Predictions on W(h)anganui

Kiwiblog's David Farrar has noted IPredict is strongly favouring the Maurice Williamson not to override the decision of the National Geographic Board. He agrees with this is for ideological reasons: that government don't wish to second guess the rulings of professional boards.

Now I suspect the government won't override it either, but their primary concern is probably appeasing the angered Maori party.

As we all know, ACT forced National into growing a spine over Maori Seats in Auckland. The Maori party were a bit upset about this, as were their supporters. Now Key has tried to position National as being prepared to acknowledge the "Maori position" and make concessions against the traditional National electorate to appease the likes of tribal Maori, and the centre voters who like to see tribal Maori appeased. Thus he needs an issue to show that this is not mere libservice.

Here they see the perfect opportunity: an issue not as constitutionally important as race based seats, nor economically important, which puts a dominantly conservative community against Maori. With Tariana Turia brought to tears by the issue, it obviously is of some significance and will definitely score points with the Maori Party leader.

To bad for the people who have to live there, the vast majority of whom don't want the name changed, but thats politics, and they are both culturally and politically irrelevant.

Bad Science

There may be some legitimate criticisms to be made on the current science behind global warming, however that does not excuse bad science being used to make incorrect counter arguements. One such arguement has been posted a couple of times in various comments left by readers of Kiwi Blog. The flawed arguement goes like this:

Methane (CH4), rated as a stronger greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not such a major concern because, if one assumes a chemical equilibrium between CO2 and CH4, then reducing CO2 will drive the eqilibrium to consume more CH4, so increasing concentrations of CH4 can be delt with by reducing the CO2 concentration.

One can see this by assuming thermodynamic equilibrium is reached between the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 through the standard combustion reaction:

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

Were this the case, the equlibrium is dictated by an equation every 5th form chemistry student at least used to know:

K=[CO2][H2O]^2 / ([CH4] [O2]^2 )

Where the square brackets represent the concentration of each species and K is a constant.

Proponents of this bad science then point out that if K is a constant, then any measure to reduce CO2 will also cause a drop in CH4, as is seen by a simple rearrangement:
[CH4]=[CO2][H2O]^2 / (K [O2]^2 )

Problem is, CH4 is NOT IN CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM with CO2 in the atmosphere, nor is it anywhere near chemical equilibrium. The forward direction of the reaction dominates and the reaction will essentially go to completion. To see this, one needs to work out (at least approximately) what K should be, then plug in the known concentrations of H2O and O2 in the atmosphere to get the equilibrium ratio of [CO2]/[CH4] and compare it with the observed ratio.

Now K can be found by the following equaiton

K=q(CO2)q(H2O)^2 /( q(CH4) q(O2)^2) *exp(-E/(RT) )

where the varous q's are single particle partition functions, E is the reaction energy for the forward reaction, R is the Gas Constant and T is the temperature.

Without going into too much more detail, the various q's tend to cancel each other out to within an order of magnitude in this case but the ominous exponential function sitting on the end gives a huge value, as the reaction energy (using the lower heat value) is -802 340 J/mol.

Being generous, we shall assume the atmosphere is at 300K (lower values are probably more reasonable given CH4's propensity to be upwardly displaced and the general lowering of temperatures as one moves upward)

So we have K~ 1*exp(802340/(8.314*300)=5*10^139

Plugging that into our (rearranged) original equation, we have

[CO2]/[CH4]=5*10^139*[O2]^2/[H2O^2]

Now there is much more O2 in the atmosphere than H2O, but lets be further generous (and not waste time looking up extra stuff) and assume 1/1 ratio of O2 to H2O

We then Have an equilibrium ratio of [CO2]/[CH4]=5*10^139 (given our generosity, a gross underestimation)

The actual ratio is about [CO2]/[CH4]=2*10^2

So we can very strongly conclude CO2 is in no way in equilibrium with CH4.

To those who wish to argue against global warming, or any aspect thereof, thats fine; but please do not undermine yourselves by relying in part or full on bad science.

Nuclear Realpolitik, here and at the UN

Today in question time, Dr Kennedy Graham decided to question the government on a resolution toward nuclear disarmament:

Why did New Zealand vote in December 2008 against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/75 which called for an international agreement against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and against Resolution 63/47 calling for measures for reducing nuclear danger; and will he instruct the delegation to support these resolutions if they are put forward again this year?

A reasonable question, on the face of it. NZ does tend to harp on about nuclear disarmament, so why not support UN measures to that end. The answer from Chris Finlayson quickly reveals the real situation:

Each year, in the General Assembly’s first committee on disarmament and international security, and subsequently in the General Assembly itself, India proposes the two resolutions referred to by the member. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/75 to protest India’s attempts to use this resolution to gain credibility on nuclear disarmament while refusing to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/47 due to the absence of any reference to the importance of joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a way to reduce nuclear danger. The resolution also requests that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty States undertake a number of steps to reduce nuclear danger, but does not seek similar steps from States not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that possess nuclear weapons.

So the truth of the matter is that the Indian resolutions are a cynical piece of political manipulation, that if passed would lead to pressure on countries that are generally scaling down their nuclear arsenal, while doing nothing to affect the recent nuclear aggressors such as India, and Pakistan. Need I also point out that several countries hit by this are both major trading partners and friends/allies (UK, and US to name two) who would probably be less than impressed were we to sign up to such a biased resolution.

What is more interesting though is understanding why Kennedy Graham, who has his degree in international relations, would be so naive as to suggest we support a resolution that does nothing to affect those who are expanding their nuclear capability, while also causing us to take a hit diplomatically. The truth of the matter is that the Greens know any nonsensical beating of the antinuclear drum will gain them cheap votes and coverage. They are not alone in this as Chris Carter was quick to jump in with the following supplementary question:

Can the Minister tell us which action by his Government on international affairs he is most proud of: was it the decision to vote against the United Nations resolutions for a ban on nuclear weapons, was it the decision to drop New Zealand’s bid for election to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was it the Minister’s silence over Israel’s actions in Gaza earlier this year, or was it his decision to turn New Zealand’s aid focus away from poverty elimination and to just a search for New Zealand business opportunities?

Chris Finlayson quickly points out a bit of hypocrisy on the labour MP's part

I do not know why the member for Te Atatū seems to be so opposed to the stance that this Government took in relation to the two resolutions that were the subject of the primary question, because his Government adopted the same approach.

So both the Greens and Labour are prepared to nonsensically beat the antinuclear drum to shore up the unthinking antinuclear vote in the country, even when, in Labour's case, they actually took the same stand as National.