Planetary Ruin

Trash from China’s satellite-killing missile test has spread widely in space, creating a debris cloud that could jeopardize spy satellites and commercial imagery satellites in low orbits around Earth, U.S. officials said on Monday.

Even the manned International Space Station is vulnerable to being hit by some of the thousands of pieces of trash created when China slammed a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile into an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above Earth on January 11, the officials said.

“The test created a lot of debris. It definitely raises the possibility that something is going to be hit, including the space station,” Peter Hays, a senior adviser to the Pentagon’s National Security Space Office, told Reuters.

Theresa Hitchens, who heads the non-profit Center for Defense Information, told a conference held by the George C. Marshall Institute that U.S. tracking data showed debris from the test had been seen from 266 miles to 1,875 miles above the Earth.

“A huge number of satellites have been put in harm’s way,” she said, estimating that more than 120 satellites were orbiting in the area. It could take decades for debris from the Chinese weather satellite to fall out of orbit.

GeoEye, the world’s largest commercial satellite imagery company, operates its satellites around 425 miles (680 km) above Earth, but said it was not concerned because its satellites were in a different orbit. GeoEye spokesman Mark Brender said it can maneuver satellites in their orbits and “close their lens caps” during cosmic dust storms.

Col. Patrick Rayermann, chief of the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Defense Division, told Reuters the Chinese test had reenergized discussions about the need for a treaty or certain rules for actions taken by space-faring countries. However, he added that verifying compliance could prove difficult.

Read more >>

At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices.

In a recent report, the UCS charged that organizations are using oil industry money to create public uncertainty about what it calls “consensus” about climate change and the role of human activity in affecting temperatures. Organizations named in the report have denied the claims.

The UCS describes itself as an “alliance” of over 200,000 citizens and scientists that initially came together in 1969. It integrates “independent scientific research” with “citizen action” for the purpose of developing and implementing “changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices.”

But critics say it is an openly political group.

According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch – a project of the Capital Research Center – the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a “partisan view of science.”

David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com – a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom – agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be “more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists.”

University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a “climate contrarian” by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had “zero credibility as a scientific organization” and was more akin to “pressure groups like Greenpeace.”

The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.

Private foundations cumulatively spend tens of millions of dollars annually on climate change projects, according to information made available through the foundations’ websites.

Donations to the UCS in recent years include the following:

2000 – a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for “dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense.”

2002 – a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust
grant “to support efforts to increase the nation’s commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy.”

2003 – a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years “to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort.”

2004 – a $50,000 Energy foundation grant “to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast.”

2004 – a $100,000 Energy foundation grant “to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling.”

2004 – a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years “to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California.”
In a study published in 2005, the George C. Marshall Institute(GMI) explored funding for global warming studies and reported that the UCS was among the top five recipients of grants dispersed for climate studies.

In a new book, Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, observes that a number of environmental activists have expressed exasperation over the amount of “strings attached to the foundation grants” that reduce their independence.

History of activism

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) – another group listed in the UCS report – holds the organization in low esteem.

“The name suggests everyone involved is some kind of objective scientist, but they tend to be leftist political activists,” he said. “Facts mean very little to them.”

Cohen told Cybercast News Service the UCS had a “remarkably benign view of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s and undertook extraordinary efforts to discourage the U.S. from countering whatever moves the Soviet Union was making to enhance its own nuclear arsenal.”

When President Reagan was in the White House, the UCS was an ardent supporter of the “nuclear freeze movement” that was designed as a counterbalance to the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a stronger national defense, Cohen said.

This was acknowledged by some of the more prominent activists speaking on behalf of the organization in that era.

“The [nuclear freeze] movement owes its momentum to Reagan,” John Marks, a UCS member said in 1981. “What binds these people together is the notion that the world is getting closer to nuclear war. People don’t feel safer with more missiles.”

In 1983, Reagan announced his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a missile defense system that would be positioned in outer space. The following year, the UCS convened a panel that determined the system was “technologically unattainable.”

Moreover, Henry Kendall, the late MIT physics professor and a UCS founder member, proclaimed Reagan’s plan would “de-stabilize” and upset the strategic balance.

Carl Sagan, the late astronomer and popular science writer from Cornell University, worked in cooperation with other UCS members to organize a 15-city tour for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

The union’s opposition to missile defense came full circle during the current Bush administration when the president announced in 2002 he was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The withdrawal gave the U.S. more latitude to pursue a ballistic missile shield to protect America from missile attack by rogue states or terrorist groups.

The UCS is working to derail the project and to that end has received considerable financial support from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, according to the Capital Research Center.

Read more >>

A U.N. climate panel will project wrenching disruptions to nature by 2100 in a report next week blaming human use of fossil fuels more clearly than ever for global warming, scientific sources said.

A draft report based on work by 2,500 scientists and due for release on February 2 in Paris, draws on research showing greenhouse gases at their highest levels for 650,000 years, fuelling a warming likely to bring more droughts, floods and rising seas.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have some good news, however, by toning down chances of the biggest temperature and sea level rises projected in the IPCC’s previous 2001 study, the sources said.

But it will also revise up its lowest projections.

“The main good news is that we have a clearer idea of what we are up against,” one source said. The report will set the tone for work in extending the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, the main international plan for curbing global warming, beyond 2012.

The IPCC will say it is at least 90 percent sure that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are to blame for a warming over the past 50 years.

The draft conclusion that the link is “very likely” would mark a strengthening from “likely” in the 2001 report — a probability of 66-90 percent.

Read more >>

Who says politics is show business for ugly people? “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s film on the perils of global warming, scored two Oscar nominations Tuesday _ for best documentary feature and best original song.
While he is not technically a nominee _ the film’s director, David Guggenheim, won the nod, as did singer Melissa Etheridge for the song “I Need to Wake Up” _ Gore said he was “thrilled” that his movie was honored. 

“The film … has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world,” Gore said in an e-mail statement. “I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference.”

Aides say the former vice president plans to walk the red carpet with Hollywood’s beautiful people at the Academy Awards ceremony next month.

“An Inconvenient Truth” has been a critical and box office success, bringing in more than $24 million to make it the third highest- grossing documentary in history. A companion book has been on national best-seller lists for months.

Other films nominated for best documentary feature include “Deliver Us From Evil,” about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church; “Iraq in Fragments,” about the Sunni-Shiite conflict in that country; “Jesus Camp,” about a summer camp for evangelical Christians, and “My Country, My Country,” about the months leading up to the January 2005 elections in Iraq.

Gore narrowly lost the 2000 presidential contest to Republican George W. Bush in a disputed election. He has said he’s not planning to run for president again but also has not ruled it out.

Read more >>

Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate forever.

While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years.

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Changes resulting from global warming may include rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as an increase in occurrence and severity of storms and other severe weather events.

For more information on global warming, including the long-term effects of global warming, the causes of global warming, the latest global warming news, and more, just select any global warming article or other interactive feature below.

Read more >>

Some leading scientists and evangelical Christian leaders have agreed to put aside their fierce differences over the origin of life and work together to fight global warming.
Representatives met recently in Georgia and agreed on the need for urgent action. Details on the talks will be disclosed in Washington on Wednesday.

“Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today,” said Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.

Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, agreed, saying: “Scientists and evangelicals have discovered that we share a deeply felt common concern and sense of urgency about threats to life on Earth and that we must speak with one voice to protect it.”

Chivian and Cizik, both of whom participated in the talks, declined further comment.

In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming, saying that human-induced climate change is real, that its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and that Christian moral convictions demand an urgent response.

They argued that governments, businesses, churches and individuals all have a role to play. Signatories included presidents of evangelical colleges, aid groups, churches and pastors of megachurches.

The powerful National Association of Evangelicals, however, did not join the initiative. It is unclear whether Cizik’s involvement in the new campaign will lead the organization to adopt the environment as a central part of its agenda.

Evangelicals and scientists previously failed to launch a large-scale joint initiative, partly because of differences between evolutionary science and a literal interpretation of the Bible—a rift that dates back to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Those who met in Georgia, however, are expected to argue that the threat to life on Earth is too great to let the rift prevent them from working together to combat greenhouse emissions.

Speakers at the Wednesday announcement will include megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, who refused to take the leadership of Christian Coalition of America because the organization would not let him expand its agenda to include the environment and poverty.

