Click here to register on OneGuyFromBarlick|2|1
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    23  24  25  [26]  27  28   Next Page  Last Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted -  15/12/2007  :  07:03
I thought it might be a good thing to have a topic devoted to this important subject.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Replies
Author
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    23  24  25  [26]  27  28   Next Page  Last Page
 
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 29/11/2010 : 19:18
Thanks Peter, interesting figures on the drop of CFCs. On your earlier subject of Methane leaking from the sea bed. In the early 90s BP equipped a couple of planes with I R  to fly over the oceans looking for Hydrocarbons on the surface to see if a prospect was worth further investigation.



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 10:40
Frank, what is BP doing to develop sustainable technologies now? They got started some years ago but then with the recession in 2007, like other companies, they backed off some projects. Are they returning yet?

Mrs Tiz has a nephew in his 20s, a geologist. He works for a seismic profiling firm and they have asked him to spend two years with them in their Singapore office. He was reluctant because his father has Parkinson's but the family have urged him to go. He's intelligent, sensible and reliable and should have good prospects with the company. His fiancee will be going too and she'll have to give up her job. But we believe it will be great experience for them.


Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 11:02
Peter
We lived almost 2 years in Singapore and we loved it, this was 2002/04. I was commissioning a Power Station on Paula Sakra which is part of a big industrial complex. Great place Clean,Tidy with very little Crime. Shopping was also excellent at a large Japanese Chain store. 
Takishamaya spelling will be wrong but super shop. Also we used to go across to Bintan for the weekends to a complex called Angsanga  brilliant place highly recommended.



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
tripps
Senior Member


1404 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 11:16
I'm even pedantic in Malay - It should be Pulao  not Paula

Sorry - can't help it.Smile


Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 11:25
Thanks for the positive comments Frank. They are going out on a recce for a couple of weeks before Christmas to confirm it. I'll let you know the outcome.

You're one up on me Tripps! Did you do a spell out there or do you just read too much!?


Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 13:25
Lets just call it Jurong then LOL  You are correct  Tripps and I stand corrected.



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
tripps
Senior Member


1404 Posts
Posted - 30/11/2010 : 15:41
Tizer - both...
Frank thanks for not taking offence - no one like a smart a***


Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 01/12/2010 : 02:19
I do, I learn from them!

I was listening to a World Service report on Cancun conference.  On the whole the commentators are optimistic that some practical measures can come out of it because they have set their sights lower and are being more realistic about what can be done. I hope so.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 01/12/2010 : 11:31
I hope so too. I was reading something written by a man who is more sceptical about climate change than I am and he desperately hopes that the climate scientists are wrong. His view is that if they are right we are doomed because there is no way that we can change China and India enough to stop the problem, the billions of people there will want their share of what we've had (and he's an American). It's now my turn to say I hope he is wrong!


Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 07:21
I agree Tiz. I can't see a way out. China using 50% of the coal consumed and more steel that EU, US and Japan put together! Think of the emissions. Then there's India.....


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
HerbSG
Senior Member


1185 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 07:38
Part of the reason we are doomed I think is that despite all the rhetoric, the US cannot stop:1. buying middles east oil and 2. buying from China because both Saudi and China hold so much US debt that the US is  in a corner.  Major US companies like GM are producing more in China than in the US and so it goes...unions taking a beating Stanley?  By the way the biggest producers of new cars in North America are no longer Detroit but in Ontario in Canada...Chrysler, GM, Ford, Honda and Toyota (we just lost a new Toyota plant to the US).


HERB


Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 07:44
Just have to stop worrying about it, we can't change or influence it so stop worrying. Cancun is a waste of time because it needs World Leaders to agree the change not the likes of Two Jags Prescott.
 
I think that shows our Priority to this conference by the Quality of our Candidate.
With our recent spate of weather, you can see now why the sudden change from Global Warming to Climate Change !!!!



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
HerbSG
Senior Member


1185 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 07:54
My understanding of the effects of "change" is that the gulf stream will change and the UK will become more like Iceland.  I have always thought that it is more climate change than warming since patterns change.  The movement of ocean food stocks seems to be dictated by the creatures and they find their comfort zone with the temperature and current changes...maybe that's too simplistic.


HERB


Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 08:02
World average figures for last year were that it was hottest on record. Global warming is what it says, an average, you are right Herb, local effects could be much different, applies to rainfall as well. If the 'conveyor crrents' in the sea alter there is no end to the mayhem.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 10:46

A slightly different view
Daily Telegraph

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

 
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research


Edited by - frankwilk on 02/12/2010 10:49:31 AM



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
Topic is 30 Pages Long:
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    23  24  25  [26]  27  28   Next Page  Last Page
 


Set us as your default homepage Bookmark us Privacy   Copyright 2004-2011 www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk All Rights Reserved. Design by: Frost SkyPortal.net Go To Top Of Page

Page load time - 0.594