The V8 Owners Forum -

Indeedi, reducing carbon emmisions can only do good, and besides, fossil fuels will run out soon anyway so we need to get away from that.

In the short term the solution in my mind is nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen powered cars etc...

In the long term we need to pour money into researching nuclear fushion which doesn't produce harmfull Isotopes. Current research only extends to the Tokomak reactor at Oxford univeristy I think, and a proposed experimental power plant, I think in Norway. That is to my mind the only longterm solution to the energy problem, it just doesn't work yet.

Renewables are a total bag of **** and never ever likely to generate any where near enough power. Besides which, whenever sites for wind farms are proposed, the public goes up in arms that they don't want them on their doorstep, yet they are quite willing to get on the global warming bandwagon.

Does anybody happen to know what the volume of ice is on Earth? I have googled it but can't find much. Lets see if we can estimate how much water levels will go up.

I agree completely with your comments there. Renewables are a bunch of arse, although they are providing my industry with a HELL of a lot of work at the moment, so I ain't complaining hehe.

As for the fossil fuel thing, don't be so sure. I remember in the early 90s when i was at school, everyone was like "Yea, there's only 30 yrs of oil left, 20 yrs of gas left" etc. But that was based on technology back then. We now have the means to extract previously impossible reserves, and despite the fact it is nearly over 15yrs since those figures came out, the numbers haven't changed much at all!


Dunno about the volume of ice on earth. Fact is it would take a much larger hike in global temps to melt all of it that what we've observed over tha past 100yrs, so I wouldn't worry too much!

As I mentioned previously, just don't buy a house on a floodplain, simple!

I agree more oil is able to be extracted now

I think the biggest reason for that is the price now being paid as all the old marginal wells are now able to pump profitably.

they also recon that can only get about 22% of the oil out the rock with the current technology, if you are a designer - build something that will give them an extra 1% and you will be richer than Bill Gates

Re the wind power thing I read somewhere about a farm near Stirling that was a good site, but then they worked out the CO for the installation, including the road to get the trucks delivering up the field and it would take something like 25 years for the wind farm to be carbon neutral!


Ian

Quick google of vol of ice on earth and area of the oceans and how much ice contracts when it thaws. I get nine metres. And that is assuming all the ice is above water.

Isn't a substantial quantity of ice actually beneath the water? I.e, it is infact displacing the water so this figure will be less.

This is based on figures from GCSE websites and me scribbling on an envelope.

Yeah, I take your point about the oil.

Not buying houses on flood plains is a great idea. Not so usefull for the poor sods that already live there, and can't sell there houses for that very reason

Fortunately, if it floods where I live, Noah will float past.

lol yeah!

As for the Carbon Footprint thing - I can honestly say, with professional expertise mind, that it is a complete fallacy and just another way of getting money out of people! You should see the amount of shite our place and many others get regarding it.

It does keep us in a job though i suppose!

The figure quoted for % of oil extracted from rocks is somewhat misleading, as it is probably given as a percentage of the entire reservoir. In reality, oil collects in pockets/veins/traps etc. which only accounts for a minor volume of the entire oil bearing strata (rocks) so if you look at the percentages of oil-bearing rocks only, the percentage extracted is much much higher. (hope that made sense!). Apologies it is like 6 yrs since i did petroleum engineering so my info is a little rusty hehe.


R.E. the ice - yes there is substantially more under water than above. Take your typical iceberg for example, you only see, on average, about 10% of the ice.

chodjinn wrote:lol yeah!

As for the Carbon Footprint thing - I can honestly say, with professional expertise mind, that it is a complete fallacy and just another way of getting money out of people! You should see the amount of shite our place and many others get regarding it.....

I'd love to have a greeny tree hugging lentil weaver explain where all the CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels originally came from.

It wouldn't happen to have been absorbed from the atmosphere a gazillion years ago would it, so it is now simply being put back where it came from?

Paul B wrote:[
I'd love to have a greeny tree hugging lentil weaver explain where all the CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels originally came from.

It wouldn't happen to have been absorbed from the atmosphere a gazillion years ago would it, so it is now simply being put back where it came from?

That's the point allegedly that's what made the planet liveable for us. The planet was a very different place back then and I don't think you would like it.

Sorry but I have to correct you there somewhat. Take the North Sea oil/gas fields for example, they are generally from the Palaeozoic period, which contains the Carboniferous age(s). Carbon being the operative word; there was a huge abundance of life throughout that geological period. Just because humans weren't around back then, doesn't mean the Earth was an inhospitable place, far from it in fact.


However, I'm sure some decent sunblock would make it just about bearable for us humans

chodjinn wrote: However, I'm sure some decent sunblock would make it just about bearable for us humans

How sunblock relates to global warming? Global warming has nothing to do with the ozone layer.

The problem with the nature is not the actual temperature change per se, it's just the speed of change, which seems to be really high at the moment and increasing in the future.

For the other species than humans (as a species) this poses problems - especially rare ones. Currently many species are forced to live inside small reserve areas (NPs and such), which will have a different climate in an instant in an evolutionary scale. The habitats for many of these species are not found outside the reserves and thus the species cannot escape anywhere when climate changes facing extinctions.

Should everything be as it occurs naturally, there would not be any problems. There would be time to adapt and move. But now, mass extinctions are extremely likely to occur due to destruction of habitats AND the speed of climate change.

And yes, I still drive a V8 - and I am a bit worried for OTHER species.

I was making a joke, albeit a poor one. I was actually refering to the average global temperature back then, which was much higher than it is today, hence the need for sun block . . . but nevermind about that.

I would argue the ozone layer (O3) protects the earth from harmful rays emitted from the sun, and is damaged by so-called 'greenhouse gases', therefore potentially contributing to global temperature rises. Temperature rises also slow the natural 'repair' time of the ozone layer. So you are incorrect, they are linked.


However, you are correct with respect to the speed of change. However, I would argue species that cannot adapt to said changes, at whatever speed, go extinct through natural selection.

And as for 'mass extinctions' due to destruction of habitats and climate change - choose your words carefully as mass extinction usually refers to a single event, such as the one that nailed the dinosaurs 65Ma near Chixulub in Mexico. I would argue the current trend in global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is not a mass extinction event, rather an extinction trend. Same thing happened during the last ice age.

And despite what most tree huggers et al say, humankind could not cause a mass extinction event all by ourselves, even with a nuclear war IMO.

chodjinn wrote: I would argue the ozone layer (O3) protects the earth from harmful rays emitted from the sun, and is damaged by so-called 'greenhouse gases', therefore potentially contributing to global temperature rises. Temperature rises also slow the natural 'repair' time of the ozone layer. So you are incorrect, they are linked.

Some of the gases destroying the tropospheric ozone layer act as greenhouse gases, correct. And the tropospheric cooling (as a result of surface temperature rise) slows the repair process as you mentioned. So in that sense, they are linked. The amount of CFC's however are so small that they do not contribute significantly to the warming (and tropospheric cooling) itself. In addition, the main gases acting as greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and water) do not harm ozone layer per se.

However, I would argue species that cannot adapt to said changes, at whatever speed, go extinct through natural selection.

That being natural, would be a mere philosophic point of view and could be debated forever. Humans as a species, are a part of natural processes. So in that sense it could be argued that the species deserve to die out due to our behavior. Should we not try to do something about it?

And as for 'mass extinctions' due to destruction of habitats and climate change - choose your words carefully as mass extinction usually refers to a single event, such as the one that nailed the dinosaurs 65Ma near Chixulub in Mexico.

Actually, it did not nail them instantly and fast (as we tend to think it). It took some time, hundreds to thousands of years or so. Pretty similar than expected, though.

I would argue the current trend in global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is not a mass extinction event, rather an extinction trend. Same thing happened during the last ice age.

