Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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

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!

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.

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

Which is still being entirely disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Which is still being entirely disingenuous.

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

[me283]

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?

[punky]

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

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

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

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

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.

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?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

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?

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

[me283]

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

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

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?

Originally Posted by punky

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?

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

[punky]

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

[me283]

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.

Originally Posted by me283

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.

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....

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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.

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

"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.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Does anyone know much about this:

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

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.