SOME KYOTO BASICS THAT HAVE BEEN MISSED

An interesting email from Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary, Alberta (kalhnd@shaw.ca)

I am a practicing geophysicist with over 35 years of experience operating at a very basic scientific and academic level. From this simplistic and pragmatic perspective I see two basic easily provable overlooked flaws with the Kyoto Accord which you might find interesting. The first is the Accord itself. Assuming that its nonsensical "science" base is correct, the essence of the Accord is to physically reduce CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels. I use the word "physically" because the actual reductions required by the Accord are only "paper" in nature consisting of credits for using various alternative energy sources, purchasing these credits or in the case of "underdeveloped" countries political exclusion from the accord. The result of this is that even with full implementation of the Accord there is no material change to world CO2 emissions.

The simple proof of this is clearly and absolutely shown by world fossil fuel consumption numbers that are outside the manipulative control of the "Kyoto people". With the exception of breathing and the burning of non fossil fuels all of the "anthropogenic" CO2 comes from human consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal is mostly carbon, oil is about 83% carbon and methane is 75% carbon, and when these are consumed each ton of carbon produces about 3.67 tons of CO2. These are clear absolute and undisputable facts which when compared to world consumption figures show absolutely no influence of the Accord on the physical CO2 emissions. In fact, instead of decreasing emissions to 8% below the 1990 level, CO2 emissions in 2004 were 17.4% higher from coal, 18.2% higher from oil and 22.5% higher for natural gas. Furthermore, in spite of Kyoto, actual consumption of all of these commodities is projected to increase at similar or accelerated rates. Kyoto is based on reduction but allows unabated increase in emissions. What could be a simpler proof?

The second flaw relates to CO2 contributions to climate. The basis of the Accord, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused a global warming, requires CO2 to have powers at least an order of magnitude greater than its true physical properties. This empirically derived set of properties is often used in climate models and forms the basis for alarmist predictions. I have seen numbers published that attribute a greenhouse effect for CO2 that is 33 times higher that its true physical properties.

This makes for a very curious "hockey stick" graph. If you use these CO2 values to derive the temperature for the graph you end up with a hockey stick with a 6 inch handle and a 6 foot blade. The accepted value for the atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth is about 35 degrees C, and before Kyoto the contribution of CO2 at only 350 ppm represented only 0.7deg C of this greenhouse effect or about 0.0020 degrees for each ppm of CO2. If one uses this number to corroborate any climate predictions, any of the alarmist predictions will demonstrate themselves to be well beyond any possible physical reality.

There is a very interesting verification of this 0.002 number that can be found on Mars. The Martian atmosphere is over 95% CO2 and even though the atmosphere is about a hundred times thinner than that of Earth there is still over 9 times more CO2 in absolute terms on Mars than on Earth. In spite of this the greenhouse effect on Mars is only about 5 deg C. and when divided by its equivalent concentration the number comes to 0.0016 degrees for each ppm of CO2. This basically shows that the correct number for the true physical capacity of atmospheric CO2 is most likely between 0.0016 and 0.002 degrees C. for each ppm of atmospheric CO2.

Even taking the higher of these two numbers and applying them to climate models, shows that each .7 degree C rise in global temperature would require a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the doomsday predictions of 2 to 3 degrees in the next 50 years will require 5.5 to 8.5 times as much carbon dioxide as is currently present in the atmosphere. If Kyoto is right, all of this will come from humans even though natural sources account for well over 90% of the annual CO2 emissions. These flaws, one political and one quasi scientific show the insidious nature of the accord.





NUKES ARE GREENEST

Nuclear power has proven to be very safe. If you exclude the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, which was due to Soviet management rather than nuclear technology, there have been almost no deaths. In comparison, coal has killed hundreds of miners around the world and contributed to the deaths of thousands of people who've breathed in its smoke. And the carbon emitted by coal-fired power plants is a significant contributor to the looming greenhouse calamity predicted by environmental groups.

Surely it's time for all rational environmentalists to consider the nuclear option. Australia is well placed to become a world leader. Not only do we have enormous deposits of uranium, we are an empty continent that is geologically stable, therefore well-suited to companies wishing to reprocess and store nuclear waste. We are also the home of Synroc (a ceramic that immobilises high-level radioactive waste), which could provide a vital ingredient in an Australian-integrated spent-fuel management industry.

The market for nuclear services is huge and growing. Nuclear power accounts for 17 per cent of the world's electricity (35 per cent in the crowded European Union). There are about 440 nuclear power plants in 31 countries. The power requirements of China and India are booming. Thirty reactors are being built around the world, and most of those on order or planned are in Asia. The world's energy requirements are estimated to increase by 50 per cent by 2020: anyone concerned about air pollution and the greenhouse effect ought to hope that most of that will be provided by nuclear power.

Given all this, it's a little surprising that green groups haven't been more vocal in urging governments to adopt nuclear energy. It's true they would prefer energy to come from the wind or the tide. But for the foreseeable future this will be prohibitively expensive, unless heavily subsidised by government. In any case, wind farms are deeply unpopular because they're blots on the landscape. We should replace hundreds of wind towers with a few nuclear power plants, maybe tucked away on Lake Macquarie or in the Southern Highlands.

And yet most environmental activists still oppose nuclear power. Why so? There's naturally some concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been one of the great successes of international co-operation. As for nuclear plant safety and waste management, these are no longer significant problems. So when you weigh the small risks of going nuclear against the enormous benefits of reducing carbon emissions, you have to wonder why anyone who genuinely believes in a looming greenhouse tragedy would oppose nuclear power.... The next time someone lectures you on the greenhouse apocalypse, they should also tell you how they feel about nuclear power. If they don't, you're entitled to have grave doubts about the fundamental seriousness of their environmental concerns.

More here





America's self-imposed energy shortage: "Many think America is suffering from an unavoidable energy shortage. In truth, we're failing to harness the energy we have. Standing between this energy and the public are brigades of environmental lawyers using federal statutes to block projects they dislike. ... Examples can be found nationwide: One environmental group recently announced a lawsuit to stop construction of a power plant in southern Illinois that would have used abundant local coal. Other groups are suing to block natural gas production throughout the Rocky Mountain region. ... Such lawsuits have become the norm. Almost every major energy project in the U.S. can expect a court battle before moving forward. And years of litigation usually come after years of administrative delays, sometimes initiated by the same parties who later file suit."

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************