Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Water World: Slipping Toward Climate Catastrophe

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted July 12, 2007.


New reports issued by the IPCC might be absurdly optimistic about the pace of melting ice caps and rising sea levels.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor's Note: George Monbiot is a British journalist and author whose expertise is on climate change and other environmental issues. Monbiot's article reveals that government ineptitude in the face of increasingly frightening scientific data on climate change is not limited to the United States: The UK government is dangerously negligent on energy and climate issues even though it knows better.

Reading a scientific paper on the train this weekend, I found, to my amazement, that my hands were shaking. This has never happened to me before, but nor have I ever read anything like it. Published by a team led by James Hansen at NASA, it suggests that the grim reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be absurdly optimistic.

The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise by as much as 59 centimeters this century. Hansen's paper argues that the slow melting of ice sheets the panel expects doesn't fit the data. The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees Celsius above today's level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 cm but by 25 meters. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature.

We now have a pretty good idea of why ice sheets collapse. The buttresses that prevent them from sliding into the sea break up; meltwater trickles down to their base, causing them suddenly to slip; and pools of water form on the surface, making the ice darker so that it absorbs more heat. These processes are already taking place in Greenland and West Antarctica.

Rather than taking thousands of years to melt, as the IPCC predicts, Hansen and his team find it "implausible" that the expected warming before 2100 "would permit a West Antarctic ice sheet of present size to survive even for a century." As well as drowning most of the world's centers of population, a sudden disintegration could lead to much higher rises in global temperature, because less ice means less heat reflected back into space. The new paper suggests that the temperature could therefore be twice as sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than the IPCC assumes. "Civilization developed," Hansen writes, "during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end."

I looked up from the paper, almost expecting to see crowds stampeding through the streets. I saw people chatting outside a riverside pub. The other passengers on the train snoozed over their newspapers or played on their mobile phones. Unaware of the causes of our good fortune, blissfully detached from their likely termination, we drift into catastrophe.

Or we are led there. A good source tells me that the British government is well aware that its target for cutting carbon emissions -- 60 percent by 2050 -- is too little, too late, but that it will go no further for one reason: it fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Why this body is allowed to keep holding a gun to our heads has never been explained, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just appointed Digby Jones, the former director-general of the CBI, as a minister in the UK government department responsible for energy policy. I don't remember voting for him. There could be no clearer signal that the public interest is being drowned by corporate power.

The government's energy program, partly as a result, is characterised by a complete absence of vision. You can see this most clearly when you examine its plans for renewables. The EU has set a target for 20 percent of all energy in the member states to come from renewable sources by 2020. This in itself is pathetic. But the British government refuses to adopt it: instead it proposes that 20 percent of the UK's electricity (just part of Britain's total energy use) should come from renewable power by that date. Even this is not a target, just an "aspiration," and it is on course to miss it. Worse still, the British government has no idea what happens after that. I recently asked whether it has commissioned any research to discover how much more electricity we could generate from renewable sources. It has not.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, alternative energy, global warming

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

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


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:
Chicken Little was right!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 12, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, we're screwed.

I have absolutely no faith that humanity is gonna have the foresight to deal with this before the catastrophe happens. Some among us are brilliant, but as a species we are pretty stupid - and always have been.

Archeology is proving more cases by the day of mighty civilizations that destroyed themselves through overpopulation and abuse of their ecosystem. This is the first time there has been a truly global civilization and this time the damage will be global.

If humanity is very lucky and the worldwide catastrophe does not precipitate nuclear or biological warfare, perhaps 100 million or so will survive. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Most people reading this will probably consider me a wild-eyed pessimist - I suggest those individuals study history, archeology, and current events.

Then show me where I'm wrong.

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

» Oh PLEEEZE!! Posted by: IPF
» RE: Oh PLEEEZE!! Posted by: zyxwvut
» RE: Oh PLEEEZE!! Posted by: zyxwvut
» RE: Chicken Little was right! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Chicken Little was right! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Chicken Little was right! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Count Down To Destruction
Posted by: williameon on Jul 12, 2007 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The shifting sands of time
Have buried many a civilization.
Man has destroyed himself countless times before.
Why should this be anything different?
The writing is on the wall.
Will anyone read it?
The flood will come.
A lot sooner than you think.
What can you do about it?
Move to higher ground.
Become self reliant and self sufficient.
Stop wasting valuable time and money.
Listening to BU__! SH__!
Prepare for change.
It’s time to,
Stop the futile debate.
When change happens!
It happens fast.
In the twinkling of an eye.
This is a wake up call.
Will the sleeper awaken?
And grasp your centimeter of chance.

