I don't agree with everything said in the following article. I think that in general we should use as little energy as possible, and drive automobiles that are as fuel efficient as we can safely make them. The world is going to find oil and gas shrinking in supply and increasing in price. It makes sense to conserve, if only because oil and gas are, for the most part, finite resources.
However, I don't think there is a global climate crises because of the burning of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore I do not believe in the necessity of rigid, severe and costly control over carbon dioxide emissions.
Peter
Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
By Doron Levin
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.
Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.
Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.
Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''
The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''
His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones.
Focused on Cars
The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise. But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.
``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said.
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.
Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Planet in Peril?
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal. Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.
But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years.
Move Inland
We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather?
The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said.
A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries.
One Little Bite
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen.
Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners.
Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation. What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards?
I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth.
(Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
One Reason Why Wealthy People Want You To Stop Global Warming
Sometimes you hear someone say, "the wealthy have too much money". When you see an article like this, about people spending millions to pump sand from the ocean onto their private beaches, in an effort they know is only temporary, it does make one pause and wonder. Beach erosion is a natural process. Is it occurring more rapidly now because of global warming? Perhaps. Read on and learn more.
I'm sure these people consider themselves ardent "environmentalists", but not only should their sanity be questioned, but their sincerity.
Are we causing global warming with our carbon dioxide emissions? Unlikely, but people owning expensive beach-front property would like us all to cut back on our carbon emissions, "just in case" the theory is correct. Of course they are not going to alter their extravagant lifestyles much, but they sure want you to sacrifice and conserve for their good. Oh, ok, maybe they'll buy some "carbon credits" to make them feel a bit less hypocritical. This is a complex issue, sure not to disappear as quickly as the sand does from these beaches.
Peter
Wealthy Stake $25 Million in a War With the Sea
Jodi Hilton for The New York Times
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 8, 2007
NANTUCKET, Mass. — On this island, the phrase “money is no object” is more than a figure of speech. Starter homes sell for $800,000 or more, a coffee shop breakfast for two can top $50, and carpenters routinely commute to work by airplane. So when erosion became a serious threat to bluff-top homes in the village of Siasconset on the island’s southeast shore and homeowners decided to fight back by replenishing the beach, cost was not an issue.
About two dozen of the owners joined with other island residents to form the Sconset Beach Preservation Fund, whose members are seeking permission to spend at least $25 million of their own money to dredge 2.6 million cubic yards of sand from a few miles offshore and pump it onto a 3.1-mile stretch of beach in Siasconset, or Sconset, as it is called here. They realize that the sand will inevitably wash away, so they are prepared to do much of the work all over again, perhaps as often as every five years.
If the sand had to be transported by dump trucks, it could take 260,000 trips at 10 cubic yards a trip. Instead, it will be dredged up from the ocean bottom, mixed with water and pumped to shore as a slurry that will spew out onto the beach. The goal “is to see that Sconset Village does not wash away,” said F. Helmut Weymar, a retired derivatives trader who lives most of the time in Princeton, N.J., but has owned a house on Baxter Road, the heart of the project area, since the 1970s.
“Were this only about our private property, would I have put this amount of time and resources into it?” Mr. Weymar said. “My answer to myself is no.” His family’s house is in imminent danger, he said, but it would be “pretty simple” for them to buy another one.
It remains to be seen whether even endless expenditures can hold back the sea. There could hardly be a more difficult spot to protect than the southeast corner of Nantucket, a 47-square-mile “sand pile in the ocean,” as one owner calls it. The island lies about 30 miles south of Cape Cod, which offers some shelter to the island’s north shore. Cobble shoals to the east could, in theory, offer some protection to the island, but they perennially shift and some geologists believe they may actually be positioned now to funnel wave energy at the island’s vulnerable shore.
And because Nantucket — like Martha’s Vineyard, Block Island and Long Island — is little more than soil, rocks and pebbles left behind about 18,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, it is easy prey to encroaching waves. The result is extreme erosion on the island’s south and east coasts, on average 10 feet or more per year, especially when storms roar in from the northeast.
