Re: Climate Change?



In article <4c6062da$0$28014$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
oldcodger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On 08/08/2010 23:56, Derek Moody wrote:
In article<4c5d9726$0$2524$da0feed9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Old Codger
<URL:mailto:oldcodger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vnngrg) is an interesting short
article written by a New Zealand engineer. He provides links to the
original papers. The article suggests there will be global cooling by
the end of this year.

Almost impossinble for there not to be - this year is well on the way to
being the warmest on record and if the next couple of years aren't at least
a fraction cooler we'd be in a runaway situation of the sort that no-one is
predicting. Don't expect the cooling to last long though, warmest ever
years are coming along about twice a decade...

Some of the comments are also interesting.

Not really - it's a political site as are many of the climate related sites
nowadays. The contributors on this one go searching exclusively for anti-gw
material just as those on other sites do the opposite. Balanced views are
almost impossible to get.

Quite agree

Look on it as a sort of bet:

If gw is correct how does it affect us? What can we/should we do?
If gw is incorrect how does it affect us? What can we/should we do?

And what (dis)advantages are there to taking (some) measures if the other
case eventuates?

Most of the measures on the gw side of the argument are, imo, going to be
needed sooner or later in any case - oil will run out for eg., so
alternative fuels are essential in the long run and there are bound to be
advantages for those getting in early. Whether or not CO2 is causing gw,
the ability to control CO2 output gives us an additional tool should global
temperature modification become necessary at a later date for any (other?)
reason.

...and so on.

Conserving resources is always good and increasingly becoming essential.
As you say, alternative forms of energy are also becoming highly
desirable, if not essential. Trouble is wind is not viable on its own,
and probably not at all. Solar needs considerable development before it
can be viable. Wave and tide are a long way behind. Nuclear is the
only current viable option and the government is so dilatory that the
lights will go out before they take any real action.

Chris Huhne was on the Today(R4) programme yesterday morning talking about
the governments nuclear policy. He was saying that the first new nuclear
station would be commissioned by 2018. I read elsewhere that 10 stations are
planned.




.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Climate Change?
    ... the governments nuclear policy. ... station would be commissioned by 2018. ... But we need at least all ten before the lights go out and IIRC that is likely to be before 2018. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: OT for Bill Sloman
    ... using more nuclear, if CO2 GW is eminent and inconvertible ... The downside of exploiting nuclear is Chernobyl. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: CO2 and global warming
    ... >70s and global warming is wrong today. ... What do you mean by global cooling? ... large nuclear exhange - and the conclusion was that the blanket would ... effects more devastating than radiation and blast. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: CO2 and global warming
    ... >70s and global warming is wrong today. ... What do you mean by global cooling? ... large nuclear exhange - and the conclusion was that the blanket would ... effects more devastating than radiation and blast. ...
    (sci.space.policy)