Biomass
<http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Which_Grass_Will_Power_The_Bioenerg\
y_Era_999.html>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks so much for this, Anne. timely and well put.

It sure is difficult to feel good about being a human - and it looks like we are
about to enter an even darker period of history.

Just one small place to start: I don't know how may people have been watching
the "First Australians" series on SBS recently - but I do think we should make
it an integral part of history courses in all Australian schools.

Kind wishes,

John Hill



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please excuse formatting mess... but wanted to get this out there to
the group asap.
Will tidy up and paste to the front page of the website.

Dear Fellow Climate Activist,



Re Climate Emergency & Culture of Ignoring LETTER to VIPs, Media,
Academics
& all State & Federal MPs



BSc (Hons) (Tasmania), PhD (Flinders) and Grad. Cert. Higher Ed. (La
Trobe),
I have been teaching Science students at Australian tertiary institutions
for 4 decades (1972-2008, in the last 5 years as a part-time
lecturer/demonstrator) and, of course, know that  ignoring, lying, denial
and obfuscation are inimical to teaching and learning and, in a wider
social, national and global context,  to rational risk management.



Yet extraordinary holocaust ignoring in history books and other
publications
used in Australian schools and universities demands identification and
cautionary labelling of all such publications. Further, the extraordinary
Culture of Ignoring and Lying by Omission in Australia as a whole demands
ethical Alternative Media (e.g. a top quality national e-daily with top,
professionally expert, volunteer commentators is possible for less than $1
million pa but hasn't happened).



Below is a Letter about this Culture of Ignoring that I have personally
addressed to thousands of variously eminent and influential Australian
journalists, academics, politicians and other citizens. The Silence has
been
Deafening - the positive response in terms of re-transmission of these
vital
concerns is so far only 0.2%.



LETTER



I am writing to eminent and influential Australians about serious threats
to
Australia and the World from the Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism and a
Culture of Ignoring. I would be very grateful if you would disseminate
this
analysis to everyone you can in the national and global interest.
Rational
risk management successively involves (a) accurate data, (b) scientific
analysis (with a scientific methodology  involving the critical testing of
potentially falsifiable hypotheses) and (c) systemic change to minimize
risk. Unfortunately, as outlined below,  this protocol is typically
subverted in Australia and elsewhere by media, politician and academic
substitution of (a) spin, lies, censorship and intimidation, (b)
anti-science spin (involving the selective use of asserted facts to
support
a partisan position) and (c) "blame and shame" (with war and genocide
being
the ultimate expressions of this perversion).



1. Holocaust ignoring & "history ignored yields history repeated". Few
Australians would be aware of the following atrocities involving Great
Britain that have been largely deleted from British history: the Great
Bengal Famine (1769-1770, 10 million victims), the man-made World War 2
Bengal Famine (1943-1945, 6-7 million victims) and the real 9-11 atrocity,
the 9-11 million avoidable deaths associated (so far) with the Bush Wars
(1990-2008). While 3 major histories published recently in Australia
utterly
ignore the WW2 Bengal Famine, in 2008 this atrocity was exposed in a BBC
broadcast involving myself, 1998 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor
Amartya
Sen and other scholars. Denial of the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust (6
million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) attracts 10 years in prison
in
Austria.



2. Climate Emergency ignored & Great Barrier Reef doomed. According to top
US climate scientist Dr James Hansen (Head, NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies): "paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest
that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350
ppm" and  "we face a climate emergency". Nobel Laureate Professor Peter
Doherty:"We are in real danger"; Governor of Victoria Professor David de
Kretser AC: "There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest
problem
confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a
state of emergency"; and top Australian climate scientists: ditto. Yet the
Federal Government and its advisers propose an increase in atmospheric CO2
to 450-550 ppm despite the scientific advice that coral dies above 450 ppm
due to ocean acidification and warming; that ocean phytoplankton and the
Greenland ice sheet go above 500 ppm (with dire consequences); and that
550
ppm is globally catastrophic. The Federal Government and its advisers have
effectively ignored Australia's world leading coal exports and annual per
capita Domestic plus Exported CO2 pollution; the deaths of about 5,000
Australians annually from coal burning-derived pollutants; and the "true
cost" of coal burning-based power (4-5 times that of the highly subsidized
"market price"). "10% off 2000 levels by 2020" (Garnaut)  means a 50%
increase in Australia's Domestic and Exported CO2 pollution and "60% off
by
2050" (Federal Government Policy)  means a doubling of total CO2
pollution.



3. Ignoring of horrendous Australian child abuse. Unreported by media, UN
Population Division data indicate that the "annual death rate" is 2.7% and
6.2% for under-5 year old infants in Occupied Iraq and Occupied
Afghanistan,
respectively, as compared to 10.2% for Australian prisoners of war of the
Japanese (for which crime Japanese generals were tried and hanged). This
appalling infant mortality is 90% avoidable and largely due to Occupier
non-supply of life sustaining requisites demanded by the Geneva
Convention.
Thus WHO data indicate that "annual total per capita medical expenditure"
permitted in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan is $130 and $26,
respectively, as compared to about $3,000 (in Occupier Australia) and
$6,400
(in Occupier US). Domestically, while the "Little Children Are Sacred"
Report was unable to quantitate the extent of abuse of Indigenous
children,
it quoted data indicating that 34% of Australian women have been sexually
abused as children. Yet these horrendous realities are effectively ignored
and were ignored at the Australia 2020 Summit.



4. Genocide commission and genocide ignoring. Article 2 of the UN Genocide
Convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". "Intent"
can be surely established from "sustained, remorseless policy leading to
destruction". Australia is complicit in an ongoing Iraqi Genocide
(post-invasion excess deaths 2 million, post-invasion under-5 infant
deaths
0.6 million, 6 million refugees); Afghan Genocide (post-invasion violent
and
non-violent excess deaths 4-6 million, post-invasion under-5 infant deaths
2.1 million, 4 million refugees); Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 avoidable
deaths annually; 90,000 avoidable deaths under the previous Coalition
Government; annual avoidable death rate (1.8%) about twice that in
non-Arab
Africa; "annual death rate" 2.2% (Indigenous Australians) and  2.4%
(Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory) as compared to 2.5%
(Australian sheep)); and Climate Genocide ( Australia is a world leader in
greenhouse gas pollution; climate change is increasingly impacting Third
World deprivation that avoidably kills 16 million people annually;
Professor
James Lovelock FRS says that over 6 billion people will perish this
century
due to unaddressed climate change). These horrendous realities are ignored
but I have made a detailed, formal complaint to the International Criminal
Court.



