Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[themelon]

Originally Posted by basa

IMO those gigantic windmill affairs are a blot on the landscape

I say go nuclear, the only downside I see is the waste. Couldn't we blast it off into the sun and increase its time a little ?

Hardly the most attractive of things in the world, exactly who would like one of these things building near their house?

Originally Posted by themelon

Hardly the most attractive of things in the world, exactly who would like one of these things building near their house?

The whole NIMBY argument is a red herring. Nobody wants major industrial development on their doorstep, but we put up with it ...

I think the solution is clear; new nuclear power stations should be built on the sites of existing ones as far as possible, as the power grid infrastructure is already there and the landscape is already blotted.

Stark warning over climate change

The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, says the UK government's chief scientist.

Tony Blair wants a global consensus on stabilising greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for climate change. The government shares the EU's 2C limit.

The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising.


The government report says a 3C rise would cause:
A drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops
About 400 million more people at risk of hunger
Between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress

This is getting serious

BBC Science - Nature

[AdamD]

That it is

The last paragraph made me laugh

"President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy. "

---------- Post added at 05:39 ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

I was surprised to hear on the radio last night that the total quantity of nuclear waste we have generated so far could fill the Albert Hall five times. That is not a lot when you consider the number of years we've been at it and the amount of electricity that has been generated from it.

They should just find a cheap, but safe (if possible) method of sticking it all in containers and throwing it into space, like, at the sun
At least it'd get disposed of

[AndrewJ]

Knowing our luck Adam it would explode on the launch pad and contaminate us all.

[me283]

Originally Posted by AdamD

That it is

The last paragraph made me laugh

"President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy. "

---------- Post added at 05:39 ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 ----------



They should just find a cheap, but safe (if possible) method of sticking it all in containers and throwing it into space, like, at the sun
At least it'd get disposed of

Well, Connaughton has a point. What is the point of reducing something when you may not need to, only to find it is detrimental in other ways?

As for sending the waste into space, it's probably not the best idea. What if it hits a meteorite or something? Or ends up coming back into our gravitational field? In fact, lets just assume there is another civilzation on a planet comewhere, and one day a load of nuclear waste comes crashing down on their planet... how would we feel if the reverse happened and someone else's waste landed on earth?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by AdamD

They should just find a cheap, but safe (if possible) method of sticking it all in containers and throwing it into space, like, at the sun
At least it'd get disposed of

We'd need superman to do that, I saw it on telly :P

They've been looking into using remote areas of Australia, to the delight of the Australian priminister because of the revenue it would bring in, and the disgust of the Australian population because of the hysteria over nuclear waste.

[me283]

Originally Posted by yesman

The government report says a 3C rise would cause:
A drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops
About 400 million more people at risk of hunger
Between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress

This is getting serious

BBC Science - Nature

Ah, good old statisitics... that's a big range though, "between 20 and 400 million tonnes"? So it could be 20, or it could be 400, or it could be somewhere in between? Or, since it's a stat in a government report, it could be a complete lie... sorry, "mistake that they never admit to"?

I failt so see how a 3c rise in tempewrature would cause that much devastation to cereal crop.

Cereal crop is grown in all parts of the world in all temperatures, I really can not see the sense or justification of that argument.

---------- Post added at 09:38 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

Originally Posted by me283

Well, Connaughton has a point. What is the point of reducing something when you may not need to, only to find it is detrimental in other ways?

As for sending the waste into space, it's probably not the best idea. What if it hits a meteorite or something? Or ends up coming back into our gravitational field? In fact, lets just assume there is another civilzation on a planet comewhere, and one day a load of nuclear waste comes crashing down on their planet... how would we feel if the reverse happened and someone else's waste landed on earth?

it would vaporise in the re-entry.

[injuneer]

Doesn't matter, there'll soon be nothing left of the planet anyway!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4897252.stm

[AndrewJ]

Oh dear woh it betold upon us.

yeah right...

[ntluser]

Global warming is only past the point of return if we give up trying to put right what we have been doing wrong to the environment.

The truth is we need to change the way we have been living on the planet and start to do more to help the planet recover.

We need to buy time to put things right and we can do that by:-

a) pumping ozone back into the atmosphere to repair the damage to the hole in the ozone layer

b) growing more trees, bushes and plants especially in countries with long hours of sunlight to mop up the excess carbon dioxide we are producing

c) developing sustainable non-polluting fuels and technology so that we can maintain our economies without harming the environment

d) reducing emissions from old technology equipment in a phased way so that old technology is replaced by new technology as soon as it is available

e) making preparations to combat the rising water levels by improving coastal defences now particulary in coastal areas that are close to sea level where there is high risk of flooding

f) moving towards the idea of using home -based solar power and wind power
to generate electricity which can be integrated into the National Grid

g) building coastal desalination plants so that we can tap into the waters of the sea particularly in periods of drought

h) upgrading existing reservoirs and have a national system of domestic rain barrels so that when rain does come we can conserve more water

i) moving back to the idea of growing enough food of our own, especially at home, to sustain the nation instead of being reliant on imports from other countries

j) drawing up and implementing domestic strategies for recycling and avoiding the waste of resources like water, food and fuel

There are, I am sure, many other ways we can improve things. Unfortunately, carrying on the way we are and doing nothing to help the environment will only make matters worse.

So where does this fit into the whole global warming discussion?If even the act of putting something right is pointless what the heck are we to do?

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So where does this fit into the whole global warming discussion?If even the act of putting something right is pointless what the heck are we to do?

The problem with this is that while the scientists carry out their research, societies and the industry they generate will still be polluting the environment compounding the problem. By the time they arrive at any conclusions, the consequences of global warming will be upon us and there will be too little time to do anything.

We know that the ice caps are melting and we know that many coastal areas will be flooded when the water levels rise. We need to act now to prevent that happening and we need to have a plan for moving people inland. This was something that New Orleans did not prepare for and look what happened there.

There are other consequences of global warming and we need to plan and implement strategies now. Like two men falling from the roof of a 102 storey building, their parachutes need to be deployed before reaching ground level. If they spend their falling time arguing about what the best plan of action will be, we can predict what the outcome will be.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ntluser

The problem with this is that while the scientists carry out their research, societies and the industry they generate will still be polluting the environment compounding the problem. By the time they arrive at any conclusions, the consequences of global warming will be upon us and there will be too little time to do anything.

We know that the ice caps are melting and we know that many coastal areas will be flooded when the water levels rise. We need to act now to prevent that happening and we need to have a plan for moving people inland. This was something that New Orleans did not prepare for and look what happened there.

There are other consequences of global warming and we need to plan and implement strategies now. Like two men falling from the roof of a 102 storey building, their parachutes need to be deployed before reaching ground level. If they spend their falling time arguing about what the best plan of action will be, we can predict what the outcome will be.

That article is interesting though. Cleaner air is actually contributing to the problems. How ironic!

The key for me is in the line "...scientists suggest that...", which in my mind implies that they aren't all that sure really. So, every time they come up with a new idea about how to save the planet, the knee-jerk reaction is not always the best one. After all, when we were being urged to cut down pollution, did any of the esteemed scientists mention the damage we might be causing?