[pointless supporting fact] Thats exactly how the quench button on an MRI scanner works. THe button triggers a heating element in the helium tank, raising the pressure very rapidly. On the quench vent pipe there is a burst plate, which in turn pops and the helium is vented to the outside world extremely quickly. Without the cryogenic cooling effect of the helium the electromagnets cannot flow sufficient current to function (typically around 3 tesla of magnetic field, but occasionally higher) and loose almost all of their magnetism pretty much immediately. (simply turning the power off retains a latent magnetic field for a long time) [/pointless supporting fact]
I have no doubt that CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past. What is concerning in the current case is: a) the rate of change. The Earth doesn't normally do things in a few decades - timescales are in a completely different order. b) man is the only variable that can be attributed to such a rapid change. It's easy to think that we don't have any effect on the air. But start up your bike in the garage and close the door and see how long you can stand the fumes. Entire cities live in smog : vis Bangkok or Shanghai, or Beijing. That is all manmade. Multiply all that crap by all the mega cities and all the cars in the world etc and is it surprising that there is some sort of effect on the environment? It was proven that sulphur emissions in the US caused forests to die in Scandinavia. Pollution exists. c) if we are responsible, we can do something about it. d) winners and losers. That's a bit glib, isn't it? You want to be the person to suggest to all the farmers in the central US that they are just going to be losers, or explain that to half of Bangladesh? The thing is, there are going to be a lot more losers than winners because societies have grown up in a certain set of climactic conditions. There is a good reason the Sahara isn't densely populated. You can't just shift entire megapoloses to places where the climate is more amenable. As water runs out, there will be war and strife and huge displacement of people. That may be part of life's rich tapestry to you, in your comfortable abode. It's a bit less comfortable for most of the billions on the planet. e) species will become extinct. I can see that this is only of sentimental value (except when it disrupts the food chain, leading to unforeseen consequences - like intensive shark fishing. But as I have already said, I give sentimental value a very high value.
But it can and has changed in decades. So man isn't the only variable. Rapid climate change: lessons from the recent geological past - ePrints Soton Sure pollution exists and we should do something to clean up our act. 9*% of all species that ever existed have become extinct.
Well, sure. But it depends if you think we are the custodians of the planet (as the stuff we do has far more impact than any other species) or if you think that the world is just a resource that we should exploit as we think fit. If you think the latter, then no doubt you are in favour of slaughtering the remaining rhino in order to take their horns, or killing as many sharks as we like in order to make soup out of their fins. And lets finish off the whales while we are about it. They'll all become extinct in any case so why bother? Let's turn tigers into rugs (they look quite cool), cull badgers into extinction (their possible TB might harm our farming interests).
Then I fail to see the point of your remark that "9*% of all species that ever existed have become extinct." What's that got to do with the price of fish? It only makes sense if it is to underline the view that as everything become extinct anyway, it doesn't matter if they do.
Maybe. I don't see things in these terms. I have no interest in being of the right or the left - they are just meaningless labels as far as I am concerned. In the green debate, there are those who think we should be doing something and those who think we shouldn't bother. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, trying to tax people or restrict their freedoms, as a matter of philosophy. But it may come to the latter two in an attempt to force a behaviour change, as otherwise people will just carry on as they have. There are countries in which people don't throw litter on the ground and others where no one cares and the streets are awash with it. It's a cultural thing. A green consciousness has made significant inroads into our behaviour. I don't remember anyone in 1970 recycling anything. People just put their bottles and cans, paper and batteries in the bin when they had no further use for them. You wouldn't do that now. Society gradually wakes up. No doubt there are still those who recycle nothing, but I would hope that they are in the minority now. It's not the Left taking over, just a sense of personal responsibility. Recycling is an extra hassle in life - but it seems to be a necessary evil. Reducing carbon emissions appears to me to be a similar sort of thing.
Redistribution occurs when the average person pays extra for power so that the owners of windfarms can receive a subsidy and taxation for green issues such as aviation tax and VED linked to carbon emissions is also a reality today. So we are already being forced into behavioural changes; you are behind the times. I am all for environmental awareness, call it green consciousness if you wish, because it makes sense when resources are under threat, which they are, and it makes the world a better place. I just don't accept the rational that manmade CO2 emissions are responsible for all of the climate changes we are seeing today. You have conceded that CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past but are reluctant to accept that there have been dramatic climate changes in the past such as the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and Mini Ice Age long before the modern rise in CO2. Why is that ?
Simple. I didn't know anything about them until you brought them up. Nothing I have read or seen mentions them. This is the graph from the Wikipedia article on the MWP. The article says that climatologists aren't at all sure that this was a global phenomenon. You will notice that the Roman Warm Period (also not substantiated globally) doesn't seem to appear on this graph. But when you look at the graph it's clearly the black line which is the most noticeable. If the IPCC thought these events were highly significant, and proof that what we are experiencing is just a data blip, then I'm sure they would have said so and I'd have heard about it. Unless, of course, the entire scientific climate community is in on some massive scam - which I suppose you and Fig, notably, think they are.
Here is the original hockey stick graph from the IPCC Third Assessment Report It does not show the MWP or Mini Ice Age and was widely criticised for it. It was subsequently reworked into something similar to what you have shown. In other words it was subsequently tweaked to fit the real world. And here is the graph you posted earlier from NOAA So ask yourself why do all of the hockey stick graphs end shortly after 2000 ?
No, just the IPCC who as a body were set up to look at AGW, it is in their DNA. Also if you fit a curve through the first 1000 years of your graph there is a 0.3 deg temp rise. What caused it ?
As a summary of this entire discussion, I think that the Wikipedia article on the IPCC is pretty coherent. Just read that and then tell me why it is wrong if you still think it is. I don't pretend to be a climate expert, any more than a nuclear physics expert or a genetics expert. If you gather together an authoritative panel of climate scientists (running to thousands of contributions) what is the point, if you are just going to dismiss their work on the grounds that "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" Of course you could just read the Telegraph to support whatever it is that you want to think. I am not in the business of trying to analyse the data myself - it far exceeds my competency and the time I have available to devote to the subject. I am prepared to listen to the global panel of experts who thrash out the data themselves and see what they have to say on the matter. Peer reviewed work is the basis of all scientific study. If you are just going to say that you know better, I'm afraid you're not likely to convince me. I am sure you have an area of expertise, but I doubt it's in climate science. And for a final time, if you want to understand more of the mechanisms of how doubt in the IPCC's work has been promulgated and funded, by whom and why you would give credence to these revelations, read The Merchants of Doubt. Until you have, we aren't going to get any further in this discussion.
Why would you ever need a passport John. You don't need one for Ireland or the Isle of Man, which isn't even in the eu. Today, planning permission was granted for a wave generator by Orkney that will generate enough power for 42,000 homes. It's a small scale test bed. 42000 homes. Small scale. Wave and nuclear produce power at the same cost. This was in a report many years ago that, except an error was made so wave looked like it was 50% more expensive. The other drawback for wave, is it doesn't support a nuclear weapons program.
Stopped reading at page 2 and low and behold nothing changed by page 7. Seems simple to me: climate changes over time naturally and mother earth has a habit of resolving issues like our immune system mostly takes care of a cold. Has a blip, something bad happens, sorts itself out. Man is adding to this, but is that because of what we burn, what we dig up, what we eat, what we use to produce stuff or the clearing of forests etc. its the level of impact that creates the central difference of opinion. You have thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of scientific people working on this; why would they doubt it?! Add to that the millions who will work in renewables and again who would debunk it? The likes on Centrica have to conform and also see massive benefit in doing so; find something cheap or free to produce once the investment is made to build it, and use your customers to supply the investment to start with either through exsiting charges or tax payer back subsidies, then charge even more for the supply because it 'must' cost more.... Re the wave thing, we've all seen business cases which maximise the benefit to get the investment. The cynic in me says this will be one of these cases.
The die is cast Glidd, we will know in ten years whether the IPCC, which gave it's first report in 1990, was correct. On a global scale nothing much is going to change with regard to total CO2 emissions to alter that. The problems of energy security will still be with us and our ability to sustain our current levels of economic activity.
Good luck to it. It has taken long enough to get to the small scale test bed stage, let's hope progress speeds up. We no longer need a nuclear industry to support a weapons program, we have all the fissile weapons grade material we need. What we do need is power. You are obviously an optimistic kind of guy 749er, I hope you are right. But you will still be part of the Union after 18th September next year
I don't think that can be right. In 1970 there used to be a vast amount of recycling by scrap merchants, real recycling of tons of iron, copper, lead ... bricks, stone, slates, lumber ... car engines, tyres, body panels, glass ... furniture, household goods, clothes ... Most of that has gone now, the scrap dealers and second-hand shops have been driven out of business. Instead, recycling has come to mean faffing about with trivial bits of paper and plastic; it's pretend recycling, done by local council because they think they ought to try and look green.
I'm sure a recycling expert will be along shortly to tell us what really goes on. It is my understanding (but happy to be proven wrong) that most waste in the UK goes into landfill. Here it is incinerated. My village, like every other village, has a recycling centre, open a couple of hours a week. There are separate skips, bins and containers for cardboard, paper, 3 different colours of bottles, aluminium and steel cans, scrap iron, electrical goods, polystyrene, batteries, compost (at least). I wouldn't call that "faffing around". The containers are lorry-sized and they seem to fill in a matter of weeks - this in a village of 200 people. A skipfull of flattened aluminium and steel cans has got to be worth something. This is a subject that has always interested me. I'd love to know what then happens to the cans. In fact, I think I might ask the village to follow up their journey (and the glass and paper) and write an article about it. No one seems to know anything much about the economics and what really happens to the stuff. I find your assertion that secondhand shops have disappeared odd. I thought there were plenty of charity shops in the UK. There was one not far away when I was living in Battersea not that long ago.
