Mon May 08, 2017 1:26 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 4:31 pm
wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
Mon May 08, 2017 6:02 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 6:32 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Mon May 08, 2017 8:06 pm
wez1927 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Its big business by the world elites to make money off us
Mon May 08, 2017 9:46 pm
JimCP91 wrote:wez1927 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Its big business by the world elites to make money off us
Oil and fossil fuels is big business, not solar power or any other green energy at the moment. Your figures on the arctics are totally wrong, and misinformed.
Sea ice in the arctic and Antarctica are both at record ever recorded lows;
"The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic was at just 13.19 million square kilometers in January 2017. While this may sound big, it's the smallest this area has been since the start of satellite recordings, according to the online "Meereisportal" or sea ice portal, an initiative run by several German research institutions.
It's also roughly 1.2 million square kilometers smaller than the long-term average measured from 1981 to 2010.
The situation isn't any better in the south, either. There is less sea ice surrounding Antarctica today than there was since reliable records began in 1979."
Mon May 08, 2017 9:53 pm
JimCP91 wrote:wez1927 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Its big business by the world elites to make money off us
Oil and fossil fuels is big business, not solar power or any other green energy at the moment. Your figures on the arctics are totally wrong, and misinformed.
Sea ice in the arctic and Antarctica are both at record ever recorded lows;
"The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic was at just 13.19 million square kilometers in January 2017. While this may sound big, it's the smallest this area has been since the start of satellite recordings, according to the online "Meereisportal" or sea ice portal, an initiative run by several German research institutions.
It's also roughly 1.2 million square kilometers smaller than the long-term average measured from 1981 to 2010.
The situation isn't any better in the south, either. There is less sea ice surrounding Antarctica today than there was since reliable records began in 1979."
Mon May 08, 2017 9:58 pm
nubbsy wrote:JimCP91 wrote:wez1927 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Its big business by the world elites to make money off us
Oil and fossil fuels is big business, not solar power or any other green energy at the moment. Your figures on the arctics are totally wrong, and misinformed.
Sea ice in the arctic and Antarctica are both at record ever recorded lows;
"The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic was at just 13.19 million square kilometers in January 2017. While this may sound big, it's the smallest this area has been since the start of satellite recordings, according to the online "Meereisportal" or sea ice portal, an initiative run by several German research institutions.
It's also roughly 1.2 million square kilometers smaller than the long-term average measured from 1981 to 2010.
The situation isn't any better in the south, either. There is less sea ice surrounding Antarctica today than there was since reliable records began in 1979."
Renewable energy is huge business. On shore wind warms alone in the UK produce enough power to supply over 8 million homes.
Mon May 08, 2017 10:32 pm
JimCP91 wrote:wez1927 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years. As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”. This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
I think when they realised not many would fall for the global warming scenario they decided climate change would sound better. I am sure plenty of people are making big money out of it, unfortunately I'm not one of them.
Its big business by the world elites to make money off us
Oil and fossil fuels is big business, not solar power or any other green energy at the moment. Your figures on the arctics are totally wrong, and misinformed.
Sea ice in the arctic and Antarctica are both at record ever recorded lows;
"The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic was at just 13.19 million square kilometers in January 2017. While this may sound big, it's the smallest this area has been since the start of satellite recordings, according to the online "Meereisportal" or sea ice portal, an initiative run by several German research institutions.
It's also roughly 1.2 million square kilometers smaller than the long-term average measured from 1981 to 2010.
The situation isn't any better in the south, either. There is less sea ice surrounding Antarctica today than there was since reliable records began in 1979."
Tue May 09, 2017 11:00 pm
Wed May 10, 2017 2:06 am
Wed May 10, 2017 7:36 am
Thu May 11, 2017 3:13 pm
Thu May 11, 2017 10:27 pm
Fri May 12, 2017 5:55 am
GrangeEndStar wrote:In 1994, global warming and the greenhouse effect from CFC's, major industry and cows farts were widely reported to be a significant factor to global warming, to the the extent that the UK would now have a temperature akin to Provence.
To that end, I have consistently sprayed various brands of deodorant such as Lynx, Right Guard and Pit-Nice into the atmosphere but still I still cannot wear shorts and have barbecues in the winter. Its a f*cking disgrace. Let the chinks crack on I say.
Fri May 12, 2017 7:07 am
Fri May 12, 2017 7:08 am
Steve Zodiak wrote:GrangeEndStar wrote:In 1994, global warming and the greenhouse effect from CFC's, major industry and cows farts were widely reported to be a significant factor to global warming, to the the extent that the UK would now have a temperature akin to Provence.
To that end, I have consistently sprayed various brands of deodorant such as Lynx, Right Guard and Pit-Nice into the atmosphere but still I still cannot wear shorts and have barbecues in the winter. Its a f*cking disgrace. Let the chinks crack on I say.
I think the global warming is giving Wales a miss, which is why so many of us are going to the Med for our holidays. We would probably go further afield if we were'nt all living in abject poverty. Perhaps we should introduce a " national spray your deodorant into the atmosphere" day in Wales to help this global warming on a bit. After all, a can of Lynx is much cheaper than a fortnight in Spain.
Fri May 12, 2017 8:47 am
Fri May 12, 2017 10:39 am
Fri May 12, 2017 11:08 am
Fri May 12, 2017 11:14 am
Nuclearblue wrote:What benefits do those in power have in saying global warming is real ?
1/ Raise even more taxes. Look at the Taxes they slap on cars now.
2/ A big money spinner to many companies IE these fecking wind Turbines that are now blighting the countryside here in the Valleys. And not to mention the levy put on every household via your heating bills to pay for this shite.
3/ Appocliptic scenarios especially when it is said it is being made my man fascinates people, and political parties jump on this by saying they will do more to save the world. Then the next party says it will do even more. And then it spins out of control.
So if it was a problem I would of thought they would do more than slap taxes on us. But air quality is a different matter and steps to improve this should continue.
Fri May 12, 2017 11:45 am
piledriver64 wrote:I can't actually believe some of the comments on here.
The arctic ice cap is, without doubt decreasing, pop over the water and have a look how far south polar bears now have to go searching for food as their natural habitat has been reduced so much.
You argue that there is a conspiracy because there's money to be made in sustainable energy, but do you really think that is anywhere near the level of money at stake for the fossil fuel lobby
Hopefully the restrictions now in place have slowed down the progress of global warming but anyone who believes it's a figment of people's imagination are, quite frankly, barking mad along with Trump and his money making cronies (including the Ruskies who have more to lose than anyone in limiting fossil fuels) !!
Fri May 12, 2017 12:07 pm
Fri May 12, 2017 12:29 pm
Fri May 12, 2017 2:29 pm
CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Fri May 12, 2017 2:41 pm
Nuclearblue wrote:CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Yes I agree but only if it is beneficial, profitable and it works like they say. I also agree that research is vital but to be told that these wind turbines is the answer is bull shit.
I believe the average wind turbine has the maximum output of 1MW, now this is what we are told. What we are not told the wind has to be at an exact speed for maximum output. Let's just say that is 25mph (example I don't know what the optimum speed is) how often does the wind blow at 25 mph ? Now if it blows to hard these things catch fire, and also if they need to be slowed down well that takes power from somewhere. Then if the wind doesn't blow your lights won't glow. But we are told these will produce 1MW of power all the time.
Solar has a place but look at the space required to produce not much power. There is tidal but ask the Canadians and they will tell you it ain't all what it's cracked up to be.
But research should continue because all the above may have a place in the future. We should be using shale gas as well as clean coal and Nuclear.
Fri May 12, 2017 3:25 pm
wez1927 wrote:Nuclearblue wrote:CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Yes I agree but only if it is beneficial, profitable and it works like they say. I also agree that research is vital but to be told that these wind turbines is the answer is bull shit.
I believe the average wind turbine has the maximum output of 1MW, now this is what we are told. What we are not told the wind has to be at an exact speed for maximum output. Let's just say that is 25mph (example I don't know what the optimum speed is) how often does the wind blow at 25 mph ? Now if it blows to hard these things catch fire, and also if they need to be slowed down well that takes power from somewhere. Then if the wind doesn't blow your lights won't glow. But we are told these will produce 1MW of power all the time.
Solar has a place but look at the space required to produce not much power. There is tidal but ask the Canadians and they will tell you it ain't all what it's cracked up to be.
But research should continue because all the above may have a place in the future. We should be using shale gas as well as clean coal and Nuclear.
Not very often the wind speed is over 25mph 10-15mph is and average
Fri May 12, 2017 3:41 pm
Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Nuclearblue wrote:CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Yes I agree but only if it is beneficial, profitable and it works like they say. I also agree that research is vital but to be told that these wind turbines is the answer is bull shit.
I believe the average wind turbine has the maximum output of 1MW, now this is what we are told. What we are not told the wind has to be at an exact speed for maximum output. Let's just say that is 25mph (example I don't know what the optimum speed is) how often does the wind blow at 25 mph ? Now if it blows to hard these things catch fire, and also if they need to be slowed down well that takes power from somewhere. Then if the wind doesn't blow your lights won't glow. But we are told these will produce 1MW of power all the time.
Solar has a place but look at the space required to produce not much power. There is tidal but ask the Canadians and they will tell you it ain't all what it's cracked up to be.
But research should continue because all the above may have a place in the future. We should be using shale gas as well as clean coal and Nuclear.
Not very often the wind speed is over 25mph 10-15mph is and average
I have been told that the wind needs to reach 10mph in order to turn these blades. Probably not a big problem here, but we get calm days where the wind is less than this, and then nothing is being produced by these turbines.
Fri May 12, 2017 7:22 pm
Nuclearblue wrote:CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Yes I agree but only if it is beneficial, profitable and it works like they say. I also agree that research is vital but to be told that these wind turbines is the answer is bull shit.
I believe the average wind turbine has the maximum output of 1MW, now this is what we are told. What we are not told the wind has to be at an exact speed for maximum output. Let's just say that is 25mph (example I don't know what the optimum speed is) how often does the wind blow at 25 mph ? Now if it blows to hard these things catch fire, and also if they need to be slowed down well that takes power from somewhere. Then if the wind doesn't blow your lights won't glow. But we are told these will produce 1MW of power all the time.
Solar has a place but look at the space required to produce not much power. There is tidal but ask the Canadians and they will tell you it ain't all what it's cracked up to be.
But research should continue because all the above may have a place in the future. We should be using shale gas as well as clean coal and Nuclear.
Sat May 13, 2017 5:57 am
Steve Zodiak wrote:wez1927 wrote:Nuclearblue wrote:CF14-SE14 wrote:Surely whether you believe in climate change or not you must believe that using less fossil fuel compared to green energy is a good thing.
Regardless of pollution, which in this country is higher than in decades/and in others is higher than ever before with asthma and child deaths at unprecedented levels, fossil fuels aren't infinite and within the next few decades will increase in cost drastically and then run out completely, so either way shouldn't we be looking at alternatives? The greener and more sustainable the better in my opinion.
Yes I agree but only if it is beneficial, profitable and it works like they say. I also agree that research is vital but to be told that these wind turbines is the answer is bull shit.
I believe the average wind turbine has the maximum output of 1MW, now this is what we are told. What we are not told the wind has to be at an exact speed for maximum output. Let's just say that is 25mph (example I don't know what the optimum speed is) how often does the wind blow at 25 mph ? Now if it blows to hard these things catch fire, and also if they need to be slowed down well that takes power from somewhere. Then if the wind doesn't blow your lights won't glow. But we are told these will produce 1MW of power all the time.
Solar has a place but look at the space required to produce not much power. There is tidal but ask the Canadians and they will tell you it ain't all what it's cracked up to be.
But research should continue because all the above may have a place in the future. We should be using shale gas as well as clean coal and Nuclear.
Not very often the wind speed is over 25mph 10-15mph is and average
I have been told that the wind needs to reach 10mph in order to turn these blades. Probably not a big problem here, but we get calm days where the wind is less than this, and then nothing is being produced by these turbines.