For me there is only one planet earth the place we call home .Its possibly unique its neither to big for us any bigger and gravity would be a problem or to small It has over the millenia developed the right atmosphere to support us with just about the best oxygen mix .Its not to hot or to cold exept in the odd place in other words its perfect for us . So why mess it up? why take a risk on climate change ? we are also getting closer to a neucler disaster than ever . There is no alternative. The nearest place that MAY contain a livable alternative is nearly 50 light years away ie beyond exploration within our lifetime so do you want to take a chance . That leaves some very difficult problems tho population control will be a must .
global warming vs pollution
- Thread starter hammock monkey
- Start date
nobby said:
Well..., by looking good myself
By minimal means... maybe once a week a wash, now and then a shave.. guess I don't smell coz I eat well.. Eat good because I don't want to be wasting money on doctors and dentists etc etc either. Humor, flowers, amusement, fun, sex, ... don't cost a thing.
The fat, cowardly merchants can only afford girls beautiful on the surface, me I've got a girl beautiful in and out, she's brave
. There're quite many girls not interested in money, just look how many beauties are running aound in the squats. I can't imagine how I'd ever be interested in a stupid snobby girl who shops every weekend (the horror!). Here's a nice poem: http://www.small-axe.com/attila/belfast/supermodel.mp3
I might have arrived a little late to this party but I thought I'd join in nonetheless.
This might be of interest only to Gregorach but the 'swindle' programme has
been a hot topic over at the science communication mailing list 'psci-com'
where it all got a bit shouty last week. All good fun.
If you want to read the threads, either search for swindle on the search page
or scroll through threads 6, 37, 38 and 42 on this page.
As far as I can tell a number of scientists have asked for the DVD to be blocked
as it intentionally misleads the public, the other side have said that blocking
stuff isn't very free speechy and I half expect someone to retort with an argument
on the level of "your mum".
I was at the Nat. Hist Museum's Darwin Centre event on Thursday on the same
topic and it was a much more sedate affair
I'm with ecotricity - they've got spinning turbine cartoons on their website.
Be hypnotised at http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/index.html
This might be of interest only to Gregorach but the 'swindle' programme has
been a hot topic over at the science communication mailing list 'psci-com'
where it all got a bit shouty last week. All good fun.
If you want to read the threads, either search for swindle on the search page
or scroll through threads 6, 37, 38 and 42 on this page.
As far as I can tell a number of scientists have asked for the DVD to be blocked
as it intentionally misleads the public, the other side have said that blocking
stuff isn't very free speechy and I half expect someone to retort with an argument
on the level of "your mum".
I was at the Nat. Hist Museum's Darwin Centre event on Thursday on the same
topic and it was a much more sedate affair
I'm with ecotricity - they've got spinning turbine cartoons on their website.
Be hypnotised at http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/index.html
I'm with them as well.
I'd far rather have a couple of wind turbines on the horizon than a coal-powered, or nuclear power station. People will have to choose, I'm afraid - if they want a preserved view of their world that will dissapear in 30-40 years, or they comprimise and allow more environmental alternatives.
I do think that people protesting about wind farms are a bit NIMBY-ish - but hey, I don't live near one. I wouldn't object to them if I did, however...
It's all about personal choices that all add up and help in the long run. I've always had a soft spot for cars , but I've made it a personal choice not to get another car that does less than 30MPG on principal (I've had some real beaut's in the past!!). Whatever people say for and against the arguments, this is something I've done that I think is more responsible.
Ah - you'll be wanting the new eco-friendly datacenter systems then - they consume as much power as a light-bulb. Currently replacing your entire datacenter with these beasties will cut your a/c and power by 2/3..
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/
It's a very good start..
I live near to the heathy bit of Blackheath and I've often thought that a few wind
turbines would do a roaring trade there as it can be pretty windy. The kite fliers
might veto that idea though, and the people whose properties overlook the heath.
Did you see the Magnum photography turbine exhibition a year or so ago? I
think it toured around a bit and I caught it in London. The 'embrace the
revolution' (see what they did there...) website has an interactive gallery with
the photos. The interactive bit is a bit skittish and zips about when you move
the mouse (annoying) but the images are lovely.
http://www.embracewind.com/gallery.html
turbines would do a roaring trade there as it can be pretty windy. The kite fliers
might veto that idea though, and the people whose properties overlook the heath.
