20 March 2009

FAQs on GHG emissions and lentils

What our current crop of neo-socialist Dear Leaders really need right now is a good ol' Inter-planetary Poison Pollution Preliminary Prevention Plan ("IPPPPP")

As I understand it from dimly remembered high school chemistry classes (which I hated but did dutifully persist with), carbon dioxide is a colourless odourless life cycle gas that is essential for photosynthesis and plant growth. I'm told biology classes (which irresponsibly I did mostly skip) taught us that CO2 is emitted in the respiration process by mammals and reptiles. That is, we humans emit carbon dioxide each time we breath out (Who'da thunk it?). And these social democratic geniuses currently running what was formerly known as the free world, now want to tax this life cycle gas as a pollutant.

Frequently Avoided Questions (FAQs) on CO2 and IPPPPPs

Why do our dear Leaders want to tax CO2?
Mostly 'cos it seems to be getting hotter and experts think the world's climate is changing.

Doesn't climate always change?
Yes, but the experts think this change might be caused by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, unlike other climate changes, so we might be able to stop or slow the change if we stop or slow our global emissions of CO2 .

Is there a co-relation between carbon dioxide and changing climate?
Sort of. The world did emit a a rising level of carbon dioxide between 1975 and 1998 (23 years) and the world also got hotter during that period (though this is difficult to mearsure globally). So, in case this possible co-relation during that 23 year period means that increased carbon dioxide production and increased global temperatures are also causally related (ie. one causes the other, not the casual sort of relationship that is othewise being described here), we all had better reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Just in case. This is the "precautionary principle" at work. The "precautionary principle" is of course a 'Good Thing'.

Why is the precautionary principle a 'Good Thing'?
Because, as it name implies, it's inherently cautious and therefore not reckless or foolhardy, like doing nothing would be.

On the subject of co-relations, have you heard about the problems encountered recently with some financial modelling that adopted a Gaussian Copula statistical correlation formula to price securitised mortgage debts?
No, heard nothing about that. What's it got to do with the imminent climate catastrophe that the UN says humanity faces anyway? Stop changing the subject.

And global temperatures between 1999 and 2009, I don't recall that these years were too bad, global-temperature-increase-wise. Were they?
Well, global temperatures haven't actually gone up in the last 10 years.
That's only because of a natural phenomena called La Nina, which is an inter-relationship between ocean water temperature cycles and raincloud patterns. OK. Next question.

Has the world been emitting increasing amounts of CO2 between 1999 and 2009?
Haven't you been listening to James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Penny Wong, Ross Garnaut and the Nobel Peace Prize laureats: Albert Gore Junior of Tennessee and the IPCC?
Of course we have been increasing our emissions of CO2. In record amounts! It still just keeps getting worse every year. A new coal fired power station is being commissioned every week. And still reckless ignorant genocidal Western Governments persist in dragging their feet, rather then get with the CO2 reduction programme.

What about global temperatures prior to 1975?
Well, yes in the 28 years between 1946 and 1974, the post-war economic boom, global temperatures did steadily drop even though carbon dioxide emissions were increasing, but that's because the temperature effects of the increased emissions of carbon dioxide during that time were masked by the dimming effects of particulates in the atmosphere produced by polluting factories. This was called "global dimming".

What happened to global dimming?
It stopped you dim wit. The world solved that pollution problem in 1975 with regulations and prosecutions and education and an all new non-littering civic pride. So the effects of increased carbon dioxide could then begin to be seen as the global temperatures resumed their inexorable rise...

What about prior to 1945?
Well global temperatures have been going up and down over geological time frames for ever, so let's not keep going there because there are some confusing things, like the medieval warm period , that are too difficult to explain here (you see it was only in the Northern Hemisphere). There is also that very eloquent graph that Albert Gore Junior of Tennessee, USA showed to us all in his popular and convenient movie, which demonstrated incontrovertibly that carbon dioxide build up follows build ups in temperature, not the other way round. ( I know. I know. It's confusing for me too.)

Will not higher temperatures mean that cold places will become warmer and more arable land will be released for human use, and create better conditions for plant growth?
Yes, but the ocean levels will also rise from ice melts which will inundate the lowlands and there will be more fierce hurricanes and cyclones and pestilence and raging infernos will be inflicted upon the earth as the inexorable rise in carbon dioxide consumes the planet. Even a United Nations agency has said all this. So we must listen.

Haven't bad weather events happened since at least biblical times?
Yeah, but not as badly as we can conceive from our computer models of the future climate of the earth. And these are United Nations computer models too, you know, with blue helmets.

Can humans adapt over time to living in on a hotter planet like we have in the past, if we can't stop the current rising global temperature?
Yes, but because we don't actually know how fast the change will happen, and what all the consequences of it will be, it is possible that any adaptions that occur will be very expensive, life threatening and chaotic.

So what can we do to stop all this horrible catastrophic future climate modelling?
That's easy. All we need to do is for all of us to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide.

Will reducing our CO2 emissions stop the impending climate catastrophe?
Not necessarily. See even if the whole world reduces its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (you know by converting to nuclear energy and killing all carbon dioxide emitting creatures), we will already have passed the tipping point of runaway climate catastrophe from the past build up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere anyway. And the only ones we will have to blame for this catastrophe are ourselves. For not having done more now, today, to stop carbon dioxide emissions, that are irreparably harming the Earth. So just stop emitting CO2 OK

Excuse me. Could that have been the lentils from lunch?
For shame! Don't you know methane is a greenhouse gas too. Think of the planet. Just don't eat lentils anymore OK.

So we should all stop emitting carbon dioxide (and methane) so the computer models don't get a chance to be proven right ?
Yeah, that's right. The computers our United Nations experts use have shown the experts that unless we humans stop emitting carbon dioxide then only computers will be able to inhabit the earth in future. So the experts have told all the governments of all the nations of the Earth that we humans should all stop emitting carbon dioxide.

The UN's computer models are clear:

Humans must either stop emitting CO2 now, or in future they will no longer be able to breath.

I finally get it.
Arthur C. Clarke got it right in "2001 -A Space Odyssey".
HAL is watching us.

Spooky eh?

No comments: