Category Archives: Energy Tough Love Blog

Energy Tough Love Blog – A weblog from Community Energy Systems

Bird Friendly Wind Turbines That Love Turbulance

Posted on by
Reply

 

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/miniwind_turbin.php

 

        

New Wind Turbine Harnesses Aerodynamics of Buildings

by Justin Thomas, Virginia on 10. 2.06

Science & Technology (alternative energy)
email this article

architectural_wind.jpg

A company called Aero Vironoment, has unveiled a compact wind turbine that sits on the parapets of a building rather than the roof. It catches the wind as it travels up the side of a building, which, in some cases, results in a 30% increase in energy production. The “Architectural Wind” turbine is 6.5 feet tall, and weighs 60 pounds. It requires only a 7 mph (3.1 m/s) breeze to start up, and produces roughly 55kWh per month per unit. There are two available optional extras for the turbine: a canopy, and an “avian protection” option, which is designed to keep birds out of the turbine. it was recently displayed at Green Pavilion of Wired’s Nextfest. :: Via: EcoGeek

Merry Christmas and a Wind Powered New Year!

Picking Your Nose The Winged Way – TGI(WB)F!

Posted on by
Reply

You thought with the weighty Bali Summit on my plate that I would forget about the funny and light hearted tradition started by Susan Kay and my friend and respected scientist John Martin’s blog about all things Denver and recently Native Americans (yes he is part Illiniwick if anyone asks). See Links list for more info.

 friday.jpg

I know its small but it is a crow apparently picking a ewe’s nose. I guess if you can’t pick your own…nature prompts you to pick some else’s…now thats eeeeeewwwwwwe.

The Results of the Bali Summit on Climate Change

Posted on by
1

The reporting about the Climate Change Summit in Bali was atrocious. That is why I held off writing anything about it until the dust had started to settle. I hate “horse race” style reporting where there is “almost an agreement”, then a suprise compromise, then a new wrinkle, finally an extended meeting that leads to A BREAK THROUGH! I do not mean to poopoo the accomplishments of either Kyoto (I lobbied for it) or even Bali, but it was clear that all the Bush administration wanted was to push the whole thing off until the next administration. He accomplished that, signed the Energy Bill and then turned around and used the bill to block California’s attempt to crack down on tailpipe toxins. And he did it with that gotcha smile of his. He knows that California will win its suit to do just that, because of the waivers they have gotten in the past and because the SUPREME COURT has always said they can. Again that will be on someone else’s watch…what a prick!

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

As you can see, all the fuss was about 5 pages of text.

Advance unedited version

Decision -/CP.13

Bali Action Plan

The Conference of the Parties,

Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its

ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments,

Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global

priorities,

Responding to the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that delay in

reducing emissions significantly constrains opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels

and increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts,

Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency1 to address climate change as

indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained

implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in

order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia:

(a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for

emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance

with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of

common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and taking into

account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors;

(b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including,

inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation

commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction

objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of

efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national

circumstances;

(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the

context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology,

financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable

manner;

(iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing

emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and

1 Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Technical Summary, pages 39 and 90, and Chapter 13, page 776.

Advance unedited version

2

the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of

forest carbon stocks in developing countries;

(iv) Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, in order to enhance

implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention;

(v) Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the

cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind

different circumstances of developed and developing countries;

(vi) Economic and social consequences of response measures;

(vii) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support mitigation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(c) Enhanced action on adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) International cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions,

including through vulnerability assessments, prioritization of actions, financial

needs assessments, capacity-building and response strategies, integration of

adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning, specific projects and

programmes, means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions, and

other ways to enable climate-resilient development and reduce vulnerability of all

Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing

countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change,

especially the least developed countries and small island developing States, and

further taking into account the needs of countries in Africa affected by drought,

desertification and floods;

(ii) Risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk sharing and

transfer mechanisms such as insurance;

(iii) Disaster reduction strategies and means to address loss and damage associated

with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly

vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;

(iv) Economic diversification to build resilience;

(v) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support adaptation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(d) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation

and adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Effective mechanisms and enhanced means for the removal of obstacles to, and

provision of financial and other incentives for, scaling up of the development and

transfer of technology to developing country Parties in order to promote access to

affordable environmentally sound technologies;

(ii) Ways to accelerate deployment, diffusion and transfer of affordable

environmentally sound technologies;

Advance unedited version

3

(iii) Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovative

technology, including win-win solutions;

(iv) The effectiveness of mechanisms and tools for technology cooperation in specific

sectors;

(e) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action

on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation, including, inter alia,

consideration of:

(i) Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources and

financial and technical support, and the provision of new and additional

resources, including official and concessional funding for developing country

Parties;

(ii) Positive incentives for developing country Parties for the enhanced

implementation of national mitigation strategies and adaptation action;

(iii) Innovative means of funding to assist developing country Parties that are

particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change in meeting the

cost of adaptation;

(iv) Means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions on the basis of

sustainable development policies;

(v) Mobilization of public- and private-sector funding and investment, including

facilitation of carbon-friendly investment choices;

(vi) Financial and technical support for capacity-building in the assessment of the

costs of adaptation in developing countries, in particular the most vulnerable

ones, to aid in determining their financial needs;

2. Decides that the process shall be conducted under a subsidiary body under the

Convention, hereby established and known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative

Action under the Convention, that shall complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome of its work to

the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its fifteenth session;

3. Agrees that the process shall begin without delay, that the sessions of the group will be

scheduled as often as is feasible and necessary to complete the work of the group, where possible in

conjunction with sessions of other bodies established under the Convention, and that its sessions may be

complemented by workshops and other activities, as required;

4. Decides that the first session of the group shall be held as soon as is feasible and not later

than April 2008;

5. Decides that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the group, with one being from a Party included

in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Party) and the other being from a Party not included in Annex I to

the Convention (non-Annex I Party), shall alternate annually between an Annex I Party and a non-

Annex I Party;

6. Takes note of the proposed schedule of meetings contained in the annex; 7. Instructs the group to develop its work programme at its first session in a coherent and

integrated manner;

Advance unedited version

4

8. Invites Parties to submit to the secretariat, by 22 February 2008, their views regarding the

work programme, taking into account the elements referred to in paragraph 1 above, to be compiled by

the secretariat for consideration by the group at its first meeting;

9. Requests the group to report to the Conference of the Parties at its fourteenth session on

progress made;

10. Agrees to take stock of the progress made, at its fourteenth session, on the basis of the

report by the group;

11. Agrees that the process shall be informed by, inter alia, the best available scientific

information, experience in implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and processes

thereunder, outputs from other relevant intergovernmental processes and insights from the business and

research communities and civil society;

12. Notes that the organization of work of the group will require a significant amount of

additional resources to provide for the participation of delegates from Parties eligible to be funded and to

provide conference services and substantive support;

13. Strongly urges Parties in a position to do so, in order to facilitate the work of the group,

to provide contributions to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and the Trust Fund

for Supplementary Activities for the purposes referred to in paragraph 12 above and to provide other

forms of in kind support such as hosting a session of the group.

Advance unedited version

5

ANNEX

Indicative timetable for meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on

Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention in 2008

Session Dates

Session 1 March/April 2008

Session 2 June 2008, in conjunction with the twenty-eighth sessions of the subsidiary

bodies

Session 3 August/September 2008

Session 4 December 2008, in conjunction with the fourteenth session of the

Conference of the Parties

– – – – –

That is it! Yes there are 13 other COP 3 documents, 11 othe CMP documents and 1 AWG 4 documents, but the above is the heart of the agreement. It would have been nice if someone in the press would have published it and not left it up to the U.N.

Peak Oil – Another Perspective

Posted on by
1

While most environmentals and us that have done energy issues for along time have the perspective that the Oil, Natural Gas, and the Coal Companies are the problem. That is they want to keep burning as much as they can and that the only thing that will stop them is the severe results of Global Warming. There is another perspective that says that we are running out of those resources, in particular Oil, and that we are barely adding alternatives fast enough to offset our shortfalls in standard energy sources. Before I talk about the Bali agreements I thought I should give them their due.

http://www.peakoil.com/

 http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2255&Itemid=35

Falls ChurchNews – Press ONLINE

The Peak Oil Crisis: Issues    
Written by Tom Whipple   
Thursday, 20 December 2007

As 2007 winds down, it is good time to review some of the major issues that those of us following the peak oil story are watching closely.

