tagged w/ Greenhouse Gases
-
The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).
Additionally, in every study over every timeframe examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) GHGs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions. This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our SO2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying GHG-caused global warming trend. Note that not all studies broke out the effects the same way (i.e. only examining ‘natural’ and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from Figures 2 to 4.
Figure 2: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Stott et al. 2010 (S10, gray), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue).
Figure 3: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).
Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (FR11, green).
There was a period of warming between 1910 and 1940 which was predominantly caused by increasing solar activity and an extended period of low volcanic activity, with some contribution by human effects. However, since mid-century, solar activity has been flat, there has been moderate volcanic activity, and ENSO has had little net impact on global temperatures. All the while GHGs kept increasing, and became the dominant effect on global temperature changes, as Figures 3 and 4 illustrate.
A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientific evidence is why there is a consensus among scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.
More at the linkThe agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and... more
-
-
By Muriel Kane
Friday, December 9, 2011
When asked about his views on climate change at a campaign event, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney replied that the earth might be getting warmer, but that his top priority as president would be to increase energy production in the United States.
“I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know the answer to these things,” he told the questioner. “I think the earth is getting warmer. May be wrong. I think we probably contribute something to it, but I don’t know if we contribute a little or a lot. And therefore, when I come to the policies I’d put in place, I do not support cap and trade policies, which raise the cost of energy.”
“Scientists will figure that out ten, twenty, fifty years from now,” he concluded. “But the right policy for me is, use our domestic sources of energy — including our renewables, and our gas, and our coal, and our nuclear, and our oil — and that’s the right course for America.”
In sharp contrast with Romney’s suggestion that the question of climate change can be deferred for another fifty years, however, the majority of scientists have already concluded that man-made global warming is real, has already contributed to an unprecedented number of climate disasters, and will be irreversible unless significant changes are made within the next decade.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/09/romney-scientists-can-figure-out-global-warming-50-years-from-now/
This video is from CNN, broadcast Dec. 9, 2011.
"Seems the GOP is always willing to kick the can down the road... More often then not, after they have been here and gone!!!"By Muriel Kane
Friday, December 9, 2011
When asked about his views on climate... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
2 months ago
- |
-
Take note US law enforcement: no pepper spray, no raids, no beatings.
This is it. This is the crux of the global economic and environmental crises we face and this was the place to take it. It is always the 1% that is heard even at these conferences above the voices of the poor, the indigenous peoples and those in this world who are being disproportionately affected most by climate change. It is our time now. Failure here is a failure of and for humanity, our water, our land, other species and our economies. The science is indisputable. The effects to water, agriculture and social structure are now a reality and becoming more severe. It is time to put humanity first.
Occupy climate justice.Take note US law enforcement: no pepper spray, no raids, no beatings.
This is it.... more
-
-
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/News-and-Views/Archives/2011/Efficient-Vehicles.aspx
October/November 2011 National Wildlife Federation Magazine
IN A TRULY SIGNIFICANT national commitment to curb greenhouse gases, the Obama administration, a labor union and key auto manufacturers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have joined with the state of California to reach a critical deal requiring passenger vehicles to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Also announced—and broadly agreed upon—were the first ever standards for heavy duty trucks that will reduce their fuel use by 10 to 20 percent by 2018. Currently, more than 30 percent of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions in this country come from petroleum that is used mainly by the transportation sector.
NWF supports these agreements because they mean passenger cars and light trucks built in 2025 will emit about 50 percent less carbon pollution than cars today and heavy trucks will reduce their carbon emissions significantly. These landmark White House agreements came about through responsible negotiations with automakers, environmentalists and labor unions. While we did not get the full 60 mpg for which we had called these standards will make a very significant dent in tailpipe pollution. And we will continue to work with all the parties to speed innovation in cars and trucks.
According to the Union of Concern Scientists, the latest passenger vehicle agreement will cut carbon pollution by more than 308 million tons in 2030—the equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants. The group also predicts "lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030—even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone." These savings mean billions more being spent at home, boosting our economy locally and improving our serious trade deficit. They also will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil by saving as much as 23 billion gallons of gasoline annually by 2030, which is equal to the total current annual imports from both Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The many hybrid models now in the market have certainly contributed to improving the nation's overall fuel efficiency. As an owner of a hybrid, I can assure you that I enjoy passing gas stations that I once stopped at to fill up. But standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehiclesÑfrom semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars.
The final rule for heavy duty trucks was adopted in August. The handshake agreement for passenger vehicles will be proposed formally as a draft regulation open for public comment and input by the end of September. A final rule, if adopted, will be published in July 2012.
Leave it to the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose the passenger vehicle agreement and try to block any responsible solution to a serious environmental and economic problem. In a three-page letter sent to the CEOs of nine major automakers, Representative Darrell Issa (R-California), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the committee "has begun an investigation into the nature of the negotiations." He added that the deal appears "to have been negotiated in secret, outside the scope of law, with potentially significant negative impacts for consumers."
The Obama administration has estimated that, under the plan, consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump. It appears that the only "significant negative impact" will be to big oil interests that have made record profits in recent years and pocketed many billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidizes, and their Middle East suppliers who will sell a lot less oil to the United States. The legislative backlash should be expected, since oil interests are making huge contributions to lawmakers who watch out for their interests and protect their tax subsidies.
We commend the Obama administration for working in a spirit of cooperation with affected interests to forge a reasonable compromise with major benefits for the public, the economy and wildlife. We are saddened by all attacks on our landmark environmental and conservation laws, including the Clean Air Act, that underpin these standards. As this passenger vehicle agreement (as in previous fuel-efficiency agreements) will be submitted to a formal rule-making process in which all U.S. citizens will have a chance to voice their opinions, we encourage NWF members to actively participate as it moves forward.
By Larry J. Schweiger, President and Chief Executive Officerhttp://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/News-and-Views/Archives/2011/Ef... more
-
-
A cavalcade of phonies, liars and as the narrator states, "self serving well funded" people who care not for this planet or any of us but only their own agendas. This is indeed a planetary emergency and people need to know it and see this reality over and over again in order to begin NOW to do what is necessary to save our future. And the first step in doing that is exposing the frauds!A cavalcade of phonies, liars and as the narrator states, "self serving well... more
-
-
New York broke an all-time record for a one-day rainfall Sunday as up to 8 inches of water soaked the city, snarling trains and flooding roadways.
By 9 p.m., 7.7 inches of rain had fallen at Kennedy Airport.
It was the most recorded there in a single day since the National Weather Service began keeping records 116 years ago.
The heavy tropical rain is expected to continue Monday, and a flash flood warning is in effect until 9 p.m.
The normal rainfall for all of August in New York is 4 inches - which means the city was socked with two months worth of rain in a single day.
"This is what you would expect in a major hurricane," said Steve Wistar, senior meteorologist at AccuWeather.
Kennedy Airport's old one-day rainfall record, 6.3 inches, set on June 30, 1984, fell by noon.
Central Park, where the city's official rainfall total is recorded, saw 5.8 inches by 10:45 p.m., making it the fifth-wettest day of all time there.
The heavy rain caused scattered power outages and transit disruptions. Cars got caught in flash floods, and the Long Island Rail Road reported localized flooding and trees on the tracks, delaying several dozen trains and closing the Far Rockaway and Long Beach branches.
In the subways, water flooded into tunnels, knocking out parts of seven lines in the morning. By evening, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said, things were under control.
On Staten Island, firefighters rescued two construction workers who got trapped in a stalled elevator rapidly filling with water.
"We thought we were dead," said one of the rescued men, Ed Tyler, 26, of Milltown, N.J. "I literally thought I was going to die."
More at the linkNew York broke an all-time record for a one-day rainfall Sunday as up to 8 inches of... more
-
-
The Great Lakes are in Danger
July 22, 2011 : 5:10 PM
The effects of the climate crisis are now damaging the Great Lakes:
“Some of the Great Lakes' treasured national parks are showing ill effects of climate change that are likely to worsen in coming decades, from shoreline erosion to decline of certain wildlife and plant species, a former park system administrator said Wednesday.”
“Without changes in public policies and personal habits that pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the parks could lose qualities that attract visitors and support unique ecosystems, Stephen Saunders, former deputy assistant secretary of the Interior Department, said in a report released by two advocacy groups.”
Source: APThe Great Lakes are in Danger
July 22, 2011 : 5:10 PM
The effects of... more
-
-
The European space agency will continue to support the fight against global warming and greenhouse gases with its two new environmental satellites.
Yesterday, July 11, Volker Liebig, ESA's director of Earth Observation Programmes, and Evert Dudok, CEO of Astrium Satellites, signed a contract on July 11 worth almost €150 million to develop and build two satellite sensors, known as “Sentinel-4”, which will monitor the Earth's atmosphere as part of Europe's Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme.
The satellites will provide data on sulphur dioxide and aerosols present over Europe from a geostationary satellite that will orbit about 36,000 km above the equator. The satellite will provide data every hour on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, including trace gases and ultraviolet radiation. The devices also will help improve the monitoring of plumes from volcanic eruptions. They will be carried on Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) weather satellites, scheduled to be launched in 2019 and 2027.
The agreement was signed in Ottobrunn, near Munich, Germany, where the headquarters of Astrium is located. Astrium is an aerospace subsidiary of EADS.
“Sentinel-4 is one of a family of five missions ESA is developing for the EU's Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme,” according to an ESA statement. Through GMES, experts will have reliable, timely and accurate information to manage the environment, understand and mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure civil security.
“These services will be realised through the integration of data collected from space, from the air, at sea and on the ground. However, the space component forms the backbone of the programme. ESA's first GMES satellite, Sentinel-1, is planned to be launched in 2013”, reads ESA's statement.
The programme also is based on the long-term collaboration between ESA and Eumetsat. Each full Sentinel-4 mission will carry on board the ultraviolet-visible-near-infrared spectrometer that Astrium will build, along with data from Eumetsat's thermal-infrared sensor. Both instruments will be carried on MTG-Sounder satellites.
“In addition, the Sentinel-4 mission will also make use of data from the imager that will be flown on the MTG-Imager satellites,” the statement reads.
“For example, the data from Sentinel-4 on sulphur dioxide and aerosols will complement those provided by the MTG-Imager for volcanic plume monitoring.”
MTG is a cooperative venture between Eumetsat and ESA ensuring continuity with the Meteosat Second Generation satellites currently in operation. The series will be made up of four MTG-Imaging satellites and two MTG-Sounding satellites.The European space agency will continue to support the fight against global warming... more
-
-
James Hansen never expected to become a radical activist at the age of 65. He is a grandfather who loves nothing more than exploring nature with his grandchildren. He holds down a respectable job as the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But he is 70 now, and he has a police record.
Hansen gets himself arrested, testifies in court on behalf of others who have broken the law and issues public pronouncements that have made Nasa try to gag him – all because he can't bear the thought that his grandchildren might hold him responsible for a burned-out planet.
Hansen is the climate scientist's climate scientist. He has testified about the issue in front of Congress, but has had enough of the standard government response – "greenwash", he calls it. Last month, Hansen issued an uncompromising plea for Americans to involve themselves with civil unrest over climate change. "We want you to consider doing something hard – coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested," he says in a letter on grist.org.
However many Americans turn up to get arrested in Washington, it's unlikely that Hansen will end up sharing a cell with other scientists. He cuts a lone figure on the barricades; almost all scientists run shy of such public misbehaviour.
In private, science has always been a brutal, gladiatorial arena. To be successful you have to challenge established thinking, force out the old guard and prove beyond question that you are right. That takes extraordinary tenacity, resourcefulness and courage.
The tragedy is that these laudable attributes are rarely channelled into tackling areas where science highlights something of global concern. Yes, scientists compile and contribute to reports on issues such as climate change. But those reports are made public only when the scientists have agreed on the most conservative of conclusions, satisfying the lowest common denominator among those whose names appear on the documents.
The UN's climate monitor, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, issues reports that stand accused of underplaying sea level rises. According to a report published by the US National Academy of Sciences, levels may rise three times faster than IPCC estimates.
That is not to say that climate scientists don't privately agree about what is going on with our planet. In April 2010 a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that nearly 98% of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change. The voices of dissent reported "for balance" come almost exclusively from researchers who are not publishing in the field.
Unfortunately, this consensus over climate change is in danger of becoming the world's best-kept secret. According to the World Bank's 2010 World Development Report, 17% of US citizens think that the properly scientific view is to be sceptical about climate change, while 43% believe that scientists are "evenly divided". Who is to blame for this gulf between reality and perception? The media? The government? No. When they are being honest, the scientists blame themselves.
And that's why Hansen – and a handful of other scientists – are bypassing traditional outlets for scientific results.
If Hansen gets arrested this summer, it will complete his hat-trick: he has already been arrested twice at environmental protests. In 2009 police dragged him and actor Daryl Hannah off a mountain road in West Virginia. They and hundreds of other protesters had sat down in protest at a local company's intention to access the mountain's coal deposits by packing it with explosives and blowing its top off. The second arrest came last year in Washington, at a protest over similar practices.
Hansen's attitude echoes that of Sherwood Rowland, who won a Nobel prize for his research into the effects of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases on the ozone layer. "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions," Rowland said, "if all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
Rowland's colleagues shunned him for his activism. Even the iconic environmentalist James Lovelock called for a "bit of British caution" in the face of what he saw as Rowland's "missionary" zeal for a ban on CFCs. In the end, it was only the terrifying discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica that galvanised the politicians.
US academics Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have highlighted the disappointing timidity of scientists. On acid rain, climate change, tobacco marketing and the ozone crisis, they "would have liked to have told heroic stories of how scientists set the record straight" in their book Merchants of Doubt, but scientists fighting back have been "conspicuously scarce". "Clearly, scientists knew that many contrarian claims were false," they lament. "Why didn't they do more to refute them?"
The answer is, because of the party line established in the post-war era: offer advice only if asked.
More at the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7wdKg8rYL0&feature=player_embeddedJames Hansen never expected to become a radical activist at the age of 65. He is a... more
-
-
And we have to stop allowing the same people to shut this conversation down. We are no where near prepared for adaptation and what this will bring in the future, nevermind the present. Even if we completely stopped greenhouse gas emissions today, what we have already put up in the atmosphere over the last century would continue to play out. And yet, we continue to spew out 70 million tons of this every day as if it doesn't matter and continue listening to those whose political and economic lives depend on making this a rote issue. Well it isn't rote, and it is now upon us. And this government is doing nothing. And that is simply unacceptable. And that will be a consideration when I vote in any election.
____
excerpt:
"Joplin, Mo., was prepared. The tornado warning system gave residents 24 minutes’ notice that a twister was bearing down on them. Doctors and nurses at St. John’s Regional Medical Center, who had practiced tornado drills for years, moved fast, getting patients away from windows, closing blinds, and activating emergency generators. And yet more than 130 people died in Joplin, including four people at St. John’s, where the tornado sucked up the roof and left the building in ruins, like much of the shattered city.
Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weather’s extremes has reached biblical proportions. The 2010 heat wave in Russia killed an estimated 15,000 people. Floods in Australia and Pakistan killed 2,000 and left large swaths of each country under water. A months-long drought in China has devastated millions of acres of farmland. And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began.
From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone. Which means you haven’t seen anything yet. And we are not prepared.
Picture California a few decades from now, a place so hot and arid the state’s trademark orange and lemon trees have been replaced with olive trees that can handle the new climate. Alternating floods and droughts have made it impossible for the reservoirs to capture enough drinking water. The picturesque Highway 1, sections of which are already periodically being washed out by storm surges and mudslides, will have to be rerouted inland, possibly through a mountain. These aren’t scenes from another deadly-weather thriller like The Day After Tomorrow. They’re all changes that California officials believe they need to brace for within the next decade or two. And they aren’t alone. Across the U.S., it’s just beginning to dawn on civic leaders that they’ll need to help their communities brave coming dangers brought by climate change, from disappearing islands in Chesapeake Bay to dust bowls in the Plains and horrific hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet only 14 states are even planning, let alone implementing, climate-change adaptation plans, says Terri Cruce, a climate consultant in California. The other 36 apparently are hoping for a miracle.
The game of catch-up will have to happen quickly because so much time was lost to inaction. “The Bush administration was a disaster, but the Obama administration has accomplished next to nothing either, in part because a significant part of the Democratic Party is inclined to balk on this issue as well,” says economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “We [are] past the tipping point.” The idea of adapting to climate change was once a taboo subject. Scientists and activists feared that focusing on coping would diminish efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the opposite side of the divide, climate-change deniers argued that since global warming is a “hoax,” there was no need to figure out how to adapt. “Climate-change adaptation was a nonstarter,” says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “If you wanted to talk about that, you would have had to talk about climate change itself, which the Bush administration didn’t want to do.” In fact, President Bush killed what author Mark Hertsgaard in his 2011 book, Hot, calls “a key adaptation tool,” the National Climate Assessment, an analysis of the vulnerabilities in regions of the U.S. and ideas for coping with them. The legacy of that: state efforts are spotty and local action is practically nonexistent. “There are no true adaptation experts in the federal government, let alone states or cities,” says Arroyo. “They’ve just been commandeered from other departments.”
cont.And we have to stop allowing the same people to shut this conversation down. We are no... more
-
-
So do I. Matter of fact, I think it may be part of what is causing so much of the severe weather events we are seeing in this country. Did enough methane escape to tip the climate scale? They won't tell you!So do I. Matter of fact, I think it may be part of what is causing so much of the... more
-
-
Venus' surface temperature cannot be due to heat of formation, a recent astronomical collision, or simply an extra-hot planetary core. That leaves the atmosphere. Today we look at why many of the "it's hot because the pressure is high" arguments are wrong and conclude that Venus' hot surface temperature must therefore be due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a 97% CO2 atmosphere.Venus' surface temperature cannot be due to heat of formation, a recent... more
-
-
On April 22, the U.S. State Department released a supplemental environmental review for a proposed pipeline that would funnel 700,000 barrels of oil per day 2,750 kilometers (1,710 miles) from Canada’s tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The department completed the supplemental review after its initial draft, released in April 2010, was given the lowest possible rating of “inadequate” by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the year since, U.S. senators, state representatives, and various national, state, and local interest groups also have requested a more detailed review of the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline and its effects on land use and water resources. The route proposed by TransCanada, the project developer, cuts across the High Plains Aquifer System, one of the world’s largest aquifers and the water source for 2.8 million people and nearly 5.3 million hectares (13 million acres) of irrigated farmland.
However, the supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) has not alleviated those concerns, especially in Nebraska where the $US 7 billion pipeline would cross two primary units of the High Plains Aquifer—the Ogallala and the Sand Hills.
In a written statement, Nebraska’s Republican Senator Mike Johanns questioned the conclusions in the supplemental EIS.
“I was pleased that the State Department issued a supplemental EIS, which I had requested months ago,” Johanns wrote to Circle of Blue. “There is still much to review in the document, but the bottom line is that the State Department’s position doesn’t seem to have changed much. The State Department still thinks the best route goes through the Sand Hills, and I think that’s wrong.”
Though the supplement incorporates minor changes to the location of storage tanks and the intensity of pumping pressure, the new information “does not alter the conclusions reached in the draft EIS regarding the need for and the potential impacts of the proposed project,” according to the State Department’s supplemental EIS.
The State Department is the permitting agency because the pipeline crosses international boundaries. The department has already approved two pipelines from the tar sands to refineries in the U.S., both originating in Hardisty, Alberta. The 992-mile Alberta Clipper line ends at Superior, Wisconsin. The 1,600-kilometer (2,151-mile) Keystone line has terminals in Illinois and Oklahoma. The combined capacity is 1.4 million barrels per day, but the U.S. currently only imports 1.1 million barrels a day from the tar sands.
Potential for Pollution
The areas of greatest concern for water resources—pipeline spills and the location of the proposed route—seem to have been given superficial treatment, said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the international director for the Natural Resources Defense Council and a tar sands specialist.
“My feeling is that, rather than really going into detail in areas and fleshing them out, they spent a lot of time and pages explaining why they didn’t need to go more in-depth,” Casey-Lefkowitz told Circle of Blue. She continued, saying that the State Department “seems to take the stance that an accident or spill is unlikely, so we don’t need to worry.”
But when it comes to unlikely accidents linked to energy sector, there are two striking examples over the last year: the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and the Fukushima partial meltdown in Japan. And, lest it be overshadowed by those monumental bookends, last June there was a spill from a pipeline carrying tar sands oil in southwestern Michigan, where more than 800,000 gallons of oil flowed into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River from a pipeline owned by Enbridge, a Canadian company.
To understand the potential for a pipeline spill, the physical properties of tar sands oil are important.On April 22, the U.S. State Department released a supplemental environmental review... more
-
-
The ice of Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting faster than expected and could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, dramatically higher than earlier projections, an authoritative international assessment says.
The findings "emphasize the need for greater urgency" in combating global warming, says the report of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), the scientific arm of the eight-nation Arctic Council.
The warning of much higher seas comes as the world's nations remain bogged down in their two-decade-long talks on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Rising sea levels are expected to cause some of global warming's worst damage — from inundated small islands to possible flooding of New York City's subways. Oceans will not rise uniformly worldwide, because of currents, winds and other factors, but such low-lying areas as Bangladesh and Florida will likely be hard-hit.
The new report, whose executive summary was obtained by The Associated Press, is to be delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and foreign ministers of the other seven member nations at an Arctic Council meeting next week in Greenland. It first will be discussed by some 400 international scientists at a conference this week in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Drawing on improved research techniques and recent scientific papers, the AMAP report updates forecasts made by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change in its last major assessment in 2007.
The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, is projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90 to 160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, although it noted that estimate was highly uncertain.
That's up from the 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19 to 59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel. The U.N. group had left out the possible acceleration of melting in Greenland and Antarctica, saying research on that hadn't advanced sufficiently by the mid-2000s. The U.N. estimate was based largely on the expansion of ocean waters from warming and the runoff from melting land glaciers elsewhere in the world.
Now the AMAP assessment finds that Greenland was losing ice in the 2004-2009 period four times faster than in 1995-2000.
In addition, the cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel, threatening the long-term survival of polar bears and other ice-dependent species. Summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, said AMAP, predicting the ocean will be almost ice-free in the summer in 30 to 40 years.
Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and "feedback" mechanisms are believed to be speeding up warming in the far north.
One such mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, because ice reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists "but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years," AMAP said.
cont.The ice of Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting faster than expected and... more
-
-
Peak oil, biodiversity loss, peak water, pollution, illness, diseases and an industrial agricultural system broken due to reliance on fossil fuels that threaten our ability to maintain ours and other species. All reasons along with the intensification of the effects of CO2 and greenhouse gas forcings upon the Earth's natural cycles to work towards a clean energy economy. It matters not your politics, your beliefs or your religion, the need to switch to other energy sources due to overconsumption and waste is now essential. This documentary shows us how to get there. And we need to get there fast.Peak oil, biodiversity loss, peak water, pollution, illness, diseases and an... more
-
-
The Science: 350 ppm
Some scientists claim that if we keep the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450 ppm (parts per million) we should be safe. Dr. James Hansen was once one of them. But over the past several years through his research he has come to the conclusion that we must reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 ppm in order to avoid disaster for coming generations.
Humans have caused carbon dioxide to increase from 280 ppm in 1750 to 387 ppm in 2009. 387 ppm is already in the dangerous range. Such a reduction is still practical, but just barely.
“I am sorry to say that most of what politicians are doing on the climate front is greenwashing—their proposals sound good, but they are deceiving you and themselves at the same time.” ~James Hansen
Government Greenwashing
Greenwashing: the practice of expressing concern about global warming and the environment while taking no actions to actually stabilize climate or preserve the environment.
Greenwashing is prevalent in the United States and other countries, even those presumed to be the “greenest.” Politicians who advertise themselves as being “green” often demonstrating token environmental support while kowtowing to fossil fuel special interests and the 2,340 registered energy lobbyists in Washington. Their stated goals for future emissions reductions are figments of their imagination, entirely inconsistent with the policies that they are busy adopting.
“There are countries saying that they will build power plants that are ‘carbon capture ready.’ They are misleading you. The politicians know that the public, at least in most countries, will never accept the large increases in electricity price that would accompany carbon capture, let alone accept burial of the carbon dioxide in their neighborhood.”
~James Hansen
Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty. “Clean coal” technology does not exist and carbon capture is not economically feasible.
Developed countries will need to complete their coal phase-out by about 2020, if global phase-out of coal is to be achieved by 2030. If coal emissions are phased out this rapidly— a tall order, but a feasible one— the climate problem is solvable.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy rate first priority in the suite of technologies needed to phase out carbon emissions. But in most countries, phase-out of coal emissions requires also a carbon-free source of baseload electric power that is competitive in price with coal. Until we have another way to meet 21st century energy needs while eliminating coal and carbon emissions, nuclear power appears to be the only option.
The (“3rd generation”) nuclear technology ready to replace the aging 2nd generation reactors in the United States and other counties is inherently safer than existing nuclear power, which already has an exemplary safety record – however, it still burns less than one percent of the nuclear fuel and leaves a long-lived nuclear waste pile. Hansen recommends initiating urgent development of a fourth-generation nuclear power plant. These “fast” nuclear reactors utilize more than 99 percent of the fuel and can “burn” nuclear waste, thus solving the nuclear waste problem that concerns so many.
“You will hear politicians and others say something like, “We have a plan. We will reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020, 90 percent by 2050.”… When they tell you that they are going to solve the problem via a “goal,” “binding target,” or a “cap,” you know that they are lying. Yes, lying is a harsh word, so you may instead say “kidding themselves.” But I expect that one day your more perceptive grandchildren will say that you let the politicians lie to you.”
~James Hansen
Continued at linkThe Science: 350 ppm
Some scientists claim that if we keep the amount of... more
-
-
It’s no surprise that the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to do away with the EPA’s rules on greenhouse gas emissions. But H.R.910, the bill to strip EPA authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, provides at least two examples of how Republicans have chosen the blue pill of delusion instead of the red pill of reality.It’s no surprise that the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to do... more
-
-
It’s no surprise that the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to do away with the EPA’s rules on greenhouse gas emissions. But H.R.910, the bill to strip EPA authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, provides at least two examples of how Republicans have chosen the blue pill of delusion instead of the red pill of reality.It’s no surprise that the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to do... more
-
-
As we near the first anniversary of the worst oil spill in U.S. history, we are shocked by reports that oil industry execs are rewarding themselves with millions in bonuses for the "best year ever" while communities across the Gulf Coast are still struggling to recover.
With calls for more drilling growing louder as the price of gas rises, Congress is debating this critically important issue and it is imperative that we examine fully the long and short term impact of oil and gas production on people and communities.
In an effort to encourage policies that support a transition to clean energy and break our addiction to oil, today in Washington, DC, the Sierra Club held its second briefing in a series to discuss the grave impacts of our nation's dependence on fossil fuels.As we near the first anniversary of the worst oil spill in U.S. history, we are... more
-
-
ptr23
-
added this
-
10 months ago
- |
-
Gas is well over $4 a gallon in most places in California — and soaring elsewhere as well. But are such high energy prices good or bad?
That should be a stupid question. Yet it is not, when the Obama administration has stopped new domestic offshore oil exploration in many American waters, curbed oil leases in the West, and keeps oil-rich areas of Alaska exempt from drilling. Last week, President Obama went to Brazil and declared of that country’s new offshore finds: “With the new oil finds off Brazil, President [Dilma] Rousseff has said that Brazil wants to be a major supplier of new stable sources of energy, and I’ve told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which would be a win-win for both our countries.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consider the logic of the president’s Orwellian declaration: The United States in the last two years has restricted oil exploration of the sort Brazil is now rushing to embrace. We have run up more than $4 trillion in consecutive budget deficits during the Obama administration and are near federal insolvency. Therefore, the United States should be happy to borrow more money to purchase the sort of “new stable sources of energy” from Brazil’s offshore wells that we most certainly will not develop off our own coasts.
It seems as if paying lots more for electricity and gas, in European fashion, was originally part of the president’s new green agenda. He helped push cap-and-trade legislation through the House of Representatives in 2009. Had such Byzantine regulations become law, a recessionary economy would have sunk into depression. Obama appointed the incompetent Van Jones as “green-jobs czar” — until Jones’s wild rantings confirmed that he knew nothing about his job description “to advance the administration’s climate and energy initiatives.”
At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the administration is borrowing billions to promote high-speed rail, and is heavily invested in the federally subsidized $42,000 Government Motors Chevy Volt. Apparently the common denominator here is a deductive view that high energy prices will force Americans to emulate European centrally planned and state-run transportation.
That conclusion is not wild conspiracy theory, but simply the logical manifestation of many of the Obama administration’s earlier campaign promises. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu — now responsible for the formulation of American energy policy — summed up his visions to the Wall Street Journal in 2008: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” I think Chu is finally figuring out the “somehow.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262941/man-made-energy-crisis-victor-davis-hanson?page=1Gas is well over $4 a gallon in most places in California — and soaring... more
-
