T_S
New member
Did anyone watch this documentry on 'Global Dimming'?
Bloody Scary!
Bloody Scary!
Horizon BBC 2
- Thread starter T_S
- Start date
tillergirl
Well-known member
Terrifying. What I couldn't see was how anybody could work out how to get the reduction of global warming and global dimming right. I suppose one message was that reducing the dirt in fossile fuel burning was certainly the wrong choice of the moment, rather we should be cutting down on the greenhouse gases first presumably whilst trying to keep a measure of gloabl dimming going. Seems like a tough calculation! I think I came to the conclusion that there's too many of us on this planet.
Shakey
New member
With regards to global warming, bio-diesel is the answer for most of our energy needs IMHO. I think its shocking and scandalous how we're so in thrall to the multi-national oil companies that it isn't made much greater use of.
What's the point of electric cars (for example), if we need a fossil fuel power station to generate the electricity to charge it?
What's the point of hydrogen fuel cells if we need energy to crack water to generate the hydrogen in the first place?
In addition, if we could generate our own fuel we wouldn't be dependent on that lot of idiots in the Middle East.
Anyway, can we have a brief precis of the programme, I didn't see it.
What's the point of electric cars (for example), if we need a fossil fuel power station to generate the electricity to charge it?
What's the point of hydrogen fuel cells if we need energy to crack water to generate the hydrogen in the first place?
In addition, if we could generate our own fuel we wouldn't be dependent on that lot of idiots in the Middle East.
Anyway, can we have a brief precis of the programme, I didn't see it.
jimi
Well-known member
Erm ... actually we need a nuclear power program, that is the only real answer but unfortunately we no longer have the expertise in mechanical,civil & nuclear engineering to implement one.
Shakey
New member
Problems with nuclear power is the huge expense involved in comissioning and de-comissioning, the nasty side effects if it goes tits up ie. Chernobyl, and the fact they make high value targets for bad men who hate our fancy Western ways.
Nuclear power has its uses - ie. submarine propulsion, enforcing foreign policy with threats of instant sunshine etc.
However, for the vast majority of civilian uses I believe bio-diesel should be used, enforced even.
Likewise for wind power. And I don't mean wind farm montrosities cluttering up the countryside or coastline.
Many people use small wind power generators on their boats. Why shouldn't every house have one? Why can't every street light have its own wind generator? Why can't every street have a large wind power generator?
I know its not windy every day, but we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and the Middle East vastly by utilising such measures.
BTW, I'm not a committed Green or hippy or owt, just trying to be pragmatic.
Nuclear power has its uses - ie. submarine propulsion, enforcing foreign policy with threats of instant sunshine etc.
However, for the vast majority of civilian uses I believe bio-diesel should be used, enforced even.
Likewise for wind power. And I don't mean wind farm montrosities cluttering up the countryside or coastline.
Many people use small wind power generators on their boats. Why shouldn't every house have one? Why can't every street light have its own wind generator? Why can't every street have a large wind power generator?
I know its not windy every day, but we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and the Middle East vastly by utilising such measures.
BTW, I'm not a committed Green or hippy or owt, just trying to be pragmatic.
doca
New member
This whole climate issue is getting really serious so it's time somebody got to work on harnessing the power that we boaters should know a thing or two about - tides and waves . No aesthetic problems with this medium.
Shakey
New member
But wouldn't harnessing tides and waves involve building some sort of contraption on the coast or offshore?
Towns are cluttered and messy enough already, so why not litter them some more with a few windmills?
Towns are cluttered and messy enough already, so why not litter them some more with a few windmills?
jimi
Well-known member
well actually
add up all the energy requirements
then add up all your energy supply from bio diesel & other renewable resources
calculate the deficit
then admit you have'nt a clue what you're talking about
add up all the energy requirements
then add up all your energy supply from bio diesel & other renewable resources
calculate the deficit
then admit you have'nt a clue what you're talking about
Shakey
New member
Yeah, OK, am not an expert.
But vast tracts of unused land could be turned over to rapeseed or sunflower production. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle of an old industrial wasteland - we're not going to eat the stuff, we're going to burn it.
Also we could reduce our energy consumption in many simple ways by not relying on useless bits of kit like patio heaters or by using more efficient lightbulbs for example.
Also, please note I'm not saying we have to get rid of all fossil fuels straight away. I think we should be reducing our dependency on them now, with a view to eliminating their use in the future.
There is so much free power out there - look at the storms we're experiencing in Britain at the moment for example. It's just that we haven't got the technology to harness it. We should be developing the technology now not just for environmental reasons but for political reasons too.
But vast tracts of unused land could be turned over to rapeseed or sunflower production. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle of an old industrial wasteland - we're not going to eat the stuff, we're going to burn it.
Also we could reduce our energy consumption in many simple ways by not relying on useless bits of kit like patio heaters or by using more efficient lightbulbs for example.
Also, please note I'm not saying we have to get rid of all fossil fuels straight away. I think we should be reducing our dependency on them now, with a view to eliminating their use in the future.
There is so much free power out there - look at the storms we're experiencing in Britain at the moment for example. It's just that we haven't got the technology to harness it. We should be developing the technology now not just for environmental reasons but for political reasons too.
jimi
Well-known member
Actually we're not the problem its
USA
China
India
Now how you going to solve that?
USA
China
India
Now how you going to solve that?
Shakey
New member
In terms of energy consumption, pollution etc then yes they are the problem! USA in particular now, and China in the future.
I think the situation is akin to that of the old superpower standoff of the Cold War. Nothing really bad happened because of the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction.
What they need to realise is that this time it's Us v. Nature. If we continue to attack Nature, Nature will attack us.
Unfortunately, Nature will win because the planet doesn't care how hot/cold/windy/wet/dry it is. We do.
There's no easy political solutions, but the sooner world leaders start to solve their country's pollution problems and come down like a ton of bricks on those that don't the better. How that is enforced I don't know, the use of nuclear instant sunshine is not known for its environmental friendliness.
It does seem that global warming is happening. We all know that there's been variations in the Earth's climate in the past and those weren't caused by industrialisation. However extreme climate change will wreck civilisation and possibly kill large amounts of the human race.
Therefore the powerful world leaders ie. the UN Security Council should be demanding and enforcing environmentally friendly initiatives if only out of purely selfish reasons to protect the countries they represent.
That's my two penn'orth anyway.
I think the situation is akin to that of the old superpower standoff of the Cold War. Nothing really bad happened because of the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction.
What they need to realise is that this time it's Us v. Nature. If we continue to attack Nature, Nature will attack us.
Unfortunately, Nature will win because the planet doesn't care how hot/cold/windy/wet/dry it is. We do.
There's no easy political solutions, but the sooner world leaders start to solve their country's pollution problems and come down like a ton of bricks on those that don't the better. How that is enforced I don't know, the use of nuclear instant sunshine is not known for its environmental friendliness.
It does seem that global warming is happening. We all know that there's been variations in the Earth's climate in the past and those weren't caused by industrialisation. However extreme climate change will wreck civilisation and possibly kill large amounts of the human race.
Therefore the powerful world leaders ie. the UN Security Council should be demanding and enforcing environmentally friendly initiatives if only out of purely selfish reasons to protect the countries they represent.
That's my two penn'orth anyway.
scarlett
New member
I feel for my kids and theirs.
tillergirl
Well-known member
Brief Precis - bit of a challenge! Basically scientists have discovered that besides global warming there is global dimming, a reduction in the amount of sunlight getting through to the oceans and landmasses. This causes a change in weather patterns so for example the monsoon failed for a number of years in Ethopia causing the famine of Live Aid fame as the Equatorial rain clouds failed to move north. Reason for global dimming, pollutants caused by us for example burning fossil fuel. Interesting example given of aircraft vapour trails - when flights in Amercia ceased over 9-11, the temperature range increased in the three days by at least one degree (that looked impressive but looked a bit of a large conclusion based upon some quite narrow measurements) however evidence from the Indian Ocean was impressive in the contrast of dirty air from India and clean air from the Antartic. The effect of global dimming is to reduce global warming - hence as we are tackling emissions this is starting to address global dimming but that will then cause an alarming rise in temperatures on the global warming front - the nightmare is that we will then lose control their words not mine) of the global climate and eventually temperatures will rise to such a level that the vast frozen underocean supplies of methane somethingorother will melt, erupt into the atmosphere and as its far worse than Co2 as a greenhouse gas it will be goodbuy Vienna, ice caps will melt, half the UK will disappear and world landmasses will disappear, and all because the Bishops won't open Joanna Southcote's box (sorry I added that bit).
Now that's a lot quicker than watching the programme.
Now that's a lot quicker than watching the programme.
Magic_Sailor
New member
Complete tosh
I think it's all complete tosh.
I am sick and tired of these scare mongering stories which are only designed to increase the bloody TV channel's ratings.
It's getting to the point where we might as well not get out of bed in the morning - switch on a light - global warming, get in the car - global warming and dimming, fart - global warming.
I've been alive now for 51 years and there is no difference! In all that time we've had floods, heatwaves, famines, earthquakes and in all probability plagues of bloody frogs.
Right now its the winter - so it's colder, it rains more and there's less sun. Floods like Carlisle are nothing new - when I was 17, most of W Kent and E Sussex was under water - I couldn't get to the pub in Chiddingstone for God's sake!
In the summer it gets hot and the sun shines more - last summer was not so good but the one before was a corker. '76 was hot, '67 was hot.
Nothing is changing except our perception.
The answer is surely to be reasonably sensible in our use of energy.
Magic
I think it's all complete tosh.
I am sick and tired of these scare mongering stories which are only designed to increase the bloody TV channel's ratings.
It's getting to the point where we might as well not get out of bed in the morning - switch on a light - global warming, get in the car - global warming and dimming, fart - global warming.
I've been alive now for 51 years and there is no difference! In all that time we've had floods, heatwaves, famines, earthquakes and in all probability plagues of bloody frogs.
Right now its the winter - so it's colder, it rains more and there's less sun. Floods like Carlisle are nothing new - when I was 17, most of W Kent and E Sussex was under water - I couldn't get to the pub in Chiddingstone for God's sake!
In the summer it gets hot and the sun shines more - last summer was not so good but the one before was a corker. '76 was hot, '67 was hot.
Nothing is changing except our perception.
The answer is surely to be reasonably sensible in our use of energy.
Magic
kds
New member
Yes - the only answer, if we are to retain our lifestyle, is Nuclear.
No - it is not just expertise we lack. What we lack is the Political Will to solve our problem in the only effective manner - too many years of Greenpeace and FotE have detroyed our ability to stand up and apply scientific logic.
Renewable energy is Mickey Mouse by comparison.
Ken
No - it is not just expertise we lack. What we lack is the Political Will to solve our problem in the only effective manner - too many years of Greenpeace and FotE have detroyed our ability to stand up and apply scientific logic.
Renewable energy is Mickey Mouse by comparison.
Ken
Stemar
Well-known member
Reluctantly, I have to agree that the only medium term solution is nuclear power. Turned into insoluble glass and buried a mile down, the waste is going to to be safe enough for a few thousand years. The big problem is that NIMBYs and the "Green" movement, who frequently use bad science and scaremongering to prevent good science solving problems, have blocked all attempts at a reasonable solution, so we're stuck with potentially dangerous short term storage.
Fuel cell technology has real possibilities, and might actually make good use of wind & tide systems, which can be relied on not to produce when you actually need them (It's slack water: no tide power, a big anticyclone: no wind and clear skies, hence bloody cold, so everyone has their heating full blast and 6pm, so everyone's cooking dinner - and yes, I know it's a gross oversimplification, but the point is still valid)
Use the wind and tide when you've got it to electrolyse sea water. Sell the oxygen to hospitals and the hydrogen to industrial or domestic fuel cell users. The only waste product is water vapour which, which falls back into the sea as rain and is electrolysed using ... etc.
Fuel cell technology has real possibilities, and might actually make good use of wind & tide systems, which can be relied on not to produce when you actually need them (It's slack water: no tide power, a big anticyclone: no wind and clear skies, hence bloody cold, so everyone has their heating full blast and 6pm, so everyone's cooking dinner - and yes, I know it's a gross oversimplification, but the point is still valid)
Use the wind and tide when you've got it to electrolyse sea water. Sell the oxygen to hospitals and the hydrogen to industrial or domestic fuel cell users. The only waste product is water vapour which, which falls back into the sea as rain and is electrolysed using ... etc.
tonyran
New member
I have never read so much tosh. Its a well known fact that by far the biggest cause of global warming is methane produced as a fecal by-product by ruminant herbivores - cows, sheep and horses for the ignorant. That's why the biggest hole in the ozone layer is slap bang over the middle of Australia...no coincidence because it has more sheep etc than anybody else. Now if someone could come up with a low cost portable cow-f*rt capture and recycling system,well, we might even see dinosaurs around again.
What was the Horizon prog about anyway? A happy new year to all.
What was the Horizon prog about anyway? A happy new year to all.
Evadne
Active member
Re: Complete tosh
Not complete tosh but, as someone once said, all humans have an agenda, especially journalists, and programs like this aren't made for your edification, they're made because they are a good story that will attract lots of viewers.
The science was mostly quite good, at least the case for a global dimming effect was, but extrapolating that to predict the end of the world as we know it (again) was the work of the computer modelers. Them and real scientists who are desperate for publicity so they can get a funding bandwagon rolling. Modelers are scientists who take the known data and the known laws of physics and see what they get. Add an unknown variable or change the boundary conditions and the model changes out of all recognition. This story could be summed up by the modelers finding out that the world is more complicated than they at first thought, and that there's a lot more to be included that they conveniently left out. For instance the "dimming" effect of increased dust in the air as deserts increase. The weather is a complex and chaotic system, and any TV program that comes out with the phrase "the world's climate could get out of our control" doesn't understand its Rse from its elbow. We have never controlled the climate, and never will. Humans create more greenhouse effect from domestic bovine emissions than most other sources put together (yes, that's cows pharting) and one big volcano (e.g. Krakatoa) is worth a hundred years of human pollution. IMHO stories of humans causing the end of the world are decidedly self important, the world is a lot bigger than we are. [/rant]
Not complete tosh but, as someone once said, all humans have an agenda, especially journalists, and programs like this aren't made for your edification, they're made because they are a good story that will attract lots of viewers.
The science was mostly quite good, at least the case for a global dimming effect was, but extrapolating that to predict the end of the world as we know it (again) was the work of the computer modelers. Them and real scientists who are desperate for publicity so they can get a funding bandwagon rolling. Modelers are scientists who take the known data and the known laws of physics and see what they get. Add an unknown variable or change the boundary conditions and the model changes out of all recognition. This story could be summed up by the modelers finding out that the world is more complicated than they at first thought, and that there's a lot more to be included that they conveniently left out. For instance the "dimming" effect of increased dust in the air as deserts increase. The weather is a complex and chaotic system, and any TV program that comes out with the phrase "the world's climate could get out of our control" doesn't understand its Rse from its elbow. We have never controlled the climate, and never will. Humans create more greenhouse effect from domestic bovine emissions than most other sources put together (yes, that's cows pharting) and one big volcano (e.g. Krakatoa) is worth a hundred years of human pollution. IMHO stories of humans causing the end of the world are decidedly self important, the world is a lot bigger than we are. [/rant]
GeorgeP
New member
Don't you wish these scientists would make up their minds!?
