[Closed] Global Warming - really, aye?

Pfffffffffffft. Alarmist.

noone is even close to having any sort of explanation to address either of these 2 points.

Ok - not kept up through pages 2-6 - who's winning STW Ignoramus' or STW Scientists?

Depends on which data set you use.

I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?

I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front...

and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.

and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.

I shall leave the others to "debate" with you.

I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front...

Don't be so sure:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/october/141015ae_lockheed-martin-pursuing-compact-nuclear-fusion.html

😯

So reducing what we can and making efficient what we can't, not a hard concept, there seems to be a belief that it has to be all or nothing and that if we can't invent the entire star trek technology overnight it's not worth trying.

I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be

Redesining cities to discourage short trips by fossil fuel burning transport is such an obvious thing to do.....

3 day week is true for many......zero hrs contracts etc

I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?

Reduce consumption first and foremost, Reuse what you can, Recycle what you can't.

I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?

That's another reason to push to get away from carbon for electricity generation tbh- it's a total waste of a finite resource. Even if you don't believe in global warming, everyone knows fossil fuels will run down and eventually run out.

OK.. so what we're seeing here is a 'my graph is better than your graph' debate, which if I understand correctly, is a debate that has been rumbling on around the world for decades, a debate that the greatest scientific minds of our lifetime are not getting anywhere with..

So how the blinking nora are a handful of cantankerous, barely educated pseudo scientists on a cycling forum gonna fair any better..!?

They're not gonna fair any better.. end of
So can I ask a more (im)pertinent question?

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

Zokes. The IPCC include scientific agreed data from ice cores to study climate change. The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up. I thought Mike was making an alarmist point within the context of his original post while mocking a denier. Perhaps that wasn't his intention. Temp records haven't been smashed in my opinion as we have data that has been researched and agreed upon since the data set began.

I agree climate change is real and happening which is the consensus or scientific fact as we might call it. Not sure I said otherwise!

Thanks for the honest answer on your travel. Yes it does seem very ironic given your passion on the subject but I also understand that sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the bigger picture so you have to make your own judgements. Just ease up a bit on the 'don't you know what's happening' attitude if you continue to pollute the earth way more than those you are talking too. It is people like you who are polluting the earth excessively not people like me.

Graham. I didn't say researchers shouldn't report back their findings, to decipher a 'good' or 'bad' scenario many many consequences of our actions need to be considered. Yes perhaps we have different versions of records. I used the broad and varied information within the IPCC rather than cherry picking bits. The reason I didn't say yes to your question was because it wasn't a yes as it appears we have different versions of 'records'. You also mentioned alarmist guff about 'warmer before the continents had drifted' (or something like that) which threw me.

250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don't take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!

The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up.

Apologies for mocking a denier but it most if not all are using hollow arguments to defend an ideology rather than anything else, it's my right to burn all this stuff, it's not a problem it never will be.

250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don't take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!

Anyway as I've said before, even if it's all wrong and not happening, the benefit of moving to a non carbon economy before it all runs out far outweigh any reasons for sticking with it.

Yunki...your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn't read any further than that.

The PETM may provide some sort of analogue for CO2 release rates but it was a long time ago and the temporal resolution of carbon into the atmosphere is poor.

gwaelod - Member
Yunki...your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn't read any further than that.

awwww bless 😆

awwww bless

He's got a point though.

so they are getting somewhere with it?

whatever, it's still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post -

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans. 😯

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans.

Point us to the research, then.

IPCC is where it's all at kit.

so they are getting somewhere with it?

whatever, it's still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post

Your post didn't make any points .. it just misrepresented the state of scientific understanding of the climate system....which you caveated with the phrase "which if I understand correctly". Clearly you don't.

What do you mean by positive - in a human geography context that's an entirely subjective statement. In a scientific physical context it's something that suggests higher magnitudes of something like rainfall/temperature/humidity.

Some people may see the opening of Arctic shipping routes and easier exploitation of arctic resources as positive. A world that is slower to embrace fossil fuel alternatives will see these "positives" sooner.

Physically...temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be "more positive"

For people who say "where's the research"..

Then I suggest you start with "Arrhenius 1896" then work forward (you can jump forward to IPCC WG1 and go through the references if you want to see where the current state of science is*.

Those of you who are genuinely interested in planetary climate systems (which is ****ing fascinating btw) and not merely regurgitating drivel from cut and paste sock puppet websites run by swivel eyed loons, then maybe have a look at the MOOC I linked to earlier - it starts next week https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/our-changing-climate

Physically...temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be "more positive"

So you are claiming that climate change due to human activity can therefore be seen as a "positive" achievement ? Are you a right-wing Republican politician ? That surely must be the silliest comment on this thread.

EDIT : Perhaps I misunderstood and you were being sarcastic ? Apologies if you were.

No - positive in the sense of the "magnitudes being larger"...as opposed to positive "being a good thing"

Science = Negative - less - Positive - more

Waffly arts bollocks = Negative - bad - Positive good

It wasn't clear from wassisinames post which context he meant....so I give "positive" examples of both.

btw although worth remembering that some shallow water species will see an increase in their environmental space as shelf seas gradually encroach onto land - for them...arguably...that's "positive"...although that needs to be seen in the context of other phsyical and ecosystem changes around them...many of which are likely to be "negative"

what I was promised in many of the annuals I was given as a kid in the 60's Along with free energy and a 3 day week.

Yahhh, except this time it's Lockheed Martins Skunkworks working on it.

That makes me excited.

I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

You'd have thought sail powered boats would be a no brainer in a modern low energy society. Well understood tech and completely safe. Surely it must be possible?

[url= http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WqeebKHnx54/THvuXc-q3sI/AAAAAAAAAK0/x1jsebdmfeg/s1600/Baird+-+hard_sail.jp g" target="_blank">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WqeebKHnx54/THvuXc-q3sI/AAAAAAAAAK0/x1jsebdmfeg/s1600/Baird+-+hard_sail.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

yunki - Member

What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be?

Only 2 I reckon- short term cost savings (eclipsed by longer term costs of failure to adapt), and some reduced consumption of rare materials.

The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans.

I'd say measured fact of the reverse is also quite compelling. Look what happened to Australia's CO2 emissions in the month or so that have followed the repeal of our 'carbon tax':

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/powering-up-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-sector-start-to-climb-20141104-11ghdu.html

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

I think the Russians and Americans do quite a good line in nuclear powered boats. Not so passenger-friendly, mind you

Theocb: Yeah, sorry, knee-jerk reaction to someone dismissing clearly reliable data whilst not showing their own is to call them out as a denier. It's usually quite true, but in this case I apologise. However, it would be good if you'd actually post the figure, rather than casually and somewhat unhelpfully suggest I wade through 370 MB of report.

As for the travel, the scientific community in my field are actually really getting quite close to understanding just how soil microbes and plants interact, leading on to the impact that has on nutrient delivery to crops. If we get that sussed, with an approach breed crops to increase the 'beneficial' bugs in the soil, it might not be the second green revolution, but it would see a major potential reduction in conventional (fossil-derived) inputs while maintaining yield and increasing resilience. Hopefully the work conducted on my trave;s in some way contributes to that goal, but it's obviously one of those things that doesn't happen overnight.

Global warming aside, while nitrogen fertiliser is produced in a highly fossil-intensive process, phosphorus is mined, and it's running out. If we want to keep growing stuff, we're going to have to get a lot better at using what we've already got.

Unfortunately, science just doesn't seem to work very well via teleconference. And trust me, as someone who pretty much spent the past month cooped up in economy class, I do really rather it did. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that rather famously, the best new ideas usually arise in the discussions in the bar at the end of the day, rather than during a conference session. SCience is funny like that - in one sense some of the greatest break-throughs have come from minds far more creative and 'art-like' than most artists!

Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.

One day my dream of the international pneumo-transport pipe will become reality

I think the Russians and Americans do quite a good line in nuclear powered boats. Not so passenger-friendly, mind you

Quite expensive to run too!

I wonder how big an airship would have to be to carry the load of a cargo plane?

Or.. better still, how about we attach goods to drones that deploy a balloon to float up into the jetstream, get blown around the world at high speed and then autonomously glide themselves to a nearby drop zone..

Your post didn't make any points .. it just misrepresented the state of scientific understanding of the climate system....which you caveated with the phrase "which if I understand correctly". Clearly you don't.

LOL.. answer the question you useless little prick 😆

My next post did. Try not to move your lips while you read it.

wasn't that just a pedantic sidestep?

are you really opposed to clean energy?
are you seriously trying to assert that it would offer no long term benefits?

why are you picking on me?
I'm just trying to get informed by folk who apparently have more knowledge on this subject than myself, that being one of the primary uses of a public forum..

splitting hairs and being antsy just seems utterly defeatist

Try not to move your lips while you read it.

😆

molgrips - Member

Or.. better still, how about we attach goods to drones that deploy a balloon to float up into the jetstream, get blown around the world at high speed and then autonomously glide themselves to a nearby drop zone..

Laser autonomous lifters up to orbit/near orbit and glide them back down.

A 747 freighter can carry about 150 tonnes apparently, the Mriya 250. The Airlander HAV airship (yes, the one that looks like a bum) can only lift about 12 but they've got a design that's supposed to do 50. Slower than a plane obviously but faster than you'd think.

There's a whole branch of airship development which is basically just waiting for materials to catch up with old theory- instead of lighter-than-air gas you use vacuum. The air displaced has to be heavier than the body used to create the vacuum, which isn't possible yet and might never be (well- on earth anyway 😉 ) but it's pretty interesting.

btw although worth remembering that some shallow water species will see an increase in their environmental space as shelf seas gradually encroach onto land - for them...arguably...that's "positive"..

Cantre'r Gwaelod was the lost kingdom off the West Wales coast. The home of Welsh tribes is now home to sea creatures. We'll see more of that. In Wales it was the richest land around, a very fertile forest, capable of supporting a large healthy population (unlike the wild hills). We'll be losing some of the worlds most fertile land in the near future not to mention some great cities. We'll only live to see the start of it.

zokes - Still not a customer
Try not to move your lips while you read it.
😆

yeah, I havta admit that floored me..

comedy gold

I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..

I'm definitely lacking science skills due to other more pressing engagements, which is why I ask you boffins for your opinions..
Genuinely gutted that you have to get all ****y about it 🙁

I wonder how big an airship would have to be to carry the load of a cargo plane?

This again! Cargo planes make little difference to carbon emissions.

Do people not realise that hardly any cargo is carried by plane? Something like 98% is carried by ships.

A 747 can carry about 150t, the biggest container ships about 165,000t.

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980's. Never really successfully.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth yunki? 😕

gobuchul - Member

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980's. Never really successfully.

there's been some fun research into kite-powered boats!

[url= http://www.kitves.com/technology.aspx ]KITEVES[/url]

So Global Warming... is it natures way of curing itself of a major naked ape infection?
Is it convenient that human nature, represented by the vested corporate interests, don't want to change their ways?
Particularly whilst there's enough fossil fuel to stay wealthy until the end comes. So discussion on solutions will require investment.

P.S. I also quite liked the we're running out of fertiliser bit (can't remember who) - should knock the veggie argument (we can feed the world if they're all veggie) on it's backside.

Particularly whilst there's enough fossil fuel to stay wealthy until the end comes.

I also quite liked the we're running out of fertiliser bit (can't remember who) - should knock the veggie argument (we can feed the world if they're all veggie) on it's backside.

So either a poor slack troll or really just one who will be running a finger along the screen and moving his lips reading this.

I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..

I didn't realise you were a scientist

I'm definitely lacking science skills

Oh, you must have some other excuse then

SCience is funny like that - in one sense some of the greatest break-throughs have come from minds far more creative and 'art-like' than most artists!

The problem with that is that those minds are rare as diamond encrusted horseshit within the scientific world, people good at making lots of different connections between seemingly unconnected constructs tend to favor the arts or fully blown schizophrenia.

I've met very very few people who are both organised and diligent with high concentration levels and yet highly creative at the same time. I've really had to work on my organisation and concentration as I come from a long line of musicians, who are all little bit bonkers/day dreamy/ADDish.

My brain works like JD's in scrubs, so I've had to change a lot. It still doesn't come easy to me.

not that I'm "highly creative" but my brain is naturally probably better suited to English/Music than science. I just rather like Biology and data analysis, so that's the route I went down.

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980's. Never really successfully.

Why wasn't it successful? To slow to compete with oil, or maybe the ships couldn't be big enough thereby pushing costs higher?

This is exactly why a free market isn't generally a good idea for the environment, and why we need governments to step in.

Would it kill us to have to pay £349 for our HD telly instead of £299, for example?

Why wasn't it successful? To slow to compete with oil, or maybe the ships couldn't be big enough thereby pushing costs higher?

There's a few reasons.

From trade under sail alone, the favourable winds are often not the shortest routes from A to B.

Increased construction costs.

Standing rigging, masts and aerofoils are efficient in average conditions but also create large amounts of drag when low wind speed and increased windage and top heavy in high wind conditions. Anything with a kite requires material technology that is not fully developed and constant management.

Also no transferrable roles between bulk carriers, tankers and container ships.

The last point is something that would be an easier solution for rail and road transport, as an alternative to lots of empty vehicles travelling at any one time.

I read somewhere that the massive freighters are now slower than the Cutty Sark...could be bobbins though.

And doesn't take into account the winds/routes. Also IIRC the Cutty Sark was 1700t cargo capacity, so would need 100 to match the load carrying capacity of the big boys.

I read somewhere that the massive freighters are now slower than the Cutty Sark...could be bobbins though.

It depends what you mean by a "massive freighter".

The huge Triple E class container ships operate at 19kts, this is slower than a lot of other container ships but it's all to do with fuel consumption.

Cutty Sark did about 17kts which is faster than a lot of the big bulk carriers and tankers that tend to do about 14 - 15kts max. However, the biggest can carry 380,000 tonnes of cargo.

Yes, but all of those things simply make transit slower than with oil powered ships, which means it's commerically unattractive.

So legislate against oil and sail becomes viable.

How much power does the engine of one of these big ships produce at cruise?

How much power does the engine of one of these big ships produce at cruise?

Varies obviously.

Triple E - 64 mega watt

The big cruise ships are where it's at though, over 100 mega watt. Some of their A/C systems can use 20 MW.

So legislate against oil and sail becomes viable.

Not really. The infrastructure just doesn't fit. A sail powered container ship would have much slower discharge and loading due to the obstructions.

The quantities of cargo involved is massive, for the economic model to work you need a ship that can operate to a realistic timetable.

There are no crews that can operate your sail powered ships.

Are you just going to scrap most of the existing ships? Very wasteful.

Also, sail powered ships are very vulnerable to the weather and the number of wrecks would increase.

Yes, but all of those things simply make transit slower than with oil powered ships, which means it's commerically unattractive.

Sure, the first two are the reasons of the bean counters, personally I'm all for sail transport. However the aerofoil rigged ship could actually increase fuel consumption and both, including the kite version, could compromise safety of the vessel.

From the wikipedia entry, Emma Maersk:

She is powered by a Wärtsilä-Sulzer 14RTFLEX96-C engine, the world's largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tonnes and capable of 109,000 horsepower (81 MW) when burning 3,600 US gallons (14,000 l)[33] of heavy fuel oil per hour. At economical speed, fuel consumption is 0.260 bs/hp·hour (1,660 gal/hour).[34] She has features to lower environmental damage, including exhaust heat recovery and cogeneration.[35] Some of the exhaust gases are returned to the engine to improve economy and lower emissions,[36] and some are passed through a steam generator which then powers a Peter Brotherhood steam turbine and electrical generators. This creates an electrical output of 8.5 MW,[37] equivalent to about 12% of the main engine power output. Some of this steam is used directly as shipboard heat.[38] Five diesel generators together produce 20.8 MW,[37] giving a total electric output of 29 MW.[28] Two 9 MW electric motors power the main propeller shaft.

EDIT: The electric motors seem to be secondary power units in case of main engine failure.

The quantities of iron ore that have been shipped between South America and China in the last 10 years is incredible. That why the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valemax ]Valemax ships [/url] were built. This could never of been done with sail power.

The same with the consumer goods from the Far East to Europe. That's why the big Maersk containers ships were built.

The numbers involved are staggering and were unheard of only 10 years ago.

So unless we change the whole global economic system we are pretty ****ed!

...for the economic model to work...

So unless we change the whole global economic system we are pretty ****ed!

That's exactly what I am talking about. This is true for a whole load more reasons than the propulsion method of our ships!

zokes - Still not a customer
I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..
I didn't realise you were a scientist

I'm definitely lacking science skills
Oh, you must have some other excuse then

Good grief! errr.. I know you are, you said you are but what am I..?

get a grip sonny 😆

That's exactly what I am talking about. This is true for a whole load more reasons than the propulsion method of our ships!

I realise that.

So which we all ditch our Far East manufactured consumer goods, including our very expensive bicycles and PCs, tablets, phones etc.

Stop South America exporting their ores to China.

Start the manufacturing in the UK and Europe of "essential" goods, clothing etc.

The list is endless.

And it's never going to happen.

Hydrogen, biofuels, coal, nuclear, aren't the options for the big ships endless?

It will be the smaller, numerous ships that would be the problem I would have thought.

Stop South America exporting their ores to China.

Start the manufacturing in the UK and Europe of "essential" goods, clothing etc.

The list is endless.

And to do that we'd have to import most of the materials from China or South Africa.

So which we all ditch our Far East manufactured consumer goods, including our very expensive bicycles and PCs, tablets, phones etc.

You don't have to ditch them, just pay a little more. Would it kill us to have to pay £150 for a Hudle instead of £89 or whatever it is? No, of course not.

In the long term, radical readjustment is going to have to happen. So shoud it happen in a manged way where we can all re-adjust, or should we just wait for the crash and burn?

And to do that we'd have to import most of the materials from China or South Africa.

Plus increase energy production for the manufacture processes, and carbon capture technology to match the greenhouse gas emission targets that we have agreed to in the West.

In the long term, radical readjustment is going to have to happen. So shoud it happen in a manged way where we can all re-adjust, or should we just wait for the crash and burn?

It should but it probably won't. The radical readjustment needs to start at a personal level, which is why the "crash and burn" is much more likely.

I was working on the house this morning. My next door neighbour came out, got in his Audi estate, came back 10 minutes later from tescos with half a bag of shopping. He's probably around 30 and seems perfectly fit and healthy.

What's the problem I hear you say............

Well I can see the Tesco sign from the top of the ladder, you can walk there in 2 minutes through the small park, you need to go 4 times the distance if you drive as you have to drive around the park.

Crash and burn, bring it on.