The Carbon Is Going To KILL Us Just as surely as the knife at our heart or the gun at our head

This articles demonstrates several things that I have long argued, but people said I was nuts. While global warming is scary its not the scariest thing going on. The globe should be cooling. By now we should down 1 degree faranheit (used throughout) at the equator and maybe 4 or 5 degrees at the poles. This discrepancy is really really frightening because it raises the chances that we will lose control entirely and the climate will “tip” or go haywire. And in fact you see a little of that already with the equator up a full degree but the poles are up 8 degrees in some places.

So instead of shrinking, our glaciers should be growing and our supply of fresh drinking water should go up as the cold rains fall as the oceans evaporate a tad. The ocean should be dropping a bit as should our food production (yah I know bummer). But tell that to Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Why is this so dangerous. Well because the cooling that should be happening will not happen uniformly, there should be heat spikes and since the global cooling is being masked by the warming we won’t know in advance when that happens. But when it does in will exponentially hammer the environment.

In addition this article also makes the point that a warm ocean will cease to accept carbon. The single largest carbon sink we have, the bottom of the pacific ocean, will quit working and then, well, we are done. In fact, in the latest edition of National Geographic they claim that the Earth is currently at 380 parts/mill. of carbon above a baseline for the planet at about 250 parts/mill. It further argues that things will get really bad around 450 parts/mill. This article argues that we are ALREADY THERE!

<
<

Study: Carbon dioxide increasing faster than expected in atmosphere


 

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – Just days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global wanning work, an alarm­ing new study finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in­creasing faster than expected.

Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers led by Josep G. Canadell, of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and In­dustrial Research Organization, re­port in today’s edition of Proceed­ings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Increased industrial use of fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the gas absorbed by the oceans and land were listed as causes of the in­crease.

“In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contribu­tions to the growth of atmospheric C02 arise from the slowdown” of nature’s ability to take the chemical out of the air, said Canadell, direc­tor of the Global Carbon Project at the research organization.

The changes “characterize a car­bon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing,” the researchers report.

Kevin Trenberth of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo, said the “paper raises some very important issues that the public should be aware of: Namely that concentrations of C02 are increasing at much higher rates than previously expected, and this is in spite of the Kyoto Protocol that is designed to hold them down in western countries.”

Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, added: “What is really shocking is the reduction of the oceanic C02 sink,” meaning the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, re­moving it from the atmosphere.

The researchers blamed that re­duction on changes in wind circula­tion, but Robock said he also thinks rising ocean temperatures reduce the ability to take in the gas.

“Think that a warm Coke has less fizz than a cold Coke,” he said.

Neither Robock nor Trenberth

was part of Canadell’s research team.

Carbon dioxide is the leading “greenhouse gas,” so named be­cause their accumulation in the at­mosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dan­gerous warming of the planet.

While most atmospheric scien­tists accept the idea, finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emis­sions has been a political problem because of potential effects on the economy.

Earlier this month, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and for­mer Vice President Al Gore for their work in calling attention to global warming.

“It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change,” Robock commented: “But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said.

In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models pre­dicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously pre­dicted.”

According to the new study, car­bon released from burning fossil

fuel and making cement rose from 7.0 billion metric tons per year in 2000 to 8.4 billion metric tons in 2006. A metric tons is 2,205 pounds.The growth rate increased from 1.3 percent per year in 1990-1999 to 3.3 percent per year in 2000-2006, the researchers added.

Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide is not the whole story — methane emissions have declined, so total greenhouse gases are not increasing as much as carbon diox­ide alone.

Also, he added, other pollution plays a role by cooling.

There are changes from year to year in the fraction of the atmos­phere made up of carbon dioxide and the question is whether this in­crease is transient or will be sus­tained, he said.

“The theory suggests increases in (the atmospheric fraction), as is claimed here, but the evidence is not strong,” Trenberth said.

The paper looks at a rather short time to measure a trend, Robock added, “but the results they get cer­tainly look reasonable, and much of the paper is looking at much longer trends.”

The research was supported by Australian, European and other in­ternational agencies.

Al Gore Wins The Nobel Prize! Congratulations

Yah I know this is old news, but I was busy with the Presidential Candidates for 2008 when he won the Prize. Al Gore was the best Presidential Candidate we never elected. Or at least the Supreme Court never allowed to be President.

 

I believe that one of the most obnoxious slanders of Al Gore was the ridicule he received about his statement that he invented the Internet. When in fact he advocated for and helped sign the bill that DID create the backbone of the Internet.

 In the 1970s universities and the military had access to 2 long distance telephone lines that had been put up and paid for years before. These lines were termed WAIS lines and WAIICS lines that only the military and universities had access to transmit data around the country for free or dramatically reduced rates. This was when there was only one telephone company, AT & T. Though it was only a few years from being broken up into the Baby Bells.

Al Gore, in the early 80’s shepherded a bill through congress that opened those lines to commercial activity forming the backbone of the modern Internet. As a user, you only pay for the telephone connection to your ISP, not the connection between your ISP and other ISPs your Internet travels will use. This birthed the Internet, as we know it. It was a tough bill to pass. The Military, the Universities, and AT&T opposed it! But it was passed and that led to the expansion of the ARPnet into the Internet that we know today. Without it the Internet would have been too expensive for any private citizen to use.

Yeh and Thank YOU Al Gore.!!! Congratulations on your Nobel Prize. You deserve it sir.

The Best Energy Policy in the Presidential Race – Drum roll please

The real Difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats recognize that the carbon economy has to end if we are to survive as a species. The Republicans still believe that the carbon economy is here to stay, we have just have to make it “better”. That was a tenable idea (though wrong) 30 years ago. It is dead wrong now.

Richardson is by far the best candidate on Energy Issues. However, the Democrats get it – the Republicans don’t.  Energy will be one of most important issues if not THE most important issue of the 2008 race.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Bidden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel? This is a Real Tough Call

Unlike the Republicans, ALL of the Democrat Presidential Candidates HAVE Energy Policies!

Disclaimer 1: Gravel’s Policy is so dislike the others that I am not sure it can be “compared” to anyone elses.

Disclaimer 2: I still can not get Dodd’s Energy Issues to open. Not sure whether its my computer or his, but its a windows issue so I am sure others are having the same problem.

Disclaimer 3: I am a Richardson Supporter.

Disclaimer 4: CES can not endorse political candidates! This is a statement about about whose Energy Policy is the best.

Having said that, There are very few differences between Obama, Bidden, Kucinich, and Richardson’s Energy Policies. They are agressive and huge. They vary in perspective and focus. Kucinich in particular gets huge kudos and hurrays for having an excellent section on the relationship between global warming, energy efficiency and WATER. Fact is the climate won’t kill us but the lack of fresh water will. Of course, fresh water will be what evaporates first as the globe continues to warm.

Also Bidden gets much praise for his aggressive approach to automobile and gasoline consumption.

Obama gets similar praise for including a plan to train poor and under educated young people in the green building trades so they can particpate in the new economy.

I pick Richardson’s Policies because he has a committment to stay ahead of the Kyoto accords by 10 years, his requirement that the Energy companies pay for it, and his EXPERIENCE as Energy Secretary. His opposition to any form of emissions is well know and thats what we have to do to survive. We Must Stop The Burning.

So Who Wins For the Republicans? Keyes, Tancredo, Colbert, Hunter, Brownback (now withdrawn), Paul, Huckabee, Guilliani, Thompson, McCain or Romney?

My God in Heaven! Just listing the Candidates is exhausting. What is not exhausting is reading their Energy Policies! Fully half of them have none. The so-called values candidates can not govern as a result, and thus they are unelectable. They will drop like flys in the coming weeks, as Brownback has shown. No energy policy no Presidency!

Of the remainder, most of their policies either are vague or confused or worse yet confuse the environment and energy policies. Saving our forests is nice but what does that have to do with the production and consumption of gasoline. They remind me of Hillary Clinton’s policy statement, “I mean come on we have to say something” paragraph of feel good mush.

So for the record Gov. Mike Huckabee has the best most detailed Energy Policy of the Republican Presidential candidates. As I keep having to say this is not an endorsement! This is policy analysis of the printed materials from the candidates web sites. Not mailers, not speeches and not print interviews. The thing is, especially with the Republicans, they say things in speeches and in person that they do not back up in policy statements – because they fear many of their voters would abandon them.

What is special about Huckabee is that he calls for energy independence for the USA in 8 years!! Can he do that? I have my doubts, but it is great hearing somebody say it. Thanks Mike. 

Two Pressing Issues with Current Federal Legislation

Before I start talking about the Republican Presidential candidates energy policies I must put in a note for reality. I have held off on a dozen energy issues including a edition of National Geographic that is primarily about Global Warming and energy consumption but two friends have asked me to act on current legislation that is really important so…taking a big breath….There is legislation before the Senate and the House that will effect our lives for the next 10 years.

My new friend Jon Trenn is working on the CAFE standards part of it (vehicle fuel standards) and he wants you to sign his petition at:

http://www.energybill2007.us 

And my old and dear friend Dr. Al Casella is working against a part of it that would authorize $50 billion for a new round of Nukes. He wrote me:

Hi,

I had to tell you about the energy bill that Congress is about to pass. Most of it is great–gets us more solar and wind energy and even makes cars more fuel efficient. But there’s one line in there that was added at the last minute that gives up to $50 billion for the nuclear industry. Enough money to launch a whole new generation of plants.

If you thought we had beat back nuclear power in the 70’s, you’re not alone. A bunch of musicians who fought nukes back then have picked up their instruments and started fighting again.

Click here to check out the music video and sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/nukefree/?r_by=-8637205-V6ZCwj&rc=paste

Nukes present a real security threat and environmental hazard. We’ve got to get Congress to strip this money before they pass the energy bill.

So, pass this on!

Thanks!!

Alex Casella

So please help my friends out please.  

Alan Keyes’ Energy Policy – He is still insane and does not give a rats ass about the environment!

I do not believe that Alan Keyes actually has his own web page yet but the 2 listed below claim to represent him in some vague way. On the second site you will find his positions on 35 issues. None on the environment and none on energy. I have run out of capitalized letters to discribe this mad man. Lets just put it this way he is a black man that wants to stigmatize gay people. YUCK 

http://www.renewamerica.us/

http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_list.php#economics

Duncan Hunter’s Energy Policy – He has none but he wants control of womens vaginas.

That is right…Duncan Hunter has no stated energy policy. Everything’s fine there folks, just keep emitting all the crap from your tail holes you want but oh by the way every woman in the U.S. must have every baby they get pregnant with.

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Tom Tancredo’s Energy Policy – He has none much Like Colbert!

http://teamtancredo.org/tancredo_issues_index.php

Apparently Tom wants to feed undocumented immigrants into the flames of power plants. Solving 2 issues at once. Another Republican running on “moral values” while the ice caps melt. Too bad.

Steven Colbert’s Energy Policy – He has none. He doesn’t even have a web site or a party

But here are 3 websites where you can find more “information” about Cobert seeking the Presidency of South Carolina. Actually there is a history of Comedians being involved in Presidential Politics from Bob Hope to Pat Paulsen. More on that later. And now for a real candidate. 

www.indecision2008.com 

thankyoustephencolbert.org

www.colbertocrat.com