Depletion vs. Production is, of course, the heart of the peak oil story. Every year production from the world’s existing oil fields declines by several million barrels a day. Every year new sources of liquid fuel, new oil fields, more natural gas liquids, ethanol etc., must be found to replace the losses and hopefully to satisfy increasing demand. For the last two years, new supplies have been roughly balancing declines so there has been little growth in world production. Some day soon depletion will get ahead of new sources of oil and other liquid fuels for such an extended period that it will be obvious to all that peak oil has arrived.

The prospects for an economic recession or worse increased markedly during the past six months. In recent weeks, oil prices have been moving up and down rather vigorously on economic news — interest rates, subprime losses, government bailouts, etc. — rather than on traditional oil market concerns such as stockpiles and geopolitical threats to production. Many believe that the recent $25 a barrel jump in oil prices was largely the result of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cuts taken in hopes of forestalling an economic setback.

Should serious economic difficulties arise from the current mortgage/liquidity problem, then a significant drop in worldwide demand for oil is likely. If a reduction in demand for oil were to continue for many months or years, then it is likely that world oil production will never grow much beyond current levels. By the time demand was restored, geologic and economic constraints on production would prevent production from ever again reaching current highs.

So much of the world’s oil production comes from around the Persian Gulf that nearly everything that happens in the region bears watching for possible impact on oil exports. The machinations of Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, terrorists, mullahs, and numerous small states, tribes, sects and clans all could be important to the uninterrupted flow of oil to the industrialized world.

As the world’s biggest exporter and the only one that may have some spare capacity to increase production, the Saudis are worthy of special attention. Not only are there questions about the ability of the Kingdom’s oil fields to sustain or increase production over the next few years, but concerns also are arising over Riyadh’s domestic consumption of its own oil production which is increasing rapidly. Expectations that the Saudis alone will fulfill the world’s rapidly increasing demand for oil, even at $100+, will never happen.

The rapid rise in oil prices in recent years has resulted in a wave of nationalism on the part of producing countries. Contracts with international oil companies that were written back in the days of $10 or $20 dollar a barrel oil are falling by the wayside as producing nations are demanding an ever increasing share of the profits. In the past year Russia and Venezuela have essentially taken back “their oil” from the foreigners and Nigeria and Kazakhstan are on the verge of doing the same.

From a peak oil perspective, it does not matter if governments or international companies take most of the profit, but as the internationals’ role declines, so does investment and the availability of technical know-how. As oil becomes increasingly difficult to extract from non-conventional sources, partnering with ideological soul mates such as Venezuela and Belarus to help produce oil is unlikely to result in increasing production.  

With a population of 1.3 billion and an annual growth rate in excess of 11 percent, the course of China’s economy plays a key role in the peak oil story. Beijing is now a major importer of oil and products. For several years now, the Chinese have been making a major effort to secure long-term bi-lateral contracts with oil producers and have had numerous successes. It is only a matter of time before China’s demand leads to shortages in the developed world.

Given the close balance of the supply and demand for oil, the world’s importing countries are in constant threat of a sudden interruption to oil supplies. A hurricane, coup, earthquake, terrorist attack, assassination, bird flu or something we have not imagined could easily stop the steady supply of oil to the world’s fuel tanks. Although there are reserves, depending on the nature of the interruption, these could only be sufficient for a few days before serious disruptions occur. There are numerous chokepoints in the Persian Gulf where an interruption of more than a few days would cause serious grief around the world.

Nearly 40 percent or 5.3 million of the 13.6 million barrels of oil and products that the U.S. imports each day comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. We are going to have a little problem shortly because these sources of oil are going to dry up. Mexico’s biggest field is collapsing so that within ten years they will be out of the oil exporting business. For political reasons, Venezuela is doing its best to sell its oil to anybody but the U.S. and is off to a good start. If Hugo Chavez hangs in there as president for another five years the 1.4 million barrels a day we are currently getting is likely to be a lot less.

To many, Canada is America’s greatest hope to continue happy motoring for a while longer. They look longingly at those billions of barrels of “oil” trapped in the Alberta tar sands and assume that it will soon be flowing south in whatever amounts we desire. This is unlikely to happen for extracting “oil” from Alberta is turning the place into one of the greatest environmental disasters on earth. While production from the Alberta sands will likely continue for centuries, it will never reach the level to replace even a fraction of the 13 million barrels of imports the U.S. requires each day. It will not be long before the Canadian people start thinking about their grandchildren and exports will slow.

Canadians Rip It and Strip It – oil shale or oil sand should be left alone.

Posted on by
Reply

 The Northern Regions of the Earth are under attack. Not only are the normally energy conscious Canadians joining in on the act but every ship’s captain on the planet wants to drive their boats through the Northwest Passage. If the Russians recent land grab is any indication they plan on drilling for oil there as well. The folly of this is plain for everyone to see.

 http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Canadian_Oil_Sands_Development_An_Economic_Boon_But_Leaves_A_Mess_999.html

blog-headline.jpg 

   

ENERGY TECH

Canadian Oil Sands Development An Economic Boon But Leaves A Mess

 

by Guillaume Lavallee
Fort Mcmurray (AFP) Canada, June 22, 2007
The development of Canada’s oil sands is laying waste to its great northern forest and western plains, say critics who point to skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions, diverted rivers and razed backwoods. And the devastation can only get worse, they say, as energy companies pump billions of dollars into new projects to triple local oil production to some 3.0 million barrels per day within the next decade.

The Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake Oil Sands, at an estimated 173 billion barrels, rank second behind Saudi Arabia in petroleum resources.

But due to high extraction costs, the deposits were long neglected except by local companies.

While conventional crude oil is pumped from the ground, oil sands must be mined and bitumen separated from the sand and water, then upgraded and refined.

Since 2000, skyrocketing crude oil prices (now at about 70 dollars a barrel) and improved extraction methods have made it more economical to exploit the sands, and lured several international oil companies to mine the sands.

 alberta-oil-sands-field-bg.jpg

 

Open pits now dot the northern part of Alberta province where vast tracts of the Boreal Forest once stood, and giant mechanical shovels now devour black oil-encrusted soil day and night.

In an article in the June 2006 issue of Rolling Stone magazine, former US presidential candidate Al Gore offered a scathing sketch of the oil sands industry as wasteful and a blight on Canada.

“For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family’s home for four days,” Gore told the magazine.

“And they have to tear up four tonnes of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts,” he said, urging Americans, who are the main buyers of Canadian oil, to break their addiction to oil.

For Canada, which has stepped back from its 1997 Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, the oil sands boom is a mixed blessing.

It creates wealth and jobs, but the industry is already Canada’s worst polluter and is bound to double its harmful CO2 emissions by 2015, now at 29 megatonnes annually, according to a government environmental audit.

“It’s almost impossible for us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we want to boost production from 2,000 to 250,000 barrels within a decade,” said Michael Borrell, president of Total Canada, a scion of the French oil behemoth Total SA.

The government has proposed a 20 percent reduction in the “intensity” of the sector’s CO2 emissions, but total emissions would still rise as oil production billows.

The boom is also prompting fears of local water shortages and declining water quality as oil companies drain 349 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River each year for use in oil production, then dump it into area tailing ponds.

A report by the Sage Centre and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on global warming said Alberta would have to curtail new oil sands projects, which now use 2.0 to 4.5 barrels of water and large amounts of energy to produce one barrel of oil, if warming persists.

The WWF called for no new water-taking permits for energy companies, noting water flows in the Athabasca River, down 20 percent since 1958, could diminish by another seven to 10 percent if temperatures continue to rise.

“Climate change (is) an issue because the flow in the Athabasca River has constantly been dropping and as the glaciers (that feed the river) disappear in Jasper National Park, it’s gonna get worse,” said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an environmental group.

“Those people they just don’t care about the environment,” said Terry, a young aboriginal in Fort McKay in the heart of the oil sands. “Some people fish (in the Athabasca River) for fun … but nobody should eat the fish around here.”

Higher than average cancer rates at the nearby Fort Chipewyan Indian Reserve were recently linked to oil industry contamination of the environment, said reports.

Alberta law requires oil companies to restore excavated lands, but out of some 44,000 square kilometers (17,000 square miles) leased to them since 1967, “not a single square meter (foot) of land has been reclaimed,” Dyer lamented.

  

Bali Protocols Passed – More on that later.

Posted on by
Reply

I will have comments on the passage of the Bali Protocols but I have 2 posts that have been laying around for awhile. I want to get them off the shelf while I can. The Bush administration made sure that nothing will happen on their watch because the negotiations will take 2 years. 2 years we may not have! 

 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i31/8531notw4.html

Latest News

July 30, 2007
Volume 85, Number 31
p. 15

Silicon cells

Solar Energy Advances

New technology should lead to increased supplies

Marc Reisch

AS THE WORLD increasingly looks to solar power as a new source of energy, technology advances and new cooperation agreements among photovoltaic industry leaders promise to increase the supply, processibility, and cost-efficiency of silicon-based solar energy cells.

Using new technology, Wacker Chemie plans to build a solar-grade granular polysilicon production facility at its site in Burghausen, Germany. The 650-metric-ton-per-year plant should come on-line at the end of 2008 and will manufacture the polysilicon used to make solar wafers in a continuous fluidized-bed process.

 New process yields easier route to polysilicon for solar cells.

The firm first announced two years ago that it had developed the process as an alternative to the batch production procedure now more widely used to make polysilicon for both semiconductors and solar cells. The starting material, trichlorosilane, is the same for both batch and continuous processes.

In the batch process, trichlorosilane is deposited at high temperature on a starter rod, where it decomposes to polysilicon. Workers then remove the rods from the reactor, transfer them to crushing machines that create manageable polysilicon pieces, and run the pieces through an acid-etching step to remove contamination introduced during crushing. The continuous process eliminates the rod removal, crushing, and etching steps.

Taking its advances in solar polysilicon a step further, Wacker also says it is in talks with Schott Solar, a German maker of photovoltaic components, to set up a 50-50 joint venture to make silicon ingots and solar wafers, precursors for the production of solar cells. The two hope to conclude discussions and start up production later this year.

Separately, Germany’s Q-Cells, which claims to be the world’s second-largest maker of silicon solar cells, has increased its stake in a smaller U.S. silicon cell maker, Solaria, from 12% to 33%. Q-Cells acquired its increased stake in the Silicon Valley-based firm as part of a $50 million investment it made together with two financial investors and Moser Baer, an Indian maker of photovoltaics.

Along with the investment, Q-Cells committed to supplying Solaria with enough cells to generate 1.35 gigawatts of power over the next 10 years. Using its “cell multiplication technology,” Solaria will double the output of cells it obtains by slicing them into thin strips and reassembling them to double the surface area they cover. The technology includes packaging the cells under an optical concentrator to focus more sunlight on them.

DuPont is also doing its part to improve solar-cell efficiency. The firm will manage prototype development and testing of a solar cell designed by the University of Delaware that has the potential to be 30% more efficient than existing solar cells. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded a DuPont/University of Delaware consortium $12 million to advance solar-panel development, but it could award as much as $100 million over the three-year life of the project.

The Poles Melt as the Tropics Grow – Makes sense to me.

Posted on by
Reply

This would explain a lot about this years drought in the south. Their weather moved up here to Illinois. That is our latitude.

Growing Tropics could

mean drier Southwest
 

By SETH BORENSTEIN

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Earth’s tropi­cal belt seems to have expanded a couple hundred miles during the past quarter century, which could mean more arid weather for some already dry subtropical regions, new climate research shows.

Geographically, the tropical re­gion is a wide swath around Earth’s middle stretching from the Tropic of Cancer, just south of Miami, to the Tropic of Capricorn, which cuts Australia almost in half. It’s about one-quarter of the globe and gener­ally thought of as hot, steamy and damp, but it also has areas of bru­tal desert.

To meteorologists, however, the tropics region is defined by long-term climate and what’s happening in the atmosphere. Recent studies show changes that indicate an ex­pansion of the tropical atmosphere.


 

The newest study, published Sunday in the new scientific jour­nal Nature Geoscience, shows that by using the weather definition, the tropics are expanding toward Earth’s poles more than predicted. And that means more dry weather is moving to the edges of the trop­ics in places like the U.S. South­west.

Independent teams using four different meteorological measure­ments found that the tropical at­mospheric belt has grown by any­where between 2 and 4.8 degrees latitude since 1979. That translates to a total north and south expan­sion of 140 to 330 miles.

One key determination of the tropical belt is called the Hadley circulation, which is essentially prevailing rivers of wind that move vertically as well as horizon­tally, carrying lots of moisture to rainy areas while drying out arid regions on the edges of the tropics. That wind is circulating over a larger area than a couple decades ago.

But that’s not the only type of change meteorologists have found that shows an expansion of the tropics. They’ve seen more tropical conditions by measuring the amount of ozone in the atmos­phere, measuring the depth of the lower atmosphere, and the level of dryness in the atmosphere at the edges of the tropics.

Climate scientists have long pre­dicted a growing tropical belt to­ward the end of the 21st century because of man-made global warming. But what has happened in the past quarter century is larger and more puzzling than initially predicted, said Dian Seidel, a re­search meteorologist with the Na­tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Silver Spring, Md. She is the author of the newest study.“They are big changes,” she said. “It’s a little puzzling.”

She said this expansion may only be temporary, but there’s no way of knowing yet.Seidel said she has not deter­mined the cause of this tropical belt widening. While a leading suspect is global warming, other suspects include depletion in the ozone layer and changes in El Nino, the period­ic weather phenomenon in the Pa­cific Ocean.

Other climate scientists are split in the meaning of the research because it shows such a dramatic change — beyond climate model predictions. Some scientists, such as Richard Seager at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, say changes in El Nino since the 1970s probably are a big factor and could make it hard to conclude there’s a dra­matic expansion of the tropical belt.


 

Doubts About Teaching Climate Change In Grade School and High School

Posted on by
Reply

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

 

Emailed – 12/13/07

 

Dear Editor:

 

Its ironic that Mr. Jones pulls out the last of Rush Limbaugh’s bag of tricks 2 days after the British Court that was hearing the case he refers to approved the viewing of “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT) in British High School science classes. The 11 errors he sites shrunk to 8 and then 4 and then none. The judge ruled that the film is broadly accurate.

Another irony is that I am not sure that I agree that they should show it. Al Gore never asked that that be done. Al Gore filmed AIT as a “wake up call” to the world. And the world needs it. We have got to quit burning up the planet indiscriminately. But, much like I think that religion should not be taught in public schools I am not sure scary stuff should be either. During the 60’s that approached was tried with Drivers Education. I had to sit through 2 films, 1 in 8th grade and 1 my sophomore year, that consisted mainly of young people killed in car crashes complete with bodies and blood. Did it make me a better driver? No, it grossed me out.

Do not get me wrong. I believe that nearly everything in AIT is true, but I think it would give grade school children (K-8) nightmares. I mean why learn when their future may be in doubt. I always questioned the “duck and cover” program concerning atomic bombs for the same reason. Like that was going to help me survive an atomic blast. All it really did was scare me. I have reservations about even showing it in High School science classes because teenagers have enough things for which to blame their parents. Now they are going to come home and blame their parents for environmental destruction? How’s that help? AIT is an adult film that maybe is appropriate for a senior science class at best.

 

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

dougnic55@yahoo.com

An Inconvenient Truth Wins In Court – New Party Wackos Lose Again

Posted on by
Reply

 Al Gore wins again. The British Court has ruled that the science does support the “broad claims” of An Inconvenient Truth. There goes another one of Rush Limbaugh’s notorious lies. So much for the “11 massive flaws” in Al Gore’s arguements. Still should it be shown in public schools? I have my doubts which I will express tomorrow. But for now I’ll just bask in the glow…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=8

Gore’s climate film has scientific errors – judge

· Court rules documentary can be shown in schools
· Presentation is ‘broadly accurate’ but lacks balance

Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were “nine scientific errors” in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate change.

The film was broadly welcomed by environmental campaigners and scientists on its release last year, and while they did point out that it contained mistakes, these were relatively small and did not detract from the film’s central message – that global warming was a real problem and humans had the technology to do something about it.

The judge made his remarks when assessing a case brought by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of a political group, the New party, who is opposed to a government plan to show the film in secondary schools.

The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views. The “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore’s views were not supported or promoted by the government, and there was “a view to the contrary”.

He said he had viewed the film and described it as “powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced”, built around the “charismatic presence” of Mr Gore, “whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change”.

The mistakes identified mainly deal with the predicted impacts of climate change, and include Mr Gore’s claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’.” He accepted that melting of the ice would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported “by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

The nine points: fact or fallacy?

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” – but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming “shutting down the ocean conveyor” – the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was “very unlikely” that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed – by ridiculing the opposite view – that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: “It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from … population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability”

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was “insufficient evidence to show that”

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm”

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”

· This article was amended on Friday October 12 2007. A panel in the article above listing the significant errors found by a high court judge in Al Gore’s documentary on global warming was labelled The nine points, but contained only eight. The point we omitted was that the film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”. The missing point has been added.