PDA

View Full Version : climate change will force humans to leave Earth



Paddy
19th September 2013, 11:10
climate change will force humans to leave Earth

We will all perish soon (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk/east-anglia-university-research-claims-climate-change-will-force-humans-to-leave-earth-1.132522)

Dear Mr Cable
Thank you for funding our climate change research with the needed £26,000,000. Please find attached a copy of our latest press release.

Yours sincerely

East Anglia University




Life on Earth will continue for up to three billion years but humans will die out far sooner, scientists have said.

Researchers say our planet’s increasing proximity to the sun will eventually result in soaring temperatures, the seas drying up and the extinction of all life.

According to a study by East Anglia University in Norwich man-made climate change will make human life impossible long before this happens and our best chance of survival would be to move to another planet — with Mars being the most suitable option.

d000hg
19th September 2013, 11:24
Even if that happens, surely Earth would STILL be less inhospitable than other known planets so we should 'colonise' our own planet.

BrilloPad
19th September 2013, 11:32
About time the selfish human f*(*kers died out and left the planet to a more intelligent species.

BrilloPad
19th September 2013, 11:51
10 things humans have to achieve before the end of the world | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett | Comment is free | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/10-things-before-end-of-world)

mudskipper
19th September 2013, 12:31
increasing proximity

How confusing.

Freaki Li Cuatre
19th September 2013, 12:47
Complete alarmist bilge.

I noticed back in the summer that some Independent hack regurgitated all that crap about parts of western Europe becoming desertified within 20 years if we don't mend our ways and build more wind turbines. This was about 3 days into the heat wave.

If I'd been on another planet for the last 20 years and I'd come back to the uk this year I'd have found this year's weather pretty typical. Long, cold winter with some snow, few weeks hot weather in the summer and a wet windy September...

NorthWestPerm2Contr
19th September 2013, 13:42
Complete alarmist bilge.

I noticed back in the summer that some Independent hack regurgitated all that crap about parts of western Europe becoming desertified within 20 years if we don't mend our ways and build more wind turbines. This was about 3 days into the heat wave.

If I'd been on another planet for the last 20 years and I'd come back to the uk this year I'd have found this year's weather pretty typical. Long, cold winter with some snow, few weeks hot weather in the summer and a wet windy September...

After 7 years of skipping summer and having generally crap weather..... sounds about right for the UK.

Dominic Connor
19th September 2013, 14:56
Firstly it isn't all that hard to move the Earth, go read World out of Time by Larry Niven, we've got most of the tech to do that now, but it would not be cheap...

The problem for the arts grad Greens is that, well, they are arts grads, they have a negative understand of basic, uncontroversial science, ie most of what they "know" is wrong.

The Earth is in what people that do this piss for a living call an "inter glacial period", a transient phase between the two normal states of the climate, either much hotter or much colder than now. The hotter periods are by far the most common.

Some would call what we are in now an ice age, which may surprise you given the lack of mammoth burgers in Waitrose or icebergs in the Thames, but periods where there is permanent ice on any part of the Earth are relatively unusual.

Short version is that we are in an unstable situation that if left to itself will change anyway even if humans had never existed. Some assert that if it had not been for humans we'd be well into an ice age by now, that's not generally accepted but underlines the fact that if we want the sort of climate our pathetically short period of history (by geological standards) gets called "normal".

Depending on your view, humans are making things worse better or not having any effect at all.

That actually doesn't matter, because climate change is coming whether we stop burning carbon tomorrow or torch every oil well in the middle east.

The only variable we currently have any influence (not control) over is the insulating effect of the atmosphere which is a mindlessly blunt instrument, but as a any contractor knows, bitching about the tools you are given rarely gets the job done.

The long term game is either try to control the climate or let a mix of the piss we chuck in it and the chaotic instability of the system knock us about.

doodab
19th September 2013, 14:59
About time the selfish human f*(*kers died out and left the planet to a more intelligent species.

KUATB (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/92599-robots.html)

Freaki Li Cuatre
19th September 2013, 15:14
Firstly it isn't all that hard to move the Earth, go read World out of Time by Larry Niven, we've got most of the tech to do that now, but it would not be cheap...

The problem for the arts grad Greens is that, well, they are arts grads, they have a negative understand of basic, uncontroversial science, ie most of what they "know" is wrong.

The Earth is in what people that do this piss for a living call an "inter glacial period", a transient phase between the two normal states of the climate, either much hotter or much colder than now. The hotter periods are by far the most common.

Some would call what we are in now an ice age, which may surprise you given the lack of mammoth burgers in Waitrose or icebergs in the Thames, but periods where there is permanent ice on any part of the Earth are relatively unusual.

Short version is that we are in an unstable situation that if left to itself will change anyway even if humans had never existed. Some assert that if it had not been for humans we'd be well into an ice age by now, that's not generally accepted but underlines the fact that if we want the sort of climate our pathetically short period of history (by geological standards) gets called "normal".

Depending on your view, humans are making things worse better or not having any effect at all.

That actually doesn't matter, because climate change is coming whether we stop burning carbon tomorrow or torch every oil well in the middle east.

The only variable we currently have any influence (not control) over is the insulating effect of the atmosphere which is a mindlessly blunt instrument, but as a any contractor knows, bitching about the tools you are given rarely gets the job done.

The long term game is either try to control the climate or let a mix of the piss we chuck in it and the chaotic instability of the system knock us about.

So, in a brief sentence, what side of the fence are you on when it comes to the carbon industry (for want of a better term)?

Dominic Connor
19th September 2013, 17:54
So, in a brief sentence, what side of the fence are you on when it comes to the carbon industry (for want of a better term)?

I'm pro nuclear and see wind and wave as little more than window dressing, we're going to run out of carbon soon anyway so being pro or anti is pointless.

If we don't burn it, the Chinese will.

EternalOptimist
19th September 2013, 19:23
I'm pro nuclear and see wind and wave as little more than window dressing, we're going to run out of carbon soon anyway so being pro or anti is pointless.

If we don't burn it, the Chinese will.


I am pro nuclear and see wind and wave as little more than window dressing. But anyone who thinks that carbon will run out soon is not paying attention.
The stone age did not end because the humans ran out of stone
the oil age will not end because people will run out of oil

there is more oil in the Canadian tar sands, than the humans race has ever used. There is more oil in the canadian arctic than the human race has ever used.
thats just canada.
thats just what we know about.


peak oil was just another green propoganda stunt. It is very interesting to see the people who fell for it. (des, im looking at you here)



:rolleyes:

hyperD
19th September 2013, 19:38
China has huge coal reserves. Last internal report I saw two years ago from an O&G company showed that at current consumption they have in excess of 400 years worth of known reserves.

bless 'em all
19th September 2013, 19:38
The Earth is in what people that do this piss for a living call an "inter glacial period", a transient phase between the two normal states of the climate, either much hotter or much colder than now. The hotter periods are by far the most common.

Short version is that we are in an unstable situation that if left to itself will change anyway even if humans had never existed. Some assert that if it had not been for humans we'd be well into an ice age by now, that's not generally accepted but underlines the fact that if we want the sort of climate our pathetically short period of history (by geological standards) gets called "normal".

That actually doesn't matter, because climate change is coming whether we stop burning carbon tomorrow or torch every oil well in the middle east.

The only variable we currently have any influence (not control) over is the insulating effect of the atmosphere which is a mindlessly blunt instrument, but as a any contractor knows, bitching about the tools you are given rarely gets the job done.

The long term game is either try to control the climate or let a mix of the piss we chuck in it and the chaotic instability of the system knock us about.


I am pro nuclear and see wind and wave as little more than window dressing. But anyone who thinks that carbon will run out soon is not paying attention.
The stone age did not end because the humans ran out of stone
the oil age will not end because people will run out of oil

there is more oil in the Canadian tar sands, than the humans race has ever used. There is more oil in the canadian arctic than the human race has ever used.
thats just canada.
thats just what we know about.


peak oil was just another green propoganda stunt. It is very interesting to see the people who fell for it. (des, im looking at you here)



:rolleyes:

I read an article in New Scientist a while back which suggested a European power grid, using the resources across the entire continent to use wind/wave/solar power more effectively.

The premise was that the 'windy bits' and 'wavey' bits provided their fluctuating energy to power the pumping of water into high level lakes in Scandinavia (for one).

The water 'drop' powers turbines, providing a constant and dependable source of renewable power.

The argument goes that there's enough wind and wave power across a wide area to be able to predict, to a better degree, the output you can expect.

Couple that with the switch-on-and-offable nuclear option and you've got a pretty 'green' solution.

EternalOptimist
19th September 2013, 19:44
I read an article in New Scientist a while back which suggested a European power grid, using the resources across the entire continent to use wind/wave/solar power more effectively.

The premise was that the 'windy bits' and 'wavey' bits provided their fluctuating energy to power the pumping of water into high level lakes in Scandinavia (for one).

The water 'drop' powers turbines, providing a constant and dependable source of renewable power.

The argument goes that there's enough wind and wave power across a wide area to be able to predict, to a better degree, the output you can expect.

Couple that with the switch-on-and-offable nuclear option and you've got a pretty 'green' solution.



It was in the new scientist ? and an article ?

what a fool I have been. my god , I am an idiot. please someone, shoot me now.
the truth has been there all along. in an article in the new scientist.



meanwhile , in the real world, people die of the cold.



:rolleyes:

hyperD
19th September 2013, 19:49
That's nice in theory but the fluctuations (spiking) in a "supergrid" infrastructure is the very thing that causes so many problems in maintaining a reliable power grid.

The power symbiosis between Denmark (with 30% wind penetration) and Norway/Sweden is such that when the wind don't blow, the Danes pay for it by importing their power on the spot market, making the Danes paying for the most expensive power costs in Europe.

You can run a country on unicorn farts if you so desired, but every time you make your cup of tea it will cost you £100.

amcdonald
19th September 2013, 19:54
About they leaving the planet malarkey, Houston there maybe a problem (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/09/19/166214/without-plutonium-deep-space-probe-missions-may-sputter-out)

EternalOptimist
19th September 2013, 19:57
That's nice in theory but the fluctuations (spiking) in a "supergrid" infrastructure is the very thing that causes so many problems in maintaining a reliable power grid.

The power symbiosis between Denmark (with 30% wind penetration) and Norway/Sweden is such that when the wind don't blow, the Danes pay for it by importing their power on the spot market, making the Danes paying for the most expensive power costs in Europe.

You can run a country on unicorn farts if you so desired, but every time you make your cup of tea it will cost you £100.


well said.
lets have the professionals who run this stuff have their say, as well as the theories that are promoted for ideological reasons.

and then let the professionals have the louder voice




:rolleyes:

hyperD
19th September 2013, 23:44
Couple that with the switch-on-and-offable nuclear option and you've got a pretty 'green' solution.

Sorry, meant to add, there's no "switch-on-and-offable" option. Most conventional power generators (including nuclear) heat up boilers and like your kettle, you can't press a button and expect instant hot tea.

Boilers and hence power stations require hours, if not days from black start, to fire up and provide heat to create steam to power the generators.

Herein lies the problems with integrating windmills into the National Grid - if the wind stops, there's no time to fire up the power stations, boil the water, create the steam to power the generators to provide the power. Nuclear will follow but not with a high windmill penetration and will be very inefficient (i.e. expensive).

So ironically, you have to keep the power stations on "spinning standby" - burning fossil fuels to provide the heat to create the steam to generate the power - when the windmills suddenly stop spinning. Because you can't predict the weather. At all.

So the government, in all its cretinous wisdom via the ignorant green lobbyist, such as the torch-bearing Greenpeace villagers, has decided to spend all your hard earned taxes in order to save face and kowtow to the ridiculous EU bumfest of dumbing us down to a Stone Age man scenario, to procure thousands of inefficient diesel powered inefficient (~30%) standby generators (STOR) to stopgap the sudden drop in power capacity.

And of course, as an affront to persons such as pjclarke, vociferous incumbents of the CAGW religion, they've just increased the total output of CO2 compared with the normal infrastructure of a mix of nuclear, coal fired and CCGT power stations running at 40-60% efficiency.

And as for the argument of localising CCGT turndown by linking output from windfarms, this is nonsense as CCGTs operate at the most efficient by running in full spinning load rather than rapid ramping up and down, which causes more CO2 output and of course, has an impact in reducing longevity of the mechanical turning parts in its operation.

It's madness, as any engineer would state. And yet, through the dumbed down media and dumbed down populace, this insanity still prevails. But fortunately, thanks to the Age of Information, this will end quicker than you think. Especially when you follow the money of cheap energy being the nirvana of any nation.

hyperD
20th September 2013, 10:42
Aye.

You should have seen it around here 20,000 years ago.

All those glaciers.

Nice blue ice for the g&t.

Magick.

Blue ice for G&T - now that's an idea.

Ticktock
20th September 2013, 11:52
Blue ice for G&T - now that's an idea.

Antifreeze will freeze if you get it cold enough.

amcdonald
20th September 2013, 12:09
Blue ice for G&T - now that's an idea.

Elderly chavs would love it