(6 Messages)
1. Very warm Arctic 55 million years ago shows vital importance of From:
Philip Sutton
2. BBC report on Bush administration's climate science cover up From: Philip
Sutton
3. BBC radio: serious scientific debate of James Lovelock's strong From:
Philip Sutton
4. Scientists: One degree more and we could easily trigger catastrophic
From: Philip Sutton
5. Siberia's thaw lakes emitting *up to* five times as much methane as From:
Philip Sutton
6. Re: Risk Free Energy: Reframing the Energy Debate From: McDougall,
William R (SKM)
View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages
1. Very warm Arctic 55 miilion years ago shows vital importance of
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:17 pm (PST)
From:
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1366?PHPSESSID=1977209a86d15557e35f7986e52d6c1
c

Growing alarm after recent findings of a very warm Arctic in the past!
Submitted by almuth on 17 June, 2006 - 08:55 climate science

Earlier this month, Nature published a study about sea temperatures in the
Arctic ocean 55
million years ago. That was the time of the last massive greenhouse warming,
the so-called
Paleocene-Ecovene Thermal Maximum or PETM. Those new findings suggest that
sea
surface temperatures (and thus air temperatures) in the Arctic were far, far
higher than
previously thought. About as warm as Spain today, I think. This is far worse
than standard
climate models suggest.

We have all read enough alarming evidence on climate change, so apologies
for posting
about more doom and gloom here. But the media have made very little of what
could be the
most alarming of all climate studies published in recent years.

I regularly read the excellent climate science blog www.realclimate.org/ ,
run by climate
scientists. And there seems to be a growing sense of panic following the
study (sorry - I don't
think that those scientists would like to see the term 'panic' next to their
name) - and that
from scientists who have consistently warned against exaggerating the
results of individual
studies, and who have doubted that human civilisation is likely to end
because of global
warming.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, for example, explained back in April why a runaway
greenhouse
effect (Earth becoming like Venus with no turning back) could be virtually
ruled out. When
somebody quoted him on a more recent blog discussion, he replied something
along the
lines of "well, it's highly unlikely, but after the results from the Arctic,
maybe we can't rule it
out completely". I think the concern now is that the extreme warming could
only have
happened because of considerable additional warming from cloud-changes, and
that those
cloud-effects are not factored into any of the standard climate models.
Indeed, some of the
runs by Climate Prediction Net came up with a runaway greenhouse effect.
They were
dismissed as going against the general understanding of physics, and they
may be re-run
and examined now.

I recommend people look at the full debate under 'Positive feedbacks from
the Climate Cycle'
on the weblog (particularly the replies to comments).

Of course, the PETM did not lead to runaway warming, and there maybe a good
lesson for
us from the recent study in Nature: It suggests that climate regulation
kicked in and
eventually cooled the planet down - but only because of massive swamps with
fern spreading
very rapidly over the Arctic and pumping down tremendous amounts of CO2 (and
even then,
it took 80,000 to 200,000 years to actually cool the planet - and indeed a
lot of the CO2
reductions would have come from the silicate weathering cycle and chemical
reactions in the
ocean). We might owe our existence to this carbon sink at the time! If there
had been
humans around then, destroying the fern and trying to grow crops in the
Arctic, then climate
regulation could well have failed completely.

Which very much supports my sense that human destruction of carbon sinks is
as much of a
disaster as the burning of fossil fuels. And that the apparent consensus
within the climate
change movement that we can save the planet SOLELY by drastically reducing
fossil fuel
burning (which of course remains an absolute priority!) might be a very
dangerous one.

Philip Sutton
Director, Strategy
Green Innovations Inc.
PO Box 27
Fairfield (Melbourne) VIC 3078
AUSTRALIA

Also:
President, Sustainable Living Foundation
www.slf.org.au
Manager of the Greenleap info list

Tel: +61 3 9486-4799
Skype: philip_sutton
Email: <Philip.Sutton@...>
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/

Victorian Registered Association Number: A0026828M


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2. BBC report on Bush administration's climate science cover up
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:22 pm (PST)
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear
Panorama, BBC TV
Thursday, 1 June 2006, 12:26 GMT 13:26 UK

A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about
global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.

Some of America's leading climate scientists claim to Panorama that they
have been censored and gagged by the administration.

One of them believes the publication of his report, which catalogues the
unprecedented rate of ice melt in the Arctic, was delayed as Americans
prepared to vote in 2004.

The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his
administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a
result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.

But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position
explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006.
I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place
and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the
administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do
with what I believe."

Panorama's reporter Hilary Andersson visits some of the first refugees of
global warming who come from an island in Arctic Alaska which has been
inhabited for 4,000 years ago but is now melting into the sea.

In the last six years most industrialised nations have cut greenhouse gas
emissions but under Bush America's emissions have increased by an
average of one per cent a year.

The administration is now spending money to establish cleaner ways of
burning coal and to cut emissions but is still reluctant to risk damaging
the
American fuel industries.

But some scientists say this will take too long. One of them tells Panorama
how he was told NASA would have to approve everything he planned to
write and say publicly about the effects of global warming.

Another scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) tells Panorama he had research which established global warming
could increase the intensity of hurricanes. He was due to give an interview
about his work but claims he was gagged.

Three weeks later in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,200
people in New Orleans and was recorded as one of the strongest Atlantic
storms. But the NOAA website said unusual hurricane activity is not related
to global warming.

Panorama learns that some scientists are afraid that what they see as a
cover up will leave it too late for the US to have any hope of controlling
climate changes brought about by global warming.

Read a transcript of this film:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5312208.stm

Some quotes:

"For five or 10 years the public has not been fully informed. We were not
taking the initial steps that need to be taken. If we continue down this
path
we're going to be past a point at which we can avoid really large climate
changes."
Jim Hansen
US climate scientist

"If the report had come out it would have been a very strong piece in the
presidential election in the US."
Bob Corell
Author of Arctic Assessment Report

"If they could suppress it they would. If they couldn't they would ignore
it. If
they could edit it they would edit it."
Former government official

"I told the world I thought the Kyoto deal was a lousy deal for America. It
meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels which would have
meant I would have presided over massive lay offs and economic
destruction."
President George W Bush

"Energy is central to our economy. If you're going to make energy policy you
need to talk to the energy industry."
James Connaughton
Bush's senior adviser on the environment
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3. BBC radio: serious scientific debate of James Lovelock's strong
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:40 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/science/lovelock_climate_200607
06.shtml

Today BBC Radio 4

To activate links - go to web page.

Today brought a panel of leading scientists together with the father of Gaia
theory to debate his theories about global warming.

**Scroll down this page to HEAR the climate change panel hearings in
full....

It's much later than you think - that's the chilling message of Dr James
Lovelock's work on climate change.

Dr Lovelock, one of the UK's leading scientists, believes the effects of
global
warming will be so catastrophic, and so rapid, that they will lead to the
deaths of billions of people by the end of this century.

And he predicts that as much of the earth's surface becomes a scorched,
arid wasteland, the tiny number of survivors will migrate to the few areas
where human life is still possible - such as the Arctic Basin.

These predictions are intended to be a wake-up call to inspire the public to
press for much more radical action to deal with climate change.

But the startling nature of Dr Lovelock's claims - and his warning that we
may already have passed the point of no return - have divided opinion even
among scientists who are concerned about global warming.

So BBC Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin and Today brought together
a panel of seven eminent figures from disciplines with a bearing on climate
change, to put Dr Lovelock through a rigorous process of examination on
the case he makes in his most recent book, "The Revenge of Gaia".

The panel contained:
* (Chairman) Prof Brian Hoskins, Royal Society Research Professor,
Reading University
* Prof Chris Rapley Director, British Antarctic Survey
* Lord Oxburgh - University Scientist; former chairman of Shell
* Dr Vicky Pope Head of the Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley Centre
* Prof Hans von Storch Director, Institute for Coastal Research, Geesthacht,
Germany
* Prof Susan Owens Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge
University
* Prof Andrew Watson Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of
East Anglia

TODAY CLIMATE CHANGE PANEL:

Today brought together a panel of top scientists to grill Dr James Lovelock
about his controversial book "The Revenge Of Gaia" and to discuss their
thinking on climate change. The discussions were moderated by BBC
Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin and chaired by Professor Brian
Hoskins of the Royal Society. You can listen to the entire proceedings by
clicking on the links for the various chapters below.

First Session:

1) James Lovelock: how I came to write this book: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)
2) Panellists introduce themselves: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
3) The panel's initial impressions of the book: (go to BBC web page above to
listen)
4) Opening discussions: LISTEN
5) Will global warming kill ocean life?: (go to BBC web page above to
listen)
6) Is aerosol pollution saving us from the worst?: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)

Second Session:

7) Dr Lovelock explains how Gaia theory informs his predictions: (go to BBC
web page above to listen)
8) Will things get as bad, as fast, as Dr Lovelock predicts?: (go to BBC web
page above to listen)
9) Nuclear: LISTEN
10) Wind power - a lot of hot air?: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
11) Will Dr Lovelock's predictions inspire drive readers to action or
despair?:
(go to BBC web page above to listen)
12) Roger Harrabin delivers the panel's verdicts: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)
Read how the panel voted on our questions about James Lovelock and
climate change (go to BBC web page above to read)

13) Dr Lovelock responds: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4. Scientists: One degree more and we could easily trigger catastrophic
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:55 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125713.300

Climate change: 'One degree and we're done for'
Fred Pearce
New Scientist
27 September 2006

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we
will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we
know."

So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global
temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been
increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years.
Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere,
particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America.
Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb
more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is
within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team.
Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it
too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway
climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).

The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating
environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska,
underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to
climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate
change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice
has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research
Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as
dramatic on land in the far north.

A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week
confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change.
Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central
Siberia
has warmed by almost 2 °C since 1970 - that's three times the global
average.

Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week
reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 °C
since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C (Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).

In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused
the
onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite
observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now
arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.

The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing
ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still
further..
Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research
Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths.
"They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says.
The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy
soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.

In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square
kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images
of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin,
warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years
to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed
huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so
dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe,"
says
Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.

Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic
tundra
is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from
thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New
Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US
scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).

"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost
and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter.
Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be
huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and
destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been
responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he
says.

We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen
argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global
temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the
past million years, outside that range - beyond a further warming of about 1
°C - the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable
if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next
decade, Hansen says.

Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs,
permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole,
they
are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study
of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of
Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250
billion a year, or $160 per hectare.

These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control
provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat
from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's
National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.

The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of
conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber,
minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in
Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of
our gross domestic product - similar in value to our health and social
services."

You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon
locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he
says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system,
Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."

And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal
regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then
the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
>From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9

-----------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5. Siberia's thaw lakes emitting *up to* five times as much methane as
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 2:00 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125685.600

Siberia's pools burp out nasty surprise

06 September 2006
>From New Scientist Print Edition.

Northern Siberia's thaw lakes are belching out up to five times as much
methane as
previously thought. And as global warming causes the permafrost to melt,
lakes worldwide
could emit even more methane, reinforcing climate change.

Katey Walter at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and her colleagues
developed a new
technique to measure the amount of methane bubbling out of two lakes in
northern Siberia.
In autumn, when the lakes froze over, they identified regions where methane
was being
released by searching for gas bubbles pushing through the ice. They then
placed umbrella-
shaped bubble traps over the hotspots and measured emissions daily for one
year. At both
lakes, the gas flux was five times as high as previously estimated. Walter's
team also got
similar figures from smaller studies on more than 100 other lakes in the
region (Nature, vol
443, p 71)

Human activity is still the biggest source of atmospheric methane, but lakes
can no longer be
ignored. "Until now we didn't realise that lakes were such an important
source," says Walter.
Over the coming years methane flux from Siberian lakes is likely to
increase, as melting
permafrost releases carbon into the lakes. "Bacteria eat this carbon and
burp out methane,"
says Walter.

>From issue 2568 of New Scientist magazine, 06 September 2006, page 20
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6. Re: Risk Free Energy: Reframing the Energy Debate
Posted by: "McDougall, William R (SKM)" WMcDougall@...
Sun Oct 8, 2006 2:09 pm (PST)
Glenn, I will repeat Andrew's question, which I don't think you answered
- which energy sources are risk-free?

I think the true answer is: none of them. The term "risk-free energy"
has as much spin about it as "clean coal" and "safe nuclear"! You
highlight some major risks with coal-fired and nuclear fission energy,
and some minor ones with wind turbines.

I've heard a lot (but know little) about nuclear fusion, which appears
to have some inherent advantages but is a long way from being feasible
and requires a lot of investment.

I think a more sustainable energy future lies not on one big new 'fix'
but a combination of things, including extensive energy saving in homes
and industry, more use of local/recycled sources (electric car batteries
feeding the grid, solar cells on roofs, etc) as well as cleaner,
lower-risk centralised sources such as hydro, fusion, solar towers,
wave, wind, etc.

But what is needed to actually create all these alternatives in the
first place? For example, if production of solar cells was stepped up to
the level of, say, personal computers, what are the material and energy
needs, and how would we provide it?

We rarely consider the product life-cycle issues in these debates, it
seems - just the 'good' of the end-product...

William

William McDougall
Transport Team Leader
Sinclair Knight Merz
590 Orrong Road Armadale VIC 3143 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9248 3455
Fax: +61 3 9248 3460
Mobile: 0411 839 808
Email: wmcdougall@...

Sinclair Knight Merz
Achieve Remarkable Success - Our Commitment to Clients
For further information, visit our website www.skmconsulting.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) Recent Activity
8 New Members
Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved
message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily
Digest.Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages
- - -
Greenleap strategy:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/Greenleap-30y-or-less.htm
Info on Green Innovations & resources on
creation of an ecologically sustainable
economy & sustainability-promoting firms:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/
- - -

Greenleap: Australian-hosted list for exchange of info-gems
(& very limited discussion) about leapfrogging rapidly TO an
ecologically sustainable economy.

(For postings relevant to Victoria only, also subscribe
to "Greenleap-Victoria" - send blank message to:
<greenleap-Victoria-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> )

To post to Greenleap, mail to:
<greenleap@yahoogroups.com>

To automate tidying of message text (for good layout/
readability) download free software:
http://www.dsoft.com.tr/stripmail/

To subscribe to Greenleap, send blank message to:
<greenleap-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
To unsubscribe send blank message to:
<greenleap-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
If you are changing email addresses send the
unsubscribe message from your old address.

To change your subscription settings, goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/join

Setting options:
- individual message mailings
- a single daily consolidated posting
- no emails at all (but can read messages via
web archive)

Archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/messages

Attachments are no longer archived by Yahoo. Sorry.

Can't access archive? How to:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm#accessing-archive

Greenleap is a service of Green Innovations Inc.
*Free* for first 12 months, then generally after that,
a small fee is charged. For details:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm

All messages are moderated/screened. To maintain
relevance & quality: sometimes messages have irrelevant
material edited out, info added or are rejected. Some
postings are bundled into 'compilation' postings.

--end--


Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe