Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/03/uk-fracking-delay-shale-gas

 

Fracking is coming and gas prices will start to fall in real terms, the technology will improve and windmills will be rendered pointless..

 

" In September 2011, Cuadrilla announced it had discovered 200 trillion cubic feet of "gas in place" within the Bowland prospect – potentially enough to service UK gas consumption for decades".

 

 

"Given the now overwhelming body of scientific data which supports the extraction of gas from shale and the potential favourable economic impact that development of this industry in the UK (and Europe for that matter) would have, were it allowed to be developed, the tardiness of the UK government in allowing fracking to resume is mystifying, especially when one considers the prevailing economic circumstances in the UK," wrote Campbell. "The Bowland resource alone could meet much of the UK's domestic energy requirements for many years."

 

It WILL solve our long terms issues of cheap energy generation - probably for the next 100-200 years at the very least.

 

"Also, you haven't considered the geological formation of the shale rock - it is about 20x thicker than the thickest deposits in the US - that means that very few well heads will be required to extract the VAST quantities of gas there!

 

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would they become pointless? Shale gas is expensive to extract. There are problems with it in the USA because of the low cost of gas. How can burning more carbon based fuel reach the targets that the Country would be judged against in reducing emissions. Oh, I know, let us pretend there are no problems...

 

The gas production will not help Shetland. With no interconnection to transport the electricity generated, it will not be a wide benefit, turbines would still be required.

 

The USA have vast quantities of gas, alas shipping it is a prohibitive factor when it comes to exports. I would also think that the gas we currently import will shoot down in price to retain the market, this would feed a temporary glut in gas consumption. Though, for the USA, it will pump their markets up as they can offer it a little cheaper, this then however will increase the cost of the gas to the home market.

 

 

 

In less than 10 years, the US has become one of the prime producers of gas. The price of gas plummeted to only $2 a unit this year. That compares with about $9-12 in Europe,

 

 

But the plunging price of gas in the US has caused its own problems. At such low output prices, developing shale gas reserves becomes much less economically attractive. "Some companies have had financial difficulties," says Steven Estes, partner at KPMG in Dallas. He points to Chesapeake Energy, one of the pioneers: "Companies that were heavily involved in shale gas exclusively have really taken a hit."

 

But more worrying....

 

The solution has been to explore the same gas fields to look for another prize – shale oil. While the price of natural gas has plunged, oil has kept its value.

 

These quotes are from the http://www.guardian.co.uk

 

So, rather than trying to halt burning carbon fuels, we search out fuels with a greater carbon footprint.

 

Finally,

The evidence from the past 100 years, however, is that where we find fossil fuel energy resources, we exploit them for our short-term gain. Whatever the long-term cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheap gas - good for industry, good for the consumer, good for oap's struggling to keep warm in winter.

Significantly cleaner than coal and works best in conjunction with a few windmills , although who actually gets wealthy from them ? David Camerons father in law etc, etc

 

We have our own vast supply of gas soon coming in from west of shetland, no interconnector, pipelines or additional windmill reqiuired.

 

 

And just remember this, we could shut down every single item of convential energy burning in the entire UK tomorrow and return to an amish / medieval style existance and within 6 months China will have made up the difference.

 

When are you gonna get with the programme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thats the ridiculous farce over with for another year........

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9732226/Doha-climate-change-talks-end-with-compensation-deal-for-poor-nations-that-could-cost-billions.html

 

Earlier the UK was among 38 industrialised countries to sign up to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding pact on cutting green house gas emissions. The deal extends the life of the commitment past 2012, when it was due to end, until 2020.

However major polluters including China, USA, Canada, Russia and Japan did not sign up to the pact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show.

 

The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3651191.ece

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we are causing global warming or not, i do feel that we use too many resources and given that others are living in poverty we need to share things out more equally, that doesn't mean charity just a level playing field.

 

As we see with China, they are building coal powered fire stations we can't say to them "you have no right to develop" we can't say to an Indian that he has no right to a car when some of us have 2.

 

What i mean is, we have to be more realistic about our requirements and accept that everyone is entitled to a warm safe place to live and work.

 

See how they are going to cull badgers because they spread TB, yet we get upset when someone in Africa kills an elephant because it keeps destroying their crops, that's serious hypocracy in my books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we are causing global warming or not, i do feel that we use too many resources and given that others are living in poverty we need to share things out more equally, that doesn't mean charity just a level playing field.

 

As we see with China, they are building coal powered fire stations we can't say to them "you have no right to develop" we can't say to an Indian that he has no right to a car when some of us have 2.

 

What i mean is,

we have to be more realistic about our requirements and accept that everyone is entitled to a warm safe place to live and work.

 

See how they are going to cull badgers because they spread TB, yet we get upset when someone in Africa kills an elephant because it keeps destroying their crops, that's serious hypocracy in my books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/124181/Report_47_Tcf_Gas_Potential_at_Burus_Canning_Permits

 

Another 47 trillion cubic feet of gas.

 

Its is a change of direction AT, rather than buy bulkers of coal from Aus the will be shipping in tanker loads of LNG instead.

 

Should certainly ease the smog problems in some of china's industrial cities as time goes on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Cosmic rays

 

Koy, these rays are being studied by physicists, NOT climate scientists. I'm sure there is a relevant Realclimate page which "debunks" the solar influence...

 

Climate change is real. And it is caused by burning fossil fuels. No other mechanism has been found which can explain the warming the world is experiencing_______

the idea that cosmic rays contribute to climate is unproven, and any correlation between cosmic rays and temperature broke down 30 years ago

 

The Cloud Experiment at CERN

Understanding the causes of climate change is one of the most important challenges facing science today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes more than 90% of the observed warming during the last century to anthropogenic causes, especially the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. However, during the last ten thousand years since the end of the last ice age, and prior to industrialisation, the climate has frequently changed on 100-year time scales by amounts comparable to the current warming. At present there is no established mechanism to explain these natural climate changes, but associations are frequently found with solar variability, which is recorded in archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. This raises the intriguing question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and the initial results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN which is investigating and quantifying the physical mechanisms that may link cosmic rays with aerosols, clouds and climate.

 

 

It will settle a particular question, which to my mind can only be settled by experimental data. There's a huge amount of opinion one way or another on the blogosphere that says "cosmic rays have no effect on the climate" to "cosmic rays do everything in the climate." And no matter how passionately people believe this view or that view, we can't settle it by energetic debate. We have to settle it by experimental measurements. We will settle that question, so there will be a firm scientific basis for answering that question by the end of CLOUD, as opposed to a gazillion opinions...

 

There have been many observations for solar climate variability, but no established mechanism. Cosmic rays are essentially one of the leading candidates — for me, the leading candidate — but if we find that there's nothing there, we simply eliminate that as a mechanism. Who knows? We really don't know at this stage.

 

diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in Cosmo genic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years we were bombarded with stories about Global warming. Then almost overnight this was changed to climate change which could mean ,well anything even global cooling.WHY the change in terminology?.

 

Pretty obvious...

Sanitise it so that the problem(?) seems to be less of a problem(?). That way politicians can 'talk it down'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...