Did you see the Magnum photography turbine exhibition a year or so ago? I
think it toured around a bit and I caught it in London. The 'embrace the
revolution' (see what they did there...) website has an interactive gallery with
the photos. The interactive bit is a bit skittish and zips about when you move
the mouse (annoying) but the images are lovely.
http://www.embracewind.com/gallery.html
Mars is heating up too!
The Martians must be driving 4wd!
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/04/mars.climate.reut/index.html
Think about it it's just another way to tax us and track us, global warming and cooling are natural processes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
I'm usually a tree hugger with the best of them but please don't be taken in by this BS about global warming.
The Martians must be driving 4wd!
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/04/mars.climate.reut/index.html
Think about it it's just another way to tax us and track us, global warming and cooling are natural processes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
I'm usually a tree hugger with the best of them but please don't be taken in by this BS about global warming.
xylaria
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Jodie said:
I have always wondered why there is not more wind turbines in urban areas. The tops of tall buildings could have small turbines without effecting the stucture. They dont look ugly or noisy compared to environment of towns. I would be more the happy to look out my window and see big wind turbines on my local hillside or ex-coal heap. But I am not sure I would think the same thing if I lived on the isle of sky.
Brendan said:Mars is heating up too!
The Martians must be driving 4wd!
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/04/mars.climate.reut/index.html
Think about it it's just another way to tax us and track us, global warming and cooling are natural processes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
I'm usually a tree hugger with the best of them but please don't be taken in by this BS about global warming.
Oh for pities sake... I was trying to leave this thread alone, I really was!
There are many different mechanisms that affect climate. The mechanisms currently dominating the Martian climate are completely different to those currently dominating the Earth's climate. Given that all climates are always changing to some extent, and that there's only two directions they can go in, the odds of observing warming on both Earth and Mars simultaneously are 50%, regardless of the mechanism. Simple logic, graspable by a 5-year old...
As for your links... One article about a paper published in Chemical Innovation, written by a mechanical engineer? Yeah, that's exactly the sort of source I'd expect to get groundbreaking climateology research from. The author, Robert Essenigh, is on record with this quote:
If that seems like a convincing argument to you, please stay away from scientific debates until you've grasped the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and the way dynamic processes proceeding at different rates can interact. Perhaps think about a water tank, with a overflow pipe, and what happens if you start pouring water in faster than the overflow can handle.
As for your book plugs, Fred Singer is a well-known crank who has denied everything from the link between smoking and lung cancer to that between CFCs and ozone depletion. Every time he's come down on the side favouring the industries that just happen to fund his "think tank", and every time he's been wrong. Svensmark's theories about a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation are interesting, and almost certainly contain some truth - but there's abosultely no trend in the cosmic ray record to account for the recently observed warming, and he (like all denialists) completely fails to explain why everything we think we know about fundamental physics is wrong, as it would have to be to allow us to raise GHG concentrations as much as we have without any climatic effects.
Oh, and all that fundamental physics, which dictates that rising CO2 must cause warming, is what makes your computer work too... Does your computer work?
I start to get problems with all this climate change /pollution arguments It would seem to be undeniable that the earth is getting warmer and that since the industrial revolution the rise has been faster than ever, from scientific experiments bore hole tests etc we also know that the energy input from the sun is reasonably constant the biggest change has been in mans activities . I am also begining to think that perhaps recycling some things may even have a detrimental effect on the planet by releasing green house gases ie some products paper /woods/ plastics could tie up carbon if they were stored out of the carbon cycle . equaly some products that require high energy imputs to make would be better recycled .
ilan said:
But recycing does keep them out of the carbon cycle - by keeping them in use. It's when they get burned or decompose in landfills that they return to the carbon cycle. In the case of landfill, they often return in the form of methane, which is (iirc) 24 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than co2.
The question is whether the recycling process (including transport) releases more co2 than it saves - and that is a very difficult question in some cases.
I suppose its a bit of a complex equasion take paper is it better to recycle it or put it in land fill where it will take some years to decompose thus buying time for new carbon capture tecnologies to come along . in the meantime there will be an increase in demand for wood pulp which will need to be filled so we get more woods managed tieing up more carbon . or say is it better to have a biodegradable plastic bag which releases its carbon quickly or a bag which may take 100 years to release it . I think we need to find ways of taking carbon out of the cycle and locking it away
Sure, it would be great to be able to lock the carbon into geological storage, but it's not practical at present, except where you're running a large point source (eg a coal fired power station) near a suitable resevoir. Otherwise, the energy you need to capture the carbon resutls in the release of more carbon than it captures.
The best solution is not to produce it in the first place.
The best solution is not to produce it in the first place.
gregorach said:
I believe Norway have started to fill up the empty oil beds with co2 gas that's pumped in via the oilstation.
BTW, someone else asked about urban wind turbines? basically they don't work - not really worth the effort. You have to have them so high up as to get un-disturbed airflow that it's impractical. Look at mr. Cameron's one on his roof that's highly publicised. I bet you it doesn't make enough electricity in a week to boil more than a kettle of water..
dave k said:
Yeah, I think you're right - but I'm not sure if they're doing it as pure carbon sequestration, or for Enhanced Oil Recovery. If it's EOR, then the additional oil recovered will almost certainly contain far more carbon than is injected back into the field in the form of CO2.
Nothing is straightforward!
The real question is where you gonna run to when armageddon comes?
Let's face it, there will be one large readily available protein resource for the hungry millions! The woods will be full of bushcrafters hiding out until the population has crashed, ready to inherit the earth.
Let's face it, there will be one large readily available protein resource for the hungry millions!
The woods will be full of bushcrafters hiding out until the population has crashed, ready to inherit the earth. gregorach said:Yeah, I think you're right - but I'm not sure if they're doing it as pure carbon sequestration, or for Enhanced Oil Recovery. If it's EOR, then the additional oil recovered will almost certainly contain far more carbon than is injected back into the field in the form of CO2.
Nothing is straightforward!
I believe they use an inert gas to flish out the last of the oil. Pumping co2 down is only done once the field is considered `closed`.
Norway are very forward thinking like this - they have stockpiled up all the money reserves from taxing the oil industry into a massive government bank account. Proper saving for a rainy day !
When armageddon comes, I'll be relaxing on a lounger, beer in hand and sunglasses on head, watching the pritty colours
Way back in time,I have heard that Britain was under an Ice sheet, a few million years prior to that,It was hotter than the sahara.
I dont want to stir it up here,but I think the climate may change from time to time.Its been quite pleasant for the past 10,000 years.Maybe we are due a change?
If we all took our fridges and freezers to the greenland ice sheet,and left the doors open,maybe we could stop it defrosting?
I dont want to stir it up here,but I think the climate may change from time to time.Its been quite pleasant for the past 10,000 years.Maybe we are due a change?
If we all took our fridges and freezers to the greenland ice sheet,and left the doors open,maybe we could stop it defrosting?
Who cut the last tree on Easter Island?
Now that the global warming bandwagon is loading, money is going to be made.
Throw out your old stuff, buy new stuff, more expensive stuff.
Spend less, buy locally, walk, ride a bike, buy fairly traded products like coffee, chocolate and sugar. All the simple things we have no excuses not to do. To stop exploiting people would go a long way towards slowing the effect of warming so that others might have a chance to cope. It's about people.
Everyone writing in this forum is well off and has a chance to have some backbone.
Just spend less money and the money we do spend, spend wisely. We don't need all this stuff. This is a most unpopular concept, lowering one's 'standard of living. Are we going to wait until we are forced to do so?
We claim that we love our children and that we are doing everything for them, but are they going to be thanking us when they reach our age, when only the rich can afford to eat well, drink clean water and breath clean air? I suppose we can hope that our children become one of those privileged few. And keep our heads in the sand.
So the rich got off Easter island and left us to eat each other.
Living in the Bush
Now that the global warming bandwagon is loading, money is going to be made.
Throw out your old stuff, buy new stuff, more expensive stuff.
Spend less, buy locally, walk, ride a bike, buy fairly traded products like coffee, chocolate and sugar. All the simple things we have no excuses not to do. To stop exploiting people would go a long way towards slowing the effect of warming so that others might have a chance to cope. It's about people.
Everyone writing in this forum is well off and has a chance to have some backbone.
Just spend less money and the money we do spend, spend wisely. We don't need all this stuff. This is a most unpopular concept, lowering one's 'standard of living. Are we going to wait until we are forced to do so?
We claim that we love our children and that we are doing everything for them, but are they going to be thanking us when they reach our age, when only the rich can afford to eat well, drink clean water and breath clean air? I suppose we can hope that our children become one of those privileged few. And keep our heads in the sand.
So the rich got off Easter island and left us to eat each other.
Living in the Bush
Similar threads