More important for many here than the potentially enormous financial costs are the possible environmental costs of the plan, like threats to fish habitat. These are hot issues on all of America’s coasts, most of which suffer erosion expected to worsen as sea levels rise because of global warming.
On Nantucket, the issue is further complicated by history.
Some of the rose-covered weathered gray cottages of the Siasconset village center date to the 17th century — the National Park Service declared the entire island a historic district in 1966 — and their fate may be linked to the fate of the beach the fund supporters hope to replenish. The more recent but still decades-old influx of wealthy summer residents is also a complication.
“The language of class warfare creeps into it,” said Dirk Roggeveen, administrator of the Nantucket Conservation Commission, which has crucial permitting authority over the beach project and has yet to rule on it. “People concerned about the project make statements like ‘they are just rich people trying to protect their houses.’ ”
The fund’s permit application is in effect an assessment of virtually every economic or environmental impact that could possibly occur, and a description of how the group would avoid, monitor, mitigate or compensate for it. For example, fishermen objected that the sand washing off the newly built beach would scatter their prey, so the proponents offered to compensate them for reduced catches. And when conservation commissioners and others said the problem was not just loss of fishing income but the stirred-up sand’s degradation of offshore fish habitat, project backers offered to create an artificial substitute.
Much more than the beach in front of supporters’ homes would be rebuilt; the project would run from north of Sankaty Lighthouse, already scheduled to be moved from the bluff edge, to a town sewage facility on the south side of Sconset village.
A northeaster in April cost some homes on Baxter Road as much as 20 feet of land. And recently, iron beams and other equipment had been assembled on the front lawn of one of these houses in preparation for moving it to the very edge of the road, a task that will cost tens of thousands of dollars, at least, and will buy the owners perhaps one or two more April-strength storms.
Other Baxter Road property owners have already moved their houses to the edge of the road, or across the street to land they owned or bought there. Others are planning to move, even if it means shrinking their building footprints on their diminished lots.
The current attempt to save the beach is hardly the first effort to protect the houses that line the bluff at Sconset. In 1994, the property owners began an ambitious test of a new beach preservation technology, called “dewatering.” They installed a network of pipes to drain water out of the beach, in theory making it less vulnerable to erosion. Instead, the project itself was largely washed away. A sandbag operation, ostensibly more benign than the dewatering, has been going on for years.
Robert Colletti, who works for Holgate Partners, which operates a sand pit on Nantucket, stood recently in the back of the house on Baxter Road that is about to be moved. It now sits only about 15 feet from the bluff edge. About 100 feet below him, at the bottom of the bluff, workers were filling giant jute fiber bags with sand and arranging them in a kind of terrace, in hopes of preserving what little of the bluff remains between the house and the water. The hopes may be slim.
“The North Atlantic,” Mr. Colletti said, “it has no mercy.”
I'm sure these people consider themselves ardent "environmentalists", but not only should their sanity be questioned, but their sincerity.
Are we causing global warming with our carbon dioxide emissions? Unlikely, but people owning expensive beach-front property would like us all to cut back on our carbon emissions, "just in case" the theory is correct. Of course they are not going to alter their extravagant lifestyles much, but they sure want you to sacrifice and conserve for their good. Oh, ok, maybe they'll buy some "carbon credits" to make them feel a bit less hypocritical. This is a complex issue, sure not to disappear as quickly as the sand does from these beaches.
Peter
Structures near the beach in Siasconset, Mass., are threatened by erosion, including this home in the process of being moved from the bluff’s edge.
Wealthy Stake $25 Million in a War With the Sea
Jodi Hilton for The New York Times
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 8, 2007
NANTUCKET, Mass. — On this island, the phrase “money is no object” is more than a figure of speech. Starter homes sell for $800,000 or more, a coffee shop breakfast for two can top $50, and carpenters routinely commute to work by airplane. So when erosion became a serious threat to bluff-top homes in the village of Siasconset on the island’s southeast shore and homeowners decided to fight back by replenishing the beach, cost was not an issue.
About two dozen of the owners joined with other island residents to form the Sconset Beach Preservation Fund, whose members are seeking permission to spend at least $25 million of their own money to dredge 2.6 million cubic yards of sand from a few miles offshore and pump it onto a 3.1-mile stretch of beach in Siasconset, or Sconset, as it is called here. They realize that the sand will inevitably wash away, so they are prepared to do much of the work all over again, perhaps as often as every five years.
