| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Eco' Disruption
Global Warming Found to Displace Species
Thu Jan 2, 8:59 AM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo! By ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times Global warming (news - web sites) is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter habits in ways that could disrupt ecosystems, two groups of researchers say. The two new studies, by teams at the University of Texas, Wesleyan, Stanford and elsewhere, are reported in today's issue of the journal Nature. Experts not associated with the studies say they provide the clearest portrait yet of a biological world driven into accelerating flux by warming caused at least in part by human activity. Plants and animals have always had to adjust to shifting climates. But climate is changing faster now than in recent millenniums, and many scientists attribute the pace to rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. In some cases, species' ranges have shifted 60 miles or more in recent decades, mainly toward the poles, according to the new analyses. In others, the timing of egg laying, migrations and the like has shifted weeks earlier in the year, creating the potential to separate species, in both time and place, from their needed sources of food. One academic not associated with the studies, Dr. Richard P. Alley, an expert on past climate shifts who teaches at Pennsylvania State University, said that climate had changed more abruptly a few times since the last ice age and that nature had shifted in response. But, he noted, "the preindustrial migrations were made without having to worry about cornfields, parking lots and Interstates." Citing the new work and studies of past climate shifts, Dr. Alley saw particular significance in the expectation that animals and plants that rely on one another were likely to migrate at different rates. Referring to affected species, he said, "You'll have to change what you eat, or rely on fewer things to eat, or travel farther to eat, all of which have costs." The result in coming decades could be substantial ecological disruption, local losses of wildlife and extinction of some species, the two studies said. The authors express their findings with a certainty far greater than in the last decade, when many of the same researchers contributed to reports on biological effects of warming that were published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the top international research group on the issue. The authors of one of the new Nature papers, Dr. Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas, and Dr. Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University, calculated that many ecological changes measured in recent decades had a 95 percent chance of being a result of climate warming and not some other factor. "You're seeing the impact of climate on natural systems now," Dr. Yohe said. "It's really important to take that seriously." Some butterflies have shifted northward in Europe by 30 to 60 miles or more, with the changes closely matching those in average warm-season temperatures, Dr. Parmesan said. The researchers were able to rule out other factors habitat destruction, for example as causes of the changes. Some of these changes meshed tightly with variations in temperature over time. Dr. Parmesan cited bird studies in Britain. There, populations of the great tit adjusted their egg laying earlier or later as climate warmed early in the 20th century, then cooled in midcentury and warmed even more sharply after the 1970's. Over all, Dr. Parmesan's study found that species' ranges were tending to shift toward the poles at some four miles a decade and that spring events, like egg laying or trees' flowering, were shifting 2.3 days earlier a decade. Around Monterey Bay in California, warmer waters have caused many invertebrates to shift northward, driving some species out of the bay and allowing others to move in from the south. Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such significant ecological changes had already been detected even though global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last century. They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise. By comparison, the world took some 18,000 years to climb out of the depths of the last ice age and warm some five to nine degrees to current conditions. "If we're already seeing such dramatic changes" among species, "it's really pretty frightening to think what we might see in the next 100 years," said Dr. Terry L. Root, an ecologist at Stanford University who was the lead author of one of the new studies. The two teams of researchers used different statistical methods to analyze data on hundreds of species, focusing mainly on plants and animals that have been carefully studied for many decades, like trees, butterflies and birds. Both teams found, with very high certainty, a clear ecological effect of rising temperatures. Several of the researchers said the effects of other, simultaneous human actions, like urban expansion and the introduction of invasive species, could greatly amplify the effects of climate change. For example, the quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species with a small range in northern Mexico and Southern California, is being pushed out of Mexico by higher temperatures while also being pushed south by growing suburban sprawl around Los Angeles and San Diego, Dr. Parmesan said. "The butterfly is caught between these two major human factors urbanization in the north and warming in the south," said Dr. Parmesan, who has spent years studying shifting ranges of various checkerspot species. Dr. Alley said the studies illustrated the importance of conducting much more research to anticipate impending harms and devise ways to maintain biological diversity, for instance with green "wildlife corridors" linking adjacent pockets of habitat. |
Eco' Disruption
The message
from HaaRoy contains these words: Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such significant ecological changes had already been detected even though global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last century. They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise. What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. |
Eco' Disruption
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from HaaRoy contains these words: Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such significant ecological changes had already been detected even though global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last century. They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise. What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. And if they could, what difference would that make? -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys
ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. And if they could, what difference would that make? He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Eco' Disruption
"Alan Gould" wrote in message
... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. And if they could, what difference would that make? He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial Revolution and well into the last century? Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers. Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke, Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers. We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a coal fired chimney smoking on a house. More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it ;-) Are we being conned? Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On a twin engined plane, if one engine fails, There is sufficient power in the remaining engine, To get it to the crash site. |
Eco' Disruption
"Mike" wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Yes. Probably. To some extent. Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial Revolution and well into the last century? Because compared to today, the quantities were miniscule. BTW, the temperature today hasnt gone sky high, its just gone up a bit and even then its difficult to know if its due partly or all to CO2 (and related gases). teasing it out 150 years ago when there wasnt global monioring, satellites etc was obviously impossible. Plus, the global temperature itself rises and falls in various complex cycles, again making it difficult to know whats happening. Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers. Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke, Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers. We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a coal fired chimney smoking on a house. Irrelevant. Many more houses now, nearly all of them heated, and all of them heated much more, much more industry based on fossil fuels, everyone has a car now burning fossil fuels, blah blah blah, I'm sure if you thought about it you'd realise that superficial signs like that are irrlevant. However, and ironically, 'dirty' fossil fuel appears to cool things down, since the smoke particles reflect heat back! So cleaning up dirty fuel may itself lead to more GW!! DOny focus on smoke you can see focus on the total quantities. Just look at China in the last 10 - 20 years compared to the industrial revolution which affected a tiny proportion of the worlds population. Dont be so focussed on what happened in out little corner of the world, you need to look at the big picture. More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it ;-) The efficiency is irrelevant if its overwhelemd by orders of magnitude more cars. How many cars were there during the industrial revolution you spoke of? And its not smoke thats the issue, its CO2. You cant see that. Are we being conned? Yes but not for the reasons you mention. Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Agreed. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Eco' Disruption
In article ,
Alan Gould wrote: In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Agreed. You mean your computer isn't pedal-powered? :-) It would certainly be a way of controlling excessive use in households where that is a problem .... Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679 |
Eco' Disruption
Janet Baraclough wrote in message ... The message from HaaRoy contains these words: Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such significant ecological changes had already been detected even though global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last century. They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels, and this guesswork is based on......? should concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise. Have they got a source for that? How about CO2 generation from underground coal fires, natural methane generation, etc? What's a smokestack? What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Maybe he, like me, has heard 55 varieties of ecodoom predicted in the last 30 years and is hard to convince. I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton |
Eco' Disruption
"Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. And if they could, what difference would that make? He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Then he'd bomb us into the Stone Age with the eager help of the blessed Tony. Better just make the best of it while we can. Rod |
Eco' Disruption
Mike wrote in message ...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a supermarket by a lorry ... 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less, but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc, each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that. Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial Revolution and well into the last century? Basically, if the population in Victorian times had been what it is now, we would currently have the unenviable pleasure of living (dying?) in very different environmental conditions. Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers. Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke, Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers. We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a coal fired chimney smoking on a house. The latter is considerably more important than the former; (if most people now use gas, it's about 3 times "cleaner" than coal - although I don't expect that specifically means CO2). But air and road travel, and other energy uses, the out-of-date power in ex-Soviet/developing countries, and the fact that populations have multiplied, even since the fifties, make up for it. iirc, CO2 emissions have never stopped increasing year on year and the increase was quite dramatic over some of the latter half of the 20th C. Some of the more poisonous gases have decreased in the last 20 years mainly as a result of legislation by European governments. More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it ;-) Are we being conned? Fraid not. There is one other reason that past performance is not necessarily a straightforward guide to the future anyway, which is that environment and ecology are highly nonlinear systems. Hence the room for wide disparity of predicted temperatures depending on whether the scientist was funded by a petrol corporation or not. Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could mean a European ice age!!! Arthur |
Eco' Disruption
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? -- Anton |
Eco' Disruption
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income. Blimey. Maybe where you live. I think the typical household income elsewhere is significantly less than 100K per annum. Martin. |
Eco' Disruption
"Martin Sykes" wrote in message ...
