OT Shale gas.

[dennis]

Normally they only go public when someone else has the evidence it exists.

[dennis]

You mean its not renewable then?

[dennis]

They will have to go underground in a carbon capture site first.

[Nightjar]

On 13/11/2014 11:25, Martin Brown wrote: ...

...

That doesn't mean that we should, without a lot better evidence that doing so is cost effective. At present, we are spending billions on measures that nobody can demonstrate will have any effect. IMO it would be far better to accept that we don't know enough about the climate to know why it is changing and, instead, spend the money on preparing for the effects of change.

Of course, you then have to choose between the IPCC predictions of continuing rising temperatures and the Russian predictions of a 50-100 year period of cooling, which is potentially far more damaging, as food crops are less able to adapt to falling temperatures. As I have mentioned, the Russian model has managed to predict the changes in the

21st century far better than those based upon CO2 warming.

[harryagain]

Quote from one of your links. "But many scientists are unconvinced. Ian Hutchinson, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT and one of the principal investigators at the MIT fusion research reactor, says the type of confinement described by Lockheed had long been studied without much success."

So just another attention seeker.

[harryagain]

Only "Trekkies" would believe in sucjh a thing. There are a lot of people on this newsgroup who are far from reality.

It's a publicity stunt designed to get attention for organisations/individuals.

[harryagain]

So we conclude the situation is not normal. ie maybe they are about to go bust and this is a confidence boosting excercise.

[harryagain]

Er.. yes. Your point?

[harryagain]

In the very long term of course not.

Don't worry Den, you'll be long dead. Probably the human race long extict.

[harryagain]

It replaces fossil oil. However the idea is very dodgy. There are claims it takes a much fossil oil to produce vegetable oil as it makes. Eg fuel for agricultural tractors/transporting it. Also it takes up land that could be used for food production.

But sometimes it's a byproduct/parallel product from other processes.

[Nightjar]

Your claim was that there is no such thing as renewable raw materials, now you agree that growing things are renewable. As algae are one of the possible sources of manufactured oil, that means you agree that there is such a thing as a renewable raw material.

[Nightjar]

Except that neither algal oil nor thermal depolymerization work that way. Algal oil can be grown on otherwise completely unproductive land, while thermal depolymerization uses waste materials.

[Chris Hogg]

LOL. At least Trekkies look to the future, unlike you Harry, terrified of any technology later than the Middle Ages!

[Tim Streater]

Trouble is, if tossers like harry get their way, the Middle Ages is where we're headed.

[Nightjar]

I recall when a computer you could slip into a pocket was the stuff of science fiction and was so outlandish that it seemed impossible that it would come to pass in my lifetime.

That would be the very opposite of their style.

[Martin Brown]

There is a clear difference between weather and climate that deniers deliberately try to blur in a wilful attempt to mislead the public.

Hint: you can be reasonably sure that seasonal weather predicts that winters will be colder than summers for the foreseeable future.

At present perihelion is in early January and aphelion in July so that southern hemisphere summers get about 3% more insolation than northern ones. Secular variation in the Earth's orbital elements is a major factor in long term climate change - notably the ice ages.

The weak law of large numbers means that time and spatial averages over a decade or a few decades can show the underlying trend even when predicting the weather accurately in seven days time is impossible.

[Martin Brown]

Sea levels have risen faster in the past century than in previous ones but the historical data is rather sparse. There isn't as yet any evidence that the rate of change of sea level rise has increased from the typical value of 1.7mm/year from satellite data.

Or slightly closer to original sources the recent PNAS paper on sea level rise:

[Martin Brown]

On 14/11/2014 18:29, "Nightjar

[Tim Lamb]

Hmm.. I'm not much wiser. The abstract is totally impenetrable:-)

One uncertainty appears to be the measurement of surface ice melt.

>

[dennis]

So if you have enough information to actually see the science why not post it here so we can all review it? If you do have the information you will convert nearly all of us to believers.