An entertaining one and a half hours TV (phew) but totally unbalanced. It presented not one criticism of the sceptical researchers and politicians interviewed. None of the so-called global warmers had a say, or was allowed to answer any of the points made, or comment on the sceptics research. The sceptics were allowed to talk unquestioned as if what they said was total truth. Such is often not the case in science. The presenter adopted the usual "here is a scandal that we are revealing cos we is clever innit" approach of sensationalistic journalism with appropriate background music to subliminally create the desired mood. Totally and utterly biased and exactly the sort of meeja hype repeatedly criticised by the critics.
But ... there were many interesting points made. Piers Corbyn does have a track record of weather prediction. The solar research presented 'seemed' interesting (despite the uncritical presentation). Lord Lawson is no fool, and the same is true of his House of Lords colleagues. Research spending has increased massively. And of course the media hype on global warming is outrageous. Ascribing every freak weather event to GW is nonsense and even GW advocates would agree with that.
So ... what would be interesting is to see a debate between the two sides, and have criticism of the programme rather than a completely one-sided polemic. Make it balanced. Maybe just maybe that will happen?
|
"totally unbalanced"
Of course it was
"None of the so-called global warmers had a say, or was allowed to answer any of the points made"
So, just the same as all those pro global warming programmes we have been subjected to for so long
"there were many interesting points made."
Quite right
"the media hype on global warming is outrageous"
Agreed
" interesting to see a debate between the two sides"
Agreed again
" (debate) Maybe just maybe that will happen"
No chance!! Or if it did, it would be the longest running programme ever! And inconcusive unless it ran
until about 2050 or maybe 2150
--
Phil
|
And inconcusive unless it ran until about 2050 or maybe 2150
A bit like this thread then? ;-)
--
L\'escargot.
|
It seems to me that the argument that global warming being man made and therefore we should do something about it because it will be too dangerous not to bears a resemblance to Drake's equation, and is about as meaningful.
That equation takes estimates - very conservative ones - as to the number of stars, stars with planets, stars with inhabitable planets, stars with life supporting inhabitable planets, the time they have been in existence and other factors, multiplies them all together and comes up with a number that makes the chances of there NOT being millions of technically advanced alien civilisations out there somewhere to be vanishingly small. And of course, who knows what intentions they might have. Perhaps we should be prepared in case?
So, you have your "data". You also have a huge - really huge - media interest in UFOs, and countless reports, studies, eye witness accounts - the list is endless.
Am I buying me a laser gun for when the little green men arrive with their probes?
No, I'm taking a balanced view.
I'm trying to be open minded without letting my brains fall out.
And I'm getting on with the business of making money, keeping up Western living standards and contributing however indirectly to a society that has delivered advances in medicine, lifestyle, wealth, pleasure and relief from subsistence for billions, and, however cackhandedly, is attempting to spread to those who don't have all those things yet.
The maintenance of that approach is likely to lead to a better standard of living for everybody ultimately. Sure, there's still abject poverty and misery. Sure, there are people starving and homeless. But changing my light bulbs isn't going to do much. Paying my way, keeping the UK rich, is likely to deliver much more in terms of technology, basic or advanced to those people.
I don't intend to be easily diverted from that difficult and sometime unrewarding course by the tedious and wilful misrepresentation of "fact" that so many are guilty of. I just don't believe it.
And the more hysterical it becomes, the more personal it becomes, the less likely I am to come around.
If someone tells me I'm a GW denyer, an ostrich, an idiot, then I shrug my shoulders, smile nicely and carry on. Whether the argument is right or wrong it is never going to convince me if I'm bullied about it.. There needs to be a LOT more reasoned argument and a LOT more diplomacy to convince me that everything humanity has achieved is wrong, we should be made to feel guilty, and we should positively undo what we have.
As Lisa says to Homer "Dad, just because you keep saying that it doesn't make it true."
Which is why I'm not selling my Jag tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
So, just the same as all those pro global warming programmes we have been subjected to for so long
My sentiments exactly. The pro lobby have had all the airtime and all the headlines in recent years. It's about time this theory was presented as such, and that the many dissenters who the pro lobby either call insulting names, or pretend they don't exist altogether, were given their say.
MMCC is now a whole industry. Carbon offsetting companies, renewable energy companies, "think tanks" and I don't even want to think about how the environmentally related departments of our public services have mushroomed in terms of numbers and funding. Governments love it because they can use it to justify high fuel taxes and greater monitoring and intrusion into everyone's lives. The more sanctimonious of the campaign groups see it as a way to impose their beliefs on the wider population.
