-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy: climate change

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts

1.08.2013

From: EcoWatch Top News of the Day

Interesting news about the Unified front to continue the fight against Global Warming and Climate Change:  Coal, Fracking, XL Pipeline, Climate Change, President Obama, Clean Water, Monsanto Genetically modified Seeds, US Farmers,

nocoalexports
 ecowatch_logo 
-

RSSTwitter Facebook
Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Top News of the Day

tarsandsoffice

Protests Ignite Nationwide Targeting TransCanada's Keystone XL

Tar Sands Blockade

We stand together as representatives of a desperate generation who have been forced into this position by the reckless and immoral behavior of fossil fuel corporations such as Transcanada. Our political leaders have failed...
watertest

Yamuna Waterkeeper Works with Citizen Scientists to Protect Local Waterways

Yamuna Waterkeeper 

Water, Water Everywhere, Not a Drop to Drink! How truly these lines depict the present scenario in India...
monsanto

Family Farmers Continue Fight in Landmark Lawsuit Against Monsanto

Food Democracy Now!

"We don't want their seed. We don't want their gene-spliced technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want their contamination of...
obama

Nearly 70 Groups Write Letter Imploring Obama to Rise Up and Be Strong Climate Leader

Natural Resources Defense Council

Climate leadership in this time of crisis means not only moving ahead with clean energy, but also tackling the dirty. As the letter points out...
  chip

Meet Chip NorthrupAn Articulate and Energetic Opponent of Fracking

Ellen Cantarow

The only thing driving this is politics at this point. Much more so than any need to prospect for gas. Cuomo is being pushed into permitting shale gas wells when such...
dontfrack

80+ Groups Challenge Gov. Cuomo to Lead on Climate Change and Protect His State from Fracking

EcoWatch

"While we welcome your determination to lead on climate change, we are greatly concerned by indications that...
EcoWatch in partnership with Waterkeeper Alliance services more than 1,000 grassroots environmental organizations and activists worldwide through its online news service EcoWatch.org.



6.16.2011

Climate Change and Republican Views

How Republicans Talk About Climate When No One's Listening

| Thu Jun. 16, 2011 5:29 AM PDT
Sarah Palin may now dismiss global warming as a "bunch of snake oil science," but just a few years ago, back when she was governor of the state melting into the sea, she was inclined to care about the subject. It's well-known that she established a task force to address climate change in the state, but later flip-flopped on the issue. Yet as one exchange in the trove of emails released by the state of Alaska last week shows, Palin at one point actually took climate science quite seriously.

In an email exchange from July 2007, Palin discussed global warming with her brother, Chuck Heath Jr., who was taking part in a climate change study program for science teachers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the state's environment commissioner. Heath wrote:
Sarah, I'm just about done with my 80 hour course on global climate change. Most of it has been focused on coastal erosion which is probably a bigger deal than you're aware of … I have met some of the top scientists in the world on the subject and if you'd like, I can organize another advisory task force (which would include scientists, economists, citizens who live in these areas) who can give recommendations to the state. The problem is accelerating quickly so it would be good to get a handle on it now.
Palin forwarded the message to Lawrence Hartig, the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. She mentioned her hope that the state is "really getting serious about dealing with climate change impacts." She added: "I'm getting more and more enthused about digging into the subject and working on it."

None of this is to say that Palin's administration was all that progressive when it came to climate change policy. She created the climate task force but then ignored its recommendations. Her administration also sued the federal government for listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, due to the impacts of global warming.

What's most interesting is that Republicans—particularly the GOP's presidential contenders, declared and otherwise—have widely been written off as anti-science by their foes on the left. It's little wonder, with Michele Bachmann arguing that carbon dioxide is nothing more than plant food and Rick Santorum maintaining that he's never been fooled by science. But in the case of Palin, it's not that she refudiates the science, as she might say. What's more likely is that she's made the calculation that caring about global warming isn't particularly politically advantageous right now. She's not alone of course—both Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich have taken similar approaches. But in her case, Alaska's email dump contains an interesting insight into what she believes when she's not running for national office.

4.20.2011

We brought your voice to Washington DC.

Dear friends,

The campaign to take on the US Chamber of Commerce is getting bigger by the day, and yesterday in DC it blasted off.

Thousands and thousands of people--including youth from all 50 states who were joining the massive Power Shift climate conference--rallied on Monday in front of the US Chamber's headquarters. Their goal: to expose the US Chamber as a corporate front group that is polluting our democracy and stalling climate action.

We brought many of your voices directly to Washington yesterday. Our team in DC received hundreds of quotes from small business owners across the country--quotes about why the US Chamber doesn't speak for us. We printed these quotes on placards, helped rally thousands of people, and took a stand where the US Chamber couldn't ignore us: their front door.

Check out a couple of the photos from yesterday's event:
Can't see the photo here? Click
The US Chamber claims to 'represent American business.' In fact, last year more than half their budget came from just 16 companies. They don't say who those companies are, but since they spend most of their time fighting any legislation that might help slow climate change, it's not too hard to figure out.

Looked at objectively, the US Chamber is a radical organization: they filed a brief with the EPA urging them not to act on carbon emissions because if the planet warmed humans could "adapt their physiologies" to deal with the change. If someone on a street corner told you that their plan for global warming was changing your anatomy, you'd give them a wide berth--but if you have a few hundred million in campaign contributions to hand out, it buys you a lot of respectability.

It's now time to expose the chamber for what they are: a corporate front group that is blocking progress on the greatest challenges of our time. It's time to strip them of their respectability and political legitimacy. The events here in DC are a great start, but our mission doesn't end here in the nation's capital.

Across the country this campaign to get businesses to declare "The US Chamber Doesn't Speak for Me" has begun to make real progress--thousands and thousands of small businesses have already signed up to say they can speak for themselves, thank you--and that they're nimble enough capitalists to deal with a planet that runs on wind and sun. It's not just small companies either--Apple Computer has quit the chamber, and local chambers of commerce from Seattle to New York have broken their ties with the US Chamber.

But here's the thing: most people still don't know that the US Chamber is run by a handful of corporations. They don't know that 94% of the US Chamber's record-breaking lobbying expenditures last year were directed towards politicians who deny the basic science of climate change. They don't know that the US Chamber is blocking every possible effort to get our nation to lead on climate and clean energy.
They don't know that the US Chamber lobbied against the Civil Rights Act, the Disability Rights Act, and are now lobbying aggressively to gut the Clean Air Act.
We're building this campaign to make sure that the truth about the US Chamber comes out. There will be much to do in the coming weeks and months, so expect more updates soon. But for now, just know that we've put The US Chamber on notice. They don't speak for us, and with your help, we'll make sure that they can't.
Onwards,

Bill McKibben - co-founder of 350.org and "The US Chamber Doesn't Speak For Me"






To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org/signup

350.org needs your help! To support our work, donate securely online at 350.org/donate



350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.

What is 350?
350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in "parts per million" (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM—a "people powered movement" that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.



--

Scott's Contracting


Green Me UP-Scotty
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

3.30.2011

UN report: Cities ignore climate change at their peril

  • In industrialised nations, urban living demands more water, natural resources and energy
  • Urban areas are set to become the battleground in the global effort to curb climate change, the UN has warned

29 March 2011 By Mark Kinver Science and environment reporter, BBC News
 In industrialised nations, urban living demands more water, natural resources and energy

Urban areas are set to become the battleground in the global effort to curb climate change, the UN has warned.

The assessment by UN-Habitat said that the world's cities were responsible for about 70% of emissions, yet only occupied 2% of the planet's land cover.

While cities were energy intensive, the study also said that effective urban planning could deliver huge savings.

The authors warned of a "deadly collision between climate change and urbanisation" if no action was taken.

The Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, Cities and Climate Change: Policy Directions, said its goal was to improve knowledge of how cities contribute to climate change, and what adaptation measures are available.

Worrying trend

Joan Clos, executive director of UN-Habitat, said the global urbanisation trend was worrying as far as looking to curb emissions were concerned.

"We are seeing how urbanisation is growing - we have passed the threshold of 50% (of the world's population living in urban areas)," he told BBC News.

"There are no signs that we are going to diminish this path of growth, and we know that with urbanisation, energy consumption is higher.

According to UN data, an estimated 59% of the world's population will be living in urban areas by 2030.

Every year, the number of people who live in cities and town grows by 67 million each year - 91% of this figure is being added to urban populations in developing countries.

The main reasons why urban areas were energy intensive, the UN report observed, was a result of increased transport use, heating and cooling homes and offices, as well as economic activity to generate income.

The report added that as well as cities' contribution to climate change, towns and cities around the globe were also vulnerable to the potential consequences, such as:

Increase in the frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas
  • Greater number of heavy downpours
  • Growing number of areas affected by drought
  • Increase in the incidence of extremely high sea levels in some parts of the world

Soweto, Southern Africa is considered to be one of the areas at most risk from the impacts of climate change

The authors also said that as well as the physical risks posed by future climate change, some urban areas would face difficulties providing basic services.

"These changes will affect water supply, physical infrastructure, transport, ecosystem goods and services, energy provision and industrial production," they wrote.

"Local economies will be disrupted and populations will be stripped of their assets and livelihoods."

A recent assessment highlighted a number of regions where urban areas were at risk from climate-related hazards, such as droughts, landslides, cyclones and flooding.

These included sub-Saharan Africa, South and South East Asia, southern Europe, the east coast of South America and the west coast of the US.

Time to act

Dr Clos told BBC News that while climate change was a problem that affected the entire world, individual towns and cities could play a vital role in the global effort to curb emissions.

"The atmosphere is a common good, which we all depend upon - every emission is an addition to the problem," he explained.

But, he added: "Consumption is carried out at an individual level; energy consumption is also an individual choice.

"This is why local governments and communities can a big role, even when their national governments do not accept or acknowledge the challenges."

The report called on local urban planners to develop a vision for future development that considered climate change's impact on the local area.

It said that it was necessary to include mitigation measures (reducing energy demand and emissions) as well as adaptation plans, such as improving flood defences.

In order to achieve the most effective strategy, it was necessary for urban planners to seek the views of the local community, including businesses and residents.

However, the UN-Habitat authors said international and national policies also had a role to play in supporting urban areas.

These included financial support, reducing bureaucracy and improving awareness and knowledge of climate change and its possible impacts.

Dr Clos was launching the report on Monday evening at an event in central London, hosted by the London School of Economics.

Article reposted from- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12881779

3.25.2011

Earth Hour- Will Save Energy

TOMORROW NIGHT, AUSTRALIA will be among the world's first nations to turn off the lights for Earth Hour. Famous national landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Federation Square will be plunged into darkness along with hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses to draw attention to the climate crisis.

The massive challenge of climate change is driven largely by our dependence on fossil fuel energy. The coal, oil and gas the world burns each and every year produces billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Securing a safe climate will require nothing less than an unparalleled restructuring of the global energy system.

With that in mind, many will wonder how switching off the lights for one hour a year helps. Is this approach really the best way to tackle climate change?

We must remember that a quarter of the globe's population is without access to electricity at all, and not because they choose to.

The world is fast approaching a population of nine billion people by 2050, and China and India are rapidly approaching super-power status. Does anyone really want to tell those who have experienced energy poverty that they must now restrict their usage?

Electricity has profited human civilisation beyond measure. When people lack access to electricity they are denied all of the benefits it brings, including - but not limited to - lighting, heating, transport, refrigeration, communication, and information. If such benefits sound like basic human rights, it is because they often are. Even if it were possible to argue that electricity is not essential for accommodating socioeconomic development, it is clearly impossible to prevent people using it at ever-increasing rates.

In any case, energy usage is not to blame for climate change; energy sources are. There would be no need to turn off our lights if they were powered by clean, renewable energy sources. That way we could both celebrate energy and its many rewards and be comfortable in the knowledge that we aren't jeopardising our climate and future generations.

Australia is rich with renewable energy resources. Powering our homes, schools, hospitals and industries entirely with the sun and wind is well within our reach.

Last year, my organisation Beyond Zero Emissions partnered with the University of Melbourne's Energy Research Institute to create the Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan. The Plan outlines a strategy to wean Australia off fossil fuels for good, using commercially available technology to harness the country's bountiful supply of clean energy. Such a strategy would cost households just eight dollars a week for ten years, and ensure a future less at the mercy of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and the adverse impacts of a changing climate.

Many people express concerns that solar and wind power is too variable to rely on for a constant source of energy. This concern is misplaced.

Concentrating solar thermal (CST) power plants operate differently to the solar panels commonly found on neighbourhood rooftops. They consist of thousands of mirrors that reflect sunlight onto a central receiver tower, which stores the sun's heat in tanks of molten salt. These solar power towers with storage can generate electricity for seventeen hours straight, without any sunlight at all. Our modeling shows that this game-changing technology coupled with geographically dispersed wind installations, existing hydro and a small amount of biomass can easily meet the nation's baseload electricity demands.

In contrast to Earth Hour's current focus, the energy future presented in the Zero Carbon Australia plan will not be achieved through simply reducing our electricity use. Of course increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and automobiles is important, but it is renewable energy substitutes for fossil fuels that will ultimately decouple our modern energy-intensive society from carbon emissions.

When we reconsider the problem of climate change as an energy challenge, human civilisation can turn its undivided attention to deploying the renewable energy technologies already at our disposal.

With renewable energy, every hour can be Earth Hour.

Mark Ogge is director of operations for Beyond Zero Emissions

Amazon Links for Earth Hour:
"Earth Hour 2009" Hoodie (dark)

Earth's Final Hour: Are We Really Running Out of Time?

2.19.2011

NASAs latest Climate Change Mission- Glory Departs Feb 23,

The NASA satellite Glory is set to launch into the Earths Atmosphere.  The Glory Launch will further Climatologist study of Airborne Particles (Aerosols) and how they affect the the Earths Climate.  They will be studying the ubiquitous particles (existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent) that directly influence the Climate by absorbing and reflecting the Sun's Radiation.

The Aerosol Particles they will be examining are-" few nanometers, less than the width of the smallest viruses, to several tens of micrometers, about the diameter of human hair" The Aerosols are Created by: Aerosols, Gases that lead to Aerosol formation, Fossil Fuel Exhaust Gases, and Natural causes. -- the amount of energy entering and exiting Earth's atmosphere. An accurate measurement of these impacts is important in order to anticipate future changes to our climate and how they may affect human life.

Godspeed and Good Luck to all those involved.

Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

______________________________
Climatologists have known for decades that airborne particles called aerosols can have a powerful impact on the climate. However, pinpointing the magnitude of the effect has proven challenging because of difficulties associated with measuring the particles on a global scale.

Soon a new NASA satellite -- Glory -- should help scientists collect the data needed to provide firmer answers about the important particles. In California, engineers and technicians at Vandenberg Air Force Base are currently prepping Glory for a Feb. 23 launch.

Aerosols, or the gases that lead to their formation, can come from vehicle tailpipes and desert winds, from sea spray and fires, volcanic eruptions and factories. Even lush forests, soils, or communities of plankton in the ocean can be sources of certain types of aerosols.

The ubiquitous particles drift in Earth's atmosphere, from the stratosphere to the surface, and range in size from a few nanometers, less than the width of the smallest viruses, to several tens of micrometers, about the diameter of human hair.

The particles can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. In broad terms, this means bright-colored or translucent aerosols, such as sulfates and sea salt aerosols, tend to reflect radiation back towards space and cause cooling. In contrast, darker aerosols, such as black carbon and other types of carbonaceous particles, can absorb significant amounts of light and contribute to atmospheric warming.

