BARVENNON.COM
6th & 22nd March 2005
AUSTRALIAN DIARY
-
ECOLOGY -
CLIMATE
CHANGE
Analysis of the latest Anthropology digs indicates are that the
human
race has been evolved in it's
present form for at least 200,000 years. In that time it has
survived several ice ages, the last of which ended around 20,000 years
ago. A few decades ago climate scientists were
concerned that a new ice age was imminent, and that the ice sheets were
already advancing and would reach the tropics within a few hundred
years, or at most within a couple of
millennia.
American entrepreneurs together with Arab oil sheiks rose to the
challenge, and popularized the
newly devised automobile. This had the effect of efficiently
increasing the
carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, thus producing a "greenhouse
effect" which canceled the looming
danger.
Reactionary liberals who have a "frozen in amber" attitude to our
planet are never backwards in selling a new "cause" to the credulous
public. The most successful brand is "Greenpeace" who have
championed the reactionary forces against fossil fuel
consumption. Greenpeace has an army of telephonists who,
operating from "lists" do cold calls around the world, selling
"membership" to gullible members of the public. This money is
spent by the central cadre on expensive hotels and first class air
travel, (which is, of course, the most intensive per capita pollutant
source on the planet).
What amazes me is that nobody seems to have speculated which option is
likely to be more favorable to the human race. Perhaps global
warming would increase the biomass of the planet? Might that not
be a good thing? Maybe another ice age would have been worse for
the human race?
During an ice age, rainfall worldwide decreases, weather patterns
stabilize, the colder regions of the planet become colder as glaciers
advance from the poles, and the sea level falls. The climate
bands (presumably) advance towards the equator. Tropical forests
turn into
plains, plains turn into tundra. Eventually the "roaring 40's"
might become the "breezy 35's".
In interglacial (i.e. global warming) periods those indices are
reversed. Atmospheric
phenomena become more energetic, rainfall increases. Glaciers
shrink as weather patterns (Deserts, plains, tropical rain forests)
move away from the equator. The sea level
rises, and might eventually swamp low lying plains. The "roaring
40's" probably get renamed as the "howling 45's".
The UN has formed a council of economic advisers, and those
advisers
recently released a report that specified that the greatest cost
benefit ratio (dollar investment to produce a human benefit for the
population of the world) would be had by
expenditure directed to eradicating Malaria, eradicating AIDS and
freeing
up world trade. Expenditure intended to reduce global warming
were
assessed as less than the value of the benefit.
A recent show on Australia's "Four Corners" TV (21st March) was
concerned with the cooling effect of aeroplane pollution in the
atmosphere, (global brownout). They reported the claims of a
scientist who had been making a study of the atmosphere when aircraft
were "grounded" over the USA for two days following 9/11. The
air became clearer, and
ambient temperatures rose by two degrees. More comprehensive
longitudinal studies have reportedly shown that the quantity of
sunlight
falling on the USA has diminished by 10% since 1950. In Europe
the energy decrease was 16%, and in Siberia it was around 20%. It
was theorized that minute particles exhausted from aeroplane engines
caused a change in the reflectivity of atmospheric water clouds.
The speculated mechanism was that the increased nucleation (centered on
the pollution particles) increased the count of water droplets
composing the clouds, which increased their reflectivity.
The authors speculated that this effect was masking the greenhouse
effect, and speculated that if the atmosphere was cleaned up, then
global warming would accelerate.
AUSTRALIAN
DIARIST'S CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTION
A SPECULATIVE PROGNOSIS.
Australian Diarist speculates that global warming will cause existing
weather patterns to migrate towards the poles and will increase the
energy of those weather patterns.
This will happen because weather patterns are primarily a function of
the available radiant and internal energy, the available moisture, the
specific heat capacity of the atmosphere and geography. By
increasing the available radiant energy (by e.g. reducing aircraft
pollution) and, given the current high level of greenhouse gases, the
atmospheric temperature will increase. Where moisture is
available the increased temperature will cause increased evaporation,
thus increasing the specific heat capacity and hence the internal
energy of the atmosphere. This will result in a greater quantity
of air being heated and rising into the stratosphere from the
tropics. The existing easterly "Trade Winds" results from
Coriolis forces acting
on air masses that are migrating from the temperate zone towards the
equator, replacing heated air in the tropics that has risen into the
stratosphere. Because the region of warming in the tropics has
increased, the temperate zone from which cold air flows towards the
tropics will have moved to higher latitudes, and
trade
winds will therefore blow from higher latitudes than at present into an
enlarged tropical region. This movement will propagate, changing
the "roaring forties" into the "howling forty-fives".
IN AUSTRALIA
In Australia there might be some benefit, some harm from global
warming. (That is of
course a big "might", because
various geographical features such as mountains rarely run north-south
to provide a linear transform). People like Janet Holmes A'Court,
(who owns
large
stretches of near desert in Northern Australia) might benefit from an
expanded monsoon season, and farms in east Australia might benefit as
the trade winds move south and formerly quasi-desert grazing country
becomes rich cropland. The southwestern tip of Australia (South
of Perth and around Adelaide)
might turn to desert as the northern limit of the prevailing westerly
(the
"Freemantle doctor") moves south. The areas
lost to
new desert in the south would hopefully be exceeded several times by
the areas in the
north and east of Australia that
would benefit from the south-moving monsoon & trade
winds. Tasmania will warm up.
REST OF WORLD.
I anticipate that most of the USA would become warmer. The
desert around LA & San Diego might advance north to as far as San
Francisco. The rising sea (1 - 2 meters by 2040) might make it
necessary
to build some sort of dikes around New Orleans and parts of
Florida. Oregon and Washington would become a little warmer and
suffer more severe winds, Southern Canada would move from being a
mostly uninhabitable waste to having a climate similar to that in
Illinois/Minnesota as the weather patterns moved towards the pole.
The North African desert could migrate north across the
Mediterranean
as the equatorial jungle expands into the Sahara. Spain, France
Italy & Greece might suffer diminished
rainfall. The climate in the northern countries (Germany, Poland,
Benelux, UK) might
improve (warmer and wetter). However there is a big caveat: the
warm
transatlantic
current might change. If that happens, the climate in northern
Europe might not alter much, or might get colder.
The fertile region around Yemen would move around 500 Km north, turning
the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia into a fertile land.
Russia would become a warmer & more fertile land. The tropics
would become wetter, hotter and more humid. Greenland and parts
of Antarctica might become habitable.
In general the weather worldwide would become more extreme. The
increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would
produce more
vigorous plant growth. Caveats here are the various toxic poisons
that are being manufactured, and that already seem to be affecting the
fertility of the various animal species, including Homo Sap.
LAND
CLEARING.
In Australia our government is mindful of the "green" vote,
which is basically another offshoot of the "liberal" end of the
political spectrum. (In Australia, our "Labour" (blue) party is
the
party of liberal values, and our "Liberal" (red) party has the
Republican end
of the spectrum. Americans should not be surprised,
In Australia everything is backwards. e.g. the further south you go,
the colder it gets. Water swirls backwards (clockwise) down the bath
plughole.).
As a consequence our various state and Federal governments are enacting
various legislations that prohibit
farmers from clearing land. I understand that we are not even
allowed to clear
regrowth on formerly cleared land. As well, they pay farmers to
build waterfowl sanctuaries. All well and good, but I understand
that the culprits for spreading the disease "bird flu" (H5N1) are
waterfowl, and I am concerned that ducks etc. not be attracted to
Barvennon. Bird Flu has a reported fatality rate among humans of
around 75%.
Many farmers argue that compensation should be paid to farmers for
these legislated restrictions on land use. For instance if 10% of
a farmer's land must be set aside for native forest, then the
disadvantaged
farmer should be paid a 10% of land value lump sum payment for the
diminished farming value of the land. Or if 20% of my grass is
being eaten by migrating kangaroos, (a pest which I am forbidden to
eradicate) then I should be compensated for the reduced carrying
capacity of my land. Not unexpectedly, the (blue) state
governments in Australia do not see such
compensation as urgent as, for instance, expenditure on their own
pension schemes, or the purchase of votes by featherbedding public
service unions.
WORLD OIL
WILL BE EXHAUSTED BY 2042
Various sources on the www seem to concur that proven world oil
reserves are around one trillion (1,000,000,000) barrels.
Current usage (in 2005) is around 73 million barrels per day,
and now that the Chinese and Indians have started using oil, it can be
anticipated that world demand will increase.
Dividing world proven reserves (about 1,000 billion barrels, see e.g. NPR
) by average daily
consumption (about 73 million b/d, from NPR)
gives
13,700
days supply. That means
that there are 13,700 days, or about 37.5 years worth of oil reserves
left
at current consumption. It is anybody's guess how quickly
consumption is increasing, however a middle of the road guess is 3%,
and that would mean that the period before exhaustion to somewhere
around
25 years.
Reflecting this anticipated scarcity the price of oil has recently
been hovering around $US50/barrel. There are of course many
possible alternative hydrocarbon mineral deposits around the world
(e.g. coal,
shale, LNG) so any move away from hydrocarbons will be motivated by
either discovery of a new & economically exploitable technology
(photo-electricity is one option) or by success by the lunatic fringe
in forcing governments to impose voluntary restraints.In the meantime
it can be anticipated that the Sheiks of Arabia will keep the price of
oil marginally below the production cost of any competing fuel.
Postscript 13th April 2005 -
NUCLEAR POWER
Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner who reportedly has an
MB-BS degree (Bachelor Medicine/Bachelor Surgery). She
carries a reputation as an alarmist.
Nonetheless, Todays "Australian" carried
an article "Nuclear
Power
is
the Problem, not a solution" that detailed the problems
associated with Nuclear power, and the reasons why it was mostly
abandoned as a power source for the past five decades. Some of the
details Ms Caldicott wrote were alarmist, some just wrong (e.g.
"Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, .."sic) and some
overstated the issues, however sufficient apparently accurate
information was present. ("plutonium 239... is so toxic that one
millionth of a gram is carcinogenic", & "plutonium lasts for
500,000 years".).
From recent studies on frog populations etc; it appears that planet
earth might already be suffering fertility problems possibly due to
residues of toxic herbicides and pesticides. In our age, toxic
waste dumps are terrorist targets.
On balance,
I believe that we should be more concerned with toxic wastes than with
global warming.
-
EDUCATION REFORM -
In the Australian (23rd February 2005) a Professor of gender studies at
the University of Sydney (Elspeth Probyn) gives a rather stark
assessment of trends in university education as interpreted
by Carey Nelson of the University of Illinois.
Tenured academic staff numbers are trending downwards while academic
salaries are not
commensurate to perceived effort, part time staff is employed to
supplement tenured
hours. On top of that there are problems with finding publishers
and the reviewer system is a closed club.
Apart from education, universities are failing in their other main
purpose, which is research. Professor Probyn quotes
"Only disciplines that pay their way will earn the right to survive in
the University of the future", and further predicts management
censorship of academic output.
I have argued (1) (2)
that our academic system is failing. That failure is brought
about by bureaucracy, and the answer is dissolution of
universities. (not that they need it, they will have collapsed
within a few decades). The new educational system will probably be a
few, (perhaps two or three worldwide) examining institutions, and
multiple options for gaining the skills and knowledge that will enable
a student to pass the open examinations and attain the
qualifications. As for research papers and books, the answer is
the internet. Nowadays anybody who can access the internet can
publish a paper. Before too long, academic papers will be
published on the internet, and those documents will be accessible by
reference to a subject index. Albert Einstein was not a professor
when he wrote his historic papers. Our present day Professors are
mostly clever bureaucrats who (to misquote Newton) "stand on the
shoulders of their own graduate students."
-
JUSTICE v FAIRNESS -
To the mind of Joe Average, Justice should be fair. I do not want
to be the one to disillusion anybody, so ask any lawyer if Justice is
fair, then
come back and continue reading.
One of the sources of unfairness in our judicial system is the
algorithm that Judges use to settle disputes. They loathe just
saying "OK, you are in the right, so you win. The other guy is
being unreasonable & has no case so loses & pays damages &
all
expenses."
Instead they will try to find a middle position between the two
plaints, give each side their own expenses, and call that "justice".
That might be a good method with honest & naive
applicants, if the facts were not clear. However, even when the
facts are clear, counsel are sophisticated. They abuse the
system, each
side attempts to overbid their claim, and whichever side overbids most
wins the greatest
benefits.
Take our industrial arbitration system. Workers claim and are
granted huge increases, consisting of "cost of living" increases and
"productivity" increases. Well, "fair enough", you might say,
"why should the employer get all of the benefits of improved
technology?". The employers, of course, argue that there should
be no increase, if they argued for diminution of pay on the grounds
that people weren't working as hard (because of technology
improvements), they would probably be laughed out
of court. So the workers get their CPI increase, and a proportion
(or all) of the increases brought about by improved productivity.
The employer probably gets enough to cover the increased expenses
associated with introduction of the new technology. Consequently,
the item does
not diminish in cost, and the workers in that industry are the only
beneficiaries.
There are several negative flow on effects from productivity
increases that are paid in that way. Firstly, there are not just
two parties having an interest in the wages
negotiations; three parties have an interest. The third party is
the
consumer. Why should not the consumer get the benefit of
technologically improved production? Secondly, what has the
worker done to earn the benefit, apart from being fortunate enough to
be in a unionized labour force in an industry that is benefiting from
technology? Thirdly, by granting that increase, what happens to
those workers who are in industries that are not obtaining a
productivity improvement?
What we need is a method that permits we the people to review judicial
decisions. Of course our learned judges would object (who
wouldn't in their position) with arguments such as "we do not want
decisions made by mob rule in the heat of the moment".
Ha ha ha. I am not an elitist. I tend to put more trust in
my fellow man to make
decisions that are fair. I do not trust elitist judges who think
that only they are intelligent enough to make decisions which affect
our well being (and on $250,000 pa!) In defamation I
much preferred the Jury decision to the Judicial decision. I
suspect that all the objections by our High Court justices are so much
self serving waffle.
Further Reading.
A Skeptic's Guide
to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism
EMAIL
ARCHIVES.