Supplementing For Human Control Factors

The Question remains!

No mater how you look at it. Becoming climate neutral is crucial to humanities survival.

What does it matter if “our footprint” as a civilization is contributing to global warming or global cooling? What does it matter if the science is absolute when determining civilizations effect, or the cyclical cycle of increased solar spot activity effect?

Some say empirical evidence,  from both written and geologic records, indicates global temperature modulates in cycles of warming and cooling, with 57 degrees Fahrenheit  as the normal mean temperature throughout a continuing 4500 year cycle. The current conjecture is, we may reach it’s recent past height set in 1100 B.C., again around 2030. There is also conjecture that the many volcano eruptions over past recorded history also played a role in rapid global temperature change.

In our time, a most significant climate control factor is human population .

Display created by Ed Stephan http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/

“A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is “clear evidence” of climate change caused by human activities. The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years “cannot be explained by natural processes alone”. It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as well as at the Earth’s surface.”¹

“The human population growth of the last century has been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the average human lifetime. The world population passed 6 billion just before the end of the 20th century. Present estimates are for the population to reach 8-12 billion before the end of the 21st century. During each lecture hour, more than 10,000 new people enter the world, a rate of ~3 per second!

Of the 6 billion people, about half live in poverty and at least one fifth are severely undernourished. The rest live out their lives in comparative comfort and health.

The factors affecting global human population are very simple. They are fertility, mortality, initial population, and time. The current growth rate of ~1.3% per year is smaller than the peak which occurred a few decades ago (~2.1% per year in 1965-1970), but since this rate acts on a much larger population base, the absolute number of new people per year (~90 million) is at an all time high.”²

Hypothetically, If someone were to survive climate collapse, and in retrospect using simple minded deductions, look back and note that population has always been on the increase, and eventually we would be where we are today anyway; who could fault them after every possible stone was turned as first president in the effort to stem the tide.

Nature has it’s own way of maintaining balance.

Species responsibility demands action and movement toward human climate neutrality.

We face the evident melting polar and glacier ice, rising oceans, the real threat of disappearing sovereign nations (The Maldives), disappearing rivers, great rivers no longer reaching the sea, lack of fresh water, over use of non-renewable aquifers, disappearing streams and empty wells, deforestation, dying species both plant and animal, over use of available land, food shortage, homeless starving people, sickness, and death.

“What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores. Pacific ocean (BBC) In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Iceberg melting (BBC)

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.”³

A Possible Small Window of Opportunity…

“Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both short-term and long-term effects. Different groups of individuals are affected by air pollution in different ways. Some individuals are much more sensitive to pollutants than are others. Young children and elderly people often suffer more from the effects of air pollution. People with health problems such as asthma, heart and lung disease may also suffer more when the air is polluted. The extent to which an individual is harmed by air pollution usually depends on the total exposure to the damaging chemicals, i.e., the duration of exposure and the concentration of the chemicals must be taken into account.

Examples of short-term effects include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Other symptoms can include headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions. Short-term air pollution can aggravate the medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. In the great “Smog Disaster” in London in 1952, four thousand people died in a few days due to the high concentrations of pollution.

Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes.”⁴

Much of  the carbon culture or climate, smells of “dirty business” who’s only aim is turning scarcity into abundance at the expense of the whole. Where is the value in that? …

We have knowledge of known unused, and new developing technologies that can make “Our Energy Climate Change Footprint” a non issue.

Is it not true; the continued development, production, and distribution of  such technologies themselves would produce abundance beyond measure…

Re-write the future…

All anyone needs for growth is food for nourishment, a place of rest and good association.

Do we fade away, or live to give another day?

Climate Change…

The Anatomy Of A Silent Crisis

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVGzlXmgko[/youtube]

For publication I am compiling a  list of past, current, developed, and promising, free energy technologies that could serve to reduce the human climate effect.  Send your list of clean energy technologies for compiling and presentation before Copenhagen to clean@environmentaide.org

Many remember first hearing of the wonders of magnetic propulsion, when The first commercial Maglev “people-mover” became a carrier  in 1984 in Birmingham, England. Other stator driven applications could include automobiles, trucks, and boats… Howard Johnson inventor of Spintronics, a unique magnetic gate which  formed the basis of many of his successful motors, was fond of saying “conventional magnetic theory and the real magnetic theory are about as much alike as a Venetian Blind is to a blind Venetian.”

