Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


@SandyS, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:33 PM

But "Potato" Ed pointed to a new report by consultants Cornwall Energy, 2 Millennium Plain, Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 1TF

Hmm, Cornwall Energy (alluding to Eden Project?), based in Norfolk - other side of England.

Why name? Why cited by Davey?

Oct 25, 2016 at 12:17 AM | Registered CommenterPcar


Common sense would suggest it is O2 below level we need in what we breath rather than level of CO2 that is most important.

A quick search suggests CO2 > 6% or 60,000 PPM may be a problem for human survival.

As CO2 is so bad, would EM, ACK etc support a ban on extracting and selling naturally sparkling Evian etc? Evian is loved by the naivE.

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:37 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

EM, was it only raff who insisted that ppm was the correct way to express CO2? Some of us here thought percentages would be so much more useful.

As a scuba diver, I am aware of the consequences of raised percentages of CO2. Anyone who has watched the film Apollo 13, will recall how the astronauts started to get snappy and argumentative as CO2 levels rose, and they had to bodge the CO2 scrubbers to fit their capsule. I understand that it was an accurate portrayal of real events.

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, would you like to express dangerous percentages of CO2 in air for human breathing in terms of ppm (parts per million), so that they are in proportion?

400ppm is not scary at all.

Ross Lea, thank you for that, I did not know that the International Space Station maintains CO2 at 1,000ppm. Do you know whether that is because there is no need to use energy to reduce it further?

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sterngate crops up on twitter before maybe something to do with Stern magazine

Oct 24, 2016 at 8:56 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@EM Dung didn't mention Ridley he just mentioned Greening

Oct 24, 2016 at 8:39 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Re. Sterngate. This is really OT. Continued funding will be based on what is promised for the future. This is based on the proposals and by the outputs from previous work done. With a bibliography of several hundred items there is more than enought. The very few contentious items would not affect the outcome.

Some of the criticisms are unjustified. Inclusion of papers not on climate is easily explained. A reseach group will employ young researchers. The roles of the chief investigators is twofold, first to guide the researchers to do the contracted work, but second to encourage them to do things that will help them find continued employment when their current contract ends. Part of this will be to publish past work. Time and maybe other assistance will be offered. When such work is published, the writing up is a legitimate output of the researcher's current employment.

There is no question that in the main example detailed there was some very sharp practice, even illegality.

Oct 24, 2016 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Entropic man
I have been following reports on "Ralph" over at Sunrise's Swansong for quite a while.

Oct 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>