Global Warming

[Stratos Ferric]

Do you think that sun-spots, electromagnetic activity (permanently increasing and (now) strongest per last 8000 years) are only not important changes without influence ...Astronomers, climatologists-don't be stupid and try to think about, read history texts,...!

Dendera zodiac, Senmut astronomical, map, Narmer Palette, funneral astronom. banner of markiza Tai, Bible, EnumaElish, Pol Vuh and other Mayan codexes, Chinese, Egypt.,Sumerian,Nordic,...old writings speak clearly,....

Senmut, I've struggled a little with your English, but ful marks for endeavour. Your English is better than my Slovenian. Have you ever heard of Ken Ring?

Edited February 5, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[senmut]

if you think on -Predicting the Weather by the Moon-, so such predictions could be very succesfull.

I tried to find what are the main sources of weather changes and these are realy Moon, little weaker is Sun (only circa1/3 of Moons tidal/gravitational force) after these there is Venus-in some cases during conjunkcion (some days of 8years/5) is that gravit. force comparable with tidal force of Sun!!!

Though gravit. force of Sun (on Earth) is 100000 x stronger than gravity of Venus on Earth,- tidal-grav. of Sun on Earth is comparable with gravity of Venus on Earth, because tidal force is proportional k.d\L.L.L, where d is diameter of Earth and L is distance Sun-Earth and gravity is proportional k/L.L

Erth-Sun and Earth Moon are systems where 1 object is revolving another so gravity is nerly wholly compensated by centrifugal force in systems Venus-Earth or Jupiter-Earth,... but not. So there is acting not only tidal but whole gravitational force.

There is clear influence of Moon, Sun, Venus, X, Jupiter, Mars also on frequency and force of earthquakes, hurricanes.

When is New and full Moon and Moon, Earth,Sun, Venus,...are aproximatelly on one line so there are usually strong earthquakes,...

See lists of them, for example 26 dec. 2004,2003,2006,....there is also strong influence of Earth axis inclination-toward constellations Orion Bull, Twins in this epoch, these thousands years,so when is New Moon arround 20-30th December so after that there are probable cataclysmas,...

[Upgrade]

The world population should be reduced by 75% over the next 50 years . This one measure will do more for the health of our planet than any other.

[HighPressure]

Sorry, but that's completely wrong and as alarmist as most of the worst extremism regarding GW. I also am not aware that GW lobbyists have any anti-commercial intent.

You make, to say the least, a quantum leap from the current problem to nuclear armageddon, barely stopping to pass go and collect £200.

Most energy is used to keep houses warm, therefore we can all make a contribution. Personal travel is also a big contributor. Yes, industry has to do its bit too, and some form of control may well be necessary, but to make an argument for doing nothing on a personal level on the basis that we are insignificant is misguided. We may be small individually, but collectively we make a massive demand on the planet's resources, whether as primary, or secondary, consumers.

Time and again posters make the same argument which to my eyes come over as a "why should I". It is PRECISELY that sort of attitude that will prevent change.

Yes my post is alarmist but if we are to take on board the IPCC report then it needs to be. Yes of course individuals need to do there bit but this report is calling for massive cuts in carbon emissions not just a few token and symbolic gestures from the developed world. The facts are that the US economy is built on the use of Oil and the Chinese economy is built on Coal, they maybe forced to acknowledge GW but the reality is neither will act, I mean really act to cut their carbon emissions if its likely to effect either their economic growth or their political ambitions. Even the UK a country committed to cutting its emissions is rather clueless in its approach, it has no alternative transport policy and is looking to expand its airports to allow for more flights. There are little or no subsidies in place to aid those wishing to 'go green' in fact you are likely to be penalised if you do so. Why are you still able to buy standard lightbulbs for about 20p each, surely these should be banned similar to that of aerosols containing CFC's? Of course if you want an energy efficient one it will cost you @£3 with no government subsidy. I could go on but I think you get the picture and this is from the Nation which reports to be leading the world on the GW issue. When you look at China we see a nation with the biggest reserves of coal on the planet, the biggest population on earth and the ability to place themselves at the top of the global pile by using the resources they have to their economic advantage. Anyone who thinks the situation can be altered is living with the fairies I am afraid, you imagine giving the UK a GW warning during the industrial revolution. The USA are trillions of dollars in debt and the only alternative energy source they have got their eyes on is the technology to be able to refine the biggest deposits of oil shale in the world at commercially viable costs, and if they manage it they will use it GW or not.

I really wish some people would get real over this subject and start really thinking about the consequences of GW and if anything in real terms is to be done the sort of radical action that would be needed. This brings me back to my original alarmist post.

[Calrissian]

The world population should be reduced by 75% over the next 50 years . This one measure will do more for the health of our planet than any other.

Absolutely correct.

It is the most viable and is likely the only real solution to the underlying fact that at current consumption levels, humanity is unsustainable.

Pandemic, supervolcano, superpowers nuking eachother. Any of those would easily solve the problem.

Of course, people could delude themselves that the climate isn't really changing, that everything will be all fine and dandy in 2025. I can't wait to see things really hot up. Its going to be really entertaining from a sociological perspective.

Calrissian: holding at Defcon'4

[Gray-Wolf]

Absolutely correct.

It is the most viable and is likely the only real solution to the underlying fact that at current consumption levels, humanity is unsustainable.

Pandemic, supervolcano, superpowers nuking eachother. Any of those would easily solve the problem.

Of course, people could delude themselves that the climate isn't really changing, that everything will be all fine and dandy in 2025. I can't wait to see things really hot up. Its going to be really entertaining from a sociological perspective.

Calrissian: holding at Defcon'4

Of course my monies on pandemic........... see you after the first 6 months!

[Stratos Ferric]

Yes my post is alarmist but if we are to take on board the IPCC report then it needs to be. Yes of course individuals need to do there bit but this report is calling for massive cuts in carbon emissions not just a few token and symbolic gestures from the developed world. ...This brings me back to my original alarmist post.

HP,

Q - What drives the great economies?

A - Consumer demand (companies don't spend on raw materials just to left trouser leg money away - they need to add economic value and then sell at a profit to end consumers).

Q - So who needs to change to bring emissions down?

There are only two options:

1 - voluntary action at the level of each individual - it can happen but only with a lot of education:

2 - governmental action - this would require a mixture of punitive forcing / +ve incentives PLUS, for countries playing "hard ball", trade bans or tariffs. It's too simplistic to say "it can't be done". The global economy is nowadays sufficiently conjoined that when a need arises things can be made to happen.

The latter is going to happen anyway: the extent to which the moaners on here (and elsewhere) moan about it will be governed by the extent to which they take unilateral action first.

[The Penguin]

The only problem I have with that SF, is that the countries playing hardball are likely to include the US and China, the two largest producers in the global economy. That, together with the significant number of EU countries that continue to give the finger to so-called European Directives, makes me think that the process will be a long one. And as usual it will be the complying countries that are materially disadvantaged.

I’m not saying it can’t be done, or even that the initiation of global agreement on this shouldn’t be started sooner rather than later, but it would be naive to assume that the agreement will be easy or quick to achieve and straightforward to enforce.

[HighPressure]

And as usual it will be the complying countries that are materially disadvantaged.

This is in essence exactly the point I am making saving the planet costs money to implement, the more costs attributed to an industry or a government the less competitive they become against others who have not made that step. Therefore those who resist implementing any changes (or real effective changes) the longest have a distinct advantage in the market place. Somehow you have to stop this from happening otherwise you will get no real action, unless you impose measures which prevent individual nations or groups of nations from simply hanging in there for the longest possible period. For he who does gains the maximum amount of advantage which = profit and growth. Now I can see only 2 routes here either you provide technology which does not impact on growth so that nations such as China and the USA will adopt it because they maintain their global position, I see no such technology available today which would fulfil such a role. The second option is some form of force, either via trade sanction and trade embargoes or ultimately force which is not really an option but it makes my point.

Although persuasion should of course be tried as should anything individuals can do but the reality is that nations very seldom change their minds due to persuasion alone without the threat of some other more direct measures.

[Devonian]

The only problem I have with that SF, is that the countries playing hardball are likely to include the US and China, the two largest producers in the global economy. That, together with the significant number of EU countries that continue to give the finger to so-called European Directives, makes me think that the process will be a long one. And as usual it will be the complying countries that are materially disadvantaged.

I’m not saying it can’t be done, or even that the initiation of global agreement on this shouldn’t be started sooner rather than later, but it would be naive to assume that the agreement will be easy or quick to achieve and straightforward to enforce.

But, in a world of finite oil surely building more efficient cars is a comptitive edge? The alternative is the crazy way the US builds vast ineffient hulks - and gets away with it becuase it fixes oil prices cheap enough (think oil wars) so that the real costs of oil don't bother it's fat, lazy (literally) consumers.

I've allways though efficency was what economics was about? To me it's never made any sense that to produce a car that uses less petrol, per unit weight or whatever, (in other words is better engineered) is somehow to produce something inefficently and is by some regared and the less competitive vehicle. There is something wrong with economics if that's the case.

