UK in need of proper energy policy

Wind turbines generated 11 per cent of our power in February

Wind turbines generated 11 per cent of our power in February

First published in Letters by

AS J BEISLY says (Letters, March 12) it is generally recognised that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change.

This February wind energy generated 11per cent of the UK’s electricity needs, but with the best wind power resources in Europe and huge untapped potential for wave power, we could do so much more.

We are missing out on opportunities to make our houses warmer, reduce fuel poverty, reduce energy imports and create jobs.

Long-term investment has brought 400,000 jobs in renewables in Germany, while high insulation standards mean householders have lower energy bills even though unit prices are higher.

Alongside patchy and inconsistent funding for insulation and renewables the UK is promoting fracking and subsidising fossil fuels to around £3.5bn a year.

The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix.

Of course, over a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions are due to exports of manufactured goods to people such as ourselves.

As the world’s fifth largest economy, lets get our own house in order, make more of what we need nearer to home, get a proper energy policy, plan for the future and invest in the green economy.

Denise Craghill, Green Party candidate for the European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber, Broadway West, York

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Sat 15 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

I’ll agree with you Denise that we need to produce more of what we can at home but on the energy policy you propose we will be lucky just to keep the lights on, especially if the closure of Eggborough is anything to go by. We have decade’s worth of shale gas and oil that you don’t want us to have as a result of your carbon phobia. All very well to go on about subsidies for shale exploration but what about the huge renewable subsidies we all pay on our energy bills?
I don’t know where you got your information on Germany from but fast forward to date and Germany turned back to coal because renewables weren’t reliable and far too expensive. All those windmills at a cost of £Billions and only 11% Eggborough alone produces a reliable 4% whether there is wind or not. You failed also to mention China’s reliance on coal. Did you know that the UK gave China £24.7 Million last year, mostly to help with their so called climate targets. Hydro instead of wind would be a good thing but generally your over hyped CO2 phobia will bankrupt us, if it hasn’t already. The cost of Global Warming is out of control and we haven’t even got the warming yet.
Don’t believe me? Look at the winter death rates through cold! We can’t afford your silly Green ideals..
I’ll agree with you Denise that we need to produce more of what we can at home but on the energy policy you propose we will be lucky just to keep the lights on, especially if the closure of Eggborough is anything to go by. We have decade’s worth of shale gas and oil that you don’t want us to have as a result of your carbon phobia. All very well to go on about subsidies for shale exploration but what about the huge renewable subsidies we all pay on our energy bills? I don’t know where you got your information on Germany from but fast forward to date and Germany turned back to coal because renewables weren’t reliable and far too expensive. All those windmills at a cost of £Billions and only 11% Eggborough alone produces a reliable 4% whether there is wind or not. You failed also to mention China’s reliance on coal. Did you know that the UK gave China £24.7 Million last year, mostly to help with their so called climate targets. Hydro instead of wind would be a good thing but generally your over hyped CO2 phobia will bankrupt us, if it hasn’t already. The cost of Global Warming is out of control and we haven’t even got the warming yet. Don’t believe me? Look at the winter death rates through cold! We can’t afford your silly Green ideals.. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -6

12:38pm Sat 15 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Bad timing as we have just been told yesterday that our energy bills are set to rise by £600 a year by 2020 to pay for this.
Is it not the carbon issues the greens say exist that has resulted in the decline of our manufacturing industry which has been green taxed from our shores and the reason most say they will not be returning? Is this tax on those very industries not just another hidden cost to ordinary people of the green campaign that along with the unemployment benefits we all have to pay so that we do not manufacture anything?
I have been told by friends who work in the building industry that when investigated properly the carbon footprint created by the manufacture of current technology along with the costs will not be recovered by the energy generated by those technologies over their expected lifetime. If true, how can that be green?
Is it not the green party who just announced that any senior person in the civil service who does not agree with them should be sacked? Do we really want to be represented by people who would go this far to meet their ideals?
Bad timing as we have just been told yesterday that our energy bills are set to rise by £600 a year by 2020 to pay for this. Is it not the carbon issues the greens say exist that has resulted in the decline of our manufacturing industry which has been green taxed from our shores and the reason most say they will not be returning? Is this tax on those very industries not just another hidden cost to ordinary people of the green campaign that along with the unemployment benefits we all have to pay so that we do not manufacture anything? I have been told by friends who work in the building industry that when investigated properly the carbon footprint created by the manufacture of current technology along with the costs will not be recovered by the energy generated by those technologies over their expected lifetime. If true, how can that be green? Is it not the green party who just announced that any senior person in the civil service who does not agree with them should be sacked? Do we really want to be represented by people who would go this far to meet their ideals? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -19

1:22pm Sat 15 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

So the score adjuster also has an opinion here -19 and -21 in a few mins. Still I suppose it is another minority campaign so what would you expect but more misleading. Makes you wonder how much of these minority campaigners statements are made up to mislead the public?
So the score adjuster also has an opinion here -19 and -21 in a few mins. Still I suppose it is another minority campaign so what would you expect but more misleading. Makes you wonder how much of these minority campaigners statements are made up to mislead the public? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -12

1:35pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

More silliness. Even if you built enough wind turbines to provide 100% of the UK's energy needs they are so inefficient (don't work if there is too little wind, have to be turned off if it is too windy) that they require about 80% backup from conventional power stations on "spin up". So the entire country is turned into a nightmare version of the Tellytubbies but you still have ordinary power stations on idle.
Strangebuttrue said "I have been told by friends who work in the building industry that when investigated properly the carbon footprint created by the manufacture of current technology along with the costs will not be recovered by the energy generated by those technologies over their expected lifetime. If true, how can that be green?"
Simple. It's a matter of dogma, not whether something actually works.
Just as with the electric charging points for cars which nobody uses -
the idea is great so it doesn't matter if nobody uses them.
More silliness. Even if you built enough wind turbines to provide 100% of the UK's energy needs they are so inefficient (don't work if there is too little wind, have to be turned off if it is too windy) that they require about 80% backup from conventional power stations on "spin up". So the entire country is turned into a nightmare version of the Tellytubbies but you still have ordinary power stations on idle. Strangebuttrue said "I have been told by friends who work in the building industry that when investigated properly the carbon footprint created by the manufacture of current technology along with the costs will not be recovered by the energy generated by those technologies over their expected lifetime. If true, how can that be green?" Simple. It's a matter of dogma, not whether something actually works. Just as with the electric charging points for cars which nobody uses - the idea is great so it doesn't matter if nobody uses them. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -24

