Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming
I don't get why they have such silly names for the Android O/S Jellybean, Lollipop and the newest Marshmallow

Reply
It's a geek thing!
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply
[Image: earth_temperature_timeline.png]
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
Thanks thats very interesting.

Reply
Is there a URL for that?
Reply
http://xkcd.com/1732/
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Exiled Bear's post:
philly
Have you seen the state of sellafield . nuclear power stations we need to avoid!

Reply
Very interesting - I like graphs like that.... especially ones that show the temperatures when Stonehenge etc. was being built..... really cool stuff. It was good that they kept accurate records but I suppose looking at the gaps between tree rings is the real answer? . For a moment I thought someone from the University of East Anglia arts department was working in conjunction with their propaganda environmental department to show the school children....

(23-09-2016, 12:58 PM)Paul Wrote: Have you seen the state of sellafield . nuclear power stations we need to avoid!

We need to get building those nuclear power stations quick..... but at a realistic price. Modern power stations - not like sellafield as you point out Paul.. Anyone who thinks that a few wind mills will solve the problem is asking us to go back to a pre industrial world .... and that is unrealistic.

A difficult one for the lefty lovies, but we also need to drastically limit population growth..... exponential growth will put an increased drain on the earths resources.
Reply
I think it's expected that population will plateau at about 10 billion, which should be sustainable for most resources (ignoring rare-earth metals, though perhaps we can take those from passing asteroids).
Reply
Why do you think population will plateau at 10 billion. More medical care is reaching 3rd world countries meaning they will live longer with fewer child deaths etc. The more we find cures for deceases the life expectancy increases throughout the world - look how life expectancy in UK has increased in just the past 50 years.
LE - aka John
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Leicester Exile's post:
Paul
(23-09-2016, 01:12 PM)Warleybear Wrote: Very interesting - I like graphs like that.... especially ones that show the temperatures when Stonehenge etc. was being built..... really cool stuff. It was good that they kept accurate records but I suppose looking at the gaps between tree rings is the real answer? . For a moment I thought someone from the University of East Anglia arts department was working in conjunction with their propaganda environmental department to show the school children....

(23-09-2016, 12:58 PM)Paul Wrote: Have you seen the state of sellafield . nuclear power stations we need to avoid!

We need to get building those nuclear power stations quick..... but at a realistic price. Modern power stations - not like sellafield as you point out Paul.. Anyone who thinks that a few wind mills will solve the problem is asking us to go back to a pre industrial world .... and that is unrealistic.

A difficult one for the lefty lovies, but we also need to drastically limit population growth..... exponential growth will put an increased drain on the earths resources.

Sellafield:

Crumbling containers of toxic waste abandoned 40 years ago at “rundown” Sellafield are putting Britain at risk of a nuclear disaster, it is claimed.
The fluid – said to be highly radioactive – is being kept in rotting tanks which are open to the elements, according to a worker who leaked images of the 70-year-old plant.
If the containers drain, the spent fuel could allegedly ignite, spreading radiation over a wide area.
It could even call for mass evacuations and a Chernobyl-like permanent exclusion zone in contaminated areas.
Expert John Large told The Ecologist website: “Looking at the photos I’m very disturbed at the rundown condition.
“In my opinion there is a significant risk the system could fail. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release.
"It could certainly cause serious contanmination"

Thats the problem. Its not now, its years to come with the disposal of the nuclear waste. We need a balanced plan in order to cut out carbon carbon emissions and if we do that without the need for Nuclear power plants then thats the way we should go. 

Reply
OK... so what do you propose. Windmills and euthanasia at thirty to control the population? People freeeing in their houses unable to heat them? The enironmentalists cant have it both ways. Unlike those first generation ones of several decades ago, modern nuclear power stations will be needed.
Reply
Thats the argument:
Some people say that we must have nuclear power, or we will not be able to combat global warming and still produce enough energy.
Others say that it is unethical to produce waste that will still be dangerous in many thousands of years’ time.

I am in the second camp. Theres no easy way to get rid of it. If nuclear waste could be sent down into the Earth’s mantle, it would take millions of years to resurface. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any way to do this. It is not feasible.

Nuclear waste could be sent into space in rockets so that it falls harmlessly into the Sun. Unfortunately, this would be far too expensive, and any accident on take-off would spread dangerous waste over a large area. It ought not to be done..

So if possible we should use try and have a balanced plan using existing fossil fuels and renewable energy, Incorporating solar, wind, geothermal, which may not be possible here. Hydro and biomass.

Reply
.... and there was me thinking you were going to suggest we moved to a "Logan's Run" model ;-)



(For those too young to remember https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SMb6jz_hfmo and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27...TV_series) )
Reply
Well 30 is a bit young. 40 years old now that film. Whatever happened to Michael York. Haven't seen him in years.

Reply
Hes still around i believe.... http://www.michaelyork.net/
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Warleybear's post:
Paul
Anyway.... I've just changed my fuel suppliers and saved a fortune...... and I mean a fortune. It was very easy to do to.

Its clear its one of those things along with insurance and broadband / telephone that you have to do every 12 to 18 months.
Reply
And Sky TV - got 50% off complete package and now I hear other customers are now getting 60% off just by cancelling the contract and moving in to the 30 day cancellation procedure!
LE - aka John
Reply
Someone mentioned geothermal earlier.

I've installed ground source heating/AC. It's not geothermal, but frequently gets called geothermal. Essentially you use the ground as a heat source, or heat sink, depending on the season. It replaced the oil fired boiler, so has completely removed the use of that fossil fuel. Also, my electricity bill is actually slightly lower than it was before I installed the new system. I had expected it to go up, but I think the new pumps are just more efficient that the ones they replaced.

I don't see any reason why such systems couldn't be used in the UK, particularly for new buildings.

I would install solar as well, but we'd have to cut down all the trees.
Reply
Interesting Philly!

In the UK we have to assume there is no customer loyalty and that all utility and insurance companies are robbing %$&£$%"...... Swap every 12 to 18 months.

LE, I think Sky will have a problem... everyone I know is doing the same thing......
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)