Global warming 'past the point of no return'

Originally Posted by Graham

It is hard evidence.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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*,

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

I said it was "evidence", which is a different matter.

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."

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

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

Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous

Like I said, not very precise.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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

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...! )

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

[CJU]

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

[marky]

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by marky

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.

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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,.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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. 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.

[AndrewJ]

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.

[punky]

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.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by me283

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:

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".

What lengths are they willing to go to get the point across that global warming is a hazard that has been left to long

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

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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

[BBKing]

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.

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.

[Shaun]

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

Government Chief Scientist Sir David King told the BBC that a "fresh look" was needed at the situation but denied that any firm decisions had been made ahead of the review.


"My advice has been clear for some time, but I don't believe that decisions have been made, " he said.


Earlier he had urged the government to "give the green light" to more power stations.

"A decision on the future of nuclear power has been allowed to drift too long," said the CBI's director general Sir Digby Jones.



"Potential investors and the British public both deserve certainty."


He told BBC Radio Five Live: "It is high time this nation had an integrated coherent energy policy."

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

[Stuart]

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.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

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.

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??