Global Warming

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Isn't it all just over-hyped ? - just a natural pattern of temp rises over time ?

It could be a natural pattern, of course, but it has risen faster than ever in history and higher..

[Sweltered]

Isn't it all just over-hyped ? - just a natural pattern of temp rises over time ?

It could be a natural pattern, of course, but it has risen faster than ever in history and higher..

How do we know, temperature records only go back 1000 years or so, merely a blink of an eye in the history of the world.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Actually, climate goes back thousands and thousands of years by looking at cores of rock and ice.

"Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.

The East Antarctic core is the longest, deepest ice column yet extracted..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

[Sweltered]

Actually, climate goes back thousands and thousands of years by looking at cores of rock and ice.

True, but they are not accurate gauges of actual temperature change. A change will show, but unless it is dramatic, it's difficult to speculate. And remember we are only talking a few degrees.

[Charlie]

if it is us - whose prepared to change enough then? - started googling and found this article

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09 ... #more-1014

[Beachcomber]

Actually, climate goes back thousands and thousands of years by looking at cores of rock and ice.

True, but they are not accurate gauges of actual temperature change. A change will show, but unless it is dramatic, it's difficult to speculate. And remember we are only talking a few degrees.

Piece in today's Independant says that the arctic ice was at the second lowest level in September in the whole 29 years they've been recording it. That isn't long, I know, but if the trend continues then they say there won't be any arctic ice in summer by 2060.

The other point they make is that the ice currently acts like a lid on the arctic, reflecting light and heat away. The more ice that melts then the less there is to act as the lid, and so the whole thing could go into a kind of feedback loop, accelerating the ice loss and dumping still more fresh water into the oceans.

Given that many of us here on Kintyre live close by the sea, even a modest rise in average sea levels would have a significant effect on us.

[Beachcomber]

if it is us - whose prepared to change enough then? - started googling and found this article

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09 ... #more-1014

Interesting article. I can't see how we can hope to achieve that scale of carbon-reduction though, not unless we *all* switch over to household wind turbines and solar panels, and only a small percentage of us can afford to do that.

To quote Pvt Frasier: "We're doomed!"

[Sweltered]

Actually, climate goes back thousands and thousands of years by looking at cores of rock and ice.

True, but they are not accurate gauges of actual temperature change. A change will show, but unless it is dramatic, it's difficult to speculate. And remember we are only talking a few degrees.

Piece in today's Independant says that the arctic ice was at the second lowest level in September in the whole 29 years they've been recording it. That isn't long, I know, but if the trend continues then they say there won't be any arctic ice in summer by 2060.

The other point they make is that the ice currently acts like a lid on the arctic, reflecting light and heat away. The more ice that melts then the less there is to act as the lid, and so the whole thing could go into a kind of feedback loop, accelerating the ice loss and dumping still more fresh water into the oceans.

Given that many of us here on Kintyre live close by the sea, even a modest rise in average sea levels would have a significant effect on us.

I must dig out the article that says the opposite of this. I've seen one saying the polar bear numbers are decreasing, others say they are increasing. For every 1ft rise in average sea height, the east coast of the US will lose 150 ft of shoreline.

[Dunc]

If the ice at the arctic melts it does'nt effect the sea level actually..think back to your science days particulary as regards volume.

Dunc

[Sweltered]

If the ice at the arctic melts it does'nt effect the sea level actually..think back to your science days particulary as regards volume.

Dunc

The stuff thats on land would surely, as it is not currently displacing any water.

[Dunc]

The polar ice cap has no land...thats why the USS Nautilus sailed under it and surfaced at de pole

Land ice melting yes would of course effect sea level however as a friend of mine who is in the know explained to me the glacial ice has went back a bit due to slightly highier temp.but as the air is now slightly warmer it can hold more moisture and this moisture precipitates as more snow which gradually over hundreds of years pushes the glaciers down again and so forth the cycle repeats.

I,m not convinced about this global warming thing..how many times have you heard "the warmest day since19.. which only goes to prove it was warmer in 19..
anyway I,m quite glad of a few degrees warmer weather plus I,m at 300 feet asl

Cheers
Duncan

[Dunc]

There's an interesting web site on efficiency of windfarms Under Vestas (I think) and of the three farms examined one offshore and two on land the best the onshore ones could manage was 16% generation. The offshore one managed to struggle to 34%. That is only 1/3 of the time it produced juice. If that is during the night then its not required and of course cant be stored.I'm sorry but the only possible way to go is nuclear if you dont want nasty gases..I remarked to a hydro engineer once that on a day with no wind it was great to see the blades turning and making juice and was told nay lad it's using juice from the grid at the moment in other words its acting as a motor at the moment not a generator and is costing you money at the moment.

And so to bed said Zebadee.

[/i]

[Sweltered]

The polar ice cap has no land...thats why the USS Nautilus sailed under it and surfaced at de pole

Land ice melting yes would of course effect sea level however as a friend of mine who is in the know explained to me the glacial ice has went back a bit due to slightly highier temp.but as the air is now slightly warmer it can hold more moisture and this moisture precipitates as more snow which gradually over hundreds of years pushes the glaciers down again and so forth the cycle repeats.

I,m not convinced about this global warming thing..how many times have you heard "the warmest day since19.. which only goes to prove it was warmer in 19..
anyway I,m quite glad of a few degrees warmer weather plus I,m at 300 feet asl

Cheers
Duncan

There are 2 icecaps, and the south one sits over a land mass, then of course there are the Greenland glaciers, which are shrinking, which suggests they aren't replenshing as quickly. DOn't get me wrong, I think there is a gradual warming, nothing to do with human activity of course, but it's not anything taking your bike to work is going to prevent.

[Tom B]

- The efficiency of coal generation stations (ability to turn energy from coal into electricity) is around 50/60%. This maybe gives more context to the efficiency rating for wind quoted above. Also, once the turbine is up, even is you have to use twice the energy in the air that you would need from coal to produce the same one unit of output electricty - it is all carbon free by that point.

- There is a lot of research going on all over the world to fine-tune the technology required to store energy by transferring it from wind and other generators into hydrogen. This should hopefully soon resolve the storage problem, and will be a real business winner for whoever comes up with a workable and affordable solution.

- I totally agree though about the need for nuclear - we need to at least replace the nuclear stations in the UK which are due to close in the 2020's - hopefully by the time the next round of nuclear stations end their life by 2050/60 we will have developed solar/tidal/wind/energy efficiency etc to the point that we don't need nuclear again.

But for now, a mix of different generating types is required.

[Dunc]

Plus the fact that the coal/gas power output can be constant even at 50%. Wind you dont have all the time, waves you dont have all the time and just think in the winter when we have a large anti-cyclone over the uk..cold and not a breath of wind whats the good of wind then..
Wave power: they had a device up in the Pentland Firth a few years ago and it lasted one gale!!! so lot of work needed there.
Just a crying shame what did what they did to the miners.

Duncan