Here we go again, more on global warming. In the 4th December issue of the New Zealand Listener there appeared an article, Hitting Home. This article, written by Matt Nippert, looked at global warming from a New Zealand perspective. Commencing with some observations on rising sea levels and the threat to coastlines, it then went on to claim that rising temperatures would only start affecting the world from 2050 and our great grandchildren, which is conveniently long past the interests of most people over 30 today. I quote "it will be a hot, wet and dry and stormy but suprisingly prosperous future for New Zealand". According to Jim Salinger, NIWA's (National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) senior climate researcher, the temperature rise for New Zealand will be between 0.2 and 1.4 degrees Celcius warmer than now. Rainfall in the west will significantly rise, it will be dryer in the east. The frequency of droughts and storms will undoubtedly increase. It's the extreme events that will be the concern. But, according to this article, farmers not living in drought prone areas are "positively bullish". "Mainland Australia could get pushed out" Even Peter Hodgson our environment minister can't help but get in the act - "you could say that climate change will have some positive effects, it's more bad news than good news, but the good news will come first". According to Matt Nippert farmers are saying this "Roll on climate change, all our competitors are much more vulnerable, we're sitting in a pool of cold water." These farmers don't wish to be named however, in case they appear to be gloating. Then more from Peter Hodgson "Australia is in deep shit about over this, they are three-quarters desert already, and soon it will be seven-eighths" (isn't he gloating?) There does however seem to be room for some concern for our Pacific island neighbours. But the article ends "New Zealand is in a prime position to take advantage of global warming." Jenette Fitsimons is allowed a small input to the article - "transport emissions are the key, transport will get expensive"

I was so angry at this article, its parochialism, is smugness, it's triteness even. I was angry that farmers could be so STUPID, I was angry that Peter Hodgson could be so stupid, and whilst I am must demur to Jim Salinger's predictions, I do wonder if he isn't underplaying the likely effects on this country - in particular the indirect effects from the rest of the world. But see my letter following.

I wrote a letter to the Listener. It wasn't published, but this was what I wrote. I should add here that there were a couple of "boxed" articles accompanying the main article, which I refer to in my letter.

From: j.monro@mac.com
Subject: Global Meltdown
Date: 12 December 2004 1:05:06 AM
To: letters@listener.co.nz

Dear Sir / Madam,

I bought your last issue of the Listener with the banner headline, Global Meltdown, with the expectation of reading a well researched and interesting article on Global Warming. But what you supplied was a perverse, parochial and truly complacent article, treating global warming as everyone else's problem. You state: New Zealand, relatively speaking, is in a prime position to take advantage of global warming. Just how dumb can you be? Do you think that if there are major problems with global warming elsewhere in the globe, we can escape the consequences? Australia will become more desert; Peter Hodgson says, Australia is in deep shit. Great. So exactly how will we be able to escape the consequent economic and social problems in our closest neighbour, our main trading partner, our main tourist provider, our largest ex-patriot population? Similarly your smug, ignorant, anonymous farmers. Roll on climate change, they say. So the grass might grow a bit faster, and in some areas of the country there may be more rain. But how much more rain, as much as the lower North Island earlier this year? Bola? In some eastern areas, which already suffer regular droughts and water shortages, there will be even less rain, how is this going to help their production? Most farmers in New Zealand work steeply dissected country, denuded of its trees, with shallow unstable soils; it doesn't take more than one severe storm to set back production for decades. Additionally, by 2035 there will be severe shortages of oil, and transport costs might be twice, three or many more times as high as now. For a country stuck on the arse end of the world, thousands of miles from its nearest markets, New Zealand will be distinctly disadvantaged compared to many other countries. And on a personal level, if they don't give a damn about anyone else, don't these farmers have families? Isn't it very likely that some of their own descendants will be living in Australia? Thanks a bundle, granddad.

In the box entitled Save Cents & the Planet, you start by saying even if you're not overly concerned about the coming generations..... Are you serious?. There shouldn't be a single New Zealander who isn't concerned, overly or otherwise, with our future generations; though Alasdair Thompson (chief executive Employers and Manufacturers Association (North) - JKM) who is supposed to have told you that there is no point in trying to tackle global warming, would appear to be one. Yet almost all parents, rich or poor, do try hard to do well for their children. Many will work long hard hours, or spend a great deal, to achieve for themselves and for their children, so that their children will have the best prospect of a happy and fulfilling life. But all this is as nothing if we can't provide our children with the thing they need the most, a habitable planet.

Yours faithfully,

Dr John K Monro
67 Waipapa Rd
Hataitai
Wellington 6003
Ph 04 386 2441

---

I have downloaded an article which appeared in the Dominion 26/1/05. It makes sad reading. Yet again the government have been caught with their ecological blinkers on. The present Labour administration came to office promising to take action into the continued dumping, and there is no other word for it, of old, inefficient, unsafe and polluting older vehicles. I think they did introduce some legislation, but obviously it is not working. It is truly absurd that this importation should be continuing despite increasing oil prices, looming oil depletion and global warming. We are no better than the USA, just like them our overall energy strategy is revealed as a joke, in fact there is no energy strategy here, as I have indicated elsewhere in this internet site. So Harry Duynhoven "is looking at" amending frontal impact rules and Judith Tizzard "is looking at" emission screening - hey, you won't see anything until you remove your blinkers. Click here to see what just one month's import of 4WDs looks like. The pictures are of Harry Duynhoven and Judith Tizard, both sans blinkers.

---

There are now about 600,000,000 cars in the world. The picture of the month's import of cars to NZ is about 3,000 vehicles. So the total number of cars in the world would be equivalent of 200,000 such pages.

Imagine if you will a road, a bit over a mile or nearly 2 kmq wide. This motorway has 500 lanes. On each lane is a car, driving at 50 kph, keeping at a distance of about 25 metres from the car in front. Imagine further this road circling the globe, perhaps over the poles, perhaps along the equator. 600,000,000 cars will fill this road all along its 40,000 km, or 24,000 miles. That is what 600,000,000 cars look like. There would also have to be a hundred lane road alongside to accommodate all the world's heavy vehicles, and don't forget the 12,000 jet liners making the same journey overhead, and the 85,000 ships with a total tonnage of 600,000,000 plying the oceans. Imagine also an atmosphere around the world, it seems so high, but if compressed to its pressure and temperature at the surface, the atmosphere would not be the height of Everest, about 8 km thick. If all the carbon dioxide gas in that air were to separate in a layer it would hardly be over your head, about 2.4 metres high, or if it fell as carbon dioxide snow it would cover the earth in a layer less than 4 mm thick. Imagine now a large lake about 10 kms diameter (the size of Port Nicholson, Wellington), and sixty metres deep, each year this is the lake of oil we burn. Alongside this burning lake there is a burning conical mountain, 4 kilometres in diameter and 1000 metres high. This is the coal we burn each year. Looming over the horizon there is a unimaginably vast gas holder, with a diameter of about 40 km and 2,000 metres high, this contains the amount of gas we burn each year. Then tell me if you dare why it is impossible that the atmosphere is accumulating carbon dioxide and why the climate is not warming.






References

The depth of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level temperature and pressure is about 8 kms, the figure taken from the Larousse Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, 1958, a much loved book I bought with some money from a birthday present when I was ten years old, and whilst its description of so much is now out of date (it was published contemporaneously with the first Sputnik), it contains the best descriptions, for the layperson, of planetary mechanics I have ever read. The 2.4 metres high is worked out as the concentration of CO2 in this atmosphere is now 380 ppm. The volume of solid carbon dioxide is about one eight-hundredth the volume of the gas. (reference)

World gas consumption (reference) is about 95 trillion cubic feet = 2.690 trillion cubic metres. If the gas holder is 2,000 metres high, the radius of the holder is the square root of 2.69 trillion divided by pi = 20,691 metres or a diameter of about 40 kms. For New Zealanders, such a gas-holder would comfortably encompass the entire central plateau of the North Island, with just the summits of Ruapehu and Ngarahoe poking out the top.

World oil consumption is about 80 million barrels per day (reference) = 29 billion barrels per year. A barrel of oil contains 159 litres (reference) World oil consumption in litres per year is 159 x 29 billion = 4.6 trillion litres = 4.6 billion cubic metres. Port Nicholson is almost circular and has a diameter of about 10 kms, its quoted area (see reference following) is 76 sq km. The depth of this oil lake would then be 4.6 billion divided by 76 x 1,000,000 sq m = 60.5 metres. I should add for those that know Port Nicholson that the average depth of this harbour is about 20 metres (reference), so the total volume of oil burnt each year is three times the total volume of water in Nicholson Harbour.

World coal consumption is about 5.25 billion short tons (reference) A short ton is a US weight of 2,000 lbs, or 907 kg. The average density of coal (reference) is about 1.1 g/cc. ie the volume of a short ton of coal is about 907/1.1 = 824 litres or 0.84 cu metres. The volume of 5.25 billion tons is then 5.25 billion x 0.84 = 4.41 billion cu metres. To work out the height and radius of a cone (conical mountain in this case), visit this site. I chose figures of 1,000 metres height and base radius of 2.05 kms (10 metres for the top), and this comes out at 4.4 billion cu metres. ie a conical mountain 4 kms diameter and 1000 metres high.

For my American visitors, the figures would be approximately these:

A conical mountain of coal 3,300 ft high and 2.5 miles in diameter, a lake of oil about 6.8 miles in diameter and about 200 ft deep, and a gas holder 6,500 ft high and 25 miles diameter.