It's St. Patty's day -- so you just knew someone would do a study on the impact of climate change on Ireland, didn't you? Sure enough, the Irish American Climate Project has issued a report entitled "Changing Shades of Green," warning that decreased rainfall could necessitate a nickname change for the Emerald Isle, and summer droughts could bring about Potato Famine II. "You tell people in Dublin that the climate might be like the Mediterranean coast and their initial reaction is, 'So what? That'll be nice in the summer,'" says project leader Kevin Sweeney. "Then in about five minutes, it sinks in. And these same people are like, 'Oh my God, that won't be same Ireland anymore.'" Insert cheesy "bad luck o' the Irish" joke here.
source: Reuters, The Virginian-Pilot
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 5:57 pm
17 Mar 2008
Just because they won't have as much mold growing in the bogs, no reason for eyes to stop smiling. At any rate, it was high time that the Irish (famed story tellers all) got into the Tall Tales Business about what's going to happen once "The Global Warming Sets in...sure and begora". Yes, stately plump Buck Mulligan can finally have a shave in tropical weather and not be bothered as much by the chill in the castle walls.
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 7:47 pm
17 Mar 2008
"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What's this fourth-generation fuel he's talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.
The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."
- "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com
Naturally evolved organisms already exist that eat CO2 and excrete fuel, but the limiting factor is getting enough CO2 from the air. Air is much less than 1% CO2 now. The efficiency can be improved using genetic engineering, and a suicide gene added to assure the GMO couldn't live outside a lab.
Or,
Expensively cutting our emissions fast and drastically is ridiculous, because sulfate particles can be injected into the upper atmosphere, reducing the amount of solar radiation that strikes the Earth:
"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."
-"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"
The total cost would be around 10 billion dollars a year, and using engineered particles could lower the cost 90%!
Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions worldwide, a wildly expensive prescription. Ironically, CO2 in the air could be an asset. Besides, there is a very inexpensive alternative mitigation strategy.
It is an unfeasible strategy to cut world-wide emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming are avoided.
Besides, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters as it warms, not only significantly reducing the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, but dramatically increasing the amount of natural greenhouse gas emissions that go into the air, overwhelming any cuts we make.
Now, I'll add another reason: it is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to make expensive emission cuts to remove a potential asset from the air.
Brad Arnold
http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod
Permalink