red diesel goes to appeal

[Pye_End]

5 day weather forecasts is not what is being discussed here.

The scientific community I believe generally think that there is a chance that man can have an effect on climate change.

We currently have a lot of CO2 locked up as oil /gas/coal - tell me it is a good thing to release this back into the atmosphere.

Government - I agree - governments are not serious enough. They worry about oil supply rather than burning forests, burning coal mines and the growth of China etc. Taxation is not the answer, although in some instances it probably helps. Personally I am not against reducing the increase in air travel one way or another.

Even if you do not agree with the climate change arguments then surely our children will need fuel themselves - we should not squander such a valuable earth resource.

 

[ditchcrawler]

Interesting article in last weeks Sunday Telegraph concerning the natural cycle of temperatures & the fact that temperatures in the middle ages were ignored in the data as they skew the overall conclusion published by the UN & other bodies.(ie temperatures were higher then than now & no current day type emissions etc to blame)
There does not seem to be much full & frank debate concerning all the information available although it seems obvious that we should be cutting our emissions where possible.
Our carbon emissions in UK are (from memory) something like 2% of the worlds total & if we stopped using energy altogether global temperature by 2035 would be about six thousandths of a degree C less than if we carried on as usual,so it is obvious that unless everyone partakes in Kyoto it is a waste of time.
China has around 30000 coal mines & is programmed to open a new power station every five days until 2012.Who is going to tell them that they are not entitled to the growth that we have had.
If every Western country complied with Kyoto Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma says temperature a century from now would be a 25th of a degree lower than without Kyoto.
Look at our energy problems.In 10 yrs a third of our power stations will be worn out or against EU pollution laws.By 2035 oil prices could be 10 times todays.
Wind power is scratching the surface.The Danes who started them first have stopped.You would need a wind farm the size of Greater Manchester to match the output of one nuclear power station,putting to one side no wind/no power.The UK needs to start building (not designing or arguing about) 12 nuclear power stations this year.Nuclear power does not emit CO2.The French 80% nuclear have half UK's carbon footprint.
Climate change panics seem to distract politicians from what really needs doing.
Carbon taxes (climate change levy tax)are levied by UK gov against all forms of electricity generation.David Milliband the Env Sec told the BBC last week how good it was.The BBC did not argue.
Emissions trading-The NHS are having to buy emission rights from rich oil companies with our money.Milliband told the BBC how good it was.The BBC did not argue.

The Third World countries will not agree to a consensus on climate change until the UN produces a soundly based scientifically honest fair & realistic projection & why should they.

I cribed this from an article in the Sunday Telegraph by Christopher Monckton & I know nothing about the details in it ,but it does show that there is much debate to be had.
It also shows that the bit used in boating is insignificant & there are bigger fish to fry.
I apologise for my spellig(ha-ha),this is the longest bit of typing in my life

 

[Pye_End]

I have to agree with you on this.

If the planet ever does scream at man's effect on it, I think the blame will be put at the politics, and the inability of the world's leaders to get together and make sensible decisions.

Meanwhile time marches on, and none of the problems get addressed.

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
It also shows that the bit used in boating is insignificant & there are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]
To quote a popular shop - Every Little Helps.

 

[Robin]

Assuming from your chosen name that you maybe hail from Canada, might one assume you are heating your home 8 months or more of the year and maybe air conditioning it in the other 4 months? I wonder how much fuel that uses? Have you considered moving south? I personally offset my diesel use on the boat by moving south to where I keeep the boat, less heating fuel, less car fuel (plus I work from home) and on a saily boat I use less than 300lts pa anyway.

I have said this elsewhere. IMO climate change is built in, it happens now as it has happened before. Carbon emissions may add to the effect so that might cause tiny timing changes but not the change itself. If human generated carbon emissions ARE the real cause then removing carbon emissions totally is the only real solution (we cannot plug volcanoes). Therefore we need World War 3, right now, to remove all signs of life and therefore all need for carbon emissions. A more gentle approach might be strictly enforced birth control to reduce the population back to what - two, called Adam and Eve?

Or we could just get on with life and adapt gradually to whatever happens.

 

[rogerthebodger]

[ QUOTE ]

5 day weather forecasts is not what is being discussed here.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that if we cannot have a relialable 5 day climate forcast have can we forcast what will happen over 100's or 1000's of years

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you do not agree with the climate change arguments then surely our children will need fuel themselves - we should not squander such a valuable earth resource .


[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion was about CO² emissions and not the waste of valuable earth resources.

I do agree that we must not waste what we have as is being done in the US and by poor countries in Africa and South America with the burning of trees, and I do know something about the waste in Africa.

 

[SnaxMuppet]

When core samples from the polar ice are analysed it is possible to determine the historic CO2 (and other gases) content of the atmosphere over time. The same can be done with temperature.

When this is done and the results correlated against each other a very interesting and compelling argument emerges... specifically, that over millions of years, there is a direct correlation between average temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. If you look at this data then you will come to the conclusion that an increase in CO2 levels is matched by a corresponding increase in average temperture. This "greenhouse" effect is generally accepted by the scientific community and there are other examples of this effect in the solar system, namely Venus.

The real issue is not whether the "Greenhouse Effect" exists as there are very few arguements against it, rather, it is whether we humans are having any significant effect over and above the naturally occuring greenhouse effect generators such as water vapour, volcanos, submarine releases of trapped methane etc.

I must say at this point that I am highly sceptical that we humans could be having any significant effect given the HUGE volumes of greenhouse gases that are naturally vented into the air. If fact, if the ice-core sample data is studied then a strange and unexpected result emerges... and that is that contrary to popular belief, the CO2 rise generally occurs AFTER the temperature rise and not before suggesting that the CO2 rise is a result of the increase in temperature and not the cause.

In fact, current levels are not unprecedented. They currently sit at about the same as they were during the Eemian Interglacial Period at about 120,000 - 140,000 years ago following which the earth returned to a full ice age state.

According to those ice-core studies both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

All in all I see very little compelling evidence that we are responsible for the current temperature rise and a lot of evidence that although we aren't helping, this is a natural cycle that will continue regardless of what we do.

Does that mean that I advocate indifference and complacency? NO. We clearly are not helping by continuing to spill our CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere and it makes good sense that, in the interest of good resource management, we should do what ever we can to reduce emissions and energy wastage and combine that with our increased take-up of renewable energy sources. But I think we are all getting a little inflated by our own importance when we consider our effect on global warming.

Please take a look at this for some interesting and yet, surprising, information:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[Sailfree]

I read over the weekend about Gynnis Kinnock taking 70 or so politicians to Barbados.

Can we agree that once Politicians ban themselves from flying anywhere, give up travel junckets then its time to look at other ways of reducing tha carbon emmission problem.

 

[fireball]

Ah ha - a reasoned and logical answer - what else could I expect from a fellow Jeanneau SO owner! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy enough to explain. It goes like this - the climate varies considerably year to year. If you take a given day or month, you could draw a distribution curve of the temperature variations over the years concerned. What global warming does to that is to increase the mean and to increase the extremes.


[/ QUOTE ]


If you look at a longer period, rather than the few hundred years the doom and gloom team like talking about I think you'll find an obvious trend. Yes, we may be getting warmer but no different to whats happened over the last few hundred thousand years.

 

[Sans Bateau]

There are many green issue/mobo using fuel/cars using fuel etc posts on these forums, all raising the issue of global warming. Reading your very informed argument. I'm sure there is a huge element of truth in what you say.

Whilst these global warming debates all get a good airing, we should not forget that according to 'reliable sources' the black stuff that comes out of the ground is running out. What I understand, the recent hike in fuel costs has been caused by demand outstripping supply. The situation made worse by the unstable situation in the ME compounded by the thirst that China and India have for fuel in a growing economy.

The stuff can only be used once, be it in a Mobo, 4x4 or factory in China. Once its gone its gone.

Now go and turn the flame down on your Zippo!

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]

Now go and turn the flame down on your Zippo!

[/ QUOTE ]
Only once you give me a refund on that second hand Solar Powered Kettle you sold me .. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Guest]

Demand and supply ...

OOops ... slight error there ....

The recovery rate on a well is still not that high and technology improves every day to recover more. That si why the "end of oil reserves" date has a moving goal-post. There are also many wells capped as un-economic to operate - particularly in US.
Demand does not outsrip supply - that is propaganda ... I can say quite honest without doubt that countries such as Russia and other large reserve areas could flood the market tomorrow and for year to come ... but would be silly to .. becaiuse the price would dip and they would lose revenues.

Opec forces members and non-members to curb production to artificially keep prices high ... the recent hikes have caused happy faces amongst those lucky enough to be suppliers.

In terms of fuel for you and me - storage is full across Europe - there has been a slow-down in useage and it's hitting me right where it hurts - my biz ... as ships are not carrying so many cargo's while storage is full. It is now backing up the chain to suppliers ... causing shut downs and pull-backs ... Everyone is looking for ways to get around it ...

Not only the development of technology at the well recovery - Cracking of crude improves all the time ... giving increased targeted yields ..... and less residue to sell off as low stock.

Unfortunately media likes to report "shock-news" and tends to ignore background or other info.

 

[CSFenwick]

I see. So ignoring the vast majority of climate scientists (even American ones) who publish their work in world renowned, peer reviewed journals and who think there’s something going on here. The YBW panel thinks they know the real truth cos they read it in the Telegraph or saw it on the Internet. Obviously all the other ‘experts’ are sadly mistaken and clearly aren’t Telegraph readers!

Sounds like we're all in happy agreement though that CO2 and higher temperatures are linked in some way. Interesting the Vostok ice core data should rear its head. If you look at the high point on the right hand side of the plot it shows an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280ppm. This was the so called pre-industrial level which was what we had as recently as 1900. Today’s level is over 380ppm and rising by 1-2ppm per year. No matter which way you look at it we’ve already put 100ppm into the atmosphere and have already got to values not seen in the data you’re citing for the last 400,000 years.

For those who think that the 100ppm that we’ve already put in is too small to have any effect look again at the historical data inferred from the Vostok ice core. You’ll see that the natural fluctuations that swing the planet in and out of ice ages are about 100ppm in amplitude. i.e. We’ve already enough CO2 into the atmosphere to end an ice age should we have been in one. Unfortunately we weren’t, so our 100ppm goes on top of the fact that we’re already at the top of the natural cycle. Ooops.

We all have the right to oppose taxes but there are now so many studies highlighting the real dangers of climate change that you’re on very thin ice (and getting thinner!) using that as the basis of your opposition.

 

[Birdseye]

Quite right Kev - your graphs clearly show global warming.

The difference between this cycle of warming and past ones lies in the fact that we are around this time, and have altered the world significantly. The classical mechanism by which the climate has responded to higher temperatures and more co2 has been that plant growth has flourished (as it does oin a higher co2 atmosphere) and this has fixed the carbon. Its that same carbon that we are now digging out of the ground as oil or coal and releasing into the atmosphere.

But the trees and the greenery are much less now. We long since de forrested the UK and the same thing has happened world wide. So the old mechanism isnt as effective as it was. So its a question of balance - are we releasing it so fast that the depleted forests cant absorb it ? The scientists say yes. Incidentally, co2 levels are now 27% higher than they have ever been in the previous 650,000 years according to the latest ice sample data so this rather supports what the scientists say.

The old mechanism will work to some extent, and the sea levels will rise as they previously have done. But nowadays this matters more - when there were dynasours around it didnt (except to them of course). And the disappearance of the gulf stream will matter in the UK.

Its obvious nonsense to say that oil wont run out - the quantity in the ground is finite, our consumption is finite and rising whilst no replacement is occurring. Obviously if we use it more effectively, then it will last longer. But it will still run out.

Nor are the "we are only 2% arguments " very sound. Not unreasoably, the Indians and the Chinese take the view that they want to live as well as we do and consume in the same way. So unless we reduce our consumption we can hardly expect them to take notice. We are a bit like the fat man with a sandwich in hand lecturing the beggar on how he should be frugal with his food scraps.

 

[Superflid]

While I agree that CO2 emissions need to be cut, I've less hope that India or China will take any notice of what happens in the UK than I have that raising taxes will cure the problem.
Long gone are the days when the world took much notice of our little island.

Now if the Yanks took the lead in curbing emissions..............



















.......the Asians would still do whatever they want!

While the politicians are in charge we might as well start planning for what to do when the sea levels rise and the Gulf stream stops.

 

[Stoaty]

[ QUOTE ]
They are called TREES. They convert CO² to Oxygen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a small point. Trees just store carbon. To begin with if we planted billions of trees CO2 would drop, but eventually the trees will die and release their carbon back into the cycle.

 

[fireball]

So - how do you actually get rid of CO2 or is it just in perpetual cycle? Burning dead compressed trees releases the CO2 - live ones then store that and when burnt will then release it back again ....

 

[Pye_End]

You pile it all up; compress it anearobically and make oil, coal etc.

I believe that the same scientists have found a way of storing CO2 long term. Not sure of the details but I gather it takes energy to do it.

 

[RivalRedwing]

Well, if you raise sea level enough then you start to flood the continents; the last time that happened across Europe in a big way was when the Chalk formed (composed of CaCO3) which drew down and stored vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 as part of the limestone forming process (and global temperatures fell as Chalk formation continued). I gloss over a few local tectonic factors but you get the gist - there are long term routes to storing CO2 other than trees but they are fairly extreme.