5. Australia ignores acute nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats.  The
prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has
nominated nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats as the acute threats
facing humanity. Yet Australia is a major uranium exporter and is
intimately
linked to US nuclear terrorism via joint communications facilities,
military
cooperation and welcome to nuclear-armed naval vessels in Australian
capital
cities. Australia's "annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution"
in
tonnes CO2 per person per year is  27 domestically but 47 including CO2
from
coal exports -10 times worse than for China and the World and 40 times
worse
than for India. Indeed Australia helped the US sabotage the December 2007
Bali Climate Change Conference by firmly rejecting any greenhouse gas
reduction targets and the latest estimate based on Government Policy is
that
Australia will actually double  its annual greenhouse gas pollution by
2050.
Australian greed and profligacy is already contributing to the submergence
and salinization of Pacific Island States and devastation of coastal
deltaic
parts of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh adjoining the Bay of Bengal.



6. US state terrorism is killing and threatening Australians. It is
estimated that about 0.1 million people (about 300 in Australia) die
avoidably each year due to opiate drug-related causes. About 0.6 million
people (about 2,000 Australians) have died due to the US restoration of
the
Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 5% of world market share in
2001 to 93 % in 2007 (UNODC World Drug Report data). In mid-2006 25,000
Australian citizens were subjected to bombing and rocketing in Lebanon in
the face of Australian bipartisan support for the perpetrator. UNICEF data
indicates that 2,400 Occupied Palestinian infants (many with Australian
relatives) die avoidably each year due to denial of life-sustaining
requisites by the Occupier - however an Australian Muslim meeting the
zakkat
religious charitable obligation by donating money to sorely deprived Gaza
hospitals potentially faces up to life imprisonment under Australian
Anti-Terrorism laws.  7,000 Westerners have been murdered by Muslim-origin
non-state terrorists in the last 40 years (this total including Israelis
and
assuming no US complicity in the 9-11 atrocity).  No Australians have been
murdered in Australia by Muslim-origin non-state terrorists yet UNICEF
data
show that Australia is war criminally complicit in the avoidable deaths of
1,000 Occupied Iraqi and Occupied Afghan infants every day.



7. Australia now ignores the fundamental truth that  love of Australia
means
love of Australians, wild Australia and Australian values. By "looking the
other way" Australia is complicit in the avoidable deaths of 9,000
Indigenous Australians every year and the avoidable deaths of about 300
Australians annually due to US opium industry promotion in Occupied
Afghanistan. US intelligence organizations have found that Australians
(and
Americans) are now more threatened from non-state terrorism due to the
Bush
War on Terror (in horrible reality a War for Oil and Hegemony). The
families
of hundreds of thousands of Australians in the Middle East are subject to
real terror from US Alliance and Apartheid Israeli violence. Australia is
acutely threatened by linkage to US nuclear terrorism.  Bipartisan
commitment to fossil fuel burning kills about 5,000 Australians each year
from the effects of coal burning pollutants alone. There now appears to be
bipartisan agreement for a new, biological "Brisbane Line" involving the
destruction of WA coral reefs and the Queensland Great Barrier Reef in the
interests of the Australian coal industry. Notwithstanding the 1967
Referendum result, there is bipartisan agreement for race-specific
suspension of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act in relation to Northern
Territory Indigenous Australians. The entrenched mainstream media,
politician and academic IGNORING of the horrendous realities outlined
above
violates not only rational risk management  for the safety of Australians
but also violates the principles of a "fair go" and of being "fair
dinkum".
My words and statistics having failed, I have painted HUGE paintings for
Peace and Mother and Child that I would dearly love to DONATE to public
institutions (for images see "Truth , Beauty & Saving the World - Science,
Art & Nuclear, Greenhouse & Poverty Threats":
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NvVV9NY2cqLwKJxdb8JAymVZRA--?cq=1
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NvVV9NY2cqLwKJxdb8JAymVZRA--?cq=1&p=1>
&p=1
) . For further details and detailed documentation of the above see Yarra
Valley Climate Action Group Fact Sheets:
http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home and  my
recent books "Body Count" (see: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/  and
http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ) and "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of
British History": (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). Please
inform
everyone you can.



Yours sincerely,

Dr Gideon Polya,

Macleod, Victoria 3085, Australia

Credentials. Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade
scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text
"Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor &
Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has recently published "Body Count.
Global avoidable mortality since 1950" (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007:
http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/
);
see also his contribution "Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality"
in
"Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics" (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books,
Sydney, 2007):
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm
). He has just published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998
book
"Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History" (see:
http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and
climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine
catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed
6-7
million Indians in the "forgotten" World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent
BBC
broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya
Sen
and others:
http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html
). When words fail one can say it in pictures - for images of Gideon
Polya's
huge paintings for Peace and for Mother and Child see "Truth , Beauty &
Saving the World - Science, Art & Nuclear, Greenhouse & Poverty Threats":
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NvVV9NY2cqLwKJxdb8JAymVZRA--?cq=1
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NvVV9NY2cqLwKJxdb8JAymVZRA--?cq=1&p=1>
&p=1
) .

Prof Martin Green's report
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2397054.htm>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Invitation to submit workshops for Australia's Climate Action Summit

Our climate.  Our future.  Our summit.

  From February January 31st to February 3rd, community climate action
groups from across the continent are joining together for Australia's
Climate Action Summit in Canberra, the weekend before the first day
of the 2009 Federal Parliament.

Australia's Climate Action Summit will have two distinct,
simultaneous parts: a weekend strategy meeting on Saturday January
31st and Sunday February 1st for delegates from climate change action
groups to build a unified national climate campaign, and a weekend
public conference on the urgent climate crisis.  On Monday February
2nd, there will be a day of dynamic training in climate campaigning
skills for taking action, facilitating climate action groups,
effective lobbying and more.  On Tuesday February 3rd, the first day
of the 2009 Federal Parliament, we will mobilise thousands of people
in a high profile demonstration for real action on climate change.

We are inviting submissions for workshops, skillshares and forums for
the weekend public conference of Australia's Climate Action Summit.

Workshops will be 90 minutes in length.  We are looking for workshops
on:
      * Campaign skills: workshops on campaign strategy, media,
lobbying, community engagement and outreach on climate change issues;
      * Group skills: workshops on facilitation, building and
maintaining a climate change group;
      * Action skills: workshops on how to organise a variety of
community action (non violent direct action on coal infrastructure,
rally, human sign, etc).
      * Informative and practical workshops on climate change myths
(nuclear, "clean coal") and solutions (Transition Towns, solar
technology, etc);
      * Workshops that explore social and environmental justice issues
and climate change;
      * Workshops specifically for children; and
      * Success stories and discussions on projects/campaigns that
have been successful, strong climate action groups, and great
workplace initiatives to show, learn from and celebrate what has
already been achieved!

If you or your group have a workshop you would like to hold, please
send a short description and your contact details to
program@... by December 30th, 2008.

If you haven't facilitated a workshop before and would like some
support, get in touch!  We can send you some resources, talk on the
phone, pair you up with an experienced facilitator, or send you a
variety of existing workshop plans to help you out:
program@...   Not all the workshops will fit on the
published program, but there will also be "open space" time
throughout the Summit where people can submit and create workshops
without organising beforehand.

For more information about Australia's Climate Action Summit, flyers
and posters for your group, or to get involved, please contact
info@... or call 0417 682 541.

www.climatesummit.org.au


jo lewis
rainbird@...







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is wonderful !Benny Zable

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:58:24 -0400
From: subscriptions@...
To: bennyzable@...
Subject: Newsflash from Peace Partnership International


        (Trouble reading this email? Access it on the Web at
http://www.peacepartintl.org/email/20081028_newsflash.html)
         October 28, 2008 Newsflash                 Dear Friends,

  Things are poppin' at PPI!

  1. Peace and Human Rights Workshop at the United Nations

  Led by Peace Partnership International's UN representative Anne Creter, the
Culture of Peace Working Group of the NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and
Global Concerns at the United Nations organized a workshop entitled "Advancing
the Culture of Peace: Is Peace a Human Right?" that took place at the UN on 21
October. The workshop was part of the second annual week of Spirituality, Values
and Global Concerns at the UN, which this year was dedicated to celebrating the
60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The workshop
featured a keynote by Ambassador Hilario G. Davide, Jr., of the Philippines, a
panel moderated by Peace Partnership International's President and CEO Dot
Maver, and closing remarks by Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, Former
Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations. Read
Anne's report here.

  2. Peace Day 2008 at the UN: Gabriela Posada Youth Speaker

  Peace Partnership International has participated in International Day of Peace
activities every year since 2005. In 2008 we also supported the nomination, and
eventual selection, of Gabriela Posada to speak at the UN's International Day of
Peace Youth Observance. In her speech, Gabriela encouraged youth from around the
globe to become peacemakers and peacekeepers. Juan Pacheco of Barrios Unidos
provides the profile of Gabriela that led to her being selected, as well as the
text of her speech. Click here to read the profile and speech.

  3. Colin Jury Donates Artwork to Peace Partnership International

  Depth Artist Colin Jury, who has won the highest awards in printing for six-
and seven-color lithography and advertising, has donated all rights to his work
"Fire of Love" to Peace Partnership International and will send us all net
proceeds from sales of prints. In addition he has promised to donate to us 15%
of profits from the sales of his other works for the next two years. Click here
to purchase "Fire of Love" and other artwork from Colin Jury!

  4. Peace Partnership International's Annual Program Report Now Available

  Peace Partnership International's latest Annual Program Report describes our
activities and accomplishments over the fiscal year August 2007-July 2008 in our
three strategic initiative areas: National Peace Academy, Structures in
Government Advancing a Culture of Peace, and Building Bridges of Peace. Read the
annual report here (PDF format).

  5. Peace Caravan Finds Peace on the Silk Road

  Marla Mossman travels the ancient Silk Road in search of her roots. Along the
way she finds peace. She says: "People involved in the culture of peace hold
notions of peace as practical and necessary. We don't have to be a perfected
deity in order to achieve a sense of enlightenment. We are already divine in the
moment. That's the kind of positive energy we should start from in our
institutions. That's what the culture of peace is about." Marla shares her
discoveries through her photography and writings at www.peacecaravan.com and
www.marla.net. And Robert M. Weir beautifully tells the story of Marla's Profile
of Peace.


  This email was sent by Peace Partnership, International, a 501c3 nonprofit
organization. Donations to Peace Partnership International are tax-deductible to
the extent allowed by law.

  Contact information:
  Peace Partnership International
  935 South B Street
  San Mateo CA 94401, USA
  Phone/Fax: 1-650-525-1297

  General correspondence: info@...

  Subscribe / unsubscribe / email address changes:
subscriptions@...






_________________________________________________________________



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alternative Technology Association
<http://shop.ata.org.au/cart.php?target=category&category_id=302>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

this may be intresting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FozmG9PzTQ&feature=related

Solar energy received from the sun not only increases the heat of an
object but is also used to change the shape of form of an object or
living things. An example is the use of solar energy to make food by
plant and as a result plants grow. These plants are then food for
animals of which we eat some of them or are eaten by other animals.

In countries where there are four seasons, solar energy is
important, without it many creatures cannot survive.

Though, solar energy in non-living things is mainly in the form of
heat and may be absorbed or transfer to its environment, the heat
energy is also transformed into other types of energy such as from
liquid to gas or change in shapes and further convert to energies
such as wind and wave. Living things converts solar energy into
other form such as kinitic energy use by creature for movement and
as well as chemical form stored in animals for future use or for
slow release back into the environment such as wood from tree.

So, solar energy is very important to earth and not only to be used
by human. If we start using solar energy for other than what it is
indented for by Nature, we begin depriving the rightful users of
solar energy and the start of climate change.

Inconclusion, it is important that we, human do not waste the energy
that is available at the moment. Though, some of these energies may
seem plentiful, inconsiderate use of them that are wasteful will be
to the destruction of the earth and mankind! These energies are to
be used by all living and non living things on earth in a balanced
manner and should not be over used by only the humans. So it is time
that we become more considerate and start wasting energy, be it
solar or others type of resources including food!

Regards,
David

--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., hugh spencer
<Hugh@...> wrote:
>
> OK - there is a basic misconception here...
>
> All energy that falls upon the earth from the sun - excluding that
which is
> directly reflected back as visible light - is adsorbed, and causes
whatever
> it is that adsorbed it to heat up. All objects that are warmer than
> absolute zero (-273.15°C) radiate energy as infra-red radiation.
The warmer
> they are - the more energy in the radiation (and the shorter the
> wavelength).  An object that is warmer than its environment (say a
hot
> potato out of the fire) - will radiate infrared radiation (you can
feel
> that coming from the hot potato) - and this will continue until
such times
> the potato is the same temperature as its surroundings. At this
point, the
> radiation the potato emits is the same as that it receives from
the rest of
> the environment, all of which is radiating too, and it is then
in "thermal
> equilibrium with its environment" - and we say it has cooled to
ambient
> temperature.
>
> A piece of white-hot steel - is radiating in the visible region of
the
> spectrum (very hight radiant energy - loses a lot of heat very
fast) - and
> as it loses heat through radiation - it gets redder and darker -
and the
> wavelength of the energy emitted gets longer and longer - and the
radiant
> energy gets weaker and weaker.
>
> Conversely - any object that is cooler than its environment (a
bottle of
> coke left out of the fridge) will receive more radiation than it
emits -
> and will warm up - until it is in equilibrium.
>
> (you will notice that I have left out convection and conduction of
heat -
> we'll just concentrate on radiation - which operates everywhere -
even in a
> vacuum).
>
> It's this radiated infrared energy (from the earth's surface)
which is
> intercepted by CO2, water vapour and synthetic greenhouse gases -
and
> prevented from radiating back into space (so the earth's
temperature rises
> to a new higher equilibrium temperature - at which, again, energy
in =
> energy out. This is the basis of global warming..
>
> The energy collected by solar collectors obeys exactly the same
laws - the
> collectors heat up and re-radiate energy, the electricity that
they make
> generates, in the end, heat - which radiates. The captured energy
(by a
> solar collector) doesn't somehow become entrapped - (except very
briefly by
> charging batteries - or creating some high energy compounds - in
the end -
> the energy is released - and ends up as infrared radiation, same a
rock.
>
> The only exception to that has been the burning of fossil fuels -
where
> ancient trapped solar energy is being released - but the amount of
thermal
> energy we are speaking of is relatively miniscule - compared to
daily solar
> input. What IS causing the problem is the increase in CO2
released - and
> its shielding effect on radiated infrared energy from the earth's
surface.
>
> Hope this helps clarify things
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
> >Hugh,
> >
> >It is unfortunate that I do not have an understanding of basic
> >physics, nevertheless, you had answered the issue with your reply.
> >That we, humans had distorted the natural environment of the earth
> >and this is done through energy wastage resulting in an incomplete
> >natural transformation of the available energy on earth.
> >
> >It is not the amount of energy resources that is available but the
> >conversion of energy that creates an inbalance environment that
> >matters. Energy can be used naturally by the environment or
> >unnaturally by human.
> >
> >In simple term, if we are replacing fossil fuels with solar
energy,
> >it is estimated that 432.5EJ (energy used from fossil fuels in
2005:
> >from
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption)
> >is absorbed from the sun's ray on earth, which originally is
> >absorbed by the environment.
> >
> >With increasing energy usage by humans, more energy will be "taken
> >out" from the environment causing an inbalance situation and a
> >likely "climate change"
> >This is similar in concept with the displacement of fossil fuels
> >from under the ground into the earth's atmosphere.
> >
> >To avoid these situation, we should avoid excessive and wasteful
> >usage of these resources be it fossil fuels, solar or any other
> >alternaives.
> >
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7664280.stm

Neanderthals in the forest
<http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2008/10/22/34071_tasmania-news.htm\
l>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting
permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging
than carbon dioxide

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-ti\
me-bomb-938932.html

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times
more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere
from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings
suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to
the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe
their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid
increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and
even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship
that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have
discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100
times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of
square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming
with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea
floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has
acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away
to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the
last ice age.

They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid
warming that the region has experienced in recent years.

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could
accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more
atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further
permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be
greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal
reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these
deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.

Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden, one of the leaders
of the expedition, described the scale of the methane emissions in an
email exchange sent from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi.

"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and
this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense
methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated
levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we
documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane
did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as
methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were
documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."

At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background
levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and
the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square
kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr
Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated
from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such
areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.

"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the
sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the
massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing
evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may
suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus
leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found
elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in
the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."

The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study
2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical
Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch
of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10
expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect
any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a
rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed
using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now
being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of
relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia's rivers due to
the melting of the permafrost on the land.

The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average
temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of
the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that
the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open
ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of
an ice-covered sea.

From Rachel's #982

An excellent article - and while it is directed at the US situation -
things aren't all that much different here. We really need to raise our
game - and somehow we have to deal with another issue - that is the general
intolerance of environmental groups of the views/actions/objectives of
other environmental groups - How we learn to concentrate on the 'BIG
PICTURE' and not get distracted by the fact that members of a related group
don't see eye-to-eye with us on some detail or other, is a bit of a mystery
to me - but it must be done. Only with a 'big-picture' view of the
situation guiding all of us - will, I submit, we work together.

Cheers

Hugh





From: http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2075  Yale
Environment 360, Oct. 20, 2008
http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_movement_failure.081101.htm
[Printer-friendly version]

ENVIRONMENTAL FAILURE: A CASE FOR A NEW GREEN POLITICS
By James Gustave Speth

A specter is haunting American environmentalism -- the specter of failure.

All of us who have been part of the environmental movement in the
United States must now face up to a deeply troubling paradox: Our
environmental organizations have grown in strength and sophistication,
but the environment has continued to go downhill, to the point that
the prospect of a ruined planet is now very real. How could this have
happened?

Before addressing this question and what can be done to correct it,
two points must be made. First, one shudders to think what the world
would look like today without the efforts of environmental groups and
their hard-won victories in recent decades.

However serious our environmental challenges, they would be much more
so had not these people taken a stand in countless ways. And second,
despite their limitations, the approaches of modern-day
environmentalism remain essential: Right now, they are the tools
readily at hand with which to address many pressing problems,
including global warming and climate disruption. Despite the critique
of American environmentalism that follows, these points remain valid.

Lost Ground

The need for appraisal would not be so urgent if environmental
conditions were not so dire. The mounting threats point to an emerging
environmental tragedy of unprecedented proportions.

Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate
of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second,
and has for decades. Half the planet's wetlands are gone. An estimated
90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of
marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Almost half
of the corals are gone or are seriously threatened. Species are
disappearing at rates about 1,000 times faster than normal. The planet
has not seen such a spasm of extinction in 65 million years, since the
dinosaurs disappeared. Desertification claims a Nebraska-sized area of
productive capacity each year globally. Persistent toxic chemicals can
now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.
The earth's stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before its
loss was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon
dioxide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the most
dangerous change of all -- planetary warming and climate disruption.
Everywhere, earth's ice fields are melting. Industrial processes are
fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to
nature's; one result is the development of hundreds of documented dead
zones in the oceans due to overfertilization. Freshwater withdrawals
are now over half of accessible runoff, and water shortages are
multiplying here and abroad.

The United States, of course, is deeply complicit in these global
trends, including our responsibility for about 30 percent of the
carbon dioxide added thus far to the atmosphere. But even within the
United States itself, four decades of environmental effort have not
stemmed the tide of environmental decline. The country is losing 6,000
acres of open space every day, and 100,000 acres of wetlands every
year. About a third of U.S. plant and animal species are threatened
with extinction. Half of U.S. lakes and a third of its rivers still
fail to meet the standards that by law should have been met by 1983.
And we have done little to curb our wasteful energy habits or our huge
population growth.

Here is one measure of the problem: All we have to do to destroy the
planet's climate and biota and leave a ruined world to our children
and grandchildren is to keep doing exactly what we are doing today,
with no (further) growth in human population or the world economy.
Just continue to generate greenhouse gases at current rates, just
continue to impoverish ecosystems and release toxic chemicals at current
rates, and the world in the latter part of this century won't be fit to live
in. But human activities are not holding at current levels -- they are
accelerating, dramatically.

The size of the world economy has more than quadrupled since 1960 and
is projected to quadruple again by mid-century. It took all of human
history to grow the $7 trillion world economy of 1950. We now grow by
that amount in a decade.

The escalating processes of climate disruption, biotic impoverishment,
and toxification, which continue despite decades of warnings and
earnest effort, constitute a severe indictment of the system of
political economy in which we live and work. The pillars of today's
capitalism, as they are now constituted, work together to produce an
economic and political reality that is highly destructive
environmentally. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic
growth at any cost;

All we have to do to destroy the planet's climate and biota is to keep
doing exactly what we are doing today.

Powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by
generating profit (including profit from avoiding the environmental
costs their companies create, amassing deep subsidies and benefits
from government, and continued deployment of technologies originally
designed with little or no regard for the environment); markets that
systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected
by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests
and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by
sophisticated advertising and marketing; economic activity now so
large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical
operations of the planet -- all combine to deliver an ever-growing
world economy that is undermining the ability of the earth to sustain
life.

Are Environmentalists To Blame?

Today's environmentalism accepts compromises as part of the process.
It takes what it can get.

In assigning responsibility for environmental failure, there are many
places to lay blame: the rise of the modern, anti-government right in
American politics; a negligent media; the deadening complexity of
today's environmental issues and programs, to mention the most
notable. But a number of observers have placed much of the blame for
failure on the leading environmental organizations themselves.
For example, Mark Dowie in his 1995 book Losing Ground notes that the
national environmental organizations crafted an agenda and pursued a
strategy based on the civil authority and good faith of the federal
government. "Therein," he believes, "lies the inherent weakness and
vulnerability of the environmental movement. Civil authority and good
faith regarding the environment have proven to be chimeras in
Washington." Dowie argues that the national environmental groups also
"misread and underestimate[d] the fury of their antagonists."
The mainstream environmental organizations were challenged again in
2004 in the now-famous The Death of Environmentalism. In it, Michael
Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus write that America's mainstream
environmentalists are not "articulating a vision of the future commensurate
with the magnitude of the crisis. Instead they are promoting technical policy
fixes like pollution controls and higher vehicle mileage standards --
proposals that provide neither the popular inspiration nor the
political alliances the community needs to deal with the problem."

Shellenberger and Nordhaus believe environmentalists don't recognize
that they are in a culture war -- a war over core values and a vision
for the future.

These criticisms and others stem from the fundamental decision of
today's environmentalism to work within the system. This core decision
grew out of the successes of the environmental community in the 1970s,
which seemed to confirm the correctness of that approach. Our failure
to execute a dramatic mid-course correction when circumstances changed
can be seen in hindsight as a major blunder.

Here is what I mean by working within the system. When today's
environmentalism recognizes a problem, it believes it can solve that
problem by calling public attention to it, framing policy and program
responses for government and industry, lobbying for those actions, and
litigating for their enforcement. It believes in the efficacy of
environmental advocacy and government action. It believes that good-
faith compliance with the law will be the norm, and that corporations
can be made to behave and will increasingly weave environmental
objectives into their business strategies.

Today's environmentalism tends to be pragmatic and incrementalist --
its actions are aimed at solving problems and often doing so one at a
time. It is more comfortable proposing innovative policy solutions
than framing inspirational messages. These characteristics are closely
allied to a tendency to deal with effects rather than underlying
causes. Most of our major environmental laws and treaties, for
example, address the resulting environmental ills much more than their
causes. In the end, environmentalism accepts compromises as part of
the process. It takes what it can get.

Today's environmentalism also believes that problems can be solved at
acceptable economic costs -- and often with net economic benefit --
without significant lifestyle changes or threats to economic growth.
It will not hesitate to strike out at an environmentally damaging
facility or development, but it sees itself, on balance, as a positive
economic force.

Environmentalists see solutions coming largely from within the
environmental sector. They may worry about the flaws in and corruption
of our politics, for example, but that is not their professional
concern. That's what Common Cause or other groups do. Similarly,
environmentalists know that the prices for many things need to be
higher, and they are aware that environmentally honest prices would
create a huge burden on the half of American families that just get
by. But universal health care and other government action needed to
address America's gaping economic injustices are not seen as part of
the environmental agenda.

Today's environmentalism is also not focused strongly on political
activity or organizing a grassroots movement. Electoral politics and
mobilizing a green political movement have played second fiddle to
lobbying, litigating, and working with government agencies and
corporations.

A central precept, in short, is that the system can be made to work
for the environment. In this frame of action, scant attention is paid
to the corporate dominance of economic and political life, to
transcending our growth fetish, to promoting major lifestyle changes
and challenging the materialistic values that dominate our society, to
addressing the constraints on environmental action stemming from
America's vast social insecurity and hobbled democracy, to framing a
new American story, or to building a new environmental politics.
Not everything, of course, fits within these patterns. There have been
exceptions from the start, and recent trends reflect a broadening in
approaches. Greenpeace has certainly worked outside the system,
Organizations built to litigate and lobby are not necessarily the best
ones to mobilize a grassroots movement.

the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have had a
sustained political presence, groups like the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund have developed
effective networks of activists around the country, the World
Resources Institute has augmented its policy work with on-the-ground
sustainable development projects, and environmental justice concerns
and the emerging climate crisis have spurred the proliferation of
grassroots efforts, student organizing, and community and state
initiatives.

But organizations that were built to litigate and lobby for
environmental causes or to do sophisticated policy studies are not
necessarily the best ones to mobilize a grassroots movement or build a
force for electoral politics or motivate the public with social
marketing campaigns. These things need to be done, and to get them
done it may be necessary to launch new organizations and initiatives
with special strengths in these areas.

The methods and style of today's environmentalism are not wrongheaded,
just far, far too restricted as an overall approach. The problem has
been the absence of a huge, complementary investment of time, energy,
and money in other, deeper approaches to change. And here, the leading
environmental organizations must be faulted for not doing nearly
enough to ensure these investments were made.

America has run a 40-year experiment on whether this mainstream
environmentalism can succeed, and the results are now in. The full
burden of managing accumulating environmental threats has fallen to
the environmental community, both those in government and outside. But
that burden is too great. The system of modern capitalism as it
operates today will continue to grow in size and complexity and will
generate ever-larger environmental consequences, outstripping efforts
to cope with them. Indeed, the system will seek to undermine those
efforts and constrain them within narrow limits. Working only within
the system will, in the end, not succeed -- what is needed is
transformative change in the system itself.

A New Environmental Politics
Environmental protection requires a new politics.

This new politics must, first of all, ensure that environmental
concern and advocacy extend to the full range of relevant issues. The
environmental agenda should expand to embrace a profound challenge to
consumerism and commercialism and the lifestyles they offer, a healthy
skepticism of growthmania and a redefinition of what society should be
striving to grow, a challenge to corporate dominance and a
redefinition of the corporation and its goals, a commitment to deep
change in both the functioning and the reach of the market, and a
powerful assault on the anthropocentric and contempocentric values
that currently dominate.

Environmentalists must also join with social progressives in
addressing the crisis of inequality now unraveling America's social
fabric and undermining its democracy. It is a crisis of soaring
executive pay, huge incomes, and increasingly concentrated wealth for
a small minority, occurring simultaneously with poverty near a 30-year
high, stagnant wages despite rising productivity, declining social
mobility and opportunity, record levels of people without health
insurance, failing schools, increased job insecurity, swelling jails,
shrinking safety nets, and the longest work hours among the rich
countries. In an America with such vast social insecurity, economic
arguments, even misleading ones, will routinely trump environmental
goals.

Similarly, environmentalists must join with those seeking to reform
politics and strengthen democracy. What we are seeing in the United
States is the emergence of a vicious circle: Income disparities shift
political access and influence to wealthy constituencies and large
businesses, which further imperils the potential of the democratic
process to act to correct the growing income disparities. Corporations
have been the principal economic actors for a long time; now they are
the principal political actors as well. Neither environment nor
society fares well under corporatocracy. Environmentalists need to
embrace public financing of elections, regulation of lobbying,
nonpartisan Congressional redistricting, and other political reform
measures as core to their agenda. Today's politics will never deliver
environmental sustainability.

The current financial crisis and, at this writing, the response to it,
reveal a system of political economy that is profoundly committed to
profits and growth and profoundly indifferent to people and society.
This system is at least as indifferent to its impacts on nature. Left
uncorrected, it is inherently ruthless and rapacious, and it is up to
citizens, acting mainly through government, to inject values of
fairness and sustainability into the system. But this effort commonly
fails because progressive politics are too enfeebled and Washington is
increasingly in the hands of powerful corporate interests and
concentrations of great wealth. The best hope for real change in
America is a fusion of those concerned about environment, social
justice, and strong democracy into one powerful progressive force.

The new environmentalism must work with this progressive coalition to
build a mighty force in electoral politics. This will require major
efforts at grassroots organizing; strengthening groups working at the
state and community levels; and developing motivational messages and
appeals -- indeed, writing a new American story, as Bill Moyers has
urged. Our environmental discourse has thus far been dominated by
lawyers, scientists, and economists. Now, we need to hear a lot more
from the poets, preachers, philosophers, and psychologists.

Above all, the new environmental politics must be broadly inclusive,
reaching out to embrace union members and working families, minorities
and people of color, religious organizations, the women's movement,
and other communities of complementary interest and shared fate. It is
unfortunate but true that stronger alliances are still needed to
overcome the "silo effect" that separates the environmental community
from those working on domestic political reforms, a progressive social
agenda, human rights, international peace, consumer issues, world
health and population concerns, and world poverty and underdevelopment.

The final watchword of the new environmental politics must be, "Build
the movement." We have had movements against slavery and many have
participated in movements for civil rights and against apartheid and
the Vietnam War. Environmentalists are often said to be part of "the
environmental movement." We need a real one -- networked together,
protesting, demanding action and accountability from governments and
corporations, and taking steps as consumers and communities to realize
sustainability and social justice in everyday life.

Can one see the beginnings of a new social movement in America?
Perhaps I am letting my hopes get the better of me, but I think we
can. Its green side is visible, I think, in the surge of campus
organizing and student mobilization occurring today, much of it
coordinated by the student-led Energy Action Coalition and by Power
Vote.

If there is a model within American memory of what must be done, it is
the civil rights revolution of the 1960s.

It's visible also in the increasing activism of religious
organizations, including many evangelical groups under the banner of
Creation Care, and in the rapid proliferation of community-based
environmental initiatives. It's there in the joining together of
organized labor, environmental groups, and progressive businesses in
the Apollo Alliance and there in the Sierra Club's collaboration with
the United Steelworkers, the largest industrial union in the United
States. It's visible too in the outpouring of effort to build on Al
Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and in the grassroots organizing of 1Sky
and others around climate change. It is visible in the green consumer
movement and in the consumer support for the efforts of the Rainforest
Action Network to green the policies of the major U.S. banks. It's
there in the increasing number of teach-ins, demonstrations, marches,
and protests, including the 1,400 events across the United States in
2007 inspired by Bill McKibben's "Step It Up!" campaign to stop global
warming. It is there in the constituency-building work of minority
environmental leaders and in the efforts of groups like Green for All
to link social and environmental goals. It's just beginning, but it's
there, and it will grow.

The welcome news is that the environmental community writ large is
moving in some of these directions. Local and state environmental
groups have grown in strength and number. There is more political
engagement through the League of Conservation Voters and a few other
groups, and more work to reach out to voters with overtly political
messages. The major national organizations have strengthened their
links to local and state groups and established activist networks to
support their lobbying activities. Still, there is a long, long way to
go to build a new and vital environmental politics in America.
American politics today is failing not only the environment but also
the American people and the world. As Richard Falk reminds us, only an
unremitting struggle will drive the changes that can sustain people
and nature. If there is a model within American memory for what must
be done, it is the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. It had
grievances, it knew what was causing them, and it also knew that the
existing order had no legitimacy and that, acting together, people
could redress those grievances. It was confrontational and
disobedient, but it was nonviolent. It had a dream. And it had Martin
Luther King Jr.

It is amazing what can be accomplished if citizens are ready to march,
in the footsteps of Dr. King. It is again time to give the world a
sense of hope.

==============
James Gustave "Gus" Speth is the dean of the School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies at Yale University. His most recent (and
important) book is
<http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_bridge_intro.080301.htm>The Bridge at
the Edge of the World (Yale
University Press, 2008).
Copyright 2008 Yale University
<#Table_of_Contents>Return to Table of Contents

from  Rachel's #982


From: Telegraph (London, U.K.), Oct. 20, 2008

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_warming_outpaces_ipcc_forecasts.081020.htm
[Printer-friendly version]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS 'FASTER AND MORE EXTREME' THAN FEARED
By Paul Eccleston
'Extreme weather events' such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused
an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and
poor air quality, will happen more frequently.

Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent
cyclones and the predicted rise in sea level will double to more than
a metre, putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/index.cfm?uNewsID=14814
1

The bleak report from WWF -- formerly the World Wildlife Fund --
also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both
land and sea.

And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by
agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas
emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any
increase in global temperatures below 2C.

The agency says that the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a study of global warming by 4,000
scientists from more than 150 countries which alerted the world to the
possible consequences of global warming -- is now out of date.
WWF's report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated
all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is
accelerating far beyond the IPCC's forecasts.

As an example it says the first 'tipping point' may have already been
reached in the Arctic, where sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years
ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years
- something that hasn't occurred for a million years.

It could result in rapid and abrupt climate change rather than the
gradual changes forecast by the IPCC.
The findings include:

* Global sea level rise could more than double from the IPCC's
estimate of 0.59m by the end of the century.

* Natural carbon sinks, such as forests and oceans, are losing their
ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere faster than expected.

* Rising temperatures have already led to a major reduction in food
crops resulting in losses of 40m tonnes of grain per year.

* Marine ecosystems in the North and Baltic Sea are being exposed to
the warmest temperatures measured since records began.

* The number and intensity of extreme cyclones over the UK and North
Sea are projected to increase, leading to increased wind speeds and
storm-related losses over Western and Central Europe.

The report was issued to coincide with a meeting of EU Environment
Ministers today to discuss new laws aimed at tackling climate change.
Some countries, including Italy and Poland, have already rejected
proposals for higher cuts in emissions claiming they are unaffordable
and unrealistic when many countries are facing recession.

The UK is the only country so far to commit to a legally binding 80
per cent cut in emissions by 2050 which the Government claims can be
achieved by a switch to renewable energy sources -- such as wind and
wave -- combined with a new generation of nuclear power stations.
In the report WWF urges the EU to commit to a reduction target of at
least 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 without relying on
offsetting overseas and to provide financial support so developing
countries can cut their own emissions and prepare for unavoidable
impacts of climate change.

WWF-UK's Head of Climate Change, Dr. Keith Allott, said: "Climate
change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the
environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical
it is that EU environment ministers, who are meeting today to discuss
EU legislation to tackle climate change, commit to a strong climate
and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future.

"If the European Union wants to be seen as leader at UN talks in
Copenhagen next year, and to help secure a strong global deal to
tackle climate change after 2012, then it must stop shirking its
responsibilities and commit to real emissions cuts within Europe."
The report has been endorsed by Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele,
the newly elected Vice Chair of the IPCC, who said: "It is clear that
climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists
had anticipated, so it's vital that international mitigation and
adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious."

Science Show - ABC
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2394289.htm>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ABC discussion
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2394293.htm>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich
<bobrich@...> wrote:
>
>  >there is still a very real threat of an ice age even thoug many
> people don't believe or even know this . the previous webside I
> mailed was blocked right after try this one
> http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282
>
>
> Nothing new in this. It's standard, valid, well understood
science.
> He is not saying there may be a new ice age, but that some regions
> may suffer sudden, catastrophic cooling as a result of the current
> global changes. For example, if the Gulf Stream stops, moves far
out
> to sea or reverses, Western Europe will have the same climate as
> corresponding regions of Canada.
>
> :)First of all dr Bob the rest of the world will suffer droughts
and floods as you already found out and than there is this:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081016_arcticreport.html
> Bob
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

Wind energy info.
<http://www.worldofwindenergy.com/newsletter/october08wind.html>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>there is still a very real threat of an ice age even thoug many
people don't believe or even know this . the previous webside I
mailed was blocked right after try this one
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282


Nothing new in this. It's standard, valid, well understood science.
He is not saying there may be a new ice age, but that some regions
may suffer sudden, catastrophic cooling as a result of the current
global changes. For example, if the Gulf Stream stops, moves far out
to sea or reverses, Western Europe will have the same climate as
corresponding regions of Canada.

:)
Bob
--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

The Greenland icecap is also melting fast and this is confirmed by NASA
this time
So it has warmed up signifficant more than what the IPCC is proposing
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/02/1624

the sweet water that slows down the gulfstream is increasing so a
further slowdown is inevidibel
http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2008/08/9321_greenl
ands_ice.html

there is still a very real threat of an ice age even thoug many people
don't believe or even know this . the previous webside I mailed  was
blocked right after try this one
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282

Black silicon for solar modules
<http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&articl\
e_id=193>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

By *David Spratt*

October 10, 2008 -- A year ago I was researching what was intended to be
a short submission to the Garnaut review [commissioned to advise the
Australian federal government of Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd],
when events in the polar north turned the world of climate policy upside
down. It was found that eight million square kilometres of sea-ice — an
area the size of Australia — was melting, in the immortal words of one
glaciologist, "a hundred years ahead of schedule".

Yet the international policy debate carried on as if this had not
happened. Out-of-date scenarios, research and observations were being
used to propose emission reduction targets that would still lead to
catastrophe even if fully implemented.

full article at http://links.org.au/node/683

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

OK - there is a basic misconception here...

All energy that falls upon the earth from the sun - excluding that which is
directly reflected back as visible light - is adsorbed, and causes whatever
it is that adsorbed it to heat up. All objects that are warmer than
absolute zero (-273.15°C) radiate energy as infra-red radiation. The warmer
they are - the more energy in the radiation (and the shorter the
wavelength).  An object that is warmer than its environment (say a hot
potato out of the fire) - will radiate infrared radiation (you can feel
that coming from the hot potato) - and this will continue until such times
the potato is the same temperature as its surroundings. At this point, the
radiation the potato emits is the same as that it receives from the rest of
the environment, all of which is radiating too, and it is then in "thermal
equilibrium with its environment" - and we say it has cooled to ambient
temperature.

A piece of white-hot steel - is radiating in the visible region of the
spectrum (very hight radiant energy - loses a lot of heat very fast) - and
as it loses heat through radiation - it gets redder and darker - and the
wavelength of the energy emitted gets longer and longer - and the radiant
energy gets weaker and weaker.

Conversely - any object that is cooler than its environment (a bottle of
coke left out of the fridge) will receive more radiation than it emits -
and will warm up - until it is in equilibrium.

(you will notice that I have left out convection and conduction of heat -
we'll just concentrate on radiation - which operates everywhere - even in a
vacuum).

It's this radiated infrared energy (from the earth's surface) which is
intercepted by CO2, water vapour and synthetic greenhouse gases - and
prevented from radiating back into space (so the earth's temperature rises
to a new higher equilibrium temperature - at which, again, energy in =
energy out. This is the basis of global warming..

The energy collected by solar collectors obeys exactly the same laws - the
collectors heat up and re-radiate energy, the electricity that they make
generates, in the end, heat - which radiates. The captured energy (by a
solar collector) doesn't somehow become entrapped - (except very briefly by
charging batteries - or creating some high energy compounds - in the end -
the energy is released - and ends up as infrared radiation, same a rock.

The only exception to that has been the burning of fossil fuels - where
ancient trapped solar energy is being released - but the amount of thermal
energy we are speaking of is relatively miniscule - compared to daily solar
input. What IS causing the problem is the increase in CO2 released - and
its shielding effect on radiated infrared energy from the earth's surface.

Hope this helps clarify things

Hugh





>Hugh,
>
>It is unfortunate that I do not have an understanding of basic
>physics, nevertheless, you had answered the issue with your reply.
>That we, humans had distorted the natural environment of the earth
>and this is done through energy wastage resulting in an incomplete
>natural transformation of the available energy on earth.
>
>It is not the amount of energy resources that is available but the
>conversion of energy that creates an inbalance environment that
>matters. Energy can be used naturally by the environment or
>unnaturally by human.
>
>In simple term, if we are replacing fossil fuels with solar energy,
>it is estimated that 432.5EJ (energy used from fossil fuels in 2005:
>from
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption)
>is absorbed from the sun's ray on earth, which originally is
>absorbed by the environment.
>
>With increasing energy usage by humans, more energy will be "taken
>out" from the environment causing an inbalance situation and a
>likely "climate change"
>This is similar in concept with the displacement of fossil fuels
>from under the ground into the earth's atmosphere.
>
>To avoid these situation, we should avoid excessive and wasteful
>usage of these resources be it fossil fuels, solar or any other
>alternaives.
>

--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., hugh spencer
<Hugh@...> wrote:
>
> "da_chee" <da_chee@...>  wrote
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I personally do not think that there are alternatives to the
current
> >energy source that will help us to combat climate change. Whatever
> >energy source/s that we use in future, be it sustainable or not,
it
> >will have side effects. The use of solar energy for the
production of
> >electricity will place the earth into a lower surface temperature.
> >
> >The root cause of our current climate change, in my personal
opinion
> >is a result of our wasteful habit that resulted in a incomplete
cycle
> >of energy resulting is an enivornmental inbalance.
> >
> >It is therefore important that we understand this and though solar
> >energy is prefer to oil, its must only be tapped as little as
possible
> >for the survival of the earth. There should not be any wastage.
> >
> >Regards.
>
> If only the use of solar energy had that effect!!
>
> Sorry da-chee - but I have no idea what you mean by 'incomplete
cycles' -
> and I would seriously suggest that you go and learn a bit of basic
physics!!
>
> The primary issue is far too many people, wanting far too many
goods and
> services, in a limited environment - a fairly intractable mix.
> Unfortunately the rest of the world CAN'T have the standard of
living that
> the 'developed' world has enjoyed - for the simple reason that
there are
> just NOT enough resources to provide it - and even if there were -
the
> global climatic impact would be such - that we would be fast
condemning
> everything (including us) to, if not extinction, then a fairly
brutish and
> nasty future.  Life isn't fair - and that's just the way it is,
and we
> better get used to it.
>
> The wonderful party many of us have been enjoying, has been purely
due to
> our discovery of a fantastic energy source ... fossil fuels.  We
are now
> half way through those reserves - and the party has to stop PDQ. We
> (humans) are behaving exactly like any other unregulated organism
given a
> sudden energy boost - population soars - and then there is a
crash. We are
> in no way exempted from this dynamic. 1 billion (1859) - 6.7
billion now -
> how many in 100 years???.  Makes a nice little curve that you can
> superimpose on the Peak Oil curve...
>
> Tighten your seat belts!  The cycle is about to be completed.
>
>
> Hugh
>

Hugh,

It is unfortunate that I do not have an understanding of basic
physics, nevertheless, you had answered the issue with your reply.
That we, humans had distorted the natural environment of the earth
and this is done through energy wastage resulting in an incomplete
natural transformation of the available energy on earth.

It is not the amount of energy resources that is available but the
conversion of energy that creates an inbalance environment that
matters. Energy can be used naturally by the environment or
unnaturally by human.

In simple term, if we are replacing fossil fuels with solar energy,
it is estimated that 432.5EJ (energy used from fossil fuels in 2005:
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption)
is absorbed from the sun's ray on earth, which originally is
absorbed by the environment.

With increasing energy usage by humans, more energy will be "taken
out" from the environment causing an inbalance situation and a
likely "climate change"
This is similar in concept with the displacement of fossil fuels
from under the ground into the earth's atmosphere.

To avoid these situation, we should avoid excessive and wasteful
usage of these resources be it fossil fuels, solar or any other
alternaives.

Wind power - the basics
<http://www.livescience.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=LS_080929_Ch\
angeWind>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Forests invaluable
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7662565.stm>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"da_chee" <da_chee@...>  wrote

>Hi All,
>
>I personally do not think that there are alternatives to the current
>energy source that will help us to combat climate change. Whatever
>energy source/s that we use in future, be it sustainable or not, it
>will have side effects. The use of solar energy for the production of
>electricity will place the earth into a lower surface temperature.
>
>The root cause of our current climate change, in my personal opinion
>is a result of our wasteful habit that resulted in a incomplete cycle
>of energy resulting is an enivornmental inbalance.
>
>It is therefore important that we understand this and though solar
>energy is prefer to oil, its must only be tapped as little as possible
>for the survival of the earth. There should not be any wastage.
>
>Regards.

If only the use of solar energy had that effect!!

Sorry da-chee - but I have no idea what you mean by 'incomplete cycles' -
and I would seriously suggest that you go and learn a bit of basic physics!!

The primary issue is far too many people, wanting far too many goods and
services, in a limited environment - a fairly intractable mix.
Unfortunately the rest of the world CAN'T have the standard of living that
the 'developed' world has enjoyed - for the simple reason that there are
just NOT enough resources to provide it - and even if there were - the
global climatic impact would be such - that we would be fast condemning
everything (including us) to, if not extinction, then a fairly brutish and
nasty future.  Life isn't fair - and that's just the way it is, and we
better get used to it.

The wonderful party many of us have been enjoying, has been purely due to
our discovery of a fantastic energy source ... fossil fuels.  We are now
half way through those reserves - and the party has to stop PDQ. We
(humans) are behaving exactly like any other unregulated organism given a
sudden energy boost - population soars - and then there is a crash. We are
in no way exempted from this dynamic. 1 billion (1859) - 6.7 billion now -
how many in 100 years???.  Makes a nice little curve that you can
superimpose on the Peak Oil curve...

Tighten your seat belts!  The cycle is about to be completed.


Hugh

Hi All,

I personally do not think that there are alternatives to the current
energy source that will help us to combat climate change. Whatever
energy source/s that we use in future, be it sustainable or not, it
will have side effects. The use of solar energy for the production of
electricity will place the earth into a lower surface temperature.

The root cause of our current climate change, in my personal opinion
is a result of our wasteful habit that resulted in a incomplete cycle
of energy resulting is an enivornmental inbalance.

It is therefore important that we understand this and though solar
energy is prefer to oil, its must only be tapped as little as possible
for the survival of the earth. There should not be any wastage.

Regards.