It always makes me laugh that anyone who disagrees with the theory of MMCC is alleged to be "in bed with the oil companies" or having some kind of self serving personal agenda, yet how many of those supporting this theory depend on it for their job, or for the soapbox they are currently enjoying.
Believe it or not, I am firmly on the fence as far as this one goes. A balanced debate with both sides given equal voice is all I want, so that I can make my own mind up. All I hear at the moment is mud slinging and name calling, and a disproportionate amount of attention given to just one side of the argument.
Cheers
DP
|
A balanced debate with both sides given equal voice is all I want, so that I can make my own mind up.
Together with the vast majority of the population I haven't the necessary technical knowledge of the subject to enable me to make an informed decision.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Man Made "Global Warming" is a great scam for governments.
They can't sort out the NHS, crime or schools , so spend most of their time, and deflect a lot of the publics worry, onto something that doesn't exist!
Brilliant!
|
|
|
Just a thought about propaganda
In the 1980s and early 1990s the world was going to be destroyed by the ozone layer being destroyed. Result ban CFCs, fit catalytic converters to our cars etc etc.
Now where is this in the news/debate about the whole global warming thing? Nowhere! It NEVER gets mentioned anymore as it is only CO2 that is killing us. Has the ozone layer repaired itself? I thought that the poles were melting because that was where the biggest hole in the ozone layer was! {I believe that the ozone layer was being depleted at one level but was being "rebuilt" at another}.
As I said earlier, if you think that getting in your car and driving to the shops is going to make a difference to the world's climate, I think that you should possibly take a step back and look at the bigger picture (primarily the sun). The human race has always been far too arrogant.
|
A statistic I once read (can't remember where) stuck in my head.
95% of Earth's "Greenhouse effect" is caused by water vapour of which 99.9% is from natural sources.
Of the remaining 5%, 4% of it is from "Greenhouse gases", of which only 5% is from human activity.
So, if these figures are correct, human activity, including transport, industry and domestic energy is contributes just 5% of 4% of 5% to the greenhouse effect. Or 0.001% according to my calculator.
With this in mind, the idea that sticking a wind turbine on your house or driving a Prius can make one iota of difference is laughable.
Of course, I don't know how accurate these statistics are, but are they any less plausible than the "facts" being peddled by the other side of the argument? I go back to my original point, we are not being given the information we need to make an informed choice.
Cheers
DP
|
DP
Did I hear correctly ['meant to have taped it] that CO2 is only 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere and is not a very potent greenhouse gas at that.
So even if we do increase it to - say - 0.057% [Shock horror!] So what? CO2 has no measurable effect on climate at all.
It certainly blew a hole in the "2500 scientists..." claim.
|
|
Global warming is a fact, however we are being sold the causes also as a fact rather than as a theory. A bit like the Theory of Relativity it is a theory--we just don't know what is causing global warming or if it is a natural occurance.
|
Global warming is a fact, however we are being sold the causes also as a fact rather than as a theory.
That's progress at least. Not many years ago, you lot were denying that there was any warming. LOL
In a few years time, you'll admit that it's man-made, but then you'll start the arguments that it's not viable to do anything about it.
|
"In a few years time, you'll admit that it's man-made"
No I won't because it isn't.
|
Screwloose,
I actually missed the programme, so I'm not sure.
To me it's just intensely frustrating that the claims differ so wildly. I just can't help feeling now with the considerable political and economic interests on both sides, the truth becomes cloudier by the day.
Cheers
DP
|
... the truth becomes cloudier by the day
most if not all the questions posed by the "sceptics" are answered here, if they care to look (but then that may not go with their beliefs):
www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/index.html
however, most people here are missing one important fact.
it does not matter whether climate change is happening, or if it is, whether it is due to man or nature or co2 or methane or whatever, the fact is that the politicians of a liberal and social bent have accepted in their minds that climate change is being caused by human activity.
and these politicians are putting measures in place to make us pay for it and/or change our behaviour.
if you want to avoid their actions or prevent them doing what they are doing, you need to vote them out and replace them with thatcherites (but not replace them with other politicians such as the new green camerons); or you choose to live in a communist regime as china or capitalist regime as in india or capitalist regime in usa as under bush/cheyne where they don't give a **** what the climate-change lobby say or do.
so stop all this moaning and whingeing and arguing. you have no choice even if you disagree with the green lobby.
go willingly green with the eu politics,
or to avoid the caring-sharing-bleeding-heart pain that is inevitable with the current lot, choose your next leaders who are true capitalists or true communists.
|
"Did I hear correctly ['meant to have taped it] that CO2 is only 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere"
It's less than that - approx 380ppm, which is about 0.038% (by volume) on average.
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
|
|
It doesn't get mentioned much because the ozone hole has begun to stabilise, as a result of all the measures that were taken. We did what was necessary, the CFC we pumped into the atmosphere is gradually breaking down, and the damage is starting to repair itself.
Quotes from Wikipedia:
A 2005 IPCC summary of ozone issues observed that observations and model calculations suggest that the global average amount of ozone depletion has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability in ozone is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
...
The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5%-10% by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060-2075, 10-25 years later than predicted in earlier assessments.
If the problem was still getting worse as a result of our ongoing action, you can bet it would still be in the news. But we've taken the necessary measures, so all we can do is wait for the atmosphere to recover. I look forward to the day when the CO2 levels stabilise and are no longer in the news... But even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, it will take centuries for the atmosphere to return to normal.
So, were we arrogant to realise that we were destroying the ozone layer? Or would it have perhaps been arrogant to think that it couldn't possibly have been anything to do with us, and that we can pump anything we like into the air and water - couldn't possibly do any harm?
|
|
Do you really think that westerners stopping using CFCs has made this stabalise?
|
|
I remember a TV prog. showing containers full of our broken fridges/freezers being shipped to third world countries for them to repair and use. So we may have stopped using them but they crop up somewehere else.
|
Do you really think that westerners stopping using CFCs has made this stabalise?
Have you got a better explanation?
|
>> Do you really think that westerners stopping using CFCs has made >> this stabalise? >> Have you got a better explanation?
To be honest - no!
But with the interference from politicians, if it had been their measures that had saved us all from being frazzled don't you think that they would be crowing about it? When was the last time a politician mentioned the ozone layer?
|
ps - anyway, back in those days when they did mention it, that was the sole reason for climate change. where was the co2 then?
Also if it was their measures that saved the ozone layer, they would be mentioning it now to give more weight to their beliefs on CO2.
|
ps - anyway, back in those days when they did mention it, that was the sole reason for climate change. where was the co2 then?
There were Congressional hearings on greenhouse gases (including CO2) and their reduction in the 1970s, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s. This isn't a new thing, it's just that nobody was listening back then.
|
Some good discussion here, personally I think we (mankind) still don't understand the causes of current climate changes, I'm not convinced we have ANY experts on the subject yet
If we look to the planet venus, we see a planet with a great deal of Carbon Dioxide in its atmosphere, though there is a theory that its atmosphere was much more like earth's at some point.
We can be confident that this wasn't due to mankind (though there's a theory that women are from venus :-) ), and that ''nature' is far more capable of global change than mankind.
The effect of Venus's atmosphere is to raise it's temperature above that of the planet Mercury - which is much closer to the Sun. Perhaps we should find out what happened there and see if it correlates to what could happen here ?
We're a long way from understanding our planet, though I would suggest that a reduction in any 'pollution' is good, and that we need to reduce our consumption of resources
|
It got dark last night. It was horrible.
Someone told me if I ran up and down the stairs for an hour the dark would go away, and crikey, it did! Wonderful!
Have you got a better explanation?
|
"if you want to avoid their actions or prevent them doing what they are doing, you need to vote them out and replace them with thatcherites"
Thatcher was the first politician of note to take on board the global warming message. And according to last night's programme, she was the first to pump large amounts of money into climate change research. So maybe she was not the best choice from your point of view.
One of the interesting points in the Met Office guide is that the solar driven climate model is described as being unproven. In other words, it is not disproven. So hopefully the advocates of that model will find out in a few years, or more, whether or not they can put forward convincing proof, or whether it falls by the wayside. I hope they succeed even though I am not a GW sceptic per se.
One thing I find interesting is how so many of us have become emotionally attached to one side of the argument, and happily dismiss the other sides arguments by means of very simplistic statements. Thus GW sceptics dismiss GW by saying for example that volcanos disprove GW, or that natural climate variation has been going on since the Earth first gained an atmosphere. In my opinion the idea that non-sceptical climate scientists ideas can be dismissed so easily is to treat them as stupid. (Which is why I do not dismiss the sceptics arguments. They need to do more research.)
|
It got dark last night. It was horrible. Someone told me if I ran up and down the stairs for an hour the dark would go away, and crikey, it did! Wonderful! Have you got a better explanation?
Several, ranging from "someone switched a light on" to "a new day dawned". How many do you have for the ozone layer "healing"?
|
Excellent. There are some nice simple explanations for it getting light, presented clearly, with no bile, political bias or extreme fervour. There's also more than one of them. Thank you!
The same clarity of argument for climate change, and acceptance of possible alternatives, doesn't seem to be there.
|
..The same clarity of argument for climate change, and acceptance of possible alternatives, doesn't seem to be there
so you have come to that conclusion despite reading all the information available at :
www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/index.html and
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.h...l
dipstick, you have chosen an appropriately suitable user name.
if it is worth saying once, it is worth saying again:
tough luck me old matey. get over it, and get used to it.
the eurocrats have just proposed to force everyone to use energy-saving light bulbs, just as they have recently banned the sale of incandescent bulbs in australia. that is just the start. the bleeding heart socialists and liberals are going to change how you behave whether you agree with climate change opinions or not.
most if not all the questions posed by the "sceptics" are answered here, if they care to look (but then that may not go with their beliefs):
www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/index.html
however, most people here are missing one important fact.
it does not matter whether climate change is happening, or if it is, whether it is due to man or nature or co2 or methane or whatever, the fact is that the politicians of a liberal and social bent have accepted in their minds that climate change is being caused by human activity.
and these politicians are putting measures in place to make us pay for it and/or change our behaviour.
if you want to avoid their actions or prevent them doing what they are doing, you need to vote them out and replace them with thatcherites (but not replace them with other politicians such as the new green camerons); or you choose to live in a communist regime as china or capitalist regime as in india or capitalist regime in usa as under bush/cheyne where they don't give a **** what the climate-change lobby say or do.
so stop all this moaning and whingeing and arguing. you have no choice even if you disagree with the green lobby.
go willingly green with the eu politics,
or to avoid the caring-sharing-bleeding-heart pain that is inevitable with the current lot, choose your next leaders who are true capitalists or true communists.
|
Excellent. There are some nice simple explanations for it getting light, presented clearly, with no bile, political bias or extreme fervour. There's also more than one of them. Thank you!
Is there more than one explanation for the ozone layer "healing"? If so you haven't said what it is.
|
Baskerville
There is one perfectly plausible reason for the ozone layer's miraculous "recovery" - there was nothing wrong with it in the first place and it was just another hysterical con by the environmentalists.
Some years ago, I was chatting to a friend from Rothera [then, as now, BAS's main Antarctic research base] and I happened to inquire after the current size of "the hole in the ozone layer." His reply was illuminating - "How big do you want it to be?" Apparently; density tapers towards the poles and the size of the "hole" depends on where you define the "edge" to be.
His view [and he'd been researching it there] was that there was always a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole in winter - there is after all no sunlight, for months, to make any and it's short-lived stuff. When this lack was "re-discovered" it was presented as a [shock, horror] new phenomenon.
Now that we've been good boys [except those that haven't] and done exactly as we were told; the green zealots will stop laying on the guilt and move on to their next hoop for us to jump through - MM global warming from CO2. The only cure - the formerly untouchable nuclear energy.... Strange bedfellows.
|
Interesting, but it doesn't tally with what it says on the British Antarctic Survey site:
"The influence of the human race on climate is still a matter for study and speculation, but the ability to perturb the ozone layer is an established fact.
The discovery by the British Antarctic Survey of the Antarctic ozone hole provided an early warning of the dangerous thinning of the ozone layer worldwide, and spurred international efforts to curb the production of CFCs. If the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987 are revised, strengthened and followed, there is a reasonable prospect that the Antarctic ozone hole will permanently repair itself, but not before the next appearance of Halley's comet! (in the year 2061)"
www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/
|
Baskerville
True; but when do the PBI ever get to write the dispatches... In so many fields; when you chat to those actually at the coal-face, you get a completely different perspective to the one presented in [spun by] the media. Also, whatever the true case may be here, there are many formerly accepted "established facts" now lying in pieces.
That's what was so different about last night's programme. I could see no obvious agenda behind the contributor's viewpoints - in fact, given their positions, they could have made a fair whack out of simply going along with the rest.
The personal vilification of the open-minded is more akin to the Spanish Inquisition than proper scientific rigour. Is greenoidism filling the gap left by the failed religions. [You wouldn't have dared speak against their "established facts" a few centuries ago - but who believes in them now?]
I view global climate research as only being in it's infancy; so when force-fed "new certainties" by closed-minded, quasi-religious, fanatics; I instinctively reject them pending further, more credible, evidence. Something is very wrong with the whole MM CO2 case; and I don't think I'm alone in this view.
|
True; but when do the PBI ever get to write the dispatches...
If it was a report in a newspaper I might agree, but their own website would represent the BAS's views don't you think? If not there must be some pretty disgruntled people working there. That's not to say there are not people in the organisation who disagree. It's a scientific community after all so there will be uncertainty and disagreement. But those are the views of the organisation; to think anything else just boosts sales of tin foil hats.
I'm not qualified to comment one way or another on this with any certainty, but my personal view is simply that using less energy and fewer resources makes sense on all kinds of levels, not least economically. And my experience with animals tells me that when they foul their nests they tend to get sick. I think that idea probably scales. So if GW might be our fault and we could do something about it then given the potential consequences I think we probably should.
|
|
In reply to KMO.
You are correct in pointing out the issue of ozone layer destruction as an example of a potentially serious environmental issue where political action on a global scale will solve the problem by the end of the century. Chlorine levels in the lower part of the atmosphere (troposphere) are now falling due to the Montreal Protocol and subsequent agreements. Levels of Chlorine in the stratosphere will take longer to respond (several decades) hence the delay between the cut in emissions and a measurable response. The media has moved on - ozone loss is not sexy any more that's why there is nothing much said about it. Europe and the US are still spending millions on research and monitoring of the global ozone layer in case any surprises pop up.
It seems that humans can act in the best interests of the planet when they have to - but finding alternative refrigerants and aerosol propellants is a lot easier than alternative energy sources for an energy hungry population. Hats off to Thatcher on this one - she saw the importance of this issue (she was a chemist) and, as someone from a mining family, I don't compliment her lightly.
For those who are interested, an unfortunate consequence of global warming of the lower atmosphere by CO2 and other radiative gases is the cooling of the stratosphere. The chemistry that causes ozone loss is faster at lower temperatures so global warming is likely to delay ozone recovery by maybe a decade or so. In fact, the cooling of the lower stratosphere (by ~4K over the last 30 years or so) is one of the most compelling indicators of global warming due to changes to the composition of the atmosphere.
|
Ibizadriver
Thanks for your helpful contributions.
Could you clarify something for me? You wrote "It seems that humans can act in the best interests of the planet when they have to - but finding alternative refrigerants and aerosol propellants is a lot easier than alternative energy sources for an energy hungry population. "
Is the issue of global warming really simply about finding alternative energy sources?
|
HI tyro
I wrote a response to you and it must have timed out. Second time lucky.
IMO energy sources are but a part of the issue. We have to balance the desire of all humankind to want an ever increasing standard of living with an ever increasing population but finite resources to satisfy that desire. Maybe technology will bale us out as it has done in the past, then again maybe not - who knows?
I guess what I was trying to say is that the issue of the ozone layer is an example of how society can deal with problems if the solutions are straightforward and relatively cheap. Dealing with the problem of ozone loss was easy - banning CFCs and Halons did not have major implications for society. As it stands, society is probably not yet ready for the measures we would need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to 'sustainable' levels. Might not be worth the risk of economic meltdown which could ensue anyway. As the evidence builds then maybe the world will act in time - self-interest and self-preservation are powerful motivators.
It does my head in at the moment with all and sundry banging on about climate change. Trouble is there's no media mileage in a sensible and rational debate.
|
|
|
"the 1980s and early 1990s the world was going to be destroyed by the ozone layer being destroyed. Result ban CFCs, fit catalytic converters to our cars etc etc. "
It was. The world changed the CFCs used in all - ALL - fridges. That was though to be the major cause of the hole in the ozone layer.. IT was. (it was a joinytly agreed world initiative: and more expensive coolants were used instead!)
Result : ozone layer hole much reduced....
I think you need to read some more:-))
madf
|
Dipstick -
"The maintenance of that approach is likely to lead to a better standard of living for everybody ultimately. Sure, there's still abject poverty and misery. Sure, there are people starving and homeless. But changing my light bulbs isn't going to do much. Paying my way, keeping the UK rich, is likely to deliver much more in terms of technology, basic or advanced to those people."
But is it really so hard to change your lightbulbs? No. So do it - please.
When they blow, just don't put in an incandescent bulb, put in an energy-saving bulb. Where's the hardship in that? Humour me.
Why don't people jus do the really easy stuff and stop kicking up such a big fuss about lightbulbs?
Drive a little less - think of your heart - think of your lungs. Imagine, you're not doing it for the 'green' lobby - you're doing it for yourself. Enough with the bitter resentment.
Buy less stuff with tons of crappy packaging - don't think about recycling - just think, maybe the price will come down. - I'm an optimist!
Let's not have three or four children - let's have one or two and give to charity (if you've still got so much spare cash)
Think positive, look after yourself first but when you've done that - look after others - they might just look after you. (I'm an optimist not a fool)
It's not all hardship is it? Is life so miserable having to use different lightbulbs - even if we find out the planet still burns to a cinder? Really? Is it sooooooo hard?
In the end though, if you don't want to change then you won't. And it doesn't matter how many reasons people give you - you still won't.
I still don't know who's right or wrong but most of the things I'm being asked to do are so petty and small they have no influence on my lifestyle - so I'll do them - it might make a difference - it might not - but they don't offend me so that's what I'll do.
|
>>But is it really so hard to change your light bulbs? No. So do it - please.>>]
We use energy saving light bulbs (even more so after buying them in bulk at 49p each at Morrisons under a government backed scheme), but there are some areas where they are pretty useless due to the lack of output compared to traditional light bulbs.
For instance, we use two 150w bulbs in the living room - no energy saving bulb can compete as the maximum is a 100w equivalent and even that emits rather less light that the traditional bulb.
There's another problem with the energy saving bulbs in that they can cause frequent and highly annoying interference on both FM and AM radios, portable or otherwise.
Even my hi-fi's radio tuner is affected and it ruins listening to plays, music, debates etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Hmm, Planets were mentioned in an earlier post, which set Billy thinking! (bear with me, i can be fairly energy efficient in the brain department sometimes!), if Venus orbits the Sun in a smaller orbit than Earth, and Mars orbits on a larger orbit than Earth, and both these Planets are Barren and dead because they have presumably lost what Atmosphere they once may have had. Yet Earth in between the two, still has its atmosphere, and is the only planet that as far as i know has had continual life and evolution up to the present day. This seems to suggest to me, that life-forms producing these so-called Greenhouse gasses are actually resposible for replenishing and retaining our atmoshere, and not damaging it.
Billy
|
Hi Billy
You are correct that greenhouse gases are essential for life on Earth as we know it. It is a relatively simple task to calculate the mean temperature of the Earth's surface if you assume no atmosphere and all the heating comes from the sun. Turns out the equilibrium temperature would be about -15 deg C or thereabouts rather than the +15 we have. Difference is mostly due to greenhouse effect so without it we would be frozen solid.
The point is - most of the gases in the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases (N2,O2,Ar). Water vapour, CO2, methane and ozone are. These gases are present in tiny amounts yet the effect is huge (+30C for much much less than 1% by volume) so dramatically changing the concentrations of these gases is bound to have an effect on the temperature. We can't really do a lot about water vapour directly but the others we can partially control if we choose to.
FYI - Venus has an atmosphere which is very rich in CO2 and the surface is hot enough to melt lead - hotter than it should be given it's distance from the Sun. Mars has a very thin atmosphere - but more CO2 than Earth, actually.
|
Let's not have three or four children - let's have one or two
Oh dear. I wondered how long it would be before the Greens started to show their true communist colours. Comments like this smack too much of totalitarian China.
Listen, dear, if we all only had 1 or 2 children, the indigenous population would become a minority to imigrants even quicker than is currently the case. (From a proud father of 3!)
|
I wondered how long it would be before theGreens started to show their true communist colours. Comments like this smack too much of totalitarian China.
No offence boxster, but: Woof woof!
|
>> >> Let's not have three or four children - let's have one >> or two >> Oh dear. I wondered how long it would be before the Greens started to show their true communist colours. Comments like this smack too much of totalitarian China. Listen, dear, if we all only had 1 or 2 children, the indigenous population would become a minority to imigrants even quicker than is currently the case. (From a proud father of 3!)
Too true
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm
Also, low birth rates are contributing to this countries pension crisis.
|
Also, low birth rates are contributing to this countries pension crisis.
And here's me thinking it was relatively poor stock market performance since the mid-1990s combined with pension funds being used inappropriately, and the whole boomer generation deciding to retire at 50 or 55. Silly me, it must be because, at age 39, I have one child under the age of five. Somehow I don't think the falling birth rate has impacted pension funds significantly yet. And frankly it's falling now because house prices are so high that people can't afford not to be working.
|
There are a number of reasons for the current crisis.
Its a simple matter of demographics. increase the amount of young people who will work and contribute so that the burden of the aging population is spread. Increasing the young population means there are more young people working and contributing to the economy and paying taxes and saving into the pension funds.
www.thisismoney.co.uk/retirement/article.html?in_a...6
|
A certain G B taking out £5bn annually from pension funds since 1997 hasn't exactly helped either.
In fact it's destroyed the finest pensions schemes available in the world until that point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
A certain G B taking out £5bn annually from pension funds since 1997 hasn't exactly helped either. In fact it's destroyed the finest pensions schemes available in the world until that point.
Och, worry not wee laddy, Gordon and his mates have the best index linked pension schemes money can't buy. And there was you nearly fretting yer wee self senseless. Och be away wee yeh.
|
But is it really so hard to change your lightbulbs? No. So do it - please. When they blow, just don't put in an incandescent bulb, put in an energy-saving bulb. Where's the hardship in that? Humour me.
Very upset that the ones (low energy one) don't work with my dimmers, otherwise the whole house would have them
Buy less stuff with tons of crappy packaging - don't think about recycling - just think, maybe the price will come down. - I'm an optimist!
Not always possible but I always try to but not for the same reason as you. I personally hate landfill sites.
Let's not have three or four children - let's have one or two and give to charity (if you've still got so much spare cash)
Silly. Anyway I would have stuck with two but for personal reason have three. In fact as we have an ageing population I might do my duty and have four or five.
It's not all hardship is it? Is life so miserable having to use different lightbulbs - even if we find out the planet still burns to a cinder? Really? Is it sooooooo hard?
I think that the sun might burn us to a cinder rather than light bulbs. As it is becoming a Super Red Giant Star (which it is) it will emit more energy eventually will wipe us out. It is thought that the size of the sun will massively expand as well.
|
>angelman
the suns turning into a red Giant is an event which is likley to take millions of years.
pensions crisis?
Ignore the Governmnt schem which relies on current contributions to fund cuurent payments.
The crises on funded schemes where savings buty a pension was largely caused by a toxic combination.
1. Actuaries whose calculations run all schemes: underestimated the life expectancy gains through medical advances.. Result funds thought they had surpluses: they did NOT - when actuaries did the sums properly.
BUT
2. The Conservatives decreed the pension surpluses is any scheme could not be large (5%?) so many schemes - notionally in surplus stopped company contributions. then the actuaries - see 1.. redid their sums
3. Mr Brown taxed dividends into pesnion schems .. £5 billion a year tax take..
Put all three together in THAT ORDER and you get surplsues tuning into deficit. Ad a big stock market downturn....
But if you ask whose was the worst fault: it's plain: the actuaries..
madf
|
|
"Result : ozone layer hole much reduced....
I think you need to read some more:-))"
I took your advice and found this
www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1710757,00.html
and this
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6077018.stm
Basically - the Ozone hole in 2006 was "the biggest ever" - the reasons for tis are interesting!
--
Phil
|
If someone could turn this thread into a motoring discussion at some point.......
Preferably before I click on the "make read only" button.
DD.
|
hows this then Dave?
Billy?s been thinking again and come up with the (tongue-in-cheek) cure for global warming,
Step 1 ? remove as much of the major natural g/house gasses as possible.
H2o vapour- this is the main g/house gas; man has no influence on or over the production of this gas.
Remedy.
Help remove it by running de-humidifiers!
Co2 is the next largest, and can be formed at room temp by ozone acting on carbon, of which every thing on earth contains, therefore co2 would still be produced in massive quantities even if man suddenly stopped all production of it (hypothetically), also the biggest creators of co2 today are the volcanoes.
Remedy
Plants use co2 as food and to photosynthesise, so grow more, Co2 dissolves in water, so use the water from de-humidifiers, and spray it into the air when watering the plants.
Ozone - O3, mainly produced from ultra-violet light reacting with the oxygen in
Atmosphere. No ozone is produced by car engines or industrial means.
Remedy
Degrades naturally in the atmosphere to O2 ? oxygen, so no problem, if levels start to rise ? take deeper breaths.
Methane ? largest producer is natural causes- mainly rotting vegetation, largest amount of this gas was produced at start of the carboniferous period, at the
Laying down of the coal ?seams. Co-incidentally, most dinosaurs were ruminants, e.g., large cows, which produced more methane than today?s cows do.
Methane degrades in the atmosphere to co2 and water vapour/so treat as above.
Step 2 ? get rid of the ?nasties?
By ?nasties? I mean gasses like CfC?s (chlorofluorocarbons) and the ?Halons?,
These have largely been outlawed in recent years, and used to be in things like Fire extinguishers and aerosols. The biggest nasties at the moment are the refrigerants in a/c, fridges and freezers.
Remedy
Forget about specifying a/c in your new car; get it with a sunroof, and top ?up your vitamin D levels at the same time.
Why use a gaseous system for fridges and freezers? ? Use a no-loss liquid system that can be environmentally?friendly drained and disposed of.
Step 3 ? Live life!
If we all follow the above steps, there will be loads of room up there for all the tiny amounts of Atmospheric pollution that mankind does inevitably produce. Green house gasses/global warming? ? Forget about them, they?ve existed since the dawn of time, and the Earth has survived, Man has only been here 10?000 years or so, and like any other species, only has a finite time on this Earth, when Man is extinct ? the Earth will go on, and Greenhouse gasses/global warming will still be a part of it.
|
Why use a gaseous system for fridges and freezers? ? Use a no-loss liquid system that can be environmentally?friendly drained and disposed of.
Do you actually know how fridges and freezers work?
--
L\'escargot.
|
If someone could turn this thread into a motoring discussion at some point....... Preferably before I click on the "make read only" button. DD.
Ok.
I drive a R reg Nissan Almera which achieves 35mpg. I can afford a brand new Toyota Pruis or even a Lexus Hybrid, but keep with the Prius.
Which has least impact to the environment?
|
|
Least impact - keep your Almera - surely?
|
Least impact - keep your Almera - surely?
And while you're about it, keep your Cayenne Turbo or Humvee too.
Cars make a negligible contribution even in theoretical terms, and I think we know what those are worth by now, hmmmmmmm...?
Enough already as they say in New York.
|
DD
Our car taxes are defined by CO2 emission levels; we're being sucked dry by spiralling fuel taxes to "curb our carbon footprints" and there's loads more taxes riding-up over the horizon. We are in the front-line of the environmentalists attack. Man-made Global warming is the most crucial motoring issue of our time.
If last night's programme was even slightly correct in it's assertions, then this is also the biggest scandal ever to be visited on the motoring public - who's contribution to the alleged effect is pretty marginal anyway.
Nowhere else is the subject being discussed in such a civil and informative way as on this thread. I've certainly benefitted from the knowledgeable input of such a diverse and multi-talented grouping and I doubt that I'm the only one.
|
>>I drive a R reg Nissan Almera which achieves 35mpg. I can afford a brand new Toyota Pruis or even a Lexus Hybrid, but keep with the Prius.
Which has least impact to the environment?>>
Even if you drive a 56 plate Grand Cherokee 6.1 V8 Hemi you are better driving it until it falls apart even at 15mpg than buying a Prius on the basis that that particular Prius would not be built (and thus its embedded carbon in manufacture and disposal would not exist) without you ordering it.
|
Further to the last point, as I have posted before:
A small turbo diesel cars like Toyota's own Yaris D4D, a Ford Focus etc contain as much as 50% less embedded carbon (carbon produced in manufacture and disposal) than a Prius and produce a comparably low amount of C02 in use.
However more broadly from an automotive perspective carbon would be reduced more quickly if car production decreased therefore it would be much better if we all continued to drive our current vehicles until they simply stopped running. The maths on this are as follows:
[ [ The amount of carbon produced in manufacturing and disposing of a hybrid + the amount of carbon produced by a hybrid over it's life time ] -The amount of carbon my current car will produce over the same life time ] = The amount of carbon used or saved by buying a hybrid.
If the answer is is a positive figure then that is the amount of extra carbon produced by buying and running a hybrid, for most people the answer will be a positive figure.
|
|
What is the carbon cost of manufacturing a typical car compared to say driving 10,000 miles at 40 mpg which is not untypical for one year of car ownership?
|
What is the carbon cost of manufacturing a typical car compared to say driving 10,000 miles at 40 mpg which is not untypical for one year of car ownership?
Grabbing the nearest life cycle analysis I have to hand (from the Toyota Auris brochure), it looks like, over the whole life of the vehicle (how long?), Toyota claim:
CO2: Driving/maintenance = 86%, production/disposal = 14%
NOx: Driving/maintenance = 71%, production/disposal = 29%
NMHC (non-methane hydrocarbons): Driving/maintenance = 88%, production/disposal = 12%
PM: Driving/maintenance = 50%, production/disposal = 50%
SOx: Driving/maintentance = 55%, production/disposal = 45%
So, assuming they're not just making it up, the CO2 from driving seriously outweighs that from manufacture.
For the Prius, the production cost is somewhat higher, but not massively so, and they claim it's more than compensated for by the efficiency. Haven't got their figures to hand though.
|
But the same applies to any car. Most people aren't making the choice "buy a Prius" or "keep my old car", they're making the choice "buy a Prius" or "buy something else". Either of those options are less environmentally friendly, at least on a global scale, than "keep the old car". But a local scale, if you're worried about smog/asthma etc, it can be a good idea to get the dirtiest cars off the road ASAP.
If you're comparing a Prius to another new car, it's a tougher call. It's certainly more efficient than any petrol car of the same size, especially an automatic, but the situation's less clear against diesel. But it does have much lower local polluting emissions than a diesel (or petrol). And automatic diesels are hard to find.
I got a Prius as a company car for a number of reasons: it uses EV technology (thus by buying it you're encouraging commercial development of battery EVs), it's automatic, it's not a diesel (less noise/pollution), it's extremely efficient, and it's a good size. Oh, and the 11% (shortly to be 10%) company car tax rate and £700 grant (no longer available) totally offset the higher price.
And I reckon the seamless transmission is worth something in itself too. No jerking around while the thing selects the wrong gear...
|
But a local scale, if you're worried about smog .........
Unless you were around before the introduction of smokeless zones you don't know the meaning of the word!
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
