Freshening of deep Antarctic waters worries experts
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34921
Published April 18, 2008 09:09 AM

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Scientists studying the icy depths of the sea
around Antarctica have detected changes in salinity that could have
profound effects on the world's climate and ocean currents.

The scientists returned to the southern Australian city of Hobart on
Thursday after a one-month voyage studying the Southern Ocean to see
how it is changing and what those changes might mean for global
climate patterns.

Voyage leader Steve Rintoul said his team found that salty, dense
water that sinks near the edge of Antarctica to the bottom of the
ocean about 5 km (3 miles) down was becoming fresher and more buoyant.

So-called Antarctic bottom water helps power the great ocean conveyor
belt, a system of currents spanning the Southern, Pacific, Indian and
Atlantic Oceans that shifts heat around the globe.

"The main reason we're paying attention to this is because it is one
of the switches in the climate system and we need to know if we are
about to flip that switch or not," said Rintoul of Australia's
government-backed research arm the CSIRO.

"If that freshening trend continues for long enough, eventually the
water near Antarctica would be too light, too buoyant to sink and
that limb of the global-scale circulation would shut down," he said
on Friday.

Cold, salty water also sinks to the depths in the far north Atlantic
Ocean near Greenland and, together with the vast amount of water that
sinks off Antarctica, this drives the ocean conveyor belt.

This system brings warm water into the far north Atlantic, making
Europe warmer than it would otherwise be, and also drives the large
flow of upper ocean water from the tropical Pacific to the Indian
Ocean through the Indonesia Archipelago.

If these currents were to slow or stop, the world's climate would
eventually be thrown into chaos.

"We don't see any evidence yet that the amount of bottom water that's
sinking has declined. But by becoming fresher and less dense it's
moving in the direction of an ultimate shutdown."

Rintoul said results of the bottom water samples in the Ross Sea
directly south of New Zealand and off Antarctica's Adelie Land
further to the west, were a crucial finding.

"We didn't know that before we left but it's now clear that both of
those regions are becoming fresher for some reason."

GLOBAL WARMING TO BLAME?

During the voyage, scientists from Australia, Britain, France and the
United States measured salinity, carbon dioxide and iron
concentrations as well as currents between Antarctica and Australia.

Rintoul said his team are studying if faster melting of ice sheets or
sea ice is the source of the fresher water but he said it was too
early to tell if global warming was to blame.

Over the coming months, his team will study oxygen isotopes collected
from water samples.

"Oxygen isotopes act as a tracer of ice melt and that information
should help pin down exactly what the cause of the freshening is in
the deep ocean," said Rintoul, of the Antarctic Climate and
Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

"The leading hypothesis at the moment for why it's freshening is that
the floating ice around Antarctica is melting more rapidly than in
the past."

He pointed to studies showing winds around Antarctica changing
because of global warming and the ozone hole.

"The most likely scenario is that those changes in winds have changed
the circulation of the ocean, in particular caused more upwelling of
relatively warm water from below and that could have caused the
increased melting of ice around Antarctica," he said.

"The next challenge over the coming months and year will be to see
just how well we can this pin down."

(Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
--
<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

NOAA Celebrates 50-Year Carbon Dioxide Record

http://npat.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/19/1175341-noaa-celebrates-50-year-carbon\
-dioxide-record-

NOAA has no justification for celebrating the 50-Year Carbon Dioxide
record. National Weather Service (NWS) regional offices, Weather
Forecast Offices (WFOs) and NWS River Forecast Centers have failed in
providing public education on climate change even though their data
showed it to be happening for more than a decade already. NWS
managers, meteorologists and hydrologists have failed the public in
the U.S. and the world.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/4476

An interview with Dr. Tans (Oct 4, 2007 in Boulder, CO) shows that the statements by Mitch Battros are false and/or blantantly misleading on global warming and climate change,

ref:

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew/HydrologistSCareerAtNOAANWS

Related:

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew

-- "fields_sammy" <newsletter@...> wrote:
by Mitch Battros  ... "filled with facts and references. Not just from my
research, but from direct personal interviews with the top scientific
minds in the world. ..."

Global warming turned political by meteorologists in backlash of falsehood to Al Gore

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Re: Fig. 7 - 2000 spring agency flood outlook meeting summary e-mail message
sent to NWS Central Region Headquarters office in Kansas City, Missouri. The
E-mail showed a statement by NOAA director Dr. James Baker that in January of
2000 "The world continues to get warming.  There is no question we are seeing
global warming."

Despite that January 10, 2000 public statement by the NOAA director, the 
directors and supervisors in many of NOAA's National Weather Service offices in
states across the U.S. continued to downplay and voice skepticism about the
reality of global warming (which NWS managers  continued to voice from 2000 -
2006 according to many published news articles.

Ref:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

Here's what I sent today to Minnesota's Congressman John Cline, Senotor Amy Klobachar and Senator Norm Coleman.

In the next several months the House and Senate will try to reconcile two different versions of an Energy Bill.

I urge you to protect America's energy, environmental, and economic security by ensuring that the final Energy Bill that goes to the president includes laws that call for the most severe measures possible in cutting greenhouse gas emissions from human activities ASAP.

I have contacted you in the past about cutting greenhouse gas emissions nd I have up been very disappointed in what I've seen so far in terms of action on this matter.  
 
Thank you for your time!

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

What's wrong with NOAA's NWS CPC Workshop agenda?

NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) annual "workshop" to be held Oct. 22-26, 2007 in Tallahassee has nothing (business as usual) on climate change and global warming.

The CPC agenda of papers is similar to the agenda used 4 years ago (Oct 20-24, (2003) at Nugget Casino in Sparks, Nevada where 300-400 federal employees and their managers enjoyed travel, entertainment, dinning and gambling at tax-payer expense to sleep through presentations given on phenomena affecting climate variability (ignoring global warming unfenced climate changes). .  

    "The workshop will combine invited and submitted presentations, and posters, to provide focused discussions on selected areas related to improving climate outlooks, climate monitoring, and application of climate forecasts and information."