[VillagePlank]

Value is decided by the consumer and is a complex beast to understand. It may indeed be technologically superior to manufacture cars that do not emit emmissions, but when the current concept of value relies on something similar to a V6 200bhp monster, how can such a car compete either fiscally, or socially?

[Devonian]

Value is decided by the consumer and is a complex beast to understand. It may indeed be technologically superior to manufacture cars that do not emit emmissions, but when the current concept of value relies on something similar to a V6 200bhp monster, how can such a car compete either fiscally, or socially?

I agree, and it's not easy. Canny but lazy (in terms of innovation and efficiency) car companies try to influence the customer, the market and probably govt; faced with that, reality has a hard time. In the end though, because of that same reality, they'll come unstuck, or have to fight ever harder to exclude the said reality.

[VillagePlank]

At the risk of using sound-bites and to strongly imply that the citizen is responsible there's a quote from 'V for Vendetta' which is People should not be afraid of their Governments, but Governments should be afraid of their people

They should do as we ask. And if we don't ask? If we don't complain? If we don't keep up a fuss. Well, in that case: they're never going to do it

Edited February 8, 2007 by VillagePlank

[HighPressure]

At the risk of using sound-bites and to strongly imply that the citizen is responsible there's a quote from 'V for Vendetta' which is People should not be afraid of their Governments, but Governments should be afraid of their people

They should do as we ask. And if we don't ask? If we don't complain? If we don't keep up a fuss. Well, in that case: they're never going to do it

This is a good example where theory which is correct and logic does not really work when applied to reality. How does a Chinese worker put pressure on his government and indeed does he want to if he is living in poverty with the chance of increasing his wealth even if that means damaging the environment? The USA richest nation on earth but its entire foundations and its political system was built on Oil, yes you lobby their governments and their people but serious action would be devastating for the US economy in the here and now. I am not saying I know how to get around these issues or that what posters have said above is wrong, only that human nature tends to be a bar to what is logical action. You have got to ask yourself the question if we in the UK earned $50 a month and had discovered a fossil fuel in abundant whether we would be so environmentally understanding?

Just to add to that if a nation like China did say lets be the environments friend for futures sake and the cost of its goods went up, would companies in coutries such as the UK still import the goods when they are cheaper elsewhere, the answer is no they would seek the cheapest source. Therefore I go back to my original post the only action has to be force of some kind or another. It really is no good the UK cutting its carbon emisions if they are just going to increase imports from countries like China therefore increasing theirs???

Edited February 8, 2007 by HighPressure

[parmenides3]

Small factoid: The USA spends about 73 billion dollars a month importing oil. How, then, would it be disastrous if this oil was used more efficiently, thereby reducing the need to import so much? Using exitsing resources more efficiently is a profitable activity, not an expense.

:)P

[HighPressure]

Small factoid: The USA spends about 73 billion dollars a month importing oil. How, then, would it be disastrous if this oil was used more efficiently, thereby reducing the need to import so much? Using exitsing resources more efficiently is a profitable activity, not an expense.

:)P

I do not disagree with this argument at all of course it makes sense to reduce the use of any commodity, in the case of the USA I think we are seeing a growing weight of opinion moving in this direction. However this is just tinkering around the edges of the cuts required by the IPCC report, far too little too late I just don't see the technology there to make the cuts possible within the time frame the IPCC are talking about. Its a bit like the Titanic seeing the iceberg and taking evasive action, but we are still going to hit it pretty damn hard, that's not to mean we should not try to avoid it.

The UK has set itself a target of reducing its own Co2 emissions 10% by the 2010, according to our own government figures the UK contributes 2% of the total global emission. A 10% cut relates to reducing our 2% to 1.8% by 2010 if all over values remain the same, the problem is that China will add 2% to current total global emissions within 2yrs (2009) on its own 10 times what the UK is trying and will probably fail to cut by 2010. I don't like my own conclusions but I cannot work the maths out any otherway, I can only conclude that resources would be better spent accepting and planning for the consequences. My analogy here is if the captain of the Titanic had acknowledged the ship was going to sink a lot more lives would have been saved!

[Stratos Ferric]

...I can only conclude that resources would be better spent accepting and planning for the consequences. My analogy here is if the captain of the Titanic had acknowledged the ship was going to sink a lot more lives would have been saved!

I would always favour carrot AND stick personally. BP have just announced a $500m investment in alternatives. As I keep mentioning occasionally, do not for one moment assume that a lot of money ios not being pumped into alternatives, not least by oil dependent supernationals. It may not be high profile, but it's there for sure.