I note the Met office are warning that we will have a mediteranian climate by 2050. Strange is'n't it, that back in the 1990's they told us it would be here in 2010. 2 thoroughly miserable wet summers and this year b****y cold in June is not mediteranian. Either they got it wrong and will not admit it or we have already cut carbon emmisions to stop it. It really is time the powers that be admitted that any climate change is natural and their scaremongering is another excuse for more tax. On a serious note, what does worry me is that recent floods have been blamed on climate change, and not on the true cause, that being building on flood plains and total failure to desilt and maintain rivers. Before the pundits acuse me of not caring about the evironment I would point out that I have facilities to store over 3000litres of rain water, I flush our toilets with rainwater, I compost all garden waste and recycle all possible materials. and run a low emmissions car when its too far to walk.
New panic over global warming
- Thread starter maltaron
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No need to justify your green credentials, this forum isn't under under surveillance by the green police 
(or is it????)
How's that work then? I remember one of the regulars posting on here a few years ago, saying he was planning to DIY a rainwater toilet flushing system using an IBC.
(or is it????)How's that work then? I remember one of the regulars posting on here a few years ago, saying he was planning to DIY a rainwater toilet flushing system using an IBC.
Toilet flushing system is quite simple. I arranged a twin feed to the cisterns via iso valves and double check non return valves. To comply with water regs I arranged the original mains feed via a removable section of pipe for total isolation. An IBC tank collects the rainwater and is fed to the toilet system with a small 12volt pump. The pump is switched by a relay controlled by a micrswitch in the cistern activated by the normal float.
If I keep driving my 3 litre Senator and leaving a few appliances on standby, those Mediterranean summers should hit The UK a bit sooner!
Sponsored Links
I hear this all the time in our house; every time some news person utters the words "global warming" or "climate change".
And so I decided to do a little carbon homework. A search of the internet turned up the following figures. Please feel free to correct them --The atmosphere contains about 0.001% of Earth's carbon. That's not a lot. There is another 0.001% in living plants (other life forms are insignificant) and 0.0025% in the ground as rotting plant, the stuff gardeners call humus. From this it is clear that a change in the total mass of plant life will cause a much larger change in the mass of atmospheric CO2. Cutting down trees is a BAD THING!
We should be planting them wherever they will grow.Now we come to the long dead organisms that are fossil fuels. These contain about 0.006% of our carbon. That's still tiny but it's a lot more than all the carbon in plants, humus and atmosphere put together. It doesn't take a genius to see that if we dig it all out and burn it without a second thought, which is exactly what we have been doing, there will be trouble!
If your maths is any good, you'll have noticed that a lot of carbon has not yet been accounted for. The oceans contain a huge amount of carbon, mostly in the form of soluble carbonates and bicarbonates. At 0.06%, this store of carbon dwarfs all the organic sources - but where is the rest?
The answer is under your feet. Almost all of Earth's carbon is in the ground as carbonate rock - and it moves! It will ultimately be dragged down towards the mantle where it will melt and mix with SiO2. Result: silicate rock and CO2. The good news is that this is a VERY slow process. The bad news is that we haven't got a hope in hell of controlling it. Even with Star Trek grade technology, it's not obvious that we should even try to halt continental drift.
What we can, and probably should, do is speed up carbonate rock formation. If we are hell bent on burning every last million tons of fossil carbon, our only real option is to put it back as carbonate afterwards, or --
We could leave it where it is and move as quickly as we can to a fossil fuel free future. Now, does anybody know how much deuterium we've got left?
I often wonder if the clean air act, has speeded up the global warming process?
Fewer particulates in the atmosphere, allowing more direct heating of the earths surface.
Remember the days of the smogs? we had real winters then.
Just an idea
Wotan
Fewer particulates in the atmosphere, allowing more direct heating of the earths surface.
Remember the days of the smogs? we had real winters then.
Just an idea
Wotan
S
Shutpa
Well I never! You have facilities to store over 3000L of rainwater? You flush your toilets with rainwater? You compost all your garden waste? You recycle all possible materials? And you run a low emmisions car when it's too far to walk? Man, I think you have single handedly saved our planet! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip..........................!
D
dextrous
Whether global warming is man made or through sunspots, or even exists to the extent that "scaremongers" would have us believe, is of little matter.
What does matter is the short sighted damage and use of what resources the planet actually has, quite apart from the overall effect on other species. It seems obvious to me that we have evolved slowly but surely to our current selves through a long and drawn out process which is viable beacause the planet's ecological system is as it is. To change vast tracts of land willy nilly at such a high and increasing rate is highly dangerous, since we will most likely be unable to evolve fast enough to survive to it's new format.
I love my children dearly, but I sometimes wish that I had not procreated for their sakes. It would please me if they decided that they would have no children, for their own peace of mind, quite apart from the knock-on effect of human population growth.
What does matter is the short sighted damage and use of what resources the planet actually has, quite apart from the overall effect on other species. It seems obvious to me that we have evolved slowly but surely to our current selves through a long and drawn out process which is viable beacause the planet's ecological system is as it is. To change vast tracts of land willy nilly at such a high and increasing rate is highly dangerous, since we will most likely be unable to evolve fast enough to survive to it's new format.
I love my children dearly, but I sometimes wish that I had not procreated for their sakes. It would please me if they decided that they would have no children, for their own peace of mind, quite apart from the knock-on effect of human population growth.
We will probably be victims of our own demise, either through greed, by starting a global conflict, or pandemic diseases wiping out vast numbers of population.
It will be down to the survival of the fittest, to pick up the pieces.
Wotan
It will be down to the survival of the fittest, to pick up the pieces.
Wotan
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
More answers than questions !
"...Magic number : 1,767,250
...CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 million metric tons, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year..."
"...Magic number : 1,767,250
...CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 million metric tons, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year..."
Oh to be a cockroach
I think the people existing in the remote forests of the world are the fittest. The people who survive in harmony with nature.
Many of these people's existence are threatened though through greedy governments clearing vast forests to supply timber to the greedy western people.
The area is then turned into farmland and further profits ensue.
A world war or disease pandemic would probably be more beneficial to these forest dwelling people sooner rather than later.
Many of these people's existence are threatened though through greedy governments clearing vast forests to supply timber to the greedy western people.
The area is then turned into farmland and further profits ensue.
A world war or disease pandemic would probably be more beneficial to these forest dwelling people sooner rather than later.
D
dextrous
Can't remember if I've said this on this forum before, but someone once asked Gandhi what he thought of western civilisation. He responded "It would be a good idea"
I said:
Actually, I overlooked a solution to this problem. Don't even try to do anything about global warming. Let the sea levels rise, for this is how our planet works. That fossil carbon is only there because it was once alive and Dover's famous cliffs formed on the sea bed. There was a time when Earth's surface was covered in dense vegetation. A time travelling dinosaur wouldn't be worrying about rising temperatures; it would be looking at Antarctica and saying "Bl**dy hell! Where's the effing forest gone!!!
This solution will of course require some adjustments on our part - like moving entire cities to higher ground - but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If nobody is prepared to pay the extra cost of CO2 disposal, it might be the only solution!
We cannot seriously expect developing nations to forego the advantages of their own fossil fuels after we have squandered our own (though it's encouraging to see that the first ever break-even fusion power station is being built in South Korea). Neither can we expect them to limit their population growth while we, in our little corner of Europe, have the highest population density on the planet.
Sponsored Links
