Member Info for Tantalum

Climate change awareness should also include it's uncertainty and while people are obsessing about CO2 the planet continues to be destroyed by chemical pollution, deforestation, the removal of habitats and resource depletion. If CO2 was ignored at the present rate then human race is screwed anyway, There is not a significant environmental problem that would not be substantially alleviated by a serious reduction of the number in the population. CO2 is just a money making sideshow.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/05/02/new-satellite-data-confirm-real-world-temperature-cooler-than-climate-models/

The very monied interests I mentioned who stand to profit by exploiting the climate ''-Crisis'' -
Yes carbon credits taxes, fines and rules make lots of money- 'with added virtue''

Calling people a pratt because you disagree with them is not a reasoned argument, commonplace amongst climate warriors. Any scientific assessment of the issue of global warming or climate change - it's new name since humans are now also accused of causing cooling or warming or both - should be one where the evidence is assessed and conclusions drawn. Errors and statistical probabilities are an essential part of the process. With 'Climate Change' the predictions are just that predictions, based on a computer mode/models. There are also extrapolations of past and current trends, that is somewhat muddled by the leftovers or not of the mini ice age circa 1700 ( or 1450-mid19th) . Predictions like weather forecast are largely unreliable and quite inaccurate - Current published data shows a mean temperature rise of 0.4 degrees this millennium. The current temperatures are below this trend.
Climate change is something that happens all the time, attributing the correct man made factor to the current change is difficult, but is more than likely that there is some, just the amount is vague.
The climate change lobby approach the problem with a evangelical blindness and fervour. The destruction of the eco system undoubtedly goes on but many Climate change theories are more a lifestyle choice than a scientific 'Crisis'.
The real scientific analyses has been taken over and oft corrupted by virtue signallers, political manipulators and monied interests.

Few would have minded a point of view being presented. After myriad 90% negative posts often about the same thing over and over, in my book that's spam. You can call it whatever you like. I never debated anything with him. Some people are on a mission. Leave my ears out of it.

The 'green' people in society are all too often green around the gills. The reality and the rhetoric of the global climate change lobby are quite different. The 'Green' economy worldwide is in the order of 360 billion. Th UN is currently hoping to 'suck' out 100billion from the western economies to kick-start it's green initiatives. This is shortly to be followed up by it's green bonds to raise 76 trillion pounds - over 1 trillion per year to back it's green finance initiative and also to finance it's 'Climate Justice.' Carbon taxes from the west and belt and road type finance from the UN'
It is more clear however that all this is not about the planet, not about the survival of the ecosystem or the people..
It is about $$$ , it is about politics and it is about using green money and regulations to persecute the wrong people and reward the right ones.
The UN migration pact is an integral part of what the UN envisages for the future.
Currently electric vehicles save no one any money nor do they benefit the environment. The environmental footprint of short life time battery technologies is not that good.
Things change and slowly electric vehicles will get better. We are not there yet. People who want to legislate ICE out of existence seem to have a good crystal ball but when it comes to science, the brains of a gnat.
It all about corruption and money. As usual.
Time will only run out when the truth is extinguished.

1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

There are myriads of crazy projections from Scientists:

Paul Ehrlich a professor of Stanford University in the 1970' gave a speech in the UK at The institute of Biolofy he claimed that the UK would be a group of impverished Islands full of Starning people by the year 2000, and may not even exist at all.
January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”
Climate cooling was all the rage in the sixties.
I neither confirm or deny being convinced by either side. I am convinced that people who believe such ludicrous claims adhere to the cult like protestations of the sheep community with the fervour of a religion. I could write a book with all their preposterous 'sure things'.
Before you whinge about fossil fuels on an investment board of fossil fuels you need to get your facts straight and your brain out of the greenhouse.
I apologise to one and all for my off topic (HUR) response to the bleaters.

The protection of the natural world is to be applauded and indeed essential if our children are to survive. Nothing in the Universe is more important.
It is so important that we should be really sure that we are on the right page, with the correct facts and with a good - or better plan.
Climate change is an interesting theory, it may well be true. It is also possible that is irrelevant. I am immensely interested in the protection of the bio-diversity/habitats and factors that affect our planet. In 1972 I wrote a letter to the then PM highlighting the effects of pollution and the ongoing negative effects on ecology. At that point in time I was a voice in the silence.
People are indeed destroying the eco system and continue to do so.
Climate change is the battle cry of the virtue signalling politicians/industrialists that use it as a PR vehicle.
Science cannot with any certainty predict the weather 2 weeks in advance.
Science told us in the 1990's that by 2020 temperatures would rise by 7 degrees and sea levels by 6 metres.
Climate scientists are funded by green organisations that make their money from the fear of Climate change.
People are destroying the planet. It is not fossil fuels that are the principle instrument in this process.
Climate change has been going on since the big bang.
The models used by scientists are clearly unfit for purpose.
Bunkum.

After seeing some speculation about Lewisian Complex , for those who haven't seen it there is some interesting info on the geology of the Rona Ridge ( re the Clare Field) which can be found in a thesis available on line concerning the fractured basement characteristics in that region.
There's quite some useful info or at least some pictures of various samples of Gneiss (big pdf)
at:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3489/

Look Dive I am not interested in the opinion of anti-democratc traitors, fascists or any other kind, since this is weektime, your subversive opinions are off topic and your mouth is best shut.

Regardless of scientific progress, ever increasing population is not sustainable - populations not controlled will expand to a point where hardship exists.
All that will happen is that man will do more and more damage to the world.Eventually we may even damage it to a point where it might no longer support present levels.
Politicians and in particular the UN ignore the elephant in the room and think they can achieve their objective by redistributing people around the world. This will only do more damage. Bacteria populations are an almost exact analogy when put into an hospitable environment. They also expand to the point where they poison themselves.
Mankind must learn or perish.
Tempus fugit

Baysil is the most informative and well researched on this board, he does advance into speculation somewhat like thinking aloud, but that's the style. Not always positive, but mainly so as should anyone invested here must be.
Paid ramper? - no chance.

What does a brexiteer sound like?
By this do you mean he sounds as though he is telling the truth?
Or is it meant as a slight?
It is a completely irrelevant /off topic comment. Please refrain from mindless political jibing on weekdays.

Your swell amplitude is not a simple factor. Waves at sea are often far from simple sinusoids but the summation of many components of differing frequencies , amplitudes and wavefront geometries. While there will be a dominant frequency and a predictable maximum swell the other many complex components add considerable challenges. The frequency 'artifacts' encountered can be many many times that of the dominant frequency.
I.E. not all 2m swells are the same. Some are much more variable than others.

I keep looking in to the board and find people asking what the delay is. A delay is when a schedule is late or a plan modified to a later time.
We are on plan. No delay. We do however wait for a window of opportunity that is expected in time to get Foil as specified in the plan. Weather is variable and hence plans are based on a statistical probability of certain weather occurring. This may be unusual and we may get delayed, but we are not yet at that point and I would expect that within the next four weeks an appropriate opportunity will occur will will leave us within the timeframe we need.
Crystal balls and weather forecasts are never completely reliable.

As a fellow investor, amateur photographer and fellow 5d mkiv + kit owner I congratulate you on some excellent pics taken in hostile conditions.
Thanks.

I plead guilty to 2 lengthy weekend posts regarding oil and the environment. What my view was then is irrelevant as that was weekend and this is weekday. I support Albi1 in hoping that born again global warming ******s can stop posting garbage during the week.
Thanks ever so much..
Where is the AM ? and when can we see oil.?

Yes C Eng - in the UK the majority of plants are CCGT but with a spattering of OCGT and some gas engines, but gas is further degraded by it's fossil partner coal. The average of fossil is probably nearer 50% and electric cars with 75% efficiency yields an overall of 35%, not much better than petrol before you factor in energy costs of the battery. It is certainly ( currently) not very much different electric or petrol. The advantage of electrical is that you can move the pollution out of the town into more rural areas.! Nuclear may have no emissions and some consider clean but the previous inhabitants of Fukishima, three mile Island and Chernobyl didn't much like the dust of radioactive particle emissions.
From a greenhouse gas point of view there is no white knight option except the bicycle , but smaller vehicles like ebikes and scooters use less to begin with.
Greenhouse gases- CO2 may be bad but water vapour can be much much worse and gases used to clean solar cells are many thousands of times worse than CO2.
Does man cause global warming. The answer is probably yes, but is it because we burn fossil fuels or chop down forests like there's no tomorrow? Is this change significant? It depends what you call significant.
Man is destroying the environment. It's why the period we live in is called the Anthropocene. The chemicals we pollute the land and the seas and the air are causing extinctions at an alarming rate. Biocides, herbicides, fertilisers, microplastics, bigger plastics!... we won't need an extra degree or two before we are perfectly capable of destroying the planet in any case. Deforestation, water 'projects' intensive farming are more tools we use to damage the ecosphere. The relationship is really a simple one. More people = more eco destruction. The big danger is not oil - it is procreation with no regard to the limited size of 'our house'.
In the short term however it means a stable or increasing demand for oil and until Mr Fusion comes along a continuing market for oil.
The fossil fuel haters busy with their virtue signalling may however decrease the demand of some institutions for 'tainted shares' while they jet about burning the ozone up.
In the meantime if we want to save the planet giving £2 a month to Cuddle a Duck is just not going to cut it.
I know what oil does. I have no guilt.

Fossil fuels are a power source that in future are likely to have a declining contribution to the overall energy mix generally consumed. That however is not so clear cut as it sounds. ICE ( internal combustion engines). have an efficiency of about 30/33%. Electric cars have an efficiency of about 75% - a figure that varies depending on use/charge etc, just as the efficiency of ICE depends on driving style, octane used etc...
The electric car must be charged and if that power comes from a gas fired power station ( fossil fuel power in the UK is >or= 50% of all power produced- likely to be worse in China I would have thought= they are more coal dependent ) - gas power stations are circa 35% efficient - so electric cars become .35 x .75 or about 27% efficient.
Less than a petrol engine!! ( wait)
Some power is generated from renewable resources let's a assume that this is renewable 50% ( at best). Then only half the energy used in charging is ' not clean'
So petrol engines would be the cleaner option if fossil produces 75% or more of the nations power.
To further complicate matters you have to ask the question - 'are car batteries - consumables?'
A 1KWh battery takes 1000kWh to manufacture.
This represents between 50 and 100 % of the energy it will store and supply in it's lifetime. ( Nissan guarantee 80% capacity after 60K miles - not all cars achieve this - 70% is usually replacement time.)
Half of this energy used in manufacture may be green energy, but it still represents a 25-50% write down of it's 'green credentials".
Clearly under some conditions electric cars will produce more carbon footprint than ICE based cars. - IF you ignore the relative energy cost/carbon footprint of the motive systems in manufacture- which may be considerably different.
Without a thorough analysis of every element that goes into vehicle manufacture and a reasonable base line description of how it is to be used - it is not clear which path represents the least polluting for the environment. The availability of renewable energy will obviously affect the final outcome - although I am sure that some 'green energy' is less green than fossil fuels.
From a power/weight point of view Li ion is a great technology, my shed bristles with suitably powered tools - I also did have a Li ion home made Tesla wall until I realised the batteries were costing me more than grid electric. ( I cheated I used recycled laptop batteries from work)
The future expanding use of oil for plastics and chemical feedstock is likely to match any likely decline in use in transport and power. - not my prediction something I read weeks ago.

The view of a politician. Non membership of the EU hasn't seemed to have dented the viability of the oil industry in Saudi. There is no more an international commodity than oil.
Leave politics off the site during the week it just divides people and wastes our time.

I am sorry, I find your posts most illuminative but in politics naive....
Only 52% said yes.
How many people is acceptable for you? 55%? 65%? 75%?
Governments have been elected with 34%.
We all know what depravity may ensue.
52% seems an abomination to you.
You been watching the BBC too much.