Creating cloud to reduce warming and wetlands to reduce erosion

2 important stories this week from Science mag. Firstly, they point out that rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will have two main impacts, namely those of global warming and acidification of the oceans. That much we understand. Now one solution to the former problem (but not the latter, obviously) is that we "geo-engineer" the world's climate in order to mitigate some of the effects of atmospheric CO2 buildup. Wigley (p. 452, published online by Sciencemag 14 September) explores the option of injecting sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere, which would increase the number of aerosol particles that can function as cloud condensation nuclei and thus increase cloud coverage, replicating the effect of large volcanic eruptions. We know that such cloud cover will reflect more sunlight back into space, but this approach would have no positive influence on ocean acidification. I do wonder if it would lead to local effects such as rainfall. It would also vary according to the height at which the particles are released and localised atmospheric circulation patterns.


The second story is about the effects of hurricanes on erosion. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall in 2005 it was painfully obvious that areas where wetlands had been removed were prone to erosion, inundation and sedimentation. Coastal wetlands had been thought to gain and maintain mass through riverine sedimentation during flooding events (think of the Nile valley for a famous example). Turner et al (p. 449, published online 21 September) show that the deposition of sediments by hurricanes is actually the dominant process in the region studied. Yet another reason to put those wetlands back - or don't touch 'em in the first place!!

Richard Dawkins and Salon mag

I like Richard Dawkins as an author, and I do thoroughly respect and even share most of his his opinions, but - and it's a small but - he does seem very black and white about life. Salon get a little carried away and misapprehend him a little, but it's worth a read. (You may need a pass to get in, if you aren't registered.) I agree about the implausability of gods, or of one particular god, in a world full of them. Why indeed Yahweh? Why not Zeus? But I also agree with many other people that although no one god appears "right", there's more here than meets the eye. I agree also with Dawkins that the human mind is extremely creative and that the 'dark side' of that creativity is the ability to "see" and believe things that really aren't there. I think we've all had a moment of fear or doubt or panic and wondered what was that I just saw? Was it a small dark patch of moving light, an unexpected reflection, an air disturbance, an optical illusion - or am I just going ever so slightly mad? Do I feel the presence of god? Is that my Kundalini rising, or just a cool breeze? Truly we can believe in anything if we put the effort in... but those weird coincidences do play on the mind somewhat, if you've had a few. Maybe Richard just hasn't had a truly, madly inexplicable psychic moment yet?

Women - know your limits

Hilarious - have a look at this women's equality spoof "Women: Know your limits"at glumbert.com!

The Panamera - or Porsche's sedan

What do I reckon about Porsche's venture into sedans? Hmmm. It's not their core competence (which is sports cars) but it leverages their skills and builds the brand. But it may also dilute the brand. I certainly (speaking personally) think less of Porsche since they added that incredibly bloated 4WD machine. A sedan doesn't help me recover from that! If I had a 911 I wouldn't really wouldn't expect to share many values with a 4WD or sedan owner; on the other hand Alfa Romeo (for one example) gets away with exactly that, so it may just take time. As a strategic move it heads a few competitors off at the pass and gives owners extra "loyalty" options. Maybe the sedan is a better bet than the rather obese 4WD monster, but the pic in that linked article won't win any friends in my book, anyway. The fattened 911 is not a good look ;-)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I've been riding the (push) bike a bit. You see more things than you do in a car and I tend to wonder: "was I like that/did I do that when I was 20?" Sometimes I wonder "am I turning into an old fogey?". I also wonder how long we can do this to ourselves before the environment gives up and collapses.

I have seen/felt:

1. The wind, fresh air and sun (and wondered if car-dwellers realise they are missing out?)
2. The coolness of the forest (we have some tall trees here and when you ride through them the temperature drops 2-3 very noticeable degrees and you wonder about nearly treeless suburbia and all the air con running to cool what could be cooled naturally)
3. The smell of foul exhausts - we really haven't fixed this one, have we? Drivers may be unaware, but walk or ride along a road and take a look and a whiff of what still spews out the exhaust - it can't be improving our environment, can it?
   
4. The idiots on the roads
• the P-plater in the massive V8 tank who overtook me at full throttle doing at least 90 in a kid-filled 50 zone - why?
• the same P-plater who spun and almost smoked the inside real wheel on a tight left hander - showing off to the 6 and 7 year olds playing nearby what his foot can do with an accelerator?
• the Mitsubishi sedan that had rolled (or was just poorly parked?) across 2 driveways, sideways, the unfortunate thing being the brick retaining wall in between - and the front wheels high in the air
• another V8 driver who choose again to do around 90 in a 70 zone and come within a metre of me and another rider (riding legally on the shoulder, single file). Yes, my friend, you are a weak coward, an intimidating bully and a complete loser - or just completely unaware of what you are doing and a danger - in any case - to us all

Yes, I'm getting to be an old fogey. But when I was 20 there was around half the population in Sydney - and fewer cars. Petrol was cheaper but cars were dearer. You could still fix cars and keep them running - unlike today's more efficient manufacturing process which combines as many functions into one piece as possible. It's cheaper to build but it costs the community dearly in destruction of our environment. We really should stop and think - soon - what we want to leave our kids. A choked, polluted car park, or a forest with fresh air?