please visit:
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
Saving The Earth From Climate Change[1]
Dr. dev bahadur dongol
Email: indrdev2000@yahoo.co.uk
or dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
Green House Effect By Gases Is Impossible
Man has disrupted the rain cycle by urbanization and deforestation. The rain cycle is the second main cooling system of nature. So the warming of our surrounding, what we call the global warming, SEA LEVEL RISE AND OTHER RELATED PHENOMENA are due to the disturbances of the rain cycle caused by man. By understanding the fluid nature of the gases and methods of heat transmission, the green house effect by gases is impossible. Therefore the so-called global warming is not the result of green house effect of the gases. Thus climate change is not the result of global warming but other way round; the global warming is the result of climate change. The correction is possible and probably get the result within two years by war footed global level undertakings. By the efforts for reviving rain cycle will reduce the global temperature, recharge ground water, enrich vegetation, distribute water throughout the year and worldwide, make drinking water available, add snow on the poles and mountains, and thus eventually reduce sea level also.
Methods of heat transmission - Heat travels from higher temperature to lower temperature front. Heat is transmitted by three methods. They are radiation, conduction and convection.
Radiation- it is a method when heat energy jumps or travel in all directions without any medium from the source and is absorbed by any object that is on the way. It is like throwing many objects and others catch some of them. This is the method how we get heat from the Sun.
Conduction – this is the process when heat is passed on from one molecule to another adjacent molecule. This happens when we heat a solid substance that is a good conductor of heat e.g. a metal. It is like passing an object from one end to another end by standing many people in a queue.
Convection- this process of heat transmission happens when fluids, gases and liquids, are heated. They have freely moving molecules, so when heated they move in the upward direction. They release heat when they reach cold front. They come down again when they become cold. This process of moving molecules up and down goes on repeatedly while the fluids are being heated. This process is something like we picking up goods from the shops and deliver them at homes repeatedly.
Green House - It is a space covered by glass. Heat entered is trapped inside. Air inside also cannot move in and out of the glass walls. So temperature inside is kept much warmer than outside the glass walls. Heat is transmitted to outside atmosphere by only conduction method when temperature outside is less than inside of the green house.
Green House Effect Considering Fluid Properties Of Gases - The up and down moving air molecules as convection current cannot make a shield as solid glass makes wall of a green house. Air we breathe in and out is a homogenous mixture. There is no separate layer for separate gas. Had the air been layered according to gases, our immediate layer of gas would be carbon dioxide not oxygen. Carbon dioxide is the heaviest gas in the air. We need oxygen to breathe and be alive.
So by looking scientifically into the nature of gases as fluids it is not possible for any gas of our immediate atmosphere to form a ‘green house’. Therefore it is quite logical to conclude that it is not the ‘green house effect’ of any gas that is causing global warming and climate change.
Causes - Then what is causing the global warming and climate change? Obviously we need answer to this question and solve the terrifying problem. We know there are many agents that are heating our Earth and our immediate surroundings, the troposphere. They are mainly the Sun and our burning activities on the surface of the Earth. Heated objects remain hot without cooling system. Heat released as hot air is cooled down naturally by convection method of heat transmission. But man has disturbed main and effective process used by the nature for cooling the surface of the Earth, land and water that absorb so much of heat from the Sun. So let us see the natural mechanisms that help to cool down the Earth surface.
Natural Cooling Mechanisms - There are at least 3 (three) natural mechanisms that help to cool down the surface of the Earth. They are air current, rain cycle and hurricanes (or cyclones or tornadoes).
The Air Current – the third method of heat transmission, the convection method, is going on all the time non-stop. Human activities have no control over it. Heated surface of the Earth heats the air near by. Heated air molecules go up as they become lighter and release heat when they reach cold front high up. Cold molecules come down as they become heavier. This convection current is working day and night, if it had not been so our surrounding would have been already hot enough, if not more, to boil water. So gases are actually helping to cool off the heated surface of the Earth by convection method.
