Comments on Michael Asten “Political interference will cripple climate debate”, 17/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-will-cripple-climate-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1225972366783
While Michael Asten has made very good points in terms of political interference on sciences and scientific work by scientists, it is a different matter for actions on climate change by governments.
There are indeed uncertainties regarding the science of climate change and the role of man induced global warming. That is especially so given that there were reportedly very large variations in temperature on the earth with some higher temperature periods, as well as the data used in many modelling of man induced warming cover extremely short time in comparison with the long history of the earth. It is possible that most modelling could be spurious in that context, even though many of those works in isolation could be regarded as 'sound'.
But governments have to respond to many different voices and make decisions under uncertainties. In this context, there is a question of what is the best policy that a government can make and what are the best actions to take.
While any governments should not disregard the uncertainties in climate change sciences, it would not be prudent for them to ignore the larger voices from scientists who consider that man induced warming is true.
Even for insurance purposes, governments should take active actions to reduce or limit emissions while at the same time to also take actions to adapt to higher temperature future.
The best policy, though, seems to be a flexible carbon tax which can be adjusted to best suit any new evidences or new scientific and empirical findings.
In comparison, an ETS does have the danger and runs the risk of being manipulated for financial gains by participants in the financial markets to hijack its true purposes and to increase the costs of emission reductions accordingly in the due course.
In that regard, it has been unfortunate that the Labor government from Rudd to Gillard seems to have been fixated with an ETS so stubbornly and mistaken it as a good policy.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
2010-04-07
Australian scientists using lasers to create clean nuclear energy
ABC report "Lasers could create clean nuclear energy", 6/04/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865472.htm?section=justin
The following is the first section of the report:
An Australian-led team of scientists may have found a way of creating a cheap and abundant source of clean energy through nuclear fusion.
The process could generate no radioactivity and produce little pollution.
The scientists have used computer models to simulate nuclear fusion without the extreme temperatures currently needed for other fusion methods.
Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora, of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of New South Wales, is leading the research effort, and says the process relies on a new generation of extremely powerful and very fast lasers being developed.
"The key is a very carefully controlled extremely short laser pulse essential for ignition. The pulse would ignite a fuel made of ordinary hydrogen and boron-11," Professor Hora said.
"The idea of a hydrogen and boron fusion reaction is interesting because it wouldn't cause neutron production. Neutrons are a problem because they generate radioactivity."
The team's findings appear in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.
Professor Hora says his team was originally developing computer models using next generation lasers to duplicate the work being done at the new $4.34 billion National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States.
The US scientists are developing what is currently the world's largest laser to ignite highly compressed spheres of deuterium-tritium fuel in a nuclear fusion reaction.
The second section starts with the following:
Fast and furious
The laser can produce a pulse of a few billionths of a second duration which produces 500 times more power than all US power stations combined.
If that is true and confirmed, then it will be good for human bings in terms of energy and dealing with climate change.
The following is the first section of the report:
An Australian-led team of scientists may have found a way of creating a cheap and abundant source of clean energy through nuclear fusion.
The process could generate no radioactivity and produce little pollution.
The scientists have used computer models to simulate nuclear fusion without the extreme temperatures currently needed for other fusion methods.
Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora, of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of New South Wales, is leading the research effort, and says the process relies on a new generation of extremely powerful and very fast lasers being developed.
"The key is a very carefully controlled extremely short laser pulse essential for ignition. The pulse would ignite a fuel made of ordinary hydrogen and boron-11," Professor Hora said.
"The idea of a hydrogen and boron fusion reaction is interesting because it wouldn't cause neutron production. Neutrons are a problem because they generate radioactivity."
The team's findings appear in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.
Professor Hora says his team was originally developing computer models using next generation lasers to duplicate the work being done at the new $4.34 billion National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States.
The US scientists are developing what is currently the world's largest laser to ignite highly compressed spheres of deuterium-tritium fuel in a nuclear fusion reaction.
The second section starts with the following:
Fast and furious
The laser can produce a pulse of a few billionths of a second duration which produces 500 times more power than all US power stations combined.
If that is true and confirmed, then it will be good for human bings in terms of energy and dealing with climate change.
2009-12-10
Climate science and potential spurious fitting of data
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Plimer the toast of Copenhagen sceptics meeting”, 10/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6so-1225808821955
In the article, you have:
"But over at the Bella conference centre, the consensus, and the evidence, that humans are causing a dangerous change in the climate is really overwhelming.
Added to it is new evidence from the World Meteorological Organisation showing 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest years and the decade of the 2000s as the warmest decade since records began in 1850.
The more than 100 world leaders showing up next week buy the science, and so do the UN officials, with UN climate change executive secretary Yvo de Boer yesterday declaring the science of climate change "rock solid".
The scientists are more convinced of their evidence than ever."
From 1850, there have been only 160 years. How does it compare with the length of the earth?
Declaring the science of climate change "rock solid", how solid is it? Isn't there a danger that such a short period of data and the complexity of climate changes may render that “science” “spurious”?
I don't understand the science, but the wild variation in earth temperature and logic tell that the causes of climate changes are anyone's guess at the moment.
One can also argue that it "is" due to purely the increase in the number of human beings on earth. You can also get a good "fit". Can anyone draw a conclusion that by the logic of that so called science, the only way to prevent human catastrophe is to reduce the number of human being?
Isn't that ridiculous?
In the article, you have:
"But over at the Bella conference centre, the consensus, and the evidence, that humans are causing a dangerous change in the climate is really overwhelming.
Added to it is new evidence from the World Meteorological Organisation showing 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest years and the decade of the 2000s as the warmest decade since records began in 1850.
The more than 100 world leaders showing up next week buy the science, and so do the UN officials, with UN climate change executive secretary Yvo de Boer yesterday declaring the science of climate change "rock solid".
The scientists are more convinced of their evidence than ever."
From 1850, there have been only 160 years. How does it compare with the length of the earth?
Declaring the science of climate change "rock solid", how solid is it? Isn't there a danger that such a short period of data and the complexity of climate changes may render that “science” “spurious”?
I don't understand the science, but the wild variation in earth temperature and logic tell that the causes of climate changes are anyone's guess at the moment.
One can also argue that it "is" due to purely the increase in the number of human beings on earth. You can also get a good "fit". Can anyone draw a conclusion that by the logic of that so called science, the only way to prevent human catastrophe is to reduce the number of human being?
Isn't that ridiculous?
2009-07-22
Mankind's space travel
Comments on Jack the Insider “A giant leap for grasping our destiny”, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_giant_leap_for_grasping_our_destiny/
Returning to space or moon or going to Mars are all admiring goals of mankind. We need to pursue them one way or another.
However, given the extremely high costs even going to the moon, there is an important question of how mankind should pursue space travel.
Although it may sound like impossible, mankind needs to focus on new ways of travel to lower the costs of space travel. It means a different race, with the same goals.
We need to reconcile our aspiration goals with the costs of realizing them and come up with better ways of doing things.
Returning to space or moon or going to Mars are all admiring goals of mankind. We need to pursue them one way or another.
However, given the extremely high costs even going to the moon, there is an important question of how mankind should pursue space travel.
Although it may sound like impossible, mankind needs to focus on new ways of travel to lower the costs of space travel. It means a different race, with the same goals.
We need to reconcile our aspiration goals with the costs of realizing them and come up with better ways of doing things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
