Posted                      

quote:

---

My PC measures at 8W when off, and 122W-ish when on standby.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Wait. A penny may be about to drop ....

---

If only we could harvest your optimism as a fuel source.

---

Hope springs eternal ....

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Neither DEFRA nor the Carbon Trust consider green tariffs as ‘zero carbon’ at present and advise organisations to calculate emissions from renewable tariffs using the average electricity emissions factor for the UK.

---

• Coal: 29.36
• Natural Gas: 38.3
• Nuclear 11.29
• Renewable 19.27
• Other 1.77

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
No, Myrrh, I'm not going to play your games. If you actually knew what words like 'concentration' and 'pressure' meant, and understood the concept of a percentage, then you would see why the concentration of oxygen has to be increased to create a breathable atmosphere at high altitude.

---

quote:

---

However, you seem not to have any understanding of these (incredibly basic) concepts, and your refusal to answer my direct question only highlights that. So come on, prove me wrong. Do some thinking and tell me "why the need for the extra which would bring it to 22%". It's really not that hard.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
No, Myrrh, I'm not going to play your games. If you actually knew what words like 'concentration' and 'pressure' meant, and understood the concept of a percentage, then you would see why the concentration of oxygen has to be increased to create a breathable atmosphere at high altitude.

---

To 22%?! Why?

What's standard dry air?

quote:

---

However, you seem not to have any understanding of these (incredibly basic) concepts, and your refusal to answer my direct question only highlights that. So come on, prove me wrong. Do some thinking and tell me "why the need for the extra which would bring it to 22%". It's really not that hard.

---

Go on, explain it.

This is on par with the earlier 'sea levels are different at different places in the world, even around the same coastline, say Britain. So unable to appreciate the ridiculousness of the claim that it's sea level rise causing the swamping of some coral islands, when islands adjacent show no rise..



Myrrh

---

Myrrh, are you an Objectivist or not?

--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
U2 aircraft pilots wear pressurized space suits in order to deal with the very low pressures at the altitudes they maintain (classified, but ~70,000 feet). Their cabin is partially pressurized, but only to 29,000 feet equivalent. The U2 pilots I knew said they would be pretty much instantly dead if they lost pressurization at that altitude - all the fluids in their bodies would boil away

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
...

A scientist who accepts models created out of the garbage of the imagined AGW physics is not a scientist, and as before, any scientist who thinks it reasonable and valid to use deliberately manipulated data to establish a hypothesis, as here with the rewritten temperature history, is not a scientist.

Regardless how high he has got in his profession or how many honours he's acquired. This coterie of non-scientists promoting the idiocy of AGW hypothesis goes all the way up to the top.


Myrrh

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Martin - for interest Maximum 'Residence' Time CO2 in Air

And as I posted earlier from IPCC, their claims extend to thousands of years, but this enough to show that their ideas about this are from imagination.


Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Residence time of fossil-fuel CO2 is in the order of "300 years plus the 25% that lasts forever" (Archer 2005, JGR - pdf )

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hands up all those who think our Shipmate-on-shore doesn't get the relationship between pressure, mass and volume of gas?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Are you comparing with what Myrrh's C3 site says the IPCC says? Do you think they're reliable?
.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Are you comparing with what Myrrh's C3 site says the IPCC says?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

As Revelle and Suess put it, "the average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it is dissolved into the sea is of the order of 10 years."

---

quote:

---

the crucial question for global warming was a transient effect, the net flux of new CO2 into the water... In technical terms, sea water is a "buffered" solution, resisting the change in acidity that an increase of carbonates would involve. When some CO2 molecules were absorbed, their presence would alter the balance through a chain of reactions, and in the end some CO2 molecules would be expelled back into the atmosphere... While it was true that most of the CO2 molecules added to the atmosphere would wind up in the oceans within a few years, most of these molecules (or others already in the oceans) would promptly be evaporated out.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Are you comparing with what Myrrh's C3 site says the IPCC says? Do you think they're reliable?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs), for example, CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), are chemically stable and persist in the atmosphere over time scales of a decade to centuries or longer, so that their emission has a long-term influence on climate. Because these gases are long lived, they become well mixed throughout the atmosphere much faster than they are removed and their global concentrations can be accurately estimated from data at a few locations. Carbon dioxide does not have a specific lifetime because it is continuously cycled between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere and its net removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Hiro, thanks for those links. One quote from the Buyer's Guide to Green Electricity:

quote:

---

Neither DEFRA nor the Carbon Trust consider green tariffs as ‘zero carbon’ at present and advise organisations to calculate emissions from renewable tariffs using the average electricity emissions factor for the UK.

