It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating
capability than most "experts" give it credit for. Further, it
seems to me
that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while
instead
of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the
wrong
thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive.
Misguided,
high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened
world
economy.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM
To: vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=30717
New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat
paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the
atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies.
OK that is the finding. Now for the spin.
You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-
patch?) is
YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now
that know
that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of
biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2
- then
full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission
controls.
However, that is 'spin' not logic.
But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to
put a
totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the
scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline,
"even
steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the
climate." Huh?
Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double
negative
makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and
'apologetic' as
it may at first seem:
Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although
it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more
efficiently
under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When
exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy
get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode,
while
leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute
particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the
canopy
get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result,
plants
absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light.
But the
ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to
limit
CO2
Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And
the
'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost
exclusively to
the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global
dimming'
due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the
recent
past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net
greenhouse effect.
Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must
release
dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it
highlights
the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions.
If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not "thinking
responsibly".
Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics.
Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives.
The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps
are
misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is
one window
of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That
is- aside
from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that
we can
afford to buy those very high-priced solutions.
The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$
that we
want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon
credits,
carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into R&D for LENR, hydrino tech,
ZPE
tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-
facets
are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art,
intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than "real' science
permits.
But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my
intuition
tells me that success will be forthcoming.
We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real
culprit, nor
that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that
new energy
technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-
fourth to
half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is
the way
to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not
help
anyway).
So why are we waiting? Political inertia.
We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that
all-important seed money for risky R&D gone out to people who can
use it.
IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but
still
is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the
dollars
that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other
nonsense. Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has
not been
proved to be anywhere near the problem that the Gore-crew contend it
to be.
The real problem is bureaucratic inertia. Give the alternative
energy camp
the funds, and we will deliver.
I will now cede the soapbox to the Algore Alliance.
Jones
