Group items tagged

Leading Scientists Explain: http://crowncapitalmngt.com/ Scientists have long predicted that climate change would bring on ever-worsening droughts, especially in semi-arid regions like the U.S. Southwest. As climatologist James Hansen, who co-authored one of the earliest studies on this subject back in 1990, told me this week, "Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change." Why does it matter if climate change is playing a role in the Western drought? As one top researcher on the climate-drought link reconfirmed with me this week, "The U.S. may never again return to the relatively wet conditions experienced from 1977 to 1999." If his and other projections are correct, then there may be no greater tasks facing humanity than 1) working to slash carbon pollution and avoid the worst climate impact scenarios and 2) figuring out how to feed nine billion people by mid-century in a Dust-Bowl-ifying world. Remarkably, climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West, especially California. As it turns out, Arctic ice loss has been much faster than the researchers - and indeed all climate modelers - expected. And, of course, California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated. Is this just an amazing coincidence - or were the scientists right? And what would that mean for the future? Building on my post from last summer, I talked to the lead researcher and several other of the world's leading climatologists and drought experts. First, a little background. Climate change makes Western droughts longer and stronger and more frequent in several ways, as I discussed in my 2011 literature review in the journal Nature: Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. Wha

There are a lot of people who assumes that the sole technology that is now available to substitute fossil fuels is nuclear power especially when climate scientists and some energy policy analysts take a "tough-minded" look at the numbers. Eduardo Porter of the New York Times made that argument last week when he wrote: …nuclear power remains the cheapest and most readily scalable of the alternative energy sources. There are many reasons why nuclear power is a bad solution to the climate crisis. The first reason is that the technology is not available. Nuclear power plants are capital-intensive, technologically complex to manage, and difficult, if not impossible, to site. These issues are not minor, investors chose putting their money somewhere else and communities are greatly against sitting a plant in their backyard. As a consequence, despite our knowledge on how to use electricity this way plus our years of experience practicing it, in the U.S. these plants will never be built in enough amount to reduce global warming. There is a slight difference between the technology of nuclear power generation and the technology of nuclear bomb development. It is now hard to put things back the way it used to be, let us admit that human political systems or organizational processes cannot manage the risks of this technology. Other issues associated with current nuclear technologies that cause them to become problematic. For instance, the toxicity of its fuel and waste should not be ignored. Dangerous accidents are rare but once it happened, the impact is intense and long-lasting. It is hard to judge the danger posed by a poorly managed one while a well-managed plant poses little real danger. There is also a possibility of sabotage. Terrorists taking over a plant and threatening to plant accident could hold a city hostage. Electric utilities are natural monopolies that necessitate government regulation. The investment in infrastructure to produce and send out electrici

Fossil fuels-coal, oil, and natural gas-are America's primary source of energy. America's annual consumption of fossil fuels grown rapidly. 89 % of these consumption are consumed by boilers, transportation, residential usage, fuels for direct heating of process. The balance is used for feed-stocks, raw materials, and other miscellaneous uses. And most of the dirty fuels such as coal and residual oil go into boilers. Fuel burned are by far the largest single source of air pollution. This pollution is from sulfur oxide. It is also a significant source of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Boiler combustion is sufficiently important to warrant the effort to analyze the complete nature of the problems. Fuel consumption in boilers is divided into three sectors: utility boilers producing steam for generation of electricity which is actually consuming probably 59%, industrial boilers producing steam or hot water for process heat,generation of electricity or space heat consuming about 24%, and boilers for space heating for commercial and institutional facilities consuming the 17%. The fuels consumed by boilers in large quantities are natural gas, distillate oil, and coal. Additional energy is derived from the burning of waste such as bark, bagasse, liquid hydrocarbon waste materials, etc. These said fuels contribute only a small percent to energy requirements. But they may however present environmental problems. Although problems have not been address due to the fact that these problems are not full understood. New Sources performance Standards for burning boilers waste are to be developed in the near future. For fossil fuels, various combination of consuming sectors and type of fuel, have independent significant and insignificant environmental consequences. Boilers have three different types, the atertube, firetube and cast iron therefore to determine the overall pollution due to boilers are hard to determine and complicated. In addition each type varie