Maglev Train – complete video presentation

From The Republic of  Georgia, Russian inventor, Tariel Kapanadze and his group have come up with one of many promising devices to aide in our move to clean free energy for all. This one capable of capturing enough zero point energy or free energy from the wheelworks of nature to power 60 homes… Perhaps not very much fun to watch, but proven possible…

Kapanadze’s third-party testing 100 kW free energy device

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV560xfYSJ0[/youtube]

This solution was found in a few minutes on the Internet. How many can you find? Combustion technologies can become a thing of the past, and the CO2 from a summer campfire a harmless pastime.

In the words of Author, Scientist, Former Astronaut, and International Speaker Dr. Brian O’Leary…  “Earlier in 2009,  the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) solicited concept papers for funding innovative energy technology research and development.  Some of us who have followed free energy developments were cautiously optimistic about these developments, because, up until now, the DoE has been in denial about anything beyond solar and wind, and even spends a pittance on the traditional renewables compared to the untold hundreds of billions of dollars they spend on research on fossil fuel technologies (hydrocarbons) and nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

So my colleague Wade Frazier and I decided to draft a concept paper to the DoE. Our idea was really quite simple: (1) poll the American public about their attitudes toward the POSSIBILITY of a breakthrough decentralized clean energy economy and making the transition from our current polluting multi-trillion dollar energy mix as painless as possible; and (2) advising the DoE about the most promising R&D options, and safe implementation and transition strategies, free of vested interests.  Part of our philosophy in designing this task was that, by its very nature, if our future energy were to be truly “free,” then our own effort should be of minimal cost for the taxpayer.  We therefore asked for $1 (plus occasional travel, as needed) to support our proposed task.

Needless to say, the proposal was turned down, but we can only hope that some technologies will be supported by the DoE under this program.  Or is this effort just another attempt to cover up the most promising technologies?  Time will tell.”

“If we become increasingly humble about how little we know, we may be more eager to search.” ~ Sir John Templeton

“We have come to this Rock, to record here our homage for our Pilgrim fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; Our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered, the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and establish.

And we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof, that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles, and Private virtue; in our veneration of religion and piety; in our devotion to civil and religious liberty; in our regard to whatever advances human Knowledge, or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin.” –Daniel Webster

WE CAN IF WE TRY!

YES WE CAN!

Remember

Or is it a Factor of a much bigger problem?

Related Posts B

1. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
2. Guidance Memo to Global Votaries of Current Energy Policy…
3. Air For Fuel, The Birth Of The Air And Magnetic Air Car…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

 G8 fails on climate goals. Again!

 Ban Ki-moon declares, the G8 leaders of the rich world are failing at shouldering their "historical responsibilities"

A large percentage of the population  today are so captivated by the artificial life the modern age has created they have become disconnected from the natural mother that feeds and cloths us,  they’ve lost their sense of it.

Can you call what’s happened lately to our world economy any less than the "tyranny of the drunken monkey", yet more business interests became representation in government in the aftermath.

I can’t help wondering what Solan, the Athenian Archon, statesman, lawmaker, and Lyric poet, also considered the first father of modern democracy, who wrote for pleasure poetry as patriotic propaganda and in defense of his constitutional reforms, would say.

In Solon’s time, Athens was under constant threat from the unrestrained greed and arrogance of its citizens. He declared "Even the earth (Gaia), the mighty mother of the gods, has been enslaved."

He is most remembered for his reform abolishing usury. Usury (in the original sense of any interest) was at times denounced by a number of religious leaders and philosophers in the ancient world, including Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo and Gautama Buddha.

The G8 and developing countries declaration on climate change states.

"We, the leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States met as the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in L’Aquila, Italy, on July 9, 2009, and declare as follows:

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time.

As leaders of the world’s major economies, both developed and developing, we intend to respond vigorously to this challenge, being convinced that climate change poses a clear danger requiring an extraordinary global response, that the response should respect the priority of economic and social development of developing countries, that moving to a low-carbon economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development, that the need for and deployment of transformational clean energy technologies at lowest possible cost are urgent, and that the response must involve balanced attention to mitigation and adaptation.

We reaffirm the objective, provisions and principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Recalling the Major Economies Declaration adopted in Toyako, Japan, in July 2008, and taking full account of decisions taken in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007, we resolve to spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen, with each other and with the other Parties, to further implementation of the Convention.

Our vision for future cooperation on climate change, consistent with equity and our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, includes the following:

1. Consistent with the Convention’s objective and science: Our countries will undertake transparent nationally appropriate mitigation actions, subject to applicable measurement, reporting, and verification, and prepare low-carbon growth plans.

Developed countries among us will take the lead by promptly undertaking robust aggregate and individual reductions in the midterm consistent with our respective ambitious long-term objectives and will work together before Copenhagen to achieve a strong result in this regard.

Developing countries among us will promptly undertake actions whose projected effects on emissions represent a meaningful deviation from business as usual in the mid-term, in the context of sustainable development, supported by financing, technology, and capacity-building.

The peaking of global and national emissions should take place as soon as possible, recognising that the timeframe for peaking will be longer in developing countries, bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries and that low-carbon development is indispensible to sustainable development.

We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2C.

In this regard and in the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, we will work between now and Copenhagen, with each other and under the Convention, to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.

Progress toward the global goal would be regularly reviewed, noting the importance of frequent, comprehensive, and accurate inventories.

We will take steps nationally and internationally, including under the Convention, to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emissions by forests, including providing enhanced support to developing countries for such purposes.

2. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is essential.

Such effects are already taking place.

Further, while increased mitigation efforts will reduce climate impacts, even the most aggressive mitigation efforts will not eliminate the need for substantial adaptation, particularly in developing countries which will be disproportionately affected.

There is a particular and immediate need to assist the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to such effects.

Not only are they most affected but they have contributed the least to the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Further support will need to be mobilised, should be based on need, and will include resources additional to existing financial assistance.

We will work together to develop, disseminate, and transfer, as appropriate, technologies that advance adaptation efforts.

3. We are establishing a Global Partnership to drive transformational low-carbon, climate-friendly technologies.

We will dramatically increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of these technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015, while recognising the importance of private investment, public-private partnerships and international cooperation, including regional innovation centres.

Drawing on global best practice policies, we undertake to remove barriers, establish incentives, enhance capacity-building, and implement appropriate measures to aggressively accelerate deployment and transfer of key existing and new low-carbon technologies, in accordance with national circumstances.

We welcome the leadership of individual countries to spearhead efforts among interested countries to advance actions on technologies such as energy efficiency; solar energy; smart grids; carbon capture, use, and storage; advanced vehicles; high-efficiency and lower-emissions coal technologies; bio-energy; and other clean technologies.

Lead countries will report by November 15, 2009, on action plans and roadmaps, and make recommendations for further progress.

We will consider ideas for appropriate approaches and arrangements to promote technology development, deployment, and transfer.

4. Financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilising resources to support developing countries.

Financing to address climate change will derive from multiple sources, including both public and private funds and carbon markets.

Additional investment in developing countries should be mobilised, including by creating incentives for and removing barriers to funding flows.

Greater predictability of international support should be promoted. Financing of supported actions should be measurable, reportable, and verifiable.

The expertise of existing institutions should be drawn upon, and such institutions should work in an inclusive way and should be made more responsive to developing country needs.

Climate financing should complement efforts to promote development in accordance with national priorities and may include both program-based and project-based approaches.

The governance of mechanisms disbursing funds should be transparent, fair, effective, efficient, and reflect balanced representation.

Accountability in the use of resources should be ensured. An arrangement to match diverse funding needs and resources should be created, and utilise where appropriate, public and private expertise.

We agreed to further consider proposals for the establishment of international funding arrangements, including the proposal by Mexico for a Green Fund.

5. Our countries will continue to work together constructively to strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change, including through the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

In particular, our countries will continue meeting throughout the balance of this year in order to facilitate agreement in Copenhagen."¹

The question now is, who sits oversight on this grandiose approach? Because at this point in distress, we are and should be, calling for some form of accountability beyond pie in the sky possibilities.

At a UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. High on the agenda will be The "Bali Roadmap," Presented in December 2007,the roadmap, [ By the "way" it would be interesting to poll roadmap as an Artificial term. ]  set a two-year deadline for a global agreement and pledged to complete a new UN climate treaty at the Copenhagen meeting due to be accepted to follow up on the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

We need to do more than pull rabbits out of hats here.

What they propose is founded on the belief that virtually all electricity generation will have to come from renewables, nuclear power or  "clean" coal an option not yet proven cost efficient. Since Europe is closing more than opening nuclear plants, and the fact that low grade nuclear feul or remaining world resources, produce carbon air pollution. It doesn’t sound like much of a plan. What now follows is a quote from Debunking Nuclear As An Environmental Renewable Hope posted July 26th 2008, and can be found in the archives.

"Nuclear not cost efficient or without grave risk in development is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only 8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation 50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation 5g CO2eq/kWhel)."²

The L’Aquila summit is the last G8 summit before the December Copenhagen meeting and what are we hearing.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reports a rise in temperatures of more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels would be dangerous for the delicate balance of Earth’s climatic system.

Italy, holder of  the current G8 presidency, wants the summit to agree that global greenhouse gas emissions should peak by 2020 and world temperature change should be limited to 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial levels.

It is likely the World Economy will contract this year for the first time since the last World War and see the birth of a G20 economy summit.

There is no proven consensus, strategy, or approach. They meet to consolidate their position in light of current change, and decide how to deal with the heat…

Coming to the table we saw US 2020 Carbon reduction amount projections amounting to no more than 4% compared to 1990, Japan 8% compared to 1990, Canada 20% by 2020 compared to 2006. Europe is willing to go 30% by 2020 if others show an honest effort while Brasil has signed up for the 2 degree cap on temperature China is committed to carbon reduction only slow as not to upset economy. India thinks everyone else is at fault and makes no firm commitment.

 According to the IPCC, all developed countries should cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels to tackle climate change.

Some G8 countries want a new sliding scale to redefine developing nations and demand more actions by the wealthier developing countries in slowing global warming. Japan submitted a draft text of a new climate pact to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), bringing up the concept of "wealthier developing countries." Tthe draft document released on May 20,  also passed the buck to poor nations, setting emission reduction goals for developing countries by 2050.

On the table at the moment is an 80% reduction by 2050 that even Canada seems willing to go along with.

Who are we bargaining with, the planet? In the end we may find the bargain impossible to live with.

"Another thorny issue for developed countries is how to channel money and technology to the poor to help deal with climate change, as an estimated 100 billion to 200 billion U.S. dollars will be needed to support developing countries to tackle climate change."³

I hear these totals and they ring with speculation. Why not 1 trillion U.S. or 5 trillion U.S.?

Whatever the cost, it will be miniscule to the life value lost if leveling off and reduction of  carbon based pollution doesn’t take place.

L’Aquila from Wednesday to Friday will see the major economies forum for 17 countries, which account for some 80 percent of the global emissions gather and dialogue on the current positions.

The EU has urged leading economies to split the bill based on their historical emissions and current wealth. The bloc members yet need to settle on how to split the bill among themselves.

Hey! I’m all for a win win situation but when the loosing partner is the one that keeps you safe and protected, I wonder when negative value ever meant success except in a shady deal. Who is paying whom, and what happens to the money afterward. Considering it is a surcharge for pillaging the environment in a polluting way, is the money going into keeping antiquated technology alive or immediate improvement to equipment  with environmental impact or directly to the environment

It’s nice to see the G8 nations getting together in some form of show of solidarity, pulling figures together like 20 billion to help move food supplies to third world countries. Developing, and developed countries also agreeing to regulate to maintain temperatures below dangerous levels or rising more than 2 degrees. Barack Obama’s commitment to lower emissions by 80% between now and 2050 is viewed with criticism among some.

Forward thinking countries have a great opportunity to lead in more than lip service by expanding development of already realized and proven technologies that can make energy for the user, priceless, in the same way air and water is. It is now possible.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating of the changes.

"The IPCC assessment states that up to two billion people worldwide will face water shortages and up to 30 per cent of plant and animal species would be put at risk of extinction if the average rise in temperature stabilises at 1.5C to 2.5C."

Canada and Russia are considered the bad boys among G8 nations.

Canada is furthest from its reduction target for the greenhouse gas under a global treaty and has made little progress compared with other Group of Eight members, according to the report commissioned by German insurer Allianz SE.

I find Canada stands true to form when you consider a Canadian wrote The Bill of Human Rights, and Canada was last to ratify.

Subscribe through Google Feedburner at the top to be kept informed.

What follows is a lesson from industry to industry. Lev Tahor – A Pure Heart…

A Pure Heart

Related Posts B

1. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
2. COP15, Copenhagen, The wrap-up
3. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.