I haven't looked back at the last post from Katrina, but think I said that the disaster was a once in a hundred years, so shouldnt happen for about the next ten years [increased rate due to global warming].
I was reading why these hurricanes happen, and apparently it's due to the water temperature in the Gulf.
Higher temperatures in the water [ a hurricane requires a temperature of 26C i read] basically mean that the vapour pressure is raised and requires less energy to evaporate the water which is the basic motor for these beasties .
Vapour pressure is NOT a linear function of temperature and a small increment in temperature creates a disproportionate increase in the water's vapour pressure, thus a temperature of 30C would give rise to a much higher destructive force than if it was 26C.
Thus if global warming is happening - and the evidence strongly supports this, then the next time that New Orleans is flooded will be in the next 2 years - look at the temperatures in the UK- its something like 5+ of the highest temperatures recorded have been in the last 10 years. [ this is the prelude to the UK freezing believe it or not- I know it sounds daft but the Gulf stream has not yet been stopped ].
If this is correct then the Kyoto agreement is a waste of time , and something more drastic is urgently needed - its already too late to save bits of Louisiana and Texas. Mr Bush , can you now turn your head to save New York ?
From reports Ive seen in the papers [The Times- not a rag that tends to lie], papers via the government published in the States about Global warming have been consistently doctored to give the impression that it is a phenomenum that *may* or may not be happening- words like 'is' have been changed to 'maybr' and so forth .
Saturday, September 24, 2005
the next flu epidemic ?
There are still periodic news reports about the next flu pandemic- the above report says dozens of people in Indonesia have caught this disease.
This is almost an order of magnitude higher from the last update I read [albeit from a very low base].
Could it be coming at last? Hope not, but I worry about these low level alarm bells from , presumably, the scientific community- they tend to know what they are on about.......
This is almost an order of magnitude higher from the last update I read [albeit from a very low base].
Could it be coming at last? Hope not, but I worry about these low level alarm bells from , presumably, the scientific community- they tend to know what they are on about.......
Friday, September 09, 2005
New Orleans toll
What's with the casualty lists on this disaster?
The official count is about 150 according to our papers with a senator ? saying up to 10,000 - a slight difference you may think.....
Then today our papers reported that 25,000 body bags had been delivered ...
Is the US Govt trying to hide the full extent of the problem, if so it's not doing it very well?
Now it turns out that the guy responsible for drawing up and implementing the damage limitation may have spiced up his CV before he got the job.... oops.....
The whole thing stinks for what is undoubtably the most powerful country on Earth- it should not have been allowed to happen [ the loss of life that is- hurricanes are probably beyond even the USA]
The official count is about 150 according to our papers with a senator ? saying up to 10,000 - a slight difference you may think.....
Then today our papers reported that 25,000 body bags had been delivered ...
Is the US Govt trying to hide the full extent of the problem, if so it's not doing it very well?
Now it turns out that the guy responsible for drawing up and implementing the damage limitation may have spiced up his CV before he got the job.... oops.....
The whole thing stinks for what is undoubtably the most powerful country on Earth- it should not have been allowed to happen [ the loss of life that is- hurricanes are probably beyond even the USA]
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Elephant grass ,shoots and leaves
This is an amazing 'discovery' and needs shouting from the rooftops..........
It's simple and world transforming and will ? happen.
Basically biomass growing suffers from inefficiency usually from the processing required to turn it into useful energy.
This stuff grows very quickly, and is suitable for putting directly into a generating plant, more or less, as is.
Apparently putting 10% of land under grass would generate 10% of that country's power.
Why is this BIG NEWS?
Firstly, most first world countries have an over efficient farming industry which creates surpluses.
This requires subsidies to get rid of. Certainly in the cases of the EU and USA this has led to serious disagreements and had been partly responsible for the latest breakdown in talks over the next GATT agreement. [the rest of the world complain that subsidies distort trade amongst the poorer countries- very true]
In the case of the EU, it has created farm produce that is expensive in the shops and takes 30% ? of the EU budget in subsidies to farmers, which in turn has created serious tensions amongst its' members about possible reform.
Secondly, we can have a 'grass cycle' of power generation
Power made this way is CO2 neutral- the grass fixes CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant, then is released on burning.
Thus we have a chance of reducing CO2 emissions of up to the limits of present agricultural excesses [ and if the first world alters it's diet a little or more land comes under agriculture, more]
It would thus slow down Global Warming at a stroke and at little cost.
Thirdly [and related to the above], Kyoto agreement becomes workable, and the USA could quite easily agree to this.
So, we increase Third World wealth, we cut out farm subsidies [ therefore reduce taxes?] , we reduce CO2 emissions and thereby maybe save Bangladesh,New Orleans etc.
ITS WONDERFUL !
It's simple and world transforming and will ? happen.
Basically biomass growing suffers from inefficiency usually from the processing required to turn it into useful energy.
This stuff grows very quickly, and is suitable for putting directly into a generating plant, more or less, as is.
Apparently putting 10% of land under grass would generate 10% of that country's power.
Why is this BIG NEWS?
Firstly, most first world countries have an over efficient farming industry which creates surpluses.
This requires subsidies to get rid of. Certainly in the cases of the EU and USA this has led to serious disagreements and had been partly responsible for the latest breakdown in talks over the next GATT agreement. [the rest of the world complain that subsidies distort trade amongst the poorer countries- very true]
In the case of the EU, it has created farm produce that is expensive in the shops and takes 30% ? of the EU budget in subsidies to farmers, which in turn has created serious tensions amongst its' members about possible reform.
Secondly, we can have a 'grass cycle' of power generation
Power made this way is CO2 neutral- the grass fixes CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant, then is released on burning.
Thus we have a chance of reducing CO2 emissions of up to the limits of present agricultural excesses [ and if the first world alters it's diet a little or more land comes under agriculture, more]
It would thus slow down Global Warming at a stroke and at little cost.
Thirdly [and related to the above], Kyoto agreement becomes workable, and the USA could quite easily agree to this.
So, we increase Third World wealth, we cut out farm subsidies [ therefore reduce taxes?] , we reduce CO2 emissions and thereby maybe save Bangladesh,New Orleans etc.
ITS WONDERFUL !
Monday, September 05, 2005
New Orleans and the government
I think the population of the USA should be mobilising to do something about this.
A disaster that has been widely publicised as going to happen in books, documetaries and the like as going to create a disaster, seems to have been ignored at the planning stage, as when it happened, the White House seemed to ignore it for about a week, with hardly any food, little policing and basically no help.
Is this what happens when you elect a president with no brain ?
The warnings were issued before it happened, so where were the extra defences erected ?
Lastly, who would position a city with a population approaching a million souls on the seafront, in a hurricane region 20 feet below sea level ?
The loss of life [ estimates done a couple of years ago suggested 20,000 souls] is absolutely appalling and I grieve for them as this should have been totally stoppable, at least in the short term- till the city was evacuated and abandoned in say 2015 or whenever it seemed to becoming too dangerous to live there.
I read 15 years ago? [I've been interested in global warming/man-made catastrophes since 1967] that of many aspects if global warming was to become a reality , one of the consequences would be much more/fiercer hurricanes in the Carribbean . It looks like they may well be correct in which case it could easily happen again within 10 years. Oh, another one was New York freezing up- but that looks like it isn't going to start happening this year [ but the seeds of New York's destruction are already in place- apparently 30% there already and growing quickly]
What did I read in 1967 ? Well, it was that aircraft pollution could cause a thinning of the ozone layer.
Most of the Global problems affecting us today have been known about for many years, it's just that people have chosen to ignore them as it wouldn't affect them before the next election
Please Mr Bush, please, do something about energy useage in that vast country of yours before it becomes too late [ another prediction was that the UK would become largely not too good for life- same as New York, so I am intimately involved as to what happens over there]
A disaster that has been widely publicised as going to happen in books, documetaries and the like as going to create a disaster, seems to have been ignored at the planning stage, as when it happened, the White House seemed to ignore it for about a week, with hardly any food, little policing and basically no help.
Is this what happens when you elect a president with no brain ?
The warnings were issued before it happened, so where were the extra defences erected ?
Lastly, who would position a city with a population approaching a million souls on the seafront, in a hurricane region 20 feet below sea level ?
The loss of life [ estimates done a couple of years ago suggested 20,000 souls] is absolutely appalling and I grieve for them as this should have been totally stoppable, at least in the short term- till the city was evacuated and abandoned in say 2015 or whenever it seemed to becoming too dangerous to live there.
I read 15 years ago? [I've been interested in global warming/man-made catastrophes since 1967] that of many aspects if global warming was to become a reality , one of the consequences would be much more/fiercer hurricanes in the Carribbean . It looks like they may well be correct in which case it could easily happen again within 10 years. Oh, another one was New York freezing up- but that looks like it isn't going to start happening this year [ but the seeds of New York's destruction are already in place- apparently 30% there already and growing quickly]
What did I read in 1967 ? Well, it was that aircraft pollution could cause a thinning of the ozone layer.
Most of the Global problems affecting us today have been known about for many years, it's just that people have chosen to ignore them as it wouldn't affect them before the next election
Please Mr Bush, please, do something about energy useage in that vast country of yours before it becomes too late [ another prediction was that the UK would become largely not too good for life- same as New York, so I am intimately involved as to what happens over there]
internet pornography banning UK
Well, our dear Government is at it again....
This time it is trying to ban violent pornography on the Web.
Firstly, they did this with sex and violence on TV in the 70/80s and this quickly degenerated in everyone's minds [ everyone that is who was against showing sex on TV ] as being interpreted as sex or violence..... That is the first fear I would have on this.
Secondly, there is the definition of sex itself [say in a BDSM sense] when consensual sadism does not necessarily have penetrative sex involved. Thus to be effective this legislation would need to cover all touch between 2 or more people where pain was involved- say that would encompass seeing childbirth on the web at possibly it's most extreme silliness. Mind a lot of sports would also need to be banned- football, rugby to name just two - that'd help the popularity of cricket :)
Thirdly, there is the definition of violence itself. Is spanking violence - must be . Is a comedy where someone throws a saucepan at her partner followed by a make up in bed part of the banned stuff- must be ?
Fourthly- how can they persuade other countries to ban these websites - it would be a huge joke..........
Once again, our dear overlords have done a kneejerk. Why do they always insist on legislation ?
The only way this could be workable is to try to ban non consensual stuff on the web whether its got violence in it or not- but that opens loads of cans of worms........
This time it is trying to ban violent pornography on the Web.
Firstly, they did this with sex and violence on TV in the 70/80s and this quickly degenerated in everyone's minds [ everyone that is who was against showing sex on TV ] as being interpreted as sex or violence..... That is the first fear I would have on this.
Secondly, there is the definition of sex itself [say in a BDSM sense] when consensual sadism does not necessarily have penetrative sex involved. Thus to be effective this legislation would need to cover all touch between 2 or more people where pain was involved- say that would encompass seeing childbirth on the web at possibly it's most extreme silliness. Mind a lot of sports would also need to be banned- football, rugby to name just two - that'd help the popularity of cricket :)
Thirdly, there is the definition of violence itself. Is spanking violence - must be . Is a comedy where someone throws a saucepan at her partner followed by a make up in bed part of the banned stuff- must be ?
Fourthly- how can they persuade other countries to ban these websites - it would be a huge joke..........
Once again, our dear overlords have done a kneejerk. Why do they always insist on legislation ?
The only way this could be workable is to try to ban non consensual stuff on the web whether its got violence in it or not- but that opens loads of cans of worms........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)