
That wasn't my question. Do you (and others on this thread) need a background
understanding or modelling skills for example?
Climate science is for third rate academics who want a safe sinecure and >>>> the chance to be famous without doing any really hard research.
As I say, in my limited experience that's nonsense. But you obviously have >>> your own reasons for reaching that conclusion.
The PhD academics I know who are in or near that field are top notch and
all are skeptical.
The graduates I know from less prestigious places of study mostly are
still in awe of Science and are Believers
That wasn't my question. Which was related to skills and understanding, and the need for both to understand climate science.
So you believe, based on evidence, that climate scientists such as those listed in the link above don't understand what they're looking at, and writing
and talking about. They are informed by blind faith ('climate emergency', etc.) and any science they purport is made up. They have rudimentary skills and effectively no understanding. Is that what you mean by 'in awe'?
And your PhD academics, and others in this thread, do understand climate science, but it's not clear to me what knowledge they have above the very basic skills and knowledge of climate scientists. How for example does having a PhD help, if (as you appear to be saying) all that is needed is basic data and a calculator? Basic data and a calculator climate scientists seem to be unaware of.
You and others do seem to suggest elsewhere that you have strong evidence, that you can't reveal, that links most climate scientists to career chasing, greed, and fraud.
To me, this all looks like a conspiracy theory.
And your PhD academics, and others in this thread, do understand climate science, but it's not clear to me what knowledge they have above the very basic skills and knowledge of climate scientists. How for example does having a PhD help, if (as you appear to be saying) all that is needed is basic data and a calculator? Basic data and a calculator climate scientists seem to be unaware of.
You and others do seem to suggest elsewhere that you have strong evidence, that you can't reveal, that links most climate scientists to career chasing, greed, and fraud.
To me, this all looks like a conspiracy theory.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
[…]
And your PhD academics, and others in this thread, do understand climate
science, but it's not clear to me what knowledge they have above the very
basic skills and knowledge of climate scientists. How for example does having
a PhD help, if (as you appear to be saying) all that is needed is basic data >> and a calculator? Basic data and a calculator climate scientists seem to be >> unaware of.
If these climate scientists are unaware of such things, perhaps they should read the IPCC output, where these things appear.
Not the stuff for policy makers or the general public, of course, they are science-free zones.
You and others do seem to suggest elsewhere that you have strong evidence, >> that you can't reveal, that links most climate scientists to career chasing, >> greed, and fraud.
Well, those who feed from the climate tit are hardly going to admit it, are they?
To me, this all looks like a conspiracy theory.
It’s been a conspiracy ever since the hockey stick appeared.
On 16/07/2025 22:27, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
[…]
And your PhD academics, and others in this thread, do understand
climate science, but it's not clear to me what knowledge they have
above the very basic skills and knowledge of climate scientists.
How for example does having a PhD help, if (as you appear to be
saying) all that is needed is basic data and a calculator? Basic
data and a calculator climate scientists seem to be unaware of.
If these climate scientists are unaware of such things, perhaps
they should read the IPCC output, where these things appear.
Not the stuff for policy makers or the general public, of course,
they are science-free zones.
You and others do seem to suggest elsewhere that you have strong
evidence, that you can't reveal, that links most climate
scientists to career chasing, greed, and fraud.
Well, those who feed from the climate tit are hardly going to admit
it, are they?
To me, this all looks like a conspiracy theory.
It’s been a conspiracy ever since the hockey stick appeared.TBH its been a most convenient lie ever since Maggie used it as a
reason to close down the last of the coal mines (that Labour hadn't
closed already).
Faced with a highly politicised anti -tory coal industry, and a
nuclear industry that could not be extended at the current interest
rates and a vibrant gas industry, it was another reason to get
support from the Green-and-wet-behind-the-ears part of the electorate,
Then Germany saw a commercial opportunity as their Green party was
agitating for nuclear closure, to make shitloads of money selling
mediaeval windmills
And made Renewables Obligatory
At that point the full corporate profit industry after realizing the windmills and sunshades wouldn't actually remove the need for lots
of fossil, swung behind the Great Green Boondoggle.
The gravy train rolled out of the station and everyine leapt aboard.
And the be couching of Man Made Cliamte Change was moved from a
theory that could be disproved, to a metaphysical theory that could
*not* ....
Whatever happened, - and the climate has always changed anyway - it
'proved climate change' and it was an article of faith that it was
man made.
A most convenient lie.
Indeed. Once you stop listening to the ecobollox™ it's abundantly clear that renewable energy is a total fraud, and we actually need nuclear
power instead.
And if we actually give a shit about global emissions so called, the
best thong we could do was bung all the subsidies going into 'Nut Zero'
into Rolls Royce nuclear power instead, and have a reactor as globally significant as the Trent Jet engine, and sell it world wide.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 23:40:19 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the
‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
the academics I know wouldn't publish lies to save their skin.
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of
infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of
infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There
is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere.
It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima
over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much
as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.
The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour
and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.
On 14/07/2025 10:12, RJH wrote:
the academics I know wouldn't publish lies to save their skin.
I have been reading "The politically incorrect book on climate change"
and the author's observations include that if you want to write
something that provides some endorsement of the AGW cause of climate
change there are grants to be had, and if you want to write something
that denies the AGW contribution, you not only won't receive funding but
you won't get your output published in any recognised way.
On 28 Jul 2025 at 12:39:44 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/2025 23:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual >>> cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of renewable
energy
Not according to this:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
Or at current prices (LCOE):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Anything in particular you'd object to there?
Again/as usual, do you have anything to back up your figures? Or is it generated from your own special maths? Or your 2012 figures (when admittedly you'd have been ballpark correct)?
On 27 Jul 2025 at 23:30:24 BST, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2025 08:29, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 23:40:19 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the >>>> ‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global
warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of
infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also
pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of
infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks.
There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the
atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice
to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times
as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only
an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would
considerably improve crop yields.
The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing
about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows
governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour
and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.
The initial trigger was a mathematical model which got named the hockey
stick graph because it predicted runaway temperature increases in the
future and that prediction section looked similar to a hockey stick.
The other (attempted to be suppressed by the IPCC but it had been
leaked) thing I found out was a doubtful scientist who managed to get
some research time on the model discovered that there was a fault in the
calculation process and it didn't matter what data he fed in, even
different sets of completely random numbers, the output was always
exactly the same. The whole global warming fiasco has been based on
faulty arithmetic. The IPCC timescale was the change since the
Industrial Revolution, so about 200 years or so, which is far too short
to recognise that climate changes recur to a pattern. I found a
scientific report from 1995, updating previous research in 1969, which
shows that the pattern of change since the Industrial Revolution is
almost identical to the pattern of change from 8000 years earlier. This
is roughly the time when humans migrated from hunter gatherers to a crop
growing agrarian existence, so they can't be blamed for global warming.
As mentioned in another post, it's climate change and the impact of fossil fuels and other human activity. And it's not just CO2.
I gather elsewhere in this thread that climate science can be reduced to extrapolating from select data and basic calculations most children could perform. No knowledge of climate science is needed. The whole discussion is pretty much context free, much as you present it. And as suggested elsewhere, I don't agree. For example:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on >>> privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual
cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
Indeed. As I say, a market driven and fossil-oriented system which needs to change.
That page contains this: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change”.
So the increases in the dominant greenhouse gas are “not a direct cause of climate change”, but increased
levels of a trace gas are, so we are told, catastrophic for the planet.
Apart from this unexplained phenomenon, also unexplained is the claim that increasing temperatures causes increasing levels of atmospheric
water-vapour from the oceans, but that that isn’t a direct cause of climate change.
Unless there is further explanation somewhere, the statement quoted above
is scientifically incorrect.
Perhaps you could explain this.
On 28 Jul 2025 at 14:08:05 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Or at current prices (LCOE):
On 28/07/2025 13:22, RJH wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 12:39:44 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/2025 23:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this
country bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost
per kilowatt of natural gas on the open market. Until they
change that link, the actual cost of generating the
electricity will remain irrelevant.
That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of
renewable energy
Not according to this:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Anything in particular you'd object to there?
Again/as usual, do you have anything to back up your figures? Or
is it generated from your own special maths? Or your 2012 figures
(when admittedly you'd have been ballpark correct)?
Itrs written at te bottom of my electricity bills.
Oh well yes, even I know that. The question was related to costs of generation.
On 28 Jul 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, Spike wrote:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?
That page contains this: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, >> but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, >> it is not a direct cause of climate change”.
So the increases in the dominant greenhouse gas are “not a direct cause of >> climate change”, but increased
levels of a trace gas are, so we are told, catastrophic for the planet.
Apart from this unexplained phenomenon, also unexplained is the claim that >> increasing temperatures causes increasing levels of atmospheric
water-vapour from the oceans, but that that isn’t a direct cause of climate
change.
Unless there is further explanation somewhere, the statement quoted above
is scientifically incorrect.
Perhaps you could explain this.
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
Water vapour is still a contributory factor,
though. It is still a greenhouse effect gas.
You can read more about it in the context of CO2 (not the most malign), here:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-when-water-vapor-much-more-common-greenhouse
On 28 Jul 2025 at 16:47:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/07/2025 15:02, RJH wrote:
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
I think you will find that that is manifestly incorrect
According to AI, I am (for once) spot on:
Hypothesis: water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much as methane,
CO2, NO, or CFCs
You're absolutely right that water vapor has a much lower warming potential per molecule compared to those other greenhouse gases. The key differences are:
Molecular absorption strength: Methane is about 25-30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period, while nitrous oxide (N2O) is roughly 300 times more potent, and some CFCs can be thousands of times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 on a per-molecule basis.
Atmospheric behavior: Water vapor also behaves very differently - it cycles through the atmosphere in days to weeks through evaporation and precipitation,
while CO2 can persist for centuries, methane for about a decade, and some CFCs
for decades to over a century.
Feedback vs. forcing: Water vapor acts more as a feedback mechanism - warmer air holds more moisture, which then amplifies warming. The other gases you mentioned are considered "forcing agents" that directly drive temperature changes through human activities.
Spectral absorption: While water vapor does absorb infrared radiation, it has some gaps in its absorption spectrum where other greenhouse gases are particularly effective, especially in the atmospheric "window" regions.
So while water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by volume, you're correct that these other gases punch well above their weight in terms of their
warming effect per molecule and their role in driving climate change.
On 28 Jul 2025 at 16:47:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/07/2025 15:02, RJH wrote:
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as muchI think you will find that that is manifestly incorrect
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
According to AI, I am (for once) spot on:
Hypothesis: water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much as methane,
CO2, NO, or CFCs
You're absolutely right that water vapor has a much lower warming potential per molecule compared to those other greenhouse gases. The key differences are:
Molecular absorption strength: Methane is about 25-30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period, while nitrous oxide (N2O) is roughly 300 times more potent, and some CFCs can be thousands of times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 on a per-molecule basis.
Atmospheric behavior: Water vapor also behaves very differently - it cycles through the atmosphere in days to weeks through evaporation and precipitation,
while CO2 can persist for centuries, methane for about a decade, and some CFCs
for decades to over a century.
Feedback vs. forcing: Water vapor acts more as a feedback mechanism - warmer air holds more moisture, which then amplifies warming. The other gases you mentioned are considered "forcing agents" that directly drive temperature changes through human activities.
Spectral absorption: While water vapor does absorb infrared radiation, it has some gaps in its absorption spectrum where other greenhouse gases are particularly effective, especially in the atmospheric "window" regions.
So while water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by volume, you're correct that these other gases punch well above their weight in terms of their
warming effect per molecule and their role in driving climate change.
On 29/07/2025 11:40, Timatmarford wrote:
On 29/07/2025 11:26, ajh wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:10, Timatmarford wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:39, RJH wrote:Tim I haven't read the whole thread but if we are talking vapour
Snipped as rather sideways to your points..
Do we know the contribution from air travel to atmospheric water
vapour? This seems very much avoided by media/govt. for suspected
reasons!
rather than droplets of water in a "vapour trail" my understanding is
that the frequencies of radiation emitted by the earth's surface that
are absorbed by water vapour are quickly absorbed in the lower
atmosphere, so adding more water vapour to the atmosphere has no
additional effect. It has always acted as a warm blanket, at least
during human existence.
Umm. These *droplets* seem to disappear rather than disperse so I
assume they transition to vapour.
Which, if what am am saying is near right, won't be absorbing any more
of the relevant frequencies emitted by the earth, that is not to say
they will not absorb any incoming radiation.
There has been media discussion about choosing flight levels to
minimise any impact so I assume there is some relevance.
A different matter.
On 29 Jul 2025 at 10:29:46 BST, Spike wrote:
From Wikipedia:
“The percentage of water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C
(-44 °F)[15] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F)”
Get your calculator out. And use it.
I did. How on earth did you think I knew the ratio? Just a tip - how much of
the earth's surface is (anywhere near) -42C?
