Our Oceans are Under Attack

One of the first things that has to be changed is to stop Manufacturers telling lies about their products and advising governments about saving energy.
We are told that insulation makes/keeps your home warmer,drier,healthier what a load of rubbish.
Insulation just slows the rate of heat transfer from hot areas to cold nothing more and insulation stops your home from warming from the free ambient temperate zone temperatures so you lose both ways. The lies go on and on.

 

I beg to differ. A well-insulated house has a more uniform temperature than a drafty, uninsulated house, and is much cheaper to both heat in a cold climate or cool in a hot climate. And if you want to take advantage of pleasant outdoor temperatures all you have to do is open a few windows. That being said I'm sure many manufacturers do exaggerate their products' capabilities. Caveat emptor.

If anyone is interested in learning about 'green' building techniques I can recommend the forum and blogs at http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/

Also http://www.buildingscience.com/index_html has lots of good articles.

 

In New Zealand with our mostly mild climate we are told most of our old homes have no insulation. But in fact they do have most of their walls insulated to a one hour fire wall standard.
Any house insulates us from the climate that is why we build houses and why we say it is warmer out side than inside of a un heated home and enjoy free radiant heat from the sun most of the seasons. The free radiation heats us and everything around.
Thermal insulation and a sealed up home makes you dependent all of the time 365 days of the year on expensive heating, cooling,ventilating systems.
By adding more thermal insulation most of us would loose out on more natural heating (80 percent every day every year)and ventilating than any gain from preventing small heat loss which most of us do not need to heat our homes most of the time.

Thermal insulation works if it is used right and not one solution for every home. The Manufacturers claims defy known physics in an attempt to make us spend more.
The misleading information goes on and on and most sales people no nothing about what they are saying just parrot fashion learning. I have bookmarked the forum site I may learn something.

 

Scrap fossil fuel subsidies now and bring in carbon tax, says World Bank chief

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ies-say-burn-more-carbon-world-bank-president

Jim Yong Kim calls for five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth, including removal of incentives to exploit oil, gas and coal

Poor countries are feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”, the president of the World Bank has said, as he called for a carbon tax and the immediate scrapping of subsidies for fossil fuels to hold back global warming.

Jim Yong Kim said awareness of the impact of extreme weather events that have been linked to rising temperatures was more marked in developing nations than in rich western countries, and backed for the adoption of a five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth.

 

America's Red Meat Horror Show: Why We Must Get Rid of Factory Farms

http://www.alternet.org/food/americas-red-meat-horror-show-why-we-must-get-rid-factory-farms

It’s time to stop fighting among ourselves about whether or not to eat meat.

Unfortunately in its recommendations, the DGAC didn’t really come out and tell us the whole truth, which would go something like this: “Americans should eat less, or rather no red and processed meat from filthy, inhumane factory farms or feedlots, where the animals are cruelly crammed together and routinely fed a diet of herbicide-drenched, genetically engineered grains, supplemented by a witch’s brew of antibiotics, artificial hormones, steroids, blood, manure and slaughterhouse waste, contributing to a deadly public health epidemic of obesity, heart disease, cancer, antibiotic resistance, hormone disruption and food allergies.”

If the DGAC had really told us the truth about America’s red meat horror show (95 percent of our red meat comes from these Confined Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs), we’d be having a conversation about how we can get rid of factory farms, instead of a rather abstract debate on the ethics of eating meat.

With a real debate we could conceivably start to change the self-destructive purchasing and eating habits (the average American carnivore consumes nine ounces or more of toxic CAFO meat and animal products daily) of most Americans. Instead we are having a slightly more high-volume replay of the same old debate, whereby vegetarians and vegans, constituting approximately 5 percent of the population, tell the other 95 percent, who are omnivores, to stop eating meat. Nothing much ever comes of that particular debate, which leaves thousands of hard-working, conscientious ranchers, and millions of health-, environment- and humane-minded omnivores, out of the conversation.

 

The Pacific Ocean has been slowing global warming down. That could be about to change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-warming-but-that-could-be-about-to-change/

Last week, I wrote a long story about a phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, a naturally occurring wobble in the planet’s climate system that involves the burial and release of heat by world’s biggest ocean — the Pacific. Normally, only geosciences wonks would care about such a thing — but lately, the PDO appears to be taking on a much broader significance.

That’s because climate scientists are increasingly pointing the finger at a cool phase of this oscillation to explain an apparent “pause” or “slowdown” in the warming of the planet’s surface (although not the deep oceans!) since around the year 2000. And if this argument is correct, it’s not good news for anybody. For with the PDO now apparently switching back to a warm mode, it would mean that global warming could soon burst forth again, as heat temporarily sequestered in the oceans reemerges into the atmosphere.

[The Pacific Ocean may have entered a new warm phase — and the consequences could be dramatic]
Now, a new study in Nature Climate Change has added additional weight to this interpretation of things.

 

New ocean energy plan could worsen global warming

http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-14245-new-ocean-energy-plan-could-worsen-global-warming.html

An apparently promising way of producing energy from the world’s oceans could cause catastrophic harm by warming the Earth far more than it can bear
One of renewable energy’s more outspoken enthusiasts has delivered bad news for the prospects of developing ocean thermal energy. His prediction is that although the technology could work for a while, after about 50 years it could actually exacerbate long-term global warning.

Of all the renewable energy technologies, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) sounded like the perfect choice. This is a plan to exploit the difference between the warm surface and the cold depths of the seas, and turn that difference into energy.

A network of vertical pipes floating below the surface of the ocean would create energy, leaving the view from the coast unsullied, and delivering power day or night, whatever the weather. But there was more.

Enthusiasts pointed out that as a bonus, the pipes used in the energy conversion would bring a flow of nutrients from the cold, deep waters to the less-fertile but sunlit surface of the ocean, thus encouraging the growth of marine algae that would soak up more carbon from the atmosphere. And, as a bonus, the same process would accelerate the downward flow of carbon, where it could be sequestered on the seabed.

Now one of renewable energy’s more vocal supporters has taken a closer look at the long-term consequences of the ocean pipes and come up with some discouraging news: an engineering program intended to cool the planet would end up making it warmer. It would work for a while, he says, but after about half a century it would reduce the cloud cover and at the same time reduce sea ice, to accelerate climate change once more.

The Carnegie calculations work like this: cold air is denser than warm air. Water funneled up the pipes on a very large scale from the depths would cool the air above the seas, and increase atmospheric pressure, which would reduce cloud formation over the seas. Since most of the planet is ocean, that means fewer clouds overall, which means more sunlight absorbed by the Earth rather than reflected back into space by the clouds.

And the same mixing of sea waters would bring sea ice into contact with warmer waters, which would mean less sea ice to reflect radiation, with the same result: accelerated global warming.

After 60 years, the simulated network of ocean pipes would cause an increase of global temperature by up to 1.2 degrees Celsius. After a few centuries, the same technology would take temperatures up by a catastrophic 8.5 degrees Celsius.

 

Stunning Photos Capture Devastation Caused by Electronic Waste Across the Globe

http://www.alternet.org/environment...astation-caused-electronic-waste-across-globe

Eighty percent of the hazardous waste is generated in developed countries, but is shipped to developing nations for disposal.

A lot has been written about electronic waste. In 2012, 50 million tons of e-waste was generated worldwide, and with the proliferation of smartphones, smart watches and other tech gear, that number will only increase. United Nations officials estimate that the volume of e-waste generated worldwide is expected to climb by 33 percent by 2017, to 65 million tons. Those numbers say a lot, but sometimes the pictures say much more.

