Polo Res.(See LSE:POL) Share Discussion Threads

[azalea] 21/12/2009 13:00

As global population growth races ahead the demand for clean water increases even further against a backgroung of dwindling supplies. The only solution will be to build nuclear plants dedicated to desalinate sea water. This combined with the need for more nuclear plants to meet the ever increasing demand for electricity, could see demand for uranium outstrip supply by 2015.

[humbugg] 21/12/2009 08:35

bloody hell fordtin, elban. im going for a lie down after reading those posts.
;-))
zangdook,
this ones for you....3p coming very soon imho.

[chris001] 21/12/2009 07:08

I find a major cause of going o/t on the weekends is due to increase in blood pressure from frustration of a company's share price in the previous 5 days, a graph can be made to show the divergence between BP/share price also remember to exclude tree ring data from the last day because it dont make sense with the previous 4 days.

now back to Polo ( not the one with a hole in it )

[zangdook] 21/12/2009 03:13

Look, there are lots of global warming threads. Here's the first one from the top of the list



This thread is for PRL

[chris001] 21/12/2009 00:19

interesting stuff Fortin & ELBAN,

"The world only has a finite amount of economically recoverable natural resources. The global warming card is being used to promote recycling and energy efficiency, not a bad thing as such, just a sly way of deceiving the public."

been banging on about that to everyone myself, also about culling half the world population to solve the problem, however they think my plan would be a little extreme :-)

Another point, I remember reading a study from Cardiff University that covered 500,000 years showed climate change had more to do with vegetation ( STOP CUTTING DOWN THE BLOODY RAIN FORESTS ).

[fordtin] 20/12/2009 13:08

The great thing about this topic is none of us will be proven right or wrong until it's too late, so I might as well add my two bobs worth to pass the time.



There are so many factors which have potential to change the global climate, but these politicians seem to be blinkered to all possibilities except co2 produced by human activity.

Every single day the Mid-ocean ridges spew out all manner of gases and contaminants through many thousands of submarine volcanoes strung out over a strike length of around 40,000km. These ever growing underwater mountain ranges continually change the deep water currents flowing around the Earth. As the varying currents change the dissipation and distribution of heat, the world's weather will change and I seriously doubt humans will be able to have any significant influence on these natural events.

As the American continental plates continually drift away from Europe and Africa, the widening ocean causes additional changes in the oceanic currents. In the process of drifting, the American plates are riding up over the top of the Nazca and Pacific plates, producing seismic and volcanic activity. Combine the enlargement of the Atlantic ocean with the reduction in size of the Pacific ocean and the growing mountain ranges, these activities must surely have a profound effect on weather and oceanic currents.

Canada is still rising up after a huge glacier melted which had been pressing down on the continent and creating a dent in the Earth's surface. As Canada's shores rise above sea level the displaced water has to go somewhere else, thus making more changes to oceanic currents.

The moon is gradually moving away from the Earth, reducing it's effect on the tides.

The Earth's magnetic field last reversed polarity around 30,000 years ago, nobody really knows when it will reverse again but some say it could be imminent. Nobody really knows what effect a reversal of the magnetic poles could have on the moon's orbit, but it seems very likely that it could alter and thus influence the tides and consequently oceanic currents and weather patterns.

The list of natural events which can, and do, affect global temperature just goes on and on, but it doesn't seem to matter whether the global warming models are right or wrong, the western world's governments have got themselves into an unprecedented mess and think they've found an excuse to raise taxes whilst avoiding disclosure of the real problems.

The western world has seriously screwed up by closing down much of it's manufacturing capabilities in favour of cheap Asian goods. The time will come when China and India's domestic markets develop to a self sustainable level and then the western world will see what it's like to be the poorer cousin. - The global warming card might be able to put the brakes on them for a while and give them time to think of a cunning plan.

The world only has a finite amount of economically recoverable natural resources. The global warming card is being used to promote recycling and energy efficiency, not a bad thing as such, just a sly way of deceiving the public.

IMO the only effective way to deal with the strain on natural resources, the environment, life the universe and everything, is to cap the human population, or stop the world and tell some to get off. Anyone fancy life on Mars?


Merry Christmas everybody

[elban] 20/12/2009 12:10

chris001
if you put a blanket on your bed tonight, you would expect it to be warmer (the Physics is exactly the same). Just because it was warmer six months ago, doesn't mean that the blanket has no effect.

It does certainly appear that certain parts of the globe were warmer for a period a thousand years ago - but the ice in the artic didn't melt and the ice cores dont reveal a prolonged warmer global temperature for then.

[chris001] 20/12/2009 10:24

thats how the viking's could plant their crops in area's where it is covered in snow these days

[chris001] 20/12/2009 10:20

Until these people can explain to me how it was warmer in 1000AD (generally excepted by historians) Im not buying it, I'm not saying that humans are not making a contribution to CO2 levels.

[elban] 20/12/2009 09:55

humbugg - a sustained drop for 2 years - as predicted by the models.
After that the released gasses contribute to global warming.
Pinatubo was the first major sign that the predictions could actually work on a global level.

azalea, agreed, the chinese may say that they will cut emissions - but they have no intention of doing so. "We agrre to large cuts - but no way are we going to let you check"

[azalea] 20/12/2009 09:43

In essence, the outcome of the Copenhagen summit safeguards the continued use of coal on a massive scale in China and secures the long term prospects for PRL resources in Mongolia. The meeting's failure highlighted the essential obstacle to any legally binding agreement being achieved in the future - verification. The Chinese will not allow access by hundreds of U.N.inspectors.

