WHAT EFFECT CAN U.S. POLICY HAVE ON CLIMATE
IS IT ABOUT CLIMATE OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?
While recent polls list climate change far down on voters priorities, it is being pushed to the forefront both on the domestic and international scene. It is being portrayed as a crisis that requires immediate and drastic action. After having seen similar hysteria in the 1970's with books like, " The late great planet earth", "The population bomb" and the theories predicting a new ice age, all which have yet to be realized one has to be a little skeptical of the new urgency. I suppose it is mostly focused on the young, who have not been around long enough to see similar crisis touting.
One part of the crisis is global warming, while real records were not kept years ago, there are estimates that the north Atlantic region experienced the medieval warm period, 950 to 1250 AD with 0 being the median number it was estimated as an increase of +1.8 degrees f. This period witnessed population increase in Greenland with the ability to grow crops before not possible.
Then we experienced the " Little Ice Age", between 1550 and 1700 AD with a -1.8 degree temperature.
Modern temperature anomalies are as follows
1880-1940 -0.2 to -0.4
1940-1960 +.2
1980-2015 +1
2015-2019 +.8
It is a fact that solar activity is not uniform and has periods of increase and decrease which effects the planets temperature, so while temperatures have been slightly on the warm side they are by no means far out of historical norm. That may be why we now are pointed to climate changes rather than global warming.
It is also clear that arctic ice has been diminishing and ant-arctic ice has increased slightly. It has also noted that the magnetic north pole has been moving north and west, historically this has moved at a rate of around 7 mi. a year, since 1970 it has increased to around 35 mi. per year. There is also evidence that earths axis may have changed over time. This is now possible to observe with the introduction of satellites and GPS. Whether any of this is due to human activity has not been proven. Some wonder if the extraction of material from the earths crust by mining etc could change the balance of the earth.
Common sense tells us that the construction of heat absorbing material such as blacktop parking lots and highways and building roofs could increase temperatures, especially in urban areas. This could be addressed by using light colored materials in the future.
The other perceived problem with the climate is an increase in the carbon dioxide levels. As we learned in elementary school, at least when I was there, animals give off carbon dioxide and need oxygen to live, plants on the other hand need carbon dioxide for life and give off oxygen.
Co2 levels are now estimated at 415 parts per million today. The average was around 280 ppm from 10,000 years ago to the mid 18th century. It is estimated that levels could have been as high as 4000 ppm 500 million years ago and as low as 180 ppm 2 million years ago. Much has to do with volcanic activity, forest fires, etc.
Experiments have estimated that doubling the Co2 levels could increase plant yield by 37%. A Co2 level of 475 to 600 could increase plant yields by 17%. This is an average as some types of plants would be more some less. Co2 is not a poison, it is not harmful in itself. All your carbonated drinks are created with Co2.
One must wonder if the northern climates go through a warming trend, with Co2 levels elevated, will we see an increase in plant growth with a corresponding increase in oxygen output. Would the increase in plant growth deplete the Co2 levels over time to a more historic level? Is it possible that the earth is a dynamic system able to self adjust to changes in the environment?
We are seeing an increased interest in places like Greenland, northern Canada and northern Russia which would profit from increased plant production and livable conditions.
As far as decreasing the use of fossil fuels, that is a good idea, even just from a conservation point of view.
Why have we not seen a coordinated effort to conserve electricity. I believe we could cut the use of electricity by 20% without a decrease in our quality of life. I often see houses with every light in the house on, TV's on in 5 rooms. 20% reduction would be an easy goal to achieve. Sadly many do not equate electricity use with the burning of fossil fuels. 64% of electricity is produced with fossil fuels. 19% nuclear, 7% hydro, 6% wind 1.5% solar.
We will never power a modern industrial society with wind and solar energy.
Nuclear fission is the only present perfectly clean energy source that is presently available.
If we really want to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, we will need an accelerated, modern Manhattan project to develop nuclear fusion technology. It may be a much better investment than subsidies for solar panels, wind mills and electric cars.
Electric cars are mostly being powered with electric produced with fossil fuel.
Global solutions focus on the developed world which has already made great strides in reducing all sorts of pollution, but has no way of addressing the developing world were the worst pollution is created. Focusing on reducing emissions in the developed world will make us poorer, but will not have a effective result in reducing emissions.
Inevitably we will need to find new renewable clean energy, there will be a limit to the amount of fossil fuel available. I have yet to see anyone propose real plans for a transition to some other source, just a lot of hysteria listing the problems anticipated without any real viable solutions proposed.
We are being told that all would be solved if we would scrap our present economic system, raise taxes to give to a global government and allow bureaucrats and politicians to guide us to our Utopian future. I guess I am just too old and skeptical to be a believer in that plan.
Originally posted 9/8/19
It is also clear that arctic ice has been diminishing and ant-arctic ice has increased slightly. It has also noted that the magnetic north pole has been moving north and west, historically this has moved at a rate of around 7 mi. a year, since 1970 it has increased to around 35 mi. per year. There is also evidence that earths axis may have changed over time. This is now possible to observe with the introduction of satellites and GPS. Whether any of this is due to human activity has not been proven. Some wonder if the extraction of material from the earths crust by mining etc could change the balance of the earth.
Common sense tells us that the construction of heat absorbing material such as blacktop parking lots and highways and building roofs could increase temperatures, especially in urban areas. This could be addressed by using light colored materials in the future.
The other perceived problem with the climate is an increase in the carbon dioxide levels. As we learned in elementary school, at least when I was there, animals give off carbon dioxide and need oxygen to live, plants on the other hand need carbon dioxide for life and give off oxygen.
Co2 levels are now estimated at 415 parts per million today. The average was around 280 ppm from 10,000 years ago to the mid 18th century. It is estimated that levels could have been as high as 4000 ppm 500 million years ago and as low as 180 ppm 2 million years ago. Much has to do with volcanic activity, forest fires, etc.
Experiments have estimated that doubling the Co2 levels could increase plant yield by 37%. A Co2 level of 475 to 600 could increase plant yields by 17%. This is an average as some types of plants would be more some less. Co2 is not a poison, it is not harmful in itself. All your carbonated drinks are created with Co2.
One must wonder if the northern climates go through a warming trend, with Co2 levels elevated, will we see an increase in plant growth with a corresponding increase in oxygen output. Would the increase in plant growth deplete the Co2 levels over time to a more historic level? Is it possible that the earth is a dynamic system able to self adjust to changes in the environment?
We are seeing an increased interest in places like Greenland, northern Canada and northern Russia which would profit from increased plant production and livable conditions.
As far as decreasing the use of fossil fuels, that is a good idea, even just from a conservation point of view.
Why have we not seen a coordinated effort to conserve electricity. I believe we could cut the use of electricity by 20% without a decrease in our quality of life. I often see houses with every light in the house on, TV's on in 5 rooms. 20% reduction would be an easy goal to achieve. Sadly many do not equate electricity use with the burning of fossil fuels. 64% of electricity is produced with fossil fuels. 19% nuclear, 7% hydro, 6% wind 1.5% solar.
We will never power a modern industrial society with wind and solar energy.
Nuclear fission is the only present perfectly clean energy source that is presently available.
If we really want to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, we will need an accelerated, modern Manhattan project to develop nuclear fusion technology. It may be a much better investment than subsidies for solar panels, wind mills and electric cars.
Electric cars are mostly being powered with electric produced with fossil fuel.
Global solutions focus on the developed world which has already made great strides in reducing all sorts of pollution, but has no way of addressing the developing world were the worst pollution is created. Focusing on reducing emissions in the developed world will make us poorer, but will not have a effective result in reducing emissions.
Inevitably we will need to find new renewable clean energy, there will be a limit to the amount of fossil fuel available. I have yet to see anyone propose real plans for a transition to some other source, just a lot of hysteria listing the problems anticipated without any real viable solutions proposed.
We are being told that all would be solved if we would scrap our present economic system, raise taxes to give to a global government and allow bureaucrats and politicians to guide us to our Utopian future. I guess I am just too old and skeptical to be a believer in that plan.
Originally posted 9/8/19
It does appear that there is more of an attempt to move public opinion with a "Chicken Little" approach, rather than a reasoned and factual debate. It also seems that all solutions being offered are global taxes and global control
ReplyDelete