Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
Hi Terry...you asked, "if we do not love this planet enough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will not be condusive to growing food?" That is the path upon which we are headed, perhaps irreversibly by now. But I'm only going on the information I continue to read here on the List and elsewhere. Hey, maybe it's all some weird propaganda and not really true, just some junk those "liberals" keep throwing up? Whatever. Did you see Juan Boveda's post on the ozone hole of 2006 being the largest on record? Mass extinction is nothing new on the planet. If someone would care to try and dissuade me, I'd love to be dissuaded, but I'm afraid I'm caving in to the thought of it. There will be survivors and their progeny. I suspect their places on the planet for doing so are already staked out and well fortified. Interesting to think about the ideology that also survives and goes forward. Personally, I don't know how to come grips with it all. More and more I find myself looking forward to going to bed, closing my eyes, and dreaming it all away. Never used to be that way--too much happening to sleep much; too little time to behold it. My wife is becoming more and more annoyed with my mental slippage, especially about something I "can't do anything about." She's Irish and will keep on smiling come hell or high water, until you break your word with her. Then expect the ozone hole to grow larger by at least the size of your body. My neighbor manages to keep a smile on his face, but he saw death up close and perhaps even more absurd in Vietnam. A close friend of mine for years who lives far away from me now also manages to keep smiling, at least when we visit by phone or through email, although recently he admitted to me that he, too, had to fight off thoughts and their effects of what's coming. He cracked up in Pakistan years ago working for the government, but has recovered admirably. So I accept bedtime more readily than ever before in my life, but what troubles me most about this is that it is because I want to. So, yeah, Terry, no more climate conducive to growing anything except maybe cockroaches who apparently have survived through everything for millenia. Crazy cockroaches. Wait...a bulletin on TV...live from the White House...another cockroach. Says we must stay the course. I suspect he would also stand behind this quote, "Free government does not bestow repose upon its' citizens, but sets them in the vanguard of battle to defend the liberty of every man." "Every man" who is a cockroach, he whispers, then smiles that smirky smile he sometimes almost winces to put on his face. I'm not going to bed. I'm going outside to rake leaves and behold an especially colorful autumn. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: "Terry Dyck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze? > Hi Mike,> > I really like what you wrote about shaking hands with the person who grew > your food. The next question might be; if we do not love this planet > enough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will > not be condusive to growing food?> > Terry Dyck> > >>From: "M&K DuPree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org>>To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?>>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:55:17 -0500>>>>Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or>>not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the>>planet. -- Colin Wright>>>>The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically>>unplugged from the planet. When was the last time your feet actually>>touched the ground and not concrete? When was the last time you looked the>>grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand? How many more>>questions like this can we all ask? Perhaps this article will help us gain>>a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our>>children. Mike DuPree>>>>- Original Message ->>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM>>Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?>>>>>> > http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm>> > (October 12, 2006)>> >>> > Carbon Freeze?>> >>> > Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Ga
Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
Hi Mike, I really like what you wrote about shaking hands with the person who grew your food. The next question might be; if we do not love this planet enough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will not be condusive to growing food? Terry Dyck >From: "M&K DuPree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >To: >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze? >Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:55:17 -0500 > >Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or >not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the >planet. -- Colin Wright > >The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically >unplugged from the planet. When was the last time your feet actually >touched the ground and not concrete? When was the last time you looked the >grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand? How many more >questions like this can we all ask? Perhaps this article will help us gain >a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our >children. Mike DuPree > >- Original Message - >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM >Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze? > > > > http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm > > (October 12, 2006) > > > > Carbon Freeze? > > > > Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. > > Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique > > it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the > > depth of the climate crisis and a call to action. > > > > Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by > > Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking > > at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself > > on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While > > the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does > > indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away > > from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component > > to Gaia. > > > > Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are > > failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her > > temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is, > > Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University > > Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted > > English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society, > > Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the > > latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his > > objectivity is not compromised by speaking out. > > > > Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like > > rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice > > in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost, > > etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and > > linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions. > > For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of > > sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to > > a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened. > > > > Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot > > state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a > > hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55 > > million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the > > planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot > > state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae > > growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide > > levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae > > with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become > > extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around > > eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the > > planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding > > would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population. > > > > To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage. > > The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be > > frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that > > letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put
Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the planet. -- Colin Wright The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically unplugged from the planet. When was the last time your feet actually touched the ground and not concrete? When was the last time you looked the grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand? How many more questions like this can we all ask? Perhaps this article will help us gain a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our children. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze? > http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm > (October 12, 2006) > > Carbon Freeze? > > Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. > Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique > it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the > depth of the climate crisis and a call to action. > > Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by > Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking > at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself > on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While > the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does > indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away > from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component > to Gaia. > > Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are > failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her > temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is, > Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University > Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted > English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society, > Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the > latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his > objectivity is not compromised by speaking out. > > Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like > rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice > in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost, > etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and > linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions. > For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of > sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to > a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened. > > Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot > state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a > hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55 > million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the > planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot > state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae > growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide > levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae > with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become > extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around > eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the > planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding > would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population. > > To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage. > The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be > frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that > letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of > billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' "The > End of Oil," that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current > levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do > nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.) > > Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock > advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the > temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of > alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop > nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at > all. > > Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He > seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton > geo
Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
i wonder if there is a way to combine nuclear waste (cesium, ytterbium, iodine, cobalt, iridium, and strontium? from wikipedia) with carbon. do you suppose the waste could be stabilized, and the carbon locked up for keeps that way? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze? > http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm > (October 12, 2006) > > Carbon Freeze? > > Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. > Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique > it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the > depth of the climate crisis and a call to action. > > Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by > Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking > at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself > on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While > the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does > indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away > from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component > to Gaia. > > Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are > failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her > temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is, > Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University > Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted > English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society, > Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the > latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his > objectivity is not compromised by speaking out. > > Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like > rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice > in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost, > etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and > linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions. > For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of > sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to > a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened. > > Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot > state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a > hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55 > million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the > planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot > state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae > growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide > levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae > with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become > extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around > eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the > planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding > would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population. > > To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage. > The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be > frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that > letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of > billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' "The > End of Oil," that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current > levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do > nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.) > > Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock > advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the > temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of > alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop > nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at > all. > > Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He > seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton > geology professor Ken Deffeyes is still sticking to his December 2005 > prediction for global peak oil. His new evidence? New data from the > US Energy Information Administration that world crude oil production > peaked at 85.1 million barrels a day last December and then declined > to 84.3 million barrels this past June. > (www.energybulletin.net/
[Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm (October 12, 2006) Carbon Freeze? Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the depth of the climate crisis and a call to action. Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component to Gaia. Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is, Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his objectivity is not compromised by speaking out. Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost, etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions. For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened. Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55 million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population. To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage. The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' "The End of Oil," that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.) Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at all. Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton geology professor Ken Deffeyes is still sticking to his December 2005 prediction for global peak oil. His new evidence? New data from the US Energy Information Administration that world crude oil production peaked at 85.1 million barrels a day last December and then declined to 84.3 million barrels this past June. (www.energybulletin.net/20518.html). A temporary downturn, perhaps. (Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, with his field-by-field analysis, still sticks to his 2010/2011 peak.) Meanwhile knowledge of the coming energy crisis seems scant in Seattle. Portland and San Francisco city councils have already passed Peak Oil resolutions, setting up committees to study how their city will react and prepare for the coming high energy prices and shortages. Energy analyst Matt Simmons thinks the genie is now out of the bottle and peak oil and gas will dominate the 2008 election (www.energybulletin.net/21055.html). Al Gore, well aware of the global warming/peak oil systems crisis, and who has done more than anyone recently to wake up lethargic Americans, is calling for an immediate carbon freeze, followed by steep de