---

I think that answers my question, unfortunately. It also gave a figure for the UK average fuel mix as:

• Coal: 29.36
• Natural Gas: 38.3
• Nuclear 11.29
• Renewable 19.27
• Other 1.77

So a bit less coal-heavy than I assumed, and more renewables.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wonder what the other 1.77% is?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wonder what the other 1.77% is?

---

Burning household waste? And perhaps generation from a pumped storage scheme would not strictly count as 'renewable'?

---

Unfortunately, it also doesn't count as generation - it's more of a big rechargeable battery. Waste would fit the bill though - I wonder how much of it we do? Don't know if geothermal counts as renewable, but this isn't Iceland so doubt it figures.

Embarassing admission: I've just checked the fuel mix figures I quoted in the cold light of day, and found that I had been misled by the phrase "UK average." It was actually the average fuel mix of the companies covered in this report - the report being on green energy tariffs. It's not 100% renewable because some of them "green up" by retiring ROCs. My bad, sorry for the misinformation . Does explain the high % of renewables, though!

As penance, I've just found the Office for National Statistics figures for 2001, which are

• Nuclear 23%
• Coal and lignite 34%
• Petroleum products 2%
• Natural and derived gases 37%
• Hydro and wind 2%
• Biomass and geothermal 1%
• Other fuels 0%
• Rounding errors or not being able to add up 1%

Posted                       

quote:

---

One comment I'd make is that as the IPCC doesn't do research but summarises research from a number of reputable sources, it makes me wonder why those sources have been omitted. If they'd been included I expect it would have shown a number of values scattered around the IPCC 'summary value'.

---

The IPCC is a UN 'thinkspeak' organisations with its selected apparatchiks, some of these folk promote unproven science IMO. Like the discredited hockey stick curve idea.

This is the Orwellian nightmare coming true.... IMO.

Saul the unbeliever


''IPCC’s claim is there is little doubt that human CO2 has caused the warming of the last approximately 60 years. They point to the increase of CO2 from 6.5 GtC (gigatons of carbon) human sources in their 2001 Report to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 report. The difficulty is the IPCC are the source of these numbers. In a segment titled, “Source of National Inventories” they write, “Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”

So they define the rules determine who the “nominated experts “ are and have the final say in the numbers used. This is in keeping with their process of control and determination to prove their dictated goal of finding a human source of global warming. But how reliable is the data of the nominated experts. We already have cases of countries doctoring their numbers in order to gain greater benefits from the carbon credit fiasco.''

The article concludes...

''The IPCC mandate is to examine human causes of climate change. However, you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence. As a result they have publicly determined with a 90% certainty that human CO2 is the cause of temperature change. Now events have caught up with them - their sins have found them out. My Grandmother wouldn’t be surprised nor should the public once they understand what is going on behind the so—called science. ''


NOTE: Link to full article (written back in 2007) from a Canadian site.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511

[ 30. December 2009, 12:56: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posted                      

quote:

---

This is the untold story of the report, uncovered in interviews with many of the scientists involved, the story of how a complex mixture of scientific rigour and political expediency resulted in many of the scientists' more scary scenarios for climate change - those they constantly discuss among themselves - being left on the cutting room floor.

..the IPCC's review process was so rigorous that research deemed controversial, not fully quantified or not yet incorporated into climate models was excluded.

Dozens of climate scientists, including many of the leading lights of the IPCC study, came together two years ago this month to discuss "dangerous" climate change at a conference organised by the UK government in Exeter. They identified a series of potential positive feedbacks and "tipping points" not included in current models of the Earth's climate system that could accelerate global warming or sea-level rise. These included the physical collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, rapid melting in Antarctica, a shut-down of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, and the release of carbon dioxide and methane from soil, the ocean bed and melting permafrost.

Yet last week's summary report virtually ignored most of the Exeter findings.

--
The IPCC team also sidelined findings from the British Antarctic Survey. BAS researchers say that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than almost anywhere on the planet.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Clint Boggis said:

quote:

---

One comment I'd make is that as the IPCC doesn't do research but summarises research from a number of reputable sources, it makes me wonder why those sources have been omitted. If they'd been included I expect it would have shown a number of values scattered around the IPCC 'summary value'.

---

The IPCC is a UN 'thinkspeak' organisations with its selected apparatchiks, some of these folk promote unproven science IMO. Like the discredited hockey stick curve idea.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Clint Boggis said:

quote:

---

One comment I'd make is that as the IPCC doesn't do research but summarises research from a number of reputable sources, it makes me wonder why those sources have been omitted. If they'd been included I expect it would have shown a number of values scattered around the IPCC 'summary value'.

---

The IPCC is a UN 'thinkspeak' organisations with its selected apparatchiks, some of these folk promote unproven science IMO.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
What the hell's "thinkspeak"? And what difference does mentioning the UN make to whether AGW is true?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
What the hell's "thinkspeak"? And what difference does mentioning the UN make to whether AGW is true?

---

Dontcha know? The UN is a freemason front-group for world domination headed by Comte de Saint Germain using AGW to ready the world for when they seize all the thrones of the world using the power of the Holy Grail. It's what I heard anyways, and explains why the UN can't be trusted.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
(By the way assertions are not arguments.)

---

Yes they are!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
What the hell's "thinkspeak"? And what difference does mentioning the UN make to whether AGW is true?

---

Dontcha know? The UN is a freemason front-group for world domination headed by Comte de Saint Germain using AGW to ready the world for when they seize all the thrones of the world using the power of the Holy Grail. It's what I heard anyways, and explains why the UN can't be trusted.

---

Theres nothing like a bit of ridicule is there to diminish people who won't agree with you or express opinions you can't stomach, eh?

Simply when said ''IMO'', it is 'in my opinion', its a personal view, not a scientific one; of course you and your ilk can criticise all you like, not everyone agrees with you, so don't stoop to personal abuse. There is a lot we all don't know; just don't state that its proven, like a lot of these areas they are highly disputed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Theres nothing like a bit of ridicule is there to diminish people who won't agree with you or express opinions you can't stomach, eh?

Simply when said ''IMO'', it is 'in my opinion', its a personal view, not a scientific one; of course you and your ilk can criticise all you like, not everyone agrees with you, so don't stoop to personal abuse. There is a lot we all don't know; just don't state that its proven, like a lot of these areas they are highly disputed.

---

As has been stated before, I think you overrate the dispute greatly, underrate the proof greatly, and hide behind "imo", , , rumblings of conspiracy, etc.

It's very hard to get you to engage on an argument.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
What the hell's "thinkspeak"? And what difference does mentioning the UN make to whether AGW is true?

---

Dontcha know? The UN is a freemason front-group for world domination headed by Comte de Saint Germain using AGW to ready the world for when they seize all the thrones of the world using the power of the Holy Grail. It's what I heard anyways, and explains why the UN can't be trusted.

---

Theres nothing like a bit of ridicule is there to diminish people who won't agree with you or express opinions you can't stomach, eh?

Simply when said ''IMO'', it is 'in my opinion', its a personal view, not a scientific one; of course you and your ilk can criticise all you like, not everyone agrees with you, so don't stoop to personal abuse. There is a lot we all don't know; just don't state that its proven, like a lot of these areas they are highly disputed.

---

No abuse to you intended Saul. Apologies if that's how it appeared.

Re: Dr Tim Ball: To mis-quote what Michael Hesletine said in another context: "what he says is not an honest unbiased attempt to get at the truth about AGW - It's Ball's!"

See what sanityman said about Ball's background - he's a retired Geography professor, not a working climate scientist. When what he says is in direct opposition to what those at the top of their field, who actually made a life's work of studying the climate say, it's enough to make me doubt him. He wants to appear to present an honest case but actually he's an unqualified advocate funded by the energy lobby. Don't be taken it Saul!

Using 'IMO' was understood but it doesn't mean much when 'a man in the street' (you or me) believes their own opinion is just as valid as someone who actually knows about a subject. Does a school cleaner have an opinion on a complex issue in education policy? Possibly. Does it carry the same weight as that of someone with a great deal of expertise? Of course not. (IMO!)

Mockery can certainly help (it's entertaining and fun) but the real point is not who can get a laugh but who's telling the truth?

Scaring people shitless is not the point either. We need to decide whether AGW is true and if it is, to agree some action. If the fear results in some action from humanity, maybe it's worhtwhile.
.

---

Clint Boggis,

fair point mate. I accept all you've said. Agreed.

Personally, I confess (Father forgive me I have sinned ) not as an excuse but more of an explanation, my own church background/ upbringing, was Plymouth Brethren and we were a seriously bloody minded lot! Add to that my own personal bloody mindedness. Mind you the PBs produced some fine people too (recently remembering that fine theologian FF Bruce, plus many many others too in all sorts of fields).

Barnabas - sorry bit off topic here!


Anyway, as stated, I take on your board your comments and I am sure the debate will go on...and on...and on.... I am sure of that both on S of F and the wider world.

Happy New year to all,

Saul the Apostle....with feet of clay!

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Climate Change, on the other hand, is, in the end, about the science. The difficulty in that debate comes from scientific illiteracy. There, that's my two sentence summary of 20 pages of debate!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sorry, the second of your two options. If indeed it were true that CO2 levels have minimal impact on GW, the balance between the cost of change and the benefit of change would be very different. The cost of change is far from trivial. And on general grounds, it is not a good idea to make public policy on the basis of "let's pretend".

---