Others are Harvard biologist and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Edward O. Wilson and NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after a 2005 lecture in which he called for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.

“The evangelicals have a lot of clout on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and their voice would be a very welcome one,” said Jim Presswood of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Read more >>

While disagreement abounds on this topic, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) say that oil production can cause earthquakes, but not the kind reported in the news.

Some earthquakes, such as the 2004 quake that triggered a deadly tsunami in Sumatra, occur at plate boundaries where hard, rocky slabs slide against each other to release tremendous amounts of energy. Oil generally is found in permeable sediments that are soft and squishy, not in hard rock. When this squishy land moves, it releases a small amount of energy, which can lead to a “mini-seismic event”—one that is barely detected on the Richter scale.

Here’s how it works: With high-tech equipment, oil companies pinpoint oil-rich areas and use large drills to puncture the surface below the sea, sometimes as deep as 10,000 feet. As this pricey fluid gets sucked from the sediment pores, the surrounding rocks shift positions to fill in the newly vacated spaces. At a large scale, for example the volume displaced when millions of barrels of oil are produced, the land movement can actually cause a mini-seismic earthquake, said Robert Morton, a USGS coastal geologist.

Read more >>

The extraordinary amount of heat seething below Earth’s hard rocky crust could help supply the United States with a significant fraction of the electricity it will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact, scientists now claim.

An 18-member panel led by MIT has prepared the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at the largely ignored area of geothermal energy.

Geothermal plants essentially mine heat by using wells at times a mile or more deep. These wells tap into hot rock and connect them with flowing water, producing large amounts of steam and super-hot water that can drive turbines and run electricity generators at the surface.
 
Unlike conventional power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel is required. And unlike solar power, a geothermal plant draws energy night and day.

Geothermal research was very active in the 1970s and early 1980s. As oil prices declined in the mid-1980s, enthusiasm for alternative energy sources waned and funding for research on geothermal and other renewable energy was greatly reduced, making it difficult for the technology to advance.

“Now that energy concerns have resurfaced, an opportunity exists for the U.S. to pursue the enhanced geothermal system option aggressively to meet long-term national needs,” said panel head Jefferson Tester, a chemical engineer at MIT.

Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are increasingly expensive and dump carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Furthermore, oil and gas imports from foreign sources are not necessarily secure in the world’s shifting political climate.

The United States is the world’s biggest producer of geothermal energy. Nafi Toksöz, a geophysicist at MIT, noted that the electricity produced annually by geothermal plants now in use in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to that produced by solar and wind power combined.

However, existing U.S. plants are concentrated mostly at isolated regions in the West. There, hot rocks are closer to the surface, requiring less drilling and thus lowering costs. Even then, drilling must reach depths of 5,000 feet or more in the West, and much deeper in the eastern United States.

Still, the panel now estimates geothermal power could meet roughly 10 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2050. Their new study also finds the environmental impacts of geothermal development are markedly lower than conventional fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

Tester and his colleagues emphasize that federally funded engineering research and development is still needed to lower risks and encourage investment by early adopters. The report also noted that meeting water requirements for geothermal plants may be an issue, particularly in arid regions. In addition, the potential for any seismic risks needs to be carefully monitored and managed.

Read more >>

Prince Charles, criticised for booking a trans-Atlantic flight to collect an environmental award, has cancelled a ski trip to Switzerland to reduce greenhouse gases, a palace source said on Saturday.

The decision not to take the annual holiday in Klosters was made some time ago and was part of the heir-to-throne’s commitment to reduce his “carbon footprint”, the source said.

Environment Minister David Miliband has questioned the need for the heir to the throne to fly to New York next week with a 20-strong entourage to collect the Global Environmental Citizen Prize from former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

“Was it a particularly heavy award?,” Miliband told London’s Evening Standard newspaper. “A lot of business can be done by telephone and video link these days.”

Buckingham Palace defended the Prince’s trans-Atlantic trip, saying the two-day visit on January 27 and 28 was being made at the request of the Foreign Office and would include a number of other engagements.

But environmentalists accused the prince, renowned for his green leanings, of skating on thin ice.

“It’s the equivalent of turning up to an Oxfam award in a stretch limo,” said a spokesman for the Plane Stupid anti-flights campaign group. “It’s a bad joke.”

Prince Charles said last year he would include a measure of how his activities affected the environment in his next annual accounts, due this summer.

He also vowed to cut his carbon emissions by abandoning chartered planes and trains in favour of scheduled services.

Read more >>

James Spann is used to covering storms.  Not being in the middle of one.

But the ABC 33/40 meteorologist finds himself at the center of the global-warming controversy after the Internet site The Drudge Report posted a link to comments Spann made on his weather blog Thursday night.

“Everything kind of exploded,” Spann said Friday. “Writing stuff like that is something I always do, but when Drudge links to it, it just brings the world to you all of a sudden.”

All that controversy is over a cyber-disagreement Spann has with a climate scientist from The Weather Channel.

In essence, Spann does not believe that human activity is contributing to global warming and contends that “billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon.” Spann received so much traffic on his site that it was temporarily shut down Thursday night, he said.

“We have never been shut down with traffic before,” he said. “During tornado outbreaks and hurricanes, we’ve been close, but we’ve never had a total shutdown or crash like this. It’s kind of unprecedented.”

Then the FOX News Network called and asked him to appear on “Hannity & Colmes.” And CNN Headline News, which wanted to book him for “Glenn Beck.” Spann said he is scheduled to appear on both of those shows Monday night.

What pressed all of those hot buttons was Spann’s response to comments made by the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen on a blog she posted Dec. 21.

On that post, titled “Junk Controversy, Not Junk Science,” Cullen supported the theory that increases in levels of gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere have led to global warming, and she challenged meteorologists who say it is the result of cyclical weather patterns.

“If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the (American Meteorological Society) shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote.

Spann fired off his response in a blog he posted before his 6 p.m. weather forecast Thursday on ABC 33/40. It was picked up by The Drudge Report three hours later.

“Well, well,” Spann wrote on his blog. “Some `climate expert’ on `The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent `global warming’ is a natural process. So much for `tolerance,’ huh?

“I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. … I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global-warming hype. I know there are a few out there, but I can’t find them.”

Cullen, who was not available for comment Friday afternoon, has since posted a follow-up blog item in which she wrote that she did not want to stifle the debate over global warming.

“I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming,” she wrote. “That is not true. …

“Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.”

300 and counting:

As of late Friday afternoon, Spann reported more than 300 responses to his comments on his blog, which can be found at www.jamesspann.com.

About 80 percent of those supported what he wrote, Spann said. Of the opposing 20 percent, some were “as nasty as when I have to cut off `General Hospital’ for a tornado warning.”

Among those posts:

“Stand your ground, James. That’s why your `whole team,’ however many of us there are, love you. How ridiculous to want to revoke something that you have EARNED.”

“Way to go, James! I always thought you were a man of character, and this proves it once again.”

“Taking away AMS certification may be a little severe, but on the other hand, clearly anyone who refuses to believe that humans have any affect on the weather is no one anyone should listen to about anything.”

“James, the only reason to watch TWC (The Weather Channel) is to see if Jim Cantore will finally get taken out by a sheet of wind-borne corrugated metal. Count me as a scientist who believes that global warming is caused by hot air in Congress and overheated printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.”

Spann said he just wants “an open marketplace of ideas” about global warming and would like to engage in a debate on the subject with Cullen.

“She suggested that anybody that didn’t agree with her, that our AMS certification should be taken away,” Spann said. “That was my biggest problem with it.

“I welcome opposing viewpoints,” he added. “The only way I can learn is by reading what other people think and believe, but I just don’t think pride and arrogance has a place in science.”

Third-party view:

NBC 13 meteorologist Jerry Tracey was unaware Friday afternoon of the battle of the blogs between Cullen and Spann. But he said there was not enough evidence yet to support or dismiss the claim that humanity is to blame for global warming.

“Yes, it’s an important topic, and yes, we need to learn more about it,” Tracey said. “But no, we do not yet know enough to say definitely that there is a significant impact toward global warming occurring because of man-made activities.

“Last weekend was so warm here and people tried to explain that based on global warning,” he said. “There’s just nothing to that. It was warm because of the weather pattern.”

Read more >>