You still have not:
- justified your post in which it is claimed that increasing levels of
water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change
You seem to be ignoring what I write, and inserting something of your own making. So let's start here. Please identify the post where I make the claim: "increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change".
- justified your claim that the proportion of water vapour in the
atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2
Again, where do I state "water vapour in the atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2".
I'm not about to start justifying staements I never made.
On 29 Jul 2025 at 10:29:46 BST, Spike wrote:
They do. I think you've been told this, by me, six times now. Water vapour not
only contributes to climate change, it is the biggest single variable. I have
never said otherwise. What I have tried to impress on you is the significance
of other variables, and how they 'lean' on water vapour and influence climate.
Whatever is this ‘lean on’ mechanism you have now introduced?
Yes, I realise that may have confused you. By 'lean' I mean 'act upon'. As in if you lean on something, you act upon it.
The rest of the text snipped as you seem to be variously completely baffled, or misrepresenting what I've written elsewhere.
On 29/07/2025 11:26, ajh wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:10, Timatmarford wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:39, RJH wrote:Tim I haven't read the whole thread but if we are talking vapour
Snipped as rather sideways to your points..
Do we know the contribution from air travel to atmospheric water
vapour? This seems very much avoided by media/govt. for suspected
reasons!
rather than droplets of water in a "vapour trail" my understanding is
that the frequencies of radiation emitted by the earth's surface that
are absorbed by water vapour are quickly absorbed in the lower
atmosphere, so adding more water vapour to the atmosphere has no
additional effect. It has always acted as a warm blanket, at least
during human existence.
"Water plays a significant role in climate feedback loops, particularly through water vapor. As temperatures rise, more water evaporates, and
since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this leads to further warming, creating a positive feedback loop. This effect is estimated to amplify warming from other sources like increased CO2"
That's part of the standard Climate Dogma.
Needed to explain why their scary graphs dont match the *calculated*
effects of CO2.
The inconvenient truth is this.
Of and by itself increased CO2 is reckoned to have a climate sensitivity
of about 0.8°C per doubling of CO2. That's what the physics says.
However warming since 1980 is claimed to be more than that.
At this point the warmunists have a choice. Lose their funding and admit
that something else is *independently* causing warming as well, or
concoct a theory of "positive feedback" that says that "something else" *amplifies* the effects of ANY climate change including that produced by
CO2.
So the unknown instead of *adding* to CO2, *MULTIPLIES IT*.
And they picked on water vapours.
But note, any climate change by any means is *amplified* by this, not
just CO2, which is why I mentioned the paper on Pinatubo that used the unamplified effect of volcanic emissions to exactly calculate the
observed effect and then transferred that to CO2 which WAS multiplied to
give 'the right result'
So this water vapour seemingly only *amplifies* climate change caused by
CO2, which is remarkably clever of it.
My retired PhD geologist BIL whose life has been spend sorting out the prehistory of the earth as revealed by rocks, categorically states that
this feedback is simply impossible and completely inconsistent with the geological record.
There is also strong evidence to show that CO2 rises in the atmosphere follows global warming periods, as its then released from the warming seas.
I don't know the real story, but the one we are bullied with constantly
is pure unadulterated wombat turds.
A most convenient lie that has allowed enormous sums of money to be
extracted from the general public and transferred to the pockets of
people who absolutely do not deserve to have it.
On 29/07/2025 12:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/07/2025 11:26, ajh wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:10, Timatmarford wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:39, RJH wrote:Tim I haven't read the whole thread but if we are talking vapour
Snipped as rather sideways to your points..
Do we know the contribution from air travel to atmospheric water
vapour? This seems very much avoided by media/govt. for suspected
reasons!
rather than droplets of water in a "vapour trail" my understanding is
that the frequencies of radiation emitted by the earth's surface that
are absorbed by water vapour are quickly absorbed in the lower
atmosphere, so adding more water vapour to the atmosphere has no
additional effect. It has always acted as a warm blanket, at least
during human existence.
"Water plays a significant role in climate feedback loops,
particularly through water vapor. As temperatures rise, more water
evaporates, and since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this leads to
further warming, creating a positive feedback loop. This effect is
estimated to amplify warming from other sources like increased CO2"
That's part of the standard Climate Dogma.
Needed to explain why their scary graphs dont match the *calculated*
effects of CO2.
The inconvenient truth is this.
Of and by itself increased CO2 is reckoned to have a climate
sensitivity of about 0.8°C per doubling of CO2. That's what the
physics says.
