Global Warming

[ZorsT]

Sparked from another thread:

What do you people think about global warming?
I would appreciate it if this thread kept atleast civil.

Please back up your arguement with atleast some logic, or some facts.

[Biohazard]

Please back up your arguement with atleast some logic, or some facts.

Bugger thats me out, I just wish it would friggin well hurry up tiz :cold:, buy more aerosols and 1960's fridges :blip:

[Matt Bleck]

How do we KNOW it's global warming, and not just part of the planets natural cycle????

[Jantar]

The earth is in a continuous state of change, and climate is only one of the things that changes.

If we look back through the history of just the last millenium, we find that there was a Medievel Warm Period (MWP). It coincides with the Maori migartion to New Zealand and the Vikings great sea voyages in the far north. It was a period when crops grew in Greenland, and cattle grazed in its pastures, hence its name. Then there has bee the Little Ice Age (LIA) when people skated on the Thames. In recent years the earth has been rebounding from the LIA, and so getting gradually warmer, but we are still not yet as warm as the MWP.

In the past century we have had a warm period in the 1920s which was similar to where we are now, and a cold period in the 1960s and early 1970s.

In 1965 climate scientists predicted that because the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere had dropped 0.4C in 20 years the the world was rapidly heading for an ice age. The lead scientist who headedthis claim is the same lead scientist who later proposed the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Have a look at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ for scientific and historic papers on the subject.

Then have a look at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 for the actual average world temperature deviations as measured by satellite.

Global warming is a political myth, not scientific fact.

[Filterer]

How do we KNOW it's global warming, and not just part of the planets natural cycle????

Yip, i think there is no doubt that the overall climate is changing, warming/becoming more extreme just no real proof that HUMANS have casued it

[ZorsT]

The earth is in a continuous state of change, and climate is only one of the things that changes.

If we look back through the history of just the last millenium, we find that there was a Medievel Warm Period (MWP). It coincides with the Maori migartion to New Zealand and the Vikings great sea voyages in the far north. It was a period when crops grew in Greenland, and cattle grazed in its pastures, hence its name. Then there has bee the Little Ice Age (LIA) when people skated on the Thames. In recent years the earth has been rebounding from the LIA, and so getting gradually warmer, but we are still not yet as warm as the MWP.

In the past century we have had a warm period in the 1920s which was similar to where we are now, and a cold period in the 1960s and early 1970s.

In 1965 climate scientists predicted that because the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere had dropped 0.4C in 20 years the the world was rapidly heading for an ice age. The lead scientist who headedthis claim is the same lead scientist who later proposed the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Have a look at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ for scientific and historic papers on the subject.

Then have a look at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 for the actual average world temperature deviations as measured by satellite.

Global warming is a political myth, not scientific fact.
This was exactly my line of thinking.

If people that believe global warming is a real problem can come up with a few posts of that quality, i'll open my ears.

[WINJA]

bring it on ,i want 20 deg winters and 40 deg summers

[Mr. Peanut]

I think the argument is irrelevant. We should cut back on consumption either way.

[myvice]

Too phakin cold!
Burn more fuel!
:scooter: :scooter: :scooter:

[NC]

It's not the fact the the planet is warming up, it's the speed the planet is warming up. Hence the use of CFC's is distroying the O-zone layer. Yes they still use products in third world countries that produce CFC eg: Air Cons.

Best be buying Mountain property, cause it'll become coastal ;)

[avgas]

Global warming is a problem, but as it stands people stand to loose money over protesting against it, not gain money.
It all went downhill when no one bought Captain Planet toys

[NC]

I think the argument is irrelevant. We should cut back on consumption either way.
Planets rooted dude

[bobsmith]

What Jantar said.

Global warming is great for politicians and media though. Nice bold headlines, more taxes, etc...

[Hitcher]

I understand that the politically correct term is "climate change" rather than "global warming". That way its still keeps the prostitutes, whoops, I mean the climate scientists in research funding...

[NC]

Global warming is a problem, but as it stands people stand to loose money over protesting against it, not gain money.
It all went downhill when no one bought Captain Planet toys
Craptain Planet, LOLZ The kid that got the Heart Ring got ripped off...ool

[Big Dave]

These give me cause for concern:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

There are plenty more too.

[sugilite]

My understanding is that man is responsible for about 5% of the fluro carbons released into the atmosphere. Volcanoes account for most of the rest. The earth has been going through theses cooling and heating cycles for years.
I also read there are two camps, some scientists allege we are actually entering a mini ice age. Of the two groups, the global warming crew have by far the largest funding. Like most things, somewhere in the middle lies balance.

[Jantar]

My understanding is that man is responsible for about 5% of the fluro carbons released into the atmosphere. Volcanoes account for most of the rest. The earth has been going through theses cooling and heating cycles for years.
I also read there are two camps, some scientists allege we are actually entering a mini ice age. Of the two groups, the global warming crew have by far the largest funding. Like most things, somewhere in the middle lies balance.
Flouro-carbons are almost all man made. These are the main cause of the Ozone hole (actually a thining of the ozone layer in high latitudes). This contributes to more sunburns and skin cancers, but has no effect on the Greenhouse effect.

It is the greenhouse gasses such as methane, water vapour and carbon-dioxide that are the supposely causing global warming. Man contributes around 5% of the additional carbon-dioxide each year, with volcanic action and natural combustion accounting for the other 95%. Although the GW (green) camp claim that man is also responsible for the increase in methane, the most recent research is showing that man is simply responsible for shifting the cause of methane, not adding to the total. As the the greenhouse gas that has the most effect, well that is water vapour, simple evaporation, and that is not man made.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that greenhouse asses are all bad. CO2 is also a natural fertilizer for he worlds forests, and without the greenhouse effect the earth's average temperature would be -45C.

[sugilite]

Aha, thanks for the learn!

[Highlander]

... without the greenhouse effect the earth's average temperature would be -45C.

That's about the average at your place isn't it?

[Jantar]

That's about the average at your place isn't it?
It sure feels like it at times. :cold: We've used 2 months worth of firewood in the last 3 weeks.

[Highlander]

So much for Global warming then huh.

I'm doing my bit to help, Air conditioning on and the Window open.

