Hot Talk, Cold Science - Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate

by S. Fred Singer (photo: desmogblog.com)

The Global Climate Treaty
According to proponents of the Global Climate Treaty, a consensus within the scientific community supports the view that human-caused global warming is occurring and that it threatens human health and well-being. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from viewing the existence of global warming as “settled,” most atmospheric scientists and climate specialists hold that the global warming issue should be considered “unfinished business” requiring much further research.

Rather than embark on economically destructive policies to solve a problem that to the best of our knowledge does not exist, Singer urges policymakers to adopt a “no regrets” policy of continued research and unimpeded economic growth. We would then have more scientific knowledge, technology, and economic resources with which to confront climate warming, if we ever discover that it is occurring and poses a real threat. But prematurely mandating severe reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would make us—and developing countries, especially—poorer and less able to cope with any future problems.

No Scientific Consensus of Warming
That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. These reports gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the reports also supported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC reports even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

Man-Made Global Warming Not in Evidence
The announced purpose of the Global Climate Treaty is to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” However, this goal is entirely arbitrary because we have no scientific guidance for determining what constitutes a “dangerous interference.” Nor do we have evidence that human activity has had much effect on world climate.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)

While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Would Global Warming Be a Threat?
Given the incessant talk about the purported catastrophes a global warming might cause—severe storms, coastal flooding, increases in mosquito-carried diseases—it sounds strange to hear about benefits from a global warming. Nevertheless, the scientific literature supports the view that increases in CO2 concentration and global temperatures, were they to materialize, might actually improve human well-being. Some benefits include a CO2-enriched biosphere more conducive to plant growth, longer frost-free growing seasons, greater water efficiency for plants, and more available farmland at higher latitudes.

A reduction in severe storms would be another likely benefit if global warming were to occur. Since a global warming would probably mostly warm the latitudes farther north and south, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles would fall, thereby reducing the severity of storms. (Contrary to anecdotal reports, theory and observations indicate that severe storms, both tropical and extra-tropical, have not increased in the past 50 years. In fact, North Atlantic hurricanes have noticeably declined in frequency and in intensity.)

Rising sea levels, another alleged consequence of a global warming, may also be a phantom problem. It seems likely that a global warming would lower, rather than raise sea levels, because more evaporation from the oceans would increase precipitation and thereby thicken the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. This possibility is supported by an observed inverse correlation between the rate of rise of the sea level and tropical sea surface temperature.

Ocean Fertilization and Economic Resilience
If increases in carbon dioxide concentrations do become a problem, a policy of ocean fertilization—to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and speed up the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean, as recently documented in field testing—seems more prudent (and cheaper) than energy rationing. Ocean fertilization would also likely bring an important side benefit: vast ocean deserts could be turned into thriving fisheries. Developing countries in particular would benefit from this less expensive policy by investing the saved wealth in strengthening the resilience of their economies, safeguarding against naturally occurring harmful climate events, and improving their health care systems.

About the Author
S. Fred Singer is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and a Distinguished Research Fellow, Institute for Space Science and Technology. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is the former director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and former Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Benefits of Global Warming!!

Hot Talk, Cold Science - Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate  

By S. Fred Singer

Foreword by Frederick Seitz

Synopsis

According to proponents of the Global Climate Treaty, a consensus within the scientific community supports the view that human-caused global warming is occurring and that it threatens human health and well-being. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from viewing the existence of global warming as “settled,” most atmospheric scientists and climate specialists hold that the global warming issue should be considered “unfinished business” requiring much further research.

In HOT TALK, COLD SCIENCE: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, astrophysicist S. Fred Singer probes the literature on climate change and lays out the scientific case against the likelihood of an imminent, catastrophic global warming. Theoretical computer models to the contrary, man-made global warming has not been documented. But even if it were to occur, the evidence suggests that it would largely be benign and may even improve human well-being, Singer argues.

Rather than embark on economically destructive policies to solve a problem that to the best of our knowledge does not exist, Singer urges policymakers to adopt a “no regrets” policy of continued research and unimpeded economic growth. We would then have more scientific knowledge, technology, and economic resources with which to confront climate warming, if we ever discover that it is occurring and poses a real threat. But prematurely mandating severe reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would make us—and developing countries, especially—poorer and less able to cope with any future problems.

No Scientific Consensus of Warming

That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.

That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was “probable” and 32 percent “possible.” But 47 percent said “probably not”—far from a consensus.

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

Man-Made Global Warming Not in Evidence

The announced purpose of the Global Climate Treaty is to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” However, this goal is entirely arbitrary because we have no scientific guidance for determining what constitutes a “dangerous interference.” Nor do we have evidence that human activity has had much effect on world climate.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)

While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Would Global Warming Be a Threat?

Given the incessant talk about the purported catastrophes a global warming might cause—severe storms, coastal flooding, increases in mosquito-carried diseases—it sounds strange to hear about benefits from a global warming. Nevertheless, the scientific literature supports the view that increases in CO2 concentration and global temperatures, were they to materialize, might actually improve human well-being. Some benefits include a CO2-enriched biosphere more conducive to plant growth, longer frost-free growing seasons, greater water efficiency for plants, and more available farmland at higher latitudes.

A reduction in severe storms would be another likely benefit if global warming were to occur. Since a global warming would probably mostly warm the latitudes farther north and south, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles would fall, thereby reducing the severity of storms. (Contrary to anecdotal reports, theory and observations indicate that severe storms, both tropical and extratropical, have not increased in the past 50 years. In fact, North Atlantic hurricanes have noticeably declined in frequency and in intensity.)

Rising sea levels, another alleged consequence of a global warming, may also be a phantom problem. It seems likely that a global warming would lower, rather than raise sea levels, because more evaporation from the oceans would increase precipitation and thereby thicken the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. This possibility is supported by an observed inverse correlation between the rate of rise of the sea level and tropical sea surface temperature.

Ocean Fertilization and Economic Resilience

If increases in carbon dioxide concentrations do become a problem, a policy of ocean fertilization—to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and speed up the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean, as recently documented in field testing—seems more prudent (and cheaper) than energy rationing. Ocean fertilization would also likely bring an important side benefit: vast ocean deserts could be turned into thriving fisheries. Developing countries in particular would benefit from this less expensive policy by investing the saved wealth in strengthening the resilience of their economies, safeguarding against naturally occurring harmful climate events, and improving their health care systems.

About the Author

S. Fred Singer is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and a Distinguished Research Fellow, Institute for Space Science and Technology. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is the former director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and former Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Taken from: http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=42

Geothermal Energy Installations Global Round Up (EGS)

image: optimism.thorscave.com

Latest Enhanced Geothermal Energy (EGS) Installations, Worldwide

"Geothermal Energy: International Market Update," issued May 25, found that between 2005 and 2010 the United States retained its global leadership in production with most megawatts installed, while Germany was the fastest growing geothermal power producer.

The countries with the greatest increase in installed capacity between 2005 and 2010 were: (1) United States - 530 megawatts, (2) Indonesia - 400 MW, (3) Iceland - 373 MW, (4) New Zealand - 193 MW, and (5) Turkey - 62 MW.

