Global Warming does it exist, if our planets getting hotter why has it missed here. Is our planet getting wetter ??...It is in our country.
Whats your view on GLOBAL WARMING......can the hole be repaired.

Originally posted by "The Cycleracer"

Global Warming does it exist, if our planets getting hotter why has it missed here. Is our planet getting wetter ??...It is in our country.
Whats your view on GLOBAL WARMING......can the hole be repaired.

No, I don't don't believe in Global Warming at all. The hole is already showing signs of repair. I don't buy into this CFC's either. One Volcanic Eruption releases far more CFC gases than anything else. I dont think it's getting hotter either.

Funny thing is I was going to create a post about this a few weeks ago but it slipped my mind, so I am glad you brought it up.

When the issue surrounding Global Warming first came about, the main concern was the melting of the Polar Ice Caps and the erosion of coastlines. I am yet to see any evidence in any country that this is happening. I realise that this may take years to happen, but I don't see any evidence of any 'warming' either. Surely by now we would be suffering from warmer weather in the winter months, but still, it is cold even in May.
I think that Global Warming is a load of bull, created by the likes of Greenpeace to stop us using CFC Aerosols.

Originally posted by "Hixxy"

When the issue surrounding Global Warming first came about, the main concern was the melting of the Polar Ice Caps and the erosion of coastlines. I am yet to see any evidence in any country that this is happening. I realise that this may take years to happen, but I don't see any evidence of any 'warming' either. Surely by now we would be suffering from warmer weather in the winter months, but still, it is cold even in May.
I think that Global Warming is a load of bull, created by the likes of Greenpeace to stop us using CFC Aerosols.

The sea is breaching the defenses in some places in the UK due to the ice caps melting, water levels seem to be on the rise as a whole. I think these things run in cycles and is nothing to do with Global Warming. We all become extinct as we return to the ice age and then the Sun burns out etc.

The truth is no one knows, it is just personal opinions, these so called EXPERTS give differing versions all the time, over a period of five billion years there has been dramatic climatic changes on this earth and many, many, ice ages. During the last one comparitively recently 200000 years ago the thickness of ice over this country was thirty thousand feet thick. and when it receded it gouged mountains, hills, and valleys out of the landscape.

The experts say there is another one starting now in the arctic regions, but it will take one hundred years to develop. I would advise everyone to take their holidays now before it is too late.!!!!! HA HA. :D :D :D

Due to the co2 emissions, there will be World wide floods and by the year 2020 the sea levels will have risen by seven metres, after that if the co2 isn't reduced, by the year 3000 the sea will have risen by 175 metres. Surely, this is a job for the United Nations and a very urgent one at that, if civilisation is to survive

Originally posted by halevan
Due to the co2 emissions, there will be World wide floods and by the year 2020 the sea levels will have risen by seven metres, after that if the co2 isn't reduced, by the year 3000 the sea will have risen by 175 metres. Surely, this is a job for the United Nations and a very urgent one at that, if civilisation is to survive

It's all down to the fact that no-one in political circles really minds what happens to the earth in twenty years time. The majority of them will either be dead, too old to care, or rich enough to buy somewhere in the mountains to live.

As for the year 3,000, does anyone really care deep down?

Maybe there will be alternatives to living on Earth by the year 3000?

Umm according to the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3607335.stm) it's the year 2350, not 2020. Still time to take swimming lessons.

there is evidence to suggest that the current climate change is not completely unnatural, we are still technically coming out of the last ice age.

More worrying is the North Atlantic Sink, which might just go in the next few years if it carries on slowing. Global warming? Pah! Get out the ski's.

Originally posted by halevan
Due to the co2 emissions, there will be World wide floods and by the year 2020 the sea levels will have risen by seven metres, after that if the co2 isn't reduced, by the year 3000 the sea will have risen by 175 metres. Surely, this is a job for the United Nations and a very urgent one at that, if civilisation is to survive

cool...get my surf board ready :thumbsup:

Surely, this is a job for the United Nations and a very urgent one at that, if civilisation is to survive

Considering some of the things that so called civilisation has done, you still want it to survive?

Someone pass me my club I have dinner to catch

*ug*

Moon

Unga Bunga! Captain Caaaaaaaaaaaaavemaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!

That cartoon rocked!

Originally posted by Tony
More worrying is the North Atlantic Sink,

Don't worry, the short sighted viking will buy it.

Originally posted by halevan
Due to the co2 emissions, there will be World wide floods and by the year 2020 the sea levels will have risen by seven metres,

GREAT!!!!!!

Doncaster a coastal resort. Only 20 miles to travel for a paddle!!!

Originally posted by markham
GREAT!!!!!!

Doncaster a coastal resort. Only 20 miles to travel for a paddle!!!


That is exactly the kind of attitude I HATE. This is an important issue and shouldn't really be trivialised in such a way.

Nice to see you still have your sense of humour t020.

Isn't it bloody obvious I'm joking?!!!!!!!!!! Or rather making light of a bad situation. There's enough doom merchants around without ME becoming one of them!!

If you're that serious about it, turn off your computer, and the rest of the electrics in your BIG house. Then get rid of your flash car(s). Think of how that will help save the environment:loopy:

Hi.

Anyone heard about this new paper in Science? Apparently some scientists essentially made random data sets and fed them into the algorithm that produced the famous hockey stick curve. No matter what the random data set contained a hockey stick shape appeared in the plot of the data. So the conclusion is the original analysis is severely flawed at best. Moreover the origninal analysis did not produce well known features such as the Little Ice Age in the middle ages.

I was a strong supporter of action against global warming, but now one of the central pillars of the argument has been demolished perhaps we have nothing to worry about? Though all this pollution may not be such a great idea anyway...

Anyone more expert about this and can comment?

Was reading this:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102704F.html

which is based on the new paper published in Science.

Yes, could the doom theorists please form two orderly lines so we can see which side they're on please?

In the red corner, we have the Lobster-Pot Party, who say the seas will expand as a direct result of heating, causing floods of biblical proportions.

In the blue corner, the Ice Brigade tell us that melting polar ice will result in cold water being dumped into the gulf stream, leading to global glaciation.

It's very confusing you know, not knowing whether I'm supposed to boil to death or freeze. Shall I get better heating for next winter, or better air conditioning? :confused:

We've only been studying weather patterns for 150 years. How they can go so serious on the Global Warming as though it's straight up fact is beyond me. However the pollution and factors that supposedly cause it are dangers in themselves, and things like the Kyoto treaty would do us a world of good. After all, the pollution causes asthma and acid rain among other things, so we should cut down whether global warming is real or no.

It always makes me laugh when they talk about evidence of glomal warming and say things like "this winter was the coldest for 15 years". So global warming was worse 15 years ago than it is now then? Or are you just making it up?

Like noseyrosie says, even if we have the coldest weather since records began, it hardly suggests that the climate is returning to how it was 10,000 years ago.

There was an instance of -20 degrees in this country during the war.

What global warming? I favour the theory about peaks and troughs in our climate temperatures brought on by our wobbly course through the universe.

I don't like the fact that there seems to be more UV than in the seventies. If you don't wear shades when it's sunny now, everything is too bright and washed-out looking :confused:

I'm happy to believe that the UV and Warming are separate issues for now - until I hear some info that actually links the two.

I was under the impression that the slowing of the North Atlantic Sink was a proven matter of fact?

If so - we really are in trouble!

Originally posted by Tony
I was under the impression that the slowing of the North Atlantic Sink was a proven matter of fact?

If so - we really are in trouble!
:confused: Okay, I'll admit to blondness on this one

It's the only thing that keeps us warm!

We are on the same latitude as Moscow, and the only thing keeping us from having the same climate is the NAS. Basically, cool salty water from the N Atlantic sinks to the bottom of the ocean off Greenland / Iceland, drawing up warm water and air currents from the equator - commonly known as the Jetstream. It's sort of like a conveyor belt, with the NAS being the engine.

Common belief is that global warming will cause the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt more freshwater into the N Atlantic, slowing the NAS. The theory goes that we are now close to a point of no return on the Ice Sheet melt. Once it starts, that's it. Literally!

So... with the ultimate irony, the effects of global warming aren't nice balmy summers, but -20 degree summers.

This scientific paper (http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/documents/Corell_Testimony.pdf) might be a bit scary, but it is very informative.

Cheers Tony. I did know the story after all, just not it's title. ;) I got loads of cheap Canadian ski wear last time there was a problem with cold fresh water meddling with the gulf stream :D

Originally posted by tslogf74
It always makes me laugh when they talk about evidence of glomal warming and say things like "this winter was the coldest for 15 years". So global warming was worse 15 years ago than it is now then? Or are you just making it up?

Like noseyrosie says, even if we have the coldest weather since records began, it hardly suggests that the climate is returning to how it was 10,000 years ago.

Just because locally in britain you had a cold snap does not mean the overall global temperature has not risen. Part of global warming is that overall the globe warms but in some places it will get colder, not hotter. At least that is what I understand is the jist of it.

Maybe slightly off the main question posed by the thread but none the less connected with the so-called "threat" of global warming.

How can polar ice melting cause the level of the oceans to rise when frozen water (ice) actually has a larger mass than liquid water? From what we know, about 90% of an iceberg's mass is hidden below the water. How then can scientists tell us that the relatively small amount above the water line melting will result in such a massive increase in the levels of our oceans? Surely an iceberg's displacement of water coupled with its larger mass would result in one effectively cancelling out the other if polar ice were to melt.

Originally posted by JonJParr

How can polar ice melting cause the level of the oceans to rise when frozen water (ice) actually has a larger mass than liquid water? From what we know, about 90% of an iceberg's mass is hidden below the water. How then can scientists tell us that the relatively small amount above the water line melting will result in such a massive increase in the levels of our oceans? Surely an iceberg's displacement of water coupled with its larger mass would result in one effectively cancelling out the other if polar ice were to melt.

Well for one, 10% of a lot is still quite a lot.....
Also I think one of the other factors is the expansion of liquid water under heating.
Yes liquid water at zero degrees does take up less space than frozen water at zero degrees, but liquid water does expand on heating.

And also a lot of the frozen water is on Antarctica, which is a land mass, so all that melted ice would add to the sea level.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Maybe slightly off the main question posed by the thread but none the less connected with the so-called "threat" of global warming.

How can polar ice melting cause the level of the oceans to rise when frozen water (ice) actually has a larger mass than liquid water? From what we know, about 90% of an iceberg's mass is hidden below the water. How then can scientists tell us that the relatively small amount above the water line melting will result in such a massive increase in the levels of our oceans? Surely an iceberg's displacement of water coupled with its larger mass would result in one effectively cancelling out the other if polar ice were to melt.

At least in antartica the ice is on land so if it melts it will increase water levels because all the meltwater will run off into the sea...guess that cant apply to the north pole though since it is all florating on water.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Well for one, 10% of a lot is still quite a lot.....
Also I think one of the other factors is the expansion of liquid water under heating.
Yes liquid water at zero degrees does take up less space than frozen water at zero degrees, but liquid water does expand on heating.

And also a lot of the frozen water is on Antarctica, which is a land mass, so all that melted ice would add to the sea level.

But when water freezes it expands rapidly adding about 9% by volume and has a maximum density at about 4 degrees celcius. Given that the average temperature of seawater in Antarctica is between 2-3 degrees celcius it just doesn't seem to add up.

Originally posted by JonJParr
But when water freezes it expands rapidly adding about 9% by volume and has a maximum density at about 4 degrees celcius. Given that the average temperature of seawater in Antarctica is between 2-3 degrees celcius it just doesn't seem to add up.

The ice in antartica is on land, not in the water. So if it melts it flows into the sea and adds to the volume of the sea, just like if you hang large ice blocks over your bath and allow them to melt the bath water will increase in volume as the melted ice drips into the bath.

Yes Antarctica and the Arctic ocean are two seperate issues. The rising of sea levels to a disastrous extent for us in the UK is quite a medium to long term issue.

But remember its not the same for everyone in the developing world - for instance there are islands in the pacific that are just 3 metres above sea level at their highest point, and countries like Bangladesh that are incredibly vulnerable to flooding.

And of course water levels is not the only issue, the whole ecosystem is not necessarily going to be able to cope with sudden (in ecological terms) temperature rises.

Yes its a complicated issue and I think it is fair to say that noone is exactly sure how the Earth will be affected by global warming.

I think the debate about global warming is not whether it is happening, but how quickly is it happening, and how much is human civilisation to blame, and how much of a threat it is to the ecosystem.

Originally posted by nightrider
Just because locally in britain you had a cold snap does not mean the overall global temperature has not risen. Part of global warming is that overall the globe warms but in some places it will get colder, not hotter. At least that is what I understand is the jist of it.

Yes I know that. My point was that it's a rather stochastic observation.

Do you think at this G8 Sumit people should also be protesting about Americans effort to get involved with signing up to the Kyoto treaty and the non-effort they are making to Global warming. This has a knock on effect as is africa can't grow the food they eat because of it. How are you going to makr poverty and starvation history.

hasn't Bush already said that he wont sin any Kyoto type agreement? It is on the agenda I think.

However, global warming may help Africa

If we don't have a real winter soon, I might start to get worried. This country is turning into an awful place to live when it comes to weather. We have months and months of mild weather, where the skys are often grey and there are frequent showers.

Seriously, what happened to the seasons?!?

If you want to see evidence there's loads of sites about this on the web. The planet is heating up. There's no debate there.

NM

Indeed, the question is whether the huge rate of increase of CO2 emissions has anything to do with it.

The trouble with planetary climatic systems is that they are notoriously difficult to predict.

Things are definately getting warmer

You only have to look at the current hurricane season in the usa to see the effects of globalwarming. The rise in sea teps around the world is there for everyone to see. The rise in sea temps is feeding energy into these storms at an alarming rate increasing there strength to incredible force.Also flooding and drought around the world are at record levels and even given the up and down climate of the earth over the past thousand or ten thousand years these changes are happening so quick that even the GW issue is now not up for debate.

Global warming is an interesting one. I've noticed from reading a couple of other forums/boards (shock! :)) populated mostly by Americans that generally they really don't believe in it. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the oil companies controlling the country and goverment though! Compare it if you will to the ongoing debates on evolution/intelligent design...

Here's an interesting quote that I'd offer up courtesy of slashdot, suggesting that the scientific view is definitely in favour of the theory:

"Well, here's an interesting one: the fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise."

I'm rather dubious of any evidence suggested by anecdotal evidence such as "the winters are warm these days" though!

The records of weather and climate study don't go back far enough to give a definite answer.

The weather seems to be in a mess at the minute (ie for the last 10-25 years) but aren't we supposed to be in a cycle where this happens?

However, I do believe there is a big waste in energy and we could do more to look after the planet. Landfill sites are a big concern of mine and, no doubt, Abduls judging from his posts on here.

Well its a bit too complex a thing for me to go into full detail about Global at this time, but I will doing doing a feature on my Web Site about the subject.

All I will say is there's alot of misinformation about Gloabl Warming due to alot of researchers recieving grants from companies who like their pesonal views attached to the reports.

One thing I will say is without Global Warming we'd all be dead, or freezing but there is a fine line which I will go into more detail on my website.

So anyone talking about irradicating Global Warming does not fully understand the phenomenon.

I have just finished a book by Michael Crichton called "State of Fear" all about global warming or the lack of it. The story is made up and in his usual style but nearly every other page has quotes/references from real research papers backing up the story. It completely changed my view on global warming, If you look at the facts in context you can easily show a decrease in temperature and little to no rise in sea levels over a sensible period.

Originally posted by rich951
I'm rather dubious of any evidence suggested by anecdotal evidence such as "the winters are warm these days" though!

So am I, but, it did seem to snow more when I was a kid, the last couple of winters have been crap (snow-wise) and quite warm/wet.

Over hundreds of millions of years (which is a really, really long time) volcanos spewed out CO2, ancient plants used this up and died, their remains eventually became huge seams of coal and resevoirs of oil far below our feet.

If we dig up and burn (releasing all the CO2) a significant part of what was laid down over millions of years surely something is going to change. We can't put it back you know.

Maybe technology will keep us alive but the world might not be as we knew it.

Interesting times...

OK, I just had a scary thought.

If all the aid movements succeed, and we bring a large proportion of the "third world" out (or more out) of poverty than they are, it would be crazy to expect them not to have massive industrial revolutions, pouring many many many pollutants into our already fragile ecosystem.
It is common knowledge that China is one of the major pollutants of the world due to its belated technological revolutions, and lax laws etc.

Therefore these nations would become a breeding ground for dodgy industry, and would only help the warming of our earth spiral out of control, killing (possibly) thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES?!?!

discuss.

It is a fair point. I think however, the plan is to sell all the natural resources at steep prices to these nations ;)

where is the biggest market to attract new smokers?

China.

these western corporations who promote dubious products target these kind of countries.

we will no doubt exploit fully these developping nations.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES?!?! yeah **** em!

Originally posted by robbie
fully these developping nations.

Well said.

It'll just be a repeat of when we officially colonised them.

Originally posted by Carl_Malibu
OK, I just had a scary thought.

If all the aid movements succeed, and we bring a large proportion of the "third world" out (or more out) of poverty than they are, it would be crazy to expect them not to have massive industrial revolutions, pouring many many many pollutants into our already fragile ecosystem.
It is common knowledge that China is one of the major pollutants of the world due to its belated technological revolutions, and lax laws etc.

Therefore these nations would become a breeding ground for dodgy industry, and would only help the warming of our earth spiral out of control, killing (possibly) thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES?!?!

discuss.

This is really a long long long way off. And I don't actually see it as a big problem. In the case of China, I wouldn't call it a third world country. But a developing country. There is a big difference.

I'm sorry but I don't like your last statement about having that on your conscience when you give to charity. Most charities that aid third world countries are saving lives and creating livelihoods. Thats a long way off from a country becoming an industrialised nation.

Charities in the third world to my knowledge focus on things like clean water, creating sustainable projects to provide a livelihood (largely agricultural in origin) and preventing disease, improving education etc.
Charities that work in the third world deal with survival and severe poverty, these nations are not suddenly going to turn into industrial giants, due to giving to charity.

When third world countries eventually develop they may not necessarily take the industrial root. Many third world countries have very rich natural resources that will become priceless in many years to come and the tide may turn.

Besides just because a country becomes industrialised does not necessarily mean they will be polluting. As I have seen in some developing countries they employ the latest modern clean technology, often less polluting than in so called first world countries.

A Chinese friend of mine recently visited an industrial area outside Shanghai which was set up by European and Chinese companies.

She noticed there wasn't anyone amongst the Chinese workers wearing spectacles.

The Chinese guide told her, "The company does not employ 'Flawed people' and if anyone become 'flawed' during their employment, the company released them, you must understand there are thousands of people out there waiting to fill these jobs".

We in the West complain about human rights of the individual such as Fatism, Ageism and handicaps but I'm afraid that some of Western companies are exploiting the developing countries by going along with their low standards in human rights by ignoring them.

I wonder if this is the definition of a 'Developing Country' or is it 'The Things To Come'.


Bad Days!

It's also a plain fact that some third world nations are kept in poverty by their selfish rulers while their country sits on a fortune of natural resources. This situation is forever perpetuated by western governments who continue to sell them arms. And thus these contries are forever in a state of war or civil war, while the majority of their populations starve.

If they had a generation of rulers who had the vision to see a decade into the future and could change this and start making good use of the minerals which could be mined or at least get some decent roads built, then the whole of their country would benefit.

While charity stops a handful of people starving and provides a few lucky people with fresh water, schooling and basic immunisation, the only way to combat poverty is to create decent and fair government. So that an economy can emerge and bring the country into a modern age where commerce with the rest of the world can generate weath for the citizens, and educate them so they can help themselves.

We had a woman (very smiley woman) come into work on friday and sit at our desks. She had a book full of charities and was trying to get us to subscribe there and then on the spot and have it deducted from our wages :o

I explained that if I choose to give to charities I will do it directly and not have it deducted from my salary.

If every charity that had approached me in the last year took the cash directly from my salary/bank I probably would need to start my own charity to pay the rent!

I recently re-read 'Small is Beautiful' as part of some research I'm doing for a project I want to set up soemtime. It's not dated brilliantly well, but teh underlying ideas of appropriate technology for the job in hand is probably even more valid today.

There's an interesting story in there about how western 'aid' goes terminally pear shaped if we don't take care. A country grows cotton. So, why not build a factory to take the cotton, turn it in to thread, make clothes. Creates a local economy, jobs, whatever.

So, the country gets in equipment for the factory - costs oodles, all money flowing out of the country. Experts come in to help - you've guessed it - educated and supplied from outside the area. Then comes the real pisser....the local cotton is of the wrong sort (fibres too short, I think) to be actually USED in all this kit....so......

They import cotton. Then use that to create clothes which are then exported, again at great cost. The result is that the amount of money made by this factory is too low to keep it open and it shuts down. People have come in to the area where the factory was built to work there, and they now have no work, and are a load on the local economy - slums, etc. result. The countries who gave the aid see the money's gone in, and they're happy. The people who flogged the machinery - they're happy - they get paid. It's great for everyone except the poor buggers at the bottom.

Whilst governmental change is great, in many places it's not going to happen. The best thing we can do is to help PEOPLE in these developing areas work out their own problems from the bottom up. Help them by providing knowledge and technqiues that work WITH their local needs and resources, rather than against them. You can't stick western approaches to problem solving and industrial development in to these situations.

And it's not just overseas - look at 'economic development' in depressed areas of the UK. But that's another topic.... :)

Appropriate technology, bottom up developments, small seed money direct to the point of need, utilising local resources and people, with knowledge of what's worked elsewhere, and with minimum intervention from the 'big noises'. That's what I believe is required - the project I'm currently working up is to do with applying this approach both overseas and in the UK.

Joe

Originally posted by PopT
A Chinese friend of mine recently visited an industrial area outside Shanghai which was set up by European and Chinese companies.

She noticed there wasn't anyone amongst the Chinese workers wearing spectacles.

The Chinese guide told her, "The company does not employ 'Flawed people' and if anyone become 'flawed' during their employment, the company released them, you must understand there are thousands of people out there waiting to fill these jobs".

We in the West complain about human rights of the individual such as Fatism, Ageism and handicaps but I'm afraid that some of Western companies are exploiting the developing countries by going along with their low standards in human rights by ignoring them.

I wonder if this is the definition of a 'Developing Country' or is it 'The Things To Come'.


Bad Days!

I assume you've come across 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein?

Next time you see a pair of designer trainers, just remember how they're made!

Even our computers feature chips and components that may have been manufactured in countries by Western companies using manufacturing techniques that they'd have difficulties getting away with in the UK, US or EC.

Joe

interestingly just about all computer components come out of singapore now. the three major RAM factories are based there, and if they were so inclined they could hold the technological world to ransom.

But my original point about industrial revolutions seems to have been somewhat overlooked?

Originally posted by Carl_Malibu
interestingly just about all computer components come out of singapore now. the three major RAM factories are based there, and if they were so inclined they could hold the technological world to ransom.

But my original point about industrial revolutions seems to have been somewhat overlooked?

If we can encourage developing nations to take their own path to development, that suits their situation, and not rely on following the western path, then it's posisble that we might be able to avoid the problems.

For example - China - if they need to use coal for energy then assist them with more efficient coal burning technology and energy saving technologies.

If a country in sub-saharan africa needs to develop energy for communities, help them develop solar based projects.

You can't hold back development - China, for example, will do what ever it needs to do to become an economic powerhouse. What we have to do is work to reduce the impact.

Joe

Originally posted by Carl_Malibu
OK, I just had a scary thought.

If all the aid movements succeed, and we bring a large proportion of the "third world" out (or more out) of poverty than they are, it would be crazy to expect them not to have massive industrial revolutions, pouring many many many pollutants into our already fragile ecosystem.
It is common knowledge that China is one of the major pollutants of the world due to its belated technological revolutions, and lax laws etc.

Therefore these nations would become a breeding ground for dodgy industry, and would only help the warming of our earth spiral out of control, killing (possibly) thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES?!?!

discuss.

I found this thread to be extremely interesting.

As bad as it sounds, we can't afford anymore Countries joining the industrial revolution. The age of Oil is coming to its end as it is. Then the Global Warming issue as you say, will escalate. The only charitable thing to do for any nation now, is to both powerdown and allow the population to naturally decrease.

Incidently my personal Charity work is, I try not to buy any Chinese produced products. I try to do this with other products made were peoples working rights are abbused. People power is the best way to solve a problem, if we stopped buying their products, let them know why, then they'd soon change their policies.

You don't just have to give money to do the charitable thing :clap: remember alot of people make themselves comfortable lives out of charities, whilst some really do care. Some are in it for the money:rant: .

The West has had its industrial revolution, so why can't other areas of the world have their revolutions too!

Besides by the time more countries become industrialised there will be cleaner forms of technology and power sources. So it doesn't necessarily mean more pollution.

Hydro-electric power, solar power, wind power are all alternatives that may well be relied on in the future, as well as far more efficient fuel use. By the time many countries start to industrialise the fuel efficiency will be many times that of when the West industrialised in the nineteenth century. And this is always improving.

But why does progress only have to be in the industrial form. Many third world countries have a wealth of agricultural and mineral resources that are not fully exploited. All that is required is the foundations to build these into working providers of GNP.

Many third world countries such as those in sub-saharan Africa rely on an agricultural economy. But they remain poor due to unfair trade within the world economy. Because Western farmers are subsidised and protected from price changes. Whilst those in Africa are not. So they are unable to compete.

Buy FairTrade!

My family are not buying Christmas presents this year. We are all going to buy each other things from the Oxfam catalogue, where you can by a goat, donkey or school supplies etc.

but developping countries cannot afford to invest in clean power. Dirty power is much cheaper and in fast growing economies they need lots and lots of quick resource.

but the trade issue is wrong.

we opened trade up in Africa and suddently traditional African farmers could not compete with vastly more efficient western counterparts.

so "fair trade" doesn't work.

the only way it would work if you are biased towards the poor and small producers.

Actually, Robbie, it's often cheaper for developing nations to use some form or renewable energy if you consider the total life cost of the facilities.

Also, it's not essential that all industries and economic processes in developing countries are manufacturing, and even then not all manufacturing industries are vast consumers of energy.

A country like China will want to cement it's status as an emergent superpower by building a heavy industrial and consumer infrastructure. Other countries may be happy just to feed, educate and house their people.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Other countries may be happy just to feed, educate and house their people.

Joe

Where are these paradise countries, Joe? Outer space? ;)

All governments appear to be into self-aggrandisement at the expense of their people. (Except maybe Cuba :) )

StarSparkle

Originally posted by JoeP
Actually, Robbie, it's often cheaper for developing nations to use some form or renewable energy if you consider the total life cost of the facilities.

Also, it's not essential that all industries and economic processes in developing countries are manufacturing, and even then not all manufacturing industries are vast consumers of energy.

A country like China will want to cement it's status as an emergent superpower by building a heavy industrial and consumer infrastructure. Other countries may be happy just to feed, educate and house their people.

Joe

but in order to utilise green power it takes a hell of a lot of investment to produce enough for the needs of everyone.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Where are these paradise countries, Joe? Outer space? ;)

All governments appear to be into self-aggrandisement at the expense of their people. (Except maybe Cuba :) )

StarSparkle

talk about showing your true colours! ;) :D

Originally posted by robbie
talk about showing your true colours! ;) :D

:confused:

Not quite sure what you're getting at there, Robbie.....

I don't believe I've ever tried to hide my beliefs.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by robbie
but in order to utilise green power it takes a hell of a lot of investment to produce enough for the needs of everyone.

But Robbie, you're assuming that every nation will need the same per capita use of energy as we in the West do. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

Much of our energy consumption in the West is consumer lifestyle driven. Much of the population of the world is at a place where having clean drinking water is more of an issue that having an X-Box 360.

Realistically, we're never going to be in a position where 6 billion people on the planet have the lifestyle of the energy guzzling US, for example.

This is why earlier on I used the word 'appropriate'.

The improvement in living standards that can be obtained by relatively small increases in energy availability in developing nations is vast - it's energy for pumping, which can often be sourced from solar panels and storage batteries. It's energy for night lighting and radio / TV - which again in many villages is easy to produce.

The majority of the population of the world are not going to make the 'great leap forward' in to economic overdrive that people seem to fear. They're going to potter along for decades to come.

Also, progress and economic growth is not necessarily the best option for any society or country - sometimes, holding steady at a sensible place might be the best for the people.

The issues around this topic aren't just ecological and economic - they're cultural and philosophical as well.

Joe

Originally posted by StarSparkle
:confused:

Not quite sure what you're getting at there, Robbie.....

I don't believe I've ever tried to hide my beliefs.

StarSparkle

Sorry, just joking. Made me laugh when you mentioned Cuba :)

Originally posted by JoeP
But Robbie, you're assuming that every nation will need the same per capita use of energy as we in the West do. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

Much of our energy consumption in the West is consumer lifestyle driven. Much of the population of the world is at a place where having clean drinking water is more of an issue that having an X-Box 360.

Realistically, we're never going to be in a position where 6 billion people on the planet have the lifestyle of the energy guzzling US, for example.

This is why earlier on I used the word 'appropriate'.

The improvement in living standards that can be obtained by relatively small increases in energy availability in developing nations is vast - it's energy for pumping, which can often be sourced from solar panels and storage batteries. It's energy for night lighting and radio / TV - which again in many villages is easy to produce.

The majority of the population of the world are not going to make the 'great leap forward' in to economic overdrive that people seem to fear. They're going to potter along for decades to come.

Also, progress and economic growth is not necessarily the best option for any society or country - sometimes, holding steady at a sensible place might be the best for the people.

The issues around this topic aren't just ecological and economic - they're cultural and philosophical as well.

Joe

but let's be realistic.

developping nations with growing economies are going to go for the cheapest and most available option ahead of any other considerations. They just happen top be the dirtiest as well.

Originally posted by robbie
Sorry, just joking. Made me laugh when you mentioned Cuba :)

ok, I'll let you off this time, comrade! ;) :D

StarSparkle :)

Originally posted by robbie
but developping countries cannot afford to invest in clean power. Dirty power is much cheaper and in fast growing economies they need lots and lots of quick resource.

but the trade issue is wrong.

we opened trade up in Africa and suddently traditional African farmers could not compete with vastly more efficient western counterparts.

so "fair trade" doesn't work.

the only way it would work if you are biased towards the poor and small producers.

Fairtrade does work, it transforms lives for those involved.
It just needs to be implemented on a wider scale.

As I see it trade is biased already towards European farmers and large producers. Why can there not be a balance.

Some developing countries can afford to invest in clean power sources.
Papua New Guinea is almost completely powered by hydro-electric power. In the remote areas, solar power is used to charge batteries as
a power source.
Tanzania also gets a lot of its electricity from hydro-electric.

I do not see why other developing countries can not follow suit, as these methods of power are sustainable.

Originally posted by robbie
but let's be realistic.

developping nations with growing economies are going to go for the cheapest and most available option ahead of any other considerations. They just happen top be the dirtiest as well.

I am being realistic - if you want a 20kw power generating setup for a village in the middle of nowhere, a windmill or small hydro project might well be the cheapest bet.

Also, many modern power station designs are more efficient and cheaper than the infrastructure we have. Developing nations will be able to buy better kit than we have, cheaper. This has happened in various fields of engineering - telephone systems, etc.

There's also the issue of powering these set ups - whilst China has coal, oil and gas other developing nations have none, so unless they plan importing the stuff they'd again be better off looking at renewable sources of energy that are appropriate for the job in hand.

Joe

what I'm trying to say that whist using wind turbines or sea power (and a lot of Asia is great for this) is good on a small scale it cannot realistically be used to supply power to a huge number of people.

In order to set up this clean power it is necessarily to invest heavily before you see any success. If a developping nation is desperate for power imo they will undoubtebly use the quickest option (assuming they have the resources)

Originally posted by robbie
what I'm trying to say that whist using wind turbines or sea power (and a lot of Asia is great for this) is good on a small scale it cannot realistically be used to supply power to a huge number of people.

In order to set up this clean power it is necessarily to invest heavily before you see any success. If a developping nation is desperate for power imo they will undoubtebly use the quickest option (assuming they have the resources)

Which comes back to my comment about the in built assumption to what you say that these people will need the same amount of energy that we in the West do. It's likely that they won't.

It's not likely that everyone in the developing world will have a per-capita energy requirement like that of the US, and it should be posisble for us in the West to reduce what we use.

I see what you're saying but I don't believe that it's posisble to base emissions predictions on assuming the rest of the world will produce and consume energy in the same way we do.

Joe

Originally posted by robbie
what I'm trying to say that whist using wind turbines or sea power (and a lot of Asia is great for this) is good on a small scale it cannot realistically be used to supply power to a huge number of people.

In order to set up this clean power it is necessarily to invest heavily before you see any success. If a developping nation is desperate for power imo they will undoubtebly use the quickest option (assuming they have the resources)

Countries like China may opt for quickest possible sources of energy for economic growth.

In Sudan however where they have a large oil resource they are in the process of planning for the Merowe/Hamadab Dam, which will supply a sustainable energy resource for economic growth.

The False Promissed Land "Hydrogen Economy".

The energy-literate scoff at perpetual motion, free energy, and cold fusion, but what about the hydrogen economy? Before we invest trillions of dollars, let's take a hydrogen car out for a spin. You will discover that hydrogen is the least likely of all the alternative energies to solve our transportation problems. Hydrogen uses more energy than you get out of it. The only winners in the hydrogen scam are large auto companies receiving billions of dollars via the FreedomCAR Initiative to build hydrogen vehicles. And most importantly, the real problem that needs to be solved is how to build hydrogen trucks, so we can plant, harvest, and deliver food and other goods.

Hydrogen Economy - Energy & Economic Black Hole

Making it

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source – it’s an energy carrier, like a battery. You have to make it and put energy into it, both of which take energy. Hydrogen has been used commercially for decades, so at least we don't have to figure out how to do this, or what the cheapest, most efficient method is.

Ninety-six percent of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, mainly to refine oil and hydrogenate vegetable oil--the kind that gives you heart attacks (1). In the United States, ninety percent of hydrogen is made from natural gas, with an efficiency of 72% (2). Efficiency is how much energy you get back compared with how much energy you started out with. So an efficiency of seventy-two percent means you've lost 28% of the energy contained in the natural gas to make hydrogen. And that doesn’t count the energy it took to extract and deliver the natural gas to the hydrogen plant.

Only four percent of hydrogen is made from water. This is done with electricity, in a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen is only made from water when the hydrogen must be extremely pure. Most electricity is generated from fossil fuel driven plants that are, on average, 30% efficient. Where does the other seventy percent of the energy go? Most is lost as heat, and some as it travels through the power grid.

Electrolysis is 70% efficient. To calculate the overall efficiency of making hydrogen from water, the standard equation is to multiply the efficiency of each step. In this case you would multiply the 30% efficient power plant times the 70% efficient electrolysis to get an overall efficiency of 20%. This means you have used four units of energy to create one unit of hydrogen energy (3).

Obtaining hydrogen from fossil fuels as a feedstock or an energy source is a bit perverse, since the whole point is to avoid using fossil fuels. The goal is to use renewable energy to make hydrogen from water via electrolysis.

Current wind turbines can generate electricity at 30-40% efficiency, producing hydrogen at an overall 25% efficiency (.35 wind electricity * .70 electrolysis of water), or 3 units of wind energy to get 1 unit of hydrogen energy. When the wind is blowing, that is.

The best solar cells available on a large scale have an efficiency of ten percent when the sun is shining, or nine units of energy to get 1 hydrogen unit of energy (.10 * .70). But that’s not bad compared to biological hydrogen. If you use algae that make hydrogen as a byproduct, the efficiency is about .1%, or more than 99 units of energy to get one hydrogen unit of energy (4).

No matter how you look at it, producing hydrogen from water is an energy sink. If you don't understand this concept, please mail me ten dollars and I'll send you back a dollar.

Hydrogen can be made from biomass, but then these problems arise (5):

* Biomass is very seasonal
* Contains a lot of moisture, requiring energy to store and then dry it before gasification
* There are limited supplies
* The quantities are not large or consistent enough for large-scale hydrogen production.
* A huge amount of land would be required, since even cultivated biomass in good soil has a low yield -- 10 tons of biomass per 2.4 acres
* The soil will be degraded from erosion and loss of fertility if stripped of biomass
* Any energy put into the land to grow the biomass, such as fertilizers, planting, and harvesting will add to the energy costs
* Energy and costs to deliver biomass to the central power plant
* It’s not suitable for pure hydrogen production

One of the main reasons for switching to hydrogen is to prevent the global warming caused by fossil fuels. When hydrogen is made from natural gas, nitrogen oxides are released, which are 58 times more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide (6). Coal releases large amounts of CO2 and mercury. Oil is too powerful and useful to waste on hydrogen–it’s concentrated sunshine brewed over hundreds of millions of years. A gallon of gas represents about 196,000 pounds of fossil plants, the amount in 40 acres of wheat (7).

Natural gas is too valuable to make hydrogen with. One use of natural gas is to create fertilizer (as both feedstock and energy source). This has led to a many-fold increase in crop production, allowing an additional 4 billion people to exist who otherwise wouldn’t be here (8, 9).

We also don’t have enough natural gas left to make a hydrogen economy happen. Extraction of natural gas is declining in North America (10). It will take at least a decade to even begin replacing natural gas with imported LNG (liquified natural gas). Making LNG is so energy intensive that it would be economically and environmentally insane to use natural gas as a source of hydrogen (3).

Putting energy into hydrogen

No matter how it’s been made, hydrogen has no energy in it. Hydrogen is the lowest energy dense fuel on earth (5). At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up three thousand more times space than gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy (3). To put energy into hydrogen, it must be compressed or liquefied. To compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi is a multi-stage process that will lose an additional 15% of the energy contained in the hydrogen.

If you liquefy hydrogen, you will be able to get more hydrogen energy into a smaller container, but you will lose 30-40% of the energy in the process. Handling hydrogen requires extreme precautions because hydrogen is so cold – minus 423 F. Fueling is typically done mechanically with a robot arm (3).

Storage

The more you compress hydrogen, the smaller the tank can be. But as you increase the pressure, you also have to increase the thickness of the steel wall, and hence the weight of the tank. Cost increases with pressure. At 2000 psi, it’s $400 per kg. At 8000 psi, it’s $2100 per kg (5). And the tank will be huge -- at 5000 psi, the tank could take up ten times the volume of a gasoline tank containing the same energy content.

That’s why it would be nice to use liquid hydrogen, which allows you to have a much smaller container. But these storage tanks get cold enough to cause plugged valves and other problems. If you add insulation to prevent this, you will increase the weight of an already very heavy storage tank. There are additional components to control the liquid hydrogen which add extra costs and weight (11).

Here’s how a hydrogen tank stacks up against a gas tank in a Honda Accord.

According to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA), "Vehicle weight reduction is probably the most powerful technique for improving fuel economy. Each 10 percent reduction in weight improves the fuel economy of a new vehicle design by approximately eight percent”.

Fuel cells are also heavy: "A metal hydride storage system that can hold 5 kg of hydrogen, including the alloy, container, and heat exchangers, would weigh approximately 300 kg (661 lbs), which would lower the fuel efficiency of the vehicle," according to Rosa Young, a physicist and vice president of advanced materials development at Energy Conversion Devices in Troy, Michigan (12).

Fuel cells are expensive. In 2003, they cost $1 million or more. At this stage, they have low reliability, need a much less expensive catalyst than platinum, can clog and lose power if there are impurities in the hydrogen, don’t last more than 1000 hours, have yet to achieve a driving range of more than 100 miles, and can’t compete with electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, which is already more energy efficient and lower in CO2 generation than projected fuel cells. (3)

Hydrogen is the Houdini of elements. As soon as you’ve gotten it into a container, it wants to get out, and since it’s the lightest of all gases, it takes a lot of effort to keep it from escaping. Storage devices need a complex set of seals, gaskets, and valves. Liquid hydrogen tanks for vehicles boil off at 3-4% per day (3, 13).

Hydrogen also tends to make metal brittle (14). Embrittled metal can create leaks. In a pipeline, it can cause cracking or fissuring, which can result in potentially catastrophic failure (3). Making metal strong enough to withstand hydrogen adds weight and cost.

Leaks also become more likely as the pressure grows higher. It can leak from un-welded connections, fuel lines, and non-metal seals such as gaskets, O-rings, pipe thread compounds, and packings. A heavy-duty fuel cell engine may have thousands of seals (15). Hydrogen has the lowest ignition point of any fuel, 20 times less than gasoline. So if there’s a leak, it can be ignited by a cell phone, a storm miles away (16), or the static from sliding on a car seat.

Leaks and the fires that might result are invisible, and because of they high hydrogen pressure, the fire is like a cutting torch with an invisible flame. Unless you walk into a hydrogen flame, sometimes the only way to know there’s a leak is poor performance.

In 2002, given the same volume of fuel, a diesel fuel vehicle could go 90 miles, and a hydrogen vehicle at 3600 psi could go 5 miles. But that’s nothing compared to the challenges trucks face. I know we’re just supposed to only driving a hydrogen car, but it’s really hydrogen trucks that are most critical. If we don’t figure out how to make them, we won’t have a way to distribute food and other goods across the country.

A truck can go a thousand miles with two 84 gallon tanks placed under the cab, which takes up 23 cubic feet. But the equivalent amount of hydrogen at 3600 psi would take up almost 14 times as much space as the gas tanks. It is hard to imagine where you could put the two cylindrical, twelve feet long by four feet wide hydrogen tanks. They can’t go in the cargo space because a hydrogen leak in an enclosed area would explode if there were a leak. You can’t put the tanks on top or the truck won’t fit beneath underpasses and make the truck top-heavy. Nor would these tanks fit beneath the truck. (23).

To redesign trucks and build hundreds of millions of new ones would take too much energy and money. Yet keeping trucks moving after fossil fuels disappear is far more important that figuring out how to keep cars on the road. Trucks deliver food and other essentials we can’t live without.

Batteries are smaller, but they’re very heavy. In 2002, Lithium-Metal Polymer batteries could take a truck 500 miles. They weighed 42,635 pounds, using up 85% of the trucks weight capacity (23).

Transport

Canister trucks ($250,000 each) can carry enough fuel for 60 cars (3, 13). These trucks weight 40,000 kg but deliver only 400 kg of hydrogen. For a delivery distance of 150 miles, the delivery energy used is nearly 20% of the usable energy in the hydrogen delivered. At 300 miles 40%. The same size truck carrying gasoline delivers 10,000 gallons of fuel, enough to fill about 800 cars (3).

Another alternative is pipelines. The average cost of a natural gas pipeline is one million dollars per mile, and we have 200,000 miles of natural gas pipeline, which we can’t re-use because they are composed of metal that would become brittle and leak, as well as the incorrect diameter to maximize hydrogen throughput. If we were to build a similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen it would cost $200 trillion. The major operating cost of hydrogen pipelines is compressor power and maintenance (3). Compressors in the pipeline keep the gas moving, using hydrogen energy to push the gas forward. After 620 miles, 8% of the hydrogen has been used to move it through the pipeline (17).

Conclusion

At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, you’ve used more energy than you get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles (17).

The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out of it.

The price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in extracting countries. Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure (i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. As depletion continues, factories will be driven out of business by high fuel costs (20, 21, 22) and the parts necessary to build the extremely complex storage tanks and fuel cells might become unavailable. In a society that’s looking more and more like Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, hydrogen will be too leaky and explosive to handle.

Any diversion of declining fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy subtracts that energy from other possible uses, such as planting, harvesting, delivering, and cooking food, heating homes, and other essential activities. According to Joseph Romm “The energy and environmental problems facing the nation and the world, especially global warming, are far too serious to risk making major policy mistakes that misallocate scarce resources (3).

When fusion can make cheap hydrogen, reliable long-lasting nanotube fuel cells exist, and light-weight leak-proof carbon-fiber polymer-lined storage tanks / pipelines can be made inexpensively, then let’s consider building the hydrogen economy infrastructure. Until then, it’s vaporware. All of the technical obstacles must be overcome for any of this to happen (18). Meanwhile, we should stop the FreedomCAR and start setting higher CAFE standards (19).

click here to see extra links. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=2

Many of us wondered why Dubya never signed the Kyoto Agreement on Global Warming.

Apparently, the Arctic is awash with realisable Oil and Gas Reserves .....provided the conditions are suitably set up by Mother Earth for exploration.

Your views would be appreciated...........

Arctic Resourcesl (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2013061,00.html)

I just worry about what will happen to indigenous species - all those poor monkies. :(

(sorry to be flippant - really interesting article and post)

I can't see potential arctic resources influencing wether or not a country signs the Kyoto or Montreal agreements. I think it all boils down to the countries not being bothered to make the difficult but vital changes to save energy. I mean, no government is gonna ever make large enough changes to reduce CO2 emmissions because the alternatives are always gonna have nimbys complaining about them which would probably result in them being kicked outta office.

Its been in the news recently that lake the ice caps are melting quicker, lake chad is shrinking, maldives are going to disappear.
Wonder what peoples views were?

Mine to be honest is i couldnt care less i'll be dead before its affects me.

The question that never seems to get answered is whether we have already passed the point of no return regarding global warming.

i.e. if cutting back on emissions now will make any difference at all

Anyone have an idea ?

Certainly one of the reprecussions, even during out lifetimes will be the 'Water Wars'...

Z

Well it will all affect the Gulf Stream which could turn Europe back to the Ice Age...

People seem to think that Global warming will make everywhere tropical, but it will be quite the opposite for us lot!

It might not affect us but if you have children i could affect them and certainly your childrens childrens!!

Mine to be honest is i couldnt care less i'll be dead before its affects me.

You're not selfish at all are you.

Personally it's attitudes like that that means the world is basically screwed. It doesn't take much to recycle/use less water/switch off things when not using them/use energy efficient lightbulbs etc etc. Thing is most people can't be bothered.

I think it's already too late for some off it as from reading around it's the oceans that cause the biggest rise, it's just that they take a long time to heat up but once they do it can happen very quickly. It will also take a long time to reverse any effects.

I do what little I can to help.....except for my car, though I only use it maybe once a week as I use public transport and walk to work.

Zafar: Point of great debate and uncertainty. However it seems pretty much certain that if what we've done so far would warm the world, doing more of it would warm it more - global warming's not an on/off event, it's a sliding scale. Lets not slide it further than we can help.

Two of the theories interest me in particular, and neither are very pleasant.

Firstly there is the entirely believable idea that the Gulf Stream will cease to be - in which as the salinity of the Arctic drops, the Gulf Stream could shut off, and the 'conveyor' would cease. This would cause freezing temperatures in the Northern hempishere, maybe even wipe out places like the UK. Apparently this could happen at any time, and while it would not be as quick as it was portrayed in The Day After Tomorrow, it could begin now. One of the warning signs is a decline in certain seabords in the North Sea, which is already happening! :o

The other theory is Global Dimming. Our use of carbons has caused such emissions that the light from the sun is 'dimmer' than it used to be, which in itself could plunge places like the UK into permanent winter or simply choke us all to death. The horrible thing with this theory is that if we stopped burning carbons tomorrow, the climate has been permanently altered and we would be subject to excessive UV rays, meltdown of the ice caps and the UK would be uninhabitable as a hot desert (what was left of it).

That was prob'ly a very clumsy explanation, but the gist of those theories is that as we stand now, we're stuffed. :o

Its been in the news recently that lake the ice caps are melting quicker, lake chad is shrinking, maldives are going to disappear.
Wonder what peoples views were?

Mine to be honest is i couldnt care less i'll be dead before its affects me.
im guessing that you are not a parent?
I am and what 'we' have done to this planet and the short/long term effects of this terrifies me :o
I try and do my bit,ie recycling,educating my children etc but WISH i could do more.I understand that it may well be too late to stop or reverse the damage but feel that 'we' shouldnt give up? :)

Two of the theories interest me in particular, and neither are very pleasant.

Firstly there is the entirely believable idea that the Gulf Stream will cease to be - in which as the salinity of the Arctic drops, the Gulf Stream could shut off, and the 'conveyor' would cease. This would cause freezing temperatures in the Northern hempishere, maybe even wipe out places like the UK. Apparently this could happen at any time, and while it would not be as quick as it was portrayed in The Day After Tomorrow, it could begin now. One of the warning signs is a decline in certain seabords in the North Sea, which is already happening! :o

The other theory is Global Dimming. Our use of carbons has caused such emissions that the light from the sun is 'dimmer' than it used to be, which in itself could plunge places like the UK into permanent winter or simply choke us all to death. The horrible thing with this theory is that if we stopped burning carbons tomorrow, the climate has been permanently altered and we would be subject to excessive UV rays, meltdown of the ice caps and the UK would be uninhabitable as a hot desert (what was left of it).

That was prob'ly a very clumsy explanation, but the gist of those theories is that as we stand now, we're stuffed. :o
Mathom-please excuse my ignorance but where in the world(if anywhere) would be deemed as the safest place to live?
*rushes off to pack suitcases*

The question that never seems to get answered is whether we have already passed the point of no return regarding global warming.

i.e. if cutting back on emissions now will make any difference at all

Anyone have an idea ?

Certainly one of the reprecussions, even during out lifetimes will be the 'Water Wars'...

Z

Probably because there is insufficient data and it's not a calculation scientists have had to make before.

Contrarily cutting back on one type of emission could seriously accelerate global warming. A study on the effects of aircraft contrails on atmospheric temperatures found that these block a significant amount of sunlight and so reduce the warming effect of CO2 etc.

These findings were reinforced by a detailed study undertaken during the grounding of all commercial aircraft over North America in the days following 9/11.

As someone has already mentioned the greatest threat to northern Europe is the stopping of the NAD caused by the meltdown of the Greenland ice-cap. Scientists don't yet seem at all certain about how drastically this might affect our climate or even if some other compensatory circulation might arise in the north Atlantic. I'm not inclined to believe Hollywood's take on it ;)

Global dimming is caused by aerosols... the scary thing about that one isn't so much that it's going to cool us all into extinction, but that it might be hiding the warming effect we've already produced and is far less stable, so could disappear, we all get hotter, things start melting, thermohaline circulation goes to pot... if this happens, the northern hemisphere could stop recieving warm water from the equator and the whole hemisphere would be about 6 degrees cooler. The gulf stream is a smaller offshoot which would primarily affect britain and some of Europe if it disappeared - if you look across the world on the same latitude as Britain, you'll find a few much colder countries. Only difference between us and them is the gulf stream. On the bright side for me, buying a first house would become a lot easier as the country emptied.

Global warming is the most debated issue in science ever, and it's difficult to study and draw definite conclusions on - the world climate is a complex system. A picture is building up though and most scenarios now predict change of some sort or another though as a direct result of anthropogenic emissions. The world climate isn't constant anyway over geological time - we're actually in a relatively cool period at the moment - but humans are pushing things out of balance and accelerating the process.

There are quite a lot of more radical theories involving various things that could kill us as things warm up, too. (e.g. icecaps melt, redistribution of pressure opens magma chambers and sets off mass volcanism).

Safest place to live is probably southern hemisphere, try central Australia.

Be on the safe side and keep emissions as low as possible - reducing energy consumption would also reduce the need for nuclear energy in this country and limit air pollution as well as reducing global warming.

if you look across the world on the same latitude as Britain, you'll find a few much colder countries. Only difference between us and them is the gulf stream.

Practically all the countries between 50 and 60° latitude enjoy a 'continental' climate but even without the NAD our climate would remain 'maritime'. I think what would be critical for UK would be the source of the prevailing airflow, particularly in the winter months.

Are there any projections of how a failure of the NAD would affect Atlantic SSTs and weather patterns ?

Apparently there's this thoery that if we cut back we'd make things worse because all the toxics in the air are bouncing back the Global Warming effects.

There is also the theory that if we continue using fossil fuels as we are then our surface temperature will be hot enough to melt lead by the year 2100, if we begin using coal to make up for Oil and Gas deficit - which we already have begun to do so, then it could be as early as 2050 - 2080

Practically all the countries between 50 and 60° latitude enjoy a 'continental' climate but even without the NAD our climate would remain 'maritime'. I think what would be critical for UK would be the source of the prevailing airflow, particularly in the winter months.

Are there any projections of how a failure of the NAD would affect Atlantic SSTs and weather patterns ?

I was thinking of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Suppose they're not that much colder though... although they are also slightly impacted by the gulf stream.

Apologies, 6 degrees over the whole of Europe was incorrect. Be about 2 degrees for most of Europe, with specific areas such as Greenland being hit harder (about 8 degrees).

There are projections for weather patterns, but none of them in agreement. I've heard it quoted that there might be more floods and storms in Europe but can't remember why or even if there was a reason given. Sea surface temperatures would definitely be reduced and this would have consequences for marine life, plankton stocks could easily crash.

Apparently there's this thoery that if we cut back we'd make things worse because all the toxics in the air are bouncing back the Global Warming effects.

There is also the theory that if we continue using fossil fuels as we are then our surface temperature will be hot enough to melt lead by the year 2100, if we begin using coal to make up for Oil and Gas deficit - which we already have begun to do so, then it could be as early as 2050 - 2080

Cutting back on fossil fuel use would certainly make things better. As I mentioned there is a cooling effect due to aerosol compounds. Many of these substances have been banned or fallen out of use, so in effect we already have cut back on them.

The IPCC projected a range of possible scenarios for the year 2100... none of them were lead melting, though there is a wide range due to uncertainties about future emissions from sources such as fossil fuel use.

Most agree the most probable prediction is a rise of 5.5-6 degrees in the next 100 years globally.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark do benefit from the Gulf Stream too, in the southern regions of the former two nations. I would say the best comparison might be Newfoundland in Canada, which is on the same latitude but does not get the Gulf Stream, and it's damn cold there in Winter. Even the Northern States in the US suffer from immense snowfall.

The other effect of the Gulf Stream is the Azores Ridge, which keeps our weather milder in Winter; when this is not present we are affected by Continental and Arctic weather patterns - this was predicted to break down this past Winter, but it didn't happen as the forecasters said it might.

I've read that just a 2 degree rise in temperature would be enough to melt enough of the polar ice cap that London and most of our low lying land would be wiped out. If Greenland goes, then it's curtains.
:o

Mathom-please excuse my ignorance but where in the world(if anywhere) would be deemed as the safest place to live?
*rushes off to pack suitcases*

I'd be tempted to stay put on top of one of Sheffield's hills - I always say that if this place gets flooded then everyone's stuffed. But it might be a bit too cold for most. :o

Most agree the most probable prediction is a rise of 5.5-6 degrees in the next 100 years globally.

But for us this could be modified downwards by the cooling effect of a failure of the NAD. It's no wonder climatologists have sleepless nights. ;)

I've seen several discussions about GW and have been amazed how many people seem to think the result will just be increasing global temperatures and overlook the effect this will have on climate. In many areas of the world inundation and increasing drought will have a serious impact on food production and the availability of fresh water. Not to mention the large increase in both frequency and intensity of tropical storm activity.

I'm sure Zafar is correct in his prediction of 'water wars', - and 'food wars' will not be far behind. It will be a testing time for humanity which thankfully I'll not be here to witness.

And then there is the idea that it's all part of natures long term plan and that nothing we have done or can do has / will make a blind bit of difference.

Forget emissions, it's just the next ice age on its way.

The magnetic field flipping might be more scary TBH.

As I understand it, the chief danger from global warming is an increase in the total overall energy of the global climate system. This leads to the degradation of stable weather systems, and an increase in random extreme weather everywhere. As you pump more energy in to the system it becomes increasingly difficult for weather systems to settle into stable, seasonal or even daily rhythms.

I'm fairly convinced that radical climate change is on the menu. Warming or dimming, I don't know. Ice core data seems to indicate and enormous increase in the rate of change of temperature correlating well with human CO2 emissions.

Daisyworld it's not.

Cutting back on fossil fuel use would certainly make things better. As I mentioned there is a cooling effect due to aerosol compounds. Many of these substances have been banned or fallen out of use, so in effect we already have cut back on them.

The IPCC projected a range of possible scenarios for the year 2100... none of them were lead melting, though there is a wide range due to uncertainties about future emissions from sources such as fossil fuel use.

Most agree the most probable prediction is a rise of 5.5-6 degrees in the next 100 years globally.


I think it's in the book "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler or was it "Power Down" by Richard Heinberg? Anyway it explains why and how this lead melting phenomenon will/could take place by relying on abundant amounts of coal reserves to take place of dwindling Oil and Gas and Uranium for a Electic Addicted society.

Although I advocate not to believe everything you read but there is never fire without smoke!

And then there is the idea that it's all part of natures long term plan and that nothing we have done or can do has / will make a blind bit of difference.

Forget emissions, it's just the next ice age on its way.

The magnetic field flipping might be more scary TBH.

This is true. There is also the theory that we are actually at the end of the last/current ice age??? This is the reason there is less and less snow, even though there seems to be more in the middle of antartica, everywere else there is less and less and ice caps continue to melt to the point that it all begins again.

You're not selfish at all are you.

Personally it's attitudes like that that means the world is basically screwed. It doesn't take much to recycle/use less water/switch off things when not using them/use energy efficient lightbulbs etc etc. Thing is most people can't be bothered.

I think it's already too late for some off it as from reading around it's the oceans that cause the biggest rise, it's just that they take a long time to heat up but once they do it can happen very quickly. It will also take a long time to reverse any effects.

I do what little I can to help.....except for my car, though I only use it maybe once a week as I use public transport and walk to work.

Have you know i do you use energy saving bulbs do recycle papar and have a compost heap. we can all try our bit but as long as countries pump out vast amounts of these emissions, little me aint gonna make a differrence.

im guessing that you are not a parent?
I am and what 'we' have done to this planet and the short/long term effects of this terrifies me :o
I try and do my bit,ie recycling,educating my children etc but WISH i could do more.I understand that it may well be too late to stop or reverse the damage but feel that 'we' shouldnt give up? :)

no i aint a parent BUT when countries dont care (not going down the road of anti amercanism) yet it remains the biggest polluter with there 10 litre cars.

Even if we had done nothing to affect the environment of our planet then it would go through shifts and changes over the centuries, partly due to events like volcanic eruptions (there was one in the 10th or 11th century which caused something like a 'nuclear winter' for some years - can someone point out the date of it, I want to read more about it...). The scary aspect is that we are accelerating change to such a degree that violent weather patterns and much more abrupt changes are likely.

We also put ourselves in the line of fire by living in risky areas, such as flood plains - New Orleans? York?

This theory about the magnetic fields sounds interesting - might have to look that one up and give myself some more nightmares! :o

Even if we had done nothing to affect the environment of our planet then it would go through shifts and changes over the centuries, partly due to events like volcanic eruptions (there was one in the 10th or 11th century which caused something like a 'nuclear winter' for some years - can someone point out the date of it, I want to read more about it...).

Dunno about the 10/11th. century, but there was such an event in the early 6th. century around 540AD. The effects are supported by dendrochronology and there are references to it in written records of the time. There was a BBC TV documentary about it some years ago seeking to prove it was caused by an eruption in the area of Indonesia - perhaps Krakatoa.

Dunno about the 10/11th. century, but there was such an event in the early 6th. century around 540AD. The effects are supported by dendrochronology and there are references to it in written records of the time. There was a BBC TV documentary about it some years ago seeking to prove it was caused by an eruption in the area of Indonesia - perhaps Krakatoa.


The David Keys book called Catastrophe.

Amazing how many great civilisations came crashing down, and how new ones rose to replace them, especially Islam.

Kind of makes you realise how a single 'act of God' can put us back in the dark ages so quickly!

Z

Even if we had done nothing to affect the environment of our planet then it would go through shifts and changes over the centuries, partly due to events like volcanic eruptions (there was one in the 10th or 11th century which caused something like a 'nuclear winter' for some years - can someone point out the date of it, I want to read more about it...). The scary aspect is that we are accelerating change to such a degree that violent weather patterns and much more abrupt changes are likely.

We also put ourselves in the line of fire by living in risky areas, such as flood plains - New Orleans? York?

This theory about the magnetic fields sounds interesting - might have to look that one up and give myself some more nightmares! :o


I heard somewhere that 50% of the worlds population still live something 20miles from the sea, so simply by having rising sea's, alot of people are going to be affected.

Makes you wonder that if sea levels have risen in the past, then alot of the past civilisations are under sea rather than underground ?

Z

Zafar: Point of great debate and uncertainty. However it seems pretty much certain that if what we've done so far would warm the world, doing more of it would warm it more - global warming's not an on/off event, it's a sliding scale. Lets not slide it further than we can help.

Hi Crayfish,

My point is that if we have passed the point of no return, and a set of processes have now been started that are going to play out, such as extreme weather patterns, rising sea levels, possible suspension of the gulfstream weather (mini ice age) etc then maybe we should be looking at how live will be in the coming decades and start to make adjustments now ?

Be it the design of our housing, and infrastructure ? Even national security should be re-evaluated ?

By all means we still need to do alot more to conserve energy, but we should also perhaps be proactive on alot of other fronts too.

Z

We're definitely seeing an effect of increasing CO2, quite noticeable over the last 50 years or so - the Keeling curve shows this (started measuring CO2 concentrations 50 years ago, still running). Various measures all agree that there is an incredibly tight, pretty much perfect correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature going back through time, indicating that it is the main driver or at least best proxy measure of global temperature.

Ice core data takes us back around 700,000 years now and is thought to be a reliable measure of atmospheric CO2 during this period (they're drilling down to ice that formed this long ago and simply looking at bubbles of trapped air in it). There are various patterns, most linked to milankovitch cycles - but some of the patterns thought to be constant from other, younger ice cores seem to disappear over 450,000 years ago. Everyone confused.

Going back way, way through time, CO2 concentration 450 million years ago was about 22 times higher than today. After land plants took hold, it started to fall and there's been a reasonably steady decrease till today (except a rise ca.250 mya). Vegetation has been locking CO2 away as coal, oil and other fossil fuels - and that's what we're now letting back into the air again. During this time, CO2 concentrations were only once (for about 75 million years during the Carboniferous) as low as they are today. However, they're now definitely on the rise again, present concentrations are the highest they have been in the last 110 thousand years or so and they're not showing any signs of coming back down - at present they're around 370 ppm, in 2100 they could well be 800 ppm or more.

So it's now agreed things will get warmer, it's just how quickly and the effects of warming that are still being worked out. One problem is that we might see a sort of tipping point where the warming causes increased rates of greenhouse gas release (e.g. by killing off boreal forests, causing the release of seabed methane clathrates - any one, several or all of the many feedback events people have thought of). Probably the hardest thing to predict is what will happen to the weather and the various effects this will have on things that interest us such as water and food availability.

As mentioned, more energy means that extreme weather events will be even more extreme. Quite a lot of bad hurricanes this year, very likely to be linked to global warming - not that Bush seems to be taking any notice (Note I don't include all of America in this, several states are taking the initiative on climate change). Talking of places to live, countries often subject to storms, floods etc. are probably not good.

Basically, there are various long term cycles (see milankovitch cycles for instance), and random events like volcanoes have large effects - but despite all this, and despite the relatively small amount emitted by humans (total flux 300 Gigatons a year, we release maybe 7 Gigatons per year), we are driving the system out of balance and radically speeding the warming process (some even reckon we're changing the direction, before we started emitting so much there were a few indications we might have been heading for another glacial period).

Hi Crayfish,

My point is that if we have passed the point of no return, and a set of processes have now been started that are going to play out, such as extreme weather patterns, rising sea levels, possible suspension of the gulfstream weather (mini ice age) etc then maybe we should be looking at how live will be in the coming decades and start to make adjustments now ?

Be it the design of our housing, and infrastructure ? Even national security should be re-evaluated ?

By all means we still need to do alot more to conserve energy, but we should also perhaps be proactive on alot of other fronts too.

Z

Yes, sounds like a very good idea - unfortunately because no one is 100% sure what's really going to happen or when, there aren't any timescales or material to make certain plans from:

If we designed our houses for maximum solar absorption, massive amounts of insulation etc. in preparation for the gulf stream disappearing, then it stays there and we just get the warming effects, no one would be happy.

Only problem is, don't know how much warning we'll get either, things could change quite quickly. It's quite possible we need to be taking action of some sort now, but it's equally possible we don't, and no one knows what sort of action that should be. Only thing (nearly) everyone is agreed on is that reducing emissions would be a good idea. Although practically, I doubt they're going to be reduced enough to make a major difference unless a nice clean energy source to replace fossil fuels is found.

I heard somewhere that 50% of the worlds population still live something 20miles from the sea, so simply by having rising sea's, alot of people are going to be affected.

Makes you wonder that if sea levels have risen in the past, then alot of the past civilisations are under sea rather than underground ?

Z

What about the myth of Atlantis? It seems to have been common across a lot of cultures in different forms, which suggests that many civilisations or indeed, maybe one great one, have been lost to the sea.

In the UK we are very complacent, but it is only around 200 years since low lying places in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Lancashire were 'reclaimed' by drainage of natural fenland; such places have already seen flooding during storms and would simply disappear were the sea to rise even by a tiny amount. The London tidal barrier will be obsolete in a few years time. We also have a history of lost towns - Dunwich on the east Coast, and a town somewhere beneath Cardigan Bay. Places which are not that low lying may suffer too, as seen in Boscastle.

The warning signs are already there with massive reductions in certain seabird populations from our coasts. The process could begin today. :o

It has risen slightly and could be expected to do so a lot more as the ice melts. Probably take a while though.

Talking of fens - I found this interesting

http://www.yaxleypc.org.uk/holmepost.JPG

They sunk this post into the surface of Holme Fen in 1851 (Whittlesey Mere area) when they started draining it, so that only the tip was sticking out. Drained so much that the surface is now 8 meters lower.

Sheffield being hilly and more or less bang in the middle of the country is quite well placed though!

What about the myth of Atlantis? It seems to have been common across a lot of cultures in different forms, which suggests that many civilisations or indeed, maybe one great one, have been lost to the sea.

In the UK we are very complacent, but it is only around 200 years since low lying places in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Lancashire were 'reclaimed' by drainage of natural fenland; such places have already seen flooding during storms and would simply disappear were the sea to rise even by a tiny amount. The London tidal barrier will be obsolete in a few years time. We also have a history of lost towns - Dunwich on the east Coast, and a town somewhere beneath Cardigan Bay. Places which are not that low lying may suffer too, as seen in Boscastle.

The warning signs are already there with massive reductions in certain seabird populations from our coasts. The process could begin today. :o

A couple of years ago they found one of the oldest cities off the west coast of India, so I suppose Atlantis is probably off some coast somewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1345150.stm

I guess we'll be quite safe in the Yorkshire, atleast from the rising sea levels.

Z

On Friday 12th May, the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill will return to the House of Commons for the third time.

"A bill to make provision about the reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases, the alleviation of fuel poverty, the promotion of microgeneration and the introduction for a renewable heat obligation."

It can then pass to the House of Lords for consideration.

If there are less than 100 MPs present, the bill cannot be closed (if necessary), causing delays to any implementation.

Many MPs do not stay in the House of a friday. I'm emailing my MP, asking her to stay for the debate.

I thought I'd include the text of my email and a list of Sheffield MP email addresses in case anyone else wanted to do the same.

Sheffield Central (Rt Hon Richard Caborn, Labour)
cabornr@parliament.uk
Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr Clive Betts, Labour)
bettsc@parliament.uk
Sheffield, Brightside (Rt Hon David Blunkett, Labour)
(couldn't find email address)

Palatine Chambers
Pinstone Street
Sheffield
S1 2HN

Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat) nickclegg@sheffieldhallam.org.uk
Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn, Labour)
munnm@parliament.uk
Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Angela C. Smith, Labour)
angela.smith@sheffieldlabourparty.co.uk


Email I'm sending:

"To Meg Munn MP,

On Friday 12th May the Cimate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill will return to the House of Commons for the final time before moving to the House of Lords.

I am emailing to ask if you could be present at this debate to represent the views of your constituents on such a major issue. I realise that if at least 100 MPs are not present the debate cannot be closed if necessary, causing further delays."

brilliant idea!

i live at tinsley - so can anyone tell me who my MP is?!

Check out
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/aristotle/

for contact details for MPs

There's no proof whatsoever that global warming is actually caused by human emissions.

Where is the proof that global warming isn't caused by human emissions?

Tinsley comes under Sheffield Attercliffe IIRC, so Clive Betts MP should be the man, weenireeni.

Looking at his website http://www.clivebetts.labour.co.uk/ he must have attended the Cherie Booth School of Smiling!

Charley
http://www.gmroads.co.uk

There's no proof whatsoever that global warming is actually caused by human emissions.

Really? You're more of an expert than these guys?

The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report in 2001 and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations April 2005, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1]


It's certainly possible that factors beyond our control are an important contributing factor - e.g. the increase in Solar activity - but what we do as a society can certainly influence the outcome as well. Just because the climate is in no way under our control doesn't mean we should continue to act in a manner which ACCELERATES the warming process!

But even if you do doubt the research, look at it this way. Does the kind of action being suggested actually cause any harm? Compare that with the high possibility of loss of life. livelihood and living space across broad swathes of the planet. Those scenarios may not affect the UK as directly as other countries, but the economic repercussions would be faced by all of us.


Anyway, I've sent Meg an e-mail as well.

"Its likely that..."

It was LIKELY that the Earth was flat.

The Earth warms up and cools down all the time. FACT. Earth has been getting warmer since the Ice Ages.

We've only been taking temprature measurements for about 100 years, how the hell do we know how much Earth will warm up and how fast?

I know cutting emmisions wont do any harm, it will even help with some health problems, i was just pointing out a fact that nobody can be sure what emissions do the the Temprature and Atmosphere..

Can I ask what the point of all this is- the Ozone layer is getting weaker and weaker by the year and you can see the result already with the polar situations.

As far as I am concerned, as long as we keep delaying the use of wind turbines/solar power and also wave power as well then I dont see the likelihood of people changing their ways and going greener.

I would love to help out - the problem I find is that I wont make a difference to the ozone layer - anything I do will be undone by the masses so I would be fighting a loosing battle from the start.

Yes, the hole in the ozone layer is a problem, although of course, quite seperate from gloabl warming/ greenhouse effect.

Also, global warming IS happening. The data clearly shows it IS hotter than it was 100 years ago. The cause of the warming is the source of (any) controversy and the link to humans actions is strong but will NEVER be "proved".

The planet is made up of 6 billion individuals, every one of us should fight for what we believe is right even if we're the ONLY ones saying it: and the green bandwagon IS growing.

I read recently in the BBC's Focus magazine that the hole in the ozone layer is actually getting smaller.

"Its likely that..."

It was LIKELY that the Earth was flat.

The Earth warms up and cools down all the time. FACT. Earth has been getting warmer since the Ice Ages.

We've only been taking temprature measurements for about 100 years, how the hell do we know how much Earth will warm up and how fast?

I know cutting emmisions wont do any harm, it will even help with some health problems, i was just pointing out a fact that nobody can be sure what emissions do the the Temprature and Atmosphere..

No, we can't tell exactly what will happen, the world climate and factors affected by or in turn affecting it comprise a very complex system. However, as it is likely that our emissions are having a large effect wouldn't it be better to be safe rather than sorry?

Personally I believe anthropogenic emissions are the main driver for the current trend in warming on the short scale - no one can say this for certain, but it is likely. No one had tried to measure what shape the world was at the time, that was based on pure speculation. In scientific parlance, a term such as likely means that you've studied the evidence and have a good idea what the general trend is - in this case the evidence is not good enough to make definite conclusions (and frankly won't be until the events feared happen... although the hurricane season was a little vicious last time round, was it not?) but the fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that our emissions are causing global warming. This is good enough to take action over, considering the potential consequences of taking no action.

To give an analagous situation, it's not proved that H5N1 or similar bird flu will pose a danger to humanity in the near future - but is that a good enough reason to take no steps to cope with it if it does? Personally, from a fair bit of research into each I'd say human-generated global warming is more likely to be happening than bird flu is to become dangerous. Of course, no one knows exactly what dangers global warming would produce either (unless you're unlucky enough to live in Tuvalu, an island nation with not much land left due to rising sea levels) - but it is possible that it could be very bad news for humans, and it's almost certainly not a good thing.

anything I do will be undone by the masses so I would be fighting a loosing battle from the start.

It is that exactly sort of attitude that shows how apathetic mankind is becoming. Have you ever thought that if you do your bit Angelus it might inspire others to do the same or even attempt to better you?

The hole in the ozone layer is indeed getting smaller. That isn’t anything to do with global warming though really, its mainly due to the use of CFC's in air sprays and fridges etc. Now CFC's have been "banned" the ozone is well on the way to recovery. I'd still keep a hat on if you ever go to Australia though :)

I believe that despite all the arguments about whether global warming is a fact, it is a fact that fossil fuels are a finite and precious resource, and the fight to get them out of the ground is getting nastier and more urgent. So taking steps to conserve energy and restrict our more profligate habits is a necessary step whichever way you look at it.

Of course one person's effort seems futile in the face of, say, China's growth or US policy, but I still don't want it on my conscience that I joined in the rape of the planet. We are facing a fuel crisis and we all have a duty to try and stave off what could be a very dark future. Saving energy does not mean living like a medieval monk. Basic steps can make a big difference, and if everyone made a bit of effort it would have a big impact without necessarily bankrupting the country.

I read recently in the BBC's Focus magazine that the hole in the ozone layer is actually getting smaller.
That should be happening as the effects of the Montreal Protocol kick in, and some people reckon that the recovery is starting to be detectable in the observations; but, for one thing, it's early days yet - it's reckoned that a recovery to something like pre-1980 levels will take another 50 or 60 years, so any recovery signal to date will be small; and, for another, this small signal might well be swamped by natural variability (e.g. an active volcano year will cause a temporary reduction in ozone amounts). [In the longer run the signal from the reduction in CFCs should be plenty big enough to be detected, though.]

Ironically, ozone is itself a greenhouse gas, so from a purely greenhouse point of view the thinning of the ozone layer was a 'good' thing! Though of course we'd be better off reducing ozone lower down in the atmosphere, where it's also directly harmful to people and plants, and letting it recover higher up, where it helps to protect us from UV radiation.

Not much time left to email your MP about staying in session for fridays climate change and sustainable energy bill.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has contacted their MP (other than Astrokath)

I did. (Message too short!)

I got a reply from Meg Munn's office to say she already has constituency committments on friday and so can't attend.

Still, a quick response and she DID say she was in favour of it at the last reading!

Ok so we have done the rest of the big issues of the day, it's time for global warming.

I don’t pretend to understand many of the scientific disputes involved in this subject to any great degree but it seems pretty clear that a overwhelming majority of disinterested scientific voices are convinced that climate change is real, that we’re causing it and that the effects will be unpredictable and could easily be very unpleasant both for us and our ecosystem.

In contrast the main voices to the contrary are those that don’t want it to be true because dealing with this ‘inconvenient truth’ (to use the name of Gore’s film) will make their lives more complicated and those who have a clear commercial interest in the fossil fuel industry.

This is enough to convince me that climate change is real, that it’s our fault and that we should take action to try and limit the damage we’re doing.

Yes we've screwed up the natural weathern paterns. Yes it's true we go through Ice Ages and Warm Ages but we've managed to screw things up and alter the weather patterns faster than anytime ever!!!

its all past reversal in my eyes, the planets screwed
humans are the worst animals on this planet...raping, killing, destroying for its own ends
cant wait for US ALL to die :)

i think it was going to happen eventually but we ain't 'alf speeding it up. i think it's arrogant to think we're powerful enough to destroy the whole planet. mother nature will put things right once we're gone

i think it was going to happen eventually but we ain't 'alf speeding it up. i think it's arrogant to think we're powerful enough to destroy the whole planet. mother nature will put things right once we're gone
Maybe we can't 'destroy the whole planet' but we can certainly make it much less pleasant for us to try and live on.

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.

After spending time in the alps last month and seeing how much the glaciers around chamonix and mont blanc have receded it really brings it home.

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.

Thats not true.

But even if it were what about out kids? Thats a very selfish position to take.

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.

It is having an effect now.
In 30 years those effects will devestating in some areas of the world.

Would be interesting to see if any of the folks on the forum with big engined cars car to comment...

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.

Not true, you only have to look now. In 10 years the weather could be so crazy that normal life as we know it maybe a distant memory.

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.

Anotherpost disagreeing with you Basil, I'm afraid. There are changes happening now and there will be many more in our lifetimes, some of them really rather unpleasantly significant - freak weather, coastal flooding etc...

The people who have know knowledge on the effects of global warming may in the future not be so flippant regarding the long term effects.Firstly the rising sea levels and increasing hurricane strength"due to sea temps rising"altho important are nothing compared to the disaster awaiting in the desert areas of the world.With large displacement of rain belts in these areas the current drought conditions there would be nothing to what the future conditions would bring.Millions of people with know rains at all would mean the migration of people on a scale never seen before.Places like Bangladesh because of there low sea level would vanish along with a lot of pacific islands.Finally theres the paradox that global warming brings,an ice age.Has the sea ice melts to the north the salinty of the sea becomes modified and affects the flow of warm waters from the gulf stream to northern latitudes.If this happens then the atlantic would cool down and there goes our warm british isles.Not something to joke about really GW is it.:)

The people who have know knowledge on the effects of global warming may in the future not be so flippant regarding the long term effects.Firstly the rising sea levels and increasing hurricane strength"due to sea temps rising"altho important are nothing compared to the disaster awaiting in the desert areas of the world.With large displacement of rain belts in these areas the current drought conditions there would be nothing to what the future conditions would bring.Millions of people with know rains at all would mean the migration of people on a scale never seen before.Places like Bangladesh because of there low sea level would vanish along with a lot of pacific islands.Finally theres the paradox that global warming brings,an ice age.Has the sea ice melts to the north the salinty of the sea becomes modified and affects the flow of warm waters from the gulf stream to northern latitudes.If this happens then the atlantic would cool down and there goes our warm british isles.Not something to joke about really GW is it.:)

Nice post brooksy. It's not just Bangladesh - Norfolk would history, as would parts of Lincolnshire.

my question is how do we know that we are definately absolutely responsible for global warming?

there is no comparitive evidence to say we are. at best its an educated guess that its our fault

my question is how do we know that we are definately absolutely responsible for global warming?

there is no comparitive evidence to say we are. at best its an educated guess that its our fault

It is all theory, yes. So is evolution etc.

However the evidence fits the hypothosis, and I for one feel better to err on the side of caution and try to do something about it now rather than leave it til it's too late simply because it is 'only a hypothosis'.

Who cares? By the time global warming has any significant effect we'll all be dead.


thats why we have messed it up.

you have to think about your grandkids kids etc

Whenever we hear about global warming, we always hear the negatives

ie, we all going to die, or, the world will melt

But, for Sheffield what are the plus points?

1) The weather, fantastic, who needs to go abroad for a suntan?

2) As our winters get warmer, we will not need to spend as much money on heating/keeping warm, something that will become a major factor when we become pensioners (some people in their 20's now, will prob may still be paying off mortgages by then), so any savings will be welcome

3) Skantly clad females

4) Low lying areas near the coast, will be under water. But then we need to look at the positives, it will only be 80 miles to get to the seaside, rather than 100 miles now, saving on petrol and time.

So lets embrace global warming

I agree, we need more scantily clad females in sheffield :P

Bring it on !!!!