Global Warming

[MartinJ]

>I can't remember who said it recently but I think it is time the debate on
>the IAM Forum on Global Warming ceased. While it is an interesting and
>worthwhile subject in it's own right, it's not strictly related to Advanced
>Driving, Roads Safety, or the IAM which is the purpose of this email
>discussion list.

Advanced Driving has alot to do with Global Warming especially
in UK terms, the IAM even put a news release out about this. SAFeD is
about driving for Economy which has an effect on Global Warming.

Brakes to Slow Gears to Go even references SAFeD
http://www.iam.org.uk/Pressroom/Tips/ia ... tip-03.pdf

DFT: SAFeD Scheme
http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=9986

Local SAFED drivers crowned as safest drivers
http://www.safed.org.uk/newsflash.htm

Hmm a recent post on the IAM's forum indicates the IAM arent interested in views on driving for fuel economy or Global Warming. Thought it would provoke some discussion here.

PS: new here, hope to enjoy the discussion/chat and learn stuff.

[crr003]

Hmm a recent post on the IAM's forum indicates the IAM arent interested in views on driving for fuel economy or Global Warming. Thought it would provoke some discussion here.

I don't think you can extrapolate that from the IAM thread - it just got the usual - bogged down in semantics, with some strong contributions from both sides.

I couldn't care less about burning a tank of fuel - if you stopped cheap flights to Spain or flying in apples from New Zealand that might have a more sensible affect?

PS: new here, hope to enjoy the discussion/chat and learn stuff.

Welcome! Nice name - small missile!

[Nigel]

Welcome to the forum, nice name, get on my wings lol

Your very welcome to discuss global warming and the effects you think driving may have.

For what its worth, I don't believe the green lobby, I tend to think its just a cycle ( although we may be speeding it up), there isn't very much we can do about it, and the loopy juice brigade just give the people in power more excuse to tax us that little bit extra.

[ScoobyChris]

I agree with Nigel. I believe Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame) did some research on the subject for one of his novels and came to a similar conclusion...

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fe ... 050128.htm

Chris

[martine]

I agree with Nigel. I believe Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame) did some research on the subject for one of his novels and came to a similar conclusion...

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fe ... 050128.htm

Chris

I'm far from being a greeny but why should you believe Michael Crichton (a film maker and novelist) more than the majority of climate scientists who study this as their job? In fact the weblink you show above is actually very critical of Crichton's novel and view. Even the American politians who have been denying human's involvement in climate change, are noticeably changing their position.

Whether we can change it is another issue and equally complex.

I think sometimes understanding scientific controversy is just beyond anyone not in the field. Personally I think all the 'general public' can do is listen to the majority view of qualified specialists and not try to make their own mind based on 'gut feeling', herseay, what we want to believe or half-understanding of the science.

Another argument is that even if there was only a 1% chance of climate being caused by human intervention (and it also being possible to rectify it), we should still do everything we can because the potential effects are so serious. It could be catastrophic for the planet and mankind. Nothing is written in the laws of the universe to say humans will continue for ever...it just could be our demise. The dynosaurs died out after a much longer run than we've had...the earth could become a greenhouse-heated barren world and the universe wouldn't miss a beat. Would you gamble with your kids lives on a 1:100 chance?

[Nigel]

I think you may be putting the point a little emotively there Martin

I can't remember the exact figures, but as things stand, we are something like 20,000 years away from the next ice age, and it will last 150,000 years, or something like that.

If we halve the time to the next ice age, so what ?

How long are you planning on living ?

I also don't think you can blame anyone for the meteor strike that wiped the dinosaurs out.

Now, if you want something to worry about, think neuclear weapons, there's a dinosaur wiping out experience we can control ourselves.

We as a small nation have 96 polaris missiles.

It is thought that if you let two of these of in one quadrant of the earth it will move the earths axsys sufficently to cause us a tad of grief ( wipe out all life or something)

If we dropped one on Baghdad tomorrow we would be the victor for about eleven hours, before the earths rotation put us directly under all the crap we had created a few hours earlier.

Or...if that doesn't float your boat, how about a pole change ?

We have gotten used to the north and south poles, and apparently magnetism is the secret to all life ( or so my physics master used to tell us)

We are something like 50,000 years overdue a pole change, according to my old geology master, and this apparently has a similar effect to the meteor strike, or Tony Blairs finger slipping whilst he is looking at the nuke button.

I reckon I've got about 30 years left to live if I'm lucky, my kids maybe 60 years, i havent even got any grandchildren yet.

I can't get excited about global warming, it all seems so pointless.

[martine]

I can't remember the exact figures, but as things stand, we are something like 20,000 years away from the next ice age, and it will last 150,000 years, or something like that.

If we halve the time to the next ice age, so what ?

I wasn't thinking of an impending ice age more a possible run-away greenhouse effect. There are lots of independently reported effects that all seem to be pointing to a warming up (glaciers melting, see levels rising, more tornados, earlier spring, stange patterns of weather etc).

I also don't think you can blame anyone for the meteor strike that wiped the dinosaurs out.

No of course not, I was merely pointing out that no species can expect to live forever. It seems sometimes that because we (humans) are at the top of the pile on earth, some people think we will always have the answers and something will turn up to solve any problem. It could just be that we are already too late (I don't honestly think that's the case but no one can be certain) and if we argue/deny the problem it's a dangerous game to play because the consequences are potentially so dire. It's all about risk and the point I was trying to make was, even if it's quite remote, we should still treat it seriously and perhaps plan for the worst case. Would seem like sensible risk management to me.[/quote]

It is thought that if you let two of these of in one quadrant of the earth it will move the earths axsys sufficently to cause us a tad of grief ( wipe out all life or something)

Rubbish...what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - detonated within a few days of each other? I know there are much more powerful nukes now but really tilting the earth's axis is a new one on me. What's your source?

If we dropped one on Baghdad tomorrow we would be the victor for about eleven hours, before the earths rotation put us directly under all the crap we had created a few hours earlier.

Clearly you would get low level radiation spread across the world at but not because of the earth's rotation - just wind/weather patterns. Remember the US tested nukes in the atmosphere in the 50's and 60's and yes radiation did spread but it hardly caused a major problem you are intimating at.

Or...if that doesn't float your boat, how about a pole change ?

Yes interesting one and only recently discovered that the magnetic poles change periodically. It's certainly swopped since life has been on earth so I don't see the problem (apart from the boring stuff of navigation).

I reckon I've got about 30 years left to live if I'm lucky, my kids maybe 60 years, i havent even got any grandchildren yet.

I can't get excited about global warming, it all seems so pointless.

Oh that seems rather like 'fate' - if you truly believe that then yes EVERYTHING is rather pointless...how depressing.

[Nigel]

My sources regarding the neuclear weapons was a debate on radio four.

The pole stuff was discussed when I was at school in the 70's, so hardly new, and wouldn't we like it to be just navigation ? It was explained that the results would be devestating for all life, and this seems to be gathered from fossils following the last one, most things died.

As for my outlook on life being depressing, I would have thought it was just realistic, age now 45, average age for western male 75, which via very simple maths leaves me about 30 years.

As for risk management, what a load of tosh, all this even if its only a one percent chance

Try enjoying your life instead of worrying about what could go wrong.

[TripleS]

As for my outlook on life being depressing, I would have thought it was just realistic, age now 45, average age for western male 75, which via very simple maths leaves me about 30 years.

Try enjoying your life instead of worrying about what could go wrong.

Well I don't certainly don't think we should be spoiling our lives by worrying too much about what might go wrong, but as usual there is a balance to be struck.
One has to balance the risk of something going wrong and the severity of the consequences if/when it does, against the enjoyment of that particular activity. E.g., I immensely enjoy driving fast, not all the time, but when I feel like it, so when I feel like it I do it. The only considerations are doing it safely, and avoiding getting caught, and that is all.

I do not have much respect for the politicians who inflicted our speeding laws upon us, laws that in my opinion are not justified, so morally I feel no guilt, especially taking account of other aspects of my conduct whilst driving.

Sorry, slipped into rant mode again.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

Woah...I didn't mean to upset anyone and I apologise unreservedly if I have. It's difficult to have a discussion sometimes on forums/email as the tone doesn't come across and perhaps I seemed a bit angry when I'm not.

I love life and I do enjoy it - I thought it was you who seemed depressed but perhaps it's the 'tone' problem again.

My sources regarding the neuclear weapons was a debate on radio four.

OK I like R4 myself but it does sound just plain wrong to me and doesn't seem to stack up with what has happened in the past as I explained.
If you could remember who was claiming this at least we could both checkout their credentials but never mind it's a sub-argument to this thread.

The pole stuff was discussed when I was at school in the 70's, so hardly new, and wouldn't we like it to be just navigation ? It was explained that the results would be devestating for all life, and this seems to be gathered from fossils following the last one, most things died.

OK I've not heard of that one - do you know the thinking behind it - as in why life is dependent on magnetic field? Certainly the absence of a field completely would mean we'd get more radiation from the Sun on the earth's surface...but what we're talking about is a swopping N-S of the field.

As for risk management, what a load of tosh, all this even if its only a one percent chance

If it were a 1:100 chance of run away greehouse effect are you saying it's not worth trying to do something about it? That's probably where we fundamentally disagree.

I reiterate I am not a 'green-knit-your-own-muesli type' honestly and remain sceptical of most trendy science. I support recycling but only if it makes economic sense. I do believe people should have the freedom to choose to run gas-guzzlers if they so wish...etc. But...the evidence is mounting of climate change and the majority of climate scientists are now agreeing humans have at least a part to play (if not wholly responsible).

I feel it's silly to try and second guess experts and I think we should take sensible, measured steps to improve the outlook as we understand it now. This may well change or turn out to be a complete red-herring but it's looking increasingly unlikely to be completely wrong. Only time will tell but the stakes are high for the future.

[Nigel]

I will try and research both the pole swap, and polaris subjects.

I'm not sure if we completely understand why a pole swap kills everything, and I only studied geology to GCE O level, my memory of it is so little, I can't honestly remember if any form of man was around last time, somehow I tend to doubt it.

As for the tone thing, I completely agree.

As for the brake lights, I wonder if this is down to an individuals eyes ?

Brake lights do not worry me in the slightest, although I am finding the new style led ones a little brighter ( such as those fitted to some bm's and some lorries).

The lights that really bother me are those xenon headlights, especially when fitted to higher vehicles, lorries, and some 4 x 4's etc.

[TripleS]

I hope I didn't upset anything by jumping in - apologies if I did, but I was thinking about the matter of spoiling our current enjoyment of life by worrying (perhaps unduly?) about possible future events that we still do not understand very well - events that are a long way in the future anyhow.

Global warming, it seems to me, is a matter that is still quite uncertain, and it is still being argued about by the experts. Of course it would be wrong to bury our heads in the sand, but I don't see a clear need to alter our ways much at this time. For my own part I don't think I live a particularly extravagent lifestyle with cars or anything else, so I'm not minded to feel guilty and start embarking on major cutbacks at this time.

No doubt many people are concerned about the effect of cars on global warming, but to what extent are cars significant in this, or indeed other forms of transport, as opposed to industrial activity?

Maybe man is playing a role of some kind in this, but usually what we do pales into insignificance when compared with the effects nature can produce.

I am inclined to await further clear evidence before I'm likely to be feeling much concern.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Nigel]

I'm a little sceptical regarding these experts.

We normally base our knowldege on past events, experiments etc, I may be wrong, but all this stuff seems based on excitable best guesses.

[martine]

Global warming, it seems to me, is a matter that is still quite uncertain, and it is still being argued about by the experts. Of course it would be wrong to bury our heads in the sand, but I don't see a clear need to alter our ways much at this time.

The vast majority of climate scientists now think climate change is happening and humans are at least part of the cause...

From New Scientist special report: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change
"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves...The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years

No doubt many people are concerned about the effect of cars on global warming, but to what extent are cars significant in this, or indeed other forms of transport, as opposed to industrial activity?

You're right - cars are a small part of the problem. From "Response by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers to a New Inquiry from the
Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons. February 2006""...Road transport is almost entirely fuelled by oil and therefore any advances in “cleaner” or alternative fuels will have a significant impact. However, with the whole of road transport being responsible for only 5% of the total of carbon emissions, even a major reduction would have minimal net effect. That said, this is one clear area that has potential for sustainable and environmental benefit."

So just 5% for road. Air transport even if it expands at the highest predicated rate would only account for another 5% by 2050.

I am inclined to await further clear evidence before I'm likely to be feeling much concern.

Yes of course and it's a judegement thing...but I've changed my opinion over the last 10 years...I think it's now time to do some pretty serious things but on a global scale. It's pointless the UK being 'good' and the US not when they account for literally 10 times the emmissions (5.5m tons vs 0.5m tons p.a.).