... blowing in the wind

The media, and the public, have a love/hate relationship with wind farms, as some recent articles suggest (see below for links).

When wind farms are being planned in an area the media seems to paint them as a bad thing. The 'visual pollution' of a wind farm is seemingly more problematic that the hidden pollution of leaking diesel, distant coal mines, or stored nuclear waste. What will this do to our views, they ask?

When a wind farmed project is stalled or blocked, however, then that's also usually a bad thing in the media. Does this mean we will be forced to use more coal-fired power stations to feed the ever-increasing demand for power? Without the wind power how will we cope, they ask?

When a wind farm opens it can be a good or a bad thing. I was almost surprised at how positive the media has been over the new Antarctic wind farm opening. If there ever was a pristine wilderness that could be visually polluted by large turbines, surely it's the Antarctic. However, it seems that diesel spills on snow are not as invisible as diesel spills on grass and mud, and there are still plenty of unspoiled views in a continent as large as Antarctica.

A recent piece in Vermont's Burlington Free Press website, spelt out clearly the problems with wind farms in the public mind.

We humans experience our surroundings in large part with our eyes, so it is not surprising these large and highly visible machines elicit visceral reactions. We can't tuck them away behind pine-tree hedges in industrial parks.

The aesthetics of power generation may be the biggest hurdle to changing the way we power our lives.

It's easy to be offended by a large smokestack belching black smoke into the environment. It's also easy for people to get upset by a tower expelling clouds of harmless water vapour. Visually they seem too similar for most people to differentiate. Indeed, I have seem water cooling towers issuing steam used on TV news to illustrate pollution. TV never lets reality get in the way of a good visual. They look bad, so they are bad.

Unfortunately, so much of the pollution of current power generation is less visual. Out of sight is out of mind. People don't tend to trek to industrial parks for a picnic or hike. Wind farms suffer from the overlap of their ideal locations with popular human recreation spots.

Wind farms seem to polarize people. I personally have been captivated by the spinning, hypnotic blades. They represent something better than the alternatives in my mind. To others they are an eyesore, a blight upon the landscape. There is also a strong popular belief that wind farms cause distress to animals and humans, cause everything from sleep problems to internal and mental illness, and are expensive and inefficient.

Solar farms face similar issues, as large scale arrays are in essence an angular and sterile desert of black or silver. They are a geometric imposition upon the land. But at least they can be hidden from public view more readily than the pointy wind farms. Tidal power is critiqued in similar tones, an ugly man-made imposition into the beautiful seas. Never mind the sewage pipes hidden from view, those we can't see so we don't care so much.

The human aesthetic of natural beauty has given us some wonderful things, but it can also be a limiting factor in our attempts to more away from conventional power generation.

Links

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1521025920100115
http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2010/01/commissioning-of-antarctic-wind-farm/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/7004551/Wind-farms-could-blight-one-in-six-beauty-spots.html
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100117/LIVING09/1170304/Learning-to-look-at-wind-turbines-again
http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=3473

For want of a nail ...

I've always like tales that link odd things together, so a recent news item caught my eye. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3219022/Monster-trout-catches-are-fur-real) It went something like this ...

In Fiordland, NZ it's a mast year for the beech forests, which means they have dropped record numbers of seeds.

Mice have been gorging themselves silly on the beech seeds, and producing large litters of little mice, so there are record numbers of mice in Fiordland.

Mice swim. This is something I'm a little dubious of, as I was under the impression that mice avoid bodies of water if at all possible, but we'll run with it for the sake of the story. There are large numbers of mice swimming in Fiordland's rivers.

Trout eat mice. Again, this is something I was unaware of. Trout, it seems, will eat anything. Mice are a good source of protein. A high-mouse diet makes for fat trout.

Fishermen in Fiordland are catching record trout, as they have grown large on their high-protien soggy-rodent meals.

So there you go, a mast year in a beech forest gives you record-breaking trout. Although I'm still dubious of the swimming mice part of that chain of consequences. Maybe there's an aquatic mouse breed that has evolved in Fiordland? Soon they will invade our homes by swimming up through the sewers and up through our toilets.

