Global Warming...... just a thought!
 

Is it totally un-pc and completely ignorant to sort of welcome global warmer due to the fact that .... wel hey by February we could be looking at 18'C and no rain???

I don't blame energy consumption for it, I blame time itself.
What caused the ice to melt after the ice age? Did the dinasaurs drive big gas-guzzling suv's??

Screw it, what track days do we have in february!

No, they just had very bad flatulence, methane being a very "efficient" greenhouse gas :lol:
One problem with Stones thought is the theory that the increased temps will bring greater evaporation from the sea's surface, that moisture has to precipitate somewhere and guess who's usually first in the line of fire :eek: ;)

I don't think it's the rise in temperature that is the problem-it's the rate of change. When we were in Iceland a couple of summers ago we were at a camp at the foot of their major glacier and they had a centre there which explained all about the expansion and contraction of the glacier. The ice field had been much bigger in the 1800's, but much smaller (than it was now) in the 1200's-well there wasn't much in the way of atmospheric polution around then simply because there weren't many people either. The climate on this little planet of ours has continually changed over the milenia-just this time it is happening a bit quick like.

John

um, have you seen what latitude we are at?, its only the Gulf Stream that gives us the mild climate we have and if polar ice melts it'll stop the Gulf Stream, to give you an idea its the same as Quebec or Minsk!!

Global warming became much more apparent to me when I first noticed that Foxes Glacier Mints were getting smaller :D

Global warming is only good for you if you don't have children, grand-children and generally don't care about things which don't affect yourself right now.

For people who haven't seen Gore's documentary, I strongly recommend them to watch it (An Inconvenient Truth).

On the news last night 2006 was the hottest year since records began about two hundred years ago thats hardly headline news thousands of years ago we were under 20 odd foot of ice did neanderthal man go into guilt mode and stop building fires.
200 years of records is not very representetive of the millions of years of animals producing methane and CO2,if you want accelerated climate change look at the asteriod that struck the Mexico basin which wiped out the Dinosaurs but the planet survived and remained in o2/co2 balance other wise all life would have been extigiushed.
If CO2 was being produced quicker than plants could synthesize O2 everything would be dead.
No one can really say with 100% accuracy whether this is a natural planetry change or real climate change due to man.
whether or not it is this and every other government will use it as a way to dump even more tax on you.
Theres money to be made in global warming and windfarm companys are the first to cash in on grants to blight the sky line.
They produce very little power compared to the cost of manufacture and work effeciently on very few days with most of them are turned off due to grid capacity.
there an absolute scar on the skylines of cornwall and will destroy the veiws on the Scottish isles whose people do not want them.

Are you nuts or what?

its not just CO2 production, it is also the unprecedented deforrestation of the planet which is a significant factor

Tell me exactly what is pretty about pylons stretching out across the landscape, acid rain or leukemia clusters?

Speaking as a Scot tell me what will be left of the Scottish islands when the sea level rises 9m as predicted by some models?

Millions of years ago, there were far fewer people and cows etc were not farmed then as they are now. There is no comparison to be made with planet we have today.

THERE IS NO DOUBT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN UNLESS YOUR NAME IS GEORGE W BUSH! ASK ANY SCIENTIST!

There is as much energy used in the production of a car as it uses in its lifetime, so by that metric wind farms are spectacularly successful. Do you have any idea how much more CO2 is produced in the building of a nuclear power station? Until nuclear fusion comes along wind and wave are the best we have. Incidentally, when the UK government did a study in the early 80s or so as to what was the cheapest/most environemtally friendly way of producing energy, nuclear came out on top. Then once the go ahead for Sizewell B, THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) etc had all gone through someone noticed wave power was the best way forward and there was an error in the calcs. The cynics among us might suggest that you cant build nuclear weapons with wave power but you can with nuclear power stations and the lunacy of THORP.

As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up. Its not my world or yours. Its everyones, and those who follow us should find it in a decent condition.

