- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello glenn_nl,
if you want to argue some points, please do.
Make some points and I will try and think through your points.I am not an AI bot
I am an actual person.
michaelhttps://gridwatch.co.uk/
At present, 10.05 Easter Monday,
one third of our electricity comes from natural Gas, one third comes from interconnectors.
The other third is wood pellets, Nuclear an bit of hydro and a bit of solar and a bit of wind.In four and a half years 95% must come from green sources.
How will that happen, in four and a half years?Bringing critical minerals to where they are needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8qUyRygVk
The economies that will survive, are those with natural resources.
Such as
Fresh Water
Trees
Limestone
Can you feed all or most of your people from your own lands, traditionally, this was of the greatest criticality,
since globalisation, less so but globalisation might be ending, soon.
Do you mine Graphite/Polyhalite/Copper/Tin/Lead/Kaolin/Cobalt/Calamine/Tungsten/Gold/Silver/Nickel/Bauxite/Iron?
Do you process Rare Earths?
Do you produce all of your own, Natural Gas/Oil/Coal?
Do you make all of your own Electricity?If you answer No, to most of these questions, your country will struggle to survive.
Unless you have a resource rich partner.
Those countries which can answer Yes, might survive with a level of comfort.
Canada, U.S.A., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, South Africa, Ethiopia, Nigeria, India, China, Russia, Australia.
Resource poor countries, will be up the creek without a paddle.Michael, I just spotted this and I thought I should post it up so you would see it; I’m still very short of time.
– Trump signs controversial order to boost deep-sea mining industry
– The executive order will help private deep-sea mining companies to access mineral-rich nodules on the sea floor.– – – – –
This is madness; ripping the ecosystems out from under ourselves. I think, we need to stop economic growth.
Michael, I have a prediction. We will now see a denial and anti-science campaign to support deep seabed scraping much like the historic tobacco / seatbelts / asbestos campaigns and the ongoing emissions campaign.
e.g:
– “It’s not damaging”…
– “It’s not as damaging as scientists say”…
– “What the scientists practically observing the seabed call damage is actually an improvement, because these five retired contrarians from other fields say so, therefore seabed science is institutionally corrupt”…All the while accompanied by:
– “Yes, but without seabed scraping the economy will collapse” (i.e. cease to grow).Clark,
well it is only quite recently that science has come to discover Dark Oxygen.
I would like to suggest that at least fifty years should go by, before these lumps of minerals are scooped out.
Let us imagine complex, multicellular life was kicked-off in the very deep seas, because Oxygen was available, in the very deep seas.
Would not that be a shame to rob those critters of their Oxygen, just for mobile phones, lap tops, battery cars and such?
The seas hold the greatest diversity of life, there is so much to learn.
Please Donald, do not kill this life.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP3RPDTgfa4&t=11s
Quote
“A discovery in the dark depths of the Pacific Ocean is challenging the scientific consensus of how oxygen is produced and has even called into question how life on Earth began.Photosynthetic organisms like plants and algae use energy from sunlight to create the planet’s oxygen but new evidence has shown how oxygen is also produced in complete darkness at the seafloor 4,000 metres below the ocean surface, where no light can penetrate.”
Professor Andrew K. SweetmanProfessor Andrew K. Sweetman is the leader of the Seafloor Ecology and Biogeochemistry research group and chair of Benthic Ecology and Biogeochemistry at the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), UK.
https://www.sams.ac.uk/people/researchers/sweetman-professor-andrew-k/Ilmenite
This is the resource from which Titanium is mostly produced.
about one third of the world’s need are produced in China.
Quite a lot in Russia and the former Soviet states.
“Titanium ore was first noticed in Manaccan, Cornwall.
In 1790 William Gregor discovered ilmenite, an iron titanium oxide, which he named menachanite (and is sometimes still called manaccanite), in Gillan Creek that runs through the valley just south of the village. After he analyzed it he found a new element, titanium, that he called menachine. The location is commemorated by a plaque placed next to the bridge. He presented his findings in 1791”Anyway it seems they might have found a lot of the stuff in South East Paraguay.
Parguay has a very small mining sector but they do have Hydro Electricity, nearby.
All of Paraguay’s electricity is generated by hydropower, making it one of the cleanest in the world!
The Itaipu Dam is the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world.
Mining at Alto Paraná is expected to produce an ilmenite concentrate.
This resource could help the economy of Paraguay – take off
https://www.sandstormgold.com/portfolio/alto-parana/
South America seems to have it all.
I am surprized Donald hasn’t threatened to take then over.Spain & Portugal seem to have run out of electricity
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c9wpq8xrvd9t#player
If we in the U.K. continue with Net Zero ( Electricity) by 2030,
how will we produce enough constant electricity, especially with one an a half million extra homes?Earth’s oceans used to be green, and they could turn purple next
I read this today and thought of you Michael. You might find it interesting.
Michael, I think most people contributing to this thread agree with you on the shockingly inept attempts at energy transition.
However shockingly inept they are, or however economically dumb they may be this isn’t an argument negating climate change itself just an argument for how inadequate the response is.
I feel you are using the monumentally inadequate government policies to undermine climate science rather than pointing to what you believe are the inconsistencies in climate science.
Can you tell us where you believe climate science is wrong without mentioning Ed Milliband, government policies or inadequate supplies of minerals or greening.
“Spain’s nuclear power plants also automatically went offline as a safety precaution, with diesel generators maintaining them in a “safe condition”, the Spanish Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) said in a statement.
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez held an emergency meeting on the situation, his office said in a Telegram message.”
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250428-major-power-outage-in-spain-and-portugal-disrupts-transport-communication
I while back the BBC were suggesting it was caused by climatic conditions?Today, in the U.K. very little of our electricity is coming from wind turbines, because there is no wind.
But Nuclear Power Stations shutting down,
this is serious shit.
This is Spain and Portugal and a bit of France, this isn’t Indonesia or Pakistan, this is the mighty European Union.So at the moment 18.00 hours, only 6% of Britain’s electricity is coming from wind, yet we have a lot of wind turbines.
A huge amount is coming from North Sea Gas.
The electrical system needs to be on all the time in the modern world, intermittency is not good enough.
What happens if the reactors in France go down?“So at the moment 18.00 hours, only 6% of Britain’s electricity is coming from wind, yet we have a lot of wind turbines.”
So, what?
ET
we in the U.K. are putting some of our eggs into Nuclear and a lot of our eggs into renewable electricity, great when the sun is shining and great when the wind is blowing.
Iberia, also some Nuclear and lots of renewable.
What will happen when it is dark, no solar.
What happens when it is dark and the wind does not blow, like now.
Currently in the U.K. we are using close to 60% Natural Gas
but the plan is to use almost no gas?
What if the Spanish Nuclear Reactors shut down, because the wind stopped blowing in Iberia?
They probably shut down because no electricity was getting into their Nuclear facilities.
State of Emergency called in Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_European_power_outageThis may be a crunch moment for the U.K. and the European Union.
Just Stop Oil and Coal and Gas.
Speedily move towards Net Zero.
You get the most expensive electricity.
Big Industries close, they have become uncompetitive, at least in part because of very high electricity costs.
If we stop making Virgin Steel, stop refining Carbon based fluids in Grangemouth, masses of ordinary workers, physical workers, will be on the scrap-heap. These workers will come to understand, they have been sold down the river.
The Elite have decided an all electric future, yet very few, have voted for this future?
Does Democracy still cling on, in Europe.
Maybe not.
We are led by idealogs.
Society is getting less robust.
Only a few weeks ago, a single 70 year old transformer running at more than 100% design specification, sprung a leak of hot fluid and burnt out a substation, this substation causing Heathrow to shut down for a day.
The future should not be all electric, we are in danger of disintergrating as a functional society.
Ruled by idiots, leading us, up the garden path.Apparently, even Tony Blair sees the short end of the stick grasped by the Elite Brigade in Great Britain of Net Zero.
If Tony Blair can see it, perhaps Sir Keir can also see it?
Tony Blair has the shell-like of Sir Keir.So come on, own up, how many of you voted for Net Zero?
Tony Blair ( retired Labour Prime minister, says Net Zero policies “doomed to fail”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvrwyp0jx3o
Quote BBC“In a new report, the former Labour prime minister says voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal”.
If even Tony Blair understands this, how come Ed Milliband knows nothing?
S: “Please change the record mate or I’m out.”
There’s only one record, and apparently only one side on it. ET told me off for pointing out a couple of weeks back that this is a pointless exercise, although Clark seems to think that earnestly treating MN as a promising but as yet badly undelivering pupil will – against all odds – pay off eventually.
Frankly, I’m not really convinced MN isn’t some early version of an AI bot that has long since got itself stuck in read-only mode.
glenn,
you have gone into silent mode, you have suggested I run away.
I have not run away.
