'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

ZTD

magyar wrote: »

I have to say I don't see the logic in these (undeniable) comments that sea levels and temperatures have historically gone up and down.

The problem is the belief that change is bad. If it gets colder it's bad. If it gets warmer it's bad.

magyar wrote: »

The issue is 'is man adversely affecting these natural changes, and what can we do about it'.

And also "should we"?

There is enough nerve gas in US/Russian stockpiles to kill humankind about 4,000 times over. There's a solution to man-made global warming...

Even if it isn't happening. Think of it as a prophylactic...

envirobabe

There is no scientific evidence that proves MMGW. There are many respected scientists who do not agree with the theory such as the Russion solar physicists who recently calculated that the earth will in fact cool over the next ten years. They have based their scientific findings on solar activity. Past research has proved that solar activity affects our climate.

To read the views of scientists who disagree with the the MMGW religion, look at foreign websites. Even in Europe views on GW are not censored as they are here in the good old UK, with the BBC leading the way. Check out le monde, le figaro, el pais etc.

And remember, the scientists on the GW gravy train must maintain orthodoxy of their theories to keep getting even more taxpayers money to fund their pseudo research.

We are being conned and ripped off by a movement of environmentalists, lefties, anti capitalists, anti globalisationists, and their fellow travellers.

We need to wake up. This is a massive con with the UK audience at the forefront of the gullible.

ZTD

rfburke wrote: »

Scientists use the term “theory” to describe Evolution and gravity as a substantiated hypothesis. Global warming falls into this category of theories. That in no way means that it is untrue.

That's a good statement - now back it up.

rfburke wrote: »

There are no qualified independent scientists who can prove global warming is not man-made.

Again, a good statement, but your evidence appears to be in short supply.

rfburke wrote: »

“Sceptics” happily throw random hypothesis into the debate and sit back while reputable scientist run around refuting their claims.

Skeptics bring up points are not addressed by the current scientists' theories. Unfortunately theories have to be all encompassing or they are flawed.

rfburke wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the “sceptics” to prove that it is not happening.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The skeptics are not the ones making the claim of "global warming". If you make a claim, you have to demonstate that it explains everything.

Otherwise I could blame it on Chaos mathematics and farting bears in Bulgaria, and it would be up to you to prove otherwise. If the flap of a butterfly's wing can cause a hurricane, then surely the flap of a bear's wind can cause a heatwave?

rfburke wrote: »

There is not one, not a single proven or backed up scientific study which can show global warming is occuring and that it is not man made, why is that?

This needs re-writing. The "why is that?" can be answered by a "because there is not one single proven study which shows global warming is occuring perhaps?" and I'm sure you didn't want to invite that that answer.

rfburke wrote: »

The people who support the “its not man made” camp are the same as the people who support “creationism”.

Ooh! Ad hominem attacks...how sweet... So "creationists" are the new bogeymen are they?

rfburke wrote: »

They have vested interests in the continued debate and public misinformation.

And what would those be?

rfburke wrote: »

Nearly every single observation which they (sceptics) link to the effect and throw out as being a source of warming can be substantiated by climate models and observation.

This again needs to be re-written. The word observation is being used on both sides of the fence. And observation can not be both for and against an argument - the best it can strive for in that case is neutrallity - i.e. it has nothing to do with it, so conclusion C is true when assertion a is true as well as when a is false.

rfburke wrote: »

People who are in denial will never believe as they are in a circular belief system, and no amount of evidence will dissuade them, and not until the water is around their waists will they believe anything different.

People are in de-Nile who have water around their waist must be near the bank side. It's deeper in the middle...

rfburke wrote: »

So, not one person who believes in creationism, or non-man made global warming can produce evidence to support their belief. The burden of proof is on them to prove the rest of the world wrong.

Ho hum...one final link...

ZTD

magyar wrote: »

Absolute myth. Intermittency isn't nearly the problem everyone thinks it is; yes you will still need to have extra capacity, although not nearly as much as people imagine,

So how much would that be exactly?

magyar

ZTD wrote: »

So how much would that be exactly?

Well, it would vary from winter to summer, and vary with the amount of renewable capacity. Up to 15% renewables will probably require no additional capacity whatsoever.

The UK's overcapacity is usually around 15%, i.e. the amount of generators declared as available is usually 115% of forecast demand. Every 10% of wind will probably require an additional 5% of capacity, but in most cases this will be able to be forecast quite well. So if we hit the government's target of 20% by 2020 then we'll probably need to increase conventional capacity by a further 3% or so as well.

But since many new conventional stations will be needed by that point anyway, plus energy usage is likely to continue to rise, it's rather a moot point.

The point really is that we're pretty sophisticated at demand forecasting now, so it really isn't a problem.

sharkmark

...right - let's say the simpletons are correct and global warming is not occuring....please someone answer me this question...

Do you believe we can continue to cut down trees (that absorb CO2 in case you'd forgotten) whilst pumping out CO2 in our cars (a proven greenhouse gas I hope we are in agreement on that???) at the rate we are currently and global warming will never occur...? When do you think it will become a problem - when we've cut down most of the landbased carbon sinks (forests to you and I) and we've got 10billion people polluting do you still not think it's a problem?

I'd really like someone to answer this question...please...does anyone REALLY believe we can continue to pump out CO2 at the rate we are and pretend it won't make a difference and all the excess will be absorbed by the trees and algae in the oceans...?

If you subscibe to the Gaia theory (see Wikipedia for info) you may believe we can continue to emit CO2 and there will be some natural cycle which will sort things out but you are SORELY mistaken as the southern oceans have recently stopped absorbing CO2 (see http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=753)

I'm really worried that I'm sharing the planet with some of you nuggets as if you lot don't change your attitude you'll take us all down with you. As Mr T from the A'team would say - "I pity the fool..."

sharkmark

envirobabe wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that proves MMGW. There are many respected scientists who do not agree with the theory such as the Russion solar physicists who recently calculated that the earth will in fact cool over the next ten years. They have based their scientific findings on solar activity. Past research has proved that solar activity affects our climate.

To read the views of scientists who disagree with the the MMGW religion, look at foreign websites. Even in Europe views on GW are not censored as they are here in the good old UK, with the BBC leading the way. Check out le monde, le figaro, el pais etc.

And remember, the scientists on the GW gravy train must maintain orthodoxy of their theories to keep getting even more taxpayers money to fund their pseudo research.

We are being conned and ripped off by a movement of environmentalists, lefties, anti capitalists, anti globalisationists, and their fellow travellers.

We need to wake up. This is a massive con with the UK audience at the forefront of the gullible.

If I was a cynic I would say that you work for an oil company as this is your first post - however I shall not accuse you of this as it's probably not true...when the floods of Herefordshire come knocking at your door I'd be interested to see if you change your attitude....?

envirobabe

sharkmark wrote: »

If I was a cynic I would say that you work for an oil company as this is your first post - however I shall not accuse you of this as it's probably not true...when the floods of Herefordshire come knocking at your door I'd be interested to see if you change your attitude....?

When you have no evidence based views to back your claims smear the messenger. Some knowledge of history will help in assessing how severe present weather is. Much worse has been experienced in this country over the past 200 years, but without 24 hour news or even TV and radio, the impact was local. Building on flood plains has raised a farmer's problem to a national catastrophe. FYI, I live in the part of the UK that is still rising after the last ice age.

ZTD

magyar wrote: »

Well, it would vary from winter to summer, and vary with the amount of renewable capacity.

Powerstations take (including public enquiries etc) about 10 years to build. Hence it would not vary summer to winter. It probably would not vary year to year either.

I did mean express it as a percentage of renewables - I should have made that clearer.

magyar wrote: »

Up to 15% renewables will probably require no additional capacity whatsoever.

So you'd go for 85% coverage and roll the dice and take your chances?

magyar wrote: »

The UK's overcapacity is usually around 15%, i.e. the amount of generators declared as available is usually 115% of forecast demand.

It's this way for a reason - can you guess why?

magyar wrote: »

Every 10% of wind will probably require an additional 5% of capacity,

That looks like 50% coverage now. Unless you mean something else?

magyar wrote: »

but in most cases this will be able to be forecast quite well.

So conventional powerstations which have weeks of fuel supply, and can be ran up on demand need a 15% "fudge factor" - but wind turbines can be forecast well despite relying on the vagueries of the wind?

That does not add up.

magyar wrote: »

But since many new conventional stations will be needed by that point anyway, plus energy usage is likely to continue to rise, it's rather a moot point.

It's not a moot point. If I build a X GWh nuclear power station, then I can retire an X GWh coal station. If I build a Y GWh windfarm, then I still need a c*Y GWh non-green powerstation (where c is your coverage reserve - either 85% or 50% according to your examples above) for those times when the wind isn't behaving itself.

magyar wrote: »

The point really is that we're pretty sophisticated at demand forecasting now, so it really isn't a problem.

So sophisticated they have a 15% fudge factor on it?

What about the "supply forcasting"? Can you predict wind-speeds 10 years out - and on the exact time of day they will occur? The smaller your coverage factor is, the more you'll need to.

magyar

ZTD, I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

The 15% overcapacity is the amount of capacity available on the network. The amount that's actually operating is what will vary between winter and summer (for obvious reasons).

No plant is 100% reliable, so you always need back-up for it. The operating overcapacity is nothing to do with demand forecasting, it's to do with the largest plant that might drop out. Until we end up developing wind farms on the scale of large power stations (and some proposed offshore ones are that size) then this will not change.

In terms of supply forecasting, the issue is not what it will be in 10 years, (when you can assume the wind will be much the same!), it's what it will be in the next half-hour. And that is now extremely accurate, especially with larger offshore sites.

If you don't believe me, then read this report (commissioned by DTI in consultation with National Grid). Chapter 5 is all about integration of intermittent resource into the grid.