When Will Global Warming End?

[almostnormal]

[quote=Adam Cheeseman;165963]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

My question sounds a bit daft thinking about it. What I meant was, once polar ice-caps had become established had there subsequently been a period where there wasn't ice at the poles.

Cheers,

Adam

nope not daft, the polar ice caps have been there a long time, i don't think they've ever disappeared since becoming established. they recede and expand in the seasons though, as the sea starts to freeze over in winter. there've been a couple of oaccasions when research groups have gotten stuck down there cos it froze earlier than usual. oops.

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by stripee

Perhaps we should be looking for the next planet?

I agree. New planet needed. When we find one we should send the richest users and people who love 4x4s, to warm it up first, just in case its cold. We should send politicians, and economists with them, so they can make the best start for it. And then just forget about them - like what happened in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to the hair dressers and phone hygiene technicians.

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by Pagan_Dave

I think climate change is a natural occurrance and the proof of this can be found in the ice cores that have been drilled in the Arctic.

Yeah, I cant disagree with you, in the past the ice ages did a lot to slow down all kinds of physical cycles, and biological ones. Reducing gene pools of creatures, but what happens if the thermometer swings the other way? seems to me like there is always a mechanism to warm up the planet, sun output does this if no humans are about, or no under sea reservoirs of frozen methane. But what about the reverse? In the absence of vegetation to eat up the co2 and oceans that are healthy enough, how the hell does G W Bush, or HU Jintao think there will be a reversal?

[richardkm]

Originally Posted by Strontium

We should send politicians, and economists with them, so they can make the best start for it. And then just forget about them - like what happened in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy to the hair dressers and phone hygiene technicians.

Ah yes, but look what happened to the home planet after the phone hygenists left - the population was wiped out by a telephone borne disease!

[CamDiver]

Originally Posted by Strontium

I buy your the magazine you work for (National Geographic?), and I notice that they have gross contradictions in their interests. They always feature adverts for rediculous 4x4s, jewelry, and airlines. Its quite amusing, but then again, I could decide not to buy it.

To clarify, I don't work for the magazine. I'm on permanent retainer as a filmmaker for the National Geographic Society.

Your argument and points are valid but also relate pretty much to every commercially available newspaper, magazine or publication. You will always find advertising from the multi nationals gracing quarter, full or double page spreads, and more. The print industry relies heavily on advertising revenue to offset production costs. Do you think NG or any other publication is going to turn down the tens of thousands of dollars in advertising revenues it charges from these, and other, industries in order to appear 'politically correct' and in tune with potential editorials it may carry to the detriment of said industries? I really don't think so.

Many years ago, pre Cable TV, pre Digital Revolution there were but a few select magazines gracing the racks in our local news agents. At that time publications such as National Geographic had a much greater reader base than that of today. In the past ten or so years there has been an explosion in the publication of target interest media. That is to say there are specific magazines for all kinds of interest groups. With that splintering of media interest came a reduction in subscriptions to many of the once market leading magazines, National Geographic included. This I believe is why you do now, and will continue to, see such advertisements gracing the pages of this particular publication.

Given your argument for that, will you not only be discontinuing future purchasing of The National Geographic Society publication but every other publication you may currently be partial too? If not then why do you single out one publication to be at greater fault than others? The print industry in general is not, after all, the most environmentally friendly of all.

Sincerely,
Mark.

[Interpreter]

Originally Posted by eeyore

its also ironic that branson, king of the environmentalpledge - has his train fares so high - if virgin lowered their prices considerably they would have far more impact than his various eco pledges.

for example i go to lancaster quite a bit - this is £54 budget return or £153 standard return from MK - if i drive it costs about 20 quid in fuel plus maybe 10 in depreciation and wear on the car

If it was a £30 or so return then I would train it as it is greener , less stressful and faster - but as things stand i simply cant afford it

It is a catch 22 question isn't it? He drops the price, more people travel. The trains are packed and people have to stand up. Less people travel. The cost of travel has to increase to keep the trains moving.

Regarding the ice-caps, there were no ice-caps 75 million years ago. Increased ice stops the salt driven water cycle and causes more ice to form. The planet gets colder. As the sun increases in strength, which it is doing, plant life on earth increases and removes more CO2 from the atmosphere and reduces the earth's temperature to keep everything at a level where we can all live. The answer? Replace all plant life with concrete, which is what we appear to be doing.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

It is a catch 22 question isn't it? He drops the price, more people travel... .

I'm not sure more people overall would travel just because train travel was cheaper - certainly more people would travel by train - but this might mean less car travel which would be a greener option

[Jez]

I second that. Surely more of us would use trains if the fairs where cheaper and designed to house more bicycles.

[Paul mabbott]

One obvious thing that we can do is to use devices which use the minimal amount of energy and save ourselves money at the same time! Environmentally sustainable energy saving product guide gives comparisons of the efficiency of household appliances.