Perhaps you might be prepared to discuss Net Zero?As Sir Keir Rodney Starmer claimed
“Change is Coming”It might be coming, tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gKAk8mPf2w
Imperial College London
Professor Jon Lloyd (Life Sciences) – Going brown or getting greenerAs Human influence is pumping more carbon into our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is being slightly enhanced, causing some warming.
As most of the surface of our world is ocean, that slight warming leads to some extra evaporation of water, Although most will fall as rain back into the seas, extra rain will also fall on the land.
The main limiting factor with plants is not enough water, so extra water, will help many plants to grow, some more, meaning more overall green leaf. The extra Carbon dioxide in the air, also leads to more green leaf.
Most green leaf is in forests. Most rain falls on forests, not on dry lands.
Almost all top soil comes from trees. More growth on more trees, inevitably leads to more top soils, in and adjacent to the forests. The Carbon in topsoil holds the water. More top soil can hold more top soil.
Having more Carbon held in top soil, means more water can be held in that soil.
This also helps the forests to continue growing during dry times.So, what we should be doing, is retaining our forests.
Not cutting them down for agriculture, not cutting then down to build more airports and more runways and not cutting them down for open cast mining, not cutting them down to host wind farms or solar farms.
Just leave them as natural forests that our helping to steady our climate and be a home for many species.That should have read
more top soil will hold more Carbon.
(line 9)Shibboleth
April 20, 2025 at 19:15
Quote
“I dont give a fuck about Ed Milliband – I was replying to you, Michael. Why do you always revert to Ed when in a corner? Have you a nascent lust for him? Please change the record mate or I’m out.”Shibboleth, I do not think I am in a corner. I think I might even hold the majority view on the dangers of Global Warming.
If you get a little time, have a look at what I typed on May 3, 2025 at 18:52.
Try and have a look at the lecture given in 2015 by Professor Jon Lloyd .
If you do not have much time, just listen to the last fifteen minutes, please.Sorry, don’t have the time or inclination. To be honest, I’m bored with these exchanges, Michael. I don’t care to read or watch linked articles when the writer doesn’t use their own objective and critical thinking to argue the case and simply directs the reader to third party references or individuals. I can see many other respondents urging you do do similar – and you have a dedicated thread to develop these arguments, but it would seem you are unwilling or even incapable. I can only conclude that the Norton gene pool has a distinctly shallow end.
Good luck.
Sorry, last word on this thread.
You wrote: “Not cutting them down for agriculture, not cutting then down to build more airports and more runways and not cutting them down for open cast mining, not cutting them down to host wind farms or solar farms. Just leave them as natural forests that our helping to steady our climate and be a home for many species.”
Do you actually read what you’ve written? This is infantile – don’t you know that people have been protesting and picketing lumbar and coal mines for decades now? Don’t you realise that most people here already appreciate the critical importance of forests and wetlands and their ecosystems? Haven’t you realised that most of the stuff you support and advocate for heavily contribute to the destructions of these ecosystems?
Of course you do, Michael. Yet still you persist. No disrespect, but I have many better things to be doing than banging my head against a wall. Cheers.
Shibboleth,
I am sorry you feel upset and that your time has been ill used.
I did start a separate thread to discuss minerals.
As you are aware, everything is linked, the sun/life/climate/geology/plate tectonics,
now humanity and politics and mineral extraction.
People who truly believe that the climate is changing catastrophically do not seem to be interested in global greening, it hurts their narrative.
Perhaps you are one such person.
It seems fairly clear that most plants came into being in a much more Carbon dioxide rich atmosphere.
It seems quite likely to me, that when Angiosperm forests evolved, such as tropical rain forests, that much Carbon was sucked into those forests, reducing the percentage of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
When Carbon dioxide gets below about 150 parts per million, many plant types will cease to thrive.
This is probably why C4 photosynthesis came into being.
Yes, humans are causing much Carbon to get into the air.
It seems possible that from about a hundred years ago some of that extra Carbon was taken in by the biosphere.
I think the American sat. data is now about forty years old. From that information, scientists have come to understand that massive extra greening has happened, over much of the land surface.
Some have claimed this is like having another continent absorbing CO2.
Will this extra greening be enough to at some stage level off the extra CO2, I do not know.I can not understand why this phenomenom is not discussed more openly?
Perhaps, the Elite do not want to distract the populace, perhaps they just want the peasants to accept whatever nonsense the Elite currently believe. I have very little acceptance of anything the politicians say, mostly, I guess, they know they are lying. Yes i think that people are causing more Carbon to enter the air.
Possibly, some modest warming, is happening but what can actually be shown, is massive extra greening but that is not talked about?