The Odaw River in Accra, Ghana is one of the most polluted rivers in the world. Much of the waste comes from the Agbogbloshie e-waste landfill. (Photo Credit: Bit Rot Project)

The process releases toxic heavy metals like lead, beryllium and cadmium into the environment. Hydrocarbon ashes have also polluted the air, water and soil.
While illegal electronic waste dumping also occurs in the U.S., the appeal of sending e-waste overseas comes down to lower labor costs and fewer regulations. According to a 2013 United Nations report, China is “grappling with the reality of an estimated 20 percent annual rise in domestically generated e-waste combined with a role as one of the planet’s primary dumping grounds for global e-waste—a massive environmental, social and economic burden.”

 

Spooky Ring of Light Created by Arctic's Ice-Mapping Lasers (Photo)

http://www.livescience.com/50472-operation-icebridge-lasers-scan-sea-ice.html

Scientists beam lasers onto the ice below and calculate the time it takes for the signals to return. This helps them determine the distance between the plane and the icy surface, which reveals the surface height of the sea ice. It’s one of the oldest physics tricks in the book: drop a rock down a well, listen for the time it takes to hit the bottom and use that information to calculate how deep the well is.

Already, IceBridge data have shown that Arctic sea ice is thinning faster than ever.

 

Florida official says 'climate change' three times amid rumored ban on use

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/16/florida-climate-change-rumored-ban-jonathan-steverson

Incoming department of environmental protection chief insists state is aware of threat and is tacking action to respond to its potential impact

Sea level rise threatens Florida’s infrastructure, even though government officials may or may not be allowed to acknowledge climate change exists.
A Florida environment chief said the words “climate change” over and over again at a government hearing in an attempt to quash reports that state officials are banned from using the term.

Jonathan Steverson, the incoming secretary of the Florida department of environmental protection, scoffed at the idea that the phrase is taboo during his confirmation hearing in the state capitol in Tallahassee on Wednesday.

“Climate change. Climate change. Climate change. There, I said it three times,” he said.

Scientists say that Florida’s coast is threatened by rising sea levels and Steverson admitted: “We know that’s happening.” He said he had been working with district water management agencies and a working group on the subject, and that there was concern about the impact the rising ocean will have on the state’s infrastructure.

“Climate change is always happening. It’s always changing. And we know that sea-level rise is real,” he said.

Steverson repeated the phrase climate change three times in a row in response to a question from Democratic senator Darren Soto about the reports on the phrase being suppressed among state officials.

After the meeting, at which Steverson was unanimously confirmed, he reportedly told Floridapolitics.com that humans do have an influence on their environment.

“Can I be naive to think man has not had an impact on his environment? Certainly not,” he reportedly said.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-renewable-revolution_b_7078904.html

The Renewable Revolution

Don’t hold your breath, but future historians may look back on 2015 as the year that the renewable energy ascendancy began, the moment when the world started to move decisively away from its reliance on fossil fuels. Those fuels -- oil, natural gas, and coal -- will, of course, continue to dominate the energy landscape for years to come, adding billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon to the atmosphere. For the first time, however, it appears that a shift to renewable energy sources is gaining momentum. If sustained, it will have momentous implications for the world economy -- as profound as the shift from wood to coal or coal to oil in previous centuries.

A Sea Change in Chinese Energy Behavior

Of equal importance is China’s evident determination to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels -- a critical change in stance, given its projected energy needs in the decades to come. According to the DoE, China’s share of world energy consumption is expected to jump from an already impressive 19 percent in 2010 to 27 percent in 2040, with most of its added energy coming from fossil fuels. Should this indeed occur, China would consume another 88 quadrillion British thermal units of such energy over the next 30 years, or 43 percent of all added fossil fuel consumption worldwide. So any significant moves by China to reduce its reliance on those energy sources, as now being promised by senior government officials, would have an outsized impact on the global energy equation.
Although the Chinese plan allows for continued growth in carbon emissions for another 15 years, it substantially reduces the amount of new energy that will be derived from fossil fuels. According to a White House statement, “It will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar, and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 -- more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today.”

It appears, moreover, that Chinese leaders are preparing to move even faster than their pledge would require in transitioning away from fossil fuels. Under pressure from urban residents to reduce punishing levels of smog, the authorities have announced ambitious plans to lessen reliance on coal for electricity generation and rely instead on hydropower, nuclear, wind, and solar power, as well as natural gas.

A New World’s A-Coming

Add up these factors, all relatively unexpected, and one conclusion seems self-evident: we are witnessing the start of a global energy transition that could turn expectations upside down, politically, environmentally, and economically. This transformation won’t happen overnight and it will face fierce opposition from powerful and entrenched fossil fuel interests. Even so, it shows every sign of accelerating, which means that while we may be talking decades, the half-century horizon previously offered by experts like Vaclav Smil is probably no longer in the cards. Fossil fuels -- and the companies, politicians, and petro-states they have long enriched -- will lose their dominant status and be overtaken by the purveyors of renewable energy far more quickly than that.

 

Record global temperatures to kick off 2015

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/67852333/record-global-temperatures-to-kick-off-2015
There's been no break from the globe's record heat - the first three months of 2015 have set new high temperature marks.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last month's average temperature of 56.4 Fahrenheit degrees (13.6 degrees Celsius) was the hottest March on record, averaging 1.5F degrees above the average for the 20th century. It broke a record set in 2010.
California was a special hot case. Not only was the state's January through March average temperature 7.5 degrees warmer than normal, it smashed the old record, which was set just last year, by 1.8F degrees.

Blunden blames the record heat on a combination of El Nino, a blob of record hot water in the Northeast Pacific Ocean and human-caused climate change. None of them show signs of slowing down, she said.

 

As a professional boat builder and life long nature lover, I skipped the video because I know the very real situation our ocean is in. We as humans are over fishing the oceans while we dump our waist into them. Its like cleaning out your car, and eating what you dug from under your seat for dinner. toot toot. sweep it all under the rug, if any one asks about it point at the guy next to you. I pick up trash when I see it floating on the water, sometimes this is the best we can do as individuals. Other then GET LOUD!(=

Jeff Warner,
E-Boat Inc. boatbuildercentral.com

 

Scripps Study Explains Recent Pause in Global Warming | Times of San Diego

 

China's struggle for water security

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-struggle-water-security-033157466.html

Way back in 1999, before he became China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao warned that water scarcity posed one of the greatest threats to the "survival of the nation".

Sixteen years later, that threat looms ever larger, casting a forbidding shadow over China's energy and food security and demanding urgent solutions with significant regional, and even global, consequences, "More importantly, China's energy choices do not only impact global climate change, but affect water availability for Asia," it said, warning of the danger of future "water wars" given China's upstream control over Asia's mightiest rivers.

The Qinghai-Tibetan plateau is essentially the world's largest water tank and the origin of some of Asia's most extensive river systems including the Indus, Brahmaputra and Mekong.

The most significant link in the nexus the report describes is the fact that 93 percent of China's power generation is water-reliant.

Northern China's thirst for water -- the coal industry is centred there as well -- extends to its rapidly growing and increasingly affluent urban populations.

The need to meet the rising demand from these cities resulted in one of the world's most ambitious engineering projects, with an overall estimated cost of more than $80 billion.

The central phase of the massive South-North Diversion Project opened in December, as water began flowing to Beijing through more than 1,200 kilometres (745 miles) of channels and pipes -- the distance from London to Madrid.

But experts stress that China cannot simply engineer its way out of its water crisis with headline mega-projects that will never be big enough to keep pace with increasing demand.

- 'Good water after bad' -

Years of declining rainfall in southern China means it now regularly sees droughts of its own.
China is in fact implementing an extremely ambitious water management strategy, albeit one that risks being undermined by inter-departmental rivalries, corruption and incentives that favour economic development over sustainable resource use.

In 2011, it issued its "three red lines" policy establishing strict limits on water quantity usage, efficiency and quality, while this year a new Environment Law came into force with harsh fines for polluters.

State media reported last year that 60 percent of China's groundwater and more than half its major freshwater lakes were polluted.

"Before, there wasn't much of a stick for punishing wastage and polluting," said CWR's Tan. "Now there are strict standards and a very big stick."