At 03:11 28/06/2011, Natalie wrote:
Keith,
Mount Pinatubo, according to the USGS, emitted
20 million tonnes of cloud, less than Tambora in
1815, and less than Krakatua in 1883. Your
figures were possibly correct about Iceland, but
way off for Pinatubo in 1991. The global CO2 per
cap tonnage was at 4 in 2005, and world estimate
was placed at 27 billion tonnes.
The figures I quoted are derived from the work of
Ian Plimer, prof of mining geology at Adelaide University.
The first thing that struck me about your
reply was comparing natural emitting volcanic
eruption to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Wiki
has some fast answers. They say that only about
57% of man-made CO2 emissions are removed by
the biosphere. Coal and petroleum are the
leading cause, then deforestation, then change of land use.
I understand that ice core measurements can be
unreliable for studying past centuries,
millennia, and that Somata (plant fossils) and
S. pole air flasks are far more realistic in
their evaluations. However, though the average
pre-industrial p.p.m. numbers may have averaged
260-340 ppm, depending on how many volcanoes
erupted (a constant of 280 ppm was unrealistic
as Nature is unpredictable), and therefor
resulted in a likely pre-1750 average of about
305 ppm, the three indicators seem to agree on
the increments from 1957. 40 years ago, the
steady increase was 0.9%/yr. Since 2000, the
increase has been 1.9% annual elevation, and
today we are at about 2.2% or more.
It has still not yet been proved that this is a
cause of global warming. Vostok ice core samples
suggest that the causation is the other way round.
It's the steady recent increase that's most
worrisome. That and the fact that the CO2 is
way more toxic than mere volcanic emissions. It
only takes 3% of natural emissions to tip the
balancing effects of sinks, and we've more than
tipped it. So, when a volcano does go off,
we're setting the world up for a more impacting effect.
We not only have to stop anthropogenic CO2
emissions, we have to scrub the air of what's there that shouldn't be.
CO2 is only toxic at extremely high
concentrations. Otherwise, it's a necessity for
the existing repertoire of life forms.
Anthropogenic CO2 is only a very small fraction
of what is emitted naturally -- and the latter is
in long-term decline anyway. The warming effect
of CO2 is only a fraction of that of water vapour
and other gases such as CH4. Too little is known
yet of other possible contributory effects --
cloud cover, seeding effects of cosmic radiation,
thermal effects of ocean currents.
So far, IPCC warnings have been so much over the
top that I prefer to wait until a much more
precise model emerges from, and is agreed by climatologists more widely.
Keith
NataliA
On 6/27/2011 1:26 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
At 06:11 27/06/2011, Natalie wrote:
Way too much credit to Darwin here, Keith.
Biology is big, but I doubt it will come close
to the industries this planet must quickly act
upon to save itself. I believe that
eliminating the carbon output is the first
priority--like by 2020, or the oceans will
die. Biology will contribute to that end, but
the world just simply has to stop the emissions.
Your point is taken about why Islamic
countries seem rather stuck, but they are keen
to hold on to their control of the energy
markets, and are seriously hoping to install
renewables to 10% of total output by 2020, and
up to 80% by 2050 (-- unfortunately, not
urgent enough). They know that oil has seen
its day. They have so much solar potential
alone that they envision energy exports to
Europe and Africa in the near future. Perhaps
sustainables, if they can stay away from
nuclear, will help them out of the stagnation
far sooner than what Western influences have in mind for them.
The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland
produced in four days more CO2 than all the CO2
saved by Carbon emission controls have achieved
in the last four years. When Mount Pinatubo
erupted in 1991 it spewed out more CO2 than the
entire human race has emitted in its entire
existence on earth. We have 200 volcanoes
active every day. Because all of this CO2 is
being extracted (via bacteria, etc) every day
in the form of carbonates in spent sea-shells
on sea bottoms then it keeps the atmospheric CO2 pretty small.
The famous hockey-stick graph produced by the
IPCC some years was, of course, retracted
because it was an artificial gluing together
of entirely different graphs and designed to
scare the punters. The IPCC has reduced its
dire forecasts so many times and so
significantly over the past few years that it's
risible (in my opinion Pachauri is a fraud if
ever there was one -- a multi-millionaire now,
crying all the way to the ban). But what the
same IPCC computers and graphs are still not
showing are the Little Ice Age (when the Thames
used to freeze over) or the previous Medieval
Warm Period (about as hot as now, perhaps a
little warmer) or the Bronze Age Warm Period
when it was much hotter and the Shetland
islands and Iceland were covered in farms.
Until the IPCC can produce an adequate theory
of why our present warm period is no more than
one of the usual blips that occur every few
hundred years, then I remain a sceptic. I take
counsel from the minority of eminent
climatologists and meteorologists who await
more evidence on this hugely complex matter before deciding.
Further to my mention of the murderous schisms
within the Islamic faith between the Sunnis and
Shias I learned even only yesterday the
undelightful fact that even the Shias are
divided between the 'Seveners' and the
'Twelvers'. Don't ask me what these mean.
Something to do with genealogical succession
from Mohammad I imagine. (Or it might be to do
with fertility! In which case, the Twelvers
ought really to become converted to Judaism
because the Hasidic Jews of Israel aim for at
least twelve children in their families because
they receive sizeable state welfare benefits --
more than enough to live very comfortably,
thank you. The father, anyway. I pity the poor mother.)
Keith
Natalia
BU DHABI, United Arab Emirates: Renewable
sources such as solar and wind could supply up
to 80 per cent of the worlds energy needs by
2050 and play a significant role in fighting
global warming, a top climate panel concluded Monday.
But the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change said that to achieve that level,
governments would have to do more to introduce
policies that integrate renewables into
existing power grids and promote their
benefits in terms of reducing air pollution and improving public health.
Authors said the report concluded that the use
of renewables is on the rise, their prices are
declining and that with the right policies,
and they will be an important tool both in
tackling climate change and helping poor
countries use the likes of solar or wind to
develop their economies in a sustainable fashion.
The report shows that it is not the
availability of the resource but the public
policies that will either expand or constrain
renewable energy development over the coming
decades, said Ramon Pichs, who co-chaired the
group tasked with producing the report.
Developing countries have an important stake
in this future this is where 1.4 billion
people without access to electricity live yet
also where some of the best conditions exist for renewable energy deployment.
Governments endorsed the renewable report
Monday after a four-day meeting. The
nonbinding scientific policy document is to
advise governments as they draw up policies
and to help guide the private sector as it considers areas in which to invest.
Activists said Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two
oil-rich states that dont have an interest in
alternatives, successfully watered down the
reports language on the cost benefits of
renewables a charge the Saudis denied,
saying they only were arguing to stick with
the science. Brazil, a major ethanol producer,
opposed language on the negative effects of
biofuels and hydro as well as the economic potential of other renewables.
The report reviewed bioenergy, solar energy,
geothermal, hydropower, ocean energy and wind.
It did not consider nuclear, so Pachauri said
the recent nuclear accident in Japan was not
discussed nor did it have any impact on the reports conclusions.
The IPCC has said swift, deep reductions in
use of non-renewables are required to keep
temperatures from rising more than 3.8 degrees
Fahrenheit (2 Celsius) above preindustrial
levels, which could trigger catastrophic climate impacts.
Stephan Singer, director for Global Energy
Policy at WWF International, welcomed the
report but said the IPCC should have gone
further. He said its studies have found that
the world could be fueled 100 per cent by renewables by 2050.
IPCC delivers a landmark report that shows
the rapid growth, low-cost potential for
renewable energy but unfortunately does not
endorse a 100 per cent renewable energy
pathway until 2050, Singer said in a statement.
We need to be fast if we want to tackle
pressing issues as varied as energy security
and efficiency and at the same time keep
climate change well below the danger threshold of 2 degrees.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawn.com%2F2011%2F05%2F09%2Frenewable-energy-key-in-climate-change-fight-un.html&title=Renewable%20energy%20key%20in%20climate%20change%20fight%3A%20UN&description=Dawn.com%20is%20your%20source%20for%20the%20latest%20breaking%20news%2C%20current%20events%20and%20top%20stories%20from%20Pakistan%2C%20South%20Asia%20and%20the%20world.>http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/09/renewable-energy-key-in-climate-change-fight-un.html
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawn.com%2F2011%2F05%2F09%2Frenewable-energy-key-in-climate-change-fight-un.html&title=Renewable%20energy%20key%20in%20climate%20change%20fight%3A%20UN&description=Dawn.com%20is%20your%20source%20for%20the%20latest%20breaking%20news%2C%20current%20events%20and%20top%20stories%20from%20Pakistan%2C%20South%20Asia%20and%20the%20world.>
On 6/25/2011 12:34 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
The basic reason why the populations of
Islamic countries in the Middle East have
little hope of improving their way of life
for many decades to come is that their
religious leaders are increasingly opposing
Western science as a whole (although
supportive of military technology). They've
actually been doing this for two or three
centuries or more, but it is now becoming
rampant. Even imams in Western mosques dare
not support Darwinism in their Friday sermons
for fear of being hounded out of office.
The fact is that Darwinian evolution is not,
as it were, a quaint (and slightly
old-fashioned) sub-set in the history of
science but the very basis of the
fastest-growing area of science today --
biology. Continuing progress within the
fields of medicine, neurophysiology,
agriculture, education and human behaviour
has no chance at all without evolutionary
genetics as the explanatory key and the basis
of all experimentation and subsequent
development. And it is in these fields,
rather than yet more of the consumer goods
and mass entertainments of the last 300
years, that economic growth in the Western countries has a chance of resuming.
There are many Muslims -- even biologists --
in the Islamic world who know this, but
they're in a very small minority --
microscopic even -- within their countries.
Goodness knows when they'll ever be allowed
to practise more freely and also to influence
public opinion. If politicians in the Western
countries genuinely want to bring the Islamic
countries out of medievalism then they ought
to be applying themselves as to how to
encourage science education in those
countries and not in fanning the flames of
social protest, when they occur, with
abstract notions such as 'democracy' --
procedures which, even now, are still pretty fragile in the West.
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
