A DOSE OF COMMON SENSE ?

[Observer II]

The decision to open a new oil and gas  field in the Orkneys,  will provide a degree of energy security for the UK, while a gradual transfer to net zero proceeds, without adversely affecting the wellbeing of the plebs.    

[Evil Sid]

is getting close to election time or something?

NET ZERO

a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:

this means that whatever amount of CO2 we produce needs to be off set by some way of capturing that same amount. trees like silver birch and elder are good and there are many other plants that are good at i including cacti and other succulents.

[Observer II]

I think it was the regulator that gave the go ahead.   However I was watching a Congressional Cttee  hearing on climate change, and this Professor asked the panel, "what percentage of our atmosphere is CO2" ,   the replies from the politicians averaged around 5%.  However, according to this guy, it's less than 1%; which makes me wonder just what all the panic is about ?   But your right Sid, the answer is more trees and other CO2 breathing plants, that give off  Oxygen.        I've just googled it, and it gives a figure of ppm not %.   But all the progs I've watched about global climate change, are just that, the climate has changed throughout the history of the Earth,  and without any human involvement. We're currently in an inter glacial (warm) cycle, which means we're heading into another ice age (cold) period.  So I'm wondering just what all the panic is about ?   

[Bill]

Rishi said that it didn’t make sense to be shipping in oil from around the world when we have it on our own doorstep while the next person in the report claimed that the oil from this new field would almost certainly all be exported.

I suppose given we can’t just switch off oil use, and as long as globally it gets run down by the target date, someone will need oil from somewhere. Given that, it makes sense to sell them what we have and make some money from it because if we don’t, they’ll just get it from somewhere else. Did that make any sense??

Most people think CO2 makes up a sizable proportion of the atmosphere so it’s not surprising if some politicians think that as well but that doesn’t really matter, because when it comes to the amounts, it’s what the scientist think that’s important.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

There are divided opinions in the scientific community.   As for oil and gas,  surely we've learned from the Russian saga, that we need build our energy self sufficiency and not depend on others for supply ?   

[ninearches]

I am not well up on any of this, but does the tilt of the earth on its axis affect global warming ? Could it for instance ,during its cycle , make the poles relatively more temperate ?

[Bill]

Everyone has their own theories about global warming and even the scientists don’t all agree. Way back when we weren’t even sure if we were heading for another ice age I used to be so sceptical about anything the scientists said, especially the argument as to whether CO2 produces a global heating effect or whether increased CO2 was the result of a warmer climate.

For me, the jury’s still out on that one but it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks, right or wrong the world is edging it’s bets on CO2 being the guilty party. The decision’s been made and no amount of hand wringing, and debate is going to change that.

My only hope is that we don’t expend all this money and effort in reducing CO2 only to find it didn’t work and end up not being able to change the infrastructure or build defences should sea levels rise.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

NOAA August CO2 was 420ppm so 0.042% of the atmosphere, up by 1.53ppm from the previous year. What matters is the amount of extra heat retained on balance by the CO2 but we ought to remember that other thing have a bigger effect on heat retention than CO2, and that include water vapour. The problem I have with all this is that there are things they do not look at and do not understand well in the models. To my mind the most significant are clouds, which have a a significant effect because they prevent insolation in the first place. There is also little understanding of the mechanisms and rates with which the oceans absorb CO2. Clouds form on nucleii in the atmosphere which are essentially pollution. As we reduce air pollution the formation of clouds gets reduced and heating goes up. I have a concern that this will become worse as we ban dirty marine oil burning over the oceans where so many clouds form. There are other natural phenomena such as natural variation in the sun combined with local changes in clouds that can increase surface temperatures leading to changed weather. Some scientists believe that the human caused part of warming is close to the same order human caused warming. The IPCC is only charged by governments to look at human caused warming so the natural changed are no ignored but get less attention.

If the amount caused by natural effects, natural animal and plant cycles as well as earthquakes, is not such a large part of the warming effect the final temperature will be lower than predicted and the consequences less severe. Efforts to reduce consumption disrupt the economy far more than effort to deal with the consequences and we need the latter anyway. That means that the efforts for stop consumption make us poorer and have less economic capability to address the effects of warming. They are a quasi religious distraction and governments need to stop encouraging it.

Davy, there is an effect as earth moves around the Sun and there are long term cycles based on astronomical effects prom the giant planets such as Jupiter which slightly increase or decrease solar power. From memory the effects are rather small and less than the variation in Total Solar Insolation (TSI). Just to show the state of the science the TSI is measured by satellites to avoid atmospheric effects, none of the satellites agree on how much insolation there is or how it varies either with time or wavelength/frequency.

Science does not work on consensus, it needs experimental proof of the correct scientific models. Note that climate models are not scientific models they are just numerical computer models and they generally only work for the period for which the data has been used to calibrate them. To be useful as proof of understanding they need to work for any period at all, they currently do not do so. That is why there are multiple points of view: the science is not settled but some people have settle opinions!

[Bill]

It was interesting to note the significant increase in mean temperatures right across the States during the no-fly period following the 9/11 incident. This wasn’t just a random bit of nice weather; it was most definitely due to the lack of vapour trails allowing more sunshine to get through.