1:42pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

It wouldn’t be so bad if instead off messing about with the thumbs, the manipulator wrote their view so we could see where they are coming from? I would much rather debate this issue rather than refer to the anonymous fat thumb controller who has no other answer.
Unfortunately, on Green and Council issues the thumbs no longer mean anything with regard to public opinion. Perhaps the Greens and CoYC are not interested in public opinion anyway? I think I’ve heard that before.
Reminds me of settled science!
It wouldn’t be so bad if instead off messing about with the thumbs, the manipulator wrote their view so we could see where they are coming from? I would much rather debate this issue rather than refer to the anonymous fat thumb controller who has no other answer. Unfortunately, on Green and Council issues the thumbs no longer mean anything with regard to public opinion. Perhaps the Greens and CoYC are not interested in public opinion anyway? I think I’ve heard that before. Reminds me of settled science! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 10

2:00pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act.
Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren.
Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty.
Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act. Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren. Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -9

2:47pm Sat 15 Mar 14

sihendry says...

> Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems.

i thought man-made CO2 was around 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere? That isn't a 'tiny trace of a trace', but maybe my numbers are wrong.

And people are trying to explain why the behaviour of the jet stream is changing ( which is an observed fact that you obviously agree with ), for example:

https://skepticalsci
ence.com/jetstream-g
uide.html ( only an introduction, but a useful starting point )

this relies on the warming of the arctic ( again an observational fact ).

so the real question is: What is warming the arctic if not the additional CO2 man has put in the atmosphere?
> Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. i thought man-made CO2 was around 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere? [ if we take pre-industrialisatio n figure of 260ppm, now at ~400ppm ] That isn't a 'tiny trace of a trace', but maybe my numbers are wrong. And people are trying to explain why the behaviour of the jet stream is changing ( which is an observed fact that you obviously agree with ), for example: https://skepticalsci ence.com/jetstream-g uide.html ( only an introduction, but a useful starting point ) this relies on the warming of the arctic ( again an observational fact ). so the real question is: What is warming the arctic if not the additional CO2 man has put in the atmosphere? sihendry
  • Score: -9

3:31pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

sihendry wrote:
> Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems.

i thought man-made CO2 was around 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere? That isn't a 'tiny trace of a trace', but maybe my numbers are wrong.

And people are trying to explain why the behaviour of the jet stream is changing ( which is an observed fact that you obviously agree with ), for example:

https://skepticalsci

ence.com/jetstream-g

uide.html ( only an introduction, but a useful starting point )

this relies on the warming of the arctic ( again an observational fact ).

so the real question is: What is warming the arctic if not the additional CO2 man has put in the atmosphere?
We live in the information so you can find these facts easily. However I will do it for you.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Carbon_diox
ide_in_Earth's_atmos
phere
Second Paragraph
"In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387%, or 387 parts per million (ppm).At the scientific recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm for the first time in May 2013"
IE the TOTAL is 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Fourth paragraph
"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks"
So our contribution is about 3% of the total 0.0387%
By the way I used Wikipedia for the figures since the first page of sites answering this question were skeptical so could be accused of bias.
[quote][p][bold]sihendry[/bold] wrote: > Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. i thought man-made CO2 was around 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere? [ if we take pre-industrialisatio n figure of 260ppm, now at ~400ppm ] That isn't a 'tiny trace of a trace', but maybe my numbers are wrong. And people are trying to explain why the behaviour of the jet stream is changing ( which is an observed fact that you obviously agree with ), for example: https://skepticalsci ence.com/jetstream-g uide.html ( only an introduction, but a useful starting point ) this relies on the warming of the arctic ( again an observational fact ). so the real question is: What is warming the arctic if not the additional CO2 man has put in the atmosphere?[/p][/quote]We live in the information so you can find these facts easily. However I will do it for you. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Carbon_diox ide_in_Earth's_atmos phere Second Paragraph "In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387%, or 387 parts per million (ppm).At the scientific recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm for the first time in May 2013" IE the TOTAL is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Fourth paragraph "This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks" So our contribution is about 3% of the total 0.0387% By the way I used Wikipedia for the figures since the first page of sites answering this question were skeptical so could be accused of bias. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 13

4:31pm Sat 15 Mar 14

sihendry says...

The full quote you chose to partially quote from is:

"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels"

so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added )

I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'.
The full quote you chose to partially quote from is: "This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[32] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels" so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'. sihendry
  • Score: 4

4:36pm Sat 15 Mar 14

sihendry says...

oops

for " ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) "

read " ( because the natural CO2 sinks havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) "
oops for " ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) " read " ( because the natural CO2 sinks havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) " sihendry
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

sihendry says...

sorry, i misunderstood that 43% figure, thats the increase in CO2 in atmosphere, not man's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

thats ~ 30% according to these figures .

still, hardly a trace...
sorry, i misunderstood that 43% figure, thats the increase in CO2 in atmosphere, not man's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere. thats ~ 30% according to these figures [ 143/100 ]. still, hardly a trace... sihendry
  • Score: 4

5:20pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

sihendry wrote:
The full quote you chose to partially quote from is:

"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels"

so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added )

