Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Do Climate Change Experts Agree ... Yet?

By Marilyn Berlin Snell, Sierra Magazine. Posted May 8, 2007.


A group of scientists, politicians, CEOs, policy experts, and venture capitalists sit down to try and agree on what steps America should take to combat global warming.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Though the United States is the world's top producer of greenhouse gases, only 13 percent of congressional Republicans believe in human-caused global warming (National Journal), and 13 percent of Americans have never even heard of the phenomenon (ACNielsen). One might wonder what planet these folks are on. Unfortunately, it's the one we all share.

Last summer James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, blamed my profession for this alarming ignorance. Although the stability of the world's climate system is unequivocally threatened by human activities, the U.S. media has muddied the issue by giving time to "fringe contrarians supported by the fossil-fuel industry," he wrote in the New York Review of Books.

As I read Hansen's essay, I began to imagine a conversation that would push beyond climate-change confusion toward solutions. In the margins, I wrote, "industrialist, scientist, politico, venture capitalist" and filled in the names of prominent experts.

A few weeks later, Sierra invited a handful of these luminaries to a daylong roundtable in San Francisco. Their job would be to come up with a practical agenda for the next Congress that would stabilize the climate. It was a tall order, addressed to busy people. Yet their response was immediate, gracious, and affirmative. There is urgency in the air.

On December 14, 2006, the group gathered at the Sierra Club headquarters. Paul Anderson, then chair of Duke Energy (now chair of a Duke spin-off), arrived right on time in a crisp suit and tie, ready to get down to business. Even before they'd finished their morning pastries, he started lobbying the Club's executive director and roundtable moderator, Carl Pope, on what was to become the group's most radical recommendation.

Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla announced -- lest anyone get the wrong idea given his presence at the Sierra Club -- that he is a pro-business, free-market Republican. As the roundtable progressed, however, Khosla relaxed, taking his shoes off under the table and tucking a foot beneath himself as he laid out his plan to fight poverty and global warming in one fell swoop. Bettina Poirier, staff director for Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and chief counsel for the Environment and Public Works Committee, listened intently. Two other senior advisors from Boxer's office sat on the sidelines, furiously taking notes.

The man who bridged the public-private worlds was Dan Reicher, who worked at the Department of Energy during the Clinton era and was, at the time of the roundtable, president of a venture capital firm focused on renewable energy. (He now runs Google's climate and energy initiative.)

Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider raced to the discussion from down the street, where he'd just given a presentation to hundreds of scientists at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting. His hair was slightly Einsteinian upon arrival, but his thoughts were anything but disheveled. Having spent more than 25 years explaining why our planet is getting warmer, he was the roundtable's translator and reality check.

In the morning, the group worked behind closed doors. That afternoon, they were joined by Boxer and former vice president Al Gore for a public session to announce the conclusions they'd reached. The defining moment came when Anderson suggested that the federal government should assign a cost to carbon emissions -- an idea that has been dismissed as political suicide by several past Congresses. But times have changed. How else could one explain the fact that a leader from the energy industry, a special interest many politicians are trying to protect from carbon regulations, is now calling for those very regulations?

My 12-year-old niece, Sophie, a seventh-grader in Phoenix, traveled alone for the first time to be an observer at the gathering. Her last big class report was on this worrisome topic, and it was important for her to see that adults are constructively grappling with climate change. Her presence helped us all remember that we have an obligation to act on behalf of future generations. Time has an ethical dimension, "the fierce urgency of now," as Martin Luther King Jr. called the struggles of his day.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change

Marilyn Berlin Snell is the senior writer for Sierra.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"And yes, your take home pay is less, but your grandkids may be a bit cooler."
Posted by: edith on May 8, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"My goal is to make energy more expensive in this country, but if they really want to reduce carbon emissions, that should be their goal. It absolutely has to be their goal.", according to Sierra panel participant Paul Anderson.

The question is, who will pay, who will cross-subsidize, and who will be exempt from a fair share of the heavy cost that carbon emission reduction will impose on the US and any carbon-dependent economy seeking to transition to alternative energy sources.


The cost shifting also has to be done in an atmosphere of full disclosure that the harm avoided, i.e., global warming, will occur regrardless of what new taxes or prices we impose, and that no one knows at what point drastic cutbacks in human carbon fuel use will stabilize, let alone reduce climate change.

Nor have we heard from Hilary or Obama, or Romney or McCain who do not tackle the price of carbon dioxide reduction in the atmosphere. Until leaders discuss numbers and burdens out loud, in public, the profits of high fuel prices(without a cap and trade system) will keep piling up on behalf of the oil companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hasn't this subject been covered enough already?
Posted by: HughScott on May 8, 2007 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three weeks ago, I complained about the lack of AlterNet articles about our GIs in Iraq and the problems they're having there and after returning home. A waste of words on my part, that's for sure.
You can bet if the AlterNet editorial board had brothers, sisters and/or children in Iraq, we would get articles about them and not a repetition of thread-worn pieces like this one.

Hugh E. Scott, pissed off Vietnam vet and the editor of King-George.biz, the ONLY website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not unconnected though Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» WHY DO YOU ONLY PICK ON ENVIRONMENTALISTS??? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Sigh. Which is it, Hugh? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Lets just burn this bitch down.
Posted by: White middleclass male on May 8, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are not willing to reduce the amount of CO2 you produce you're destroying the Earth. Like I am.

If your concerned about what type of planet your grandchildren and great grandchildren will inherit, your destroying the Earth by breeding apes that will consume resources and produce CO2.

So I'm going to do nothing. What will the world be like in 200 years? I don't give a shit. I don't plan on having any progeny running around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What you say cannot possibly be true Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Your argument IS lame Posted by: asilsfable
» Hey, let's talk. No problem! Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: Lets just burn this bitch down. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
The biggest problem is politicized science.
Posted by: BJT on May 8, 2007 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming research is a multi-billion industry, funded primarily by government. Keep in mind that all money government has to give is taken by force from citizens. The Anthropogenic Global Warming industry is too valuable an apple cart for government-funded scientists to risk upsetting.

Moreover, government is primarily using this environmentalism movement to push for a global tax on naturally occurring substances. This kind of world domination is something I should hope "liberal" populists such as those found on AlterNet would want to avoid.

In any case, I think whether global warming is anthropogenic or not, we will be better served by science that is not dependent on funding taken by force from others. We've all seen how powerful the Internet is, run and supported on a completely voluntary basis, and how the truth cannot be hidden for long on the Internet.

I think the same principle should be applied to science as vital as that which applies to global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2?
Posted by: BJT on May 8, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon dioxide makes up a miniscule portion of the atmosphere, I have a hard time believing it can compete with Water and direct rays from the Sun in governing the earth's temperature.

Higher levels of CO2 historically correspond to greater amounts of plant life inhabiting the planet. Plants prosper with greater CO2 levels the same way you do with greater O2 levels. Notice how tired you can get at high elevations where the oxygen is thinner?

You're not anti-plant are you? They need that stuff to breathe! How un-green of you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where do you live? Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Where do you live? Posted by: EagleMB
» Half a degree IS warming Posted by: themotie
» Who is "our" and "we"? Posted by: themotie
» Where is your argument? Posted by: themotie
» RE: Where is your argument? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Where is your argument? Posted by: themotie
» you should take your own advice Posted by: ailiergauche
» or plant biology 101 Posted by: MartianBachelor
Carbon tax, tax credits
Posted by: heid on May 8, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea of a carbon tax is absolutely retrogressive. What this would do is allow the wealthy to avoid it by going green, while the poor end up with an ever higher tax burden with ever less ability to change to carbon-neutral energy.

Tax credits are much the same - benefitting the wealthy, but doing nothing to help the poor.

By having capitalists as the primary characters determining the direction of this debate on how to resolve global warming, you water down any possible solutions to negligible benefits and ratchet up the onus on to backs of the poor.

The only scientist, Schneider, was routinely ignored. He'd state an important point, and the next speaker would simply change the subject. Schneider seemed to me to be used only so a real-life scientist's name could be listed as being part of the panel.

The main sense I got out of this discussion (which sounds canned and preplanned, by the way) was that big business is simply trying to find a way to make this problem seem to go away while they continue to steal the world's wealth from the people. Even the references to California and Schwartzenegger - who promotes the obscenity of biofuel - give away the fact that this was little more than a bunch of corporate shills yammering. I see no real solutions coming out of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Carbon tax, tax credits Posted by: themotie
Feed the Children fund and other anti-environmentalist groups.
Posted by: White middleclass male on May 8, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you “progressives” want to help the planet, stop feeding and medicating the apes that are ripping it to shreds. Every other species of animal on this planet undergoes the process of natural selection in which the unfit of the species are removed from the equation. But you bleeding hearts insist on supporting the most unfit for survival among this species of ape.