Sorry, rant over, but really, the world needs to wake up to how close to disaster it is. As mentioned above, the UKs climate as it is just now is not assured of remaining as it is and is entirely dependant upon the salinity of the Atlantic seawater. Melting ice means no conveyor for the warm air of the tropics which means Moscow comes to London for Winter.

[As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up]
just like I pay road tax and its all used on the roads get real.

Ooh! Will they bring some pretty young Russian Au Pairs :D

Hey its healthy to rant!! My problem and I do have children is that even with a major effort on our part (Great Britain) it is just a drop in the ocean... I read that even if all vehicles were banned from UK roads now, within one year China would not only have made up the difference but added 50%!
I tend to think history shows that the earth sorts itself out... i.e overpopulation = disease, global warming = destruction of current civilisation and introduction of new one a few thousand years later. Same with war etc etc..... Im not being negative just taking the veiw that no one with any power is going to do anything about it until its too late and until then I thought I would enjoy the warmer weather and build a deep underground bunker for my children in my spare time....... but now after reading the replies which indicate that this global warming isnt going to provide me and my 1098s with 320 days of perfect riding weather I may become a polititian and do something about it.... I mean you even get to sh*g a cheeky girl as a perk!!

My Great Grandmother told me it was God's way of keeping man in check ;)
I still prefer the look of the future according to Futurama :D

Your road tax pays for the UKs road building program and more. But it does not cover the cost of repairing the damage done to the environment through global warming whether that be preventative measures or remedial.

eg the cost of building the Thames barrier in todays money £1.4billion

many scientists believe planting trees will not work effectively in refixing carbon, so other methods are being considered, eg storing it in disused oil reservoirs in the North Sea etc

Or to look at another way. The human cost? 300 people died in flooding in Canvey Island in 1953

As Psychlist says, melting ice caps = a greater surface area of water. Add increased ambient temperatures and effectively youhave more water in the atmosphere . effectively a speeding up of the water cycle and more rain through global warming.

Then we have all the damage done by the other pollutants in fuel. Historically, lead, sulphur etc Someone has to pay for it....

[quote=Stones]I read that even if all vehicles were banned from UK roads now, within one year China would not only have made up the difference but added 50%!
quote]

There are some truely staggering forecasts and statistics out there at the moment. eg China builds one coal fired power station per week. Also many of its open coal fields are left to burn and the pollution produced is about the same as that produced by all the vehicles in the USA.

You are so right. Petrol is going to run out in about 30 years and is going to get even more expensive, which will mean less vehicles on the road. Well I'm 43 so don't mind going electric by the time I'm in my 70's, and I can afford it. I love the warm weather. The warmer the better. Someone pointed out to me a while back that if we carry on like this then the children will inherit the planet in a poor state. Well I don't like kids. They have a poor work ethic and expect everything handed to them on a plate, so why should I care about them.
You can call me self centred and selfish. I'm sure one or too might. But this planet has been heading down this route for a long time. Everyone has known it and done very little about it. I really do believe that this problem has gone past the point of no return. I don't think that any amount of legislation, national or global will fix this. I'm going to live for now. Let's face it. It's what we've all been doing for years which is why we're in this mess. This planet is doomed, so get on your bikes and ride while you can.

I'm 38, and there was a time when people our age used to fear young whippersnappers coming up behind them on the career path. Must admit having seen what the schools turn out these days, I dont.

Think you may have a point on it being to late though, especialy if China, and the USA dont change

"[quote=749er]Are you nuts or what?

As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up. Its not my world or yours. Its everyones, and those who follow us should find it in a decent condition."

Whilst this is a sound theory, it does not work on a global scale.

USA, India and China are terrible polluters but they are not going to be paying pollution tax to Europe.

There is a European anti-pollution (recycling) scheme called WEE (http://www.bsi-global.com/Manufactur...E/Index.xalter) which says that by law anyone making electrical goods must offer a method of retrieving and re-cycling these goods when their life has expired. At no charge.

All well and good, but it has some fundamental flaws: 1) It only applies to Europe 2) Customers will not pay the extra cost this new service will entail 3) The law says European manufacturers must do it, so cheap Asian manufacturers win again.

Until there is some way of ensuring polluters WORLD-WIDE are held to account I don't see any way to counter global warming.

We are not all innocent here in Europe, either. If every country was to use resources at the same rate as Portugal, we would need three planets to support us! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/...20061221.shtml)

I blame the Australians myself, coming over here and drinking all our lager then pi55ing on our grass! No wonder there's not enough greenery to get rid of the CO2 :D :roll:

What grass?

:confused:

you make a lot of valid points there, but the WEEE directive stipulates that manufacturers must declare on their invoicing all charges which relate to the WEEE directive. This goes on until 2010 or 2012 I think, then the charges still apply but are not shown. So people have to pay the cost of recycling

But Japan is ahead of the EU in recycling and California will be mirroring the WEEE directive so although it wont be a miracle cure, taking a lead does influence.

manufacturers of goods from outwith the EU have to pay also, most likely done through there import arms eg Sony UK So whether you buy a Sony or a Bang and Olufson TV the receipt for either will list the associated WEEE charges.

you are right we are not all innocent, we need to take responsibility for what we do.

you needing warmed up Paulo?

the grass they dont play cricket on:lol:

There is no doubt that Global Warming is real. Neither is there much doubt that it is a man made phenomenon: the scientific community have pretty much reached consensus about that and most commentators are of the opinion that 2007 is going to be a pivotal year in terms of public recognition of the scientific facts.

So, just recognising that there is a man made problem is a start, but it's not all doom and gloom.

Sweden has a target of being 100% oil free by 2008, and a strategy to achieve it. Think about that, it's only next year! Their plans include technologies that are really simple, like effective insulation to minimise energy usage, as well as grander schemes like hydro-electricity and wind power. There is also some pretty impressive lateral thinking going on in the form of Combined Heat and Power stations where instead of sticking a damn great power station in the middle of nowhere and building big cooling towers to disperse the wasted heat, they build a smaller one on the edge of a town, use the electricity that is produced to power the town and run the coolant through a network of pipes to provide the town with heat as well. Huge efficiency gains there. These CHP stations run on a variety of fuels, but there are ones that burn vegetation and Bio-Fuel. There are also gassification plants that turn wood into gas and bio-fuel, the projections are that they can provide a huge amount of their energy needs through sustainable forestation.

Their plans rely heavily upon bio-fuels such as Ethanol and Bio-Diesel for transportation, and this to me is where the real win-win situation starts to occur.

Firstly in environmental terms, it is carbon neutral. The fuel will only release the same amount of carbon dioxide that the plants it was made from absorbed when they were growing. The time scale is the important thing here, it is only releasing Co2 that was absorbed last year (or thereabouts) rather than releasing Co2 that was absorbed and locked up millions of years ago, so the Co2 balance remains the same. Also, in environmental terms, it is sustainable - need more fuel, then just grow some more. At the moment, the bio-fuel that the Swedes use is not very eco-friendly since it is made from sugar cane grown in Brazil so it's transportation costs and dubious slash and burn agricultural practises make it less than ideal (that's where the gassification of sustainable forestation comes in for the Swedes). However, with a bit of creativity, a huge amount of our fuel could come from bio-sources. Crops such as Sugar Beet, Oilseed Rape and so on are pretty good candidates and we currently have a huge European Wine Lake (despite my best efforts) that can be turned into Ethanol.

In engineering terms, Bio-Diesel is just as efficient as ordinary diesel and you can get more power from Ethanol than you can with petrol - plus the fact that you don't need huge modifications to current internal combustion engines to make it work.

I'm no expert on this, just what I've picked up from various radio programs and articles, however a carbon neutral, sustainable supply of fuel that doesn't need any major change to current engines seems like a win-win to me.

And it doesn't stop there. It may appear just a utopian ideal, but if you imagine a world where our farmers can stop being paid to 'set aside' land and grow enough biomass to make the UK self-sufficient (as Sweden aims to be), where Europe, the Americas and even developing countries like China and India (huge potential to increase sugar cane production by massive ammounts in India) could follow suit, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that huge amounts of the world could be self sufficient in fuel and drastically reduce (if not eliminate) the total reliance on fossil fuels. Environmental utopia.

If you then think about the geo-political effects, it would remove the need for big greedy gas guzzling nations like the US to keep stomping around the world trying to exert economic and military pressure on third world countries to keep their supply of oil flowing. There would not be the need for the US and the West to meddle in Middle Eastern politics in order to maintain platforms of influence. You might like to think that with the need for western dominance removed, without the need for oil, that more political stability or even peace might be achieved.

India and China are fast developing countries who are now competing hard for the worlds energy resources. Between them they comprise one third of the worlds population and their expectations and goals are to reach the same standards of living as they can see in the western world. The world does not have the fossil fuel resources to allow this to happen so if they want to raise their standard of living, we've got to go down. So, without drastic changes to the dynamics of the worlds energy supplies, more conflict is almost inevitable. Chinese and Indian companies are already beating the western fuel companies for oil drilling licenses in places like Khazakstan, so with dwindling supplies of oil, the western powers have got to lower our energy consumption or give up some of our standard of living. We're not going to want to do that, so as competition for these resources gets more fierce, the west has to outbid the East for drilling rights - or fight them for it. That's where the real danger lies without an alternative to fossil fuel.

Oh yes, and how comfortable does everyone in Western Europe feel being a net importer of Russian gas? Belarus has just been told to pay double for their gas or the Russians will cut them off.

Bio-fuel. It won't happen big time until multinationals or countries work out how to make big money from it, but I think it could be the answer to a lot of the worlds environmental and political problems.

Hmmmm...Flower Power. Maybe the old hippies had a point?

excellent post Jools!

I loves cricket me :D

Didnt David Attenbrough say that the explosion in human population is a greater threat to the planet than global warming.
I think he said The planet can survive with out humans but we cannot survive without Biodiversity and its space for other living things that will destroy the planet
animals could well adapt to a hotter planet over time but not if weve killed them all off by over populating everylast land mass.
As for the Gulf stream that would'nt be there if it wasnt for the last round of global warming,so we and it are only here because of the last melting of the ice cap which covered most of europe.
As for cows contributing to global warming I think there were far bigger populations of wild animals of this size about before man destroyed them all,
one of the early european settlers in america noted that you could walk from one side of the plains to the other on the backs of Bison thats again before we destroyed them.
man will destroy all land animals before global warming has a chance to kill us,were losing something like 50 species a day to overpopulation and deforestation.
hopefully nature will find a way to overcome this,its tried before
Black death/Flu in 1918/Aids and perhaps Bird Flu at the end of the day were just another life form with so called greater intelligence which most of the time weve used to either kill each other H bomb or animals through greed and pleasure.
perhaps we just dont deserve to be the planets guardians"

I think there's a vital flaw in the argument here and the WHOLE scientific community are obviously under the influence of about half the worlds population!
It's always the same result, blame MAN! Where is the evidence to simply blame MAN for this so called catastrophe (I don't mind riding in the rain, at least it'll be warm) and why shouldnt women bear as much responsibility :frog:

Jools, I agree with everything that you say. India and China are trying hard to play catch-up and no amount of political pressure is going to stop them. It needs the rest of the world to help them, econimocally and financially. And that is why I am convinced that we will not manage to turn this around. This planet has not been destroyed by mankinds greed, but by human nature. It will take more than a few well-intentioned individuals to make an effort. It needs the entire planet to adhere to a cohesive policy. If just a couple of countries refuse to cooperate, then human nature will kick in. "If they aren't going to play by the rules then why should we?". Individuals will not do what is needed. Governments need to legislate to force citizens to comply. Who is going to vote for a government that is going to lower their standard of living and give help to another country?
I think that we will all figure out what really needs to be done and be prepared to take the consequences when we really have no other choice, but I really do believe that by then it will be too late.
I think that wars are going to be fought over global warming. Coutnries will do what they have to to survive. Resources will run low and countries will take what they can from other countries, all in the name of survival.
You don't see any other animal on this planet thinking about it's species long-term future. They sleep, eat, reproduce and live and die. Did the last dodo think "damn, I'm the last one". I think our time is coming to an end, and it doesn't really matter whether it be by our own hand, or a giant meteorite hitting earth. The outcome will be the same.
Still, I don't let it get me down.

excellent!

dont know if this is true but I got told that the guy who worked out it was a good idea to put lead in petrol then went on to put CFCs in fridges.

Mankind itself is the greatest threat to the planet; as a race we serve no useful purpose - we do not fit into the food chain as other creatures do, we have plundered the planet of it's natural resources, killed-off other inhabitants either directly or indirectly and have generally upset the eco-system.

We already have the most heavily taxed fuel in the western world, if only fuel tax, road tax, VAT on vehicles were spent on the roads, we have the best netowrk in the world.

Around 70% of fuel costs are tax.

Electric vehicles are not the way forward IMHO, where does the electic come from?? that flipping great gas/coal powered station. what do you do with the huge batteries when they come to the end of their life, another environmental time.

It's too easy to bash the internal combustion engine and its fuel but over the years it has been developed into a very efficient technology.

Medium to long term fuel cells are going to be the way forward, it's really gonna hack the tree huggers off when all that trickles out of the exhaust is a bit of H2O.

The science behind most scares is shakey to say the least, it's not that long ago we were all gonna be Dead from Aids or BSE is it? At one time there was school of thought that said a human being could survive if they travelled at more than 20 MPH

Sure the world is warming up but trying to separate cyclical changes, form mans effects is guesswork at best.

Good science is based on experiments that can be done, the results are measurable and consistent.

Planet earth may be akin to an experiment in some views and maybe just one day it's all going to go horribly wrong, but don't discount the ingenuity of the race to fix the problem when we are 100% sure what the cause is rather than the effect.

Ray.

"reproduce" comes with "making sure my children can lead a safe life" doesn't it?

I don't have any children yet, but I'm 100% sure that if one day the girl I love gives me a son or a daughter, I'll spend my life making sure they can be at least as happy on Earth as I've been. Anyway that's how my parents grew me.

I totally disagree with your views Gilps. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not I'd be more than happy to lend it to you if you'd accept to give it a watch (as to anybody who hasn't seen it).

Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.

It's not too late.
It's not a fatality.

Tonio, I admire your sentiments. I chose not to have children but if I had I would have, like you, tried to do my very best for them. I do have step-children but they live with my estranged wife.
I haven't seen that particular film although I have seen several other programs on the subject, some claiming it's all exagerated, and others claiming doom and gloom.
I realise that you are one the many trying to do their bit to help, but I just don't feel that it's enough. There will always be some who are not prepared to make sacrifices. That's my point. I believe that it is human nature and will not change, at least not until it's too late anyway.
I just have a different point of view to you. I believe it is too late to turn it around. I think we are very close to the point of no return and only really drastic action will avert us passing it, and that action isn't being taken. And I'm not talking about taking the train instead of the car. This is far far bigger than that, and the small gestures that we may make on a daily basis are not enough to avert disaster.
I hope that I'm proved wrong, but I firmly believe that this whole planets going to be a very unpleasant place to live in 50 years.

I respect your views too mate, and I hope too that you're proved wrong at some point ;)

Anyway, that should make for some interesting discussions until late in the night in the DD paddock :)

Easter Island anyone.

Think globally,act locally.

I'm going to hug my kids and trees.....

Ok guys.. some great points... interesting stuff! After reading all of them I have decided that instead of becoming a polititian I will start by designing a electric motorbike................ now if I put these two wires together..... AAAARRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHH







ok maybe a water powered one then!

good thread though and a good topic Stones

yeh, really pleased with responce

That's true... Thomas Midgely's yer man.

Guess how he died...... lead poisoning? Nope.

He was a great inventor but contracted polio at the age of 51, which left him severely disabled. He devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his death when he was accidentally entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.