Katsika Posted December 7, 2024 Share Posted December 7, 2024 https://prepareforchange.net/2024/12/06/uk-pays-wind-farms-1-3-billion-to-shut-down-when-its-windy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-pays-wind-farms-1-3-billion-to-shut-down-when-its-windy UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion to Shut Down When It’s Windy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blencathra Posted December 7, 2024 Share Posted December 7, 2024 (edited) 5 hours ago, Katsika said: https://prepareforchange.net/2024/12/06/uk-pays-wind-farms-1-3-billion-to-shut-down-when-its-windy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-pays-wind-farms-1-3-billion-to-shut-down-when-its-windy UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion to Shut Down When It’s Windy The G. will have to pay out today! Very bad gales - the lights have flickered several times. I have my emergency candles on stand by in case there is a power cut. Edited December 7, 2024 by Blencathra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifth element Posted December 7, 2024 Share Posted December 7, 2024 Been a very prolonged spell of gales this has an unusual spell of weather as winds are from the NW not the normal SW.. Wind Observation Map - Britain 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blencathra Posted December 8, 2024 Share Posted December 8, 2024 10 hours ago, Fifth element said: Been a very prolonged spell of gales this has an unusual spell of weather as winds are from the NW not the normal SW.. Wind Observation Map - Britain Thanks for the link! Did not know such a map existed - very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazthehobo Posted December 8, 2024 Share Posted December 8, 2024 Interesting article on the David Icke headlines. Antarctica temperatures have dropped by a degree and have barely changed since the 1970s…. https://davidicke.com/2024/12/08/dramatic-1c-plunge-recorded-in-recent-antarctica-summer-temperatures/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted December 10, 2024 Share Posted December 10, 2024 On 10/22/2024 at 8:24 PM, Grumpy Owl said: I get that gas and electricity are expensive now, so I don't blame people for wanting to find ways to save money. But when it comes to 'saving the planet', is burning gas any better than burning wood? In terms of 'pollution', a modern gas boiler is less polluting than any wood-fired burner surely? Anyway, the point that still tickles me is that this woman has paid £2000 in the last two years on this log burner, having it installed and then buying logs for it, and then 'reckons' she's saved £2000 on her heating bills. By my reckoning, she's 'broken even'. Give it another year or so, and we'll start seeing 'clamp-downs' on households that own log burners. Well, that didn't take long... Wood burners more polluting than traffic - study Quote Burning wood at home produces more pollution than road traffic, according to new research. The findings, from the University of Birmingham, show a quarter of harmful particles in the air, known as PM2.5s, come from domestic fires while traffic is responsible for 22%. Wood-burning stoves have risen in popularity in the UK with an estimated 1.9m homes now having one, according to the Stove Industry Alliance. One campaigner from Birmingham said she was worried the effect they were having on children and others with health issues. Quote Scientists analysed PM2.5 samples collected in 2021 and 2022 at two sites in Birmingham. They found wood-burning concentrations seven times higher than those observed between 2008 and 2010. They also discovered that the impact of wood burning was particularly pronounced during winter months, contributing to half of PM2.5 concentrations, a seasonal spike put down to people heating their homes more due to the colder weather. The lead investigator of the study, Prof Zongbo Shi, admitted he was surprised by his own findings. He said it "demonstrates the huge impact" burning wood at home has. Prof Shi added he hoped it would make people consider "if there is a real need to use their stoves". from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdne9ke0m1o So lets get this straight: log burners have become more popular in recent years, as well as "trendy", as people look for ways to save money on their heating bills, as well as being encouraged by the mainstream media to do so. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to 'research' the impact of burning wood pellets in former coal power stations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted December 10, 2024 Share Posted December 10, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said: Well, that didn't take long... Wood burners more polluting than traffic - study from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdne9ke0m1o So lets get this straight: log burners have become more popular in recent years, as well as "trendy", as people look for ways to save money on their heating bills, as well as being encouraged by the mainstream media to do so. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to 'research' the impact of burning wood pellets in former coal power stations? Yes, wood burning is far more of a problem than fossil wood, not only because it releases more particulates per unit of energy. But there is also far more of it burnt, world wide, less than one percent of the earth is urbanized, every one who lives somewhere else burns wood for heat Wood burning with carbon capture tech is probably the future, the trees would reduce the carbon in the atmosphere and not produce any being burnt . P Edited December 10, 2024 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorgan Posted December 12, 2024 Share Posted December 12, 2024 Interesting article https://michelchossudovsky.substack.com/p/cop29-climate-instability-worldwide "COP29. Climate Instability Worldwide: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastOneLeftInTheCounty Posted December 12, 2024 Share Posted December 12, 2024 On 12/10/2024 at 8:46 PM, Grumpy Owl said: Well, that didn't take long... Wood burners more polluting than traffic - study from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdne9ke0m1o So lets get this straight: log burners have become more popular in recent years, as well as "trendy", as people look for ways to save money on their heating bills, as well as being encouraged by the mainstream media to do so. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to 'research' the impact of burning wood pellets in former coal power stations? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/12/million-tonnes-trees-chopped-sustainable-plane-fuel-drax/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTV Posted December 26, 2024 Author Share Posted December 26, 2024 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sit down, Waldo Posted December 30, 2024 Share Posted December 30, 2024 'Green' ferry emits more CO2 than old diesel ship 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted December 30, 2024 Share Posted December 30, 2024 17 minutes ago, Sit down, Waldo said: 'Green' ferry emits more CO2 than old diesel ship Ah, you beat me to it, I saw this story earlier and was going to post it here! Quote The dual-fuel ferry has more car capacity but requires larger engines which also emit methane, a greenhouse gas with a far greater global warming effect than CO2. Ferries procurement agency CMAL, which owns the ship, said the comparison was "inaccurate" as Glen Sannox is a larger vessel. The size of Glen Sannox is a factor in its carbon footprint, but so too is the liquified natural gas (LNG) fuel which is less climate-friendly than previously claimed. One expert on transport emissions told BBC News that if the "upstream" carbon cost of importing LNG from Qatar is included in the emissions calculation, it might be better to run the new ship on diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sit down, Waldo Posted December 30, 2024 Share Posted December 30, 2024 15 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said: Ah, you beat me to it, I saw this story earlier and was going to post it here! Couldn't make it up. The older linked stories just add to it...'1,400 cables installed that didn't reach the equipment' lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sit down, Waldo Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 2024 UK's fourth warmest year on record But not as warm as last year...or the year before...& the coolest summer for 9 years. Looks hot in the photo though lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoScota Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 On 12/30/2024 at 7:51 PM, Sit down, Waldo said: 'Green' ferry emits more CO2 than old diesel ship Billions over budget and what a 'kin embarrassment. And there's another one being built.....fool me once.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katsika Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Mayhem in Mecca as extreme rain submerges city, gushing waters wash away cars https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mecca-medina-saudi-arabia-heavy-rain-weather-floods-cars-stranded-rescue-video-x-social-media-2660975-2025-01-07 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Grapes Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Katsika said: Mayhem in Mecca as extreme rain submerges city, gushing waters wash away cars https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mecca-medina-saudi-arabia-heavy-rain-weather-floods-cars-stranded-rescue-video-x-social-media-2660975-2025-01-07 In the article it says: "Thunderstorms, heavy rains and hail are all over and around Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. But these floods are not a rare phenomenon, especially in Jeddah, which has seen flooding earlier as well." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Grapes Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) CO2 is too heavy? Is this Christian Zionist speaking the truth or not? "In order for something to be a greenhouse gas, it must be light enough to reach the upper atmosphere and remain there. Ozone has an atomic mass of 15.9994 and methane has an atomic mass of 16.04; both of which are greenhouse gasses. Every element that makes up greenhouse gasses must have a similar atomic weight. If it’s too heavy, it cannot reach the upper atmosphere without the help of something like a volcanic eruption." "Carbon dioxide, which is CO2, has an atomic weight of 44. This is almost double the weight of air, which means it cannot be a greenhouse gas. There are trace elements of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere caused be volcanic eruptions, but is too heavy to remain there." "If carbon dioxide is too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere, why does anyone call it a greenhouse gas? They use Venus as a model, which does have carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere that remains in place and is largely responsible for the greenhouse effect on a planet with a surface temperature of 864 °F/462 °C. What they fail to mention is the air on Venus is 90 times heavier than the air on Earth, which makes for a drastic difference between the two planets." The Blogs: Carbon Dioxide is not a Greenhouse Gas on Earth | Bob Ryan | The Times of Israel https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-on-earth/ Edited January 8 by Grumpy Grapes 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 5 minutes ago, Grumpy Grapes said: CO2 is too heavy? Is this Christian Zionist speaking the truth or not? "In order for something to be a greenhouse gas, it must be light enough to reach the upper atmosphere and remain there. Ozone has an atomic mass of 15.9994 and methane has an atomic mass of 16.04; both of which are greenhouse gasses. Every element that makes up greenhouse gasses must have a similar atomic weight. If it’s too heavy, it cannot reach the upper atmosphere without the help of something like a volcanic eruption." "Carbon dioxide, which is CO2, has an atomic weight of 44. This is almost double the weight of air, which means it cannot be a greenhouse gas. There are trace elements of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere caused be volcanic eruptions, but is too heavy to remain there." "If carbon dioxide is too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere, why does anyone call it a greenhouse gas? They use Venus as a model, which does have carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere that remains in place and is largely responsible for the greenhouse effect on a planet with a surface temperature of 864 °F/462 °C. What they fail to mention is the air on Venus is 90 times heavier than the air on Earth, which makes for a drastic difference between the two planets." The Blogs: Carbon Dioxide is not a Greenhouse Gas on Earth | Bob Ryan | The Times of Israel https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-on-earth/ It's got little to do with its atomic weight, and it isn't heavier than " air" air is the collective name for all the gases in the atmosphere of which co2 is one. It has everything to do the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation it absorbs , it absorbs at the exact same frequency as the heat which radiates back from the earth. Consequently that heat hangs around instead of exiting into space 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Grapes Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) Another view is that water vapour is more of a contributor than CO2, although this article tries to debunk it, not convincingly in my opinion. "Climate myths: Carbon dioxide isn't the most important greenhouse gas" The article concludes: "Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise." "This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – there is great uncertainty about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing." https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ Edited January 8 by Grumpy Grapes 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 12 minutes ago, lobster said: It's got little to do with its atomic weight, and it isn't heavier than " air" air is the collective name for all the gases in the atmosphere of which co2 is one. It has everything to do the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation it absorbs , it absorbs at the exact same frequency as the heat which radiates back from the earth. Consequently that heat hangs around instead of exiting into space Our planet could well have ended up like venus, its not clear why it didnt, slightly less volcanic activity and plate tectonics perhaps and the very early appearances of bacteria funneling co2 out of the atmosphere faster than volcanoes could put it back 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 24 minutes ago, Grumpy Grapes said: Another view is that water vapour is more of a contributor than CO2, although this article tries to debunk it, not convincingly in my opinion. "Climate myths: Carbon dioxide isn't the most important greenhouse gas" The article concludes: "Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise." "This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – there is great uncertainty about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing." https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ I've said this before and it wasnt popular, but however true Co2 is causing the planet to warm faster than it otherwise might, however just the volume of heat we produce irrespective of co2 released is also warming the planet. Whilst we can certainly use technology to reduce or eliminate co2 emission, there is nothing we can do to stop the gradual heating, other than stop producing heat. That would require most of our modern world to stop happening, as heat is a byproduct of just about every process we undertake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTV Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 7 hours ago, lobster said: I've said this before and it wasnt popular, but however true Co2 is causing the planet to warm faster than it otherwise might, however just the volume of heat we produce irrespective of co2 released is also warming the planet. Whilst we can certainly use technology to reduce or eliminate co2 emission, there is nothing we can do to stop the gradual heating, other than stop producing heat. That would require most of our modern world to stop happening, as heat is a byproduct of just about every process we undertake. haha you are not in the low content climate thread arguing pro co2 fraud haha too funny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Way Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Example of mass cognitive dissonance on public display: So human cause climate change is happening and we as individuals need to do every little thing we can to stop it like minimise our energy use and carbon footprint? Oh yes absolutely. But it’s fine for Israel to endlessly bomb Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and anywhere else they want who the West brand/label as terrorists? Do you know the level of energy use their jets, bombs, and all round weapons of mass destruction - whoops - that’s blatantly antisemitic - I mean weapons of defence (*) are causing? Oh yes they must defend themselves. (*) you know like the way those 9 or so IDF soldiers bravely defended themselves by raping to death that 1 gagged and bound Palestinian detainee. One of those brave soldiers has his own reality tv show now and deservedly so. And you know like bombing hospitals and tents in Gaza to defend themselves. Such bravery. Really is inspiring. I can see the Nobel Peace Prize nominations mounting up. SHAKES HEAD IN DESPAIR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 32 minutes ago, No Way said: Example of mass cognitive dissonance on public display: So human cause climate change is happening and we as individuals need to do every little thing we can to stop it like minimise our energy use and carbon footprint? Oh yes absolutely. But it’s fine for Israel to endlessly bomb Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and anywhere else they want who the West brand/label as terrorists? Do you know the level of energy use their jets, bombs, and all round weapons of mass destruction - whoops - that’s blatantly antisemitic - I mean weapons of defence (*) are causing? Oh yes they must defend themselves. (*) you know like the way those 9 or so IDF soldiers bravely defended themselves by raping to death that 1 gagged and bound Palestinian detainee. One of those brave soldiers has his own reality tv show now and deservedly so. And you know like bombing hospitals and tents in Gaza to defend themselves. Such bravery. Really is inspiring. I can see the Nobel Peace Prize nominations mounting up. SHAKES HEAD IN DESPAIR Govenments in general have no interest in cutting the carbon footprint of their military or anything else for that matter. big companies who regularly lecture on climate change and sustainability follow business practices that dramatically increase waste and therefore co2 Thete are non worse than google and apple and with there built in obsolescence of devices, however to cut waste they have removed chargers and cables from the box. There is a whole load of double accounting going on to support sustainability claims. Microsoft will in 2025, deliberately make many tens of million of perfectly functional computers obsolete , this to the most part wont affect their carbon footprint one iota , so they still get to tell us how green they are 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.