quote - soal & siasat (q&a)

aku pagi pagi tadi bukak e-mail sekali ada bagero mana la bagi komen pemerah otak untuk di buar buar kan. ini dia soalannya;-

"blad, gua bagi lu satu pointer.

the wait that did not end.

how 2009 rolled in, with a disappointment.
government did not revise the petrol price when they should have. how they fail to live up the promise, and enjoying too much from the petrol tax.

would you be able to comment the rationale of the government's actions (revision of petroleum products prices)
and implementation of petroleum tax?

its like they are deciding whether we should or should not enjoy cheap prices.

but, when the commodity price increase, we are supposed to bear the sky-rocketing prices?

comment blad comment."

soalan soalan begini memang aku telah nanti nantikan selama ini pasal masa harga minyak jadi 1.8 aku pun terpikir dan gairah untuk menunggu reaksi orang malaysia apa bila harga minyak naik balik kepada harga palat (ie RM 2.5 ke atas). Aku dah berimiginasi mogok, traffik jam dan cacian dan makian kepada pihak kerajaan..seperti kejadian yang telah kita lihat masa harga minyak naik 40%. Tahu kah anda bila kerajaan membuat aksi untuk menaik kan harga minyak iya telah meninggal kan banyak kesan buruk seperti inflasi dan merendah kan kos hidup orang orang di malaysia. Dengan mempunyai sebab untuk menyimpan billion, kerjaan sendiri telah rugi dari segi ekonomi dan juga dari segi sosial. 

Sebagai Contoh:-

1. Hilang Kredibiliti Sebagai pemimpin oleh rakyat

2. Inflasi; harga naik nak turun balik silap ar. cuba bayang kan kalu hargi meter parking dekat jalan jalan di kota raya naik -abang abang dbkl mesti kene adjust kos untuk parking meeter itu. kalau harga turun balik mesti kena adjust balik. itu semua kos bai. lain la kalu semua mesin tu automated boleh ubah dengan satu klik je. Malang sekali negara kita belum celik IT lagi, tetapi syarikat yang berstatus MSC banyak lah. Konsep atau model ini boleh di guna kan untuk semua benda benda. kalu lu rajin, kira la berapa banyak adjustment dan kos yang perlu di hitung kan. dengan kebebalan tauke tauke, macam la dia nak tukar. kalu lu suruh. dia tanya lu balil " lu siap?"

walaubagai mana pun aku tak mau memperlekeh kan informasi yang lu orang dah tau, kata dah lama follow blog ni en? lu orang pun misti dah jadi intelek dah sekarang...

untuk menjawab soalan si idealist aku rasa lu kene sedar la bro pasal lu tak idup dalam dunia yang ideal. "ideally" minyak sepatut nya free la kut en? baru ideal. nak lagi ideal? lepak kat granada, baca buku, makan tapas, jalan kaki pusing pekan dan pada waktu malam lepak sembang dengan chikaro di mirador san nicholas sambil isap yaw. baru ideal tu bai. bagi aku ideal itu hanyalah fantasi dan igauan. 

Soalan kamu-" government did not revise the petrol price when they should have. how they fail to live up the promise, and enjoying too much from the petrol tax.

would you be able to comment the rationale of the government's actions (revision of petroleum products prices)
and implementation of petroleum tax?

its like they are deciding whether we should or should not enjoy cheap prices.

but, when the commodity price increase, we are supposed to bear the sky-rocketing prices?"

1. why would they want to revise the petrol prise when they should have. and yes the petrol price had plummeted to its lowest since ages ago eg. USD >50. so what is the ideal price of of petrol now? RM 1.00? it would be a disaster for the country as a whole if such actions were in place. why? the price of oil will definitely skyrocket another round.  the question is are we ( globally) ready for such price hike again? -back then during the yom kippur war(70s) (contra israel) it took many years before the global economy naturalize the shocks- it took many years before the japs came out with the idea of an ideal car "datsun, vice-murano or non land rover". with the excitement over the past years that we had, it will take many years for us to adjust with the future shock of the global economy and future hikes of petroleum. 

2. Why am i so optimistic? its a fact that the import of oil from the states decreases since Fannie mae and freddie mac. with crisis and the bailout plans for all big banks and car manufacturers, the country itself is on its safe mode  by all mean focus on the supply side economics in order to become the god of the world another time. It is not that the states is reducing the consumption of petroleum products, in fact it is not possible for them to cut down the use of the petroleum products as its is the key driver for America economy. Having stored billion of gallons of petroleum, the country is now using it to revive the economy of all 50 states (+ hawaii). With models enticed by the united states seems viable and feasible to ensure the stability of future setbacks, it is not impossible for fast movers such as China, india and others to follow the storage model. If china, india or others were to follow such model; the imported volume will definitely increase over next couple of years or hundred years. Such increase in demand of oil will definitely increase the price of oil . Not only that, if the bail out plans were to be successful; the yanks will be the key player again in the petroleum market. Hence; the petroleum price will definitely skyroket anthor time (higher than before).

3. so if the government wants to reduce the price of petroleum products and other products; what goood will it gives? we may be able to save atleast 600 ringgit per month up until the price increase again. say the price of oil will increase in the next 36 months (how ideal) we may be able to save up to 21k for the next 3 years. what good will it bring? we may be enticed to use up the money to pay for the down payment of a brand new gazz guzzling machines which is quite an irony.

4. we cant blame the government on the price of oil. if we cant afford means we got to change. bak kata pushkin bai, " there is no such thing as happy ending ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn."

jack "kah kah kah" lingam

Salam Tahun Baru Kepada Semua

Pe cita bai, aku bajet korang semua mesti sudah rindu aku dan the boyz menulis dan melalut en? apa apa pun aku sebagai wakil tuk undang- undang blog ni tuk meng-lafaz kan kata kata akhir sebelum 2008 hilang menjadi memori. kami harap 2008 tiada siapa yang melayan blues tahun 2008 selepas masuk nya 2009. kalau yang ada harap harap selesaikan la hutang hutang yang dekat kepala lu supaya 2009 akan menjadi lebih produktif, rebelistik dan sharp.

oleh itu aku dan rakan rakan ingin mendedikasi kan sebuah lagu untuk semua sebagai permulaan untuk mencari inspirasi untuk tahun yang lebih mencabar, 2009.

sekian. Salam tahun baru buat semua

PS: aku dan kwaidan dah iktibar nak mendedikasi kan diri kami kepada blog dan akan meng-revivekan blog yang semi mati ini.

OK WEI

Jack "Virk" Lingam

Inilah bos aku

Dr. Iain Stewart.

Itulah Nama bos aku. Die ni cool gila babi. Pegi kerja tak pernah pakai seluar slacks tapi nak pakai jeans ngan shirt clubbing.

Dia ada documentary die buat berjudul "Earth" yang di siarkan oleh BBC 2. Aku follower tetap. Die explain semua benda pasal bumi dengan tenang tanpa cuak.

Saksikanlah.

Seperti aku janjikan

Aku ada janji dulu kan? Ingat, article ni bukan base on proper studies yang aku buat (lab work etc). Ini based on kerja orang yang aku konon konon nak jadi seorang saintis yang analytical.

Human and global warming: Are we the primary cause? (An alternative view).

To those who aren’t ignorant about the planet that they live in, the title above, especially the words “global climate change” will definitely be a familiar title. Global warminghas been an ongoing study done by scientists ever since the 19^th century. The main study is focused on causes, predictions and solutions. Predictions were made based on concluded data retrieved by paleoclimate studies. The paleoclimate patterns such as temperature, humidity level, and percentage of greenhouse gasses were being studied. These patterns then helps scientists to understand how earth’s climate works and therefore predictions can be made. 

Solutions on the other hand, are harder. In order to produce a solution, the cause of the problem needed to be understood. The causes for global warming are almost certain but are still open for debate.

The theory that almost every single scientist agreed on is the effect of greenhouse gasses. The major elements of the greenhouse effect are the greenhouse gasses. These gasses are Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), Perfluorocarbons (PFC), Sulphur Hexafluoride, and water vapour. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect revolves around the characteristics of the gasses. The reason to this is that these gasses allow sunlight to enter the Stratosphere and the Troposphere without any interference. The sunlight radiates heat causing the earths temperature to rise considerably. The problem begins when there is high abundance of these gasses below the ozone layer. The reason to this is that these gasses act as a huge cling-film that covers the earth. The sunlight that passes through the ozone earlier, reaches the surface and then being reflected back to the sky as infrared radiation. The greenhouse gasses absorb the infrared radiation therefore the heat is trapped in the atmosphere. This causes the atmosphere to stay warm and as time elapses, it gets warmer. Generally, this is how global warming works. Of course there is the extreme version of climate change such as the scenarios depicted in Roland Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow.

So what is the cause?

The answer is obvious, Greenhouse gasses.

It is now clear that we have to tackle the cause by limiting the output of greenhouse gasses. There we have it, cause, problem and solution.

However, the questions that interest me the most are, who or what causes the high abundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Is it human activities? Or is it the earth’s natural processes? Are human activities is the primary cause or is it just a minor catalyst? To figure this out, we have to analysed the source of each greenhouse gasses and classify whether it is human induced or natural earth processes.

Gas Name	Chemical formula	Percent Volume
Nitrogen	N2	78.08%
Oxygen	O2	20.95%
Water Vapour	H2O	0 – 4%
Argon	Ar	0.93%
Carbon Dioxide	CO2	0.0360%
Neon	Ne	0.0018%
Helium	He	0.0005%
Methane	CH4	0.00017%
Hydrogen	H2	0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide	N2O	0.00003%
Ozone	O3	0.000004%

Figure 1 Earth's Atmospheric Composition  (in red are Greenhouse gasses)

The list above established the gasses and their percentage in earth atmosphere. Water vapour ranks the highest in terms of greenhouse gasses abundance therefore it should be tackled first.

The existence of water vapour in the atmosphere occurred solely by natural processes. The sun heats up liquid water that is on earth’s surface and water evaporates into water vapour. Water vapour is high in abundance around the equator as the equator receives the most intense sunlight. As water vapour exists due to a natural process, it shouldn’t be limited. Limiting the output of water vapour will only be wrong as it is disturbing the earth’s nature. Since the evaporation is a natural process, human activities cannot be blamed for 99.1% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

We then move on to the second greenhouse gas with the most percentage in earth’s atmosphere, which is Carbon Dioxide. It accounts for up to 0.036% in the earths’ atmosphere. To limit the output of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, the source of Carbon Dioxide must be studied and this can be done by studying the Carbon cycle. 

Figure 2 The carbon cycle; the figures in purple are the annual carbon fluxes in Gigatons of Carbon/year (GtC/yr)

The Carbon cycle shows all the sources of Carbon that was released into the atmosphere. The total of Carbon released to the atmosphere annually is 217.1 gigatons. This amount came from many sources that are on the earth’s surface such as vegetation and soils (121.6 GtC/yr), fossil fuel combustion (5.5 GtC/yr), and ocean’s surface (90 GtC/yr). Out of the total, human activities contribute 5.5 GtC/yr, which is 2.53% of the 0.036% of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Not exactly a massive figure.

However, let’s add up more possibilities of human contribution towards the 217.1 Gigatons of Carbon Dioxide per year.

Respiration and decomposition. Both of these are natural processes. Respiration and decomposition takes place in both animals and plants. The result of these two natural processes is Carbon Dioxide. This comes to the question “Should we limit the our breathing to help the environment?”

The answer is obviously no. Human need oxygen in order to live and the only way to do this is by breathing. The only down part is that, because of us breathing the air in; we are releasing Carbon Dioxide in to the air. Do not be alarmed. Human breathe out approximately 1 kilogram of Carbon Dioxide per day (depending on the activity) and that amount doesn’t contribute to the Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere. This is due to the Carbon Dioxide that humans and animals exhale came from the Carbon Dioxide that plants draw out from the atmosphere.

Secondly, decomposition occurs when bacteria decomposed any organic material into smaller and simpler material. This process will release Carbon Dioxide. However, the Carbon Dioxide released came from an organic matter such as plants or animals therefore, it doesn’t contribute to the global Caron Dioxide level in the atmosphere.

In the case of Carbon Dioxide, human activities can be at fault for contributing as much as 0.0009108% (2.53% of 0.036%) of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

So far, human contributed a really shallow figure to the greenhouse gasses making “human activities as a minor catalyst” more realistic rather than a global primary contributor.

The third highest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the highly flammable Methane. Methane can be released to the atmosphere by many ways. Production of fossil fuel, farming (animal waste management), rice cultivation, biomass burning and waste management produce methane. The examples above are methane producing human activities or by the very least, human activity related. Human activities released 109.6 Tg/yr (Teragram/yr), 73.7 Tg/yr emitted by biomass burning, 152.8 Tg/yr due to rice and ruminants activities and 155.3 Tg/yr came from natural emitting sources.

From the sources above, it will be inaccurate to say biomass burning and rice and ruminants aren’t apart of human activity. Studies done by scientists agreed approximately 90% of biomass burning was done by human and the balance of 10% was caused by nature such as lightning. Therefore, it can be said that human are responsible for approximately 328.73 Tg/yr or 66.9% of Methane in the atmosphere.

This is alarming.

We are responsible for more than 50% of dangerous, flammable, global warming inducing gasses.

However, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere, 0.00017%, isn’t exactly a big number. Although this is the case, it doesn’t give us the green light to not do anything about it. If human could emit Methane more than nature could annually, then we have a problem. 

The two greenhouse gasses with the lowest abundance in the atmosphere are Nitrous Oxide and Ozone (O₃). The sources of Nitrous Oxide, as other gasses, are both human activities and nature. 

Human activity such as soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuel and acid productions produced approximately 7.65 Tg/yr of Nitrous Oxide globally, nearly half of the total emission.

However, considering the amount of Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere being low, the figure retrieved isn’t alarming. 

There we have it, greenhouse gasses analysed one by one in the order from highest abundance in the atmosphere to the lowest in terms of sources. 

The source of water vapour is are purely natural therefore there is nothing we can do. Human induced Carbon Dioxide produces a reassuring figure. The figures for methane produced by human activities are alarming as we produces more than nature does where else the volume of Nitrous Oxide and Ozone in the atmosphere are relatively low compared to the ones mentioned earlier.

From these, it is clear that human are just minor catalysts. To me, that is worst than being the primary cause. We are hurrying doomsday!

If the figures are low, why the fuss?

The issue that concerns scientists at the moment is that the rate of the greenhouse gasses emitted to the atmosphere is alarming. We are producing more of the gasses compared to 100 years ago. The higher the rate, the sooner earth will be destroyed.

The worst part is that, the consequences of climate change will happen when we have too much to lose. We have amazing technologies and engineering that will be destroyed due to our own ignorance. Worst still, more of us will face death. 

Don't we, at the very least, want to see our beautiful children living in a planet that is as beautiful as them?

We, as human, must take action. 

References

The Royal Society, n.d. Climate Science, Available: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=1279&gclid=CPGQj67rn5cCFQhOMAodIlawAA (30th November 2008)

Energy Information Administration, May 2008, Greenhouse Gasses, Climate & Energy, Available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm (29th November 2008)

Pidwirny, M. (2006). Atmospheric Composition from the e-book Fundamentals of Physical Geograpy, 2^nd edition. Available: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html (30th November 2008)

Pidwirny, M. (2006). Atmospheric Composition from the e-book Fundamentals of Physical Geograpy, 2^nd edition. Available: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html (30th November 2008)

 

NASA, 1^st December 2008, The Carbon Cycle; The Human Role, Available: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php (30th November 2008)

NASA, 1^st December 2008, The Carbon Cycle; The Human Role, Available: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php (30th November 2008)

 

Pidwirny, M. (18^th November 2008), The Carbon Cycle; Photosynthesis and Respiration. Available: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle (1st December 2008).

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, n.d. Frequently Asked Questions, Available: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html (1st December 2008)

U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 19^th October 2006, Methane; Sources and emissions, Available: http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html (1st December 2008)

  

Granier, C., Petron, G., Muller, J.F., & Brasseur, G., 31^st May 2000, The impact of  natural and anthropogenic hydrocarbons on the tropospheric budget of Carbon Monoxide. The Atmospheric Environment Journal, Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-41NTBMX-11&_user=585204&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000029838&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=585204&md5=f59ace2155cd85f529885f22ad5014fb (1^st December 2008)

NASA, 2nd December 2008, Earth Observatory: Biomass burning. Available: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BiomassBurning/ (1^st December 2008)

 Scheehle, E. December 2002, U.S Environmental Protection Agency: Global Methane & Nitrous Oxide Emissions Lecture, Available: www.stanford.edu/group/EMF/projects/group21/PresentDec2002/Scheehle. Ppt (1st December 2008)

Maaf kalau Bahasa Ingeris aku mengarut, atau benda yang aku cakap tu tak masuk akal. Ni apa yang aku fikir je. Tambahan pula, aku tulis ni dalam format "popular science" bermakna benda yang akutulis tidak diterangkans ecara mendalam supaya semua orang boleh memahami (kalau masuk dalam gila kang korang baru baca satu paragraph otak dah start fikir Shukila, Fiona, Suraya dan juga Atikah). Kalau ada pendapat lain aku terbuka hati nak dengar, bukan terbuka hati nak gaduh.

Jadi tinggalkan comment korang di tempat tinggal comment!

S H A F H A M D A N

ps: sebab hype tanah runtuh sekarang, aku akan study factor factor tanah runtuh dan kenapa aku rasa area BA atau Hillview atau UK heights ni memang tak selamat.

Dari Top Boyz: Takziah kepada keluarga mangsa dan sesiapa yang terlibat dalam kemalangan tanah runtuh di Damansara ataupun di BA.

Apa cerita orang kota?

Halo sahabat handai baik yang kacak atau yang tidak.
Sempena kedatangan pemuzik ini ke Annexe di CM malam esok,BBLK cerita sket la pasal mamat swedish yang romantisis ni.

Dengan lirik-lirik yang semacam lucu dan melankolik sket,Jens Lekman akan turun dan mendendangkan lagu-lagu dia pada orang kota kuala lumpur yang amat memerlukan lebih muzik yang caya.Gua rasa mamat ni disukai oleh ramai gadis sebab suara dia yang dalam ala ala david byrne/morrisey + jarvis cocker/jamal abdillah sket.

mampos la apa yang gua rasa.enchek pegi chekedaut sendiri la