steps to stop global warming

[wildstyle]

i wonder if anyone read the main story in this week's new statesman magazine? it think they approached the issue intelligently...

New Statesman - How to stop climate change: the easy way

[Precious]

Agreed - good article...but as ever I am sure some people will ignore the evisence.

[Paul mabbott]

This was good - how we can garden in the face of a changeable climate:
BBC NEWS | Magazine | Drop by drop, of wisdom

[Earth Hart]

Mark Lynas is one great guy Check out his website on marklynas.org He's very hot (forgive the pun) on CC/GW

[sophia jane]

Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
Even better is to replace them with newer models.which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.
Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.

-----------------------------------------------------
sophia jane

[forfi]

Been saving energy for years, I was a founder member of the Irish Energy Managers Association but preventing climate change ??? I could weep when I read of the vast amounts of cash being squandered on wind and buying buckets of smoke, all futile actions in a world racked by hunger ,thirst and lack of education.

buckets of smoke = carbon credits

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

Been saving energy for years, I was a founder member of the Irish Energy Managers Association but preventing climate change ??? I could weep when I read of the vast amounts of cash being squandered on wind and buying buckets of smoke, all futile actions in a world racked by hunger ,thirst and lack of education.

buckets of smoke = carbon credits

Given the concern for hunger and thirst, I'd have thought you'd be especially keen on preventing global warming

[forfi]

First there are many positive aspects to a warmer world and second I do not subscribe to the anthropogenic warming cult.Twice in the past 1000 years the planet has been a lot warmer than at present without any industry or motor cars to blame

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by forfi

First there are many positive aspects to a warmer world and second I do not subscribe to the anthropogenic warming cult.Twice in the past 1000 years the planet has been a lot warmer than at present without any industry or motor cars to blame

I don't think anyone's doubting the past variations in GMST. True it happens naturally anyway but there's no doubt, from what I've seen, that we're certainly increasing the current rate of change.
As for positive aspects to a warmer world, I guess it depends on who and where you are and just how much warmer it is!

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

First there are many positive aspects to a warmer world and second I do not subscribe to the anthropogenic warming cult.Twice in the past 1000 years the planet has been a lot warmer than at present without any industry or motor cars to blame

I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm struggling to think of anything 'positive' about global warming that could possibly counter the massive potential problems associated with increased hunger and thirst?

Also, when was the planet a lot hotter during the past 1,000 years? I've even looked on lots of anti-GW sites and can't find that info.

Although, given that you think that it's just an 'anthropogenic warming cult', I guess you're not planning on adding anything constructive about 'Steps to Stop Global Warming', just looking to discredit any/all comment with your own political theories.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm struggling to think of anything 'positive' about global warming that could possibly counter the massive potential problems associated with increased hunger and thirst?

Most of the worlds land mass lies in the Northern Hemisphere and is currently unproductive,a degree or two would change that and bring more land into production.On the other hand things are not warming up as fast as the doomsters predicted.

Also, when was the planet a lot hotter during the past 1,000 years? I've even looked on lots of anti-GW sites and can't find that info.

Medieval Warm Period. And current research on the records of the Royal Navy are showing a period of warmer climate in the 17th century.Have you tried researching the scientific journals?

Although, given that you think that it's just an 'anthropogenic warming cult', I guess you're not planning on adding anything constructive about 'Steps to Stop Global Warming', just looking to discredit any/all comment with your own political theories.

Political? I'm an Engineer and Field Ecolgist,not a politician,as my siggie says "Pragmatism not idealism".I would never discredit informed comment but the whole idea of a man-made warming is based on wishful thinking and assumption [and doubtful computer models ],the main proponent ,the IPCC is by its own admission a political body ,not a scientific one.
The quote below is from Prof. Martin Parry of the IPCC

The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change.

The panel decides whether an assessment is needed, and then engages scientists to conduct it.

There are many many reasons why we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and for reducing pollution etc,but to think that changing the climate is the main one is a bit fanciful.

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by forfi

Most of the worlds land mass lies in the Northern Hemisphere and is currently unproductive,a degree or two would change that and bring more land into production.On the other hand things are not warming up as fast as the doomsters predicted.

So we're going to be able to access this land, farm it and enjoy quick and plentiful harvests and distribute it worldwide to feed everyone before GW famine (already?) takes hold, sounds great! Is there something that will also replace the shrinking glaciers to provide freshwater too?

Originally Posted by forfi

Medieval Warm Period. And current research on the records of the Royal Navy are showing a period of warmer climate in the 17th century.Have you tried researching the scientific journals?

I can't find the info about the Medieval Warm Period being a lot warmer than now, and while I've recently read about the Royal Navy records of sudden warming in the North Atlantic and Europe, and increased summer storms during the end of the 17th century etc, I haven't been able to find anything about it being a lot warmer than now. In fact, if I remember, didn't the Navy only start to routinely carry thermometers in the 18th/19th century and that temperature readings before that were based more on a 'feel' for the climate...I might (probably ) be wrong

Originally Posted by forfi

Political? I'm an Engineer and Field Ecolgist,not a politician,as my siggie says "Pragmatism not idealism".

My mistake, I never realised that Engineers and Field Ecologists couldn't have political views

Originally Posted by forfi

I would never discredit informed comment but the whole idea of a man-made warming is based on wishful thinking and assumption [and doubtful computer models ],

whereas the whole idea that man has nothing to do with global warming is based on...???