I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'.
I think you should have worked out that if the total CO2 in the atmosphere is roundly 0.04% then that is a trace? And that 3 or 4% of the 0.04% (our current contribution) is a small amount of a trace?
We have been industrialised for (say) 200 years but I am sure you have noticed that we are no longer an industrial country; can you tell me anywhere in the York area where I can see a factory chimney belching smoke?
The human race has existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on your definition of "human" and I guess it has contributed a gigantic amount of CO2 in that time but isn't that a meaningless statistic?
[quote][p][bold]sihendry[/bold] wrote: The full quote you chose to partially quote from is: "This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[32] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels" so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'.[/p][/quote]I think you should have worked out that if the total CO2 in the atmosphere is roundly 0.04% then that is a trace? And that 3 or 4% of the 0.04% (our current contribution) is a small amount of a trace? We have been industrialised for (say) 200 years but I am sure you have noticed that we are no longer an industrial country; can you tell me anywhere in the York area where I can see a factory chimney belching smoke? The human race has existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on your definition of "human" and I guess it has contributed a gigantic amount of CO2 in that time but isn't that a meaningless statistic? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 3

6:10pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
sihendry wrote:
The full quote you chose to partially quote from is:

"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels"

so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added )

I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'.
I think you should have worked out that if the total CO2 in the atmosphere is roundly 0.04% then that is a trace? And that 3 or 4% of the 0.04% (our current contribution) is a small amount of a trace?
We have been industrialised for (say) 200 years but I am sure you have noticed that we are no longer an industrial country; can you tell me anywhere in the York area where I can see a factory chimney belching smoke?
The human race has existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on your definition of "human" and I guess it has contributed a gigantic amount of CO2 in that time but isn't that a meaningless statistic?
Furthermore when you said "The full quote you chose to partially quote from is:"
"Chose" implies that I had a reason to "partially quote" it and you may be implying I had an intention to deceive; I included a link to the Wiki page so that you could read the whole article yourself. There would be no point in quoting it verbatim so I quoted the passages relevant to your question.
I'll ask you a question now. Do you have a car?
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sihendry[/bold] wrote: The full quote you chose to partially quote from is: "This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[32] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels" so, according to your chosen source, man ( as of 1997 ) was adding 3% additional CO2 per annum compared to natural sources. This has, since pre-industrial times, accumulated to 43% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere ( because the natural CO2 havent been able to absorb the additional CO2 man has added ) I dont think its accurate to call 43% 'a trace'.[/p][/quote]I think you should have worked out that if the total CO2 in the atmosphere is roundly 0.04% then that is a trace? And that 3 or 4% of the 0.04% (our current contribution) is a small amount of a trace? We have been industrialised for (say) 200 years but I am sure you have noticed that we are no longer an industrial country; can you tell me anywhere in the York area where I can see a factory chimney belching smoke? The human race has existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on your definition of "human" and I guess it has contributed a gigantic amount of CO2 in that time but isn't that a meaningless statistic?[/p][/quote]Furthermore when you said "The full quote you chose to partially quote from is:" "Chose" implies that I had a reason to "partially quote" it and you may be implying I had an intention to deceive; I included a link to the Wiki page so that you could read the whole article yourself. There would be no point in quoting it verbatim so I quoted the passages relevant to your question. I'll ask you a question now. Do you have a car? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

8:36pm Sat 15 Mar 14

nowthen says...

You can plant as many wind turbines as you like but it won't make a sh!t of difference if the world population continues growing at its current rate. War, famine and epidemics will be the final arbiter.
You can plant as many wind turbines as you like but it won't make a sh!t of difference if the world population continues growing at its current rate. War, famine and epidemics will be the final arbiter. nowthen
  • Score: -50

10:35pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Omega Point says...

"The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix. Of course, over a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions are due to exports of manufactured goods to people such as ourselves."

Typical for a Green to not even mention Chinas massive coal power production
"The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix. Of course, over a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions are due to exports of manufactured goods to people such as ourselves." Typical for a Green to not even mention Chinas massive coal power production Omega Point
  • Score: 1

11:20pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Omega Point wrote:
"The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix. Of course, over a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions are due to exports of manufactured goods to people such as ourselves."

Typical for a Green to not even mention Chinas massive coal power production
And that we should feel bad for importing goods from China since we can't make them for ourselves any more. It's the politics of the madhouse.
[quote][p][bold]Omega Point[/bold] wrote: "The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix. Of course, over a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions are due to exports of manufactured goods to people such as ourselves." Typical for a Green to not even mention Chinas massive coal power production[/p][/quote]And that we should feel bad for importing goods from China since we can't make them for ourselves any more. It's the politics of the madhouse. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

