K N Vajpai | 7 Sep 13:26 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3813] Fresh Water will Come from Alaska to India-US company plans...

S2C Global Systems is promising tanker deliveries but high cost might make it just a pipe dream

Imagine an oil tanker plowing through the ocean, hauling valuable cargo from resource-rich nations of the world to the countries that need it: but instead of oil, the tanker holds millions of gallons of fresh water. It’s not a vision from some futuristic film or doomsday novel, but the present-day intention of companies trying to launch the bulk water export business. The idea has been around since the 1990′s, yet no one has succeeded in making it a practical reality. But last July, the US company S2C Global Systems, Inc. became the latest bulk water wanna-be by announcing it would begin shipping water from Alaska to India within the next six to eight months. Using large class vessels that can hold 50 million gallons at a time, S2C plans to sell the water for both manufacturing and drinking purposes to countries around the Arabian Sea.


Read:  http://chimalaya.org/2010/09/06/us-company-plans-to-ship-fresh-water-from-alaska-to-india/


K N Vajpai
Climate Himalaya Initiative
www.climatehimalaya.net
-----------


Climate Himalaya Initiative http://www.climatehimalaya.net envisions sustainable mountain development in Himalayas. Updates at http://chimalaya.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
 
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
 
To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
Tom Adams | 13 Sep 16:32 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3814] 2010 Grammy - Micheal Jackson Tribute - Earth Song


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXOgY7dVwPQ&feature=related

Lots of 3D glasses for this Grammy tribute are available on Ebay and
Amazon.  They were widely distributed for free.

Another Earth Song Tribute that does not require 3D glasses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfHUaitf-Q&feature=related

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 11 Sep 03:42 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3815] Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Beyond a couple of simple physical fundamentals of climate change –
that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human beings are
changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere – there are variations
in climate from the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Arctic
Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the El Niño Southern
Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
Peer reviewed scientific literature says that these natural variations
may result in no global warming for another decade at least.  It
happened last century.  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
off at the end of the 2nd World War, global surface temperatures fell
from 1945 to 1976.  Imagine what no warming for another 10 years will
do to the politics of climate change, when already most of the world
has fallen by default into the sceptic camp.

Just before opening the champagne bottles, think about the idea that
humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere.  If it is
impossible to disentangle human impacts from natural variation – it is
impossible to be definitive about climate risk.  But it cuts both
ways.  If we can’t define the risk we cannot eliminate it either.  If
there is a 1 in 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 chance of dire
consequences to the planetary life support system we must make the
decision to change the behaviour and eliminate the risk.

Some insist that we can use computer models to disentangle climate
impacts.  Climate models use the same Navier-Stokes partial
differential equations of fluid motion that Edward Lorenz used in his
1960’s convection model to discover the third great idea of 20th
Century physics, after relativity and quantum mechanics, of chaos
theory.  So the models are chaotic in their essence.  There is no
discrete answer within the bounds of plausible initial and boundary
conditions.  Modellers make a large number of runs that produce
radically different answers and then subjectively choose one for
public consumption.  This is fully understood in the modelling
community – but not much appreciated in the wider world.

The IPCC characterise weather as chaotic in the sense of chaos
theory.  Small changes in initial conditions cause changes in the way
the complex components of the system interact and result in the large
changes to the system.  A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil causing
a tornado in Texas.  Climate, however, is seen by the IPCC as an
average of weather – the unstated underlying assumption is that the
climate is not a complex and dynamic (chaotic) system and that there
is therefore an average climate state.  This assumption can’t be
supported by any observation of climate.  Real climate changes are
abrupt, nonlinear and bound to, according to the US National Academy
of Science, produce inevitable surprises.

Despite, rather than because of the nightmare scenarios of the self
proclaimed socially progressive, action must be taken to rein in human
emissions of greenhouse gases.  Given the diversity of technological
approaches to the problem – a global aspirational goal of net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, without higher energy costs, lower
growth and greater restraint on human development, is possible.  Such
a goal contrasts starkly with the economics of scarcity championed by
progressives – who in effect wish to progress backwards. It involves
more global, public funding of research and development – in
technologies that serve rather then diminish legitimate human
development goals - and far less subsidising the distribution of
energy technologies that will never be low cost.  The aspirational
amongst us believe in a better future for humanity – the enduring
dream of the technological age.  A global goal of zero net emissions
by 2050 is an affirmation of the human capacity for change, adaptation
and innovation.

