If There's Global Warming ... Why Is It So Cold?

It's that time of year, the perennial "It's snowing so it can't be warming" season - or, as scientists call it, "winter". Depends on where you're standing, actually -- I stood on a frozen lake with Dr. Jeff Masters to discuss the current planetary changes, but at the same time, in Alaska, historic warm temperatures were unfolding, and across the west, the deepest drought in decades...

Water security in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia … a far-fetched dream?

DAMMAM – Environmental and water experts have warned that water security might be a far-reaching dream for the Kingdom.
Limited water resources such as groundwater are being depleted by greedy farmers who care about nothing but profits, they said. The claimed nuclear energy can help desalinate seawater and save the country from a looming disaster that future generations will experience. Al-Riyadh daily asked the experts about the challenges the state faces in ensuring water security.

Precious resource

Dr. Asad Abu Ruzaizah, president of the Saudi Society for Environment Sciences, said the country is running out of groundwater at an alarming rate. He stressed the important role citizens can play to mitigate the enormity of the problem and conserve this valuable resource. “Some people are not really aware that we have a water security problem,” Ruzaizah said. “The government spends a huge amount of money on the desalination process but this causes a tremendous negative effect on the environment.
“Moreover, strategic water reserves are poor in the Kingdom and other GCC countries and this fact makes the water problem a huge challenge for these countries.
“We have a poor water authority and low awareness levels regarding the importance of saving water. “More funding should go into developing and managing water resources and searching constantly for new sources.
“The water authority and other water agencies should be developed to deal better with this issue and achieve sustainable development for the next generation.”

New regulations to manage current reserve

Dr. Muhammad Al-Ghamdi, professor of King Faisal University’s School of Agricultural Sciences, disagrees with Ruzaizah. “Everyone is saying let’s find new water resources instead of searching for regulations that can lead to the wise management of current resources,” Al-Ghamdi said. “Unfortunately, there are no clear plans, programs, or strategies to help us achieve water security.” He said he wondered how this problem would be solved while farmers, led by greed, continue to waste groundwater and mismanage limited water resources. “The sad thing is facts and statistics indicate that our groundwater problem is getting worse every year. “I’m worried the next generations will encounter insurmountable problems solving this issue.”
Dr. Ali Ishqi, ecology professor at King Abdulaziz University, said the Arabian Peninsula has a severe water shortage. Ninety percent of its area is barren desert land while green areas account for 2 percent of the total area. Ishqi believed that mismanagement of water resources has largely exacerbated groundwater shortages.
He said the only strategy that can end this looming crisis is to make use of nuclear energy.
“The use of nuclear reactors is the best choice for seawater desalination.
“Solar energy is not. “To meet the water needs of a small city population, you will need to have so many solar cells on a very large area.”

Rainwater harvesting is the solution

Abdullah Al-Rasheed, economist, said the only option available to solve this crisis is to set up a national authority for rainwater harvesting, where rainwater is collected and used for irrigation, drinking, and other purposes. The next upcoming war will be for water, Al-Rasheed claimed.
He quoted a feature that National Geographic carried a while ago on the water issue.
The Kingdom’s groundwater resources used to stand at 500 cubic kilometers 40 years ago, according to the feature. So far the country has used 400 cubic kilometers, which means that one generation has consumed 80 percent of the country’s resources. The feature said the Kingdom now has no choice but to use seawater because the remaining groundwater will probably be consumed in a few years. Al-Rasheed said he hoped that the statistics mentioned in the feature were not true. “One thing remains true: we have squandered our groundwater and used it for farming purposes. “There is no point now of crying over spilled milk. “It’s high time we utilized rainwater.”
Al-Rasheed said every year there is 150 billion to 250 billion cubic meters of rainfall in the Kingdom, while the amount of desalinated water the public consumes annually is 3 billion. “This is a small amount compared to the huge quantity of rainwater available for us.” More

 

Planet Earth - The Next Thirty Years

What These Climate Scientists Said About Earth's Future Will Terrify You

I spoke with apocalyptic climate scientists about what our next generation faces, and their answers were bleak.

—By Dahr Jamail

| Tue Dec. 17, 2013 12:11 PM GMT

Consider this timeline:

• Late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.
• Late 2008: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research predicts a 2C increase by 2100.
• Mid-2009: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts a 3.5C increase by 2100. Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on this planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temperature swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.
• October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060.
• November 2009: The Global Carbon Project, which monitors the global carbon cycle, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a climate science report, predict 6C and 7C temperature increases, respectively, by 2100.
• December 2010: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts up to a 5C increase by 2050.
• 2012: The conservative International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook report for that year states that we are on track to reach a 2C increase by 2017.
• November 2013: The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

A briefing provided to the failed U.N. Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in 2009 provided this summary: "The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today's levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long-term climate records, not on models."

On December 3rd, a study by 18 eminent scientists, including the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, showed that the long-held, internationally agreed upon target to limit rises in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius was in error and far above the 1C threshold that would need to be maintained in order to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.

And keep in mind that the various major assessments of future global temperatures seldom assume the worst about possible self-reinforcing climate feedback loops like the methane one.

"Things Are Looking Really Dire"

Climate-change-related deaths are already estimated at five million annually, and the process seems to be accelerating more rapidly than most climate models have suggested. Even without taking into account the release of frozen methane in the Arctic, some scientists are already painting a truly bleak picture of the human future. Take Canadian Wildlife Service biologist Neil Dawe, who in August told a reporter that he wouldn't be surprised if the generation after him witnessed the extinction of humanity. All around the estuary near his office on Vancouver Island, he has been witnessing the unraveling of "the web of life," and "it's happening very quickly."

"Economic growth is the biggest destroyer of the ecology," Dawe says. "Those people who think you can have a growing economy and a healthy environment are wrong. If we don't reduce our numbers, nature will do it for us." And he isn't hopeful humans will be able to save themselves. "Everything is worse and we're still doing the same things. Because ecosystems are so resilient, they don't exact immediate punishment on the stupid."

The University of Arizona's Guy McPherson has similar fears. "We will have very few humans on the planet because of lack of habitat," he says. Of recent studies showing the toll temperature increases will take on that habitat, he adds, "They are only looking at CO2 in the atmosphere."

Here's the question: Could some version of extinction or near-extinction overcome humanity, thanks to climate change—and possibly incredibly fast? Similar things have happened in the past. Fifty-five million years ago, a five degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just 13 years, according to a study published in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A report in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near-term Earth's climate will change 10 times faster than at any other moment in the last 65 million years.

"The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet," climate scientist James Hansen has said. "There are potential irreversible effects of melting the Arctic sea ice. If it begins to allow the Arctic Ocean to warm up, and warm the ocean floor, then we'll begin to release methane hydrates. And if we let that happen, that is a potential tipping point that we don't want to happen. If we burn all the fossil fuels then we certainly will cause the methane hydrates, eventually, to come out and cause several degrees more warming, and it's not clear that civilization could survive that extreme climate change."

Yet, long before humanity has burned all fossil fuel reserves on the planet, massive amounts of methane will be released. While the human body is potentially capable of handling a six to nine degree Celsius rise in the planetary temperature, the crops and habitat we use for food production are not. As McPherson put it, "If we see a 3.5 to 4C baseline increase, I see no way to have habitat. We are at .85C above baseline and we've already triggered all these self-reinforcing feedback loops."

He adds: "All the evidence points to a locked-in 3.5 to 5 degree C global temperature rise above the 1850 ‘norm' by mid-century, possibly much sooner. This guarantees a positive feedback, already underway, leading to 4.5 to 6 or more degrees above ‘norm' and that is a level lethal to life. This is partly due to the fact that humans have to eat and plants can't adapt fast enough to make that possible for the seven to nine billion of us—so we'll die."

If you think McPherson's comment about lack of adaptability goes over the edge, consider that the rate of evolution trails the rate of climate change by a factor of 10,000, according to apaper in the August 2013 issue of Ecology Letters. Furthermore, David Wasdel, director of the Apollo-Gaia Project and an expert on multiple feedback dynamics, says, "We are experiencing change 200 to 300 times faster than any of the previous major extinction events."

Wasdel cites with particular alarm scientific reports showing that the oceans have already lost 40 percent of their phytoplankton, the base of the global oceanic food chain, because of climate-change-induced acidification and atmospheric temperature variations. (According to the Center for Ocean Solutions: "The oceans have absorbed almost one-half of human-released CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Although this has moderated the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, it is chemically altering marine ecosystems 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in at least the last 650,000 years.")

"This is already a mass extinction event," Wasdel adds. "The question is, how far is it going to go? How serious does it become? If we are not able to stop the rate of increase of temperature itself, and get that back under control, then a high temperature event, perhaps another 5-6 degrees [C], would obliterate at least 60 percent to 80 percent of the populations and species of life on Earth."

What Comes Next?

In November 2012, even Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank Group (an international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries), warned that "a 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided. Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today."

A World Bank-commissioned report warned that we are indeed on track to a "4C world" marked by extreme heat waves and life-threatening sea-level rise.

The three living diplomats who have led U.N. climate change talks claim there is little chance the next climate treaty, if it is ever approved, will prevent the world from overheating. "There is nothing that can be agreed in 2015 that would be consistent with the 2 degrees," says Yvo de Boer, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled. "The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy."

Atmospheric and marine scientist Ira Leifer is particularly concerned about the changing rainfall patterns a recently leaked IPCC draft report suggested for our future: "When I look at what the models predicted for a 4C world, I see very little rain over vast swaths of populations. If Spain becomes like Algeria, where do all the Spaniards get the water to survive? We have parts of the world which have high populations which have high rainfall and crops that exist there, and when that rainfall and those crops go away and the country starts looking more like some of North Africa, what keeps the people alive?"

The IPCC report suggests that we can expect a generalized shifting of global rain patterns further north, robbing areas that now get plentiful rain of future water supplies. History shows us that when food supplies collapse, wars begin, while famine and disease spread. All of these things, scientists now fear, could happen on an unprecedented scale, especially given the interconnected nature of the global economy.

"Some scientists are indicating we should make plans to adapt to a 4C world," Leifer comments. "While prudent, one wonders what portion of the living population now could adapt to such a world, and my view is that it's just a few thousand people [seeking refuge] in the Arctic or Antarctica."

Not surprisingly, scientists with such views are often not the most popular guys in the global room. McPherson, for instance, has often been labeled "Guy McStinction"—to which he responds, "I'm just reporting the results from other scientists. Nearly all of these results are published in established, esteemed literature. I don't think anybody is taking issue with NASA, or Nature, or Science, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Those] and the others I report are reasonably well known and come from legitimate sources, like NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], for example. I'm not making this information up, I'm just connecting a couple of dots, and it's something many people have difficulty with."

McPherson does not hold out much hope for the future, nor for a governmental willingness to make anything close to the radical changes that would be necessary to quickly ease the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; nor does he expect the mainstream media to put much effort into reporting on all of this because, as he says, "There's not much money in the end of civilization, and even less to be made in human extinction." The destruction of the planet, on the other hand, is a good bet, he believes, "because there is money in this, and as long as that's the case, it is going to continue."

Leifer, however, is convinced that there is a moral obligation never to give up and that the path to global destruction could be altered. "In the short term, if you can make it in the economic interests of people to do the right thing, it'll happen very fast." He offers an analogy when it comes to whether humanity will be willing to act to mitigate the effects of climate change: "People do all sorts of things to lower their risk of cancer, not because you are guaranteed not to get it, but because you do what you can and take out the health protections and insurance you need in order to try to lower your risk of getting it."

The signs of a worsening climate crisis are all around us, whether we allow ourselves to see them or not. Certainly, the scientific community gets it. As do countless communities across the globe where the effects of climate change are already being experienced in striking ways and local preparations for climatic disasters, including increasingly powerful floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, and storms are underway. Evacuations from low-lying South Pacific islands have already begun. People in such areas, out of necessity, are starting to try to teach their children how to adapt to, and live in, what we are causing our world to become.

My niece and nephews are doing something similar. They are growing vegetables in a backyard garden and their eight chickens provide more than enough eggs for the family. Their parents are intent on teaching them how to be ever more self-sustaining. But none of these heartfelt actions can mitigate what is already underway when it comes to the global climate.

I am 45 years old, and I often wonder how my generation will survive the impending climate crisis. What will happen to our world if the summer Arctic waters are indeed ice-free only a few years from now? What will my life look like if I live to experience a 3.5 Celsius global temperature increase?

Above all, I wonder how coming generations will survive.

Dahr Jamail has written extensively about climate change as well as the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. He is a recipient of numerous awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism and the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. He is the author of two books:Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied IraqandThe Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

The Peak Oil Crisis: Cold Fusion Moves East

Many of us believe that life on this planet is in a lot of trouble. The climate is becoming unstable; there are too many people; oceans are dying, sea levels are rising; and water, food, clean air, and minerals are coming into short supply. For many, the economy refuses to grow fast enough to maintain living standards.

Tom Whipple

Although appreciated by only a handful, the evidence continues to build that, unless we have reached some kind of a tipping point, there may be a way out of our mounting problems. A few minutes’ reflection should be enough to convince most that a source of unlimited clean, cheap energy just could reverse global warming, provide unlimited water, food, and a better life for all.

While there may be sources of clean cheap energy that as yet we have no idea exist in this universe, for the present, cold fusion or the preferred term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) looks like the only solution currently extant with the potential to save us. It may not be a stretch to say that either we develop and put into widespread use this technology or it is “game over” for life as we know it.

For the last 25 years, the U.S. government, at the urging of its scientific advisors who unfortunately had, and in some cases still have, axes to grind on the LENR issue, has been denying that the “cold fusion;” or LENR phenomenon, actually exists. According to the government, the anomalous heat that so many have been reporting on since 1989 is only experimental errors or scientific fraud or even wishful thinking. When the U.S. government says there is no such thing as “cold fusion” then naturally most other governments and the mainstream media with minor exceptions say the same.

This position may be changing however. While a few scientists at NASA have been saying that the LENR phenomenon is real for some time, the Department of Energy which reigns supreme in these matters remains pretty firm in its denial despite occasional reviews. Recently, however, we may have seen the beginnings of change when a component of DOE which funds exotic energy R&D efforts said it would entertain proposals to fund LENR experiments. Now this may simply be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but it would be nice to believe that at least somewhere in DOE, a few are coming to their senses,

So where are we on this revolutionary and likely disruptive technology? There are dozens of independent laboratories around the world experimenting with low energy nuclear reactions at the lab bench scale, but only three or four saying, and in some cases demonstrating, that they have devices producing enough energy that commercially useful products should be available soon.

Readers of this column know by now that there is a small but devoted blogosphere out there in cyberspace that not only fervently believes that cold fusion is real and someday will save humanity, but follows and comments on developments daily.

For several years, interest has focused on the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat nuclear device, which many still consider a scam despite numerous validations. Nearly a year ago, Rossi told his cyber space followers that he had partnered with a well-healed American firm that was helping him develop a commercial product. Until last week Rossi’s American partner was a well-kept secret with speculation focusing on industrial giants such as GE or United Technologies who have much to gain if LENR ever becomes a commercial product replacing combustion of fossil fuels as the principal source of heat in the world.

Last week a hint leaked out when one of Rossi’s associates noted in his biography that he was consulting for an obscure hedge fund called Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The blogosphere jumped on this clue and within days enough information about Cherokee and its new subsidiary, Industrial Heat LLC, was brought to light to conclude that this organization is indeed Rossi’s new American partner in the development of LENR. Cherokee, which has a capitalization of circa $2 billion and has invested $11.5 in the E-Cat project, has a record of investing in cleaning up polluted properties and funding renewable energy projects. More