Yes, only slower, and the numbers of species gone extinct was probably lower that it is going to be now due the habitat fragmentations caused by man today. Thus, I'd still use the term "mass extinction".

Scientific debate is always fun - even off the clock.

Yes scientific debates are quite fun lol!

Although, like yourself, I don't like to bring philosophy into things as it causes extreme complications and we'd be going round in circles forever! However philosophy cannot be ignored completely; for me the most interesting part is how natural human activities are in relation to the world around them (as you pointed out).

Geologically speaking, an extinction event is practically instantaneous IMO, even extinction over a few thousand years is a nanosecond in geology terms. Actually the debate is still out regarding mass extinction events, mainly because scientists can’t agree; whether it be almost instantaneous due to blocking out of sunlight, halting photosynthesis and massively altering the food chain, or, gradual via climate change/sea level etc. Personally, I go for the former, as I don’t know of many plants that can survive without sunlight for thousands of years. The rate of extinction between different animal groups also needs to be considered.

Finally, there’s the rope-a-dope sucker punch in the guise of the Signor-Lipps Effect; the fossil record is so incomplete that most extinct species probably died out long after the most recent fossil that has been discovered – what a pain in the arse! Basically we can never be sure – in over 200yrs of fossil collecting, we haven’t even found 1% . . .

The dinosaur extinction across the K-T boundary was always believed to be gradual, up until the 1980s where evidence was found to suggest a rapid decrease in species, consistent with and asteroid impact. Coincidently the eruption(s) of the Deccan Traps was also around the same time, causing more complications!

Now, on the grander scheme of things nature is self-regulating, and so is the earth. I think it’s a case of suck it and see, don’t panic, but don’t sit on your arse on do feck all, just in case . . . However, at worst, we are elevating extinction above the ‘natural’ level, we certainly aren’t experiencing a mass extinction, and probably never will.

(ref: Wikipedia for some of my info there – I keep forgetting its been a few years!)

Scientific debates are fun, although I can't contribute much to this one because it isn't my field. You two guys seem to know loads more than me. I'll stick to particle physics

Even if climate change is down to humans, in the grand scheme of life on Earth it is a tiny perturbation. Many other events had changed the climate much more dramatically, (although I guess not so quickly). Like as I was reading today, micro-organisms that changed the chemical compostition of the air, the first trees etc...Events which changed the climate so it was unrecognisable.

My point is, nature is inherently self balancing. The climate is sat in a stable equilibrium state so the very subtle changes that we are possibly making are not going to lead to global warming running away uncontrollably.

Agreed. Films like The Day After Tomorrow don't really help things though with the general public, who essentially are stupid for all intents and purposes hehe.

I disagree on the use of the term mass extinction. But that's only a philosophical difference in a point view.

This lump of rock has a self balancing system as you guys described earlier. The problem is not that the system would run into a uncontrollable state (not that I can imagine of, but I can be wrong... ), but the problem is that with the changing climate, the fixed areas for nature protection will not be able to sustain the biodiversity that is there now. The species (plants, animals etc) won't be able to emigrate to a suitable new habitat due to discontinuities in hospitable areas. The network for protected areas is too small for species to effectively migrate, and thus extinctions in large scale are highly likely to occur. This is the major threat to ecosystems that I can think of.

On the other hand fragmentation is the basis for evolution. It has occurred through time from the days earlier of Gondwana splitting in half. And it is a bit hard to make a difference between un-natural and natural processes of fragmentation and extinctions.

I've done some research on the subject, as I am a research scientist (a PhD - Push Here Dummy ) and did my thesis on climate change and herbivores. Currently I tackle with problems related to species invasions in Northern Europe due to global trade and climate change as well as fragmentation and biodiversity loss in tropical rain forest in East Africa.

Particle physics should be easy - compared to ecology.

The day after tomorrow was fun to watch - in an airplane over the Sahara desert.