wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,954
- Reactions
- 13,248
So you believe it's a great idea?
The planet is more serious trouble than I thought, but it ain't from CO2.
So you believe it's a great idea?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
the man's a genius (imho)- even Suzuki "praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path.""
my money's on Flannery - you blokes can bet on each other
Anthropogenic aerosols
Particles emitted during human activity are called anthropogenic aerosols. Anthropogenic aerosols can be either large (coarse particles) or small (fine particles). Dust from roads and construction sites (such as cement works) produces coarse mode anthropogenic aerosols whereas small fine mode aerosols are generated from fossil fuel combustion in power generation and vehicles and from high temperature industrial processes such as metal smelting.
Many of these aerosol have an impact on our climate, some also have an impact on our health. Particle concentrations are high in indoor air and dust mites, fibres, insect sprays and asbestos are all examples of aerosols which can be very dangerous to human health.
spoolyDon`t have any issue with this at all....
but on the introduction of sulphur
He's probably set back the cause of AGW propaganda by 10 years. The outrage is near unanimous.spooly
whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur...
think of it this way
he still has 17% of people to convince there's a problem.
But he says it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse."
"a radical suite of emergency measures "
"last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse"
"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."
Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM
To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The sulphur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulphate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulphate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.
…
The idea of injecting sulphates into the stratosphere, some 16 kilometres above the Earth's surface, was first proposed and quickly rejected three decades ago as a dangerous tinkering with natural processes.
But Wigley said he was prompted to pursue this angle when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist, recently suggested a new look at the notion of geoengineering, as this notion is known.
"I'm not suggesting we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy," Wigley said in a telephone interview. "I think that that's the only long-term solution to the problem of global warming, we definitely have to do that.
……….
On Earth, sulphur dioxide contributes to respiratory illness, aggravates heart and lung disease and contributes to acid rain. Power plants and other factories are the biggest producers.
But Wigley said the amount of sulphur dioxide needed for the geoengineering project would probably cause negligible pollution down on Earth's surface, because his model called for less than 10% additional sulphur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.
The technology exists now to put this plan into effect, but studies of economic feasibility are needed, he said. It has the potential to stall global warming for 20 years, to buy time for solutions to the problem, according to Wigley.
"We've got to consider it very seriously because otherwise we might be in for much worse things just due to emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," he said.
Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, since 1990, the trend has reversed.[1]
It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.
Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
Some species are thriving in their new climate, .... . The mountain pine beetle, a voracious bug about 3mm long, is having a field day, since warmer summers have allowed it to produce two generations per year instead of one. Moreover North American winters almost never get down to -40degF any more ( also = -40deg C incidentally) the temperature needed to kill the bug and its larvae.
As a result, the beetle population has exploded across the western US and Canada, killing millions of acres of trees. Forestry officials in Canada predict that if the beetle continues to spread at its current rate, 80 percent of Britsh Columbia's mature lodgepole pines - the provinces most abundant commercial specias - will be dead within five years.
Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM
To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The sulphur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulphate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Wigley used computer models to determine that injecting sulphate particles at intervals from one to four years would have about the same cooling power as the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines....
Ummm. What if, after "clever" humankind lobs tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect, a REAL volcano happens to erupt shortly after and doubles or triples the cooling effect?
Sounds like rolling dice to me.....AJ
A Global Warming Resumed in 1994, Climate Data Show
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS January 27, 1995
Whatever happened to global warming? The question was on many lips a year ago, when the northeastern United States suffered through its bitterest winter in years. Now an exceptionally warm winter has whipsawed perceptions about the world's climate once again. An answer has become apparent in annual climatic statistics in the last few days: global warming, interrupted as a result of the mid-1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, has resumed -- just as many experts had predicted.
Volcano's Eruption in Philippines May Counteract Global Warming
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS June 30, 1991
A global warming trend that began in the 1980's and has continued into 1991 could be offset over the next few years by atmospheric cooling caused by the eruption this month of the Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines, scientists say. The major factor at work in the climatic effect is not the familiar dust cloud, but a chemical reaction. Volcanic eruptions spew out vast quantities of sulfur dioxide gas that later combine with water to form tiny supercooled droplets.
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia ranks among the most powerful volcanic blasts in history. It spewed six cubic miles of ash and dirt into the air and disrupted the world's climate for several years........
If Krakatoa had never exploded, the researchers found, the ocean warming and rise in sea level that occurred in the 20th century because of human activity would have been worse. The only 20th-century eruption on a similar scale, the 1991 Mount Pinatubo explosion in the Philippines, had less of a lasting effect. Ocean temperatures recovered faster because by then the warming trend was in full swing.
The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice,[2] and generated the loudest sound historically reported: the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia approx. 1,930 miles (3,110 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius approx. 3,000 miles
Bomb Earth's atmosphere with sulphur, researcher says
Shock and awe campaign on global warming
By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC -1st August 2006 09:36 GMT
Firing artillery shells into the stratosphere to release sulphur particles could defeat global warming, climate researcher Paul Crutzen says.
