I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:17:14 +0000
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
The wind is going to be 'blowing a gale' later in the week. It would be interesting to see if that number changes (up or down).
Don't they have to feather the blades or something if the wind is too
strong?
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest we need 3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup would need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery storage, at $half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero.
It isn't complicated.
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage >>> and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest we
need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is >>>>> only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is >>>>>> only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated. >>>>> TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup
would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power
stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is >>>>>>> only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated. >>>>>> TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery backup >>>>> would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All designed
and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable, unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting on us.
On 23 Jan 2025 09:29:39 GMT
Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power
stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
But..but.. you're talking sense, so there is no chance that Milliband
and the current crowd in charge will give it any consideration.
The idea.
On 23/01/2025 10:00, Davey wrote:
On 23 Jan 2025 09:29:39 GMTMiliband may have no choice. With Reeves and Starmer already having done
Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators >>>>>>>>> wind is only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I
write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources,
enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't
complicated. TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric,
suggest we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery >>>>>>> storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power
stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think.
Plus a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric,
not just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy
usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do
chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All
designed and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable,
unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting
on us.
But..but.. you're talking sense, so there is no chance that Milliband
and the current crowd in charge will give it any consideration.
The idea.
far more damage to the economy than Liz Truss ever did, there simply may
be no money for his gratuitous EcoBollox™
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:17:14 +0000, alan_m <[email protected]>
wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
At this very moment Gridwatch says wind is producing 31%, almost as
much as CCGT. But then what will happen if it gets windier?
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is >>>>>> only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated. >>>>> TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus a
few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage. We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
On 22/01/2025 23:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated. >>>>>> TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus
a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
Fair enough, that's why I included SMRs in the question.
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
While we will need a lot more electricity, chunks of it (Heating stored
hot water, charging EVs and home batteries, some industrial processes,
maybe heating heat stores for later home heating), will likely be done
at what are currently times of low demand. We may need 3x as much
electricity per year, but the increase in peak demand (and therefore generating capacity) will likely be far lower.
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated.
TW
On 22/01/2025 23:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/01/2025 23:34, SteveW wrote:
On 22/01/2025 19:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Nope. I was
On 22/01/2025 19:19, Spike wrote:
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:AKA "Pure EcoBollox™"
On 22/01/2025 14:17, alan_m wrote:
I note with our fantastic network of 1000s of wind generators
wind is
only producing 0.6% of the electricity demand as I write this.
Did you expect them to work when the wind isn't blowing?
That's why we need a whole array of generating sources, enhanced
storage
and rationalised consumption to meet net zero. It isn't complicated. >>>>>> TW
It’s very complicated.
Estimates of the UK energy demand when we are all electric, suggest
we need
3x as much generation as we need now, say 150GW.
Putting in enough wind to generate 150GW is laughable.
Solar could never produce that much.
Biomass is the second most polluting generation there is.
Tidal is a joke.
Running cables to Morocco is hardly energy-secure.
Hydrogen is for toy balloons.
We’ll need a massive grid, not just a balancing one.
December gave us a greater than two-week Dunkelflaute; battery
backup would
need to supply 4TWh to cover that. The world’s largest battery
storage, at
$half-a-billion, could supply 1/1000th of it.
FHS, do some sums.
‘Rationalised consumption’ is pure Marxism.
It only fools People Who Cant Do Sums
We don't need diversity - we need around 150 nuclear power stations.
Have you misplaced a zero? Around 15 or 16 Sizewell Cs I think. Plus
a few for redundancy, when maintenance is required.
(a) thinking of smaller reactors than the giant EDF EPWR fuckups
Fair enough, that's why I included SMRs in the question.
(b) working on the basis that we want *everything* to be electric, not
just what currently is.
Remember electricity only accounts for about 30% of our energy usage.
We probably need about 200GWEe to run the country and do chemical and
metal smelting, concrete making and the like.
While we will need a lot more electricity, chunks of it (Heating stored
hot water, charging EVs and home batteries, some industrial processes,
maybe heating heat stores for later home heating), will likely be done
at what are currently times of low demand. We may need 3x as much
electricity per year, but the increase in peak demand (and therefore generating capacity) will likely be far lower.
Exactly. Battersea power station not only generated electricity for
London, it provided district heating as well and used the Thames to
deliver coal and cool the turbine exhausts.
It would be ideal for 4-6 SMRs. Surrounded by 'social housing' with free heating and low cost electricity.
On 23/01/2025 10:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Exactly. Battersea power station not only generated electricity for
London, it provided district heating as well and used the Thames to
deliver coal and cool the turbine exhausts.
It would be ideal for 4-6 SMRs. Surrounded by 'social housing' with free
heating and low cost electricity.
Well, it /would/ have been... <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station#2022_opening>
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All designed
and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable, unlike the fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting on us.
I expect them to provide energy 24 x 7. How they do it is not my business.
STFU until you can.[...]
On 23/01/2025 09:29, Spike wrote:+2
And with plenty of SMRs placed where the loads are, the grid could be
reverted to what it was originally, namely a balancing grid. All designed
and constructed by engineers to be efficient and reliable, unlike the
fabulously expensive fantasy that the greens are foisting on us.
+1
On 22/01/2025 19:26, Tim Streater wrote:
[...]
[...] If you can't make a plausible suggestion then I suggest you
I expect them to provide energy 24 x 7. How they do it is not my business. >>
STFU until you can.[...]
So it's not your business to organise a national energy policy, but
somehow you think it is mine?
Actually it isn't my job to do that, but luckily we have a government
that takes its obligations seriously and here is a recent HofC research Briefing on progress and plans: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9888/
"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy..."
Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any
more..."
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28/01/2025 14:16, Spike wrote:
"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."
Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say: "One has to free oneself >>> from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any
more..."
I am really unimpressed that you should copy-paste some out of context
meme-quotes without having the faintest clue what Endenhofer was saying,
why and to who. I guess you don't have the intellectual curiosity to
find out? Or maybe you have an autistic inability to understand subtlety
and intention of meaning, or maybe you just don't care and think it
looks edgy and clever to chant the phrases you learned from Breitbart.
His point was that we need to understand that even if everybody
understands the need to cut emissions it will always be hard to get
international agreement because the countries that produce fossil fuels
will find that their bonanza years are over when we de-carbon. A point
so simple and so obviously true that it's difficult to know what the
problem is.
Oh, maybe you are triggered by the truth stated plainly?
You seem somewhat touchy about mentions of declarations of wealth redistribution disguised as climate policy which are in turn based on false science. The last I heard, from the 65,000-attendee COP29, was that ‘affected countries’ were demanding well over a trillion dollars annually.
That’s a hefty amount of wealth redistribution. And none of it will affect the planet’s orbital parameters, cosmic ray flux, or variability of the Sun’s output.
On 28/01/2025 14:16, Spike wrote:
"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."
Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say: "One has to free oneself
from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any
more..."
I am really unimpressed that you should copy-paste some out of context meme-quotes without having the faintest clue what Endenhofer was saying,
why and to who. I guess you don't have the intellectual curiosity to
find out? Or maybe you have an autistic inability to understand subtlety
and intention of meaning, or maybe you just don't care and think it
looks edgy and clever to chant the phrases you learned from Breitbart.
His point was that we need to understand that even if everybody
understands the need to cut emissions it will always be hard to get international agreement because the countries that produce fossil fuels
will find that their bonanza years are over when we de-carbon. A point
so simple and so obviously true that it's difficult to know what the
problem is.
Oh, maybe you are triggered by the truth stated plainly?
TimW <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28/01/2025 14:16, Spike wrote:
"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."
Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say: "One has to free oneself >>> from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any
more..."
I am really unimpressed that you should copy-paste some out of context
meme-quotes without having the faintest clue what Endenhofer was saying,
why and to who. I guess you don't have the intellectual curiosity to
find out? Or maybe you have an autistic inability to understand subtlety
and intention of meaning, or maybe you just don't care and think it
looks edgy and clever to chant the phrases you learned from Breitbart.
His point was that we need to understand that even if everybody
understands the need to cut emissions it will always be hard to get
international agreement because the countries that produce fossil fuels
will find that their bonanza years are over when we de-carbon. A point
so simple and so obviously true that it's difficult to know what the
problem is.
Oh, maybe you are triggered by the truth stated plainly?
You seem somewhat touchy about mentions of declarations of wealth redistribution disguised as climate policy which are in turn based on false science. The last I heard, from the 65,000-attendee COP29, was that ‘affected countries’ were demanding well over a trillion dollars annually.
That’s a hefty amount of wealth redistribution. And none of it will affect the planet’s orbital parameters, cosmic ray flux, or variability of the Sun’s output.
It will end up at 500ppm
probably with very little alteration in global
climate.
On 28/01/2025 23:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It will end up at 500ppm
Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know
probably with very little alteration in global climate.
That I doubt and it is yet another.
On 30/01/2025 11:13, ajh wrote:
On 28/01/2025 23:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Its been higher than that - way higher, and the earth survived.
It will end up at 500ppm
Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know
probably with very little alteration in global climate.
That I doubt and it is yet another.
Geologically it has never been lower than post the last ice age.
Ice cores reveal that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by global warming
and usually happens a couple of hundred years later.
A couple of hundred years ago the 'Little Ice Age' ended....
On 30/01/2025 15:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/01/2025 11:13, ajh wrote:
On 28/01/2025 23:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Its been higher than that - way higher, and the earth survived.
It will end up at 500ppm
Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know
probably with very little alteration in global climate.
That I doubt and it is yet another.
Geologically it has never been lower than post the last ice age.
Ice cores reveal that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by global warming
and usually happens a couple of hundred years later.
A couple of hundred years ago the 'Little Ice Age' ended....
Not something I am prepared to argue over on this forum, I accept our
views differ, and the two statements are not linked.
The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in
the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut
down forest for agriculture.
On 30/01/2025 15:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/01/2025 11:13, ajh wrote:
On 28/01/2025 23:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Its been higher than that - way higher, and the earth survived.
It will end up at 500ppm
Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know
probably with very little alteration in global climate.
That I doubt and it is yet another.
Geologically it has never been lower than post the last ice age.
Ice cores reveal that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by global
warming and usually happens a couple of hundred years later.
A couple of hundred years ago the 'Little Ice Age' ended....
Not something I am prepared to argue over on this forum, I accept our
views differ, and the two statements are not linked.
The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in
the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut
down forest for agriculture.
On 30 Jan 2025 at 18:03:43 GMT, "ajh" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 30/01/2025 15:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/01/2025 11:13, ajh wrote:
On 28/01/2025 23:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Its been higher than that - way higher, and the earth survived.
It will end up at 500ppm
Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know
probably with very little alteration in global climate.
That I doubt and it is yet another.
Geologically it has never been lower than post the last ice age.
Ice cores reveal that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by global warming
and usually happens a couple of hundred years later.
A couple of hundred years ago the 'Little Ice Age' ended....
Not something I am prepared to argue over on this forum, I accept our
views differ, and the two statements are not linked.
The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in
the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier
hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut
down forest for agriculture.
800k years? That's nothing.
On 30/01/2025 18:03, ajh wrote:
Its not 'views'. Its *facts* <https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Education-and-Careers/Ask-a-Geologist/Earths-Climate/The-Relationship-Between-CO2-and-Temperature>
The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in
the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier
hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut
down forest for agriculture.
A mere snap of the 4 billion years the planet has been around of which multicellular life occupies the last 600million...
In fact the 800,000 is cherry picked to the exact time at which falling
CO2 stabilised to a level so low that plants could barely survive.
<https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/>
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 30/01/2025 18:03, ajh wrote:
Its not 'views'. Its *facts*
<https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Education-and-Careers/Ask-a-Geologist/Earths-Climate/The-Relationship-Between-CO2-and-Temperature>
The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in
the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier
hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut >>> down forest for agriculture.
A mere snap of the 4 billion years the planet has been around of which
multicellular life occupies the last 600million...
In fact the 800,000 is cherry picked to the exact time at which falling
CO2 stabilised to a level so low that plants could barely survive.
<https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/>
That article concludes with this message:
“Looking back at the 2 extra degrees of warmth last time CO2 levels were this high (Pliocene era, 3 million years ago), should be enough of a call
to action considering the damage two more degrees would cause today.”
The questions to ask here are ‘What damage did the temperatures of the Pliocene era do, some 3 million years ago?’, and ‘How was such damage determined?’
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:24:07 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,144 |