Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Non Blind denial

You are always at risk of abuse on here /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif but I think the serious answer to your question is you have to get the time scales right. Much of the confused logic on here so far has been due to not recognising the difference between the timing of events. Without quoting numbers (which I would probably get wrong anyway) the suns decay will take many millions (billions?) of years. Right now the debate about global warming is about what has happened in the last hundred years and what might happen in the next hundred. In that space of time the sun is in a pretty stable state. If I understand it properly there is an 11 year cycle of sunspot activity and a somewhat longer cycle over thousands of years where it gets hotter and then cooler within certain limits. It's this longer cycle that if I understand it correctly is responsible for the so called medieval warm period and the Victorian cold period where one could skate on the Thames. Over the next say 1 million years the sun will cycle through these events again and again but the average temperature won't change much because of it outside of those historical limits. It is possible according to the Fraser report that the sun is in an upward trend (hotter) over the longer cycle but we just don't have solid data over a long enough period to be sure. We do however have solid data since 1976 because people like NASA have been recording sunspot activity and temperature change. Over that period the sun appears to be very stable if not cooling slightly. It's therefore not helpful to wait a few million years for the sun to change. The problem is now.
I am less sure about CO2 dissolved in seawater but I do know that if the oceans get warmer animal and plant life abounds and produces shed loads of methane and other greenhouse gasses which make the problem worse. There is a point at which the greenhouse then becomes self sustaining without us doing anything more and continues to heat up even more quickly. The worst scenario is that we reach this point of no return within 50-150 years. There is no hope that during this period the sun will change appreciably and if we are in fact on a several thousand year upturn in temperature, may even make it worse. We are talking noticable change in the short term here and long term cosmic events won't help. Hope this helps your thinking. ( ducks mentally and awaits further abuse)
 
Re: Non Blind denial

"No, but it gives an indication that even if we burned all the fossil fuel (not that I am advocating that course of action), that the Earth would cope, it would just get a bit 'tropical'."

The principle seems to be that the earth has always coped and will continue to do so. It's simply earth's parasites which come and go, according to the prevailing climate.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

"and the Victorian cold period where one could skate on the Thames"

Not quite. QV came to throne in 1837. Last frost fair was 1814. To quote a BBC site:

"1814 was to prove to be last fair. A new London Bridge was built in 1823 slightly upstream from the old bridge which was eventually demolished in 1831. The structure of the new bridge was less bulky then its predecessor, which had acted as a dam. The demolition of the latter and the narrowing of the river through the creation of the embankments on either side permanently changed the flow of the river.The Thames is now too fast-flowing to freeze over"
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Happy to be corrected. Perhaps should have said Edwardian/Victorian. The Victorian era was of course when we had the "traditional" image of Christmas with snow on the ground blazing log fires, carol singers in the snow etc. We don't get that now!
 
Re: Non Blind denial

On a serious note, it is vital that we recognise the problem and adopt the twin strategies of adaptation and mitigation. Mitigate what we can because if the methane sumps in the tundra which are currently frozen are thawed and released into the atmosphere then global warming really will run away at a quite extraordinary rate, and there is a very real possibility of that.. so we need to do what we can to avoid that, so every little bit helps. Adaptation we need to live with the cosequences and that will be expensive.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

I'd not come across this analysis before.

First thought is why did this mechanism not operate in prehistoric times when the earth was covered by vegetation and dinosaurs etc.

To Jimi

I understand that the final death of the sun is too far out to care about. However I understood that the life of the sun was a continuous process with occasional step changes rather than a process of step changes alone.

There have most certainly been significant changes in the suns output that have left a record on the earth, and these changes were over a significant period - not the momentary effect of a solar flare.

Dunno if its significant - I was just curious.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Weather for the 1890's, nothing new is there.

1890/1891: (Winter):
1. The winter of 1890/91 was remarkable for its long duration, from 25th November to 22nd January, rather than for the intensity of the FROST. During this period the average TEMPERATURE was below 0 degC over nearly the whole of England and Wales and below (minus) 1 degC in East Anglia and the south-east Midlands. Skating in Regent's Park occurred on 43 days, the thickness of the ICE exceeding 9 inches (circa 23cm) but the FROST penetrated in the ground to a depth of only about 30cm. (CEPB): The synoptic pattern was dominated by a large anticyclone covering northern Europe with a marked ridge extending over southern England, giving almost continuous east or northeast winds.
1891: (March):
1. 9-13th March 1891, easterly BLIZZARD**. Heavy, fine powdery SNOW and STRONG EASTERLY WINDS raged across SW England, southern England and Wales, with over half a million trees being blown down, as well as a number of telegraph poles. On the 9th (and later?), GREAT SNOWSTORM in the west of England, trains buried for days: E-NE GALE, shipwrecks, many lives lost. (Eden notes: 220 people dead; 65 ships foundered in the English Channel; 6000 sheep perished; countless trees uprooted; 14 trains stranded in Devon alone.) Although the West Country was the worst affected, southern England, the Midlands, and south Wales also suffered. SNOWDRIFTS were 'huge' around some houses in the London - would be accounted a most remarkable sight nowadays! A man was reported found dead at Dorking, Surrey, while SNOWDRIFTS of 3.5 metres were recorded at Dulwich, London and Dartmouth, Devon. At Torquay and Sidmouth, Devon over 30 cm of snow fell.
**This may be the first time in the UK that the word 'blizzard' was used. Thought to derive from a German expression: " Der sturm kommt blitzartig", which translates as "The storm comes/came lightning-like".
1893 (Spring/early Summer):
1. A notably DRY season over England and Wales. (see also 1990). Some places in SE England had no RAIN for 60 consecutive days, from mid-March to mid-May with the longest ABSOLUTE DROUGHT of all being at Mile End (London) from 4th March to 15th May. This (at 1993) is thought to be the longest period without measurable rain ever recorded in the British Isles. During the period March to June, in the SE of England some areas experienced less than 30% of average rainfall.
2. Notably persistent WARM weather over period April to June. The combined effect of the DROUGHT, above average TEMPERATURES and often intense/prolonged SUNSHINE meant that by the 21st of June, many agricultural areas of southern England and the east Midlands were undergoing great stress: the ground parched, meadows burnt dry with many crops declared a failure. Fruit was withering (not helped by some sharp/late FROSTS in May) and the hay crop was much reduced; root crops also severely affected. (See article R. Brugge, 'Weather' May 1993).
1894/95 (Winter):
1. Exceptional COLD/WINTRY from 30/12/1894 to 05/03/1895. To horticulturists and ice skaters in East Anglia, it was the winter of the ' twelve week frost '. Records from Cambridge Observatory show that there were actually air frosts on 70 of the 84 nights between 26th December 1894 and 20th March 1895. The month of February 1895 stands out at Oxford as having the LOWEST AVERAGE MIN TEMP (minus 5.6 degC) and the highest number of GROUND FROSTS (27) for any February in the 113 years to 1993 at the Radcliffe Observatory. From the 9th to the 17th February the whole of the Thames was more or less blocked by ice-floes, some of them 6 or 7 feet thick.
2. Second COLDEST winter in a Manchester long-period record (from 1888), comprising Manchester (Prestwich) 1888-1900; Manchester (Whitworth Park) 1901-1941; & Manchester (Ringway) from 1942. The coldest winter was, as in many places in England & Wales, in 1962/63. However, in the CET series, the winter of 1894/95 did not appear in the top 7 cold winters, so the fact that Manchester stands out is interesting.

Brian
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Can we arrive at a consensus on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual phrase in the Independent article cited by JHR is:

Scientists have found that the seas have already absorbed about half of all the carbon dioxide emitted by humanity since the start of the industrial revolution, a staggering 500 billion tons of it.

Which I take to mean that the "carbon dioxide emitted by humanity since the start of the industrial revolution" is 500 billion tons, of which the "seas have already absorbed about half", but it could mean that the half that the seas have absorbed is 500 bn tonnes. The article is written as if this is the only CO2 that has ever dissolved in the sea.

It also includes the phrase

Professor Ulf Reibesell of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, {...} recalls how something similar happened when a comet hit Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago

The Prof. must have one hell of a memory (and on the basis of that article Geoffrey Lean is damn lucky to land a job where you have to be able to write for a living. He deserves a 'Bad Science' award for this, IMHO).

Andy
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Catching up after a few days...

Your stated "limit" for %age of nuclear generation has been far exceeded for many years by both France and Belgium (in round numbers: 90% nuclear, 10% hydro). I know of the then CEGB (covering England and Wales)'s view of optimal generation mix, but would respectfully point out that coincidentally with this, and fee of CEGB control, Scotland happily exceeded 50% nuclear generation.

Of course nuclear plant should be run as base load: that maximises the economic benefit. However, you neglect to consider the effects of both active load management (moving heating loads into the night (and, later, evening) "troughs"), and pumped storage, which effectively uses overnight generation to supply daytime peak loads. There still remains a residual need for some load following plant (currently coal or gas), but the proportion required for this is much less than you state. (This happy position is, unfortunately, being slowly eroded by the current "free market" in Supply, as merely one of the many unintended consequences of "market liberalisation", but let's avoid distractions.)

The above is all "as is": if a serious view is taken on CO2 reduction it would make sense to run the nukes flat out, generating hydrogen at times when their full output was not required for electricity. That would allow, in theory, 100% nuclear generation.

There is, however, no need for 100% nuclear. As discussed elsewhere, renewables - particularly tide - could play a significant role. A Severn barrage may or may not be economical, but meanwhile the tidal stream through the Pentland Firth alone represents about 1.5 GW of untapped power. And then think of the Corryvreckin, the Dorus Mor, Cuan etc. etc. As TwisterKen says, the timing of tidal flows diversifies with geography, so a programme of tidal stream generators would see an aggregate output which varied (in a predictable fashion - unlike wind / waves) but which never dropped to zero.

In short, we do not require significant technical innovation, just a bit of serious political will. And there, of course, lies the problem. Politicians tend to lack technical understanding...
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Excellent post. I suppose they could build a causeway across the Cuan Sound and install a couple of whacking great turbines. It would also have the added advantage of being a safety feature as, it being no longer a passage, fewer yachts would hit the fabled uncharted rock....
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Ah yes, Cuan mishaps... Perhaps our revered Cruise Director may care to elucidate further...?

There was a plan to replace the Cuan ferry with a causeway containing tidal generators, but that seems to have been knocked on the head, with any fixed crossing now having to be high level.

There is an interesting idea currently going about in Orkney. A canal, bypassing one of the Churchill Barriers, with a tidal turbine in it, which would be lifted out when a boat wanted passage... Sounds like a dam(n) good idea! Sorry. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
Re: Non Blind denial

The Orkney suggestion sounds interesting. Personally, I quite like Cuan the way it is though. In contrast though, there's a reef that projects across a narrow bit halfway up Loch Teacuis - ideal place for a dam, though a few months too late in my case.... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top