http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/21/al-gore-lord-stern-oil-companies-fossil-fuels-climate-change

Al Gore: oil companies 'use our atmosphere as an open sewer'
We must leave fossil fuels unburned, Gore says, adding the transition to clean energy will be ‘unstoppable’

It’s not possible to listen to petroleum industry executives defending their reckless extraction of oil without feeling that we are living in an age of madness.

In a recent private conversation under the Chatham House rule, one of the world’s most senior industry leaders, who is considered to be at the more moderate end of the spectrum, insisted that we are going to burn all the world’s hydrocarbons despite the consequences.

His reasoning is that a growing population in the developing world needs energy to raise living standards, that renewables will not become a dominant energy source till the end of the century and that politicians don’t have the courage or power to limit production.

He acknowledged that the burning of all reserves would almost certainly lead to temperature rises of up to 4C, but argued the best way forward is to focus on limiting the damage through such technologies as carbon capture and storage....

Turn up the air con.

Simple.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:26pm:

Turn up the air con. Simple.

Think about someone other than yourself : simple  ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Turn up the air con. Simple. Think about someone other than yourself : simple  ;)

Others can come in and share the AC.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:29pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Turn up the air con. Simple. Think about someone other than yourself : simple  ;) Others can come in and share the AC.

You mean like subsistence farmers  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:29pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Turn up the air con. Simple. Think about someone other than yourself : simple  ;) Others can come in and share the AC. You mean like subsistence farmers  :o :o

As long as they wipe their feet.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:29pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Turn up the air con. Simple. Think about someone other than yourself : simple  ;) Others can come in and share the AC. You mean like subsistence farmers  :o :o As long as they wipe their feet.

greg is dismissing the reality of food  ::) ::)

' We must leave fossil fuels unburned, Gore says, adding the transition to clean energy will be ‘unstoppable’ '

Says Gore flying from place to place. When he gets to clean energy for his many trips, multiple mansions etc, and is living the parable, instead of the lie; wake me up.

Did you see where the Swiss, for the first time in history, had to open the military airbase, to accommodate all the planes that flew into Davos for the junket?

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 11:36am:

' We must leave fossil fuels unburned, Gore says, adding the transition to clean energy will be ‘unstoppable’ ' Says Gore flying from place to place. When he gets to clean energy for his many trips, multiple mansions etc, and is living the parable, instead of the lie; wake me up.

It's a regulated markets problem: what he does means nada!

Sorry, read my edit


And it is called hypocrisy

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 11:40am:

Sorry, read my edit And it is called hypocrisy

You can't accept that it is a systemic problem!

Shooting the messenger isn't business acumen  ;D ;D no matter what your lib voting daddy loving friends say!

You can't accept that a 30% increase in CO2 since 1998, based on the year 1700 level, does not have temperatures increasing the heating trend above 1970-1998 slope. But CO2 is supposed to be THE MAIN DRIVER.

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

You can't accept that a 30% increase in CO2 since 1998, based on the year 1700 level, does not have temperatures increasing the heating trend above 1970-1998 slope. But CO2 is supposed to be THE MAIN DRIVER.

sources, thanx  :D :D

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

1700 -  ~278ppm 'carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were at about 280ppm*.

http://oncirculation.com/the-basics/climate-change/how-much-carbon-dioxide-have-we-emitted/

1998 - 367.08

2014 - 398.78

http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

So 398.78-278= 120.78 total change
398.78-367.08= 31.7 change since 1998

31.7/120.78= 26%. Sorry, it has only been an increase of 30% since 1996.

Global Temp graph from NOAA, set to Annual, shows the trend breaking in 1998 or if you want to exclude 1998 as an outlier, breaking in 2000.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

But even a 26% change since 1998 should have temperatures rocketing along if CO2 is the Main Driver, not limping along.

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png 1700 -  ~278ppm 'carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were at about 280ppm*. http://oncirculation.com/the-basics/climate-change/how-much-carbon-dioxide-have-we-emitted/ 1998 - 367.08 2014 - 398.78 http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm So 398.78-278= 120.78 total change 398.78-367.08= 31.7 change since 1998 31.7/120.78= 26%. Sorry, it has only been an increase of 30% since 1996. Global Temp graph from NOAA, set to Annual, shows the trend breaking in 1998 or if you want to exclude 1998 as an outlier, breaking in 2000. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global But even a 26% change since 1998 should have temperatures rocketing along if CO2 is the Main Driver, not limping along.

Why do you expect linearity in a complex system  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?  :-[

You're an embarrasment to the internet buddy, like seriously fella get off the crack: it is the worlds most boring drug   ::)

You asked for the links. I gave them. I am so glad that you see nothing wrong with those figures. Enjoy. ;)

So since 2000, 14 years of 30 for NOAA/WMO climate change, there is no prospect I am right? Damn. :)

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

You asked for the links. I gave them. I am so glad that you see nothing wrong with those figures. Enjoy. ;) So since 2000, 14 years of 30 for NOAA/WMO climate change, there is no prospect I am right? Damn. :)

I'm not talking about the figures: I'm talking about the concept of you expecting linearity in a complex system!

No, I am not expecting linearity. But the cAGW meme is that CO2 is the driver. I have pointed out that CO2 has increased by over a quarter in 16 years, and hasn't had the effect postulated. The temperature is virtually flatlining with that increase. And over half a climate period gone.

The El Nino that wasn't, is what was supposed to put the hiatus to bed. However Mother Nature shortchanged the alarmists.

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 6:21pm:

No, I am not expecting linearity. But the cAGW meme is that CO2 is the driver. I have pointed out that CO2 has increased by over a quarter in 16 years, and hasn't had the effect postulated. The temperature is virtually flatlining with that increase. And over half a climate period gone. The El Nino that wasn't, is what was supposed to put the hiatus to bed. However Mother Nature shortchanged the alarmists.

You're a joke! A complete joke!!

lee wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 6:21pm:

No, I am not expecting linearity. But the cAGW meme is that CO2 is the driver. I have pointed out that CO2 has increased by over a quarter in 16 years, and hasn't had the effect postulated. The temperature is virtually flatlining with that increase. And over half a climate period gone. The El Nino that wasn't, is what was supposed to put the hiatus to bed. However Mother Nature shortchanged the alarmists.

The forum is starting to realise lee doesn't understand what a complex system is...

James Hansen to US Congress 1988 - natural variation cannot explain the warming.

'It  is  nearly  cancelled  by  the  pre-pause  warming  event  (1992‐1998,  return period  30‐40  years); the  pause  is  no  more  than  natural  variability.'

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf

So while CO2 levels since 1988 have increased by 40%, natural variability can overcome not just global warming, but global warming with an inbuilt 40% increase in CO2 since 1988.

Now that's complex.

lee wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

James Hansen to US Congress 1988 - natural variation cannot explain the warming. 'It  is  nearly  cancelled  by  the  pre-pause  warming  event  (1992‐1998,  return period  30‐40  years); the  pause  is  no  more  than  natural  variability.' http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf So while CO2 levels since 1988 have increased by 40%, natural variability can overcome not just global warming, but global warming with an inbuilt 40% increase in CO2 since 1988. Now that's complex.

wow, lee is really whipping everyones brain into cream  ::)

If the brains are already mush; flagellation will not change the result. ;)