In listening to The Writer’s Almanac this morning, I learned that it’s the birthday of Arthur Conan Doyle, who gave us the character Sherlock Holmes, and thrust the power of deductive reasoning onto the world stage a century ago. Holmes told us, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories rather than to twist theories to suit facts.”

I bring this up because it’s so precisely relevant to the discussion of global climate change; this is exactly what the deniers claim, i.e., that the theory is based on a manipulation of facts to suite a theory. Having said that, 97+% of climate scientists don’t see it this way.

Perhaps the greatest single threat facing mankind today is our failure to apply reason to effect solutions. In fact, we appear to openly defy and ridicule the findings of our scientific community, writing them off as so many lairs and frauds. At least here in the United States, a significant segment of our population has bought into the idea that science has conspired to fabricate the notion of global climate change, fudging the figures so as to create the appearance of a problem, in order to generate ongoing funding for additional research.

In essence, we now have an arena, i.e., politics, that trumps science. And, which the example above may be the most obvious example, it’s certainly not the only one.

Wally Rippel, an extremely senior physicist from Cal Tech, points out that top scientists are ostracized constantly for not conforming to the mainstream viewpoints on the subject. In a recent conversation, he gave me a couple of examples associated with cold fusion. Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, best known for his X-ray laser, is a strong proponent, but he’s been isolated from the entire scientific community because of that belief.

Wally also tells this story:

Fred Hartley was on the board of directors at Caltech in 1989 when the results of the initial cold fusion experiments were released. He was also CEO of Union Oil. It was explained that all of this was a problem for Caltech. The vice provost who had been provost at Caltech 12 or 15 years ago, very capable physicist, left Caltech to work for British Petroleum, then left British Petroleum to become the head of the Department of Energy Science. This was the person who convinced the world that cold fusion was junk science. He directly stated that Fleishman and Pons were fraudulent—and he had the credibility to make that statement. I’ve been very troubled by that, because just seeing the scientific data, it doesn’t correspond to that. I see a reality there.

I felt a great deal of unfairness was done. I did not see a professionalism. I spoke to some of the Caltech faculty who were part of the debunking process and I did not feel it was a professional response; there was something else involved.

More recently, I was able to do this: I offered to make a significant donation to Caltech for their doing research in the cold fusion area even if that research would continue to debunk it. The offer was over $100,000.

The development association of Caltech went to the physics department—I wanted it to be through the physics department—and the physics department said, “We will not do this. We will never do it. It will not be done here at Caltech.” And the development person said, “Well, do you believe cold fusion to be fraudulent? Invalid?” And the person said, “That is not the issue. The issue is: the fact that we debunked it means we can’t go back and revisit it. It will not be done here.”

I asked, “But what about if this is scientifically valid?” The person said, “It doesn’t matter. We will not do it. Period.”

Clearly, mankind is never well-served to put its scientists in a position of subservience to big money/power, where they feel they must toe the line on any issue, whether it’s global warming, cold fusion, “clean coal,” etc.

I would further argue that we face an even bigger problem when religion and science cross paths. A few years ago, Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, who aspired to be chairman of the super-powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, quoted the bible (the books of Genesis and Matthew) as reason not to act on climate change, reading:

And He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.

Shimkus continued, asserting,

There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet, not that we have too much carbon.

Please do not ask me to explain what Shimkus could possibly mean by “There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet.” But that’s not the point. While I hesitate to challenge anyone’s faith, I don’t hesitate for a second in recommending against electing lawmakers whose policy decision-making process so clearly and aggressively fly in the teeth of critically relevant scientific discoveries. I urge our civilization to come up with a better way in dealing with the lethally important challenges we face.

More broadly, we need to remove all influences of religion and politics from the realm of science. To the degree that we’re incapable of doing this, i.e., freeing science from the yoke of corruption and stupidity, we will richly deserve the disasters that are headed our way.

Frequent commenter Len Novarro is part of a magnificent organization called BOOST (an acronym for Business, Organized global education and Opportunity in Science and Technology). Together with the Asian Heritage Society and Alliant International, the group informs, educates and mentors Asian girls, 12-16, principally in science and technology, in pursuit of careers as entrepreneurs.

I invite readers to check out the great work that Len and his team does – linked above.