The Global Climate Status Report produced by scientists with the Space and Science Research Corp was newly issued by the United Nations. "Of the 24 global climate parameters evaluated by the SSRC, 20 show a global cooling trend, three show a global warming trend, one shows a neutral trend," as explained in the report's summary. Also, "…. the integrated global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, both indicate a declining global temperature trend is in place. ... This singular fact is conclusive evidence to restate that global warming, as a natural phase of climate variation caused by the sun, has ended." "The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age," this is the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark's headline last Aug. 7. Hence, at least a small number of the newspapers and climatologist in Europe are not terrified to speak the truth about global temperature differences. Now well-known "Climategate" scandal, pop-up a couple of years ago, hit some of the news when top English climate scientists had their emails leaked to the news presenting that they plan to, in their own words "hide the decline" of the general global temperatures. While this whole thing exposes entire "global warming" as fraud. While this exposes the entire "global warming" as fraud, the important thing to us in the United States at this time is what was leaked to the Associated Press. That demonstrated our present administration and some other national governments were putting weight on the IPCC to not liberate the fact that "global warming" had basically ended and that, for many years, the earth is actually getting slightly cooler. This information is very important for the reason that "global warming" has been used by most of the government environmental regulations for the past four administrations as an excuse and the result is it is destroying the U.S. economy. We could use some rethinking and reanalyzing about this information for the

September 17, Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was called into question the findings of a UN report that confirmed a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed hundreds of people last month, suggesting the event was a "provocation" by anti-regime forces and calling for a wider investigation. After a meeting in Moscow with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, Lavrov's comments were made and these represent Russia's first public reaction to the report. It was released on Monday. It determinedly established the use of chemical weapons however stopped short of passing on blame. After what Russia has gone trough criticism for its perceived sheltering of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, it has repeatedly rebuffed Western allegations that his government deployed chemical weapons. "We have the most serious grounds to believe this was a provocation," Lavrov said, according to the RIA Novosti state news agency. "And some of our partners have unequivocally stated that only the regime could have used chemical weapons, but the truth must be established." He added that there was no information about where the weapons were made, and insisted on an "impartial, objective, professional investigation of the events of August 21." It is just then, Lavrov said, should a course of action be decided in the UN Security Council, where Russia has blocked several Western resolutions on action over the crisis. Additional reports from GlobalPost: Elton John to play Moscow concert despite Russia's anti-gay law. Previous weekend, a negotiation between Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry about a plan to transfer Syria's chemical weapons to international control and have them destroyed within a year. Some observers have showed doubt over the plan, with their opinion that the sheer manpower it requires makes it unrealistic.

* Body Heat Body heat can warm an entire building, complete with offices, apartments and shops. In fact, Jernhuset, a state owned property Administration Company is putting together a plan to capture body heat from train commuters traveling through Stockholm's Central Station. The idea is that the heat will warm water running through pipes, which will then be pumped through the building's ventilation system. While in Paris Habitat, owner of a low-income housing project in Paris, will use body heat to warm 17 apartments in a building as well. The said housing project is directly above a metro station near Pompidou Center. * Sugar Currently, researchers and chemists at Virginia Tech are developing a means to convert sugar into hydrogen. In which can be used in a fuel cell, and in turn it will provide a cheaper, cleaner, pollutant-free and odorless drive. The scientists combine plant sugars, water and 13 powerful enzymes in a reactor, converting the concoction into hydrogen and trace amounts of carbon dioxide. The hydrogen could be captured and pumped through a fuel cell to produce energy. Their process will translate into cost savings; it delivers three times more hydrogen than traditional methods. * Solar Wind This is way more powerful than humility currently needs is available right now, out in space. A stream of energized, charged particles flowing outward from the sun is actually from the solar wind. Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State's School of Earth and Environmental Science, think they can capture these particles with a satellite that orbits the sun the same distance Earth does. * Feces and Urine Feces contain methane, a colorless, odorless gas that could be used in the same way as natural gas. Human waste is also good and so is urine. * Vibrations Club Watt in Rotterdam, Netherlands is using floor vibrations from people walking and dancing to power its ligh