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW32.shtml

http://npat.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/25/984896-whats-wrong-with-noaas-nws-cpc-workshop-agenda-

Related:

Upcoming (Sept 27th)  House hearing to examine National Security Implications of Climate Change

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/house_climate_security_hearing/

GAP to honor whistleblowers and defenders at 30th anniversary gala September 26

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/gap_30th_anniversary/

GAP to honor whistleblowers and defenders at 30th anniversary gala September 26

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/gap_30th_anniversary/

Union of Concerned Scientists survey of climate scientists

...

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.environment/msg/b42387a9b0e1d742?

Contrary to what was said (above), the main reason that the Union of Concerned Scientists and House Committee chose not to include NOAA NWS documentation on the retaliation by NOAA NWS against a career hydrologist was described in an e-mail from a Government Accountability Office spokesman, who said on March 28, 2007

that:

..."Once we stepped back and looked at the report from a bird’s eye perspective a detailed story from 2000 about interference with the conduct of climate change research did not fit into the report’s investigatory scope, which looked at incidents beginning in 2001 and was limited purely to the communication of scientific research.  So unfortunately, it didn’t make it into the final draft.

That said, I hope that you do not take any of this to be a judgment on the merits of your story or your character.  It just wasn’t the right time and place."

...

It is fact that the retaliation which took place against the hydrologist for doing climate change research work from Jan 2000 - July 2005 occurred during both the Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney administrations.

Is now the right time to release the NOAA NWS documentation?

Official DOC NOAA NWS documentation now at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew

Increasing rainfall intensity is important in relation to burned out areas. Higher rainfall rates increase erosion and result in reductions in water quality and supplies in many areas.

Other people, here and elsewhere,  have not been helpful (in my view)  in trying to get this message out even though I had brought this up many times from 2000-2005 as a part of what I understood to be my duty in serving the public in hydrologic modeling and prediction for the Midwest and Great Plains.  

Pat

-- Lance Olsen <lance@...> wrote:

Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana, U.S.)

September 25, 2007.

Forest experts consider research on climate change, fires
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/09/25/news/state/29-forrest.txt

By NOELLE STRAUB
Gazette Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - U.S. Forest Service officials and experts agreed Monday
that forest managers must take into account the complex relationship
between global climate change and increased wildfires when setting
policy.

Ann Bartuska, Forest Service deputy chief for research and
development, said the global climate is changing and will continue to
do so for many decades and that decisions made today by resource
managers will have implications through the next century.

The Forest Service's climate change research focuses on how to help
forests adapt to increased stress, how to capture carbon dioxide in
soils, plants and wood products, and providing information to
policymakers, she said.

She said the agency has been gathering information on climate change
for years but that "we have more work to do."

Last week, 75 scientists came together to look at gaps in knowledge
and new research and development, she said.

But if the agency focuses just on science and research, she said, it
will not meet the obligation to inform on-the-ground management
approaches.

"It doesn't make sense if we're just going to do the science if we
don't put it in a form and in a way that is available to practitioners
and helping managers make better decisions," Bartuska said. "And that
really is the foundation of the work we're moving into."

Bartuska said the growing cost of firefighting is one of the agency's
"more significant challenges" and that it is eating into the budget
for overall programs.

"The escalating cost is something we're very concerned about," she said.

She advocated increasing fuel reduction work to reduce the threat of wildfires.

Susan Conard, Forest Service national program leader for fire ecology
research, said changes in temperature and precipitation patterns are
expected to lead to longer and more severe fire seasons in many areas
of the U.S. Increased burning will result in increased emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, she said.

She said improved models will help scientists predict the interaction

between climate change, vegetation and wildfire. But she said more
research must be done.

"We need to understand more about fuels, about the effects of changing
burn severity on carbon release, and about how these effects will vary
regionally," she said.

John Helms, professor emeritus at the University of California,
Berkeley, said various climate models show different outcomes, but
that one estimate is that wildfires will increase 50 percent by 2050
and will double by 2100.

Higher temperatures, lower humidity, increased drought and wind and
more lightning will be factors in the increased wildfires, he said.

Helms recommended fuels reduction to create better forest densities.

Climate change is expected to lower forest productivity in the West,
Helms added. As forests are placed under increased temperature and
water stress they will face a loss of vigor and increased mortality,
and that decay will add substantially to carbon emissions, he said.
Exposed soils will become warmer and subject to erosion, also
releasing substantial amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, he said.

A temperature increase of 3.5 degrees Centigrade (6.3 degrees
Fahrenheit) in the Rocky Mountain zone means the equivalent of
vegetation habitat moving 2,000 feet up slope or 200 miles further
north, Helms said.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., asked whether the Forest Service has taken
climate change into account in projecting its firefighting budget
needs over the next decade or two. Bartuska said the agency has not.

"We actually have just begun looking at what are the management
activities that are needed in response to climate change based on the
science that we've done, so we believe we'll be improving our

estimates over time," she added.

Tester also asked about let-it-burn policy during years when the
snowpack is below normal.

Helms replied that forest canopy plays a crucial role in protecting
snow on the ground from melting and emphasized the importance of
forests in relation to water supply.


Copyright (c) The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.

--

-- 

Increasing rainfall intensity is important in relation to burned out areas. Higher rainfall rates increase erosion and result in reductions in water quality and supplies in many areas.

Other people, here and elsewhere,  have not been helpful (in my view)  in trying to get this message out even though I had brought this up many times from 2000-2005 as a part of what I understood to be my duty in serving the public in hydrologic modeling and prediction for the Midwest and Great Plains.   

Pat 

-- Lance Olsen <lance@...> wrote:

-- 

pat n Says:
24 September 2007 at 10:29 PM

The latest Nature’s blog post (The Hurricane-Global Warming Debate, No Clarity Yet), and other hurricane/global warming articles since Katrina, have not been helpful in public education that rapid and dangerous greenhouse global warming is happening and people need to deal with this now by cutting their emissions and getting prepared for large increases in sea level.

“We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/worth-a-look/

As a federal scientist (Hydrologist) for NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) at the North Central River Forecast Center, I did research work in hydrologic model development and calibration of models used in flood prediction for rivers in the Upper Midwest.

I knew in that climate change was occurring in the Upper Midwest before I learned that global warming was happening (earlier snowmelt runoff in recent decades).

I learned by my personal experience that our government intentionally ... "has been obscuring the state of our knowledge by exaggerating the level of uncertainty in global warming science".  

However, the Union of Concerned Scientists did not include me in their "surveys to more than 1,600 climate scientists working at seven federal agencies" - because I was removed from federal service by DOC NOAA NWS in July of 2005 because of my research and speaking out about climate and hydrologic change which I demonstrated was happening in the Upper Midwest in at paper and poster which I presented at the NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Workshop in Reno,  Nevada.

My paper presented at the NWS CPC workshop can be viewed at:

http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm

A related link to my work in hydrology, climate change, prairies and other volunteer efforts, which I became involved in after my removal by NWS, is at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew

Google groups:

sci.environment, talk.environment, pa.environment, pa.politics, alt.politics

On Sep 24, 5:23 pm, "hydra...@..." <hydra...@...> wrote:
> This is summary from the Union of Concerned Scientists survey
> specifically on climate scientists. If nothing else is read, please
> note the bullet items. The freedom of speech of the GOP. The UCS also
> has surveys of other scientists with the same bleak results.
>
> Union of Concerned Scientists
> Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutionswww.ucsusa.org
>
> Evidence of Political Interference
> Voices of Federal Climate Scientists
> Political Interference is Harming Federal Climate Science
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Climate scientists in the U.S. government are the world's leading
> experts on global climate change. They are entrusted to observe,
> analyze, and model our changing planet and convey their findings to
> other scientists, policy makers, and the public. Unfortunately,
> scientists report that their findings are being tailored to reflect
> political goals rather than scientific fact. They are concerned that,
> while federal climate scientists are providing a solid basis for
> understanding climate change and crafting solutions, our government
> has been obscuring the state of our knowledge by exaggerating the
> level of uncertainty in global warming science.
>
> In the summer of 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists distributed
> surveys to more than 1,600 climate scientists working at seven federal
> agencies and the independent National Center for Atmospheric Research
> (NCAR), asking for information about the state of climate research at
> federal agencies. Scientists' responses indicated a high regard for
> the quality and integrity of federal climate research itself, but also
> identified broad and substantial interference in their work.
>
> The reality of global warming, including the role of heat-trapping
> gases from human activities in driving climate change, has been
> repeatedly affirmed by scientific experts. Every day the government
> stifles climate science is a day we fail to protect future generations
> from the consequences of global warming. It is crucial that climate
> scientists be allowed to accurately inform government decisions. For
> this to occur, the federal government must pursue reforms that
> prohibit political interference and misrepresentation of federal
> climate science research, and affirm the right of scientists to
> communicate freely with the media and the public.
>
> UCS Senior Scientist Francesca Grifo testified about the report in
> front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Find her
> written testimony in the "related links" box on this page.
>
> I. Political Interference with Climate Science
> Large numbers of federal climate scientists reported various types of
> interference, both subtle and explicit:
>
> 73 percent of all respondents* perceived inappropriate interference
> with climate science research in the past five years.
> 58 percent of all respondents personally experienced interference with
> climate science research in the past five years. This number increased
> to 78 percent among scientists whose work always or frequently touches
> upon sensitive or controversial topics. In contrast, only 22 percent
> of NCAR scientists personally experienced interference with climate
> science research.
> Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally
> experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global
> warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications.
> This number increased to nearly three in five (58 percent) among
> respondents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
> (NOAA).
> 46 percent of all respondents perceived or personally experienced new
> or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate related
> work.
> II. Scientific Findings Misrepresented
> Federal climate scientists reported that their research findings have
> been changed by non-scientists in ways that compromise accuracy:
>
> Two in five respondents (43 percent) perceived or personally
> experienced changes or edits to documents during review processes that
> changed the meaning of scientific findings.
> 25 percent perceived or personally experienced situations in which
> scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed
> themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific
> findings.
> 37 percent of respondents perceived or personally experienced
> instances in which their agency misrepresented scientists' findings.
> III. Barriers to Communication
> Agency scientists are not free to communicate their research findings
> to the media or the public:
>
> 52 percent of respondents said their agency's public affairs officials
> always or frequently monitor scientists' communications with the
> media. In contrast, only seven percent of NCAR respondents reported
> that same level of monitoring.
> Two in five respondents (39 percent) have perceived or personally
> experienced "fear of retaliation for openly expressing concerns about
> climate change outside their agency."
> 38 percent of respondents perceived or personally experienced
> "disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-
> based materials relating to climate."
> A majority of NASA respondents (61 percent) agreed with the statement,
> "Recent changes to policies pertaining to scientific openness at my
> agency have improved the environment for climate research," in sharp
> contrast to the 12 percent of non-NASA respondents who agreed with the
> statement. The high percentage among NASA respondents is most likely
> the result of a recent policy implemented at the agency that affirmed
> that the role of public affairs officers was not "to alter, filter or
> adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
> staff."
> IV. Climate Scientists are Disheartened
> While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed with the
> statement, "U.S. federal government climate research is of generally
> excellent quality," respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
> and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:
>
> Two-thirds of respondents said that today's environment for federal
> government climate research is worse compared to five years ago (67
> percent) and 10 years ago (64 percent). Among scientists at NASA,
> these numbers were nearly four in five (79 percent and 77 percent,
> respectively).
> 45 percent of all respondents said that their personal job
> satisfaction has decreased over the past few years. At NASA, three in
> five (61 percent) reported decreased job satisfaction.
> More than a third of respondents from NASA, and more than one in five
> (22 percent) of all respondents, reported that morale in their office
> was "poor" or "extremely poor." Among NCAR respondents, only seven
> percent reported such low levels of morale.
> Insufficient resources are a source of concern among respondents. More
> than half (53 percent) disagreed with the statement, "The U.S.
> government has done a good job funding climate research."
> Survey Demographics
> Surveys were sent to 1,630 scientists at the National Aeronautics and
> Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
> Department of Defense, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of
> Agriculture, and the independent (non-federal) National Center for
> Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
>
> Responses came from 279 federal scientists and 29 NCAR scientists. One
> hundred forty-four scientists provided narrative responses. The
> response rate (19 percent) was fairly consistent across agencies.
> Eighty percent of the scientists who responded had earned a Ph.D. and
> 40 percent had completed some post-doctoral research work. A
> significant number of respondents (44 percent) had been with their
> agency for more than 15 years, and more than half had been there for
> more than 10 years.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Unless otherwise stated, the numbers cited in this report reflect
> only the responses of federal climate scientists, and do not include
> the responses from NCAR scientists (who are not federal employees).

--

at:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.environment/topics

Climate change home page, npat, updated today at:

http://npat.newsvine.com/

Related:

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew

Pat Neuman,

Hydrologist,

ClimateArchive yahoo group owner,

Chanhassen, Minnesota

npat1@...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

An incorrect statement was posted earlier (by Bill), that "Most of the northern hemisphere warming has been confined to high latitude locations," ...

Temperatures at U.S. climate stations in the Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions show strong upward trends in recent decades (view plots with more than 100 years of data at the linked website via this comment).

The Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains are not located in "high latitude locations".

http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/09/some_climate_change_fallacies.html

Looks to me like Marburger may be satisfied with trying to find a
safe place in Hell.
Tim

Bush aide says warming man-made
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.

Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was
more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are
to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he
said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as
"arbitrary".

His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at
the UN and the Washington White House.

There may still be some members of the White House team who are not
completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the
science advisor to the President and director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers
ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was
unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.

   The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it
just gets hotter and hotter

Marburger interview

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I
think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the
most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil
fuels than we ought to be.

"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the
amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

Trouble ahead

This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate
science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not
stop increasing carbon emissions.

"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it
just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes
unliveable," he said.

Professor Marburger said he wished he could stop US emissions right
away, but that was obviously not possible.

US backing for the scientific consensus was confirmed by President
Bush's top climate advisor, James Connaughton.

The chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality told
BBC News that advancing technology was the best way to curb the
warming trend.

"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and
get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and
put people out of work," he said.

"I don't know of any politician that favours shutting down economies."

'Arbitrary' targets

Mr Bush has invited leaders of major developed and developing nations
to the White House later this month for discussions on a future
global direction on climate change.

It will follow a UN General Assembly session on the same issue.

Last week the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney
backed the UN climate convention as the right body for developing
future global policy.

The European Union wants such a policy to adopt its own target of
stabilising temperature rise at or below 2C.

But Mr Marburger said the state of the science made it difficult to
justify any particular target.

"It's not clear that we'll be in a position to predict the future
accurately enough to make policy confidently for a long time," he
said.

"I think 2C is rather arbitrary, and it's not clear to me that the
answer shouldn't be 3C or more or less. It's a hunch, a guess."

The truth, he said, was that we just do not know what the 'safe' limit is.
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

Nature Reports Climate Change
doi:10.1038/climate.2007.38
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/full/climate.2007.38.html
Does heavier rain mean a bigger sink?
Dave S. Reay

Reactive nitrogen, a known pollutant, has the
ability to fertilize forests, thereby boosting
land-based carbon sinks. Dave S. Reay looks at
its potential to reduce atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations.

The intensification of agriculture is a major
factor in the fourfold increase in reactive
nitrogen emissions since pre-industrial times.

At the mention of human-induced global change
one's thoughts naturally turn to the enhanced
greenhouse effect, in particular, the climate
forcing resulting from the 7 billion tonnes of
carbon emitted annually as a result of human
activities. The ice-core records and Mauna Loa
CO2 trends have become iconic images in
climate-change science - clear evidence of human
interference in the global carbon cycle. Yet
there is another post-industrial trend that is no
less significant in terms of its impact on the
environment: the steepling emissions and
deposition of reactive nitrogen.

In 1908, the German chemist Fritz Haber developed
a method of nitrogen fixation that would allow
global intensification of agriculture and
eventually feed two out of every five people on
earth. Haber's process, replicated on an
industrial scale by Carl Bosch, involved
combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen at
high pressure over a super-heated catalyst to
form ammonia. Alongside rapid industrialization
and rising emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
from fossil fuel burning, the intensification of
agriculture and associated ammonia (NH3)
emissions has led to a fourfold increase in
reactive nitrogen emissions compared with the
pre-industrial period1. These burgeoning
emissions have inevitably led to large increases
in reactive nitrogen deposition to the Earth's
surface, with far-reaching consequences.

Where the extra deposition ends up on areas
already replete in nitrogen, such as most
agricultural land and some forests and
grasslands, it can lead to elevated emissions of
the powerful greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, which
results in eutrophication and water quality
problems owing to an increase in nitrate leaching
to ground and surface waters. Even in natural and
semi-natural ecosystems that are able to mop up
the extra nitrogen they receive, the chronic
enrichment year after year can result in reduced
biodiversity. All rather negative then. However,
there is another effect of such nitrogen
enrichment that has the potential to cover its
multitude of sins. In many natural and
semi-natural ecosystems, and particularly in
forests, more nitrogen deposition can greatly
increase primary production and reduce soil
decomposition, which ultimately means that more
CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere and locked up
in the terrestrial carbon sink3.

Smoking gun

In the 1980s, the global terrestrial carbon sink
strength stood at 0.3 ± 0.9 Pg C per year,
whereas in the 1990s this rose to 1.0 ± 0.6 Pg C
per year, mopping up about one sixth of annual
anthropogenic carbon emissions. Much of this
large terrestrial carbon sink seemed to be
associated with northern temperate forests
growing between about 25° and 55°N (ref. 4).
Forest regrowth, CO2 fertilization, land use and
climate change have all been suggested as drivers
of this increase5, yet throughout this period the
forests were also experiencing an intensifying
rain of reactive nitrogen. A long-running
question has therefore been whether the large
increase in terrestrial carbon sequestration -
the so-called 'missing sink' - also reflected a
response by these forests to elevated nitrogen
deposition, and if so, to what extent.

The circumstantial evidence was strong, with a
simultaneous increase of nitrogen deposition and
carbon content in the northern forests having
been observed since the 1950s6. Numerous studies
have demonstrated increased forest growth in
these regions resulting from nitrogen
fertilization, with several reporting elevated
carbon sequestration. In the US, for example, Pan
et al.7 estimated a 20% increase in carbon
sequestered in forest biomass and an 18% increase
in the carbon in soil organic matter over a
70-year period owing to chronic nitrogen
deposition. Yet reports of limited incorporation
of labelled nitrogen inputs and high losses to
drainage water in other northern forests
suggested that elevated nitrogen deposition has
played only a minor role in boosting the size of
the northern forest carbon sink8.

Then, in their landmark paper published in Nature
in June this year, Magnani et al.9 demonstrated
that net carbon sequestration in a range of
temperate and boreal forests had indeed responded
to elevated nitrogen deposition resulting from
human activities. The effect in the forests
studied was very large, always positive and
demonstrated the indirect control of forest
carbon fluxes exerted by humankind. Though some
forests in these regions were likely to be
nitrogen saturated, and therefore unresponsive to
elevated nitrogen deposition, it seemed that the
bulk of forests in this global engine-room of
terrestrial carbon storage had responded strongly
in the past to more reactive nitrogen and might
therefore do so in the future.

Nitrogen deposition can greatly increase primary
production and reduce soil decomposition in
forests.
© Punchstock

So, can we expect rising reactive nitrogen
emissions from human activities to boost carbon
sequestration by northern temperate forests even
further? Could this provide a mechanism by which
the current growth rate of atmospheric CO2
concentrations is significantly reduced(?)

Fertile forests

Despite greater controls on nitrogen emissions in
some countries, there seems little doubt that
northern forests will continue to receive an
increasing supply of reactive nitrogen over the
next few decades. Dentener et al.10 estimated
that reactive nitrogen deposition over much of
Europe and North America in 2000 exceeded 4
kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year. Using
the IPCC's A2 emissions scenario up until 2030,
they then projected an increase in deposition in
these regions of between 10 and 50%. This
scenario is rather pessimistic, assuming that
rapid economic growth over this period will be
combined with no additional emissions controls
for air pollutants. If enhanced nitrogen
deposition is going to significantly change the
northern forest carbon sink though, then this is
the scenario that will do it. For European
forests, an average additional reactive nitrogen
deposition rate of 2 kg N ha-1 yr-1 would appear
to be towards the upper limit of what can be
expected by 2030 relative to 2000.

If one assumes that key factors such as forest
distribution and age class structure remain
constant, using the near 1:1 relationship of wet
nitrogen deposition (kg N ha-1 yr-1) to average
net ecosystem production (t C ha-1 yr-1) provided
by Magnani et al., one might expect to see an
additional 0.3 Pg C uptake per year in the 149
million hectares of European forest. This would
represent a huge increase, equivalent to
sequestering annual anthropogenic greenhouse-gas
emissions from the whole of the UK. In North
America, with a total forest area of 771 million
hectares (ref. 11), such a response would equate
to sequestration of an additional 1.5 Pg C per
year. Large increases in reactive nitrogen
deposition to northern forests over the next few
decades could therefore help to sequester an
additional 25% of annual anthropogenic CO2
emissions and so significantly reduce the growth
rate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However
the caveats for such a projection are legion.

Back down to Earth

Firstly, it is very likely that additional
controls on emissions of air pollutants will be
put in place by many nations in the next 20 years
or so, making the high deposition rates of the A2
scenario unrealistic. When Dentener et al.
incorporated current legislation on air pollutant
emissions controls into their projections of
nitrogen deposition for 2030 relative to 2000
they found a 10-20% reduction in reactive
nitrogen deposition over much of Europe and an
increase of only 5-20% over North America. The
assumption that northern forest area and age
class structure in 2030 will be identical to that
of today may also introduce significant error.
Even if the area of forest were to remain the
same, it has been shown that the age of a forest
is a key determinant of its response to elevated
nitrogen deposition, with mature forests showing
only limited responses4.

Finally, there's the extrapolation of the
response of forest carbon sequestration to
elevated nitrogen deposition given by Magnani et
al. to all European and North American forests.
Some of these forests are likely to already be
nitrogen-replete or will become so in the near
future, with little or no additional carbon
sequestration as a result. More importantly,
other studies have reported much smaller
responses to elevated nitrogen deposition in
these regions12. Examining the response of
European forests to changing nitrogen deposition
rates for the period 1960-2000, De Vries et al.13
estimated an increase in forest carbon
sequestration of around 25 kg C ha-1 yr-1 in both
tree wood and soils for each additional kilogram
of nitrogen deposition. Similarly, Hyvönen et
al.14 estimated additional carbon sequestration
in trees and soil of around 36 kilograms of
carbon per kilogram of nitrogen added, based on
forest fertilization experiments in Sweden and
Finland. These responses are <5% of what might be
inferred from the results of Magnani et al. and,
even under the high nitrogen deposition rates
projected using the A2 emissions scenario for
2030, the increase in carbon sequestration by
northern forests would be relatively minor.

Increasing reactive nitrogen deposition, it
seems, does not provide a free ride to greatly
elevated forest carbon sequestration. In coming
decades it is the protection of the existing
terrestrial carbon sink from deforestation and
land-use change that should be the focus of
carbon-sink management. Yes, there is some
potential for enhancing the vegetation and soil
carbon sinks through nitrogen addition, but as a
cover for the many sins of reactive nitrogen
emission it is the thinnest of veils. Relying on
yet more air pollution to help address
human-induced climate change is equivalent to the
release of cane toads to tackle the cane beetle
in Australia: an ineffective solution that
creates a whole new set of problems.

Dave S. Reay is a Natural Environment Research
Council Fellow in the School of Geosciences at
the University of Edinburgh. He is also editor of
the climate change website GHGonline.org.

References
	 1. Fowler, D., Muller, J. &
Sheppard, L. Water Air Soil Poll. Focus 4, 3-8
(2004).
	 2. Phoenix, G. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 470-476 (2006).
	 3. Townsend, A. R. et al. Ecol.
Appl. 6, 806-814 (1996). | Article | ISI |
	 4. Churkina, G. et al. Carbon
Balance Management 2 (2007)
(doi:10.1186/1750-0680-2-5).
	 5. Hymus, G., Valentini, R. in
Greenhouse Gas Sinks 11-30 (eds Reay, D.S. et
al.) (CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, 2007).
	 6. Turner, D. P. et al. Ecol. Appl. 5, 421-436 (1995). | ISI |
	 7. Pan, Y. et al. Geophys. Res. Abs. 8, 09868 (2006).
	 8. Nadelhoffer, K. L. et al. Nature
398, 145-148 (1999). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
	 9. Magnani, F. et al. Nature 447, 849-851 (2007). | Article |
	 10. Dentener, F. et al. Glob.
Biogeochem. Cycles 20 (2006)
(doi:10.1029/2005GB002627).
	 11. Food and Agriculture Organisation
Forestry Paper No. 140 (FAO, Rome, 2001);
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/Y1997E/FRA%202000%20Main%20report.pdf.
	 12. Högberg, P. Nature 447, 781-782 (2007). | Article |
	 13. De Vries, W. et al. Glob. Change
Biol. 12, 1151-1173 (2006). | Article |
	 14. Hyvönen, R. et al.
Biogeochemistry (2007)
(doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9121-3).
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

Nature Reports Climate Change
doi:10.1038/climate.2007.41
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/full/climate.2007.41.html
The even darker side of brown clouds
Amanda Leigh Haag

Atmospheric aerosols compete with carbon dioxide as an agent of warming.

'Atmospheric brown clouds', which appear as a
dark haze on the horizon, are formed from a
cocktail of warming and cooling aerosols in the
atmosphere.

In the charge against global warming, carbon
dioxide has long held sway as public enemy number
one. But now, less-recognized molecules are
entering the fray as significant agents of global
warming. Aerosols emitted from smokestacks,
exhaust pipes and domestic cooking fires consist
of substances such as sulphates and nitrates that
scatter light and have a local cooling effect;
they also contain black carbon - or soot - a
byproduct of incomplete combustion, which absorbs
light.

Scientists modelled the behaviour of the cooling
particles years ago, but so few direct
measurements have been made of the heat-absorbing
effects of black carbon that, even now, models do
not adequately represent their influence. The
most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change1 reported that the total
contribution of aerosols to climate warming since
the onset of the industrial era was about 20% of
that caused by greenhouse gases. As much as half
of the recent warming trend attributed to CO2 and
other greenhouse gases is thought1 to have been
cancelled out by cooling from aerosols. But new
observations show that in some regions black
carbon is as culpable as CO2 for the warming, and
in some cases, has a greater effect.

In a study published recently in Nature2,
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric scientist
at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La
Jolla, California, and colleagues, report that
aerosols locked up in brown clouds over Asia are
significant contributors to regional warming.
'Atmospheric brown clouds', which appear as a
dark haze on the horizon, are formed from a
cocktail of warming and cooling aerosols in the
atmosphere.
Once thought to be a local phenomenon, brown
clouds that originate in urban centres from Los
Angeles to Beijing are now known to travel
thousands of kilometres, transported by air
currents and high winds. "Brown clouds from the
United States cover the Atlantic, the European
brown cloud goes over central Asia, and China's
brown cloud crosses the Pacific over to us," says
Ramanathan. "We are each a back yard to someone
else, and we're polluting every other person's
back yard."

The underlying message is that CO2 is driving
these climate changes. The aerosols in some
places are intensifying that change, and in other
places they are masking that change. We are just
slowly unravelling these brown-cloud effects.
V. Ramanathan

Climate culprits
Ramanathan and colleagues chose the Indian Ocean
as the 'back yard' in which to study the warming
effects of black carbon. In the winter and
spring, heavily polluted air masses are
transported over the Indian Ocean from central
Asia, where the majority of black carbon is from
cooking fires. Brown-cloud solar absorption
usually takes place in the lower 3 km of the
atmosphere and heats the atmosphere up to 5 km
high. The scientists measured lower atmospheric
heating in a 3-km-thick cloud layer over the
Indian Ocean in March 2006 using 18 missions of
three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) launched
from the island of Hanimaadhoo in the Maldives.
Equipped with instruments to measure
aerosol-particle concentrations and solar
radiation, the UAVs were flown in a stacked
manner, separated in height by only tens of
metres and in time by less than ten seconds,
making it possible to measure atmospheric heating
rates directly. They found that the pollution
cloud was responsible for 50% of the lower
atmospheric heating, with the rest attributable
to greenhouse gases.

Taking a longer-term perspective using
climate-model simulations, Ramanathan's team
estimated warming in the lower atmosphere from
both aerosols and greenhouse gases at about 0.25
°C a decade, sufficient to account for the
retreat of the Himalayan glaciers. Because the
Himalayan glaciers lie at such high altitudes,
they are directly affected by the atmospheric
warming effect from brown clouds, yet can also be
influenced by soot deposition. Black carbon from
aerosols eventually condenses out of the
atmosphere and settles on ice and snow,
significantly increasing the amount of sunlight
that is absorbed. Researchers have recently found
that the influence of black carbon on temperature
and the melting of snow is three times greater
than that of CO2 in Arctic regions3.

In contrast to greenhouse gases, which are evenly
mixed and behave rather uniformly on a global
scale, aerosols have different regional
characteristics. Although solar absorption owing
to black carbon is ubiquitous wherever black
carbon is found, Ramanathan says: "The actual
magnitude of the warming trend strongly depends
on the concentration of brown clouds and the
meteorology, both of which vary regionally." For
instance, during the spring and winter time in
Asia, aerosols can have a cooling effect on the
ground, while at the same time having a warming
effect in the atmosphere, Ramanathan explains.
"The underlying message is that CO2 is driving
these climate changes. The aerosols in some
places are intensifying that change, and in other
places they are masking that change," Ramanathan
says. "We are just slowly unravelling these
brown-cloud effects."

We will need to both slow CO2 emissions and make
a strong effort to reduce other sources of global
warming to avoid highly undesirable climate
effects.
James Hansen

Above and beyond
"These are really important new measurements that
are specifically aimed at quantifying the
magnitude of this effect, with the caveat that it
is specific to this region and this particular
arrangement of land, ocean and mountain," says
Jerry Meehl, a senior climate scientist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in
Boulder, Colorado, who was not involved in the
study. James Hansen, a climatologist with NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York,
who previously reported a similar warming effect
of black carbon deposited directly onto snow and
ice4, notes that industrial pollution from Asia
is likely to be having an increased warming
effect on the Himalayan glaciers owing to a
decrease in the ice albedo (its ability to
reflect light), which increases solar absorption
and speeds melting. This effect may make a
significant contribution beyond the atmospheric
warming measured by Ramanathan and colleagues.
"Given that we are finding such depositions as
far away as the Arctic, it is undoubtedly even
more important close to India and China," Hansen
says.

Many questions remain, and further observations
are needed before scientists can reliably predict
to what degree black carbon will contribute to
future warming. Yet determining how to regulate
black carbon may prove easier than curbing
greenhouse gases. Unlike greenhouse gases, which
stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,
"black carbon's lifetime is only a few weeks to a
month, so if you cut down the emissions the
effect would be felt almost immediately," says
Ramanathan. But curbing either source of emission
alone won't be enough. According to Hansen "It
appears that we will need to both slow CO2
emissions and make a strong effort to reduce
other sources of global warming to avoid highly
undesirable climate effects."
Amanda Leigh Haag is a freelance science writer based in Denver, Colorado.

References
	 1. Forster, P. et al. in Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis 131-217
(Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
	 2. Ramanathan, V. et al. Nature 448,
575-578 (2007) | Article
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature06019 | ISI |

	 3. Flanner, M. et al. J. Geophys.
Res. 112, doi:doi: 10.1029/2006JD008003
(2007) | Article |http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008003

	 4. Hansen, J. et al. J. Geophys.
Res. 110, doi: doi: 10.1029/2005JD005776
(2005) | Article |http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

CLIMATE: Security group says global warming could rival nuclear war
http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/13/19/#19
Thursday, September 13, 2007 -- 12:21 PM

An international security think tank said yesterday that global
warming could have global security implications on the level of
nuclear war if not addressed.

In its annual report of the effect of world events on global
security, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said the
threats of climate change on crop growth, sea levels and animal life
could turn the world into a very dangerous place.

"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming
represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases
... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be
catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war," the IISS report said.
"Even if the international community succeeds in adopting
comprehensive and effective measures to mitigate climate change,
there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the
environment, economies and human security."

It noted places like Kenya and Sudan -- where famine and drought have
been the catalysts for violence and starvation -- as examples on what
might be in store for the rest of the planet (Reuters/MSNBC.com,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20744385/ Sept. 12).

Developed countries should cut back on meat to counter warming, study says

People from rich countries should do their part to cut back on
agriculture-related emissions by slashing their meat consumption to
the equivalent of a hamburger per day, according to a paper published
today in Lancet.

About 22 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions come from
agriculture emissions. Livestock production accounts for nearly 80
percent of those agriculture emissions, leading to the conclusion
that a lower demand in livestock would result in less agriculture
emissions.

Researchers at the Australian National University-Canberra said those
in developed countries should cut their meat consumption to 3.17
ounces per day. Of that, only 1.75 ounces should come from red meat
sources like cattle or goats.

The study makes the recommendations with the intention of also
boosting meat consumption in developing countries that need it. By
eating less meat, developed countries would make a 10 percent cut in
global meat consumption by 2050, the reduction needed to stabilize
emissions in the sector (Agence France-Presse).

Nobel winner calls for lifestyle 'traffic rule' to combat global warming

Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus proposed a "traffic rule" for
guiding people to an eco-friendly lifestyle, calling climate change
"a matter of life and death" for low-lying countries like his native
Bangladesh.

Speaking at a climate change symposium in South Korea, Yunus said
products should bear red, yellow or green markings to show whether
they come from renewable sources.

Yunus said the system would provide a simple way for people to guide
their lifestyles in a manner not harmful to the planet, adding that
rising sea levels due to climate change will threaten countries like
his first unless action is taken. "For many people around the world
this is an issue of concern, but for us it's an issue of life an
death," he said (Agence France-Presse).

World must tackle both warming, desertification, U.N. says

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change, said that climate change and desertification are
related and thus must be addressed together.

"These two issues are very intimately related in the way you can
describe them as two halves of a coin," de Boer said during a
conference on desertification in Spain.

During the U.N.-sponsored event, de Boer said the gradual degradation
of land can be curbed by a variety of methods that are also linked to
the efforts of climate change. One idea would be to boost the
availability of renewable energy so people are not forced to cut down
trees for firewood, which can contribute to desertification.

"About 80 percent of deforestation in tropical areas is caused by
people gathering firewood simply to cook their food," he said (Agence
France-Presse). (All cites Sept. 13 unless noted.) -- EB
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

Bjorn Lomborg ridiculed taking strong action on global warming in poking fun at what he called the bird flu scare. Lomborg was interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR) this morning.

On WPR archives: ...

Joy Cardin's guest says though global warming is a very real concern, the consequences are highly exaggerated, and scientific data is often misrepresented. He calls for a rational discussion with realistic solutions.Guest: Bjorn Lomborg (Biorn LOM-borg), author, "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf).

http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=jca

Also today, according to VOA News, "Indonesia Questioned Over Bird Flu Preparedness",

the World Health Organization warned a flu pandemic was inevitable, and cautioned against complacency among public health and disaster preparedness officials world wide.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-11-voa8.cfm

What's a guy supposed to think?

http://npat.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/11/955280-global-warming-like-bird-flu-scare-says-bjorn-lomborg

... "On Monday, the World Health Organization warned a flu pandemic was inevitable, and cautioned against complacency among public health and disaster preparedness officials world wide." ...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-11-voa8.cfm

Is WHO saying the same thing about global warming?

Highlighted links "China Dodge" & "... directly subsidizing China,
and other nations, to create more carbon pollution," etc,are
informative.
Tim
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>

Two articles:
Tim

     Kings of the Coal Habit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2162457,00.html
     By Jeremy Leggett
     The Guardian UK
     Wednesday 05 September 2007

The fate of our warming planet hinges on six nations, and five of
them meet in Sydney this week.

     Through his long years of greenhouse denial, George Bush must
have been particularly grateful to John Howard. The Australian prime
minister was quick to join Bush in refusing to ratify the Kyoto
protocol, and has batted for his country's coal interests as
trenchantly as Bush has batted for US coal and oil interests.

     Now Bush has had to deal with the impact on American public
opinion of Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's movie, and can no longer
afford to ignore climate change. Howard, contending with a killer
drought, is similarly finding that greenhouse denial is out of
bounds. The flow of Australian rivers has fallen by a staggering 70%
in recent decades. All Australia's major cities are in drought. The
"big dry" in the Murray-Darling basin threatens 40% of food
production. Global warming has become an issue in the January
elections.

     Howard hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit
in Sydney this week. Bush will be one of the leaders attending.
Everyone who cares about the greenhouse threat should train a
microscope on their actions. The fate of human civilisation will
probably hinge on the fossil-fuel decisions of just six nations, and
five of them are members of Apec.

     If we are to avoid tipping the planet over a widely accepted
danger threshold of 450 parts per million of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, we can only afford to burn fossil fuels in a quantity
measured in low hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon. Industry
estimates suggest that remaining oil deposits alone exceed this
figure, if we include unconventional sources such as Canada's tar
sands.

     As for coal, the energy industry suggests several thousand
billion tonnes remain to be burned. Even if we believe fossil-fuel
proponents tend to exaggerate estimates of the size of deposits, it
is clear that most of the remaining coal has to stay in the ground if
we are to avoid climate catastrophe. Three-quarters of coal reserves
are in five nations: the US, Russia, China, India and Australia.

     Add Canada, because of the scale of the oil deposits in the
Athabasca tar sands, and there you have it: the fate of human
civilisation will probably hinge on the resource decisions of just
six nations. Those who place their hopes in bolt-on adjustments to
the fossil-fuel status quo, notably carbon capture and storage
technology, face the problem that mass production of the necessary
technology is more than a decade off.

     What can we expect of Howard, Bush and their fellow coal leaders
this week? Howard has said he will instigate a carbon-trading scheme
if re-elected, but will not be drawn on the all-important issue of
caps. Bush opposes an energy bill passed recently in the House of
Representatives that would place an obligation on electric utilities
to use more renewables and less coal. He is endeavouring to run his
own international negotiations in competition with the UN's
long-running Kyoto process. On this kind of running, it would be
surprising if the Apec summit offered any hope of the world kicking
the coal habit.

     Would different leaders in the Big Six make any difference? In
Australia, Labor is ahead in the polls, but strong on defence of coal
interests. In America, the Democratic challenger Barack Obama, from
the coal state of Ohio, has co-sponsored a bill to boost technology
that makes gasoline from coal via a process that would be ruinous for
the climate.

     Meanwhile, those not in the coal big league and best placed to
lead the way to a different energy future are not doing so. In the
UK, coal use is rising, renewables investment is derisory, and even
investment in carbon capture and storage would pave but a short
stretch of motorway.


     Jeremy Leggett is author of "Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the
Global Energy Crisis."



     Deadlock at APEC Summit Over Climate Change
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=8701\
9
     Agence France-Presse
     Thursday 06 September 2007

     Sydney - Asia Pacific ministers are deadlocked over a common
statement on climate change to be issued by their leaders at the end
of a weekend summit, a Japanese official said.

     "The gap among the members is still wide," the foreign ministry
official said on condition of anonymity.

     Foreign ministers of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum, which groups 21 Pacific rim economies, met over breakfast
hosted by Australian counterpart Alexander Downer.

     "The foreign ministers stuck to their own principles on details
of a climate change statement," the Japanese official said.

     "One group in particular remained opposed to introducing a
numerical target in the leaders' statement, although Foreign Minister
Downer stressed that the target is not binding."

     Australia has put climate change high on the summit's agenda,
proposing a new approach that would veer away from the Kyoto
Protocol, the main international treaty on climate change.

     Backed by the United States, it argues that Kyoto was flawed as
it did not commit developing nations - such as China and India - to
the same targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions as
industrialized nations.

     Instead it wants a new framework calling on developing nations to do more.

     The Kyoto accord expires in 2012 and the APEC summit is one of a
series of meetings at which plans for a post-Kyoto agreement on
reducing the greenhouse gas emissions behind global warming are being
discussed.

     However, developing nations here are blocking US and Australian
pressure to agree a statement that would include targets for cuts in
emissions.

     They say work on climate change should be led by the United
Nations, which is hosting a key summit in Bali in December.
   -------
  see also:

Global Warming: Too Hot to Handle for the BBC
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
--
<http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/>