Very soon the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will surpass 400 ppm. This means that since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have increased the concentration of this greenhouse gas by 50%. Industrial processes have added 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere within 200 years.
At the height of the last ice age the amount of carbon in the atmosphere stood at 400 billion tons. To warm up the atmosphere to a sufficient level to create the balmy inter-glacial climate nature then added another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Nature alone accomplished this over a period of tens of thousands of years. We have added another 200 billion tons in just 200 years or so. Global average temperatures are going to rise again and this is indisputable.
Far from reducing the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind is in fact stepping up the rate.
It has been known since the time of the scientist Arrhenius that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global average temperatures by between 3 and 5 degrees celcius. This means that we have stored up an average increase of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celcius since the industrial revolution.We are probably in a dangerous predicament already.
The time for action is now, as our species and others may not have time to adapt to the new climatic conditions. Some areas of the planet may in fact become cooler whilst other areas become much warmer to compensate. We are already facing changes to weather patterns caused by global warming and this is set to be exacerbated.
Scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock have warned us about the future and they are doing this because they are genuinely concerned about the future of mankind. The time for action is now, so we need to manage the reduction of greenhouse gas production. We may have to face the politically difficult problem of managing mankind's fertility as well to help reduce the population of the planet without war or starvation.
If we do not tackle these problems urgently, we face the possibility of nature curbing our numbers without any form of human emotion or sympathy.
Let us hope that we can act before it is too late.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Waco Texas explosion
The tragedy resulting from the explosion of the fertiliser factory exposes the dangers of large explosions.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Buildings were destroyed at a considerable distance from the factory. The blast could be heard 45 miles away and the power of the explosion registered 2.1 on the Richter scale; it created a minor earthquake. Had the explosion happened in the middle of a city hundreds if not thousands of people could have died.
But this explosion is nothing compared to a thermonuclear one. If an H Bomb exploded in NewYork, Moscow or London millions would die. It makes me wonder why we had to invent such weapons in the first place.
A stable and democratic nation was the first to use the less powerful A bombs with the result that hundreds of thousands of civilians died. If Adolf Hitler had developed the A bomb first there is no doubt in my mind that he would have used them without mercy to obliterate Russian and British cities. We must hope that an unstable nation is never able to deploy such weapons. But I fear that sometime in the future this could happen.
We cannot reverse history and "un-invent" nuclear weapons. The Western powers did little to stop Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons and the Eastern powers have also been unable to restrain North Korea. This could lead to the possibility of another arm race where Iran feels no moral restraint to creating a nuclear weapon. Japan also has the the ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
I doubt that the human species has the sense to impose nuclear disarmament on itself so I fear it is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Death of a Famous Person
I can see no reason why anyone should celebrate the death of Mrs Thatcher. With regard to politics you should always separate the policies from the person. If she had not become Prime Minister someone else would have probably introduced similar policies as, rightly or wrongly, the UK population were in the mood for a change.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
I see no reason for violent demonstrations during her funeral and I hope everyone shows restraint.
You can probably infer from my opinions that I am of a liberal frame of mind and I disagreed with most of her policies. Not everything that she did was bad, however, and she was one of the first world leaders to recognise the problems of climate change and global warming but I doubt if she will be remembered for that.
Everyone should remember that she has close family and friends who want to grieve her passing and they deserve some peace of mind.
I could never understand how anyone could grieve for somebody who was not a really close family member or friend. I could not grieve for John Lennon, when he died, even though I loved his music so much. I said to myself it is a shame that such a great musician will no longer be composing or performing. I just played one of his records in his memory. I felt the same when Patrick Moore died and I treated myself to reading some of his work in his honour.
I shall not watch the funeral or mourn her death but I shall not be celebrating either. That is the most rational way for me to react.
Friday, 15 February 2013
Richard III remains
I remain sceptical that the remains found in a Leicester car park are in fact those of Richard III. I have two grounds for this.
The radio carbon dating cannot, exactly, narrow down the year of death of the skeleton. The radio carbon dating estimates that the person in the grave died between the years of 1450 and 1540. Richard III died in 1485. There is a considerable chance that the human buried there died before 1450.