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Blimey. Maybe where you live. I think the typical household income elsewhere is significantly less than 100K per annum. Martin. Oops - juggling too many figures. I was thinking a typical household income was 50000. Anyway, point is, it's not that much. Warwick Dumas prospective future accountant ( .... ) |
Eco' Disruption
"anton" wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. (sic) Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. I don't actually know because I haven't got around to actually doing it yet, (even though this boiler certainly already looks like it's seen better days!). It took me six months to get the electricity sorted out and it turned out to be the same price with Unit-e (an all-renewable firm so I know it's not pretend, like the British Gas scheme apparently is) as with PowerGen. It would have cost 20 pounds extra if my electric bill had been 300 instead of 160. Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote: "anton" wrote in message ... Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. (sic) Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. How do you know that the electricity you are buying is really from genuine renewable resources ? There are plenty of unscrupulous energy companies about that will happily take an extra £100 per year off you and give you a little certificate to salve your green conscience. Using electricity for space heating in any way shape or form is incredibly wasteful. Even with the gain from heat pumps it still isn't remotely efficient. It was briefly just about plausible in the mid 60's "white heat of technology" nuclear power will be too cheap to meter pipe dream era - but it proved to be a bulky, messy and unprofitable business. Combined heat and power systems where the electricity is generated and the waste low grade heat is used to heat water and nearby buildings is reasonable. But using electricity to generate bulk heating is *not* environmentally friendly even if it was produced by renewable means. If you are really serious about renewable carbon neutral heating have a wood burning stove and cut your own wood. Either way insulating your loft and cavity walls will probably do much more to help with GW. Regards, Martin Brown |
Eco' Disruption
"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message om... Mike wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a supermarket by a lorry ... Of course it counts. I also presume you use electricity and or gas? And manufactured products? 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less, but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life. Indeed. We could go back to the middle ages and possibly avoid GW (I say possibly as that is by no means certain) but that would seem to be worse than the potential consequences of GW. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc, each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that. I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse. Another excuse is that the damage that would be caused to people through stopping tourism would almost certainly be far worse (and immediate) than the predicted damage caused by predicted global warming at some predicted time in the future. Apparently, as far as I can see from anti-GW literature and writings there seems to be no downside at all to taking anti-GW measures, whatever they are, and it also appears that whatever measures are taken they will have no negative impact on anyone at all and certainly not on people in 3rd world countries. Strange that. Somehow I dont think the whole truth is being told on either side. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
"Carol Russell" wrote in message ... I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could mean a European ice age!!! Arthur And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream isnt responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of it is because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message .. . "anton" wrote in message ... Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. (sic) Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of making the switch to decent electric heating. Dubious proposition 1. Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat? I don't actually know because I haven't got around to actually doing it yet, (even though this boiler certainly already looks like it's seen better days!). It took me six months to get the electricity sorted out and it turned out to be the same price with Unit-e (an all-renewable firm so I know it's not pretend, like the British Gas scheme apparently is) as with PowerGen. It would have cost 20 pounds extra if my electric bill had been 300 instead of 160. I've just had a look at unit-E. Their website refers to many MW of wind-powered electricity generation, and a few hundred kW of hydro. That's a very unbalanced mix, and frankly means that they are, imho, either so small that they are taking piffling amounts, or full of bullshit. However, I welcome the general approach- buying power from specified sources- you are putting your money where your mouth is. Well done. -- Anton |
Eco' Disruption
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Carol Russell" wrote in message ... I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could mean a European ice age!!! Arthur And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream isnt responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of it is because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean. -- Tumbleweed I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing winds come across a colder ocean!! Art |
Eco' Disruption
"anton" wrote in
: Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat? 170 quid to heat the house for a year? Or even 256 pa? If only... I pay just under 100 quid a month for our Calor gas (heating and water only). If electric is that much cheaper - where do I sign??? Victoria |
Eco' Disruption
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from HaaRoy contains these words: Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such significant ecological changes had already been detected even though global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last century. They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise. What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but not to the extent most people think. |
Eco' Disruption
"Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that. Janet. And if they could, what difference would that make? He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse gasss when burn't the oil wells. |
Eco' Disruption