Look at 3rd world birth rates. How many of them would have starved to death if it was not for your progressive meddling. How many apes did you support to sexual maturity that than want off to have 8,9,10 apes of their own?

Or maybe you want the population around 10 billion. In that case lets all get in to a V10 Hummer and rip down some rain forest to make way for cattle ranching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is Education? Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: What is Education? Posted by: pingoo
First time Mark Twain was ever wrong?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on May 8, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Globalists Love Global Warming
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Joseph Watson:

A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests...

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming...

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of BP Peter Sutherland gave a speech to his cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the CFR, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the U.S. to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution...

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming.

Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When experts aggree:
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

"Oswald acted alone."

"Sirhan Sirhan acted alone."

"James Earl Ray acted alone."

"Mission accomplished."

"Osama did it."

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When experts aggree: Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
The fossil fuel sector and their massive PR operation:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 8, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the list of organizations funded by Exxon, Chevron, Peabody Coal, and a whole host of associated fossil fuel interests - a massive tobacco science program, staffed by 'climate experts' who lie through their teeth about basic science at their master's behest:

60/Sixty Plus Association
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Africa Fighting Malaria
Air Quality Standards Coalition
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Climate Strategies
American Coal Foundation
American Conservative Union Foundation
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Petroleum Institute
American Policy Center
American Recreation Coalition
American Spectator Foundation
Americans for Tax Reform
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology
Aspen Institute
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Capital Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
Cato Institute
Center for American and International Law
Center for Environmental Education Research
Center for Security Policy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the New West
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Centre for the New Europe
Chemical Education Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
Clean Water Industry Coalition
Climate Research Journal
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Communications Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Consumer Alert
Cooler Heads Coalition
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
DCI Group
Defenders of Property Rights
Earthwatch Institute
ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
European Enterprise Institute
ExxonMobil Corporation
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Fraser Institute
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
George C. Marshall Institute
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
Global Climate Coalition
Great Plains Legal Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
Hudson Institute
Illinois Policy Institute
Independent Commission on Environmental Education
Independent Institute
Institute for Biospheric Research
Institute for Energy Research
Institute for Regulatory Science
Institute for Senior Studies
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
International Council for Capital Formation
International Policy Network - North America
International Republican Institute
James Madison Institute
Junkscience.com
Landmark Legal Foundation
Lexington Institute

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and here's the rest:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 8, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lindenwood University
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Media Institute
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Council for Environmental Balance
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Mining Association
National Policy Forum
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
New England Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Peabody Energy
Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Seniors Coalition
Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
Small Business Survival Committee
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Stanford University GCEP
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Texas Public Policy Foundation
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
The Locke Institute
United for Jobs
University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
US Russia Business Council
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Washington Legal Foundation
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Western Fuels
World Affairs Councils of America
World Climate Report

We can now add the 911 Truth Movement, PrisonPlanet.com , Rense, and the British 911 Truth Movement to the list, along with Alexander Cockburn.

Apparently, taking action on global warming is just an excuse for the Black Helicopters to move in and institute World Government... 9/11 was just the first step in this dastardly plan, which began with Vince Foster's murder by the Clintons...

Someone's getting desperate! Poor PR trolls... sooner or later, the tobacco science institues will see their funding cut off...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NASA Discovers 'Twilight Zone' of New Air Particles
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NASA Discovers 'Twilight Zone' of New Air Particles
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff



An extensive and previously unknown "twilight zone" of particles in the atmosphere could complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the Earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study finds.

In addition to greenhouse gases, which absorb infrared radiation, or heat, emitted from Earth's surface and send it back to the ground, cloud droplets and aerosols, such as dust and air pollutants, in the atmosphere also affect the planet's temperature.

The exact overall effect of these two types of particles is still uncertain: while clouds block incoming solar radiation, water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat like a blanket.

Now, recent satellite observations have found a zone of "in-between particles" in the air around clouds that was previously considered clear.

"The area around clouds has given us trouble," said study team member Lorraine Remer of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The instruments detected something there, but it didn't match our understanding of what a cloud or an aerosol looked like. What we think we're seeing is a transitional zone where clouds are beginning to form or are dying away, and where humidity causes dry particles to absorb water and get bigger."

Scientists have been aware of an indistinct "halo" surrounding individual clouds, but the newly detected zone is much more extensive, taking up as much as 60 percent of the atmosphere previously labeled as cloud-free.

The previously unknown ingredient in the atmospheric mixture of particles will have to be factored into models that try to predict how the atmosphere influences the change of global temperatures.

"The effects of this zone are not included in most computer models that estimate the impact of aerosols on climate," said lead author Ilan Koren of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. "This could be one of the reasons why current measurements of this effect don't match our model estimates."

The study was published in the April 18 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Remove space:
http://www.livescience.com/environm ent/070504_new_particles.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Further questions on man made causes/non
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global 'Sunscreen' Has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists


A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground.

The average amount of dust, pollution and other aerosol particles in the atmosphere has dropped since the 1990s. Global averages were relatively low in the period 2002 to 2005, shown here (highest aerosol levels in light blue, lowest in purple). Credit: NASA Global Aerosol Climatology Project

The thinning of Earth’s “sunscreen” of aerosols since the early 1990s could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures. The finding, published in the March 16 issue of Science, may lead to an improved understanding of recent climate change. In a related study published last week, scientists found that the opposing forces of global warming and the cooling from aerosol-induced "global dimming" can occur at the same time.

"When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."

The study uses the longest uninterrupted satellite record of aerosols in the lower atmosphere, a unique set of global estimates funded by NASA. Scientists at GISS created the Global Aerosol Climatology Project by extracting a clear aerosol signal from satellite measurements originally designed to observe clouds and weather systems that date back to 1978. The resulting data show large, short-lived spikes in global aerosols caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991, but a gradual decline since about 1990. By 2005, global aerosols had dropped as much as 20 percent from the relatively stable level between 1986 and 1991.

Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. The decline appears to have brought an end to the "global dimming" earlier in the century. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASA

The NASA study also sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface, which had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline, Mishchenko said.

While the Science paper does not prove that aerosols are behind the recent dimming and brightening trends -- changes in cloud cover have not been ruled out -- another new research result supports that conclusion In a paper published March 8 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.

The GISS research team conducted the most comprehensive experiment to date using computer simulations of Earth's 20th-century climate to investigate the dimming trend. The combined results from nine state-of-the-art climate models, including three from GISS, showed that due to increasing greenhouse gases and aerosols, the planet warmed at the same time that direct solar radiation reaching the surface decreased. The dimming in the simulations closely matched actual measurements of sunlight declines recorded from the 1960s to 1990.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

continue
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Computer simulations of Earth's climate over the entire 20th century show the effect of airborne particles called aerosols: sunlight reaching the surface decreased over most of the globe (blue) and in some regions remained unchanged (white) or slightly increased (yellow). Credit: Anastasia Romanou, Columbia University

Further simulations using one of the Goddard climate models revealed that aerosols blocking sunlight or trapping some of the sun's heat high in the atmosphere were the major driver in 20th-century global dimming. "Much of the dimming trend over the Northern Hemisphere stems from these direct aerosol effects," Romanou said. "Aerosols have other effects that contribute to dimming, such as making clouds more reflective and longer-lasting. These effects were found to be almost as important as the direct effects."

The combined effect of global dimming and warming may account for why one of the major impacts of a warmer climate -- the spinning up of the water cycle of evaporation, more cloud formation and more rainfall -- has not yet been observed. "Less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer air temperatures, so evaporation does not change very much," said Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a co-author of the paper. "Increased aerosols probably slowed the expected change in the hydrological cycle."

Whether the recent decline in global aerosols will continue is an open question. A major complicating factor is that aerosols are not uniformly distributed across the world and come from many different sources, some natural and some produced by humans. While global estimates of total aerosols are improving and being extended with new observations by NASA's latest generation of Earth-observing satellites, finding out whether the recent rise and fall of aerosols is due to human activity or natural changes will have to await the planned launch of NASA's Glory Mission in 2008.

“One of Glory's two instruments, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor, will have the unique ability to measure globally the properties of natural and human-made aerosols to unprecedented levels of accuracy," said Mishchenko, who is project scientist on the mission.

Remove space:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ne ws/topstory/2007/aerosol_dimming.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, renewable energy tech. must be commercialized
Posted by: O.T.E.C.Power on May 8, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a technology which can make a difference in developing countries in the equatorial regions of the world.

This technology is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (O.T.E.C.) This technology has been studied for over one hundred years and technological advancements, high oil prices, depleted fisheries, fresh water availability and climate change concerns now more than ever make the initial costs for its commercialization more and more viable. TOcean Thermal Energy Conversion, is an energy technology that converts solar radiation to electric power. O.T.E.C. systems use the ocean's natural thermal gradient (the ocean's layers of water have different temperatures) to drive a power-producing cycle. As long as the temperature between the warm surface water and the cold deep water differs by about 20°C (36°F), an O.T.E.C. system can produce a significant amount of power. The oceans are thus a vast renewable resource with the ability to help us produce billions of watts of electric power! The cold, deep seawater used in the O.T.E.C. process is also rich in nutrients and can be used to culture both marine organisms and plant life near the shore or on land.

There is a project in the works which allows the wealthy who have a genuine concern related to aforementioned whereby they can make a contribution through a 501(C)3 for a tax deduction. Their contribution goes towards the construction of a 100MW O.T.E.C. plant which also generates a minimum of 48,000,000 gallons of freshwater daily as a by-product of the plant's operation. Additionally, this project develops a mariculture industry of fish farms on land utilizing the nutrient rich cold seawater. Another benefit of this technology is cold water air conditioning for an industial park located near the O.T.E.C. plant whereby the costs for cooling structures is reduced by approximately 75%.

Imagine if you will, a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) that seeks economic diversification working with Industries that need reliable baseload electric power, ample fresh water, reduced air conditioning costs and a willing, low cost and trainable work force.

The Sarasvati Project can, and will, provide this and so much more! For more information please contact us in care of: sarasvatiproject@gmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sounds good but... Posted by: rwa
Hugh Scott’s swan song: “Adios, AlterNet bloggers.”
Posted by: HughScott on May 8, 2007 10:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the past five months of AlterNet commenting by yours truly, the hits on my nonprofit website, King-George.biz, increased more than I could ever have imagined -- as the following numbers show:

DEC 2006 ..... 23,196
JAN 2007 ...... 49,898
FEB 2007 .... 123,543
MAR 2007 .... 463,691
APR 2007 .... 634,595

Rather than AlterNet posting, I have decided to use other methods of publicizing King-George.biz, which features President Bush’s falsified biography, the one I found in 2004 on a U.S. State Department website and reported to the Boston Globe.

For starters, I will write personal letters about the “Bogus Bush Bio Caper” to all Democratic members of Congress.

I also want to finish my second nonfiction book about Shrub titled, “LIAR-in-CHIEF,” and promote the first one, George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT, published in 2004.

Finally, I need more time for other creative endeavors of mine -- such as writing novels, cartooning, painting and sculpting -- plus enjoy the company of my wife of 49 years, Jean, my 13-year-old grandson, Dustin, his mother, Julie, and other Scott family members. And, of course, I will continue my participation in MoveOn.org (I’m a four-year member).

Good luck to all of you. It’s been fun.

One more time --- Hugh E, Scott, the editor of King-George.biz, the ONLY website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

PS: If you enjoy reading science fiction novels, visit the website for my 122,000-word thriller,
TheLastUFO, and read the first two chapters. Set in 1996, the story is based on classified CIA photographs of a flying saucer I stumbled across in Washington, D.C, while serving as a young Air Force intelligence officer. Seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beam me up, Scotty Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Debunking Myths
Posted by: ischindl on May 9, 2007 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I am a mathematician and I am tired of reading incompetents question global warming. EVERYBODY who studies the climate for a living knows global warming is occuring, my daughter is learning about it in her geology class. Debunked arguments to the contrary are all sourced here. Unfortunately these debunked arguments get lots of air time. If you don't understand how global warming is occuring, rather than show off your ignorance, go study.

The second myth is that solving global warming is expensive. It is not. Fighting global warming means changing the way we live, in my opinion for the better, it does not mean we become poorer. I am 52 years old and do not own a car (I grew up in LA and I hate cars). I ride my bicycle 5,000 Km /year and I claim that this is the cheapist form of transportation you can buy. In addition it fights obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc, I mean, it's healthy. If you are an investor, you will note that all asset classes are currently expensive. I no longer trust stocks, bonds, nor real estate as investment classes. All of my global warming fighting investments of the last 7 years pay at least 5% per year. If peak oil comes about sooner than expected the return on these investments will rise rapidly. Here are exampes:

Insulation (the cheapist form of energy is the negawatt)

Finovens

Solar heating. The sun is very efficient for heating, not so good for creating electricity. 90 % of the hot water produced in Israel is heated by the sun. 4 in 5 solar heating installations made in 2006 were made in China! If the Chinese can afford it, I don't see why the US cannot.

Collecting rain water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Experts say nations have means to tackle global warming
Posted by: lessbread on May 9, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Experts say nations have means to tackle global warming (May 4, 2007)

BANGKOK (AFP) - Nations have the money and the technology to save the world from the worst ravages of global warming, but they must start acting immediately to succeed, experts agreed on Friday.

After five days of intense negotiations, the experts from 120 nations endorsed a report laying out proposals to fight climate change which they said were cheap and easy enough for political leaders to act on right away.

The options laid out covered simple measures like switching to energy efficient light bulbs and adjusting the thermostat in the office.

But they also included extremely controversial and complex techniques such as nuclear power, and the storing of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- underground instead of letting it spew into the atmosphere.

Renewable energies, such as wind, solar and biofuel, were highlighted as an important part of the mix, while the experts said putting a price on using the fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases was important.

Environmental groups hailed the report as a victory for science over politics -- after fierce debate among the delegates this week -- and said the onus was now on governments to act without delay.

"It has been shown for the first time that stopping climate pollution in a very ambitious way does not cost a fortune ... there is no excuse for any government to argue that it is going to cause their economy to collapse."

The IPCC report presented a best-case scenario of limiting global warming to 2.0-2.4 degrees Celsius (3.6-4.3 degrees Fahrenheit), generally recognised as the threshold when the most extreme ravages of climate change will begin.

Ramping up use of the new technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases, increasing energy efficiency and other methods to achieve this target would shave less than 0.12 percent off world economic growth each year, it said.

To keep global warming in the best-case range, nations have to make sure that greenhouse gases -- blamed for most of the world's rising temperature -- must start declining by 2015.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reasons are obvious.
Posted by: Dmilton on May 10, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont think that anyone of sound mind can argue that humans are having an adverse effect on climate in general. There is just nothing positive about pumping chemicals into the environment. But, even if you believe global warming is happening at an alarming rate and necesary action must be imminent, you can not dispute the fact that the most vocal of proponents for global warming are uninformed elites and known anti-capitlistic leftists. That, and the inconsensus among scientists, leads to a high amount of scepticism. Look at the treatment people on this forum receive when they question the existence of global warming. They get flamed and bashed. I personally believe that global warming is occuring. But I also believe that the earth cools and warms in cycles and mankind's ability to drastically alter our environment is limited. In the 70's we were heading toward an ice age remember. And the same individuals who scream at the top of their lungs for us to change our ways were doing the same 30 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I hate global warming nazis Posted by: ailiergauche
» RE: I hate global warming nazis Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: The reasons are obvious. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: The reasons are obvious. Posted by: richholland
» The most vocal of proponents.. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: The reasons are obvious. Posted by: monkeywrench
stop hysteria
Posted by: richholland on May 11, 2007 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.industrial pollution is a fact
2.global warming and icetimes are facts
3. but the same corporations that spoiled nature for big profits will save us now ?????
That is stupid to think.

In Europe the GREENLEFT has political power but they DO little for enviroment.
So enjoy life and donot believe the TV

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The scientists are the only ones who actually know, and they all agree
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 14, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Industrialist, scientist, politico, venture capitalist" WRONG.
The only one who knows anything about it is the scientist.
The only one who understands the meaning of the word
"truth" is the scientist.
James Hansen is correct. It IS your profession's fault if you
are a journalist. There is NO disagreement among the only
people who actually KNOW, the scientists. I strongly suggest
that you get a degree in Science so that you will be able to
understand the word "true". Sciences include physics,
chemistry and biology. Science does not yet include "social
sciences" such as psychology or sociology. So, how much
remedial math do you have to take before you can enroll as a
freshman in Science?
Did you read what Stephen Schneider had to say about your
Anti-environment-slanted meeting on www.realclimate.org?
Stephen Schneider had plenty to say and he told the truth
about your Sierra Club. You can't expect a scientist to
outshout lawyers and politicians. Scientists are naturally shy
and not given to bullying. So cuth up and invite ONLY
scientists next time.

Reference: Scientific American article "Impact from the
Deep", October 2006 pages 65 to 71. If business continues as
usual, we will go extinct in 200 years because hydrogen
sulfide will bubble out of the oceans and kill us. If we go
extinct, so do all those whales and birds and elephants that
the Sierra Club is supposedly trying to protect. A carbon tax
will not do it. The mining of coal must be illegal worldwide.
Only nuclear power can replace the coal-fired power plants.

What I Believe
I believe in Science. Nature isn't just the final authority on
truth, Nature is the Only authority. There are zero human
authorities. Scientists do not vote on what is the truth.
There is only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what
Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments
are the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible
to other people in the room. What goes on inside one
person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or
another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a
simple absolute lack of faith in everything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]