Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Old 26th Oct 2006, 10:42
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by Wedge View Post
I am happy to be taxed, yes, as I believe taxation is the greatest disincentive to activities which damage the environment. I am 100% behind plans to tax four wheel drive vehicles far more heavily, especially when they are being driven and parked in built up areas like London. I don't need a 4x4 in London. And nor does anyone.
Taxing 4x4's is not a good thing, its a soft target with plenty public support (non-4x4 owners) and the impact in reality will be negligible to the environment, but still a nice little earner.
The Chelsea tractor type 4x4's are driven by wealthy people, the sort who are happy to pick up a fine for parking on a double yellow outside Harvey Nicks, and a tax hike won't faze them much, if anything it will pleasantly reinforce their assumed differentiation from the great unwashed. The people who will get hammered are the rural types who buy them second-hand and will be discouraged from venturing into towns that tax them.
Even if they did drive every Chelsea tractor owner off urban roads and into a car of equivalent value - say a 4 litre M5 or big Merc estate, what would be the net benefit to the environment? Cutting down on pointless lo-co flights and discouraging business travel, encouraging e-business, promoting the use of energy saver bulbs, getting offices to shut down PCs and A/C's at night, getting people to turn down their thermostats a couple of degrees, etc etc.
But for every stick there needs to be a carrot. Extra taxes should not be the prime means of social engineering. Education is the better way.
Educating on the benefits of energy saving, that would make a difference. 4x4's are a soft target for tax, a bit like having a referendum on super-tax for millionaires, no suprises what the people would say there. It might not do much good, but it feels good.

Another pet hate of mine is the concept of road pricing based on the time of travel, with peak charges in the rush hour. Apparently this will discourage people from travelling in the rush hour. Yeah, like people drive in the rush hour by choice! Instead why not facilitate working from home and flexible hours? Sticking plaster politics.
Cheerio is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 10:46
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 144
Ice Age

Tell you what; things will be a lot warming when this exceptionally long ice age that we are coming to the end of finally ends.

Ice on both poles - how many times has that happened in geological history (I can't remember for sure but think from memory that it is only 2 or 3 times).

The fact is that we are in an ice age and it is ending; only way for an ice age to end is for the temperature to go up and as ice melts it goes up quicker to the decreased reflection from the poles.

Have we got anything to do with it? Nope.

Should we be trying to work out what will happen and how we can cope when the ice age ends? Yes.

What do the greenies want? Us to bury our heads in the sands as to the final outcome and try to stop the inevitable.
James 1077 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 11:16
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by James 1077 View Post
Tell you what; things will be a lot warming when this exceptionally long ice age that we are coming to the end of finally ends.
Ice on both poles - how many times has that happened in geological history (I can't remember for sure but think from memory that it is only 2 or 3 times).
The fact is that we are in an ice age and it is ending; only way for an ice age to end is for the temperature to go up and as ice melts it goes up quicker to the decreased reflection from the poles.
If you want to see what climate change (whatever the mechanism) can do, look no further than the Mesozoic era.
"The Mesozoic Era follows the most devastating mass extinction in earth's history. The marine biosphere is rebuilt following extinctions in most of the major Paleozoic marine groups. The new fauna is dominated by molluscs, fish and corals. Reptiles also radiate into the marine realm, becoming the first large air-breathing predators.
On land, the diapsid reptiles replace the synapsids that dominated the Permian. By the end of the Triassic, synapsids play only bit parts. At the start of the Jurassic, while living on the fringes and grubbing out an existence, they evolve into the mammals.
After the Triassic, big changes occur. Diapsid reptiles radiate into pterosaurs and a variety of dinosaur forms. The Jurassic is dominated by giant herbivorous sauropods, while herbivorous ornithischians and carnivorous theropods also abound. In the late Jurassic, birds evolve from the theropods. Dinosaurs continue their dominance in the Cretaceous, with the ornithischians and theropods becoming more important.
The end of the Mesozoic is marked by the a sudden, massive extinction event. The second largest extinction in earth's history happens quite suddenly. Data collected within the last 20 years, strongly suggests that an asteroid impact on the earth played a major role in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/geologictime.php
So the Earth wipes the slate clean for the Dinosaurs to evolve, during the hot, dry Triassic period where life was tough. Entering the Jurassic period, conditions improved and the dinosaurs flourished. Then the Earth wipes the slate clean at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the cyle begins again with the mammals in the driving seat.
Its a cycle no doubt. Except now we should have the intelligence to break the extinction cycle, adapting faster than evolution allows thanks to our big brains. Its a pity we didn't listen to Malthus and his bacteria colony, as a culture dish isn't so different from the place we inhabit. That's a big step to take but one that is inevitable.
Cheerio is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 12:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 144
Don't you love climate change and mother nature; without climate change we would never have evolved and without mother nature we would otherwise be serving our lizard overlords!
James 1077 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 16:40
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Suffolk
Age: 79
Posts: 8
We should do our bit to save the planet and when I see a windfarm off the coast of China, I'll buy some of those freaky light bulbs!
red3 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 16:48
  #46 (permalink)  

Untitled
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 87
when I see a windfarm off the coast of China, I'll buy some of those freaky light bulbs!
Freaky lightbulbs it is then!


OFFSHORE WINDFARM SET TO PROCEED OFF CHINA’S NAN’AO ISLAND

A 100 MW windfarm project is going ahead in China’s Guangdong province, known as the world’s manufacturing center. Wind turbines are already operating in the area, but after a new renewable energy law passed earlier this year, the much expanded offshore wind-farm was approved. It will send power into the grid directly from the small island of Nan’ao, which is about 200 miles northeast of Hong Kong. Greenpeace estimated Chinese wind power potential at 1 million MW, more than twice China’s current installed power generating capacity of 440,700 MW. Presently coal provides 70% of China’s electricity. China plans to expand its nuclear power industry as well as boost renewable energy to cover 10% of its needs by 2010, raising its green capacity to 60,000 MW, including 50,000 MW of hydropower and 4,000 MW of wind power. Shantou Dan Nan Wind Power Co. Ltd is developing Nan’ao’s 100 MW offshore windfarm. Shantou Dan Nan is a joint venture of Dutch power utility Nuon and power authorities of Shantou city, and has run a 24 MW wind farm on Nan’ao since 1998. It is also developing four other wind projects in China, including two others in Guangdong. Jens Olsen, chief representative of representative of Vestas Asia Pacific, a unit of the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark, said “We can erect a 150-200 MW plant in one year. If you build a coal-fired plant, it usually takes three to five years. Nuclear plants need even longer.” The Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association said costs for wind power had dropped from 20 U.S. cents per kilo-watt hour 20 years ago to 5 cents, equivalent to the costs of conventional energy.
(from http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/development.html)
Polikarpov is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 16:53
  #47 (permalink)  

Cut & Paste Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Durham UK
Posts: 114

Nan'ao, a Chinese island near the manufacturing center of Guangdong province, already has these wind turbines on land, and plans for a much larger offshore system.

Now where are those freaky light bulbs
UL730 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 20:03
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 86
Rant on

Dont talk to me about fu***g global warming. As a bulding services consulting engineer we have to use this Government procured and implemented software package called SBEM ( Simplified Building Energy Model)that is supposed to be the industry standard and it falls short of the mark by a wide margin. Its un usable, its DOS based and doesnt even use a 3 D building model .You have to type all the room details in my hand on spread sheets .Its supposed to calculate the predicted CO2 rating and its results are wrong compared with 3 or 4 far more sophisticated dynamic modelling packages which are accredited. I uploaded their latest release the other day and the results are 25% higher CO2 on the same building i put in for a client last week...how do they explain this.Either the previous version was wrong and the latest version is correct.

I now have to tell my client that having loaded the latest incarnation of this piece of crap that by increasing the glazing areas, thereby reducing the lighting load therefore electrical load the CO2 rating goes UP by 25%. The glazing is solar performance so its not as if the AC requirements are higher as we have very little ac on the building.

There is a recognised set of calc models caled TM33 that all software houses have to adhere to in order to gain accreditation which is pretty tough. Guess which one would fail the tests and the govt have declined to have this SBEM tool go through the accreditation process ....Its basically "this is the government tool and it is correct even if it gives you the C02 rating for China on a domestic house , its our tool ...we are the legislature therefore its right even if we bought the Building regulations forward by 2 years and fast tracked this untested software"

This was procured in conjunction with the BRE and Ove Arup ( them of the swingy walkway bridge over the Thames) They have set themselves up as the arbiters of all software accreditation ...the same lot that procured and came up with this piece of crap in the firstplace.They are all academics that shown forest and a small piece of bark, couldnt comment on the differences between the two as they dont know what a tree is

We also have a dometstic equivalent calculation called SAP whch does the same thing and the answers generate have to be accurate to 2 decimal places in terms of Kg CO2/m/year...2 decimal places for F**k sake.The hairy arsed brickie that builds the building cant work to 2 decimal places. My watch is prolly made to tolerances to 2 decimal places ...

Next time you see some talking head from the govt or some beard going on about th efact that we dont seem to be reducing CO2 levels, it not just about air travel and 4x4s its that the building industry is in turmoil through piss poor implementation of building regs and shite legislation and no tools to do our jobs properly. Thank god half the building control officers who can pass /fail a building submission havent a clue what they are looking at so you can effectively spend a large amount of time and paper submitting crap...so long as the crap is accredited crap...

Why are we still allowed to buy non efficient light bulbs for instance and why does my daughter leave all the lights on all the time..

Whats the point going thro all this bullshit when I can still buy inefficient lightbulbs, I can still leave my lights on , turn my heating up etc etc.Unless you control the actions of human beings ( Labours hidden agenda?) then most of this is waffle and churn creating employment for yet more tiers of faceless bureacracy without actually getting any tangible results.

As usual the Government want to be seen to be doing something when in reality is best to spend less energy and no money, doing bugger all ,and acheiving the same result

Rant off

Last edited by Burnt Fishtrousers; 26th Oct 2006 at 20:16.
Burnt Fishtrousers is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 20:34
  #49 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Capt.KAOS View Post
Ah... the infamous "Hockeystick" theory, which btw has been debunked by now.
No, it has not. Questioned yes, but in fact broadly supported recently by a report by the US National Academy of Science (June 2006). The debate still rages, and there is a long way to go, but to say debunked is incorrect.

Pot, kettle?

Dr Dave
 
Old 26th Oct 2006, 20:39
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: chico
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Burnt Fishtrousers View Post
Rant on
Dont talk to me about fu .....
etc etc....
Rant off
Good rant Dr Fishpants and I do not want to quibble with any of your numerous well-taken individual points.
I do want to ask you to consider the larger picture which you appear to have lost in pursuit of your personal perspective.
The genuine scientific community (of which I do not claim membership) is virtually unanimous in the judgement that there is a serious global warming problem and that there is a large contribution to that problem from human activity, ie fossil fuel use. Deniers are nitwits but I will not persuade them here.
Think globally, act locally.
Your plaint as I read it is that local actions to address the global problem cause you grief. I wish that you could instead embrace and encourage and especially, improve well-intentioned local actions. Tell your clients about the better lightbulbs and the better windows and the better insulation. Tell your supervisors and government who enact and enforce the regulations that bother you, what works and what does not. In your position you have more knowledge and more power than the average citizen to influence public policy in sensible directions.
kansasw is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 20:52
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Dave,

Scientifically it's crap, politically it's an embarrassment. You may be confusing the desperate sound of political damage limitation with scientific rigour.

BM
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 21:08
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
kansasw

No.
Believers are nitwits but I will not persuade them here.

You might as well face reality which is............They don't know!

OK it's getting (a wee bit) warmer. How much is us? How much is mother nature?
0.6 Cel in 100 years. Frankly I doubt they can meaure that accurately.
Also the Earth can easily do much more cooling or warming with zero input from us. So we'd better get used to it if we plan to be here long term.
brain fade is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 21:44
  #53 (permalink)  
Ohcirrej
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Originally Posted by brain fade View Post
0.6 Cel in 100 years.
Whassat in Kelvin?
Jerricho is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 22:07
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Ermmmm
0.6K I think?
brain fade is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 22:41
  #55 (permalink)  
Ohcirrej
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
**** me you're smart.

Me listen to you.
Jerricho is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 23:20
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
If you were a politician, climate change would represent manna from heaven. It has ALL the required ingredients for a politician's benefit.

At any time it is easy to find a part of the world experiencing "unusual" weather. It is sensational. The "facts" can be manipulated easily. The media love it because they know that the people who like to buy newspapers also "need" to be frightened of something. ALL of it is based on THEORY, so you can deny it all later when it doesn't happen or is disproved. Best of all, you can TAX the daft green people who think that somehow this will make a difference. Talk about a win/win for a poiltician...

I have shown these figures before for everyone's perusal, but here they are again (for cars, one could easily read "aircraft"):

The oceans and seas are extremely important in climate terms. The climate involves a lot of non-linear, chaotic processes, with highly significant ocean to atmosphere coupling. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GtC (gigatonnes of carbon, the 'mass yardstick' for carbon dioxide, and giga means 10 to the power 9); the surface ocean contains even more, 1000 GtC; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year.



Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions, and cars are responsible for only one-seventh of that 3.5%. This amounts to just 0.5% of total emissions. If every car disappeared from the surface of the Earth overnight, there would be no measurable drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and absolutely no impact whatsoever on climate change.

Buildings happen to be the source of twice as much carbon dioxide as transport, which takes us back to CO2 emissions. Yet tax on heating fuel in the UK is a modest 5% while tax on mobility fuel (petrol) is a whopping 300%. On environmental grounds, based on carbon dioxide considerations, petrol should surely be taxed at 2.5%. However, since the environment is a mere flag of convenience to excuse high taxes, where it suits politicians to levy high taxes, we cannot expect there to be any logic in this.

The defence occasionally heard is that higher taxes on heating fuel would affect the vulnerable more, but transport costs impact on just about every good and service. And if we are discussing those vulnerable to cold buildings, politicians seem very keen to stop mild winters if they can so that's 20000 more cold-related UK deaths each winter if their King Canute act works (thank goodness it can't and won't). This kind of analysis reveals the nonsense of government eco-policies. Which is something that isn't very hard to do when the whole edifice is a sham.

By this logic, one can see (if one chooses to look) that an overwhelming objective is to raise tax. Don't tax that which matters; just tax that which will gain you most income.

It's a nonsense; really, just a nonsense. I despair of those who fall over themselve to succumb to it.
SET 18 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 01:36
  #57 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 71
Posts: 2,394
SET 18.

Thank you for one of the best post's on Global Warming that has been posted here. Well done.

I still marvel at the arrogance of mankind that really believe that we, mankind, can realy alter the normal, natural changes that the earth goes through since it's creation.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 02:22
  #58 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
say whatever you want, but I think it's hard to refute that mankind is living well beyond the boundaries that were ascribed for him.

and no I haven't read the past four pages
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 02:24
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Wedge;

I do not believe aviation is the big player since it is responsible for about 3% of the worlds' petroleum consumption. If we all went back to travelling by ship I don't think there would be a significant change in consumption. Around here (a port city) ships are a major pollution source.

Global warming is not new. All those dead dinosaurs in the Canadian Arctic that we are now burning did not live in -50C and eat moss and lichens-it was more like +40 with tropical vegetation.

Ya, Global warming. Been there-done that-survived it!
Tree is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 08:09
  #60 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BlooMoo View Post
Dave,
Scientifically it's crap, politically it's an embarrassment. You may be confusing the desperate sound of political damage limitation with scientific rigour.
BM
Bloomoo

Ok, I'll bite (against my better judgement). "Scientifically its crap" - it would be great if you could explain your justification for this using some real science, rather than the Daily Mail interpretation of it that seems to be dominating this discussion.

A point to ponder, from the perspective of a scientist working in this field. It is clear to us all in science (in case you hadn't gathered I am a scientist - a Professor in one of the best natural science departments in the world, in a research intensive university, in NE England) that the best way that an individual scientist could establish his/her reputation, gain global fame, etc would be to prove scientifically that the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is wrong. Because of this opportunity, numerous scientists have been desperately trying to find the smoking gun. There were some really good prospects - natural variation, volcanoes, solar output (sunspots), urban growth, etc. Sadly for the scientists involved, so far each has proven to be minor, and no-one has managed to reach the goal. Maybe someone will, but right now it doesn't look likely as there aren't so many opportunities left. And, as a result, most climate scientists have slowly become persuaded that the hypothesis is right, at least to some extent.

To be honest, if you look at all the scientific data, and the models etc, in (as you say) a rigourous way, it is very hard to refute the hypothesis. And yes, I have looked at this in great detail, having been a great cynic until recently. I will happily help anyone who is interested to look at the scientific fact (not the media garbage) - please PM me.

Finally, a continuous theme on PPRuNe is the ineptness of the media in reporting the aviation industry. Do you really think that their reporting of climate science is any different? This is a real frustration to us trying to work on this issue. I assure you that there is a lot of very good science (and of course some not so good - but peer review means that most of this gets filtered out) in this topic. If you are relying on the media for your factual information then I can understand some other the half truths (and downright inaccuracies) outlined above - but this does not mean that the science is bad.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.