OT Shale gas.

There are already a couple of processes for manufacturing oil from renewable raw materials. They just are not anywhere near economic at today's oil prices.

Reply to
Nightjar
Loading thread data ...

The current scientific consensus is that there is a better than 95% chance that the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere accounts for more than half of the warming in the past 60 years (most of which happened in the last three decades of the last century). eg. IPCC WG1 p60

formatting link
(last paragraph)

There are other effects still not fully understood but rising CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gasses) is the only one we can control.

Fossil fuel lobby just want to trash the planet for fun and profit. You can trust them as far as you can used car salesmen or forex traders!

Easter Islanders had that approach when they chopped down their last tree and then starved because they could no longer make fishing boats.

The main problem for shale gas in the UK is that our geology is more complex, fractured and economically extractable shale deposits rarer. It will run into extreme nimbyism especially in the Home counties.

Reply to
Martin Brown

No, that's the IPCCS conclusion, not the scientic consensus, if you actually read the IPCC supplied science.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Since CO2 has continued to rise at a fast rate yet global warming stopped 17 years ago, the connection between the two cannot be as we have been told. In other words, the science has been proved to be wrong.

All the computer models of global temperature have been shown to be wrong.

What do you want to do with them then? What's the advantage of leaving them in the ground?

To maintain our standard of living. What's wrong with that? Humanity owns this planet. It's ours to use to the best advantage.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Wright

Only in lala land that you inhabit. 2010 and 2005 were as hot as 1998 to within the experimental error on the global temperature time series.

No. There are other factors that need to be taken into account. The orthodoxy at the moment is that non-linear ocean currents are to blame for the recent inflection. Personally I subscribe to the Keeling tides conjecture and think that there is a cyclic component at around 60 years responsible for the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000 superimposed on a rising trend. There is good reason to suppose that it is related to tidal forcing and periodicities inherent in the lunar solar cycle.

Since the trend from rising CO2 will win out in the end we can expect another rapid increase in global temperatures starting from 2020 onwards (and perhaps sooner). Global air temperatures at present are being held back by increased churn dumping more heat into the deep oceans (which in turn will lead to faster rising sea levels)

Feedstock for the chemicals industry has to come from somewhere. It will be very tedious when we have to mine rubbish dumps for plastics.

We don't have to go back to living in caves like the greens seem to want, just be more conservative and less profligate with wasted energy. TBH there was more zing to the 1970's OPEQ induced Oil Crisis "Save It" campaign than there has ever been with the Climate Change.

I realise the concept of "good stewardship" is beyond you. But best advantage does not mean burning through it all as quickly as possible.

Reply to
Martin Brown

Burning carbon (e.g. anthracite coal, nearly pure carbon) produces

393.5 kJ/mol (C + O2 -> CO2), while burning methane (e.g. shale gas) produces 802.34 kJ/mol and for the same CO2 output (CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O), a ratio of 2.
formatting link
That means that burning coal produces about twice the CO2 that burning shale gas does, for the same energy output. Brown coal has half the energy content of anthracite, so that produces four times as much CO2 than burning shale gas, for the same energy output. And as others have pointed out here, burning gas in a CCGT power station produces even less CO2 for the same energy output, because of the greater efficiency of the technique.

The IPCC has called for a carbon free society by the end of the century. Whether that's even necessary will become clearer in the next few years, but anyway it won't happen all at once. Replacing coal by shale gas is a step in the right direction.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Yes, so what? Fact is, the world has cooled 0.2deg in the last 17 years.

So you've figured this out, but until recently the IPCC had no idea? And if the warming hadn't stopped would you have figured it out? No, of course not. You are merely trying to find pseudo-scienticic explanation that fits the observed facts. The IPCC predicted temperature rises, taking everything they knew into account, and they were wrong. So they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Geddit?

How do you know? How come this idea has only just been drempt up now the computer modelling (on which everything depended) has been shown to be wrong?

It's laughable that you and the other warmists are now frantically concocting explanations for the divergence between the predictions and reality.

If the predictions were wrong (and they were) they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Wright

I imagine that if it does prove necessary to have a carbon-free society, most transport will be electric, from nuclear, with a few windmills to keep the greens happy. But aeroplanes? They'll probably be fueled with bio-ethanol, although the starving millions in the world might have something to say about good crop-growing land being devoted to feeding planes rather than people.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Exactly so. If true, as seems likely, we have to act now. Tomorrow is too late. And there is no going back.

Reply to
harryagain

So what exactly is your qualification in the subject? Zero I expect, the same as TurNiPs.

Reply to
harryagain

But you have special knowledge unobtainable to everyone else?

Reply to
harryagain

Now I know you're barking mad. There is no such thing as "renewable raw materials". All are finite.

Reply to
harryagain

No. I had pointed out a long time ago that I though some of the observed rise since 1970 was possibly due to a periodic component and related in part to the Pacific decadal oscillation. Which I reckon shows a partial correlation at a shift of 29 years due to the lunar solar eclipse period called Inex (same sort of eclipse opposite hemisphere) and 3x Saros (same sort of eclipse in about the same place). That it roughly repeats every 60 years with some beats - it isn't exact because the orbital phases drift somewhat over time.

formatting link

Conventional wisdom has it that this is driven by a non-linear transport mechanism. I think it may be driven by the interaction of secular variations in lunar and solar tidal forcing at spring tides.

The models will get refined. That is how science works.

It hasn't. Papers discussing lunar solar influence on tides affecting climate have been published at least as far back as 1997 eg.

formatting link

I don't agree with everything in the paper but it was a serious attempt to look for lunar and solar influences in the tidal forcing component.

It is laughable that you think that pretending that there is no evidence of global climate change will make it go away.

Reply to
Martin Brown

snip/

I'm agnostic so don't jump on me.... surely this *faster rising sea levels* is easily measured? What does the data say?

Reply to
Tim Lamb

That still won't help, any more than it does for weather modelling.

We can see how good weather models are, because the timescales involved are short. So we know that today, predictions are good for a few days and becomes progressively poor beyond that. And yet you're want to rely on models that take us out a 100 years and which have done a poor predictive job over the last 20 or so.

Reply to
Tim Streater

By that logic, there is no such thing as a renewable energy source either.

Reply to
Nightjar

On 13/11/2014 15:14, Chris Hogg wrote: ....

If Lockheed Martin are right in their predictions, they could be powered by high beta fusion reactors.

Reply to
Nightjar

+1. See
formatting link
and scroll down to Destruction of society and population
Reply to
Chris Hogg
8<

So they are wrong then. They predicted what was going to happen, it didn't happen. How more wrong can they be?

When are they going to produce a model that demonstrates what has happened and predicts what is going to happen, that is a model that isn't wrong?

There is nothing you can say that will convince any sane person that a model that gives a demonstrable wrong answer is correct. That is before you tell them they can't look at how it works or what you feed into it to get the results.

Reply to
dennis

When I was about nine years old I remember in geography copying off the blackboard the different definitions of climate and weather and being told never to confuse the two.

Weather forecasting is totally and utterly different to climate forecasting.

Tim w

Reply to
Tim w

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.