Carbon footprint question

The chief of whom threatened to sue the program makers for misrepresenting what he said.

Why not read ALL the feedback on that program.

Hardly.

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

Its not so much an absorber, as an insulator.

All of which is completely contrary to the data.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Good grief. I am smply gobsmacked.

Between the FOE 'doom is nigh' bollocks, and the 'it isn't happening' bollocks, what ever happened to the sane hugely documented and very very careful science?

Well there seems little hope that anyone will do anything about it now.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:43:09 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway Handyman" wrote this:-

A highly amusing assertion.

An even more amusing assertion.

formatting link
is a good starting point for those who wish to consider this assertion.

Reply to
David Hansen

Ships measure consumption in miles per tonne. Looking at some figures I got from various sources on the internet, it seems that the trip from Hong Kong to Harwich is around 9,700 miles and would use about 1,400 tonnes of fuel oil. That is 187 kgs of fuel per 40ft container for a 15,000 TEU container ship. DoT figures give an average of 319 g/km for an artic capable of carrying a 40 ft container travelling on a motorway, so the fuel needed to get the container from China would get it about another 365 miles by road, assuming no urban driving and no hold-ups.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

If all of this were being handled on a purely scientific basis without the vested interests, political twists, media hype, taxation opportunities and all the rest of it, it would be possible for it to be taken more seriously.

There are all kinds of "might happen" doomsday scenarios where one could use this analogy. They don't receive the same air time and if anyone used it in connection with them it would likely be deemed ridiculous.

It seems that in connection with this particular issue, any kind of analogy, loose correlation, emotional blackmail and so forth is considered fair game and is justified for the cause.

It's dishonesty of the highest order.

Reply to
Andy Hall

That would assume that one considers the Independent as a reliable source of information.

However, assuming that Wunsch has been quoted verbatim...

The first and penultimate paragraphs are the most telling.

At least he is honest enough to say that science is not mature enough to give definitive answers in a number of areas which are *actually* important - i.e. how to deal with the effects of climate change.

Otherwise the exercise does have shades of King Knut about it.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Exactly. That is the real problem. There is way too much pollution of information with emotion.

Reply to
Andy Hall

I do believe you have just described the Passive Smoking argument.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Your analogy would undoubtedly appeal to the greenwashers of FoE in terms of its emotional content, lack of relevance and inaccuracy. A more realistic one would be:-

"OK you lot in steerage - this your Captain speaking. We have hit an iceberg and although the Titanic can't sink it's important that you all run around doing something as every little helps - so each of you grab a teaspoon from that pile on the floor and get baling."

Reply to
Peter Parry

Reply to
Andy Hall

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. However I will rise to the bait. Shipping is the most efficient method of transporting freight in terms of fuel burned per tonne transported. Marine diesel engines are principally low or medium speed diesel engines burning 'heavy' fuel with efficiency close to 40%. It is simply stupid to try to make any comparison between aircraft and ships. Aircraft pay loads are measured in 10s of tonnes, ocean going ships' in increments of

10,000 tonnes. Marine diesel engines are more efficient than steam turbine power station that burn fossil fuels.
Reply to
Edward W. Thompson

The problem is that the science has only produced theories, lots of them, many of which are contradictory. Until at least one of those theories has produced accurate and repeatable predictions of future climate behaviour, they all remain theories. An ability to model what has happened in the past is a way to filter out the theories that do not work, it is not a proof of one that does work. The only current certainty about climate change is that it changes.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

Tell that to a fighter pilot.

Reply to
dennis

One hopes so. Even so shipping something 1000s of miles must be comparable with trucking it for 100s. And goods will still be trucked 100s of miles to and from ports on their journeys as well as the sea voyage.

Reply to
John Stumbles

I'm unsure of how costs related to energy consumption in the mid 70s but we were told it cost double the amount per tonne to send round wood timber 55 miles to Southampton as it cost a Canadian east coast producer to send a similar product to Liverpool docks.

AJH

Reply to
AJH

As a kid I had a pal whose father owned a trawler. And I can remember it was possible for a kid to pull it into the jetty in the harbour by hand - just with the weight of one teenager. Try moving a lorry like that. ;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

snip

Container ships are no more 'energy' efficient than any other ship fitted with similarpropulsion engines. In fact it can be said they are less efficient as they are designed to be 'fast' (20 knots plus) Fast=higher fuel consumption.

Container ships efficiency is related to efficient handling of cargo thus reducing the in port time.

Reply to
Edward W. Thompson

My footprint is usually mud!

Reply to
Alan Holmes

And his farm shop is not organic!

Reply to
Alan Holmes

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.