1:01am Sun 16 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Sihendry, thanks for entering into a debate and sorry for being late getting back on here. I checked out my data and as already said, CO2, a natural trace gas, esential for life on Earth = 0.04% of our armosphere. Now, out of that total figure only 3.225% is the man made element. A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest.
So, how can this trace of a trace gas (< 20 ppm) shift the jet stream and pressure systems?
You claim the Arctic is warming and link CO2. First of all please understand that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, Methane for example is around 23 times stronger. Indeed, water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and represents 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Without water vapour, life as we know it might not be possible on Earth.
With regard to the Arctic, we really have so little data, even though we know it has been much warmer in the past. We also know that there was a greater sea ice extent in August 2013 than there was in August 2012. Cooling?
Why should a trace amount of an over stated trace gas be responsible for melting the Arctic, if that is the term for it when there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997? I have seen a photo of two submarines surfacing on the North Pole in 1987. But then sea ice is subject to Ocean currents and geothermal activity. Even if all of that ice melted, it could not raise sea levels as the water has already been displaced. (It is floating on water)
Now, look at the Antarctic, last Chritmas it had sea ice where there was no ice 100 years ago. In short, that ice saved the world from another round of warming propaganda. And talking of a warming Arctic (I don’t believe it) the Polar Vortex has given the USA their coldest recorded winter with snow of the ground in all 52 States at one point during January 2014.
The jet stream has done strange things in the past. For example, during the freezing Winter and Spring of 1962/3, the jet stream split around the British Isles leaving these isles open to the ‘beast from the East.’ The polar / siberian winds that gave us such a cold Spring last year.
Not science but politics. Hope this helps explain.
Sihendry, thanks for entering into a debate and sorry for being late getting back on here. I checked out my data and as already said, CO2, a natural trace gas, esential for life on Earth = 0.04% of our armosphere. Now, out of that total figure only 3.225% is the man made element. A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest. So, how can this trace of a trace gas (< 20 ppm) shift the jet stream and pressure systems? You claim the Arctic is warming and link CO2. First of all please understand that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, Methane for example is around 23 times stronger. Indeed, water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and represents 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Without water vapour, life as we know it might not be possible on Earth. With regard to the Arctic, we really have so little data, even though we know it has been much warmer in the past. We also know that there was a greater sea ice extent in August 2013 than there was in August 2012. Cooling? Why should a trace amount of an over stated trace gas be responsible for melting the Arctic, if that is the term for it when there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997? I have seen a photo of two submarines surfacing on the North Pole in 1987. But then sea ice is subject to Ocean currents and geothermal activity. Even if all of that ice melted, it could not raise sea levels as the water has already been displaced. (It is floating on water) Now, look at the Antarctic, last Chritmas it had sea ice where there was no ice 100 years ago. In short, that ice saved the world from another round of warming propaganda. And talking of a warming Arctic (I don’t believe it) the Polar Vortex has given the USA their coldest recorded winter with snow of the ground in all 52 States at one point during January 2014. The jet stream has done strange things in the past. For example, during the freezing Winter and Spring of 1962/3, the jet stream split around the British Isles leaving these isles open to the ‘beast from the East.’ The polar / siberian winds that gave us such a cold Spring last year. Not science but politics. Hope this helps explain. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -52

2:13am Sun 16 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Well we now know the vote rigger supports labour, and is a fan of green energy even if it costs more than it produces.
Well we now know the vote rigger supports labour, and is a fan of green energy even if it costs more than it produces. Magicman!
  • Score: 3

9:40am Sun 16 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Just another point.
The letter writer says, proudly, that "The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix."
Impressive eh?
However, googling "Energy production in China" leads us to this result
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:Electr
icity_Production_in_
China.svg
"Renewables" of all kinds are the green line right at the bottom of the graph. China produces about 1.4% of it's power by nuclear means and that tiny fraction is why "renewables" is able to match it.
A fact which Denise Craghill conveniently forgot to mention!
Just another point. The letter writer says, proudly, that "The good news globally is that in China wind power generation has just passed nuclear in the country’s energy mix." Impressive eh? However, googling "Energy production in China" leads us to this result http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Electr icity_Production_in_ China.svg "Renewables" of all kinds are the green line right at the bottom of the graph. China produces about 1.4% of it's power by nuclear means and that tiny fraction is why "renewables" is able to match it. A fact which Denise Craghill conveniently forgot to mention! Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

10:53am Sun 16 Mar 14

sihendry says...

> A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest.

Please do..

As i understand it, pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm.( https://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_dat
a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2
-1-1.html )

if, as you suggest, man has added ~ 13ppm ( rough calc of 3.225% of 400ppm ), then most of 'mankind causing climate change' is rubbish. BUT, you do have to prove that pre-industrial ( say before 1750 ) levels of CO2 were no lower than 385ppm...
> A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest. Please do.. As i understand it, pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm.( https://www.ipcc.ch/ publications_and_dat a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2 -1-1.html ) if, as you suggest, man has added ~ 13ppm ( rough calc of 3.225% of 400ppm ), then most of 'mankind causing climate change' is rubbish. BUT, you do have to prove that pre-industrial ( say before 1750 ) levels of CO2 were no lower than 385ppm... sihendry
  • Score: -5

2:04pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

sihendry wrote:
&gt; A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest.

Please do..

As i understand it, pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm.( https://www.ipcc.ch/

publications_and_dat

a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2

-1-1.html )

if, as you suggest, man has added ~ 13ppm ( rough calc of 3.225% of 400ppm ), then most of 'mankind causing climate change' is rubbish. BUT, you do have to prove that pre-industrial ( say before 1750 ) levels of CO2 were no lower than 385ppm...
> A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest.

Please do.."

sihendry, I was good at English at school but not so good at mathematics, however I got the basics and I have improved since then.
How can you not understand that 3.225% is less than a tenth of 35%?
Total CO2 in the atmosphere = roundly 0.04% = a minute trace?
Percentage of this CO2 contributed by human activity excluding respiration and flatulence = 4% OF 0.04%
And remember this is ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY so if you reduced the total of human activity by one quarter you would reduce our contribution to the 0.04% from 4% to 3% ?
[quote][p][bold]sihendry[/bold] wrote: > A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest. Please do.. As i understand it, pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm.( https://www.ipcc.ch/ publications_and_dat a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2 -1-1.html ) if, as you suggest, man has added ~ 13ppm ( rough calc of 3.225% of 400ppm ), then most of 'mankind causing climate change' is rubbish. BUT, you do have to prove that pre-industrial ( say before 1750 ) levels of CO2 were no lower than 385ppm...[/p][/quote]> A trace indeed. I can post a link if requested. 3.225% is no where near 35% as you suggest. Please do.." sihendry, I was good at English at school but not so good at mathematics, however I got the basics and I have improved since then. How can you not understand that 3.225% is less than a tenth of 35%? Total CO2 in the atmosphere = roundly 0.04% = a minute trace? Percentage of this CO2 contributed by human activity excluding respiration and flatulence = 4% OF 0.04% And remember this is ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY so if you reduced the total of human activity by one quarter you would reduce our contribution to the 0.04% from 4% to 3% ? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 6

2:28pm Sun 16 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

sihendry, Go down until you get to the pie charts and watch out for that nasty water vapour on the way!

Also understand that natural CO2 is increasing too.

Finally, understand that man made CO2 includes agriculture. It's not all about cars and boats and planes (Trains)....Oh, I feel a song coming on.........

Full link:
https://www.google.c
o.uk/url?q=http://ww
w.geocraft.com/WVFos
sils/greenhouse_data
.html&sa=U&ei=trMlU9
HpFonB0gX_44H4Dw&ved
=0CDYQFjAD&sig2=b-Ik
kvpjSPVG9k2j0BYzoA&u
sg=AFQjCNG48UWHtrU8i
iL1eNYP9kf8A1Vfrw
sihendry, Go down until you get to the pie charts and watch out for that nasty water vapour on the way! Also understand that natural CO2 is increasing too. Finally, understand that man made CO2 includes agriculture. It's not all about cars and boats and planes (Trains)....Oh, I feel a song coming on......... Full link: https://www.google.c o.uk/url?q=http://ww w.geocraft.com/WVFos sils/greenhouse_data .html&sa=U&ei=trMlU9 HpFonB0gX_44H4Dw&ved =0CDYQFjAD&sig2=b-Ik kvpjSPVG9k2j0BYzoA&u sg=AFQjCNG48UWHtrU8i iL1eNYP9kf8A1Vfrw ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -48

8:35am Mon 17 Mar 14

sihendry says...

once more unto the breach and all that:

man is adding an extra 3.225% CO2 into the atmosphere PER ANNUM compared to natural sources. This 'extra' CO2 is building up, and has been for a long, long time. So long, that the atmospheric concentration is now ~400ppm compared to a pre-industrial level of ~280ppm.

So man has added ~120ppm. or around 30%.

Your mistake is taking the %age increase in CO2 emmissions and applying that %age to atmospheric concentrations. which is false logic, as it doesnt account for the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere year on year.

also:

the planet has warmed since 1998, even though 98 was a Super El Nino year ( which has a large, temporary warming effect as energy is shifted from the southern ocean to the atmosphere, as i'm sure you know but fail to ever mention ). Only HADCrut3 shows little warming since 98, and thats because it covers the arctic so poorly ( the region warming fastest ). Account for that and even HADCrut3 doesnt put 98 as the warmest year.

Before you talk about 'recovery' in the arctic sea ice extent and volume, loo at the latest PIOMAS release, last years 'recovery' is looking like a short-term blip up in a long term downward trend
once more unto the breach and all that: man is adding an extra 3.225% [or whatever your figure is] CO2 into the atmosphere PER ANNUM compared to natural sources. This 'extra' CO2 is building up, and has been for a long, long time. So long, that the atmospheric concentration is now ~400ppm compared to a pre-industrial level of ~280ppm. So man has added ~120ppm. or around 30%. Your mistake is taking the %age increase in CO2 emmissions [3.225%] and applying that %age to atmospheric concentrations. which is false logic, as it doesnt account for the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere year on year. also: the planet has warmed since 1998, even though 98 was a Super El Nino year ( which has a large, temporary warming effect as energy is shifted from the southern ocean to the atmosphere, as i'm sure you know but fail to ever mention ). Only HADCrut3 shows little warming since 98, and thats because it covers the arctic so poorly ( the region warming fastest ). Account for that and even HADCrut3 doesnt put 98 as the warmest year. Before you talk about 'recovery' in the arctic sea ice extent and volume, loo at the latest PIOMAS release, last years 'recovery' is looking like a short-term blip up in a long term downward trend sihendry
  • Score: 3

10:30am Mon 17 Mar 14

sihendry says...

addendum:

having looked at the last link you provided:

that page has a glaring omission. it fails to mention that water vapour is the dominant positive feedback, amplifying any warming caused by CO2 emmissions - the very reason WHY the climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour it can hold, the more warming happens.... ( basic physics this one! v poor reference you gave there...
addendum: having looked at the last link you provided: that page has a glaring omission. it fails to mention that water vapour is the dominant positive feedback, amplifying any warming caused by CO2 emmissions - the very reason WHY the climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming. the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour it can hold, the more warming happens.... ( basic physics this one! v poor reference you gave there... sihendry
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Mon 17 Mar 14

BL2 says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act.
Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren.
Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty.
Try looking at the scientific facts - there is a global problem and it needs fixing. It is NOT just a money-making scam! Wake up please...
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act. Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren. Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty.[/p][/quote]Try looking at the scientific facts - there is a global problem and it needs fixing. It is NOT just a money-making scam! Wake up please... BL2
  • Score: -4

2:08pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

BL2 wrote:
ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act.
Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren.
Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty.
Try looking at the scientific facts - there is a global problem and it needs fixing. It is NOT just a money-making scam! Wake up please...
Good. What do you think should be done on a global level to tackle the problem? Who should take this action and what will be the cost?
More importantly, what are you doing personally to alter the climate of the Earth?
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Pinza, let's just remember why we have to have these silly windmills, whether they work or not? It is to meet the targets set out in Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act. Nobody has yet explained how the tiny trace of a trace gas (Man made CO2) can shift the jet stream and pressure systems. But lots of us can explain the huge revenue raised and the propaganda machine to scare you into believing future doom for your Grandchildren. Why has the Coalition Government kept this going? Just follow the money! And yes, it is the poor who pay through fuel poverty.[/p][/quote]Try looking at the scientific facts - there is a global problem and it needs fixing. It is NOT just a money-making scam! Wake up please...[/p][/quote]Good. What do you think should be done on a global level to tackle the problem? Who should take this action and what will be the cost? More importantly, what are you doing personally to alter the climate of the Earth? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

2:49pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

sihendry wrote:
once more unto the breach and all that:

man is adding an extra 3.225% CO2 into the atmosphere PER ANNUM compared to natural sources. This 'extra' CO2 is building up, and has been for a long, long time. So long, that the atmospheric concentration is now ~400ppm compared to a pre-industrial level of ~280ppm.

So man has added ~120ppm. or around 30%.

Your mistake is taking the %age increase in CO2 emmissions and applying that %age to atmospheric concentrations. which is false logic, as it doesnt account for the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere year on year.

also:

the planet has warmed since 1998, even though 98 was a Super El Nino year ( which has a large, temporary warming effect as energy is shifted from the southern ocean to the atmosphere, as i'm sure you know but fail to ever mention ). Only HADCrut3 shows little warming since 98, and thats because it covers the arctic so poorly ( the region warming fastest ). Account for that and even HADCrut3 doesnt put 98 as the warmest year.

Before you talk about 'recovery' in the arctic sea ice extent and volume, loo at the latest PIOMAS release, last years 'recovery' is looking like a short-term blip up in a long term downward trend
Sihendry, I have tried repeatedly to explain to you that it is 3.225% OF 0.387% but you have never indicated that you understand what this means. Why is this? Are you incapable of understanding or are you simply misunderstanding?
And I will repeat, do you own a car?
[quote][p][bold]sihendry[/bold] wrote: once more unto the breach and all that: man is adding an extra 3.225% [or whatever your figure is] CO2 into the atmosphere PER ANNUM compared to natural sources. This 'extra' CO2 is building up, and has been for a long, long time. So long, that the atmospheric concentration is now ~400ppm compared to a pre-industrial level of ~280ppm. So man has added ~120ppm. or around 30%. Your mistake is taking the %age increase in CO2 emmissions [3.225%] and applying that %age to atmospheric concentrations. which is false logic, as it doesnt account for the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere year on year. also: the planet has warmed since 1998, even though 98 was a Super El Nino year ( which has a large, temporary warming effect as energy is shifted from the southern ocean to the atmosphere, as i'm sure you know but fail to ever mention ). Only HADCrut3 shows little warming since 98, and thats because it covers the arctic so poorly ( the region warming fastest ). Account for that and even HADCrut3 doesnt put 98 as the warmest year. Before you talk about 'recovery' in the arctic sea ice extent and volume, loo at the latest PIOMAS release, last years 'recovery' is looking like a short-term blip up in a long term downward trend[/p][/quote]Sihendry, I have tried repeatedly to explain to you that it is 3.225% OF 0.387% but you have never indicated that you understand what this means. Why is this? Are you incapable of understanding or are you simply misunderstanding? And I will repeat, do you own a car? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

4:31pm Mon 17 Mar 14

sihendry says...

Firstly, no, i dont own a car ( though i dont know why that is important to you )

and i'm simply misunderstanding, believe me, i'm desperately trying to understand your point, i'm trying to understand why you assert that the CO2 that man has added to the atmosphere is "a ttrace of a trace gas"

i understand that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (around 400ppm), but i dont understand why man's contribution to that (~120ppm) can be described as a trace within that, its a 1/3rd, surely?

No clear idea where 3.225% comes from, nor 0.387%. 0.387% of what?
Firstly, no, i dont own a car ( though i dont know why that is important to you ) and i'm simply misunderstanding, believe me, i'm desperately trying to understand your point, i'm trying to understand why you assert that the CO2 that man has added to the atmosphere is "a ttrace of a trace gas" i understand that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (around 400ppm), but i dont understand why man's contribution to that (~120ppm) can be described as a trace within that, its a 1/3rd, surely? No clear idea where 3.225% comes from, nor 0.387%. 0.387% of what? sihendry
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Mon 17 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Sihendry, I’ll try one more time. 3.225% is the amount of man made CO2 as a proportion of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an annual add on. Also, I don’t know where you got 120ppm man made CO2 from either?
The actual figure is around 18-20ppm. Keep in mind that these figures are not constant.
It is however very interesting that we can see charts showing 400ppm, rising CO2 and yet temperatures if anything in decline.
0.0387% or if you like < Less than 0.04% in the proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 (Including man made) Lets look at how our atmosphere is made up: Air is made up of Nitrogen = 78% and Oxygen = 21% anything else is a trace gas.
Argon = 0.09% CO2 = 0.387% . (
Sihendry, I’ll try one more time. 3.225% is the amount of man made CO2 as a proportion of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an annual add on. Also, I don’t know where you got 120ppm man made CO2 from either? The actual figure is around 18-20ppm. Keep in mind that these figures are not constant. It is however very interesting that we can see charts showing 400ppm, rising CO2 and yet temperatures if anything in decline. 0.0387% or if you like < Less than 0.04% in the proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 (Including man made) Lets look at how our atmosphere is made up: Air is made up of Nitrogen = 78% and Oxygen = 21% anything else is a trace gas. Argon = 0.09% CO2 = 0.387% . ( ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -24

6:20pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Sihendry, I’ll try one more time. 3.225% is the amount of man made CO2 as a proportion of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an annual add on. Also, I don’t know where you got 120ppm man made CO2 from either?
The actual figure is around 18-20ppm. Keep in mind that these figures are not constant.
It is however very interesting that we can see charts showing 400ppm, rising CO2 and yet temperatures if anything in decline.
0.0387% or if you like &lt; Less than 0.04% in the proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 (Including man made) Lets look at how our atmosphere is made up: Air is made up of Nitrogen = 78% and Oxygen = 21% anything else is a trace gas.
Argon = 0.09% CO2 = 0.387% . (
When he said 120ppm I think he means the total added by human activity since we became industrialised? That's why I pointed out earlier that if you totalled up the CO2 released by human activity over the 100,000 years we existed it would be a vast amount but totally meaningless.
I was going to point out to him that an experiment in Scandinavia found that vegetation (which of course absorbs CO2 and releases Oxygen) becomes more abundant if you increase CO2 till it reaches 1000ppm after which it reduces at the same rate, but it would be pointless. I'm done with him.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Sihendry, I’ll try one more time. 3.225% is the amount of man made CO2 as a proportion of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an annual add on. Also, I don’t know where you got 120ppm man made CO2 from either? The actual figure is around 18-20ppm. Keep in mind that these figures are not constant. It is however very interesting that we can see charts showing 400ppm, rising CO2 and yet temperatures if anything in decline. 0.0387% or if you like < Less than 0.04% in the proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 (Including man made) Lets look at how our atmosphere is made up: Air is made up of Nitrogen = 78% and Oxygen = 21% anything else is a trace gas. Argon = 0.09% CO2 = 0.387% . ([/p][/quote]When he said 120ppm I think he means the total added by human activity since we became industrialised? That's why I pointed out earlier that if you totalled up the CO2 released by human activity over the 100,000 years we existed it would be a vast amount but totally meaningless. I was going to point out to him that an experiment in Scandinavia found that vegetation (which of course absorbs CO2 and releases Oxygen) becomes more abundant if you increase CO2 till it reaches 1000ppm after which it reduces at the same rate, but it would be pointless. I'm done with him. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 4

6:30pm Mon 17 Mar 14

sihendry says...

This is where I get 120ppm from:

“It was 280 ppm (parts per million) in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 395 ppm in 2013 (with a daily average at Mauna Loa recording 400 ppm as of 10 May 2013,) with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.”

taken from http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Carbon_diox
ide_in_Earth%27s_atm
osphere

with the exact quote taken from Etheridge, D. M.; L. P. Steele, R. L. Langenfelds, R. J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, V. I. Morgan (1996). "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn". Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (D2): 4115–4128. Bibcode:1996JGR...10
1.4115E. doi:10.1029/95JD0341
0. ISSN 0148-0227.

The IPCC give similar numbers:

“The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.” ( in line with my current levels of 120ppm added by man )

https://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_dat
a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2
-1-1.html

Now, ive been using 400ppm as the current level, and taking off 280ppm to get to the volume added by man 120ppm.

Where do you get 18-20ppm from? I’m now genuinely confused…
This is where I get 120ppm from: “It was 280 ppm (parts per million) in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 395 ppm in 2013[3] (with a daily average at Mauna Loa recording 400 ppm as of 10 May 2013,[4]) with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[5]” taken from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Carbon_diox ide_in_Earth%27s_atm osphere with the exact quote taken from Etheridge, D. M.; L. P. Steele, R. L. Langenfelds, R. J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, V. I. Morgan (1996). "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn". Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (D2): 4115–4128. Bibcode:1996JGR...10 1.4115E. doi:10.1029/95JD0341 0. ISSN 0148-0227. The IPCC give similar numbers: “The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.” ( in line with my current levels of 120ppm added by man ) https://www.ipcc.ch/ publications_and_dat a/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2 -1-1.html Now, ive been using 400ppm as the current level, and taking off 280ppm [the pre-industrial level] to get to the volume added by man 120ppm. Where do you get 18-20ppm from? I’m now genuinely confused… sihendry
  • Score: 1

11:41pm Mon 17 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Sihendry, one last effort. First of all, don’t make the assumption that all of the CO2 added from around 280 ppm to 400 ppm is man made. It is not, only a part of that is. You also need to understand that CO2 levels are never constant over the centuries and vary around 5ppm just to take into account the Northern seasons. For example, Earth has seen higher levels of CO2 during an ice age, a time when the tiny early human population will have produced very little CO2. Again, CO2 is a natural trace gas, essential for life on Earth and the man made ellement is almost nothing in the greater scheme of things, despite what Algore says, just follow the money. Look at all the carbon trading / credit scams that have come and gone. Trading on fresh air!
Rocks, Ocean’s and plants are constantly taking in and giving out CO2. Think of the leaves that fall in the Autumn, they give out CO2 while in the summer they take in CO2 and turn it into Oxygen. Consider the millions of Salmon that die at the end of the spawning season and other wild life as they rot, all CO2 and perfectly natural. Then there are volcanic erruptions spewing out more CO2 and SO2 (Sulpher dioxide) than man ever could. You are being had but with a state funded propaganda program one can see why.
One question for you: What school do you go to?

https://www.google.c
o.uk/url?q=http://ww
w.climatedepot.com/2
013/05/14/co2-nears-
400-ppm-relax-its-no
t-global-warming-end
-times-but-only-a-bi
g-yawn-climate-depot
-special-report/&sa=
U&ei=YYMnU5iTHuWx0QX
PhIHQAg&ved=0CB4QFjA
A&sig2=I3ncSK8js9ohk
xyl3Yr0Bg&usg=AFQjCN
Fox5OZqDsYjtmZyDdg8n
_3f1tfMw

https://www.google.c
o.uk/url?q=http://ww
w.youtube.com/watch%
3Fv%3DhRqvPaX9Q0Y&sa
=U&ei=YYMnU5iTHuWx0Q
XPhIHQAg&ved=0CDoQuA
IwBFAB&sig2=cDcg3IXT
oDTyHWRlDyESDA&usg=A
FQjCNG5Tn0nv_Q7aQChU
FcDOfq95sVX2w
Sihendry, one last effort. First of all, don’t make the assumption that all of the CO2 added from around 280 ppm to 400 ppm is man made. It is not, only a part of that is. You also need to understand that CO2 levels are never constant over the centuries and vary around 5ppm just to take into account the Northern seasons. For example, Earth has seen higher levels of CO2 during an ice age, a time when the tiny early human population will have produced very little CO2. Again, CO2 is a natural trace gas, essential for life on Earth and the man made ellement is almost nothing in the greater scheme of things, despite what Algore says, just follow the money. Look at all the carbon trading / credit scams that have come and gone. Trading on fresh air! Rocks, Ocean’s and plants are constantly taking in and giving out CO2. Think of the leaves that fall in the Autumn, they give out CO2 while in the summer they take in CO2 and turn it into Oxygen. Consider the millions of Salmon that die at the end of the spawning season and other wild life as they rot, all CO2 and perfectly natural. Then there are volcanic erruptions spewing out more CO2 and SO2 (Sulpher dioxide) than man ever could. You are being had but with a state funded propaganda program one can see why. One question for you: What school do you go to? https://www.google.c o.uk/url?q=http://ww w.climatedepot.com/2 013/05/14/co2-nears- 400-ppm-relax-its-no t-global-warming-end -times-but-only-a-bi g-yawn-climate-depot -special-report/&sa= U&ei=YYMnU5iTHuWx0QX PhIHQAg&ved=0CB4QFjA A&sig2=I3ncSK8js9ohk xyl3Yr0Bg&usg=AFQjCN Fox5OZqDsYjtmZyDdg8n _3f1tfMw https://www.google.c o.uk/url?q=http://ww w.youtube.com/watch% 3Fv%3DhRqvPaX9Q0Y&sa =U&ei=YYMnU5iTHuWx0Q XPhIHQAg&ved=0CDoQuA IwBFAB&sig2=cDcg3IXT oDTyHWRlDyESDA&usg=A FQjCNG5Tn0nv_Q7aQChU FcDOfq95sVX2w ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -26