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

MBACHU 4 christ | 14 Sep 15:35 2010
Picon

Re: [Global Change: 3816] Digest for globalchange <at> googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

ok

On 9/14/10, globalchange+noreply <at> googlegroups.com
<globalchange+noreply <at> googlegroups.com> wrote:
> =============================================================================
> Today's Topic Summary
> =============================================================================
>
> Group: globalchange <at> googlegroups.com
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/topics
>
>   - 2010 Grammy - Micheal Jackson Tribute - Earth Song [1 Update]
>     http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/t/7b12898fec0c4d53
>
>
> =============================================================================
> Topic: 2010 Grammy - Micheal Jackson Tribute - Earth Song
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/t/7b12898fec0c4d53
> =============================================================================
>
> ---------- 1 of 1 ----------
> From: Tom Adams <tadamsmar <at> yahoo.com>
> Date: Sep 13 07:32AM -0700
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/msg/aa33daf515b9a1c2
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXOgY7dVwPQ&feature=related
>
> Lots of 3D glasses for this Grammy tribute are available on Ebay and
> Amazon.  They were widely distributed for free.
>
> Another Earth Song Tribute that does not require 3D glasses:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfHUaitf-Q&feature=related
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public,
> moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy
> dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
> submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
> gratuitously rude.
>
> To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/mbachunnaemekas2004

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

sploo.laroo | 14 Sep 18:32 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3817] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Despite my progressive tendencies (rather than because of them), I'm
more or less with you for the first four paragraphs (ignoring a few
technical issues). But where you say:

> Given the diversity of technological
> approaches to the problem – a global aspirational goal of net zero
> greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, without higher energy costs, lower
> growth and greater restraint on human development, is possible ...
> It involves
> more global, public funding of research and development – in
> technologies that serve rather then diminish legitimate human
> development goals ...

Are you certain that the former will lead to the latter? Or are you
merely hoping that it is so?

-Eric

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

David B. Benson | 16 Sep 01:37 2010

[Global Change: 3818] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

On Sep 10, 6:42 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> ...  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> off at the end of the 2nd World War, ...
Not so.  CO2 concentration increases during the 1940s and 1950s are
amoung the lowest since before the 1880s.

After that, your misunderstandings multiply seemingly without end.

You are seriously embarassing yourself and ought to study before
offering comment.

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 09:41 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3819] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Just last night on the New Inventors there was a printable solar cell
on thin sheet plastic – cheap as chips to produce as opposed to the
current generation of solar cells that depend on thick and rigid
silicon wafers.  Fourth generation nuclear engines are a reality.
These are small reactors that burn nuclear waste from weapons and
earlier generation reactors or uranium and thorium, burn 97% of the
fuel as opposed to 3% in conventional reactors and produce waste that
is safe after hundreds of years rather than many thousands.  They
can’t melt down, are factory sealed, delivered on the back of a truck,
placed in a concrete bunker (in case anyone wants to try blowing it up
with ANFO) and can supply cheap energy to 10,000 households at a
time.  A really cheap source of energy changes the equation totally.
Coal and oil could then be kept for much more valuable purposes –
materials engineering especially.  Hydrogen could be produced in
abundance and combined with carbon dioxide to form liquid fuels.
Garbage, algae and cellulose can be converted to fuel oil or
plastics.  Technological development is occurring at an exponential
rate and we can increasingly bring this to bear on problems of
economic development.  Cheap energy sources transform the prospects
for better health, a secure food supply and education for all of the
people of the world.

Out of a trillion government bucks - a few might go a to right place.
But innovation is what capitalism does best. It is not a hope but
business as usual.  And if you want to be a social democrat and not
believe this - well I can't give a rat's arse.

On Sep 15, 2:32 am, "sploo.laroo" <sploo.la... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite my progressive tendencies (rather than because of them), I'm
> more or less with you for the first four paragraphs (ignoring a few
> technical issues). But where you say:
>
> > Given the diversity of technological
> > approaches to the problem – a global aspirational goal of net zero
> > greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, without higher energy costs, lower
> > growth and greater restraint on human development, is possible ...
> > It involves
> > more global, public funding of research and development – in
> > technologies that serve rather then diminish legitimate human
> > development goals ...
>
> Are you certain that the former will lead to the latter? Or are you
> merely hoping that it is so?
>
> -Eric

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 09:42 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3819] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Oh David - give it up

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/images/lawdome.GIF&imgrefurl=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/issue197.html&h=348&w=479&sz=9&tbnid=FU-xbg0Q8vJawM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dco2%2Bin%2B%2Batmosphere&zoom=1&q=co2+in++atmosphere&hl=en&usg=__WMEV_DDiRBvO2nn3Iz8MgmOiy7c=&sa=X&ei=WsSRTKmAFs34cZ-omYMH&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAw

Are you objecting to a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050? Clearly
exceeding Australian Green Party policy? I don't know what I have done
wrong.

Shouldn't take risks with planetary life support systems?  Doesn't
seem controversial.

Navier-Stokes partial differnential equation of fluid motion? Edward
Lorenz? Climate models? No that's right.

IPCC? Chaotic weather? Climate as average weather?  No that's exactly
what they say.

The US National Academy of Sciences published a report called “Abrupt
Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises”.  It is based both on
paleoclimatic proxy data and modern climate records and identifies
mechanisms and examples of abrupt climate change from ancient times to
the modern era.  The definition of abrupt climate change is that small
initial changes in conditions result in large and sudden changes in
climate.  Climate both past and present is chaotic based on
reconstructed and observed data.  A numeric approach by Anastasios
Tsonis and colleagues used sea surface temperature and atmospheric
pressure records to identify abrupt climate changes in 1909, the mid
1940’s, the late 1970’s and 1998/2001.  The 2007 study is called ‘A
new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’.  The 2009 study,
“Has the climate recently shifted?’ was reported on realclimate
(‘climate science by real climate scientists’) in a blog entitled
‘Much ado about natural variation’.  If climate is chaotic we are
likely to see another 10 years at least of more frequent La Niña,
resulting in flooding in Australia, and no increase in global surface
temperature.  I might be wrong – but 20 plus years of no global
warming from 1998 is a big deal and will result in almost all people
falling into the sceptic camp by default.

You need to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing.

Cheers

On Sep 16, 9:37 am, "David B. Benson" <dben... <at> eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:42 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
> wrote:> ...  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> > off at the end of the 2nd World War, ...
>
> Not so.  CO2 concentration increases during the 1940s and 1950s are
> amoung the lowest since before the 1880s.
>
> After that, your misunderstandings multiply seemingly without end.
>
> You are seriously embarassing yourself and ought to study before
> offering comment.

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 11:41 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3819] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
off at the end of the 2nd World War, global surface temperatures fell
from 1945 to 1976.  Imagine what no warming for another 10 years will
do to the politics of climate change, when already most of the world
has fallen by default into the sceptic camp.

how about the 60's and 70's?  Selectively quoting is not fair,
considered or reasonable.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.our-energy.com/slike/neobnovljivi_ugljicni.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.our-energy.com/non_renewable_energy_sources.html&h=337&w=450&sz=15&tbnid=4SfS4uEgGlfJsM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarbon%2Bdioxide%2Bin%2Bthe%2Batmosphere&zoom=1&q=carbon+dioxide+in+the+atmosphere&hl=en&usg=__T8OTkdNxcvpazpQBSrnLimXjZJA=&sa=X&ei=vOSRTOqSLo27ccb1wbUG&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBA

a meaningless comment and an insult just to muddy the waters -
typical

On Sep 16, 9:37 am, "David B. Benson" <dben... <at> eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:42 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
> wrote:> ...  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> > off at the end of the 2nd World War, ...
>
> Not so.  CO2 concentration increases during the 1940s and 1950s are
> amoung the lowest since before the 1880s.
>
> After that, your misunderstandings multiply seemingly without end.
>
> You are seriously embarassing yourself and ought to study before
> offering comment.

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Eric Swanson | 16 Sep 14:34 2010

[Global Change: 3821] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Robert, you mention the increase in rate of CO2 emissions after WW II,
but fail to also consider the companion increase in the rate of
emissions of sulfates and other particulates, which tend to increase
albedo and thus cool the global climate.  Why is that Robert?  Are you
just ignorant of the science?  Oh, now that the solar cycle has
started up again, temperatures appear to be going up again.  The
melting of sea-ice over the Arctic Ocean this year is again producing
a near record loss, in spite of the short term cooling effects from
the particulate emissions from the fires in Russia...

E. S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sep 16, 5:41 am, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> off at the end of the 2nd World War, global surface temperatures fell
> from 1945 to 1976.  Imagine what no warming for another 10 years will
> do to the politics of climate change, when already most of the world
> has fallen by default into the sceptic camp.
>
> how about the 60's and 70's?  Selectively quoting is not fair,
> considered or reasonable.
>
> http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.our-energy.com/slik...
>
> a meaningless comment and an insult just to muddy the waters -
> typical
>

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange")
newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics
and policy dimensions of global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive
and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange


Gmane