|
Future Energy eNews IntegrityResearchInstitute.org June 6, 2005 |
1) Current State of American Energy Policy - "Industrial giveaway" is Denver Post's assessment of the US
2) GE Urges Clearer Energy Policy - More renewables needed; GE sets aside $1.5 billion for energy research
3) Subsidies for Polluting Industries in Revived Energy Bill - No renewable electricity standard in the bill
4) Ultrasound and Electricity Kills Tumors in Mice - Electricity and ultrasound destroy cancer with a one-two punch
5) Climate Fear Puts Nuclear Power Back in Picture - Nuclear power industry lobbying - waste should be addressed
6) Focus Fusion Collaboration Begins in Fall - Hottest fusion on the planet and most promising for electricity generation
7) Arctic Climate Briefing Reveals More Rapid Warming - The earth absorbs about 1 watt per square meter globally
1) The Current State of American Energy Policy
Molly Ivins, The Free Press, Thursday, May 5, 2005 http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1122
Austin, Texas - When the history of this administration is written, I suspect the largest black mark against it will be wasting time. The energy bill just passed by the House is a classic example of frittering away precious time and resources by doing exactly nothing that needs to be done about energy. The bill gives $8.1 billion in new tax breaks to the oil companies, which are already swimming in cash.
ExxonMobil's profits are up 44 percent, Royal Dutch/Shell up 42 percent, etc. According to the business pages, the biggest problem oil executives face is what to do with all their cash. So why give more tax breaks to the oil companies? Makes as much sense as anything else in this energy bill. Nothing about conservation, higher fuel efficiency standards or putting money into renewable energy sources. It's so stupid, it's painful.
And their genius answer to "energy independence"? Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Look, the total oil under ANWR is 1 billion barrels less than this country uses in a year, according to Robert Bryce, the Texas journalist who specializes in energy reporting. The bill is just riddled with perversity: We continue to subsidize people who buy Hummers, but no longer grant tax rebates to those who buy hybrid cars that are more than six times as fuel efficient. This is not how you get to "energy independence." The United States hit its oil peak back in 1970 - domestic production has been declining ever since.
I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite as odd as the right wing's insistence that global warming does not exist. I'm not a climatologist, but I can read what they're saying. In fact, they're screaming it. Rush Limbaugh is not a climatologist, either, nor are any of the rest of these pinheads who seem to think the whole thing is some figment of liberals' imagination.
There's nothing liberal about global warming, it's science. There seems to be some element of childish spite in the refusal to recognize it - "Boy, we can drive the liberals crazy by pretending it's not happening, ha, ha, ha." If you read right-wing blogs, you find a kind of Beavis and Butthead attitude about the subject, a sort of adolescent-jerk humor. What's astonishing is finding the same attitude among members of Congress. Head-militantly-in-sand is not a solution.
There is a perfect convergence of economic, environmental and energy considerations that all point in the same direction: renewable energy sources. With demand for gasoline soaring worldwide, with the economies of both China and India growing at staggering paces, with the world somewhere near its oil peak now, our dependence on some of the world's most retrograde regimes is only going to get worse and more expensive.
Foreign policy also plays a role here. Let us pass quickly by the administration's pre-war assurances that Iraqi oil would pay for the war - the country is pumping less now than it did under Saddam Hussein. How smart is it to dick around trying to oust the president of Venezuela? You put a bunch of ideological nutcases in charge of Latin American policy, and you're going to create a lot of enemies down there.
And their answer is to bring back nukes? Let's review the bidding on that one. Aside from Murphy's Law, the problem with nukes is that they create radioactive waste that remains toxic for tens of thousands of years. And we don't know what to do with it. The First Rule of Holes applies - if you're stuck in one, stop digging. We're already dependent on one form of energy that has a toxic legacy, why in heaven's name walk into another one, this time with foreknowledge of its effects? Especially when there are cheap, reliable, renewable, non-poison-producing alternatives? We're nuts to even think about it. Wind power already has near competitive prices.
Renewable energy sources are not pie-in-the-sky - they're here right now, and they're going to be a lot cheaper than oil. The single cheapest thing we can do about oil is not use so much of it. Current hybrid technology will not get us to the mythical goal of "energy independence," but at least we can slow down the demand for oil. In theory, it only takes 15 years to replace the entire fleet of American cars now on the road. We don't have another four years to waste.
American energy policy - written by Beavis and Butthead.
Editor's Note
Notwithstanding the final comment, the above article only scratches the surface of the energy problem. Other countries are moving forward aggressively on deployment of renewable energy technologies, and many have much more robust policies than the United States that support these technological advancements. For example, photovoltaic (solar cell) manufacturing increased globally from 562 megawatts (MW) in 2002 to 742 in 2003 – however, the US share fell from 120.6 MW in 2002 to 104.2 MW in 2003. Globally installed wind power has grown 500 percent since 1997 to 39,294 MW in 2003, with the US responsible for just 17 percent and Europe for 73 percent. See www.eesi.org for more information.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2005/05/10/business/10green.html&tntemail1
By FELICITY BARRINGER and MATTHEW L. WALD (New York Times) BUSINESS | May 10, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/business/10green.html?ex=1273377600&en=ef6d4be7a836a69b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
WASHINGTON, May 9 - The chief executive of the General Electric Company, Jeffrey R. Immelt, pushed the company squarely into the global warming debate on Monday, asking the government for a clear energy policy and saying later in an interview that he expected Washington to eventually impose controls on carbon emissions.
"If you look to the future, there is going to be a day when we have standards of some kind pertaining to carbon," he said. "I think most business people are planning for that implicitly, even without anything that's overt." The Bush administration has opposed such controls.
Mr. Immelt made the remarks after a speech and news conference that coupled an announcement of a new corporate strategy - increasing the emphasis on products to sell to an environmentally conscious world marketplace - with a plea for government commitment to clarify energy policy and commit to "market mechanisms" to achieve energy and environmental goals.
The speech, news conference and assorted gatherings were the result of a year's planning and packaging of the company's "ecomagination" initiative.
As part of it, Mr. Immelt said that General Electric would double its research budget for energy and environmental technologies to $1.5 billion and that such products were expected to bring in revenues of $20 billion by the year 2010, compared with $10 billion last year.
In a speech at George Washington University's business school, Mr. Immelt pledged to work with its customers and provide "the financing that supports the development and application of new technologies."
He also pledged that in the next seven years, the company's energy efficiency would improve by 30 percent and its worldwide greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by 1 percent - adding that they would have increased by 40 percent otherwise.
The ecomagination initiative comprises 17 technologies, some of which have been in use for years, and some of which are still under development. The company is a leader in most of the technologies, but not all.
For example, Mr. Immelt listed the H System gas turbine, which produced more electricity from a thousand cubic feet of gas than any competitor when it was introduced in 2000.
Another technology included was the engine for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, which is designed to use 20 percent less fuel a seat mile. Engineers say the engines are an impressive technical achievement; their specifications had already been announced.
The technology that Mr. Immelt and two executives of major coal-burning utilities who joined him at the news conference dwelled on most heavily was for making electricity from coal. The coal is exposed to steam, creating a flammable gas, which is then burned in a turbine.
The technique produces more electricity from a ton of coal, allows much easier cleanup of sulfur, mercury and particulates and raises the possibility that in later years an adjunct system could be added to capture the carbon dioxide.
Two government-backed plants are now running, but Mr. Immelt pledged to make the system - which now costs 20 percent more than a standard coal-burning plant - commercially viable, if the government would give a subsidy to build more so engineers could learn how to cut costs.
Mr. Immelt also said that his company was developing a hybrid railroad locomotive that, like car hybrids, would recapture energy ordinarily lost in braking and use it later for extra horsepower on acceleration, reducing fuel consumption and air pollution.
A rival in British Columbia, RailPower, has delivered six hybrid locomotives since the end of last year, and has a backlog of 80 orders.
In an interview, Mr. Immelt said that packaging these and other technologies, and adding promises like cutting the company's own carbon emissions and making public reports, was "connecting the dots in the breadth of G.E., and putting a finer point on it."
With a liberal sprinkling of euphemisms like "carbon constraints," Mr. Immelt managed to have environmental advocates like Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, and their adversaries in the Bush administration embrace his vision as an affirmation of their own views.
"They have forthrightly embraced the need for government policy" on heat-trapping gases, Mr. Lash said.
In the interview, Mr. Immelt said the legislation introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph I. Lieberman that would create an emissions-trading system for heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide includes elements "that make sense," but said he was not prepared to endorse specific legislation.
Senator McCain, Republican of Arizona, issued a news release thereafter saying that Mr. Immelt had called for emissions caps and market mechanisms - he did the second explicitly but the first only implicitly - and saying "those are precisely the principles behind the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator Joe Lieberman and I introduced."
At the same time, David Garman - assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, said he had lunch with a senior G.E. executive and came away with the message that "G.E. is highlighting innovation as a solution to technological problems. We sort of view G.E.'s pledge as the president's climate policy put into practice."
3) Congress Revives Energy Bill with Subsidies for Polluting Industries
EnergyNet Update, Union of Concerned Scientists, 5/19/2005, http://www.ucsaction.org/ctt.asp?u=112638&l=93556
In this EnergyNet update, you will find important information about the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and the Energy Bill debate.
|
Join EnergyNet Today |
View the EnergyNet Update for May 18, 2005 and other updates on our website
Background--Last Congressional Session
America needs an energy policy that protects our environment and national security. Unfortunately, the energy bill crafted by congressional leaders last year (H.R. 6) took us backward by funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to polluting industries, opening our public lands to oil and gas drilling, and rolling back key protections in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The bill also failed to include clean energy solutions such as a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). An RES would require utilities to generate electricity from clean, renewable sources such as the wind and sun. Fortunately, the Senate refused to accept many of the provisions insisted upon by House leadership and the bill eventually died in the Senate.
Congress Revives Harmful Energy Bill--House Passes Bad Bill Again
Now, lawmakers are reviving the same flawed energy bill for the fifth year running. On April 21, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce passed the bill, 249 to 183. This version is even more harmful than previous bills, with huge subsidies for polluting industries and almost no provisions to support clean energy. In particular, the House bill lacks both an RES and an extension of the clean energy production tax credit, which is set to expire this year.
Senate Must Do Better
A broad coalition of groups are calling on the Senate to do better by crafting a bill that increases our energy security, saves consumers money, promotes economic development, and reduces pollution. To achieve these goals, the Senate bill must include a moderate 10 percent RES. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study, Renewing America's Economy, found that a 10 percent standard would create 91,000 jobs and lower natural gas prices, saving consumers $28.1 billion by 2020.
Despite Strong Support, Draft Senate Energy Bill Excludes RES
The 10 percent standard has received strong support in the Senate in the last few years. In the 107th Congress, 58 Senators (including 10 Republicans) supported the RES in a floor vote. In the 108th Congress, 53 Senators signed a letter calling for inclusion of an RES in any bill emerging from Congress. Given that support, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, had persuaded the Committee Chairman, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), to include the 10 percent standard in his draft version of the Senate energy bill. Unfortunately, Sen. Alexander (R-TN), citing misguided concerns about the visual impact of wind turbines, insisted that the provisions be withdrawn.
To make matters worse, Sen. Alexander then introduced a bill that would essentially prevent wind development from proceeding. Alexander's bill, the Environmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005 (S. 1034), would unfairly apply stringent siting restrictions that would NOT apply to other kinds of power plants like coal, LNG or nuclear power. The bill also imposed additional review standards to wind turbines--but not to other offshore energy facilities such as LNG terminals or oil and gas drilling rigs. Sadly, the bill would also revoke the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for many potential wind projects that are located offshore or within 20 miles of a scenic area or military facility--effectively killing the offshore wind industry.
Preparing for Senate Floor Debate
Clean energy supporters are currently working to discredit the bad Alexander bill and dissuade senators from cosponsoring the flawed proposal. At the same time, we are preparing for a floor vote on an amendment to insert the RES into the Senate energy bill. The base of support remains strong, but changes in the Senate mean the vote will be close. Please take action now.
TAKE ACTION
1. These senators represent the "swing votes" on an RES amendment: Brownback (R-KS), Lincoln (D-AR), Pryor (D-AR), McCain (R-AZ), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Coleman (R-MN). If one of them is your senator, please call with the message that any energy bill emerging from the Senate must include a strong RES.
Sam Brownback (R-KS): 202-224-6521
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): 202-224-4843
Mark Pryor (D-AR): 202-224-2353
John McCain (R-AZ): 202-224-2235
Ben Nelson (D-NE): 202-224-6551
Norm Coleman (R-MN): 202-224-5641
2. These senators have supported the RES in the past and need positive reinforcement: Grassley (R-IA), Smith (R-OR), Gregg (R-NH), Snowe (R-ME), Collins (R-ME), Ensign (R-NV). If one of them is your senator, please call to thank them for their past support.
Charles Grassley (R-IA): 202-224-3744
Gordon Smith (R-OR): 202-224-3753
Judd Gregg (R-NH): 202-224-3324
Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 202-224-5344
Susan Collins (R-ME): 202-224-2523
John Ensign (R-NV): 202-224-6244
3. Next week, look for an Action Alert from UCS on the RES floor vote.
For more information email energynet@ucsusa.org
4) Ultrasound Cancer Treatment Kills Tumors in Mice
BBC News, Wednesday, 29 January, 2003, 22:46 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2707363.stm
Reuters Health, (c) 2005, http://www.upmccancercenters.com/news/reuters/reuters.cfm?article=1219
The technique was used on cancerous cells
Scientists at a Northern Ireland company say they have developed a technique that could be used to treat cancer without surgery. Researchers at Gendel, based at Coleraine in County Londonderry, used an electric field and ultrasound to kill tumours in 50 mice, according to New Scientist magazine. Gendel said it hoped to begin human trials of the procedure in 2005. "The technique relies on the application of an electric field to a tumour to make it susceptible to a follow-up blast of ultrasound," said New Scientist.
|
"The tissue simply disappears and gets absorbed back into the body" |
"The combination appears to cause tumour cells to self-destruct."
The technique was originally developed to help deliver drugs to inaccessible parts of the body using the patient's own red blood cells. The cells are first sensitised and the application of an electrical field makes them permeable. The cells are then filled with the drug before being returned to the patient. When the ultrasound is beamed, the sensitised cells burst open, delivering the drugs to the right place. Scientists at Gendel found that if cancerous cells were sensitised, they also exploded when hit with an ultrasound beam.
Ultrasound mystery
New Scientist said the technique worked both in the laboratory and more recently on tumour cells in at least 50 mice.
Why the porous cells rupture when hit with ultrasound has not yet been established. The scientists hope the system can be used to treat both accessible tumours, such as those on the skin, and those that are more difficult to reach. Les Russell, co-founder of Gendel, said: "The tissue simply disappears and gets absorbed back into the body."
He said the aim was to produce a portable device that could treat a patient within five minutes. A leading cancer charity highlighted the fact that many potential cancer treatments had shown promise in animals only to fail in humans. A spokesman for Cancer Research UK said the development should be treated with "absolute caution".
Dr Les Russell, chief executive of Gendel: "We hope to access tumours that are not presently amenable"
Listen to audiotape of interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/38757000/rm/_38757317_cancer.ram
|
5) Climate Fear Puts Nuclear Power Back in Picture |
|||
|
Jeremy Lovell, Boston Globe, May 19, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/05/19/climate_fear_puts_nuclear_power_back_in_picture/ |
|||
|
LONDON -- Nuclear power has surged back onto the agenda as a response to global warming as leaders of the world's richest nations try to draw up a blueprint for staving off climate disaster. Nuclear power may be emission-free, but environmentalists say the push is poorly conceived, misguided, and at worst dangerous. ''Nuclear power is back on the agenda because the industry is lobbying powerfully," said Friends of the Earth energy specialist Roger Higman. ''But climate change is global so the solution needs to be global. If you want to persuade someone to give up coal generation, then you are going to have to share with them the benefits of your technology," he said. A solution is needed urgently, scientists say. They warn that average temperatures could rise by 2 degrees centigrade or more this century, melting ice caps and bringing droughts and floods. The solution, they say, is in curbing emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, much of which is produced by burning fossil fuels. The Kyoto Protocol aims to do that. But it runs only to 2012, is derided as being too weak by some and too tough by others, and has been criticized by the United States -- the world's biggest polluter, which has refused to sign. Two months before the heads of the Group of Eight, representing rich industrial nations, meet in Gleneagles, Scotland, to search for a solution to climate change, they are still worlds apart. ''So far, all the emphasis has been on mitigation of the causes of climate change," said Richard Tarasofsky at Royal Institute for International Affairs, think tank in Britain. ''Adaptation to the effects of it . . . as not yet been tackled." |
|||
6) Focus Fusion Society, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics to Initiate Collaborative Experiments with Latin American Group in Fall
Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion Newsletter No. 8, May 18, 2005, www.focusfusion.org
After nearly four years without new experimental results, FFS, together with Lawrenceville Plasma Physics will be collaborating in a new set of experiments starting in the fall. The experimental work will be carried out in collaboration with a very experienced Latin American dense plasma focus group. At the request to that group’s leader, we are not releasing the location of the facility publicly, until the experiments are actually on-going. While the machine in use there is too small to achieve our main experiment, it will enable us to find the best way to maximize the efficiency of energy transfer into the plasmoid and test some of our theories. New experimental results will as well be invaluable in attracting new funding sources.
The collaboration arose as a result of a scientific proposal from FFS member Lt. Aaron Blake. The problem he addressed is the following: since our goal is to maximize energy transfer into the plasmoids, the tiny hot spots that produce the fusion energy, we need to increase the angular momentum around the axis, so that the predominantly axial magnetic field lines in the pinch region will kink up into a toroidal vortex, the plasmoid. We need, in other words, to give the plasma a sharp twist, so it kinks into a ball.
Our main way of doing this is through the pinch itself, where the axial B field increases rapidly, producing circular (perpendicular to the axis) electric currents, generating the needed angular momentum. However, Aaron asked why we could not just put the angular momentum in at the start, just as a bath tub vortex is made stronger if the water is given a strong stir. FFS Executive Director Eric Lerner calculated that such an initial angular momentum could be provided just by using slightly helical outer electrode rods, rather than the straight ones in use in all DPFs now. The proper amount of angular momentum magnified by the compression of the pinch, could potentially allow larger plasmoids, and thus more transfer of energy into the plasmoid. This is a good example of how reasonable ideas can elude those in the field for decades, yet be seen by someone outside the field.
This suggestion could be tested in a relatively small machine, so it was proposed to the Latin American group. Their machine has a peak current of 0.35 MA (mega-amps), only a fraction of the 2.3 MA we ideally require for break-even. But with suitable diagnostics, they could test whether an initial spin could improve energy efficiency. The group agreed that this would be of interest to them and said that they could start in the fall, after their current set of experiments concluded. Since they would be using their existing equipment, with only the addition of some diagnostic equipment, no money from us would be required.
Of course, FFS and LPP still will have to finance our input of data analysis and comparison with theory, and we hope to raise some money for simulations with our collaborators at George Mason University and Naval Research Laboratory. So contributions are urgently needed to fund our end. These experiments could show that high efficiency of energy transfer, and high temperatures can be obtained with the same conditions and ease the way for future break-even experiments with a larger machine.
Contact Eric Lerner elerner@igc.org at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics for more information, 973-736-0522.
Environmental and Energy Study Institute Press Release, Fred Beck, March 15, 2005, http://www.eesi.org/publications/Press%20Releases/2005/3.16.05%20Arctic%20Climate%20Briefing.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 15) – A Congressional briefing by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) revealed data that climate scientists have uncovered since the release of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) that illustrates arctic climate warming is occurring at an astounding rate.
Dr. Robert Corell, Chair of ACIA and Senior Policy Fellow at the American Meteorological Society, presented recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Dr. Corell said, "Climate change is occurring in the Arctic now, and has been for the last 30 years." Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average. The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 °F (2.8 °C) above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even five years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 °F (3 to 6 °C). This temperature increase will likely lead to sea-level rise on the high end of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates, 90 cm (3 ft) during this century.
Dr. Pål Prestrud, Vice-Chair of ACIA and Director of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) in Oslo, Norway, said ACIA has received much more political and media attention than expected because the message of ACIA is clear, easy to communicate, and built on hard scientific facts. He explained that ACIA was both a political and scientific process, and detailed the arduous task of coming to agreement on the policy document in the face of US concerns. Regarding the Reykjavik Declaration--the ACIA policy document accepted at the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, November 24, 2004--Dr. Prestrud said, "It is the best policy document we could have expected when we started; even with the international political situation on climate change issues.....we came a good step further ahead." Dr. Prestrud also stated that "timely, measured and concerted action is needed to address global emissions" of greenhouse gases.
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert with the Weather Channel and formerly a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shared her interviews with native Alaskans on climate change, who say "the weather has become a stranger to them." Dr. Cullen said, "Alaska's average winter temperature has increased by 6.4 °F (3.6 °C) since 1948.....enough to thaw permafrost and melt sea ice at the shoreline." Dr. Cullen's video documentaries illustrated the effect climate change is already having on native Alaskans: increased coastal erosion with loss of village homes and buildings, damage to buildings and roads by melting permafrost, indigenous people’s hunting affected by diminished sea ice, and devastation of large areas of Alaska's forests by spruce bark beetles.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is a high-level intergovernmental report based on a four-year scientific study of the Arctic conducted by an international team of 300 scientists and sponsored by the eight arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States) and six indigenous people’s organizations. All briefing presentations are available on EESI’s website, www.eesi.org . For more information, contact Fred Beck (202) 662-1892 fbeck@eesi.org .
Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5727/1431
James Hansen,1,2* Larissa Nazarenko,1,2 Reto Ruedy,3 Makiko Sato,1,2 Josh Willis,4 Anthony Del Genio,1,5 Dorothy Koch,1,2 Andrew Lacis,1,5 Ken Lo,3 Surabi Menon,6 Tica Novakov,6 Judith Perlwitz,1,2 Gary Russell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1,2 Nicholas Tausnev3
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.
1 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA.
2 Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
3 SGT Incorporated, New York, NY 10025, USA.
4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
5 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
6 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Sent as a courtesy from www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org where many of these topics are available in book or report form on the same subject matter. We seek to educate the public on emerging energy sciences by first researching their scientific integrity.