In a paper to be published in the journal Climatic Change in August, the professor will explain his scheme in greater detail.
So far we have learned, from this press release, that sulphur particles can reflect sunlight well enough to lower the Earth's temperature, if that ever becomes necessary.
Crutzen reckons that the effect would last about two years. He bases this on observations of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which released significant quantities of sulphur into the atmosphere and may have lowered the Earth's average temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius. Or not.
Crutzen says he doesn't think of "climate engineering" as a first-line response to global warming, but if governments fail to enact the proper controls for greenhouse gas emissions, it might become a necessary emergency measure.
What could possibly go wrong? Oh, heaps of things. Very little is known about how sunlight affects weather patterns, so fiddling with it could result in anything from minor changes to catastrophic droughts throughout the world's most fertile regions.
On the other hand, we might already have come to depend on "global dimming" from air pollution to keep global warming at bay, so this artificial volcano idea might be the way back from disaster.
There is evidence suggesting that recent efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has caused a spike in global temperatures over the past decade. Without our protective layer of industrial pollutants, the Earth's atmosphere is now reflecting less solar radiation, and temperatures are rising. We could be rendering the planet uninhabitable just because we're afraid of a little shmutz in the air.
The message, then, that air pollution is good for the Earth, will no doubt resonate deeply with the Bush administration. And while the Bushies have been hostile toward the idea of global warming, certainly the idea of attacking a complicated problem with heavy artillery will appeal to them so strongly that we might see some action soon.
don't know if it will beat us ( although it has to be a strong possibility) , but ...'Climate change will beat us'
I guess Mr Garnaut feels a tad pessimistic about the prospects of humanity keeping it's own "nest" clean in the coming years......
60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is an essential target - but we have to recognise the awful arithmetic that we will have to do significantly better than that
Climate change bill blocked in US Senate
Posted 1 hour 8 minutes ago
Legislation in the United States to combat global warming has suffered a serious setback after Republicans in the Senate blocked efforts to bring the bill for a final vote.
Democratic Party leaders in the Senate fell 12 votes short of the 60 required to end a Republican delaying tactic on the measure.
The bill would have put a cap on carbon emissions, introducing a target cut of 70 per cent by the middle of the century.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it would be wrong to support a bill that damaged the economy.
"The President supports tackling the problem of climate change in a way that will be effective, meaning that it would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world in a way that would not harm our economy," she said.
Swan calls for broad emissions trading scheme
Posted 3 hours 3 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 12 minutes ago
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has hinted fuel could be included in the emissions trading program to be unveiled by the Rudd Government at the end of the year.
On a trip to London, Mr Swan criticised his opposition counterpart Malcolm Turnbull for suggesting the Opposition wanted individual fuel consumption kept out of the new scheme.
Mr Swan has told ABC Radio's AM program that the emissions trading scheme should be as broad as possible.
"We will be publishing a green paper next month which will open the discussion about this question, .......
"Well Mr Turnbull is on the record arguing for the inclusion (of petrol) on an emissions trading scheme, ....," he said.
Petrol tax impact 'in doubt'By Julian Drape
June 07, 2008 03:06pm
...
1. Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says the Government is divided on the issue. "They seem hopelessly divided," he said.
....
2. Mr Hunt called on the Government to explain how "whacking a great new 20-cent tax" on petrol would decrease emissions.
"We have serious reservations and scepticism about petrol tax, given that prices have increased four-fold in the last decade and petrol volume hasn't changed at all," he said.
"Can they explain how a 20-cent tax will decrease emissions?"
3. The Opposition was yet to take a "formal position" on including fuel in the ETS, he said.
"We want to see the modelling."
4. Mr Swan said if the Opposition argued for fuel to be excluded from carbon trading it would be a backflip from its earlier stance.
"Well, Mr Turnbull is (previously) on the record arguing for the inclusion of fuel in an emissions trading scheme," Mr Swan said in London overnight.
I swear that politicians can be as thick as three planks sometimes...
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23826164-31037,00.html
1. and 3. So according to the opposition, the govt (who are publicly discussing the pros and cons of the matter) are hopelessly confused,,, but they reserve the right to be in a stance of "yet to take a formal position".
2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions? ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars
4. backflips are the order of the day - depends if you're sincere I guess.
One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions? ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars
I've pointed this out before. Either:
1/ AGW is real. We ain't doing anywhere near enough and we're stoofed.
2/ ABW is BS and a ruse.
One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.
To simply add the carbon tax without removing petrol excise would mean higher taxes on (cleaner) petroleum than on coal. That's the exact opposite of what you want if the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.
But what you don't want to encourage is, say, the use of coal in industry, power generation etc at the expense of something cleaner (and oil is cleaner than coal).PS I don't think there is much risk of petrol being made so (artificially) expensive (i.e. if the excise stays, which as you might distort the "perfect" carbon tax model) that coal-fired cars slip in under them as a cheaper alternative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?