Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

This does not make very good reading :(

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Wish I hadn't seen the film "day after tommorow" now:Yikes:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

But just think how exciting it must be for all those crackpots with the sanwich boards!

Sounds like the end is now really nigh! :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

We're all doomed! Everyone could make a difference but sadly people won't even cut down on the amout of electric or gas they use.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I find it very strange this global warming thing.

For billions of years this planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling.

Why should it now be the fault of "greenhouse" gases?
Several years ago they didnt even know about Il nino, these days they still dont understand it.
The plane thas been warming since the last ice age, why should this be anyhting other than natural? Think of volcanic explosions years ago, think of the forest fires when there were millions more miles of forests, think of all the years man has been using fire, and yet its only NOW that we have to be carefull.

I find most of this stuff scaremongering, yes we need to look after our planet, yes we should be conscious of what we are using, but we certainly do not need to panic.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The difference is the speed with which human activity can alter the balance of gases and ice and water around the Earth. This leads to those natural processes happening considerably faster than they occur naturally, in human timescales (tens of years) rather than geological ones (thousands of years). It's this speed difference that is the difference between climate change predictions and the science of historical temperature fluctuations.

Against that, we've only been able to monitor sea ice for under 30 years - having a satellite up there about 800 years ago might have been interesting.

Remember that melting the Arctic doesn't do that much harm (sea levels stay the same, polar bears starve and Eskimos fall through the ice, but otherwise it's not too problematic) - it's the reduction in solar reflection and the consequence for land ice which is particularly dangerous.

My plan - add 5p to petrol and put the lot into research into solar energy - there are only two raw energy sources on Earth, solar and nuclear, and solar is much nicer :) Come up with a GM bacteria that turns carbon dioxide and sunlight into diesel oil and the circle is closed.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Great idea :tu:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

In full reason though this planet is overdue

1) Massive meteor impact

2) super volcanic eruption

3) Space dust covering the planet blacing out sunlight

4) Super earthquakes causing huge tsunami's

list goes on... just add this to it.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I think you can cross 4 off the list.

Space dust? Rare, I'd have thought. Meteors and super volcanoes are certainly genuine risks, but their arrival (unless you belong to an Armageddon cult) is not brought forward by human activity.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The article isn't talking about speed though, its about distance: "point of no return".

As TW2001 correctly pointed out this planet has gone through phases of heating and cooling far, far more extreme than now - our temperature and climate is extremely mild considering how it used to be. If global warming has now gone so far in a mild climatic state, that it will never cool again, then how exactly did it cool before?

Anyway, AFAIK, scientists still can't make up their minds wether we are going to melt to death, or freeze to death in an ice age, so at least until then, I m not going to go paranoid about what "may", "might" and "could" happen. Almost anything could happen, should we be paranoid about all those senarios too?

Once again, more guess work, supposition being masqueraded as a serious scientific report. Anyone can make random guesses without any conviction they will be fulfilled.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I would be more alarmed by Antarctica melting to the same degree and at the same speed!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I was making a general point about climate change, which is that human activity has made natural processes occur quicker than our ability to adapt to them. London going under six metres of water over 20000 years, fine (that's 0.3mm per year), 20 years, not so fine (that's a foot per year).

I do detect that you're (hopefully unconsciously) adopting the US administration's faith-based 'scientists can't agree therefore it isn't happening' argument, which is nonsensical. It's happening, but predicting what happens when you change a relatively steady state this quickly is extremely hard for a proper scientist let alone a science-shy administration with a vested interest in the status quo and a habit of ignoring obvious facts.

I trust scientists with access to the facts on this one, and will be reading the September 2005 report when it comes out to make my own mind up. If you wait for every scientist to agree before you trust something you wouldn't get on an aeroplane for one thing (since there's still a lot of debate about exactly why a plane can fly).

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

you missed one out - the magnetic field polarity 'flipping' so north will become south, as it were.

the cyclic nature of the climate has much in the way of 'evidence' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc

- Arctic ice melting may stop the 'atlantic conveyor/gulf stream', so there may be the beginning of an ice age in progress, as well ....

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

If all this ice in the regions are such a threat why not blast the lot into space and store it on the moon?

Oh right would cost too much rather spend cash on cruise missiles and 4x4's

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

That's not my stance. Its not that scientists don't agree, its just that they are guessing. They might be right, they might be wrong, but either way they are still only guessing, they can't prove or disprove anything. We are only in the observation and hypothesis stages atm. We are observing we are putting CO2 into the air, we are observing that the planet is warming. Scientists are guessing as a hypothesis, that they are directly related. There is no evidence for this, hence why everyone keeps saying "might", and "could" If there is a direct link between the two, then it wouldn't be that hard to prove. The planet may just be warming anyway, or because of some other cause. However what is harder to prove is that this warming, will cause the conditions they say it will. Its hard to prove, but the burden is on them to prove it, and until someone proves or disproves something, I won't get whipped up in a paranoid frenzy until something gets proven. Until "might"s get replaced with "will"s

:confused: News to me, I thought everyone knew that it is because of the aerofoil shape wings. That's easily proven, planes with them tend to get up and stay up in the air better than planes without it. Plus you can prove it with string, a straw and a piece of paper. That's proof incontrovertible, and something we don't have with global warming, the science is too young.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I think whilst Global Warming is no less of a major issue, what about man's reliance on oil and its products - we are surely going to get to a point where 21st century life goes back in time. I look around my room and can't think of anything thats oil based or would of been made in a process that needed oil somewhere down the line.

Or am I just paranoid?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Very true. IIRC we are many centuaries overdue for a pole reversal, and if it happened completely (you can have partial pole reversals IIRC), then it would be enough to wipe out mankind itself.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Oh dear, here we go again...

By the time we *have* the proof it may well be too late to do anything.

So would it do any *harm* to try to reduce our energy usages, switch to more efficient methods of products and reduce the amount of pollution (including so-called "greenhouse gasses") we're pumping into the air *just in case*?

Surely that's better than, in a hundred years time saying "oops, looks like the science *is* proven, pity it's too late to do anything about it"...

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

After all the years of abuse what do we expect?? Something has got to give sadly it's the polar ice flows.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

How does a pole reversal work? slow? instant? and what sort of changes happen as a result.
__________________

http://survive2012.com/geryl1.php

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Well, I thought the Independent was trying to whip us up in a paranoid frenzy because it was too late already.

Anyway, you've changed tack a bit. You were always so insistent on seeing proof and not advocating "just in case" actions. Reducing energy use, and being more efficient is what would happen even without people warning of the threat of Global Warming. But I am not going to sell my car and live up a tree on something that's pure guesswork atm. They guessed that the earth was flat until Columbus sailed around it.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Any paragraph or statement that starts with:

"scientists say" or "experts say"

Should always be treated with the upmost scepticism.

I suggest you read the excellent " A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

to show you just how little is known about our planet, and how the "top" scientists of the day and yesteryear couldn't and still can't agree on a many great things.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

If this planet is so ****ed up as they want us to think instead of trying to make more fuel consuming methods to mess it up and bombs to blow more holes in it, why not put our money into getting the goddess hell of it?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:rolleyes: Which part of "By the time we *have* the proof it may well be too late to do anything." did you not understand?

Knee-jerk reactions to terrorist attacks are not going to bring about catastrophic changes to the planet that could have devastating results for billions of people!

Would it? Try convincing the "Dirty Man of the World" (ie the USA) to do that, then!!

*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*

Punky, if you're going to make comments like this, you *really* should check your facts first otherwise you're going to look *very* silly.

*NOBODY* has said "sell your car". *NOBODY* has said "live up a tree". So don't try the Straw Man tactic again, please.

Oh and the world was *KNOWN* to be round long before Columbus, all he claimed was that he could said to the Indies by going *west* (and he cheated by taking the smallest figure for the size of the world and then fiddling that down even more) if it wasn't that the Bahamas (and not America!) were in the way, he'd have failed!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I would prefer it if members wouldn't shout and also not provoke one another to the point that the debate becomes aggressive. Thank you.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Nice dodge. I'll rephrase the question: How is it, that you'll normally won't accept any fact or opinion, however small or insignificant without endless cites and pieces of evidence, but you'll accept guesses at face value, that even a 10 year old can make, on an issue as important as this?

Tell you what, i'll go and convince the US to do that, and you go and convince China. Agreed?

:clap: Well done. Apparently I was fooled under a myth that Washington Irving perpetuated, and according to Wiki, I am not the only one. That makes me look silly? I don't think so. However, looking at your response which shows you how gracious & magnanimous in 'victory' you are, or otherwise, I know which person i'd rather be silly, or to have your attitude. :rolleyes:

Its sarcasm. And hippies won't let me live up a tree because the tree is more important than humans anyway. Without sarcasm: I won't adjust or alter my attitude towards the environment to any agree, with regards to 'scientists' warning about global warming, until 1 damn 'scientist' can at least prove 1 damn theory he has about it.

I have a theory that the crust might spontaneously crumble away which could release lava in across most of the land, and should cause seas to turn to steam and steam us alive. I say all communities should invest trillions in moving indoors permanantly in heat resistance biodomes. I have no evidence, just like the global warming scientists. What I said might or might not happen, but are you going to try and reach possibly unobtainable targets, at massive expense like biodomes which can resist heat to 1,000s of degrees C, purely on my guesswork? You'd be a fool if you did. No difference between that theory and the global warming catasprophe theory.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Thread Re-opened. Please pay heed to my post above please. Thanks.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

In what then should I be investing ?
Arctic gear ?
Swimsuits ?
Crash hats ?
LiLos ?
Suntan lotion ?
Waders ?
Huskies ?
Camels ?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Hmmmm Artic Gear! It's going to get a bit chilly here!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The trouble is that man has only had the ablity to know the planet (if at all) for less than 100 years.

the planet is 4 billion years old, and the planet has had Ice ages come and go. so this global warming could be a natural cycle of the planet.

A few years ago they said that we were heading for another Ice age??

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Punky, I was going answer your post, but given that apparently this thread has been closed and re-opened in my absence this evening, anything I replied to what you wrote, little of which had anything to do with the topic, would probably only end up with it being closed again and I think the subject of this thread is rather too important for that.
__________________

And it's very possible that Global Warming will cause the Ice Caps to melt, destabilising the Gulf Stream which could then trigger another Ice Age.

Of course by that time it will be too late to do anything about it...

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

And as the polar caps re-freeze, the salinity of the sea increases, restarting the gulf stream and saving the day *yay*
:D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I suggest you do a little more research into climatology before you start cheering...

From the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...hange_wef.html

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Graham, you do realise that uses the word "paradigm" don't you?

The fact is that the earth has been at much higher temperatures before, and at much lower ones.
We won't actually know the outcome of global warming for certain until it actually happens.
Just think of the geological and archeological discoveries that await us under the ice of Antartica....if society is still in a state to care by then.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

If it is melting at the speed that they are saying it is, why ain;t we up there snowboarding and surfing the ice waves man :disturbd:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It's not a criminal offence...! :)

Yes, I know.

Yes, I know.

Exactly, *IF* it is still in a state where they're in a position to care, rather than just curse their ancestors for taking a laissez-faire attitude of "well, we don't *know* it's going to happen, so let's not bother even trying to do anything about it... :grind:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

As far as I can see, the scientists are pushing extrapolation to the limits (whether it be looking back OR forwards.)

There just isn't enough hard evidence on past climate to allow future climate to be predicted. They even struggle to manage a 5-day forecast, so what chance they'll get anything this far in the future anywhere near right?

Also, if the fear mongers are to be believed, then it's already too late...

One of the problems is that we have no idea of knowing how the climate would have developed over the last 150 years if we hadn't had our input to it.

Whatever happens, somewhere on Earth some(thing) will survive, somehow and it will all start over again.

And no doubt the scientists of this future era will be just as baffled by the 'evidence' they find as current scientists are by what they've found.

P.S. Excuse me if I have overlooked any previous argument, but I can either catch up & read everything, or put in my 2p worth - there's just not enough time in the day now to do both. :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Tree ring evidence? Ice Cores? Layers of ocean sediment? There seems to be a fair bit of hard evidence from where I'm looking.

This is disingenuous. It's not a matter of whether it will rain over your house next Friday, it's the effect on the whole system.

Which is not an argument for doing nothing.

[quote]One of the problems is that we have no idea of knowing how the climate would have developed over the last 150 years if we hadn't had our input to it.

Which is also not an argument for doing nothing!

Which is *still* not an argument for doing nothing!

Or maybe they'll think "these people had the chance to at least *try* to do something. Why the hell didn't they...?"

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Global warming the true cause

http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html

COWs FARTING

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Well that's a load of....

No, it's just *too* easy! :dozey:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Well, if it's past the point of no return that means we can't do anything about it, so it now doesn't matter if we waste resources and drive powerful petrol-hungry cars.

Excellent news!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It bloody well should be :D

It's times like this that I miss Jerrek and his "but why should america's economy suffer to save the world?" statements. I could do with a laugh.

If we are past the point of no return (but hang on, the earth used to be a giant snowball and it returned from there...) we should just start preparing for the worst.


So, how would you lot prepare given that we don't know whether we'll have a heatwave or an ice age?
Buy an airconditioner and an electric blanket?
Take a crash course in sailing?
Start "sleeping with the fishes" to try and give your children gills?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

What a load of dung we all know its sheep ;)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It's only 'hard' evidence if you accept their interpretation of things which are in no way hard/fast proof. They just suggest the way the climate might have been.

And tree rings don't go that far back. If we're looking for an Ice Age, then consider that the last one was between 10000 and 50000 years ago!

Quite - so MUCH more difficult, hence so more likely to be wrong.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

How can we use the past, it ammuses me when they say

"every 100,000 years this happens" HOW DO WE KNOW the Earth is evolving as we are, it could change that to 1,000,000 years?????

As for global warming causes next it till be me farting hard after a good kebab.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Yes, they do only "suggest", but a lot of suggestions add up to something more than just circumstantial evidence.

They are, however, indicative of the way that the climate has varied in the "recent" (geologically speaking) past and how events such as volcanic eruptions etc (cf 1816 - The Year Without a Summer may affect the situation.

Which is still being entirely disingenuous.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

You have somewhat changed your tune there - you've gone from saying it's 'hard evidence' to 'a lot of suggestions add up'.

They may add up, but that doesn't make it hard evidence.

You keep saying that, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That word is so imprecise.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:rofl: :rofl:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Not sure if it's been mentioned on this thread, as I haven't gone through all the posts; but it seems that there is quite a lot of issues regarding fuel source/supply etc.

Does anyone know much about this:

http://www.hydrogain.com/

It would seem to answer all of the problems raised, as far as I can see? Or am I missing something?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Hydrogen does seem the way forward.

Although because its a fuel, Gordon "Thieving Toerag" Brown will still have to charge an extra 47p duty on it :mad:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

In many ways the disaster of 9/11 was the kick up the backside the US oil dependant system needed to seriously look at alternatives.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Not quite as simple as that. The US uses a lot of oil, but so does China. Pretty soon China will dwarf the US in all forms of energy usage and pollution.

Anyway, oil dependence is a double edge sword. The middle east is so rich and prosperous because the world (not just the US) needs oil. In most cases, its that country's only export. Without oil, and richer countries having to buy it from smaller, poorer ones, there would be a lot more poverty related problems in the world like access to food, water and healthcare. Oil dependence has helped eleviate problems in these countries (including Africa), they still have problems, but think how much worse they would be if noone bought their oil? Western countries tend to be prosperous without oil. Most of the middle east and Africa's only source of outside funding comes from oil sales.

When/if we make the switch to Hydrogen, what is going to happen to those countries?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It also behoves them to use their current wealth to generate alternative incomes sooner rather than later.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/...ap2174929.html

Another interesting link IMO. It would seem that the sources talked about are pretty much available to the whole world: water, sunlight... very interesting.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The US or oil-producing countries? They are both working feverishly on the problem, as they both stand to lose a lot. The US slightly more so; as China expands, it will come to a point where Saudi Arabia et al. will have to choose who to sell to, China or the US. Muslims will stick together and the west (not just the US) will be damned. They run the risk of losing supply even before it dries out. This is dependent on just how much oil is in Russia, and how they wish to sell it.

Me283: Very interesting. Certainly sounds good. What I don't get is, why can't we use hydrogen instead of oil in a current internal combustion engine? The current ICE works using explosions with petrol pushing a piston, hydrogen is quite violently explosive, couldn't that be used to drive a piston instead? The only byproduct would be water. To source hydrogen it would need electrolysis so its not toally renewable but with moderate nuclear facilities, its far better than where we are ATM?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

hope I'm not butting in - the problem with Hydrogen is storage & distribution, it is very dangerously flammable, anyway, but even more so if compressed, so it has to be effectively 'dissolved' in expensive metals like Palladium, in order to be stored.

- plus at the moment, barring nuclear, it costs more energy to produce than it delivers.

- long term, especially if ideas like using solar energy for conversion take off, it could be good - in the short term I would like to see more research in renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, gasohol - and methanol fueled fuel cells, such as the one on its way to power mp3 players

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3837585.stm

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Not butting in at all mate, thanx for sharing :tu: I did wonder why people seemed to be ignoring the obvious. Noone else i've spoken to really knew why.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, Homealone is right in stating a few of the issues yet to be overcome. But I have been looking into it, and it appears that quite a few of the main manufacturers are investing shedloads into hydrogen powered research.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/

That's one, and I can find a few more if you like?

As I understand it, the guy at MIT is looking at a process similar to photosynthesis, albeit a lot more advanced and efficient.

Fingers crossed for the future.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

some good stuff in that link - thanks.

I think we do need to be looking at solving any issues, as soon as we can, it won't be that long before the oil & gas runs out....

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

It is hard evidence.

Your disagreement with it was "if you accept their interpretation of things which are in no way hard/fast proof", but I didn't say it was *proof*, I said it was "evidence", which is a different matter.

"not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness"

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

You are bringing in an unrelated point about it being impossible to predict local weather conditions and attempting to apply this to a global situation which does not deal in short term situations, but long term trends and thereby trying to dismiss the evidence we have for the latter.
__________________

The problem is that it takes energy to split hydrogen from oxygen and, until we get fusion working, you need to put more energy in than you get out.

That doesn't mean that it's not feasible, it would be better to produce any output of greenhouse gasses etc in one location (ie a power station) where they can be dealt with on a "bulk" basis, rather than on an "individual" (ie car by car) basis, but it will take time and money and at the moment there are too many vested interests (especially at the heart of the US Government!) for much to change.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Nope. Adding up a bunch of assumption is NOT evidence, never mind hard evidence.

My disagreement is with you calling it hard evidence when it's nothing more than a whole bunch of science, for which there is no proof, being considered as hard evidence.

Splitting hairs, as usual.

Try that in court - "No m'lud. The Police cannot prove I committed the crime, they only have evidence that I did."

I suppose it depends on where you get your definition from:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous

Like I said, not very precise.

But, if we take your definition, then I have to refute the allegation.

It is NOT unrelated. It is quite clear that meteorologists have trouble understanding how the weather works as it is.

Just because there are some long-term trends, doesn't mean that they can linearly extrapolate and assume things will carry on as they have - particularly when the data they're relying on really only covers a fraction of the timescale that matters.

So, perhaps predicting tomorrow's weather isn't the same 'problem' as trying to figure out what the overall world climate has been doing for the last 1000 years and is planning to do for the next 1000 years.

But, considering that they often fail to predict tomorrow's weather with all the scientific facts at their disposal, I can't see how we can really accept the global climate predictions any better, considering that those are based on nothing more than "a lot of suggestions add up to something".

Anyway, that's all the hair-splitting I'm going to do on this topic.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Oh good, can we get back to the topic now...?

(PS Sorry, there's one hair that's too good to miss: It's not the job of the Police to *prove* you did something in court...! :) )

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

That's how I understand it too. But I think the process is a lot more advanced than we realise, and nearer to fruition. Apparently there is a already a hydrogen filling station at one of the German airports? Also, a lot of the big car manufacturers are piling money into R&D; this link shows a ew of them:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.com/hhcars.htm

As for the US, it seems that President Bush has earmarked a big chunk of public money to fund R&D as well; I believe the figure is $1.7bn.

All very interesting.
__________________

In addition to my earlier comments, it looks like hydrogen fuel cells are already being tested by TFL on some Londom buses. So the technology is here, it just needs refining?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/fuel-cell-buses.asp

Global warming causes fish reduction in british waters
 

They are now saying thanks to global warming in the next few years cod in the british waters will become extinct
What lengths are they willing to go to get the point across that global warming is a hazard that has been left to long

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ive just seen it, It wont be long before you wont be able to find cod in any plaice, or is it just mongering a red herring.:disturbd:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

That's enough puns thank you... go on, on yer pike!! Sorry, just me carping on again...

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

But unless you have a severe problem with nuclear power, this isn't a problem. Radioactive material, whilst not recycleable nor renewable, is in such plentiful supply, it is more than feasible for long-term use.

Nuclear fission heats water, which powers turbines to generate electricity to electrolyse water, producing pure hydrogen. This requires no net energy use to maintain.

This does cause problems with nuclear safety and disposal of waste. With nuclear safety my feelings are that everything is a gamble. Crossing the road is a gamble, but you do it because the benefits of reaching the otherside outweigh the risk. Likewise, the benefits of nuclear power (far) outweigh the small safety concerns. With nuclear waste, the production of non-disposable waste does render nuclear power ineligible as a permanant solution, but the earth can safely sustain worldwide nuclear power & waste management for at least a good 200 years, until solar or nuclear fusion becames viable enough to take over from nuclear/hydrogen hybrid usage.

The trouble is given the estimates between another 35 years (from biased groups) to a more likely 70-100 years of oil use left, we don't really have much time left to dismiss things like nuclear power because they aren't 100% perfect.

I would like to see nuclear power turned over to an independent worldwide organistation so all countries, especially like Iran & North Korea can benefit from nuclear power, without having to persue it themselves. the IAEA will own and maintain all the reactors funded from selling the electricity back to countries at a not-for-profit rate,.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Isn't it funny that when I was at school 20 years ago, the doomsayers were warning that there was only 30-40 years of oil left, and today they are still saying the same thing. :rolleyes: Furthermore, the same people who once sang the praises of wind turbines as a renewable energy source are now decrying them.

Some people must just have a 'whinger' gene. :erm:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Look at the oil rigs they know there is TONNNES more oil but can't pump it up with current technology, once they improve over the years they will have more.

And like Chris said 30-40yrs time be still 30-40years time.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Actually wouldn't suprise me if we don't find a way to synthesis gasoline, being as its completely natural. You should be able to form it, or a suitable 'synthetic' substitute from other hydrocarbon compounds.

Won't help the CO2 situation, but it will keep the world moving. Although by then, maybe we might find a way to break down CO2 into carbon and hydrogen, to stop it from reacting with the atmosphere.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Yes, there are hydrogen powered cars being developed and, yes, there are a few places where you can "fill up", but compare that to the amount of money that's being spent on petrol/ diesel powered cars etc and it practically pales into insignificance.

Also, of course, that site is dedicated to pitching hydrogen as an alternative, so naturally they'll put the best spin on it that they can.
__________________

[QUOTE=CJU]They are now saying thanks to global warming in the next few years cod in the british waters will become extinct

"Now saying"?

This report is from 2001.

"Global warming could be tearing apart the delicate marine food chain - spelling doom for everything from zooplankton to dolphins, "

This report points out that UK waters are the most southerly limit of many fish species and it will only take a slight rise for them to no longer swim down as far as they do now.

"Some of the colder-water fish species that people like to have with chips are at the southern limit of their range, and if the warming trend continues, cod are likely to become extinct in the North Sea in the next few decades."

"This year stocks of young cod were at their lowest for 20 years. The numbers of wild salmon have almost halved over the past two decades and this year the numbers returning to British rivers to spawn fell to a record low. Meanwhile, warm-water fish such as red mullet, horse mackerel, pilchards and squid are becoming increasingly common."

And the fact is that cod fishing in the North Sea is no longer viable due to massive over-fishing and it is now "commercially extinct".

I'm sorry, by "what lengths" are you implying that they are lying to try to make this point?
__________________

And then leaves pollution for *thousands* of years. What a wonderful legacy...!!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The Germans did exactly that in WW2 - the scientists involved ended up in the USA :)

This goes back to what I was saying at the start about using biological means to speed up the cycle by converting sunlight+CO2 (or just straight carbon, like fast-growing timber) back into usable oil (biodiesel is effectively this on a small scale).

It'll need strong Government efforts of course - how about adapting the CAP so that set aside land can be assisted to produce biodiesel? After all, in a world of rising oil prices, the first people to get reliable, bulk production of non-fossil oil will mint it in. Plenty of good, arable land in Europe, of course (the East particularly).

Oh, and sell the stuff with less duty on it, of course.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Looks like we'll probably be getting more NP stations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4454468.stm

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I think the problem with any kind of prediction of Global Warming is that we simply don't have enough data to predict what will happen. We have probably around 400 years worth of temperature records (a lot, I know, but the planet is millions of years old, and aparantley, only the last 40 or 50 years of records can be considered to be accurate..

My point is that we don't really have a large enough set of data to base predictions on.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

true, but if the 'atlantic conveyor' does stop, those data are going to be fairly severely updated - not as fast as recent films suggest, but significantly, none the less??

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

So greenhouse gasses (CO2, etc) are today considered to be major causes of global warming. These are largely attributed to consumption of non renewable energy sources.

At least use of renewable energy such as wind power, is simply converting one energy source to another and not adding to the overall bill to the planet.

Nuclear Energy (aside from the waste storage issue) may have a low CO2 input, however it is still creating energy from a non renewable source. Perhaps more importantly the nuclear reaction isn't something that would normally occur in vast quantities. Thus use of nuclear energy is creating a vast extra input of energy to the planet that is not natural. That still has to go somewhere so why won't it too contribute to global warming :confused:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

IIRC Energy is directly related to mass (E=MC^2 to be precise), so the Energy of 1KG of uranium is equal to that of 1KG of butter/water etc. No extra energy is therefore created, and iirc, the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy states just that.

Having said that, we seem to be using massively inefficient (and unrenewable)e ways of transforming energy to the forms we require.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

OK so I'm no scientist, or even physicist (Failed physics A level). Accepting the E=MC^2 rule, the issue is that uranium contains energy that is contained, pent up, whatever but naturally would be released over thousands of years.

Our nuclear processes release that in hours, or weeks (dunno, the excat time is irrelevant). The point is that we are in a relatively short time releasing a whole load of new energy into our planet's system, that nature would not have expected to deal with. Surely therefore Nuclear energy, can contribute to global warming :confused:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The idea/theory/ laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. All you can do is transform one form of energy into another. We usually burn items to (coal/gas/oil) to create heat which runs turbines that create electricity. But this is all rather inefficient (and depletes resources) Einstein's E=MC^2 says that anything that has mass (weight) has energy that equates to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light (don't ask me...). So everything has a fixed amount of energy. Some forms of creating energy in the way we require contribute to global warming more than others. Nuclear energy atm looks relatively clean (but has its drawbacks in terms of radiation/storage etc.).

Wind/water/solar/tidal energy on the other hand take renewable sources of energy and transform those to the type we require (and generally don't contribute to global warming much

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

the problem with nuclear is the cost in the short term is low for the energy you get but overall when you take into account decomissioning the cost is high.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

You're both making it a bit too complicated for yourself.

What you've got to look at is what energy is generated and where does it ends up. Heat is created by increasing the rate of nuclear fission. This is used to heat water and power turbines. The hot water is then dumped into the environment (as steam, hot water......) the heat from this will leave the environment over night into space in the same way as heat from the sun, current power stations or your toaster. :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Just something we're going to have to accept I guess......the same as higher prices for gas/oil. :(

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

apparently the cost of "... clean up of the UK's current nuclear sites" is £56 billion of tax payers dosh.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/content...20051129095305

add to that the cost of clearing up the mess made if/when a terrorist flys an aircraft into one of these sites or drives a petrol tanker into one or walks into one and sets of a semtex device etc.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I love the bit where it says 56billion could build enough wind turbines to provide 20% of the UK's power needs.
Like them or not Nuclear power is here to stay, its efficient, yes its expensive to maintain but so are other forms of electricity generating.

Wind turbines arent good enough to provide our power needs, neother are tidal generators or hydro electric. Greenpeace should remember this, also the fact that people dont want huge wind turbines on every piece of free space in the countryside.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

5 * £56billion = £280billion - so that's all we need to provide all our power needs via wind. spread that over say a 30 year period and it's do-able.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

What would we do on days when there is little or no wind?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Eat more beans !! :erm:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I think until a realistic more friendly source is available we will have to make do with nuclear wind power is too dependant on the weather.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.

Thus they generate much less pollution.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

You're forgetting the NIMBY mentality. Wind farms are like prisons... Everyone wants them, but not near them. That lives a fraction of the country available for wind farms. And then when you finally find a place in the middle of nowhere that keeps everyone happy... Environmentalists complain that wind farms kill too many birds :rolleyes:

You can't win for losing...

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'd love for that to work, but I know from a friend (who was a power station engineer) how hard it can be to 'switch on' a power station. You have to keep them ticking over rather than letting them stop entirely, unless you have plenty of notice of when you're going to need the extra capacity.

One of his favourite stories was how, in the wake of privatisation, a lot of the staff got early retirement as the company sought to reduce manning levels, but reduced the staff by so much they were missing certain expertise. He made a packet out of going back in to do shifts as a freelance, especially when, on one occasion, they did have to get a turbine back on line quickly and there was *nobody* on shift in the power station who knew how to do it!

Back to the point though ... if we still have to have masses of capacity in reserve, what benefit ultimately is there in wind power? I'm not saying there's no place for wind in the energy mix, I was just challenging etc's suggestion that we could divert money from nuclear programmes and take the country 100% wind-powered. Clearly, even if we're only maintaining 'traditional' power stations for back-up purposes, that's not possible.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'm not suggesting we do spend all that dosh on wind power all I'm saying is the figure may look massive for a green source but when spread over 20-50 years setting it up, it is possible. the reality is, windpower would have to supply some of our energy but it would need to be backed up with wave power, solar power and the power of IDEAS and RESEARCH!

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Now that is a very good point. :tu:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Thats all fine, but we STILL have to spend money on keeping the nuclear plants maintained and up to date UNTIL a realistic and viable alternative is found.
So in essence we are just throwing good money after bad.

Theres 3 wind turbines on the side of the A19 I pass every day, most days they are not doing a thing, despite a nice breeze. These turbines are monstrous in size and do blot the landscape.
For the amount of power they would generate I have to ask is three really enough? or did someone waste a stupid amount of cash?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'm not being sarcy but I think the turbines are beautiful when I see them blotting the landscape. I think it's because they are in my opinion a positive aspect of mankind's desire to extract energy from the planet.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

To be fair if you have ever seen a nuclear power station (or any non-renewable form of energy power station!!) You will have to agree they are not exactly pleasing on the eye, so the idea that they are an eyesore does not wash with me.

I would rather have a hillside full of wind turbines, or a gigantic hydro electric damn than a dirty great nuclear power plant, warm water in the sea around it, and tonnes of nuclear waste to bury somewhere.

Again another typical short sighted quick fix by the government! as usual they are not evaluating the route of the problems, they are looking to a quick cheap temporary fix and not really fully looking at things in detail.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

The thing is though they wouldnt build a nuclear power station on a beaty spot or in a national park, but they seem to think that wind turbines should be exempt.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'm surprised there isn't more focus given to this, although some work is being done to improve the efficiency of coal fired power stations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4466040.stm

the 'alternative' biomass fuels, which are 'carbon neutral' don't seem, proportionately, to be getting a look in. Previous experiments with e.g. coppiced willow & straw, seem to have proved feasibility, but not attracted investment???

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I should have *known* someone was going to pick up on that one...! :rolleyes: ;)

Yes, ok, you don't "switch it on" as such, but if you have it in "tick over" mode it's not going to be using anything like the amount of fuel (or generating as much pollution) as when it's going flat out.

Because it won't be generating pollution and CO2 most of the time.

Err, I don't think anyone's suggested 100% wind power, the post somewhere above was talking about 20%, but that's still a lot and a big help for reducing emissions.

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Hear hear!

Although I'm not necessarily enamoured of hydro-electric, flooding big areas to supply power isn't the best of solutions, these are very good points.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Sometimes the build them in places that would otherwise be a lot nicer, often round the coasts. I remember once being on holiday on the East Coast in a place near Sizewell, the water in the sea there is alarmingly warm, yet apparently only due to cooling. I can only assume that this heat mus affect things living in the sea!

It may get to the stage that they have to put nuclear waste in secluded national parks, as there is no mass population there like most of the UK where you would struggle to bury it, putting it in the see is equally dubious. I would still rather the turbines to be honest.

Obviously I would rather them be placed in a manner that did not destroy our countryside.

I feel self sufficiency should also be considered (perhaps with government grants for old build), why are new build houses not installed with Solar panels on the roof, or mini turbines, ok the power generated would be small but if everyone has it, it reduces requirement from the grid. What about hot water, overseas hot water tanks are placed on roofs in metal containers, heat from the sun makes the water very hot in the summer and a solar panel is used for heating during the night and poorer weather.

The government needs a long term solution not a quick fix, its ok building new nuclear reactors but what are we going to do with the waste.