Research to date suggests that the cooling from sulfates and other reflective aerosols overwhelms the warming effect of black carbon and other absorbing aerosols. Indeed, the best climate models available show that aerosol particles have had a cooling effect that has counteracted about half of the warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases since the 1880s.

"However, the models are far from perfect," said Glory Project Scientist Michael Mishchenko, a senior scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "The range of uncertainty associated with the climate impact of aerosols is three or four times that of greenhouse gases," he said.

In comparison to greenhouse gases, aerosols are short-lived, and dynamic -- making the particles much harder to measure than long-lived and stable carbon dioxide. Aerosols usually remain suspended in the atmosphere for just a handful of days. Complicating matters, the particles can clump together to form hybrids that are difficult to distinguish.

In addition to scattering and absorbing light, aerosols can also modify clouds. They serve as the seeds of clouds, and can also affect cloud brightness and reflectivity, how long clouds last, and how much they precipitate. Reflective aerosols, like sulfates, for example, tend to brighten clouds and make them last longer, whereas black carbon from soot generally has the opposite effect.

Still, much remains unknown about aerosols and clouds. How do aerosols other than sulfates and black carbon affect clouds? How do aerosol impacts differ in warm and cold environments? Can infusions of aerosols near clouds spark self-reinforcing feedback cycles capable of affecting the climate?

The climate impact of clouds remains one of the largest uncertainties in climate science because of such unanswered questions. Some models suggest a mere 5 percent increase in cloud reflectivity could compensate for the entire increase in greenhouse gases from the modern industrial era, while others produce quite different outcomes.

Such unresolved issues prompted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to list the level of scientific understanding about aerosols as "low" in its last major report. Of the 25 climate models included by the IPCC in the Fourth Assessment Report, only a handful considered the scattering or absorbing effects of aerosol types other than sulfates.

"And less than a third of the models included aerosol impacts on clouds, even in a limited way, and those that did only considered sulfates," said Mian Chin, a physical scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center who specializes in modeling aerosols.

Glory, which contains an innovative aerosol-sensing instrument called the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS), aims to change this. By more accurately identifying a broad suite of aerosol types -- such as salt, mineral dust and smoke -- the instrument should help climatologists fill in key gaps in climate models.

While other NASA instruments -- including ground, aircraft, and satellite-based instruments -- have studied aerosols in the past, APS is NASA's first satellite-based instrument capable of measuring the polarization, the orientation of light-wave vibrations.

Raw sunlight, explained Mishchenko, is unpolarized. This means the waves oscillate in an unpredictable, random fashion as they move through space -- much like a rope would wiggle about if it had two people flapping its ends up and down in no particular pattern.

When light waves pass through certain types of filters called polarizers the waves are forced into a more ordered form. Imagine that wobbling rope trying to pass throw a narrow slit in a fence: only the waves vibrating at a certain angle could make it through. The result is polarized light, or light for which the waves only oscillate at specific angles. The surface of glass, sunglasses, even clouds of aerosol particles can polarize light.

APS's ability to measure the polarization of light scattered by aerosols and clouds is the key strength of the instrument. Other NASA satellite instruments have measured aerosols, but such instruments have typically done so by looking at the intensity of light -- the amplitude of the light waves -- not their polarization.

Yet, ground and aircraft-based studies, particularly those conducted with an aircraft instrument called the Research Scanning Polarimeter, which is quite similar to APS, show that polarized light contains the most information about aerosol features. "Earlier instruments can approximate the abundance of aerosol in general terms, but they leave much to be desired if you're trying to sort out the shape and composition of the particles," said APS Instrument Scientist Brian Cairns, also of GISS.

These scanning electron microscope images, which are not at the same scale, show the wide variety of aerosols shapes. These scanning electron microscope images, which are not at the same scale, show the wide variety of aerosols shapes. From left to right: volcanic ash, pollen, sea salt, and soot. Credit: USGS, UMBC, Arizona State University

Large, spherical particles -- sea salt, for example -- leave a very different imprint on light in comparison to smaller and more irregularly-shaped particles such as black carbon. As a result, much like forensic scientists might study the details of blood droplets at a crime scene to reconstruct what happened, climatologists using Glory data will look to the polarization state of scattered light to work backwards and deduce the type of aerosol that must have scattered it.

Glory will not be the first Earth-observing satellite instrument to study polarization. French instruments that launched in 1996 and 2002 have as well, but the APS promises to be far more accurate and will look at the same particles from many more angles.

Nonetheless, interpreting Glory's APS data will be an extremely complex task. The mission will provide such a vast amount of new polarization data about aerosols that, in order to make sense of it, scientists will first have to validate APS science products with ground-based sensors scattered around the globe. Likewise, they will have to adapt and update mathematical techniques developed for an aircraft instrument to ensure they work well in a space environment.

All of this will take some time to refine and perfect. Mishchenko's team expects to release preliminary results as soon as possible after Glory launches, but he also expects to release improved and enhanced versions of Glory's APS data products over time.

A great deal of work lies ahead of Glory's science team and the aerosol science community more broadly, but the mission has the potential to produce profound advancements in understanding the perplexing particles. "Glory has the potential to offer a critical view of aerosols that we have never had from space before," said Glory's Deputy Project Scientist Ellsworth Welton.

1.22.2011

Q-Fall of Rome due to Climate Change?