It all reminds me of the old proverb ...

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the rider was lost.

For want of a rider the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Chicken Little of the Sea

The sea is rising! The sea rising! Twice in the last couple of months I've encountered people talking about a possible 100 (one hundred) metre (meter) sea level rise in the next one-hundred years. I've even seen one article that showed maps of Australia after a predicted 300m sea level rise. This seemed like a heck of a lot of water, so I wondered if anyone had done the math, volume calculations and so forth. It turns out a good number of people have done the math ...

So let's be boring and talk volumes. There is a lot of ice out there in the world. If all the ice in Greenland was to melt, for example, the global sea levels would rise by 6-7 metres. There's some wiggle room in the numbers because it is hard to accurately gauge the thickness of the ice, but the calculated volumes are all similar. That's quite a rise in sea levels from just one block of ice. It is a very large block of ice though ...

By-the-way, there are climate change deniers who point out that the Greenland ice sheet is actually thickening ... which they use as a 'counter-example' of warming. However, the truth is, as always, more interesting. As the Greenland ice melts around the edges, as ice tends to do, the increase precipitation (rain and snow fall) in Greenland due to the warmer average temperature deposits more ice on the top of the pile. So it is growing thicker, even as it loses mass to melting.

Back to sea level rise. So, all of Greenland equals a 6-7m rise ... this sounds bad. We can add in some more ice ... The Antarctica Peninsula ice would add in about half a metre, and this is about the same amount as all the world's glacier ice. If all the Antarctica ice were to turn to water, the whole continent becoming incontinent as it were, then you are looking at some serious changes ... about 60m in rising sea waters. However, even when you add in all the snow and ice from everywhere in the world, a melted earth, you still don't get to one hundred metres. In fact, you don't get to 90m even when you add in water expansion from temperate rise.

Seventy or so metres of sea rise sounds pretty bad, but remember the entire world has to melt to get this rise. Not a drop left in ice form. This would mean a change in temperature of plus 37^oC in various places. As far as I'm aware no-one is suggesting a global temperature rise of 37^oC by 2100. If that were to happen, sea level rises would not be our most compelling problem. Building extremely deep underground bunker complexes or leaving the planet would be much higher on our to do list than worrying about the lapping water around our necks.

The actual scientific figures out there estimate a global sea level rise of between 0.1mm (one tenth of a millimeter) to 0.95mm (just under 10 centimetres) a year until 2100 (By scientific I mean from places like the Max Plank Institute and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)). This means that we have a predicted average sea level rise of up-to-a-metre in the next century, but probably less, assuming change continues as predicted. This is 1% or less of the 100m 'prediction' I have been seeing splashed around lately. By the way, the key phrase there is 'average rise' ... individual results may vary.

The odd thing is, a 1m or even half metre sea-level change will have massive consequences ... higher waves, higher flood waters, costal erosion ... but for some reason no one wants to say 'one metre' or 'half-a-metre' or even 'up to a metre' ... it sounds too small. Too tiny to be frightening. So radio, web and TV experts just seem to make up numbers, scary numbers, as it sounds and looks better. Five meters, 10, 25, 50 100, and even 300m ... For example, there's a Google Earth add-on that allows you to change the sea level ... but adding 0.5m to the program changes nothing as the resolution is too small. Instead you are encouraged to enter 50m or 100m to simulate the sea level changes from global warming (indeed there is a popular website of showing generated world maps showing 100m sea level rise), and when you do massive changes occur, but the problem is these numbers are made up. The only basis for entering such large changes is to see large changes on the map ... there's no science behind those numbers, and there's just not enough water out there.

As a contrast, at the end of the last ice age the change is sea levels was about 120m. There was a lot more ice on the planet then (about three times as much as today) and while various kid's films may suggest the melting happened in a hurry, it was a slow change of several thousands of years. This means we currently have media climate 'experts' telling us to expect a change nearly as dramatic as the end of the last ice age to occur thirty times as fast as it did then.... And no-one questions these experts, because to do so is to be labeled a horrid denier of global warming and worse than (insert enemy of the month here). Once these exaggerated figures get out into the public domain they are slavishly copied and repeated without checking.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm not saying sea levels are not rising. I'm not saying that even a less-than-half-a-metre change isn't going to have terrible consequencess. I'm not saying something dramatic couldn't happen ... such as a large chunk of the Western Antarctic ice sliding into the water and raising sea levels several metres. I'm just saying that anyone who tells you that the sea level is going to rise 100m in the next century is talking bollocks ... complete and utter, unsubstantiated bollocks.

Artwork by Guy Landry

Magic water?

So Ali Williams, Richie McCaw and Dan Carter are shilling bottled water. They have a brand ... "Every One" which is promoting healthy food and bottled water. The ads not only stress the healthy aspect of bottled water, but note that some of the money goes toward charity. How can it possibly be a bad thing?

Well, it's a business deal. The trio are in it to make money. As the Richie McCaw blog notes ... "It's a venture that will help stall the big-money offers the trio repeatedly receive to shift to the Northern Hemisphere. It puts their roots firmly in New Zealand and gives them a business post-rugby, said Williams."

At a time when there is a big environmental push to stop producing plastic bottled water containers in the ever-increasing numbers we consume, we have All Blacks telling us to buy more of them.

When study after study is showing that tap water is just as healthy, and about 2000 times cheaper than bottled water, we have All Blacks telling us that all our children should drink their brand of bottled water.

When there are worrying (if somewhat unconfirmed) reports that plastic bottles can leach dangerous chemicals into water, we have All Blacks telling us how healthy it is.

Ginette McDonald is doing voiceovers for another bottled water concern as well. Oh, Lynn of Tawa ... what ever happened to you?

Just turn on the tap.

Oh, and beat the Springboks and the Aussies! Go ABs!

Change the World ?

I have problems with 'climate change'. I find the media burblings on the subject annoying. The extremists on both sides ... the naysayers and the doom-mongers ... seem to be the most common voices in the media reporting. There's no room for anyone with moderate views, or a reasoned approach, because they might seem weak. You say "you're not sure"? Ha! You've lost the argument already. You have to be absolutely positive of your side. 100% committed. Don't let facts or reason get in the way. But if the extremes of media punditry worry me, and they do, they are nothing compared to the extreme solutions to global warming that are gaining support in the US.

Geo-engineering is the latest solution to our climate worries that is being championed. It is, as the name suggests, the engineering of the globe to change weather patterns. It's all stuff that has been around for some time, some of it even lifted from the pages of Sci-Fi writers, Dumping iron filings in the oceans to lower temperatures. Seeding reflective clouds. Giant sea cooling machines. In the last few months the media reporting on geo-engineering has more than doubled (if my simple searches on Google are anything to go by).

Words like 'proactive' and 'prudent' are often used to describe geo-engineering. Risks are mentioned, but then sidelined with arguments like: "the threat of climate change is serious. Mitigation efforts so far have been limited in magnitude, tentative in implementation, and insufficient for slowing climate change enough to avoid potentially serious impacts". (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090721-geoengineering-climate.html)

As The Atlantic pointed out, geo-enginnering plans "are technologically plausible and quite cheap. So cheap, in fact, that a rich and committed environmentalist could act on them tomorrow."(http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering). In fact, Bill Gates has already suggested a geo-enginnering system to help tame hurricanes, by cooling the water in their path, reducing their strength (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6719092.ece). One wonders just how far along the path of the hurricane such technology would be used? Before it hit Cuba? Or after? I mean, who's paying for it?

Geo-enginnering strikes me as a very American solution to our climate woes. Let's not worry about what is causing the change ... let's not reduce emissions (because that will harm the economy) ... let's not even bother to work together. Instead, we can unilaterally change our local climate for the better. Who cares if what we do may have consequences halfway around the globe. It'll just mean more people needed to buy bottled water and air conditioners.

You can see its appeal. It won't threaten American jobs, it will create them. Federal investment will pour into corporate research to develop weather mastery techniques. Rather than doing the natural harmony crap that a bunch of smelly, tree-hugging hippies want you to do, you can use superior technology to conquer and tame nature. You don't have to turn off your lights, drive a small car, or stop drilling for oil or mining for coal. Its the sort of climate crisis solution that an average guy can get behind, and discuss thoughtfully over a 24-pack of beer before shooting a few deer and heading back to civilization in their SUV for a super-sized burger meal.

Geo-engineering does not have widespread support just now. It is seen as too radical, too dangerous, too extreme. Support is growing, however, and the media is certainly doing its part in promoting the idea in recent weeks. By stalling on climate treaties and emission reduction targets those in power seem to be intent on making sure that moderate, reasonable solutions will not come to pass. When the shit hits the fan everyone will beg for the extreme solutions .... Geo-engineering is coming. I, for one, am scared shitless.

Information Spaghetti Junction

The web can be a tangled labyrinth. The other day I saw an item scrolling arcos the bottom of the screen on a news channel that suggested water vapour was a more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I only caught half the tape on the ticker, and so I looked up the details on the web.

Sure enough water vapour is a greenhouse gas,. I got a number of hits from 'concerned individuals' who worried that the focus on CO₂ was wrong, and that the lack of discussions about water vapour emissions at climate conferences showed that the whole thing was a farce. One even pointed out that carbon dioxide was a plant food, so what were we all worried about. That got me thinking ... isn't water also something that plants like? What was going on here?

I dug deeper. I came across a recent press release from GM about their new eco-car, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that emits only "harmless water vapour". Hang on I thought ... if water vapour is a greenhouse gas is the emission of it harmless? I began to wonder if there really was something odd going on here. Were so-called 'zero emission' cars merely swapping one greenhouse gas for another? If water vapour contributed to greenhouse effects, as wiki informed me, five times more than carbon dioxide then would a zero emission car actually make things worse.

I struggled to find answers, I did find lots of hyperbole. Lots of sites that cheerfully told me of the conspiracy to promote the myth of 'man-made' global warming. Some of the sites were even written with good grammar and references. Maybe banning Dihydrogen Monoxide isn't that stupid after all? At least when it's in vapour form.

It took a bit of searching, and some refinement of my search terms, but I did find an answer. Water vapour is indeed the most important variable in terms of the greenhouse gas at any given moment. It has a greater effect than any pollutant. But water vapour is a natural component of the atmosphere and it goes through a cycle (remember those posters of the water cycle kids) that last days. Water does not remain in the atmosphere for any time, and the human contribution is too small to be important. Way too small. Also the contribution from water vapour to warming is very complex, as while clouds trap heat in the atmosphere, they also reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

Cardon dioxide, on the other hand, hangs around. It builds up. Sure, it is a plant food, but we are pumping more CO₂ into the air than the plants can gobble up. Much more. Carbon dioxide, and a number of other pollutants, build up in the atmosphere, making it their permanent residence, while the water merely comes and goes in its natural cycle. That's why the focus is on human emissions, but not water vapour. That's why eco-cars are technically correct when they call water vapour harmless.

But that hasn't stopped people using the notion of water vapour to justify their claims of climate conspiracies ... or why they should continue to pump 'plant food' carbon dioxide into the air ... or even how the US government is creating global warming with cloud-creating airplanes. That's right ... vapour trails are a conspiracy to heat up the earth.

My point though is that it took me some time to find answers to the initial query generated by that news ticker. I consider myself to be moderately intelligent, yet I'm embarrassed to say that for a while there I was seriously wondering if the water vapour emissions from 'eco-cars' might not be making things worse. It took effort, thought, time and patience as well as a critical ability to weed the nutcase sites from the more reputable to get an answer. The web is a confusing and tricky place to navigate and find what you want. Unless you're looking for porn.