If the sand had to be transported by dump trucks, it could take 260,000 trips at 10 cubic yards a trip. Instead, it will be dredged up from the ocean bottom, mixed with water and pumped to shore as a slurry that will spew out onto the beach. The goal “is to see that Sconset Village does not wash away,” said F. Helmut Weymar, a retired derivatives trader who lives most of the time in Princeton, N.J., but has owned a house on Baxter Road, the heart of the project area, since the 1970s.
“Were this only about our private property, would I have put this amount of time and resources into it?” Mr. Weymar said. “My answer to myself is no.” His family’s house is in imminent danger, he said, but it would be “pretty simple” for them to buy another one.
It remains to be seen whether even endless expenditures can hold back the sea. There could hardly be a more difficult spot to protect than the southeast corner of Nantucket, a 47-square-mile “sand pile in the ocean,” as one owner calls it. The island lies about 30 miles south of Cape Cod, which offers some shelter to the island’s north shore. Cobble shoals to the east could, in theory, offer some protection to the island, but they perennially shift and some geologists believe they may actually be positioned now to funnel wave energy at the island’s vulnerable shore.
And because Nantucket — like Martha’s Vineyard, Block Island and Long Island — is little more than soil, rocks and pebbles left behind about 18,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, it is easy prey to encroaching waves. The result is extreme erosion on the island’s south and east coasts, on average 10 feet or more per year, especially when storms roar in from the northeast.
More important for many here than the potentially enormous financial costs are the possible environmental costs of the plan, like threats to fish habitat. These are hot issues on all of America’s coasts, most of which suffer erosion expected to worsen as sea levels rise because of global warming.
On Nantucket, the issue is further complicated by history.
Some of the rose-covered weathered gray cottages of the Siasconset village center date to the 17th century — the National Park Service declared the entire island a historic district in 1966 — and their fate may be linked to the fate of the beach the fund supporters hope to replenish. The more recent but still decades-old influx of wealthy summer residents is also a complication.
“The language of class warfare creeps into it,” said Dirk Roggeveen, administrator of the Nantucket Conservation Commission, which has crucial permitting authority over the beach project and has yet to rule on it. “People concerned about the project make statements like ‘they are just rich people trying to protect their houses.’ ”
The fund’s permit application is in effect an assessment of virtually every economic or environmental impact that could possibly occur, and a description of how the group would avoid, monitor, mitigate or compensate for it. For example, fishermen objected that the sand washing off the newly built beach would scatter their prey, so the proponents offered to compensate them for reduced catches. And when conservation commissioners and others said the problem was not just loss of fishing income but the stirred-up sand’s degradation of offshore fish habitat, project backers offered to create an artificial substitute.
Much more than the beach in front of supporters’ homes would be rebuilt; the project would run from north of Sankaty Lighthouse, already scheduled to be moved from the bluff edge, to a town sewage facility on the south side of Sconset village.
A northeaster in April cost some homes on Baxter Road as much as 20 feet of land. And recently, iron beams and other equipment had been assembled on the front lawn of one of these houses in preparation for moving it to the very edge of the road, a task that will cost tens of thousands of dollars, at least, and will buy the owners perhaps one or two more April-strength storms.
Other Baxter Road property owners have already moved their houses to the edge of the road, or across the street to land they owned or bought there. Others are planning to move, even if it means shrinking their building footprints on their diminished lots.
The current attempt to save the beach is hardly the first effort to protect the houses that line the bluff at Sconset. In 1994, the property owners began an ambitious test of a new beach preservation technology, called “dewatering.” They installed a network of pipes to drain water out of the beach, in theory making it less vulnerable to erosion. Instead, the project itself was largely washed away. A sandbag operation, ostensibly more benign than the dewatering, has been going on for years.
Robert Colletti, who works for Holgate Partners, which operates a sand pit on Nantucket, stood recently in the back of the house on Baxter Road that is about to be moved. It now sits only about 15 feet from the bluff edge. About 100 feet below him, at the bottom of the bluff, workers were filling giant jute fiber bags with sand and arranging them in a kind of terrace, in hopes of preserving what little of the bluff remains between the house and the water. The hopes may be slim.
“The North Atlantic,” Mr. Colletti said, “it has no mercy.”
Volcano Erupts In Indonesia, Mount Gamkonara
Volcanoes do have an effect on the Earth's weather, or short term variations. We know this from direct measurements and observations. A larger question is do they affect longer-term climatic variations? Are they even a factor in climate change? They seem to erupt randomly, so how can they then be factored into computer climate models? They are dramatic and certainly impressive if you are close to one.
Look at this photo of Mount Gamkonara in Indonesia erupting on July, 10, 2007. Is this is a "minor" source of "pollution"?
Peter
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6286946.stm
Thousands flee Indonesia volcano
Mount Gamkonora is one of 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia
Thousands of Indonesians have been evacuated from the slopes of a volcano that is spewing out hot ash and smoke in the east of the country.
The alert around Mount Gamkonora, in North Maluku province, has been raised to its highest level amid fears a major eruption could be imminent.
Scientists have reported seeing fire and ash clouds rising as high as 4,000m (13,100ft) since Monday.
Some 8,400 villagers have been moved to special camps away from the volcano.
However, scientists are warning that lava could still reach the camps if there is a large eruption - and have advised residents to wear face masks to protect themselves from the ash clouds.
Some 2,000 people are reported to have chosen to remain within the 8km (five mile) danger zone marked out by officials.
'Ring of Fire'
Activity at the 1,635m mountain rose sharply on Monday, prompting scientists to raise the alert level.
Saut Simatupang of Indonesia's Vulcanological Survey told Reuters news agency that the volcano was spitting out volcanic ash as high as 4,000m at its peak on Monday.
He said there had been less smoke and ash on Tuesday "but that does not mean the volcano is safe".
Mt Gamkonora is the highest peak on the island of Halmahera in North Maluku province, some 2,400km east of the Indonesian capital Jakarta.
It is one of at least 120 active volcanoes in Indonesia, which is part of the Asia-Pacific "Ring of Fire", a series of volcanoes and fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere through Japan and South East Asia.
Look at this photo of Mount Gamkonara in Indonesia erupting on July, 10, 2007. Is this is a "minor" source of "pollution"?
Peter
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6286946.stm
Thousands flee Indonesia volcano
Mount Gamkonora is one of 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia
Thousands of Indonesians have been evacuated from the slopes of a volcano that is spewing out hot ash and smoke in the east of the country.
The alert around Mount Gamkonora, in North Maluku province, has been raised to its highest level amid fears a major eruption could be imminent.
Scientists have reported seeing fire and ash clouds rising as high as 4,000m (13,100ft) since Monday.
Some 8,400 villagers have been moved to special camps away from the volcano.
However, scientists are warning that lava could still reach the camps if there is a large eruption - and have advised residents to wear face masks to protect themselves from the ash clouds.
Some 2,000 people are reported to have chosen to remain within the 8km (five mile) danger zone marked out by officials.
'Ring of Fire'
Activity at the 1,635m mountain rose sharply on Monday, prompting scientists to raise the alert level.
Saut Simatupang of Indonesia's Vulcanological Survey told Reuters news agency that the volcano was spitting out volcanic ash as high as 4,000m at its peak on Monday.
He said there had been less smoke and ash on Tuesday "but that does not mean the volcano is safe".
Mt Gamkonora is the highest peak on the island of Halmahera in North Maluku province, some 2,400km east of the Indonesian capital Jakarta.
It is one of at least 120 active volcanoes in Indonesia, which is part of the Asia-Pacific "Ring of Fire", a series of volcanoes and fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere through Japan and South East Asia.
Monday, July 9, 2007
How Dare Anyone Question Global Warming and Its Causes?
This is too good to be forgotten. This is a reaction to my comment that global warming skeptics are a good thing. Is this how musical concerts like "Live Earth" affect people? They turn people into raving fanatics?
Peter
KevinHenoy
Message #1007/08/07 09:53 PM
Climate crisis is hear. Step outside, it is clear and convincing evidence.I do not need you to tell me that it was not 105 in Billings Montanna or 101 in Seattle, WA. You are a paid wonk by the oil companies. Guess what fool the people sitting on the east and west coast would beg to differ as they bake and stew in their own juices. The foul air they have to breath is suffocating their children. You are going to tell me next that the air is good for their little bodies. 13 thousand died last year because it was soo good for them. Remember, Petter you have their blood on your hands. I hope the God of Abraham cureses you to burn in hell forever. You are as bad and the worst the world has to offer. You sold your sole to the devil.
Peter
KevinHenoy
Message #1007/08/07 09:53 PM
Climate crisis is hear. Step outside, it is clear and convincing evidence.I do not need you to tell me that it was not 105 in Billings Montanna or 101 in Seattle, WA. You are a paid wonk by the oil companies. Guess what fool the people sitting on the east and west coast would beg to differ as they bake and stew in their own juices. The foul air they have to breath is suffocating their children. You are going to tell me next that the air is good for their little bodies. 13 thousand died last year because it was soo good for them. Remember, Petter you have their blood on your hands. I hope the God of Abraham cureses you to burn in hell forever. You are as bad and the worst the world has to offer. You sold your sole to the devil.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Past Global Warming, (and Cooling), What Are The Causes?
An interesting article illustrating how the climate was warmer in the past than they are today? What caused the warming then? What caused the subsequent cooling?
Peter
from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/
Ancient Greenland was actually green!
DNA analysis reveals ice-covered country was once home to butterflies
By Ker Than
Staff writer
Updated: 2:56 p.m. CT July 5, 2007
Science
A reconstruction of southern central Greenland based on DNA found in recovered ice cores.
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,00 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter — the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland...was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.
Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.
“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.
The findings, detailed in the July 6 issue of the journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach.
“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” Matthew Collins, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of York who was not involved in the study, said in a related Science news article.
Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples.
The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as Antarctica. “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom.
Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said. “There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.”
Peter
from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/
Ancient Greenland was actually green!
DNA analysis reveals ice-covered country was once home to butterflies
By Ker Than
Staff writer
Updated: 2:56 p.m. CT July 5, 2007
Science
A reconstruction of southern central Greenland based on DNA found in recovered ice cores.
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,00 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter — the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland...was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.
Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.
“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.
The findings, detailed in the July 6 issue of the journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach.
“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” Matthew Collins, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of York who was not involved in the study, said in a related Science news article.
Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples.
The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as Antarctica. “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom.
Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said. “There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.”
Global Warming? Yes, But Not Caused By Man
I just posted this on MSNBC here:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=336924&BoardsParam=HIPDelay%3d1%26PostID%3d8359643
The entire debate about global warming comes down to the question of "is mankind causing it by producing carbon dioxide"? Upon consideration of all of the elements that go into the equation, and the known climate history, the answer continues to be NO, negative.
Peter
GeoPete
Message #5 - 07/08/07 03:58 PM
Friends,
Heat in, heat out........simply speaking, that's what we're talking about. In reading this discussion, what strikes me as interesting is how little the Earth's atmosphere changes in temperature over time. Look back at history, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years. Think about what we know and agree on, (a lot actually). Apparently just a few degrees change and we go from ice age advance to warming and glacial retreat, but the overall temperature (climate) never really varies much.
These changes we see on a daily basis are weather, not climate. "Record" heat, cold, rain, snow......these are normal everyday occurrences. They do, will, and have always happened and have nothing to do with climate.
Think about the size of the Earth, its atmosphere, landmasses, lakes, rivers and oceans, all elements that interact to create what we call our "climate". Think of all the dramatic events that have occurred, do occur and will continue to affect climate. I mean things like changes in the solar energy input, volcanic eruptions releasing gases and particulate matter, and of course the continual volcanic activity taking place every day, all day and night along the mid-ocean ridges, un-seen by us, estimated to be approximately 50,000 miles long!
Tremendous changes are continually taking place, yet the Earth's atmosphere manages to maintain it's temperature in a relatively narrow range. It has been doing this for a long, long time, otherwise human beings could not have survived as long as we have.
Somehow, the Earth's atmosphere regulates itself. When it warms.....things, (more clouds, rain, snow, etc.) take place that cause it to cool. Cooling goes on for a while, then there are actions that cause it to warm again. Note of course that all of this takes place quite handily without the miniscule input of humans.
Think of a pot of boiling water, as long as it is open to the atmosphere, you can add all the heat you want and the temperature of the water will never exceed 212 degrees F, (100 degrees C).
It is always worth playing an old trick by betting friends around the campfire that you can boil water in a paper cup. It's true....as long as there is water in the cup it will never get hotter than 212 F, which is too low for the paper to catch fire. (Don't let your mother catch you doing this.)
Is global warming true? Of course it is. The Earth's atmosphere is always warming or cooling. Is man causing catastrophic global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Highly, highly unlikely. The Earth's atmosphere will regulate itself, as it always has.
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=336924&BoardsParam=HIPDelay%3d1%26PostID%3d8359643
The entire debate about global warming comes down to the question of "is mankind causing it by producing carbon dioxide"? Upon consideration of all of the elements that go into the equation, and the known climate history, the answer continues to be NO, negative.
Peter
GeoPete
Message #5 - 07/08/07 03:58 PM
Friends,
Heat in, heat out........simply speaking, that's what we're talking about. In reading this discussion, what strikes me as interesting is how little the Earth's atmosphere changes in temperature over time. Look back at history, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years. Think about what we know and agree on, (a lot actually). Apparently just a few degrees change and we go from ice age advance to warming and glacial retreat, but the overall temperature (climate) never really varies much.
These changes we see on a daily basis are weather, not climate. "Record" heat, cold, rain, snow......these are normal everyday occurrences. They do, will, and have always happened and have nothing to do with climate.
Think about the size of the Earth, its atmosphere, landmasses, lakes, rivers and oceans, all elements that interact to create what we call our "climate". Think of all the dramatic events that have occurred, do occur and will continue to affect climate. I mean things like changes in the solar energy input, volcanic eruptions releasing gases and particulate matter, and of course the continual volcanic activity taking place every day, all day and night along the mid-ocean ridges, un-seen by us, estimated to be approximately 50,000 miles long!
Tremendous changes are continually taking place, yet the Earth's atmosphere manages to maintain it's temperature in a relatively narrow range. It has been doing this for a long, long time, otherwise human beings could not have survived as long as we have.
Somehow, the Earth's atmosphere regulates itself. When it warms.....things, (more clouds, rain, snow, etc.) take place that cause it to cool. Cooling goes on for a while, then there are actions that cause it to warm again. Note of course that all of this takes place quite handily without the miniscule input of humans.
Think of a pot of boiling water, as long as it is open to the atmosphere, you can add all the heat you want and the temperature of the water will never exceed 212 degrees F, (100 degrees C).
It is always worth playing an old trick by betting friends around the campfire that you can boil water in a paper cup. It's true....as long as there is water in the cup it will never get hotter than 212 F, which is too low for the paper to catch fire. (Don't let your mother catch you doing this.)
Is global warming true? Of course it is. The Earth's atmosphere is always warming or cooling. Is man causing catastrophic global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Highly, highly unlikely. The Earth's atmosphere will regulate itself, as it always has.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Poweful Democrat Proposes Carbon Tax
With an issue that is certain to be a political "hot potato" in the up-coming elections in the U.S., a leading Democrat is proposing a new tax on the "carbon" produced by burning oil, gas, and coal. Apparently he expects a public outcry and he wants to demonstrate that the public is not willing to pay the cost to cut "carbon" emissions and thus, presumably stop global warming.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of this, but other Democrats want a carbon "cap and trade" system, where "non-polluters" could sell credits to "polluters", who would then be allowed to go on "polluting", but presumably at a lower rate because it would cost them. This way, (the logic goes) there would be less over-all pollution, and more non-polluting energy sources being used.
Did you follow that? You get paid (a credit) to produce "clean" energy and you get penalized (cap) when you produce "dirty" energy. What proponents of the "cap and trade" plan fail to disclose is that this will still cost the public more for energy. When they realized it will cost them just as much, or more for energy than just a simple tax on "carbon", they're going to be at least as unhappy. Good luck on getting any meaningful legislation through Congress.
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washington/07carbon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 6 — A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.
The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.
But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.
“I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” said Mr. Dingell, whose committee will be drafting a broad bill on climate change this fall.
“I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people think about this,” he continued. “When you see the criticism I get, I think you’ll see the answer to your question.”
The idea behind a carbon tax is to provide an incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels like oil and coal, which are loaded with carbon, and increase the use of cleaner, renewable fuels like solar power, wind and fuels made from plants and plant waste.
Many economists like the idea of a carbon tax, saying that it would be simple to administer and could profoundly affect energy choices.
But most Democrats are staunchly opposed, saying that a tax would raise the costs of travel, commuting and heating and cooling homes, and that it would be wildly unpopular at a time when voters are already angry about high energy costs. Republicans, they said, would seize on any such proposal as proof that Democrats were bent on raising taxes and increasing the size of government.
Indeed, many Democrats still cringe at the memory of President Bill Clinton’s trying to pass a broad “B.T.U. tax” in 1993 on most forms of energy. The measure passed the House but not the Senate, and more than a few Democrats believe the effort was one reason they lost their majority in the House in 1994.
Now, House and Senate Democrats are writing bills that would require factories and power plants to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases through a so-called cap-and-trade system of mandatory requirements and tradeable pollution credits.
Most of the proposals would impose mandatory limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that companies would be allowed to produce each year, and those limits would become steadily more rigorous over time. A factory or a power plant that is already below the limit could sell its unused allocations to companies that were over the limit.
The United States already uses a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cause acid rain.
The European Union has adopted a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though the system has come under considerable criticism for letting companies game the rules and for failing to reduce emissions in line with European goals.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of this, but other Democrats want a carbon "cap and trade" system, where "non-polluters" could sell credits to "polluters", who would then be allowed to go on "polluting", but presumably at a lower rate because it would cost them. This way, (the logic goes) there would be less over-all pollution, and more non-polluting energy sources being used.
Did you follow that? You get paid (a credit) to produce "clean" energy and you get penalized (cap) when you produce "dirty" energy. What proponents of the "cap and trade" plan fail to disclose is that this will still cost the public more for energy. When they realized it will cost them just as much, or more for energy than just a simple tax on "carbon", they're going to be at least as unhappy. Good luck on getting any meaningful legislation through Congress.
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washington/07carbon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 6 — A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.
The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.
But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.
“I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” said Mr. Dingell, whose committee will be drafting a broad bill on climate change this fall.
“I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people think about this,” he continued. “When you see the criticism I get, I think you’ll see the answer to your question.”
The idea behind a carbon tax is to provide an incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels like oil and coal, which are loaded with carbon, and increase the use of cleaner, renewable fuels like solar power, wind and fuels made from plants and plant waste.
Many economists like the idea of a carbon tax, saying that it would be simple to administer and could profoundly affect energy choices.
But most Democrats are staunchly opposed, saying that a tax would raise the costs of travel, commuting and heating and cooling homes, and that it would be wildly unpopular at a time when voters are already angry about high energy costs. Republicans, they said, would seize on any such proposal as proof that Democrats were bent on raising taxes and increasing the size of government.
Indeed, many Democrats still cringe at the memory of President Bill Clinton’s trying to pass a broad “B.T.U. tax” in 1993 on most forms of energy. The measure passed the House but not the Senate, and more than a few Democrats believe the effort was one reason they lost their majority in the House in 1994.
Now, House and Senate Democrats are writing bills that would require factories and power plants to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases through a so-called cap-and-trade system of mandatory requirements and tradeable pollution credits.
Most of the proposals would impose mandatory limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that companies would be allowed to produce each year, and those limits would become steadily more rigorous over time. A factory or a power plant that is already below the limit could sell its unused allocations to companies that were over the limit.
The United States already uses a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cause acid rain.
The European Union has adopted a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though the system has come under considerable criticism for letting companies game the rules and for failing to reduce emissions in line with European goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)