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

» Dactylic Trimeter? Posted by: edith
» RE: Dactylic Trimeter? Posted by: williameon
» Let's Jam! Posted by: williameon
Monbiot is a nice guy, but he is also the UK's chicken little
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 12, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have been hearing these doom and gloom scenarios since the 1970s. A little history is in order. The first phase of doom and gloomism rose from the radical politics and convention-challenging that were the hallmarks of the 60s. By the 1970s, this manifested itself in cults, wacky theories and the doom and gloom industry. Hollywood saw what was going on and fed the market with loads of disaster films: Earthquake, etc.

Now fast-forward to 2007. We are in the middle of the biggest global economic boom in history. The boom is an American-led and inspired boom. We are also in the Great Media Age: an age where ideas are like shoots of adreneline that keeps the media machine churning over. Into this need to feed the machine has jumped every freak, idea-nut (that would be me etc.), news junkie, shit disturber, corporate stooge etc.

Environmentalists were some of the first of the top in this, churning the media machine like a giant mix master. These guys have got very good at it. They have also become monstrously arrogant and drunk on this power. They have also created a doom and gloom tsunami that is washing over sense and sensibility. The apex of this was of course Al Gore's Live Earth.

Human beings do not make good decisions in panics. They also more often than not, do more damage trying to do good than if something was left to just go 'bad'. When it comes to finding the right balance between economic growth and human dignity and the planet and environment, a deft hand is required. Not a screeching enviro-rage saying 'shut it all down, or else off-set it straight into my bank account!'.

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

» RE: Is your real name George Bush? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
What, Me Worry?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jul 12, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, in 2008, we should find yet another look-alike for Alfred E. Newman and turn the job of President over to him?

This is the best of all possible worlds and nothing can ever go wrong? (rough paraphrase of the teachings of Dr. Pangloss from Candide by Voltaire).

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

A crazy question
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Jul 12, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know I'm going to get ripped apart for this, but why should we care about Global Warming? I'm not saying I don't believe in it, just asking why we should care to try to do anything about it now? I'm just saying:

- We have no idea if any of the measures proposed are enough
- We have no idea how fast any of this is going to happen
- We can be fairly certain sea levels aren't going to rise 39 cm over a weekend, "Day After Tomorrow" style, and even if they were, we can be 100% certain nothing we do now will prevent that unlikely event
- We lose some islands and the coastlines move inland, creating millions of refugees - life will go on
- It gets several degrees hotter in parts of the world and colder in others - people re-acclimate/re-locate as/when it happens and life will go on

Even if life as we know it is changed forver - doesn't (and shouldn't) it always do so as situations change. I hear a lot of worry about the world we leave to our ancestors, but why do we assume that people will not just carry on in the new way of life the climate dictates.

Besides, does anyone really believe that if the endstate of global warming is a smoking uninhabitable planet Earth (before we run out of fossil fuels anyway, solving the issue by default) that there's any measure of conservation we can launch today that will stop it in time?

There, let the barrage begin.

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

» RE: A crazy question Posted by: tinerary
» RE: A crazy question Posted by: tommytime
» Links please Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Typical human selfishness Posted by: johnmeanswhatever
» Out of Context Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Hard facts please Posted by: IPF
boogie
Posted by: starrboogie on Jul 12, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He also wrote "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" April 1, 2007.

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

Fudge Those Facts!
Posted by: makeadifference on Jul 12, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like humanity has serious problems. A nephew worked for/with NASA last year and learned many of their scientists were fed up with the "fudging of facts" relating to climate change and were leaving the country. There was an informative article relating to humans inability to adapt to crisis in Mother Jones magazine, titled the 13th Tipping Point, November 2006.

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

Ye pays yer money and takes yer choice.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 12, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have lived with weapons capable of destroying life on Earth since the end of WWII. We persuaded ourselves that those are under our control.

I never expected to live with a credible global threat that is clearly moving beyond our control. Not that there’s nothing we can do about it. But it seems the only thing to do about it is to change the whole course of our civilization.

