In reply to G3NYY:
Two fallacies have been posted in this thread:
(1) Nobody wants nuclear power.
(2) There is man-made global warming.
How ridiculous. The amount of a potent greenhouse gas has doubled in the atmosphere in the last century, the mean global temperature has gone up by 0.8C, virtually all the glaciers in the world are retreating or vanishing, major ice shelves are disintegrating, arctic ice diminishes by an unprecedented amount in summer, sea level is rising, spring is getting earlier and autumn later, and yet there is no connect between CO2 pollution and global warming? The mind positively boggles!
Indeed. Two fallacies have been posted in this thread:
(1) Nobody wants nuclear power.
(2) There is man-made global warming.
The latter point I’m not sure about. However, the unavoidable fact is that the planet is warming, despite what we, in this localised area, may observe. Whether this is entirely due to natural effects, or totally due to man’s activities, or a mixture of both I don’t know.
Count me out of the former group. Unfortunately, few of our leaders are well-versed in the physical sciences. Rather they are drawn from the arts, legal and financial sectors, and if anyone claims that economics is a science, may they hang by their own antenna feed! Their lives are based on the need to continue to get their politicians pay, which means continuing to be voted for. This requires them to listen to the biased scare-mongering anti-nuclear lobby (who have a multitude of axes to grind) and be seen to act accordingly.
Nuclear is as safe as any other means of electricity generation, as long as the reactors aren’t built on active fault lines (California etc), avoid tsunamis (don’t build on low-lying coasts), operate by the book (Chernobyl), build to a standard and not to a price etc.
This will either stir up the debate, or be cut by the moderator as off-topic and too inflamatory.
BTW, I’ll be in the Brecon area for a couple of days. I hope to activate something other than my wet-suit!
How ridiculous. The amount of a potent greenhouse gas has doubled in
the atmosphere in the last century, the mean global temperature has
gone up by 0.8C, virtually all the glaciers in the world are
retreating or vanishing, major ice shelves are disintegrating, arctic
ice diminishes by an unprecedented amount in summer, sea level is
rising, spring is getting earlier and autumn later, and yet there is
no connect between CO2 pollution and global warming? The mind
positively boggles!
73
Brian G8ADD
The mind does indeed boggle.
CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas.
The temperature has been rising in a linear fashion since the end of the little ice age (which is just as well for SOTA activators)
Virtually all the glaciers are not vanishing in fact many are growing considerably.
Arctic ice is recovering, just as it has done before. Antarctic ice is at record levels.
Sea level is not rising.
The only thing man made is Mann made and that’s when he disappeared the mediaeval warming period.
Oh and global temperature have been cooling all this millennium.
Because of the large noise to signal ratio global temperature is plotted in thirty year means: the trend is still rising. Your mention of fifteen years shows that you are placing undue emphasis on the unusually intense el nino event in 1997/98. Try eliminating this year from the curve, and as a crude compensation remove the coolest year of the last fifteen as well, you will then see that the upward trend is unmistakable.
The radiance of the sun varies in step with the sunspot cycle, the mean radiance of the sun has shown virtually no change since 1950. A good part of the warming has taken place in this time period, 1950 - present, yet changes in solar output were very small. To put it into perspective try this article:
CO2 is less potent than H2O (which has a very short residence time and is essentially in balance) CH4 (which has a short residence time and effectively degrades to CO2, and CF4 which is man-made and fortunately seems at present to be only at trace levels although production is increasing. The greenhouse effect of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in vitro (which is to say, as a laboratory demonstration in glassware.)
The temperature increase since the Little Ice Age has been about as linear as a dog’s hind leg, and that is without taking into account the “hockey stick” which is unprecedentedly steep.
Some (not many) glaciers are indeed growing, the growth of a glacier can be due to lower temperatures leading to a shorter ablation season, or it can be due to a change in the balance between precipitation and ablation. It can be shown that most of the growing glaciers are either receiving greater precipitation or are moving more rapidly due to lubrication by increased meltwater.
Oh, come on Brian! You could “prove” anything if you remove each and every statistic that disagrees with your hypothesis.
It is most inconvenient for you and your pro-global-warming friends that the real statistics, when examined carefully, actually disprove all your claims. So now you have to resort to allegations of political motivation and the like.
The only political motivation is on the part of governments who are using so-called global warming as an excuse to tax us all more and more! However people are now starting to see through their little scheme.
“lower-atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17%).”
[Source: http://tinyurl.com/7efucrt ]
Just trying to steer a thread on the SOTA reflector back towards SOTA. Can’t get the link to display correctly, so it will need to be copied and pasted into the URL line manually in order to work.
“
Oh, come on Brian! You could “prove” anything if you remove each and every statistic that disagrees with your hypothesis.”
I wondered if you would fall into that trap, Walt! I suggested that you removed the highest AND THE LOWEST annual point to make the upward trend more clear, but in fact even without this little illustration the trend is still up.
There are three databases in use and available on the web, I suggest that you access one of them and conduct a little experiment. Just simply plot them, no statistical tricks, just a simple plot. You will see then that the so-called “Hockey Stick” is clearly visible in the crude data. Why shouldn’t it be - it’s real. The databases are GHCN v.2., GISTEMP and HadCRU.
You see, Walt, unlike a lot of people who comment on this topic, including virtually all denialists, I have chosen to get a grounding in the science and read and understand as many of the actual papers as I can. I suspect that you are getting your information solely from denialist blogs, hence your comment about examining the “real statistics”. I invite you to do just that, examine the actual real statistics. If the world-wide data is too much I can point you to more localised sources to analyse - and that brings me to another point.
I don’t know if you are into gardening, but if you are, your callsign suggests that you are old enough to have noticed a real change in the garden in your lifetime. My garden in Birmingham features two palm trees, the “cabbage palm” and the “Chusan Palm”, but in my youth you could only see these by visiting the big glasshouses at the Botanical Gardens. Nowadays any dahlias I miss lifting in the autumn will be growing again in the spring, when I was a kid any dahlias my father left in the ground would be a soggy mass of rot by spring. I grow some rhododendrons that belong in hardiness zone 2: the older gardening books say that they will only survive in coastal gardens in the south or west. This is climate change on our doorstep - and if you try and argue that it is due to a cycle, perhaps the NAO, how come it hasn’t happened before?
Finally politics: Your “Human Events” has a subheadline of “Powerful Conservative Voices” and SPPI is financed by the oil industry. Nuff Sed!
Looks like Lambrigg Fell G/LD-046 to me Tom, but I could be entirely wrong.
I think one of the most interesting things I’ve seen on an ascent was ice shearing off turbine blades on Garreg Lwyd GW/MW-014. Needless to say it was hovering around zero during the activation.
It would be interesting to see just how many SOTA summits actually have wind turbines on them. I can’t think of any more than half a dozen or so in the 368 summits I’ve activated. Perhaps they are not an issue at all and Mike need not look for a pair of rose-tinted specs.
I grow some rhododendrons that belong in hardiness zone 2: the older gardening
books say that they will only survive in coastal gardens in the south or west.
Patent nonsense! When I lived in Scotland (near Kilmarnock)in the 40s and 50s, my garden was full of rhododendrons!
“Nowadays any dahlias I miss lifting in the autumn will be growing again in the spring”
I think this “global warming” has missed Buxton out. Any dahlias I dont lift are definitely dead next spring. Even hardier things such as Lupins & Cottage Pinks have a very small chance of survival over winter (less than 5%). Back on topic - I dont mind the odd summit covered in wind turbines. Better still, cover all the GM summits in them then send the power down South via the National Grid - oh wait, they already do that!
Going back to Mike’s original post; wilderness Wales is doomed.
The area S of Pumlumon used to be a superb wilderness of bog and small lakes high up on the plateau above the forestry. This is now covered in wind turbines along with the extensive gravel roads required to establish the wind farm and, presumably, for long term maintenance.
I sent in an objection to a project to cover the area to the W of Nant-y-moch reservoir with very large turbines. The reply was to the effect that if that project was stopped another would come along as the whole area had been designated by the Welsh Assembly as suitable for wind farm development. This area includes or is adjacent to GW/MW-038 Disgwylfa Fawr - 507m and close to GW/MW-008 Drosgol and GW/MW-007 Banc Llechwedd-mawr as well as Pumlumon itself.
“I don`t mind the odd summit covered in wind turbines. Better still, cover all the GM summits in them then send the power down South via the National Grid - oh wait, they already do that! ;-)”
And our oil, gas and water - anything else you lot would like? Where would you be without us, eh?
It would be interesting to see just how many SOTA summits actually
have wind turbines on them. I can’t think of any more than half a
dozen or so in the 368 summits I’ve activated
Although relatively few have their own installation, what I do find amazing is how many summits have windfarms visible from them, definitely a proliferation in GW and G/LD at least!
Sure, there are gardens all over the country full of rhododendrons (where the soil isn’t alkaline!) but I am referring to rhododendrons in the Maddenia alliance and section Edgworthii, that are killed if it goes below -5C, not the hardies that are H4 or H5 and will tolerate -20C.
Incidentally, I noticed on GW/NW-056 that there were R. ponticum seedlings appearing virtually right up to the summit. These are relatively fast growing, and as that hill doesn’t appear to be grazed any more, I can see us eventually having to force our way through thickets to activate it!
.JPG)