RAIN CYCLE - Obviously nature has another more effective mechanism as well, the rain cycle. Water has highest heat absorbing capacity, much higher than that of air or any gas, so rain cycle is more effective than air current to cool down Earth surface. We know it is cool when it rains. The rain cycle also works as convection current. We know rain pattern is changing and our surroundings are becoming hotter year-by-year.
After winning the fight against ‘global warming and climate change’ we want 1. Colder surrounding, 2.regular rain pattern as in the old comfortable weather, 3. Convenient water resources thus rich vegetation, easy irrigation and drinking water, 4 add ice on poles and mountains, 5. Recharge ground water and 6. Eventually lower sea level rise.
All those factors are related to only one phenomenon- the rain cycle. Thus reviving ‘rain cycle’ in a regular pattern near to old comfortable weather is the one and only solution to win the fight against the ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. Unfortunately we have disrupted the rain cycle too much by urbanization and deforestation because of the population growth. The ‘rain cycle needs lot of evaporation of water. As water vapor molecules go up, release heat they have absorbed from the surface of the Earth, become cold and condense as water droplets and come down as rain. Unfortunately, we have too much blocked evaporation process of water from the surface of the Earth by covering it with houses, roads, pavements etc. Deforestation caused land area drier and drier. Recharging of ground water is minimized as water used by people is also drained and added to sea. Much of rainwater is also drained to the sea. Recharging soil by rainwater is also reduced significantly. Evaporation of water from the surface of the Earth is reduced too much. Evaporation of water needs soils always wet and exposed to air so that it is evaporated as soon as the Sun heats the soil. Scattering of water on almost all the surface of the earth including vast area of deserts is necessary, like before the urbanization era, for enough evaporation so that rain cycle is not disrupted. Rain pattern is concentrated only in a short period of time of the year nowadays because we have blocked the evaporation system of nature. Enhancement of evaporation of water from the much wider surface of the Earth will naturally lower its temperature and boost rains, which will further lower the temperature of the Earth surface. Scattering of water on the surface of water must be made a culture of human beings using water resources as much as possible, not sparing even deserts. This is not a difficult task for the present capabilities of mankind. We have now infrastructures as well as technology to fulfill this task easily. Main source can be discharged water from the hydropower installations, which discharge immense quantity (I do not think that any body has calculated) of water every second. We can spread water by draining it from any higher places to lower land. This draining system of water can also be used for producing clean energy, hydroelectricity by installing hydropower stations in series along the same one water-supplying pipe. Installed turbines do not decrease power of running water through out the pipe while water is flowing, because of the fluid properties of water and the nature of the Gravitational Force of the Earth. The Earth is blessed with unlimited hydropower.
Explaining –“Turbines Do Not Decrease The Power Of The Running Water”
Turbines are designed to discharge the same quantity of water as is flowing through the water-supplying pipe. Because of the fluid properties of water and the nature of the gravitational force of the Earth, the running water throughout the given pipe has water pressure, rate of discharged water and the velocity of water etc constant. So the power available is also uniform throughout the pipe while water is running. Therefore, a turbine installed at any point between the intake and the outlet points of the pipe does not affect its efficiency or decrease its efficiency. Because the turbines are designed to discharge the same quantity of water as is discharged throughout the pipe, the turbine makes no changes in the rate of discharged water. So the other factors like velocity, pressure of water in the pipe are also not changed. Since there is no difference in those factors before and after the installation of a turbine means a number of more turbines can be installed in series along the same water-supplying pipe without decreasing their efficiency, as they make no changes in the available power of running water. Given the topography or landscape is favorable multiple turbines can be installed in between the intake and outlet of the same water supplying pipe without decreasing their efficiency. They do not make any reduction of power of the running water through out the given pipe while water is running. They are designed to discharge the same quantity of water as is running through the given pipe. So the same (existing as well) infrastructure of water supplying-pipe can run many more turbines in series making hydroelectricity far cheaper, easier, and faster than at present. This system of installation would not require hydro dams at all. Only run off type will do. So the intake point for water can be at the source where we can tap very clean water at the highest possible point as well as adding power of running water to the possible maximum level.
Hurricanes - Thirdly, when the rain cycle is disrupted and Earth’s surface becomes very hot, as nowadays we have to face hurricanes, which bring torrential rains and floods. This system of cooling by nature may be considered as the emergency measures to keep earth’s surface cool. This is the way we are having rains nowadays, but this also may not be for very long.
Conclusion - Thus boosting of evaporation of water from the surface of the Earth as widely as possible, from every inch of the earth surface, will set us free from the worry of the ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ for good. Rains will add snow on the mountains. Recharging of ground with water will store immense quantity of water back again. Both the phenomena will eventually lower the sea level. We should make spreading of water on the surface of the Earth as our instinct culture.
Dr. dev bahadur dongol Email: indrdev2000@yahoo.co.uk or dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
[1] Edited version published in ‘The Rising Nepal’ sept24, 2009, Wednesday, as “Don’t Blame Gases for Green House Effect”
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Don't Treat CO2 as a Pollutant
please visit:
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
International Society for Individual Liberty, Secretary Treasurer--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don't Treat CO2 as a Pollutant by Mark W. Hendrickson
From higher energy bills to lost jobs, the impact of carbon regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could.
A few days before this year’s Earth Day, America’s ideological greens received a present they have been desiring for years: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – responding to a 2007 US Supreme Court ruling – officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That spurred Democrats in Congress to push a major climate change bill. In the next 25 years, their massive cap-and-trade scheme would, according to a Heritage Foundation study, inflict gross domestic product losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family’s energy bill by $1,241, and destroy some 1,145,000 jobs. Democrats want it passed by July 4.
Get ready for a veritable Pandora’s box of complications.
A generation ago, it was considered great progress against pollution when catalytic converters were added to automobile engines to change poisonous carbon monoxide to benign carbon dioxide. Now, CO2 has been demoted.
The EPA’s characterization of CO2 as a pollutant brings into question the natural order of things. By the EPA’s logic, either God or Mother Nature (whichever creator you believe in) seriously goofed. After all, CO2 is the base of our food chain. “Pollutants” are supposed to be harmful to life, not helpful to it, aren’t they?
Of course, it is true (although environmentalists often ignore it when trying to ban such useful chemicals as pesticides, insecticides, Alar, PCBs, and others) that “the dose makes the poison.” Too much oxygen, for example, poses danger to human life. So what is the “right” concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere? There is no right answer to this question. The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere fluctuated greatly long before humans appeared on Earth, and that concentration has fluctuated since then, too.
The current concentration is approximately 385 parts per million. Some scientists maintain that 1,000 parts per million would provide an ideal atmosphere for plant life, accelerating plant growth and multiplying yields, thereby sustaining far more animal and human life than is currently possible. Whatever standard the EPA selects will be arbitrary.
“Forget about the plants,” say the greens. “What we’re trying to control is how warm Earth’s atmosphere gets.” To which I reply, “With all due respect, are you kidding me?”
As with a “right” concentration of CO2, what is the “right” average global temperature? For 7,000 of the past 10,000 years, Earth was cooler than it is now; mankind prospers more in warm climates than cold climates; and the Antarctic icecap was significantly larger during the warmer mid-Holocene period than it is today. Are you sure warmer is bad or wrong?
And how do you propose to regulate Earth’s temperature when as much as three-quarters of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining one-quarter due to changes in Earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is “mission impossible.” Mankind can no more regulate Earth’s temperature than it can the tides.
Even if the “greenhouse effect” were greater than it actually is, the EPA and Congress would be powerless to alter it for several reasons:
1. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect.This discloses the capricious nature of the EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all – water vapor, which accounts for more than three-quarters of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect – should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.
3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically. Clearly, it is beyond the ken of mortals to answer the metaquestions about the right concentration of CO2, or the optimal global average temperature, or to control CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I feel sorry for the professionals at the EPA who are now expected to come up with answers for these unanswerable questions.
However, I do not feel sorry for the political appointees, like climate czar Carol Browner, because it looks as if they are about to get what they evidently want – the power to increase their power over Americans’ lives and pocketbooks via CO2 emission regulations.
From higher energy bills to lost jobs, the impact of CO2 regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could. Let’s nail shut the lid on this Pandora’s box before it swings wide open.
Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, where this essay was first published. Also published in the Christian Science Monitor, June 23, 2009
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 at 1:43 am and is filed under Climate Change, Editorial Page, Global Warming. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
International Society for Individual Liberty, Secretary Treasurer--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don't Treat CO2 as a Pollutant by Mark W. Hendrickson
From higher energy bills to lost jobs, the impact of carbon regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could.
A few days before this year’s Earth Day, America’s ideological greens received a present they have been desiring for years: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – responding to a 2007 US Supreme Court ruling – officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That spurred Democrats in Congress to push a major climate change bill. In the next 25 years, their massive cap-and-trade scheme would, according to a Heritage Foundation study, inflict gross domestic product losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family’s energy bill by $1,241, and destroy some 1,145,000 jobs. Democrats want it passed by July 4.
Get ready for a veritable Pandora’s box of complications.
A generation ago, it was considered great progress against pollution when catalytic converters were added to automobile engines to change poisonous carbon monoxide to benign carbon dioxide. Now, CO2 has been demoted.
The EPA’s characterization of CO2 as a pollutant brings into question the natural order of things. By the EPA’s logic, either God or Mother Nature (whichever creator you believe in) seriously goofed. After all, CO2 is the base of our food chain. “Pollutants” are supposed to be harmful to life, not helpful to it, aren’t they?
Of course, it is true (although environmentalists often ignore it when trying to ban such useful chemicals as pesticides, insecticides, Alar, PCBs, and others) that “the dose makes the poison.” Too much oxygen, for example, poses danger to human life. So what is the “right” concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere? There is no right answer to this question. The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere fluctuated greatly long before humans appeared on Earth, and that concentration has fluctuated since then, too.
The current concentration is approximately 385 parts per million. Some scientists maintain that 1,000 parts per million would provide an ideal atmosphere for plant life, accelerating plant growth and multiplying yields, thereby sustaining far more animal and human life than is currently possible. Whatever standard the EPA selects will be arbitrary.
“Forget about the plants,” say the greens. “What we’re trying to control is how warm Earth’s atmosphere gets.” To which I reply, “With all due respect, are you kidding me?”
As with a “right” concentration of CO2, what is the “right” average global temperature? For 7,000 of the past 10,000 years, Earth was cooler than it is now; mankind prospers more in warm climates than cold climates; and the Antarctic icecap was significantly larger during the warmer mid-Holocene period than it is today. Are you sure warmer is bad or wrong?
And how do you propose to regulate Earth’s temperature when as much as three-quarters of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining one-quarter due to changes in Earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is “mission impossible.” Mankind can no more regulate Earth’s temperature than it can the tides.
Even if the “greenhouse effect” were greater than it actually is, the EPA and Congress would be powerless to alter it for several reasons:
1. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect.This discloses the capricious nature of the EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all – water vapor, which accounts for more than three-quarters of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect – should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.
3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically. Clearly, it is beyond the ken of mortals to answer the metaquestions about the right concentration of CO2, or the optimal global average temperature, or to control CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I feel sorry for the professionals at the EPA who are now expected to come up with answers for these unanswerable questions.
However, I do not feel sorry for the political appointees, like climate czar Carol Browner, because it looks as if they are about to get what they evidently want – the power to increase their power over Americans’ lives and pocketbooks via CO2 emission regulations.
From higher energy bills to lost jobs, the impact of CO2 regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could. Let’s nail shut the lid on this Pandora’s box before it swings wide open.
Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, where this essay was first published. Also published in the Christian Science Monitor, June 23, 2009
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 at 1:43 am and is filed under Climate Change, Editorial Page, Global Warming. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