We have had no trouble developing a global economic system. Yes, it amounts to piracy, and so long as there is enough to keep us busy robbing the poor to give to the rich, pirates know how to get along.

We have been slower than molasses in January developing a system of global justice. Is that because justice is for the weak? The powerful make our own justice. Pirates are uncivilized. That means we have no concern for the future. Only civilization thinks long-term.

So who’s in charge? Civilized people or the pirates? Until we have a global civilization, the pirates will prosper. So take your choice: civilization or piracy.

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

Vote for hillary
Posted by: solrev on Jul 12, 2007 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nearly three billion people live on less than two dollars a day. Twenty percent of the world population consumes eighty six percent of the goods. If we can maintain these numbers or improve them in the consumer’s favor, maybe the catastrophic effects of global warming can be delayed longer than most estimates. On the other hand we can make the three billion people consumers and insure the catastrophic effects. We could also try door number three - solve the pollution problem and make the three billion people consumers. The solution we choose needs to work on a planetary scale and those solutions are available. However, our government is going to choose door number four – make short term economic decisions and shuffle the money.

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

» OH, GOODY, AT LAST.......HOPE! Posted by: mdruss42
All Good(and Bad) Things Must Come To An End
Posted by: edith on Jul 12, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Civilization developed," Hansen writes, "during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end."

Mr. Hansen, ever eager to puff up himself as a climate change expert, which he is not, does make one good point: climate is rarely stable! Extreme cold, extreme heat and conditions a bit uncomfortable for lazy, fat, and weak humans are the norm and not the outlier.

Also, where Mr. Know It All Hansen, is your evidence that taxing everyone to death and/or banning through Big Brother Govt carbon fuels will stop this megamelt you predict? The best irony would be to wreck our economy and standard of living and still be flooded out! But no one knows in the end what the climate will be in a century or two. While that is more than some control freaks can stand, "That's the Way It Is", as Uncle Walter Cronkite would intone to a trusting Nation.

Isn't it interesting? We're supposed to bow down and worship IPCC reports because thousands of scientists (many of whom do zilch work on the project) sign off on climate change and warming projections. But since the numbers IPCC came up with aren't scary enough for Hansen and his social engineering Brave New Worlders, we are supposed to believe that in the next century the entire glacier shelf in W. Antarctica will turn to salty Ice Water? So when Is IPCC right and when isn't it?

Sorry if the poor nations of the world and the Western democracies aren't hopping fast enough for Master Hansen and his Klimate Kadets. But in the end, thank goodness, it's up to the public to decide if it wants to buy into mass grimness or not because someone's pet science theory isn't "scary" enough.

Boo.

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

» Monbiot's a Fanatic? Posted by: edith
» Wonk Wonk Your Horn Posted by: edith
» LOL Posted by: IPF
» Industry trolls Posted by: johnmeanswhatever
Hemp charcoal, solar, and wind are renewable alternatives that do far better.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 12, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now why does Monboit not ever mention those 3?

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

Unbiased Editor? I think not
Posted by: IPF on Jul 12, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Editor's Note: George Monbiot is a British journalist and author whose expertise is on climate change and other environmental issues. Monbiot's article reveals that government ineptitude in the face of increasingly frightening scientific data on climate change is not limited to the United States: The UK government is dangerously negligent on energy and climate issues even though it knows better."

This note shows a one sided bias against the current administration in the UK, as well as portrays a tendency to swallow whole the "Doom & Gloom" scenarios currently peddled by the likes of Al Gore and the Live Earth commercial events. (More like Give Earth your money - through me).

A careful look at the science behind "Global Warming" will quickly reveal the real facts and make it plain that this is an old fashion "take your money" scam with an shiny, glittery skin.

Hey editor - how about some good old Unbiased positions?

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

» RE: I got a question. Posted by: bifheart
I like this article
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jul 12, 2007 6:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm inclined to agree with the local extremum, bistable flip-flop, hypothesis put forth by the author. It just makes a lot more sense to me than the gradual adiabatic drift cr*p that has been floating around in the media streams lately.
I also believe that there is a huge investment potential in it. The corporatocracy is really scr*wing itself by avoiding this opportunity, and by clinging to it's gas pumping comrades. It's the greatest business opportunity since WWII. Maby that's a bad analogy. But, they could save the human race and scr*w it at the same time. Even if Monbiot's idea isn't real, if the world were to eliminate fossil fuel consumption quickly and irreversibly,nobody would ever really know if following our present adiabitc course into the future would have been OK?
Just imagine how corporatocracy could spearhead the anti-carbon movement. They would be inclined to use monopolistic tactics like product dumping. They would be giving away killowatts just to sink their fossil fuel competition. They would have embraced the now deceased EV-1 just because it doesn't use any fossil fuels. They might be inclined to give electric cars away, kind of like the way Kodak used to give away box cameras in the '20s.
In one respect only, solar and wind power are similar to breeder reactors; just replace neutrons with photons. The main cost of making solar cells and wind generators is in the energy consumed by the manufacturing process. A company that already has huge solar arrays and bountiful energy could reduce their cost of manufacture to nearly nothing and make more arrays and swamp the world with power. The potential for power is virtually limitless.
But, I suspect that Monbiot's hypothesis is real. Perhaps people shouldn't wait for the corporate fossils to get on board. Maby we should go social, as the author suggests.

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

None of the "skeptics" can present a single scientific fact
Posted by: snedunuri on Jul 12, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it interesting? I've read through several skeptics' postings and besides the fact that a couple of them probably the same loonies who argue for teaching creationism or some other non-scientific babble, not a single one of them is able to present a single scientific statement about why nearly 100% of scientists are wrong! Look guys you can scream "liberal, liberal, liberal" all you want, but the fact that you don't want to get your sorry asses out of your Expeditions is no excuse for inaction. I've been following the scientific evidence over the last 10-15 years, and it just keeps mounting. Unless we take urgent action, your Hummers, your beachfront property, and eveythying you see around you is in trouble. If that doesn't prod people into action i don't know what will

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

» RE: High Comedy! Posted by: bifheart
» RE: Alert! Posted by: bifheart
renewables make sense!
Posted by: wolfdaughter on Jul 12, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, people. You global climate change deniers keep posting the same falsehoods over and over again. I don't know if any of you are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, but I deeply resent your efforts to impede us from working on creative solutions.

First of all, this claim that there was all sorts of doom and gloom in the 70s about an impending Ice Age, just isn't true. One obscure paper, not even in a peer-reviewed journal, claimed this. I'm sure some of our news media, always looking for anything sensational, jumped on it. But it was never widely accepted among scientists.

Trends in ice shelves, growth patterns, rainfall patterns, glaciers melting, "red tides", etc., etc., are being monitored all over the world. More and more data keep pouring in, and taken all together, they keep reinforcing the theoretical model of climate change. Unfortunately, the melting and climate pattern changes are occurring FASTER than, not SLOWER than, the predictions made in, say the 90s.

But even if you choose not to believe in global climate change and its deleterious effects, why not go with renewables as quickly as possible? Why not have cleaner air and water? Why not enjoy the new jobs and opportunities which would open up? Why not be energy-independent of the Middle East? Why not start living up to the ideals upon which this country was founded, and cease invading other countries on thin pretenses? Why keep on propping up nasty dictators, and overthrowing elected governments, because we want to steal their resources?

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

NASA Report: Climate change and trace gases.
Posted by: lessbread on Jul 12, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NASA report that Monbiot writes of can be found here: Climate change and trace gases Hansen et al. 2007. Here's the abstract:

[snip]
Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One feedback, the "albedo flip" property of water substance, provides a powerful trigger mechanism. A climate forcing that "flips" the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Ice sheet and ocean inertia provides only moderate delay to ice sheet disintegration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest human-made climate forcing, but other trace constituents are important. Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO2 emissions and reduce non-CO2 forcings can keep climate within or near the range of the past million years. The most important of the non-CO2 forcings is methane (CH4), as it causes the 2nd largest human-made GHG climate forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric ozone (O3), which is the 3rd largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N2O) should also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon ("black soot") has a high global warming potential (~2000, 500, and 200 for 20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention. Some forcings are especially effective at high latitudes, so concerted efforts to reduce their emissions could still "save the Arctic", while also having major benefits for human health, agricultural productivity, and the global environment.
[/snip]

If you can't be bothered to read the NASA report, here's a news account of it: The Earth today stands in imminent peril

Also in the news recently:
New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming


[snip]
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.

The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
...
[/snip]

Here's another tidbit for the skeptics: Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No.

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

» RE: Hilarious! Posted by: bifheart
The rise in ocean level is the easy part
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 13, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available now.
Where will the poison gas come from? "Heating makes
it harder for water to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere;
thus, if ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the
amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming
made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate
the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for
the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive
upwellings of H2S. Oxygen-breathing ocean life would
have been hit first and hardest, whereas the photosynthetic
green and purple H2S-consuming bacteria would have been
able to thrive at the surface of the anoxic ocean. As the H2S
gas choked creatures on land and eroded the planet's
protective shield, virtually no form of life on the earth was
safe."
The above comes from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
This is from the October 2006 issue of Scientific
American article: "Impact from the Deep" by Peter D.
Ward.
When will this happen? In 200 years. Some of us will
survive the great flood caused by the 82 foot [25 meter] sea
level rise, but nobody on earth will survive the H2S.
The article references the following:
Rivers in Time: The Search for Clues to Earth's Mass
Extinctions. Peter D. Ward. Columbia University Press,
2002.
Abrupt and Gradual Extinction among Late Permian
Land Vertebrates in the Karoo Basin, South Africa. Peter D.
Ward et al. in Science, Vol. 307, pages 709-714; February
4, 2005.
Photic Zone Euxinia during the Permian-Triassic
Superanoxic Event. Kliti Grice et al. in Science, Vol. 307,
pages 706-709; February 4, 2005.
Massive Release of Hydrogen Sulfide to the Surface
Ocean and Atmosphere during Intervals of Oceanic Anoxia.
Lee R. Kump, Alexander Pavlov and Michael A. Arthur in
Geology, Vol. 33, No. 5, pages 397-400; May 2005.

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

The other problems with burning coal
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 13, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All natural rocks contain most natural elements, but
mostly in amounts too small to be worth separating. Coal
is a rock. Ore is a rock that contains a higher percentage
of an element of interest. By burning coal, the major
element, carbon, is removed. Coal, minus the carbon, is an
ore because other things have been concentrated.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2
parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per
million uranium. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of
uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4
tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds
of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are
only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the
cinders.
At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are
distributed in millions of pounds of stack emissions each
year. They include:
Aluminum
Chromium
Molybdenum
Antimony
Cobalt
Nickel
Arsenic
Copper
Selenium
Barium
Fluorine
Silver
Beryllium
Iron
Sulfur
Boron
Lead
Titanium
Cadmium
Magnesium
Uranium
Calcium
Manganese
Vanadium
Chlorine
Mercury
Zinc

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by
peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family
dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade
coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

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

One way or the other
Posted by: ghoster on Jul 13, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
History should show you that nothing changes overnight, and if the climate goes either way, colder or warmer more than a few degrees this experiment in opposable thumbs is over, and it failed. Not looking for success in any direction with these humans, they are just too dumb to exist past a certain number, why should they? Extinction is climbing the food chain and we cannot see that. Think technology will save our sorry ass? Guess again. We are gone we just don't know it yet. Enjoy your new lifestyle while you have the chance. It is going to be a lot worse than you can imagine.

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

» RE: One way or the other Posted by: richholland
suspicious
Posted by: richholland on Jul 13, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let us assume USA and Europe keep CO2 standards according the book.
Assume Al Gore is the president then;

The Asean (china,burma,thailand, laos etc.) certainly will NOT keep this
(To day they work without safety, force children to work, destroy the forest etc) so in future they will NOT keep the CO2protocol....
Then Al Gore has to make war and destroy the badboys with nukes, gas, guns etct.etc.
To save the world we must detroy them.

As long as the USA spent so much on healthcare and on energy because it is real costs + PROFIT which is allways more then the real costs. worry about that.
In Europe the states work together to solve the problem, in the USA the big corporations are thinking how to make money out of it.

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

impeachment
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

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

It doesn't matter. We STILL have to get off petroleum
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Jul 13, 2007 11:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm constantly amazed at the amount of energy people put into debating global warming. Yes, the climate effects can lead to disasters and time will tell whether they happen and how to best cope. But that doesn't change a damn thing where energy policy is concerned.

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL! Both coal and natural gas are finite and nuclear has the huge unsolved disadvantage of disposing of the incredibly toxic waste it generates. Maybe not today or tomorrow but within few years we have got to find alternatives.

Given that burning petrochemicals is the major culprit in any global warming that happens, solving our fuel crisis will take care of most carbon emissions. Finding another source of fuel will solve other major problems as well, ranging from air pollution to terrorists who are pissed off at us because we have invaded their countries to get the oil. Oil is not just an environmental issue, it's a security issue as well.

So, either way, we need major money and talent put into developing practical, affordable, renewable energy and developing the infrastructure to deliver it.

I see no point in arguing over this stuff. I'm willing to accept the scientific concensus that global warming is occurring, but even if there was no concensus, we have to take all the same steps.

BTW, for the record, I really like the suggestion of urning the Sahara into one large solar farm!

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

I'll be able to walk to the beach!
Posted by: sculptor on Jul 14, 2007 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whew, you had me scared there for a minute. I checked the good old topo map and it will be a nice half walk from my house here in Santa Clara to the beach. Of course, they'll have to rename El Camino Real to Oceanside Blvd. ;-) ;-)

Sorry, I know this is serious but both facts I just mentioned are unfortunately true (especially for the houses on the other side of the El Camino.)

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

Here is my idea.
Posted by: Lauren on Jul 14, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been thinking about the awful weather they have in the humid areas, and I was thinking;
if you could design a device that is powered by wind and acts as a dehumidifier, you could turn wet sticky air into something more comfortable while producing pure water.

Also, where is the promotion of solar cooking?

Here is the picture, you are thinking about baking a peach-apricot pie. It's a hundred and ten, the A/C is going full blast and the tree is loaded with fruit. What do you do?

Turn on the oven?

Now imagine there is a thing out in the backyard, made out of glass or whatever, that has a compartment that you can adjust to 400`F inside.

See how much non-renewable energy we could save by cooking with a solar oven?
Dryer, water purifier, canner, endless uses for all that heat. We just have to figure out how to build the right kinds of machines

and plant trees.

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

» Wow Posted by: IPF
Paying for Dissent
Posted by: IPF on Jul 17, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Copy of posting on Google answers -

Subject: Critiquing the anti-global warming paper attached in the OISM Petition Project
Category: Science > Earth Sciences
Asked by: jodoforce-ga
List Price: $8.00 Posted: 19 Jun 2004 10:56 PDT
Expires: 19 Jul 2004 10:56 PDT
Question ID: 363384

Please find me online resources critiquing this paper:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

With emphasis on 'criticism'--it would be nice if you can find papers supporting it but I would only pay for finding criticisms ;)

So far I have found this link, which questions the credibility of the petition:
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html

'The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively
packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."'

However I haven't been able to find anything that specifically
critiques the paper on its own merits.
(posting reformatted to fit properly)

Interesting statement at the beginning. I guess this debunks the theory that the "consensus" against "Global Warming" has no agenda and is strictly in the interest of humanity.

Best of luck.

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

» RE: Paying for Dissent Posted by: bifheart
Chicken Little was right!
Posted by: JJdazer on Jul 18, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Were all screwed.

I find it difficult to understand how we cannot see the likely outcome of our current course.

We have reached the pinnacle.
We have decimated our enviroment to the stage where we don't know whether will have rain enough for crops or face devastating floods. Whether Summer will be cooler than Spring or that outbreaks of scrub fires and heat waves will ensue and make this another unforgettable season for many.

We've flattened mountains, redirected water masses the size of small countries, cleared ancient forests, changed the fertile into the futile.
Pollution is now endemic in every corner of the world, toxins that we incorporate into our daily lives.

Our biosystem is collapsing all around us, extinction imminent for thousands of species.
Demand outstrips supply.We construct,only to destroy. We advance, but regress.

And humanity itself has lost its direction. We only need to open a paper to see the framgentation of communities, the hysteria of religion, the epedemic of societal breakdowns and ills,obsenity of war,a life living in the shadows.
We all concede to it.

And you & I are going to turn this around?

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

The KNOWN shift in earths rotation
Posted by: dbaker on Jul 27, 2007 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ralph Klien as he was then Premier of the Province of Alberta in CANADA.
Durring his famous "Dino Speach", stated : I cant dispute the science the planets going to rotate, but I don't know what killed the DIno's maybe Dino farts.
CBC is refusing to release a copy to me?

What he did was cooroberate, my theory that when the polar ice caps melt, the planets going to shift in its rotation to achieve a new position of dynamic ballance, due to the redistribution of mass.
Appearantly our leaders are comfortable with this, me I'd like to try and prevent this outcome.
Dennis Baker

[