Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Legally binding climate change agreement

Recommended Posts

Even while I was growing up (relatively recently in this context!) there was no talk about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (other than at school when learning about ice ages and the like), and certainly no suggestion that human beings may influence global climate patterns. 

 

Was this school in sin tellins :tongue: ?  I certainly remember talking about the greenhouse effect and global warming as a possibility at school in the early 80s, but it wasn't until the late 80s that there was scientific consensus that it was really happening and the World Meteorological Organisation set up the IPCC. Obviously acid rain and CFCs were higher profile in the 1980s.

 

I think Prince Charles (for once) is on the money when he linked Syria to global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's the end of fracking. All gas usage to be banned. No more gas central heating or cooking.

But we will be able to use cheap electricity on good renewable energy days.

On bad days we will pay a premium for daring to cook our dinners on cold grey windless days.

But it will give us an air of smug superiority knowing that we are doing the right thing for the planet, whilst the countries way out East carry on using fossil fuels.

None of the emerging nations will do anything to implement these proposals. American businesses will pay lip service until this dead duck president moves over.

I know something has to change but the change should and must be to find ways of incorporating the present assets and marrying THEM to technology, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

On the BBC weather forecast today Carol said that we may well see weather records for December broken today with forecasts for temperatures in the high teens. If that is caused solely by us, then it's probably too late to halt or reverse the process of global warming. Let's hope it's caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the BBC weather forecast today Carol said that we may well see weather records for December broken today with forecasts for temperatures in the high teens. If that is caused solely by us, then it's probably too late to halt or reverse the process of global warming. 

 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.Hoping isn't enough. The Earth as a planet will be fine regardless of what happens, its rather hard to do anything to what is essentially a huge ball of iron in space without a Death Star.

 

We need better nuclear. Its really the only way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current nuclear technology doesn't really save us. Not enough Uranium to last very long and there's a huge amount of CO2 emissions involved in building the power stations in the first place. Fusion would solve a lot of problems but looks an awful long way off.

 

Going vegetarian (or at least eating less beef & pork) and turning down the thermostat makes a fairly significant difference to emission levels for people in the UK.

 

http://www.withouthotair.com/ is a very practical, engineering based look at the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current nuclear technology doesn't really save us. Not enough Uranium to last very long and there's a huge amount of CO2 emissions involved in building the power stations in the first place. Fusion would solve a lot of problems but looks an awful long way off.

 

Going vegetarian (or at least eating less beef & pork) and turning down the thermostat makes a fairly significant difference to emission levels for people in the UK.

 

http://www.withouthotair.com/ is a very practical, engineering based look at the problem.

 

There are other solutions. Thorium MSR's for example, were proposed in the 1960's (and in fact had a working prototype up and running), the reason they didn't go in to production? It didn't produce plutonium, which isn't such an issue now. Also thorium is one of the most abundant elements on the planet.

 

As for going vegi, thats a no go. I mean do you just want to kill and burn all the animals? Perhaps you'd just stop them breeding and let them die out naturally? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other solutions. Thorium MSR's for example, were proposed in the 1960's (and in fact had a working prototype up and running), the reason they didn't go in to production? It didn't produce plutonium, which isn't such an issue now. Also thorium is one of the most abundant elements on the planet.

 

 

From the Royal Society of Chemistry website (http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/90/thorium) :

 

"Thorium can be used as a source of nuclear power. It is about three times as abundant as uranium and about as abundant as lead, and there is probably more energy available from thorium than from both uranium and fossil fuels. India and China are in the process of developing nuclear power plants with thorium reactors, but this is still a very new technology."

 

It's not surprising that India is developing this technology because the website also gives the three top producers as India, Brazil and Malaysia.

Edited by tonyXIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's annoying to think that the prototype MSR was in Oakridge in the US and then the west has just left the technology because we couldn't easily make bombs from the by-products.

 

The prototype MSR (molten salts reactor) was so stable they used to turn it off at the weekends so they could go home. You try that with one of the current LWR's

Edited by RidingPie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Let's hope it's caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's orbit.

 

Wash your mouth out!

 

You'll end up costing university lecturers their jobs and tree huggers their god-given right to moan on at anybody who has got a car with a 2-litre engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wash your mouth out!

 

You'll end up costing university lecturers their jobs and tree huggers their god-given right to moan on at anybody who has got a car with a 2-litre engine.

Whereas if people listened it'd cost fossil fuel industries and reliant ones (e.g. cars) their billions of pounds of annual profits plus their C-level multi-million pound salaries.

 

Anyway, what if the "tree huggers" are right.  What if this really is the last chance for us to save the planet for humanity as a whole?  Surely it's better that we sacrifice the profit margins of a few companies who only care about this financial year's results than have a planet that's largely uninhabitable by humans in 50 years.  I notice that the deniers simply point and laugh but have nothing beyond "you can't prove it 100%" when the academics say that they're 97-99% sure it's human related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas if people listened it'd cost fossil fuel industries and reliant ones (e.g. cars) their billions of pounds of annual profits plus their C-level multi-million pound salaries.

 

Anyway, what if the "tree huggers" are right.  What if this really is the last chance for us to save the planet for humanity as a whole?  Surely it's better that we sacrifice the profit margins of a few companies who only care about this financial year's results than have a planet that's largely uninhabitable by humans in 50 years.  I notice that the deniers simply point and laugh but have nothing beyond "you can't prove it 100%" when the academics say that they're 97-99% sure it's human related.

Don't you really think that China and India are really going to change their ways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I notice that the deniers simply point and laugh but have nothing beyond "you can't prove it 100%" when the academics say that they're 97-99% sure it's human related.

 

According to academics, the bumble bee can't fly and the square root of -1 is "i"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas if people listened it'd cost fossil fuel industries and reliant ones (e.g. cars) their billions of pounds of annual profits plus their C-level multi-million pound salaries.

 

Anyway, what if the "tree huggers" are right.  What if this really is the last chance for us to save the planet for humanity as a whole?  Surely it's better that we sacrifice the profit margins of a few companies who only care about this financial year's results than have a planet that's largely uninhabitable by humans in 50 years.  I notice that the deniers simply point and laugh but have nothing beyond "you can't prove it 100%" when the academics say that they're 97-99% sure it's human related.

 

It is those fossil fuel industries who should be driving the investment in green technologies after the COP21 agreement; it would be expensive in the short term but they would make an absolute killing long term...

 

That said, reducing fossil fuel consumption is just one area that needs to be tackled; the population explosion currently taking place is the massive white elephant in the room nobody seems to be willing to address.

 

America.  Ah, America.

 

It's getting to the point that mocking them feels like taunting someone with issues.

 

You have got to love Americans for giving you a good laugh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is those fossil fuel industries who should be driving the investment in green technologies after the COP21 agreement; it would be expensive in the short term but they would make an absolute killing long term...

 

That said, reducing fossil fuel consumption is just one area that needs to be tackled; the population explosion currently taking place is the massive white elephant in the room nobody seems to be willing to address.

 

 

You have got to love Americans for giving you a good laugh...

 

Once the fossil fuels run out the population will plummet. It is highly mechanised farming that is maintaining population levels at completely unsustainable levels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the fossil fuels run out the population will plummet. It is highly mechanised farming that is maintaining population levels at completely unsustainable levels. 

 

Interesting concept - not seen that before. Do you have any links Griff? Most of the population explosion taking place is in the least developed areas of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa and large parts of the Sub-Continent. Not saying the boffins are wrong of course (they know far more than I!); just interested in the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept - not seen that before. Do you have any links Griff? Most of the population explosion taking place is in the least developed areas of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa and large parts of the Sub-Continent. Not saying the boffins are wrong of course (they know far more than I!); just interested in the theory.

 

As the poor areas get richer, birth rates will drop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to academics, the bumble bee can't fly and the square root of -1 is "i"

 

 

The square root of -1 being "i" is pretty fundamental to physics, electronics & most of modern technology. Not sure where you're going with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The square root of -1 being "i" is pretty fundamental to physics, electronics & most of modern technology. Not sure where you're going with that one.

Also, not understanding things fully is the whole point of science.  Inquisitive minds saying "hmmm, how does that work then?" or "nope, that's not quite right" and then going on to find out why is the point.  We make theories to explain things but then if they come out to be not 100% right then we change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, not understanding things fully is the whole point of science. Inquisitive minds saying "hmmm, how does that work then?" or "nope, that's not quite right" and then going on to find out why is the point. We make theories to explain things but then if they come out to be not 100% right then we change them.

Excellent point. A great example of this was Newton's law of gravity. It was well known to be wrong because it failed to predict the orbit of Mercury, but was right enough for most other things. It lasted until the genius that was Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity, which manages to pilot space vehicles to Pluto with few adjustments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The square root of -1 being "i" is pretty fundamental to physics, electronics & most of modern technology. Not sure where you're going with that one.

 

It's a non-quantifiable / identifiable number that doesn't actually exist; It's just a device to make the academics' sums add up.

 

I once worked in a research lab at Oxford university. One of the researchers told me to always be dubious about scientific papers where the researcher published his/her experimental readings as log-e of the actual readings. For many applications , that's a device that will always give you a straight line on a graph.

 

There's more academic theories about climate change than the emperor's got new clothes.

 

The last two governments committed the power generation industry to £billion carbon-capture technologies that had never been proven.

At the same time, the Severn Barrage is viable (and presumably can limit flood-surge) but to implement it would destroy the habitat of non-threatened-species seabirds.

 

 

Our current supremo on this? Liz Truss.!! Knows knack all about science or the environment but read ppe at Oxford. Then became an accountant. Michael Meacher was the worst Environment Secretary of all time, but she's coming up on the rails.

Edited by Wolford6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this school in sin tellins :tongue: ?  I certainly remember talking about the greenhouse effect and global warming as a possibility at school in the early 80s, but it wasn't until the late 80s that there was scientific consensus that it was really happening and the World Meteorological Organisation set up the IPCC. Obviously acid rain and CFCs were higher profile in the 1980s.

 

I think Prince Charles (for once) is on the money when he linked Syria to global warming.

I remember talk about the hole in the ozone layer.  Has that shut itself up now?  It's just that we haven't heard anything about it in years!  But the phrase 'global warming' and discussion about man-made climate change definitely wasn't part of my school science experience and nor was it a topic I remember seeing discussed on the news (which I watched daily) or in newspapers.  Today people appear somewhat obsessed by it!  Yet no mention of the hole in the ozone layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here