"Mike" wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial Revolution and well into the last century? Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers. Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke, Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers. We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a coal fired chimney smoking on a house. More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it ;-) Are we being conned? Mike To a large extent yes but for other reasons we must reduce our rate use of carbon fuels and in reality there is only two ways that can happen either more nuclear or less people on plant and neither are options that are on the table. |
Eco' Disruption
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , Alan Gould wrote: In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Agreed. You mean your computer isn't pedal-powered? :-) The Intel Pentium is actually a central heating booster --- more seriously in large office blocks the explosion in the number of computers has had a major effect on electricty consumption, I did the engery auditing for a major airport and the consumption in the rented office space went up year on year due to the increased use of computers and other office equipment. |
Eco' Disruption
"anton" wrote in message ... Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? -- Anton Practical steps = move to California, more seriously an extra 3 inch of insulation can work wonders as can a modern boiler better "smart" room thermostat controls on the the central heating.. These measure can save engergy which isn't quite the same thing as saving money. |
Eco' Disruption
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message om... I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse. Another excuse is that the damage that would be caused to people through stopping tourism would almost certainly be far worse (and immediate) than the predicted damage caused by predicted global warming at some predicted time in the future. Apparently, as far as I can see from anti-GW literature and writings there seems to be no downside at all to taking anti-GW measures, whatever they are, and it also appears that whatever measures are taken they will have no negative impact on anyone at all and certainly not on people in 3rd world countries. Strange that. Somehow I dont think the whole truth is being told on either side. -- Tumbleweed Reminds me of how the German Greens bounced every other country in the EU to fitting cat convertors to cars when "Lean Burn" engines would have been a better more environmentally friendly engineering solution. |
Eco' Disruption
"Carol Russell" wrote in message
... "Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Carol Russell" wrote in message ... I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could mean a European ice age!!! Arthur And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream isnt responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of it is because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean. -- Tumbleweed I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing winds come across a colder ocean!! Art Well, if the temperature rises 2 degrees due to GW, then it will put us back to the status quo. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Eco' Disruption
In article , AWM
reeserve.co.uk writes Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but not to the extent most people think. What is their relationship? -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Eco' Disruption
In article , AWM
eeserve.co.uk writes Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse gasss when burn't the oil wells. We live quite close to huge oil refineries where smoke stack burn-offs are a regular feature. Do they make a similar contribution? -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Eco' Disruption
Victoria Clare wrote in message 8.205...
"anton" wrote in : Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat? Well, my gas bill is actually closer the 250 mark but then I live in a 3-bed end of terrace with a boiler 20 years old, and many people live in terraced or bungalow (though whether that applies to this ng I don't know). Flats are certainly a lot less - I lived in a flat I think it was 100 pounds a year - and that was a top-floor flat with a British Gas contract I wasn't allowed to change! My electric bill is 160. I'm not saying I'm positive it should cost less than 100 pounds particularly, the point is it's not a very big chunk of anyone's income. 170 quid to heat the house for a year? Or even 256 pa? If only... I pay just under 100 quid a month for our Calor gas (heating and water only). If electric is that much cheaper - where do I sign??? If that's not a kind of central heating then I expect it could indeed work out very expensive - either that or you've got a very big house. :) Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message om... Mike wrote in message ... In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international terrorists were causing global warming. -- Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which will be you and me typing these messages in, for example. Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a supermarket by a lorry ... Of course it counts. I also presume you use electricity and or gas? And manufactured products? I think I'd get a bit chilly if I said I'm only going to use heating when I'm typing a message! 'anyone who uses fossil fuels'. It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels add to Global Warming. Right? Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less, but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life. Indeed. We could go back to the middle ages and possibly avoid GW (I say possibly as that is by no means certain) but that would seem to be worse than the potential consequences of GW. But as long as we rely on individuals acting by themselves, it looks very like that is the kind of choice we are facing. I think it's clear that none of the options is good enough - so what we need is coordination, responsible action by governments. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc, each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that. I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse. I'm talking about the kind of journey people can make perfectly well by train or ferry, sometimes at the cost of less than a day. Edinburgh, Paris, Madrid, Berlin(?), Rome(?). And sadly enough, some people apparently actually do London-Birmingham. So certainly there is scope for some improvement by individual responsibility - I didn't want to make the former statement without this caveat. As it happens I don't think that because you happen to feel like it is much excuse for an Atlantic air crossing either, but that wasn't the point. Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