[zadok]

How do we KNOW it's global warming, and not just part of the planets natural cycle????
That's right. Our little bit of time on planet earth is miniscule. Things have always been in flux.
An interesting book ot read (fiction) that touches on this and makes you think, is 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton.
Makes for a good read.

[Highlander]

"To all things there is a season"

[Bartman10]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=21821

[Grahameeboy]

Craptain Planet, LOLZ The kid that got the Heart Ring got ripped off...ool

I think we have to be cautious about all this whohar about claims of global warming being specific to now.

All those bloody volcanic eruptions millions of years ago must surely be more damaging that what we have done.....I mean the speed of this disruption was faster compared to what we have done.

Even the ozone hole being caused by us is debatable. I read an article years ago that said that some English geezer with small equipment discovered it when Nasa could not so how do we actually know whether it has always been there or not.

But as others have said, global warming is not a new thing and we just do not know for sure.....but one thing is that we are custodians and we should still be nice to our planet as it is our home and homes need to be keep tidy.

[Swoop]

bring it on ,i want 20 deg winters and 40 deg summers
Could always move to Queensland....

[slowpoke]

I've been unsuccessfully racking my brain to try and remember where I read it but apparently "Global Warming' would actually have a net positive result for most of the worlds countries...but I'm guessing that ain't much comfort if you live on a South Pacific atoll....

[The_Dover]

...but I'm guessing that ain't much comfort if you live on a South Pacific atoll....

At least it gives them an excuse to move to South Auckland.

[Jantar]

I've been unsuccessfully racking my brain to try and remember where I read it but apparently "Global Warming' would actually have a net positive result for most of the worlds countries...but I'm guessing that ain't much comfort if you live on a South Pacific atoll....
It was in the draft of the IPCC's 3rd TAR, but removed from the publicly released version. It was further published in Bjorn Lomberg's book "The Sceptical Environmentalist".

[vtec]

As things stand, I'm still not convinced about global warming being caused by humans for the aforementioned reasons. However I do have one interesting (scaremongering) thing to add.

Have any of you heard of tipping points? That is a point where the earth reaches a certain temperature, and thus gets to a point where it can no longer be reversed due to it causing the release of a huge amount of Greenhouse gases,... After which the temperature of the earth could accelerate away to uninhabitable levels. Hence the term tipping point. however, I'm not currently that phased, cause I know that it's not proven or properly researched just yet. There's usually something else that happens to keep earth in balance, like one of these articles mentions with increased warmth comes increased cloud that repels more sunlight thus cooling the earth again. Keep it coming, I like these sciencetific fings.

Info here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html

I'll do some more research on tipping points in a while, just got to go to the gym.

[Skyryder]

For those that believe that global warming is a just a natural phase that the earth inflicts on itself every so often............no one has been able to explain the speed of the current gloabal warming that is now taking place. Watched a programme on this a few years back, before gloabal warming became a 'fashonable' subject. One of the 'experts' listed a number of changes that was taking place along with a timetable..................not one of the opposing 'experts' could give a 'natural' answer for the speed (global warming) that was taking place............even then. The planet is not fucked and it has a great resiliance to change................but a lot of shit is going to happen in the next century or two untill some form of stabilisation takes place.

The ozone hole is a real problem.................if earth loses the van Allen belts...........better get on a shuttle.

Skyryder

[ZorsT]

Raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot stay raised.

Anything that does photosynthesis will do photosynthesis faster with higher CO2 levels, and faster still if the raised CO2 level cause a rise in temperature.
This will, in turn lower the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. When the oxygen levels get too high, fires will start and burn very quickly, which will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. As you can see, the system keeps it at a nice balance.

[ZorsT]

Methane levels in the atmosphere...

The Amazon Basin produces a large percentage of the methane in the atmosphere. (its not the basin itself, but the ants and termites that live in it.)

Humans are not responsible, so why (and if we should, how) should we try to change it?

Global warming will not end life on earth.

[Street Gerbil]

These give me cause for concern:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/


Just one question: could somebody please estimate the amount of co2 EVER produced by humankind and compare with the amount of co2 released to the athmosphere in ONE HOUR by a single volcano?

[terbang]

I dunno a lot about the warming but I have noticed that out lil corner of the planet is getting dirtier. I have been flying in the atmosphere over NZ for the past 25 years and I have noticed that the pollution levels have steadily risen especially in the last 2 years.

[Big Dave]

World awake to climate change but not us - report

THE rest of the world has woken up to the urgency of climate change, giving the topic front-page attention, but Australia's lack of action has left it economically and politically vulnerable, a new report warns.

The report by the Climate Institute, a division of the Australia Institute, a long-term critic of the Federal Government, said the debate about climate change had reached a tipping point, with multinational companies investing billions of dollars in renewable energy and carbon trading schemes.

The report details a sharp turnaround in attitudes in overseas business, government and media in the past 12 months, and concludes climate change is no longer just a "green" issue.

"Companies around the world are using climate change as a strategic business driver across not only emissions reductions but also the development of new markets, technologies and other areas of investment," it said.

"The prevailing view that reducing greenhouse gases harms economies and profits is being superseded by significant corporate activity to exploit the upsides of climate change."

Wal-Mart has committed $US500 million ($673 million) to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions; power giant GE expects to double revenues from cleaner technologies to $US20 billion by 2010; and Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates, has invested $US84 million in bio-fuels.

There has also been a dramatic turnaround in US media coverage, with 600 stories in The New York Times and The Washington Post alone in 2005. Climate change also made it onto the front page of Vanity Fair, Time and The Economist.

But the Australia Government, much of the business sector and some parts of the media remained "in denial" about the economic and social implications of climate change, said the Climate Institute's chief executive, Corin Millais.

"These overseas trends, the sheer velocity of them is staggering. Every day, people overseas are trying to find an upside to climate change. If you don't do it, your competitor will do it," he said.

[Mr. Peanut]

Just one question: could somebody please estimate the amount of co2 EVER produced by humankind and compare with the amount of co2 released to the athmosphere in ONE HOUR by a single volcano?

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

[Wolf]

Global Warming or Global Freezing?

There are so many conflicting theories about what is goin gto happen. I've heard global warming will melt the ice caps and raise the levels of our seas, flooding coastal areas and decreasing the salinity of our oceans with catastrophic effects, I've heard that "ironically" global warming could be preventing a mini ice age that "should be due about now" and I've seen "The Day After Tomorrow" based on the book "The Coming Global Super Storm" that propounds the theory that our warming will change oceanic currents that will shift the weather and cause snap freezing of most of the planet.

We're certainly not starved for options.

Why is this?

I read an interesting treatise that I do believe to be true:

Back in the bad old days, books took some time to publish, even scientific journals and researchers could take their time testing their theories before publishing them. At the time of writing the article, TV was the main medium, the internet wasn't as big so bear in mind that the issue is now compounded by the internet -

The theory expounded is that the medium of television is fast, dynamic and immediate, it has an insatiable hunger for subject matter and people have to work faster to provide newsworthy stories. Ergo, research is often a matter of a couple of quick inconclusive tests and be the first to get your theory out on Prime Time TV. (Now add the internet where publishing requires only a simple word processor and a modem and the medium is even more insatiable than TV.)

Now any crackpot can publish their theories around the globe and try to compete for funding (it's tempting to think of scientists, doctors and psychologists as altruistic people out to help the world, but, while some may be, the bottom line is they want to eat which means keeping their jobs which means getting funding for whatever crackpot or misguided theory they've come up with).

And we've seen so many: "Cut salt out of your diet", "eat only polyunsaturated fats", "polyunsaturated fats are harmful", low-carbs, high GI, "are we killing our children?", the world is warming, we'll freeze to death.

Just recently on TV - from the country who gave us Dr Susan Forward and Dr John Bradshaw, champions of taking responsibility for ones own actions, words and feelings - a new "disease" called "Intermittent Explosive Disorder" (IED) that claims that we are not in any way responsible for our temper tantrums, sudden violence, road rage etc - total unmitigated crap spread around the globe by television (and no doubt the internet) just because some retard in the States wants to absolve everyone of responsibility for their lack of self-control (and make himself mega rich in the process).

I've pretty much given up on taking anything seriously. Modern innovations in electronic typesetting and computer-controlled production lines have made book publishing easier so now the bookstores are overwhelmed by a glut of printed books expounding every crackpot half-baked unresearched bit of drivel as well.

Research? Study? Testing? Fuck all that, get published as fast as possible, get on TV and plug your book, put up a website and try and shut down anyone whose theories differ from your own. The media wants to be fed, we can get a spot on Prime Time and we have 10 gigabytes of server space to fill with wahtever we want.

The rate things are going we'll all be affected by "Information Overload" - and yes, there are lots of conflicting theories about that, too...

[ManDownUnder]

Dunno about global warming - I see a lot of arguments both ways.

Something that DOES concern me is the abaility of people to use the irriplaceable like it's going out of fashion in the interests of profit, and the hope that science will "find a solution one day"

Oil? Yeah - just dig it up, use it - hell go for gold.

Trees, forestry? Drop the bastards, mill them use them. Sure they put out Oxygen but there's plenty in the Amazon or wherever... right?

Roads - build more, build more.

Transport, just keep building more cars. We all want to get around and there's money to be made. Public transport's ok if you can't afford your own.

Meanwhile the planet's slowly crawling to hell in a handbasket.

I love the "killing the planet" theory too. We're not killing the planet. The planet will do just fine no matter what we do to it. We're actually killing the planet's ability to sustain us...

I.e., we're killing us. But unfortunately it's human nature to "worry about that when it becomes a problem"...

rant over - sorry

[Pixie]

Gaia's way of removing several billion excess humans.

[Pixie]

How do we KNOW it's global warming, and not just part of the planets natural cycle????
Because if it is part of the normal cycle,the global warming industry will lose all it's funding.
And that couldn't be countenanced

[Pixie]

As the the greenhouse gas that has the most effect, well that is water vapour, simple evaporation, and that is not man made.


Wait for the hydrogen economy....

[Pixie]

The ozone hole is a real problem.................if earth loses the van Allen belts...........better get on a shuttle.

Skyryder
The Van Allen Belt is generated by the Geomagnetic feild-nothing to do with ozone.
-however the magnetic feild does fall to zero and reverse regularly

[Wolf]

Because if it is part of the normal cycle,the global warming industry will lose all it's funding.
And that couldn't be countenanced
And the gummints wouldn't be able to control everything we do with legislation based on the Kyoto Agreement and similar.

Stop using that, you're warming the planet!

All we have is a pile of theories all presented as fact. Nobody knows for sure and even those who are truly altruistic and not pushing their agendas to get money can still be misguided or flat-out wrong.

The only practical use for any of the shit is to provide grist for Hollywood's mills - lots of great topical movies about TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It, for those who have not seen the acronym before) through various human-made disasters. Makes me wonder what the fuck they'd be doing for plots and stories if there weren't all these conflicting theories filling our news programmes every day.

I'm now waiting for "IED - The Movie" about a bunch of people who really can't help the fact that they're abusive, violent dumbfucks prone to sudden tantrums (Sony Pictures, 2008, staring Tatum O'Neil, Sean Penn and John MacEnroe - no acting required, filming now.)

[Pixie]

I dunno a lot about the warming but I have noticed that out lil corner of the planet is getting dirtier. I have been flying in the atmosphere over NZ for the past 25 years and I have noticed that the pollution levels have steadily risen especially in the last 2 years.
Visible atmosheric pollution actually cools the earth.
When the north american airline industry was grounded after 911, there was a measured increase in temperature

[Big Dave]

Science and scientists be damned.

I KNOW what I have seen and my skin has felt.

Go to a high point in Sydney after an easterly has been blowing for 3 days and see the vile brown column that rises to the stars and causes respiratory distress in the infirmed and the eyes to burn of the healthy and you know that it's not right.

Stay in that same place in the sun for an hour and your skin burns and blisters and I KNOW that is not right.

Those with their heads stuck in the sand are going to either drown when the water rises or get really sunburned arses if it doesn't and I don't need a thermometer stuck in it to know there is some bad shit going on.

