Obama

An a video message delivered this week to a bipartisan group of governors at a global warming summit in California, President-Elect Obama made it clear that his climate change priorities start with a cap and trade system to reduce America’s global warming pollution and unleash a clean energy revolution.

My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process. That will start with a federal cap-and-trade system. We’ll establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050. Further, we’ll invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private-sector efforts to build a clean-energy future.

It’s a momentous statement that lights the fuse for climate change legislation in 2009. This is exactly what America and the world needs now – a strong cap-and-trade bill will jump-start job creation in new energy industries, and take a huge step toward solving climate change.

The video will be put later. 🙂

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 3:21 pm Lasă un comentariu

Daca incalzirea globala continua, in 2100 vom avea o noua glaciatiune

de Chivriga Traian

softpedia.com

Specialistii din cadrul Grupului Interguvernamental pentru Evolutia Climatului (GIEC) s-au intalnit la Paris, pe o perioada de patru zile, pentru a publica mult asteptatul raport asupra dovezilor stiintifice legate de incalzirea globala. Acest raport reprezinta o readaptare a celui din 2001 si este recunoscut de 192 statele membre ale Organizatiei Natiunilor Unite.

Cotidianul francez „Le Monde” a intrat in posesia unei copii a documentului, din care a prezentat cateva pasaje.

Comitetul Interguvernamental ONU pentru Schimbarea Climei va prezenta acest raport vineri 2, februarie, si se asteapta ca el sa contina dovezi detaliate asupra legaturilor dintre activitatile umane si incalzirea globala.

Referindu-se la informatiile paleoclimaterice, textul anunta o sporire a temperaturii cu circa 3 grade Celsius, pana in 2100, crestere ce poate fi corelata cu modificarile masive ale vremii din perioada glaciatiunilor. Cercetarile indica faptul ca temperaturile medii polare in acea perioada au fost cu aproximativ 3-5 grade Celsius mai ridicate decat cele inregistrate in secolul XX.

„Media nivelului marilor in perioada ultimei glaciatiuni (circa 125 mii de ani in urma) a fost probabil doar cu 4-6 m superioara decat cea din timpul secolul XX-lea, datorata topirii masive a ghetei polare”, se precizeaza in raport.

Cercetarile arata ca nivelului marilor si oceanelor a crescut considerabil in ultimii 13 ani, iar in acelasi timp, suprafata de gheata si de zapada care acopera cele doua emisfere ale Terrei s-au restrans vizibil.

Un pasaj crucial din noul raport indica faptul ca „o schimbare drastica a climei este asteptata daca concentrarile de carbon in atmosfera vor ajunge la 550 ppm (parti pe milion), ceea ce ar provoca o crestere a temperaturii cu aproximativ 3 grade Celsius”.

In studiul publicat in anul 2001, concentrarea de carbon era estimata la doar 480 ppm, in timp ce temperatura era preconizata sa creasca doar cu 1,5 grade.

Incalzirea are foarte putine sanse (mai putin de 10 la suta) de a fi sub 1,5 grade, in schimb „valori substantial mai mari de 4,5 grade nu pot fi excluse”, arata documentul, agravand deci aceasta previziune.

Incalzirea globala – o moarte lenta, dar sigura

Incalzirea globala a fost in atentia specialistilor de peste 40 de ani, dar pana acum nu s-a luat nici o masura semnificativa.

Pana nu demult, oamenii de stiinta au imbratisat ideea ca fenomenul incalzirii globale va cauza schimbari majore si probleme acute in lume, dar in modul lor de gandire scenariul prevedea ca acestea se vor intimpla intr-o perioada cuprinsa undeva intre 50 si 100 de ani si ca abia atunci se vor face resimtite efectele.

Concentratia medie a dioxidului de carbon in atmosfera terestra inaintea erei industriale se situa la nivelul de 280 ppm. Astazi, ea a ajuns la 380 ppm, ceea ce inseamna o crestere de 100 ppm, dintre care 2,6 ppm doar in anul 2005.

Gratie unor analize recente, s-a aratat ca aceasta crestere se datoreaza aproape in intregime utilizarii combustibililor fosili in scopul producerii de energie (iar restul provine in mare masura din defrisarea padurilor tropicale, ceea ce duce in cele din urma la eliberarea carbonului blocat in biomasa).

Un alt fapt il constituie cresterea constanta a nevoilor de energie ale omenirii: acestea au crescut cu 15% doar in primii 5 ani scursi de la inceputul secolului XXI, cresterea estimata pana in 2030 fiind de minim 60%.

Concentratia de dioxid de carbon va creste in continuare, iar pentru o stabilizare la un nivel dublu fata de era preindustriala (550 ppm) si o crestere a temperaturii medii globale cu „doar” 3 grade este nevoie de o reducere la jumatate a emisiilor actuale de CO2.

UE adopta masuri pentru stoparea „bombei climatice”

Comisia Europeana a prezentat, miercuri, un nou set de propuneri privind companiile petroliere, care vizeaza reducerea emisiilor de gaze cu efect de sera rezultate din activitatile de productie, rafinare, transport si ardere a combustibililor. De asemenea, Comisia a propus standarde mai stricte privind calitatea motorinei comecializata in blocul celor 27 de state europene, relateaza Reuters.

Reglementarile propuse de Executivul european vizeaza reducerea cu 10% a emisiilor de gaze poluante in intervalul 2011-2020. Astfel, obiectivul Uniunii Europene pentru anul 2020 este scaderea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon cu 500 de milioane de tone.

„Aceasta este una dintre cele mai importante masuri dintr-un set de initiative noi care trebuie implementate de Comisia Europeana, pentru a combate intr-un ritm mai rapid schimbarile climatice globale”, a declarat, intr-un comunicat, comisarul european pentru Mediu, Stavros Dimas.

Propunerile au fost prezentate la interval de cateva saptamani dupa ce Executivul a anuntat ca intentioneaza sa ia masuri pentru reducerea cu 30% a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de sera pana in anul 2020, fata de 1990.

Potrivit noilor reglementari privind calitatea combustibililor, continutul de sulf din motorina va fi limitat la zece parti pe milion incepand din 2009.

De asemenea, Comisia Europeana sustine utilizarea unui amestec petrolier cu continut de pana la 10% de etanol, in incercarea de a promova consumul de biocombustibilii.

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm 1 comentariu

OUR FAULT!!!

Global Warming Research In The Spotlight

Science Daily recently reported that computer simulations are showing that man is responsible for altering the weather of the earth by creating pollution as far back as 5,000 to 8,000 years ago.

Before I get into the various details, this particular topic I’m not going to run a series of posts in this blog about it. That’s not to say, I don’t like discussing it either, but I would like to keep in more in the realm of other discoveries happening in science.

However, since there is so much research being conducted and media interest such as; A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change, and it is a science related issue, I decided to do a post on man-made global warming.

In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies announced that October month was the warmest October on record. The announcement was an error as October 2008 was much cooler than breaking the record for warmth. If opposition to man-made global warming didn’t exist, one wonders how long would have taken them to discover that October wasn’t really the hottest on record!

Support of skepticism had been growing in the last nine years. About 31,000 scientists now reject man-made Global Warming because of a lack of conclusive evidence. Data of the names of these scientists who have doubts about man-made global warming was gathered by the Petition Project which started with a few thousand signatures.

I’m not like proponents of evolution who like to use numbers to attempt to overwhelm the opposition in order not for it to be heard or discredit a scientific claim. It’s the substance of the evidence.

Anyway, data on the alleged man-made global warming is very questionable. The IPCC has been known to revise the surface temperature record from the distance past. The record in the 1950s was revised as the IPCC lowered it. This in turn makes future temperatures appear even warmer.

Satellites are generally considered the most accurate in gathering temperature data. They are right to a certain degree, but even satellites have problems too that affect the data. The sensors generally don’t last that long and always are in need of replacements. Also, satellites tend not to stay on the same orbit, but drift. As a resulblue-eartht, the data gets tainted.

What the record has shown, we know there has been cooling and warming trends throughout history. It’s normal to have these trends. 1940 to 1980 showed a decline in the earth’s temperature which is why people were taking about future global cooling rather than warming.

The founder of the weather channel makes interesting comments about global warming, he states

“Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that,” he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said. “That’s about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it’s gone up, but it’s still a tiny compound,” Coleman said. “So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

“My position is it can’t,” he continued. “It doesn’t, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy.”

This year’s weather conditions have brought global warming to the forefront once again! CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers just recently said that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

The comment was made in light of Las Vegas getting hit with snow, the most in 30 years and is also experiencing cold temps. Other places that normally don’t get hit snow, have felt and seen the snowy weather. In fact, this is the second year in a row which has shown colder and snowier weather in some parts of the United States. Other parts of the United States like Alaska had extremes of highs and lows of snow this year.

In September 2008, it was also reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center that a huge increase of ice in the Arctic was observed.

“William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was “definitely colder” than 2007.”

“The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.”

Fast forward to this month, and now computer models are predicting the Arctic ice is going to disappear in 2030. However, it’s actually normal because permanent polar ice is a rare phenomenon, comprising less than 10% of history. Icecaps form briefly between interglacials, only to melt as the next one begins!

Ice from the Arctic doesn’t affect the sea level. In fact, it’s Greenland or Antarctica’s ice that actually has an affect on the sea level over a long period of time. There is some benefit when the ice melts in the Arctic, it would mean access to mineral resources, and also access to rich new fishing grounds. Something environmentalists would fear.

While cleaning up the air and water is a great health benefit, but buying into fighting something that is historically normal without convicing evidence to the contrary is  another story. It’s fuel tax is a money maker for a government, but hard on the average and poor families. The weather is a very well designed complex phenomenon. I believe computer simulations are worthless, because they are based on much speculation and computers can’t even track a storm over 12 days in advance let alone predict weather events thousands of years ago!

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 3:01 pm Lasă un comentariu

.TREES ABSORB CARBON DIOXIDE. CARBON DIOXIDE IS THE GAS THAT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. PLANT A TREE…SAVE THE WORLD…

franklin_trees_01
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. It’s early morning, the sun is just rising on this New Years day 2007 and it’s a balmy 50 degrees F. and raining outside when it should be 20 degrees with 2 feet of snow on the ground.

We are deforesting our planet, killing off the one thing that can save us. There is no more time for argument and debate, because while people talk, the temperature is rising.

In 2006 I managed to plant 22 trees in my yard and have many more in my „tree bed” waiting to go in this year. Here are some tree facts for you taken from the Colorado Tree Coalition.

Carbon Sequestration:

· Heat from Earth is trapped in the atmosphere due to high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that prohibit it from releasing heat into space – creating a phenomenon known as the „greenhouse effect.” Trees remove (sequester) CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis to form carbohydrates that are used in plant structure/function and return oxygen back to the atmosphere as a byproduct. About half of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2. Trees therefore act as a carbon sink by removing the carbon and storing it as cellulose in their trunk, branches, leaves and roots while releasing oxygen back into the air.

· Trees also reduce the greenhouse effect by shading our homes and office buildings. This reduces air conditioning needs up to 30%, thereby reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity. This combination of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, carbon storage in wood, and the cooling effect makes trees a very efficient tool in fighting the greenhouse effect.

· One tree that shades your home in the city will also save fossil fuel, cutting CO2 buildup as much as 15 forest trees.

· Approximately 800 million tons of carbon are stored in U.S. urban forests with a $22 billion equivalent in control costs.

· Planting trees remains one of the cheapest, most effective means of drawing excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

· A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.

· Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually – or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles.

· If every American family planted just one tree, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be reduced by one billion lbs annually. This is almost 5% of the amount that human activity pumps into the atmosphere each year.

· The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.

· Over a 50-year lifetime, a tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,0wicked-trees00 worth of air pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion.

If you live in an apartment or don’t have any place to plant a tree here are some people at AmericanForests.org that will plant trees for you.

Please try to make it your New Years Resolution to help do something about this environmental catastrophe that is going on all around us.

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 2:51 pm Lasă un comentariu

What Is The Greenhouse Effect?

What Is The Greenhouse Effect? By Cozari Cristian

There has been much discussion, both among experts and lay people about the ‘greenhouse effect.’ The greenhouse effect is a tegreenhouectrm that refers to changes in the Earth’s atmospheric composition, which have been related to the warming of our planet. There is a growing amount of evidence that human activities, particularly those relating to the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal, are major contributors to the greenhouse effect. The predicted consequences for the planet as a result of the greenhouse effect are extremely serious. They include major changes in the climate that will have an impact on food production and rising sea levels, which will put many coastal and other low-lying communities under water.

Additional information that we have learned about the planet Venus provide a frightening example of the greenhouse effect. Venus has a very dense atmosphere made up of gases. The planet has what has been described as a ‘runaway greenhouse effect.’ It has surface temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Experts generally point to gases like carbon dioxide as the main contributors to the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, which is a gas that is exhaled by everyone, can absorb infrared radiation. This type of radiation is heat that is radiating away from a warm object. During the day, the Earth is warmed by sunlight, and at night, the Earth cools off by radiating the heat back into space in the form of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide, and other gases to some extent, absorb this radiation and limit its exit into space. Therefore, the natural cooling mechanism is thwarted.

While it may seem that eliminating the greenhouse effect would be the best strategy, this is not what we want to do. Water vapor represents another element in the heat-absorbing process. There is a great amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at all times. This is why we experience rain. We need the water vapor in the atmosphere to keep the Earth at its normal, comfortable temperature. Without the warmth created by water vapor, the planet would freeze, and that would be the end of life as we know it. Thgreenhouseeffectdiagram2erefore, we need to have some degree of the ‘greenhouse effect’ in order to maintain life on Earth.

We need to strike a balance. Mother Nature is telling us, again, what we should already have learned by now – in any situation, extremes of any kind cause harm.

Decembrie 20, 2008 at 9:03 pm Lasă un comentariu

Would you be willing to rent your roof? That’s just what Duke Energy will be asking people in North Carolina to do over the next couple of years. The utility is planning to rent space at 425 sites across the state to start generating solar power by 2010.

The power company originally wanted to install solar panels at 850 sites at a cost of $100 million, but the plan was struck down by a consumer advocacy group within the state’s Utilities Commission. The revised $50 million project is expected to generate enough electricity to power 1,300 homes. All residential customers, whether they’re renting their roofs or not, will pay 8 cents a month for the project. Commercial customers and factories will pay more per month.

Duke’s ambitious plan is spurred by North Carolina’s requirement that renewable energy produce 12.5 percent of the state’s electricity by 2021. The utility thinks the project could go a long way towards meeting the state’s goal if they could ultimately install panels at thousands of sites.

Duke isn’t alone in their roof-rental idea. Southern California Edison and Austin Energy are both planning similar programs.

The idea is logical since most households can’t afford the cost of installing their own solar PV units and utilities want to quickly add renewables to their portfolio. The downside is that the cost is pretty high for a fairly modest return in energy. I also wonder about the effectiveness of small solar panel installations scattered across a state compared to larger concentrated projects. Who knows? I could very well be surprised by the outcome. This just may be the next big thing.rooftop

Decembrie 20, 2008 at 8:48 pm Lasă un comentariu

Which alternatively-fueled car is going to be the winner? An all-electric model, like the Tesla Roadster? An EV with a gas-driven power generator, like the Volt or the F3DM? Or perhaps a fuel cell vehicle, like the FCX Clarity? Mercedes, it seems, is hedging its bets and going with: all three.

All three, however, will look the same on the outside. BlueZERO (no, it’s not an energy drink, even though it sounbluezerods like one) is the name of the new concept’s general framework; the three different models will be the BlueZERO E-CELL (all-electric), E-CELL PLUS (EV with an onboard generator), and F-CELL (fuel cell). The E-CELL and F-CELL will appear at the upcoming Detroit Auto Show, while the E-CELL PLUS is still in the development stage.

Besides sporting a sleek, aerodynamic design, the BlueZEROs promise to deliver when it comes to driving range. The E-CELL will get up to 120 miles on a 3-4 hour charge; the E-CELL PLUS will go 60 miles on electric and 370 miles with fuel. The F-CELL should get 248 miles on a tank of hydrogen.

If you think about it, this is kind of like a grand green car experiment. All the variables are held constant (the cars all have essentially the same parts), except for the power source. As long as Mercedes puts equal effort into each BlueZERO (and we have no reason to suspect it would not), customer satisfaction can be rated as a function of technology type. I’m curious to see how it plays out.

Decembrie 20, 2008 at 8:32 pm Lasă un comentariu

Articole mai vechi Articole mai noi


Blog Stats

  • 612 hits