[humbugg] 20/12/2009 09:16

elban,
question for you...
when mount pinatubo erupted in the philippines in 1991 putting more sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere than any volcano for at least 100 years. the worlds scientists were equipped with modern technology to capture all the data. the atmospheric aftereffects of pinatubo were un deniable. a decrease in ozone, more diffuse sunlight, and yes, a sustained drop in global temperature. explain please.

[zangdook] 20/12/2009 06:17

There must be a global warming thread this discussion could be taken to, if it's to continue.

[elban] 20/12/2009 01:14

There is so much ignorance about global warming.
carbon dioxide is transparent to most of the photon energy from the Sun, but reflects the much lower infrared photon energy from the Earth - it thus acts like the glass in a greenhouse, by increasing the energy trapped within the Earth system. This can not be sensible to argue with.

The only real question is how much warming will the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause. This is where the complex computer models come in.

In the past there have been other reasons for temperature fluctuations, but it is extremely easy to rule out the same causes out for the present changes. We know that the variation of energy output from the Sun is not to blame because we accurately measure its output. We know that we are not on one of the parts of the orbit that is a bit close than usual to the Sun. We know that the Earth is not experiencing rapid geological changes, because we would have noticed all the volcanoes popping-off and covering continents with lava.

People talk about temperatures rising from 10 degrees to 12 degrees and it sounds like a lot. But this is only because we use a false definition of temperature; on the real scale 0 centigrade = 273 Kelvin so a rise from 283 to 285 kelvin wouldn't seem much considering how much CO2 we have emitted.

It is very rarely mentioned, but the interesting question is "why has all this emitted CO2 not caused more warming already?" The soot particles in smoke reflecting the Sun's rays was one answer, the seas holding more than expected was another.

I think that the recent summit was useless. Giving money to poor countries to help them develop in ways that minimise CO2 emission seems a worthy goal but doomed to fail. The highest polluters are the most developed countries, if the poor countries undergo development they will polute more. Pay for them to build a dam and they will get hydroelectic (clean) power. But they will generate money from the companies that use this and expand consumption and increase their power demand beyond that of the dam - causing them to build coal power stations. This is the way the world works.

In all but the worst recessions, the only thing that limits oil usage is the rate at which developed countries can obtain it. The main limit on China's present consumption of coal is the rate that they can build and supply coal power stations.

In the uk, we say we are leading the way, but we have only outsourced CO2 emission by closing our manufacturers and importing the same goods from less clean factories in China. More New Labour spin.

[azalea] 19/12/2009 12:36

humbugg
IF CO2 emissions are not the fundamental cause of climate change(as opposed to climate warming)then it merely serves to demonstrate the confusion and divisions as to what is happening to the planet, if indeed anything but a cyclical change.

I am not aware of any significant "good environmental stewardship. Rivers,lakes,seas and oceans are increasingly polluted and plundered, whilst deforestation is rampant in S.America, Indonesia and Borneo. China's industrial revolution is pouring pollutants into the atmosphere on an unprecedented scale and will continue to do so for years to come.

Global population is growing at an alarming rate despite increasing evidence of millions facing death from the consequences of malnutrition.The projected global population by 2040 is frightening and unsustainable. Despite all this, hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted in sending men to the moon and billions will be spent in sending men to Mars.

If I was allowed to give only just one warning to young people today, it would be to say "do not have any children".

[humbugg] 19/12/2009 11:41

azalea,
CO2???
carbon dioxide is not a mojor greenhouse gas. the major greenhouse gas is water vapor. climate models dont know how to handle water vapor and various types of clouds. that is the elephant in the room. carbon may have had little to do with recent warming. instead, all heavy pollution we generated in earlier decades seems to have cooled the atmosphere by dimming the sun. remember global cooling that caught the scientists attention in the 70s. the trend began to reverse when we started cleaning up the air. so most of the warming seen over the past few decades might actually be due to good envirnmental stewardship.
over to you.

[doji star] 18/12/2009 20:00

China + Coal(coking coal shortage) and uranium, need I say more.

A little disappointed it's started to move up, I was going to add some more at the end of the month.

oh well, I guess with EXT @ $8.5 and CDN @ 44p, it's not surprising it's started to move up.

[azalea] 18/12/2009 18:05

tadska
In the main, global warming may well prove to be natural, however there is little doubt that burning fossil fuels is a contributing factor. The issue is not whether rich countries are willing to stump up $ billions to combat CO2 emissions, but instead one of experts all agreeing on the best ways of reducing them. Reducing the burning of fossil fuels is not an option. A worldwide imposition of a cash incentivised birth control programme is certainly one, planting of hundreds of millions of trees and a virtual total ban on deforestation are others.

[tadska] 18/12/2009 16:38

Copenhagen will not stop that whats happening in a world, because nothink is happening, global warming is natural.

[azalea] 18/12/2009 16:19

A 1.8m buy. I think this signals the bottom for PRL share price If I had the cash I would buy now.

Edit: As I wrote, buys were piling in. Does that mean there is nothing doing at Copenhagen to cut coal emissions?

[unkle77] 18/12/2009 15:49

Caledon Resources CDN

[azalea] 18/12/2009 11:19

Coal is the cheapest energy resource for generating electricity in the U.S. and no politicians there whose voters depend on mining it are going to vote for a reduction in its use. This in turn will give the green light to China ( a supposed developing country whose growth in GDP outpaces all others), to continue burning coal for at least the next decade in order to feed its ever increasing demand for electricity.

[brian1944] 18/12/2009 09:02

reports on blomberg last night shortages of coking coal in china.

[steeplejack] 17/12/2009 15:40

Well said SoundBuy.This is an enigma and i'm not able to puzzle it out.Too late to sell and frankly 'til they market themselves-which Polo are clearly failing to do-too early to buy.