Global Warming?

Question

At last the British government has woken up to the fact that if you really are going to reduce your carbon imitations enough to make a difference, you must go Nuclear. Renewables won’t even get close to being able to produce the energy we need.

I am not a believer that CO2 is causing Global Warming, but let us assume for a moment that it is true.

Now, the fact that there is very little that can or will in fact be done to halt the pending catastrophes of Global Warming, maybe it is time we start looking ahead at how we mange the problem.

Don’t we have a moral duty to restart our research, development and production of genetically modified crops so we will be in a position to help the parts of the world hit by these predicted catastrophes? Or does or fear of this science out way the needs of the starving millions?

steven - The only part of your statement I agree with is BOY, THIS IS GONNA COST US BIG TIME. What a wonderful way of of raising TAX without anyone being able to complain. Global Warming is a god send to any Tax and Spend government.

Gaby - You are spot on. For the campainers this is less about environment and more about bashing people to make them feel more important. For the goverments its all about TAX.

Lance - YER MAN. Sounds about right to me. So how do we stop these Muppets from taxing us out of existence on Global Warming?

Pete - Well, it may come to Coal burning again. At the moment I wont because its illegal and I know it is not good for clean air. But there is only so much more of this I can take before I say SOD IT.

Answer 1

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades, and its projected continuation.

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions, and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them.

Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Other effects may include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. There is ongoing political and public debate regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions.!!!!!!!!!mas

Answer 2

global warming really based on how many people there are that live on earth and the less people there r the less global warming will detroy the world britin should really just not allow people to have more then 2 kids then there population would stay the same that being said if some where to do that it would take 50 years to come in to effect but with ever growing population u could probably just calculate there emision per peron per year to the amount of engery use by the sun to heat the plant then u could tell just what u would be dealling with but that being said if there where major events that did happen result in world wide death then global warming would happen but thats not gonna happen because up more people being able to stop that kind of thing weather or not it was aproriate to do or not

Answer 3

co2 is just one of the many possible gases and further, likely, causes of the current global warming that is being recorded. it is the geratest and therefore the one always cited as the culprit. for me the jury is still out - i have yet to settle on my opinion - although, if we are the sole cause and therefore continuing to generate this warming, we are in trouble and no taxation in the world will repair the damage if we wait till its too late and so proven beyond doubt!
I don't believe GM crops are a great idea, - it is a short time in the big scheme of things that GM crops have been developed and messing with nature to the extent you are considering- it scares me that people are so willing to play with nature and to "fire-fight" the problems we are living with and possibly creating, instead of being proactive about solving and further avoiding them in the first place!
there was an article i read recently, stating that the southern ocean's ice sheet has increased by some 8% - this is not noted in the news, only the fact that other ice sheets are receeding ...although, its entirely possible that this to is an effect of the damage we have done pumping the poisionous gases into our environment. although, is it possible we are actually averting another major ice-age by keeping our planet a little toasty?
from a white paper produced by Npower.....
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are commonly expressed in terms of parts per million (ppm or ppmv)and most
authorities cite somewhere in the range of 400-550ppm as the level that will result in 2 ºC of warming (concentrations are
currently at 380ppm and increased at an average of 1.9ppm per year between 1995 and 2005).The IPCC,meanwhile,predicts
that a doublingof carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels (to some 560ppm)will likely result in global warming of between
2 ºC and 4.5 ºC,with a best estimate of about 3 ºC."

so is it possible that by reducing this gas we will avoid any major catastrophes'?

personally, i think we need A LOT more research before we make any major decisions, and sadly this costs money and not all of it is funded by the private sector, although a good deal is, i believe -and in the mean time reducung the co2 emissions, can;t do any harm - and if indeed an ice-age springs up because of too little co2 then .. at least we are well gen'd up on how to produce that!


emma

Answer 4

The UK Government has for a long time now favoured nuclear power, it's just that they haven't publicly declared this. If you look in Hansard (the Government's verbatim account of Parliamentary proceedings) you'll find many references to this.

Had it not been for the negative publicity in the wake of Chenobyl I beleive they would have publicly announced their plans a long time ago.

The nuclear industry in the UK has a good health and safety record but a diabolical economic record. The idea was sold to the British public in the 1950's on the basis that the electricity generated would be so cheap that it would cost more to meter it and therefore in the future it would be free. It has in fact been the most expensive source of primary power generation. The decomissioning of redundant power stations is going to cost every family in the UK £000's.

One of the major problems was that the UK was a world leader in nuclear technology, very costly mistakes were made in the early days and huge resources were put into research and development.

We've learned from our expensive mistakes and progress has been made within the nuclear industry. The new generation power plants should be more efficient and cost effective.

Power generation from the burning of fossil fuels is the largest generator of greenhouse gases and if we can replace conventional power plants with nuclear ones this will make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The main reason the government wants to go down the route of nuclear power isn't a desire to protect the environment, that's just the usual government spin; it's more politically and economically driven. The UK coal industry was decimated in the 1980's (remember Thatcher Vs Scargill?) and North Sea oil and gas reserves are running out (20 to 30 years). Without our own fuel reserves we would have to rely on expensive imports and a repeat of the Russia / Ukraine scenario would be possible.

Renewables may well be preferable to nuclear, so far most attempts to expand renewables have been stifled by the oil and nuclear industries with the result that almost all funding, development and implementation has come from the private sector. After all - why would a governemnt that has already decided on nuclear put any money into alternatives?

I have no objection to nuclear power but I do object to the cloak and dagger policies of the governemnt (not just the current government but the Conservatives before).

Turning to the point you raised about halting global warming - there are many schemes currently being explored that would do just that. Any scheme would be many years before it could be implemented on a large enough scale to make a difference.

And as for GM crops, again we were sold a lie. This isn't something new, GM foods have been around for decades and in the US they're much more accepted than in the UK and the rest of Europe. There has been little financial benefit to the consumer and promises of eradicating hunger in the third world have been shown to be false. Despite the availability of GM foods there is now more hunger in Africa then ever before.

The industry is no different to pharmacuticals in that it's driven by profit. There are drugs readily available to prevent and treat diseases such as malaria, retrovirals for AIDS, innoculations against many conditions etc but they're of little benefit to the African nations as they can't afford to buy them. The same is true of GM crops and GM technology.

The bottom line with all the points you raised is, as always, money.

Good question.

Answer 5

You're right, to a degree.

I find it disturbing that people are willing to fool themselves into thinking that climate change can be averted. Pah! It's going to happen. All we can do is try to predict how it will affect us and make preperations for survival and adaptation.

However, genetically modified crops are by no means the only solution to our ills. Yes, we should put a great deal of effort into this area and yes, the fears of the general public are a hinderance to it's developement - funding is more likely to be given to projects that will be welcomed without great suspicion by consumers. There are other things we should be concentrating on - energy is as you have pointed out in your question an important issue. We won't be able to function even close to the way we do if we can't produce sufficient energy as it contributes to so many areas of importance. Personal survival will become an issue, international laws, refugee population movement, conflict and a pleathora of other threats will all be vying for our attention when things begin to get obvious.

I see a dark future for us when most don't acknowladge the magnitude of the threat, but pay lip-service to warnings and carry-on regardless. I'm guilty of this too. It's going to be an interesting century.

Answer 6

So what do you think is causing global warming, you don't say, i think it is all part of a natural cycle that we cannot do anything about, having said that it is no excuse for carrying on wasting energy and driving gas guzzling cars etc...

I certainly agree with you regarding the fact that we should be looking more at a damage limitation with regard to Global warming, ie we should accept that it will happen and look to how we can mange the situation in years to come

Answer 7

I think part of the reason you're asking this question is to get a rise out of people.

But I agree that nuclear power will probably need to be adopted or at least looked into by many countries if they want to reduce their dependence on imported fossil fuel. But, as it currently stands, nuclear fuel (Uranium) is not an abundant fuel source.

But that doesn't mean that the current methods of obtaining renewable energy should be forgotten about as those in development (energy from tidal streams and waves and I'm sure there are more in development, in fact check out these nutters http://www.steorn.com/ ).

There are also other means of reducing energy consumption that can be adopted by many of the regular public such as central heating run by heat pumps, solar panels, energy efficient design etc.. Because the fact is that, whatever about global warming, oil and gas reserves will run out, and even before they do OPEC will always ensure higher prices, so to ensure a good standard of living other means of energy will have to be sourced.

Anyway seeing as you don't "believe" that CO2 is a cause of global warming... its kinda funny how you don't believe like you are speaking about a religion, how do you know it isn't? I certainly don't know if it is or isn't, but, there IS a correlation which, admittedly, is poorly understood but should it be dismissed?

Anyway seeing as you don't "believe" in it why don't you just go the whole hog and just be a proponent of coal power?!? Coal is the most abundant of all the fossil fuels by a long shot, AND the UK even has some (or the States, wherever you're from). Also coal fuel power stations technology is on the rise (see fluidised bed combustion or coal gasification)

Edit: Well I didn't realise coal burning was illegal for power generation, is it!? But like I said look at the latest technology advancements in coal burning such as fluidized bed combustion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustion
http://www.cogeneration.net/fluidized_bed_combustion.htm
http://www.motherearthnews.com/DIY/1980-09-01/Fluidized-Bed-Combustion.aspx

Answer 8

Nuclear energy certainly doesn't add any CO2 to the air, but it is only a temporary solution, for the following reasons.
1. Nuclear fuel is not in unlimited supply
2. Storage of nuclear waste is a big problem
3. It won't power cars, airplanes
4. It produces tremendous amounts of heat in its on right
5. It does nothing to change the biggest problem of all, that is, our wasteful behavior.

Answer 9

Great, and where exactly do you plan to build these great nuclear power plants? The energy produced might be non polluting, but you get the low level radioactive waste from the plants amounting to tons per year from each plant, and no one as yet has worked out what to do with it. Do you want a nuclear waste plant anywhere near you?

May I respectfully suggest the best option is not to alter production to suit needs, but to alter our needs to suit production?
Research into renewables is, I think, further advanced than you appear to think. But it's mainly going on in the north of Scotland (and note Scotland has an energy surplus) in the form of wind and hydro production. There is also a large scale wave energy research project ongoing off the Orkney Islands, but what happens in Scotland rarely seems to get any reporting in the rest of the UK so you probably haven't noticed.

And to be honest, you are pretty much pissing in the wind if you think GM crops will be accepted by the general public. It's not fear of science, it's the complete lack of necessity. Plants can be made to stand unusual weather patterns by cross breeding. Not, you understand, the same as fiddling with them at the genetic level. Something a decent gardener could manage rather than a research scientist.

Answer 10

There is no ''pending catastrophes of Global Warming'' there is no doubt however a warming going on. Over time it will be followed by a cooling, which in turn will be followed by yet another warming and so on. There is nothing to panic about. The world as we know it will not end. We are not all going to perish as a result of this warming trend. Just about everything we understand to date has a pattern. This wave pattern occurs often in nature, including ocean waves, sound waves, and light waves.All of these can be graphed or illustrated with a sine wave, and as a result can then be monitored and analyzed. In the case of global temperature we just don't have enough accurate data yet to ''plot'' a pattern which would help us predict coming changes. Don't forget, the only accurate recorded data we have dates back only about 100 years, everything else is just theories and guesswork. So you see, it's just a natural cycle. In fact, if we could and did change global warming we may in fact do greater damage to the Earth's future as this current warming may be vital to it's ecosystem!