[Pixie]

Some perspective of where the global climat has been (and we weren't around to blame for it):

Since the 1960s, it has been hypothesized that the Earth's continents were subjected to severe glacial action between about 750 million and 580 million years ago, so much so that the period is named the Cryogenian Period. Later, paleontologist W. Brian Harland pointed out that glacial till deposits of this period can be found on all continents, and first proposed that the Earth must have been in an ice age at this time. The problem is that the evidence-bearing deposits are found on all continents; but even during the worst of the ice age just past, no evidence of ice has been found in equatorial continents except on the higher parts of the highest mountain ranges. The then-new theory of plate tectonics made the oddly placed glacial discontinuities and deposits of glacial till even more enigmatic: studies of the magnetic orientations of the rocks of the late Proterozoic period showed that the continents were clustered around the equator during at least the start of the corresponding time around 750 mya— in one of the earliest of the configurations known as supercontinents. This equatorial clustering and collision of continents about 750 mya (million years ago) has been named Rodinia; it being near the equator, rather than near the poles as might have been expected, taken together with thermal evidence of a severe ice age 750 to 635 mya (the dating suggested by the widespread geologic deposits) is what has led to the Snowball Earth theory.

The Snowball Earth theory argues from the documented locations of glacial till dropped by these glaciers, to suggest that theEarth must have completely frozen over. The mechanism by which it did so is still mysterious. One suggestion is that normally, as the ice spread, it would cover some of the land, and so slow the carbon dioxide absorption, and so increase the greenhouse effect, as volcanoes continue to emit carbon dioxide, and the ice spread would stop; but with all the continents clustered along the equator, this would not happen until the freezing process had run away. Once frozen, the condition would tend to stabilize: a frozen earth has a high albedo, reflecting more of the sun's radiation, and a frozen earth, with reduced evaporation, has a very dry atmosphere, water vapor being one of the greenhouse gases. A "Snowball Earth" would have a blindingly clear blue sky above its reflective surface.

The mechanism by which the Earth would thaw — as it must have done if it froze—would leave distinctive traces, which are the subject of ongoing research.

White Earth is a name given to a theoretical equilibrium found in computer climate simulations whereby the model Earth undergoes complete glaciation. While this seems to have originally been considered a degenerate case, by the time James Gleick wrote his history of chaos theory Chaos: Making A New Science, it was not dismissed in his book but simply restated as something that probably just had not happened yet. The current evidence for the Snowball Earth would seem to back that theory and its computer models.

And:
Antarctica's last forest provides clues to climate change

The microscopic remains of an Antarctic forest more than 30 million years old was providing important information about global climate operation, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin announced today.

Senator Minchin said Australian scientists participating in the international Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) have dated the time when the Antarctic changed from a continent covered by vegetation to a frozen land.

Senator Minchin explained spores and pollen fossils trapped in submerged sediment buried deep beneath the polar sea provided evidence of the once cool-temperature rainforest that last covered the continent between 34 and 37 million years ago.

The Antarctic study helps scientists understand why the ice sheet formed and how the global climate operates.

"Pinpointing the time when Antarctica was first covered by an ice sheet helps scientists understand more about the fluctuations of the global climate," Senator Minchin said.

"The findings provide further evidence of the influences the oceans south of Australia have on global climate fluctuations."

Senator Minchin said the expedition uncovered spores which indicated vegetation that grew in the coastal plains of Antarctica was akin to the edges of cool-temperate rainforest now found in the highlands of Tasmania.

Although not tall, the stunted scrub of Antarctica's last forest would have been home to a variety of plants including insect-eating plants ('sundew'), and pine trees growing to approximately three metres high.

Samples revealed remnants of Southern Beech (Nothofagus). These are found occurring naturally in Tasmania, New Zealand and New Caledonia, evidence that these islands once joined Antarctica in the super-continent of Gondwana. Collected along with the spores were pebbles dropped from the earliest Antarctic icebergs.

Senator Minchin said the ODP had conducted exhaustive geological detective work to uncover what happened tens of millions of years ago to turn the cool-temperate Antarctic continent into a barren ice world.

"About 45 million years ago, Australia started to move northward away from Antarctica at a rate of approximately five centimetres per year," he said.

"By 30 million years ago, the Tasmanian land bridge had separated from Antarctica, allowing cold currents to circulate around Antarctica and cutting it off from the warm currents flowing south from the tropics.

"This created perfect conditions for ice sheets to form. By 15 million years ago most of Antarctica was a frozen continent buried deep under ice caps and vegetation vanished, unable to survive the dramatic climate change."

[Wolf]

Visible atmosheric pollution actually cools the earth.
When the north american airline industry was grounded after 911, there was a measured increase in temperature
Actually, I have a pretty good chance of proving that the temperature rise was due to all the Yank business folk getting steamed up about not being able to fly business class to their meetings and the generally riled-up state of the US population post-Sept-11.

RESEARCH FUNDS NEEDED, NOW!

[Jamezo]

This is all to be expected. The near-unaminity in the scientific community has at last been partially translated into political will.

Where to go from here is more interesting. Expect to see a very heavy focus on industrial-based solutions, ie. heavy federal funding for new carbon-reducing technologies.

This expectation is based on the intractable law that the state-capital sector will always leverage the market in favour of increased corporate subsidisation. The alternative, reduced and/or controlled consumption, is anathema for circular reasons.

[Winston001]

The Van Allen Belt is generated by the Geomagnetic field-nothing to do with ozone.
-however the magnetic field does fall to zero and reverse regularly

Agreed. As for polarity reversal - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html

We simply don't know whether global warming is occuring or not. Geologic time-scales are involved and 100 years isn't even a blip. Recommend Jantar's post near the start of the thread for its rational view.

There are two issues:

1. The speed of change. The average temperature seems to be increasing at more than the historical geological rate. We are getting hotter much faster than expected. However there is recent research using rock strata from Antarctica which shows that there have been sudden (100 years) dramatic climate changes in the past.

Tipping points have been reached and a cascade of events in the atmosphere has led to sudden heating/cooling. However these can be temporary and trend back to the norm. In the meantime - sell your beachfront crib.

2. Man is the most corrosive and destructive force on the face of the planet. About the only greater force would be a decent sized meteor strike.

So while the climate change people are mis-guided, their objective is still worthy. Stop stripping forests, burning hydrocarbons, and dumping waste, and extinguishing species. Obviously this can't happen overnight, but we already have the technology and energy to live abundant lives without harming the environment.

Rant over. :yes:

[Wolf]

Science and scientists be damned.

I KNOW what I have seen and my skin has felt.

Go to a high point in Sydney after an easterly has been blowing for 3 days and see the vile brown column that rises to the stars and causes respiratory distress in the infirmed and the eyes to burn of the healthy and you know that it's not right.

Stay in that same place in the sun for an hour and your skin burns and blisters and I KNOW that is not right.

Those with their heads stuck in the sand are going to either drown when the water rises or get really sunburned arses if it doesn't and I don't need a thermometer stuck in it to know.
I do not doubt that we have pollution problems and that our actions are contributing to ozone depletion (most CFCs are manmade, we can't blame Gaia for that one) and that we are having an impact on the planets ecosystems and weather.

What I do not believe is that the scientists can make any form of creditable prognosis - they can't predict what will happen to the weather tomorrow, let alone 50 to 100 years down the line.

They also cannot possibly know how much of the actual weather patterns is attributable to us and how much to natural cycles and random fluctuations. Increased UV from the depleted ozone layer and choking smog is demonstrable, "weird weather" is not.

[Pixie]

1. The speed of change. The average temperature seems to be increasing at more than the historical geological rate. We are getting hotter much faster than expected. However there is recent research using rock strata from Antarctica which shows that there have been sudden (100 years) dramatic climate changes in the past.

Tipping points have been reached and a cascade of events in the atmosphere has led to sudden heating/cooling. However these can be temporary and trend back to the norm. In the meantime - sell your beachfront crib.

2. Man is the most corrosive and destructive force on the face of the planet. About the only greater force would be a decent sized meteor strike.

So while the climate change people are mis-guided, their objective is still worthy. Stop stripping forests, burning hydrocarbons, and dumping waste, and extinguishing species. Obviously this can't happen overnight, but we already have the technology and energy to live abundant lives without harming the environment.

Rant over. :yes:
Why does everyone want no change.
Nature thrives on change...the greatest boosts to evolutionary development were the chicxulub meteor event,the deccan and snake river lava floods,the yellowstone eruption and the many ice-ages

[Wolf]

Why does everyone want no change.
Nature thrives on change...the greatest boosts to evolutionary development were the chicxulub meteor event,the deccan and snake river lava floods,the yellowstone eruption and the many ice-ages
Yeah, and many of the great changes resulted in an evolutionary shift to a new dominant species - ask the dinosaurs what they think of "change" :devil2:

Nature thrives. Individual species tend to get wiped out.

[Pixie]

Yeah, and many of the great changes resulted in an evolutionary shift to a new dominant species - ask the dinosaurs what they think of "change" :devil2:

Nature thrives. Individual species tend to get wiped out.
I asked a dinosaur that was sitting on my TV antenna;she said "it gives you wings"

[Big Dave]

Why does everyone want no change.


Sure - we'd all welcome another ice age or endless deserts or something.
I'm so OVER lush and green and beautiful and habitable.

I don't think the sky is falling either. I'm just trying to use less Carbon fuel - (ride a motorbike) and be aware of CFC's and stuff.

[Pixie]

Sure - we'd all welcome another ice age or endless deserts or something.
I'm so OVER lush and green and beautiful and habitable.

I don't think the sky is falling either. I'm just trying to use less Carbon fuel - (ride a motorbike) and be aware of CFC's and stuff.
You make the mistake of thinking Gaia's running things for mankind's benefit:nono:

And be honest - you ride a bike because you love it.
If you were concerned about using fuel you'd pedal

[Drunken Monkey]

Science and scientists be damned.

I KNOW what I have seen and my skin has felt....

Your musings, whether accurate or not, pale into insignificance when put up against the extreme weather and environmental patterns this planet has experienced in times gone by. Mega volcanoes, mega hurricanes, mega floods - the evidence of events of catastrophic proportions dot this planet - There are forces much more powerful at stake than any input us insignificant humans can effect on this planet.

[Big Dave]

And be honest - you ride a bike because you love it.
If you were concerned about using fuel you'd pedal


More a fringe benefit - and it is well down the list of considerations - but it IS one of them.

Where possible/viable I do actually ride a quite nice mountain bike.
Mostly and for sport, I travel much further than pedal power allows.
Degrees innit.

[Big Dave]

Your musings, whether accurate or not, pale into insignificance when put up against the extreme weather and environmental patterns this planet has experienced in times gone by. Mega volcanoes, mega hurricanes, mega floods - the evidence of events of catastrophic proportions dot this planet - There are forces much more powerful at stake than any input us insignificant humans can effect on this planet.


Sure - but we shouldn't be giving potential cataclysm a possible hand.

The answer is more people on more motorcycles.

[Big Dave]

You make the mistake of thinking Gaia's running things for mankind's benefit:nono:



An who is that when he/she is home? Scientologits?

I just had a surf around that Oz Climate group site - vested interest .org group of the style previously identified by Hitcher. Possibly funded by the opposition.

[Wolf]

Sure - but we shouldn't be giving potential cataclysm a possible hand.

The answer is more people on more motorcycles.
Your wish is our command (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10389816)

[James Deuce]

Could it possibly be that it all has sod all to do with CO2 or methane emissions?

Could it be that the answer is that the Earth's ecosphere isn't a closed system, but affected greatly by outside stimuli? That investigating and concluding that terrestrial based phenomena is only one tine of a very big fork?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

The whole argument that has been sold to the "public" (you know, the people that a large part of the scientific community regard as dummies) is only one small part of a very large dilemma. The more knowledge you uncover the less you know. The Solar Activity Proxies graph hides a recent dip in sunspot activity from the late '60s to the early 90s, incidentally the period of time that we started bunging useful satellites up.

[Pixie]

An who is that when he/she is home? Scientologits?

I just had a surf around that Oz Climate group site - vested interest .org group of the style previously identified by Hitcher. Possibly funded by the opposition.
The Gaia hypothesis:
http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

[Wolf]

I asked a dinosaur that was sitting on my TV antenna;she said "it gives you wings"
Brilliant. I wonder what Nature/Gaia/Danu will give us?


The ultimate (for us, anyway) "Darwin Award", possibly...

[Pixie]

Brilliant. I wonder what Nature/Gaia/Danu will give us?


The ultimate (for us, anyway) "Darwin Award", possibly...
Big veiny heads and a life underground worshipping a bomb

[Wolf]

Big veiny heads and a life underground worshipping a bomb
Ugh! :gob:


Waiter! I'll have the mass extinction, please.

[Pixie]

Planet of the Apes - The Musical

"Stop the Planet of the Apes,I want to get off"




Song Lyrics

"Dr. Zaius"

Ape: Help, the human's about to escape.
Troy: Get your paws off me, you dirty ape.
Ape: [gasping] He can talk!

Apes: [in unison, rythmed] He can talk
He can talk
He can talk
He can talk
He can talk
He can talk

Troy: [singing] I can siiiiiing!

[funky beat of "Rock Me Amadeus" starts playing]

Female Nurse Ape: Ooh, help me Dr. Zaius!
Apes: [in unison] Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Oh... Dr. Zaius
Ape: Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.

Troy: What's wrong with me?
Zaius: I think you're crazy.
Troy: Want a second opinion.
Zaius: You're also lazy.

Apes: [in unison] Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius

[one ape starts breakdancing]

Oh... Dr. Zaius
Ape: Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.

Troy: Can I play the piano anymore?
Zaius: Of course you can.
Troy: Well I couldn't before!

[plays piano]

"You'll Never Make a Monkey Out of Me"

Troy: [singing] I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-a to chimpan-zee
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me

Oh my God, I was wrong
It was Earth all along

You've finally made a monkey
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey
Troy: Yes, you've finally made a monkey out of me
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey out of you

Troy: I love you, Dr. Zaius!

[Big Dave]

Brilliant. I wonder what Nature/Gaia/Danu will give us?
.


........42.

[Winston001]

Could it be that the answer is that the Earth's ecosphere isn't a closed system, but affected greatly by outside stimuli? That investigating and concluding that terrestrial based phenomena is only one tine of a very big fork?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

The Solar Activity Proxies graph hides a recent dip in sunspot activity from the late '60s to the early 90s, incidentally the period of time that we started bunging useful satellites up.


Interesting link and you are right. Most climate debate ignores the single biggest factor - the Sun. And then there are the gravity fields of the sun and the moon to consider plus fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field.

The trouble is that we can't influence these forces - but we can stop killing other species in the bio-sphere. And poisoning our environment.

[James Deuce]

Monofilament solar mirrors. All we need is the nano tech to build them in orbit.

[Jantar]

Interesting link and you are right. Most climate debate ignores the single biggest factor - the Sun. .

Not quite, The sun and its effects have only been ignored by the Global Warming lobby. Most of ther nay-sayers have recognised the relationship between the sun and earth's temperatures for many years. There has been a lot of very usefull work in this field by Dr Theodor Landscheidt of Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany.

See http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm for an example of his work.

[Jantar]

I am noticing a very interesting trend in this debate. The proponents of Global Warming are tending to reference media reports, while the opponents are tending to reference the origional scientific research. Does that mean anything?

[Big Dave]

Does that mean anything?

They are media reports - therefore easier to find - promoted.

They paraphrase scientific jargon into language the layman can understand.

The abridge and summarise the findings rather than present dry data.

Most employ qualified people to do so.

There is no reason not to.

And the opponents are more numerous.

[Jantar]

They are media reports - therefore easier to find - promoted.

They paraphrase scientific jargon into language the layman can understand.

The abridge and summarise the findings rather than present dry data.

Most employ qualified people to do so.

There is no reason not to.

And the opponents are more numerous.
Among climate scientists I would agree, but in the general public I believe the proponents would be more numerous.

However science is not about concensus, its about research and repeatable experiment and calculation. If it was that the majority are always right then Galileo would never have been able to his research believed.

[Winston001]

Among climate scientists I would agree, but in the general public I believe the proponents would be more numerous.



Spot on. There was a study about a year ago of the media treatment of climate studies. There was, from memory, an 80% bias in favour of pro-global warming stories. In other words, if a piece of scientific opinion or research was published, the mainstream media ignored anti-warming information.

[Wolf]

Spot on. There was a study about a year ago of the media treatment of climate studies. There was, from memory, an 80% bias in favour of pro-global warming stories. In other words, if a piece of scientific opinion or research was published, the mainstream media ignored anti-warming information.
Yeah but we're not going to get warming, remember, we're all going to be snap-frozen like Watties peas by the global superstorm.

And if we do get warming it'll be countered to a degree by the mini ice age - they'll cancel each other out and we'll all be fine.

Meh!

We do need to cut out our pollution and waste, move to low-emission and zero-emission vehicles - because of the toxins released into the very air we breathe. We need to stop producing so much disposable shit which promotes wastage and promote stuff that lasts.

We do seriously need to clean our act up and take care of the ecosystem but not because of Global Warming and we don't need to run around checking how many times the cows fart or trying to tax the farmers for bovine emissions. And we don't need an acceptable emissions level agreement drafted by a bunch of people intent on slaughtering all the whales on the planet.

[The_Dover]

How much CO2 do burning hippies give off?

[Jamezo]

Burning hippies is carbon-neutral. Cause they have a tree planted to remember them by.

[Ixion]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about global warming. Even if it is true(and the evidence and logic both seem at best debateable), so what?

If the Earth gets a good bit warmer, so much the better.

Argueably the Earth is much too cold at present. There are very few areas that we can't utilise because they are too hot (too dry is another matter, but global warming may well promote more rainfall, not less). Many areas that are useless because they are too cold. Think how many people could live in Siberia, Northern Canada or Alaska if they were a bit warmer.

And if the sea levels rise a few metres, so what . A few areas will be unundated, big deal. Go ask the burghers of Dunwich how they coped. We rebuild on higher ground, and the kindly sea cleans up a lot of old slums.

Look where people are wanting to ove to to live. Everybody heads for the warm tropical areas. No-one heads for the cold bleak areas. If the Earth gets more lush and tropical so much the better. Roll it on I say.

Different is not the same thing as bad, adjust and thrive.

[Big Dave]

Yeah .

Yep - pretty much what I've been trying to say too.
I ain't no hippy - but I do have a Grandkid.

[Big Dave]

Different is not the same thing as bad, adjust and thrive.


WHAT IF pumping all that shit into the air IS a formula for utter cataclysm.
Just don't need to tempt that sort of fate.

