Saturday, 15 October 2011

Another Email to IPCC - What is their job after all?

Against my expectation, but to my pleasure, I've gotten the occasion 
to once again write IPCC! The email to them follow below.
From - Sat Oct 15 14:10:27 2011
[3 lines of info]
Message-ID: <4E997830.5060005@[info]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:24 +0200
From: "Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea" <[info]>
User-Agent: [info]
To: ipcc-sec@wmo.int
Subject: Information you may be interested in... Points that may be key
Content-Type: [info]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: [info]

Dear IPCC

As I've written to WWF and Greenpeace recently, you may want the 
following information from me as well, for standing equal to them
for also being your responsibility, I'd like you to consider both "The 
Overpopulation Problem" and how it should be _easy_ for IPCC to compute 
a simulation of reduction of people. I also like to remind you of 
Carbon-Ice and how it can help us to reduce the ppm-rate of C-particles 
in the atmosphere!
The writing is the following: "A Reminder for Reduction of Carbon in the 
Atmosphere - Carbon-Ice" and it goes on my blog, 
whatiswritten777.blogspot.com:
"Hello people out there. This is a reminder of how to control the levels 
of carbon in the atmosphere. You produce Carbonised/Carbondioxide Ice 
and this can be produced (as usual) out of constituents in the air, thus 
reducing carbon in the atmosphere to a suitable level. This can be 
stored in any cold place, but it's probably best to store it on one of 
the Poles, the Arctic or the other. Happy burning of fossil fuel, people!"
So as a consequence of this "reminder", I would like the numbers worked 
out, and I think this idea is realisable/conceivable in highly realistic 
terms, the bottom line being that carbon-ice is shipped on a regular 
basis and dumped on the poles, either onto the surface by some kind of 
set-up, or just dropped into the sea. The surface option is probably the 
best because of the cold, but it's also the most demanding for making 
room or physical possibility for the dumps to happen. I have as of yet 
no clue for how much carbon-ice that's needed for reducing 
carbon-particles in the air from, let's say 350 ppm to 340 ppm. 
Therefore you get, partly, this new, little notice.
I think the idea will require no more than 1 percent of Oxygen, tops! 
Being 1:2 for creating it, CO2 and C being nr. 12 and Oxygen being nr. 
16. It takes only 3 "particles" of oxygen, by mass, to remove 1 particle 
of Carbon from the atmosphere. It now stands at about 370, I think.
Further: Saving the planet is only that helpful if you ignore duties to 
mass-communications. We can push the governments and I hope you see 
clearly what is to happen now as this is written. Come on, IPCC-people, 
let's do it!

There may also be a use for the following, that may be worth discussing 
with professionals like yourselves even though I agree the issue is 
fringe on the superficial level:
A psychological softening for NOT getting "10 kids" may go something 
like this, if only aiming/planning for 2 kids is enough for both 
carrying the family tree into the future, we can all agree that "we 
stand equal as human beings and we equally represent one another as 
people on Planet Earth. As we manage to get 2 kids, we have completed a 
certain biological requirement and are prepared to make this happy 
people as well and thus making the kids happy and able parents. By being 
moderate on kids and affirming equality as people of the Earth, it 
should be as worthwhile as ever to only have 2 kids and at the same time 
aiding the Overpopulation problem and making 2 very happy children with 
quality time. Rather this than something else." Good? I just like to 
note how important it is in removing the racism card where every 
ethnical group is likely to "compete" with other ethnicities for being 
superior. This needs to FALL! Even though one is here discussing the 
environment, I think racism needs to be addressed in this manner.
(A requirement to this end, is of course to also provide the means where 
this can happen, i.e., the contraception pills and condoms.)

This is still in line with the Deep Ecology Movement and I hope you make 
the appropriate haste from your inferences of this information if you 
haven't set forth actions of these considerations already.

I hope for some powerful statements from you in the time to come! Cheers!

Sincerely yours,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
Author and Layman-Philosopher and Layman-Scientist
Email: [info] as Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
(I'm sorry that my email this time doesn't reflect my name directly.)

9 comments:

  1. 1. point: I do not intend any insult by the header above, but I must say they are taking their time and they are not too "interested in the public either"!
    2. I intend to send an email to UNEP too, depending on a little... just to complete the roundabout!
    3. I think you're more than welcome to send an email too if you read this as "the votes are counted", giving people good confidence (by IPCC and various Ecology movement) for when to speak up "with magnitude, i.e., using a strong voice of demand". I'm also disappointed that it's yet to see the slightest word on the Overpopulation problem with the UN, broadcasted by the Media and I think this is fairly backward! Well, well, we are thinking this fast and they are diplomatic about it. Still, I think the UN (bloody well, pardon) could have made just a little web-"spot" on the issue!
    4. Again, it's up to you as well to do something... I encourage you to spread the word if you aren't writing them directly! Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also found a web-page, a story by the BBC (2008, 3 years ago) on computer simulation of pollution of this and that kind and what the consequences would be. This web-page had the message that "this would be far too complex for them to have anything on it now", yet we see all quite clearly that the Overpopulation should be easy too make a computer model of, based on this and that Carbon-footprint, whether on the whole, as carbon-footprint as developing nations vs. developed nations, or as developed nations carbon-footprint for all, which I think stands considerably higher (production output, transport, various luxury power consumption, heating too by Northern Hemisphere, especially Canada, good parts of Scandinavia and Russia). Good?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "What is their job after all?" - That is, be aggressive with us, the public! Publish more information, not less! Be more visible, demand more time with the media! If you bother, tell us about your work toward the UN! Interesting findings, positive or negative! Whatever your heart matters are! Keep up the good work! Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've added some words to the OP above, "Against...". While some people may laugh at the idea of this carbon-ice, I'd like to remind you that serious physicists have considered "baby-black-holes" a possibility, but they check numbers in particular? I don't think so! Secondly, I ask for _the numbers_! Thirdly, with every big idea there are usually big numbers attached, and it should be cool to check how the numebers play out for this scenario, if not "exactly" setting up the factories "urgently"! So this is the message that I know as little as you do, yet I've considered "baby-black-holes" successfully in the past and I've scored on other good ideas, but I fall to mistake as other humans do, and it may very well be that the numbers in this case don't add up! Alright?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Mr. Editor" has helped me once again so I've been forced to make a manual break on the first line for making the words line up as they should!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Besides, the webpages to IPCC are clear enough: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ! And their mission at hand is basically found here: http://ipcc.ch/working_groups/working_groups.shtml . The "data", publications and reports, are published here: http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml ! Is it alright?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The CO2 is as a matter of fact, 389.00 ppm, right now, by http://co2now.org/. And the website looks reliable enough, i.e., no a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So my number of 370 is "a bit off". Please stay with this new number!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The CO2 is as a matter of fact, 389.00 ppm, right now, by http://co2now.org/. And the website looks reliable enough, i.e., NOT a hoax.

    ReplyDelete