However warming since 1980 is claimed to be more than that.
At this point the warmunists have a choice. Lose their funding and
admit that something else is *independently* causing warming as well,
or concoct a theory of "positive feedback" that says that "something
else" *amplifies* the effects of ANY climate change including that
produced by CO2.
So the unknown instead of *adding* to CO2, *MULTIPLIES IT*.
And they picked on water vapours.
But note, any climate change by any means is *amplified* by this, not
just CO2, which is why I mentioned the paper on Pinatubo that used the
unamplified effect of volcanic emissions to exactly calculate the
observed effect and then transferred that to CO2 which WAS multiplied
to give 'the right result'
So this water vapour seemingly only *amplifies* climate change caused
by CO2, which is remarkably clever of it.
My retired PhD geologist BIL whose life has been spend sorting out the
prehistory of the earth as revealed by rocks, categorically states
that this feedback is simply impossible and completely inconsistent
with the geological record.
There is also strong evidence to show that CO2 rises in the atmosphere
follows global warming periods, as its then released from the warming
seas.
I don't know the real story, but the one we are bullied with
constantly is pure unadulterated wombat turds.
A most convenient lie that has allowed enormous sums of money to be
extracted from the general public and transferred to the pockets of
people who absolutely do not deserve to have it.
Ah! So I don't have to be critical of my grandchildren swanning off to America for a fortnight. Mostly using up *air miles* I guess.
Interesting about the 9/11 2.0 deg. temperature drop.
Wait for the Tundra methane to get going!>
On 29 Jul 2025 at 16:42:40 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 at 10:29:46 BST, Spike wrote:
They do. I think you've been told this, by me, six times now. Water vapour not
only contributes to climate change, it is the biggest single variable. I have
never said otherwise. What I have tried to impress on you is the significance
of other variables, and how they 'lean' on water vapour and influence climate.
Whatever is this ‘lean on’ mechanism you have now introduced?
Yes, I realise that may have confused you. By 'lean' I mean 'act upon'. As in
if you lean on something, you act upon it.
I knew what you meant when you said ‘lean on’, but I note you’ve yet again
taken a minor issue and used it to avoid answering the main one. Which was >> ‘what is the mechanism involved’,
The rest of the text snipped as you seem to be variously completely baffled,
or misrepresenting what I've written elsewhere.
Just answer the issue raised from the NASA link you posted.
I only understand it as far as I have already explained. We differ on direct and indirect characterisations. I'm still not sure of your position in that regard.
The exact processes and mechanisms are beyond my current understanding.
You need to explain, or at least do some research and find out, why NASA claims only one of the greenhouse gases on its list operates ‘indirectly’.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd
suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI, and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses.
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
The exact processes and mechanisms are beyond my current understanding.
You need to explain, or at least do some research and find out, why NASA
claims only one of the greenhouse gases on its list operates ‘indirectly’.
"I don't understand, but NASA says it, so it must be true..."
Bandar Log-ic...And argumentum ad authoritatem...
The main weapons of the New Left
Spike wrote:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind >> turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
Kathryn Porter discussing CfDs, Curtailment and upcoming "fun" for
Millibrain ..
<https://youtu.be/GfmTbW10Y84>
Is it just me, or does she always look like she's just discovered her mother's dressing-up box in her videos?
Spike wrote:
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind >> turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
Kathryn Porter discussing CfDs, Curtailment and upcoming "fun" for
Millibrain ..
<https://youtu.be/GfmTbW10Y84>
Is it just me, or does she always look like she's just discovered her mother's dressing-up box in her videos?
<https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-09>
Quote: So far in 2025, Britain has wasted £691,570,685 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI, >>> and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity >>> of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses. >>>
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional, direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
On 31/07/2025 09:36, RJH wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>>>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI,
and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity
of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses. >>>>
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional, >> direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This >> has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between
direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and >> many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
Either water vapour creates global warming or it doesn't. There is no
such thing as an 'indirect' variable.
On 31 Jul 2025 at 10:59:31 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:36, RJH wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Either water vapour creates global warming or it doesn't. There is no
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>>>>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI,
and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity
of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses.
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional, >>> direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This >>> has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between >>> direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and >>> many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
such thing as an 'indirect' variable.
Of course there is. Even in social science ;-)
Why It's Considered Indirect:
Water vapor doesn't initiate climate change on its own. Unlike CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, water vapor concentrations are controlled by temperature rather than human activities. You can't directly increase atmospheric water vapor long-term by adding water - excess moisture simply condenses and falls as precipitation.
On 31 Jul 2025 at 12:30:16 BST, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:36, RJH wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
And I have listed, at least 3 times, 5 of them. Including water vapour.Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd
suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI,
and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity
of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses.
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional,
direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This
has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between >>>> direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and
many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
Either water vapour creates global warming or it doesn't. There is no
such thing as an 'indirect' variable.
Well said.
RJH is studiously ignoring the fact that NASA is claiming that:
a) there are a number of greenhouse gases
b) greenhouse gases cause climate change
c) water vapour is a greenhouse gas
d) water vapour doesn’t cause climate change on its own.
I have repeatedly asked him to state the scientific basis for this absurd
position.
And I have recently asked you to clarify it with NASA.
Good as I am, I have
nothing like the training of NASA scientists and wouldn't pretend as much. That's why I rely on their judgement.
But anyway. A bit more on this:
Water vapor acts as an indirect cause of climate change primarily through what's called a feedback mechanism rather than being a direct driver like CO2 or methane.
Here's how it works:
The Primary Process:
When greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the atmosphere, warmer air can hold more moisture. For every 1°C of warming, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water vapor.
Since water vapor is itself a potent greenhouse gas, this
additional moisture traps even more heat, amplifying the original warming.
Why It's Considered Indirect:
Water vapor doesn't initiate climate change on its own.
Unlike CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels, water vapor concentrations are controlled by temperature rather than human activities. You can't directly increase atmospheric water vapor long-term by adding water - excess moisture simply condenses and falls as precipitation.
The Feedback Loop:
CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause initial warming
Warmer air holds more water vapor
More water vapor traps additional heat
This causes further warming, which allows even more water vapor
The cycle continues, roughly doubling the warming effect
Regional Variations:
This feedback is strongest in the tropics where there's abundant moisture, and
weaker in cold, dry regions like the Arctic. The effect also varies with altitude - water vapor feedback is most pronounced in the lower atmosphere.
This water vapor feedback is one of the most significant amplifying mechanisms
in the climate system, making it a crucial indirect factor in climate change projections.
I defy you to repudiate a single sentence.
I accept (of course) that some scientists that question some of the water vapour notion - Lindzen, for example. But overall, scientists support the NASA
position. Most scientists, it seems, except you.
On 31 Jul 2025 at 22:43:59 BST, Spike wrote:
Since water vapor is itself a potent greenhouse gas, thisBut that’s not what you used as justification.
additional moisture traps even more heat, amplifying the original warming. >>
You have been asked repeatedly why NASA said water vapour doesn’t directly >> affect climate change, and now you are saying it does do so.
Might as well just dispense with this little nugget. As it seems to form the basis of your, and your comrade's, compound misunderstandings.
I have always maintained water vapour is a greenhouse gas. As has NASA. They keep good company.
The distinction is that, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, it's an indirect variable. Water vapour is affected by certain human created direct
factors. Hence the 'anthropogenic' bit. I've given you far more detailed explanations of the direct and indirect aspects elsewhere.
I think you have a problem with this as you think the topic is context free, and readily explained with nothing more than some figures (doesn't seem to matter which) and an ability to add up. Which IMHO is mistaken. But do carry on.
’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you
is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
On 02/08/2025 09:01, Spike wrote:
’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that >> water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >> it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
And that is, for most people where is stands.
Unable to actually understand the issues, they do the 'scholar' thing
and read up what *other* people, who they believe *do* know what they
are talking about, have written.
And the case then becomes how many people can be persuaded to *believe*
the 'experts' (99% of all scientists etc). And how they are then
persuaded to defend their ignorance by
referring to 'the expert source'.
I.e. there are those who think they can trust 'experts' and those who
can think...
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 09:01, Spike wrote:
’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that >>> water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
And that is, for most people where is stands.
Unable to actually understand the issues, they do the 'scholar' thing
and read up what *other* people, who they believe *do* know what they
are talking about, have written.
And the case then becomes how many people can be persuaded to *believe*
the 'experts' (99% of all scientists etc). And how they are then
persuaded to defend their ignorance by
referring to 'the expert source'.
I.e. there are those who think they can trust 'experts' and those who
can think...
Spot on.
We now have teenagers and even younger claiming that their mental health is being negatively affected by the current narrative of climate change, Nut Zero, renewables, and the rest.
On 02/08/2025 11:45, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 09:01, Spike wrote:
’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position
that water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse
Gas, except when it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it
doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all
this for you is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
And that is, for most people where is stands.
Unable to actually understand the issues, they do the 'scholar'
thing and read up what *other* people, who they believe *do* know
what they are talking about, have written.
And the case then becomes how many people can be persuaded to
*believe* the 'experts' (99% of all scientists etc). And how they
are then persuaded to defend their ignorance by
referring to 'the expert source'.
I.e. there are those who think they can trust 'experts' and those
who can think...
Spot on.
We now have teenagers and even younger claiming that their mental
health is being negatively affected by the current narrative of
climate change, Nut Zero, renewables, and the rest.
Well I can relate to that. News is dominated by brexit, climate
change, gender politics and you have to go to GB news to get coverage
on the real issues that are affecting people - destruction of British
society by left wing ideological policies including unlimited
immigration and renewable energy and a complete amnesty on all crimes
except idealogical ones.
And government generated poverty.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists. As opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications,
data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do agree on that.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:17:55 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 11:45, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 09:01, Spike wrote:
’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position >>>>> that water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse
Gas, except when it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it
doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all
this for you is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
And that is, for most people where is stands.
Unable to actually understand the issues, they do the 'scholar'
thing and read up what *other* people, who they believe *do* know
what they are talking about, have written.
And the case then becomes how many people can be persuaded to
*believe* the 'experts' (99% of all scientists etc). And how they
are then persuaded to defend their ignorance by
referring to 'the expert source'.
I.e. there are those who think they can trust 'experts' and those
who can think...
Spot on.
We now have teenagers and even younger claiming that their mental
health is being negatively affected by the current narrative of
climate change, Nut Zero, renewables, and the rest.
Well I can relate to that. News is dominated by brexit, climate
change, gender politics and you have to go to GB news to get coverage
on the real issues that are affecting people - destruction of British
society by left wing ideological policies including unlimited
immigration and renewable energy and a complete amnesty on all crimes
except idealogical ones.
And government generated poverty.
*All* news media is biased, it is necessary to view a wide range and
then guess who, if anyone, is telling the truth, and to what degree.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 09:01:48 BST, Spike wrote:
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that >>> water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the
explanation *before* looking for justification.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists.
And how do you define ‘proper scientists’?
As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, >> data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
HTH
On 2 Aug 2025 at 09:01:48 BST, Spike wrote:
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that >> water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >> it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the explanation *before* looking for justification.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists.
As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do agree on that.
A most convenient lie that has allowed enormous sums of money to be<APPLAUSE>
extracted from the general public and transferred to the pockets of
people who absolutely do not deserve to have it.
And to understand climate, I would suggest that you'd need to be a scientist. I don't, I'm not, so I'm led by the findings of scientists.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 15:11:06 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The claim is that water vapour does not 'cause' climate change but
*amplifies* temperature change *caused by CO2*.
But does *not* amplify temperature change caused by *anything else*.
E.g volcanic eruptions.
Volcanic eruptions are not caused by humans (so far as I know), so are unlikely to feature as a central point in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. It's the direct influence of humans that's under discussion. Not volcanoes. Or indeed meteorites.
This isn't about data, or models or theories, its about *logical
consistency* in the assumptions.
That are simply absent.
Well, it makes sense to me.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 16:42:38 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 09:01:48 BST, Spike wrote:
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that
water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when
it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the
explanation *before* looking for justification.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists.
And how do you define ‘proper scientists’?
While there's a lot of overlap, I differentiate between natural ('physical world') and social scientists. But to answer your question in the context of this discussion:
Scientists systematically study the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis to gain knowledge and understanding. They use the scientific method to investigate phenomena, test hypotheses, and draw evidence-based conclusions.
Key characteristics of scientists include:
- They use established research methods and principles for systematic inquiry.
- They collect and analyse data objectively (although that is contestable), form hypotheses, design experiments, and draw conclusions based on evidence. - They conduct research in laboratories, fields, or through theoretical modelling and analysis.
- They document findings, share results, and build upon previous research.
- They often teach, advise on policy matters, or apply their expertise to solve practical problems.
While many scientists have formal education and work in academic or research institutions, the defining feature is their methodical, evidence-based approach to understanding the world, rather than any particular degree or job title.
And to understand climate, I would suggest that you'd need to be a scientist. I don't, I'm not, so I'm led by the findings of scientists.
As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, >>> data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he >> will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
Oh the irony!
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 16:42:38 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 09:01:48 BST, Spike wrote:
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that
water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when
it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the
explanation *before* looking for justification.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you
is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists.
And how do you define ‘proper scientists’?
While there's a lot of overlap, I differentiate between natural ('physical >> world') and social scientists. But to answer your question in the context of >> this discussion:
Scientists systematically study the natural world through observation,
experimentation, and analysis to gain knowledge and understanding. They use >> the scientific method to investigate phenomena, test hypotheses, and draw
evidence-based conclusions.
Key characteristics of scientists include:
- They use established research methods and principles for systematic inquiry.
- They collect and analyse data objectively (although that is contestable), >> form hypotheses, design experiments, and draw conclusions based on evidence. >> - They conduct research in laboratories, fields, or through theoretical
modelling and analysis.
- They document findings, share results, and build upon previous research. >> - They often teach, advise on policy matters, or apply their expertise to
solve practical problems.
While many scientists have formal education and work in academic or research >> institutions, the defining feature is their methodical, evidence-based
approach to understanding the world, rather than any particular degree or job
title.
And to understand climate, I would suggest that you'd need to be a scientist.
I don't, I'm not, so I'm led by the findings of scientists.
As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications,
data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he >>> will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
Oh the irony!
Now *that* is ironic.
Keep in mind that the predictions made below include those by academics, PhDs, and Professors, while asking yourself why you weren’t led by them:
Top 10 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Failed
Environmental freaks have warned of global apocalypse for decades
By Andrew Stiles March 6, 2025
It’s been almost six years since the delinquent child activist Greta Thunberg promoted a so-called scientist’s warning that “climate change will
wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels” by 2023.
The scientist in question, Harvard University professor James Anderson,
also predicted “there will be no floating ice remaining” in the Arctic Ocean by 2022 absent a “Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.”
That didn’t happen, but climate activists are still warning that the Arctic could be ice-free at some point between 2035 and 2067.
Not surprisingly, there is a long history—dating back to the 1970s—of so-called climate scientists and government bureaucrats making catastrophic predictions about the environment that never materialized. Here are 10 of
the most egregious examples. Enjoy!
1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley [PhD] a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80
percent of species would be extinct by 1995. Wrong.
2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and *professor* at the University of California, Davis, warned that “there won’t be any more crude oil,” that
“none of our land will be usable” for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. False.
3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich [Professor] at Stanford University
warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die
each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. Extremely false.
4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire
world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” by the year 2000. Didn’t happen.
5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted
the coming of a “new ice age” within 50 years. Incorrect.
6) In 1975, [Professor] Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. Erroneous.
7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30
years, which wouldn’t even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992. False.
8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change. Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a “Siberian” climate. Extremely false.
9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change
special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions. Didn’t happen.
10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted
the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022. Nope.
On 3 Aug 2025 at 09:01:51 BST, Spike wrote:
I don't begin with certainties.“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he >>>> will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
Oh the irony!
Now *that* is ironic.
Keep in mind that the predictions made below include those by academics,
PhDs, and Professors, while asking yourself why you weren’t led by them: >>
Top 10 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Failed
Environmental freaks have warned of global apocalypse for decades
By Andrew Stiles March 6, 2025
Here's the problem. You use sources with (even) self-proclaimed bias, right wing think tanks, and conspiracy fueled climate deniers. I try to use sources that are as neutral as I can reasonably find - AI, Wikis etc. And proper *climate* scientists.
It's pretty much the first rule of secondary research - question your source.
On 3 Aug 2025 at 09:01:51 BST, Spike wrote:
I don't begin with certainties.“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he >>>> will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
Oh the irony!
Now *that* is ironic.
Keep in mind that the predictions made below include those by academics,
PhDs, and Professors, while asking yourself why you weren’t led by them: >>
Top 10 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Failed
Environmental freaks have warned of global apocalypse for decades
By Andrew Stiles March 6, 2025
Here's the problem. You use sources with (even) self-proclaimed bias, right wing think tanks, and conspiracy fueled climate deniers. I try to use sources that are as neutral as I can reasonably find - AI, Wikis etc. And proper *climate* scientists.
It's pretty much the first rule of secondary research - question your source.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:23:09 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,939 |