A: Tree Rings Report Odd Weather Patterns...
... study of tree rings ... provides evidence of climate shifts ... occurred from A.D. 250 to 550, a period better known as the fall of the Roman Empire.

Read Report Here

News: January 22, 2011


Rome may have fallen hundreds of years ago, but much of the civilization the Romans built still dots the landscape today. One team of scientists recently unearthed a different kind of Roman artifact that may hold a strange clue to the empire's downfall.

A study of tree rings recently published in the journal Science provides evidence of climate shifts that, perhaps not coincidentally, occurred from A.D. 250 to 550, a period better known as the fall of the Roman Empire.

Ulf Buentgen and his team of researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research collected tree-ring data from ancient wood found in medieval castles and Roman ruins. They created a detailed history of climate change over the past 2.5 millennia and found the data point to the end of the Roman Empire as a period of exceptional climate change.

Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Penn State, was not a member of the research team, but explains how the information found in tree rings changes what we know of the last centuries of Roman imperialism.

"They were able to tease out two pieces of information from these trees," Mann explains. "They can get some idea of how warm the summers were, and how wet the sort of late-spring/early summer was." 


 Continues: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143758/could-climate-change-have-led-to-the-fall-of-rome?ft=1&f=1001




--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

1.08.2011

Republicans - Are they Blind to Climate Change?

I don't agree with everything the Sierra Club Promotes
but I do approve of their Global Warming

ie: Climate Change Stance. 




Sierra Club - Explore, enjoy and protect the planet

Scotty,

The Republican leadership has made its choice and it makes us sick.
 It took them exactly one day in office to show their true colors and declare an all-out war on the Clean Air Act and the EPA.1

Contact your members of Congress today and tell them that these Republican attacks on the EPA and our health make us sick.

House Republicans like Rep. Issa (R-CA), Upton (R-MI), and Carter (R-TX) are trying to dismantle the public health protections we've fought so hard for, all for one simple reason  - to support oil and coal polluters' bottom line. 

The current EPA rule for cement plants Republicans are working to eviscerate will cause up to 2,500 premature deaths a year, 13,000 days of work missed due to pollution related health problems, and cost our economy at least $6.7 billion.2 
It's a stark choice between our health and corporate greed.  Republican leaders have made their choice – where will your legislators stand?
Let's be clear. Rolling back the cement rule is just the first of many corporate supported efforts to halt progress in protecting our health and environment.
It's time to draw a line in the sand. Our elected officials can stand with us and fight for our health and communities or stand with the polluters, their bank accounts, and their pro-asthma, pro-heart attack, pro-sickness agenda. 
Send a message to your members of Congress to make sure they stand with us and not with corporate polluters.
Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.
Sarah Hodgdon
Sarah Hodgdon
Sierra Club, Conservation Director
P.S. Please forward this message and help spread the word to your friends and family!

[1] "E.P.A. Faces First Volley from the House," New York Times: January 6, 2011.
[2] "Portland Cement: Factsheet," Earthjustice Factsheet: 2010.





Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105




--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

8.15.2010

EPA denies climate change challenges

29 July 2010 -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and the environment.

EPA said the petitions to reconsider its Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The agency said after months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA "finds no evidence to support these claims." In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is "credible, compelling and growing stronger."

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.
Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed two in a 3,000-page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.
Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.

Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.
Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA’s Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA’s website.

7.29.2010

NASAs Climate Change Prediction

How Much More Will Earth Warm?

To further explore the causes and effects of global warming and to predict future warming, scientists build climate models—computer simulations of the climate system. Climate models are designed to simulate the responses and interactions of the oceans and atmosphere, and to account for changes to the land surface, both natural and human-induced. They comply with fundamental laws of physics—conservation of energy, mass, and momentum—and account for dozens of factors that influence Earth's climate.

Though the models are complicated, rigorous tests with real-world data hone them into powerful tools that allow scientists to explore our understanding of climate in ways not otherwise possible. By experimenting with the models—removing greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or changing the intensity of the Sun to see how each influences the climate—scientists use the models to better understand Earth's current climate and to predict future climate.

The models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth's average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.

Graph of predicted temperature change based on 4 scenarios of carbon dioxide emissions.

Model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that Earth will warm between two and six degrees Celsius over the next century, depending on how fast carbon dioxide emissions grow. Scenarios that assume that people will burn more and more fossil fuel provide the estimates in the top end of the temperature range, while scenarios that assume that greenhouse gas emissions will grow slowly give lower temperature predictions. The orange line provides an estimate of global temperatures if greenhouse gases stayed at year 2000 levels. (©2007 IPCC WG1 AR-4.)

Climate Feedbacks

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

Snow and ice

Perhaps the most well known feedback comes from melting snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Warming temperatures are already melting a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the perpetual sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also dwindling in many areas. In the absence of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that bring more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.

Photograph of the retreating Athabasca Glacier, Jasper National Park, Canada.

Canada's Athabasca Glacier has been shrinking by about 15 meters per year. In the past 125 years, the glacier has lost half its volume and has retreated more than 1.5 kilometers. As glaciers retreat, sea ice disappears, and snow melts earlier in the spring, the Earth absorbs more sunlight than it would if the reflective snow and ice remained. (Photograph ©2005 Hugh Saxby.)

Water Vapor

The largest feedback is water vapor. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. In fact, because of its abundance in the atmosphere, water vapor causes about two-thirds of greenhouse warming, a key factor in keeping temperatures in the habitable range on Earth. But as temperatures warm, more water vapor evaporates from the surface into the atmosphere, where it can cause temperatures to climb further.

The question that scientists ask is, how much water vapor will be in the atmosphere in a warming world? The atmosphere currently has an average equilibrium or balance between water vapor concentration and temperature. As temperatures warm, the atmosphere becomes capable of containing more water vapor, and so water vapor concentrations go up to regain equilibrium. Will that trend hold as temperatures continue to warm?

The amount of water vapor that enters the atmosphere ultimately determines how much additional warming will occur due to the water vapor feedback. The atmosphere responds quickly to the water vapor feedback. So far, most of the atmosphere has maintained a near constant balance between temperature and water vapor concentration as temperatures have gone up in recent decades. If this trend continues, and many models say that it will, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by carbon dioxide alone.

Clouds

Closely related to the water vapor feedback is the cloud feedback. Clouds cause cooling by reflecting solar energy, but they also cause warming by absorbing infrared energy (like greenhouse gases) from the surface when they are over areas that are warmer than they are. In our current climate, clouds have a cooling effect overall, but that could change in a warmer environment.

Astronaut photograph of clouds over Florida.

Clouds can both cool the planet (by reflecting visible light from the sun) and warm the planet (by absorbing heat radiation emitted by the surface). On balance, clouds slightly cool the Earth. (NASA Astronaut Photograph STS31-E-9552 courtesy Johnson space Center Earth Observations Lab.)

If clouds become brighter, or the geographical extent of bright clouds expands, they will tend to cool Earth's surface. Clouds can become brighter if more moisture converges in a particular region or if more fine particles (aerosols) enter the air. If fewer bright clouds form, it will contribute to warming from the cloud feedback.

See Ship Tracks South of Alaska to learn how aerosols can make clouds brighter.

Clouds, like greenhouse gases, also absorb and re-emit infrared energy. Low, warm clouds emit more energy than high, cold clouds. However, in many parts of the world, energy emitted by low clouds can be absorbed by the abundant water vapor above them. Further, low clouds often have nearly the same temperatures as the Earth's surface, and so emit similar amounts of infrared energy. In a world without low clouds, the amount of emitted infrared energy escaping to space would not be too different from a world with low clouds.

Thermal infrared image of the Western Hemisphere from GOES.

Clouds emit thermal infrared (heat) radiation in proportion to their temperature, which is related to altitude. This image shows the Western Hemisphere in the thermal infrared. Warm ocean and land surface areas are white and light gray; cool, low-level clouds are medium gray; and cold, high-altitude clouds are dark gray and black. (NASA image courtesy GOES Project Science.)

High cold clouds, however, form in a part of the atmosphere where energy-absorbing water vapor is scarce. These clouds trap (absorb) energy coming from the lower atmosphere, and emit little energy to space because of their frigid temperatures. In a world with high clouds, a significant amount of energy that would otherwise escape to space is captured in the atmosphere. As a result, global temperatures are higher than in a world without high clouds.

If warmer temperatures result in a greater amount of high clouds, then less infrared energy will be emitted to space. In other words, more high clouds would enhance the greenhouse effect, reducing the Earth's capability to cool and causing temperatures to warm.

See Clouds and Radiation for a more complete description.

Scientists aren't entirely sure where and to what degree clouds will end up amplifying or moderating warming, but most climate models predict a slight overall positive feedback or amplification of warming due to a reduction in low cloud cover. A recent observational study found that fewer low, dense clouds formed over a region in the Pacific Ocean when temperatures warmed, suggesting a positive cloud feedback in this region as the models predicted. Such direct observational evidence is limited, however, and clouds remain the biggest source of uncertainty--apart from human choices to control greenhouse gases—in predicting how much the climate will change.

The Carbon Cycle

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and warming temperatures are causing changes in the Earth's natural carbon cycle that also can feedback on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. For now, primarily ocean water, and to some extent ecosystems on land, are taking up about half of our fossil fuel and biomass burning emissions. This behavior slows global warming by decreasing the rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, but that trend may not continue. Warmer ocean waters will hold less dissolved carbon, leaving more in the atmosphere.

Map of anthropogenic carbon dissolved in the oceans.

About half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air from burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean. This map shows the total amount of human-made carbon dioxide in ocean water from the surface to the sea floor. Blue areas have low amounts, while yellow regions are rich in anthropogenic carbon dioxide. High amounts occur where currents carry the carbon-dioxide-rich surface water into the ocean depths. (Map adapted from Sabine et al., 2004.)

See The Ocean's Carbon Balance on the Earth Observatory.

On land, changes in the carbon cycle are more complicated. Under a warmer climate, soils, especially thawing Arctic tundra, could release trapped carbon dioxide or methane to the atmosphere. Increased fire frequency and insect infestations also release more carbon as trees burn or die and decay.

On the other hand, extra carbon dioxide can stimulate plant growth in some ecosystems, allowing these plants to take additional carbon out of the atmosphere. However, this effect may be reduced when plant growth is limited by water, nitrogen, and temperature. This effect may also diminish as carbon dioxide increases to levels that become saturating for photosynthesis. Because of these complications, it is not clear how much additional carbon dioxide plants can take out of the atmosphere and how long they could continue to do so.

The impact of climate change on the land carbon cycle is extremely complex, but on balance, land carbon sinks will become less efficient as plants reach saturation, where they can no longer take up additional carbon dioxide, and other limitations on growth occur, and as land starts to add more carbon to the atmosphere from warming soil, fires, and insect infestations. This will result in a faster increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and more rapid global warming. In some climate models, carbon cycle feedbacks from both land and ocean add more than a degree Celsius to global temperatures by 2100.

Emission Scenarios

Scientists predict the range of likely temperature increase by running many possible future scenarios through climate models. Although some of the uncertainty in climate forecasts comes from imperfect knowledge of climate feedbacks, the most significant source of uncertainty in these predictions is that scientists don't know what choices people will make to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The higher estimates are made on the assumption that the entire world will continue using more and more fossil fuel per capita, a scenario scientists call "business-as-usual." More modest estimates come from scenarios in which environmentally friendly technologies such as fuel cells, solar panels, and wind energy replace much of today's fossil fuel combustion.

It takes decades to centuries for Earth to fully react to increases in greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, among other greenhouse gases, will remain in the atmosphere long after emissions are reduced, contributing to continuing warming. In addition, as Earth has warmed, much of the excess energy has gone into heating the upper layers of the ocean. Like a hot water bottle on a cold night, the heated ocean will continue warming the lower atmosphere well after greenhouse gases have stopped increasing.

These considerations mean that people won't immediately see the impact of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6°C over the next century because of greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere.

See Earth's Big Heat Bucket, Correcting Ocean Cooling, and Climate Q&A: If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases, would global warming stop? to learn more about the ocean heat and global warming.

Next Page: How Will Global Warming Change Earth? -- Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

7.17.2010

$1 Dollar Spent Earns $2 Dollars


Rule of Thumb-For Every $1 Dollar Spent on Weatherizing your Home will Return $2 Dollars in Actual Savings !!!


in Actual Savings on your Energy Bills. In some instances your dollars will earn additional savings in your energy bills.
According to US National Weather Analysis. The entire World is enduring a record setting year. Maybe its time to reconsider adding some "Green" "Eco Friendly" changes to your Home and 'Reduce Climate Change'. I'm not going to bore you with Stats and Figures. I'll just try to explain in everyday language Three (3) Green Build Tips that can be added to your Home, easy and afford-ably.

If you choose to hire outside assistance Scotts Contracting St Louis Renewable Energy is available for any Green Projects Needed in your Home. Click here to email Scotty and Set Up a Free Green Site Inspection Green Building Tip 1-Doors and Windows-

  • Weatherstripping-should seal the home from the exterior temperature and wind. New Windows and Doors come with Factory Installed weatherstrips that aide in providing this barrier. Older Windows and Doors sometimes have and sometimes not or are wore out. Replace or Install weatherstripping. Last time I looked at Home Depot there was about 30 various kinds of weather stripping available. Prices range from $5 - $25. Most have instructions included and Home Depot also offers instructional classes on installing weather stripping.

Green Building Tip 2-Attic (read entire posting here)

  • Air Infiltration areas be resolved before adding insulation- Stop the Air (Hot or Cold) From Entering or Leaving a Home.
  • Attic Insulation Suggested Guidelines. I recommend a minimum of (July 19,2010 Correction) R26
  • Adding Radiant Barriers in a nutshell this bounces the Exterior Temperature back outside and acts as a Vapor Barrier!
Green Building Tip 3 Exterior Walls- Minimum Suggestions
  • Seal for Leaks with, caulking and spray foam, from anything that is sticking out of your Home. This could come from the Air Conditioning Unit, various wires for Telephone and Cable lines. The Power Line or Electric Line. [ "IF YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO WORK ON ELECTRICITY "NEVER TOUCH POWER LINES ENTERING YOUR HOME"] You can caulk around hole where it enters you House though. Once again: never touch power lines .
  • Insulation for walls is R13 minimum which is (3- 3 ½ inches of Insulation)
  • Vapor Barrier- Stops the Water and Air From Enerting your Home usually located behind the exterior finish of your home.
If you choose to hire outside assistance Scotts Contracting St Louis Renewable Energy is available for any Green Projects Needed in your Home. Click here to email Scotty and Set Up a Free Green Site Inspection
Additional Green Build Articles Soon
Scotty, Scotts Contracting St Louis Renewable Energy WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The world is enduring the hottest year on record, according to a U.S. national weather analysis, causing droughts worldwide and a concern for U.S. farmers counting on another bumper year.
correction July 19,2010 Change Minimum Insulation to R26... R13 is Minimum Wall Insulation

7.11.2010

Climate Change- Ice Melt

Found on the New Yahoo Green Page-http://green.yahoo.com/Nature Nature 1.Never in recorded history has there been this little ice in the Arctic in early summer Enough ice to cover the Southwest U.S. has disappeared from the Arctic, if you compare June 2010 to an average year. Even compared to the last record, enough ice has been lost to cover New England. Read full post » Information Provided by:Scotty,Scott's Contracting GREEN BUILDER, St Louis "Renewable Energy" Missouri>http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com< contact scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com for additional information or to Schedule a "Free Green Site Evaluation"

6.14.2010

Humans vs Climate Change

Geoengineering: Can Humans Reverse Climate Change?

posted by: Jasmine Greene
Geoengineering: Can Humans Reverse Climate Change?

Geoengineering techniques have been around since 1965 when scientists suggested spreading reflective material over the ocean to bounce back 1% sunlight back to space [Source: Scientific America]. Unfortunately this idea was complete bunk, but geoengineering has been gaining traction recently due to rising temperatures. There are currently two different geoengineering techniques: solar radiation management and carbon sequestering.

Solar radiation management, while potentially the fastest way to cool the planet, also is temporary and could potentially have many side effects. One of the proposals currently being discussed is the creation of manmade volcanic eruptions. Sulfide gases would  be injected into the stratosphere every one to four years, providing the earth with a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required [Source: UCAR]. Unfortunately, this technique could thin the ozone layer if enough aerosol is injected into polar stratospheric clouds. Other negative effects include changing weather patterns, drought, acid rain and respiratory problems in humans. If done properly, however, this technique could potentially drop average temperatures 0.6 degrees Celsius [Source: 21st Century Challenges]. A less risky solar radiation management plan involves whitening of marine clouds. Ocean spray is released into the atmosphere to increase the reflectiveness of clouds. The extra changes the size of the water particles in existing clouds, making them whiter. This technique can be stopped at any time and is part of the natural process of "ocean spray". It can be deployed quickly and rolled out cheaply and effectively, though it could potentially interfere with wind and weather patterns [Source: Guardian]. This problem also does not address ocean acidification or ways to actually decrease  the amount of CO2.

While solar radiation management only looks at decreasing overall temperature, carbon sequestration looks for ways to decrease overall CO2 levels. Iron deposition into the ocean is one method of carbon sequestration. The iron encourages phytoplankton growth, which removes carbon from the atmosphere, potentially on a permanent basis. While this sounds promising, there is no way to predict how this could effect marine life and nutrient balance in the ocean and could lead to poisonous algae spread [Source: Spiegel]. There are two methods of geoengineering that do not have harmful side effects: reforestation/afforestation and biochar. Reforestation is the process of replanting trees in cleared areas and afforestation is planting trees in areas that were never forest or haven't been for years. Currently, deforestation accounts for 25% of the world's greenhouse gase emissions [Source: Monga Bay]. While planting trees would help to decrease the amount of CO2, the time it takes for trees to regrow and biomass to rebuild is significant. Reforestation could be used alongside biochar. Biochar is charcoal made through pyrolysis of biomass, which is then buried and mixed with normal soil. Not only does it make the soil fertile, it holds potential for long-term carbon storage, possibly for millenia. Craig Sams, founder of Carbon Gold, believes biochar could potentially reduce CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels by 2050 if it were used in 2.5% of the world's agricultural fertilizer [Source: Popular Mechanics]. Biochar is easily measured, making it great to figure out effectiveness of its carbon sequestration and it is at much lower risk of returning to the atmosphere than living organisms since it is mainly inert [Source: Treehugger].

While many of the "quick-fix" geoengineering proposals have many negative side effects, they are mostly presented in worst-case scenario and are generally temporary. The more long-term solutions like reforestation and the usage of biochar may work better, but it takes longer to see the effects. Either way, no geoengineering technique will be effective if the average global carbon emission does not decrease.

2.28.2010

National Call In Week, Repower America

Dear Blog Reader,

Next week could make or break America's climate and energy future.

Last summer, the House passed a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that could create millions of clean energy jobs and begin to address the climate crisis. Now, a new Senate version, with significant support from key Senators, could be less than a week away* -- but lobbyists from Big Oil and Coal are already lining up to do whatever they can to gut critical provisions.

We can't let lobbyists and special interests win. America needs clean energy and the jobs it will bring to our economy.

That's why we're launching our biggest calling campaign ever. We're joining forces with a coalition of climate groups to create a perfect storm of grassroots pressure from Tuesday through Thursday of next week. We're holding an event near you where local members can call other supporters around the state and connect them to our Senators. Can you join us?

RSVP to a phone bank for clean energy near you.

Your calls were crucial to shutting down Senator Lisa Murkowski's attack on the Clean Air Act last month.

Now, with the Senate negotiating the contents of this critical new bill, its fate is in our hands too. We need to keep our Senators' phones ringing off the hook -- the more they understand that passing this bill is our top priority, the more they will make it theirs.

To get it done, we're setting the ambitious goal of 20,000 calls from the Climate Protection Action Fund alone next week. And to reach that number, we'll need the help of committed supporters like you to make it happen. Can you help us reach our goal?

Help us flood the Senate with calls. RSVP for a local phone bank next week.

Successful legislation isn't just important here in the U.S. As we saw at the Copenhagen climate conference, countless nations are relying on our action to catalyze global efforts to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution.

But for this bill to make a real impact, it's got to include two things:
1) Strong investment in clean energy to create American manufacturing and construction jobs, and
2) A cap on carbon pollution that limits the amount of carbon companies can emit, giving them incentives to reduce emissions while holding violators accountable.

Your calls have made a difference before. And next week, your barrage of phone calls will tell our Senators to stop wasting time, stop caving to big oil and coal, and finally pass a strong clean energy and climate bill -- because we can't afford the consequences of their inaction.

Please RSVP to a phone bank today.

Thanks,

Dave Boundy
Campaign Manager Repower America

* Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, "Reid demands climate bill ASAP," Washington Post - Post Carbon blog, http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/02/reid_demands_climate_bill.html

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest