Environment-Clean-Generations

Environment-Clean-Generations
THE DEFINITIVE BLOG FOR EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT YOU LIVE IN, WITH REFERENCE TO LIFE, EARTH AND COSMIC SPACE SCIENCES, PRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DORU INDREI, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY SPACIALIST
"Life is not about what we know, but what we don't know, craving the unthinkable makes it so amazing, that is worth dying for." Doru Indrei
Custom Search
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts

World is Warming


A Berkeley University physics professor and self-described global warming "skeptic" has just completed a major global temperature study, concluding that the world has been warming by 1 C since the mid-1950s.
Richard Muller, scientific director of the California-based, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project admits he is now a "global warming convert."
"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the U.K.," Muller said in a statement.
Muller led a team of researchers, who he said had no global warming bias or agenda, to set the record straight on the basic question: is the world warming or not?
Other climate science groups such as NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom have already shown a warming trend for some time.


But Muller was motivated to clear the scientific suspicion raised by the so-called "Climategate" scandal of late 2009, when U.K. scientists' e-mails were hacked and exposed, raising accusations that some scientists may have tinkered with temperature readings to suit global warming conclusions.
He said he would accept the conclusion of his latest study, whichever way it went.
"Climategate was very disturbing to me. A group of scientists had suppressed data that disagreed with what they thought was the answer," Muller told CBC News in a recent Skype interview.
"In science, you're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to show your dirty laundry."
Muller said he designed a study to deal with skeptics' major concerns, such as selection bias and the "urban heat island effect."
The latter refers to thermometer readings that are unusually warm due to their proximity to airports or cities that produce their own heat.
The Berkeley project gathered an astonishing 1.6 billion temperature readings from around the planet — five times more locations than reviewed by previous groups.
The study is making international headlines, but other skeptics aren't so sure if the so-called warming debate is over.
"It's been spun in a way to suggest the skeptics are wrong, and we should all just repent," said Peter Holle of the Frontier Centre, a Winnipeg-based think-tank that often funds well-known global warming skeptics, such as Timothy Ball, to give presentations across Canada.
Holle said the Berkeley study still has not been peer-reviewed. One of the study's co-authors, Judith Curry, has already disputed the conclusions in published news reports, he added.
Holle also questioned the accuracy of the temperature stations, as well as the timing of the study's release.


"We think it's probably no coincidence that there's a major UN conference coming up in Durban, South Africa, on climate change in about four weeks," he said.
Environmental activist Curt Hull with Climate Change Connection in Winnipeg said he expects the world will embrace this report.
"I think it just adds to the mountain of evidence, and the continually growing mountain of evidence, that the Earth is warming," said Hull.
In a move towards greater transparency, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project published all of its temperature data online for anyone to download, criticize or reinterpret.
"So by doing the science carefully, by doing it openly, by putting all of our data online … what we're hoping is this will not be part of the political debate anymore, that we'll agree on the science," Muller said.
In a twist, the study was partly funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.
Charles Koch is a U.S. billionaire industrialist who, according to Environment Canada, just happens to own the largest greenhouse gas-polluting facility in Manitoba: the Koch fertilizer plant in Brandon.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund claims that Koch is a well-known funder of global warming denial activities, as well as the U.S. Tea Party movement.
In a statement, the Charles Koch Foundation said, "The [Berkeley] research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate."

The New North Pole Ozone Hole

Spawned by strangely cold temperatures, "beautiful" clouds helped strip the Arctic atmosphere of most of its protective ozone this winter, new research shows.
The resulting zone of low-ozone air could drift as far south as New York, according to experts who warn of increased skin-cancer risk.
The stratosphere's global blanket of ozone—about 12 miles (20 kilometers) above Earth—blocks most of the sun's high-frequency ultraviolet (UV) rays from hitting Earth's surface, largely preventing sunburn and skin cancer.

 
But a continuing high-altitude freeze over the Arctic may have already reduced ozone to half its normal concentrations—and "an end is not in sight," said research leader Markus Rex, a physicist for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany.

Preliminary data from 30 ozone-monitoring stations throughout the Arctic show the degree of ozone loss was larger this winter than ever before, Rex said.
Before spring is out, "we may even get the first Arctic ozone hole ... which would be a dramatic development—one which would make it into coming history books," he said.
"It's too early to call, but stay tuned."

Atmospheric chemist Simone Tilmes, who wasn't part of the study, agreed.
"We do not know at the moment how large the ozone hole in the Arctic will grow, because the thinning of the ozone layer is happening right now," said Tilmes, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

Full confirmation may require computer simulations and satellite measurements, which study leader Rex said would "be very useful to provide an independent view of the ozone loss this year."
An ozone hole is an area of the ozone layer that is seasonally depleted of the protective gas—such as the well-known hole over Antarctica.


"Beautiful" Clouds Harbor Ozone-Fighting Chemicals

In the 1980s scientists realized chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting chemicals—then widely used in aerosol hairsprays and refrigerants, for example—were degrading the ozone layer.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol initiated a global phase-out of CFCs, replacing them with alternatives that don't destroy ozone. However, CFCs can persist for decades in the stratosphere—the Antarctic ozone hole is still there, though it's expected to grow smaller in coming decades.

Once in the upper atmosphere, CFCs break down into chlorine atoms, which, when activated by sunlight, destroy ozone molecules.
Cold temperatures speed up this process through polar stratospheric clouds (see picture), "beautiful" and still little understood formations that occur once stratospheric temperatures drop to at least -108 degrees Fahrenheit (-78 degrees Celsius), Rex noted.

The clouds provide "reservoirs" for inactivated byproducts of chlorine. On the surface of the cloud, these byproducts react with each other and release "aggressive" chlorine atoms that attack ozone molecules.
The whole process stops as soon as it gets warmer and the so-called Arctic polar vortex breaks up, Tilmes said.
At about 6 million square miles (15 million square kilometers), or 40 times the size of Germany, the Arctic polar vortex is a frigid air mass that circles the North Pole in winter.

Warming Link to High-Altitude Cold Snap?

The cold snap is no coincidence, research leader Rex added.
"This is the continuation of a long-term tendency that the cold Arctic winters have become colder," Rex said.
And global warming may drive this trend, he added. As greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower levels of the atmosphere, the higher levels tend to cool, he said.
Of course, the "process is more complicated than this simple explanation"—there may be many ways in which greenhouse gases influence high-altitude temperatures, he added.

Low-Ozone Air to Fly South for Spring?

Any spike in UV radiation can impact both the Arctic ecosystem and human health, research leader Rex noted. For instance, more sunlight can slow the growth of certain species of ocean algae that provide food for larger organisms—and whose absence can have reverberations up the food chain.
More worrisome, Rex said, is that ozone-depleted air can catch a ride south to more highly populated areas with the Arctic polar vortex.
Low-ozone air is often pushed southward to 40 or 45 degrees latitude by natural atmospheric disturbances, Rex said.

A low-ozone air mass's southern "excursions" can take it as far as northern Italy in Europe or New York or San Francisco in the United States, he said.
The rapidly shifting vortex might last into April, when people are starting to spend more time outside, NCAR's Tilmes noted.

"A good message for people [is] to just be aware that this is a year where ozone will be likely thinner this spring.
"You should watch out for your skin and put on your sunscreen."
Rex noted that, however, that since the mass is constantly moving, low-ozone episodes would only last a few days in a given region.

Rex also said this winter's decline in ozone doesn't mean that the Montreal Protocol isn't doing its job.
"People could mistake that and say we have banned CFCs and [it] doesn't seem to work," he said.
"That's not the case. It's just the timescale—CFCs take so long to disappear from the atmosphere."
by "environment clean generations"

A Greener Greenland?



The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.
In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.
But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick.


It came after a group of leading  polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.
Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images.

There are no official figures on how much ice has melted but one scientist put it at between 0.3 and 1.5 per cent of the ice sheet.
Publicity for the new atlas read: ‘For the first time the new edition has had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland “green” and ice-free.

‘This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet for ever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate.’

The seven Cambridge scientists who signed the letter are closely involved with research into changes in the Greenland ice shelf.
They do not dispute that some glaciers have got smaller but say the overall picture presented is wrong.

Glaciologist Dr Poul Christoffersen of the Scott Institute said: ‘We believe that the figure of a 15 per cent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the  previous atlas 12 years ago is both incorrect and misleading.

‘We compared recent satellite images of Greenland with the new map and found that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands.
‘We conclude that a sizeable portion of the area mapped as  ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered. There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature.’

If the Times Atlas calculations were correct, the ice sheet would have been shrinking at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year since 1999.
The Cambridge scientists measure ice loss in volume, not area, and say it has actually decreased by 0.1 per cent in the past 12 years.

 The ice cover in the Polar regions are crucial indicators of global climate change

Graham Cogley, professor of geography at Trent University in Canada, said: ‘Climate change is real and Greenland ice cover is shrinking but the claims here are simply not backed up by science. This pig can’t fly. 

‘The best measurements in Greenland, which cover only part of the ice sheet, suggest that 1.5 per cent per year is at least ten times faster than reality.
‘It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast.’

Dr Jeffrey Kargel, a hydrologist at the University of Arizona, said it was ‘a killer mistake that cannot be winked away’.

The Times Atlas, which claims to be the ‘most authoritative’, first came out in 1895. It is not owned by The Times newspaper but is published by HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corporation.
A spokesman for HarperCollins yesterday admitted the land shown as green and described as ‘ice-free’ could be up to 500m – more than a quarter of a mile – thick.
She said: ‘I can see why you could see that as misleading.’

She said the data was provided by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado. Its lead scientist Dr Ted Scambos said it appeared the atlas had used a map from the Centre’s website which showed ‘ice thickness’ not the extent of the ice edge.
He added that the Centre  had never been contacted by the atlas’s cartographers. 

He said: ‘That map would not be appropriate and there are many small glaciers and ice domes around the perimeter of Greenland that should have been included in the permanent ice sheet.

‘We are very surprised by the mistake because lots of people – in the U.S., Europe, Cambridge – could have steered the atlas away from this high-profile statement as ice in Greenland is fairly well mapped and the melting is nowhere near this level.
‘Was it a mistake? I can only speculate that the people promoting the map were thinking differently from the cartographers.

‘The problem is that people may think that because the melting is so much less than 15 per cent it is not something to worry about – but it is. Part of the mission of the sceptic community is to throw wrench and create confusion, when in fact there is a lot of understanding in this area.’

by "environment clean generations"

Deadline 2014 To Stop Global Warming


Coal-Fired Power Plants Coal-fired power plants, such as this one in the Conesville, Ohio, are by far the 'dirtiest' means of producing electricity in terms of amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. This has made coal a primary target in the effort to keep total emissions of carbon dioxide below the threshold that will yield two degrees celcius of warming. Scientists have settled identified this threshold as the marker for avoiding "catastrophic" consequences from climate change. 

It’s no secret that the world is warming, but a new report published by the World Wildlife Fund suggests we may not have as much time to mull solutions as we think. If the world doesn’t commit to green technologies by 2014, the report says, runaway global warming and economic meltdown are all but unstoppable.

Written by a group at the experts at Australian insurance consultancy Climate Risk, the transformation to a low-carbon world requires an effort “greater than any other industrial transformation witnessed in our history.” At minimum, the world needs to embrace – and by embrace, they mean to the absolute maximum – low-carbon technologies by 2014.

A minimum growth in all green industries of 22% a year is necessary to achieve that goal, according to their research, and that’s just to cut emissions to 63% of 1990 levels by 2020.

But the WWF has more ambitious plans: a reduction to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, an industrial revolution that would require growths between 24% and 29% every year. This is the best way to stave off the doomsday scenario of 2 degree Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming across the board, according to the report. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go.

The research relied on complex Monte Carlo models of industrial growth, resource allocation, and technological advance, but the basic reasoning is thus: total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are estimated 463 parts per million. Scientific research shows that a good comfortable spot for our atmosphere is about 400 ppm. But at around 475 ppm, a threshold that we are dangerously close to crossing, runaway climate change becomes increasingly more likely, at which point it will be difficult if not impossible to put the brakes on global warming.

Now, having said all that, it’s important to note that this isn’t the first doomsday climate change scenario to emerge, especially recently. Just today, two British Cabinet ministers showed off their own doomsday map, detailing rising sea levels and submerged cities that would result from a 4 degree Celsius (7.2 degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temps.

President Obama has pledged a greenhouse gas reduction of 80 percent by 2050 (an easy promise to make with a two term limit), while the EU has stated that it will match those efforts if a deal is sealed at December’s UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

But the WWF report, if taken seriously, places a new urgency on the issue. For one, most climate strategies rely upon an incremental ratcheting down of emissions while slowly transitioning to low-carbon sources of energy all the way up to 2050.

According to WWF, this schedule simply won’t hack it. Further, WWF points out that only three of the 20 green technologies they’ve reviewed are moving forward fast enough to hit the 2014 deadline: wind, solar, and biodiesel. Other technological initiatives like low-carbon agriculture, sustainable forestry, and other forms of green energy generation are sorely lacking. The outlook, it seems, is dim.

What happens if we miss the deadline? According to the WWF report, from there things become increasingly difficult. Post-2014, low-carbon industries will need to grow at a minimum of 29% per year, and that’s just to have a better than 50% chance of staving off that nearly 4-degree Fahrenheit spike in global temperatures.

But the news isn’t all bad: while the transition will be tough, long term investment in green energies should pay off, with renewable energy savings alone in the period between 2013 and 2050 expected to hit $47 trillion if we cut by 80 percent, a positive number among many grim figures.

Naturally, models are models and scenarios are but scenarios. The most important takeaway is this: no matter whether you believe in runaway warming or not, technology is the way forward in our warming world, and right now we are woefully under-prepared for the transition to a low-carbon future.

by "environment clean generations"

Arctic Ice Melting 50 Years Too Fast



On Aug. 19, 2007, a joint survey by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency revealed that Arctic ice was melting at a far quicker rate than anticipated. What's particularly alarming about this discovery is that the United Nations' scientific models anticipated that the ice levels measured by the Japanese team would not be reached until after 2040 -- and possibly not until 2050.

                                        This satellite image shows that Arctic ice levels in 2007 (left)
                                                          were less than even the record low levels of 2005 (right).

A researcher at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics said that Arctic ice is melting at previously unseen rates [source: Science Daily]. The melting has caused coastal ice in parts of Canada and Alaska to become quite brittle. That ice easily breaks away in large chunks (a process known as calving) and melts in the open ocean. There's also less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean because ice has floated into the Atlantic Ocean. The previous record low for Arctic sea ice was recorded on Aug. 15, 2005, though scientists said there was a high probability that the record would be breached in 2007.

The Arctic saw another milestone in the summer of 2007. In August, the Northwest Passage had almost no floating ice. It was the first time the Passage had been completely open to shipping since people started keeping records in 1972. Scientists say that the lack of ice represents clear proof that the planet is warming. The now-open sea lane means that someone could sail from New York to Korea without encountering any ice, though bad weather is always possible. In comparison, the first explorer to navigate the Northwest Passage successfully, Roald Amundsen, took three years to get through the waterway's thick ice.

Sea ice is measured primarily through three methods: microwave scanners on orbiting satellites, buoys and observation platforms. The latter two are generally equipped with several types of measuring devices. Scientists focus their measurements on the extent of sea ice, rather than the thickness, since it's easier for satellites to measure extent. When examining sea ice, scientists look at the minimum and maximum extent, thickness, environmental conditions and changes in the melting season. The Arctic sea ice melting season usually lasts from March to the middle of September.

This record pace of Arctic ice melt has scientists concerned about rising sea levels, diminished habitats for polar bears and other animals and an impending rush for fossil fuels in the region. Increased traffic through the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage (which runs by Siberia) may increase pollution in the area.
Ice re-forms during winter, but due to warmer waters the amount of re-formed ice appears to be decreasing. Ice that was previously considered "permanent" is now melting. That leaves an ever-decreasing base of ice at the beginning of each melting season.

Sea ice plays an important role in keeping temperatures down around the world. Whereas sea ice reflects 80 percent of sunlight back into the atmosphere, ocean water absorbs 90 percent of sunlight [source: National Snow and Ice Data Center]. As melting ice exposes more ocean to direct sunlight, scientists expect water temperatures to rise, accelerating the ice melt.

Consequences of Melting Arctic Ice

The opening of the Northwest Passage and melting of Arctic ice has allowed access to parts of the Arctic Ocean and the seabed that have been blocked for centuries. Consequently, several countries are trying to lay claim to parts of the newly opened Arctic in hopes of getting at some of the oil and natural gas reserves that are buried under the ocean floor. Experts estimate that 25 percent of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves lies under the Arctic seabed [source: Guardian Unlimited]. Commentator Jeremy Rifkin noted with irony that it’s the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent rise of global temperatures that has made it possible to access these long-blocked stores of oil and gas [source: Houston Chronicle].  

                                                   Scientists fear that increased melting of Arctic ice will lead to the 
polar bear's extinction sometime in the middle of the century.
 
 

The 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty gives countries an economic zone extending 200 miles from their coasts, and it’s under the provisions of this treaty that some countries are trying to lay claim to parts of the Arctic. In August 2007, Russia planted a flag on the Arctic seabed, following a claim that part of the ocean floor is an extension of their country’s continental shelf. Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland) are making similar claims. The United States and Canada still dispute who has the right to claim the Northwest Passage while both Denmark and Canada claim sovereignty over Hans Island.

Some commentators say that a new oil rush is underway that will further imperil the region’s delicate environment. Despite the controversy, Russia and Canada, in particular, appear to be aggressively pursuing their claims in the region. Russia is expanding its drilling operations in the waters off Siberia. Canada is spending several billion dollars to add a deep-water seaport and new patrol ships to their Arctic territory. Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, said that “Canada’s position is that we intend our position in the Arctic area” [source: CanWest News Service].

Scientists call this rush for fossil fuels and the melting of permafrost in Siberia and other areas a “ticking time bomb” [source: Houston Chronicle]. If Siberia’s vast permafrost continues to melt, massive amounts of methane, now trapped beneath the ice, may be released. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, more than 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide. Scientists fear that the release of so much methane may initiate a sort of feedback loop, wherein methane release increases the rate of global warming, in turn spurring more permafrost melt and more methane release [source: Houston Chronicle]. 

One of the more visible effects of Arctic ice melt is the calving of large pieces of ice from glaciers and ice shelves. In 2005, the Ayles Ice Island, a 30-square mile chunk of ice, broke away from Canada’s Ayles Ice Shelf and began drifting through the Arctic. Some people worried that the ice island would crash into Alaskan oil rigs in the Beaufort Sea, but as of late August 2007, it was stuck in a channel in the Canadian High Arctic, 300 miles from its original location.

by "environment clean generations"
 

What Is Frozen Fuel?


All by itself, methane isn't very exciting. It's a colorless, odorless gas and the simplest member of the alkane series of hydrocarbons. Its biggest claim to fame is that, as the main constituent of natural gas, it's useful as a source of energy.

Recently, however, geologists have discovered a type of methane that has piqued their curiosity. Part of its unusual character is how it exists in its natural state -- trapped inside a cage of ice. Even more intriguing is how much of this frozen methane seems to be locked away in the Earth's crust. Some estimates indicate that as much as 700 quadrillion (700 × 1015) cubic feet (20 quadrillion cubic meters) of methane are encased in ice and trapped in seafloor sediments all over the world [source: Tarbuck]. That's twice as much carbon as Earth's other fossil fuels combined.

That's not just mud (pictured). It's mud containing methane hydrate, icelike crystals that form at low temperatures and high pressure. And it could be a future energy source. See more alternative fuel pictures.

The discovery of this new type of methane, what scientists call methane hydrate, has led to two important questions. The first is pragmatic: Will it burn like ordinary methane? It turns out it will. If you take a piece of methane hydrate -- it looks like hard-packed snow -- and touch a lighted match to it, the sample will burn with a reddish flame. And if that's the case, it could be used to heat homes, fuel cars and generally power energy-hungry nations such as Japan, the United States, India and China. Recent data suggest that just 1 percent of Earth's methane hydrate deposits could yield enough natural gas to meet America's energy needs for 170,000 years [source: Stone].

The second question is partly an ethical consideration: Should we, as a global community trying fervently to develop clean, renewable energy, embrace one of the fossil fuels that got us into trouble in the first place? Science can't answer that question. It can, however, reveal the challenges and risks that face countries hoping to take advantage of methane hydrate. One of the most significant challenges is finding efficient ways to extract the frozen fuel. More troubling are potential catastrophes -- ranging from massive underwater landslides to a runaway greenhouse effect -- related to methane mining.

In this article, we'll explore all the positives and negatives of methane hydrate. We'll look at its relatively brief history, as well as how it fits in some possible future scenarios. And, of course, we'll examine the basic science behind this so-called "flammable ice."


 Fire and Ice: The Chemistry of Methane Hydrate

Frozen fuel is the catchy name for a family of substances known as gas hydrates. The gas in question is natural gas, a mixture of hydrocarbons, such as methane, propane, butane and pentane. Of these, methane is by far the most common component and one of the most-studied compounds in chemistry.

Like all hydrocarbons, methane contains only two elements -- carbon and hydrogen. It is an example of a saturated hydrocarbon, or a molecule composed entirely of single bonds and therefore the maximum number of hydrogen atoms allowed. The general formula for saturated hydrocarbons is CnH2n+2. Methane only has one carbon atom, so its chemical formula is CH4. Chemists describe this shape as a tetrahedron.

Methane is a colorless, odorless, combustible gas produced by bacterial decomposition of plant and animal matter. It forms in a process shared by all fossil fuels. First, marine plants and animals die and fall to the seafloor. Next, mud and other seafloor sediments cover the decomposing organisms. The sediments put a great deal of pressure on the organic matter and begin to compress it. This compression, combined with high temperatures, breaks down the carbon bonds in the organic matter, transforming it into oil and natural gas.

Generally, this methane -- what geologists describe as "conventional" methane -- is located beneath the Earth's surface. To get to it, workers must drill through rock and sediment and tap into the methane deposits to release the gas. Then they pump it to the surface, where it's transported through pipes across the country.
Methane can also form unconventionally if the sediments producing it are located about 1,640 feet (500 meters) below the ocean surface.

The near-freezing temperatures and high pressure of these conditions causes the methane to become encased in ice. The methane doesn't bond chemically with the water. Instead, each tetrahedral methane molecule sits inside a crystalline shell made of ice. This unique substance is known as methane hydrate, and as soon as it reaches warmer temperatures and lower pressures, the ice melts away, leaving behind pure methane.
Geologists discovered naturally occurring methane hydrate only recently, but chemists have known about it for years.

A Brief History of Methane Hydrate

The history of gas hydrates can be traced back to Humphrey Davy, a chemist from Cornwall, England, who identified chlorine as an element in 1810.

Davy and his assistant, Michael Faraday, continued to work with chlorine throughout the early 1800s, mixing the green gas with water and cooling the mixture to low temperatures.

It's very likely that Davy observed the strange solid that resulted as chlorine atoms became encased in ice crystals, but Faraday gets official credit for the discovery. In 1823, Faraday issued a report describing the strange substance and called it chlorine clathrate hydrate. Other types of clathrates, each involving a guest compound locked inside the lattice structure of a host, were soon discovered, but they remained a laboratory curiosity.

Then, in the 1930s, natural-gas miners began to complain of an icelike material clogging pipelines exposed to cold temperatures. Scientists determined that this material was not pure ice, but ice wrapped around methane. They wasted no time trying to find ways to prevent hydrates from forming and turned primarily to chemicals, such as methanol or monoethylene glycol. Since then, mining companies have added these materials to their natural-gas pipelines to inhibit hydrate formation.

In the 1960s, scientists discovered that methane hydrate, or "solid natural gas," existed in the Messoyakha gas field in western Siberia. This was significant because naturally occurring gas hydrates had never been found before. Geologists and chemists arrived in the vast basin and began to study the conditions in which the hydrates were forming. They found that sub-permafrost sediments were rich in hydrates and began to look for similar deposits in other high-latitude regions. Soon, another team of researchers found methane hydrate in sediments buried deep below the North Slope of Alaska.

Based on these early findings, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory conducted extensive research between 1982 and 1992, revealing that methane hydrate deposits could be found in offshore sediments as well. Suddenly, what had once been a curiosity and an industrial nuisance looked like it might be a significant resource. In the mid-1990s, Japan and India took the lead in methane hydrate research, with the goal of finding more deposits and developing ways to extract the trapped methane economically. Scientists have since discovered methane hydrate deposits in numerous locations, including the Mackenzie River delta in Canada and the Nankai Trough off the coast of Japan.
Up next, we'll consider the impact methane hydrate could have on the world's energy supply.

 The Potential of Frozen Fuel

Once scientists began looking for methane hydrate deposits, they weren't disappointed. They found them beneath Arctic permafrost and  beneath the seafloor, especially in areas where one tectonic plate slides over another. These regions are known as subduction zones because the edge of one plate moves beneath another.

For example, off the coast of Washington and Oregon, the Juan de Fuca plate is sliding underneath the North American plate. Like a piece of wood being drawn across the blade of a plane, the sediments, including hydrates, of the Juan de Fuca plate are removed by the rocky crust of the North American plate. This creates a ridge of hydrates that runs parallel to the coast.

Hydrate deposits have also been found in regions where large ocean currents meet. Blake Ridge is a formation located off the coast of South Carolina, in water ranging from 6,562 to 15,748 feet (2,000 to 4,800 meters) deep. Geologists believe the ridge formed during the Oligocene epoch, about 33.7 to 23.8 million years ago.

The Greenland Sea opened up during this time, allowing huge amounts of cold, dense water to flow south along the Atlantic coast. As this cold water ran headlong into warm water being carried northward on the Gulf Stream, the currents slowed down and dropped large amounts of sediment. Organic material buried in these sediments eventually gave rise to a large amount of methane hydrate.

How much of this frozen fuel exists at Blake Ridge and other sites around the world? Some estimates put the amount of methane locked away in hydrates at anywhere from 100,000 trillion to 300,000,000 trillion cubic feet (2,832 trillion to 8,495,054 trillion cubic meters). Compare that to the 13,000 trillion cubic feet (368 trillion cubic meters) of conventional natural gas reserves remaining on the planet, and you can understand why jaws in the scientific community have dropped [source: Collett].
Of course, finding the hydrate deposits is one thing. As we'll see in the next section, getting them out -- and doing it safely -- is another thing entirely.

 The Risky Business of Mining Methane Hydrate

The potential rewards of releasing methane from gas hydrate fields must be balanced with the risks. And the risks are significant. Let's start first with challenges facing mining companies and their workers. Most methane hydrate deposits are located in seafloor sediments. That means drilling rigs must be able to reach down through more than 1,600 feet (500 meters) of water and then, because hydrates are generally located far underground, another several thousand feet before they can begin extraction. Hydrates also tend to form along the lower margins of continental slopes, where the seabed falls away from the relatively shallow shelf toward the abyss. The roughly sloping seafloor makes it difficult to run pipeline.

Even if you can situate a rig safely, methane hydrate is unstable once it's removed from the high pressures and low temperatures of the deep sea. Methane begins to escape even as it's being transported to the surface. Unless there's a way to prevent this leakage of natural gas, extraction won't be efficient. It will be a bit like hauling up well water using a pail riddled with holes.

Believe it or not, this leakage may be the least of the worries. Many geologists suspect that gas hydrates play an important role in stabilizing the seafloor. Drilling in these oceanic deposits could destabilize the seabed, causing vast swaths of sediment to slide for miles down the continental slope. Evidence suggests that such underwater landslides have occurred in the past (see sidebar), with devastating consequences. The movement of so much sediment would certainly trigger massive tsunamis similar to those seen in the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004.

But perhaps the biggest concern is how methane hydrate mining could affect global warming. Scientists already know that hydrate deposits naturally release small amounts of methane. The gas works itself skyward -- either bubbling up through permafrost or ocean water -- until it's released into the atmosphere. Once methane is in the atmosphere, it becomes a greenhouse gas even more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping solar radiation. Some experts fear that drilling in hydrate deposits could cause catastrophic releases of methane that would greatly accelerate global warming.
Does that make methane from hydrate fields off-limits? This is the question scientists from all over the world are trying to answer.

The Future of Frozen Fuel

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated a research program that would ultimately allow commercial production of methane from gas hydrate deposits by 2015. Three years later, Congress authorized funding through the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. The Interagency Coordination Committee (ICC), a coalition of six government agencies, has been advancing research on several fronts. Much of what we know about the basic science of methane hydrate -- how it forms, where it forms and what role it plays, both in seafloor stabilization and global warming -- has come from the ICC's research.

Interesting ideas about how to extract the methane from hydrates efficiently are also emerging. Some experts propose a technique in which miners pump hot water down a drill hole to melt the hydrate and release the trapped methane. As the methane escapes, it is pumped to the seafloor through a companion drill hole.

From there, submarine pipelines carry the natural gas ashore. Unfortunately, such pipelines would need to travel over difficult underwater terrain. One solution is to build a production facility on the seafloor so it is situated near the hydrate deposits. As methane escapes from the heated sediments, workers in the plant would refreeze the gas to form "clean" methane hydrate. Submarines would then tow the frozen fuel in huge storage tanks to shallower waters, where the methane could be extracted and transported safely and efficiently.

Is all of this necessary? Won't renewable energy sources make it a waste of time to pursue another nonrenewable fossil fuel so vigorously? Realistically, fossil fuels will still be an important component of the world's overall energy mix for decades to come. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), total U.S. natural gas consumption is expected to increase from about 22 trillion cubic feet (0.622 trillion cubic meters) today to about 27 trillion cubic feet (0.76 trillion cubic meters) in 2030. Global natural gas consumption is expected to increase to 182 trillion cubic feet (5.15 trillion cubic meters) over the same period [source: EIA]. Tapping into the methane locked away in hydrates will obviously play a key role in meeting that demand.

That means the frozen fuel from methane hydrate can buy more time as scientists search for alternatives to power our planet. Think of it as an important stepping-stone in our transition to cleaner, greener energy sources.

 by "environment clean generations"

Let's Lock That CO2 In A Rock



HELLISHEIDI, Iceland (AP) — Sometime next month, on the steaming fringes of an Icelandic volcano, an international team of scientists will begin pumping "seltzer water" into a deep hole, producing a brew that will lock away carbon dioxide forever.

Chemically disposing of CO2, the chief greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, is a kind of 21st-century alchemy that researchers and governments have hoped for to slow or halt climate change.

The American and Icelandic designers of the "CarbFix" experiment will be capitalizing on a feature of the basalt rock underpinning 90 percent of Iceland: It is a highly reactive material that will combine its calcium with a carbon dioxide solution to form limestone — permanent, harmless limestone.
The researchers caution that their upcoming 6-to-12-month test could fall short of expectations, and warn against looking for a climate "fix" from CarbFix any year soon.

In fact, one of the objectives of the project, whose main sponsors are Reykjavik's city-owned utility and U.S. and Icelandic universities, is to train young scientists for years of work to come.

A scientific overseer of CarbFix — the man, as it happens, who also is credited with coining the term "global warming" four decades ago — says the world's failure to heed those early warnings, to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions from coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, is driving scientists to drastic approaches.

"Whether we do it in the next 50 years, or the 50 years after that, we're going to have to store carbon dioxide," Columbia University's Wallace S. Broecker said in an interview in New York.

The world is already storing some carbon dioxide. As a byproduct of Norway's natural gas production, for example, it is being pumped into a sandstone reservoir beneath the North Sea.

But people worry that such stowed-away gas could someday escape, while carbon dioxide transformed into stone would not.
The experimental transformation will take place below the dramatic landscape of this place 29 kilometers (18 miles) southeast of Reykjavik, Iceland's capital. On an undulating, mossy moor and surrounding volcanic hills, where the last eruption occurred 2,000 years ago, Reykjavik Energy operates a huge, 5-year-old geothermal power plant, drawing on 30 wells tapping into the superheated steam below, steam laden with carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

CarbFix will first separate out those two gases, and the CO2 will be piped 3 kilometers (2 miles) to the injection well, to combine with water pumped from elsewhere.

That carbonated water — seltzer — will be injected down the well, where the pressure of the pumped water, by a depth of 500 meters (1,600 feet), will completely dissolve the CO2 bubbles, forming carbonic acid.

"The acid's very corrosive, so it starts to attack the rocks," explained University of Iceland geologist Sigurdur Reynir Gislason, CarbFix's chief scientist.

The basalt rock — ancient lava flows — is porous, up to 30 percent open space filled with water. The carbonic acid will be pushed out into those pores, and over time will react with the basalt's calcium to form calcium carbonate, or limestone.

CarbFix's designers, in effect, are radically speeding up the natural process called weathering, in which weak carbonic acid in rainwater transforms rock minerals over geologic time scales.

The CarbFix team, beginning work in 2007, had to overcome engineering challenges, particularly in the inventive design and operation of the gas separation plant. They have applied for U.S. and Icelandic patents for that and for the injection well technique.
They plan to inject up to 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide over 6 to 12 months and then follow how far the solution is spreading via tracer elements and monitoring wells. Eventually they plan to drill into the rock to take a core sampling.
"It will take months and years to test how well it has spread," Reykjavik Energy's Bergur Sigfusson, project technical manager, said as he guided two AP journalists through the step-by-step process over the rolling green terrain of the Hengill volcano.
The team's greatest concern is that carbon "mineralization" may happen too quickly.

"If it reacts too fast, then that will clog up the system," Sigfusson explained. Quick formation of calcium carbonate would block too many paths through the basalt for the solution to spread.

If it works on a large scale, scientists say, carbon mineralization has a limitless potential, since huge basalt deposits are common — in Siberia, India, Brazil and elsewhere. One formation lies beneath the U.S. northwest, where the U.S. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory plans an experiment similar to CarbFix.

The long-term challenge then becomes capturing the carbon dioxide, and building the infrastructure to deliver it to the right places.

At a basic level, the CarbFix process might at least allow geothermal plants worldwide to neutralize their carbon emissions. At another level, "you'd line up the coal-fired power plants where the basalt is," said Gislason. Their CO2 then could be locked away permanently as rock, rather than stored in underground cavities as now generally conceived.

But ultimately "my vision for carbon capture and storage is offshore, below the sea. The whole ocean floor is basalt below the sediments," said Swiss geochemist and CarbFix manager Juerg Matter, who works with Broecker at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

That futuristic vision would likely require technology to take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere itself — perhaps via millions of chemically treated vanes standing in the wind, a technique being investigated. Such units could be located offshore, with the captured CO2 piped to basalt below, Matter said.

In Gislason's Reykjavik university laboratories, young scientists are already conducting experiments with seawater and basalt, "and they're very promising," the chief scientist said.

"In 10, 20, 30 years' time, if climate change gets very drastic, then we are going to need solutions like this," he said of CarbFix. "We are going to need solutions 'yesterday.'"

Reykjavik Energy has supplied almost half the $10 million spent thus far on CarbFix. Other funding comes from the two universities, France's National Center of Scientific Research, the U.S. Energy Department, the European Union and Scandinavian sources.
by "environment clean generations"

"Global Warming Ready"


    New York City submerged

Diesel, the Italian clothing manufacturer, has been raising the heat with a provocative advertising campaign, “Global Warming Ready”, launched at the end of January. A series of newspaper, magazine and billboard advertisements shows models posing in Diesel clothing in a world affected by raised water levels and temperatures.

               Marketing staff see the “Global Warming Ready” campaign as consistent with Diesel’s tradition of generating attention and provoking discussion of serious societal issues with a tongue-in-cheek ironic voice. “Global Warming Ready” portrays the potential look of this new world while representing it in an aesthetically beautiful way. “The shocking effects of Global Warming are not immediately noticeable but are subtly revealed through details in the ads depicting ordinary scenes in a surreal, post-Global Warming world.” 

    Tropical birds in St Mark’s Square, Venice

                The advertisements feature New York completely submerged in water, St. Mark’s Square in Venice filled with tropical birds rather than pigeons, the Eiffel Tower in Paris surrounded by the jungle, a flooded Rio de Janeiro, a beachy Mount Rushmore in South Dakota and Finland, once Nordic, turned into a desert. 


     Sandy desert overtakes the China Wall

                  “Global Warming Ready” at first glance appears to be just another fashion advertisement. On second glance the campaign appears to be an arrogant swipe at the concerns of environmentalists. Wealthy people will continue to buy fashionable clothing even in a world affected by climatic disaster. A visit to the web site reveals further ambiguities.

     Rio de Janeiro underwater

                  The print ads are supported online with various consumer materials aimed at engaging with global warming. A tongue-in-cheek video raises issue relating to climate change. A map shows the world’s seaside regions completely under water. Diesel promises to provide a guide for dune buggy tours in Lapland and windsurfing on Fifth Avenue, New York. Diesel encourages customers to buy and watch Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth on DVD.

     Tropical plants growing in Paris

                   “Ten things you can do to stop Global Warming” answers the question, “How can I atone (without changing my glamorous lifestyle, of course)? Diesel’s site visitors are encouraged to save the planet by having sex (quietly) to cut down on heating, walking to the shops, turning off lights, insulating homes with recycled denim, never taking a shower, unplugging electric guitar at the wall, giving fashion magazines to grannies, friends or anyone, hanging up towels, planting trees, and eating steak in a restaurant (to make it possible to get rid of the fridge at home). 

    Beach scene at Mt Rushmore

                      Diesel outlines a partnership with climate change watchdog, www.stopglobalwarming.org, an online grassroots movement designed to bring citizens together to demand solutions to Global Warming. “So a beach party in Mount Rushmore sounds like fun, right? If you don’t agree there is still time to turn the tide. Maybe. Get informed, get in touch and get involved. This is the cause of our lifetime and the fight our generation. It’s not just trendy. Green is the new black. Join the virtual march.”

    London a water playground

                      Not everyone is impressed however.

Mel Young, at New Consumer, calls for a boycott of Diesel’s clothing line. “Diesel is appealing the worst aspect of human nature – one of greed and selfishness. Perhaps the people who own Diesel might like to watch films of children dying in floods in Bangladesh, where existing floods are being exacerbated by climate change. It might just get them to understand that making ‘funny’ little advertising campaigns out of misery really is beneath contempt.”
Paul Harrison at The Varsity Online is similarly scathing. “It is clear that Diesel is far less concerned with fomenting political activism and lifestyle change than they are with selling their brand. As far as corporate social campaigns go, this attitude is hardly surprising, but Diesel’s campaign is particularly inept, blatantly self-interested, and woefully uninformed.”

    Summer holidays with the penguins in Antarctica


 by "environment clean generations"

Greenhouse Effect

       

               Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

               We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon.


               What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.

               The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, “greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

            Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.
         
                 Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth.
Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
            
                  The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.
However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed.  As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate.

                 Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures.  Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface.  But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El NiƱo, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.
Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

  
          The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

           Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

                    Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.
                   As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

                   
           
              Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected.According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006.


               




 read more

by "environment clean generations"
             

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search

Custom Search

 
Design by Wordpress Theme | Bloggerized by Free Blogger Templates | coupon codes