This sort of effect gives some credibility to suggested alternative ways in which global warming could be reduced. I reckon it’d be far easier to make machines capable of generating clouds than it is to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

End of conversation, it’s beer time 😊

 

Bill 😊

[ninearches]

All very confusing but we could let "them" have some clouds.

[Confused52]

17 hours ago, Bill said:

Everyone has their own theories about global warming and even the scientists don’t all agree. Way back when we weren’t even sure if we were heading for another ice age I used to be so sceptical about anything the scientists said, especially the argument as to whether CO2 produces a global heating effect or whether increased CO2 was the result of a warmer climate.

For me, the jury’s still out on that one but it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks, right or wrong the world is edging it’s bets on CO2 being the guilty party. The decision’s been made and no amount of hand wringing, and debate is going to change that.

My only hope is that we don’t expend all this money and effort in reducing CO2 only to find it didn’t work and end up not being able to change the infrastructure or build defences should sea levels rise.

 

Bill 😊

An article which supports your question Bill Causality and climate | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

[Bill]

Well that just reinforces what I’ve always believed in that while human activity has definitely contributed to an increase in CO2 levels, the majority of it is natural. Whether it’s cause or effect though it doesn’t alter the fact that the planet is warming significantly which will lead to some bigger problems further down the line.

Reducing our emissions might slow things ever so slightly and give a bit more time for us to adjust but whether things could be stopped or turned around looks increasingly impossible. What we’re doing at the moment is an expensive process and the money could possibly be better spent preparing for the inevitable.

The way I see it is that it’s all part of evolution. Where our energy comes from and what sort of cars we drive will change with time and if that leads to a cleaner more sustainable environment then it can’t be seen as a bad thing.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

But, what we are seeing is a knee jerk panic scenario,  similar to the covid crisis response, which cost us £400mill.   As I said, we are currently in an inter-glacial (warm) period,  heading for an ice age next.  Growth and technical advancement depends on cheap energy,  we will require that growth to produce the options to adapt to environmental change in the future.   Unfortunately, big ticket infrastructure projects aren't our forte (EG HS2), so major schemes such as tidal schemes may be beyond us, and certainly beyond the myopic nature of our political system.     You've just got to laugh -  seems our science experts are now telling us, that in 250mill years, ALL mammals will die off, due to the reformation of the pangea super-continent causing global warming !   😉

[ninearches]

What the human race is guilty of is a feeling of self importance , that we can influence nature & the evolution of the planet . We are just a speck in the life cycle of the planet we call Earth & maybe we are not intended to be here for the long term. If another ice age is in the offing then maybe tidal power & hydro electric schemes won't function any way..

[Bill]

Yes and if that happens Dave, it’ll be our turn to become illegal immigrants as we try to move to warmer climates. 😂

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

I doubt that in 250 mill years, humanity will still exist, certainly not in it's current form, so will have left the planet.  But it shows how these "scientists" playing with their commuter models are basically scaring us all to death.     Quay Sera Sera.   😉

[Lt Kije]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:24 PM, Observer II said:

The decision to open a new oil and gas  field in the Orkneys,  will provide a degree of energy security for the UK, while a gradual transfer to net zero proceeds, without adversely affecting the wellbeing of the plebs.    

No it will not provide any degree of energy security!!, as the oil and gas will be sold on the international markets, not kept in the UK

[Observer II]

Never heard of nationalisation in a national emergency then ?     

[Lt Kije]

13 hours ago, Observer II said:

Never heard of nationalisation in a national emergency then ?     

We’ll we have just gone through a crisis Obs, no sign of them doing that was there, you seem to be clutching at straws, to make your points, are things that bad for you

[Observer II]

Life's quite simple if you don't overload it with left wing virtue signaling !😉

[Confused52]

No need for nationalisation: in the event of an actual or threatened emergency in the UK that will affect fuel supplies, the Secretary of State may use emergency powers under the Energy Act 1976 to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, acquisition or use of substances used as fuel. The powers in Section 3 are exercisable by Order in Council, Parliament may debate it but not prevent the order being made. So if supplies need to be assured the sale of North Sea Oil for export can just be stopped by the government of the day. Thus a new longer lasting field DOES provide extra energy security provided a sensible government is in power, no guarantees on that one! Such action would be Force Majeure in supply contracts so exporters could not expect to face commercial loss by court action.

[Lt Kije]

We just had an energy crisis, one wonders why we didn’t use those powers!!!, ahhh, common sense!!!, what will we do for the other 92% of our gas and oil supply, if we need to use those powers, because if we do, every other country will be doing the same, as I said clutching at straws!!!

[Observer II]

We have a self sufficiency in energy if required.   

[Lt Kije]

On 9/30/2023 at 5:26 PM, Observer II said:

Energy imports in the UK - statistics & facts

Although historically relatively self-sufficient in covering domestic energy demand, the United Kingdom’s dependency on imports has increased in the past few decades. With oil and gas fields on the continental shelf depleting and the government phasing out coal, the country has grown increasingly reliant on supplies from other countries. Energy dependency reached its peak in 2013, at nearly 48 percent. Thanks in large part to growing capacity additions of wind power and a decline in primary energy consumption, the dependency rate had fallen to some 35 percent since. This is notably lower than the European Union average.

[Observer II]

I include coal.