| Archive for talkclacton.myfastforum.org A discussion group on local issues for residents of Tendring District |
| admin |
CLIMATE CHANGE - the BIG debateThis definitely belongs here and not under Clacton? |
||
| amenity |
A few years ago there was a clamour from scientists and they were poo poo'd by other scientists (probably in the train of some huge conglomerate).
A few years ago Tony Blair did react to some of the alarms but subsequently went to america to see George Bush and announced before he left america to return home that he had changed his mind on the climate issue and would re-evaluate his approach to global warming. About this time it was said by scientists that it would become dangerous in about 100 to 200 years. Then it dropped by stages untill now it will be 2040 ie 34 years away. This reapraisal has taken place over the last couple of years, so what will they be saying in another couple of years? |
||
| Lin |
Saw on the news that this is going to be a 'El Nino'year .Already they are predicting higher temperatures and weather extremes for this year.
I have seen so many people out with no coats .....In January !!.I have noticed that we don't get the cold weather of a few decades ago.Also picked roses in my garden today .Trees still have leaves .What have we done........ It does make you think...... |
||
| amenity |
Someone told me today that it was 75/85 degrees F in Philadelphia today. | ||
| EssexGurl |
My daughters tomato plants - out in the back garden still were producing toms just before christmas. Not sure if thats due to it being warmer and a sheltered-ish garden or them just being super tom plants | ||
| amenity |
No such thing as global warmingjavascript:emoticon(' ')
Laughing |
||
| Lin |
' ' ' ' love your 'ears ' on the smilies.
Just pulled up my marigolds ...in January ,Seeds are beginning to sprout that should'nt come up until April. Whilst out walking my dog the other day ,I got chatting to a retired chap and we spoke about how unseasonal the weather is.His comment was good for global warming ,I asked him how he felt about future generations and the legacy we will have left them .His response was "Well,I won't be here so I don't care"........the same can be said for our Leaders ,they won't be in power so they don't care either. I see the chap who applied for a wind turbine in his garden at Kirby has had it refused. About time someone came up with a smaller one that won't have such an impact (and would be cheaper) ,it may encourage us to be a bit greener. Oh and BAN COWS !!!!!!!!!!  methane making munchers
|
||
| amenity |
Don't ban them Lin devise a piping and storage system.(' ')
Razz |
||
| Lin |
Oh Amenity.....the mind boggles 
Sorry ,but I had a mental image of a cow walking round attatched by it's bum to a hoover tube
Seriously though ,my husband likes cows as he used to work with them ,many moons ago.I dislike them as they are runny at both ends  .Mind ,I do like one with Roast potatoes ect
Thinking about it......I would expect that a 'average ' 18 st McDonalds munching chav would let loose the equivalent of a cows output. AND ,what about filtering all that 'hot air' coming out of Westminster Reckon you could fly halfway round the world on that alone....
|
||
| amenity |
I'm rather inclined to set a tax on the hot air from Westminster. And while were at it store it as before into a massive ballon, put the polly's into the basket and let them go. | ||
| Lin |
Nah.....just anchor them up there and let them beg....heh ,heh ,heh 
Or ,.....I suppose we could always send em on a looooong break in the Big Brother house and just happen to forget to turn the camers on ....and just happen to lose the keys 
|
||
| EssexGurl |
Nah if your gonna put them in the BB house you have gotta have the cameras on - look what it did for George Galloway - the cat incident still makes me shudder.
Imagine the fun tasks they could be made to do. Like surviving on the basic pension etc. |
||
| Lin |
Oh , so thats NOT The Big Brother House on channel 504 then
|
||
| amenity |
So Tony Bliar thinks science will save him?
He was reported to have said he is not going to stop flying. |
||
| Lin |
Classic case of 'Do as I say -Not as I do'
Heard recently that a MP had suggested everyone have an allotted number of Air Miles.If you use yours up then it's either Tough Luck or buy from someone who is sensible enough to have saved theirs. Why is it ,if you have the money/power you can get away with polluting ,ie if you have money ,you have a couple or three Gas guzzling 4x4's several long haul holidays a year ,burn more energy by having huge houses all fully heated and Jacuzzis ect. I'd love to see what Bliars carbon footprint is. |
||
| EssexGurl |
I'd love to see the Blairs living in the real world for once. I'm sure that man is really in some weird fairy tale, tonys world place most of the time. It might explain that rather scary grin. | ||
| amenity |
I'm sorry to say I think he is quite mad. | ||
| Lin |
No he just lives on Button Moon | ||
| amenity |
Still global warming but more international, from todays Lloyds List.
Andy Xie, formerly chief economist at Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong, has been strident on this point. “China has kept the global cost of production artificially low by not paying for pollution and labour benefits. The political pressure within China is as such that the government is normalising production costs, which could boost global inflation.” Mr Xie has argued that lax environmental controls were more important than labour costs in attracting production relocation to China. He pointed out that China’s pollution is 12 times the world average per unit of GDP. Two-fifths of China’s seven major river basins are badly polluted, as are 90% of the rivers running through cities. Roughly 300m rural Chinese do not have access to purified water. In Beijing, the Communist Party has finally prioritised the environment, recognising that pollution is a growing risk to its credibility. |
||
| Lin |
Well it's mid-January ,the suns out and we were out taking the dog for a walk on the beach at 7.30am.I had to take my winter coat off as it's hardly mid-winter weather.
There is definately something strange going on and STILL some of the world leaders refuse to accept that climate change has happened. We had to cut the grass yesterday as it's still growing ,something we have never had to do before. I'm by no reach of the imagination an expert on the weather ,but if the ordinary man can see what's going on ,why won't those who can do something about it ...do something....... |
||
| amenity |
Saw this in Lloyds List today, it's about an oil spill but as a sideline global warming.
The Coastal Administration estimated that 290 tonnes of bunker fuel spilt into the water, Eide Kjaeraas said. "It is a serious accident -- absolutely," she said. The 19,864gt Server, which was carrying no cargo en route to Murmansk in northwestern Russia, had 585 tonnes of bunker fuel oil and 72 tonnes of marine diesel aboard when it ran aground, the Coastal Administration said in a statement. Four tug boats and four Coast Guard vessels took part in the clean-up and effort to control the spill on Saturday, it said. "We have high seas, quite intense wind in the area so it is hard to estimate visually how much oil is out there," Eide Kjaeraas said. A tank that had been situated where the ship broke in two held 290 tonnes of bunkers. Another tank with capacity of 300 tonnes is in the bow section that has been secured, she said. Environmental groups feared the fuel could drift to a nearby bird sanctuary where a large number of birds have wintered due to unseasonally mild weather this year. But Eide Kjaeraas said no oil had been observed in the area. It was unclear what caused the ship to run aground. Conditions were rough with seven-metre seas, but not unusually harsh for the time of year along Norway's coast, officials said. |
||
| amenity |
From the Indy today. extract
http://news.independent.co.uk/env...climate_change/article2328821.ece "Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems," he said. "If you see the size of the plantations in the state of Sao Paolo they are oceans of sugar cane. In order to harvest you must burn the plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the city." And so it has come to pass that US President George Bush has decreed that America must wean itself off oil with the help of biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and other suitable crops. At its simplest, the argument for biofuels is this: By growing crops to produce organic compounds that can be burnt in an engine, you are not adding to the overall levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that the fuel produces when burnt should balance the amount absorbed during the growth of the plants. However, many biofuel crops, such as corn, are grown with the help of fossil fuels in the form of fertilisers, pesticides and the petrol for farm equipment. One estimate is that corn needs 30 per cent more energy than the finished fuel it produces. Another problem is the land required to produce it. One estimate is that the grain needed to fill the petrol tank of a 4X4 with ethanol is sufficient to feed a person for a year. |
||
| ivan burit |
|
||
| Lin |
Did anyone watch Global Warming the Swindle on the tv last night? It had some very interesting points to think about .
Now I am not sure who I believe............ |
||
| amenity |
I have just promised my youngest son a bumper birthday present in the year 2050, of course I will have died at least thirty years before that date even if I live to a very ripe old age.
So much for TB's revolutionary reform on Global Warming. |
||
| amenity |
Thought you might like to see this extract from Lloyds List todays date.
SHIPPING often describes itself as the greenest form of transport, but the criteria are changing. Ships move a very high percentage of the world’s raw materials, foodstuffs and finished goods at costs far lower than any other transport mode, and they do so with the lowest energy consumption per unit of cargo carried. And the large diesels powering most oceangoing tonnage are easily the most efficient internal combustion engines ever developed. In addition, these engines burn heavy bunker oil, which is basically refinery waste with few other natural markets. The fact that modern marine engines can burn this residue without need of additional refining or having to send it to landfill is a remarkable achievement. Some would have the shipping industry stop using this fuel and turn to distillate fuels. But why spend energy on refining residue only to burn it again? It is the non-hydrocarbon substances in residual fuels which cause marine stack emissions, SOx, NOx and particulate matter, to be environmentally unwelcome. Although largely released while ships are at sea, some studies indicate both that many ocean voyages are within 200 miles of land and that these emissions may be blown over land in many parts of the world. While questions remain on harmful amounts actually deposited in such areas, measures to reduce such emissions are being considered. Ship-source emissions caused the International Maritime Organization to adopt Annex VI to Marpol some years ago with the intention of increasingly controlling releases over time if justified by further study. The annex included the concept of SOx emission control areas (Secas) and defined in Appendix III the process for contracting states to justify the need for a Seca to protect themselves from environmental harm and human health impacts of ship source air emissions. The shipping and oil industries, along with environmental scientists, have been intensively studying not only the various means for complying with emission targets, but also the actual need for stiffer targets than those currently in Annex VI. Next month, the Bulk Liquid & Gases Sub-Committee of the MEPC will meet in London to consider changes to the annex and the debate is expected to be lively. At present two conceptually very different approaches for complying with Annex VI emission targets have been proposed. The Oil Companies International Marine Forum has said: “It is imperative to understand both the need for and impact of any change in current regulations.” The International Chamber of Shipping advocates taking “a goal-based and holistic approach” to compliance and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association has expressed “willingness to partner with others … in scientific process to analyse the environmental need and justification for a lower Seca sulphur limit”. Essentially these industry bodies are advocating working within the existing Annex VI framework to identify any change. By contrast, Intertanko, supported by the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association and in part by the US EPA, has proposed that by a future date of 2010-2015 all marine fuel should be distillate. Before discussing the pros and cons of these two approaches, a look at some of the factors involved is in order. A former Exxon colleague, Rudolph Kassinger, now of DNV Petroleum Services, using data mostly from the ‘BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2006’, has brought some interesting points into focus. Marine residual fuel consumption is about 5.3% of global oil consumption but only 1.9% of global energy consumption — not a very large figure. But global CO 2 release from marine fuels is about 6.6% of total global releases from all fuels. And from US EPA estimates of SOx emissions for mobile sources (ships, cars, trucks, trains and planes) marine SOx is projected to grow from a 1996 level of 21% to a 2030 estimated level of 81% — which without change clearly is unlikely to be acceptable. |
||
| amenity |
So watchers of this debate will know Australia is going down, no rain to speak of for six years.
Food production will be hard hit if this continues. How will this affect the UK? Imports of food will be reduced so prices will rise. Are the days of 'cheap food' over? |
||
| amenity |
Sorry about the size of this but it's worth it.
from the Indy: An island made by global warming By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor Published: 24 April 2007 The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland's enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming. Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland's remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea. Shaped like a three-fingered hand some 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it has been discovered by a veteran American explorer and Greenland expert, Dennis Schmitt, who has named it Warming Island (Or Uunartoq Qeqertoq in Inuit, the Eskimo language, that he speaks fluently). The US Geological Survey has confirmed its existence with satellite photos, that show it as an integral part of the Greenland coast in 1985, but linked by only a small ice bridge in 2002, and completely separate by the summer of 2005. It is now a striking island of high peaks and rugged rocky slopes plunging steeply to a sea dotted with icebergs. As the satellite pictures and the main photo which we publish today make clear, Warming Island has been created by a quite undeniable, rapid and enormous physical transformation and is likely to be seen around the world as a potent symbol of the coming effects of climate change. But it is only one more example of the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet, that scientists have begun to realise, only very recently, is proceeding far more rapidly than anyone thought. The second-largest ice sheet in the world (after Antarctica), if its entire 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 metres, or more than 23 feet. That would inundate most of the world's coastal cities, including London, swamp vast areas of heavily-populated low-lying land in countries such as Bangladesh, and remove several island countries such as the Maldives from the face of the Earth. However, even a rise one tenth as great would have devastating consequences. Sea level rise is already accelerating. Sea levels are going up around the world by about 3.1mm per year - the average for the period 1993-2003. That is itself sharply up from an average of 1.8mm per year over the longer period 1961-2003. Greenland ice now accounts for about 0.5 millimetre of the total. (Much of the rest of the rise is coming from the expansion of the world's sea water as it warms.) Until two or three years ago, it was thought that the break-up of the ice sheet might take 1,000 years or more but a series of studies and alarming observations since 2004 have shown the disintegration is accelerating and, as a consequence, sea level rise may be much quicker than anticipated. Earlier computer models, researchers believe, failed to capture properly the way the ice sheet would respond to major warming (over the past 20 years, Greenland's air temperature has risen by 3C). The 2001 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was relatively reassuring, suggesting change would be slow. But satellite measurements of Greenland's entire land mass show that the speed at which its glaciers are moving to the sea has increased significantly in the past decade, with some of them moving three times faster than in the mid-1990s. Scientists estimate that, in 1996, glaciers deposited about 50 cubic km of ice into the sea. In 2005, it had risen to 150 cubic km of ice. A study last year by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology showed that, rather than just melting relatively slowly, the ice sheet is showing all the signs of a mechanical break-up as glaciers slip ever faster into the ocean, aided by the "lubricant" of meltwater forming at their base. As the meltwater seeps down it lubricates the bases of the "outlet" glaciers of the ice sheet, causing them to slip down surrounding valleys towards the sea, Another discovery has been the increase in "glacial earthquakes" caused by the sudden movement of enormous blocks of ice within the ice sheet. The annual number of them recorded in Greenland between 1993 and 2002 was between six and 15. In 2003, seismologists recorded 20 glacial earthquakes. In 2004, they monitored 24 and for the first 10 months of 2005 they recorded 32. The seismologists also found the glacial earthquakes occurred mainly during the summer months, indicating the movements were indeed associated with rapidly melting ice - normal "tectonic" earthquakes show no such seasonality. Of the 136 glacial quakes analysed in a report published last year, more than a third occurred during July and August. The creation of Warming Island appears to be entirely consistent with the disintegrating ice sheet, coming about when the glacier bridge linking it to the mainland simply disappeared. It was discovered by Mr Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, California, who has known Greenland for 40 years, during a trip he led up the remote coastline. According to the US Geological Survey: "More islands like this may be discovered if the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to disappear." A self-governing dependency of Denmark, Greenland is the largest island in the world but is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mainly Inuit. More than 80 per cent of the land surface is covered by the ice sheet. |
||
| pepsi |
I simply despair of career politicians.
First, all new houses should/must be built with solar panels, recycleable water systems [i.e. use washing shower/bath water to flush loos, it should be compulsory to make them energy and resource efficient. Currently new developers put somewhere between a 30-60% profit margin on a new property, this should be stopped [might also bring down soaring house prices]. Next, put a premium tax on all non-energy efficient white goods. Importantly, actually develope a true integrated, affordable public transport system. If people had an alternative means of transport to/from work etc. they would use it instead of car but sadly there is often no other option. I work in Felixstowe and there is no way I can get to my work via public transport. Safeguard more of the planets natural forests both rain and temperate and consider putting a premium tax on all goods imported from countries which are heavy polluters. It ain't rocket science and I am sure I may have missed some valid arguments but the above is a start for consideration. |
||
| amenity |
It looks as though we live in a world of political ostrich's. | ||
| amenity |
Saw this in today's Indy. C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change By Steve Connor, Science Editor Published: 08 May 2007 The makers of a Channel 4 documentary which claimed that global warming is a swindle have been accused of fabricating data by one of the scientists who participated in the film. The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast on 8 March and has been criticised by leading scientists for errors, distortions and misrepresentations. The film has also been referred to the regulatory watchdog Ofcom which is considering a complaint from 37 senior scientists that the programme breached the broadcasting code on the misrepresentation of views and facts. Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods. Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures. Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century. However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period. "We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said. "Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said. Dr Friis-Christensen, a physicist, believes that solar cycles play an important role in climate change and that not enough effort has gone into addressing the theory. The fabricated data did not, he said, make any difference to the overall view he takes but he is still critical of the way the film handled the scientific evidence. Asked by The Independent whether the documentary was scientifically accurate, Dr Friiss-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate." The C4 programme also used out-of-date solar cycle data relating to the past 30 or 40 years which made it appear as if temperatures and solar activity were rising together when in fact solar activity has levelled off for the past few decades. "After 1985 we don't see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record]," Dr Friiss-Christensen said. Dr Friis-Christensen is the second scientist to appear on the programme who has criticised the way the film was made. Professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that the way his interview was edited gave the misleading impression that he was not concerned about rising levels of carbon dioxide - a diametrically opposite view to his stated position. Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the programme, was unavailable for comment but admitted in an email to Mr Rive that the graph was wrong. "Thank you for highlighting the error on the 400-year graph. It is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument," Mr Durkin said. However, the graph and its fabricated data will still be included in the DVD of the programme which went on sale yesterday. The advertising for the DVD says: "Everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. This film blows the whistle on the biggest swindle in modern history." Mr Durkin has already apologised for an error in another graph used in the film which had to be corrected before the film's second transmission on the digital channel More 4. The scientists who have written to Ofcom include Sir John Houghton, the former chief executive of the Met Office, Lord May of Oxford, a former government chief scientist and past-president of the Royal Society, and Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. In a letter to Mr Durkin they call for changes to the programme before the DVD version is released, even though DVDs are not covered by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. "So serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public," they say |
||
| amenity |
Just to keep all of you on your toes try this for size.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/the_interview.shtml Dr James Hansen is interviewed on the BBC, if you are the worrying kind best not to listen. |
||
| amenity |
Did you hear the proffesor talking about the way the sea is reacting to CO2. After a ten year study recently there has been a change of magnitude in the amount of CO2 it will absorb.
The Prof says if it does not start absorbing CO2 at former levels it will be of major concern. Should know over the next ten years. |
||