In terms of percentage increase the top five countries were: (1) Germany - 2,774 percent, (2) Papua-New Guinea - 833 percent, (3) Australia - 633 percent, (4) Turkey - 308 percent, and (5) Iceland - 184 percent.

Seventy nations currently have projects under development, a 52 percent increase in just the past three years. Projects under development grew the most in Europe and Africa.

Ten countries in Europe were listed as having geothermal projects under development in 2007, but in 2010 this more than doubled to 24 nations.

Six countries in Africa were identified as having geothermal projects under development in 2007, compared to 11 now working to produce geothermal power.

Source: ens-newswire.com
.

Climate Change: Man-Made or Not?

.

image: reallynatural.com

As I See It……………..

A year or two ago, the majority of the public believed that man-made CO2, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, was raising the Earth’s temperature and, consequently, was changing the Earth’s climate, and that if the man-made CO2 emissions were not drastically reduced, there would be disastrous results. Of late. opinions seem to be changing – now more than half the population no longer believes this to be true.

It is a fact that the temperature and the climate of the Earth have always changed over time. These changes are due to “natural causes”, that is, causes which have nothing to do with mankind’s activity.

It is a fact that over the last 100 years, millions of tons of man-made CO2 have been added to the atmosphere that otherwise would not have been there. With the increasing industrialization in the third world, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere annually is set to increase, year by year, for the foreseeable future.

Leaving aside such issues as misleading “hockey stick” graphs, Al Gore’s motives, tampering with meteorological data, bribing of scientists, vested interests of both the fossil fuel and the renewables industries, ice core samples and tree rings, flawed computer models, biased interpretation of data, etc, we are, as I see it, left with one question with two possible answers.

The question is, over and above changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate due to natural causes, will this additional man-made CO2 --

• have a significant effect on the temperature and climate of the planet and is very likely to bring about catastrophic results for mankind, and that urgent action needs to be taken? (The Activist’s case)

OR

• have no effect, or only an insignificant effect, on the temperature and climate of the planet? (The Skeptic’s case)

Which case do you believe is right – the Activist’s or the Skeptic’s?

The way you answer the question leads on to other issues.

If you believe the former choice that the threat is real and urgent, then the question is what do you think should be done about it? What actions should be taken to cut down CO2 emissions and how drastic should those actions be? How is the inevitable detrimental effect that cutting CO2 emissions will have on the World’s economy to be handled? With this choice, you accept the risk that the Skeptics were right after all.

If you believe the latter choice, that there will be no, or only an insignificant amount of warming and climate change, then the quite considerable measures that have already been taken by governments to limit CO2 emissions should be dismantled forthwith. With this choice you accept the risk that the Activists were right after all.

My own personal opinion is the latter; that the additional man-made CO2 will have only an insignificant effect on the temperature and climate of the planet. (The Skeptic’s case). I believe that all CO2 emission reduction measures should be dismantled forthwith.

However, for an entirely different, non-CO2, reason, I believe that all countries should be taking urgent steps to secure their energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels.

L.Berney
March 2010

To those who are interested in the subject of Climate Change

.

by L Berney

Science Corrupted - Al Gore Won't Debate

As you will know, there is a substantial body of meteorological scientists who are adamant that, contrary to the opinion of other scientists, the additional carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by mankind's burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has not and will not materially alter the Earth's climate.

These scientists claim that the arguments used by the "climate change activists" are false, unproven and are fundamentally untrue. They claim that the measures being taken by world leaders to eliminate CO2 emissions will result in serious disruption of the world's economy, completely unnecessarily.

This video of an interview given by Lord Christopher Monckton explains the anti-climate change activists' standpoint. (Lord Monkton is a politician and was at one-time an adviser to the British Government. He is well known for his "anti-climate change activists" views.)
.

Further to "Climate Change - The Skeptics " of 7th December.

As I see it....... by L Berney

As detailed in "Climate Change - The Skeptics " of 7th December, climate change skeptics are convinced that the "Global Warming is Man-Made" proponents are wrong -- indeed they claim the whole concept is a gigantic scam. They say,"Planet Earth has always had warmer periods followed by cooler periods. The reason for periodic 'Global Warming' and 'Global Cooling' and the resulting effect on climate has nothing to do with man-made CO2 -- it has to do ONLY with the varying output of the Sun."

For those who are interested in the debate and want to know more, here is Part 1 of a series of videos explaining the skeptics' convictions clearly and in detail.

The logic, it has to be said, is convincing.

.

Climate Change - The Skeptics

As I See It....... by L. Berney

The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 takes place in Copenhagen from 7th to 18th December. It will be attended by 192 nations; many heads of governments will be present. The objective is to agree a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012.

The majority of scientists say they believe that the planet is getting warmer and this ‘global warming’ is due in the main to human activity, namely the release into the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas, CO2 resulting from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas (the fossil fuels).

These scientists say that, unless robust and immediate mitigating action is taken, the temperature of the planet will rise over the coming decades by 3ºC to 6ºC and that the effects on humanity will be catastrophic.

However, there are a large number of other scientists (the skeptics) who did not, and still do not, agree with that scenario. They challenge the accuracy of the records that purport to show that the planet is getting warmer. They assert that:

• the man-made CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere over the last two centuries has made no significant change in the temperature or the climate.
  
• the Earth’s temperature rise in the 20th Century was only 0.5ºC and that was due to the Earth’s gradual recovery from the ‘mini ice age' of 500 years ago, not to man-made CO2.
• there is no hard evidence to expect , even less to predict with certitude, that the rise in temperature in this 21st Century – if indeed there is a rise at all -- will be substantially greater.
  

They claim that the projections of temperatures and climate changes being used to support the ‘disaster’ scenario are based on faulty and unproven assumptions. They believe that whatever global warming is taking place is the result of natural cyclical causes, not man-made causes. They fear that the actions being implemented by World Leaders to drastically reduce the volume of man-made CO2 will cause great harm to the World’s economy – needlessly.

Some quotes, typical of many others, from papers issued by leading scientist skeptics:

"...The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. Man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world..."

"...Some scientists perpetuate the 'global disaster' myth to encourage governments to fund more research into global warming for their own financial benefit. In the papers they publish, data which contradicts their hypotheses is omitted. If it was realized that there was no such danger, that funding would stop..."

"...For those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature dropping and that the planet was entering another ice age. The same ‘if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late' statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines by many of the same ‘scientists,' and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling! How times change, while people don't,.."

This site sets out the skeptic’s position:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/745.html

This is the link to a US Senate report of 11 Dec 2008 (231 pages) headed “More than 650 International Scientists dissent over Man-Made Global Warming”:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

This site summarizes a large number of articles opposed to the current policies:

www.climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

A Petition signed by 31,000 skeptical scientists. These scientists are "...convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."

www.petitionproject.org/


L.Berney
December 2009

Addendum

To illustrate how the Earth's temperature swings higher and lower naturally, long before man-made CO2 was a factor:

“The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century, 2,000 years ago. There were about 40 vineyards,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages, 500/600 years ago.

"Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age of 600 years ago. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today’s warming is not unprecedented.”
.

Climate Change - The Controversy Continues

image from www.watersecretblog.com

As I See It

by L. Berney

On 1st December 2008, more than 9,000 delegates from around the World gathered in Poznań, Poland for two weeks of critical UN-sponsored talks on tackling climate change. About 150 prime ministers and environment ministers attended the discussions, which are part of a process on finding a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is due to end in 2012, and there is now a major international push to have its successor agreed by this time next year.

The basis of the Kyoto Protocol is that the planet is getting warmer and this ‘global warming’ is due in the main to human activity, namely the release into the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas, CO2. The scientists who are behind the Protocol believe that, unless mitigating action is taken, the temperature of the planet will rise over the coming decades by 3ºC to 6ºC and that the effects on humanity will be catastrophic.

However, there are a large number of other scientists (the sceptics) who did not, and still do not, agree with the science behind the Protocol. They challenge the accuracy of the records that purport to show that the planet is getting warmer. They question the assumption that the man-made CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere over the last two centuries has made any significant change in the temperature or the climate. They believe that, if in fact global warming is taking place, there are causes other than man-made CO2 to explain it. They fear that the actions being implemented by World leaders to drastically reduce the volume of man-made CO2 will cause great harm to the World’s economy – needlessly.

This is the link to a US Senate report of 11 Dec 2008 (231 pages) headed “More than 650 International Scientists dissent over Man-Made Global Warming”:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

Wikipedia’s detailed article on “Climate Change Controversy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_controversy#Causes

This site summarises a large number of articles opposed to Kyoto:
www.climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

A Petition signed by 31,000 sceptical scientists:
www.petitionproject.org/

---

My opinion?

I tend to agree with the sceptics.

Even if the CO2 in the atmosphere were to increase from a miniscule one part in 2,600 as it now, to the level some scientists project, a still miniscule one part in 1,700 at the end of this century, I doubt whether that small increase would cause a dramatic change in the climate.

I think the planet is probably still warming up from its last ice age of 10,000 years ago – at a rate of perhaps 0.5ºC to 1ºC per century. That rate of warming will cause little or no difference to the climate or to humanity.

I think the present policy of restricting the use of power, “carbon trading” and the like, will cause serious and needless decline in the World’s economy.

I believe that, as this century advances, the World will need a great deal more power -- abundant and cheap power -- especially if we are to lift a quarter of the World’s population out of poverty and at the same time provide for a projected population increase of 3 billion extra citizens.

However, I do believe that we should wean ourselves off of burning fossil fuels, NOT for ‘stop-CO2-emissions’ reasons, but for several other valid reasons.

Where, then, should our power come from? In my opinion, first choice, the development of Geothermal Energy – second choice, Nuclear Energy.

ATLAS'S BURDENS (updated)

by L. Berney

If Atlas, who in Greek mythology carries the weight of the world on his shoulders,

was asked, "What are the world's weightiest problems today?" his answer would
probably include:


NEEDS OF THE POPULATION EXPLOSION The world population is set to
increase by some 50% or another 3,000 Million people in the next 50
years. All these extra people will need food, water, housing, clothing,
health care, education and the other necessities of life, and, of course,
jobs.

WATER SHORTAGE Already acute in some parts of the world -- the
increase in population will greatly increase this problem. Water shortage
can lead to conflict and even war.

POWER SUPPLY Raising the living standards of the developing world and
at the same time the increase in the world's population will consume a
vastly increased amount of power. An extrapolation of the year on year
increase in the world's power consumption shows that by 2050 the
consumption will have doubled; by the end of the century the power
required will be at least five times the present level.

THE END OF OIL AND GAS The world's need for energy is increasing
while the reserves of oil and gas are rapidly running out. As evidence, the
prices of oil and gas have doubled in recent years. Supplies must eventually
be exhausted, what then?

REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. CO2 (almost certainly) causes
global warming and therefore climate change. As oil and gas become
scarcer and more expensive, the world will probably burn more coal, of
which there are is a vast reserve. Coal produces much more CO2 than oil
or gas and therefore increases global warming and all the dire
consequences which must follow.

RISING SEA LEVEL Due to global warming and melting ice, the sea level is
predicted to rise by up to one meter by the end of the century. If so, this
will inundate some of the most densely populated cities and areas in the
world. Hundreds of millions of people now in those cities and areas will
gradually re-locate in other, higher, areas.

CONSEQUENCES OF A CHANGE IN CLIMATE Climate change will cause
major changes in the amount and location of rainfall. Some parts of the
world will become virtually uninhabitable. The existing population in those
regions (many hundreds of millions) will over time have to re-locate in other
areas, and add to those of the hundreds of millions having to migrate due
to the rising sea level.

POVERTY Some 40%, or 2,700 Million, of the world's population are
currently having to live on less than US$2 (œ1) a day. Some 800 Million go
to bed hungry every night. Over 2,000 Million people have no access to
electricity. Poverty shortens life, causes disease, increases infant mortality,
leads to mass economic migration, more "illegal immigrants".

AIDS This pandemic, first recognized in 1981, had by 2006 caused the
death of some 25 million people. It is estimated that today some 39 million
people are infected, of these. nearly 600,000 are children. Although there
are treatments (for those that can afford them) which prolong life, there is
no known cure.

RELIGIOUS AMBITION -- WORLD DOMINATION Some religions dictate that it is
their holy duty to convert all non-believers and those individuals who will not convert must be dominated or killed. Such conflict has been waged for over 1,000 years and continues to this day.

---

What are the world's governments and commercial and industrial corporations
doing to tackle these global problems? From what I can discover, with one
exception, not much!

There has been a marked recent interest in the field of REDUCING CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. The emphasis seems to be on RESTRICTING the use of
electricity and the use of vehicles by means of taxation and legislation (Kyoto, EU
and G8 resolutions). There is little or no emphasis on REPLACEMENT of the CO2
emitting fossil fuels by a non-polluting energy supply; no plans to increase the
energy supply to carry the world economy forward. In my opinion, the measures
being initiated to cut back on CO2 emissions are futile; they will inevitably fail to
result in any significant reduction. Example -- recently both China and India have
publicly stated that they have no intention of jeopardizing their economic
development in order to reduce their CO2 emissions! What is certain, however, is
that if the planned restrictions of CO2 emissions were, in fact, to be enforced
there is a very real danger of bringing about a world-wide economic recession.

In my view, we are heading in the wrong direction!

Again, in my view, there is another way, another direction. That way is the
harnessing of the inexhaustible supply of heat below the earth's surface,
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY. I believe the harnessing of geothermal energy would go
a long way towards resolving, or at least mitigating the effects of not only global
warming but most of the world's problems as well. Referring to Atlas's burdens
above, this is how.

The needs of the population explosion (about 50% in the next 50 years) can
be met given cheap and abundant electrical power.

The world's water shortage can be eliminated, given enough de-salination
plants; de-salination plants need electrical power.

The end of our reserves of oil, gas, and eventually coal, would not matter,
given an alternative source of energy, namely geothermal energy.

The introduction of geothermal energy could enable the use of all fossil fuels,
and the CO2 emissions they create, to be phased out over the next three or
four decades (possible exception: kerosene for aircraft, by comparison a very
small proportion of current fossil fuel consumption).

The problems of nuclear energy, the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste and
the danger of sabotage, could be eliminated by replacing nuclear with geothermal.

The world's annual increase in power requirement -- possibly five times by the
year 2100 -- could be met by geothermal energy; the heat below our feet is
unlimited.

The massive population re-location which climate change and sea level rise
will cause could be managed over time given an adequate supply of cheap
electrical power.

If we are to lift a quarter of the world's population out of poverty, provision of
electrical power is a basic essential -- there is no way it could be done
without electricity being available to people wherever they live.

While cheap power in itself will not eliminate the problem of Aids, treatment and
drugs for the millions now effected must depend on medical infrastructure and
education; both in turn requiring electrical power.

Even the world's problem with Islam and its militants would be reduced: the
interference (as Muslims see it) by the West in the affairs of the Islamic
countries stems very largely from the West's need for oil and gas, much of
which lies in Islamic countries. If the West no longer had need of Middle East
oil and gas there is no doubt that the conflict between Islam and the West
would be lessened.

Geothermal energy is pollution-free, environmental friendly, needs no
transportation or storage, is universally available in every region of the globe,
eliminates the political problems associated with fossil fuels between "have" and
"have not" countries, is inexhaustible and unending. But is unlimited geothermal
energy really available? Could it really be mined and used to generate electrical
power? Could it really replace fossil fuels and nuclear?

Last year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced a 300 page report
entitled "The Future of Geothermal Energy -- the impact of Enhanced Geothermal
Systems on the United States in the 21st. Century". In the Findings, the report
states, "Using reasonable assumptions regarding how heat would be mined (from
within the USA), we estimate the extractable portion to exceed about 2,000
times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005.
Surely an amazing statement! And in principle surely true of regions in the rest of
the world as well.

In Hunter Valley, Australia, a pilot geothermal "hot rock" plant is in operation, see
. The company forecasts that the energy available
from their one site is more than sufficient to supply the electrical power required
by the whole of Australia for the foreseeable future.

If the manpower and global resources expended in the last two decades on wind
farms, solar panels and currently being expended on new wells to mine oil and
gas from less and less productive areas had instead been, and from now on would
be, used to develop geothermal heat as our basic energy source, we would be
well on the way to a permanent and ideal solution to the world's energy source
needs for the 21st. century.

I have been watching the pronouncements being made by the world's political,
commercial and scientific leaders. Hardly a day passes without the subjects of
global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, cutting back on CO2,
carbon trading, and the like, hitting the news. It is amazing, given the fact that
geothermal energy as an energy source is, (in my view) the near-perfect answer
to so many of the world's problems, that it is hardly ever mentioned!

Why not, one asks? I wish I knew!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note Other relevant papers: 'THE ENERGY PROBLEM -- A POSSIBLE SOLUTION', 'Climate Change and Global Warming', 'A Fact Sheet on
Geothermal Energy' in the previous Atlas's Burden article.

Hot Fractured Rock Geothermal Energy - the Answer to Global Warming?

Energy is, and will remain, the largest business on Earth. This industry is undergoing major changes as the world grapples with climate change, pollution and the need for renewable energy. One source of renewable energy is hot fractured rock (HFR) geothermal energy.

HFR geothermal energy is produced using heat extracted from buried hot granites by circulating water through an engineered, artificial reservoir or underground heat exchanger. These hot granites represent a massive source of renewable energy, free from CO2 emissions.
The development of HFR geothermal energy relies on existing technologies. HFR geothermal projects are currently underway in France, Switzerland, Germany, California, and Japan. Australia has a recognised potential for the development of HFR geothermal energy.
Perhaps HFR is the answer to the world's future energy needs - a source that does not exacerbate the problem of global warming, is safe and seemingly available in infinite supply. This report entitled, "The Future of Geothermal Energy" suggests that the amount of extractable HFR energy exceeds the world's current consumption by a factor of several thousand!

To quote Sheikh Yamani: "The Stone Age did not end because people ran out of stones - it ended because they found something better."

What is Hot Fractured Rock Energy? Click here and here to find out.

With thanks to Geodynamics, the Australian geothermal power company for the images and text.

Atlas's Burden

If Atlas, who in Greek mythology carries the weight of the world on his shoulders, was asked, "What are the world's weightiest problems today?" his answer would probably include:

NEEDS OF THE POPULATION EXPLOSION
The world population is set to increase by some 50% or another 3,000 Million people in the next 50 years. All these extra people will need food, water, housing, clothing, health care, education and the other necessities of life, and, of course, jobs.

WATER SHORTAGE
Already acute in some parts of the world - the increase in population will greatly increase this problem. Water shortage can lead to conflict and even war.

POWER SUPPLY
Raising the living standards of the developing world and at the same time the increase in the world's population will consume a vastly increased amount of power. One estimate is that the power required by the end of the century will be at least five times the present level.

THE END OF OIL AND GAS
The world's need for energy is increasing while the reserves of oil and gas are rapidly running out. As evidence, the prices of oil and gas have doubled in recent years. Supplies must eventually be exhausted, what then?

REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
CO2 (almost certainly) causes global warming and therefore climate change. As oil and gas become scarcer and more expensive, the world will probably burn more coal, of which there are is a vast reserve. Coal produces much more CO2 than oil or gas and therefore increases global warming and all the dire consequences which must follow.

RISING SEA LEVEL
Due to global warming and melting ice, the sea level is predicted to rise by up to one meter by the end of the century. If so, this will inundate some of the most densely populated cities and areas in the world. Hundreds of millions of people now in those cities and areas will gradually re-locate in other, higher, areas.

CONSEQUENCES OF A CHANGE IN CLIMATE
Climate change will cause major changes in the amount and location of rainfall. Some parts of the
world will become virtually uninhabitable. The existing population in those will over time re-locate in other areas, and add to those migrating due to the rising sea level.

POVERTY
Some 40%, or 2,700 Million, of the world's population are currently having to live on less than US$2 (£1) a day. Some 800 Million go to bed hungry every night. Over 2,000 Million people have no access to electricity. Poverty shortens life, causes disease, increases infant mortality,
leads to mass economic migration, more "illegal immigrants".

AIDS
This pandemic, first recognized in 1981, had by 2006 caused the death of some 25 million people. It is estimated that today some 39 million people are infected, of these. nearly 600,000 are children. Although there are treatments (for those that can afford them) which prolong life, there is no known cure.

WARFARE
According to Wikipedia, there are currently 27 wars taking place around the world.

What are the world's governments and commercial and industrial corporations doing to tackle these global problems? From what I can discover, with one exception, not much!

There has been a marked recent interest in the field of REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. In my opinion, the measures being initiated are futile; they will inevitably fail to result in any significant reduction in the world's increasing CO2 emissions. Moreover, if the measures being planned are actually enforced there is a very real danger of their causing a world-wide economic recession. We are, in my opinion, going in the wrong direction!

In my opinion again, the solution to this CO2 emission problem lies in the harnessing of the inexhaustible supply of heat below the earth's surface, GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, leading eventually to the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Moreover this pollution-free, universally available, unlimited energy source would enable cheap and abundant electrical power to be available world-wide; this would go a long way towards solving, or at least adapting to, most of the world's problems.

If the global resources expended in the last two decades on wind farms, solar panels and on new wells to mine oil and gas from less and less productive areas had instead been used to develop geothermal heat as an energy source, we would be well on the way to a permanent and ideal solution to the world's energy source needs for the foreseeable future.

Note This subject is discussed in other papers: 'Energy' and 'Global Warming'.

A Fact Sheet on Geothermal Energy follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY FACT SHEET

INTRODUCTION

The word geothermal comes from the Greek words "geo" (earth) and "therme" (heat), and means the heat of the earth. Earth's interior heat originated from its fiery consolidation from dust and gas over 4 billion years ago and is continually regenerated from the decay of radioactive elements that occur in all rocks.

EARTH'S HEAT AND VOLCANIC REGIONS

It is almost 6,500 kilometres (4,000 miles) from the surface to the centre of the Earth, and the deeper you go, the hotter it gets.

The outer layer, the crust, is three to 35 miles thick and insulates us from the hot interior. From the surface down through the crust the normal temperature gradient (the increase of temperature with the increase of depth) in the Earth's crust is 17 - 30°C per kilometre of depth (50-87°F per mile). Below the crust is the mantle, made of highly viscous, partially molten rock with temperatures between 650 and 1,250°C (1,200-2,280°F). At Earth's core, which consists of a liquid outer core and a solid inner core, temperatures may reach 4,000-7,000°C (7,200 to 12,600°F). Where magma reaches the surface it can build volcanoes. But most magma stays well below ground, creating huge subterranean regions of hot rock sometimes underlying areas as large as an entire mountain range. Cooling can take from 5,000 to more than 1 million years. These shallow regions of relatively elevated crustal heat have high temperature gradients.

RENEWABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Production from individual geothermal fields can be sustained for decades and perhaps centuries. The U.S. Department of Energy classifies geothermal energy as renewable.

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT

The drill rigs and drilling technology and equipment are virtually the same as that used for drilling for oil or gas. The electrical generating plant, located alongside the geothermal well heads, is standard; steam turbine driven electrical generators connected to the grid. Water consumption is small as the steam is condensed and re-used as injection water.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

With all sources of energy, developers and consumers must work to protect the environment. The challenges differ with the type of energy resource, and the differences give geothermal energy certain advantages. Geothermal direct use facilities have minimal or no negative impacts on the environment. Geothermal power plants are relatively easy on the environment. They are successfully operated in the middle of crops, in sensitive desert environments and in forested recreation areas.

VISUAL PROTECTION

No power plant or drill rig is as lovely as a natural landscape, so smaller is better. A geothermal plant sits right on top of its fuel source: no additional land is needed such as for mining coal or for transporting oil or gas. When geothermal power plants and drill rigs are located in scenic areas, mitigation measures are implemented to reduce intrusion on the visual landscape. Some geothermal power plants use special air cooling technology which eliminates even the plumes of water vapour from cooling towers and reduces a plant profile to as little as 24 feet in height.

IMPROVING GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY

Since the 1970's the geothermal industry, with the assistance of government research funding, has overcome many technical drilling and power plant problems. As a result of government-assisted research and industry experience, the cost of generating geothermal power has decreased by 25% over the past two decades. Research is currently underway to further improve exploration, drilling, reservoir, power plant and environmental technologies. Enhancing the recoverability of Earth's heat is an important area of ongoing research.

ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

Private and government research projects in the United States, Japan and in Europe are improving the accessibility of geothermal energy by developing new technology to increase the permeability of the rocks.

Permeability can be created in hot rocks by hydraulic fracturing -- injecting large volumes of water into a well at a pressure high enough to break the rocks. The artificial fracture system is mapped by seismic methods as it forms, and a second well is drilled to intersect the fracture system. Cold water can then be pumped down one well and hot water taken from the second well for use in a geothermal plant. This "hot dry rock" technology is being tested in Japan, Germany, France, England and the U.S. In Australia a test plant has been in operation for some time yielding excellent results.

THE FUTURE FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

The outlook for geothermal energy use depends on at least three factors: the demand for energy in general; the inventory of available geothermal resources; and the competitive position of geothermal among other energy sources. The Demand for energy will continue to grow. Economies are expanding, populations are increasing (over 2 billion people still do not have electricity), and energy-intensive technologies are spreading. All these mean greater demand for energy. At the same time, there is growing global recognition of the environmental impacts of energy production and use from fossil fuel and nuclear resources. Public polls repeatedly show that most people prefer a policy of support for renewable energy.

The critical temperature for the generation of geothermal energy to power an electrical generating plant is 200ªC. At every point in the world a well will reach rock at that temperature; on average the depth to reach a temperature of 200ªC is about 5Km. Geothermal heat is more accessible in some areas than others but the inventory of accessible geothermal energy is sizable. The entire world resource base of readily accessible geothermal energy has been calculated in government surveys to be much larger than the resource bases of coal, oil, gas and uranium combined. The geothermal resource base becomes more available as methods and technologies for accessing it are improved through research and experience.

COSTS

Shorter and Longer Term Costs. Production of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) are a relative bargain in the short term. Like many renewable resources, geothermal resources need relatively high initial investments to access the heat. But the geothermal "fuel" cost is predictable and stable. Fossil fuel supplies will increase in cost as reserves are exhausted. Fossil fuel supplies can be interrupted by political disputes abroad.

Renewable geothermal energy is a better long term investment.

Direct and Indirect Costs. The monetary price we pay to our natural gas and electricity suppliers, and at the gas pump, is our direct cost for the energy we use. But the use of energy also has indirect or external costs that are imposed on society.

Examples are the huge costs of global climate change; the health effects from ground level pollution of the air; future effects of pollution of water and land; military expenditures to protect petroleum sources and supply routes; and costs of safely storing radioactive waste for generations. Geothermal energy can already compete with the direct costs of conventional fuels in some locations and is a clean, indigenous, renewable resource without hidden external costs. Public polls reveal that customers are willing to pay a little more for energy from renewable resources such as geothermal energy.

Domestic and Importing Costs. Investment in the use of domestic, indigenous, renewable energy resources like geothermal energy provides jobs, expands the regional and national economies, and avoids the export of money to import fuels.

Energy demand is increasing rapidly worldwide. Some energy and environmental experts predict that the growth of electricity production and direct uses of geothermal energy will be revitalized by international commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avert global climate change.

GLOBAL WARMING and CLIMATE CHANGE (an update)

by L. Berney

This is an update of a previous article.

THE PROBLEM

Since the formation of planet Earth, the climate has always changed and it is still changing. Changes to the Earth's climate are in the main caused by changes in the Earth's temperature. There have been warm periods when there was no permanent ice at either pole. There have been Ice Ages: at one period some 30% of the Earth's surface was under permanent ice. Over time there have been many warm/cold cycles.

The last Ice Age ended some 10,000 years ago; since then, the Earth's temperature has been slowly rising and is still rising and, presumably, it will continue to rise until at some time in the future the temperature will start to fall again. These temperature rises and falls do not occur evenly; it seems there are intermediate warm/cold swings along the way. Some 2,000 years ago in Roman Britain, along the South coast, there were many vineyards - the temperature must have been warmer than it is today. About 500 years ago there was a 'mini Ice Age' lasting several decades.

What factors cause the temperature/climate to change? One of the major factors is the Sun: the heat radiating from the Sun is not constant. At some periods the Sun radiates more heat than at others and the temperature of the Earth follows suit. Another major factor is what is known as 'the greenhouse effect'. The Sun heats the Earth's surface; some of that heat is reflected back off the surface; part of that reflected heat goes back out into space, part is trapped and retained by clouds and by certain gasses in the atmosphere, known as 'greenhouse gases'.

The greater the cloud cover and/or the greenhouse effect, the warmer the Earth's temperature, and vice versa. By far the greatest 'greenhouse effect' is caused by clouds: it is common knowledge that at night, when no heat is being radiated by the sun, the air temperature drop is greater when there is no cloud cover, and is less when there is. In fact, life on earth as we know it is only possible BECAUSE of the green house effect; without it, the earth's temperature would be 30ºC to 40ºC lower and the planet would be more or less permanently covered by ice.

These and several other factors interact with each other; as a result the Earth's temperature and therefore the climate has always been and always will be unstable.

Records undeniably show that the Earth's temperature is increasing and has been increasing for many thousands of years, since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago - we are currently in a cyclical period of 'Global Warming'. In the 20th century, the average temperature is said to have increased by 1ºC. There are many estimates as to how much the temperature will increase by the end of this century; most predictions indicate an increase of between 3ºC and 6ºC. The accuracy of such projections is open to question. We all know the inaccuracies in projecting the weather even a few days ahead; projecting the Earth's temperature 100 years ahead...?

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CARBON DIOXIDE

The 'greenhouse gases' which give rise to the 'greenhouse effect' are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; together, they comprise less than 1.0% of the Earth's atmosphere. The gas which scientists think is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide (CO2). Some facts about CO2:

• Comparison over the millennia of the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere show a marked correlation. In warm periods, the CO2 levels were higher; in cold periods, they were lower.

• The greatest repository of CO2 is the sea (71% of our Planet's surface is sea). If the sea temperature rises, it releases CO2 to the atmosphere; if it falls, the reverse happens, the sea absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere.

• Forests and vegetation absorb CO2; warmer temperatures encourage plant growth and therefore the absorption of CO2 is increased.

• Burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil, natural gas - creates CO2; cutting down the rain forests (e.g. in Brazil) reduces the absorption of CO2; forest fires (man-made and natural) create CO2.

• Until the middle of the 19th century, the start of the industrial revolution, the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 0.027%; currently it is up to 0.038%;

RESULTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The two most important results of the increasing temperature, and the consequent changes in climate, are these:

1. Change in the distribution and amount of rainfall leading to changes to rivers and lakes resulting in 'desertification' of some previously productive areas, increasing agricultural and livestock productivity in others.
2. Melting of the ice cover in Greenland and Antarctica and glaciers elsewhere leading to a gradual rise in the sea level world-wide.

Of these results, possibly the one which will effect mankind the most is the rising sea level. The rise will be due, not only to the melting of the Polar ice and of the Earth's glaciers, but also to the fact that water increases in volume as its temperature rises. 'Worst case scenario' predictions show a rise in the sea level of one meter by the year 2100. To instance a few examples of what this would mean:

• a rise in sea level of one meter would inundate a large part of Bangladesh, Holland, Venice and many of the world's low-lying areas

• it would inundate a number of populated islands

• it would inundate large areas of Southern USA.

WHAT DO THE SCIENTISTS SAY?

About 20 years ago, scientists started to issue warnings that the CO2 being added to the atmosphere by man's activities - burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests - was beginning to cause the Earth's temperature to rise which in turn would cause the climate to change. In the 1980s the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to report on the problem. The IPCC reports about every five years. The last IPCC report was issued in February 2007.

As confirmed by the IPCC, we know for a fact that the Earth's temperature is rising and we know that the CO2 level is rising too. It is the majority scientific opinion that it is the increase in the CO2 level, rather than a "natural cause" cyclical increase in the Earth's temperature, which is causing the current temperature rise and that the increase in the CO2 level is caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuel.

Some scientists believe that the amount of man-made CO2 which has already been released into the atmosphere over the last 100 years has irreversibly tipped a delicate balance which will result in the Earth continuing to warm for at least the next hundred years, even if NO further CO2 was added to the atmosphere.

Other scientists (the "sceptics") think that the observed increase in the CO2 level is not the cause, or only a small part of the cause, of the rise in the Earth's temperature. The argument supporting this view is that the increase in volume of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years is a very small 0.11%, up from 0.27% to currently 0.38%. Even if all of this increase had been man-made, could this very small percentage increase of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a significant increase in the Earth's temperature? They think not. They think the increase in temperature is due one of the Earth's natural cyclical warming periods.

These scientists also make another point: while ice core samples show that, over millions of years, there is a correlation between the CO2 level and the average temperature, the evidence is that the rises in the CO2 levels FOLLOWED the rises in temperature. This, they say, indicates that it is more likely that the rises in temperature CAUSED the rises in the CO2 level, not the other way round.

It is, perhaps, worth noting here that in the 1970s, just 30 years ago, scientists were predicting that the Earth was probably entering the next cooling period, heading towards the next ice age!

"DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT"

(Note. Climate Change jargon. Mitigation: actions to stop or slow down climate change. Adaptation: actions to adapt to a changed climate)

In the last few months there has been a notable upsurge in the public awareness of the possibility, and possible outcome of climate change. Hardly a day passes when there is not some reference to 'global warming', 'climate change' and 'carbon emission' in the media. This is remarkable since scientists raised the matter over 20 years ago!

Popular opinion, pressure groups and environmentalists have forced the world's political and business leaders to think that they ought to "do something": but do what?

It seems that these leaders (or most of them) have decided to assume that as global warming is being caused, or mostly caused, by the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels, if the production of man-made CO2 were to be reduced, the Earth's climate would respond by ceasing to get any warmer and the problem would be solved.

Based on that unproven simplistic assumption, our leaders have decided to take positive steps to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere. Starting recently, they are introducing laws and initiatives to put this policy into effect. For example: a vast increase in the installation of Wind Generators (hundreds to be mounted in the estuary off the Kent coast and IN the North Sea off Scotland at a cost of œ2.5 Million each!); installation of solar panels; the international "Emission Trading Scheme" ("ETS"), financial incentives for industry to reduce emissions, "emission reduction targets" and the allocation of "carbon permits"; this has given birth to "carbon trading" - there is now a multi-million dollar 'market' in buying and selling carbon permits!

All developing nations want to raise their living standards to those of the developed world. To do that requires more power - lots more power. The world situation in which these 'reduce CO2' policies are to be implemented coincides with pressure for more power and thus to generate more CO2, not less. One expert's prediction is that, by the end of this century, the world's energy requirements will be FIVE TIMES the present output!

This pressure by the developing world for more power is increasing and is set to go on increasing. For example, China is opening one new coal-burning, CO2 spewing, power station per week! India's power requirements, mostly coal fueled, are increasing exponentially. In Africa, the energy consumed per head now is only 10% of that consumed per head in the USA; international efforts are under way to 'lift Africa out of poverty' which inevitably will require a great deal of power.

The 'developed world' is urging the 'developing world' to cut down their CO2 emissions. The 'developing world' is resisting - their argument runs: "Since the 20% of the population in the 'developed world' produce 80% of the CO2 why should we be expected to hold back on lifting ourselves out of poverty, to hold back our use of energy? - Let the developed world cut back on theirs first!"

Another factor is that the world's reserves of oil and natural gas are being used up rapidly. These sources could be, and probably will be, replaced by an increase in the use of coal of which there are still vast reserves. Coal produces much more CO2 and other emissions than oil or gas so that for the future the CO2 problem is likely to be exacerbated.

Underlying the present world situation, the human population is predicted to increase by some 50% in the next 50 years -- another 3 Billion power consumers!

For these practical reasons, it seems to me improbable that the volume of man-made CO2 being generated can even be held at its present level - to reduce it from its present level is even more improbable.

MY CONCLUSION - WE ARE HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!

From the evidence it seems that for the foreseeable future, the Earth probably WILL get warmer, the climate probably WILL change, the sea level probably WILL rise. I suggest that whatever policies we might adopt, aimed at mitigating and adapting to the effects of Global Warming, they need to be based on these facts. I suggest the current "solutions", focused mainly as they are on the reduction of CO2, are bound to fail.

The man-made CO2 being released to the atmosphere may be, and probably is, adding to the rate of cyclical or natural warming. But it is not, on its own, the SOLE CAUSE of the current temperature rise. The Earth is in one of its natural cyclical warming periods and it will be getting warmer even if NO man-made CO2 is released. If man-made CO2 emissions were to be reduced, even if they were stopped entirely, the only result would be, perhaps, to slow slightly the rate of warming - it would not halt it.

The decision of our politicians to try to stop the Earth getting warmer by embarking on programmes to reduce the volume of man-made CO2 brings to mind the experience of King Canute who tried (and failed) to stop the tide from rising.

Moreover, the amount by which the present policies will reduce the total carbon emission IF IT REDUCES IT AT ALL is infinitesimal compared to the world's increasing energy requirements.

In fact the current moves and financial incentives to cut down CO2 emission are, in my opinion, doing more harm than good. New taxes are being planned, the airline and holiday industry is going to be hit, poor countries are not going to able to sell their farm produce to rich countries because of the "air miles" involved, a new non-productive industry is forming to advise on how to make a profit on carbon credit trading etc. I believe the steps being taken to try to reduce
CO2 emissions will inevitably be costly and may, and almost certainly will, have a negative effect on the world's economy. These steps will never achieve their objective - they are futile and useless, and a waste of valuable resources.

Worse, the current policies are diverting our attention from facing up to reality and to mankind's looming problems, namely that the Earth IS warming and probably WILL GO ON warming for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether or not we reduce man-made CO2.

We are, in my opinion, heading in the wrong direction!

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

If, as it seems, the Earth is undergoing one of its warming cycles, there is nothing mankind can do to stop Global Warming. What, in my opinion, we need to do is to accept that in all probability Global Warming is here to stay and to address its inevitable results. The world's effort and energy currently being directed towards halting Global Warming by reducing carbon emission (a policy doomed to failure in my view) needs to be re-directed toward the following three main objectives.

1. NEW DEVELOPMENT - DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE - As explained above, there will be serious problems caused by changes in the distribution and amount of rainfall. There probably will be floods and droughts, changes in the distribution and availability of water for consumption and food production,.increasing 'desertification' making more areas barren and uninhabitable. These problems will gradually occur over decades. Mankind is adaptable -- I believe that over time new areas will have to be developed and populated and some existing areas will have to be abandoned. Every country should start planning now for the gradual creation these new development areas.
2. NEW DEVELOPMENT - DUE TO RISING SEA LEVEL - The problem presented by the gradual raising of the sea level needs to be addressed, not by a 'King Canute' solution, but by accepting that the sea level will probably rise and go on rising for the foreseeable future. Every country with coastal areas needs to start planning accordingly. Plans need to be drawn up to establish the areas of land which will be inundated if/when the sea and river levels rise by, say, two meters. Over the coming decades all the housing, agriculture, commercial, roads, railways and other installations and activities taking place in those areas will have to be re-established on higher ground. In contrast, due to Global Warming, large area in the Northern Hemisphere currently ice-bound will become ice-free and will be available to be developed and utilized. The first step would be to prohibit any new construction in endangered areas; to allow building only in the newly designated development areas.
3. POWER SUPPLY - Solution of the problems which will arise due to carbon emission, climate change and a rising sea level are inevitably linked to the problem of the world's future power supply. The world needs an ever increasing supply of cheap power which could amount to five times the present level by the end of this century. The production of this power should not pollute or add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Accordingly, our need and use of fossil fuels should gradually be eliminated (the remaining reserves of oil and gas will in any case be exhausted in the not too distant future). For road vehicles, an alternative to petrol/diesel will have to be employed. The alternative is, I suggest, either electric batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells or hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, or a mixture of all three. The hydrogen gas would be manufactured using electrical power. What source(s) of energy could supply the power the world needs? Firstly, I believe the amount of the power which could be generated by the 'replaceables' wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave and tide power can not even begin to meet the world's future needs. Moreover, the money and material being expended on them is, I suggest, an irreplaceable waste of the world's resources. All the world's needs could be met, partly or in whole, by nuclear power. In spite of the known disadvantages, nuclear power is one of the only possible practical solutions. (Note that today, 80% of the France's electricity power is generated by nuclear power stations.) The other source of energy which could be harnessed is geothermal (hot rock) power; that is the extraction of heat from the earth's crust by mining (wells), similar to mining for oil and gas. Geothermal energy has distinct advantages over nuclear and, in my opinion, its rapid development should be vigorously pursued, if necessary using tax incentives. (A description of geothermal technology is appended.) Nuclear fusion is another possible source of energy but this technology is only in the theoretical stage; it will be many years before nuclear fusion will be commercially available, if it ever is.

FEASIBILITY

A question which obviously presents itself is this: are the massive developments
in new locations envisaged above a practical possibility?

In 1950 the population of the world was 2,500 million; now, 57 years later it is 6,600 million. There are now 4,000+ million additional people in the world but homes, work places and the infra-structure for all these 4,000+ million additional people have been built, all constructed in the last 57 years. For example, Abuja (Nigeria), current population 4,600,000, was built on what was bare ground only 30 years ago. Shanghai, population now 17,500,000 -- 6 years ago it was 10,000,000.

I suggest that, spread over 100 years, the establishment and developments of new population centers is far from impossible, it could be done.

Another question is: is the provision of the enormously increased future power requirements and, simultaneously, the elimination of the use of fossil fuels by the installation of nuclear and/or geothermal power a realistic possibility?

In the world today there are over 500 nuclear power stations in operation and some 50 more under construction. The uranium they use is in plentiful supply. There are the problems of disposal of nuclear waste and social acceptance but, over time, and our way of life faced with a 'Hobson's choice' situation, I believe those problems would be overcome.

Geothermal (hot rock) technology is still in the trial stage, although a test plant in Australia is said to be working well. The management there say that in the area around the test site alone there is enough heat underground to generate enough electricity to power the whole of Australia! The mining technology is well established; it is virtually the same as that used for drilling oil wells. The electrical generating plant is standard except that the source of the heat required is geothermal instead of from burning fossil fuel.

Based on the volume of the construction of nuclear power plants and oil wells in the last century, I believe that nuclear and/or geothermal fueled electrical power plants coupled with hydrogen generation plants (in lieu of oil refineries) could supply all the world's power needs for the foreseeable future AND simultaneously eliminate the use of fossil fuels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY FACT SHEET

INTRODUCTION

The word geothermal comes from the Greek words "geo" (earth) and "therme" (heat), and means the heat of the earth. Earth's interior heat originated from its fiery consolidation from dust and gas over 4 billion years ago and is continually regenerated from the decay of radioactive elements that occur in all rocks.

EARTH'S HEAT AND VOLCANIC REGIONS

It is almost 6,500 kilometres (4,000 miles) from the surface to the centre of the Earth, and the deeper you go, the hotter it gets.

The outer layer, the crust, is three to 35 miles thick and insulates us from the hot interior. From the surface down through the crust the normal temperature gradient (the increase of temperature with the increase of depth) in the Earth's crust is 17 - 30°C per kilometre of depth (50-87°F per mile). Below the crust is the mantle, made of highly viscous, partially molten rock with temperatures between 650 and 1,250°C (1,200-2,280°F). At Earth's core, which consists of a liquid outer core and a solid inner core, temperatures may reach 4,000-7,000°C (7,200 to 12,600°F). Where magma reaches the surface it can build volcanoes. But most magma stays well below ground, creating huge subterranean regions of hot rock sometimes underlying areas as large as an entire mountain range. Cooling can take from 5,000 to more than 1 million years. These shallow regions of relatively elevated crustal heat have high temperature gradients.

RENEWABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Production from individual geothermal fields can be sustained for decades and perhaps centuries. The U.S. Department of Energy classifies geothermal energy as renewable.

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT

The drill rigs and drilling technology and equipment are virtually the same as that used for drilling for oil or gas. The electrical generating plant, located alongside the geothermal well heads, is standard; steam turbine driven electrical generators connected to the grid. Water consumption is small as the steam is condensed and re-used as injection water.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

With all sources of energy, developers and consumers must work to protect the environment. The challenges differ with the type of energy resource, and the differences give geothermal energy certain advantages. Geothermal direct use facilities have minimal or no negative impacts on the environment. Geothermal power plants are relatively easy on the environment. They are successfully operated in the middle of crops, in sensitive desert environments and in forested recreation areas.

VISUAL PROTECTION

No power plant or drill rig is as lovely as a natural landscape, so smaller is better. A geothermal plant sits right on top of its fuel source: no additional land is needed such as for mining coal or for transporting oil or gas. When geothermal power plants and drill rigs are located in scenic areas, mitigation measures are implemented to reduce intrusion on the visual landscape. Some geothermal power plants use special air cooling technology which eliminates even the plumes of water vapour from cooling towers and reduces a plant profile to as little as 24 feet in height.

IMPROVING GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY

Since the 1970's the geothermal industry, with the assistance of government research funding, has overcome many technical drilling and power plant problems. As a result of government-assisted research and industry experience, the cost of generating geothermal power has decreased by 25% over the past two decades. Research is currently underway to further improve exploration, drilling, reservoir, power plant and environmental technologies. Enhancing the recoverability of Earth's heat is an important area of ongoing research.

ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

Private and government research projects in the United States, Japan and in Europe are improving the accessibility of geothermal energy by developing new technology to increase the permeability of the rocks.

Permeability can be created in hot rocks by hydraulic fracturing -- injecting large volumes of water into a well at a pressure high enough to break the rocks. The artificial fracture system is mapped by seismic methods as it forms, and a second well is drilled to intersect the fracture system. Cold water can then be pumped down one well and hot water taken from the second well for use in a geothermal plant. This "hot dry rock" technology is being tested in Japan, Germany, France, England and the U.S. In Australia a test plant has been in operation for some time yielding excellent results.

THE FUTURE FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

The outlook for geothermal energy use depends on at least three factors: the demand for energy in general; the inventory of available geothermal resources; and the competitive position of geothermal among other energy sources. The Demand for energy will continue to grow. Economies are expanding, populations are increasing (over 2 billion people still do not have electricity), and energy-intensive technologies are spreading. All these mean greater demand for energy. At the same time, there is growing global recognition of the environmental impacts of energy production and use from fossil fuel and nuclear resources. Public polls repeatedly show that most people prefer a policy of support for renewable energy.

The critical temperature for the generation of geothermal energy to power an electrical generating plant is 200ªC. At every point in the world a well will reach rock at that temperature; on average the depth to reach a temperature of 200ªC is about 5Km. Geothermal heat is more accessible in some areas than others but the inventory of accessible geothermal energy is sizable. The entire world resource base of readily accessible geothermal energy has been calculated in government surveys to be much larger than the resource bases of coal, oil, gas and uranium combined. The geothermal resource base becomes more available as methods and technologies for accessing it are improved through research and experience.

See: www.geodynamics.com.au

COSTS

Shorter and Longer Term Costs. Production of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) are a relative bargain in the short term. Like many renewable resources, geothermal resources need relatively high initial investments to access the heat. But the geothermal "fuel" cost is predictable and stable. Fossil fuel supplies will increase in cost as reserves are exhausted. Fossil fuel supplies can be interrupted by political disputes abroad.

Renewable geothermal energy is a better long term investment.

Direct and Indirect Costs. The monetary price we pay to our natural gas and electricity suppliers, and at the gas pump, is our direct cost for the energy we use. But the use of energy also has indirect or external costs that are imposed on society.

Examples are the huge costs of global climate change; the health effects from ground level pollution of the air; future effects of pollution of water and land; military expenditures to protect petroleum sources and supply routes; and costs of safely storing radioactive waste for generations. Geothermal energy can already compete with the direct costs of conventional fuels in some locations and is a clean, indigenous, renewable resource without hidden external costs. Public polls reveal that customers are willing to pay a little more for energy from renewable resources such as geothermal energy.

Domestic and Importing Costs. Investment in the use of domestic, indigenous, renewable energy resources like geothermal energy provides jobs, expands the regional and national economies, and avoids the export of money to import fuels.

Energy demand is increasing rapidly worldwide. Some energy and environmental experts predict that the growth of electricity production and direct uses of geothermal energy will be revitalized by international commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avert global climate change.