I think that anybody contemplating a career in clean energy has always to take a look at the engineering and scientific aspects of the field to find a very demanding and yet rewarding career, why because we live in a technical field….There will always be better ways to extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water…. Lawyers, accountants as well as marketers cannot lead the way; they lack the tools and the vision to understand and unleash the forces of nature in our benefit. Cheers, Mate.

Rogelio, thanks very much for this  great insight. It reminds me of my conversations with my fine friend, the extremely senior physicist Wally Rippel, who, when asked to speak in front of a crowd, has been known to offer this challenge:

Raise your hand if you can name a movie actress. Good!

How about an athelete? Excellent.

A famous criminal? Terrific.

A singer in a band? Fabulous.

What about a multi-billionaire? Nice going.

Now, raise your hand if you can name a scientist. Not Albert Einstein, or someone else who’s been dead even longer, but any prominent living scientist.

Each time he does this, the audience looks around at one another sheepishly. Not a single hand goes up.

His point, obviously, is that our society reveres rich people, hot starlets, people who can dunk a basketball, and a few others.  But we really don’t care a whit for the people who, as you put it, are looking for better ways to “extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water.”

Rogelio, I’m sure you would agree that we need to find a way to change this regrettable and self-destructive aspect of our civilization.  Each day we show our approval of the Wall Street masters of the universe, the seven-footers with the obscene tattoos, and the coke-snorting actors.  But our  scientists have simply fallen out of favor.  In the words of Bob Dylan, a hard rain’s a gonna fall.  We’re in the process of getting the society we so richly deserve.

On a far lighter note, you bring up a wonderful point.  I’m looking for a Renaissance here, as I’m sure you are too.  Thanks for writing.  Cheers back to you, Mate!

I’ll be interested in your feedback.

Traditional methods of generating energy are giving way to new environmentally-friendly ideas. Instead of stripping the land for coal mining and clearing miles of land for oil fields or natural gas pipelines, the concept of renewable energy is evolving. The term “renewable energy” is an often-used buzzword, but how does using green energy affect animals in their native habitat?

Saying “No” to Fossil Fuels

Global warming is the biggest threat facing the planet today but sustainable energy is a cleaner and safer way to generate needed power. Everyone has seen the sad images of birds living near the ocean with their feathers matted with slick black oil after an oil spill, or thousands of dead fish washed up on the shore because of water pollution. The use of renewable energy from the sun and wind gives animals a second chance at life.

The use of fossil fuels directly affects the ecosystem and all animals worldwide, from birds, frogs and fish to bats, bears and alligators. Over a one-year period the typical fossil-fueled coal plant generates:

• 193,000 tons of sludge and 125,000 tons of ash from its smokestack scrubber
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide
• 500 tons of small particles
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons
• 225 pounds of arsenic
• 170 pounds of mercury
• 114 pounds of lead
• 4 pounds of cadmium and other toxic heavy metals

The environmental impact of the carbon dioxide generated from a coal powered plant – 3.7 million tons – is equal to cutting down 100 million trees. By comparison, renewable energy has a minimal impact on wildlife.

For a Cleaner, Safer Environment

Harnessing the wind is one example of sustainable energy. In 2010 an environmental group advising the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service drafted recommendations on the best sites for wind turbines. The turbines would be strategically placed in locations to lower the chances of birds and bats flying into them and being killed. The group’s efforts were part of a larger movement to protect the environment.

“Wind energy is an important part of our clean energy future, but for it to be truly successful, we need thoughtful long-term planning that takes wildlife and habitat conservation into consideration,” said Aimee Delach, a member of the advisory committee and a wind energy and wildlife expert. “These draft guidelines will go a long way toward ensuring that future wind energy development is compatible with birds, bats and other wildlife, and we urge Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to adopt them.”

Truly forward-thinking green energy projects are subject to comprehensive environmental reviews and they are located near large metropolitan areas. They are designed to give first priority to existing transmission lines, rather than laying all new grid works. Instead of deforesting large areas of woodlands where animals live, these types of projects are built in areas such as abandoned agricultural areas or former industrial sites.

On May 7, Salazar took another step towards a greener environment when he approved the opening of Silver State North, a 50-megawatt solar power plant built near Las Vegas. The plant was built on public land only after it had undergone an extensive environmental analysis. An advantage of such a solar plant is the lack of harmful emissions. Also, the energy generated is 100 percent renewable.

Thus far there has been no ship strong enough to prevent an oil spill and no manufacturing plant that is completely emission-free. There probably never will be. In order to preserve the environment, the next logical step in generating energy should be in a new direction.

Douglas Santos is a conservation writer who works with NRDC and other organizations to protect our health and environment. He often urges people to stand up and be more vocal in the effort to save the wolves.

You can see lots of attention is focused towards alternative and renewable energy systems. This is due to the soaring energy costs and the need to decrease the climate change effects over earth. Though these solutions may seem complicated for the homeowners in their daily chores, however, the fact is that they are now becoming more accessible to common man. There are number of options available for homeowners which can prove pretty affordable financial investment. Also, by treading these paths, you can benefit from state and federal tax and avail the utility rebates and incentives. The below are the top seven ways which the home owners can heat and power their homes via renewable energy systems.

1) Solar panels

These are generally installed over the roof at any home or simply at some large size backyard area. The cost may range around 10, 000 -20,000 dollars. If you install these solar panels at your place, you become eligible to benefit from most of the state and federal utility tax incentives and credits. This can therefore help you in reducing the cost up to 50 percent. It can be a good choice due to lots of flexibility attached in it.

The buyers get the choice of storing the produced electricity in batteries or selling it back to any utility company. You can therefore always remain connected to the grid at your home and at the same time have a backup for several days of high energy use. Hence when there is any power failure or shutdown from the utility company, you have sufficient power to use at home. Hence no more worries about the any rolling blackouts and severe winter storms. Generally, you will find the solar panels with ten year warranty and within that amount of time, you can recover easily your initial investment through the utility bill savings.

2) Solar hot water system

These systems are competent to render radiant heat in your home and cost wise, the solar hot water system can range around 7,000 to 15,00o dollars. It can save around 60 percent of your hot water heating costs on an annual basis. The federal, state and utility tax incentives and credits can help you in saving 50 percent of the total cost on energy consumption. You can use this system at different places like spas, pools and for your home heating. Also, the hot water heaters can be fueled using the solar energy via this system.

3) Wind turbines

By installing wind turbines you can save up to 15 percent in your utility bills. Any smaller wind turbines can range around 1000 to 5000 dollars and can benefit for federal, state and utility incentives and tax credits. In order to install the wind turbines for your home, you should be based at a proper location along with having right wind conditions and lastly, it must accommodate in your home owners association.

4) The hydrogen gas fuel cells

The hydrogen gas can easily be extracted through the natural gas coming at your home via a gas line. This extracted hydrogen gas can be then used to power the hydrogen gas fuel cells to create electricity, water and oxygen. By generating electricity via this system you are able to harness heat, water and oxygen. In this way you get three things at the same time with one system. You can use the heat at your place along with getting electricity. To run this system, you simply need a natural gas line at your home. The cost of Hydrogen gas fuel cells system start from 20,000 dollars and is eligible for the federal, state and utility incentives and tax credits.

5) Geothermal heating and cooling systems

In this system a liquid tube is drilled 400 feet inside the earth surface near your home. This liquid tube is meant to pump the cooling or heat from the earth in your house which helps in maintaining the temperature inside your place. The geothermal heating and cooling systems decrease cooling and heating cost to around 50 percent and the cost may range around 10,000 to 20,000 cost dollars. The geothermal heating and cooling systems is eligible for the federal, state and utility incentives and tax credits.

6) Biomass combustion boilers

The number of waste wood and other kind of biomass stuffs can be used to generate steam and electricity with the help of running the generator or turbines. The kind of biomass you select would determine the emissions produced. By converting the biomass into a gas before the combustion procedure can help you in harnessing cleaner burning and find low level emissions. This can be obtained by simply decaying biomass into the methane gas. Generally, this system is used by farmers and people who keep live stock.

7) Micro hydro energy systems

This system utilizes reaction or impulse turbine generator along with stable water supply to produce electricity. This option can only availed by people who live nearby any stream, river or at places receiving steady kind of rainfall. Hence places where you can see water funneling on a consistent basis can benefit from the micro hydro energy systems. If water utility can supply you water then with proper piping mechanism, you can get power from this system. The micro hydro energy systems can range around 1000 to 15,000 dollars. If you plan to have this system at home, you have to check whether its installation is eligible for the federal, state and utility incentives and tax credits.

By generating your own energy can be both environment friendly and money saving exercise. Also, you can benefit from the state and federal financial incentives by treading any of the method discussed above in the article.

About the author: Alia Haley is a blogger by profession. She loves writing on technology, health and parenting. Beside this she is fond of games and gadgets. These days she is busy in writing articles on her sites diyhealth and automotto.

Scientists and researchers have been trying hard to find out the power of cloud to harness for everyone’s benefits. They are therefore seen collecting a number of historical data and records to find out how clouds can respond to the earth’s warming. This is critical since clouds are considered to be one the biggest single uncertainty in the attempt to predict the future climate. A few contrarian scientists simply emphasize that cloud will change in such a way that it will basically counterbalance the greenhouse gases released by the mankind. However, a majority or scientists are seen calling global warming a big issue in the coming future. Yet, since past few years, the contrarian scientists or climate skeptics have strong feelings that clouds will save the human race.

Majority believes the flip side

A majority of scientists are seen doubtful about the cloud theory. They believe that clouds play a neutral role; however, they end up calling it as a tangible uncertainty. As you see the earth growing warm to a modest level, the scientists call this as a vexing problem, whereas the clouds still remain unaffected. They simply conclude that clouds do have neutral impact or may improve planetary warming. Andrew E. Dessler, a known climate researchers at Texas is also among these scientists who consider clouds as uncertainty thing.

Valiant efforts despite all odds

The constant cloud observations started with the advent of satellite which is actually a decade old phenomenon. You can find out huge amount of satellite and observational records which is stretched back to twentieth century, however, these can be spotty as you move back in time. So scientists who try to find out some trends in cloud properties find small amount of records as a great demerit. However, if they pass a substantial amount of time observing the clouds, they would certainly end up finding the way clouds respond and react to the global warming issue. However, this would require a couple of decades and researchers and policy makers want some quick answers. Hence you can see some valiant efforts are put across to find answers with the current limited data.

Interesting study without definitive proof

The most promising paper was presented by Roger Davies Buckley (Glavish professor of climate physics at the Auckland University in New Zealand) and a student Matthew Molloy. It carried out a global analysis of the cloud measurements across the first decade of information and data from NASA’s Terra satellite meant for cloud measuring things. The conclusion which was drawn though was preliminary in nature but at the same time was provocative.
The duo discovered that there is 1 percent decrease in clouds heights in the past decade (2000-10). As the higher clouds are apt for better warming effect over the climate, this significant drop was likely seen with the cooling effect. Their findings were seen consistent with the notion of clouds as negative feedback -which is, an inherent answer by the earth, this would also lean to counterbalance global warming to some extent. However, the paper was not backed with perfect proof.

Challenges in the road ahead

The basic problem which scientists around the world are facing is the dearth of data. They have limited amount of data or records confined to just one decade. Studying this limited data still was able to observe some changes which were pertaining to the natural El Nino versus the La Nina oscillation seen over the Pacific Ocean. This seems pretty vigorous all through the decade which they studied and analyzed. They also noticed a drop in cloud’s height; however, it was hard for them to guess whether the same trend would continue the coming decade as well. The scientists are therefore calling it a natural variability and in case if it continues for two to three decades it could be the compensation mechanism which can therefore limit the planetary warming.

A vigorous critique is emerging

These findings are still new and fresh just published in February, hence you may not find too many critiques countering this study. However, you can find one vigorous critique emerging out. As the natural variability can hobble this kind of study, few scientists are seen putting their efforts to convert this into their benefits by utilizing it as a proxy for long term warming of the planet. Hence in the case of El Nino which warms up some specific areas of Pacific Ocean, the impacts noticed here can be used as a parameter for any permanent warm planet. Also, Dr. Andrew Dessler a scientist based at Texas A&M had published his paper with similar conclusions in the year 2010. He concluded that clouds are probable to accentuate in a long run but at the same time, he was frank enough to share about some error in his measurements. Hence such study can be called far from perfection.
A majority of scientists consider the entire exercise of employing natural variability to respond the cloud question as intrinsically tricky. In fact, the natural variability of climate system recorded for short term cannot be considered as a long term warming for the complete planet against the enforced greenhouse gases released by mankind. Hence the factor of natural variability can embark as a convincing proxy for some bigger questions.

The ongoing hunt

Despite all odd, the hunt for other methods and ways to understand and study the clouds continues. One of the captivating projects on this issue is led by Dr. Amy Clement Professor, Meteorology & Physical Oceanography at University of Miami. She discovered a fact that the cloud observations based on few decades by skilled observers on ships can be amazingly useful. The main data which she used belong to the 1950’s, but these records have their own limitations for example, a majority of figures are Northern Hemisphere based which is one of the largest shipping areas in the world.
Yet, she and her team is doing the best with these records and are seen comparing it with other information sources. Dr. Clement and her two co-authors have come across some evidences in the year 2009. This states that the low level clouds were more likely to decline against the growing rise of greenhouse gases. As the low level clouds bounces back the sunlight falling over them to the space which keeps the earth cool, this therefore could amount to some positive feedback which will heighten the global warming.
Looking at the larger picture many scientists find the case more convincing than the climate skeptics who simply pray for a large cooling effect. Yet, a majority of scientists in the mainstream consider global warming issue as the most pertinent one by calling the cloud issue as unresolved mystery.

About the author: Alia Haley is a blogger by profession. She loves writing on technology, Luxury and autos. Beside this she is fond of cars and fancy accessories. She has a huge collection of expensive accessories and loves to write on her sites Gizmowatch and bornrich.

My mother came across this article in today’s New York Times by climatologist James Hansen, and sent it to me immediately. “I knew you’d like this one,” she laughed when we spoke on the phone later this afternoon.

“Yes, Mom, I liked it,” I replied. “Pretty much everywhere I go to talk on renewable energy, I manage to weave in at least something that  I’ve learned from Dr. Hansen’s talks, and from a few other climatologists I’ve had the honor of interviewing.  You probably recall what I told you about the Canadian tar sands, a subject he’s all over; if we go ahead with this, it will mean near-certain catastrophic global warming.”

What amazes me most is that we Americans live in the only major nation on Earth that doesn’t get this. This is the only developed country in the known universe that has a contingent of people who aggressively promote the idea that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberals, and that we need to ignore what our scientists are telling us.  

Let’s ask ourselves: What’s behind this?  Who’s pulling these strings?

I recently wrote a post critical of radical environmentalists who take rigid positions and refuse to make the tough choices that confront us all in the real world.  In particular, I stand in disagreement with people’s unwillingness to exile the tortoises from 4613 acres (about five square miles) in the California desert that would have been used for a gigawatt of solar photovoltaics, an almost exact replacement for a full coal-fired power plant.

Frequent commenter Larry Lemmert (who’s normally pretty much in my face) writes:

Craig, you are a reasonable man. I say that not because I agree with you about the desert tortoises vs. the PV panels but because you understand that trade-offs must be made to secure green energy for replacement of retiring fossil fuel sources. So many so-called environmentalists want a free energy lunch. It doesn’t exist.

Ah, a red-letter day; Larry and I agree on something. And he’s even used my favorite “no free lunch” metaphor…

Seriously, this idea of trade-offs and no free lunch is all-important; in fact, it lies at the base of my series of videos and infographics on renewable energy for young people and other newcomers to the subject. But regardless of one’s level of sophistication with the subject, it’s not an easy issue.  In brief, we need to choose between:

• Continuing  with business as usual, and subjecting the natural environment to the ever-increasing ravages of climate change, ocean acidification, etc.  The U.S. is the only major country on the planet that considers the status quo a viable option; we are  actually working against a progressive climate policy.   

• Do nuclear in a big way and run significant health and safety risks. Many of the world’s people have recently cast their votes against nuclear. Here’s a summary of this discussion.

• Aggressively cut back on our per-capita use of energy and move back in the direction of an agrarian economy. (How likely is that?)

• Fund the advancement of renewables, energy efficiency and conservation, by pulling money away from other things we think we need.

Regular readers know that I believe this last option is our only credible one, but I do freely admit that it comes with a cost.  In particular, I’m a big fan of education, especially of females in developing countries.  But how important are most of these things that we think we need? Tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil companies? Trillions of dollars for waging wars whose primary missions are securing access to oil? I’m not a believer.  

No, there is no free lunch; everything comes at a cost.  Which is why our choices really do mean something. May we make the right ones.