The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?  (Read 2608 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?
« Reply #1 on: 13/06/2013 11:49:45 »
CO2 emissions from coal sector rise in 2013. 

"China’s crude steel production for April 2013 was 65.7 Mt, up by 6.8% compared to April 2012. Elsewhere in Asia, Japan produced 9.2 Mt of crude steel in April 2013, up by 1.0% over April 2012. South Korea’s crude steel production was 5.5 Mt in April 2013, down by -6.3% compared to the same month last year." April 2013 Crude Steel Production.

"Physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues estimated that the world could afford to put one trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees C. To date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere—and Allen estimates the trillionth metric ton of carbon will be emitted around the summer of 2041 at present rates. "  How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? 

I expect that to be too optimistic myself, unless we get a world wide recession. World's Dirtiest Energy Projects.

Now, IAEA isn't as unbiased as they want themselves to be perceived. They are pushing for nuclear power, it's written in, in their agenda, that energy type having its own inherent dangers. Still, IEA have this to say. " “The drive to clean up the world’s energy system has stalled,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven told the CEM, which brings together ministers representing countries responsible for four-fifths of global greenhouse-gas emissions. “Despite much talk by world leaders, and despite a boom in renewable energy over the last decade, the average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago.” " Progress towards clean energy has stalled, IEA says.

And the energy company BP commented on it 2012. "Data published by the energy company BP on Wednesday showed that such carbon intensity in OECD countries reached a record low last year, in data going back to 1965. That reflected a vigorous trend toward deployment of renewable energy and gas, both less carbon-emitting than coal, against the backdrop of falling energy demand.

By contrast, in non-OECD countries, carbon intensity reached a 28-year high, following a leap in coal consumption, continuing an upward trend which started in 2000. You now have to go back to 1984 for a time when non-OECD countries had a dirtier energy mix. That matters because it is also these countries which are growing their energy consumption. "

But it's not perfectly correct, is it? :) What about Western natural gas (Methane) and Fracking. It's opinion builders that point fingers on other countries, ignoring their own responsibility, or 'smart' if you like :) maybe, from some idiotic political point of view. They forget that it doesn't matter 'what Country does what', global warming reach us all, anyway. Another stupid thing I read recently was the opinion that USA should share its 'expertise' in fracking with China, because they do it so 'environmentally'?

Hopes for 'safe' temperature increase within 2C fade as Hawaii station documents second-greatest emissions increase.
=

Sorry, mixed IEA with IAEA there.

IEA is a acronym for The International Energy Agency, not the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "The International Energy Agency (IEA; French: Agence internationale de l'énergie) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization established in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors." from International Energy Agency (wiki)

But they seem to go together in some ways. IEA: Stupid, Manipulative or Corrupt?

And when it comes to IAEA.

"In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry."

It's hard to decide who to trust those days, isn't it :)
« Last Edit: 13/06/2013 15:43:17 by yor_on »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?
« Reply #2 on: 17/06/2013 23:59:07 »
Sliding a bit off-topic here, but I think apropos the last sentence, you can trust your own observations.

Worldwide, we are subject to about 2.5 millisievert of natural background radiation per annum, though the amount varies from half that level to more than ten times, depending on where you live. The additional dose from all artificial sources (excluding medical) is about 0.01 mSv/yr, of which roughly half is fallout from nuclear weapon tests and most of the rest is "occupational" exposure. So after 60 years of nuclear power generation, our additional radiation exposure from that source is frankly negligible - about 1 microsievert per year - compared with the variance in natural background.

Having evolved on a radioactive planet that is bathed in cosmic radiation, it is clear that our bodies and in particular our reproductive systems are quite capable of tolerating a well-regulated nuclear power industry. As for accidents, the total number of persons killed by nuclear power accidents is less than the number of children killed by just one coal waste tip at Aberfan in 1966.   
 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?
« Reply #3 on: 18/06/2013 11:16:57 »
Difficult that one. We need energy, and we have those molten salt reactors (thorium) that I think China are planning to build? thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor. And it seems a good choice if you want a nuclear future, harder to make bombs from, although not impossible, and the ability to close itself down naturally in case of a disaster, well, as I get it.

But I think one need to be careful in telling people that the background radiation won't matter. If you look at the medical professions it do matter for what they expect as cancer related. But it is also a matter of statistics, as there are no simple ways to correlate a cancer to some nuclear testing. You have this graph for example http://www.antique-wine.com/windows/authentication/caesium.aspx relating Cesium 137 to nuclear testing, but to define a risk from that? We also have a big, largely unknown to us Westerners, problem in East Europe (formerly soviet union) related to nuclear and other waste. Cheyla. as well as the Russian research on the aftermath of Chernobyl http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

"Cesium's danger as an environmental hazard, damaging when ingested, is made worse by it's mimicking of potassium's chemical properties. This ensures that cesium as a contaminant will be ingested, because potassium is needed by all living things. . .Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells." From Physics.org.

(It's inhalation/ingestion and recycling that's the main problem as I gather it. it becomes a part of the natural cycle of life and so come back to haunt generation after generation.)

But don't read me wrong here. We will still need (nuclear) energy as a guess, shortsightedly at least. Until we find something better. But I would prefer if we first tried to develop 'green' alternatives, as water, thermal energy, wind, sun etc. as that would be a saner approach to me. But this type of decentralized concept also create problems for those wanting centralized solutions, owned and controlled by a few competitors, or possibly a state. Also, a lot of thorium reactors will make a lot of waste, on a continuous basis. And relating the background radiation, natural or not, to cancer for example, can only be done statistically, and makes it easy to argue that there can be other relations too. So making it impossible to prove, as you will have argument standing against argument.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?
« Reply #4 on: 18/06/2013 11:43:37 »
Better correct that. It's not as much that it is impossible to prove. A statistically significant correlation is a proof. But it will be easy to confuse the subject, by demanding a proof for what specific 'cause' did 'what'. It reminds me of 'proving' a global warming in fact :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Will storms get worse with humidity raising?
« Reply #4 on: 18/06/2013 11:43:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums