Scribbler

Can you seriously see the future without nuclear power being the main power supplier? Green would be wonderful – but is just isn’t going to get there (in time). Covering most of the UK with wind farms, solar arrays and tidal barrages won’t provide anywhere near enough power using today's technology. Oil is okish but it’s gonna run out soon or become too costly and much the same comments can be made about gas. That program was nothing short of a government nuclear power sales pitch – but I don’t think we have much choice but to go along with it.

19 cats will not all crap in the same place. I bet most of yours pop over the fence and poo in your neighbours gardens while you're not looking. My three do because he's a better gardener than I am - his soil is more diggable. Cats dislike anything with a strong citrus smell. Whether hanging lemons up in your garden will work........you can always use the lemons as targets as you sit at your bedroom window with your air rifle waiting for the first sign of stray cat poo! Foxes see off cats too!

Haha! .......but thanks anyway! Well, what I mean is something like this. Atoms collide and the outcome of most atomic interactions has been well dissected and documented. However, much of the outcome is still as good as random. I think???!!! When two elements of weather meet or interact, the outcome (within broad guidelines) is reasonably foregone. When a warm front meets cold air the warm air rises and it PROBABLY rains/snows, etc. I think (positive!)???!!! Ergo one can think along broadly accepted terms or probabilities to create a half-way decent forecast.

Hi Wilson and others I’m a layman, so please excuse my lack of technical terminology. I don’t believe that we need to know all the ins and outs of quantum mechanics (or other esoteric sciences) to be able to produce a reasonably accurate forecast. Two atoms colliding may interact in a random way that upsets a nuclear physicist but two molecules of water vapour (for example) will PROBABLY interact in much the same way every time – given normal atmospheric surroundings. Thus a suitable eddy in the right area of the atmosphere in the tropics will PROBABLY develop into a hurricane – given the normal, average, typical surrounding conditions. By the use of TYPICAL reactions and interactions a good forecaster or computer can produce a pretty good forecast (for pretty well anything) for some time in advance. However, quite a few interactions (especially within an atmosphere) will likely become subject to occasional aberrations or abnormalities which will throw any forecaster’s prophecy all to hell. And a blip today becomes a major error in a future scenario. So, much as we’d all like to have perfect forecasting it does seem that, however powerful and intelligent our computers become, local exceptions will always be there to foul things up from time to time. But even so, given a computer model that recreates much of the earth’s geophysical features (down to a reasonably small scale), there must be a statistically good chance of being reasonably correct – at least quite a lot of the time. A pretty good forecast, yes – a perfect forecast, no chance!

According to the 2001 survey there were 471 people in Frogmore - how many muggers, rapists and terrorists does that include!!!??? :blush: Your biggest threat at night is tripping over a pile of dog poo!! Admittedly Dawlish Town isn't a lot bigger ( :blush: ) but lighting in a town or city is a must.

Roadside monitoring stations (frost, wind, etc) that are in remote areas have solar panels to power them. Can't they do the same with Motorway lighting? I know that'll need a lot more power but solar panels are getting to be fairly eficient now. :huh: Perhaps we should have lighting as on the advert - motion sensors to turn the lights on!!!

In the meantime we're in for a major sunspot Maximum in 2012 (if you believe NASA, etc) which will (according to various bodies) mean a much more active sun and more warming effects. We'll need a Minima in between to allow the earth to cool before the next Maxima. Agreed! The guy does put a lot of (carefully selected) news items together but as you imply, it's only one man's viewpoint of the world and the future.

Hi Pete Who writes iceagenow - chap called F. Gordon by any chance! Mind you, these extraordinary alternative hypotheses do help sell books! Must start thinking of one. PS Nice bit of avatar (eye candy) you've got there today!

Under "The Rains Came....And Came", Iceagenow says............ "Mother Earth is belching up red hot magma through the ocean floor all across the globe. It may come as a surprise to you, but two thirds of all volcanic activity takes place under the world's seas, and currently that activity is heating the oceans to the point where they are sending huge amounts of moisture up into the atmosphere where it comes down as heavy rain in the spring, summer and fall, and snow in the winter. As Bob Felix points out in his iceagenow.com website, it's not global warming, but ocean warming. The non-existent global warming isn't heating the oceans as poor demented Al Gore would have us believe, but ocean heating that's warming the globe."

Thought I might stick my oar in…………! Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT http://www.opinionjournal.com “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” “…….there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.”

Sorry if I seem to always be picking on you but you seem to be so anti-human in your interpretation of the causes of climate change. I posted a link to a report by the US National Research Council and I'm now offering another link and some excerpts from the report. Please draw your own conclusions! :lol: http://www4.nationalacademies.org A Closer Look at Global Warming The warming of the Earth has been the subject of intense debate and concern for many scientists, policy-makers, and citizens for at least the past decade. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, a new report by a committee of the National Research Council, characterizes the global warming trend over the last 100 years, and examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity. The committee was made up of 11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner. The Evidence for Warming Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion, the report says. Part of the debate over global warming centres on disparities between the surface temperature and upper-air temperature. While the Earth's surface temperature has risen, data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low-to mid- troposphere. The report concurs with a previous Research Council report that said despite these differences, "the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century." Are We Changing the Climate? The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system. A Research Council report, Improving the Effectiveness of Climate Modelling, identifies the lack of a coherent national climate modelling program and sufficient computing resources and suggests areas for improvement. Almost all of the major greenhouse gases -- with the exception of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- have both natural and human-induced sources. For example, carbon dioxide is not only formed by the decay in plant matter, but also by the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. And atmospheric methane can be formed by growing rice, raising cattle, coal mining, using land-fills, and handling natural gas. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in the Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years, the report says. Carbon dioxide is probably the single most important agent contributing to climate changes today, the report says. In addition, the other greenhouse gases combined contribute to climate changes approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examines several greenhouse gases in detail, along with their potential to contribute to global warming. The report notes that the cooling trend in the Earth's stratosphere -- documented by satellite data since 1979 --- is so pronounced that it would be difficult to explain through natural variability alone. The cooling is believed to be partially a result of the build up of greenhouse gases and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, which warms the atmosphere at low levels but cools it at high levels. The use of CFCs -- which were employed in a variety of industrial applications including refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosols -- was banned in 1996 by the Montreal Protocol. This cooling could delay or perhaps temporarily reverse the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer, which was the intended goal of banning the use of CFCs. :lol: :lol:

If you think I'm going to share them!!!!!

I just knew that you'd pick up on the word 'ancient'! What I'm trying to imply is that at some point we could define existing named/known/approved planets as 'ancient' (forget the Greek/Roman use of the word 'ancient') and objects found since up-to-date (computerised?) searches were used as 'Modern'. Just trying to help!

As Dawlish says – no need to shout!!! I was referring to 100 years of records in Australia. Their Australian summer climate has warmed considerably, especially in the last 30 years. This Australian winter happens to be cold because of a climatic change in their weather patterns. We are undergoing a climatic change as well. We will undoubtedly be influenced by meltwater from the Arctic – but only for a while, I hope.

I’m not impressed by the thought that Venus is anything like the earth apart from the fact that both planets revolve around the sun. This is Venus: The atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, droplets of sulphuric acid, and only trace amounts of water have been detected. The high density of the atmosphere results in a surface pressure 90 times that of Earth Venus rotates on its axis once every 243 Earth days, while it orbits the Sun every 225 days - its day is longer than its year! Venus rotates retrograde, or "backwards," spinning in the opposite direction of its orbit around the Sun. As Venus moves forward in its solar orbit while slowly rotating "backwards" on its axis, the cloud-level atmosphere zips around the planet in the opposite direction from the rotation every four Earth days, driven by constant hurricane-force winds. How this atmospheric "super rotation" forms and is maintained continues to be a topic of scientific investigation. About 90 percent of the surface of Venus appears to be recently solidified basalt lava; it is thought that the planet was completely resurfaced by volcanic activity 300 to 500 million years ago. Large-scale tectonic activity does not exist. Venus rotates too slowly to generate the type of magnetic field that Earth has. If Venus was my sister I’d have had her put down at birth!

We still refer to many things that earlier generations ‘discovered’ that don't really exist, such as the Seas of the Moon and the canals of Mars. Surely therefore, Pluto, regardless of its real status, must be preserved as a planet. Perhaps we should retitle our basic nine planet solar system as something like “Ancient Planets” and use “Modern Planets” for the newer and recently added members of our system. Leave Pluto as an “Ancient Planet” and include all the Kuiper Belt objects etc, as “Modern Planets”.

Hi Noggin - don't rush into global cooling just because Australia has a cold winter! They've only kept records down there for at most 100 years or thereabouts. From keeping an eye on their weather, it seems that they've been under the influence of strong high pressure systems centered to the south of Australia. Those highs have been around forever and usually based over Australia - but have they moved further south? Is that related to the movement of Hadley cells away from the equator rather than evidence of a cooldown? I stand to be corrected!

A report today in - http://www.terradaily.com End of 20th century warmest in 400 years: US report WASHINGTON, June 22 (AFP) Jun 23, 2006 Human activity has made Earth hotter now than at any point in 400 and possibly more than 1000 years, a US Congress commissioned report said Thursday. "The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstruction for periods before the Industrial Revolution ... are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities," the report by the National Academy of Sciences said. Now will you believe us?

So - we get rid of the oil economy and go nuclear. And what is the only pollutant (apart from radioactivity) from a nuclear power station? Heat - much of it in the form of water vapour! I thought that termites rated higher than cows on the CH4 pollutant scale? One tiny thing in favour of a greenhouse scenario on Venus is that is it just a little bit closer to the sun than we are! Like - 40million kilometers!

As usual Mr R J S – an excellent post. It is human nature to be either sceptical about or all in favour of anyone who comes up with a theory –whatever the theory is about. None of us really like to sit on the fence! But some theories are easier to prove or disprove than others. Because we are dealing with a dynamic process (i.e. climatic changes), anyone who has any degree of scientific interest in the future of the weather, the earth, the oceans, etc, etc will therefore be inclined to put forward their own theory or support someone else’s. But the only place that we can look with any degree of certainty is into the past. However, although we can extrapolate climatic conditions for past millennia, there is no way that we can include localised extremes in those graphs and charts. Using Dendroclimatology (as an example) we can find out that 2500 BC was a dry, cool year in central Britain (probably wrong - it might have been warm and wet, for all I know!) but we can’t tell if there was a heatwave for a week or so in June that summer or that there was a violent thunderstorm that dumped 50 mm or rain in one small area in August. So the crap weather that we’ve had this week or the heatwave of last week will never appear in the climatic record of 2500 AD. Only the broad overall figures will remain and the records of the extremes of our climate, which we make headlines of, will disappear eventually. And since the climate is also a thing of the future – only someone who’s been there can say for certain what the weather or climate will be like. Therefore all us scientifically-minded people can come up with all the theories in the world about climate change – and all be wrong! Being one of those scientifically-minded people, that does annoy me somewhat! My basic theory? There’s too many of us causing too much pollution through industrialisation and environmental damage. We’re damaging the earth beyond its ability to repair itself. What we have been doing for the past 500 years will take 5,000 years for the earth to put right and the damage will not be made good in time to save our civilisation as we know it.

Carbon IS IN the food we eat. That's what it's made of - to mention but a few things. Organic Molecules (i.e. Food) + O2 = CO2 + H20 + heat In English - Food we eat combines with oxygen to release carbon dioxide, water vapour and warmth inside us. PS I suppose it was me who mentioned 6 billion people, etc........

I can't let you get away with that! B) Air that we inhale contains 78% Nitrogen; 21% Oxygen; about 0.04% Carbon Dioxide and a small quantity of other gases and water vapour. Exhaled air contains 75% Nitrogen; 16% Oxygen; about 4% water vapour and a small quantity of other gases. The CO2 content however has risen from 0.04% to around 4%

Fair comment. However......as has already been mentioned......, we're changing the world at a far faster rate than ever before. We've put the Earth on fast-forward. And we have no remote control to press to stop. We're making things happen that should take millennia rather than decades and that isn't a natural change - it's man-made without a doubt. Hi Dawlish That brought a picture to my mind of the Dutch boy with his thumb in the hole in the dyke! I've a horrible feeling that we're now in much the same situation. We might plug the hole but we can't turn back time.

It's a cat's life!

Hi GW I’ve always understood isostatic uplift to be a result of the removal of an overload/overburden of ice. This, as you imply, applies to Scotland (among other places) where the land is still rising after the last Ice Age melted away. I’m not into plastic deformation (who is?) but I have a feeling that since continental rocks are generally not designed to deform, the process would take a seriously long time to become noticeable. In the Antarctic, the ice loss (assuming one accepts that there is a loss) may be considerable but as a percentage it is a tiny amount. Hence the isostatic uplift (despite the accelerated rate you refer to) would be equally small. In the event of the massive icesheet breakdown that you imply could happen then maybe things might be a bit different. Rates of Isostatic Rebound http://www.homepage.montana.edu - Isostasy “Where rebound is well constrained by Carbon 14 ages, it usually occurs at an exponentially declining rate. The half-recovery time is commonly several thousand years, thus recovery is still continuing around the Baltic Sea and Hudson Bay, albeit much more slowly than it did immediately following deglaciation. Seaports of hundreds of years ago may now be several kilometers inland and meters above sea level! Restrained Rebound takes place beneath a thinning ice sheet. As the ice thins the lithosphere will begin to gradually rise in response to decreasing pressure. Evidence of this stage is not commonly preserved, as the land is still covered by ice.”