this is not low-carb

This sounds like it is out of a science fiction movie, but if it is being recommended, it must be accomplishable.

Researchers are suggesting that  we could replace current crops, with a strain that is identical except for one thing: it reflects more light thereby helping to cool the planet. The scientists behind this claim that it could possibly cool the planet, in summers, by 1 degree Celsius, according to a report in The New Scientist.

It is called the albedo effect and it is when there is a reflection of short wave energy back into space.  It has been a benefit of the snow present in the poles, all these years.  It is thought that plants could create the same effect.  Light surfaces reflect light and heat, while dark surfaces absorb light and heat.  This is why the Arctic melting is such a concern.  As the ice melts, what remains is a darker surface: water.

That is why these scientists are encouraging farmers to buy seeds with a high-albedo component.  Sadly, they may have to be encouraged with a monetary incentive.  But the study shows that crop yield will not be altered, and in some cases crop yield will increase.

Seems like a win win situation.

rock star

 

For a while now, a rock that most people know from jewlery, has been slowly getting attention as a possible savior in our climate change battle.  However, new data has brought it to the forefront, as reported in Environmental Science and Technology.

Geologists have known for a while that peridotite reacts with carbon dioxide (CO2) to form solid carbonates, like limestone.  It is the most common, and abundant, rock in the Earth’s mantle. However, harnessing that power to combat climate change has been elusive.  Until now.

Geologist Muriel Andreani of Université Montpellier 2 and his team have shown that if you can inject CO2 into the peridotite, the transformation can occur, and rather quickly.  In fact, carbonate formation occurred after only eight hours.  The working principle is that if factories can trap CO2, it can be injected into boreholes, and creating the carbonate rock.

They have found that there are certain conditions that allow this to happen more than others.  Under poor conditions, the carbonate formed closes up the transfer pores.  But, under the right conditions, a slow and steady stream can be injected into the rock.  In fact, as much as 4 billion tons of CO₂ could be permanently stored in peridotite formations that cover half of the country of Oman, located on the Arabian Peninsula, and that occur in other scattered locations worldwide, according to recent estimates by Columbia University.

Before we all get too excited, however, much more research needs to be done to see how this reaction would work on a much larger scale.  This will be very interesting to follow.

soil problems in africa

 

Soil in Africa is being damaged at a rate that may plunge them into chaos, due to farming and climate change, according to a report from Bloomberg News.

“The situation is very severe and soil fertility is declining rapidly,” Jeroen Huising, a scientist who studies soils at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, or CIAT, said today in an interview. “Many countries like Kenya already don’t have enough food to feed their population and soil degradation is worsening an already critical situation.”

In a place where one in three people are ‘chronically’ hungry, any more damage to the weakened agriculture will be deadly.

As a result, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a project, the African Soil Information Service will use mapping techniques and geographical information systems to help farmers and government officials choose the best options to improve agricultural land and slow the degradation of farmland.  The project will also address climate change issues.

As a result of the already depleted food supply, civil unrest has started.  Food supply workers and food aid convoys have been attacked and people have been killed.  This is why many feel there is an immediate need to fix this problem before it is irreparable.

nitrogen: friend or foe

It’s kind of a good news, bad news situation.

The National Science Foundation recently released data from its longest running study showing that by releasing one pollutant into the environment it may help in combating another pollutant in the environment.

The research indicates that by adding nitrogen into the soil, prompts northern hardwood forests to absorb more carbon dioxide. The conclusion being that if we dump nitrogen into the atmosphere, we could create huge carbon sinks and help mitigate climate change. However, many experts are also saying that it is a dangerous experiment that could have dangerous consequences.

In the experiment larger than normal levels of nitrogen were added to the soil. As expected, the trees grew more, which is beneficial because it means they can absorb more carbon dioxide. But there was an unexpected observation in the forest floor. The decomposition of tree litter (twigs, leaves, bark) slowed. Tree litter has a high concentration of lignan which is very good at trapping carbon. The longer the lignan stays around due to a decrease in erosion, the longer the carbon is trapped.

However there are downsides to pumping nitrogen into the atmosphere, “including biodiversity loss, smog formation, and acidification of forests, streams and lakes.” Also, the forests that were experimented on have reached nitrogen saturation, meaning they cannot take up anymore nitrogen into their system. This means what is left in the ground could make it into our water system. When humans are exposed to too much nitrogen there are health risks, most seriously “blue baby syndrome” which is a fatal blood disease in infants. And, if the nitrogen makes it all the way to the seas and oceans, there is high potential for dead zones. And, finally, there is the potential of the saturated trees to start releasing the nitrogen as nitrous oxide which is a harmful greenhouse gas.

There is much more work to be done to see if nitrogen will be a blessing or a curse. On a daily basis, as we increase our industries, we increase the levels of this gas. So, eventually, we will know the answer.

The article can be found via The Daily Climate

not doing their job.

Trees and plants have often been dubbed the lungs of the planet, although, in reality they are the kidneys. Making up 7% of the world, in simplistic terms, they have the ability to absorb CO2 and turn it into oxygen. In fact, without them, it would have more than likely for humans to have even evolved, let alone what we are facing now, survival, since we need oxygen to live.

In a little reported, but very important news piece, “scientists have determined that Canada’s 1.2 million square miles of forests have become so stressed from damage caused by global warming, insect infestations and persistent fires that they have crossed an ominous line and now pump out more carbon dioxide than they take in.”

The higher planet temperature have hurt the forest in two ways. First, because it is so much warmer, the normally wet trees are drying out. Additionally, with such little rain fall, they are not achieving normal saturation levels. With the trees being so dry, they are either dying or are susceptible to fire, which when burned releases much more carbon dioxide into the air.

Second, the cold seasons typically allow for many of the insect infestations to end, as the various bugs cannot survive the cold. This gives the tree time to heal prior to another infestation, or becoming strong enough to ward off future illnesses. However, especially in Canada, the temperature is not dropping low enough to kill off the various insects. These often kill the tree leaving mass amounts of natural deforestation.

The affect of this is unquantifiable. We have long depended upon trees to suck in vast quantities of carbon dioxide, naturally cleansing the world of some of the harmful heat-trapping gas. With the increasing amount of greenhouse gases released into the air, but with less effectiveness in cleaning the air, we could be in worse conditions sooner rather than later.

The article was first published via The Environmental News Network

when bill talks, i listen

Anyone who reads this knows that I admire Bill McKibben a great deal. I pretty much post links to every article he publishes, and today will be no different. He has an article in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Foreign Policy in which he debunks many of the sayings you hear on the street about climate change.

Why is this so important to make you aware of? Because it is our duty to make sure these myths end. With the proliferation of these stories and fables of climate change, the longer it will take to get going on what needs to get done. There is a call upon the citizenry to make the change, and a good first step is to ensure you are well-versed on the data, so you may challenge the person spewing rhetoric. Memorizing this article might not be too bad of great first step.

Excerpts from the article:

Myth: Scientists are divided
Bill’s response: No, they’re not….. that debate is long since over.

Myth: We Have Time
Bill: That melting Arctic ice is unsettling not only because it proves the planet is warming rapidly, but also because it will help speed up the warming. That old white ice reflected 80 percent of incoming solar radiation back to space; the new blue water left behind absorbs 80 percent of that sunshine. The process amps up. And there are many other such feedback loops. Another occurs as northern permafrost thaws. Huge amounts of methane long trapped below the ice begin to escape into the atmosphere; methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide

Myth: Climate change will help as many places as it hurts
Bill: Here’s how that Pentagon report’s scenario played out: As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would reemerge. The report refers to the work of Harvard archaeologist Steven LeBlanc, who notes that wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25 percent of a population’s adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life. Set against that bleak backdrop, the potential upside of a few longer growing seasons in Vladivostok doesn’t seem like an even trade.

Myth: It’s China’s fault
Bill: China has four times the population of the United States, and per capita is really the only way to think about these emissions. And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.

Myth: climate change is an environmental problem
Bill: Expecting the environmental movement to lead this fight is like asking the USDA to wage the war in Iraq. It’s not equipped for this kind of battle. It may be ready to save Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a noble undertaking but on a far smaller scale. Unless climate change is quickly de-ghettoized, the chances of making a real difference are small.

Myth: Solving it will be painful
Bill: But so far we’ve just been counting the costs of fixing the system. What about the cost of doing nothing? Nicholas Stern, a renowned economist commissioned by the British government to study the question, concluded that the costs of climate change could eventually reach the combined costs of both world wars and the Great Depression.

Myth: We can reverse climate change
BIll: None of that is going to stop, even if we do everything right from here on out. Given the time lag between when we emit carbon and when the air heats up, we’re already guaranteed at least another degree of warming.

The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.

The full responses to each myth can be found HERE. It really should become part of your repertoire for cocktail parties when someone drinks too much and starts an anti-climate change diatribe.

another country going wind

Nicaragua is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere. That is why it is so astounding that they are about to finish a $90 million project that helps them switch over to wind energy and end their dependence on oil.

When oil prices were at their peak, Nicaragua had to start a system of rolling blackouts that left many with out power for hours and, in some cases, days.

Wind is part of Nicaragua’s efforts to reduce its dependence on oil-based energy to just 3 percent by 2013. The country has also turned to geothermal power from volcanoes, hydroelectric power generated by rivers and sugarcane based ethanol. Those sources provide 34 percent of Nicaragua’s energy.

This really is something to be commended. When other nations are trying to find ways for not having to comply with energy efficient alternative, Nicaragua is making steps to be one of the few that are completely independent.

The article can be found HERE, via Huffington Post

(not so) great (at being a) barrier reef

The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef system in the world. It stretches 1,600 miles over an area that is 133,000 square miles and is made up of 2,900 individual reefs and about 900 islands. It is the largest structure on Earth, made by organisms and can be seen from space.

Unfortunately, it looks as though that is all changing, and quickly.

The growth of the coral polyps has slowed down by 13%. The most likely cause is climate change and the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The extra CO2 in the air, means that the ocean has to work harder to try and absorb that material. As a result, its pH levels are changing to become more acidic. Shells and coral are made from calcium carbonate that, unfortunately, do not hold up structurally in low pH environments.

Not only is it harder to build coral in this condition but the existing coral is eroding due to the unfavorable waters.

“Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years,” the researchers wrote. “These organisms are central to the formation and function of ecosystems and food webs, and precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans may be imminent.”

Click HERE for more information from the original article, via Scientific American

miracle plant?

When you think of global warming certain images always come to mind: polar bears, penguins, clear cutting, and the ever melting icebergs.

However, the melting of the icebergs, may be creating a global warming paradox. Those melting bergs may just be a key to saving our planet, so says some researchers in the Antarctic, on the HMS Endurance.

They have found that when the icebergs melt, small particles of iron are being released into the water. Those particles are feeding algae, which in turn blooms, and sucks up all the extra CO2.

Due to this finding there is a push for researchers to be allowed to dump massive amounts of iron sulfate into the oceans to prove that the hypothesis is accurate. Doing this would create an algae bloom that would be big enough to see from space. However, many environmentalists are warning that this experiment should not happen. Siting that the excess amount of iron sulfate may do irreparable damage to an already failing ecosystem.

Regardless, the new findings are compelling enough that the scientists have been granted approval by the UN to proceed with the experiement.

The aim is to discover whether artificially fertilising the area will create more algae in the Great Southern Ocean. That ocean is an untapped resource for soaking up CO2 because it doesn’t have much iron, unlike other seas.

It covers 20million square miles, and scientists say that if this could all be treated with iron, the resulting algae would remove three-and-a-half gigatons of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to one eighth of all emissions annually created by burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It would also be equal to removing all carbon dioxide emitted from every power plant, chimney and car exhaust in the rapidly expanding industries of India and Japan.

Of course, the experts warn it is too early to say whether it will work. This entire exercise may be for nought. And, the flip side is that if it doesn’t work, we may be in more trouble than we are in now. Oceans are not isolated boxes, whatever is done in the ocean will have an affect on the surrounding areas. As stated that ocean is unaccustomed to having large amounts of iron present, and ecosystems have flourished, as a result. If the algae does not bloom, there could be damage due to a high level of iron. Or, the blooming could cause unnecessary resource depletion resulting in mass extinction of otherwise healthy species.

Or, it could all work out and global warming and the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is resolved.

HERE is the article, via The Daily Mail.

how do we save our planet?

The United Kingdom seems to be a leader in environmental reporting. A very interesting piece came out of the Independent this week, asking the world’s leading climate scientists what can be done to save our planet.

The results are very interesting. Getting input from 44 people across the globe, would, obviously result in a wide range of opinions.

Below are a sampling of some of the more compelling, but going to the article, HERE, is recommended.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, London: I am not enthusiastic about geo-engineering, as to intervene on a massive scale in the Earth’s climate system will certainly have unforeseen consequences, some of which could be as regrettable as the problem the intervention was designed to address in the first place. This is why Jim Lovelock and I have been encouraging thought and exploration of means to “help the Earth help itself”; i.e. by amplifying carbon sequestration processes that the Earth already practises – in the ocean and on land.

Professor John Latham, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research: Since CO2 levels seem certain to rise for a long time, we think it vital to examine geo-engineering schemes for stabilizing Earth’s temperature for long enough to allow alternative, clean forms of energy to be developed.

Professor James Shulmeister, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: There is NO prospect of getting cuts in emissions of the scale needed to have a large impact on the problem. We need all the cuts we can get but we also need to engineer ourselves out of the problem. However, geoengineering on its own is NOT the solution.

Frank Schwing, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, US Department of Commerce: I am more optimistic about global reduction efforts because the new Obama Administration in the US is poised to be a world leader in this effort, and because the public groundswell for such an effort is growing rapidly. Regarding geoengineering, we clearly will need some concerted and effective efforts to engineer our way to reduced greenhouse gas levels. However, I am concerned that the public, and governments, will see such efforts as a panacea, thereby eliminating the need for public action to reduce emissions.

Steven Sherwood, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: At the present time, I do not know of any geoengineering strategy that I feel would ever be worth implementing. For example, the most popular idea (creation of stratospheric aerosols) would render us susceptible to a devastating climate whiplash if the program were ever halted. However, as a matter of principle I believe that such strategies should be carefully studied, their merits and defects weighed and discussed, and better alternatives sought. International agreements on how to decide on geoengineering need to be put in place before such actions are seriously contemplated, rather than after.”

« Previous Page — Next Page »