InvisibleMan

we cant do much about it - its the sun, and once it goes supernova then we're all up ****-creek

Tentenths

Very interesting site SC. A quick lunchtime browse revealed this rather illuminating gem "...To return to our original point, Tony Blair has made much of enhanced greenhouse and global warming - the Central England Temperature record suggests his fears are groundless. You can either believe a 340-year temperature record or a politician - suit yourself..."

[From here - http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Blair.htm]

Sprint Chief

Yep true and I did touch on this in my original post.

There are several potential threats to mankind and most of them are from natural events that we have no control over. Fortunately the likelihood of these events are very very small indeed (once-in-a-hundred-million-years type events). Some of these we are actively trying to work out how to cope with (e.g. asteroid strike) although we are some way from a solution at present.

When it comes to mankinds activities - yes we should be wary but we need good science to back it up. Otherwise we are just wasting effort worrying about the wrong thing!

Sprint Chief

I like junkscience.com, although it does focus on a few specific issues which makes it appear "one-sided" - although generally the stuff is pretty good work.

Another site I like which is more local to us is www.numberwatch.co.uk which is a smaller site and not as slick to navigate and browse but covers a wider range of topics.

Nimbus

The sun won't go supernova, or even just nova. It does not have enough mass. It will grow into a red giant and then slowly cool to a brown drawf.

Vegescoob

So why the assumption, which seems to be implicit in this thread ,that mankind should be immortal?

Sprint Chief

I hadn't picked up on any assumption mankind was immortal. Indeed, the ultimate extinction of the human race, by current scientific thinking, is assured. But the when, how and quality of life between issues are all up for valid debate.

My interest in this thread is mainly related to the poor standards of science - and occasionally outright lies - being applied by people and organisations on this issue. Particularly those of groups such as the IPCC.

martyrobertsdj

iTrader: (1)

I am in no doubt that the Earth and it's ecosystem are changing and it won't be for the benefit of mankind.

We have without doubt, put extra strain on the environment....just what effect we will actually have may not be known for many, many years.

On boxing day, Mother Nature gave us a demonstration of what she can do. We must remember that in the grand scheme of things, this was a mere hiccup for her!
I truly believe that any even that is sufficiently massive to "wipe out" mankind, will be waaaaaaay beyond our control. What we have to focus on is damage limitation for events that are not so huge.

We must remember that man is quite an innovative and resourceful creature, and as things like climate change start to impact upon our lives, we will come up with ways to counteract them. Maybe we'll all end up living underground or something?

I'm sure that there are a few scenarios that are bound to happen eventually and we are basically powerless to do much about them. Anyone seen the stuff about La Palma in the Canary Islands? A tidal wave of epic proportions could be produced......apparently!

I never really thought too deeply about long term stuff......It's difficult for us to comprehend time scales in millions of years, but last year, my son was born.....it's amazing what a difference it makes to thinking about the next generation!!!

Marty

InvisibleMan

I knew that but thanks for sharing, just thought i wouldnt go all technical

But maybe it needs explaing as everyone including that moron on the news lastnight blaming the tourists & the seedy area as to why the tsunami went there seems to have missed the whole geology of the planet thing & what its doing to itself.

though my bet would be that it goes into a brown dwarf

Nimbus

Touché

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

So who watched what Horizon had to say tonight?

Interesting to see how global warming is being masked by global dimming. Certainly explains why some have not measured increased temps to prove global warming theories. So particulates from polution cause the sun to reflect of dirty clouds, this keeps the temps down (also stops the monsoon in Africa). the worst bit is that when we sort the particulates (relatively easy to do and is happening now) the true effect of global warming is unmasked This is even worse than the other programme

They came to the same conclusion that we have only got 20 or so years to sort it out before the Ice cap melts. I hope you all live on high ground lol!

Forget yer pension problems, it's the last thing you'll worry about soon...

F

MarkO

Floyd,

Given the prediction was a 10C temp increase in the next 30 years, I don't think living on high ground will help.

Wasn't exactly cheery viewing though. The thing I found depressing was the fact that you feel like there's bugger all you can do about it - it's out of our hands and in the hands of the governments/corporations. Which, of course, means we're all f*cked.

andyr

Fairly scary program if the findings are to be believed : 10 degree global temperature increase by the end of the century, even fairly big changes within 30 years !

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

Now I'm worried. Blair wants more Nuclear powerstations - what a vote loser but he still has to push it through... If he has to go this route then it may be worse than we thought already. Fuel is running out sooner than later, wind farms or alternative energy isn't happening so we need nuclear now

Even if the UK sorts its emissions and power needs then India and China as well as dirty America may kill us all anyway

F

TelBoy

I strongly disagree about it being a vote loser - i think public opinion towards nuclear has changed more than you might have imagined. There are ***** like Jack Straw who will always bang the Nuclear Is Wrong *Whatever* The Situation drum, but many people are now realising that for the sake of the planet, we can't keep burning oil, gas and coal at the rate we're doing. Sure there are issues, such as security, health/safety and waste disposal, but these are becoming less of an obstacle when you look at the alternatives, in my opinion.

logiclee

Biggest factor is cost, are the genral public going to accept there electricity bills doubling to pay for Nuclear energy?

The other option is probably the lights going out but any party that doubles energy bills is not going to be in power long.

Cheers
Lee

TelBoy

Where do you get the "doubling" statistic from, Lee?

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

I happen to agree that we 'need to grasp the nettle' and go nuclear. I'd pay triple if it meant we don't have power cuts and live longer.

IIRC all the waste from nuclear power stations can fit into a 3 bed house (next door to someone in Scotland hopefully ) so build a spaceship and fire it at the sun - job done

F

SiPie

...is that because your chosen domain is alreay full of **** ?

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

Building reactors in Scotland is the best solution:
It's not near me.
There's lots of moutains and stuff to absorb explosions/fallout and stuff if it goes bang.
The Scottish don't like us superior English so they deserve it.
We won't have to look a lorries with Scottish flag stickers on them that transport the waste to Scotland anymore.
It's cold up there and they could do with the warmth.

F

SiPie

.......hopes smiley hides true feelings

logiclee

The current nuclear stations are running around three times more expensive than current fossil fuel stations even with the fossil fuel levey taken into account.
The new stations are far more efficient but who is to fund the building program, private sector or tax payer?

Either way a nuclear program is going to cost us big time, but I can't see any other long term option with current technology.

Clean burn fossil fuel technology can help us in the medium term, 5-15 years and renewables can help offset the increase in demand but sooner or later a Government is going to have to make some tough decisions.

Cheers
Lee

boomer

Er, have a quick read of Sweden's nuclear waste headache.

I don't think that NINE THOUSAND TONS (from Sweden alone) could be squeezed into a house. And this is 9,000 tons of high-level, burn your eyes out by just looking at it, spent nuclear fuel. On top of that you have the medium level waste, and low level waste, and the nuclear buildings themselves. And before that, you have to design and build the monsters in the first place.

That'll take a fair bit of fossil fuel to sort out

mb

TelBoy

Has anyone else seen the increase in the price of gas this week? 30%. This is just the start. Energy pricing could be one of the big political issues over the next 10 years. One thing's for sure though, your bills are going up anytime soon.

speedking

Here is the poll from March when, IIRC, the energy situation wasn't as obviously bad as it is now.

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/poll.php?...lts&pollid=725

although scooby drivers tend to be quite techy and logical, that is a pretty convincing vote for.

An interesting read if you have time:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-3-3-4.pdf

I propose an optional nuclear levy on energy consumers. Those that pay get first call on the available nuclear energy in the future. There could be an equivalent wind levy, but who'd bother paying for that Areas that are dependent on the jobs that Nuclear Power Stations bring are concerned about the forthcoming closures and IME would welcome new build stations.

Bring it on.

speedking

PS there is a massive difference between and . I think somebody got their waste mixed up.

http://www.energy-choices.com/page.aspx?pageId=165 states "within 50-100 years the UK’s HLW volumes would be reduced to a few cubic metres" and "the additional quantity which would arise from 10 new nuclear power stations operating for 60 years as a little under 5%". 9000t is nonsense.

boomer

Who knows what might happen in ONE HUNDRED YEARS??

Of course you could take a trip to the Nirex website - these are the people who have to invent ways of dealing with toxic nuclear waste, and are probably biased towards the fluffy bunnies view of things.

They reckon (see their "487579.pdf") that there are (according to 2001 figures) ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE cubic metres of High Level Waste (HLW) - that's 3286 tonnes - to be disposed of!!! Thats a tad more than the "mini-skip" full that you suggest, and that's IN STORAGE at the moment - there is more still sitting in reactors and the like

Still, whether it's nine thousand tons or just a bucket-full, it could still cause a big mess if it got splashed around

mb

p.s. "Energy Choices" could be a little biased, as: "One of the NIA's objectives is to influence the climate of public and political opinion in favour of nuclear energy as part of a sustainable balanced energy policy."

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

What's your answer to it then boomer?

F

TelBoy

What i've always wanted to know, is why all this waste can't be used to heat up water for example and use it for something useful? Is there a reason why it just has to be locked away and left to decay?