Genetic evidence is rarely conclusive. The scientists have only made "matches" for mitochondrial DNA. They have not matched nuclear DNA. The findings have not been peer reviewed yet. There could be other living people who have the same match but are not on the genealogical line. If such a person is discovered it would cast doubt about the identity of the person buried in Greyfriars church.
We do not have known samples of Richard III DNA to make a direct comparison.
We should be careful to assume absolutely that these are the remains of Richard III. We should also be careful that the team investigating the remains are not making the facts fit the desired result.
There is strong circumstantial evidence but none of it is incontrovertible. When incontrovertible evidence is forthcoming I shall believe that they have found Richard III's grave.
There has been a lot of publicity and hullabaloo surrounding the remains and this type of PR activity makes me suspicious. The newspapers just seem to blindingly accept what the Richard III society and the University of Leicester are claiming. There seems to have been no real critical examination of the claims.
The Government and the Head of State have made no official comment and there seem to be no preparations being made for an official burial. The State is right to remain guarded until there is absolute proof.
I remind readers that scientists have made PR statements of a tenuous nature before and with "99% certainty". Every one could have reasonable grounds to believe that a meteorite discovered in Antarctica contained fossilised Martian microbes. This discovery was greeted with well founded scepticism. The microbes turned out to be an artifacts. But this does not mean to say that life or evidence of it will not be found on Mars itself.
We were also assured at a press conference that scientists at CERN had discovered Neutrinos that could travel faster than light. This, if proven to be true, would have over turned Einstein's theories of relativity. It turned out to be a measurement error. The sceptics were right to warn against jumping to conclusions before there was absolute proof positive.
But , of course, nearly every one wants to believe -but not me.
The radio carbon dating cannot, exactly, narrow down the year of death of the skeleton. The radio carbon dating estimates that the person in the grave died between the years of 1450 and 1540. Richard III died in 1485. There is a considerable chance that the human buried there died before 1450.
Genetic evidence is rarely conclusive. The scientists have only made "matches" for mitochondrial DNA. They have not matched nuclear DNA. The findings have not been peer reviewed yet. There could be other living people who have the same match but are not on the genealogical line. If such a person is discovered it would cast doubt about the identity of the person buried in Greyfriars church.
We do not have known samples of Richard III DNA to make a direct comparison.
We should be careful to assume absolutely that these are the remains of Richard III. We should also be careful that the team investigating the remains are not making the facts fit the desired result.
There is strong circumstantial evidence but none of it is incontrovertible. When incontrovertible evidence is forthcoming I shall believe that they have found Richard III's grave.
There has been a lot of publicity and hullabaloo surrounding the remains and this type of PR activity makes me suspicious. The newspapers just seem to blindingly accept what the Richard III society and the University of Leicester are claiming. There seems to have been no real critical examination of the claims.
The Government and the Head of State have made no official comment and there seem to be no preparations being made for an official burial. The State is right to remain guarded until there is absolute proof.
I remind readers that scientists have made PR statements of a tenuous nature before and with "99% certainty". Every one could have reasonable grounds to believe that a meteorite discovered in Antarctica contained fossilised Martian microbes. This discovery was greeted with well founded scepticism. The microbes turned out to be an artifacts. But this does not mean to say that life or evidence of it will not be found on Mars itself.
We were also assured at a press conference that scientists at CERN had discovered Neutrinos that could travel faster than light. This, if proven to be true, would have over turned Einstein's theories of relativity. It turned out to be a measurement error. The sceptics were right to warn against jumping to conclusions before there was absolute proof positive.
But , of course, nearly every one wants to believe -but not me.
Monday, 21 January 2013
The Sahel Emergency
Once again the west is getting involved in a war in Mali under the pretext of heading off terrorism. I cannot help thinking that this policy will not work. The French soldiers are being held as liberators at present but if they remain for a long time they will start to become regarded as occupiers. This will feed resentment and further opposition in the local population.
Terrorists where ever they are and whoever they may be must be stopped. I believe that it is better to deploy most of our resources to track down the small number of terrorist leaders and then capture them and put them on trial. They should be imprisoned, if found guilty, rather than executed.
Justice will then be seen to be done. The communities, from which the terrorists draw their tacit support, will then see the protagonists for what they really are and withdraw their backing.
Troops which are used as invasion forces should be re-deployed to protect key installations and infrastructure directly.
In Mali, there might just be a case for using foreign troops to prevent a guerrilla army overrunning the country and imposing laws which do not have popular support. This army should remain no longer than is necessary and should withdraw when the threat is eliminated. They should not outstay their welcome.
Terrorists where ever they are and whoever they may be must be stopped. I believe that it is better to deploy most of our resources to track down the small number of terrorist leaders and then capture them and put them on trial. They should be imprisoned, if found guilty, rather than executed.
Justice will then be seen to be done. The communities, from which the terrorists draw their tacit support, will then see the protagonists for what they really are and withdraw their backing.
Troops which are used as invasion forces should be re-deployed to protect key installations and infrastructure directly.
In Mali, there might just be a case for using foreign troops to prevent a guerrilla army overrunning the country and imposing laws which do not have popular support. This army should remain no longer than is necessary and should withdraw when the threat is eliminated. They should not outstay their welcome.
Decadence and Snow
Once again our country ( UK) is brought to standstill by a few inches of snow. Last Friday twelve hours before a flake fell one of the London Region's train companies declared an emergency timetable. They cancelled a number of rush hour trains. This is sheer decadence.
There was a real emergency going on in Algeria and now doubt the Foreign and Defence Ministries would have appreciated all their staff getting to work on time.
The BBC was constantly giving us reports about the extreme weather. We are not having extreme weather: minus 1 Celcius and 4 inches of snow is not extreme weather. Why was the BBC not calling into account the railway companies who claim that they could not run the trains when there is a few inches of snow?
I have had the pleasure of working in Hamburg in the winter. The temperatures are much colder and the snow is deeper. They use the same electric three rail system as London. Their trains run on time in winter; why can't ours?
The residents of Prague, New York and Moscow must be laughing at us.
Today, 5,000 schools were closed because of 4 inches of snow. Once again the BBC did not question a Headmaster who said he had closed his school because a pupil might slip over and break an arm. Does this mean that he should cancel all football and rugby lesson for fear of a broken arm? What would he do if the snow fell for six weeks? This happened in 1962.
In 1962 our winter could just about manage to be called extreme; the snow and freezing temperatures lasted for weeks. All the schools remained open and the buses kept running we did not miss a day of school. We are a much richer country now and have much more resources. We could easily keep the schools open and the buses and trains running through a few inches of snow.
What we are lacking is the will, mental attitude and vitality to keep things going when there is a minor in convenience and such decadence could see us off.
It is a good job that the police, fire brigade and ambulance men and women do not have the same mental weakness.
When some climbers had a tragic accident in Scotland over the weekend many brave mountain rescuers faced the snow to help them. Perhaps some mountain rescuers could be seconded to run our schools and railways. They are brave enough to get the job done.
It is also a good job that the armed services do not refuse to rescue hostages or sailors in distress during a real emergency because of the prospect of bad weather. Where would we be then?
There was a real emergency going on in Algeria and now doubt the Foreign and Defence Ministries would have appreciated all their staff getting to work on time.
The BBC was constantly giving us reports about the extreme weather. We are not having extreme weather: minus 1 Celcius and 4 inches of snow is not extreme weather. Why was the BBC not calling into account the railway companies who claim that they could not run the trains when there is a few inches of snow?
I have had the pleasure of working in Hamburg in the winter. The temperatures are much colder and the snow is deeper. They use the same electric three rail system as London. Their trains run on time in winter; why can't ours?
The residents of Prague, New York and Moscow must be laughing at us.
Today, 5,000 schools were closed because of 4 inches of snow. Once again the BBC did not question a Headmaster who said he had closed his school because a pupil might slip over and break an arm. Does this mean that he should cancel all football and rugby lesson for fear of a broken arm? What would he do if the snow fell for six weeks? This happened in 1962.
In 1962 our winter could just about manage to be called extreme; the snow and freezing temperatures lasted for weeks. All the schools remained open and the buses kept running we did not miss a day of school. We are a much richer country now and have much more resources. We could easily keep the schools open and the buses and trains running through a few inches of snow.
What we are lacking is the will, mental attitude and vitality to keep things going when there is a minor in convenience and such decadence could see us off.
It is a good job that the police, fire brigade and ambulance men and women do not have the same mental weakness.
When some climbers had a tragic accident in Scotland over the weekend many brave mountain rescuers faced the snow to help them. Perhaps some mountain rescuers could be seconded to run our schools and railways. They are brave enough to get the job done.
It is also a good job that the armed services do not refuse to rescue hostages or sailors in distress during a real emergency because of the prospect of bad weather. Where would we be then?
Monday, 10 December 2012
Doha Climate Change Conference
Once again another climate change conference has concluded without there being any real progress. The world has not decided to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. In fact there is going to be an increase. In the foreseeable future there is no hope of us gaining control of our emissions and mitigating the probable dangerous effects of climate change.
http://us.oneworld.net/doha?gclid=CMzkg-vJj7QCFW3KtAod2ykAnQ
Consider this: since the industrial revolution the amount carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 200 billion tons. It is a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Between the end of the last glacial period, about 18,000 years ago, and the the start of the industrial revolution nature exchanged 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere. Nature had added a considerable quantity of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but with only minimal intervention from mankind.
It took a long time, but this addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was sufficient to melt most the ice covering the northern parts of Europe and Asia and to raise sea levels by tens of metres. However, during the 18,000 years since the last glacial period the earth returned three or four times back into glacial conditions and come out of them again.
The inter glacial period looks as though it is now fully established. Or is it?
During the Younger Dryas, about 13,000 years ago, the earth suddenly went back into full ice age conditions for a period of about 1,300 years. When the earth returned again, to inter glacial conditions, the change only took 50 to 70 years.
Three possible causes of the return to ice age conditions 13,000 years ago have been posited: a huge influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic, a volcano which emitted billions of tons of dust into the atmosphere or a large meteorite hitting the earth.
Whatever the cause, nature alone was able to change the climate and weather very suddenly. Adding an extra 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will not be without consequence. But, the consequence might not be the gradual and uniform increase in temperatures as predicted at the climate change conferences. We could be faced with the possibility of changes to the global distribution of heat.
The northern regions of the planet could cool down whilst the tropics heat up even more. Global average temperatures would still continue to increase. A slight change to the global heat distribution of the planet could suddenly initiate temporary ice age conditions in the northern hemisphere.
The quick onset of ice age conditions could be more dangerous than rising sea levels. How deep are your water pipes buried?
We are just as much a part of nature as any other creature and one could claim that what is happening to the atmosphere is perfectly natural. We are, however, the only creatures who can foresee the consequences of our own actions. The trouble is the damage we have already done to our own interests may now be irreversible.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
http://us.oneworld.net/doha?gclid=CMzkg-vJj7QCFW3KtAod2ykAnQ
Consider this: since the industrial revolution the amount carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 200 billion tons. It is a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Between the end of the last glacial period, about 18,000 years ago, and the the start of the industrial revolution nature exchanged 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere. Nature had added a considerable quantity of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but with only minimal intervention from mankind.
It took a long time, but this addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was sufficient to melt most the ice covering the northern parts of Europe and Asia and to raise sea levels by tens of metres. However, during the 18,000 years since the last glacial period the earth returned three or four times back into glacial conditions and come out of them again.
The inter glacial period looks as though it is now fully established. Or is it?
During the Younger Dryas, about 13,000 years ago, the earth suddenly went back into full ice age conditions for a period of about 1,300 years. When the earth returned again, to inter glacial conditions, the change only took 50 to 70 years.
Three possible causes of the return to ice age conditions 13,000 years ago have been posited: a huge influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic, a volcano which emitted billions of tons of dust into the atmosphere or a large meteorite hitting the earth.
Whatever the cause, nature alone was able to change the climate and weather very suddenly. Adding an extra 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will not be without consequence. But, the consequence might not be the gradual and uniform increase in temperatures as predicted at the climate change conferences. We could be faced with the possibility of changes to the global distribution of heat.
The northern regions of the planet could cool down whilst the tropics heat up even more. Global average temperatures would still continue to increase. A slight change to the global heat distribution of the planet could suddenly initiate temporary ice age conditions in the northern hemisphere.
The quick onset of ice age conditions could be more dangerous than rising sea levels. How deep are your water pipes buried?
We are just as much a part of nature as any other creature and one could claim that what is happening to the atmosphere is perfectly natural. We are, however, the only creatures who can foresee the consequences of our own actions. The trouble is the damage we have already done to our own interests may now be irreversible.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