I agree with the IPCC statement, of course there are also many climate scientists who aren't in the IPCC, but they are proponents of anthropogenic GW.

I also agree that there are many other reasons to not use fossil fuels. Although, thinking about burning fossil fuels and producing pollution from an anti-GW perspective, can we just apply the usual argument that volcanoes and other natural processes have spewed sulphur dioxide/carbon monoxide/nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere for millions of years, so recent cars and industry aren't going to make any difference

[tameblackbirds]

Originally Posted by forfi

First there are many positive aspects to a warmer world and second I do not subscribe to the anthropogenic warming cult.Twice in the past 1000 years the planet has been a lot warmer than at present without any industry or motor cars to blame

you seem very sure about what you are saying and I confess to not being fully aware, but, I am aware that the planet has been warming and cooling for thousands of years. It has come out of Ice age. But when ice samples are compared does it not show, that since the industrial revolution, that increase as been increasing at a more rapid pace. If so does this not have a more detrimental effect? Also, our planet is greater populated then it has ever been and the effect of such global warming is to the poor of this world not the rich states that can use their wealth to perhaps embrace the changes. Insects, birds etc and poverty struck populations don't have access to change or adapt. So whats the answer? People are unaccepting of people moving here for a better life from war torn countries how will they accept mass population movements as their lands either flood or dry out. Do we ring our hands then and wish we had tried something to help? A bit serious sorry but can we seriously accept that all governments are hoodwinking us

[forfi]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

So we're going to be able to access this land, farm it and enjoy quick and plentiful harvests and distribute it worldwide to feed everyone before GW famine (already?) takes hold, sounds great! Is there something that will also replace the shrinking glaciers to provide freshwater too?

That,if I may say so, looks suspiciously like a smart alec response, could you perhaps qualify and quantify your remarks?I would prefer it if this ,how can I put it politely,sneering -Guardian-reader type of reply,was abandoned and the subject treated with a bit more science and less opinion.Might I ask if the UK has suffered from a lack of water following the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age?

[forfi]

Originally Posted by tameblackbirds

you seem very sure about what you are saying and I confess to not being fully aware, but, I am aware that the planet has been warming and cooling for thousands of years.

Can any of us be sure or certain of anything? I can only go by the research of serious bodies and match what I find in my surroundings to this,something that I have been doing since c1970.

our planet is greater populated then it has ever been and the effect of such global warming is to the poor of this world not the rich states that can use their wealth to perhaps embrace the changes.

Here we leave the science and get into a moral discussion.Believe me I share your concern about the poor,but we must seperate the two points.

Insects, birds etc and poverty struck populations don't have access to change or adapt.

Leaving humans out and sticking to the other occupants of the planet are you saying that life can not adapt ? I have been looking at some [ongoing]research which suggests that most ,if not all,species which are at present at the extremes of their range can and do adapt more rapidly than had been assumed.

[tameblackbirds]

I understand. Perhaps some some good could come out of us being less wasteful though such as less damage to the planet hopefully. If nothing esle we should be more resourseful and not sqander our natural resourses they can't go on for ever. We live in such a 'I want it now and not bothered about throwing it when the next model is out' Intersting that some species are adapting but concerned as to how many, be interesting to see research you have been following is it on the web?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by forfi

That,if I may say so, looks suspiciously like a smart a**e response, could you perhaps qualify and quantify your remarks?I would prefer it if this ,how can I put it politely,sneering -Guardian-reader type of reply,was abandoned and the subject treated with a bit more science and less opinion.Might I ask if the UK has suffered from a lack of water following the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age?

who said that starvation and drought would principally effect the uk - at present these are principally a problem in equetorial / tropical africa and the indian sub continent - more warming and extended desertification will not help the inhabitants of these countries, nor are they likely (for geo political reasons) to be fed from the northern european landmass.

Britain is admittedly less likely to suffer drought as a result of GW - it is likely that our problem will be too much rain and storms which tend to be a result of more energy in the atmosphere and effect countries with maritime climates the worst.

On the question of science rather than opinion I am yet to see any credible scientist sign up to the anti GW camp or any (properly peer reviewed) scientific papers supporting the view that anthropogenic GW is not happening.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by forfi

I can only go by the research of serious bodies and match what I find in my surroundings to this,something that I have been doing since c1970..

Could I ask why in that case you are ignoring the findings of the serious body in this field , namely the IPPC ?

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Precious

Agreed - good article...but as ever I am sure some people will ignore the evisence.

For instance, the next Vice President of the U.S., Sarah Palin. Anti-abortion, creationist and global warming not man made!

Smart move by the Republicans to adopt a right winger that best matches the opinions of the bulk of the American electorate. Barack Obama best give up now!

Jim

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

For instance, the next Vice President of the U.S., Sarah Palin. Anti-abortion, creationist and global warming not man made!
Jim

never mind that - look at the real problems , she shoots moose !!!! ... and eats them

[forfi]

Originally Posted by eeyore

who said that starvation and drought would principally effect the uk .

What? Did someone say that ? Where ?
I pointed out that even though the ice retreated from the UK some 1500 years back that water still flows.
As for Equatorial Africa can anyone tell the class when the Sahara first became a desert?