9:54am Tue 18 Mar 14

sihendry says...

> For example, Earth has seen higher levels of CO2 during an ice age, a time when the tiny early human population will have produced very little CO2.

Which ice age was this? widespread usage of fire is dated at around 125,000 years ago, and at no point since then have CO2 levels been higher than today. So which ice age are you referring to? or are the widely accepted historical CO2 levels, say over the last 500,000 years wrong? and if so, why?

> Again, CO2 is a natural trace gas, essential for life on Earth and the man made ellement is almost nothing in the greater scheme of things

I still don’t understand where you get your 18-20ppm figure for mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 from, can you please explain that for me?

> Rocks, Ocean’s and plants are constantly taking in and giving out CO2. Think of the leaves that fall in the Autumn, they give out CO2 while in the summer they take in CO2 and turn it into Oxygen. Consider the millions of Salmon that die at the end of the spawning season and other wild life as they rot, all CO2 and perfectly natural

All true, but to be relevant we’d have to know that CO2 contributions from this has increased since pre-industrial times. Have you any evidence of this?

> Then there are volcanic erruptions spewing out more CO2 and SO2 (Sulpher dioxide) than man ever could

Again, for this to be relevant you’d have to show both an increase in volcanic activity over the time period we are interested in, say 1750 onwards, and that that increase is enough to be significant. The only papers I can find put volcanic emissions at around 2-300 milion tonnes a year, 2 orders of magnitude too small, and I can find nothing to suggest volcanic activity has increased. So again, have you any evidence for this statement?

> What school do you go to?

Sorry, this is an anonymous forum, I don’t give out personal details on anonymous forums.

And you went to some length to find a source earlier that couldn’t be accused of ‘bias’, but provide a link to a site at least partially funded by the ExxonMobile Foundation?

And sorry, don’t watch videos online, lifes too short and all that…

So, again, can you please explain where you get a figure of 18-20ppm from?

( as a person ‘had’ with a ‘state funded propaganda program’ I’m sure you can understand my reluctance to repat the mistake and take this all on the word of an anonymous poster on a local paper’s forum? )
> For example, Earth has seen higher levels of CO2 during an ice age, a time when the tiny early human population will have produced very little CO2. Which ice age was this? widespread usage of fire is dated at around 125,000 years ago, and at no point since then have CO2 levels been higher than today. So which ice age are you referring to? or are the widely accepted historical CO2 levels, say over the last 500,000 years wrong? and if so, why? > Again, CO2 is a natural trace gas, essential for life on Earth and the man made ellement is almost nothing in the greater scheme of things I still don’t understand where you get your 18-20ppm figure for mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 from, can you please explain that for me? > Rocks, Ocean’s and plants are constantly taking in and giving out CO2. Think of the leaves that fall in the Autumn, they give out CO2 while in the summer they take in CO2 and turn it into Oxygen. Consider the millions of Salmon that die at the end of the spawning season and other wild life as they rot, all CO2 and perfectly natural All true, but to be relevant we’d have to know that CO2 contributions from this has increased since pre-industrial times. Have you any evidence of this? > Then there are volcanic erruptions spewing out more CO2 and SO2 (Sulpher dioxide) than man ever could Again, for this to be relevant you’d have to show both an increase in volcanic activity over the time period we are interested in, say 1750 onwards, and that that increase is enough to be significant. The only papers I can find put volcanic emissions at around 2-300 milion tonnes a year, 2 orders of magnitude too small, and I can find nothing to suggest volcanic activity has increased. So again, have you any evidence for this statement? > What school do you go to? Sorry, this is an anonymous forum, I don’t give out personal details on anonymous forums. And you went to some length to find a source earlier that couldn’t be accused of ‘bias’, but provide a link to a site at least partially funded by the ExxonMobile Foundation? And sorry, don’t watch videos online, lifes too short and all that… So, again, can you please explain where you get a figure of 18-20ppm from? ( as a person ‘had’ with a ‘state funded propaganda program’ I’m sure you can understand my reluctance to repat the mistake and take this all on the word of an anonymous poster on a local paper’s forum? ) sihendry
  • Score: 11

12:10pm Tue 25 Mar 14

sihendry says...

CAC - i'll assume lack of response means you are unable to justify / prove your assertions

a) that man is only responsible for 18-20ppm of CO2 in atmosphere
b) that CO2 levels were higher in some unspecified ice age while man was using fire
c) that volcanic eruptions contribute more CO2 than 'man ever could'

happy to help you realise that your knowledge on this subject is very poor, if you want any pointers on where to go to improve your knowedge, just ask.
CAC - i'll assume lack of response means you are unable to justify / prove your assertions a) that man is only responsible for 18-20ppm of CO2 in atmosphere b) that CO2 levels were higher in some unspecified ice age while man was using fire c) that volcanic eruptions contribute more CO2 than 'man ever could' happy to help you realise that your knowledge on this subject is very poor, if you want any pointers on where to go to improve your knowedge, just ask. sihendry
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree