Climate Change

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dotty Trois"]

Are you finished ?[:)]

[/quote]

Not while I'm still breathing, Dotty, not while I'm still breathing. [:D]

[Bob T]

When I decided that due to my remote location and the fact that we had been cut off by snow for 3 days early this year, I bought my 4X4. Does it pollute more than other cars just because it is a 4X4? Well no, I am getting 6.8 l/100 km. A freind in his Twingo often makes two trips to the brico as he cannot get everything that he bought into the car. I have 140bhp on tap and the room to carry stuff. Perhaps we should tax people with household airconditioning very highly and what about people who put up outside lights and leave them on all night. Then there are christmas lights, people with boats, petrol lawnmowers, no loft insulation, etc. If you think that aircraft are bad then spare a thought for some of the military aircraft, 5 tons of fuel in a Tornado that carries only two people who don't go anywhere but land at the same place that they took off from, who pays the taxes on that fuel?

[Deimos]

Just because you cannot see it is not evidence that it does not exist.  In fact it is more about detecting it that "seeing it".  We might not be able to see it but we can see and detect its gravitational effects.  I must agree about the "missing mass" justifications for Dark Matter (does not make sense to me as there are far too many assumptions) but there are loads of independent observations of Dark Matter.  One of the most straight forward (and easiest to follow) are those spiral galaxies with a flat rotation cures (at least flat beyond the nucleus).  Ignoring the spiral arm rotation (which is separate from the matter rotation anyway), many spiral galaxies with Elmegreen arm structures class 4 and higher galaxies show neither Keplerian rotation curves, nor fixed body rotation curves but rather a flat rotation curve -showing the additional mass beyond the galactic disk.  Does not matter what name you give this matter but Dark Matter seems appropriate.

Ian

[quote user="Quillan"]
Now we have somebody who says ban them completely, so now they want us to live in a system where what we do is dictated by the state and our freedom is taken away from us. Well I can see everyone voting for that one!
[/quote]
And you say those who want to protect the environment are being alarmist !!.  I have looked back and cannot see anybody proposing that "what we do is dictated by the state and our freedom is taken away from us".  You are putting words in people's mouths - poor way to try to get your point across particularly after your previous comments.

[quote user="Bob T"]When I decided that due to my remote location and the fact that we had been cut off by snow for 3 days early this year, I bought my 4X4.
[/quote]
My own attitude is that it is not a question of everybody giving up everything (as some seem to think is being proposed !!).  Different people have different requirements depending on their circumstances.  However, there are loads of things that people can do very easily.  A lot of people making small changes can have a massive impact.

[quote user="Bob T"]If you think that aircraft are bad then spare a thought for some of the military aircraft, 5 tons of fuel in a Tornado that carries only two people who don't go anywhere but land at the same place that they took off from, who pays the taxes on that fuel?
[/quote]
I think one of the problems with commercial airlines is the tax anomaly with their fuel.  Seems to allow them to provide ticket prices well below other forms of travel - effectively tax payers subsidising air travel.  Its an aside but I also agree that grounding military aircraft would probably be a good thing.

[quote user="Quillan"]
We are told that fossil burning power stations are bad for the environment. OK lets have nuclear, oh no we can’t have them they are not environmentally friendly either. OK lets have wind power, ah that’s no good the noise effects the environment and they hit birds and kill them (even at sea it seems). What about wave power, kills or scares fish. Can we use candles, probably not. We can’t cook on wood because that gives of Co2. So we are now back in the dark ages. I know we can ride horses and dump the cars? For gods sake chaps get a grip, we are suppose to be going forward not backwards. Now this all may not be 100% correct but its how the environmentalists come over to normal people.
[/quote]
Different organisations with different interests raise different issues with the various possible solutions.  Nothing wrong or "crackpot" about that.  Never heard an environmental organisation proposing we start riding horses - most just propose better public transport so people can start using it instead of private cars carrying a single person.  Similarly, burning wood is pretty carbon neutral.  Please do tell us which environmental group is saying no to burning wood.  The think most people object to about nuclear power is not that it is not environmentally friendly but that it is rather dangerous (particularly when operated by companies out to make a profit).

Ian

[Quillan]

Ok, what I am worried about is that people are going to be penalised for using things they must use. Let’s take a common example a car. I have to get bread every day I have guests. My bread lady comes at 11:30 but my breakfast is at 08:00 so I have to make a 20 minute round trip in my car to buy my bread and other stuff in the morning. Now if some people have their way I am to be penalised by paying more for using my car. How I am physically penalised is not important but I am going to be. So now it's going to cost me say 5 Euros to make this journey instead of 1 euro but I have to have the bread. I could bake it myself but I can't bake so can I have free baking lessons so I don't have to use the car. But hang on to bake I have to use heat. If its gas then I give of emissions directly if it’s electric then somewhere my electricity is being generated and that gives of emissions. I am now in a loose, loose situation. Perhaps I could give up doing breakfasts but then I would go out of business because nobody stays with me. Ah but hang on, if nobody stays with me then I am saving my local environment because the people who come to me use cars. They spend money locally which pays for the fuel to power the cars of people who work locally, they don't have the money anymore because nobody comes and they all work in the tourist industry so they can't drive their cars. So that means I have saved my little area from creating greenhouse gas. The fact we all now starve of course is a different matter.

Alright it’s a bit over the top and I can invent some, in fact loads of, different scenarios just like the enviromentalists. The thing is these doom merchants don't actually give good practicable alternatives they just say stop or you die. So come on guys and girls stop preaching death and destruction and come up with some viable and practicable solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg and perhaps people will take you more seriously.

I’m now off to get my Christmas lights out which I never turn off once I have got them working for fear they will never work again and I shall be leaving my two outside lights on tonight even if they have energy saving bulbs in them (my dog does not like the dark, I could kill it of course then I can turn the outside lights off) and guess what, I will sleep very well. Before I go to bed off course I will have a fag and a glass of wine, I wonder how much CO2 was given off producing that lot. If I don’t f@rt tonight will that help save the planet, I mean no methane gas and all that. Perhaps if we all stop f@rting that will help. As somebody else said what about cows, they give of methane. Tell you what you will pleased to know I am totally bored with this as reason will never prevail over extremism so as I said I’m off to do my lights.

[Gardian]

Well ............ I don't think that anybody said whether they'd heard that silly mare yesterday morning.

Doesn't matter - she was totally inarticulate and not half as forceful in her views / expressing her so called 'findings', as those expressed here.

For what it's worth, I share the view that the jury's still out, but what if it's real ??????  However, beating the **** out of the l-c airlines, is fiddling at the edges.   

[Deimos]

I don't think anybody is going to be stopped from doing things they must do, only from wasting things where they do not need to.  Ideally, people will stop wasting things through concern for the environment (saving money, etc.) so controls etc. will not be necessary.  However, arguments about it "not being proven" and "probably a natural effect, not man made" just give people the excuse to ignore it and make no voluntary changes -> compulsory regulation.  In effect I expect that the "not proven" arguments you, GW, etc. make is the one thing that is going to cause compulsory controls to limit the effects.

Quillan, again, which environmental group says we should not burn wood for heat/cooking/whatever as I am keen to follow this up with them as they are in error about the negative effects of this.

Ian

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Ok, what I am worried about is that people are

going to be penalised for using things they must use. Let’s take a

common example a car. I have to get bread every day I have guests. My

bread lady comes at 11:30 but my breakfast is at 08:00

so I have to make a 20 minute round trip in my car to buy my bread and

other stuff in the morning. Now if some people have their way I am to

be penalised by paying more for using my car. How I am physically

penalised is not important but I am going to be. So now it's going to

cost me say 5 Euros to make this journey instead of 1 euro but I

have to have the bread. I could bake it myself but I can't bake so can

I have free baking lessons so I don't have to use the car. But hang on

to bake I have to use heat. If its gas then I give of emissions

directly if it’s electric then somewhere my electricity is being

generated and that gives of emissions. I am now in a loose, loose

situation. Perhaps I could give up doing breakfasts but then I would go

out of business because nobody stays with me. Ah but hang on, if nobody

stays with me then I am saving my local environment because the people

who come to me use cars. They spend money locally which pays for the

fuel to power the cars of people who work locally, they don't have the

money anymore because nobody comes and they all work in the tourist

industry so they can't drive their cars. So that means I have saved my

little area from creating greenhouse gas. The fact we all now starve of

course is a different matter.

Alright it’s a bit over the top and I can invent some, in fact loads

of, different scenarios just like the enviromentalists. The thing is

these doom merchants don't actually give good practicable alternatives

they just say stop or you die. So come on guys and girls stop preaching

death and destruction and come up with some viable and practicable

solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg and perhaps people will take

you more seriously.

I’m now off to get my Christmas lights out which I never turn off

once I have got them working for fear they will never work again and I

shall be leaving my two outside lights on tonight even if they have

energy saving bulbs in them (my dog does not like the dark, I could

kill it of course then I can turn the outside lights off) and guess

what, I will sleep very well. Before I go to bed off course I will have

a fag and a glass of wine, I wonder how much CO2 was given off

producing that lot. If I don’t f@rt tonight will that help save the

planet, I mean no methane gas and all that. Perhaps if we all stop

f@rting that will help. As somebody else said what about cows, they

give of methane. Tell you what you will pleased to know I am totally

bored with this as reason will never prevail over extremism so as I

said I’m off to do my lights.

[/quote]

Quite a rant. Unfortunately being bored with an issue doesn't make it go away.

As for extremism...

I'll paint you a scenario: from Jan 1st 2008 it becomes illegal to

newly register a car with an engine larger than 1200cc (a bit larger

for diesels perhaps) and an extra-urban fuel consumption not exceeding

5.5l/100km (about 50 mpg - quite achievable). We could even fit 4WD for

people who want it. We're not talking about commercial vehicles for the

time being mind. No increase in petrol taxes beyond inflation. There's

the carrot. Now, how is that penalising people who need to use a car? Even if people who like

gas guzzlers choose to keep them on the road far longer than they would

ordinarily rather than switch to a new car there is a benefit: it costs

energy to build cars and it costs to scrap them. However, a universal

hike on fuel duty tends to hurt low income groups (who drive least) and

ignored by the rich who can afford it and so, generally, achieves no

benefit.

Not so long ago people would fly off on holiday maybe a couple of times

a year. Fine. Not a problem. Travel broadens the ming and all that. But

now, on top of this, they might add four or so short breaks, and they

fly these too. Stag nights used to be in pubs. Now twenty people jet

off to Prague or wherever. These are the sort of changes in

behaviour that are where real damage is thought to be rooted. I'm not

blaming a particular group - just illustrating. Now, we could try and

convince people that this is not good for the enviroment, but it would

really helpp argue the case if a freeze were put on opening new routes,

would it not?

[Patmobile]

I've just had a brilliant idea.  Save the methane from cows and use it to cook steaks!  Use any excess to power suitably adapted jets for holiday flights! 

I could become very rich if I can just get this pipe up that cow's backside...

Patrick

[Deimos]

Goddard Space Flight Centre detects melting of Greenland Ice Packs accelerating - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006081022858.html.

I've spent ages trying to find the environmental organisation saying we should not burn wood for heating, etc. and have been unable to find any (most have replied saying that would not say that as it is untrue). Quillan, given that you say such discussions should be based on facts, please now tell us which environmental organisation says no to burning wood for heating/cooking.

Ian

[Quillan]

[quote user="Deimos"]Goddard Space Flight Centre detects melting of Greenland Ice Packs accelerating - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006081022858.html. I've spent ages trying to find the environmental organisation saying we should not burn wood for heating, etc. and have been unable to find any (most have replied saying that would not say that as it is untrue). Quillan, given that you say such discussions should be based on facts, please now tell us which environmental organisation says no to burning wood for heating/cooking. Ian[/quote]

So why are we not all under 10ft of water then?

OK I put my hand up and say I don't remember BUT when people were cutting down trees (and still are) with no controls put in place, particularly the rain forests and burning them the environmentalists were saying that this would effect the CO2 level because trees absorb CO2 especially large trees (being bigger thee absorb more than small young trees). Even farming wood is not such a bright idea because again you take down a old tree and replace it with a small one. I also thought that burning anything gives of CO2.

Still don't believe the greenhouse effect is caused only by man by the way, load of old twaddle. Anyway I will be long dead before anything seriously happens and not having kids it does not worry me [:P] . (only joking)

Today I will give you some of the names I was talking about starting with A that know far more than you and I put together who disagree (and some).

Aber John. D. - Adams, Barbara - Atheide, David L. - Aderson, J.B. - Andrews, J.T. - Anderson, Terry, L. - Arens, William - Arquilla, John. - Aunger, Rober

I will give you the B's as well as there are not many of them

Beck, Ulrich. - Beckerman, Wi;fred. - Black, Edwin. - Bohm, R. - Braithwaite, Roger. J. - Briggs, Robin. - Brint, Steven - Brower, Michael.

My list ends with Windsor, P. who incidently wrote a really interesting letter entitled "Artic Sea Ice Thickness Remaining Constant During the 1990's" Geophysical Research Letters 28, No6 March 2001 ref 1039-41 in particular is interesting.

So there’s a long, long, way to go with names of scientists and scholars who disagree with you, over a 100 as I said before. All have written papers that disprove your theories or are they yours or is it like me you just read a lot and believe everything you read.

[Russethouse]

>>>Why is the focus of climate change always focused on the Brits or Western Europeans? Does anyone out there realise that the good ole US of A is the biggest poluter on the planet and they don't care a jot <<<

Well having just come back from the USA I can say I was gobsmacked, petrol is so cheap its ridiculous and that in turn makes transporting goods cheap etc. No wonder Bush is so 'interested' in oil producing countries!

Also the waste was amazing, every moring I was there a catalogue from someone, about the size of a Lakeland catalogue would turn up, Coldwater Creek, LL Bean etc, and these came weekly ! Endless coupons arrived unbidden (nice for me as I got $15 off a $35 purchase at Yankee candles) so much rubbish produced it was amazing.

Yes, the restaurants offered doggy bags but the potions were huge, no wonder they have an obesity problem, you could get very fat, very cheaply !

 

 

[Deimos]

Quillan asked: "So why are we not all under 10ft of water then?"

Depends on a number of factors. For example if you live only a few m above sea level you will suffer sooner than those higher above sea level. Its a gradual process. does not all happen immediately.

Quillan commented: "Even farming wood is not such a bright idea because again you take down a old tree and replace it with a small one."

But small trees grow, accumulating carbon. thus, if one farms trees, the net longer term effect will be carbon neutral.

What theories do you suppose I have. I'm afraid that measurements (not theories) show the world is getting warmer. People might write letters disagreeing with other peoples measurements but the majority of measurements show the world is getting warmer. To be honest I'm being cautions here because I have not seen any published measurements saying the world is staying the same temperature and none saying it is getting colder.

(From a scientific "published" perspective, letters are an expression of opinion and are not subject to the same peer review).

Your list is interesting. Just take the first (Aber) - a specialist in modelling primarily focusing on nitrogen cycles in northern US forests (I've actually heard of him as environmental modelling was as area I've worked in). However, he has written on climate change. An article he wrote (jointly) says "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1850. Over the next century, increasing gas concentrations could cause the temperature on the surface of the Earth to rise as much as 2-3°C over historic mean annual levels. Variation in annual climate could also increase." (http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_mcnulty009.pdf) Sounds to me like he is agreeing that Global Warming is happening and is actually putting it down to Greenhouse gasses (in particular CO2). - so maybe cross him off your list ?

Ian

[Coco]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Also the waste was amazing, every moring I was there a catalogue from someone, about the size of a Lakeland catalogue would turn up, Coldwater Creek, LL Bean etc, and these came weekly ! Endless coupons arrived unbidden (nice for me as I got $15 off a $35 purchase at Yankee candles) so much rubbish produced it was amazing.

Yes, the restaurants offered doggy bags but the potions were huge, no wonder they have an obesity problem, you could get very fat, very cheaply !

[/quote]

Gay, if you want to see catalogue and paper waste just buy a house in France - I get at least one unsolicited catalogue a day and unbelievable amounts of promo mags, flyers an goodness knows what other c**p in my postbox 6 days a week!!!![:@]

It won't matter if the potions are huge, just as long as they're magic, then you can eat as much as you like and you won't put on an ounce [Www]

[Russethouse]

[:)][:)] That would be good - Portion potions !

I get quite a lot of 'free paper' promotion things too, but not so thick, they were really the sort of thing we get quarterly........thick glossy brochures for everything under the sun!

[WJT]

Yes we get loads of coupons and catalogues here (L'Oustal and others every week) in France (perhaps you haven't noticed). Last week (I forgot the name) I received a catalogue that was about 2" thick for children's toys. No children here. Russethouse, you have made comments like this in the past, perhaps with the way you feel about the Americans,  a bit surprised you decided to visit (with all that petrol for long distance flights and all you know) I would recommend to stay away. [:)]

[Quillan]

On a more serious note (instead of what I was saying further down the thread) many years ago we bought through one of the Sunday papers a paper brick forming job. Get yourself a water but and fill it with water. Every day you get junk mail throw it in there. At the end of the month drain the water butt retrieve the paper and use this machine which makes these bricks Then leave them out to dry.  They burn for absolutly ages when dried out and its cheap (I love cheap). Just think of it this way the more junk mail you get the cheaper your heating bills so you can forward it all on to me if you like. Gives the wife something to do [:D] . One thing I have found is it's worth putting some bleach in the water if you are in high temp areas as it stops the mozzies.

On the food front and the USA and large portions. The family I stayed with years ago when sent there as part of a RAF exchange had a daughter who worked in a carvery. Friday and Saturday nights she used to bring home the ribs from the joint they had carved from. The guy used to give it to the dog till I came along. There was enough meat left on these thing to feed a family of four for a week back in the UK. Really nice and pink as well. I used to grab and snack off them THEN give them to the dog. I said I was doing the dog a favour, I mean it was wider than it was long (the dog that is).

[chris pp]

You can easily stop Junk mail in France, just contact me either from here or via the Planetepassion web site and I will send you a sticker and the two pre printed letters that you will require, I will need your name and address to send it to you.

Chris

[Quillan]

Been meaning to post this for a couple of days now.

It seems that somebody has made a documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and you can watch it HERE if you missed it on Channel 4 (UK).

It certainly makes you think and backs up some of my previous, more serious, statements. An interesting point, one that can't be denied is that the fluctuations in the earth’s ambient temperature moves in the opposite direction to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fluctuations do however follow the suns activity as it rises and falls. For example, in the first half of the 20th century when we were burning loads and loads of coal and manufacturing was at its peak during and after WWII and in to the 60's the levels of CO2 where really, really high yet the ambient world temperature was down. CO2 emissions are now a lot, lot lower yet it's getting hotter and we are told it's down to CO2.

It would seem the IPCC have been a bit naughty as it has been alleged in the film that they don't just put the authors names on their reports but all their scientific members irregardless of if they agree or not. Quite a few members are 'coming out' and showing their results that didn't get in to the report not because they were wrong but because they didn't write what the IPCC chairman wanted to hear. I mean even the deputy chairman disagrees to with the findings of the report in his interview on the above program

What about developing nations who want to industrialise, African nations and India in particular. This all seem a great way of trying to stop them by saying they will damage the planet. They didn't have industry before, it was the west so why should the west be able to call the shots, pollute the air and take the money. I think it's more to do with the fact these countries will be making goods a lot cheaper which is more the worry of the west.

I never knew what a big multi billon dollar industry this climate change is either. There are loads of very big multi national companies where it is in their interest for us to believe all this rubbish so they can make shed loads of money. Not to mention the government through tax. It seems to be a win, win situation for everyone except for us public.

Watch the film if you didn't already

This is a good artical form the telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

 

 

[AnOther]

There are a lot of people who liked what they heard and saw on this programme but you might like to see what one of the scientists in the programme is claiming:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

[Quillan]

You are talking about Carl Wunsch who has said he was duped and quoted out of context. This of course has been posted all over the internet by interested parties. The interesting thing is that he has not seen the film but has asked Martin Durking last Monday (that’s the 12th March) to send him a copy. Interesting enough he sent a letter quoted on the link you gave on the 11th and it's clear from what he says that he is only going on what people have told him. I would have thought that being a scientist he would have liked to have seen the film before passing comment. In fact what he said he meant is exactly how it came over in the film. Nobody said that Co2 only came from the sea and that the human production of Co2 did not have an effect, what they were saying is that effect is not as bad as politicians and others with 'agendas' would let us belief. As Wunsch has so often said, lets not over react.

Apparently one of the people most upset about the film and is trying to get it banned in the USA is Al Gore who I believe has also made a film pushing the opposite angle.

[WJT]

I think Carl Wunsch is an oceanographer. If you watch the program it is hard to imagine his comments were taken out of context, he certainly had quite a lot of time and expanded them.

[AnOther]

[quote user="Quillan"]Apparently one of the people most upset about the film and is trying to get it banned in the USA is Al Gore who I believe has also made a film pushing the opposite angle.[/quote]It's called "The Inconvenient Truth" and I have the DVD in front of me at this instant but haven't watched it yet.

Quite how anybody imagines they can ban anything like this these days is beyond me and if true demonstrates a shocking and frightening degree of nievity.

[Quillan]

If you want to see his 'expanded comments' then have a look at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1 which is not to far away from what he said in the program. Yes, you are correct he is a oceanographer.

Strange how quiet those that shouted me down when I sugeested it was not all down to humans and there was some kind of con going on. What I am personally worried about is that by what I see as over reacting we could actually do more damage. I understand that some who have dared to suggest that perhaps the 'greens' and others could be wrong have even had death threats made to them (this to was mentioned in the program).

What I see with what the UK government wants to put in place is that the rich who don't care about the price of petrol or paying extra money to fly will be OK the rest of us will become the harder hit. If anything it creates or increases the the gap between us.

[Quillan]

Exactly Ernie, I am afraid American politicians in general (and their current president) have a very big problem with the word 'truth'.

[MrCanary]

 

I believe there is a theory that the biggest pollutant is actually the combined greenhouse effect caused by human flatulence.