Sunday
Was too tired to head off out this evening .. just couldn't sleep last night. Anyway did get out to get some food in ... just missed the snow ... not that there was much of it ... but it was quite cold. Don't usually feel the cold much ... I'm told that's because of the oramorph .. but there was a bit of a cold breeze and that blew through me a bit.
The weather!!!! I was thinking that tackling climate change is really a threeway thing isn't it.
First there's carbon burying for the power plants so that it doesn't get out into the atmosphere and add to the carbon that's already there.
Secondly there's changing the way energy is used so that it doesn't emit chemials that mess up the eco systems.
And, thirdly, there's a need to do something about the chemicals that are already here and causing problems. That could be difficult in some ways because you have to be careful that you don't do anything that could cause more problem in the future like when something has been introduced into somewhere to stop a problem that's already there and has then overrun the area itself. The cane toad in Australia is an example .. about 100 were introduced for pest control ... there's now a very conservative estimation of 100 million around.
You'd have to make sure that anything that's attempted couldn't cause more problems than it's solving.
Geoengineering is the term used for the techniques that would be used but it's always been dismissed as useless by a lot of people because of the risks involved .. that it has the potential to cause more harm than good.
One method would be to add iron or nitrogen to the world's oceans to produce algae that would absorb more carbon.
One of the problem with this is that there could be areas of ocean lacking in oxygen and another that a lot of nitrous oxide would be produced along with other gases that could affect the relative eco systems. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide.
Geoengineering
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/30/climatehange-carbonemissions
It's said that carbon emissions are increasing at around 1% a year and that the plant masses aren't as effiicent at removing it as they were. Maybe there could be a safe way of increasing this maybe combined with carbon storage if need be. Destroying the rain forests etc certainly isn't it .... more like a step in the other direction. Maybe it really won't be seen as being effective enough whether at land or at sea.
Surely though everything should be looked at and taken seriously .. if it's not investigated then the chance of finding anything that could help and the having the time to put it into operation gets more and more remote.
How much time is very debateable ranging from people saying that there's a chance that the Arctic could be free of ice decades earlier than scientific models predicted ... there is a could there because of the chance that things won't continue as they are now ... to conidering the fact that life has survived this before which could give us longer than has been anticipated. The thing is research into one thing can provide information that could start another more effective line of research and it seems a shame that while it's been obvious that the Kyoto agreement was not going to be effective enough ... it must have had an effect in slowing down emissions and keeping a focus on climate change that wouldn't otherwise be there to some extent ... though that isn't saying much.
I said in the early blog days that there wasn't much hope if everything was going to happen in 60 years or so .. that policies had to be much more on the ball than that because there were going to be a lot of surprizes and that it looked as if the mechanics of global eco systems breakdown had began.
Unfortunately we've gone into what looks like a deep economic recession now which I suppose is going to make it less likely that people are going to want to put their hands too deeply into their pockets to fund some research.
Anyway ... I'm off to bed.
The weather!!!! I was thinking that tackling climate change is really a threeway thing isn't it.
First there's carbon burying for the power plants so that it doesn't get out into the atmosphere and add to the carbon that's already there.
Secondly there's changing the way energy is used so that it doesn't emit chemials that mess up the eco systems.
And, thirdly, there's a need to do something about the chemicals that are already here and causing problems. That could be difficult in some ways because you have to be careful that you don't do anything that could cause more problem in the future like when something has been introduced into somewhere to stop a problem that's already there and has then overrun the area itself. The cane toad in Australia is an example .. about 100 were introduced for pest control ... there's now a very conservative estimation of 100 million around.
You'd have to make sure that anything that's attempted couldn't cause more problems than it's solving.
Geoengineering is the term used for the techniques that would be used but it's always been dismissed as useless by a lot of people because of the risks involved .. that it has the potential to cause more harm than good.
One method would be to add iron or nitrogen to the world's oceans to produce algae that would absorb more carbon.
One of the problem with this is that there could be areas of ocean lacking in oxygen and another that a lot of nitrous oxide would be produced along with other gases that could affect the relative eco systems. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide.
Geoengineering
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/30/climatehange-carbonemissions
It's said that carbon emissions are increasing at around 1% a year and that the plant masses aren't as effiicent at removing it as they were. Maybe there could be a safe way of increasing this maybe combined with carbon storage if need be. Destroying the rain forests etc certainly isn't it .... more like a step in the other direction. Maybe it really won't be seen as being effective enough whether at land or at sea.
Surely though everything should be looked at and taken seriously .. if it's not investigated then the chance of finding anything that could help and the having the time to put it into operation gets more and more remote.
How much time is very debateable ranging from people saying that there's a chance that the Arctic could be free of ice decades earlier than scientific models predicted ... there is a could there because of the chance that things won't continue as they are now ... to conidering the fact that life has survived this before which could give us longer than has been anticipated. The thing is research into one thing can provide information that could start another more effective line of research and it seems a shame that while it's been obvious that the Kyoto agreement was not going to be effective enough ... it must have had an effect in slowing down emissions and keeping a focus on climate change that wouldn't otherwise be there to some extent ... though that isn't saying much.
I said in the early blog days that there wasn't much hope if everything was going to happen in 60 years or so .. that policies had to be much more on the ball than that because there were going to be a lot of surprizes and that it looked as if the mechanics of global eco systems breakdown had began.
Unfortunately we've gone into what looks like a deep economic recession now which I suppose is going to make it less likely that people are going to want to put their hands too deeply into their pockets to fund some research.
Anyway ... I'm off to bed.
posted by Zeb at 11:29 AM
<< Home