Flamewar on BBC website

James Annan said:

And surprise, several bits of text that you decided not to paste in
actually refer to much warmer areas and shallow lakes. Eg:

Never claimed it didn't but it was you that said we should be talking
about the UK not warmer areas

Quoted message said:

"Shallow reservoirs are bigger problems"

"The WCD, which believes the problem is far more widespread than first
thought, says the reservoirs that appear most at risk are shallow ones
in the tropics which have not been cleared of biomass before they were
flooded.

"It says one particular cause for concern is the Balbina reservoir in
Brazil, which in parts is only four metres deep."

Perhaps we interpret these sentences in different ways. You seem to
interpret shallow and tropical reservoirs being "bigger problems" and
"most at risk" as meaning the only problem and risk. Are you saying
there is zero problem from UK and northern latitude reservoirs?

Quoted message said:

Your words sound like they are describing some IPCC report on GHG
emissions, but the image you linked to is merely a graphic of dammed
area, relating to the paper you cited before (and which was published so
recently that it's unlikely that it has been referred to by the IPCC).
Do you actually think this graphic supports your statements, or did you
cut and paste the wrong url?

Try reading the "source" legend up the right side of the image. I
understand IPCC is seriously considering requiring countries to include
reservoirs and dams in their greenhouse gas emissions calculations.

Some other points: Only one third of plant uptake of CO2 is stored in
the stems and leaves, two thirds is humus in the soil which is washed by
the feeder rivers into the reservoirs.

Reservoirs have finite lifetimes because of sediment accumulation. So
they are not an unexpendable energy resource. Lifetimes vary but many
tens to a couple of hundred years are common estimates.

Sedimentation of silicates in the reservoir may reduce the ocean
biological pump action. Dams have reduced the silicate influx to the
Black Sea by 67% for example and reduced diatomic blooms in the Bay of
Bengal

The September 2000 Special Issue of Bioscience has a good selection of
papers on the subject that are worth reading. The introduction is online
at
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugte133/courses/environs/cuttings/water/hydrolog.pdf

Dams are not the panacea most people think they are.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, davek

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

(which is a contradiction
in terms: how can a nation be a region)

I know I'm asking for trouble here, but...

Is Scotland really a nation?

If there is such a thing as a United Kingdom, what does it unite?

What do you call a territory with its own legal system, its own elected
parliament, its own state church, its own distinct education system and
health service, its own money, its own distinct languages, musical
traditions, architecture?

And it's own monarch? A kingdom.

Quoted message said:

If Scotland, being a constituent nation of the United Kingdom which is
independent in all policy areas not specifically assigned to the union
parliament, is not a nation, then in that sense it the United Kingdom
(which has exactly that relationship with the European Union) a nation?

The UK is a state. Composed of many nations occupying certain kingdoms
and principalities.

Quoted message said:

For my money, Scotland is a nation,

It's a kingdom.

Quoted message said:

England is a nation,

It's a kingdom.

Quoted message said:

Wales is a
nation,

It's a principality

Quoted message said:

Ireland is one, not two, nations,

One nation state and one kingdom which is part of another state.

Quoted message said:

the European Union is a union
of nations,

A union of states.

Quoted message said:

and the United Kingdom is an anachronism washed up by the
tides of history which no longer has any real function but has yet to
realise that it is dead.

The Scots, Welsh, English, and Irish are distinct nations. Nationality
is who, not where, you are.

...d

David Martin said:

Simon Brooke said:

Ireland is one, not two, nations,

One nation state and one kingdom which is part of another state.

Ian Paisley may think he's the king of Northern Ireland, but I think it
is actually a province and he's something else.

JimP

Jim Price said:

David Martin said:

Simon Brooke said:

Ireland is one, not two, nations,

One nation state and one kingdom which is part of another state.

Ian Paisley may think he's the king of Northern Ireland, but I think it
is actually a province and he's something else.

I was basing it on a deduction.
The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Which could be parsed as United Kingdoms of (Great Britain and Northern
Ireland)
or United (Kingdoms of Great Britain) and Northern Ireland

...d

David Martin said:

I was basing it on a deduction.
The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Which could be parsed as United Kingdoms of (Great Britain and Northern
Ireland)
or United (Kingdoms of Great Britain) and Northern Ireland

Except its Kingdom in the singular.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

And surprise, several bits of text that you decided not to paste in
actually refer to much warmer areas and shallow lakes. Eg:

Never claimed it didn't but it was you that said we should be talking
about the UK not warmer areas

But (as was clear from the bits you didn't post) the URL wasn't talking
about the UK!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Shallow reservoirs are bigger problems"

"The WCD, which believes the problem is far more widespread than first
thought, says the reservoirs that appear most at risk are shallow ones
in the tropics which have not been cleared of biomass before they were
flooded.

"It says one particular cause for concern is the Balbina reservoir in
Brazil, which in parts is only four metres deep."

Perhaps we interpret these sentences in different ways. You seem to
interpret shallow and tropical reservoirs being "bigger problems" and
"most at risk" as meaning the only problem and risk. Are you saying
there is zero problem from UK and northern latitude reservoirs?

I don't think anyone said "zero", this seems to be a straw man entirely
of your own making. But given that this URLs also mentioned a ratio of
500:1 for GHG emissions between diferent reservoirs (normalised by power
output) even in the same country, it's clear that even if the large
problems are enough to matter (say, substantially worse than fossil fuel
use), the small problems are going to be pretty insignificant. Eg if the
worst are 50 times worse than fossil fuel, the best are still 10 times
better. And there are obvious and clear reasons why the UK's reservoirs
are going to be at the good end of the range, as is clear from the
various URLs you have cited although not from the sections of text you
chose to paste here. It's hard to see your selectie quotation as
anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your words sound like they are describing some IPCC report on GHG
emissions, but the image you linked to is merely a graphic of dammed
area, relating to the paper you cited before (and which was published
so recently that it's unlikely that it has been referred to by the
IPCC). Do you actually think this graphic supports your statements, or
did you cut and paste the wrong url?

Try reading the "source" legend up the right side of the image.

I still don't see any GHG emissions figures to back up your claims.

Quoted message said:

I
understand IPCC is seriously considering requiring countries to include
reservoirs and dams in their greenhouse gas emissions calculations.

And given the apparent issues in countries like Brazil, this seems like
a sensible enough idea.

Quoted message said:

Some other points: Only one third of plant uptake of CO2 is stored in
the stems and leaves, two thirds is humus in the soil which is washed by
the feeder rivers into the reservoirs.

Reservoirs have finite lifetimes because of sediment accumulation. So
they are not an unexpendable energy resource. Lifetimes vary but many
tens to a couple of hundred years are common estimates.

And of course it's clear that the UK is at the long-lasting end of the
scale (we already have reservoirs that have been going strong for well
over 100 years - of course these are for water, not power). Another case
of Tony attempting to mislead by using global figures which are not
appropriate for the UK.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan said:

It's hard to see your selectie quotation as
anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Quoted message said:

Another case of Tony attempting to mislead by using global figures which are not
appropriate for the UK.

Both of which the pro-helmet lobby accuse me of as well so it must be
true ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

David Martin said:

Simon Brooke said:

Wales is a nation,

It's a principality

Wales hasn't been ruled by a prince for several hundred years.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power
to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty."
-- Edward Korry

James Annan said:

Your approach doesn't mean you are always wrong, but it does make it
essentially impossible to trust your comments on any remotely
controversial subject without detailed checking of the context.

No, I'm always wrong, including now.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

It's hard to see your selectie quotation as anything other than a
deliberate attempt to mislead.

Quoted message said:

Another case of Tony attempting to mislead by using global figures
which are not appropriate for the UK.

Both of which the pro-helmet lobby accuse me of as well so it must be
true ;-)

Your approach doesn't mean you are always wrong, but it does make it
essentially impossible to trust your comments on any remotely
controversial subject without detailed checking of the context.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Your approach doesn't mean you are always wrong, but it does make it
essentially impossible to trust your comments on any remotely
controversial subject without detailed checking of the context.

No, I'm always wrong, including now.

You're not always wrong, just a contrary so and so..

...d

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Your approach doesn't mean you are always wrong, but it does make it
essentially impossible to trust your comments on any remotely
controversial subject without detailed checking of the context.

No, I'm always wrong, including now.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's honest v dishonest.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan said:

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's honest v dishonest.

If posting links to the sources of all the information I quoted so you
could read them yourselves is being dishonest then I guess I am guilty
as charged and your definition of dishonest is different from mine.

But lets summarise the situation;

St Louis et al estimate that reservoirs currently produce 7% of the
global warming potential of all other anthropogenic sources combined.
They further estimate this could increase to 15% through extension of
hydroelectric power development.
(St. Louis VL, Kelly CA, Duchemin E, Rudd JWM, Rosenberg DM. Reservoir
surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: a global
estimate. BioScience 50:766–75.)

WCD have stated "Hydropower cannot, a priori, be automatically assumed
to emit less greenhouse gas than the thermal alternatives. Net emissions
should be established on a case by case basis."

For example the Curua Una reservoir in Brazil (which was the reservoir
quoted as being 3.5 times worse than fossil fuel in the New Scientist
article I posted) outputs 2900mg of CO2 and 65mg of CH4 per square metre
per day while the peatland Lokka reservoir in Finland outputs 2000mg of
CO2 and 79mg of CH4
(St Louis et al as above Table 1)

Temperate reservoir net average output is approx one third the CO2 and
CH4 per sq m of the Curau Una reservoir (St Louis et al Table 1 & 2)

Scottish reservoirs output have not been measured and are unknown.

So if we want to talk honesty, what statements would you like to make
about Scottish or UK reservoirs with original sources please.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Hasn't common law precedent established the right of a citizen to use
public highways?

Is not driving a motorized vehicle a privilege granted by licence?
That's to say, all have the right to travel on public highways*, but
the mode of travel (other than by foot) is not necessarily a right.

That cyclists and equestrians have never been licenced may have
established a right for them. From birth a citizen has the "right" to
ride a bicycle on a public road regardless of the wisdom of babies
attempting to do so.

Any legal minds out there that would care to comment?

* I'm not sure of the status of motorways as public highways. These are
built for a specific class of vehicle and perhaps legally are more like
railway rights of way.

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's honest v dishonest.

If posting links to the sources of all the information I quoted so you
could read them yourselves is being dishonest then I guess I am guilty
as charged and your definition of dishonest is different from mine.

But lets summarise the situation;

St Louis et al estimate that reservoirs currently produce 7% of the
global warming potential of all other anthropogenic sources combined.
They further estimate this could increase to 15% through extension of
hydroelectric power development.
(St. Louis VL, Kelly CA, Duchemin E, Rudd JWM, Rosenberg DM. Reservoir
surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: a global
estimate. BioScience 50:766-75.)

WCD have stated "Hydropower cannot, a priori, be automatically assumed
to emit less greenhouse gas than the thermal alternatives. Net emissions
should be established on a case by case basis."

For example the Curua Una reservoir in Brazil (which was the reservoir
quoted as being 3.5 times worse than fossil fuel in the New Scientist
article I posted) outputs 2900mg of CO2 and 65mg of CH4 per square metre
per day while the peatland Lokka reservoir in Finland outputs 2000mg of
CO2 and 79mg of CH4
(St Louis et al as above Table 1)

You just can't help yourself, can you - no sooner have you found a
study, than you simply have to cherry-pick it.

The very same reference gives a ratio of 10:1 for CO2 equivalent per
square metre, comparing tropical and temperate reservoirs (Table 3).
The fact that you can cherry-pick a flooded Finnish peat bog (clearly
identified as such in the paper) which has large emissions only
indicates that most of the temperate reservoirs must be far better -
the 500:1 ratio suggested elsewhere doesn't seem so far-fetched.
Furthermore, the areally-based figures don't indicate how these
emissions relate to power output, but the problem with Curua Una is
clearly linked to its shallowness which suggests a particularly low
power output in proportion to the area.

Quoted message said:

So if we want to talk honesty, what statements would you like to make
about Scottish or UK reservoirs with original sources please.

Firstly, Simon's statement about "carbon-free" power is not strictly
precise inasmuch as he was referring to hydroelectric power - but note
he was actually talking about the wide range of renewables of which
hydo is but one part, and furthermore his second statement about
generating electricity without burning hydrocarbons is actually
correct.

Secondly, there don't seem to be any measurements of UK reservoirs
(that I have seen) but all the evidence points to them being at the
efficient end of the scale, as regards CO2 equivalent output per power.
That is, they are fairly deep, did not involve flooding of heavily
forested areas, the anually wetted/dried area is small, they are fairly
cold. In fact, it hardly seems a big leap of faith to conclude that
they probably haven't been measured precisely _because_ all the experts
consider it highly likely that the GHG outputs are small enough to not
be interesting. On this last point, I think you can claim to
legitimately disagree. The rest seems indisputable. In any case, your
cherry-picking of inappropriate data seems very clear and you certainly
do not seem to have presented any evidence that GHG emissions from UK
reservoirs are significant.

James

James Annan said:

The very same reference gives a ratio of 10:1 for CO2 equivalent per
square metre, comparing tropical and temperate reservoirs (Table 3).
The fact that you can cherry-pick a flooded Finnish peat bog (clearly
identified as such in the paper) which has large emissions only
indicates that most of the temperate reservoirs must be far better -
the 500:1 ratio suggested elsewhere doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Before you nit-pick on this accidental ambiguity, I didn't mean this
500:1 to be a direct estimate of the amount by which UK reservoirs are
better than the poor ones, but merely an indication of the amount of
variability present, which demonstrates the silliness of cherry-picking
a few poor examples and claiming them to be indicative of the rest.

James

James Annan said:

James Annan said:

The very same reference gives a ratio of 10:1 for CO2 equivalent per
square metre, comparing tropical and temperate reservoirs (Table 3).
The fact that you can cherry-pick a flooded Finnish peat bog (clearly
identified as such in the paper) which has large emissions only

It is perhaps relevant that the boreal forests in Scandinavia (and
I would imagine also Canada and Russia) flood annually, and that
Finland and Sweden are covered naturally in shallow, peaty lakes.
Whatever contribution this ecosystem makes to the atmosphere is
part of the natural balance, unlike the burning of ancient rocks.

Of course, the peat itself is organic matter in the long process
of transition from plant life to fossil fuel. But it's a dynamic
process: it both absorbs and releases carbon.

--
not me guv

David Martin said:

Simon Brooke said:

England is a nation,

It's a kingdom.

Quoted message said:

Wales is a nation,

It's a principality

So the National Assembly of Wales should really be called what? The
Principality Assembly of Wales? I think a Principality needs to ruled
by a Prince, and I haven't heard of Carlo doing much ruling in Wales.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ireland is one, not two, nations,

One nation state and one kingdom which is part of another state.

Nice of you to afford County Kerry its correct status.