The generation of 'hybrid' vehicles is dawning. I prefer to think with a bit of luck we'll work around the problem anyway.

[James Deuce]

Don't you start with hybrid's, you big yin. Don't you dare. Either burn dinosaurs, or give us flying cars like they promised. Don't make us tootle about in or on big fucking mobility scooters. Don't you dare.

[Big Dave]

Don't you start with hybrid's, you big yin. Don't you dare. Either burn dinosaurs, or give us flying cars like they promised. Don't make us tootle about in or on big fucking mobility scooters. Don't you dare.


If they have torque like a really big magnet and can wheelstand on it - I'm in.

That vespa I took for a burn the other day was a hoot. Not 600s slingshots - but for the urban environment - I was carving up on it. no reason why something like that is not viable. And after the hybrids will come hydrogen.

Imagine how they will pop!

[marty]

At least it gives them an excuse to move to South Auckland.

since when have they needed an excuse?

[James Deuce]

And after the hybrids will come hydrogen.


Hydrogen will never be a viable vehicle fuel without portable cold fusion reactors. Hydrogen requires at least as much energy to extract it from the molecule to which it is bound as you will get from using it. Economically unviable.

Battery powered electric vehicles are crap. Hybrid vehicles are heavy crap that won't wheelstand, and will have a shitload of unsprung weight added to an already marginally unsatisfactory design (the motorcycle) for such things as regenerative braking, and ancillary power supply.

[Big Dave]

Hydrogen will never be a viable vehicle fuel without portable cold fusion reactors. Hydrogen requires at least as much energy to extract it from the molecule to which it is bound as you will get from using it. Economically unviable.

Battery powered electric vehicles are crap. Hybrid vehicles are heavy crap that won't wheelstand, and will have a shitload of unsprung weight added to an already marginally unsatisfactory design (the motorcycle) for such things as regenerative braking, and ancillary power supply.


Blah blah blah And they'll never get 150 horsepower out of a motorcycle engine.

Not with todays technology - but in 30 years? - nobody knows. Beyond lithium. Cheap hydrolosis - you'll see. I'll be doing tricks on one of those new super magneto jobs for sure!

[James Deuce]

Cheap Hydrogen extraction isn't going to happen without a much more fundamental change in our understanding of physics than the changes in metallurgy that enabled the development of modern combustion engines. It isn't anywhere as simple as developing alloys that minimise expansion rate differences in a combustion engine with modern miniscule tolerances.

Cheap Hydrogen extraction isn't a technology development, it would have to be a new technology altogether, and I can only think of one new technology developed in the last 100 years - conductive polymers. Everything else is based on centuries of lore and gradual accretion of knowledge, and different applications of well understood principals.

Do you want Hydrogen power or electric? You're getting them all mixed up.

[Wolf]

Do you want Hydrogen power or electric? You're getting them all mixed up.
I think he's talking in terms of hydrogen fuel cells providing the electricity for the motor - a lot of good work has been done in this area.

Google Chrysler-Benz's "Natrium" vehicle for a great idea for safe storage of hydrogen - basically hydrogenated Borax ("washing soda") in a tank which is passed on demand through a catalyst to liberate the hydrogen to fuel the cell, the slurry is captured in another tank for removal and rehydrogenation - fully recyclable and safe.

Worst you'd get if the tank ruptured is a clean road.

Fuel cells are old tech (around 160 years old, now) that has only recently been seriously developed.

As to getting your hydrogen and how "inefficient" it is, if you're going to factor in the production cost into the equation, do the same for petroleum products. The cost of finding the crude, drilling, refining etc - then factor in the inefficiency of an Infernal Combustion Engine on top of that.

Hydrogen does take a shit-load of power to produce, so does petrol. OTOH, hydrogen fuel cells are around 90-95% efficient and an electric motor is around 95% efficient. Expect a small loss for some of the incidental electrics (like your voltage converter that pulls 12 or 24 volts DC from your 48-300VDC output from the fuel cell so you can power lights and horn etc) but on the whole an EV is more efficient than an ICE-powered vehicle.

I think you would find, after factoring in the production costs and the efficiencies of both, the equation should work out either the same or in hydrogen-powered-electric's favour.

Add to this: hydrogen can be produced locally anywhere in the world so you can forget import duties, import costs etc. If they take the "Natrium" route they can set up recycling plants all over the place to cut down on transportation costs.

[James Deuce]

Hydrogen is more expensive to produce than petrol because it actually requires more energy to extract than petroleum products do. The Hydrogen fuel cells aren't capable of giving a vehicle the same range, at the same speed, and the smae load carrying capacity as a petrol vehicle. Fuel cells are not as simple as the hydrogen lobby would have you believe, nor will they even ever be as cheap as a multi-cylinder petrol or diesel engine to produce. Petrol engines are heading into the 20% range for thermal efficiency and Lotus have a single cylinder direct injection electric valve engine running at 60%. Petrol is nowhere near dead, and none of the electric options put forward yet are beyond the first Daimler-Benz of 1886 level of usefulness or development yet.

A range of 60kms at 60km/hr does not excite and nor do expensive hybrids that create more pollution to produce than most petrol cars produce over their useful life.

[James Deuce]

Add to this: hydrogen can be produced locally anywhere in the world so you can forget import duties, import costs etc. If they take the "Natrium" route they can set up recycling plants all over the place to cut down on transportation costs.

That utopian vision will not happen. Hydrogen will be produced in much the same way petrol is now and it will be VERY much more expensive than petrol.

[Ixion]

I do not understand the enthusiasm for fufuing around with electricity.

Even if all the sources of dino-fuel were exhausted, it is not hard to produce petrol and diesel type fuels (ie fuel suitable for an internal combustion engine) completely synthetically, or from bio-sources.

Synthesis would doubtless be more expensive than pumping it out of the ground, but then the electrical route is more expensive also.

I suspect that we have seen the low point of fuel costs, and that motoring will be more expensive in future. So much the better for bikes.

I said a year or so ago that petrol would have to reach $2.50 per litre to be the same cost in real terms as it was when I started riding: and that when it did, we would see bike usage heading steeply upward.

It's just under $2 now, and sure enough bikes sales are up and up and up.

So why bother messing around with electric cars?

[Pixie]

They are media reports - therefore easier to find - promoted.

They paraphrase scientific jargon into language the layman can understand.

The abridge and summarise the findings rather than present dry data.

Most employ qualified people to do so.

There is no reason not to.

And the opponents are more numerous.
1 Are usually one eyed
2 Usually get it wrong (Arts Degree Journalists)
3 Miss the point
4 Hah!

[Pixie]

I love the arguements I read for the hydrogen economy-

They never state that hydrogen as a fuel source is only ever going to be stored nuclear or fossil fuel energy.
And don't start the wind power bullshit.

Fossil fuels,of course,is just stored sunshine

[Wolf]

That utopian vision will not happen. Hydrogen will be produced in much the same way petrol is now and it will be VERY much more expensive than petrol.
Even if they just had one extraction/recycling plant in NZ as I believe we have for petroleum products. We can extract the hydrogen here in NZ rather than burn shitloads of diesel transporting the crude oil here (major energy expenditure both in terms of the diesel expended and the production costs of said diesel) followed by the energy expended in the refining process (this is on top of the energy expended getting the shit out of the ground and transporting it from the well to the tankerships). All we have to do then is transport hydrogenated Borax to the petrol stations and bringing Borax slurry back to the hydrogenating section of the plant.

As to the cost, I doubt they would make it too much more expensive than petrol - they will want people to buy the stuff.

As the hydrogen can be produced locally and is not dependant on how much OPEC wants for crude oil, the price would be fairly stable barring increases in electricity costs to run the plants, the gummint would have a nice stable tax coming in on the product and will benefit from the fact that the retail price is stable - people will not be racing out to buy motorcycles and pushbikes or walking or taking the bus in response to sudden price increases.

I do not comprehend your assertion that it will be very much dearer than petrol. Even if it takes a kilowatt-hour of electricity to produce a kilowatt-hour's worth of hydrogen, that's not that expensive - it costs me bugger all per kilowatt-hour at my house and I very much doubt I'm getting it at cost - Transpower and Genesis are both getting rich off us. Even with factoring in losses, profit margins, tax etc, it should not be too expensive to the end user - Johnny Public in/on his EV - for hydrogen fuel for their vehicle.

Any one out there know how much petrol a 1-kilowatt Internal Combustion engine uses at peak efficiency in an hour?

And bear in miind that a lot of that petrol is wasted.

[Pixie]

Considering that, every year ,the media get on the lake level bleats;where is the energy for the electrolysis coming from?

[James Deuce]

***utopian denial syndrome***

You're ignoring one point. Corporate greed.

[Winston001]

Considering that, every year ,the media get on the lake level bleats;where is the energy for the electrolysis coming from?

Yep. NZ faces a serious infrastructure problem at the moment. Effectively our economy is stalled because we cannot supply secure future electricity needs. Businesses will not set up new plants without certainty of energy supply - it's fundamental.

All of this tinkering around at the edges with wind power has a feel-good value but actually adds very little to total electricity production.

So we cannot blithely assume that the electricity to run borax plants or hydrogen production plants will just appear when needed. Hydrogen has it's place - essentially it is stored electricity - but national distribution? Nah. Fuel cells have a place too but simplicity is best. The technology already exists for using natural gas and propane to operate engines so methane and bio-fuels have distinct advantages.

Remember much of the world is poor and the best solutions are the cheapest ones. A simple engine using methane from the local rubbish dump can be sustained anywhere.

[Big Dave]

1 Are usually one eyed
2 Usually get it wrong (Arts Degree Journalists)
3 Miss the point
4 Hah!


Maybe in this country.
National Geographic - Time?
Yeah right piss ant interns.

[Wolf]

You're ignoring one point. Corporate greed.
And that's not affecting oil prices? Govt greed is affecting the petrol prices - you don't see the govt saying "oh, the cost per barrel of crude has risen, let's cut down the amount we're currently fleecing the public of (for stuff we didn't produce and contributed nothing to)."

[James Deuce]

And that's not affecting oil prices? Govt greed is affecting the petrol prices - you don't see the govt saying "oh, the cost per barrel of crude has risen, let's cut down the amount we're currently fleecing the public of (for stuff we didn't produce and contributed nothing to)."

Gahh - it must be the fur growing in those ears ;)

[Wolf]

I love the arguements I read for the hydrogen economy-

They never state that hydrogen as a fuel source is only ever going to be stored nuclear or fossil fuel energy.
And don't start the wind power bullshit.

Fossil fuels,of course,is just stored sunshine
No wind power bullshit here. OK, maybe a bit - turbines mounted atop the Beehive to catch the rising hot air...

The only way it would work here is if we had nuclear power - aka "stored nuclear energy".

Yeah, I know, kinda upsets the "clean green" image a bit, but probably not as much as turning yet another scenic forested valley into a boring artificial lake on which noisy powerboats drag water-skiers around.

How's that for non-Utopian, Jim2?

We most likely need nuclear energy now, or certainly will not too long from now. We are not producing sufficient electricity to guarantee supply for our current population and industry.

Modern nuclear power stations have come a long way from 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl, ironically, it's looking like the safest and "greenest" means of electricity production.

And NZ is not the "Nuclear Free" Utopia that many people like to believe it is.

[The_Dover]

And NZ is not the "Nuclear Free" Utopia that many people like to believe it is.

Damn right, you should see our microwave.

Makes Chernobyl look like a wind powered hippy commune.

We could always fossilise some hippies. Those greasy buggers would make good oil.

[Big Dave]

Damn right, you should see our microwave.

Makes Chernobyl look like a wind powered hippy commune.

We could always fossilise some hippies. Those greasy buggers would make good oil.


What about feminists? Can you do anything with them?

[The_Dover]

Sorry Dave, I think that lot are beyond redemption.

[Wolf]

Sorry Dave, I think that lot are beyond redemption.
Come on, surely they're at least flammable.

Seen a couple I'm sure were close to spontaneous combustion...

[Big Dave]

Come on, surely they're at least flammable.

Seen a couple I'm sure were close to spontaneous combustion...


Imagine how all that hair would smell.

[Pixie]

What about feminists? Can you do anything with them?
Very "dry" and burn well,but you have to raise them from fridgidity to combustion temperature