Martin Brown wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote: "anton" wrote in message ... Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message . .. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical household income. (sic) Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100? I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable. How do you know that the electricity you are buying is really from genuine renewable resources ? It's a medium-sized, well-known and respected firm which only trades in renewable electricity. There are plenty of unscrupulous energy companies about that will happily take an extra £100 per year off you and give you a little certificate to salve your green conscience. There is actually a legal requirement for electricity companies to make 5% renewable energy. They then charge people extra saying "we'll produce one-for-one renewable electricity as you use it", not mentioning that they're doing nothing different from just fulfilling their legal requirements. Using electricity for space heating in any way shape or form is incredibly wasteful. Even with the gain from heat pumps it still isn't remotely efficient. It's about 3 times less efficient than gas to produce, because of the pylon power loss I think. But you can't get renewable gas. It was briefly just about plausible in the mid 60's "white heat of technology" nuclear power will be too cheap to meter pipe dream era - but it proved to be a bulky, messy and unprofitable business. Combined heat and power systems where the electricity is generated and the waste low grade heat is used to heat water and nearby buildings is reasonable. But using electricity to generate bulk heating is *not* environmentally friendly even if it was produced by renewable means. I think it's reasonable to assume that something more-or-less without an environmental impact is environmentally friendly. I agree that using a method which involves producing extra energy can seem counter-intuitive. Solar cells don't, but for a lot of people solar cells aren't a practical addition to their property - they cost 3000 and round here I wouldn't get that back. If you are really serious about renewable carbon neutral heating have a wood burning stove and cut your own wood. You'd also have to grow your own wood where it wouldn't have grown anyway, or it would surely be far worse for the environment than gas. Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
"Carol Russell" wrote in message ... "Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Carol Russell" wrote in message ... I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke on our own refuse. -- Anton At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could mean a European ice age!!! Arthur And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream isnt responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of it is because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean. -- Tumbleweed I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing winds come across a colder ocean!! Art Well, if the temperature rises 2 degrees due to GW, then it will put us back to the status quo. Hmm! Interesting possibility. On balance I still think I'll emigrate in 5 or 10 years though - you can get a bigger garden other places. :) Warwick Dumas www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe "If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway." - the late Joe Strummer |
Eco' Disruption
|
Eco' Disruption
"Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , AWM eeserve.co.uk writes Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse gasss when burn't the oil wells. We live quite close to huge oil refineries where smoke stack burn-offs are a regular feature. Do they make a similar contribution? -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. The gas flares aren't good ecologically but are an unavoidable part of refinning and are nothing like as bad as the massive uncontrolled burning of the arabian spiked heavy crude that occurred when the oil wells were torched. Going back about 30 years refinnerys used to flare off gas 24 hours a day, a big refinnery such as the long disapeared Isle of Grain would have 2 or 3 big flares burning, the light from them was so bright that at midnight you could read a newspaper by them. |
Eco' Disruption
"Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , AWM reeserve.co.uk writes Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but not to the extent most people think. What is their relationship? -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. Greenhouse gas from fossil fuel use contributes to global warming but by how much is the big question, these days most sources seem to say it is only a very small part of the overall picture. Most greenhouse gas comes from natural sources, forrest fires, volcanos and the normal biological processes on the planet. The really dangerous man made contribution was the CFC gas we put in fridges, fire extingishers and packing foams that is a time bomb that is still ticking away even though we have almost stopped using CFCs. The big reason for cutting down on fossil fuel burning is that they are a valuable resource that we shouldn't squander. |
Eco' Disruption
"AWM" wrote in message ... "Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , AWM reeserve.co.uk writes Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but not to the extent most people think. What is their relationship? -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. Greenhouse gas from fossil fuel use contributes to global warming but by how much is the big question, these days most sources seem to say it is only a very small part of the overall picture. Most greenhouse gas comes from natural sources, forrest fires, volcanos and the normal biological processes on the planet. The really dangerous man made contribution was the CFC gas we put in fridges, fire extingishers and packing foams that is a time bomb that is still ticking away even though we have almost stopped using CFCs. Hmmm, I thought it looked more and more certain that burning of fossil fuels was contributing significantly (lets say 30% at least and upwards) to the recent (say the past 50 years) worth of temp rise. CO2 has risen significantly over the past 100 years (is it 50% or more, I dont recall) and nearly all of that is from human use. The big reason for cutting down on fossil fuel burning is that they are a valuable resource that we shouldn't squander. Well, one mans 'reasonable use' is anothers 'squander', but who would you propose we save it for? It's unlikely anyone will want the stuff in 50 years time anyway. But even if they did, what makes their potential requirement worth more than my or your immediate one? Or my real need now, more than their trivial one in the future? How do I know if I save it now, that my grandkids wont squander it, according to my definition of squander? -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter